AN ANSWER TO MASTER IVELLES CHALLENGE, BY DOCTOR HARDING.  1. Cor. 14. 
An à vobis verbum Dei processit? aut in vos solos pervenit?  
Hath the word of God proceeded from you? Or hath it come among you only?   john bogard's device? 
COR RECTUM INQVIRIT SCIENTIAM  
Imprinted in Louvain by john Bogard at the Golden Bible, with privilege. Anno. 1564.   

PRIVILEGIUM.  
CAutum est Regiae mayest. Privilegio, ne quis sex proximis annis, praeter joannem Bogardum Typographum Lovaniensem iuratum, in his hereditarijs Ditionis Regiae terris, imprimat, aut alibi impressam distrahat, Responsionem ad Articulos joannis juelli authore Thoma Hardingo Doctore Theologo, in catholicae fidei defensionem Anglica lingua conscriptam, sub poena in privilegio contenta.  
Datum Bruxellae. 15. Septemb. Anno. 1563. Subsig. FacuWez.   

The table of the Articles here treated, and of the chief points in the same touched, is put in the end, after the Exhortation to M. jewel.   

TO THE READER.  
Where as Horace sayeth, they that run over the sea, change the air, not the mind: it is so reader, that I passing over the sea out of England in to Brabant, have in some part changed also my mind. For where as being there, I minded to send this treatise but to one friend, who required it for his private instruction, and never to set any thing abroad: now being arrived here in Louvain, I have thought good, by putting it in print, to make it common to many. Yet to say the trowth, hereto I have been pricked more by zealous persuasions of others, then induced by mine own liking. For though duty require, be it with shame, or be it with fame, 
2. Cor. 6.  to employ all endeavour to the defence of the Catholic faith, in these most perilous times much impugned: yet partly by a certain cowardly judgement, and specially by natural inclination, I have ever liked more that old counsel uttered by the Greeks in two words, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  which adviseth a man so to live secretly, as it be not known, he hath lived. Wherefore as this labour in that respect deserveth less thank, so for my part it ought less to be blamed. If ought be found amiss, the blame thereof rightly divided between my friends and me, the greater portion shall redound to them, the lesser to me, as on whom the spot of unskille only shall cleave, but the note of undiscretion shall remain to them. For as the defects be mine and none others, so oversight of setting forth that, which was of less sufficiency, is to be imputed to them, not to me. How so ever it be, the meaning of us both is only this Christian reader, hereby to minister unto thee, matter of comfort in these sorrowful, of stay in these wavering, of understanding the truth, in these erroneous times: withal, to call him back, who in denying these articles, hath overrun himself. Wherein I am not all together void of hope. Our lord grant, the spirit of heresy, pride, stoutness of heart in gainsaying, estimation of himself, and regard of this world, stop not from him the holy ghosts working. Would god he may weigh this my doing so indifferently, as my meaning towards him is right, wholesome, and friendly. But in case that deep wound may not be cured with such salve, yet my trust is, it shall do thee good, reader, who art either yet hole, or not so desperately wounded which if it do, I shall think my labour well requitted, and myself to have achieved that reward, which I sought.  
Now this much I have thought good here to warn the of, that where as at the first, I appointed this to my private friend only, and not to all in common, (though in sundry places I follow the manner of such as mind to publish their writings) I have so both ordered the matter and tempered the style, as I judge it might have been liked of my friend at home, and doubt whether it may bear the light abroad. I see men's stomachs of our time to be very delicate and diverse. Some require sweet iunkettes, some sour and sharp sauces, some esteem the curiosity of cookery, more than the wholesomeness of viands, some can like no dish, be it never so well dight. In this diversity no man can please all. Who so ever seeketh it, shall find himself deceived. I ween the best way is, if a man herein mind to do aught, to make his provision of the things only, which be wholesome. So shall he displease many, hurt none, and please all the good. Who so ever in doing this directeth his whole purpose and endeavour to this end, that he may profit and help all: in my judgement, he doth the duty of an honest and a good man. Verily in this treatise this hath been mine only purpose, and the mean to bring the same to effect, hath been such, as whereby I studied to profit wholesomely, not to please delicately. How much good I have performed, I know not, my conscience (which is enough) beareth me witness of good will. What the Apostles have planted, in this great barraynesse and drought of faith, I have desired again to water. God give increase.  
If the multitude of allegations brought for confirmation of some these Articles, shall seem tedious, no marvel. I should mislike the same in an other myself. I grant herein I have not always kept due comeliness. For simply to say, what I think (having leave to return to my former metaphor) sooth in some courses, I have over charged the board with dishes. marvel not, I have done that, I discommend myself, to avoid a more reproof in greater respect, I have wittingly done a thing, in some degree reprovable. Neither think I greatly to offend, if in this time of spiritual famine, I follow the wont of some feastemakers. who of their neighbours twited with nyggardnes, to show their largesse and bounty, feast them with lavish. The adversary, as here thou mayst see▪ hath not spared to irk us with reproach of penury, of scarcity, of lacked mean of proofs for maintenance of some good part of our religion. In this case to me it seemed a part of just defence, to utter some good store. And the nyggardes feast by old proverb is well commended, thou knowest pardie. Neither yet have we empted all our expense, as hereafter it shall appear, if need require.  
If some do not allow this consideration, who so ever the same shall blame, him here concluding, shortly I answer with Alexander king of Macedons. who to Leonidas one of his Mynnions finding fault with spending much frankincense in sacrifices, wrote thus in few. Frankincense and myrrh to the we have sent plenty, that now to the Gods thou be no more a nyggard. Far well, at Louvain: 14. of june: 1563.  
Thom. Harding.   

A COLLECTION OF CERTAIN PLACES OUT OF MASTER IVELLES BOOK CONTAINING HIS SERMON, HIS answers and Replies to Doctor Cole: in which he maketh his Challenge, avaunteth himself, hoasteth of the assurance of his doctrine, pretendeth and loudly affirmeth, the Catholics to have nothing for their part, over partly, as to sober wits it seemeth, egging and provoking them, to bring somewhat in their defence.  
O Merciful God, 
jewel. In the sermon folio. 43.  who would think there could be so much wilfulness in the heart of man? O Gregory, O Augustine, O Jerome, O Chrysostom, O Leo, O Dionise, O Anacletus, O Sistus, O Paul, O Christ. If we be deceived herein, ye are they that have deceived us. You have taught us those schisms and divisions, ye have taught us these heresies. Thus ye ordered the holy communion in your time, the same we received at your hand, and have faithfully delivered it unto the people. And that ye may the more marvel at the wilfulness of such men, they stand this day against so many old fathers, so many Doctoures, so many examples of the primitive church, so manifest and so plain words of the holy scriptures and yet have they here in, not one father, not one Doctor, not one allowed example of the primitive church, to make for them. And when I say, not one, I speak not this in vehemency of spirit, or heat of talk, but even, as before God, by the way of simplicity and truth: lest any of you should happily be deceived, and think, there is more weight in the other side, then in conclusion there shall be found. And therefore once again I say, of all the words of the holy scriptures, of all the examples of the primitive church, of all the old fathers, of all the ancient Doctoures in these causes they have not one.  
Here the matter itself, that I have now in hand, putteth me in remembrance of certain things that I uttered unto you, to the same purpose, at my last being in this place. I remember I laid o●● then here before you, a number of things that are n●w in controversy where unto our adversaries will not yield. And I said perhaps boldly, as it might then seem to sum man, but as I myself, and the learned of our adversaries themselves do well know, sincerely and truly: that none of all them, that this day stand against us, are able or shall ever be able to prove against us, any one of all these points, either by the scriptures or by example of the primitive church, or by the old ●o●●●●res, or by the ancient general councel●● Syn●● that time, it hath been reported in places, that I spoke then more, than I was able to justify and make good. How be it, these reports were only made in corners, and therefore ought the less to trouble me. B●● if my sayings had been so weak, and might so easily have than reproved, I marvel that the pa●ie● never come to the light, to take the advantage. For my promise was, and that openly, here before you all: that if any man were able to prove the contrary, I would yield and subscribe to him, and he should departed with the victories Loath I am to trouble you, with rehearsal of such things, as I have spoken afore, and yet because the case so requireth, I shall desire you, that have all ready heard me, to bear the more with me in this behalf. Better it were, to trouble your ears with twice hearing of one thing, then to betray the truth of God. The words that I then spoke, as near as I can call them to mind, were these.  
If any learned man of all our adversaries, or if all the learned men that be alive, be able to bring any one sufficient sentence out of any old catholic Doctor or father, out of any old general council, out of the holy scriptures of God, or any one example of the primitive church: whereby it may be clearly and plainly proved▪  
Article. 1 That there was any private Mass in the world at that time, for the space of six hundred years after Christ:  
Article. 2 Or that there was then any Communion ministered unto the people under one kind:  
Article. 3 Or that, the people had their common prayers then in a strange tongue, that they understood not:  
Article. 4 Or that, the Bishop of Rome was then called an universal Bishop, or the head of the universal church:  
Article. 5 Or that, the people was then taught to believe, that Christ's body is really, substantially, corporalli, carnally or-naturally, in the Sacrament.  
Article. 6 Or that, his body is, or may be in a thousand places or more, at one time:  
Article. 7 Or that, the priest did then hold up the Sacrament over his head:  
Article. 8 Or that, the people did then fall down and worship it with godly honour:  
Article. 9 Or that, the Sacrament was then, or now aught to be hanged up under a canopy:  
Article. 10 Or that, in the Sacrament after the words of Consecration, there remaineth only the accidents and shows with out the substance of bread and wine:  
Article. 11 Or that, the priest then divided the Sacrament in three parts, and afterward received himself all alone:  
Article. 12 Or that, who so ever had said, the Sacrament is a figure, a pledge, a token, or a remembrance of Christ's body, had therefore been judged for an heretic:  
Article. 13 Or that, it was lawful then, to have thirty. xx.xu.x. or v. Masses said in one church in one day:  
Article. 14 Or that, Images were then set up in the churches, to the intent the people might worship them:  
Article. 15 Or that, the lay people was then forbidden to read the word of God in their own tongue.  
If any man a live were able to prove any of these Articles, by any one clear or plain clause or sentence, either of the scriptures, or of the old doctoures, or of any old general council, or by any example of the primitive church: I promised then, that I would give over and subscribe unto him.  
These words or the very like I remember I spoke here openly before you all. And these be the things, that sum men say I have spoken, and can not justify.  
But I for my part, will not only not call in any thing, that I then said, (being well assuted of the truth there in) but also will lay more matter to the same. That if they that seek occasion have any thing to the contrary, they may have the larger scope to reply against me.  
Wherefore beside all that I have said already, I will say farther, and yet nothing so much as might be said.  
If any one of all our adversaries be able clearly and plainly to prove by such authority of the scriptures, the old Doctoures and councils, as I said before,  
Article. 16 That it was then lawful for the priest to pronounce the words of consecration closely, and in silence to himself.  
Article. 17 Or that the priest had authority to offer up Christ unto his father:  
Article. 18 Or, to communicate and receive the Sacrament for an other, as they do:  
Article. 19 Or, to apply the virtue of Christ's death and passion to any man by the mean of the Mass:  
Article. 20 Or that it was then thought a sound doctrine, to teach the people, that the Mass ex opere operato, that is, even for that it is said and done, is able to remove any part of our sin:  
Article. 21 Or, that then any Christian man called the Sacrament his lord and God:  
Article. 22 Or that the people was then taught to believe that the body of christ remaineth in the Sacrament, as long as the accidents of the bread remain there with out corruption:  
Article. 23 Or that a Mouse, or any other worm, or beast may eat the body of Christ: (for so some of our adversaries have said and taught)  
Article. 24 Or that when Christ said, Ho est corpus meum. This word Hoc, pointeth not the bread, but individuum vagum, as sum of them say:  
Article. 25 Or that the accidents or forms or shows of bread and wine, be the Sacraments of Christ's body and blood and not rather the very bread and wine itself:  
Article. 26 Or that, the Sacrament is a sign or token of the body of Christ, that lieth hidden underneath it:  
Article. 27 Or that Ignorance is the mother and cause of true devotion and obedience.  
These be the highest mysteries and greatest keys of their Religion, and with out them, their doctrine can never be maintained and stand upright. If any one of all our adversaries be able to avouch any one of all these articles, by any such sufficient authority of scriptures, doctoures or councils, as I have required: as I said before, so say I now again, I am content to yield unto him and to subscribe.  
But I am well assured, they shall never be able truly to allege one sentence. And because I know it, therefore I speak it, lest ye happily should be deceived.  
They that have avaunted themselves of doctoures and councils and continuance of time in any of these points, 
Fol. 51.  when they shall be called to trial, to show their proofs: they shall open their hands, and find nothing. I speak not this of arrogancy (thou lord knowest it best, that knowest all things) But for as much as it is gods cause, and the truth of God: I should do God great injury, if I should conceal it.   

THE WORDS OF MASTER THE SAME CHALLENGE AND offer and imputing to the catholics of unableness to defend their doctrine, uttered by M. jewel in other places of his book, as followeth.  
MY offer was this (he meaneth in the sermon which he made in the court) that if any of all those things that I then rehearsed, 
In the first answer to D. Coles letter. fol. 4.  could be proved of your side by any sufficient authority other of the scriptures, or of the ancient Councils, or by any one allowed example of the primitive church, that then I would be content to yield unto you. I say you have none of all those helps, nor scriptures, nor councils, nor doctors, neither any other antiquity, and this is the negative. Now it standeth you upon, to prove but one affirmative to the contrary, and so to require my promise. The Articles that I said could not be proved of your part, were these. That it can not appear by any authority other of the old doctors, or of the ancient Councils, that there was any private Mass in the whole church of Christ at that time: Or that there was then any communion ministered, etc. the articles reckoned, there it followeth.  
And if any one of all these articles can be sufficiently proved by such atuhoritie as I have said, 
Fol. 5.  and as ye have borne the people in hand ye can prove them by: I am well content to stand to my promise.  

After in the first answer to D. C. fol. 6. In the end there. fol. 7.  I thought it best to make my entry with such things, as where in I was well assured, ye should be able to find not so much as any colour at all.  
But to conclude, as I began, I answer, that in these Articles I hold only the negative, and therefore I look how you will be able to affirm the contrary, and that, as I said afore, by sufficient authority, which if ye do not, you shall cause me the more to be resolved, and others to stand the more in doubt of the rest of your learning.  
In my Sermon at Paul'S and else where, I required you to bring forth on your part either sum scripture, 
sn the second answer to D. C. fo. 13  or sum old doctor, or sum ancient council, or else some allow example of the primive churchen. For these are good growndes to build upon. And I would have marveled that you brought nothing all this while, saving that I knew ye had nothing to bring.  
As truly as god is god, if ye would have vouchsafed to follow either the scriptures, or the ancient doctors, 
In the 2. answer. fol. 15.  and councils, ye would never have restored again the Supmmacie of Rome, after it was once abolished, or the private Mass, or the communion under one kind etc. Now if ye think ye have wrong, 
There fol. 17.  show your evidence out of the doctors, the counsels or scriptures, that you may have your right and re-enter. I require you to no great pain. one good sentence shall be sufficient.  
You would have your private Mass, the bishop of Rome's supmmacie, the comen prayer in an unknown tongue: 
Fol. 18.  and for defence of the same ye have made no small a do. Me thinketh it reasonable ye bring sum one authority beside your own, to avouch the same with all. Ye have made the unlearned people believe, ye had all the doctors, all the councils, and fourteen hundred years on your side. For your credits sake, let not all these great vaunts come to nought.  
Ye desire ye may not be put of, 
Fol. 18.  but that your suit may be considered. And yet this half year long, I have desired of you, and of your brethren but one sentence, and still I know not how, I am cast of, and can get nothing at your hands.  
You call for the special proofs of our doctrine, 
Fol. 21.  which would require a whole book, where as if you of your part could vouchsafe to bring but two lines, the whole matter were concluded. We only tell the people, as our duty is, that you withstand the manifest truth, and yet have neither doctor, nor council, nor scripture for you, and that ye have showed such extremity, as the like hath not been seen, and now can give no reckoning why. Or if ye can, let it appear.  

Fol. 23.  You are bound ye say, and may not dispute, etc. But I would wish the queens Majesty would not only set you at liberty in that behalf, but also command you to show your growndes. Where as you say, you would have the sainges of both parties weighed by the balance of the old doctors, ye see, that is our only request, and that in the matters ye write of, I desire even so to be tried. But why throw you away these balance, and being so earnestly required, why be ye so loath to show forth but one old doctor of your side? ye make me believe ye would not have the matter come to trial. etc.  

26  What think ye is there now judged of you, that being so long time required, yet can not be won to bring one sentence in your own defence?  

Fol. 26.  I protest before God, bring me but one sufficient authority in the matters I have required, and afterwards I will gently and quietly confer with you farther at your pleasure. Wherefore for as much as it is god's cause, if ye mean simply, deal simply, betray not your right, if ye may save it by the speaking of one word.  
The people must needs muse some what at your silence, and mistrust your doctrine, if it shall appear to have no ground, neither of the old councils, nor of the doctors, nor of the scripture, nor any allowed example of the primitive church, to stand upon. and so fourteen hundred years, and the consent of antiquity and generality, that ye have so long and so much talked of, shall come to nothing. For think not that any wise man will be so much your friend, that in so weighty matters, will be satisfied with your silence.  
Here I leave, putting you, 
In the end of the 2. answer to D. C. fol. 27.  eftsoons gently in remembrance, that being so often and so openly desired to show forth one doctor, or Council etc. in the matters afore mentioned, yet hitherto ye have brought nothing: and that if ye stand so still, it must needs be thought, ye do it conscientia imbecillitatis, for that there was nothing to be brought.  
You say we lack stuff to prove our purpose. 
In the reply to D. Coles last letter. fol. 43.  O would to God your stuff and ours might be laid together, then should it soon appear, how true it is that ye say, and how faithfully ye have used the people of God.  
Me thinketh both reason and humanity would, 
Fol. 44.  ye should have answered me somewhat, specially being so often and so openly required, at the least you should have alleged Augustine, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Jerome. etc. Whereas a man hath nothing to say, it is good reason, he keep silence, as you do.  
You know that the matters that lie in question between us, have been taught, as we now teach them, 
Fol. 53.  both by Christ himself, and by his Apostles, and by the old doctors, and by the ancient general Councils: and that you having none of these or like authorities: have set up a religion of your own, and built it only upon yourself. therefore I may justly and truly ●●●nclude, that you now teach and of long time have taught the people, touching the Mass, the Supremacy, the comen prayers, etc. is nought: For neither Christ, nor his Apostles, nor the old Doctors, tertullian, Cyprian, S. Jerome, S. Augustine, S. Ambrose, S. Chrisostom etc. ever taught the people, so as you have taught them. Not withstanding your great vawntes that ye have made, ye see now ye are discomfited, 
Fol. 62.  ye see the field is almost lost, where are now your cracks of doctors, and councils? Why stamp ye not your books why come ye not forth with your evidence? Now ye stand in need of it, now it will serve and take place, if ye have any.  

Fol. 65.  As I have offered you oftentimes, bring ye but two lines of your side, and the field is yours.  

Fol. 110.  Hilarius sayeth unto the Arians, cedo aliud evangelium, show me some other gospel, for this that ye bring, helpeth you not. Even so will I say to you, Cedo alios doctores, show me some other doctors, for these that ye bring, are not worthy the hearing. I hoped ye would have come in with some fresher band. It must needs be some miserable cause, that can find no better patrons to cleave unto. I know it was not for lack of good will of your part, ye would have brought other doctors, if ye could have found them.  

Fol. 112.  O Master Doctor, deal simply in God's causes, and say ye have doctors, when ye have them in deed: and when ye have them not, never lay the fault (of not alleging them to the defence of your doctrine) in your recognisance.  

Fol. 114.  But alas small rhetoric would suffice, to show how little ye have of your side to allege for yourself.  

In the conclusion of the replies to D. Cole fol. 129.  Here once again I conclude as before, putting you in remembrance, that this long I have desired you to bring forth some su●●●●ent authority, for proof of your party, and yet hitherto can obtain nothing. Which thing I must needs now pronounce simply and plainly, because it is true, with out if, or and, ye do conscientia imbecillitatis, because as ye know, there is nothing to be brought.   

THE PREFACE TO Master jewel.  
THIS heap of Articles, which you have laid together: Master jewel, the greater it riseth, the less is your advantage. For whereas you require but one sentence for the avouching of any one of them all: the more groweth your number, the more enlarged is the liberty of the answerer. It seemeth you have conceived a great confidence in the cause, and that your adversaries (so it liketh you to term us whom God hath so stayed with his grace as we can not bear you company in departing from his catholic church) have little or nothing to say in their defence. Else what should move you both in your printed Sermon, and also in your answers and Replies to Doctor Cole, to show such courage, to use such amplification of words, so often and with such vehemency, to provoke us to encounter, and as it were at the blast of a trumpet, to make your challenge? What, feared you reproach of dastardnes, if you had called forth no more but one learned man of all your adversaries, and therefore to show your hardiness, added more weight of words to your proclamation, and challenged all the learned men that be a live? 
In the sermon fol. 46   
Among cowards perhaps it serveth the turn some times, to look fiercely, to speak terribly, to shake the weapon furiously, to threaten bloodily, no less than cutting, hewing and killing but among such we see many times sore frays fought, and never a blow given. With such brags of himself, and reproach of all others, Homer the wisest of all poets setteth forth Thersites, for the fondest man of all the Grecians, that came to Troy. Goliath the giant so stout as he was, made offer to fight but with one Israelite. 
1. Reg. 17. Eligite ex vobis vitum, & descendat ad singulare certamen.  Choose out a man amongst you (quoth he) and let him come and fight with me man for man. But you Master jewel in this quarrel, ask not the combat of one catholic man only, but as one sure of the victory before proof of fight, cast your glove as it were, and with strange defiance, provoke all learned men that be a live to camp with you.  
Now if this matter shall so fall out, as thoverthrow appear evidently on our side, and the victory on yours, that is to wit, if we can not bring one sentence for proof of any one of all these articles, out of the scriptures, ancient councils, doctors, or example of the primitive church: yet wise and grave men, I suppose, would have liked you better, if you had meekly and soberly reported the truth. For truth as it is plain and simple, so it needeth not to be set forth with brag of high words. You remember that old saying of the wise, Simplex veritatis oratio. the utterance of truth ought to be simple.  
But if the victory (loath I am to use this insolent word were it not to follow the metaphor which your challenge hath driven me unto) fall to our side, that is to say, if we shall be able to allege some one sufficient sentence for proof of some one of all these articles: yea if we shall be able to allege diverse and sundry sentences places and authorities for confirmation of sundry these articles: In this case I ween, you shall hardly escape among sober men, the reproach of rashness, among humble men, of presumption, among godly men, of wickedness. Of rashness, for what can be more rash, then in so weighty matters, as some of these articles import, so boldly to affirm that, the contrary where of may sufficiently be proved? of presumption, for what can be more presumptuous, then in matters by you not thoroughly seen and weighed, to impute ignorance and unableness to avouch things approved and received by the church, to all learned men a live? Of wickedness, for what is more wicked, then (the former case standing) so to remove the hearts of the people from devotion, so to bring the church in to contempt, so to set at nought the ordinances of the holy ghost?  
As you follow the new and strange doctrine of Theodorus Beza and Peter Martyr, the prolocutours of the Calvinian churches in France, whose scolar a long time you have been: so you diverte far from that prudency, sobriety, and modesty, which in their outward demeanour, they showed in that solemn and honourable assemble at Poyssi in September 1561. as it appareth by the oration which Beza pronunced there in the name of all the calvinists. In which oration with humble and often protestation, they submit themselves, if cause shall so appear, to better advise and judgement, as though they might be deceived, uttering these and the like words in sundry places. If we be deceived, we would be glad to know it.] Item, [For the small measure of knowledge that it hath pleased God to impart unto us, it seemeth that this transubstantiation, etc.] Item, [if we be not deceived,] Item, [In case we be decived, we would be glad to understand it, etc.] But you Master jewel, as though you had read all that ever hath been written in these points, and had borne a way all that ever-hath been taught, and were ignorant of nothing touching the same: and none other beside you had seen aught, and were able to say aught: say marvelous confidently, and that in the most honourable and frequent audience of this Realm, that you are well assured, that none of your learned adversaries, no more all the learned men a live, shall ever be able to allege one sentence for any one of these Articles, 
In the sermon fol. 49  and that because you know it, therefore you speak it, least happily your hearers should be deceived.  
Likewise in your answer to Doctor Coles first letter, you say, speaking of these Articles, you thought it best to make your entre in your preaching with such things, 
Folly 6.  as where in you were well assured, we should be able to find not so much as any colour or shadow of Doctors at all. Where in you withdraw yourself from plainness, so much as you do in your presumptuous challenge, from modesty. For being demanded of D. Cole, why you treat not rather of matters of more importance, than these Articles be of, which yet lie in question betwixt the church of Rome and the protestants, as of the presence of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament, of justification, of the value of good works, of the sacrifice of the Mass, and of such other: not unwitting how much and how sufficient authority may be brought against your side for proof of the catholic doctrine there in, lest all the world should espy your weakness in these points, you answer, that you thought it better to begin with smaller matters, as these Articles be, because you assure yourself, we have nothing for confirmation of them. Thus craftily you shift your hands of those greater points, wherein you know scriptures, councils, doctors, and examples of the primitive church to be of our side, and cast unto us, as a bone to gnaw upon, this number of Articles of less weight, a few excepted, to occupy us withal. Which be partly concerning order, rather than doctrine, and partly sequels of former and confessed truths, rather than principal points of faith, in th'exact treaty of which, the ancient doctors of the church have not employed their study and travail of writing. For many of them being sequels depending of a confessed truth, they thought it needless to treat of them. For as much as a principal point of truth granted, the granting of all the necessary sequels is implied. As in a chain, 
Epist. ad Gregorium fratrem.  (which comparison S. Basile maketh in the like case) he that draweth the first lynk after him, draweth also the last link. And for this cause in deed the less number and weight of such ancient authorities may be brought for th'avouching of them. And yet the things in them expressed be not justly improved by any clause or sentence, you have said or uttered hitherto.  
Verily M. jewel if you had not been more desirous to deface the catholic church, then to set forth the truth: you would never have rehearsed such a long roll of articles, which for the more part be of less importance: whereby you go about to discredit us, and to make the world believe, we have nothing to show for us in a great part of our Religion, and that you be to be taken for zealous men, right reformers of the church, and undoubted restorers of the gospel. As touching the other weighty points, whereupon almost only your scoolemaisters of Germany, Suityerland and Geneva, both in their preachings and also in their writings treat, you will not yet adventure the trial of them with making your match with learned men, and in the mean time set them forth by sermons busyly among the unlearned and simple people, until such time, as you have won your purpose in these smaller matters.  
Thus you seem to follow a sleight, which king Alexander the great used, to further the course of his conquests. 
In vita Alexandri Magni.  Who as plutarch writeth, where as he thought verily, that he was begotten of a God, showed himself toward the Barbarians very haute and proud. Yet among the Greeks he used a more modesty, and spoke little of his godhead. For they being rude and of small understanding, he doubted not but by ways and means to bring them to such believe. But the Greeks, whom he knew to be men of excellent knowledge and learning, of them he judged, as it proved in deed, the matter should be more subtly scanned, then simply believed. Right so you M. jewel persuading yourself to have singular skille in divinity, among the simple people you utter the weighty and high points of Christian Religion that be now in question, in such wise, as the protestants have written of them, and with vehement affirmations, with misconstrewed and falsified allegations, and with pitiful exclamations, you lead the silly souls in to dangerous errors. But in your writings, which you knew should pass the judgement of learned men, the points of greater importance you cover with silence, and utter a number of Articles of less weight for the more part in respect of the chief, though for good cause received and used in the church, (I speak of them as they be rightly taken) denying them all, and requiring the catholics your adversaries to prove them. Where in you show yourself not to fear controlment of the ignorant, but to mistrust the trial of the learned.  
Likewise in the holy Canon of the Mass you find faults, where none are, as it may easily be proved, thinking for defence thereof, we had little to say. But of the prayer there made to the virgin Mary, the Apostles and martyrs, of the suffrages for the departed in the faith of Christ: in your whole book you utter never a word, though you mislike it, and otherwheres speak against it, as all your sect doth. And why? Forsooth because you know right well, we have store of good authorities for proof thereof. And by your will, you will not yet strive with us in matters, wherein by the judgement of the people, to whom you leanly much, you should seem overmatched. And therefore you search out small matters in comparison of the greatest, such as the old doctors have passed over with silence, and for that can not of our part by ancient authorities be so amply affirmed, at least way as you think yourself assured. And in this respect you lay on load of blame, contumelies and slanders upon the church, for maintaining of them. Where in the mark you shoot at, every man perceiveth what it is even that when you have brought the catholic church in to contempt, and borne the people in hand, we are not able to prove a number of things by you denied, for lack of such proofs, as yourself shall allow, in certain particular points of small force (which falsely you report to be the greatest keys and highest mysteries of our Religion): then triumphing against us and despising the ancient and catholic Religion in general, you may set up a new Religion of your own forging; a new church of your own framing, a new gospel of your own devise. Well may I further say, cathedram contra cathedram, but not I trow, as S. Augustine termeth such state of Religion; altar contrâ alture. For what so ever ye set up, if ye set up any thing at all, and pull not down only all manner of altars must needs be thrown down.  
Now being sorry to see the catholic church by your stout and bold brags thus attempted to be defaced, the truth in manner outfaced, and the silly people so dangerously seduced: Imbarred of liberty to preach by Recognisance, and yet not so discharged in conscience of duty appertaining to my calling: I have now thought good to set forth this treatise in writing, whereby to my power to save the honour of the church, which is our common mother, to defend the truth in whose quarrel none adventure is to be refused, and to reduce the people from deceit and error, which by order of charity we are bound unto.  
For the doing here of if you be offended, the conscience of good and right meaning shall soon ease me of that grief. Verily mine intent was not to hurt you, but to profit you, by declaring unto you that truth, which you seem hitherto not to have known. For if you had, I ween you would not have preached and written, as you have. Your years, your manner of study, and the party you have joined yourself unto considered, it may well be thought you have not thoroughly seen, how much may be said in defence of the catholic doctrine touching these Articles, which you have denied.  
For the manner of doing, I am verily persuaded, that neither you, nor any of your fellows, which of all these new sects by your side professed, so ever he liketh best, shall have just cause to complain. The whole treatise is written with out choler, with out gall, with out spite. What I mislike in you, and in them of your side, I could not allow in myself. Where truths cause is treated, humane affections, where by the clear light is dimmed, aught to be laid a part. Glykes, nyppes and scoffs, bits, cuts and girds, become not that stage. Yet if I shall perhaps sometimes seem to scar or lawnce a festered bunch, that deserveth to be cut of, you will remember I doubt not, how the meekest and the holiest of the ancient fathers in reproving heretics, oftery m●● have showed themselves zealous, earnest, eager, seue●●, sharp and bitter.  
Whose taste so ever longeth most after such sauce, in this treatise he shall find small liking. For it is occupied more about the fortifying of the Articles denied, then about disproving of the person, who hath denied them. Wherein I have some deal followed the latter part of Chilo the wise man his counsel, which I allow better than the first. Ama, tanquam osurus, oderis, tanquam amaturus. love, as to hate, hate, as to love.  
If any man that shall read this, be of that humour, as shall mislike it, as being cold, low, flat and dull, and require rather such verder of writing, as is hot, lofty, sharp and quick, which pleaseth best the taste of our time: understand he, that before I intended to put this forth in print, I thus tempered my style for these considerations. First, where as a certain exercise of a learned man of five or six sheets of paper spread abroad in the Realm in defence of some of these Articles by M. jewel denied, was fathered upon me, which in deed I never made sentence of, and therefore a storm imminent was mistrusted: that by changing the hue, which many know me by, that know me familiarly, in case it should come to the hands of many, as it was likely, I might escape the danger of being charged with it, and never the less satisfy my friends request, and in some part also my conscience, and do good. Secondly, that I thought meek, sober and cold demeanour of writing to be most sitting for such kind of argument.  
Thirdly and specially that my heart served me not to deal with M. jewel mine old acquainted, fellow and countryman other wise, then sweetly, gently and courteously. And in deed here I protest, that I love M. jewel, and detest his heresies.  
And now Sir, as I love you, right so I am desirous of your soul health, which you seem either to forget, or to procure by a wrong way. Bethink yourself I pray you, whether the way you walk in, be not the same, and you the man, that Solomon moved with the spirit of God, speaketh of. There is a way, 
prover. 26  that seemeth to a man right, and the end of it leadeth to damnation. Certain it is, you are deceived, and maintain untruth, as it shall appear by this treatise. Here in you sustain the evil of humane infirmity. Marry, when deceit is by plain truth detected, then to dwell and continue in error, that proceedeth not of humane weakness, but of devilish obstinacy. But you M. jewel as many men think, and I trust, are not yet swallowed up of that gulf. Fain would I do you good, if I witted how. I fear me your sore is putrefied so far, as oil and lenitives will not serve now, but rather vinegar and corrosives. You remember I doubt not, what Cicero saith. that medicine to profit most, which causeth the greatest smart, And what Solomon also, 
prover. 27  The wounds of à friend, to be better than the kisses of an enemy.  
The best salve any man can minister unto you, verily I think, is, to exhort you to humility, and to denying of yourself. For if you could be brought to humble yourself, and to deny yourself, doubtless you should see in yourself, that you see not. If you were humble, you would not be so puffed up, and swell against your mother the church, you would not contemn her, whom you ought to honour. 
Genes. 9  You would not rejoice like the accursed Cham, to show her unsemelynesse, if by corruption of times, any perhaps be grown. For by authority and public consent, say what ye will, none is maintained. If you would deny yourself, to be the man you be not, you should better see, who and what you be in deed. Deny yourself to be so well learned, as you seem to esteem yourself, and you will be a shamed to make such strange cracks and vaunts of your being well assured of that you have preached and written touching these Articles, where in you are deceived. Deny yourself to be a bishop, though you have put on the bishop of Salesbury his white Rochet, and you shall be content and think it meet also, to give a reckoning of the doctrine which you preach openly before the high estates, and therefore confer with D. Cole, and with meaner men also, 
In the beginning of the first answer to D. Cole  which more insolently, then reasonably, you refused to do. And by such conference, you shall be advertised of your error. Deny your private judgement and estimation of your long study in divinity, which you acknowledge in your replies, and of your great cunning in the same, and you shall evidently see and remember, that your time hath been most bestowed in the study of humanity and of the latin tongue, and concerning divinity, your most labour hath been employed to find matter against the church, rather than about serious and exact discussing of the truth: and that in comparison of that holy and learned father B. fisher and others, whom you geste and scoff at, 
In the sermon fol. 3●  and seek to discredit by fond arguments of your own framing upon them by you fathered, you are, touching the sound and deep knowledge of divinity, scantly a smatterer.  
Again deny yourself to be so great a man, but that you may take advertisement of a man of meaner calling, deny yourself to be so honourable, but that it may stand with your honesty, to abide by your promise in a most honest matter by your own prepensed offer made: you may easily learn how to redress, that hath been done amiss, you may see your own infirmities, defects, oversights and ignorances plainly, as it were in a glass, all self love and blind estimation of yourself set a part: you may with the favour of all good men, with the winning of your own soul and many others, whom you have perelously deceived, and to the glory of God, be induced to yield to the truth, to subscribe to the same, and to recant your errors. Where in you should do no other thing, than these Articles, which you deny, by us with sufficient proofs and testimonies avouched, you have already freely and largely offered. Which thing that it may be done, God give you the grace of his holy spirit, to humble your heart, to deny yourself, and to make a greater account of your everlasting salvation, then of your worldly interest.  
Thomas Harding.   

BECAUSE M. IVELL OFFERETH TO BE TRIED NOT ONLY BY THE SCRIPTURES AND Example's of the primitive Church, but also by the Councils and fathers that were within six hundred years after Christ: here is set forth a true note of the time of both for the most part, such, as be in this treatise alleged.  

ABdias. about the year of our lord. 50.  
Anacletus. 93.  
Arnobius presbyter. 300.  
Athanasius. 379.  
Ambrose. 380.  
Amphilochius. 380.  
Augustinus. 430.   

B  
Basilius. 380.   

C  
Clemens Papa. 80.  
Cyprianus. 249.  
Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus. 300  
Chrysostomus. 411.  
Cyrillus Alexandrinus. 436.   

D  
Dionysius Areopagita. 96.  
Dionysius Alexandrinus. 255.  
Damasus Papa 1. 369.   

E  
Egesippus. 160.  
Eusebius Caesarien. 320.  
Eusebius Emisenus. 350.  
Ephrem. 380.  
Epiphanius. 383.  
Eutropius. 550.   

F  
Flavius josephus. 60.   

G  
Gregorius Nyssenus. 380.  
Gregorius Nazianzenus. 380.  
Gelasius. 490.  
Gennadius Massiliensis. 490.  
Gregorius Romanus. 590.   

H  
Hippolytus. 220.  
Hilarius Pictaviensis. 371.  
Hieronymus. 422.  
Hilarius Papa. 448.  
Hesychius secundum Lycosth. 490. secundum alios. 600.   

I  
Ignatius. 111.  
justinus Martyr. 150.  
Irenaeus. 175.  
julius Apricanus. 220.  
julius primus Papa. 340.  
Innocentius primus Papa. 470.  
Isidorus Hispalensis. 600.   

L  
Leo Papa 1. 442.   

M  
Martialis Burdegalensis episcopus. 50.  
Melciades Papa. 30●.   

O  
Origenes. 261.   

P  
Pontianus Papa. 232.  
Palladius. 420.  
Prudentius. 465.   

S  
Sixtus Papa. 129.  
Soter Papa. 174.  
Symmachus Papa. 500   

T  
Tertullianus. 200.  
Theodoritus. 390.   

V  
Victor Vitensis episcopus. 500   

Concilia.  
Concilium Nicenum 1. 326.  
Concilium Laodicenum. 368.  
Cancilium Antiochenum temporibus Athanasij.  
Concilium Constantinopol. 1. temporibus Damasi Papae.  
Concilium Agathense. 430.  
Concilium Ephesinum 1. 433.  
Concilium Chalcedonen. 453.  
Concilium Constantinopo. in Trullo. 535.  
Concilium Antisiodorense. 613.   

After these followed.  
Oecumenius.  
Beda.  
joannes Damascenus.  
Theophylactus.  
Bernardus.  
Concilium Nicenum 2.  
Concilium Constantien.  
Concilium Basileen.  
Concilium Florentin. sub Eugenio 4.    

AN ANSWER TO MASTER IVELLES CHALLENGE BY D. HARDING.  
IF any learned man of our adversaries, 
jewel.  or if all the learned men that be alive, be able to bring any one sufficient sentence out of any old catholic doctor or father, or out of any old general council, or out of the holy scriptures of God, or any one example of the primitive Church, whereby it may clearly and plainly be proved, that there was any private Mass in the whole world at that time, for the space of six hundred years after Christ: etc. The conclusion is this, as I said before, so say I now again, I am content to yield and to subscribe. 
Of Mass with out a number of others receiving the Communion with the priest at the same time and place, which the gospelers call private Mass.  
ARTICLE. I.  
EVERY Mass is public, 
No Mass private in itself, but in respect of circumstances.  concerning both the Oblation, and also the communion, and none private. For no man offereth that dreadful Sacrifice privately for himself alone, but for the whole Church of Christ in common. The Communion likewise of the Sacrament, is a public feast by Christ through the ministery of the priest in the same prepared for every faithful person: from partaking whereof none is excluded, that with due examination having before made himself ready, demandeth the same. And so being common by order of the first Institution, and by will of the ministers, it ought to be reputed for common, not private.  
That others do so commonly forbear to communicate with the priest, it is through their own default and negligence, not regarding their own salvation. Whereof the godly and careful rulers of faithful people, have sithence the time of the primitive Church, always much complained. Therefore in this respect we do not acknowledge any private Mass, but leave that term to Luther's school, where it was first devised, and so termed by Satan himself seeking how to withdraw his novice Luther from the love and estimation of that most blessed Sacrifice, by reasoning with him against the same in a night vision, as himself recordeth in a little book, which he made, De Missa angulari & unctione sacerdotali. Yet we deny not but that the 
a Concil. Vasen. c. 4 Concil. Triburien. Decretal. li. 3. tit. 41. c. 2. De consecrat. dist. 1 ex Augusti. quod quidam Gregorio tribuunt. Gregor. ex Regist. li. 2. ad Casterium c. 9  fathers of some ancient Councils, and sithence likewise 
b 3. part summae. q. 83. responsione ad 12. argumentu articuli. 5. What the Lutherans call private Mass.  S. Thomas, and certain other school doctors, have called it sometimes a private Mass, but not after the sense of Luther and his scholars: but only as it is contrary to public and solemn, in consideration of place, time, audience, purpose, rites, and other circumstances. The variety and change of which being things accidentary, can not vary or change the substance or essential nature of the Mass. Master jewel an earnest professor of the new doctrine of Luther and of the Sacramentaries, calleth, as they do, that a private Mass, whereat the priest having no company to communicate with him, receiveth the Sacrament alone.  
Against this private Mass, as he termeth it, he inveigheth sore in his printed Sermon, which he preached at Paul's Cross the second sunday before Easter in the year of our lord, 1560. as he entitleth it, shunning the accustomed name of Passion sunday, lest (as it seemeth) by using the term of the catholic church, he should seem to favour any thing that is catholic. In which Sermon he hath gathered together as it were in to one heap, all that ever he could find written in derogation of it, in their books, by whom it hath been impugned. And though he pretend enmity against private Mass in word, yet in deed who so ever readeth his Sermon, and discerneth his spirit, shall easily perceive, that he extendeth his whole wit and cunning, utterly to abolish the unbloody and daily Sacrifice of the Church, commonly called the Mass. Which, as the Apostles themselves affirm in 
* Pro sacrificio cruento, rationale & incruentum ac mysticum sacrificium instituit, quod in mortem domini per symbola corporis & sanguinis ipsius celebratur. Clemens constitutionum Apostolicarum lib. 6 cap. 23. Proofs for the Mass briefly touched.  Clement their scholar and fellow, being unbloody, hath succeeded in place of the bloody sacrifices of the old law, and is by Christ's commandment frequented and offered in remembrance of his passion and death, and to be used all times until his coming. But what so ever he, or all other the forerunners of Antichrist, speak or work against it, all that ought not to overthrow the faith of good and true Christian men, having for proof thereof beside many other places of holy scripture, the figure of Melchisedech, that was before the law, the prophecy of Malachi in the law, and lastly and most plainly the Institution of Christ in the new testament. Which he left to the Apostles, the Apostles to the Church, and the Church hath continually kept and used through the whole world until this day.  
Touching doctors, they have with one consent in all ages, in all parts of the world, from the Apostles time forward, both with their example, and also testimony of writing confirmed the same faith. They that have been brought up in learning, and yet through corruption of the time stand doubtful in this point: let them take pains to travail in study, and they shall find by good ancient witness of the priests and deacons of Achaia, that Saint Androw the Apostle, touching the substance of the Mass, worshipped God every day with the same service, as priests now do in celebrating the external Sacrifice of the Church. They shall find by witness of Abdias first bishop of Babylon, 
Abdiae li. 7. historiae Apostol.  who was the Apostles scholar and saw our Saviour in flesh, and was present at the passion and martyrdom of S. Androw, that S. Matthew the Apostle celebrated Mass in Aethiopia a little before his Martyrdom. They shall find by report of an ancient Council general, 
Concilium Constantinopol. in Trullo cap. 32. Epistol. ad Burdega. Lib constitut. apostolicarun 8. cap. vlt.  that S. james wrote a liturgy or a form of the Mass. They shall find that Martialis one of the lxxij. disciples of Christ, and Bishop of Bourdeaulx in France, sent thither by S. Peter, served God in like sort. They shall find in Clement, the whole order and form of the Mass, set forth by the Apostles themselves, and the same celebrated by them after our lord was assumpted, before they went to the ordering of bishops, priests, and the seven. deacons, according to his Institution, and the same right so declared by Cyrillus bishop of jerusalem In mystagogicis orationibus. They shall find the same most plainly treated of, and a form of the Mass much agreeable to that is used in these days in writing set forth by S. Dionyse, 
In eccles. hierarch. cap. 3. Act. 17.  whom S. Paul converted to the faith, of whom it is mentioned in the acts of the Apostles, who had conference with Peter, Paul, and John th'evangelist, and much acquaintance with Timothe.  
Thus do I give thee good Christian reader but a taste as it were of proofs, with out allegation of the words, for confirmation of thy faith, concerning the blessed Mass out of the Scriptures, Apostles, and Apostolic men. I do further refer the to justinus the martyr and philosopher, 
Lib. 4. contra haeres. cap. 32.  to Irenaeus the martyr and bishop of Lions, who lived with the Apostles scholars. To the old bishop and Martyr Hippolytus, that lived in Origens' time, who in his oration De Consummatione mundi extant in Greek, maketh Christ thus to say at the general judgement unto bishops. Venite Pontifices, qui purê mihi Sacrificium die nocteque ohtulistis, ac praetiosum corpus & sanguinem meum immolastis quotidie. Come ye Bishops, that have purely offered sacrifice to me day and night, and have sacrificed my precious body and blood daily. Finally I refer them in stead of many, to the two worthy fathers Basile and Chrysostom, whose Masses be left to the posterity at this time extant. 
In mystagogicis orationibus.  Amongst all Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus is not to be passed over lightly, who at large expoundeth the whole Mass used in jerusalem in his time, the same, which now we find in Clement, much like to that of Basile and Chrysostom, and for the Canon and other principal parts, to that is now also used in the Latin Church.  
As for the other doctoures of the church, that followed the Apostles and those Apostolic men, many in number, excellent in learning, holy of life, to show what may be brought out of their works for proof of this matter, that th'oblation of the body and blood of Christ in the Mass is the sacrifice of the Church, and proper to the new testament, it would require a whole volume: and therefore not being moved by M. jewels Challenge to speak specially thereof, but as it is private after their meaning, and many good treatises in defence of this sacrifice being set forth already in print: at this present, I will say nothing, thinking hereof, as Sallust did of Carthago that great city, that it were better to keep silence, then to speak few.  
Now this presupposed, that the Mass standeth upon good and sufficient grounds for the stay of all true christian men's belief: let us come to our special purpose, and say somewhat of private Mass, as our adversaries call it.  
The chief cause why they storm so much against private Mass, is, for that the priest receiveth the Sacrament alone: which thing they express with great villainy of words. Now in case the people might be stirred to such devotion, as to dispose them selves worthily to receive their housel every day with the priest, as they did in the primitive church, when they looked hourly to be caught and done to death in the persecution of paynims, that they departed not hence, Sine Viatico, without their voyage provision: what should these men have to say? In this case perhaps they would find other defaults in the Mass, but against it in this respect only that it is private, they should have nothing to say at all. So the right of their cause dependeth of the misdooing of the people, which if they would amend, these folk should be driven either to recant, or to hold their peace. To other defaults of the Mass by them untruly surmised, answer shall be made hereafter. Now touching this.  
Where no default is committed, there no blame is to be imputed. That oftentimes the priest at Mass hath no comparteners to receive the sacrament with him, it proceedeth of lack of devotion of the people's part, not of envy or malice of his part.  
The feast is common, all be invited, they may come that list, they shall be received that be disposed and proved: None is thrust away, that thus cometh: it may be obtruded to none violently, ne offered to none rashly. Well, none cometh. This is not a sufficient cause, why the faithful and godly priest inflamed with the love of God, feeling himself hungry and thirsty after that heavenvly food and drink, should be kept from it, and imbarred from celebrating the memoire of our lords death according to his commandment, from his duty of giving thanks for that great benefit, from taking the cup of salvation, and calling upon the name of God: 
Psal. 115.  for these things be done in the Mass.  
But the enemies of this holy sacrifice say, that this is against the Institution of Christ. God forbid, the Institution of Christ should not be kept. But it is a world to see, how they cry out for the Institution of Christ, by whom it is most wickedly broken. For where as in Christ's Institution concerning this Sacrament, three things are contained, which he himself did, and by his commandment gave authority to the Church to do the same, the Consecration, 
Three essentials of the Mass.  the oblation, and the participation, wherein consisteth the substance of the Mass: they having quite aborogated the other two, and not so much as once naming them in their books of service, now have left to the people nothing but a bare Communion, and that after their own sort: with what face can they so busily cry for Christ's Institution, by whom in the chief points the same is violated?  
Of Consecration and Oblation although much might be said here against them, I will at this time say nothing. Concerning participation the number of communicantes together in one place that they jangle so much of, as a thing so necessary, that with out it, the Mass is to be reputed unlawful: is no part of Christ's Institution. For Christ ordained the Sacrament, after consecration and oblation done, to be received and eaten. And for that end he said: Accipite, 
Number of communicants, place, time, with other rites, be not of Christ's institution  manducate, bibite: take, eat, drink. Here in consists his Institution.  
Now as for the number of the communicantes, how many should receive together in one place, and in what place, what time, sitting at table (as some would have it) standing or kneeling, fasting, or after other meats: and whether they should receive it in their hands, or with their mouths, and other the like orders, manners and circumstances: all these things pertain to the ceremony of eating. the observation whereof dependeth of the church's ordinance, and not of Christ's Institution. And therefore S. Augustine writing to januarius sayeth: salvator non praecepit, 
Epist. 118.  quo deinceps ordine sumeretur, ut Apostolis, per quos dispositurus erat Ecclesiam, seruaret hunc locum. Our Saviour gave not commandment in what order it should be received, meaning to reserve that matter to the Apostles, by whom he would direct and dispose his church. Wherefore the receiving of the Sacrament being the Institution of Christ, and the manner, number, and other rites of the receiving not fixed nor determined by the same, but ordered by the Church's disposition: whether many or few, or but one, in one place receive: for that respect the ministration of the priest is not made unlawful.  
But if they allege against us the example of Christ, saying that he received it not alone, but did communicate with his twelve Apostles, and that we ought to follow the same: I answer, that we are bound to follow this example, quo ad substantiam, non quo ad externam ceremoniam. for the substance, not for the outward ceremony, to the which pertaineth the number and other rites, as is afore said. Christ's example importeth necessity of receiving only, the other rites, as number, place, time etc. be of congruence and order. In which things the church hath taken order, willing and charging, that all shall communicate, that be worthy and disposed. And so it were to be wished, as oftentimes as the priest doth celebrate this high sacrifice, that there were some, who worthily disposed, might receive their rights with him, and be partakers sacramentally of the body and blood of Christ with him. But in case such do lack, as we have seen that lack commonly in our time yet therefore the continual and daily sacrifice ought not to be intermitted. For sith this is done in remembrance of Christ's oblation once made on the Cross for the Redemption of all mankind, therefore it ought daily to be celebrated through out the whole church of Christ, for the better keeping of that great benefit in remembrance: and that though none receive with the priest. And it is sufficient in that case, if they that be present, be partakers of those holy mysteries spiritually, and communicate with him in prayer and thanks giving, in faith and devotion, having their mind and will to communicate with him also facramentally, when time shall serve.  
M. jewel and many other of that side, think to have an argument against private Mass, of the word Communio, as though the sacrament were called a communion, in consideration of many receivers together. So he calleth that a Communion, 
In his sermon. fo. 41.  which is for the whole congregation to receive together. And therefore in his sermon oftentimes he maketh an opposition between private Mass and communion, and alleging diverse places where mention is of a communion, inferreth of each of them an argument against private Mass. But this argument is weak and utterly unlearned, as that which proceedeth of ignorance. For it is not so called, because many, 
Why the sacrament is called a communion.  or as M. jewel teacheth, the whole congregation, communicateth together in one place: but because of the effect of the Sacrament, for that by the same we are joined to God, and many that be diverse, be united together, and made one mystical body of Christ, which is the church, of which body by virtue and effect of this holy Sacrament, all the faithfuls be membres one of an other, and Christ is the head. Thus diverse ancient doctoures do expound it, and specially Dionysius Areopagita, 
Ecclesias. hierarch. cap. 3.  where speaking of this sacrament, he sayeth Dignissimum hoc Sacramentum sua praestantia reliquis sacramentis longè antecellit. atque ea causa illud meritò singulariter communio appellatur. Nam quanuis unumquodque sacramentum id agate, ut nostras vitas in plura divisas, in unicum illum statum, quo Deo iungimur, colligat, attamen huic Sacramento Communionis vocabulum praecipuè ac peculiariter congruit. This most worthy Sacrament is of such excellency, that it passeth far all other sacraments. And for that cause it is alonely called the communion. For albe it every Sacrament be such, as gathereth our lives that be divided a sunder many ways in to that one state, whereby we are joined to God: yet the name of communion is fit and convenient for this sacrament specially and peculiarly, more than for any other. By which words and by the whole place of that holy father, we understand, that this sacrament is specially called the communion, for the special effect it worketh in us, which is to join us nearly to God, so as we be in him, and he in us, and all we that believe in him, one body in Christ. And for this in deed we do not communicate alone. For in as much as the whole church of God is but one house, 
De coena domini.  as Saint Cyprian sayeth, una est domus ecclesiae, in qua agnus editur. There is one house of the church, wherein the lamb is eaten: and S. Paul sayeth to Timothe, 
●. Tim. 3.  that this house of God, is the church of the living God: who so ever doth eat this lamb worthily, doth communicate with all christian men, of all places and countries, that be in this house, and do the like. And therefore S. Hierom a priest showing himself loath to contend in writing with S. Augustine a bishop, calleth him a bishop of his communion. 
Inter epistolas Augustini. epist. 14.  His words be these. Non enim convenit, ut ab adolescentia usque ad hanc aetatem, in monasteriolo cum sanctis fratribus labore desudans, aliquid contrà Episcopum communionis meae scribere audeam, & eum Episcopum, quem ante coepi amare, quâm nosse. It is not meet (sayeth he) that I occupied in labour from my youth until this age, in a poor monastery with holy brethren, should be so bold as to write any thing against a bishop of my communion, yea and that bishop, whom I began to love, ere that I knew him. Thus we see, that S. Hierom and S. Augustine were of one communion, and did communicate together, though they were far asunder, the one at Bethlehem in Palestina, the other at Hippo in Aphrica. Thus there may be a Communion, though the communicantes be not together in one place. What if four or five of sundry houses in a sickness time being at the point of death in a parish, require to have their rights ere they depart? The priest after that he hath received the sacrament in the church, taketh his natural sustenance and dineth. and then being called upon, carrieth the rest a mile or two to the sick, in each house none being disposed to receive with the sick, he doth that he is required. Doth he not in this case communicate with them, and do not they communicate one with an other, rather having a will to communicate together in one place also, if opportunity served?  if this might not be accounted as a lawful and good communion, and therefore not to be used: th'one of these great inconveniences should wittingly be committed. That either they should be denied that necessary victual of life at their departing hence, which were a cruel injury, and a thing contrary to the examples and godly ordinances of the primitive church: Or the priest rather for companies sake then of devotion, should receive that holy meat, after that he had served his stomach with common meats, which likewise is against the ancient decrees of the church. Even so the priest that receiveth alone at Mass, doth communicate with all them that do the like, in other places and countries.  
Now if either the priest, 
Necessity of many communicants together, contrary to the liberty of the gospel.  or every other christian man or woman might at no time receive this blessed Sacrament, but with more together in one place: then for the enjoying of this great and necessary benefit, we were bound to condition of a place. And so the church delivered from all bondage by christ and set at liberty, should yet for all that be in servitute, and subjection under those outward things, which S. Paul calleth, infirma & egena elementa, 
Galat. 4.  weak and beggarly ceremonies after the English Bible's translation. Then where S. Paul blaming the Galathians sayeth, Ye observe days and months and times, For this bondage he might likewise blame us, and say, ye observe places. But S. Paul would not we should return again to these, which he calleth elements, for that were jewish. And to the Colossians he sayeth, we be dead with Christ from the elements of this world. 
Colos. 2.  Now, if we except those things, which be necessarily required to this Sacrament by Christ's institution, either declared by written scriptures, or taught by the holy ghost, 
Similiter & calicem miscens ex vino & aqua, & sanctificans, tradidit eyes, dicens, bibite etc. Clemens in Canone Liturgiae lib. 8. apostol. consti. c. 17 1. Cor. 3.  as bread and wine mingled with water for the matter, the due words of Consecration for the form, and the priest rightly ordered, having intention to do as the church doth, for the ministery: all these elements and all outward things be subject to us, and serve us being members of Christ's church. In consideration whereof S. Paul saveth to the Corinthians, Omnia enim vestra sunt, etc. All things are yours, whether it be Paul, either Apollo, either Cephas: whether it be the world, either life, either death, whether they be present things, or things to come, all are yours, and ye Christ's, and Christ is Gods.  
Again where as the ancient and great learned Bishop Cyrillus teacheth plainly and at large, the marvelous uniting and joining together of us with Christ, and of ourselves in to one body by this sacrament: seeing that all so united and made one body, be not for all that brought together in to one place, for they be dispersed abroad in all the world: thereof we may well conclude, that to this effect the being together of communicantes in one place is not of necessity. His words be these, much agreeable to Dionysius Areopagita afore mentioned. 
In joan. lib. 11. c. 16   igitur inter nos & Deum singulos uniret, quanuis corpore simul & anima distemus, modum tamen adinuenit, consilio patris & sapientiae suae convenientem. Suo enim corpore credentes per communionem mysticam benedicens, & secum, & inter nos, unum nos corpus efficit. Quis enim eos, qui unius sancti corporis unione in uno Christo uniti sunt, ab hac naturali unione alienos putabit? Nam si omnes unum panem manducamus, unum omnes corpus efficimur: dividi enim atque seiungi Christus non patitur.  
That Christ might unite every one of us within ourselves, and with God, although we be distant both in body and also in soul, yet he hath devised a mean convenable to the counsel of the father, and to his own wisdom. For in that he blesseth them that believe, with his own body through the mystical Communion, he maketh us one body both with himself, and also between ourselves. For who will think them not to be of this natural union, which with the union of that one holy body, be united in one Christ? For if we eat all of one bread, then are we made all one body: for Christ may not be divided, nor done asunder.  
Thus we see after this ancient father's learning grounded upon the scriptures, that all the faithfulles blessed with the body of Christ through the mystical communion, be made one body with Christ, and one body between themselves. Which good blessing of Christ is of more virtue, and also of more necessity, then that it may be made frustrate by condition of place, specially where as is no wilful breach nor contempt of most seemly and convenable order. 
Many may communicate together, not being in one place together. Sermon fol. 51.  And therefore that one may communicate with an other, though they be not together in one place, (which M. jewel denieth with as peevish an argument of the use of excommunication, as any of all those is, that he scoffeth at some catholic writers for) and that it was thought lawful and godly by the fathers of the ancient church near to the Apostles time, it may be well proved by diverse good authorities.  
Irenaeus writing to Victor Bishop of Rome concerning the keeping of Easter, 
Ecclesias. hist. lib. 5. cap. 24.  As Eusebius Caesariensis reciteth, to the intent Victor should not refrain from their communion, which kept Easter after the custom of the churches in Asia founded by S. john th'evangelist, showeth, that when bishops came from foreign parties to Rome, the bishops of that see used to send to them, if they had been of the catholic faith, the Sacrament, to receive, whereby mutual communion between them was declared. Irenaeus his words be these. 
Graeca sic habent, aliter quàm Rufini versio vulgata.  Qui fuerunt ante te presbyteri, etiam cum non ita obseruarent, presbyteris ecclesiarum, (cum Romam acc●derent) Eucharistiam mittebant. The priests (by which name in this place bishops are understanded) that were a fore thy time, though they kept not Easter as they of Asia did, yet when the bishops of the churches there came to Rome, did send them the sacrament. Thus those bishops did communicate together, before their meeting in one place.  
justinus the Martyr likewise describing the manner and ●●der of christian Religion of his time touching the use of the Sacrament, sayeth thus. Finitis ab eo, 
Apolog. 2.  qui praef●ctus est, gratijs & orationibus, & ab universo populo facta ●ccl●matione, Diaconi, quo● ita vocamus, unicuique tum temporis prasenti, pa●is et aquae & vini consecrati dant participationem, & adeos, qui non adsunt, deferunt. When the priest hath made an lend of thanks and prayers, and all the people thereto have said amen. They, which we call deacons, give to every one then present, bread and water and wine consecrated, to take part of it for their housel, and for those that be not present, they bear it home to them. Thus in that time they that served God together in the common place of prayer, and some others that were absent, letted from coming to their company by sickness, business, or other wise: communicated together, though not in one place. and no man cried out of breaking the Institution of Christ.  
And because M. jewel is so vehement against private Mass, for that the priest receiveth the Sacrament alone, and triumpheth so much, as though he had won the field, making himself merry with these words, 
In his sermon. fo. 43  in deed with out cause Where then was the private Mass? where then was the single Communion all this while? he meaneth for the space of six hundred years after Christ, as there he expresseth: I will bring in good evidence and witness, that long before S. Gregory's time that he speaketh of, yea from the beginning of the church, faithful persons both men and women received the sacrament alone, and were never therefore reproved, as breakers of Christ's Institution, And or 〈…〉 to the rehearsal of the place withal: 
4. 〈…〉  and 〈◊〉 to shew● for this purpose, one question 〈…〉 of M. jewel. if they which remained at ●o●e, of whom 〈…〉 writeth received the communion by themselves alone lawfully, why may not the priest do the 〈◊〉 in the church serving God in most devour wife in the holy sacrifice of the Mass, ●●●king compar●●●●● with out any his default? Have the Sacramentaries any Religion to condemn it in the priest, and to allow it in lay folk? What is in the priest, that should make it unlawful to him, more than to the people? Or may a lay m●n or woman receive it kep●e a long time, and may not a priest receive it forth with, so soon as he hath consecrated and offered? And if case of necessities be alle●ged for ●●e lay, the same may no less be ●…aged for the prieste● also wanting compartners with out their default. For other wi●● the memory and 〈…〉 lords death should not according to his commandem●● be celebrated and done. Well now to these places.  

Proofs for private Mass.  Tertullian 〈…〉 his wife, that if he died before hea●●e 〈◊〉 not a●ain●● specially to an Infidel, showing th●●●●f 〈◊〉 did, it would be hard for her to observe her Religion with out great inconvenience, sayeth thus. 
Lib. 2. ad uxorem.  Non sci●●●●●ritus, quid secretò ante omnem cibum gusts? Et si seiueri● p●n●●●, non illum credet esse, qui dicit●r, Will not thy husband know what thou ●●rest secretly before all other meat? And if he do know, he will believe it to be bread, and not him, who it is called. He hath the like saying in his book, De corona militis. Which place plainly declareth unto us the belief of the church then in three great points by M. jewel and the rest of our Gospelers utterly denied. The one, that the communion may be kept, the second, that it may be received of one alone with out other company, the third, that the thing reverently and devoutly before other meats received, is nor bread, as the infidels then, and the Sacramentaries now believe: but he who it is said to be of Christian people, or who it is called, that is, our maker and Redeemer, or, which is the same, our lords body. And by this place of Tertullian, as also by diverse other ancient doctoures, we may gather, that in the times of persecution the manner was, that the priests delivered to devout and godly men and women the Sacrament consecrated in the church, to carry home with them, to receive a part of it every morning fasting, as their devotion served them, so secretly as they might, that the infidels should not espy them, nor get any knowledge of the holy mysteries. And this was done, because they might not assemble themselves in solemn congregation, for fear of the infidels amongst whom they dwelt. Neither should the case of necessity have excused them of the breach of Christ's commandment, if the sole communion had been expressly forbidden, 
Origen i● Exod. homilia. 13. Aug. homil. 26. in lib. 50. homil. & sermone. 252 de tempore.  as we are borne in hand by those that uphold the contrary doctrine. And Origen that ancient doctor and likewise S. Augustine doth write of the great reverence, fear, and wareness, that the men and women used in receiving the Sacrament in a clean linen cloth to carry it home with them for the same purpose.  
Saint Cyprian, writeth of a woman that did the like though unworthily after this sort. 
In sermone de laps●a.  Cum quadam ●●cam suam, in qua domini sanctum s●it, ma●ibuti●●ignis tentasset aperere, igne i●de surgent●, deterrita est, ut auderet attingere. When a certain woman, went about to open her chest wherein was the holy thing of our lord, with unworthy hands she was fra●ed with fire that rose from thence that she durst not touch it. This place of S. Cyprian reporteth the manner of keeping the Sacrament at home, to be received of a devout christian person alone at convenient tyme. The example of Sera●ion of whom Dionysius Alexandrinus, writeth, 
Ecclesias. hist. lib. 6. cap. 34.  recited by Eusebius, confirmeth our purpose of the single communion. This Serapion one of Alexandria, had committed idolatry, and lying at the point of death, that he might be reconciled to the church, before he departed sent to the priest for the Sacrament the priest being himself s●●ke and not able to come, g●●e to the lad that came of that errant, parum Eucharistiae, quod i●fusum jussit seni proeberi. a little of the Sacrament, which he commanded to be powered in to the old manes mowth. And when this solemnity was done, (sayeth the story) as though he had broken certain chains and gives, he gave up his ghost cheerfully.  
Of keeping the sacrament secretly at home, and how it might he received of devout persons alone with out other company, I ween none of the ancient doctors wrote so plainly, as S. Basile, in an epistle, that he wrote to a noble woman called Caesaria, which is extant in greek, where he sayeth further that this manner began not first in his time, but long before, his words be these. Illud autem in persecutionis temporibus necessitate ●ogi quempiam, non present sacerdote aut ministro communioni propria manu sumere, nequ●quam esse grave, superuacaneum est demonstrare, propterea quòd longa consuetudine, & ipso rerum usu confirmatum est. Omnes enim in eremis solitariam vitam agen●es, ubi non est sacerdos, communionem domiseruantes, à seipsis communicant. In Alexandria verò & in Aegypto, unusquisque eorum qui sunt de populo, plurimùm habet communionem in domo sua. Sem●l enim sacrificium sacerdote consecrante & distribuente, merito participare & suscipere, credere oportet. Etenim & in Ecclesia sacerdos dat partem et accipiteamis qui suscipit, cum omni libertate et ipsam admovet er● propria manu Idem igitur est virtute, sive unam pertem accipiat quisquam à socerdote sive plures partes simul.  
As concerning this, that it is no grievous offence, for one to be driven by necessity in the times of persecution to receive the communion with his own hand, no priest nor deacon being present: it is a thing superfluous to declare for that by long custom and practise it hath been confirmed and taken place. For all they which live a solitary life in wilderness, where no priest is to be had, keeping the communion at home, do communicate with themselves alone. And in Alexandria and in egypt, every one of the people for the most part hath the communion at home in his house. For when as the priest doth once consecrate and distribute the host, it is reason we believe, that we ought to be partakers of it, and he that taketh it, receiveth it with out all scruple of conscience, and putteth it to his mowth with his own hand. And so it is of one virtue, whether any body take one part of the priest, or more parts together. This-farre S. Basile. In this saying of Basile, it is to be noted, first, that necessity here hath respect to the lack of priest and deacon: So as in that case the Sacrament might be received of a faithful person with his own hand. And that for the satifying of so doing, he allegeth continuance of custom, which for us in this point of the sole receiving, may in more ample wise be alleged. Again, that holy Eremites living in wilderness a part from company, and also the devour people of Alexandria and egypt, received the communion alone in their celles and houses. Furthermore that the host once consecrated of the priest, is algates to be received, whether of many together, or of one alone, by him it seemeth not to force.  
Finally, that whether a man take at the priests hand the blessed Sacrament in one piece or more pieces, and receive them at convenient times, when devotion best serveth: the virtue, effect, and power thereof is one. 
Reservation of the Sacrament.  By which authority reservation is avouched. doubtless where he speaketh so precisely and particularly of sundry cases touching the order of receiving, if he had been of M. jewels opinion, that the Sacrament may not be received of one with out a certain number of communicantes together, he would not so have passed over that matter in silence, much less written so plainly of the contrary. Now that the communion thus kept in wilderness and in egypt, places of extreme heat, where wine in small quantity as is for that purpose convenient, can not be long kept from souring and changing his nature, was in the form of bread only, and not also of wine: I differre to note it here, because it pertineth to the treatise of the next Article.  
It appeareth evidently by witness of saint Jerome also, that this custom of receiving the communion privately at home continued among Christian men at Rome not only in time of persecution, but also afterward when the church was at rest and peace, so as the case of necessity can not here serve them for maintenance of their strange negative in this point. These be his words. 
In Apologia adversus iovinianum. Rom. 1●  Scio Romae hanc esse consuetudinem, ut fideles semper Christi corpus accipiant, quod nec reprehendo, nec probo. unusquisque enim in suo sensu abundat. Sed ipsorum conscientiam convenio, qui eodem die post coitum communicant, & iuxtà Persium, noctem flumine purgant: quare ad Martyrs ire non audent? Quare non ingrediuntur Ecclesias? An alius in publico, alius in domo Christus est? Quod in Ecclesia non licet, nec domi licet. Nihil Deo clausum est, & tenebrae quoque lucent apud Deum. Probet se unusquisque, & sic ad corpus Christi accedat. I know this custom is at Rome, that Christian folk receive the body of Christ daily, which I do neither reprove, nor allow. For every man hath enough in his own sense. But I appose their conscience, which do communicate that same day, as they have done wedlock work, and as Persius saith, do rynce night filth with running water: why dare not they go to Martyr's Shrines? Why go not they in to churches? what, is there one Christ abroad, and an other Christ with in the house? what so ever is not lawful in the church, neither at home is it lawful. To God nothing is hidden: yea darkness also shineth before God. Let every one examine himself, and so come to the body of Christ. S. Jerome reproveth this in the Romans, that where as S. Paul ordained, that for cause of prayer married folk should at times forbear their carnal embracings, they not withstanding that, though they had had doing with their wives, yet received their rights nevertheless daily. And yet what day they had so done they durft not go to churches, where martyrs tombs were, there to receive our lords body. For it is to be understanded for better knowledge hereof, that such as knew themselves to have done any uncleanness, were afraid in th'old time to come to the Martyr's Sepulchres. For there commonly by miracle such things were bewrayed, 
Hereof speaketh S Hierom ad Vigilantium, and S. Aug. epistola. 137. and Severus Sulpitius in vita S. Martini. dial. 3. cap. 7.  and many times by open confession of the parties, whether they would or no. Erasmus in his Scholles upon this place of S. Jerome sayeth thus. Of this place we gather, that in th'old time every one was wont to receive the body of Christ at home in his house, that would. He sayeth further; Idem videtur innuere Paulus, cum ait: an domos non habetis ad manducandum? S. Paul sayeth he, seemeth to mean the same thing, where he sayeth, have you not houses to eat in? Thus Erasmus gathereth proof of private, or as M. jewel gesteth, Single Communion, out of the scriptures, and he was as well learned in them as M. jewel is. Yet here in I leave Erasmus to his own defence. By this we may understand, that in the ancient times of the Church, the receiving of the Communion of one by self alone, was well allowed. And though it was done but by one faithful person at once in one place, yet was it called a communion both of S. Basile, and also of S. Hierom, clean contrary to M. jewels sense. It is to be judged that they knew the Institution of Christ, so well as he, or any other of these new Masters, and that their conscience was such, as if Christ's ordinance therein had been broken, they would not have winckte at it, ne with their ungodly silence confirmed such an ungodly custom. Verily for excuse of this sole receiving, necessity can not justly be alleged.  
Damasus Bishop of Rome in S. Hieromes time writeth in libro Pontificali, that Milciades Pope and Martyr, ordained that the Sacrament in sundry portions consecrated by a bishop, should be sent a broad among the churches for cause of heretics, that the catholic people of the churches (which word here signifieth as the greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth, so as it is not necessary to understand that the sacrament was directed only to the material churches, but to the people of the parishes) might receive the catholic communion, and not communicate with heretics. Which doubtless must be undestanded of this private and single communion in each catholic man's house, and that where heretics bore the swea, and priests might not be suffered to consecrate after the catholic usage.  if the priests might with out let or disturbance have so done, than what need had it been for Milciades, to have made such a provision for sending abroad hosts sanctified for that purpose by the consecration of a Bishop? The place of Damasus hath thus. Milciades fecit, ut oblationes consecratae per Ecclesias ex consecratu Episcopi (propter haereticos) dirigerentur. Milciades ordained that consecrated hosts should be sent abroad amongst the churches, prepared by the consecration of a bishop. The two words propter haereticos, for heretics, added by Ado the writer of Martyr's lives, openeth the meaning and purport of that decree.  
Here have I brought much for proof of private and single communion, and that it hath not only been suffered in time of persecution, but also allowed in quiet and peaceable times, even in the Church of Rome itself, where true Religion hath ever been most exactly observed above all other places of the world, and from whence all the churches of the West hath taken their light. As the Bishops of all Gallia that now is called France, do acknowledge in an epistle sent to Leo the Pope, with these words. unde religionis nostrae propicio Christo, 
Epistola proxima post 51. inter epistolas Leonis  fons & origo manavit. From that Apostolic see by the mercy of Christ, the fontaine and spring of our Religion hath come.  
More could I yet bring for confirmation of the same, as th'example of S. Hilaria the virgin in the time of Numerianus, of S. Lucia in Diocletians time done to martyrdom, of S. Maria Aegyptiaca, and of S. Ambros: of which every one, as ancient testimonies of ecclesiastical histories, and of Paulinus do declare, at the hour of their departure hence to God, received the holy Sacrament of th'altar for their voyage provision, alone: But I judge this is enough, and if any man will not be persuaded with this, I doubt whether with such a one a more number of authorities shall any thing privaile.  
Now that I have thus proved the single communion, I use their own term, I desire M. jewel to reason with me soberly a word or two. How say you Sir? do you reprove the Mass, or do you reprove the private Mass? I think what so ever your opinion is herein, your answer shall be, you allow not the private Mass. For as touching that the Oblation of the body and blood of Christ done in the Mass, is the sacrifice of the church, and proper to the new testament, commanded by Christ to be frequented according to his institution: if you deny this, make it so light as you list: all those authorities, which you deny us to have for proof of your great number of articles, will be found against you: I mean doctoures, general councils the most ancient, th'example of the primitive church, the scriptures, I add further reason, consent universal and uncontrolled, and tradition. If you deny this, you must deny all our Religion from the Apostles time to this day, and now in the end of the world, when iniquity aboundeth, and charity waxeth cold, when the son of man coming shall scarcely find faith in the earth, begin a new. And therefore you M. jewel knowing this well enough, what so ever you do in deed, in word, as it appeareth by the little book you have set forth in print: you pretend to disallow, yea most vehemently to improve the private Mass. Upon this resolution, that the Mass, as it is taken in general, is to be allowed: I enter further in reason with you, and make you this argument. If private Mass in respect only of that it is private after your meaning, be reprovable, it is for the single communion, that is to say, for that the priest receiveth the Sacrament alone. But the single communion is lawful, yea good and godly: ergo the private Mass in this respect that it is private, is not reprovable, but to be allowed, holden for good and holy, and to be frequented. If you deny the first proposition, or mayor, then must you show for what else you do reprove private Mass in respect only that it is private, then for single communion. If you show any thing else, then do you digress from our purpose, and declare, that you reprove the Mass. The minor you can not deny, seeing that you see how sufficiently I have proved it. And so the private Mass in that respect only it is private, is to be allowed for good, as the Mass is. Marry I deny not but that it were more commendable, and more godly on the church's part, if many well disposed and examined, would be partakers of the blessed Sacrament with the priest. But though the Clergy be worthily blamed for negligence herein, through which the people may be thought to have grown to this slackness and indevotion: yet that notwithstanding, this part of the catholic Religion remaineth sound and faultless. For as touching the substance of the Mass itself, by the single communion of the priest, in case of the people's coldness and negligence, it is nothing impaired.  if the public sacrifice of the church might not be offered with out a number of communicantes receiving with the priest in one place: then would the ancient fathers in all their writings some where have complained of the ceasing of that, which every where they call quotidianum & iuge sacrificium, the daily and continual sacrifice: of which their opinion is, that it ought daily to be sacrificed, that the death of our lord and the work of our Redemption might always be celebrated and had in memory, and we thereby show ourselves according to our bounden duty mindful and thankful. But verily the fathers no where complain of intermitting the daily sacrifice, but very much of the slackness of the people, for that they came not more often unto this holy and wholesome banquet: and yet they never compelled them thereto, but exhorting them to frequent it worthily, left them to their own conscience.  
S. Ambros witnesseth that the people of the East, had a custom in his time to be houseled but once in the year. And he rebuketh sharply such as follow them, after this sort. Si quotidianus est cibus, 
Lib. 6. de sacra. ca 4  cur post annum illum sumis, quemadmodum Graeci in Oriente facere consueverunt? If it be our daily meat (sayeth he) why takest it but once in the year, as the Greeks are wont to do in the East? 
De verbis domini secundum Lucan. ho. 28.  S. Augustine uttereth the same thing almost with the same words. And in the second book, De sermone Domini in monte the twelfth chapter, expounding the fourth petition of our lords prayer, give us this day our daily bread, showing that this may be taken either for material bread, either for the sacrament of our lords body, or for spiritual meat, which he alloweth best: would that concerning the sacrament of our lords body, they of the east should not move question, how it might be understanded to be their daily bread, which were not daily partakers of our lords supper, where as for all that, this bread is called daily bread: There he sayeth thus:  ergo illi taceant, neque de hac re sententiam suam defendant, vel ipsa auctoritate Ecclesiae sint contenti, quòd sine scandalo ista faciunt, neque ab eis qui ecclesiis praesunt, facere prohibentur, neque non obtemperantes condemnantur. Wherefore that they hold their peace, and stand not in defence of their opinion, let them be content at least way with the authority of the church, that they do these things with out offence thereof taken, neither be forbidden of those that be over the churches, neither be condemned, when they disobey. Here we see by S. Augustine, that they of the Orient, who so seldom received the sacrament, were holden for all that, for Christian people by the authority of the church, none offence thereof was taken, neither were they inhibited of their custom, and though they obeyed not their spiritual governors moving them to receive more often, yet were they not condemned, nor excommunicated.  

In 10. cap. ad Hebr. hom. 17.  S. Chrysostom many times exhorting his people to prepare themselves to receive their rights at least at Easter, in one place sayeth thus. What meaneth this? The most part of you be partakers of this sacrifice but once in the year, some twice, some oftener. Therefore this that I speak, is to all, not to them only that be here present, but to those also that live in wilderness. For they receive the sacrament but once in the year, and peradventure but once in two years. Well what then? whom shall we receive? those that come but once, or that come often, or that come seldom? Sooth we receive them that come with a pure and a clean conscience, with a clean heart, and to be short, with a blameless life. They that be such, let them come always, and they that be not such, let not them come not so much as once. Why so? because they receive to themselves judgement, damnation, and punishment. The ancient doctoures, specially Chrysostom and Augustine, be full of such sentences.  
Now to this end I drive these allegations, leaving out a great number of the same sense. Although many times the people forbore to come to the communion, so as many times none at all were found disposed to receive, yet the holy fathers, 
The people's forebearing the communion, is no cause why the priest should not say Mass In 10. cap. ad Hebr. homil. 17.  bishops and priests thought not that a cause why they should not daily offer the blessed sacrifice, and celebrate Mass. Which thing may sufficiently be proved, whether M. jewel, that maketh himself so sure of the contrary, will yield and subscribe, according to his promise, or no. Of the daily sacrifice these words of Chrysostom be plain. Quid ergo nos? Nun per singulos dies offerimus? offerimus quidem, sed ad recordationem facientes mortis eius, & una est hostia, non multae. etc. Then what do we? do we not offer every day? yeas verily we do so. But we do it for recording of his death. And it is one host, not many. Here I hear M. jewel say, though against his will, I grawnt the daily sacrifice, but I stand still in my negative, 
By order of the last communion book, no communion may be said or had, with out three do communicate with the minister at least, of how small number so ever the parish be. De consec. dist. 1. can. hoc quoque statutum.  that it can not be showed, there was ever any such sacrifice celebrated, with out a communion, that is, as they will have it, with out some convenient number to receive the sacrament in the same place with the priest. For proof of this, these be such places as I am persuaded with all. The better learned men that be of more reading than I am, have other I doubt not.  
Soter Bishop of Rome a bout the year of our lord. 170. who suffered martyrdom under Antoninus Verus the Emperor, for order of celebrating the Mass, made this statute or decree.  nullus presbyterorum solennia celebrare praesumat, nisi duobus praesentibus, sibique respondentibus, & ipse tertius habeatur, quia cum pluraliter ab eo dicitur, Dominus vobiscum, & illud in secretis: Orate pro me: apertissimè convenit, ut ipsius respondeatur salutationi. This hath been ordained, that no priest presume to celebrate the solemnity of the Mass, except there be two present, and answer him, so as he be the third. For whereas he sayeth (as by way of speaking to many) our lord be with you: and likewise in the Secrets, Pray you for me: it seemeth evidently convenient, that answer be made to his salutation accordingly. Which ancient decree requireth not, that all people of necessity be present, much less that all so oftentimes should communicate sacramentally, which thing it requireth neither of those two, that aught to be present. If of the bare words of this decree a sufficient argument may not be made for our purpose, inducing of th'affirmation of that one thing there specified, the denial of that other thing we speak of, which manner of argument is commonly used of our adversaries: them more weight may be put unto it in this case: for that where as the receiving of Christ's body is a far greater matter, then to answer the priest at Mass, if that holy bishop and Martyr had thought it so necessary, as that the Mass might not be done with out it: doubtless of very reason and convenience, he would and should have specially spoken of that, rather than of the other. But for that he thought other wise, 
a Ex concilio Agathen. can. 31 Missas die dominico secularibus totas andire, speciali ordine praecipimus: ita ut ante bene dictionem sacerdotis egredi populus non praesumat: quod si sec●rim, ab Episcopo publicè confundantur.  he required only of necessity, the presence of two, for the purpose above mentioned.  
In a council holden at Agatha a city of France then called Gallia, about the time of Chrysostom, an old decree of Fabianus Bishop of Rome and Martyr, and also of the council Elibertine in the time of saint Sylvester, anno Domini 314. was renewed, that all secular christian folk should be houseled three times every year, at Easter, Witsontide, and Christmas. It was there also decreed, that they should hear the whole Mass every Sunnedaye, and not depart, before the priest had given blessing. So they were bound to hear Mass every Sunnedaye, and to receive the communion but thrice in the year. The self same order was decreed in the 
b De conse, dist. 1. cum ad celebran das Missas.  Council of Orleans. Then of like, specially in small towns and villages, they had Mass without the communion of many together, some times.  
In that Council of Agatha we find a decree, made by the fathers assembled there, whereof it appeareth, that priests oftentimes said Mass with out others receiving with them. And this much it is in English. 
Cap. 21.  If any man will have and oratory or chapel abroad in the country, beside the parish churches, in which lawful and ordinary assemble is: for the rest of the holidays, that he have Masses there, in consideration of weariness of the household, with just ordinance we permit. But at Easter, Christ's Birth, epiphany, the Ascension of our lord, Witsunnedaye, and Nativity of Saint john Baptist, and if there be any other special feasts: let them not keep their Masses, but in the cities and parishes. And as for the clerks, if any will do or have their Masses at the afore said feasts in chapels, unless the bishop so command or permit: let them be thrust out from commnion. By this decree we learn, that then Masses were commonly said in private chapels at home, at such times, as the people were not accustomed to be houseled. For when by commandment and common order they received their rights, as in the afore named feasts: then were the priests prohibited to say Masses in private oratory's or chapels with out the parish churches. And hereof we may plainly understand, that in such places, priests customeably said Masses of their own and of the householders devotion, when none of the household were disposed to receive with them The like decree is to be found, Concilij Aruernensis, cap. 14. Concil. Constantinop. generalis in Trullo. cap. 31.  
Now let us see what examples of the old fathers we have for the private Mass. Leontius a Greek bishop of a Cirie in the East Church called Neapolis, writing the life of Saint john the holy Patriarch of Alexandria, who for his great charity was commonly called eleemosynarius, that is, th'almose giver, telleth this story, whereby it appeareth that at that time private Mass was used. Though the translator through ignorance of the time he lived in, turned this life in to latin of mean eloquence, yet for truths sake, I will not let to recite that, which I take for my purpose, as I find it. Malitiam reseruantem quendam industrium contra alium principem, audience hic Magnus joannes, monuit eum saepè, & suasit ad concordiam, & non potuit eum convertere ad pacem. Semel ergo ad eum mittit & adducit eum sanctus, quasi pro republica, & facit missas in oratorio suo, nullum habens secum nisi ministrum suum. Cum ergo sancta benedixisset Patriarcha, & orationem Dominicam inchoasset, coeperunt dicere tantum tres illi, Pater noster, Et cum pervenissent ad sermonem quo dicitur, dimit nobis debita nostra, sicut & nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris: Innuit domestico Patriarcha, ut taceret. Siluit ergo & Patriarcha, & remansit Princeps solus dicens versum, dimit nobis, sicut & nos dimittimus. Et statim conversus sanctus, dicit ei mansueta voce. Vide in quàm terribili voce dicas Deo, quoniam sicut ego dimitto, ita & tu dimit mihi. Et tanquam ab igne statim cruciatum ferens praedictus princeps, cecidit in faciem ad pedes sancti, dicens: Quaecunque iusseris domine, fafaciet servus tuus. Et reconciliatus est inimico suo cum omni veritate. This story soundeth thus in English. This great patriarch john, hearing that a noble man bare malice to an other noble man, warned him oftentimes of it, and treated with him, to be at accord, but he could not bring him to be at peace. Wherefore on a day this holy father sent for the noble man, and causeth him to come to him, as though it were about some matter of the common weal. At that time he sayeth Mass in his chapel, having none other body with him, but his servant. When the Patriarch had consecrated the sacrament, and had begun to say our lords prayer, they three only begun to say Our father, and so forth. When they were come to those words, forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them, that trespass against us: the Patriarch made a beck to his servant, to hold his peace. than the Patriarch held his peace also. and the noble man remained alone, saying forth the verse, forgive us, as we forgive: Then the holy father turning himself toward him, by and by sayeth with a mild voice. Consider with how terrible words thou sayest to God, that as I forgive, so sorgeve thou me also. Whereat the said noble man, as though he had felt the torment of fire, forth with fell down on his face at the holy father's feet, saying: My lord, what so ever thou biddest me thy servant to do, I will do it. And so he was reconciled unto his enemy, with out all dissembling.  
Here M. jewel I trow, will grawnt that this was a private Mass. The place was private, the audience not public nor common, the purpose touching the noble man, was private: The communion also private, I mean for the patriarchs part alone, for beside that the story maketh no mention of any other communicantes, he could not be assured of that noble man to communicate with him. For whereas he could by no means before bring him to forgive his enemy, he had but a small conjecture he should bring it to pass now. And again though he had conceived no distrust of his reconciliation upon this holy policy, yet we may doubt, whether the patriarch forth with, with out further and more mature probation and examination, which Saint Paul in this case requireth: 
1. Cor. 11.  would have admitted him to receive our lords body so upon the sudden. Now for the servant, it is a straight case that so holy and so great a Patriake and bishop of so populous a city, as Alexandria was, understanding that Mass can not be celebrated with out breach of Christ's Institution (as M. jewel holdeth opinion) except he have a number to communicate with him in the same place: should have none of his spiritual flock with him at so weighty a matter of conscience, but one only, and him his own household servant. He was not so simple as not to think, that the servant might be letted from receiving by some sudden pang coming upon him, or with some cogitation and conscience of his own unworthiness suddenly coming to his mind. If either this, or any other let had chanced, in what case had the patriarch been then? He had been like, by M. jewels doctrine, to have broken Christ's Institution, and so God's commandment, through an others defect, which were strange. But I judge, that M. jewel, who harpeth so many jarring arguments against private Mass upon the very word Communion, will not allow that for a good and lawful communion, where there is but one only to receive with the priest. Verily it appeareth by his sermon that all the people ought to receive, or to be driven out of the church. Now therefore to an other example of the private Mass.  
Amphilochius bishop of Iconium the head city of Lycaonia, to whom S. Basile dedicated his book De Spiritu sancto, and an other book entitled Ascetica, writing the life of saint Basile, or rather the miracles through God's power by him wrought, which he calleth, 
Memorabilia, & vera ac magna miracula, in praefatione.  worthy of record, true, and great miracles: specially such as were not by the three most worthy men Gregory Nazianzene, Gregory Nyssene, and holy Ephrem, in their epitaphical or funeral treatises before mentioned: among other things, reporteth a notable story, wherein we have a clear testimony of a private Mass. And for the thing that the story showeth, as much as for any other, of the same Amphilochius he is called, Coelestium virtutum collocutor, & angelicorum ordinum comminister, a talker together with the heavenly powers, and a fellow servant with orders of Angels. The story is this. This holy bishop Basile besought God in his prayers, he would give him grace, wisdom and understanding, so as he might offer the sacrifice of Christ's blood shedding, proprijs sermonibus, with prayers and service of his own making: and that the better to achieve that purpose, the holy ghost might come upon him. After six days, he was in a trance for cause of the holy ghosts coming. When the seventh day was come, he began to minister unto God, that is to wit, he said Mass, every day. After a certain time thus spent, through faith and prayer he began to write with his own hand, mysteria ministrationis, the Mass, or the service of the Mass. On a night our lord came unto him in a vision with the Apostles, and laid bread to be consecrated on the holy altar, and stirring up Basile, said unto him. Secundum postulationem tuam repleatur os tuum laud, etc. According to thy request, let thy mowth be filled with praise, that with thine own words, thou mayst offer up to me sacrifice. He not able to abide the vision with his eyes, rose up with trembling, and going to the holy altar, began to say, that he had written in paper, thus. Repleatur os meum laud, & hymnum dicat gloriae tuae domine Deus, qui creasti nos, & adduxisti in vitam hanc, & caeteras orationes sancti ministerij. Let my mowth be filled with praise, to utter an hymn to thy glory, Lord God, which hast created us, and brought us in to this life, and so forth the other prayers of the Mass. It followeth in the story. Et post finem orationum, exaltavit panem, sine intermissione orans, & dicens: Respice domine jesu Christ, etc. After that he had done the prayers of Consecration, he lifted up the bread, praying continually and saying, Look upon us lord jesus Christ out of thy holy tabernacle, and come to sanctify us, that sittest above with thy father, and art here present invisibly with us, vouchsafe with thy mighty hand to deliver to us, and by us to all thy people, Sancta Sanctis, thy holy things to the holy. The people answered, one holy, one our lord jesus Christ, with the holy ghost, in glory of God the father, Amen.  
Now let us consider, what followeth pertaining most to our purpose. Et dividens panem in tres parts, unam quidem communicavit timore multo, alteram autem reseruavit consepelire secum, tertiam verò imposuit columbae aureae, quae pependit super altar. He divided the bread in to three parts, of which be received one at his communion, with great fear and reverence, the other he reserved, that it might be buried with him, and the third part he caused to be put in a golden pyx, that was hanged up over the altar, made in form and shape of a dove. After this, a little before the end of this treatise, it followeth, how that S. Basile at the hour that he departed out of this life, received that part of the host himself, which he had purposed to have interred with him in his grave, and immediately as he lay in his bed, gave thanks to God, and rendered up the ghost.  
That this was a private Mass, no man can deny. Basile received the sacrament alone, for there was no earthly creature in that church with him. The people that answered him, were such, as Christ brought with him. And that all this was no dream, but a thing by the will of god done in deed, though in a vision, as it pleased Christ to exhibit, Amphilochius plainly witnesseth, declaring how that one Eubulus, and others the chief of that clergy, standing before the gates of the church, whiles this was in doing, saw lights with in the church, and men clothed in white, and heard a voice of people glorifying god, and beheld Basile standing at the altar, and for this cause at his coming forth fell down prostrate at his feet.  
Here M. jewel and his consacramentaries do staggar I doubt not, for grant to a private Mass they will not, what so ever be brought for proof of it. and therefore some doubt to avoid this authority must be devised. But whereof they should doubt, verily I see not. If they doubt any thing of the bringing of the bread and other necessaries to serve for consecration of the host: let them also doubt of the bread and flesh, that Elias had in the pond of Carith. 
3. Reg. 17. 3. Reg. 19  Let them doubt of the bread and pot of water, he had under the juniper tree in Bersabée. Let them doubt of the pot of pottage brought to Daniel for his dinner, 
Daniel. 14  from jewerie in to the cave of lions at Babylon, by Abacuk the prophet. But perhaps they doubt of the authority of Amphilochius, that wrote this story. It may well be, that they would be glad to discredit that worthy bishop. For he was that vigilant pastor and good governor of the church, 
Theodorit. in hist. eccles. lib. 4. cap. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 precatores.  who first with Letoius bishop of Melite, and with Flavianus bishop of Antioch, overthrew and utterly vanquished the heretics called Messaliani, otherwise, euchitae, the first parents of the sacramentary heresy. Whose opinion was, that the holy Eucharistie, that is the blessed Sacrament of th'altar, doth neither good, nor evil, neither profiteth aught, nor hurteth. even as our sacramentaries do ascribe all to faith only, and call the most worthiest sacrament, none other, but tokening bread, which of itself hath no divine efficacy or operation. Therefore, I wonder the less, I say, if they would Amphilochius his authority to be diminished. But for this I will match them with great Basile, who esteemed him so much, who loved him so entirely, who honoured him so highly with the dedication of so excellent works. I will join them also with the learned Bishop Theodoritus, 
Theodor. lib. 5. ecclesiast. hist. c. 16.  who seemeth to give him so sovereign praise, as to any other Bishop, he writeth his stories of, never naming him with out preface of great honour, now calling him admirandum, the wonderful, at an other time, sapientissimum, the most wise, and most commonly laudatissimum, most praise worthy.  
If they doubt of Basile himself, whether he were a man worthy to obtain by his prayer of God such a vision, it may please them to peruse what Gregorius Nyssenus, what holy Ephrem of Syria, and specially, what Gregory Nazianzene wrote of him, 
In monodia.  which two Gregory's be not afraid to compare him with Elias, with Moses, with S. Paul, and with who so ever was greatest, and for virtue of most renome. Whereby without all envy he hath obtained of all the posterity, to be called Magnus, Basile the great, much more for desert of virtue and learning, than those other for merit of chivalry, the great Charles, the great Pompey, the great Alexander.  
If they deny the whole treatise, and say that it was never of Amphilochius doing, that were a shift in deed, but yet the worst of all, and farthest from reason and custom of the best learned, and much like the fact of king Alexander, who being desirous to undo the fatal knot, at Gordium a town in Phrygia, hearing that the Empire of the world was boded by an old prophecy to him, that could unknit it, not finding out the ends of the strenges, nor perceiving by what means he could do it, drew forth his sword, and hewed it in pieces, supplying want of skill, with wilful violence. For the authority of his treatise, this much I can say. Be side that it is set forth in a book of certain holy men's lives printed in Colen, and beside very great likelihood appearing in the treatise itself: it is to be seen in the library of Saint Nazarius, in the city of Verona in Italy, written in veleme for three hundred years past, bearing the name of Amphilochius bishop of Iconium.  
Now one place more for proof of private Mass, at the wyneding up of this matter, and then an end of this article. This place is twice found in Chrysostom, in an homily upon the epistle to the Ephesians, and more plainly in an homely ad populum Antiochenun. Where he hath these very words. 
Hom. 61. ad popul. Antioch.  Multan video rerum inaequalitatem. In alijs quidem temporibus cum puri frequenter sitis, non acceditis, In Pascha vero licet sit aliquid à vobis patratum, acceditis. O consuetudinem, o praesumptionem. Sacrificium frustrà quotidianum. In cassum assistimus altari. nullus qui communicetur. I see great inequality of things among you. At other times, when as for the more part ye are in clean life, ye come not to receive your rights. But at Easter, though ye have done some thing amiss, yet ye come. O what a custom is this: O what a presumption is this: The daily sacrifice is offered in vain. We stand at the altar, for nought. There is not one, that will be houseled. Here is to be noted, 
A true declaration of Chrystomes' place.  whereas Chrysostom sayeth, the daily sacrifice was celebrated in vain, and the priests stood at th'altar in vain: it is not to be understanded of the sacrifice in itself, as though it were in vain and frustrate: but this is to be referred to the people, it was in vain for their part, that should have received their communion with the priests, who waited daily for them, and cried out as the manner was, Sancta sanctis, holy things for the holy. and after that they had received the bread themselves, showing the chalice to the people, 
In Missa Chrysost.  said: Cum timore Dei, & fide, & dilectione accedite. Come ye up to receive with the fear of God, with faith and charity. But all was in vain. For none came, so cold was their devotion in that behalf. Now if Chrysostom had cause to complain of the people's slackness in coming to the communion, in that great and populous city of Antioch, where the scriptures were daily expounded and preached, where discipline and good order was more streightely exacted, where in so great number some of likelihood were of more devotion than others: what is to be thought of many other little towns and villages through the world, where little preaching was heard, where discipline slaked, where the number of the faithfuls being small, and they occupied all together in worldly affayeres, few gave good ensample of devotion to others? Doubtless in such places was much less resort of the people at the Mass time, to receive the Sacrament with their priests. And whereas, lest this place might seem plainly to avouch the having of Mass without a number communicating with the bishop or priest, for avoiding of this authority, the gospelers answer by way of conjecture, that in Chrysostom's time the priests and deacons communicated together daily with the party that offered the Sacrifice, though none of the people did: we tell them, that this poor shift will not serve their purpose. For though they say, some sufficient number ever communicated with him that celebrated the daily sacrifice in that great and famous church of Antioch, where many priests and deacons were, which neither being denied they shall never be able to prove: what may be said or thought of many thousand other lesser churches through the world, where the priest that said Mass, had not always in readiness a sufficient number of other priests and deacons to receive with him, so to make up a communion? Of such churches it must be said, that either the Sacrifice ceased, and that was not done which Christ commanded to be done in his remembrance, which is not to be grawnted: or that the memory of our lords death was oftentimes celebrated of the priests in the daily oblation with out tarrying for others to communicate with them, and so had these churches private Masses, as the churches now a days have. Now to conclude, of this most evident place of Chrysostom, every child is able to make an invincible argument against M. jewel for the private Mass, as they call it, in this sort. By report of Chrysostom, the sacrifice in his time was daily offered, that is to say, the Mass was celebrated, but many times no body came to communicate sacramentally with the priests, as it is before proved: ergo there were Masses done with out other receiving the Sacrament with the priests. And then further, ergo private Masses in Chrysostom's days were not strange, and then yet one step further, there to stay: Ergo M. jewel according to his own promise and offer, must yield, subscribe and recant.   

jewel.  Or that there was then any communion ministered unto the people under one kind. 
Of communion under one kind.  
ARTICLE. II.  
THis being a Sacrament of unity, every true christian man ought in receiving of it, to consider, how unity may be achieved and kept, rather than to show a straightness of conscience about the outward forms of bread and wine, to be used in the administration of it: and that so much the more, how much the end of every thing, is to be esteemed more, then that, which serveth to the end. Otherwise herein the breach of unity is so little recompensed by the exact keeping of th'outward ceremony, that according to the saying of S. Augustine, who so ever taketh the mystery of unity, and keepeth not the bond of peace, he taketh not a mystery for himself, but a testimony against himself.  
Therefore they have great cause to weigh with themselves, what they receive in this sacrament, who moved by slender reasons made for both kinds, do rashly and dangerously condemn the church, for giving of it under one kind, to all, that do not in their own persons consecrate and offer the same in remembrance of the sacrifice once offered on the cross. And that they may think the church to stand upon good grounds herein, may it please them to understand, that the fruit of this sacrament, which they enjoy that worthily receive it, dependeth not of the outward forms of bread and wine, but redoundeth of the virtue of the flesh and blood of Christ. And whereas under either kind whole Christ is verily present, (for now that he is risen again from the dead, his flesh and blood can be sundered no more, 
Rom. 6.  because he dieth no more) this healthful sacrament is of true christian people with no less fruit received under one kind, then under both. And as this spiritual fruit is not any thing diminished to him that receiveth one kind, so it is not any whit increased to him, that receiveth both. The Sacramentaries that believe not the truth of Christ's body and blood in this holy Sacrament, I remit to sundry godly treatises made in defence of the right faith in that point. I think it not necessary here, to treat thereof, or of any other matter, which M. jewel hath not as yet manifestly touched in his sermon.  
Now concerning th'outward forms of bread and wine, their use is employed in signification only, and be not of necessity, so as grace may not be obtained by worthy receiving of the Sacrament, unless both kinds be ministered. Therefore in consecrating of the Sacrament, according to Christ's institution, both kinds be necessary, for as much as it is not prepared for the receiving only, but also for renewing and stirring up of the remembrance of our lords death. So in as much as the sacrament serveth the sacrifice, by which the death and oblation of Christ is represented, both the kinds be requisite: that by diverse and sundry forms, the blood of Christ shed for our sins, and separated from his body, may evidently be signified. But in as much as the faithful people do receive the sacrament, thereby to attain spiritual grace and salvation of their souls, diversity of the forms or kinds, that be used for the signification only, hath no further use ne profit. But by one kind, because in it whole Christ is exhibited, abundance of all grace is once given: so as by the other kind thereto over added (which giveth the same and not an other Christ) no further augmentation of spiritual grace, may be attained.  
In consideration of this, the catholic church taught by the holy ghost all truth, whiles in the daily sacrifice the memory of our lords death and passion is celebrated, for that it is necessary therein to express most plainly the shedding and separating of the blood from the body, that was crucified: hath always to that purpose, diligently used both kinds of bread and wine. But in distributing of the blessed sacramant to christian people, hath used her liberty (which Christ never imbarred by any commandment to the contrary) so as it hath ever been most for the behoove and commodity of the receivers: and hath ministered sometimes both kinds, sometimes one kind only, as it hath been thought most expedient, in regard of time, place, and persons. 

Matth. 26 Christ's words bind not the laity to receive both kinds.  
Ante passionem nobis solis praecepit hoc facere inquiunt Apostoli apud Clementem. lib. 8. constitu. Apostolicarum. cap. vlt.    
As touching the words of Christ, Bibite ex hoc omnes, Drink ye all of this: they pertain to the Apostles only, and to their successors. For to them only he gave commandment to do that, which he did in his supper, as Clement sayeth: To them only saying, do this in my remembrance, he gave commission to consecrate, offer, and to receive the sacrament in remembrance of his death and passion, by the same words ordaining them priests of the new testament. Wherefore this belongeth not to the lay people, neither can it be justly gathered by this place, that they are bound of necessity, and under pain of deadly sin, to receive the sacrament under both kinds.  
And this understood they, which above an hundred years past, changing the old custom of the church of receiving the communion under one kind, by their private authority, would needs usurp the cup also. For seeing themselves not to have sufficient proof and warrant for their doing of these words, drink ye all of this: the better to bolster up their new flangled attempt, 
joan. 6.  they thought it better to allege the words of Christ in S. john: Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you: which words for all that our new masters of these xl. years past, will to be understanded of the spiritual and not of the sacramental eating. Which place although it be taken for the sacramental eating, as it may be, and is taken for both of the doctors viewed a part: yet in all that chapter there is no mention of the cup, nor of wine at all. Wherefore they that cry so much on the Institution and commandment of Christ, can not find in all the scriptures, neither commandment, where he gave charge the sacrament so to be given, neither so much as any example, where Christ gave it under both kinds, to any other, then to the Apostles. Where as contrary wise it may be showed of our part, that the sacrament was given under one kind only to the two disciples, that went to Emaus. 
Luc. 24.  For that the bread, which Christ there took, blessed, broke, and gave to them, was not simple and common bread, but the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ. For so 
a In Matthaeun homil. 17.  Chrysostom, 
b De consensu Evangelist. li. 3. cap. 25.  Augustine, 
c In Luc.  Bede, and 
d In Lucan. Act. 2.  Theophylacte with one accord do witness. It appeareth also that the communion under one kind was used at jerusalem among christes disciples, by that S. Luke writeth in the Acts of the Apostles of the breaking of the bread. If M. jewel here think to avoid these places by their accustomed figure synecdoche, among his own sect happily it may be accepted, but among men of right and learded judgement, that shift will seem over weak and vain. Now to conclude touching the sixth chapter of S. John, as thereof they can bring no one word mentioning the cup or wine, for proof of their both kinds: so it showeth and not in very obscure wise, that the form of bread alone is sufficient, where as Christ sayeth, Qui manducat panem hunc, vivet in aeternum, He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.  
Thus our adversaries have nothing to bring out of the scriptures against the use of the catholic church in ministering the communion under one kind. And yet they cease not crying out upon the breach of Christ's express commandment, and M. jewel for his part in his first answer to D. Cole, sayeth, that the council of Constance pronounced openly against Christ himself. But for as much as they are so hot in this point, I will send them to Martin Luther himself their patriarch, that either by his sobriety in this matter they may be some what colded, or by his, and his scholars inconstancy herein, be brought to be a shamed of themselves. Though the places be well known, as oftentimes cited of the catholic writers of our time against the gospelers, yet here I think good to rehearse them, that the unlearned may see, how themselves make not so great a matter of this Article, as some seem to bear the people in hand it is.  
Luther writeth to them of Bohemia these very words. Quoniam pulchrum quidem esset, 
Luther and his offspring doth not necessitate Communion under both kinds.  utraque specie eucharistiae uti, & Christus hac in re nihil tanquam necessarium praecepit: praestaret pacem & unitatem, quam Christus ubique praecepit, sectari, quam de speciebus Sacramenti contendere. Whereas it were a fair thing (sayeth he) to use both kinds of the sacrament, yet for that Christ herein hath commanded nothing as necessary: it were better to keep peace and unity, which Christ hath every where charged us withal, then to strive for the outward kinds of the sacrament. Again his words be these in a declaration that he wrote of the sacrament. Non dixi, neque consului, neque est intentio mea, ut unus aut aliquot Episcopi propria authoritate alicui incipiant utramque speciem porrigere, nisi ita constitueretur & mandaretur in concilio generali. Neither have I said nor counseled, nor my mind is, that any one or more bishops, begin by their own authority, to give both kinds (of the sacrament) to any person, unless it were so ordained and commanded in general council.  
Thus he wrote before that he had conceived perfit hatred against the church. 
Of his conference with the devil, he writeth libello de Missa angulari.  But after that he had been better acquainted with the devil, and of him appearing unto him sensibly, had been instructed with arguments against the sacrifice of the Mass, that the memory of our redemption by Christ wrought on the cross, might utterly be abolished: he wrote hereof far otherwise. Si quo casu concilium statueret, minimè omnium nos vellemus utraque specie potiri, imò tunc primum in despectum concilij vellemus aut una, aut neutra, & nequaquam utraque potiri, & eos planè anathema habere, quicumque talis concilij auctoritate, potirentur utraque. If in any case the council would so ordain, we would in no wise have both the kinds, but even then in despite of the council, we would have one kind, or neither of them, and in no wise both, and hold them for accurfed, who so ever by authority of such a council, would have both. These words declare what spirit Luther was of. They show him like himself. Who so ever readeth his books with indifferent judgement, shall find, that sithence the Apostles, time never wrote man so arrogantly ne so despitefully against the church, nor so contraryly to himself. Which marks be so evident, that who so ever will not see them, but suffereth himself to be carried a way in to error, hatred of the church, and contempt of all godliness, either by him, or by his scholars: except he repent and return, he is guilty of his own damnation, utterly overthrown, 
Tit. 3.  and sinneth inexcusably, as one condemned by his own judgement. But for excuse hereof, in his book of the captivity of Babylon, he confesseth that he wrote thus, not for that he thought so, nor for that he judged the use of one kind unlawful, but because he was stirred by hatred and anger so to do. His words do sound so much plainly. Provocatus, imò per vim raptus. I wrote this (sayeth he otherwise then I thought in my heart, provoked, and by violence pulled to it, whether I would or no. Here I doubt not, but wise men will regard more that Luther wrote, when his mind was quiet and calm, then when it was enraged with blustering storms of naughty affections.  
Now to put this matter, that Luther judged it a thing indifferent, whether one receive the sacrament under one kind or both, more out of doubt: Philip Melanchthon his scholar, and nearest of his counsel, writeth: Sicut edere suillam, aut abstinere a suilla, 
In locis communibus.  sic alterutra signi part uti medium esse. That as it is a thing indifferent, to eat swine's flesh, or to forbear swine's flesh, so it is also, to use which part of the sign, a man lysteth. By the word sign, he meaneth the Sacrament, liking better that strange word, than the accustomed word of the church, least he might perhaps be thought of the brethren of his sect, in some what to join with the catholics.  
Bucer also is of the same opinion, who in the conference that was had between the catholics and protestants for agreement in controversies of Religion at Ratisbone, confirmed and allowed this article by his full consent, with these words. Ad controversiam quae est de una aut utraque specie, tollendam, cum primis conducturum, ut sancta Ecclesia liberam faceret potestatem sacramentum hoc in una vel in utraque specie sumendi. Ea tamen lege, ●r nulli per hoc detur occasio, quem usum tantopere retinuit Ecclesia, temerê condemnandi, aut invicem judicandi.  
That the controversy for the one or both kinds may be taken away, it shall be very well done, that holy church made it free, to receive this sacrament in one or both kinds: yet under such condition, as hereby no occasion be given to any body rashly to condemn the use, which the church hath so long time kept, nor to judge one an other. Sooth he which would have it free and at liberty, to receive the sacrament under one or both kinds, and holdeth opinion, that the old custom of the one kind only is not to be condemned, seemeth plainly enough to confess, that nothing hath been instituted or commanded of Christ touching this matter, as necessary to salvation.  
Thus we may see plainly, that they which have divided themselves from the mystical body of Christ, that is his church, who were of greatest learning and judgement, make it a matter indifferent (as it is in deed of itself left to the liberty of the church) whether the sacrament be ministered under one kind or both.  
And this much hath been confessed against M. jewel and his sect, not only by the learned adversaries of the church in our time, but also by a learned man of Bohemia above six score years past. His name is john Przybxam, of whose writings some are set forth in print. This learned man whereas he endeavoured to prove the use of both kinds of the words of Christ written by S. john: Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you: at length uttereth these words according to the eloquence of his tyme. 
In libr. de professione fidei catholieae cap. 19  Veruntamen hic Deum timens, & mores impios aliorum praecavens, fateor quòd quaslibet personas de ecclesia communion, fidelium sub utraque specie repugnantes, damnare aut haereticare non intendo. But here having the fear of god before mine eyes, and being well ware, I follow not the wicked conditions of others, I grawnt, that what persons so ever of the church repine against the communion of the faithful people under both kinds, I intend not to condemn them, nor to hold them for heretics. But if it be the commandment of God, that the Sacrament be received of all under both kinds, why should he be forbidden by the fear of God to condemn those, that withstand that order of communion? Seeing that who so ever goeth against God's commandment, is worthy to be condemned? Therefore by his testimony the use of one or both kinds, is indifferent.  
Thus we are able to allege Luther, Melanchthon, Bucer, and that learned Bohemian, for the Indifferency of the communion to be minister either under one kind, or both. Whereby I mean not that the use of the sacrament is so left to every man's liberty, as he that listeth, may require both kinds, and an other may content himself with one kind: not so, every man is bound to follow the order of the church, but the church is not bound of necessity by God's commandment, to minister it under both kinds to the laity.  
And whereas it was ministered in both kinds at Corinth, as it appeareth by S. Paul, and in sundry other places, 
Causes moving the church to communicate under one kind.  as we find most evidently in the writings of diverse ancient fathers: yet the church hath been moved by diverse and weighty causes, to take order, that the people should receive their communion under one kind, not only in the council of Basile, but also in that of Constance, and long before them above a thousand years, in the first council of Ephesus, as many do probably gather, and mamely Vrbanus Regius a doctor of Luther's school, confesseth, in his book, De locis communibus. One cause and not the least, was, that thereby the heresy of Nestorius might the rather be extinguished, who amongs other errors, held opinion, that under the form of bread in the Sacrament is contained the body of Christ with out his blood, and under the form of the wine, his blood only without his body. Many other causes moved those fathers to take that order, for th'avoiding of many inconveniences, dangers, and offences, which might hap in the use of the cup: as unreverence of so high a Sacrament, whereof christian people at the beginning had a marvelous care and regard, the loathsomeness of many, that can not brook the taste of wine, the difficulty of getting, and impossibility of keeping wine from corruption in countries situated near to the north Pole, in that clime, where is known to be great extremity of cold, beside a number of the like. So that it had been beside reason to have bound all to the necessity of both kinds.  
Now in very deed if we would grant to our adversaries, which in no wise we do not grant, that it hath been commanded of Christ, the lay people should communicate under both kinds, by these words: Drink ye all of this: yet this notwithstanding, the exact straightness of god's ordinance may without sin in cases be omitted, in such things which be not necessarily to be observed of themselves, or of the prescript of the law of nature: so that great and weighty causes (the rule of charity exactly observed) require the same. For evident proof of this, we have examples both of the old and also of the new testament. 
levit. 24.  Did not God command that none should eat of the shewebread, but the priests only? 
1. Reg. 21.  David eat thereof, and yet Christ cleareth him of all blame. 
Mar. 2.  The law of circuncision so straightly commanded, 
Genes. 17. & 34.  was for the space of forty years by the people of Israel quite omitted, whiles they passed from egypt to the land of promise, and God found no fault with them for it. God gave the law of keeping holy the Saboth day with out exception. 
Exod. 20. 1. Mach. 1.  The Machabés notwithstanding sticked not to arm them selves against Antiochus, and to spend that day in the field in their defence, having no scruple of conscience for breach of that law. Many the like examples we find in the old testament. But let us come to the new testament, and to the Sacraments of the time of grace. In due consideration of which, we may find, that Christ hath scarcely commanded any outward thing, the moderation, qualifying, and ordering whereof, he hath not left to his church, as according to the condition of the time, it hath been seen most expedient for the common preferment and edifying of the same. So that notwithstanding there be no swerving from the scope, and principal intent, and no creature defrauded of that good, which by the outward things is to be attained. Touching the Sacrament of baptism, though nothing be said of the teaching of them, that should be baptised, neither of the dipping of them in to the water, 
Matt. 28.  which Christ's charge in this behalf given, seemeth plainly to require, go you (sayeth he to his Apostles) and teach all nations, baptizing them etc: and yet the church hath not feared to baptize infants that be with out capacity of teaching, and for the due administration of this Sacrament, to many, hath thought pouring or sprinkling of water upon them sufficient: though this be not spoken of I say, it is much to be considered to this purpose, that the Apostles sticked not for a time to alter and change the very essential form of words, with which Christ would this sacrament to be ministered. For where as he commanded them to baptize in the name of the father, and of the son, 
Act. 8.  and of the holy ghost: th●y baptised in the name of jesus Christ only, intending thereby to make that to be of more fame and celebrity.  
So to return to the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, whereof we treat, no man can deny, but many things were at th'institution of it done by the example of Christ, and by him commanded, which now be not observed, and yet in that respect no fault is found. Christ washed the Apostles feet, and gave them an express commandment to do the same with these most plain words. If I that am your Master and lord, 
joan. 6.  have washed your feet, you also aught to wash one an others feet. For I have given you an example, that as I have done, you do so likewise. Which commandment of Christ according to the outward letter, verily bindeth no less, than these words: Drink ye all of this: yet this commandment is not kept, but clean grown out of use. Though it appear by Saint Bernard, 
In ser. de coena do.  who calleth it Magnum Sacramentum, a great Sacrament, and long before, by report of S. Cyprian, 
In serm. de unctione chrismatis.  that Christ did not only wash his Apostles feet, but commanded also by solemn request, and ordained that th'apostles afterward should do the same. Whether this ordinance of Christ hath been abolished, for that it should not be thought a rebaptisation, as it may be gathered of S. Augustine, 
Ad januarium. c. 18  or for any other cause, it forceth not greatly. But this is much to be marveled at, that this so earnestly commanded, is so quietly and with such silence suffered undone, and in the ministration of the Sacrament, the use of the cup so factiously and with so much crying out required. Neither in many other rites and ceremonies we do not as Christ did. Christ celebrated this sacrament after that he had supped, we do it in the morning, and fasting. Christ sat at the table with his twelve Apostles, neither sit we at a table, neither think we it necessary to observe such number. Christ broke the bread, we think it not necessary to break the host, that is to be delivered to the faithful participantes. Here is to be noted, that saint Cyprian rebuking them which thought sprinkling or pouring of water not to be sufficient for baptism, declareth, that the saraments be not to be esteemed according unto their extreme and rigorous observation or administration of all the extern elements: but rather according to the integrity and soundness of faith of the giver and of the receiver, and that divine things used in a compendious sort, confer and give nevertheless to the right believers their whole virtue. lib. 4. epist. 7. Many other commandments of God concerning outward things might here be rehearsed, which notwithstanding by little and little in the church have been omitted, as the forebearing of strangled things and blood: which was commanded by God in the old testament, and according to the pleasure and advise of the holy ghost, decreed by the Apostles in the new testament: yet for as much as concerneth outward things, both this, and many other the like, have in process of time grown out of observation, and have with out any scruple of conscience been abrogated.  
I trust no man will gather of that I have said here, that it is none offence to do against God's commandment. My meaning is far otherwise. Neither say I, that this saying of Christ in Matthew, Drink ye all of this, or that in John, Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you: or other commandments of Christ, be not to be kept: but this is that I say, and that every catholic man sayeth: that the universal church doth better understand, which are the commandments of Christ, and how they ought to be kept, then Berengarius, wickliff, Hus, Luther, Zuinglius, Caluine, Cranmare, Peter Martyr, or any their scholars, and followers, which now be sundry sects. As for example: God hath thus commanded, 
Matth. 5. Exod. 20.  thou shalt not swear, and, thou shalt not kill, and if thine eye cause the to offend, pull him out, and cast him away from the. Whereas certain sects of heretics, as namely they which be called Waldenses, and Picardi, by their construction hereof, have maintained opinion, that no oath ought to be given or made in no case or respect: like wise that in no case or respect a man may do an other to death, and also that after the outward letter of the gospel, sometime a man is bound to pull out his eye, and cast it from him: which thing hath been done by some of the Picardes, as it is reported, as though else God's commandment were not kept: this hath so been understanded by the catholic church, confessing nevertheless these to be gods commandments, as in time, in place, and in certain cases, a man might and ought without breach of commandment, both swear, and kill, and likewise keep his eye in his head, and therein offend God nothing at all. So the catholic church understandeth, Drink ye all of this, to be Christ's commandment, and of necessity to be observed, but of priests only, I mean of necessity, and that, when in the sacrifice of the church, is celebrated the memory of Christ's death, which in that degree be the successors of the Apostles, to whom that commandment was specially given, when they were consecrated priests of the new testament, who so did drink in deed, as S. Mark witnesseth: Et biberunt ex eo omnes. 
Mar. 14.  And they drank all of it. To these only, and to none other, the catholic church hath ever referred the necessity of that commandment.  if the necessity of it should pertain to all, and because Christ said, Drink ye all of this, if all of every state and condition of necessity ought to drink of the cup: how is it come to pass, that our adversaries themselves, (who pretend so straight a conscience herein) keep from it infants and young children, until they come to good years of discretion: specially where as the custom of the primitive church was, that they also should be partakers of this sacrament, as it may plainly be seen, in S. Dionyse, Cyprian, Augustine, Innocentius, Zosimus, and other ancient fathers? what better reason have they to keep the infants from the cup, than the anabaptists have, to keep them from their baptism? If they allege their impotency of remembering our lords death, the anabaptists will lihewise allege their impotency of receiving and understanding doctrine, that Christ's institution in this behalf seemeth to require.  
Thus th'adversaries of the church themselves do agnize, that the use of the cup in the Sacrament pertaineth not to all of necessity. So have they neither godly charity to join with the church, neither sufficient reason to impugn the church. And although herein we could be content, infants not to be spoken of, yet it may easily be proved, that the communion under both kinds, hath not ever been general. And as we do not condemn it, but confess it might be restored again by th'authority of the church lawfully assembled in a general council, upon mature deliberation before had, and a wholesome remedy against the inconveniences thereof provided: even so are we able to show good authority for the defence of the one kind, now used in the church. And because M. jewel beareth the world in hand, nothing can be brought for it of our side: some places I will allege here, that seem to me very evidently to prove, that the use of both kinds hath not always been thought necessary to all persons, and that the communion under one kind hath been practised and holden for good within the six hundred years after Christ, that he would so feign bind us unto.  

Proofs for communion under one kind  Here may be alleged first the example of our lord himself, out of the 24. chapter of S. Luke, which is spoken of before: where it is declared, that he gave the Sacrament to the two disciples at Emaus, under the form of bread only, which place ought to have the more weight of authority in a catholic man's judgement, because it is brought by the council of Constance, and also by the council of Basile, for proof of the communion under one kind. That it was the Sacrament, the ancient doctors do affirm it plainly, and the words conferred with the words of our lords supper, do agree: and that it is not needful of our own head to add thereto the administration of the cup, as our adversaries do by their figure synecdoche: it appeareth by that those two disciples declared to the twelve Apostles assembled together in jerusalem, how they knew our lord, in fractione panis, in breaking of the bread to them, which can not be taken for the wine. and as soon as they knew him in breaking of the bread, he vanished away from their sight, ere that he took the cup in to his hands, and blessed it, and gave it unto them, as it appeareth evidently enough to S. Augustine, to Bede, and to all other that be not wilfully opinative.  
Again what need is it to use violence in this scripture, and join unto it a patch of our own devise, by so simple a warrant of a figure, sith that according to the mind of the learned fathers, Christ gave here to the two disciples not a piece of the sacrament, but the whole Sacrament, as it is proved by th'effect of the same: and th'effect presupposeth the cause. For saint Augustine confesseth by that Sacrament of bread (so he calleth it. 
De consensu Euangelistarum. li. 3. ca 25. ) unitate corporis participata, removeri impedimentum inimici, ut Christus posset agnosci. that thereby they were made partakers of the unity of Christ's body, that is to say, made one body with Christ, and that all impediment or let of the enemy the devil, was taken away, so as Christ might be acknowledged. What more should they have gotten, if they had received the cup also?  
Here might be alleged the place of the Acts in the 2. chapter, where mention is made of the communion of breaking of the bread, the cup not spoken of, which the heretics called Waldenses, did confess, that it must be understanded of the Sacrament, in confession ad Vladislaun. and likewise the place of the twentieth chapter, and specially that of the seven and twentieth chapter of the Acts. Where Chrysostom and other fathers understand the bread that saint Paul in peril of shipwreck took, gave thanks over, brake, and eat, to be the holy Sacrament.  
It is not to be marveled at, albe it S. Paul delivered to the Corinthians the institution of our lords supper under hothe kinds, that yet upon occasion given, and when condition of time so required, he ministered the communion under one kind, sith that with out doubt he took that holy mystery under one kind, for the whole Sacrament, as we perceive by his words, 
2. Cor. 10.  where he sayeth, unus panis et unum corpus multi sumus omnes, qui de uno pane participamus. One bread and one body we being many are, all that do participate of one bread. Where he speaketh nothing of the cup. And likewise by his words, where he speaketh disiunctively, as the greek, and the true latin text hath, Quicunque manducaverit panem, 
1. Cor. 11.  vel biberit calicem domini indignê, reus erit corporis et sanguinis domini. Who so ever eateth the bread, or drinketh of the cup of our lord unworthily, he shall be guilty of the body and blood of our lord. Whereon dependeth an argument of the contrary, that who so ever either eateth this bread worthily, or drinketh this cup worthily, he eateth and drinketh righteousness and life.  
For this purpose we have a notable place in the hebrew gospel of S. Matthew, which S. Jerome sayeth, he saw in the library of Caesarea, and translated it. This place is cited by S. Jerome in his book de ecclesiasticis scriptoribus, in jacobo fratre domini. The words touching the communion, that S. Jerome rehearseth, agree thoroughly with those of S. Luke 24. chapter. Matthaeus sic refert. Dominus autem etc. Matthew reporteth thus. When our lord had given his shroud unto the bishops servant, he went to james, and appeared unto him: for james had made an oath, that he would not eat bread, from that hour he drank of the cup of our lord, until he saw him raised from the dead. It followeth a little after. Afferte ait dominus mensam, & panem. Statimque addit: Tulit panem, & benedixit, ac fregit, & dedit jacobo justo, & dixit ei: frater comede panem tuum, quia resurrexit filius hominis à dormientibus. Bring the table and set on bread quoth our lord, and by and by it is added: he took bread, and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to james the just, and said unto him: my brother eat thy bread, for the son of man is risen again from the dead. No man can doubt but this was the Sacrament. And wine was there none given, for any thing that may be gathered. For it is not likely that S. james had wine in his house then, for as much as Egesippus who was not long after him, witnesseth of him, that he never drank wine, but at our lords supper.  
But because perhaps our adversaries will cast some mist over these allegations, to darken the truth with their cloudy gloss, which be clear enough to quiet and sober wits, that give ear to the holy ghost speaking to us by the mowth of the church: I will bring forth such witnesses and proofs for this purpose out of ancient fathers, as by no reason or Sophistical shift, they shall be able to avoid. Many of the places that I alleged in the article before this for private communion, may serve to his purpose very well, and therefore, I will not let to recite some of them here also.  
Milciades that constant martyr of Christ, and bishop of Rome, ordained, that sundry hosts prepared by the consecrating of a bishop, should be sent abroad among the churches and parishes, that christian folk, who remained in the catholic faith, might not through heretics be defrauded of the holy Sacrament. Which can none other wise be taken, then for the form of bread only, because the wine can not conveniently be so carried abroad from place to place in small quantity for such use, much less any long time be kept with out corruption. The council of Nice decreed, 
Can. 14.  that in churches, where neither bishop nor priest were present, the deacons themselves bring forth and eat the holy communion. Which likewise can not be referred to the form of wine, for cause of souring and corruption, if it be long kept. Where oftentimes we find it recorded of the fathers, that christian people in time of persecution received of the priests at church in fine linen clothes the sacrament in sundry portions, to bear with them, and to receive it secretly in the morning before other meat, as their devotion served than: for the same cause, and in respects of other circumstances, it must of necessity be taken only for the kind or form of bread.  
The places of Tertullian, and saint Cyprian be known. 
Lib. 2. ad uxorem.  Tertullian writing to his wife, exhorteth her, not to mary again, specially to an infidel, if he die before her, for that if she do, she shall not be able at all times for her husband, to do as a christian woman ought to do. Will not thy husband know (sayeth he) what thou eatest secretly before all other meat? and in case he do know it, he will believe it to be bread, not him, who it is called-Saint Cyprian writeth in his sermon de lapsis, that when a woman had gone about with unworthy hands to open her coffer, where the holy thing of our lord was laid up, she was made afraid with fire that rose up from thence, as she durst not touch it. Which doubtless must be taken for that one kind of the Sacrament.  
The examples of keeping the holy Sacrament under the form of bread only, to be in a readiness for the sick, and for others in time of danger, that they might have their necessary victual of life, or voyage provision with them, at their departure hence, be in manner infinite. Here one or two may serve in stead of a number. For though M. jewel maketh his vaunt, that we have not one sentence or clause for proof of these articles, which he so defaceth with his negative: yet I will not accumulat this treatise with tedious allegation of authorities. S. Ambrose at the hour of death, received the communion under one kind, kept for that purpose, as it appeareth by this testimony of Paulinus, who wrote his life. And because it may be a good instruction to others to die well, I will here recite his words. At the same time as he departed from us to our lord, from about the eleventh hour of the day, until the hour that he gave up the ghost, stretching abroad his hands in manner of a cross, he prayed. We saw his lips move, but voice we heard none. Horatus a priest of the church of Vercelles, being gone up to bed, heard a voice three times of one calling him, and saying to him, arise, and haste thee, for he will depart hence by and by. Who going down, gave to the saint our lords body, which taken, and swallowed down, he gave up the ghost, having with him a good voyage provision, so as the soul being the better refreshed by the virtue of that meat, may now rejoice with the company of Angels, whose life he lead in the earth, and with the fellowship of Elias.  

Ecclesias. hist. lib. 6. cap. 44.  Dionysius Alexandrinus about the year of our lord 200. as Eusebius Caesariensis reciteth, manifestly declareth, how that an old man called Serapion, was houseled under one kind at his end. This Serapion after that he had lain speacheles three days, sent for the Sacrament. The priest for sickness not able to come himself, gave to the lad that came of that errant, a little of the sacrament, commanding him to wet it, and so being moisted to power it in to the oldes man's mowth. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  this much is expressed by the words there as the greek is to be construed. The lad being returned home, moisted with some liquor that divine meat, to serve the old man with all, lying now panting for desire to be dismissed hence, and to haste him away to heaven. and powered it in to his mowth. For that this old man's mowth and throat had long been dry by force of his sickness, the priest, who had experience in that case, providently gave warning, to moist the Sacrament with some liquor, and so together to power it in to his mowth. Which was so done by the lad, as Dionysius expresseth. Now if the form of wine had then also been brought, by the lad to be ministered, there had been no need of such circumstance, to procure the old man a moisture to swallow down that holy food.  
And that this was the manner of ministering the Sacrament to old men at their departing, it appeareth by record of Theodoritus, who writeth in his ecclesiastical story, how one Bassus an archepriest ministered unto an old man called Simeones of great f●me for his holiness. Bassus (sayeth he as he visited his churches, chanced upon holy Simeones that wonder of the world, lying sick, who through feebleness was not able to speak nor move. When Bassus saw he should die, he giveth him his rights before. But after what sort, it is to be marked. Spongia petita Simeoni os humectat, atque eluit, ac tum ei divinum obtulit Sacramentum. He calleth for a sponge (sayeth Theodoritus) and therewith moisteth and washeth Simeones mowth, and then giveth him the holy Sacrament. If at that time the receiving of the sacred cup had been in use, such procuring of moisture, for the better swallowing down of the Sacrament under the one kind, had been needles.  
Amphilochius that worthy bishop of Iconium in Lycaonia, of whom mention is made in the article afore this, writeth in the life of saint Basile, that a little before he gave up his ghost: he received a portion of the holy Sacrament, which long before he had willed to be kept, to the intent it might be put in his grave with him at his burial. Which no man can cavil to be any other, than the form of bread only.  
It hath been a custom in the latin church from th'apostles time to our days, that on good friday as well priests as other christian people, receive the Sacrament under the form of bread only, consecrated the day before, called the day of our lords supper, commonly Mand thursday, and that not without signification of a singular mystery. And this hath ever been judged a good and sufficient communion.  
And that in the greek church also even in the time of Chrysostom, the communion under the form of bread only, was used and allowed, it appeareth by this notable story of Sozomenus a greek writer. 
Historîae ecclesiast. lib. 8. ca 5. in graeco.  which because it is long, I will here rehearse it only in english, remitting the learned to the greek.  
When John otherwise named Chrysostom, governed the church of Constantinople very well, a certain man of the Macedonian heresy, had a wife of the same opinion. When this man had heard John in his sermon declare, how one ought to think of god, he praised his doctrine, and exhorted his wife to conform herself to the same judgement also. But when as she was lead by the talk of noble women, rather than by her husbands good advertisements, after that he saw council took no place: except, (quoth he) thou wilt bear me company in things touching god, thou shalt have no more to do with me, nor live any further with me. The woman hearing this, promising feignedly, that she would agree unto it, conferreth the matter with a woman servant that she had, whom she esteemed for trusty, and useth her help to deceive her husband. About the time of the mysteries, she holding fast that which she had received, stooped down, making resemblance to pray. Her servant standing by, giveth to her secretly that which she had brought with her in her hand. That, as she put her teeth to it, to bite it, hardeneth in to a stone. With that, the woman sore astonied, fearing leastsome evil should hap unto her, therefore, which came by the power of God: ran forthwith to the bishop, and bewraying herself, showeth him the stone, having yet in it the prints of her bit, representing a strange matter, and a wondrous colour: and so with tears of her eyes, besought forgiveness, promising her husband, she would consent and agree to him. If this seem to any incredible (sayeth Sozomenus) that stone is witness, which to this day is kept among the jewels of the church of Constantinople. By this story it is clear, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the Sacrament was then ministered under one kind only. For by receiving that one form, this woman would have persuaded her husband, that she had communicated with him, and with that holy bishop.  if both kinds had then been ministered, she should have practised some other shift, for the avoiding of the cup. Which had not been so easy.  
The place of S. Basiles epistles add Caesariam, can not be avoided by no shift nor sophistry of the gospelers. These be his words. All they which live the solitaire life in wilderness, where is no priest, keeping the communion at home, communicate themselves. And in Alexandria and in egypt, each one of the people for the most part hath the communion in his house.  
Here I might ask M. jewel how they could keep wine consecrated in small measures, as should serve for every man's housel a part, in those countries of extreme heat, specially in wilderness, where they had neither priest, nor deacon, as in that place S. Basile writeth. For lack of whom, they kept it in store a long time, that they might not be destitute of it, at need. Again here I might ask him, whether it was the form of bread only, or of wine also, which christian men and specially women, were wont devoutly to receive of the priests, 
Vide articulum priorem.  in their clean linen, or napkins, to bear home with them, taking great heed, that no fragments of it fell down on the ground, as both Origen, and also S. Augustine, do witness. I think he will confess, that linen cloth is not a very fit thing, to keep liquor in.  
Though I might bring a great number of other places for the use of one kind, which after the most common rule of the church, was the form of bread: yet here I will stay myself, putting the reader in mind, that the communion hath been ministered to some persons, under the form of wine only, and hath been taken for the whole Sacrament, specially to such, as for dryness of their throat, at their death, could not swallow it down, under the form of bread. 
Serm. 5. de lapsis.  Whereas it appeareth by S. Cyprian, and also by S. Augustine, that the sacrament was given to infants in their time, we find in S. Cyprian, that when a deacon offered the cup of our lords blood to a little maid child, which through default of the nurse, had tasted of the sacrifices that had been offered to devils: the child turned away her face by the instinct of the divine majesty (sayeth he) closed fast her lips, and refused the cup. but yet when the deacon had forced her to receive a little of the cup, the yeax and vomit followed, so as that sanctified drink in the blood of our lord, gowshed forth of the polluted boilles. If the Sacrament had been given to this infant under the form of bread before, she would have refused that no less, than she did the cup, that the deacon than would not have given her the cup. 
De consec. distinct. 4 can. 4. si qui apud illos haereticos.  And that this may seem the less to be wondered at, joannes Teutonicus that wrote scholies upon Gratian, witnesseth, that even in his time the custom was in some places, to give the Sacrament to infants, not by delivering to them the body of Christ, but by pouring the blood in to their mouths: which custom hath been upon good confyderation abrogated in the church of Rome, and kept in the greek church, as Lyre writeth upon S. Ihon.  
The fourth council of Carthago decreed, 
Can. 76.  if a man in sickness (who was enjoined public penance) do demand his housel, and ere he die fall in a frenzy, or become speacheles that the Sacrament be powered in to his mouth. To take this for the form of wine, we are moved by the decree of the eleventh council Toletane. Where it is said, 
Can. 11.  that the weak nature of man is wont at the point of death to be so far oppressed with drought, that it may be refreshed by no meats, uneath sustained with comfort of drink. Then it followeth. Which thing we see to be so, at departing of many, who being very desirous to receive their voyage provision of the holy communion, when the Sacrament was given them, have cast it up again: not that they did this through infidelity, but for that they were not able to swallow down the Sacrament delivered to them, but only a draft of our lords cup.  
How so ever this be taken, it is plain by this council, as by many other ancient councils and doctors, that the manner of the catholic church hath been, to minister the Sacrament to the sick, under one kind.  
Now where as some say, that the Sacrament to be given under the form of bread, was first dippeth in the blood of our lord, and would have so used now also for the sick, and that it is so to be taken for the whole and entire Sacrament, as though the Sacrament under form of bread were not of itself sufficient: let them understand, that this was an old error condemned above twelve hundred years past, by julius the first, that great defender of Athanasius. who hereof in an epistle to the bishops through egypt, 
De conse. distinct. 2. can. cum omne crimen.  wrote thus. Illud verò quod pro complemento communionis intinctam tradunt eucharistiam populis, nec hoc prolatum ex evangelio testimonium receperunt, ubi Apostolis corpus suum dominus commendavit & sanguinem. Seorsum enim panis, & seorsum calicis commendatio memoratur. Where as some deliver to the people the sacrament dippeth, for the full and whole communion, they have not received this testimony pronounced out of the gospel, where our lord gave his body and his blood. For the giving of the bread is recorded apart by itself, and the giving of the cup apart likewise by itself. And where as some afterward in the time of Vitellianus, would have brought in again this abrogated custom, it was in like manner condemned and abolished, in tertio Concilio Braccarensi. Can. 1.  
Now I refer me to the judgement of the reader, of what opinion so ever he be, whether for proof of the communion under one kind, we have any word, sentence, or clause at all, or no: and whether these words of M. jewel in his sermon, 
Fol. 16. in the end.  be true or no, where he sayeth thus: it was used through out the whole catholic church six hundred years after Christ's ascension, under both kinds, with out exception. That it was so used, yea six hundred years, and long after, we deny not: but that it was so always, and in every place used, and with out exception, that we deny. and upon what grounds we do it, let M. jewel himself be judge.  
If some of our allegations may be with violence wrested from our purpose, verily a great number of them can not, the authority of the ancient fathers, who wrote them, remaining inviolated. Where of it followeth, that after the judgement of these fathers, where as Christ instituted this blessed Sacrament, and commanded it to be celebrated, and received in remembrance of his death: he gave no necessary commandment, either for the one, or for both kinds, (beside and without the celebration of the Sacrifice) but left that to the determination of the church. Now that the church for th'avoiding of unreverence, periles, offences, and other weighty and important causes, hath decreed it in two general councils, to be received of the lay people under one kind only, we think it good with all humbleness to submit ourselves to the church herein: 
Matth. 18.  which church, Christ commandeth to be heard and obeyed, saying, he that heareth not the church, let him be to thee, as a heathen, and as a publican. In doing whereof we weigh advisedly with ourselves, the horrible danger that remaineth for them, who be authors of schism, and breakers of unity.  
Now for answer to M. jewels place alleged out of Gelasius, which is the chief that he and all other the adversaries of the church have to bring for their purpose in this point, this much may be said. First, 
Gelasius his canon guilefully by M. jewel alleged, truly examined.  that he allegeth Gelasius untruly, making him to sound in english otherwise, than he doth in latin. M. jewels words be these. Gelasius an old father of the Church and a bishop of Rome, sayeth that to minister the communion under one kind, is open sacrilege. But where sayeth Gelasius so? this is no sincere handling of the matter. And because he knew, the words of that father imported not so much: guilefully he reciteth them in latin, and doth not english them: which he would not have omitted, if they had so plainly made for his purpose. The words of Gelasius be these. Divisio unius eiusdemque mysterij, sine grandi sacrilegio non potest pervenire. The division of one and the same mystery, can not come with out great sacrilege. Of these words he can not conclude Gelasius to say, that to minister the communion under one kind, is open sacrilege.  
Gelasius rebuketh and abhorreth the division of that high mystery, which under one form, and under both, is unum idemque, one and the same, not one under the form of bread, and an other under the form of wine, not one in respect of the body, and an other in respect of the blood: but unum idemque, one and the self same. The words afore recited be taken out of a fragment of a Canon of Gelasius, which is thus, as we find in Gratian. 
De consecrat. distin. 2. can. comperimus.  Comperimus autem, quòd quidam sumpta tantum corporis sacri portione, à calice sacrati cuoris abstineant. Qui proculdubio (quoniam nescio qua superstitione docentur adstringi) aut integra sacramenta percipiant, aut ab integris arceantur: quia divisio unius eiusdemque mysterij, sine grandi sacrilegio non potest pervenire. Which may thus be englished. But we have found, that some having received only the portion where in is the holy body, abstain, from the cup of the sacred blood: who with out doubt (for as much as I know not with what superstition they be taught to be tied) either let them receive the whole Sacraments, or let them be kept from the whole: because the division of one and the same mystery, can not come without great sacrilege.  
Here might be said to M. jewel, show us the whole epistle of Gelasius, from whence this fragment is taken, that we may weigh the circumstance, and the causes why he wrote it, conferring that goeth before, and that followeth, and we will frame you a reasonable answer. But it is not extant. and therefore your argument in that respect, is of less force. But for avoiding of that, our adversaries would hereof conclude, it is to be understanded, that this canon speaketh against the heretics named Manichaei: who in the time of Leo the first, about forty years before Gelasius, went about to spread their heresy in Rome, and in the parties of Italy. Their heretical opinion was, that Christ took not our flesh and blood, but that he had a fantastical body, and died not, ne rose again truly and in deed, but by way of fantasy. And therefore at the communion, they abstained from the cup, and the better to cloak their heresy, came to receive the Sacrament in the form of bread with other catholic people. Against whom Leo sayeth thus. 
Serm. 4. de quadra gesima.  Abdicant enim se sacramento salutis nostrae, etc. They drive themselves away from the Sacrament of our salvation. And as they deny, that Christ our lord was borne in truth of our flesh, so they believe not that he died, and rose again truly. And for this cause, they condemn the day of our salvation and gladness (that is the sunnedaye) to be their sad fasting day. And where as to cloak their infidelity, they dare to be at our mysteries: they temper themselves so in the communion of the Sacraments, as in the mean time they may the more safely keep them privy. With unworthy mowth they receive Christ's body, but to drink the blood of our redemption, utterly they will none of it. Which thing we would advertise your holiness of, that both such men may be manifested by these tokens unto you, and also that they whose devilish simulation and feigning is found, being brought to light, and bewrayed of the fellowship of saints, may be thrust out of the church, by priestly authority. Thus far be Leo his words.  
Gelasius that succeeded forty years after Leo, employed no less diligence than he did, utterly to vanquish and abolish that horrible heresy. of whom Platina writeth, that he banished so many manichees, as were found at Rome, and there openly burned their books. And because this heresy should none else where take root and springe, he wrote an epistle to Mai●ricus and joannes two bishops, amongst other things warning them of the same. Out of which epistle, this fragment only is taken, whereby he doth both briefly show what the Manichees did for cloaking of their infidelity, as Leo sayeth: and also in as much as their opinion was, that Christ's body had not very blood, as being fantastical only, and therefore superstitiously abstained from the cup of that holy blood: giveth charge and commandment, that either forsaking their heresy they receive the whole Sacraments, to wit, under both kinds, or that they be kept from them wholly.  
Here the words of Leo afore mentioned, and this canon of Gelasius conferred together, specially the story of that time known: it may soon appear to any   

jewel.  Or that the people had their comen prayers then in a strange tongue, that they understood not. 
Of the Church Service in learned tongues, which the unlearned people in old time, in sundry places understood not.  
ARTICLE. III.  
IF you mean Master jewel by the people's common prayers, such as at that time they commonly made to God in private devotion: I think, they uttered them in that tongue, which they understood, and so do Christian people now for the most part. and it hath never been reproved by any catholic doctor. But if by the common prayers you mean the public Service of the church, whereof the most part hath been pronounced by the bishops, priests, deacons and other ecclesiastical ministers, the people to sundry parts of it saying Amen, or otherwise giving their assent: I grant, some understood the language thereof, and some understood it not, I mean, for the time you refer us unto, even of six hundred years after Christ's conversation here in earth. For about nine hundred years past, it is certain, the people in some countries had their Service in an unknown tongue, as it shall be proved of our own country of England.  
But to speak first of antiquity, and of the compass of your first six hundred years, it is evident by sundry ancient records both of doctors and of councils, specially of the council Laodicene in Phrygia Pacatiana, holden by the bishops of the lesser Asia, about the year of our lord. 364. that the Greek churches had solemn Service in due order and form, set forth with exact distinction of psalms and lessons, of hours, days, feasts and times of the year, of silence and open pronouncing, of giving the kiss of peace to the bishop, first by the priests, then by the lay people, of offering the Sacrifice, of the only ministers coming to the altar to receive the communion, with diverse other seemly observations.  
As for the Latin churches, they had their prayers and Service also, but in such fixed order, long after the Greeks. For Damasus the Pope first ordained, that psalms should be long in the church of Rome, alternatim, interchangeably, or by course, so as now we sing them in the quyere, and that in the end of every psalm, should be said, Gloria Patri & Filio & Spiritui sancto, sicut erat etc. Which he caused to be done, by counsel of S. Jerome, 
In rescripto Hieronymi ad 2. epist. Damasi Papae ad Hieronymum presbyterum.  that the faith of the 318. bishops of the Nicene council, might with like fellowship be declared in the mouths of the Latins. To whom Damasus wrote by Bonifacius the priest to jerusalem, that Hierom would send unto him psallentiam Graecorum, the manner of singing of the Greeks, so as he had learned the same, of Alexander the bishop in the East. In that epistle complaining of the simplicity of the Roman church, he sayeth, that there was in the Sunnedaye but one epistle of the Apostle, and one chapter of the Gospel rehearsed, and that there was no singing with the voice heard, nor the comeliness of hymns known among them.  
About the same time, S. Ambrose also took order for the Service of his church of Milan, and made holy hymns himself. 
Lib. Confessionun.  In whose time (as S. Augustine writeth) when justina the young Emperor Valentinians mother, for cause of her heresy, wherewith she was seduced by the Arianes, persecuted the catholic faith, and the people thereof occupied themselves in devout watches, more than before time, ready to die with their bishop in that quarrel: it was ordained, that hymns and psalms should be song in the church of Milan, after the manner of the east parties: that the good folk thereby might have some comfort and spiritual relief, in that lamentable state and continual sorrows. Thereof the churches of the West, forthwith took example, and in every country they followed the same. In his second book of Retractations, 
Cap. 11.  he showeth that in his time such manner of singing began to be received in Aphrica. Before this time had Hilarius also the bishop of Poiteer in France, made hymns for that purpose, of which S. Hierom maketh mention. 
In 2. prooemio commentariorum epist. ad Galat.   
Much might be alleged for proof of having Service in the Greek and in the Latin churches, long before the first six hundred years were expired, which is not denied. The thing that is denied by M. jewel, is this. That for the space of six hundred years after Christ, any Christian people had their Service or common prayers, in a tongue they understood not. Which they of his side bear the world in hand, to be a heinous error of the church, and a wicked deceit of the papists. And I say, as I said before, that the Service was then in a tongue, which some people understood, and some understood not. I mean, 
Usage of church service in any vulgar tongue with in 600. years after Christ, can not be proved.  the Greek tongue and the Latin tongue. For that it was with in the six hundred years in any other barbarous or vulgar tongue, I never read, neither I think M. jewel, nor any the best learned of his side, is able to prove. To be the better understanded, I call all tongues barbarous and vulgar, beside the Hebrew, Greek and Latin.  
The gospel and the faith of Christ, was preached and set forth in Syria and Arabia, by Paul, in egypt by Mark, in Ethiopia by Matthew, in Mesopotamia, Persia, Media, Bactra, Hyrcania, Parthia and Carmania, by Thomas, In Armenia the greater, by Barthelemew, in Scythia by Androw, and likewise in other countries, by Apostolic men, who were sent by the Apostles and their next successors, as in France, by Martialis sent by Peter, by Dionysius sent by Clement, by Crescens, as 
a Constitutionun apostolicarun li. 7. c. 46.  Clement and 
b Lib. de scriptori. ecclesiast.  Jerome writeth, and by Trophimus S. Paul's scholar, and by Nathanael Christ's disciple, of whom he at A relate, and this at Bourges and Treveres, preached the gospel, as some record. In our countries here of Britain, by Fugatius, Damianus, and others, sent by Eleutherius the Pope and Martyr, at the request of king Lucius, as Damasus writeth in Pontificali. 
Temporibus Antonini Comodi. anno do. 182  Other countries, where the Greek and Latin tongue was commonly known, I pass over of purpose. Now if M. jewel, or any of our learned adversaries, or any man living could show good evidence and proof, that the public Service of the church, was then in the Syriacall or Arabike, in the Egyptian, Ethiopian, Persiam, Armenian, Scythian, French or Britain tongue: then might they justly claim prescription against us in this Article, then might they charge us with the example of antiquity, then might they require us to yield to the manner and authority of the primitive church. But that doubtless can not appear. Which if any could show, it would make much for the Service to be had in the vulgar tongue.  
Wherefore M. jewel in his sermon, which he uttered in so solemn an audience, and hath set forth in print to the world, sayeth more than he is able to justify, 
Folio. 16.  where he speaketh generally thus. Before the people grew to corruption, (whereby he meaneth the first six hundred years after Christ) all christian men through out the world, made their common prayers, and had the holy communion in their own common and known tongue. This is soon spoken Sir, but it will not by you be so soon proved. In deed we find, that where as holy Ephrem deacon of the church of Edessa, wrote many things in the Syriacall tongue, he was of so worthy same and renome, 
Lib. de scriptori. ecclesiast.  that (as S. Jerome witnesseth) his writings were rehearsed in certain churches openly, post lectionem scripturarum, after the scriptures had been read. Whereof it appeareth to Erasmus, that nothing was wont then to be read in the churches, beside the writings of the Apostles, or at least of such men, as were of Apostolic authority. But by this place of S. Jerome, it seemeth not, that Ephrems works were used as a part of the common Service: but rather as homilies or exhortations to be read after the Service, which consisted in manner wholly of the scriptures. And whether they were turned in to greek or no so soon, it is uncertain.  
Neither S. Hieromes translation of the scriptures in to the dalmatical tongue (if any such was by him made at all) proveth, that the Service was then in that vulgar tongue. That labour may be thought, to have served to an other purpose. But of the translation of the scriptures into vulgar tongues, I shall speak hereafter, when I shall come to that peculiar Article. Verily the handling of this present and of that, hath most things common to both. Thus that the people of any country had the church Service in their vulgar and common tongue, beside the Greek and the Latin tongue, we leave as a matter stoutly affirmed by M. jewel, but faintly proved, yea nothing at all proved.  
Now concerning the two learned tongues, Greek and Latin, and first the Greek. That the Service was in the greek tongue, and used in the greek church, I grant. And to show what is meant by the Greek church, the learned do understand, all the christian people of that country, which properly is called Graecia, of Macedonia, Thracia, and of Asia the lesser, and the countries adjoining. The provinces that were allotted to the Patriarch of Alexandria in egypt, and to the patriarch of Antiochia in Syria, are of the old writers called sometime, by the name of the Oriental or East church, sometime, of the Greek church.  
This much by us both confessed M. jewel and agreed upon: I say, that if I can show, that the people of some countries of the Greek church, which all had their common prayers and Service in the Greek tongue, for the more part understood not the greek tongue, more than English men now understand the Latin tongue: then I have proved, that I promised to prove: that some peoples, I mean whole nations, understood not their Service, for that they had it in an unknown tongue.  
Now how well I am able to prove this, I refer it to your own consideration. The lesser Asia being a principal part of the greek church, 
All people of the Greek church understood not the greek service.  had then the Service in the greek tongue. But the people of sundry regions and countries of the lesser Asia than understood not the greek tongue: Ergo the people of sundry regions and countries had then their Service in an unknown tongue. The first proposition or mayor, is confessed as manifest, no learned man will deny it, and if any would, it may easily be proved. The second proposition or minor, may thus be proved. Strabo who travailed over all the countries of Asia, for perfit knowledge of the same, near about the time of S. Paul's peregrination there, who also was borne in the same: in his 14. book of geography writeth, that where as with in that Cherronesus, that is, the straight between sea and sea, there were syxten nations by report of Ephorus: of them all only three were greeks, all the rest barbarous. Likewise Plinius in the sixth book natural. histor. cap. 2. declareth, that with in the circuit of that land, were three greek nations only, Doors, jones, Aeolus', and that the rest were barbarous, amongst whom the people of Lycaonia was one, who in S. Paul's time spoke before Paul and Barnabas, 
Act. 14.  in the Lycaonical tongue.  
The scripture itself reporteth a diversity of language there, and thereabout, as it appeareth by the second chapter of the Acts. Where the jews gathered together in jerusalem for keeping of the feast of Pentecoste, wondering at the Apostles for their speaking with so many sundry tongues, amongs other provinces different in language, they reckon Pontus and Asia, Cappadocia, Phrygia and Pamphylia. Which two provinces are of all attributed unto the lesser Asia. Which maketh a good argument, that all Asia the lesser had not one only the greek tongue. and therefore so many of them as were of other language, having the Service in greek, had it in a tongue they understood not.  
They that will seem to search the cause why that land had so great diversity of languages, impute it to the often change of conquests, for that it was overcome and possessed of diverse nations: of which every one coveted with enlarging their Empire, to bring into the countries subdued, their laws, their customs, and their language. Now this being proved by good and sufficient authority, that in Asia, of xuj. nations three only were Greeks, it followeth, that the other thirteen having their Service in greek, had it not in their own, but in a strange tongue. For else if they had all naturally spoken greek, why should not they have been called greeks? Thus we see it is no new thing proceeding of a general corruption in the church, some peoples to have the Service in an unknown tongue.  
Here perhaps M. jewel, or some other for him, replieth and sayeth, that the people of Asia commonly beside their own proper language, spoke the greek tongue also, and allegeth for that purpose S. Jerome, 
In prooemio 2. lib. comment. epist. ad Galatas.  who, sayeth, Galatas, excepto Sermone Graeco, quo omnis Oriens loquitur, propriam linguam eandem habere, quam Treviros. That the Galathians, beside the greek language, which all the Orient or the East speaketh, have their own peculiar tongue, the very same, that they of Treveres have. Lo, sayeth this replier, S. Jerome affirmeth all the Orient to speak the greek tongue. Ergo the Service in greek to them was not strange and unknown.  
To this I answer S. Jerome meaneth, that some of all countries of the Orient or east, spoke greek, as the learned men, gentle men, merchants, all of liberal education, and such other, as had cause to travail those countries. To be short, it was with out doubt very common, as being their only learned tongue for all sciences, and the tongue that might best serve to travail with all from country to country with in the East, right so as the Latin tongue serveth to the like intentes, for all nations of the West. And he meaneth not that all and singular persons, of what degree or condition so ever they were, all uplandish people, tilers of the ground, herdsmen and women, spoke greek. For if it had been so, then had they not had peculiar and proper tongues. For it is not for their simple heads (for the most part) to bear a way two languages. In that S. Jerome calleth the Galathians tongue propriam linguam, a proper and peculiar tongue to that nation, he doth us to understand, the same to pertain to all in particular, that is, to every one of that province, and the greek, to all in general, in respect of other nations there, so as not of necessity it be understanded of every one.  
S. Augustine speaking of the title written by Pilate on the cross, sayeth thus. It was in Hebrew, 
Tracta. in joan. 117.  Greek, and Latin, Rex judaeorum. For these three tongues were there in pre-eminence before all other. Hebraea, propter judaeos in Dei lege gloriantes, Graeca, propter gentium Sapientes, Latina, propter Romanos multis ac penè omnibus iam tunc gentibus imperantes. The, Hebrew, for the jews, that gloried in the law of God, the greek, for the wise men of the gentiles, the Latin, for the Romans bearing rule at that time over many, and almost over all nations. Now where he sayeth here, that the greek tongue was in pre-eminence, propter gentium Sapientes, for the wise men of the gentiles: he discusseth fully the doubt, that might seem to rise of S. Hieromes saying, and showeth, that the greek tongue was common, not to all the vulgar people of the whole Orient, but to the wise men only, and that for the attaining of learning. And for this it is to be noted, that the scripture reporteth the vulgar tongue of the Lycaonians to have been uttered in hearing of Paul and Barnabas, not by the Magistrates, or other the chief, but by the vulgar people. Turbae levauerunt vocem suam Lycaonicè dicentes, etc. Act. 2. And so S. Jerome is to be understanded to speak in that place, not of all men of the nations of the East, but rather of a great number, and of some persons of all nations. For else if all the East had spoken greek, the soldiers that buried Gordianus the younger, Emperor, apud Circeium Castrum, at Circey castle, near to the land of Persie: would not have written his title of honour upon his sepulchre, in greek and latin, in the Persians, jews, and the Egyptians tongues, ut ab omnibus legeretur, that it might be read of all, 
In Gordij●.  as julius Capitolinus writeth. Which is an argument, that all the East spoke not ne understood not the greek tongue. As likewise that Epiphanius writeth, 
Lib. 2. haeresi. 66.  where he sayeth thus. Most of the Persians after the persical letters, use also the Syrianes letters. As with us many nations use the greek letters, yea where as in every nation in manner, they have letters of their own. And others some much esteem the most profownde tongue of the Syrians, and the tongue that is about Palmyra, both the tongue itself, and also the letters of the same. Books also have been written of Manes in the Syrianes tongue. Again if all the East had spoken greek, sundry the holy fathers would not have been so envious to the common weal of the church, as to hide their singular works from the reading of all, which they wrote in barbarous and vulgar tongues, to the commodity only of their brethren that understood the same. Antonius, that wrote seven notable epistles to diverse monasteries, 
Lib. de ecclesiast. script.  of apostolic sense and speech, as S. Jerome witnesseth, in the Egyptian tongue. Likewise holy Ephrem of Edessa, Bardesanes of Mesopotamia, who wrote very excellent works in the Syriacall tongue. Even so did Isaac of Antioch, and Samuel of Edessa priests, writ many goodly works against the enemies of the church, in the same tongue, as Gennadius recordeth.  
But what shall we speak of all the East? neither all the lesser Asia, and the countries there adjoining, spoke not greek one generation before the coming of Christ. For if all had spoken greek, Mithridates that renowned king of Pontus, had not needed to have learned two and twenty languages of so many nations he was king over, to make answer to suitors, to appoint them orders and laws, and in open audience to speak to them in so many languages with out an interpreter, as Pliny writeth. 
Natural. hist. lib. 7. cap. 24.  Here if these 22. nations of 22. sundry tongues, had also beside their own language spoken greek, and understanded the same: Pliny would not have uttered that word, sine interpret, without an interpreter. And likewise that king had taken vain labour in learning those tongues, where one might have served his turn.  
Near to this kings dominion in the shore of the sea Euxinus, in the land of Colchis, 
Li. 6. nat. hist. ca 5.  there stood a city named Dioscurias, so much haunted of strangers, that as Pliny writeth by record of Timosthenes, it was resorted unto of three hundred nations of distinct languages, and that the Romans for the better expedition of their affairs there, had at length lying in the same, cxxx. interpreters. Now if all the Orient had spoken greek, as S. Hieromes words seem to import: the Romans should not have needed to have maineteyned there to their great charges, so great a number of interpreters, to be their agentes there. But for proof that all the Orient spoke not greek, what need we allege profane writers? the known place of the Acts, maketh mention of sundry nations there, that had distinct languages, the Parthians, Medians, and Elamites etc. Act. 2.  
To conclude, they that to maintain their strange opinion of the universal understanding of the Service used of old time in the East Church, say and affirm, that all the Orient spoke greek: seem much to diminish the majesty, utility, and necessity of the miraculous gift of tongues, which the holy ghost gave in the primitive church, for the better furtherance of the gospel. For if all in those parties had spoken greek, the gift of tongues had been in that respect needles. Hitherto of the greek, and of the Service in that language.  
Now concerning the Latin tongue, which is the learned tongue of the West. That the Latin church, or the West church, for so it is called, had the Service in Latin, I grant. The chief Regions and countries of the Latin church, with in the foresaid six hundred years, were these. Italy, afric, Illyrike, both Pannonies, now called Hungary and Austria, Gallia, now France, and Spain. The countries of Germany, Pole, and Swethen, and those north parts, received the faith long sithence. The countries of Britain here had received the faith in most places, but were driven from the open profession of it again, by the cruel persecution of Diocletian the Emperor, at which persecution, S. Alban with many others, suffered martyrdom.  
After that these countries had been instructed in the faith, as things grew to perfection, they had their Service accordingly: no doubt such, as was used in the churches, from whence their first Apostles and preachers were sent. And because the first preachers of the faith came to these west parties from Rome, directed some from S. Peter, some from Clement, some others afterward from other bishops of that See Apostolic: they planted and set up in the countries by them converted, the Service of the church of Rome, or some other very like, and that in the Latin tongue only, for aught that can be showed to the contrary. Wherein I refer me only to the first six hundred years. Now that such Service was understanded of those peoples, that spoke and understood Latin, no man denieth. For to some nations that was a native and a mother tongue, as the greek was to the Grecians.  
M. jewel alleging for the having of the prayers and Service in a vulgar tongue (as for England in the English, for Ireland in the Irish, for doucheland in the Dutch tongue, etc) authorities and examples of the churches, where in the time of the primitive church the greek and Latin tongue was the usual and common tongue of the people: bringeth nothing for proof of that, which lieth in controversy. Arnobius (sayeth he) called the latin tongue, 
M. jewels allegatiō● soluted.  sermonem Italum. S. Ambrose in Milan, S. Augustine in afric, S. Gregory in Rome, preached in Latin, and the people understood them. What then? no man denieth you this. 
Hexaeme Rom. hom. 4  S. Basile also speaketh of a sound, which the men, women and children made in their prayers to God, like the sound of a wave striking the sea banks. What can you conclude of this necessarily M. jewel? All this may be understanded of the sounding that one word, Amen, answered at the prayers end, which is done now by the choir, and may be done by the people also in the lower part of the church. For S. Jerome leadeth us so to think. Who commending the devotion of the people of Rome, 
In 2. prooemio comment. ad Galatas.  sayeth in like manner. Vbi sic ad similitudinem coelestis tonitrui, amen reboat, & vacua idolorum templa quatiuntur? Where else are the churches and the sepulchres of Martyrs, with so fervent devotion, and with so great company resorted unto? (which words go before) Where doth Amen give so loud a sound, like the thunderclap out of the air, so as the temples empted of idols, shake with it, as at Rome?  
The people speaketh with the priest, at the mystical prayers, sayeth Chrysostom, alleged by M. jewel. What then? So was it long before, even in the Apostles time, 
Constitut. apostolicarun li. 8. cap. 16.  as we read in Clement, and likewise in S. Cyprian, in 
* In orationibus mystagogicis.  Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus, and many others, so is it now. For he shall find in the old fathers, that to Per omnia secula seculorum (which Chrysostom speaketh of) to Dominus vobiscum, so light as they make of it, to Sursum corda, and to Gratias agamus domino Deo nostro, the people answered, as now also they answer, Amen, & cum Spiritu tuo, hahemus ad dominum, dignum & justum est.  
As for the place he allegeth out of S. Augustine upon the psalms, it maketh nothing for his purpose. S. Augustine's words be these, other wise than he reporteth them. Quid hoc sit; intelligere debemus, 
In Psal 18 in expositione secunda.  ut humana ratione, non quasi avium voce cantemus. Name & merulae, & psittaci, & corui, & picae, & huiuscemodi volucres, saepè ab hominibus docentur sonare, quod nesciunt. Having prayed to God (sayeth S. August.) that he make us clean of our privy sins, etc. we ought to understand, what this is, that we may sing with man's reason, not with voice, as birds do. For owselles, popinjays, ravens, and pies, and such the like birds, oftentimes be taught of men to sound, they know not what. These words are to be taken of th'understanding of the sense, not of the tongue which the Service is song in. For the people of Hippo, where he was bishop, understood the latin tongue meanly. Which sense can not rightly and safely be attained of the common people, 
De ecclesiasticis diversis capitulis. Constitutione 123. Greg. Haloandro interpret. Name in veteri translatione nihil tale habetur.  but is better, and more wholesomely taught by the preaching of the learned bishops and priests.  
The commandment of justinian the Emperor, which M. jewel allegeth, that bishops and priests should celebrate the holy oblation or Sacrifice, which we call the Mass, not closely, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  but with utterance and sound of voice, that they might be heard of the people: maketh nothing for the Service to be had in the English tongue, in the church of England, or in any other vulgar tongue, in the church of any other nation: but requireth only of the bishops and priests open pronouncing, 
justinianes ordinance truly declared.  vocal not mental speaking, not whispering with the breath only in the celebration of the holy Sacrifice and other Service. Wherein he agreeth with S. Augustine, who in his book de Magistro, 
Cap. 1.  sayeth, that when we pray, there is no need of speaking, unless perhaps we do as priests do. Who when they pray (in public assemble) use speaking for cause of signifying their mind, that is, to show, that they pray, not to th'intent God, but men may hear, and with a certain consent through putting in mind (by sound of voice) may be lifted up unto God. This much S. Augustine there. And this is the right meaning of that Constitution. And thus he ordained for the greek church only, and thereto only it is to be referred, for that some thought the Sacrifice should be celebrated rather with silence, after the manner of the church of Rome, specially at the consecration. And as that constitution pertained to the Greeks, and not to the Latins, so was it not found in the Latin books, until Gregorius Haloander of Germany of late years translated the place. And where M. jewel allegeth this commandment of justinian against the having of the Service in a learned tongue, unknown to the common people: it is to be noted, how he demeaneth himself, not uprightly, but so as every man may thereby know a scholar of Luther, Caluine and Peter Martyr. For whereas by th'allegation of that ordinance, he might seem to bring somewhat, that maketh for the blessed Sacrifice of the church, commonly named the Mass, he dissembleth the word of the sacrifice, which justinian putteth expressly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, id est, divinam oblationem, the divine or holy oblation: and termeth it other wise, in his replies, by the name of common prayers, and in his Sermon, by the name of the words of the ministration, refusing the word of the church, no less, than he refuseth to be a member of the church. Thus through fooysting and cogging their die, and other false play, these new perilous teachers deceive many poor souls, and rob them of the sure simplicity of their faith.  
And where was this commandment given? In Constantinople the chief city of Grece, where the greek tongue was commonly known. That Emperor had dominion over some nations, that understood not the greek commonly. Yet no man can tell of any constitution, that ever he made for Service there to be had in their vulgar and barbarous tongue. So many nations having been converted to the faith, the common people whereof understood neither greek nor latin: if the having of the Service in their vulgar tongue, had been thought necessary to their salvation: the fathers that stickte not to bestow their blood for their flocks, would not have spared that small pain and travail, to put their Service in vulgar tongues. If it had been necessary, it had been done: if it had been done, it had been mentioned, by one or other. 
Psal. 104. Lib. 1 contra haeres. haeresi 39   
It appeareth by Arnobius upon the Psalms, by Epiphanius writing against heresies, and by S. Augustine in his books De Doctrina Christiana, that by account of th'antiquity, there were 72. tongues in the world. 
In Tuscul. q.  Cicero sayeth that they be in number infinite. Of them all, neither M. jewel, nor any one of his side, is able to show, that the public Service of the church in any nation, was ever for the space of six hundred years after Christ, in any other, then in greek and latin.  
For further answer to the authority of justinianes ordinance, we hold well with it. Good men think it meet, the Service be uttered now also, with a distinct and audible voice, that all sorts of people, specially so many as understand it, may the more be stirred to devotion, and thereby the rather be moved to say Amen, and give their assent to it, through their obedience and credit, they bear to the church, assuring themselves, the same to be good and helthfulll, and to the glory of God. And for that purpose, we have commonly seen the priest, when he sped him to say his service, to ring the Sawnce bell, and speak out a loud, Pater noster. By which token the people were commanded silence, reverence, and devotion.  
Now to say somewhat touching the common prayers or Service of the curches of Aphrica, where S, Augustine preached in Latin, as you say, and I deny not, and thereof you seem to conclude, that the common people of that country understood and spoke latin, as their vulgar tongue. That the African churches had their Service in Latin, it is evident by sundry places of S. Augustine, in his exposition of the Psalms, in his books De Doctrina Christiana, and in his sermons, and most plainly in an epistle that he wrote to S. Jerome, in which he showeth, that the people of a city in Aphrica was greatly moved and offended with their bishop, for that in reciting the scriptures for part of the service to them, he read out of the fourth chapter of jonas the Prophet, not cucurbita, after the old text, which they had been accustomed unto, but hedera, after the new translation of S. Jerome. 
All people of the latin church understood not the latin Service. Lib. 3.2. belli punici.  Now as I grant, that some understood it, so I have cause to doubt, whether some others understood it, or no. Nay rather I have great probability to tkinke, they understood it not. For the bewraying of Hannibal's Ambassadors to the Romans, by their punical language, whereof Titus Livius writeth: and likewise the conference betwixt Sylla the noble man of Rome, and Bocchus king of Numidia, had by mean of interpreters adhibited of both parties, as Saluste recordeth in bello jugurthino, declareth, that the tongue of Aphrica was the punical tongue before the Romans conquest. Now the same people remaining there until S. Augustine's time, what should move us to judge, that they forgot their own native and mother tongue, and learned a new the latin tongue? I confess that many understood and spoke latin, by reason of the Romans common resort thither, of their laws there executed, of their garnisons there abiding, and specially of the great multitude of latin people thither sent to inhabit, deductis colonijs, by August the Emperor first, then by Adrianus, and afterward by Comodus, who would have had the great city Carthago newly re-edified, to be called after his own name, Alexandria Comodiana, as Lampridius writeth. These Roman colonies, that is to wit, multitudes of people sent to inhabit the country, placed themselves about the sea costs, in the chief cities, in Carthago, Utica, Hippo, Leptis, etc. and thereabout. And by this means the Roman or Latin speech spread abroad there, and became to be very common, as that which remained still among the inhabitants, that were of the Roman kind, and was learned by long use and custom of others dwelling amongst them, specially in the cities, where the Romans bore the swea and government. For these considerations, I think the Latin tongue was there very common. But that it was common to the inward parties of the country also, and to the uplandishe people, amongst whom the old accustomed language is longest kept, as experience teacheth: it is not likely. For though the nobility and cities change their language, to be the more in estimation, yet the common and base people of the country, fall not so soon to a change. In this realm of England after William conquerors time, by occasion of great resorts of Frenchemen hither, and of our country men in to France, also of the French laws, and special favour by the princes borne, and preferments bestowed upon those that spoke French: the most part of the nobility, lawyeres, merchants, captains, soldiers and wealthy folk, had skill in the understanding and speaking of the French tongue, but yet the common and uplandish people spoke little or nought at all. Whereof grew this proverb in England of old time, lack would be a gentleman, but lack can no french. The like may be thought of the Latin tongue of Aphrica.  
What shall we think of the uplandish people there, when as Septimius Severus the Emperor, yea after the Apostles time, had not very good skill in the Latin tongue, but in the punical tongue, and that being borne at Leptis? of whom Aurelius Victor sayeth thus in Epitome. Latinis literis sufficienter instructus, Punica lingua promptior, quip genitus apud Leptim Provinciae Aphricae. Severus was learned in the latin letters sufficiently, but in the punical tongue he was readier, as being borne at Leptis, within the province of Aphrica. Here the Latin tongue is attributed to instruction and teaching, and the punical tongue to nature. Aelius Spartianus writing the life of this Severus to Diocletian, showeth, that when his sister a woman of Leptis, came to Rome to him, vix latinè loquens, her brother the Emperor was a shamed of her, and blushed at her, for that she could scantly speak Latin, and therefore commanded her a way home again to her country, for these be the very words of Spartianus. Now if such noble personages lacked the latin speech in the chief part of Aphrica, it is soon understanded, what is to be deemed of the common and vulgar people abroad in the country. Let us come down lowgher even to S. Hieromes tyme. S. Jerome writing to a noble young Roman virgin called Demetrias, being in Aphrica, exhorting her to keep herself in that holy state of virginity, sayeth thus. Vrbs tua quondam orbis caput, etc. Thy city once the head of the world, is become the sepulchre of the Roman people, and wilt thou take a banished husband, thyself being a banished woman, in the shore of Libya? what woman shalt thou have there, to bring thee too and fro? Stridor Punicae linguae procacia tibi fescennina cantabit. The jarring punical tongue shall sing thee bawdy songs at thy wedding. Lo, in S. Hieromes time they of Aphrica spoke the punical tongue, and that by the sea side, where the Romans of long time had made their abode. Of this may be gathered, that the latin speech was not in the farther parties within the country, very common.  
S. Augustine in sundry places of his works showeth, that the people of Aphrica called punikes, spoke the punical tongue, 
De verbis domini secundum Luc. Serm. 35.  acknowledging a likeness and coosynage, as it were, to be between that and the Hebrew tongue. But most evident witness for the punical tongue, is to be found in his 44. epistle ad Maximum Madaurensem. In which he answereth him soberly, for his scoffing and jesting at certain punical words, in derogation of the Christianes'. After wondering that he being an African borne, and writing to africans, should find fault with the punical names and words, and after commendation of the tongue, for that many things have right wisely been commended to memory by great learned men in books of the punical language: at length concluded against him thus. Poeniteat te certè ibi natum, ubi huiusmodi linguae cunabula recalent. In good forth thou mayest be sorry in thy heart, that thou were borne there, where the cradles of such a tongue, be warm again. By which words he seemeth to charge him with an unnatural grief and repenting, that he was borne in that country, where they speak punic, ere they creape out of their cradles. Whereby it appeareth, the mother tongue of those parties of Aphrica which he speaketh of, to be the punical, and not the latin. To conclude, if they had all spoken latin, and not some the punical tongue, S. Augustine would never have written, 
Lib. 1. de peccatorum meritis et remissione. ca 24.  Punici Christiani baptismum, salutem, Eucharistiam, vitam vocant: That those Christianes' which speak the punical tongue, call baptism in their language, health or Salvation, and the Eucharist, life. Wherefore we see that there were Latin Christian, and punical Christian in Aphrica, of whom all understood not the latin service.  
And whereas S. Augustine, as you allege him, without showing the place (as your manner is, whereby you may easily deceive the reader) hath these words in his sermons to the common people diverse times: Nunc loquar latinè, ut omnes intelligatis, now will I speak latin, that you may all understand me: of that saying, if any such be, may be gathered, that sometimes he spoke in the punical tongue to the punical Christian, not understanding the latin: but now among the Latin africans, that were of the Roman kind, and understood not the punic, he would speak latin, that all such should understand him.  
Who so desireth further to be persuaded, that the people of Aphrica called Poeni, spoke and understood their own punical tongue, and not the latin tongue, as likewise the people of spain, named Iberi, spoke that language which was proper to them: let him read Titus Livius de bello Macedonico. For there he recordeth, that when those of Aphrica, or of spain and the Romans came together for parley and talk: they used an interpreter.  
And Vlpianus the Lawyer a great officer about Alexander Severus the Emperor, at the beginning of Christian Religion, 
In l fideicommissa ff. d. leg. 3.  writeth, that fidei commissa may be left in all vulgar tongues. and putteth for examples, the punical and the French, or rather gallical tongue.  
This much or more might here be said of the language of the people of Gallia, now called France; which then was barbarous and vulgar, and not only latin, and yet had they of that nation their Service then in Latin: as all the West church had. That the common language of the people there was vulgar, the use of the latin serving for the learned, as we must needs judge: we have first, the authority of Titus Livius. 
Ab urbe condita. lib. 7.  Who writeth, that a Galloes', or as now we say, a French man of a notable stature, provoked a Roman to fight with him man for man, making his challenge by an Interpreter. Which had not been done, in case the latin tongue had been common to that nation: next, the place of Vlpianus before mentioned: Then, the record of Aelius Lampridius, who writeth, that a woman of the order of the Druids, 
In vita Alexandri Mamaeae.  cried out a loud to Alexander Severus Mammaea her son the Emperor, as he marched forward on a day with his army, gallico sermone, in the gallical tongue, these words, boding his death. which right so shortly after followed: Vadas, nec victoriam spears, ne militi tuo credas. Go thy way, and look not for the victory, trust not thy soldier. Lastly, the witness of S. Hierom, who having travailed over that region, and therefore being skilful of the whole state thereof; 
In prooemio 2. comment. ad Galatas.  acknowledgeth the people of Treveres and of that territory, to have a peculiar language, diverse from latin and greek.  
If all that I have brought here touching this matter, be well weighed, it will seem probable, I doubt not, that all sorts of people in Aphrica, understood not the Service, which they had in the latin tongue. And no less may be thought of Gallia and Spaigne. And so far it is proved against M. jewels stout assertion, that within his six hundred years after Christ, some Christian people had their common prayers and Service, in a tongue they understood not.  
And thus all his allegations brought for proof of his saying in this behalf, be answered, the place of S. Paul to the Corinthians excepted. Which ere I answer, I will according to my promise prove, 
The antiquity of the latin Service in the church of England.  that about nine hundred years past, yea a thousand also, and therefore some deal within his six hundred years, even in S. Gregory's time, the Service was in an unknown tongue in this land of England, then called Britain, and begun to be called England, at least for so much, as sithence, and at these days, is called by the name of England.  
Beda an English man, that wrote the ecclesiastical story of the English nation, in the year of our lord 731. and of their coming in to Britain, about 285. recordeth, that S. Augustine and his company, who were sent hither to convert the English people to the faith of Christ, which the Britons here had professed long before having a safe conduct granted the by king Ethelbert, to preach the gospel, where they would: said and sung their service in a church builded of old time in the honour of S. Martin, adjoining on the east side of the head city of Kent, whiles the Romans dwelled in Britain. The words of Beda be these. 
Lib. 1. hist. ecclesiast. cap 26.  In hac (ecclesia) convenire primo, psallere, orare, missas facere, praedicare & baptizare coeperunt. In this church they began first to assemble themselves together, to sing, to pray, to say Mass, to preach and to baptize. It is plain, that this was the Service. And no doubt they resorted to it, who believed and were of them baptised, wondering (as Bede sayeth) at the simplicity of their innocent life, and sweetness of their heavenly doctrine. In English it was not, for they had no skill of that tongue, as Bedo showeth, lib. 1. cap. 23. And therefore ere they entered the land, they took with them by commandment of S. Gregory, 
Lib. 1. c. 25.  interpreters out of france. Which interpreters served for open preaching and private instruction, exhortation and teaching. In singing and saying the Service, there was no use of them. Whereas S. Augustine, after that the English nation had received the faith, and he had been made archbishop over them, having found, the faith being one, diversity of customs in diverse churches, one manner of Masses in the holy Roman church, an other in that of France: for this and certain other purposes, sent two of his clergy, Laurence and Peter to Rome, to be advertised amongst other things, what order, manner and custom of Masses it liked S. Gregory, the churches of the English nation should have: hereunto that holy father answered, that what he espied either in the Roman or French, or any other church, that might be most acceptable to almighty god, he should choose out, and gather together, and commend the same to the church of England, there to be left in custom to continue. lib. 1. cap. 27. If it had then been thought necessary, the Service of the Mass to be in English, or if it had been translated in to the English tongue: it is not to be thought, that Bede, who declareth all things concerning matters of Religion so diligently, specially professing to write an ecclesiastical story, would have passed over that in silence. And if the Mass had been used in the English tongue, the monuments and books so much multiplied among the churches, would have remained in some place or other. And doubtless some mention would have been made of the time and causes of the leaving such kind of Service, and of beginning the new latin Service. As certain of S. Gregory's works turned in to English by Bede himself, have been kept, so as they remain to this day. S. Gregory himself is a witness of right good authority unto us, that this land of England, which he calleth Britain, in his time, that is almost a thousand years past: had the common prayers and Service in an unknown tongue, without doubt in Latin, much in like sort, as we have of old time had, till now. His words be these. Ecce (omnipotens dominus) penè cunctarum iam gentium corda penetravit, 
Expositionis in job li. 27. ca 6  ecce in una fide Orientis limitem Occidentisque coniunxit. Ecce lingua Britanniae, quae nil aliud noverat, quàm Barbarum frendere, iam dudum in divinis laudibus Hebraeum coepit Halleluia resonare. Behold our lord almighty hath now pierced the hearts almost of all nations. Behold he hath joined the borders of the East and the West in one faith together. Behold the tongue of Britain, that could nothing else but gnash barbarously, hath begun now of late in divine service to sound the Hebrew Halleluia.  
Bede in the end of his second book, showeth, that one james a deacon of the church of York, a very cunning man in song, soon after the faith had been spread abroad here, as the number of believers grew, began to be a master or teacher of singing in the church, after the manner of the Romans. The like he writeth of one Eddi surnamed Stephanus, that taught the people of Northumberland to sing the Service after the Roman manner, and of Putta a holy man, bishop of Rochester, commending him much for his great skill of singing in the church, after the use and manner of the Romans, which he had learned of the disciples of S. Gregory.  
These be testimonies plain and evident enough, that at the beginning the churches of England had their divine Service in Latin, and not in English. One place more I will recite out of Bede, most manifest of all other, for proof hereof. In the time of Agatho the Pope, there was a reverent man called john, Archicantor, that is chief chanter or singer of S. Peter's church at Rome, and Abbot of the monastery of S. Martin there. benedict an abbot of Britain, having builded a monastery at the mowth of the River Murus, (Bede so calleth it) sued to the Pope for confirmations, liberties, fraunchesies, privileges, etc. as in such case hath been accustomed. Among other things, he obtained this cunning chanter john, to come with him into Britain, to teach song.  
Because Bedes ecclesiastical story is not very common, I have thought good, here to recite his own words, thus englished. This Abbot benedict took with him the foresaid john, to bring him in to Britain, that he should teach in his monastery, the course of service for the whole year, so as it was done at S. Peter's in Rome. john did as he had commandment of the Pope, both in teaching the singing men of the said monastery the order and rite of singing and reading with utterance of their voice, and also of writing and pricking those things, that the compass of the whole year required, in the celebration and keeping of the holy days. Which be kept in the same monastery, till this day, and be copied out of many round about on every cost. Neither did that john teach the brethren of that monastery only, but also many other made all the means they could, to get him to other places, where they might have him to teach. This far Bede. I trow no man will think, that this Roman taught and wrote the order and manner of singing and pronouncing the Service of the churches of this land, in the English tongue.  
If it had been deemed of the learned and godly governors of Christian people then a necessary point to salvation, to have had the service in the english: no man had been so apt and fit to have translated it, as he, who in those days had by special grace of God, a singular gift to make songs and sonnets in english metre, to serve religion and devotion. His name was Cednom. 
Cednom.  of whom Bede writeth marvelous things. How he made diverse songs containing matter of the holy scripture, with such exceeding sweetness, and with such a grace, as many feeling their hearts compuncte and pricked with hearing and reading of them, withdrew themselves from the love of the world, and were enkendled with the desire of the heavenly life. Many sayeth Bede of th'english nation attempted after him to make religious and godly poetries, but none could do comparably to him. For he was not (sayeth he alluding to S. Paul's words) taught of men, 
Galat. 1.  neither by man, that art of making godly songs: but received from God that gift freely. And therefore he could make no wanton, trifling, or vain ditties, but only such, as pertained to godly Religion, and might seem to proceed of a head guided by the holy ghost. lib. 4. cap. 24. This divine poet Cednom, though he made many and sundry holy works, having their whole argument out of holy scripture, as Bede reporteth: yet never made he any piece of the Service to be used in the church. Thus the faith hath continued in this land among the English people, from the 14. year of the reign of Mauritius the Emperor, almost these thousand years, 
The first entry of the English Service.  and until the late king Edward's time, the English Service was never heard of, at least way never in the church of England by public authority received and used.  
Now touching the scripture by M. jewel, and by all them of that side alleged, for the Service to be had in the vulgar tongue. In the 14. chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians, S. Paul treateth of the use of tongues, so as it was in the primitive church a special gift. As the faithful folk came together to pray and to hear gods word, some one man suddenly stood up, and spoke in the congregation with tongues of many nations, Spiritu insusurrante, as Chrysostom sayeth, that is, by inspiration or prompting of the spirit, so, as neither others that were present, neither himself, after the opinion of Chrysostom, understood, what he said: That gift the Apostle did not forbid. For that every gift of God is good, and nothing by him done in vain: but dehorted the Corinthians from the vain and ambitious use of it, and therefore did much extenuate the same, and preferred prophesying, that is the gift to interpret and expound scriptures, far before it. It was not in the church, but in the Apostles time, or a very short while after them, and that all together by miracle, the holy ghost being the worker of it.  

The place of S. Paul to the Corinthians maketh not for the Service in the English tongue.  As concerning the order of the common prayers and public Service, in such sort as we have now, and that age had not: S. Paul mentioneth nothing, neither speaheth one word in that whole chapter, but of the use of the miraculous gift, as is said before. And therefore his sayings out of that chapter, be not fitly alleged of M. jewel and the rest of our adversaries, against the manner of prayers and Service of the church now received and of long time used, which in the West is uttered in the latin tongue, not by way of miracle or peculiar gift, but according to the institution and ordinance of the church. Profectò enim coelum Ecclesia tum fuit. 
In 1. Cor. 14. ho. 37.  In very deed sayeth Chrysostom, the church than was a heaven, when as the holy ghost administered all things, moderated all the heads of the church, caught each one with his inspiration. As for now, we keep but the steps only of those things. We speak two or three of us, and that a sunder, and one holding his peace, an other beginneth. But these be but signs only and memorials of things. And so when we have begun, (he meaneth Dominus vobiscum) & cum spiritu tuo, the people answereth: meaning to signify thereby, that so in old time they spoke, not of their own wisdom, but of the instinct of the spirit of God. This much Chrysostom of the heavenvly manner of the primitive church in the Apostles tyme. Now if in these days the manner were like, if it pleased the holy ghost to power upon us the like abundance of grace, as to do all things for us, to rule the heads of all faithful people, to carry each one of us with his divine inspiration, and when we came to church together for comfort and edifying, to give in to our hearts and put in to our mouths by daily miracle, what we should pray, and what we should preach, and how we should handle the scriptures: In this case no catholic christian man would allow the unfruitful speaking with strange and unknown tongues without interpretation, to the let and hindrance of god's word to be declared, and to the keeping of the people only in gazing and wondering, from saying Amen, and giving their assent to the godly blessing and thanks giving. But the order of the church now is far otherwise. We have not those miraculous gifts, and right well may we do with out them. For the speaking with tongues, was in stead of a sign or wonder, not to them that believed, but to the unbelievers. And signs be for the unfaithful, the faithful have no need of them. In churches, I mean where ancient order is kept, whiles the Service is song or said, the ministers do not speak with tongues, or with a tongue, in such sort as S. Paul understood: but they do read and rehearse things set forth and appointed to them. S. Paul rebuketh them, who speaking with tongues, letted the preachers, so as the people present might not be edified. The Latin Service is not so done in the church, as the exposition of the scriptures be thereby excluded. In the Apostles time, they came to church, to th'intent they might profitably exercise the gifts God gave them, and by the same, specially by the gift of prophesying, edify one an other, and teach one an other. Now adays they come not to church together one to teach an other, and to expound the scriptures in common: but to pray, and to hear the opening of God's word, not one of an other with out order, but of some one, to wit, the bishop, priest, curate, or other spiritual governor and teacher. And for as much as all the people can not hear the priests prayers at th'altar (which hath from the Apostles time hitherto ever been a place to celebrate the holy oblation at) turning himself for the most part to the East, according to Apostolic tradition, in what tongue so ever they be uttered, for distance of the place they remain in: it is no inconvenience, such admitted in to the choir, as have better understanding of that is said or sung: that the rest remain in seemly wise in the neither part of the church, and there make their humble prayers to God, by themselves in silence, in that language, they best understand, conforming them selves to the priests blessing and thanks giving through faith and obedience with their brethren in the choir, and giving assent to the same, understanding some good part of that is done, as declared by often preaching, and by holy outward ceremonies, perceivable to the senses of the simplest.  

Fol. 15.  Where as you M. jewel allege S. Paul for your purpose, and make him to say thus, otherwise than he wrote: 
1. Cor. 14.  If thou make thy prayer in the congregation with thy Spirit or noise of strange words, how shall the unlearned man thereunto say amen? for he knoweth not what thou sayest: you bombast this text with your own counterfeit stuffing. The translation authorized by king Edward and his counsel, is truer, and followeth the greek nearer, which hath thus. When thou blessest with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned, say amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he undestandeth not, what thou sayest? Here the Apostle saint Paul speaketh of blessing or thanks giving with the spirit, which spirit what it is, it is not easy to declare, after the judgement of your own patriarch john Caluine. Saint Ambrose taketh it for the spirit we have received in baptism, that doth incline and move us to prayer. S. Thomas for the holy ghost given to us, for reason, and for the power imaginative. Erasmus for the voice itself. Isidorus Clarius for the power of pronouncing or utterance. some for the breath that passeth the throat, some for the intention, S. Augustine very subtilely, pro apprehensione quae ideas concipit & signa rerum. Caluine in his Institutions, De Oratione cap. 15. for the sound of the mowth, that is caused of the breath of a man's throat and rebownding of the air. Chrysostom for the spiritual gift, or the gift of the holy ghost to speak with tongues. Which Caluine himself sitting in judgement as it were upon this doubtful matter, alloweth best, and condemneth the mind of all others, and also his own, though unwares, as it seemeth and so he would condemn your noise of strange words likewise, if he heard it. This text being so doubtful of itself in sense, so put out of tune by your noise of strange words, wherewith you descant upon the word Spirit, so violently applied by your new fangled exposition, maketh little to the condemnation of the latin Service in the latin church: specially seeing that S. Paul meaneth by that miraculous speaking with tongues, used or rather abused among the Corinthians, a far different manner of speaking from that speaking, whereby the priest uttereth the common Service.  
The priest (I grant) saying his Service to his parish, speaketh with a tongue, but such manner of speaking is not that, which S. Paul meant. For the priest understandeth it for the better part, if he be learned, and the people be not utterly ignorant, because of often preaching, long custom, solemn feasts and sundry ceremonies. And therefore your argument gathered out of that text, concludeth nothing against having the Service in the learned latin tongue not perfitly understanded of the unlearned people.  
Verily if you admit the exact judgement of S. Augustine concerning this place of S. Paul, 
vide Aug. lib. 12. de Genesi ad literam. c. 7. 8. & 9 to. 3  then must you seek for other scriptures and proofs of your English Service. For as he discusseth this point learnedly, by the tongue S. Paul meaneth not the Latin, Greek, or Hebrew among the unlearned people, or any other alien or strange tongue: but only, and that by way of metaphor, any manner of utterance, whereby the signs of things are pronounced, before they be understanded. And by the Spirit, he understandeth not a noise of strange words, after your strange interpretation, but, as it is here in a certain proper and peculiar manner taken, a power of the soul inferior to the mind, which conceiveth the similitudes of things, and understandeth them not. And things so uttered, be uttered with the tongue and spirit, whether it be in English or Latin, or any other language.  
And Sir, although the people understand not in most exact wise, what the priest sayeth in the Latin service, yet have they commodity and profit thereby, so far as it pleaseth God to accept the common prayer of the church, pronounced by the priest for them.  
But S. Paul (say they) requireth that the people give assent, and conform themselves unto the priest, by answering Amen to his prayer made in the congregation. Verily in the Primitive church this was necessary, when the faith was a learning. And therefore the prayers were made then in a common tongue known to the people, for cause of their further instruction who being of late converted to the faith, and of paynims made christians, had need in all things to be taught. But after that the faithful people was multiplied and increased in great numbers, and had been so well instructed in all points of Religion, as by their own accord they conformed themselves to the ministers at the common prayers: in the Latin church the Service was set out in Latin, and it was thought sufficient, part of the people in the choir, to answer for the whole people. And this hath been esteemed for a more expedite and convenient order, then if it were in the vulgar tongue of every nation.  
I grant they can not say Amen to the blessing or thanksgiving of the priest, so well as if they understood the Latin tongue perfitly. Yet they give assent to it, and ratify it in their hearts, and do conform themselves unto the priest, though not in special, yet in general: that is to wit, though not in every particular sentence of praise and thanksgiving, or in every several petition, yet in the whole. For if they come to church with a right and good intent, as the simple do, no less than the learned: their desire is to render unto god glory, praise and honour, and to thank him for benefits received, and with all, to obtain of him things beautiful for them in this life, and in the life to come. And without doubt this godly affection of their minds, is so acceptable to God, as no understanding of words may be compared with it. This requisite assent and conforming of themselves to the priest, they declare by sundry outward tokens and gestures: as by standing up at the gospel and at the preface of the Mass, by bowing themselves down and adoring at the Sacrament, by kneeling at other times, as when pardon and mercy is humbly asked, and by other like signs of devotion, in other parts of the Service.  
And whereas S. Paul seemeth to disallow praying with tongues in the common assemble, because of want of edifying, and to esteem the utterance of five words or sentences with understanding of his meaning, that the rest might be instructed thereby, more than ten thousand words in a strange and unknown tongue: all this is to be referred to the state of that time, which was much unlike the state of the church we be now in. The tongue of the prayers which S. Paul speaketh of, was utterly strange and unknown, and served for a sign to the unbelievers. The latin tongue in the latin church is not all together strange and unknown. For beside the priest, in most places some of the rest have understanding of it, more or less, and now we have no need of any such sign. They needed instruction: we be not ignorant of the chief points of Religion. They were to be taught in all things: we come not to church specially and chief to be thought at the Service, but to pray, and to be taught by preaching. Their prayer was not vaileable for lack of faith, and therefore was it to be made in the vulgar tongue, for increase of faith. Our faith will stand us in better stead, if we give ourselves to devout prayer. They for lack of faith, had need of interpretation, both in prayers, and also in preaching, and all other spiritual exercises. We having sufficient instruction in the necessary rudiments of our faith, for the rest, have more need by earnest and fervent prayer, to make suit unto God, for an upright pure and holy life, then to spend much time in hearing for knowledge. Concerning which thing, Chrysostom hath this saying. Profectò si orare cum diligentia insuescas, 
Contrà Anomaeo● homil. 3.  nihil est quòd doctrinam tui conserui desideres, quum ipse Deus sine vllo interpret mentem abundè luce asficiat. Verily if thou use to pray diligently, there is nothing, why thou shouldest desire teaching of thy fellow servant, seeing God himself doth abundantly lighten thy mind without any interpreter.  
I would not here that any man should lay to my charge the defence of ignorance, as though I envy the people any godly knowledge. I wish them to have all heavenly knowledge, and to be ignorant of nothing necessary to their Salvation. Yea even with my very heart I wish with Moses. 
Num. 11.  Quis tribunt ut omnis populus prophetet, & det dominus illis spiritum suum! O that all the people could prophecy, and were learned in gods holy word, and that our lord would give them his spirit! But all the common people to understand the priest at the Service, I think wise ad godly men judge it not a thing so necessary, as for the which the ancient order of the church with no little offence, public and universal authority not consulted, should be condemned, broken, and quite abrogated by private advise of a few.  
If default were in this befalse justly found, it is known, to whom the redress pertaineth. Concerning the state of Religion, in all ages the general Council representing the universal church, for all sores hath ordained wholesome remedies. Where they be not heard, 
Luc. 10.  of whom Christ said, He that heareth you, heareth me, and he that despiseth you, despiseth me: it is to be feared, that concerning the service, the new learned boldness is not so acceptable to God, as the old simple humility. It were good the people having humble and reverent hearts, understood the Service, I deny not. Yet all standeth not in understanding. S. Augustine sayeth notably, 
Contrà Manichaeos'. epist. Fundamenti. cap. 4.  turbam non intelligendi vivacitas, sed credendi simplicitas, tutissimam facit. That as for the common people, it is not the quiknesse of understanding, but the simplicity of believing, that maketh them safest of all. And in an other place, 
Ad Enodium epist. 102.  Si propter eos solos Christus mortuus est, qui certa intelligentia possunt ista discernere, penè frustrà in Ecclesia laboramus. If Christ (sayeth he) died only for them which can with certain or sure understanding discern these things (concerning God) then is the labour we take in the church, in manner in vain. God requireth not so much of us, how much we understand, as how much we believe, and through belief, how much we love. And when we shall all appear before Christ in that dreadful day of judgement, when shall not be required to give an account of our understanding, but faith presupposed, of our charity.  
Now though the people know not the Latin tongue, and albeit it were better, 
The benefit of prayer uttered in a tongue not understanded.  they had the Service in their own vulgar tongue, for the better understanding of it: yet as it is, for as much as it consists in manner all together of the scriptures, that great profit cometh both to the reader and to the hearer of it: Origen showeth at large, in the twentieth homily upon joshua. Because it were over long to bring all that he sayeth there to this purpose, the sum of the whole may thus be abridged.  
First that the heavenly powers and angels of God, which be with us, have great liking in our utterance of the words of the scripture. Though we understand not the words we utter with our mowth, yet those powers (sayeth he) understand them, and thereby be invited, and that with delight, to help us. And speaking of the powers that be within us, to whom charge of our souls and bodies is committed, he sayeth, that if the scriptures be read of us, they have pleasure therein, and be made the stronger toward taking heed to us, yea and that if we speak with tongues, and our spirit pray, and our sense be with out fruit. And there he allegeth to that purpose, the common place of S. Paul to the Corinthians, calling it marvelous, and in manner a mystery, showing how the spirit prayeth, the sense being with out fruit. After this he declareth the evil powers and our ghostly enemies the devil, by our reading and hearing of the scriptures, to be driven from us. As by enchauntements sayeth he, snakes be stayed from doing hurt with their venom, so if there be in us any serpent of contrary power, or if any snake wait privily to mischief us: by virtue of the holy scripture rehearsed (so that for weariness thou turn not away thy hearing) he is put away. S. Augustine confirmeth the same doctrine, where he sayeth, 
In prologo Psalmorum.  psalmus daemones fugat, angelos in adiutorium invitat. The psalm (read devoutly or heard) putteth devils to flight, and provoketh angels to help. At length Origen showing how by meat or drink we find remedy for sore eyes, though we feel no benefit forthwith in eating or drinking (he concludeth his special part of the comparison with these words): In this wise we must believe also of the holy scripture, that it is profitable, and doth good to the soul, etiamsi sensus noster ad praesens intelligentiam non capit, although presently our sense do not attain the meaning or understanding, because our good powers by these words be refreshed and fed, and the contrary, that is, our adversary powers, are weakened and put to flight. At length making objection to himself on the behalf of his hearers, as though they should lay this doctrine to his charge for excuse of taking further pains in preaching and expounding the scriptures to them: thereto he answereth and sayeth. No no, we have not said these to you for that cause, neither have we uttered these things to you for excuse, but to show you, in Scriptures sanctis esse vim quandam, quae legenti etiam sine explanatione sufficiat: that in the holy scriptures there is a certain power or strength, which is sufficient for one that readeth it, yea without any expounding of it. This sufficiency he referreth (I think) to the procuring of the good powers to help us, and to the driving away the malice of the evil powers our ghostly enemies, that they hurt us not.  
I trust wise godly and steadfast men, who be not carried about with every wind of doctrine, will be moved more with the authority of Origen, a man always in the judgement of all the christian world accounted most excellently learned, them with the scorning of Caluine, who speaking of the ancient latin Service used in England and France, sayeth: 
In Institutionib.  ad Ecclesiam ex sono non intellecto, nullus penitus fructus redit: that of the sound not understanded no fruit at all returneth to the church: using that word of despite, that might better be spoken by a minstrel of his pipe and taburrette, then by a preacher, of the divine Service. Neither hereof with any milder spirit speaketh his disciple and subminister Theodore Beza, the hot minister of the deformed churches of France. 
Confessionis. ca 4. Sectione. 16  Quaecunque preces ab aliquo concipiuntur eo idiomate, quod ipse non intelligat, pro Dei ludibrio sunt habendae. What prayers so ever be made (sayeth he) of any man in a tongue that he understandeth not, they be to be taken for a mockery of God. Who so ever here alloweth Caluine and Beza condemned of the church, must condemn Origen, for this point never reproved nor touched of any, that have not spared him, where so ever they could charge him with any error. If all prayers made in an unknown tongue be a mocking of God, as Beza sayeth: then were the prayers uttered by miracle in the primitive church with tongues (which the utterers themselves understood not, after the mind of Chrysostom) a mocking of god: for I see nothing, whereby they are excluded from his general saying and universal proposition. Verily this teaching of Beza is not sound. I ween, if he were out of the protection of his deformed churches, and convented before a catholic bishop to give an account of this doctrine, he would step back and revoke that rash saying again. For else he should seem to grant, that God gave at the beginning of the church, the gift of tongues to be mokte withal, which were very absurd and blasphemous. S. Paul wisheth that all the Corinthians spoke with tongues, but rather that they prophesied.  
If our new masters condemn the Latin Service in the Latin church, for that the people understand it not, thereof must it follow, that the English service, so much of it as consisteth of david's psalms, which is the most part, be also condemned. The like may besayde of other nations. For how many shall we find not of the people only, but also of the best learned men, that understand the meaning of them, in what tongue so ever they be set forth? S. Hilary compareth the book of psalms to a heap of keys, 
Praesat. in Psalmos.  that be to open the doors of every house of a great city, laid together. Among whom it is hard to find, which key serveth which lock, and without the right key, no door can be opened. S. Augustine likeneth the people of Aphrica singing the Psalms which they understood not, to owselles, popinjays, ravens, pies, and such other birds, which be taught to sound, they know not what, and yet they understood the tongue they sang them in. And therefore he exhorteth them to learn the meaning of them at his preaching, lest they should sing not with humane reason, (as is before recited) but with voice only, as birds do.  
The rest of the scriptures whereof the Service consisteth, is, though not all together so obscure as the psalms, yet verily darker and harder, then that the common people's gross and simple wits may pierce the understanding of it, by hearing the same pronounced of the minister in their mother tongue. And by this reason we should have no Service at all gathered out of the scriptures, for default of understanding. And whereas of the Service in the vulgar tongue, the people will frame lewd and perverse meanings of their own lewd senses: So of the Latin Service, they will make no constructions either of false doctrine, or of evil life. And as the vulgar Service pulleth their minds from private devotion to hear, and not to pray, to little benefit of knowledge, for the obscurity of it: so the latin giving them no such motion, they occupy themselves, whiles the priest prayeth for all, and in the person of all, in their private prayers, all for all, and every one for himself.  

Such nations as use church Service in their own tongue, continue in schisms. In epistola ad graecos.  The nations that have ever had their Service in their vulgar tongue, the people thereof have continued in schisms, errors, and certain judaical observances, so, as they have not been reckoned in the number of the catholic church. As the Christians of Moschovia, of Armenia, of Prester john his land in Ethiopia. Bessarion ask by way of a question, of the Greeks his country men, what church that is, against the which hell gates shall never prevail: answereth himself, and sayeth: Aut Latina, aut Greca est Ecclesia, tertia enim dari non potest. Siquidem aliae omnes haeresibus sunt plenae, quas sancti patres & generales Synodi condemnarunt. Either it is the Latin, or the Greek church, for there is no third, that can be granted. For all other churches be full of heresies, which the holy fathers and general councils, have condemned. Wherefore of these churches no example ought to be taken for Service in the vulgar tongue, as neither of the churches of Russia and Moravia, and certain other, to whom above six hundred years past, it was granted, to have the Mass in the slavons tongue, through special licence thereto obtained of the See Apostolic, by Cyrullus and Methodius, that first converted them to the faith. Which manner of service, so many of them as be catholic, for good causes have left, and use the Latin, as other Latin churches do. Concerning the rest yet keeping their Slavon tongue, beside other errors and defaults, for which they are not herein to be esteemed worthy to be followed: we may say of them, the words of Gregory Nazianzene. Privilegia paucorum, non faciunt legem communem: The privileges of a few, make not a thing lawful in common.  
Wherefore to conclude, seeing in six hundred years after Christ, the Service of the church was not in any other, then in the Greek and Latin tongue, for that any man is able to show by good ptoufe, and the same not understanded of all people: seeing the authorities by M. jewel alleged, import no necessary argument nor direct commandment of the vulgar tongue, but only of plain and open pronouncing, and that where the tongue of the Service was understanded: seeing the church of the English nation had their Service in the Latin tongue to them unknown, well near a thousand years past: seeing the place of S. Paul to the Corinthians either pertaineth not to this purpose, or if it be so granted, for the diversity of states of that and of this our time, it permitteth a diversity of observation in this behalf, though some likeness and resemblance yet reserved: seeing great profit cometh to the faithful people having it so as they understand it not: Finally seeing the examples rehearsed herein to be followed, be of small authority, in respect either of antiquity, or of true Religion: As the bold assertion of M. jewel is plainly disproved, so the old order of the Latin Service in the Latin church, whereof England is a province, is not rashly to be condemned: specially whereas being first committed to the churches by the Apostles of our country, and the first preachers of the faith here, it hath been authorized by continuance almost of a thousand years without control or gaynesaying, to the glory of God, the wealth of the people, and procuring of help from heaven, always to this land.  
And to add hereunto this much last of all, though it might be granted, that it were good, the Service were in the vulgar tongue, as in English for our country of England: yet doubtless good men and zealous keepers of the catholic faith, will never allow the Service devised in king Edward's time now restored again, not so much for the tongue it is in, as for the order itself and disposition of it, lacking some things necessary, and having some other things repugnant to the faith and custom of the catholic church.   
Or that the bishop of Rome was then called an universal bishop, or the head of the universal church. 
Of the Pope's Primacy.  
ARTICLE 4.  
BY what name so ever the bishop of Rome was called within six hundred years after Christ's ascension, this is clear, that his Primacy, that is to say, supreme power and authority over and above all bishops, and chief government of all Christ's flock, in matters pertaining to faith and Christian religion, was then acknowledged and confessed. Which thing being so, whether then he were called by either of those names, that you deny, or no: it is not of great importance. And yet for the one of them somewhat, and for the other, an infinite number of good authorities may be alleged. But thereof hereafter.  
Now concerning the chief point of this article, which is the Primacy of the Pope, Peter's successor. First, it hath been set up and ordained by God, so as it standeth in force jure divino, by god's law, and not only by man's law, the scriptures leading thereto. next, commended to the world, by decrees of councils, and confirmed by edicts of Christian emperors, for avoiding of schisms. Furthermore, confessed and witnessed by the holy fathers. Again, found to be necessary, by reason. Finally, used and declared by the event of things, and practise of the church. For proof of all this, so much might easily be said, as should serve to a whole volume. But In this treatise seeking to avoid prolixity, having purposed to say somewhat to this number of the other Articles, and knowing this matter of the Primacy to be already largely and learnedly handled of others: will but trip as it were lightly over at this time, and not set my fast footing in the deep debating and treating of it.  

The Pope's Primacy not of Man, but of god's ordinance. The first proof of the Pope's primacy, scripture expounded Matth. 16.  First, as concerning the right of the Pope's primacy by god's law, by these ancient authorities it hath been avouched. Anacletus that holy bishop and martyr S. Peter's scholar, and of him consecrated priest, in his epistle to the bishops of Italy, writeth thus. In novo testamento post Christum, etc. In the new testament the order of priests began after our lord Christ, of Peter, because to him bishopric was first given in the church of Christ, where as our lord said unto him. Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and unto thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Wherefore this Peter received of our lord first of all, power to bind and to louse, and first of all, he brought people to the faith, by virtue of his preaching. As for the other Apostles, they received honour and power in like fellowship with him, and willed him to be their prince, or chief governor.  
In an other epistle to all bishops, alleging the same text, for the Primacy of the See of Rome, speaking of the disposition of churches committed to patriarchs and Primates, saith thus most plainly. This holy ad Apostolic church of Rome, hath obtained the Primacy, not of the Apostles, but of our lord Saviour himself, and hath gotten the pre-eminence of power over all churches, and over the whole flock of Christian people, even so as he said to blessed Peter th'Apostle: Thou art Peter, and upon this rock etc.  
S. Gregory writing to Mauritius the Emperor against john the bishop of Constantinople, ambitiously claiming and usurping the name of an universal bishop, proveth the bishop of Rome succeeding in Peter's chair, to be Primate, and to have charge over all the church of Christ, by scriptures, thus. Cunctis evangelium scientibus, liquet etc. 
Epist. 32.  It is evident to all that know the gospel, that the cure and charge of the whole church, hath been committed by the word of our lord, to the holy Apostle Peter prince of all the Apostles. for to him it is said. Peter, 
joan. 21. Luc. 22.  lovest thou me? feed my sheep. to him it is said: Behold Satan hath desired to sift you, as it were wheat, and I have prayed for thee Peter, that thy faith fail not. And thou being once converted, strengthen thy brethren. To him it is said. Thou art Peter, 
Matth. 26  and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And unto the I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And what so ever thou bindest upon earth, shallbe bound also in heaven, and what so ever thou lowsest on earth shable loosed also in heaven. Behold he receiveth the keys of the heavenly kingdom: 
Cura ei totius Ecclesiae & principatus committitur.  the power of binding and lousing is given to him: the charge of the whole church and principality is committed to him. Thus far Gregory. But because our adversaries though without just cause, refuse the witness of the Bishops of Rome in this article, as unlawful witnesses in their own cause, were they never so holy martyrs or learned confessors: they may understand, we are able to allege sundry other authorities to the confirmation hereof, that be above all exception.  
S. Cyprian declaring the contempt of the high Priest Christ's vicary in earth, to be cause of schisms and heresies, writeth thus to Cornelius Pope and Martyr. Neque enim aliunde haereses obortae sunt, etc. Neither have heresies or schisms risen of any other occasion, then of that, the Priest of God is not obeyed, and that one Priest for the time in the church, and one judge for the time in stead of Christ, is not thought upon. To whom if the whole brotherhood (that is, the whole number of Christian people which be brethren together and were so called in the primative church) would be obedient according to gods teachings: 
Secundum magisteria divina  then no man would make ado against the college of priests, no man would make himself judge, not of the bishop now, but of God, after god's judgement, after the favour of the people declared by their voices at the Election, after the consent of his felowbishops: no man through breach of unity and strife, would divide the church of Christ: no man standing in his own conceit and swelling with pride, would set up by himself abroad without the church, a new heresy.  
Of all other authorities, that of Athanasius, and of the bishops of egypt and Libya gathered together in a Synod at Alexandria, is to be regarded. Who making humble suit to Felix then bishop of Rome, for aid and secure against the Arianes, through the whole epistle confessing the supreme authority of that Apostolic See, utter these very words. Vestrae apostolicae sedis imploramus auxilium etc. 
In primo tomo Conciliorum.  We humbly beseech you of the help of your Apostolic See. Because (as verily we believe) God hath not despised the prayers of his servants offered up to him with tears, but hath constituted and placed you & your predecessors, who were Apostolic Prelates, in the highest tower or supreme state, 
In summitatis arce constituit.  and commanded them to have cure and charge of all churches, to th'intent, you help and secure us, and that defending us (as to whom judgement of bishops is committed) you foreslow not through negligence, to deliver us from our enemies.  
Now if the Apostolic church of Rome hath obtained the Primacy and pre-eminence of power over all churches, and over the whole flock of Christian people, of our lord Saviour himself, as Anacletus saith: If it be evident to all that know the gospel, that the cure and charge of the whole church, hath been committed to the holy Apostle Peter, Prince of all the Apostles, by the word of our lord, as Gregory witnesseth: If the whole brotherhood (that is to say all christian folk) ought to obey the one high Priest or bishop of God, and the one judge that is Christ's Vicar, or in the steed of Christ for the time, according to the precepts and teachings of God, as Cyprian writeth: If it be God, that hath placed and ordained the bishop of Rome in the highest state of the church, as Athanasius with all the fathers of that Alexandrine council recordeth: If this I say be true: then is it easily seen, upon how good ground this doctrine standeth, whereby it is affirmed, that the bishop of Rome his Primacy hath his force by god's law, and not only by man's law, much less by unjust usurpation. The scriptures, by which as well these, as all other holy and learned fathers were lead to acknowledge and confess the Primacy of Peter and his successors, were partly such, as Anacletus and Gregory here allegeth, and Cyprian meaneth, as it appeareth by his third treatise De simplicitate praelatorum, and sundry more of the new testament, as to the learned is known: of which to treat here largely, and piththely, as the weight of the matter requireth, at this time I have no leisure, neither if I had, yet might I conveniently perform it in this treatise, which otherwise will amount to a sufficient bigness, and that matter thoroughly handled, will fill a right great volume. Wherefore referring the readers to the credit of these worthy fathers, who so understood the scriptures, as thereof they were persuaded the Primacy to be attributed to Peter's successor by God himself: I will proceed, keeping my prefixed order.  

The 2. proof, councils.  Whereas the pre-eminence of power and authority, which to the bishop of Rome by special and singular privilege God hath granted, is commended to the world by many and sundry councils: for avoiding of tediousness I will rehearse the testimonies of a few. Among the canons made by the three hundred and eighten bishops at the Nicene Council, which were in number 70. and all burnt by heretics in the East church save xx. and yet the whole number was kept diligently in the church of Rome in the original itself, sent to Sylvester the bishop there from the council, subscribed with the said 318. father's hands: 
Vide Francisc. Turrianun. lib. 3. carat. dogmat.  the 44. canon which is of the power of the patriarch over the metropolitans and bishops, and of the Metropolitan over bishops, in the end hath this decree.  autem cunctis ditionis suae nationibus etc. As the patriarch beareth rule over all nations of his jurisdiction, and giveth laws to them, and as Peter Christ's vicar at the beginning set in authority over religion, over the churches, and over all other things pertaining to Christ, was Master and ruler of christian princes, provinces, and of all nations: So he whose principality or chiefty is at Rome, like unto Peter, and equal in authority, obtaineth the rule and sovereignty over all patriakes. After a sew words it followeth there. If any man repine against this statute, or dare resist it, by the decree of the whole council he is accursed.  
julius that worthy bishop of Rome not long after the council of Nice, in his epistle that he wrote to the 90. Ariane bishops assembled in council at Antioch, against Athanasius bishop of Alexandria, reproving them for their unjust treating of him, saith of the canons of the Nicene council, then fresh in their remembrance: that they command, Non debere praeter sententiam Romani pontificis vllo modo concilia celebrari, nec episcopos damnari. That without the authority of the Bishop of Rome, neither Councils ought to be kept, nor bishops condemned. Again, that nothing be decreed without the Bishop of Rome. Cui haec & maiora ecclesiarum negotia, tam ab ipso domino, quàm ab omnibus universorum conciliorum fratribus, speciali privilegio contradita sunt. To whom these and other the weighty matters of the churches be committed by special privilege, as well by our lord himself, as by all our brethren of the whole universal councils. Among other principal points, which he reciteth in that epistle out of the Nicene councils canons, this is one.  omnes episcopi etc. That all bishops who sustain wrong, in weighty causes, so often as need shall require, make their appeal freely to the See Apostolic, and fly to it for succour, as to their mother, that from thence they may be charitably sustained, defended, and delivered. To the disposition of which See, the ancient authority of th'Apostles, and their successors, and of the canons, hath reserved all weighty, or great ecclesiastical causes, and judgements of bishops.  
Athanasius and the whole company of bishops of egypt, Thebaida and Libya, assembled together in council at Alexandria, complaining in their epistle to Felix the Pope of the great injuries and griefs they sustained at the Arianes: allegeth the determination of the Nicene council, touching the supreme authority and power of that See Apostolic over all other bishops. Similiter & à supradictis patribus est definitum consonanter etc. Likewise (say they) it hath been determined by common assent of the foresaid fathers (of Nice) that if any of the bishops suspect the Metropolitan, or their felowbishops of the same province, or the judges: that then they make their appeal to your holy See of Rome, to whom by our lord himself, power to bind and louse, 
Matt. 16.  by special privilege above other hath been granted. This much alleged out os the canons of the Nicene council, gathered partly out of julius epistle, who wrote to them that were present at the making of them, (which taketh away all suspicion of untruth) and partly out of Athanasius and others, that were a great part of the same council. For further declaration of this matter, it were easy here to allege the council of Sardica, the council of Chalcedon, 
Ca 4. ca 9  certain councils of Aphrica, yea some councils also holden by heretics, and sundry other, but such store of authorities commonly known, these may suffice.  
The Christian princes that ratified and confirmed with their proclamations and edicts, 
The 3. proof, Edicts of Emperors.  the decrees of the canons, concerning the Pope's Primacy, and gave not to him first that authority, as the adversaries do untruly report, were justinian and Phocas the Emperors. The words of justinianes edict, be these. 
In authent. de Eccles. tit.  Sancimus secundum canonum definitiones, sanctissimum senioris Romae Papam, primum esse omnium sacerdotum. We ordain according to the determinations of the canons, that the most holy Pope of the elder Rome, be formest, and chief of all priests,  
About three score and ten years after justinian, Phocas the Emperor in the time of Bonifacius, to repress the arrogancy of the bishop of Constantinople, 
Lib. 4. historiae longobardicae cap. 36.  as Paulus Diaconus writeth, who vainly, and as Gregory sayeth, contrary to our lords teachings, and the decrees of the canons, and for that wickedly, took upon him the name of the universal or ecumenical bishop, and wrote himself chief of all bishops: made the like decree and ordinance, that the holy See of the Roman and Apostolic church should be holden for the head of all churches.  

The 4. proof, doctoures.  Of the doctors what shall I say? verily this matter is so often and so commonly reported of them, that their sainges laid together, would scantly be comprised within a great volume. The recital of a few shall here give a taste, as it were, of the whole, and so suffice.  

Lib. 3. c. 3.  Irenaeus having much praised the church of Rome, at length uttereth these words, by which the sovereignty thereof is confessed. Ad hanc Ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem, necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est, eos qui undique sunt fideles. To this church (of Rome) it is necessary, all the church, that is to say, all that be faithful any where, to repair and come together, for the mightier principality of the same, that is to wit, for that it is of greater power and authority, than other churches, and the principallest of all. Androw followed our Saviour before that Peter did, & tamen primatum non accepit Andreas, sed Petrus: and yet Androw received not the Primacy, but Peter, 
In 2. Corinth. 12.  sayeth Ambrose. In the epistle of Athanasius and the bishops of Egipte to Liberius the Pope, in which they sue for help against the oppressions of the Arianes: we find these words. Huius rei gratia universalis vobis à Christo jesu commissa est ecclesia etc. Even for this cause the universal church hath been committed to you of Christ jesus, that you should travail for all, and not be negligent to help every one. 
Luc. 11.  for whiles the strong man being armed keepeth his house, all things that he possesseth, are in peace.  
Hilarius speaking much to th'extolling of Peter and his successor in that See, sayeth: 
De Trinita. lib. 6.  Supereminentem beatae fidei suae confessione locum promeruit: 
Matt. 16.  that for the confession of his blessed faith, he deserved a place of pre-eminence above all other. S. Ambros confessing himself to believe, that the largeness of the Roman Empire was by god's providence prepared, that the gospel might have his course, and be spread abroad the better, sayeth thus of Rome: 
De vocatione gentium. li. 2. cap. 6.  Quae tamen per Apostolici sacerdotij principatum, amplior facta est arce religionis, quàm solio potestatis. Which for all that, hath been advanced more by the chiefty of the Apostolic priesthood in the tower of Religion, then in the throne of temporal power.  
Saint Augustine in his 162. epistle, sayeth: In Ecclesia Romana semper apostolicae cathedrae viguit principatus. The primacy or principality of the Apostolic chair, 
Lib. 1. contra 2. epistolas Pelagianorum ad Bonifacium. cap. 1. Quamuis ipse in eo preemi● celsiore fastigio speculae pastoralis. Lib. 2. de baptismo, contrà Donatistas'.  hath evermore been in force in the Roman church. The same saint Augustine speaking to Bonifacius Bishop of Rome, this care (sayeth he complaining of the Pelagians) is common to us all, that have the office of a bishop, albe it therein, thou thyself hast the pre-eminence over all, being on the top of the pastoral watchetower. In an other place he hath these words. Caeterum magis vereri debeo, ne in Petrum contumeliosus existam. Quis enim nescit, illum apostolatus principatum, cuilibet episcopatui praeferendum? But I ought rather to be afraid, lest I be reproachful toward Peter. For who is he that knoweth not, that that principality of Apostleship, is to be preferred before any bishopric that is?  
another most evident place he hath in his book, De utilitate credendi, 
Cap. 17.  ad Honoratum. Cum tantum auxilium Dei etc. Whereas (sayeth he) we see so great help of God, so great profit and fruit, shall we stand in doubt, whether we may hide ourselves in the lap of that church, which (though heretics bark at it in vain round about, condemned partly by the judgement of the people themselves, 
Culmen auctoritatis obtinuit. Cui primas dare nolle, vel summae profecto impietatis est, vel praecipitis arrogantiae. Contrà Luciferianos  partly by the sadness of Councils, and partly by the majesty of miracles even to the confession of mankind) from the Apostolic See by successions of bishops, hath obtained the top or highest degree of authority? to which church, if we will not give and grant the Primacy, sooth it is a point either of most high wickedness, or of headlong arrogancy.  
The notable saying of S. Jerome may not be let pass. Ecclesiae salus à summi sacerdotis dignitate pendet. cui si non exors quaedam & ab omnibus eminens detur potestas, tot in ecclesiis efficientur schismata, quot sacerdotes. The safety of the church hangeth of the worship of the high Priest (he meaneth the Pope Peter's successor) to whom if there be not given a power peerless and surmonting all others, in the churches we shall have so many schisms, as there be priests.  
There is an epistle of Theodoritus bishop of Cyrus' extant in greek, written to Leo bishop of Rome. Wherein we find a worthy witness of the Primacy of the See Apostolic. His words may thus be englished. If Paul (sayeth he) the preacher of truth, and trumpet of the holy ghost, ran to Peter, to bring from him a determination and declaration, for them who at Antioch were in argument and contention concerning living after Moses' law, much more we, who are but small and vile, shall run unto your throne Apostolic, that of you we may have salve for the sores of the churches, (there follow these words. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, id est, per omnia enim vobis convenit primas tenere, that is to say: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The 5, proof, Reason.  For in all things (pertaining to faith or religion (so he meaneth) it is meet, that you have the chief doings, or that you have the Primacy. For your high seat or throne is endued with many prerogatives and privileges.  
Now let us see, whether this chief authority may be found necessary by reason. That a multitude which is in itself one, can not continue one, unless it be contained and holden in by one, both learned philosophers have declared, and the common nature of things teacheth. For every multitude of their own nature goeth a sunder in to many: and from an other it cometh, that it is one, and that it continueth one. And that whereof it is one, and is kept in union or oneness, it is necessary that it be one, else that self also shall need the help of an other, that it be one. For which cause that saying of Homer was alleged by Aristotle as most notable, It is not good to have many rulers, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  let one be ruler. Whereby is meant, that plurality of sovereign rulers, is not fit, to contain and keep unity of a multitude of subjects. Therefore sith that the church of Christ is one, (for as there is one faith, one baptism, one calling, so there is one church, yea all we are one body, and membres one of an other, as S. Paul sayeth: and in our Crede we all profess to believe one holy catholic and Apostolic church) therefore I say, it hath need of one prince and ruler, to be kept and holden in. If it be other wise, unity must needs forthwith be sparkled and broken a sunder. And therefore it behoved that the rule and government of the church, should be committed to one.  
And whereas these Gospelers say, that Christ is the governor of the church, and that he being one, keepeth the church in unity, we answer, that, although the church be first and principally governed by Christ, as all other things are, yet gods high goodness hath so ordained, as each thing may be provided for, according to his own condition and nature. Therefore whereas mankind dependeth most of sense, and receiveth all learning and institution of sensible things, therefore it hath need of a man to be a governor and ruler, whom it may perceive by outward sense. And even so the Sacraments, by which the grace of God is given unto us, in consideration of man's nature being so made of God, as it is, are ordained in things sensible. therefore it was behoveful this government of the church to be committed to one man, which at the first was Peter, and afterward each successor of Peter for his time, as is afore declared. Neither can this one man have this power of any consent or company of men, but it is necessary he have it of God. For to ordain and appoint the vicar of Christ, it pertaineth to none other, then to Christ. For where as the church, and all that is of the church, is Christ's, as well for other causes, as specially for that we are bought with a great price, even with his blood as S. Paul sayeth: 
1. Cor. 3.  how can it pertain to any other, then to him, to institute and appoint to himself a vicar, that is, one, to do his steed? Wherefore to conclude, except we would wickedly grant, that gods providence hath lacked, or doth lack to his church, for love of which he hath given his only begotten son, and which he hath promised never to forget, so as the woman can not forget the child she bore in her womb: Reason may soon induce us to believe, that to one man, one bishop, the chief and highest of all bishops, the successor of Peter, the rule and government of the church, by God hath been deferred. For else if God had ordained, that in in the church should be sundry heads and rulers, and none constituted to be over other, but all of equal power, each one among their people: then he should seem to have set up so many churches, as he hath appointed governors. And so he shall appear to have brought in among his faithful people, that unruly confusion, the destruction of all common weals, so much abhorred of princes, which the greeks call Anarchian, which is a state for lack of order in governors, without any government at all. Which thing, sith that the wise and politic men of this world do shun and detest in the government of these earthly kingdoms, as most pernicious and hurtful, to attribute to the high wisdom of God, and to our lord Christ, who is the auctor of the most ordinate disposition of all things in earth and in heaven: it were heinous and profane impiety. Wherefore if the state of a kingdom can not continue safe, unless one have power to rule, how shall not the church spread so far abroad, be in danger of great disorders, corruption, and utter destruction, if, as occasion shallbe given, among so great strifes and debates of men, among so many fyerbrandes of discord tossed to and fro by the devils, enemies of unity: there be not one head and ruler, of all to be consulted, of all to be heard, of all to be followed and obeyed? If strife and contention be stirred about matters of faith, if controversy happen to rise about the sense of the scriptures, shall it not be necessary, there be one supreme judge, to whose sentence the parties may stand? If need require (as it hath been often seen) that general councils be kept, how can the bishops, to whom that matter belongeth, be brought together, but by commandment of one head governor, whom they own their obedience unto? For else being summoned perhaps they will not come. Finally how shall the contumacy, and pertinacy of mischievous persons be repressed, specially if the bishops be at descension with in themselves: if there be not a supreme power, who towards some may use the rod, towards other some the spirit of lenity, with such discrete temperament, as malice be vanquished, right defended, and concord procured: lest, if the small sparks of strife be not quenched by authority at the beginning, at length a great flame of schisms and heresies flash abroad, to the great danger of a multitude? Therefore as there is one body of Christ, one flock, one church, even so is there one head of that his mystical body, one shepherd and one chief servant made steward, overseer, and ruler over Christ's household in his absence, until his coming again. 
The 6. proof, practise of the church, syxfolde.   
But here perhaps some will say, it can not appear by the event of things and practice of the church, that the Pope had this supreme power and authority over all bishops, and over all Christ's flock in matters touching faith, and in causes ecclesiastical. Verily who so ever peruseth the ecclesiastical stories, and vieweth the state of the church of all times and ages, can not but confess this to be most evident. And here I might allege first, certain places of the new testament, declaring that Peter practised this pre-eminence among the disciples at the beginning, and that they yielded the same, as of right appertaining unto him. 
Act. 1.  As when he first and only moved them to choose one in the stead of judas, and demeaned himself, as the chief autctor of all that was done therein: when he made answer for all, 
Act. 2.  at what time they were gazed and wondered at, and of some mockte, as being drunken with new wine: for that in the fistith day they spoke with tongues of so many nations: when he used that dreadful severity in punishing the falsehood, 
Act. 5.  and hypocrisy of Ananias and Saphira his wife: 
Act. 15.  when variance being risen about the observation of certain points of Moses' law, he as chief, and head of the rest, said his mind before all others. Among many other places left out for brevity, that is not of least weight, that Paul being returned to Damascus out of Arabia, 
Galat. 1.  after three years went to jerusalem, to see Peter, and abode with him fourteen days.  
But because our adversaries do wreath and wrest the scriptures (be they never so plain) by there private, and strange constructions, to an understanding quite contrary to the sense of the catholic church: I will refer the reader for further proof of this matter, to the stories bearing faithful witness of the whole state and condition of the church in all ages. In which stories, the practice of the church is plainly reported to have been such, as thereby the Primacy of Peter's successor, may seem to all men sufficiently declared. For perusing the ecclesiastical stories with writings of the fathers, beside many other things pertaining hereto, we find these practices, for declaration of this special authority and power. First, that bishops of every nation have made their appeal in their weighty affairs to the Pope, and always have sued to the See Apostolic, as well for secure and help against violence, injuries & oppressions, as for redress of other disorders. Also, that the malice of wicked persons hath been repressed and chastised of that authority by excommunication, ejection, and expulsion out of their dignities and rooms, and by other censures of the church. Furthermore, that the ordinations and elections of bishops of all provinces, have been confirmed by the Pope. Beside this, that the approving and disallowing of councils have pertained to him. Item, that bishops wrongfully condemned and deprived by councils, by him have been assoiled and restored to their churches again. Lastly, that bishops and patriarchs after long strifes and contentions, have at length upon better advise, been reconcilied unto him again.  
First, 
Appellations the Pope.  for the appellation of bishops to the See Apostolic, beside many oher, we have the known examples of Athanasius that worthy bishop of Alexandria, and light of the world: who having sustained great and fundry wrongs at the Arianes, appealed first, to julius the Pope, and after his death, to Felix: of Chrisostome, who appealed to Innocentius, against the violence of Theophilus: of Theodoritus, who appealed to Leo. Neither made bishops only their appeal to the Pope by their delegates, but also in certain cases, being cited, appeared before him in their own persons. Which is plainly gathered of Theodoritus his ecclesiastical story, who writeth thus. Eusebius bishop of Nicomedia (who was the chief pillar of the Arianes) and they that joined with him in that faction, falsely accused Athanasius to julius the B. of Rome. julius following the ecclesiastical rule, commanded them to come to Rome, and caused the reverent Athanasius to be cited to judgement, regulariter, after the order of the canons. He came. The false accusers went not to Rome, knowing right well that their forged lie might easily be deprehended.  
In the cause and defence of John Chrysostom, these bishops came from Constantinople, to Innocentius the Pope, Pansophus B. of Pisidia, Pappus of Syria, Demetrius of the second Galatia, and Eugenius of Phrygia. These were suitors for Chrysostom. He himself treated his matter with Innocentius by writing. In his epistle among other things, he writeth thus. Lest this outrageous confusion run over all, and bear rule every where, writ (I pray you) and determine by your authority, such wicked acts done in our absence, and when we withdrew not ourselves from judgement, to be of no force, as by their own nature truly they be void, and utterly none. Furthermore who have committed these evils, put you them under the censure of the church. And as for us, sith that we are innocent, neither convict, neither found in any default, nor proved guilty of any crime: give commandment, that we be restored to our churches again, that we may enjoy the accustomed charity and peace with our brethren. Innocentius after that he understood the whole matter, pronounced and decreed the judgement of Theophilus, that was against Chrysostom, to be void, and of no force. This whole tragedy is at large set forth by Palladius B. of Helenopolis, in vita joannis Chrysostomi, who lived at that tyme. By this appeal of Chrysostom, and by the whole handling of the matter, and specially by the purport of his epistle to Innocentius, the superiority of the Pope, is evidently acknowledged. And so is it plainly confessed by Athanasius, and the bishops of Egipte, Thebais and Libya, assembled in council at Alexandria, by these words of their epistle to Felix. Vestrun est enim nobis manum porrigere, etc. It is your part (say they) to stretch forth your helping hand unto us, because we are committed unto you. It is your part to defend us, and deliver us, it is our part to seek help of you, and to obey your commandments. And a little after. For we know that you bear the cure and charge of the universal church, and specially of bishops, who in respect of their contemplation and speculation, are called the eyes of our lord, as always the prelate's of your See, first the Apostles, than their successors, have done.  
Theodoritus that learned B. of Cyrus, beside the epistle he wrote to Leo for succour and help in his troubles, in an other, that he wrote to Renatus a priest near about Leo, sayeth thus. Spoliarunt me sacerdotio etc. They have violently rob me of my bishopric, they have cast me forth of the cities, neither having reverenced mine age spent in religion, nor my hoar hears. Wherefore I beseech thee, that thou persuade the most holy archbishop (he meaneth Leo) to use his apostolic authority, and to command us to come unto your council or consistory. For this holy See holdeth the rudther, and hath the government of the churches of the whole world, partly for other respects, but specially, for that it hath evermore continued clear from stintche of heresy, and that none ever sat in it, who was of contrary opinion, but rather hath ever kept the apostolic grace, undefiled. In which words of Theodoritus, this is chief to be marked, that the holy See of Rome (as he sayeth) hath the government of the churches of all the world, most for this cause, that it was never infected with heresy, as all other churches founded by the Apostles were.  
For which cause, that See hath ever hitherto of all christian nations, and now also ought to be heard and obeyed in all points of faith. For that See though it hath failed sometimes in charity, and hath been in case as it might truly say the words of the gospel, spoken by the foolish virgins, 
Matth. 25.  our lamps be without light: yet it never failed in faith, as Theodoritus witnesseth, and S. Augustine affirmeth the same. Which special grace and singular privilege, is to be imputed unto the prayer of Christ, by which he obtained of God for Peter and his successors, 
Evil life of the B. of Rome: ought not to sever us from the faith of the church of Rome.  that their faith should not fail. Therefore the evil life of the bishops of Rome ought not to withdraw us from believing and following the doctrine preached and taught in the holy church of Rome.  
For better credit hereof, that is earnestly to be considered, which S. Augustine writeth epistola 165. where, after that he hath rehearsed in order all the Popes that succeeded Peter, even to him that was Pope in his time, he sayeth thus. In illum ordinem episcoporum etc. In to that rewe of bishops, that reacheth from Peter himself to Anastasius, which now sitteth in the same chair, if any traitor had crept in, it should nothing hurt the church, and the innocent christian folk, over whom our lord having providence, sayeth of evil rulers: what they say unto you, 
Matth. 23.  do ye, but what they do, do ye not, for they say, and do not: to the intent the hope of a faithful person may be certain, and such, as being set not in man, but in our lord, be never scattered abroad with tempest of wicked schism. And in his 166. epistle, (he sayeth) our heavenvly Master hath so far forewarned us, to be ware of all evil of dissension, that he assured the people also of evil rulers, that for their sakes, the Seat of wholesome doctrine should not be forsaken, in which Seat, even the very evil men be compelled to say good things. For the things which they say, be not theirs, but gods, who in the Seat of unity, hath put the doctrine of verity.  
By this we are plainly taught, that albe it the successors of Peter Christ's vicars in earth, be found blameworthy for evil life, yet we ought not to dissent from them in doctrine, nor sever ourselves from them in faith. For as much as, notwithstanding they be evil, by god's providence for the surety of his people, they be compelled to say the things that be good, and to teach the truth, the things they speak, not being theirs, but gods, who hath put the doctrine of verity in the Seat or chair of unity: which singular grace cometh specially to the See of Peter, either of the force of Christ's prayer, as is said before, or in respect of place and dignity, which the bishops of that See hold for Christ, as Balaam could be brought by no means to curse that people, whom God would to be blessed. And Caiphas also prophesied, because he was high bishop of that year, and prophesied truly, being a man otherwise most wicked. And therefore the evil doings of bishops of Rome make no argument of discrediting their doctrine. To this purpose the example of Gregory Nazianzene may very fitly be applied, of the golden, syluerne, and leadden seal. As touching the value of metals, gold and silver are better, but for the goodness of the seal, as well doth lead imprint a figure in wax, as silver or gold. For this cause, that the See of Rome hath never been defiled with stinking heresies, as Theodoritus sayeth, and god hath always kept in that chair of unity, the doctrine of verity, as Augustine writeth: for this cause (I say) it sitteth at the stern, and governeth the churches of the whole world, for this cause bishops have made their appellations thither, judgement in doubts of doctrine, and determination in all controversies and strifes, hath been from thence always demanded.  
Now that the B. of Rome had always cure and rule over all other bishops, specially of them of the East (for touching them of the West church it is generally confessed) beside a hundred other evident arguments, this is one very sufficient, that he had in the East to do his stead, three delegates or vicars, now commonly they be named legates. And this for the commodity of the bishops there, whose churches were far distant from Rome. The one was the bishop of Constantinople, as we find it mentioned in epistola Simplicij ad Achatium Constantinopolitanum. The second was the bishop of Alexandria, as the epistle of Bonifacius the second to Eulalius, recordeth. The third was the bishop of Thessalonica, as it is at large declared in the 82. epistle of Leo ad Anastasium Thessalonicensem. By perusing these epistles every man may see, that all the bishops of Grece, Asia, Syria, Egite, and to be short of all the Orient, rendered and exhibited their humble obedience to the B. of Rome, and to his arbitrement referred their doubts, complaints and causes, and to him only made their appellations.  
Of the B. of Rome his punishing of offenders by censures of the church and otherwise, 
Corrections from the Pope.  as by excommunications, ejection, deposition, and enjoining penance for transgressions: we have more examples, than I think good to recite here. They that have knowledge of the ecclesiastical stories, may remember, how Timotheus B. of Alexandria was excommunicated with Peter his deacon, by Simplicius the Pope: Nestorius B. of Constantinople, by Celestinus: Theophilus B. of Alexandria with Arcadius the Emperor and Eudoxia the Empreresse, by Innocentius, for their wicked demeanour toward Chrysostom: How Dioscorus B. of Alexandria was deposed, though the whole second Ephesine council stood in his defence: how Peter B. of Antioch was not only put out of his bishopric, but also of all priestly honour: How Photius was put out of the Patriarkeship of Constantiple, into which he was intruded by favour of Michael the Emperor, at the suit of his wicked uncle, by Nicolaus the first.  

Lib 3. epist. 13.  For proof of this authority, the epistle of Cyprian, which he wrote to Stephanus Pope in his time against Martianus the B. of Arelate in Gallia, maketh an evident argument. For that this Martianus became a maineteyner of the heresy of Novatianus, and therewith seduced the faithful people, Cyprian having intelligence of it by Faustinus from Lions, advertised Stephanus of it, and moved him earnestly to direct his letters to the people of Arle, by authority of which Martianus should be deposed, and an other put in his room, to th'intent (sayeth he there) the flock of Christ, which hitherto by him scattered abroad and wounded is contemned, may be gathered together. Which S. Cyprian would not have written, had the B. of Rome had no such authority.  

Confirmations by the Pope.  For the Pope's authority concerning confirmation of the ordinations and elections of all bishops, many examples might easily be alleged, as the request made to julius by the 90. Ariane bishops assembled in council as Antioch against Athanasius, that he would wouchesafe to ratify and confirm those that they had chosen in place of Athanasius, Paulus, Marcellus and others, whom they had condemned and deprived. Also the earnest suit, which Theodosius the Emperor made to Leo for confirmation of Anatolius, and likewise that Martianus the Emperor made to him, for confirmation of Proterius both bishops of Alexandria, as it appeareth by their letters written to Leo in their favour. And as for Anatolius, Leo would not in any wise order and confirm him, unless he would first profess, that he believed and held the doctrine, 
Vide Leonis epis. 1●  which was contained in Leo his epistle to Flavianus, and would further by writing witness, that he agreed with Cyrillus and the other catholihe fathers, against Nestorius. For this, if nothing else could be alleged, the testimony of holy Gregory were sufficient to make good credit. Who understanding that Maximus was ordered bishop of Salonae a city in Illyrico, without the authority and confirmation of the See Apostolic, standing in doubt lest perhaps that had been done by commandment of Mauritius the Emperor, who did many other things wickedly: thereof writeth to Constantina the Empress thus. Salonitanae civitatis episcopus me ac responsali meo nesciente, ordinatus est. Et facta est res, quae sub nullis anterioribus principibus evenit. The bishop of the city of Salonae (sayeth he) is ordered, neither I, nor my depute made privy to it. And herein that thing hath been done, which never happened in the time of any princes before our days. Thus it appeareth, that before a thousand years past, bishops had their ordination and election confirmed by the See Apostolic. 
The Pope's approving of councils.   
That the bishops of Rome by accustomed practice of the church, had authority to approve or disprove councils, I need to say nothing for prouse of it, 
Li. 4. c. 19  seeing that the ecclesiastical rule (as we read in the Tripartite story) commandeth, that no council be celebrated and kept without the advise and authority of the Pope. Verily the councils holden at Ariminum, at Seleucia, at Sirmium, at Antiochia, and at the second time at Ephesus, for that they were not summoned, nor approved by the authority of the B. of Rome, have not been accounted for lawful councils: but as well for that rejected, as also for their heretical determinations. The fathers assembled in the council of Nice, sent their epistle to Silvester the Pope, beseeching him with his consent to ratify and confirm, 
Quas Romana suscipiens confirmavit Ecclesia. In praefatione Niceni concilij.  what so ever they had ordained. Isidorus witnesseth, that the Nicene council had set forth rules, the which (sayeth he) the church of Rome received and confirmed. The second general council holden at Constantinople, was likewise allowed and approved by Damasus, specially requested by the fathers of the same, thereto. So was the third council holden at Ephesus, ratified and confirmed by Celestinus, who had there for his vicars or deputes, Cyrillus the famous B. of Alexandria, and one Arcadius a bishop out of Italy. As for the fourth council kept at Chalcedon, the fathers thereof also in their epistle to Leo the Pope, subscribed with the hands of 44. bishops, made humble request unto him, to establish, fortify and allow, the decrees and ordinances of the same. This being found true for the four first chief councils, we need not to say any thing of the rest, that followed. But for the sure proof of all this, that chief is to be alleged, that Constantius the Arian Emperor made so importune and so earnest suit to Liberius the Pope, to confirm the acts of the council holden at Antioch by the 90. Ariane bishops, wherein Athanasius was deprived, and put out of his bishopric. For he believed, as Ammianus Marcellinus writeth, 
Lib. 15.  that what had been done in that council, should not stand and take effect, unless it had been approved and confirmed by the authority of the B. of Rome, which he termeth the eternal city.  
Now what authority the bishops of Rome have ever had and exercised in the assoiling of bishops unjustly condemned, 
Absolutions from the Pope.  and in restoring of them again to their churches, of which they were wrongfully thrust out by heretics, or other disorder: it is a thing so well known of all that read the stories, in which the ancient state of the church is described, that I need not but rehearse the names only. Athanasius of Alexandria, and Paulus of Constantinople, deprived and thrust out of their bishoprics by the violence of the Arianes assisted with the Emperor Constantius, appealed to Rome, to julius the Pope and bishop there, and by his authority were restored to their rooms again. So Leo assoiled Flavianus the B. of Constantinople, excommunicated by Dioscorus. So Nicolaus the first restored Ignatius to the see of Constantinople, though Michael the Emperor wrought all that he could against it. Many other bishops have been in all ages assoiled and restored to their churches by the authority of the See Apostolic, who have been without desert excommunicated deprived, and put from all their dignities. But to have rehearsed these few it may suffice.  
Concerning the reconciliation of the prelate's of the church both bishops and patriarchs to the B. of Rome, 
Reconciliations to the Pope.  whereby his primacy is acknowledged and confessed, I need not say much, the matter being so evident. After that the whole churches of Aphrica had continued in schism, and withdrawn themselves from the obedience of the See Apostolic, through the enticement of Aurelius archbishop of Carthago, for the space of one hundred years, during which time by god's punishment they came in to captivity of the barbarous and cruel Vandals, who were Arians: at the length, when it pleased God of his goodness to have pity on his people of that province, sending them Bellisarius the valiant captain, that vanquished and destroyed the Vandals, and likewise Eulalius that godly archbishop of Carthago, that brought the churches home again, and joined the divided members unto the whole body the catholic church: A public instrument containing the form of their repentance, and of their humble submission, was offered and exhibited solemnly to Bonifacius the second than Pope, by Eulalius, in the name of that whole province, which was joyfully received, and he thereupon forthwith reconciled. Of this reconciliation and restoring of the African churches to the catholic church, the mystical body of Christ, Bonifacius writeth his letters to Eulalius bishop of Thessalonica, requiring him, with the churches there about, to give almighty God thanks for it.  
But here if I would show what bishops dividing themselves through heresy, schism, or other enormity, from the obedience of the See of Rome, have upon better advise submitted themselves to the same again, and thereupon have been reconciled: I had a large field to walk in. As inferior bishops of sundry provinces have done it, so have the great patriarchs done likewise. Among them that to satisfy the malicious mind of Eudoxia the Empress, practised their wicked conspiracy against Chrysostom, through which he was deposed, and carried away in to banishment, Alexander B. of Antioch and primate of the orient, was one: who at length strooken with repentance, for that he had been both a consenter and a promoter of that wicked act, submitted himself humby to Innocentius the Pope, and by all means sought to be assoiled and reconciled. And therefore sent his legates to Rome, to exhibit to Innocentius a solemn instrument of his repentance and lowly submission, and to accept what should be enjoined. By which his humbleness Innocentius moved, granted to his petitions, received him in to the lap of the catholic church again, and thus was he reconciled. Sundry the like reconciliations of the patriarchs of Alexandria and jerusalem to the See of Rome in like cases, might easily be recited, which for avoiding of tediousness I pass over, as likewise of the patriarchs of Constantinople, which as we read in ancient stories, have forsaken the church of Rome twelve times, and have been reconcilied to the same again.  
Thus having declared the supreme authority and primacy of the Pope by the common practice of the church. I need not to show further, how in all questions, doubts, and controversies touching faith and religion, the See of Rome hath always been consulted, how the decision of all doubtful cases, hath been referred to the judgement of that See, and to be short, how all the world hath ever fetched light from thence. For the proof whereof because it can not be here declared briefly, I remit the learned reader to the ecclesiastical stories, where he shall find this matter amply treated.  
Now for a brief answer to M. jewel, who denieth that within six hundred years after Christ, the bishop of Rome was ever called an universal bishop, or the head of the universal church, and maketh himself very sure of it. Although it be a childish thing to stick at the name any thing is called by, the thing by the name signified being sufficiently proved: yet to th'intent good folk may understand, that all is not truth of the old gospel, which our new gospelers either affirm or deny: 
The Pope above a thousand years sithence called universal bishop, and head of the universal churthe.  I will bring good and sufficient witness, that the B. of Rome was then called both universal bishop, or ecumenical patriarch, which is one, to wit, bishop or principal father of the whole world, and also head of the church. Leo that worthy B. of Rome, was called the universal Bishop and universal patriarch, of six hundred and thirty fathers assembled together from all parts of the world in general council at Chalcedon. Which is both expressed in that council, and also clearly affirmed by S. Gregory in three sundry epistles, to Mauricius the Emperor, to Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria, and to Anastasius Patriarch of Antioch. Thus that name was deferred unto the Pope by the fathers of that great council, which by them had not been done, had it been unlawful. In very deed neither Leo himself, nor any other his successor ever called or wrote himself, by that name, as S. Gregory sayeth, much less presumed they to take it unto them. But rather used the name of humility, calling themselves each one servum servorum Dei, the servant of the servants of God. Yet sundry holy martyrs bishops of Rome used to call themselves bishops of the universal church, which in effect is the same, as the fathers of Chalcedon understood. So did Sixtus in the time of Adrianus the Emperor in his epistle to the bishops of all the world. So did Victor writing to Theophilus of Alexandria. So did Pontianus writing to all that believed in Christ before 1300. years past. So did Stephanus in his epistle to all bishops of all provinces in the time of S. Cyprian. And all these were before Constantine the great, and before the council of Nice, which times our adversaries acknowledge and confess to have been without corruption. The same title was used likewise after the Nicene council, by Felix, by Leo, and by diverse others, before the first six hundred years after Christ were expired. Neither did the bishops of Rome use this title and name only themselves to their own advancement, as the adversaries of the church charge them, but they were honoured therewith also by others: as namely Innocentius by the fathers assembled in council at Carthago, and Marcus by Athanasius and the bishops of egypt.  

Head of the church.  Concerning the other name (Head of the church) I marvel not a little, that M. jewel denieth, that the bishop of Rome was then so called. Either he doth contrary to his own knowledge, wherein he must needs be condemned in his own judgement and of his own conscience, 
Peter and consequently the Pope Peter's successor called head of the church, both in terms equivalent, and also expressly. Matth. 10.  or he is not so well learned, as of that side he is thought to be. For who so ever traveleth in the reading of the ancient fathers, findeth that name almost every where attributed to Peter the first B. of Rome, and consequently to the successor of Peter, that name (I say) either in terms equivalent, or expressly. First, the scripture calleth Peter primum, the first among the Apostles. The names of the twelve Apostles (sayeth Matthew) are these. Primus Simon, qui dicitur Petrus. First Simon, who is called Peter. And yet was not Peter first called of Christ, but his brother Androwe before him, as is before said. Dionysius that ancient writer calleth Peter sometime, 
De divinis nominibus. c. 3.  supremum decus, the highest honour, for that he was most honourable of all the Apostles, sometime, summum, sometime, verticalem, the chiefest and the highest Apostle. Origen upon the beginning of john sayeth: Let no man think, that we set john before Peter. Who may foe do? for who should be higher of the Apostles than he, 
Lib 1. epistola 3.  who is, and is called the top of them? Cyprian calleth the church of Rome, in consideration of that bishops supreme authority, Ecclesiam principalem, unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est. The principal or chief church, from whence the unity of priests is sprung. Eusebius Caesariensis speaking of Peter sent to Rome by god's providence, to vanquish Simon Magus, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  calleth him potentissimum & maximum Apostolorum, & reliquorum omnium principem: the mightìest of power and greatest of the Apostles, and prince of all the rest. Augustine commonly calleth Peter, primum apostolorum, first or chief of the Apostles. Jerome, Ambrose, Leo, and other doctors, Prince of the Apostles. Chrysostom upon the place of john cap. 21. sequere me, follow me, among other things sayeth thus. 
Homil. 87  If any would demand of me, how james took the see of jerusalem, that is to say, how he became bishop there: I would answer, that this (he meaneth Peter) Master of the whole world, made him governor there. 
In Matth. homil. 55. jerem. 1.  And in an other place bringing in that God said to jeremy, I have set thee like an iron pillar, and like a brazen wall: But the father (sayeth he) made him over one nation, but Christ made this man (meaning Peter) ruler over the whole world. etc. And lest these places should seem to attribute this supreme authority to Peter only, and not also to his successors: it is to be remembered, that Irenaeus and Cyprian acknowledge and call the church of Rome, chief and principal. And Theodoritus in an epistle to Leo, calleth the same in consideration of the bishop of that See his primacy, orbi terrarum praesidentem, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  precedent or bearing rule over the world. Ambrose upon that place of Paul, 1. Timoth. 3. where the church is called the pillar, and stay of the truth, saith thus. Cum totus mundus Dei sit, ecclesia tamen domus eius dicitur, cuius hody rector est Damasus. Where as the whole world is gods, yet the church is called his house▪ the ruler whereof at these days is Damasus.  
I would not weighed and trouble the reader with such a number of allegations, were not that M. jewel beareth the world in hand, we have not one sentence nor clause for us, to prove either this, or any other of all his Articles.  
But perhaps some one will reply and say, yet I hear not the B. of Rome called Head of the universal church. What forceth it, whether that very term be found in any ancient writer or no? Other terms of the same virtue and power be oftentimes found. Is it not one to say, Head of the universal church, and to say ruler of god's house, which Ambrose sayeth? whereof this argument may be made. The church, yea the universal church is the house of God: but Damasus B. of Rome, is ruler of the house of God, after Ambrose: ergo Damasus is ruler of the universal church, and by like right and title is the Pope, who is B. of Rome now also, ruler of the same. What other is it to call the church of Rome the principal church, respect had to the bishop there, and not otherwise (wherein a figure of speech is used) as Ireneus and Cyprian do, and precedent or set in authority over the whole world, as Leo doth: then to call the bishop of Rome, 
In locum joan. 21 homil. 87. ex ponens illud, sequere me. In Matth. homil. 55.  Head of the universal church? what meaneth Chrysostom calling Peter totius orbis magistrum, the Master and teacher of all the world, and saying in an other place, that Christ made Peter not ruler over one nation, as the father made jeremy over the jews, but over the whole world? what other (I say) meaneth he thereby, then that he is head of the whole world, and therefore of the universal church?  
But to satisfy these men, and to take away occasion of cavil, I will allege a few places, where the express term (Head) is attributed to Peter the first B. of Rome, and by like right to his successors, 
Peter and his successor called head of the church, expressly  and to the See Apostolic. Chrysostom speaking of the virtue and power of Peter, and of the steadfastness of the church, in the 55. Homily upon matthew, hath these words among other. Cuius Pastor & caput, homo piscator, atque ignobilis etc. By which words he affirmeth, that the pastor and head of the church, being but a fisher, a man, and one of base parentage, passeth in firmness the nature of the diamant. Again in an homily of the praises of Paul, he sayeth thus. Neither was this man only such a one, but he also which was the head of the Apostles, who oftentimes said, he was ready to bestow his life for Christ, and yet was full sore afraid of death. If he were head of the Apostles, than was he head of the inferior people, and so Head of the universal church.  
Jerome writing against jovinian, sayeth, propterea inter duodecim unus eligitur, ut capite constituto schismatis tollatur occasio. for that cause among the twelve on is specially chosen out, that the Head being ordained, occasion of schism may be taken away. Whereby it appeareth that Peter was constituted head, for avoiding of division and schism. Now the danger of the inconvenience remaining still, yea more than at that time, for the greater multitude of the church, and for sundry other imperfections: the same remedy must be thought to continue, unless we would say, that Christ hath less care of his church now, that it is so much increased, than he had at the beginning, when his flock was small. For this cause except we deny God's providence toward his church, there is one Head for avoiding of schism also now, as well as in the Apostles tyme. Which head is the successor of him, that was head by Christ's appointment then, the B. of Rome sitting in the seat that Peter sat in.  
Cyrillus sayeth, Petrus ut princeps, caputque caeterorun, primus exclamavit, tu es Christus filius Dei vivi. Peter as prince and Head of the rest, first cried out, thou art Christ the son of the living God. 
Serm. 124. de tempore  Augustine also in a sermon to the people, calleth him head of the church, saying. Totius corporis membrum in ipso capite curat ecclesiae, & in ipso vertice componit omnium membrorum sanitatem. He healeth the member of the whole body, in the Head itself of the church, and in the top itself he ordereth the health of all the members. And in an other place, 
Li. quaest. vet. & no. testam. q. 75.  salvator quando pro se & Petro exolui jubet, pro omnibus exoluisse videtur. Quia sicut in saluatore erant omnes causa magisterij, ita post salvatorem in Petro omnes continentur, ipsum enim constituit Caput omnium. Our saviour sayeth Augustine, when as he commandeth payment (for the Emperor) to be made for himself and for Peter, he seemeth to have paid for all. Because as all were in our saviour for cause of teaching, so after our saviour, all are contained in Peter, for he ordained him Head of all.  
Here have these men the plain and express term Head of the rest, Head of the church, Head of all, and therefore of the universal church. What will they have more? Neither here can they say, that although this authority and title of the Head be given to Peter, yet it is not derived and transferred from him to his successors. For this is manifest, that Christ instituted his church so, as it should continue to the worlds end, 
Cap. 9  according to the saying of isaiah the prophet. Super solium David etc. Upon the seat of David, and upon his kingdom, shall Messiah sit to strengthen it, and to establish it in judgement and righteousness: from this day for evermore. And thereof it is evident, that he ordained those, who then were in ministery, so as their authority and power should be derived unto their aftercomers for the utility of the church for ever, specially, where as he said, 
Matt vlt.  behold I am with you until the end of the world. And therefore as Victor writeth in his story of the persecution of the Vandals, Eugenius B. of Carthago, 
Lib. 2.  convented of Obadus a great captain of Hunerike king of the Vandals, about a council to be kept in Aphrica for matters of the faith, betwixt the Arians supported by the king, and the catholics: said in this wise. Si nostram fidem etc. If the kings power desire to know our faith, which is one and the true, let him send to his friends. I will write also to my brethren, that my fellowebishops come, who may declare the faith, that is common to you and us, (there he hath these words) & praecipuè ecclesia Romana, quae Caput est omnium ecclesiarum. and specially the church of Rome, which is the Head of all the churches. Naming the church of Rome, he meaneth the bishop there, or his legates to be sent in his stead.  
Thus it is proved by good and ancient authorities, that the name and title of the Head, ruler, precedent, chief and principal governor of the church, is of the fathers attributed not only to Peter, but also to his successors bishops of the See Apostolic. And therefore M. jewel may think himself by this charitably admonished, to remember his promise of yielding and subscribing.  
I will add to all that hath been hitherto said of this matter, a saying of Martin Luther, that such as do little regard the gravity of ancient fathers of the old church, may yet somewhat be moved with the lightness of the young father Luther, Patriarch and fownder of their new church. Lightness I may well call it, for in this saying which I shall here rehearse, he doth not so soberly allow the Pope's Primacy, 
The pope's primacy acknowledged by Martin Luther.  as in sundry other treatises he doth rashly, and furiously inveigh against the same. In a little treatise entitled, Resolutio Lutheriana super propositione sua 13. de potestate papae: his words be these, Primum quod me movet Romanum pontificem esse alijs omnibus, quos saltem noverimus se pontifices gerere, superiorem, est ipsa voluntas Dei, quam in ipso facto videmus. Neque enim sine voluntate Dei in hanc monarchiam unquam venire potuisset Rom. Pontifex. At voluntas Dei quoquo modo nota fuerit, cum reverentia suscipienda est, ideoque non licet temerè Romano pontifici in suo primatu resistere. Haec autem ratio tanta est, ut si etiam nulla scriptura, nulla alia causa esset, haec tamen satis esset ad compescendam temeritatem resistentium. Et hac sola ratione gloriosissimus martyr Cyprianus per multas epistolas confidentissimè gloriatur contrà omnes episcoporum quorumcunque adversarios, sicut 3. Regum legimus, quòd decem tribus Israel discesserunt à Roboam filio Salomonis, & tamen quia voluntate Dei sive auctoritate factum est, ratum apud Deum fuit. Name & apud theologos omnes voluntas signi, quam vocant operationem Dei, non minus quàm alia signa voluntatis Dei, ut praecepta prohibitiva etc. metuenda est. Ideo non video, quomodo sint excusati à schismatis reatu, qui huic voluntati contravenientes, seize à Romani pontificis auctoritate subtrahunt. Ecce haec est una prima mihi insuperabilis ratio, quae me subijcit Romano pontifici, & Primatum eius confiteri cogit. The first thing that moveth me to think the B. of Rome to be over all other, that we know to be bishops, is the very will of God, which we see in the fact or deed itself. for without the will of God, the B. of Rome could never have comen unto this monarchy. But the will of God, by what mean so ever it be known, is to be received reverently. And therefore it is not lawful rashly to resist the B. of Rome in his primacy. And this is so great a reason for the same, that if there were no scripture at all, nor other reason: yet this were enough to stay the rashness of them, that resist. And through this only reason the most glorious martyr Cyprian in many of his epistles vaunteth himself very boldly against all the adversaries of Bishops, what soever they were. As in the third book of the kings we read, that the ten tribes of Israel departed from Roboam salomon's son. yet because it was done by the will or authority of God, it stood in effect with God. For among all the divines, the will of the sign, which they call the working of God, is to be feared no less, than other signs of Gods will, as commandments prohibitive, etc. Therefore, I see not, how they may be excused of the guilt of schism, which going against this will, withdraw themselves from the authority of the B. of Rome. Lo this is one chief invincible reason, that maketh me to be under the bishop of Rome, and compelleth me to confess his Primacy. This far Luther.  
Thus I have briefly touched some deal of the scriptures, of the canons and councils, of the edicts of Emperors, of the father's sayings, of the reasons, and of the manifold practices of the church, which are wont to be alleged for the Pope's Primacy and supreme authority. With all, I have proved that, which M. jewel denieth, that the B. of Rome within six hundred years after Christ, hath been called the universal bishop, of no small number of men of great credit, and very oftentimes Head of the universal church, both in terms equivalent, and also expressly. Now to the next article.   
Or that the people was then taught to believe, 
jewel.  that Christ's body is really, substantially, corporally, carnally, or naturally, in the Sacrament. 
Of the terms really, substantially, corporally, carnally, naturally, found in the Doctors treating of the true being of Christ's body in the blessed Sacrament.  
ARTICLE. V  
CHristen people hath ever been taught, that the body and blood of jesus Christ by the unspeakable working of the grace of God and virtue of the holy Ghost, is present in this most holy Sacrament, and that verily and in deed. This doctrine is founded upon the plain words of Christ, which he uttered in the institution of this sacrament, expressed by the Evangelists, and by S. Paul. As they were at supper (sayeth Matthew) jesus took bread and blessed it, and broke it, 
Matth. 26  and gave it to his disciples, and sayeth: Take ye, eat ye, this is my body. And taking the cup, he gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying: Drink ye all of this: For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many in remission of sins. With like words almost Mark, Luke and Paul, 
Marc. 14. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11.  do describe this divine institution. Neither said our lord only, This is my body, but least some should doubt, how his words are to be understanded: for a plain declaration of them, he addeth this further, (Which is given for you. 
Luc. 22.  Likewise of the cup he sayeth not only, This is my blood, But also, as it were to put it out of all doubt: Which shall be shed for many.  
Now as faithful people do believe, that Christ gave not a figure of his body, but his own true and very body in substance, and like wise not a figure of his blood, but his very precious blood itself at his passion and death on the cross for our Redemption: so they believe also, that the words of the institution of this Sacrament, admit no other understanding, but that he giveth unto us in these holy mysteries, his self same body, and his self same blood in truth of substance, which was crucified and shed forth for us. Thus to the humble believers scripture itself ministereth sufficient argument of the truth of Christ's body and blood in the sacrament against the sacramentaries, who hold opinion, that it is there but in a figure, sign, or taken only.  
Again, we can not find where our lord performed the promise he made in the sixth chapter of john, The bread which I will give, is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world: but only in his last supper. where if he gave his flesh to his Apostles, and that none other, but the very same, which he gave for the life of the world: it followeth that in the blessed Sacrament is not mere bread, but that same his very body in substance. For it was not mere bread, but his very body, that was given and offered up upon the cross.  
If the words spoken by Christ in S. john of promise, that he performed in his holy supper, The bread that I will give, is my flesh, had been to be taken not as they seem to mean plainly and truly, but metaphorically, tropically, symbolically and figuratively, so as the truth of our lords flesh be excluded, as our adversaries do understand them: then the Capernaites had not had any occasion at all of their great offence. Then should not they have had cause to mumur against Christ, as the Evangelist showeth: The jews (sayeth S. john) strove among themselves, 
Cap. 6.  saying: how can he give us his flesh to eat? And much less his dear disciples, to whom he had showed so many and so great miracles, to whom he had before declared so many parables and so high secrets, should have had any occasion of offence. And doubtless if Christ had meant, they should eat but the sign or figure of his body, they would not have said, Durus est hic sermo, this is a hard saying, and who can abide to hear it? For than should they have done no greater thing, than they had done oftentimes before in eating the Easter lamb. And how could it seem a hard word or saying, if Christ had meant nothing else, but this, the bread that I will give, is a figure of my body, that shall cause you to remember me?  
To conclude shortly. If Christ would so have been understanded, as though he had meant to give but a figure only of his body, it had been no need for him to have alleged his omnipotency and almighty power to his disciples, thereby the rather to bring them to belief of his true body to be given them to eat. Hoc vos scandalizet? doth this offend you, sayeth he. what if ye see the son of man ascend where he was before? it is the Spirit that giveth life, etc. As though he had said: ye consider only my humanity, that seemeth weak and frail, neither do you esteem my divine power by the great miracles I have wrought: But when as ye shall see me by power of my godhead ascend in to heaven, from whence I came unto you, will ye then also stand in doubt, whether ye-may believe, that I give you my very body to be eaten? Thus by signifying his divine power, Christ confownded their unbelief, touching the verity and substance of his body, that he promised to give them in meat.  

What occasioned the fathers to use these terms really, substantially, corporally, etc.  These places of the scripture, and many other reporting plainly, that Christ at his supper gave to his disciples his very body, even that same which the day following suffered death on the Cross, have ministered just cause to the godly and learned fathers of the church, to say, that Christ's body is present in this Sacrament really, substantially, corporally, carnally, and naturally. By use of which adverbs, they have meant only a truth of being, and not a way or mean of being. And though this manner of speaking be not thus expressed in the scripture, yet is it deduced out of the scripture. For if Christ spoke plainly, and used no trope, figure, nor metaphor, as the scripture itself sufficiently declareth to an humble believer, and would his disciples to understand him, so as he spoke in manifest terms, when he said, This is my body, which is given for you: Then may we say, that in the sacrament his very body is present, yea really, that is to say in deed, substantially, that is, in substance, and corporally, carnally, and naturally: by which words is meant, that his very body, his very flesh and his very humane nature is there, not after corporal, carnal, or, natural wise, but invisibly, unspeakably, miraculousely, supernaturally, spiritually, divinely, and by way to him only known.  
And the fathers have been driven to use these terms for more ample and full declaration of the truth, and also for withstanding and stopping objections made by heretics. And because the catholic faith touching the verity of Christ's body in the Sacrament, was not impugned by any man for the space of a thousand years after Christ's being in earth, and about that time Berengarius 
Berengarius.  first began openly to sow the wicked seed of the sacramentary heresy, which then soon confuted by learned men, and by the same first author abjured and recanted, now is with no less wickedness, but more busily and more earnestly set forth again: the doctoures that sithence have written in defence of the true and catholic faith herein, have more often used the terms afore mentioned, than the old and ancient fathers, that wrote within M. jewels six hundred years after Christ. who doubtless would no less have used than, if that matter had been in question or doubt in their tyme. And albeit these terms were strange and new, as used within these five hundred years only, and that the people were never taught for six hundred years after Christ, as M. jewel sayeth, more boldly then truly, and therefore more rashly then wisely: yet the faith by them opened and declared, is universal and old, verily no less old, then is our lords supper, where this Sacrament was first instituted.  
Here before that I bring in places of ancient fathers reporting the same doctrine, and in like terms, as the catholic church doth hold concerning this article: lest our opinion herein might happily appear over carnal and gross: I think it necessary, briefly to declare, what manner a true body and blood of Christ is in the sacrament. Christ in himself hath but one flesh and blood in substance, which his godhead took of the virgin Mary once, and never afterward left it of. 
The flesh and blood of Christ is of double consideration.  But this one flesh and blood in respect of double quality, hath a double consideration. For at what time Christ lived here in earth among men in the shape of man, his flesh was thrall and subject to the frailty of man's nature, sin and ignorance excepted. That flesh being passable until death, the soldiers at the procurement of the jews crucified. And such manner blood was at his passion shed forth of his body, in sight of them which were then present. But after that Christ rose again from the dead, his body from that time forward ever remaineth immortal and lively, in danger no more of any infirmity or suffering, much less of death: but is become by divine gifts and endowmentes, a spiritual and a divine body, as to whom the godhead hath communicated divine and godly properties and excellencies, that been above all man's capacity of understanding. This flesh and body thus considered, which sundry doctors call corpus spirituale & deificatum, a spiritual and deified body, is given to us in the blessed sacrament.  
This is the doctrine of the church uttered by S. Jerome, in his commentaries upon th'Epistle to the Ephesians, where he hath these words. 
Lib. 1. ca 1.  Dupliciter verò sanguis & caro intelligitur, vel spiritualis illa atque divina, de qua ipse dixit, Caro mea vere est cibus, & sanguis meus verè est potus: Et, nisi manducaveritis carnem meam, & sanguinem meum biberitis, non habebitis vitam aeternam: vel caro, quae crucifixa est, & sanguis, qui militis effusus est lancea. that is. The blood and flesh of Christ is understanded two ways, either that it is that spiritual and divine flesh, of which he spoke himself, My flesh is verily meat, and my blood is verily drink, And, except ye eat my flesh and drink my blood ye shall not have life in you: Or, that flesh, which was crucified, and that blood, which was shed by piercing of the soldiers spear. And to the intent a man should not take this difference according to the substance of Christ's flesh and blood, but according to the quality only: S. Jerome bringeth a similitude of our flesh, as of which it hath been in double respect said: juxta hanc divisionem & in sanctis etiam diversitas sanguinis & carnis accipitur, ut alia sit caro, quae visura est salutare Dei, 
Luc. 3.  alia caro & sanguis, quae regnum Dei non queant possidere. 
1. Cor. 15.  According to this division diversity of blood and flesh is to be understanded in saints also, so as there is one flesh which shall see the salvation of God, and an other flesh and blood, which may not possess the kingdom of God. Which two states of flesh and blood, seem (as it appeareth to the unlearned) quite contrary.  
But Saint Paul dissolveth this doubt, in the fifteenth chapter of his first epistle to the Corinthians, saying, that flesh of such sort as we bear about us in this life, earthly, mortal, frail, and bourthenouse to the soul, can not possess the kingdom of God, because corruption shall not possess incorruption. But after resurrection we shall have a spiritual, glorious, incorruptible and immortal flesh, and like in figure to the glorious body of Christ, as S. Paul sayeth: This corruptible body must put on incorruption, and this mortal, immortality, Then such flesh, or our flesh of that manner and sort, shall possess the kingdom of God, and shall behold God himself. And yet our flesh now corruptible, and then incorruptible, is but one flesh in substance, but diverse in quality and property. Even so it is to be thought of our lords flesh as is afore said. The due weghing of this difference, giveth much light to this matter, and aught to stay many horrible blasphemies wickedly uttered against this most blessed Sacrament.  
Now whereas M. jewel denieth that Christian people were of old time taught to believe, that Christ's body is really, substantially, corporally, carnally, or naturally in the Sacrament, I do plainly affirm the contrary. Yet I acknowledge, that the learned fathers which have so taught, would not thereby seem to make it here outwardly sensible or perceptible. 
Hom. 83. in Matt & 60 add popul. Antiochen.   
For they confess all with Saint Chrysostom, that the thing which is here given us, is not sensible, but that under visible signs, invisible things be delivered unto us. But they thought good to use the aforesaid terms, to put away all doubt of the being of his very body in these holy mysteries, and to exclude the only imagination, fantasy, figure, sign, token, virtue, or signification there of.  
For in such wise the Sacramentaries have uttered their doctrine in this point, as they may seem by their manner of speaking and writing, here to represent our lords body only, in deed being absent, as kings oftentimes are represented in a Tragedy, or mean persons in a Comedy. Verily the manner and way by which it is here present and given to us, and received of us, is secret: not humane ne natural, true for all that. And we do not attain it by sense, reason, or nature, but by faith. For which cause we do not over basely consider and attend the visible elements, but as we are taught by the council of Nice, lifting up our mind and spirit, we behold by faith on that holy table put and laid (so for the better signification of the real presence their term soundeth) the Lamb of God, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that taketh away the sins of the world. And here (say they) we receive his precious body and blood, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say, verily and in deed, which is no other wise, nor less, than this term really importeth.  
And touching these terms, first Verily, or which is all one Really, and substantially: me thinketh M. jewel should bear the more with us for use of the same, sith that Bucer himself one of the greatest learned men of that side hath allowed them: yea and that after much writing against Luther in defence of Zuinglius and Oecolampadius by him set forth, and after that he had assured himself of the truth in this article by divine inspiration, as most constantly he affirmeth with these words: 
In responsione add Lutherun.  Haec non dubitamus divinitus nobis, & per scripturam revelata de hoc sacramento. We doubt not (sayeth he) but these things concerning this sacrament, be revealed unto us from god, and by the scripture. If you demand where this may be found: in the acts of a Council holden between the Lutherans and Zuinglianes for this very purpose in Martin Luther's house at Wittenberg, in the year of our lord. 1536. you shall find these words. Audivimus D. Bucerum explicantem suam sententiam de Sacramento corporis & sanguinis Domini, hoc modo. Cum pane & vino verè & substantialiter adest, exhibetur & sumitur corpus Christi & sanguis. Et sacramentali unione panis est corpus Christi, & porrecto pane verè adest & verè exhibetur corpus Christi. We have heard M. Bucer declare his mind touching the sacrament of the body and blood of our Lord, in this sort. With the bread and wine the body of Christ and his blood is present, exhibited, and received verily and substantially. And by Sacramental union, the bread is the body of Christ, and the bread being given, the body of Christ is verily present, and verily delivered.  
Though this opinion of Bucer, by which he recanted his former Zwinglian heresy, be in sundry points false and heretical, yet in this he agreeth with the catholic church against M. jewels negative assertion, that the body and blood of Christ is present in the sacrament verily, that is, truly, and really or in deed, and substantially. Where in he speaketh, as the ancient fathers spoke long before a thousand years past.  
Let Chrysostom for proof of this, be in stead of many that might be alleged. His words be these. Nos secum in unam (ut ita dicam) massam reducit, 
In 26. ca Mat. hom. 83.  neque id fide solum, sed re ipsa nos corpus suum efficit. By this sacrament (sayeth he) Christ reduceth us (as it were) in to one loumpe with himself, and that not by faith only, but he maketh us his own body in very deed, reipsa, which is no other to say, then Really. The other adverbs corporally Carnally, Naturally, be found in the fathers not seldom, specially where they dispute against the Arianes. And therefore it had be more convenient for M. jewel to have modestly interpreted them, then utterly to have denied them.  
The old fathers of the greek and latin church, deny that faithful people have an habitude or disposition, union or conjunction with Christ only by faith and charity, or that we are spiritually joined and united to him only by hope, love, religion, obedience, and will: yea further they affirm, that by the virtue and efficacy of this sacrament duly and worthily received, Christ is really and in deed communicated by true communication and participation of the nature and substance of his body and blood, and that he is and dwelleth in us truly, because of our receiving the same in this sacrament. The benefit whereof is such, as we be in Christ, and Christ in us, 
●oan. 6.  according to that he sayeth, qui manducat meam carnem, manet in me, & ego in illo. Who eateth my flesh, he dwelleth in me, and I in him. The which dwelling union and joining together of him with us, and of us with him, that it might the better be expressed, and recommended unto us: they thought good in their writings to use the aforesaid adverbs.  
Hilarius writing against the Arianes alleging the words of Christ. 17. john.  omnes unum sint, sicut tu pater in me, & ego in te, ut ipsi in nobis unum sint, that all may be one, as thou father art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: going about by those words to show that the son and the father were not one in nature and substance, but only in concord and unity of will: among other many and long sentences for proof of unity in substance, both between Christ and the father, and also between Christ and us, 
De Trinitate, lib: 8.  hath these words. Si enim verè verbum caro factum est, & nos verè verbum carnem cibo Dominico sumimus, quomodo non naturaliter manner in nobis existimandus est, qui & naturam carnis nostrae iam inseparabilem sibi homo natus assumpsit, & naturam carnis suae ad naturam aeternitatis sub sacramento nobis communicandae carnis admiscuit: If the word be made flesh verily, and we receive the word being flesh in our lords meat verily: how is he to be thought not to dwell in us naturally, who both hath taken the nature of our flesh now inseparable to himself, in that he is borne man, and also hath mingled the nature of his own flesh to the nature of his everlastingness under the sacrament of his flesh to be received of us in the communion? There afterward this word naturaliter, in this sense that by the sacrament worthily received, Christ is in us, and we in Christ naturally, that is in truth of nature, is sundry times put and rehearsed. Who so listeth to read further his eight book de trinitate, he shall find him agnize manentem in nobis carnaliter filium, that the son of God (through the sacrament) dwelleth in us carnally, that is in truth of flesh, and that by the same sacrament we with him, and he with us are united and knit together corporaliter, & inseperabiliter, corporally and inseparably, for they be his very words.  
Gregory Nyssene speaking to this purpose sayeth, 
In lib. de vita Mosie  Panis qui de coelo descendit, non incorporea quaedam res est, quo enim pacto res incorporea corpori cibus fiet? res verò quae incorporea non est, corpus omnino est. Huius corporis panem non aratio, non satio, non agricolarum opus effecit, sed terra intacta permansit, & tamen pane plena fuit, quo famescentes, mysterium virginis perdocti, facilè saturantur. Which words report so plainly the truth of Christ's body in the sacrament, as all manner of figure and signification must be excluded. And thus they may be englished. The bread that came down from heaven, is not a bodiless thing. For by what mean shall a bodiless thing be made meat to a body? And the thing which is not bodylesse, is a body, without doubt. It is not ear-ring, not sowing, not the work of tilers, that hath brought forth the bread of this body, but the earth which remained untouched, and yet was full of the bread, whereof they that wax hungry, being thoroughly taught the mystery of the virgin, soon have their fill. Of these words may easily be inferred a conclusion, that in the sacrament is Christ and that in the same we receive him corporally, that is, in verity and substance of his body, for as much as that is there, and that is of us received, which was brought forth and borne of the virgin Mary.  
Cyrillus that ancient father and worthy bishop of Alexandria, for confirmation of the catholic faith in this point, 
In joan. lib. 10. cap. 13.  sayeth thus. Non negamus recta nos fide, charitateque syncera Christo spiritaliter coniungi: sed nullam nobis coniunctionis rationem secundum carnem cum illo esse, id profecto pernegamus, idque à divinis scripturis omnino alienum dicimus. We deny not but that we are joined spiritually with Christ by right faith and pure charity: but that we have no manner of joining with him according to the flesh (which is one as to say carnaliter carnally) that we deny utterly, and say, that it is not agreeable with the scriptures. Again lest any man should think this joining of us and Christ together to be by other means then by the participation of his body in the Sacrament, in the same place afterward he sayeth further. An fortassis putat ignotam nobis mysticae benedictionis virtutem esse? Quae cum in nobis fiat, nun corporaliter quoque facit communicatione corporis Christi, Christum in nobis haebitare? what troweth this Ariane heretic perhaps, that we know not the virtue of the mystical blessing? (whereby is meant this sacrament) which when it is become to be in us, doth it not cause Christ to dwell in us corporally by receiving of Christ's body in the communion? And after this he sayeth as plainly, that Christ is in us, non habitudine solum, quae per charitatem intelligitur, verumetiam & participatione naturali. not by charity only, but also by natural participation.  
The same cyril sayeth in an other place, 
Lib. in joan 11. cap. 26.  that through the holy communion of Christ's body, we are joined to him in natural union. Quis enim eos, qui unius sancti corporis unione in uno Christo uniti su●t, ab hac naturali unione alienos putabit? who will think (sayeth he) that they, which be united together by the union of that one holy body in one Christ, be not of this natural union? He calleth this also a corporal union in the same book, and at length after large discussion how we be united to Christ, not only by charity and obedience of religion, but also in substance, concludeth thus. Sed de unione corporali satis. But we▪ have treated enough of the corporal union. Yet afterward in diverse sentences he useth these adverbs (for declaring of the verity of Christ's body in the sacrament) naturaliter, substantialiter, secundum carnem or carnaliter, corporaliter, as most manifestly in the 27. chapter of the same book. Corporaliter filius per benedictionem mysticam nobis ut homo unitur, spiritualiter autem ut Deus. The son of God is united unto us corporally as man, and spiritually as God.  
Again where as he sayeth there: Filium Dei natura Patri unitum corporaliter substantialiterque accipientes, clarificamur, glorificamurque, etc. We receiving the son of God united to the father by nature corporally and substantially, are clarified and glorified or made glorious, being made partakers of the supreme nature: The like saying he hath. lib. 12. ca 58.  
Now this being and remaining of Christ in us, and of us in Christ naturally and carnally, and this uniting of us and Christ together corporally, presupposeth a participation of his very body, which body we can not truly participate, but in this blessed sacrament. And therefore Christ is in the Sacrament naturally, carnally, corporally, that is to say, according to the thruth of his nature, of his flesh, and of his body. For were not he so in the Sacrament, we could not be joined unto him, nor he and we could not be joined and united together, corporally.  
diverse other ancient fathers have used the like manner of speech, but none so much as Hilarius, and Cyrillus, whereby they understand, that Christ is present in this sacrament as we have said, according to the truth of his substance, of his nature, of his flesh, of his body and blood. And the catholic fathers that sithence the time of Berengarius have written in defence of the truth in this point, using these terms sometimes for excluding of metaphors, allegories, figures, and significations only, whereby the sacramentaries would defraud faithful people of the truth of Christ's precious body in this Sacrament: do not thereby mean that the manner, mean, or way of Christ's presence, dwelling, union and conjunction with us, and of us with him, is therefore natural, substantial, corporal, or carnal: but they, and all other catholic men confess the contrary, that it is far higher and worthier, supernatural, supersubstantial, invisible, unspeakable, special and proper to this sacrament, true, real, and in deed notwithstanding, and not only tropical, symbolical, metaphorical, allegorical, not spiritual only, and yet spiritual, not figurative or significative only. And likewise concerning the manner of the presence and being of that body and blood in the sacrament, they and we acknowledge and confess, that it is not local, circumscriptive, definitive, or subiective, or natural, but such, as is known to God only.   
Or that his body is or may be in a thousand places, 
jewel.  or more, at one tyme. 
Of the being of Christ's body in many places at one tyme.  
ARTICLE VI.  
AMong the miracles of this bleshed Sacrament, one is, that one and the same body may be in many places at once, to wit, under all consecrated hosts. As for God, it is agreeable to his godhead to be every where, simpliciter, & propriè. But as for a creature, to be but in one place only. But as for the body of Christ, it is after a manner between both. For where as it is a creature, it ought not to be made equal with the Creator in this behalf, that it be every where. But where as it is united to the Godhead, herein it ought to excel other bodies, so, as it may in one time be in more places under this holy Sacrament. For the uniting of Christ's natural body unto the almighty godhead duly considered, bringeth a true Christian man in respect of the same, to forsake reason, and to lean to faith, to put apart all doubts and discourses of humane understanding, and to rest in reverent simplicity of belief.  
Thereby through the holy ghost persuaded he knoweth, that although the body of Christ be natural and humane in deed, yet through the union and conjunction, many things be possible to the same now, 
Matt. 14. Luc. 24. Matt. 17. Luc. 24. Act. 1. Matt. 28. joan. 20.  that to all other bodies be impossible: as to walk upon waters, to vanish away out of sight, to be transfigured and made bright as the sun, to ascend up through the clouds: and after it became immortal, death being conquered, to rise up again out of the grave, and to entre through doors fast shut. Through the same faith he believeth and acknowledgeth, that according unto his word, by his power it is made present in the blessed sacrament of th'altar under the form of bread and wine, where so ever the same is duly consecrated, according unto his institution in his holy supper, and that not after a gross or carnal manner, but spiritually, and supernaturally, and yet substantially, not by local, but by substantial presence, not by manner of quantity, or filling of a place, or by changing of place, or by leaving his sitting on the right hand of the father, but in such a manner, as God only knoweth, and yet doth us to understand by faith, the truth of this very presence, far passing all man's capacity, to comprehend the manner how.  
Where as some against this point of belief do allege the article of Christ's Ascension, and of his being in heaven at the right hand of God the father, bringing certain texts of scriptures pertaining to the same, and testimonies of ancient doctors signifying Christ's absence from the earth: 
Christ's being in heaven and in the Sacrament at one time, implieth no contradiction.  it may be-rightly understanded, that he is verily both in heaven at the right hand of his father, in his visible and corporal form, very God and man, after which manner he is there, and not here, and also in the Sacrament invisibly, and spiritually, both God and Man in a mystery, so as the granting of the one may stand without denial of the other, no contradiction found in these beings, but only a distinction in the way and manner of being.  
And how the ancient fathers of the church have confessed and taught both these beings of Christ in heaven and in the sacrament together, contrary to M. jewels negative, by witness of their own words we may perceive. Basile in his liturgy, that is to say service of his Mass, sayeth thus in a prayer. Look down upon us lord jesus Christ our God from thy holy tabernacle, 
Qui suprà cum patre sedes, & hic invisibiliter versaris.  and from the throne of glory of thy kingdom, and come to sanctify us, which sittest above with thy father, and art conversant here invisibly: And vouchesaufe to impart unto us thine undefiled body, and precious blood, and by us to all thy people. S. Chrysostom prayeth with the very same words also in his Liturgy or Mass. Where we read further that the priest and the deacon do adore and worship, saying three times secretly, 
Et populus similiter oens cum pietate adorant.  God be merciful to me a sinner, and that the people do all likewise devoutly adore. Now sith he will adoration to be made, he acknowledgeth Christ present, whom he granteth to be also at the same time in heaven. Which he uttereth more plainly in these words. 
Chrysost. de Sacerdotio. l. 3.  O miraculum, o Dei benignitatem, etc. O miracle, o the goodness of God, who sitteth above with the father, at that very instant of time, is handled with the hands of all, and giveth himself to those that will receive and embrace him. And that is done by no crafty sleights, but openly in the sight of all that stand about. How sayest thou, seem these things to thee no better then to be contemned and despised? By which words of S. Chrysostom we may see, that Christ's being in heaven, maketh no proof that he is not in earth, sith both these verities may well stand together.  

Christ's body in many places at once. Hom. 2.  The same father confesseth the body of Christ to be in diverse places likewise in his homilies ad populum Antiochenum most plainly alluding to Elias. Elias (sayeth he) melotem quidem discipulo reliquit, filius autem Dei ascendens suam nobis carnem dimisit: sed Elias quidem exutus, Christus autem & nobis reliquit, & ipsam habens ascendit. Elias (when he was carried up in the fiery chariot) left to his disciple Eliseus his mantel of sheeps skins: but the son of God when he ascended, left to us his flesh: but Elias did put of his mantle, and Christ both left his flesh to us, and also ascended having it with him. Nothing can be spoken more plainly, whereby to show that we have the same flesh here in earth, that was received into heaven, which Christ hath not put of to give it to us. By which doctrine of S. Chrysostom we are taught to believe, that Christ's flesh or his body is both in heaven and also in the earth, in how many places so ever this blessed Sacrament is rightly celebrated.  
And whereas many measuring all things by the common order and laws of nature, believe nothing can be done above nature, and therefore think that the body of Christ, for as much as it is of nature finite, can not by power of God be in many places at once of which opinion M. jewel seemeth to be himself: it shall not be beside the purpose, though the places already alleged prove the contrary, to recite the testimonies of an old doctor or two, wherein they confess most plainly that, which by this article is most untruly denied.  
Saint Ambrose hath these words. 
In Psal. 38  Et si Christus nunc non videtur offer, tamen ipse offertur in terris, quando Christi corpus offertur. Imò ipse offerre manifestatur in nobis, cuius sermo sanctificat sacrificium quod offertur. If Christ now be not seen to offer, yet he is offered in earth, when the body of Christ is offered. yea it is manifest that himself offereth in us, whose word sanctifieth and consecrateth the sacrifice, that is offered. Now if Christ's body be offered in earth, as this father affirmeth, and that of Christ himself, in respect that the sacrifice which is offered, is by his word consecrated: than it followeth, Christ's body to be in so many places, as it is offered in. Where by the way, this may be noted, that the sacrifice of the church, 
Sacrificium incruentum & vivificum.  is not thanks giving (as our new Masters do teach) but the body of Christ itself, which of the fathers is called an unbloody and quikning or life giving sacrifice.  
We find in Chrysostom a most manifest place for the being of Christ's body in many places at once, so as though he be offered in many places, yet is he but one Christ, not many Christ's. his words be these. unum est hoc sacrificium, 
In epist. ad Heb. homil. 17.  alioquin hac ratione, quoniam multis in locis offertur, multi Christi sunt? nequaquam, sed unus ubique est Christus, & hic plenus existens, & illic plenus. unum corpus. Sicut enim qui ubique offertur unum corpus est, & non multa corpora: ita etiam & unum sacrificium. This sacrifice is one, else by this reason, sith it is offered in many places, be there many Christ's? Not so, but there is but one Christ every where, being both here fully, and there fully also, one body. For as he that is offered every where, is but one body, and not many bodies, so likewise it is but one sacrifice. By this place of Chrysostom we see, what hath been the faith of the old fathers touching this article, even the same, which the catholic church professeth at these days, that one Christ is offered in many places, so as he be fully and perfitly here, and fully and perfitly there. And thus we perceive, what force their arguments have in the judgement of the learned fathers, by which they take away from Christ power to make his body present in many places at once.  

Sermo. in coena Domini.  S. Bernard uttereth the faith of the church in his time agreeable with this, in these words. Sed unde hoc nobis pijssime Domine, ut nos vermiculi reptantes etc. From whence cometh this most loving lord, that we silly worms creeping on the face of the earth, yea we, that are but dust and ashes, be admitted to have thee present in our hands, and before our eyes, which all and whole sittest at the right hand of thy father, which also art present to all in one moment of time from the east to the west, from the north to the sowth, one in many, the same in diverse places! from whence (I say) cometh this? sooth not of our duty or desert, but of thy good will, and of the good pleasure of thy sweetness, for thou hast prepared in thy sweetness for the poor one o God. In the same sermon exhorting the church to rejoice of the presence of Christ, he sayeth, In terra sponsum habes in Sacramento, in coelis habitura es sine velamento: & hic & ibi veritas, sed hic palliata, ibi manifestata. In the earth thou hast thy spouse in the sacrament, in heaven thou shalt have him without vail or covering. both here and also there is the truth, (of his presence) but here covered, there opened.  
Thus all these fathers as likewise the rest, confess as it were with one mowth, that Christ sitteth at the right hand of his father, and is here present in the sacrament the same time, that he is in heaven and in earth at once, in many and diverse places one, and that the same is every where offered, the one true sacrifice of the church. And this article is by them so clearly and plainly uttered, that figures, significations, tropes, and metaphors can find no appearance nor colour at all. Whereby the new masters reasons seem very peevish: Christ is ascended, ergo he is not in the sacrament. Christ is in heaven sitting at the right hand of his father, ergo he is not in earth. Christ's body is of nature finite, ergo it is contained in a place circumscriptively, ergo it is not in many places. In making of which slender arguments, they will not seem to acknowledge whose body it is, even that, which is proper to God, whose power is over all, and to whom all things obey.  
But because M. jewel and they of that sect, seem to set little by these fathers, though very ancient, S. Bernard excepted, and of the church holden for saints, I will bring forth the authority of Martin Bucer, a late doctor of their own side, though not canonizate for a saint as yet, 
Truth confessed by the enemy of truth.  for that I know. This new father whom they esteem so much, and was the reader of divinity in Cambridge in king Edward's time, very vehemently, and for so much truly, affirmeth the true real presence of Christ's body in the sacrament. For he sayeth. Christ said not, This is my spirit, this is my virtue, but this is my body: wherefore we must believe sayeth he, Christ's body to be there, even the same that did hang upon the cross, our lord himself. Which in some part to declare, he useth the similitude of the sun for his purpose, contrary to M. jewels negative, to prove Christ's body present, and that really and substantially, in what places so ever the sacrament is rightly ministered. His words be these. 
In comment. in 16. cap. Matthaei.   sol verè uno in loco coeli visibilis circumscriptus est, radijs tamen suis praesens verè & substantialiter exhibetur ubilibet orbis: Ita Dominus, etiam si circumscribatur uno loco coeli, arcani et divini, id est gloriae Patris, verbo tamen suo, & sacris symbolis, verè et totus ipse Deus et homo praesens exhibetur in sacra coena, eoque substantialiter, quam praesentiam non minus certò agnoscit mens credens verbis his Domini & Symbolis, quam oculi vident, et habent solem presentem demonstratum & exhibitum sua corporali luce. Res ista arcana est, & novi testamenti, res fidei, non sunt igitur huc admittendae cogitationes de praesentatione corporis, quae constat ratione huius vitae etiam patibilis & fluxae. Verbo Domini simpliciter in haerendum est, & debet fides sensuum defectui praebere supplementum. Which may thus be englished.  
As the sun is truly placed determinately in one place of the visible heaven, and yet is exhibited truly and substantially by his beams every where abroad in the world: So our lord although he be contained in one place of the secret and divine heaven, that is to wit, the glory of his father: yet for all that by his word and holy tokens, he is exhibited present in his holy supper truly and himself whole God and man, and therefore substantially or in substance. Which presence the mind giving credit to these our lords words and tokens, doth no less certainly acknowledge, than our eyes see and have the sun present showed and exhibited with his corporal light. This is a secret matter, and of the new testament, a matter of faith, therefore herein thoughes be not to be admitted of such a presentation of the body, as consists in the manner of this life passable and transitory, We must simply cleave to the word of our lord, and where our senses fail, there must faith help to supply. Thus we see, how Bucer in sundry other points of faith both deceived and also a deceiver, confirmeth the truth of this article pyththely and plainly. Such is the force of truth, that oftentimes it is confessed by the very enemies of truth.  
Fight not with the church M. jewel, but fight with the enemy of the church. fight with him, whom you have followed in departing from the church, who never the less by force of truth, is driven against you to confess the truth in those most plain words, Verè & totus ipse Deus & homo praesens exhibetur in sacra coena, eoque substantialiter. in this holy supper himself God and Man is exhibited present truly and whole, and therefore substantially.  
Now to be short, whereas the chief arguments that be made against the being of Christ's body in many places at once, be deduced of nature, in respect that this article seemeth to them to abolish nature, it may please them to understand, 
God working above nature destroyeth not nature  that God who is author of nature, can by his power do with a body that, which is above the nature of a body, nature not destroyed, but kept and preserved whole. Which Plato the heathen philosopher would soon have been induced to believe, if he were alive. Who asked what was nature, answered, quod Deus vult, that which God will.  
And therefore we believe, that Enoch and Elias yet mortal by nature, do by power of God live in body, and that above nature. Abacuc was by the same power caught up, and in a moment carried from jewrie to Babylon, his nature reserved whole. Saint Peter by God according to nature walked on the earth, the same by God beside nature, walked upon the waters. Christ after condition of nature assumpted, suffered death in body, the same Christ by his divine power entered with his body in to his disciples through doors closed. Christ at his last supper according to nature sat down with his twelve disciples, and among them occupied a place at the table visibly, by his divine power there he held his body in his hands invisibly. 
In expositione psal. 13.  For (as S. Augustine sayeth) ferebatur manibus suis, he was borne in his own hands, where nature gave place, and his one body was in more places than one. Verily non est abbreviata manus domini, the hand of our lord is not shortened, his power is as great, as ever it was. And therefore let us not doubt, but he is able to use nature finite, infinitely, specially now, the nature of his body being glorified after his resurrection from the dead. And as the living is not to be sought among the dead, so the things that be done by the power of God above nature, are not to be tried by rules of nature.  
And that all absurdities and carnal grossness be severed from our thoughts, where true christian people believe Christ's body to be in many places at once, they understand it so to be in a mystery. 
Being in a mystery.  Now to be in a mystery, is not to be comprehended in a place, but by the power of God to be made present in sort and manner, as himself knoweth, verily so, as no reason of man can attain it, and so, as it may be showed by no examples in nature. Whereof that notable saying of S. Augustine may very well be reported, 
Aug. epis. ad Volusianun. Iten. Ser. 159. de tempore.  O homo si rationem à me poscis, non erit mirabile: exemplum quaeritur, non erit singular. that is, O man if (herein) thou require reason, it shall not be marvelous: seek for the like example, and then it shall not be singular. If Gods working be comprehended by reason (sayeth holy Gregory) it is not wondrous: neither faith hath meed, 
Gregorius in homil.  whereto man's reason giveth proof.   

jewel.  Or that the priest did then hold up the Sacrament over his head. 
Of the Elevation or lifting up of the Sacrament.  
ARTICLE. VII.  
OF what weight this ceremony is to be accounted, catholic Christian men, whom you call your adversaries M. jewel, know no less than you. Verily whereas it pleaseth you thus to jest, and like a Lucian to scoff at the sacraments of the church, and the reverent use of the same, calling all these articles in general th●… highest mysteries, and greatest keys of our religion without which our doctrine can not be maintained and stand upright: understand you that this, a sundry other articles, which you deny, and requyr●… proof of, is not such, ne never was so esteemed. The priests lifting up or showing of the Sacrament, is not one of the highest mysteries or greatest keys of our Religion: and the doctrine of the catholic church may right well be maintained and stand without it. But it appeareth, you regard not so much what you say, as how you say somewhat for colour of defacing the church: which whiles you go about to do, you deface yourself more than you seem to be ware of, and do that thing, whereby among good christian men, specially the learned, you may be a shamed to show your face. For as you have over rashly, yea I may say wickedly, affirmed the negative of sundry other articles, and stoutly craked of your assurance thereof, 
Elevation of the sacrament.  so you hau●… likewise of this. For perusing the ancient father writings, we find record of this Ceremony used even from the Apostles time forward.  
Saint Dionyse, that was S. Paul's scholar, showeth, that the priest at his time after the consecration was wont to hold up the dreadful mysteries, so as the people might behold them. His words be these according to the greek. 
Ecclesias. hierarch. cap. 3.  Pontifex divina munera laud prosecutus, sacrosancta & augustissima mysteria conficit, & collaudata in conspectum agit per symbola sacrè proposita. The bishop after that he hath done his service of praising the divine gifts, consecrateth the holy and most worthy mysteries, and bringeth them so praised in to the sight of the people by the tokens set forth for that holy purpose. On which place the ancient greek writer of the scholies upon that work, sayeth thus. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. loquitur de unius benedictionis, nimirum panis divini elevatione, quem Pontifex in sublime attollit, dicens, Sancta sanctis. This father speaketh in this place, of the lifting up of the one blessing, (that is to say of the one form or kind of the sacrament) even of that divine bread, which the bishop lifteth up on high, saying, holy things for the holy. In saint Basiles and Chrysostom's Mass we find these words. Sacerdos elevans sacrum panem, dicit, Sancta Sanctis. The priest holding up that sacred bread, sayeth: Holy things for the holy. In Saint Chrysostom's Mass we read, that, as the people is kneeling down after th'example of the priest and of the deacon, the deacon seeing the priest stretching forth his hands, and taking up that holy bread, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ad sacram elevationem peragendam palam edicit, attendamus, to do the holy elevation, speaketh out a loud, let us be attended and (then) the priest sayeth (as he holdeth up the sacrament) holy things for the holy.  
Amphilochius, of whom mention is made afore in the life of S. Basile, speaking of his wondrous celebrating the Mass, among other things sayeth thus. Et post finem orationum, exaltavit panem, sine intermissione orans, & dicens: Respice domine jesu Christ, etc. And after that he had done the prayers of consecration, he lifted up the bread, without ceasing praying and saying, Look upon us lord jesus Christ etc. The same saint Basile meant likewise of the Elevation and holding up of the sacrament after the custom of the Occidental church, 
Cap, 27.  in his book de Spiritu sancto, where he sayeth thus. Inuocationis verba, dum ostenditur panis eucharistiae & calix benedictionis, quis sanctorum nobis scripto reliquit? Which of the saints, hath left unto us in writing, the words of Invocation, whiles the bread of Eucharistia (that is to wit the blessed sacrament in form of bread) and the consecrated chalice, is showed in sight? He speaketh there of many things that be of great authority and weight in the church, which we have by tradition only, and can not be avouched by holy scripture. Of showing the holy mysteries to them that be present in the sacrifice, 
In epist. ad Ephes. Sermon. 3. in moral.  the old doctors make mention not seldom. S. Chrysostom declareth the manner of it, saying that such as were accounted unworthy and heinous sinners, were put forth of the church, whiles the sacrifice was offered, whiles Christ and that lamb of our lord was sacrificed. Which being put out of the church, than were the veils (of the altar) taken away, to th'intent the holy mysteries might be showed in sight, doubtless to stir the people to more devotion; reverence, and to the adoration of Christ's body in them present. And thus for the Elevation or holding up of the sacrament, we have said enough.   
Or that the people did then fall down, and worship. jewel. the Sacrament with godly honour. 
Of the worshipping or adoration of the Sacrament.  
ARTICLE. VIII.  
IF the blessed Sacrament of the altar were no other, then M. jewel and the rest of the Sacramentaries think of it: then were it not well done the people to bow down to it, and to worship it with godly honour. For than were it but bare bread and wine, how honourably so ever they speak of it, calling it symbolical, that is, tokening, and sacramental bread and wine. But now this being that very bread, which god the father gave us from heaven, as Christ sayeth: 
joan. 6.  This bread being the flesh of Christ, which he gave for the life of the world this being that bread and that cup, 
1. Cor. 11.  whereof who so ever eateth or drinketh unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of our lord: in this Sacrament being contained the very real and substantial body and blood of Christ, as himself sayeth expressly in the three first evangelists, and in S. Paul: this being that holy Eucharistia, which Ignatius calleth the flesh of our Saviour jesus Christ, 
In epistola quadam ad Smyrnenses, ut citatur à Theodori to in Polymorph. Lib. 4. contrà haereses. ca 34.  that hath suffered for our sins, which the father by his goodness hath raised up to life again: This being not common bread, but the Eucharistia, after consecration consisting of two things, earthly and heavenly, as Irenaeus sayeth, meaning by the one, the outward forms, by the other, the very body and blood of Christ, who partly for the godhead inseparably thereto united, and partly for that they were conceived of the holy ghost in the most holy virgin Mary, are worthily called heavenly: This being that bread, which of our lord given to his disciples, not in shape, but in nature changed by the almighty power of the word, 
In Ser. de coena do.  is made flesh, as S. Cyprian termeth it: This being that holy mystery, wherein the invisible priest turneth the visible creatures (of bread and wine) in to the substance of his body and blood, by his word with secret power, 
Homil. 5. de Pascha.  as Eusebius Emisenus reporteth: This being that holy food, by worthy receiving whereof Christ dwelleth in us naturally, that is to wit, is in us by truth of nature, and not by concord of will only, 
Lib. 8. de trinitate.  as Hilarius affirmeth: Again this being that table, whereat in our lords meat we receive the word truly made flesh of the most holy virgin Mary, as the same Hilary sayeth: This being that bread which neither ear-ring nor sowing nor work of tillers hath brought forth, but that earth which remained untouched, and was full of the same, that is the blessed virgin mary, as Gregory Nyssene describeth: 
Lib. de vita Mosis. cap. 48. Constitut. Apostol. li. 8. c. vlt. In levit. lib. 1. ca 4.  This being that supper, in the which Christ sacrificed himself, as Clemens Romanus, and as Hesychius declareth: Who furthermore in an other place writeth most plainly, that these mysteries, meaning the blessed sacrament of th'altar, are sancta sanctorum, the holiest of all holy things, because it is the body of himself, of whom Gabriel said to the virgin, 
Luc. 1.  the holy ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the highest shall overshaddowe thee, therefore that holy thing which shall be borne of thee, shall be called the son of God, and of whom also isaiah spoke, Holy is our lord, and dwelleth on high, verily even in the bosom of the father: On the holy table where these mysteries are celebrated, the lamb of God being laid and sacrificed of priests unbloodily, as that most ancient and worthy council of Nice reporteth: Briefly in this highest Sacrament under visible shape invisible things, sooth the very true, real, lively, natural and substantial body and blood of our Saviour Christ being contained, as the scriptures, doctoures, councils, yea and the best learned of Martin Lutheres school do most plainly and assuredly affirm: This (I say in conclusion) being so, as it is undoubtedly so: we that remain in the catholic church, and can by no persecution be removed from the catholic faith, whom it liketh M. jewel and his fellows to call papists, believe verily, that it is our bownden duty to adore the Sacrament, and to worship it with all godly honour. By which word Sacrament notwithstanding in this respect, we mean not the outward forms, that properly are called the sacrament, but the thing of the sacrament, the invisible grace and virtue therein contained, even the very body and blood of Christ.  
And when we adore and worship this blessed Sacrament, we do not adore and worship the substance itself of bread and wine, because after consecration none at all remaineth. Neither do we adore the outward shapes and forms of bread and wine which remain, for they be but creatures that ought not to be adored: 
What Christian people adore in the Sacrament.  but the body itself and blood of Christ, under those forms verily and really contained, lowly and devoutly do we adore. And therefore to speak more properly, and according to skill, lest our adversaries might take advantage against us through occasion of terms, where right sense only is meant: we protest and say, that we do and aught to adore and worship the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament.  
And here this much is further to be said, that in the Sacrament of the altar, the body of Christ is not adored by thought of mind sundered from the word, but being inseparably united to the word. For this is specially to be considered, that in this most holy Sacrament, the body and blood of Christ are not present by themselves alone, as being separated from his soul and from the godhead: but that there is here his true and living flesh and blood joined together with his godhead inseparably, and that they be as himself is, perfit, whole and inseparable Which is sufficiently confirmed by sundry his own words in S. john. I am (sayeth he) the bread of life. Again, this is bread coming down from heaven, that if any eat of it, he die not. I am the lively bread that came down from heaven, if any eat of this bread, he shall live everlastingly. And to show what bread he meant, he concludeth with these words: And the bread which I shall give, is my flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world. By which words he assureth us plainly, that his flesh which he giveth us to eat, is full of life, and joined with his godhead, which bringeth to the worthy receivers thereof, immortality as well of body as of soul. Which thing flesh and blood of itself could not perform, as our lord himself declareth plainly, where he sayeth, as there it followeth: It is the spirit that quikneth or giveth life, the flesh profiteth nothing. The words which I have spoken to you, be spirit and life. As though he had said thus. The flesh of itself profiteth nothing, but my flesh which is full of godhead and spirit, bringeth and worketh immortality and life evetlasting to them that receive it worthily. Thus we understand in this blessed Sacrament not only the body and blood of Christ, but all and whole Christ, God and man, to be present in substance, and that for the inseparable unity of the person of Christ: and for this cause we acknowledge ourselves bounden to adore him, as very true God and man.  
For a clearer declaration hereof, I will not let to recite a notable sentence out of S. Augustine, where he expoundeth these words of Christ: 
In joan. tractat. 27  Then if ye see the son of man go up, where he was before. There had been no question (sayeth he) if he had thus said: if ye see the son of God go up, where he was before. But whereas he said, the son of man go up, where he was before, what was the son of man in heaven, before that he began to be in earth? Verily here he said, where he was before, as though then he were not there, when he spoke these words. And in an other place he sayeth, No man hath ascended in to heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the son of man, which is in heaven. He said not was, but the son of man (sayeth he) which is in heaven. In earth he spoke, and said himself to be in heaven. To what pertaineth this, but that we understand Christ to be one person, God and man, not two, lest our faith be not a trinity, but a quaternity? Wherefore Christ is one, the word, the soul and the flesh, one Christ: the son of God, and the son of man, one Christ. The son of God ever, the son of man in time: yet one Christ according to th'unity of person was in heaven, when he spoke in earth. So was the son of man in heaven, as the son of god was in earth. The son of god in earth in flesh taken, the son of man in heaven in unity of person. This far saint Augustine.  
Hereupon he expoundeth these words, it is the spirit that quikneth or giveth life, the flesh availeth nothing, thus: The flesh profiteth nothing, but the only flesh. Come the spirit to the flesh, and it profiteth very much. For if the flesh should profit nothing, the word should not be made flesh to dwell amongst us. For this unity of person to be understanded in both natures (sayeth the great learned father Leo) we read that both the son of man came down from heaven, 
Epist. ad Flavianun Constantinopolitanun epis. cap. 5.  when as the son of god took flesh of that virgin, of whom he was borne: and again, it is said, that the son of god was crucified and buried, whereas he suffered these things, not in the godhead itself, in which the only begotten is coeverlasting and consubstantial with the father, but in the infirmity of humane nature. Wherefore we confess all in the Crede also, the only begotten son of god crucified and buried, according to that saying of th'apostle: For if they had known, 
1. Cor. 2.  they would never have crucified the lord of Majesty.  
According to this doctrine Cyrillus writing upon S. john, sayeth, 
In joan. li. 4. ca 15.  he that eateth the flesh of Christ hath life everlasting. For this flesh hath the word of god, which naturally is life. Therefore he sayeth: I will raise him again in the last day. For I, said he, that is, my body, which shall be eaten, will raise him again. For he is not other, than his flesh. I say not this because by nature he is not other, but because after incarnation he suffereth not himself to be divided in to two sons. By which words he reproveth the heresy of wicked Nestorius, that went about to divide Christ, and of Christ to make two sons, the one the son of god, the other the son of mary, and so two persons. For which Nestorius was condemned in the first Ephesine council, and also specially for that he said, we receive in this Sacrament only the flesh of Christ in the bread, and his blood only in the wine without the godhead, because Christ said, he that eateth my flesh, and said not, he that eateth or drinketh my godhead, because his godhead can not be eaten, but his flesh only. Which heretical cavil Cyrillus doth thus avoid. 
Vide Anathematismum. xi. Item ad Theodos. de recta fide. & li. 2. ad Reginas, de recta fide.  Although (sayeth he) the nature of the godhead be not eaten, yet we eat the body of Christ, which verily may be eaten. But this body is the Words own proper body, which quikneth allthings. and in as much as it is the body of life, it is quikning or life giving.  
Now he quikneth us or giveth us life, as God, the only fonteine of life. Wherefore such speeches uttered in the scriptures, of Christ, whereby that appeareth to be attributed to the one nature, which appertaineth to the other, and contrary wise: according to that incomprehensible and unspeakable conjunction and union of the divine and humane nature in one person, are to be taken of him inseparably, in as much as he is both god and man: and not of this or that other nature only, as being severed from the other. For through cause of this inseparable union, what so ever is appertaining or peculiar to either nature, it is rightly ascribed, yea and it ought to be ascribed to the whole person. And this is done, as the learned divines term it, per communicationem idiomatum. And thus Cyrillus teacheth, how christ may be eaten, not according to the divine, but humane nature, which he took of us, and so likewise he is of Christian people adored in the Sacrament according to his divine nature. And yet not according to his divine nature only, as though that were separated from his humane nature, but his whole person together God and man. And his precious flesh and blood are adored for the inseparable conjunction of both natures into one person, which is jesus Christ God and man. Whom God hath exalted, (as S. Paul sayeth) and hath given him a name, 
Philip. 2.  which is above all name, that in the name of jesus every knee be bowed of the heavenly and the earthly things, and of things beneath, and that every tongue confess, that our lord jesus Christ is in glory of God the father, that is, of equal glory with the father, 
Heb. 10. Psal. 96.  And when God (sayeth S. Paul) bringeth his first begotten in to the world, he sayeth, and let all the Angels of God adore him. S. john writeth in his revelation, that he heard all creatures say, blessing honour, 
Apoc. 5.  glory and power be to him which sitteth in the throne, and to the lamb for ever. And the four and twenty elders fell down on their faces, and adored him that liveth until worlds of worlds.  
But it shall be more tedious than needful, to recite places out of the scriptures for proof of th'adoration of Christ, there may of them be found so great plenty. 
Contrariety in the first divisers of the new gospel.  Yet because Luther was either so blind or rather so devilish, as to deny th'adoration, where notwithstanding he confessed the presence of Christ's true and natural body in the Sacrament: I will here recite what the Sacramentaries of Zurich have written against him therefore. What (say they) is the bread the true and natural body of Christ, and is Christ in the supper (as the Pope and Luther do teach) present? Wherefore then ought not the lord there to be adored, where ye say him to be present? Why shall we be forbidden to adore that, which is not only sacramentally, but also corporally the body of Christ? Thomas toucheth the true body of Christ raised up from the dead, and falling down on his knees adoreth saying: My God and my lord. The disciples adore the lord as well before as after his Ascension. Matth. 28. Act. 1. And the lord in S. john sayeth to the blind man, 
joan. 9  believest thou in the son of God? and he answered him saying, Lord who is he, that I may believe in him? And jesus said to him. Thou hast both seen him, and who speaketh with thee, he it is. Then he sayeth, lord I believe. and he adored him. Now if we taught our lords bread to be the natural body of Christ, verily we would adore it also faithfully with the papists. This much the zwinglians against Luther. Whereby they prove sufficiently th'adoration of Christ's body in the Sacrament, and so consequently of Christ himself God and man, because of the inseparable conjunction of his divine and humane nature in unity of person, so as where his body is, there is it joined and united also unto his godhead, and so there Christ is present perfitly, wholly, and substantially, very god and man.  
For the clear understanding whereof the better to be attained, the scholastical Divines have profitably devised the term concomitantia, plainly and truly teaching that in this Sacrament after consecration under the form of bread is present the body of Christ, and under the form of wine his blood ex vi sacramenti, and with the body under form of bread also the blood, the soul, and godhead of Christ, and likewise with the blood, under the form of wine, the body, soul, and godhead, ex concomitantia, as they term it, in shorter and plainer wise uttering the same doctrine of faith, which the holy fathers did in the Ephesme council against Nestorius. Whereby they mean, that where the body of Christ is present, by necessary sequel, because of the indivisible copulation of both natures in the unity of person, (for as much as the Word made flesh never left the humane nature) there is also his blood, his soul, his godhead, and so whole and perfit Christ God and man. And in this respect the term is not to be misliked of any godly learned man, though some new masters scoff at it, who fill the measure of their predecessors, that likewise have been offended with terms for the apt declaration of certain necessary articles of our faith, by holy and learned fathers in general councils wholesomely devised. Of which sort been these, homoousion, humanatio, incarnatio, transubstantiatio, etc. Now here is to be noted, how the zwinglians, whom M. jewel followeth, in th'article of adoration confute the Lutherans, as on the other side, the Lutherans in th'article of the presence, confute the zwinglians. As though it were by gods special providence for the better stay of his church so wrought, that both the truth should be confessed by the enemies of truth, and also for uttering of untruth, the one should be condemned of the other, that by the war of heretics the peace of the church might be established, and by their discord the catholic people might the faster grew together in concord.  
Now having sufficiently proved by the scriptures, and that with the zwinglians also, adoration and godly honour to be due unto Christ's body, where so ever it please his divine majesty to exhibit the same present: let us see, whether we can find the same doctrine affirmed by the holy and ancient fathers.  
What the Apostles taught in their time concerning this Article, we may judge by that we read in Dionysius, that was S. Paul's scholar, and for that is to believed. He adoreth and worshippeth this holy mystery with these very words. 
Ecclesias. hierarch. cap. 3.  Sed ò divinum penitus sanctumque mysterium, etc. But o divine and holy mystery, which vouchesafest to open the cooveringes of signs laid over thee, utter thy light to us openly and plainly, and fill our spiritual eyes with the singular and evident brightness of thy light.  
Origen teacheth us how to adore and worship Christ in the Sacrament, before we receive it, after this form of words. 
Hom: 5. in diversos evangelii locos.  Quando sanctum cibum, etc. when thou receivest the holy meat and that uncorrupt banquet, when thou enjoyest the bread and cup of life, thou eatest and drinkest the body and blood of our lord: then our lord entereth in under thy roof. And therefore thou also humbling thyself follow this Centurion or captain, and say: Lord I am not worthy that thou enter under my roof. For where he entereth in unworthily, there he entereth in to the condemnation of the receiver.  
What can be thought of S. Cyprian, but that he adored the invisible thing of this Sacrament, which is the body and blood of Christ, seeing that he confesseth the godhead to be in the same, no less then it was in the person of Christ, which he uttereth by these words. 
In Ser. d● coena do.  Panis iste quem dominus discipulis porrigebat, etc. This bread which our lord gave to his disciples, changed not in shape, but in nature, by the almighty power of god is made flesh. And as in the person of Christ the manhood was seen, and the godhead was hidden, even so the divine essence hath unspeakably infused itself into the visible sacrament.  
Chrysostom hath a notable place for the adoration of Christ's body in the Sacrament, in his commentaries upon S. Paul, 
In 10. cap. prioris ad Corinth.  where he affirmeth also the real presence and the sacrifice. Let us not, let us not (sayeth he) be willing impudently to kill ourselves. And when thou seest that body set forth, say with thyself, for cause of this body I am no longer earth and ashes, no longer captive, but free. This body fastened (on the Cross) and beaten, was not overcome with death. After this he exhorteth all to adore and worship our lords body in the Sacrament. This body (sayeth he) the wise men worshipped in the stalle, and having taken a long journey, being both wicked and aliens, with very great fear and trembling adored him. Wherefore let us follow at least those aliens, us I say, that are citizens of heaven. For they, whereas they saw but that stalle and cabin only, and none of all the things thou seest now, came notwithstanding with the greatest reverence and fear, that was possible. But thou seest it not in a stalle of beasts, but on the altar, not a woman to hold it in her arms, but a priest present, and the holy ghost plentifully spread upon the sacrifice. This father in his Mass maketh a prayer in presence of the blessed Sacrament, almost with the same words, that S. Basile did. Attend domine jesu christ Deus noster, etc. Look upon us o lord jesus Christ our God, from thy holy habitacle, and from the throne of the glory of thy kingdom, and come to sanctify us, who sittest on high with the father, and art here invisibly with us, and make us worthy by thy mighty hand, that we may be partakers of thy unspotted body and precious blood, and through us, all the people.  
In the same Chrysostom's liturgy or Mass, a most evident testimony of adoration of the Sacrament is thus uttered. Sacerdos adorat, et diaconus in eo in quo est loco, ter secretò dicentes: Deus propitius esto, etc. The priest adoreth, and the deacon likewise in the place he standeth in, saying three times secretly: God be merciful to me a sinner. So the people, and likewise all make their adoration devoutly and reverently.  
In the same father is an other prayer, which the greek priests do use to this day at their adoration of Christ's body in the Sacrament, and it is expressed in these words. Domine non sum dignus etc. Lord I am not worthy that thou enter under the filthy roof of my soul. But as thou tookest in good part to lie in the den and stall of brute beasts, and in the house of Simon the leprous, receivedst also a harlot and a sinner like me coming unto thee: vouchsafe also to enter into the stalle of my soul void of reason, and into my filthy body being dead and leprous. And as thou didst not abhor the fowl mowth of a harlot, kissing thine undefiled feet: So my lord God abhor not me though a sinner, but vouchsafe of thy goodness and benignity, that I may be made partaker of thy most holy body and blood.  
S. Ambrose after long search and discussion, 
De spirit● sancto. li. 3. cap. 12. Psal. 96.  how that saying of the prophet might be understanded, Adore and worship ye his footstool, because it is holy: At length concludeth so, as by the footstool he understandeth the earth, because it is written, 
Esa. 66.  Heaven is my seat, and the earth is my footstool: And because, the earth is not to be adored, for that it is a creature, by this earth he understandeth that earth, which our lord jesus took in the assumption of his flesh of the virgin mary, and hereupon he uttereth those plain words for testimony of the adoration. Iraque per scabellum terra intelligitur, per terram autem caro Christi, quam hody quoque in mysterijs adoramus, & quam Apostoli in domino jesu adorarunt. And thus by the footstool earth may be understanded, and by earth the flesh of Christ, which even now adays also we adore in the mysteries, and the Apostles adored in our lord jesus.  
S. Augustine's learned handling of this place of the psalm, adore ye his footstool, because it is holy: maketh so evidently for this purpose, that of all other authorities, which in great number might be brought for prouse of the same, it ought least to be omitted. The place being long, I will recite it in English only. His words be these. Adore ye his footstool, 
In Psal. 98  because it is holy. See ye brethren, what that is, he biddeth us to adore. 
●sa. 66.  In an other place the scripture sayeth: heaven is my seat, and the earth is my footstool. What doth he then bid us adore and worship the earth, because he said in an other place, that it is the footstool of God? And how shall we adore the earth, whereas the scripture sayeth plainly, 
Deut. 6.10  Thou shalt adore thy lord thy God, and here he sayeth, adore ye his footstool? But he expoundeth to me, what his footstool is, 
Matth. 4.  and sayeth And the earth is my footstool. I am made doubtful, afraid I am to adore the earth, lest he damn me, that made heaven and earth. Again I am afraid not to adore the footstool of my lord, because the Psalm sayeth to me, Adore ye his footstool. I seek what thing is his footstool, and the scripture telleth me, The earth is my footstool. Being thus wavering, I turn me to Christ, because him I seek here, and I find how without impiety the earth may be adored. For he took of earth, earth, because flesh is of earth, and of the flesh of mary, he took flesh. And because he walked here in flesh, and that very flesh he gave us to eat to Salvation, and no man eateth that flesh, except first he adore it: it is found out how such a footstool of our lord may be adored, and how we not only sin not by adoring, but sin by not adoring. Doth not the flesh quicken and give life? Our lord himself said, when he spoke of the commendation itself of that earth: 
joan. 6.  it is the spirit that quikneth, but the flesh, profiteth nothing. Therefore when thou bowest thyself and fallest down to every such earth, behold it not as earth, but that holy one, whose footstool it is, that thou dost adore, for because of him thou dost adore. And therefore here he added: Adore ye his footstool, because it is holy. Who is holy? he for whose love thou adorest his footstool. And when thou adorest him, remain not by cogitation in flesh, that thou be not quikned of the spirit. For the spirit (sayeth he) quikneth, and the flesh profiteth nothing. And then when our lord commended this unto us, he had spoken of his flesh, and had said: Except a man eat my flesh, he shall not have in him life everlasting.  
Again S. Augustine showeth the manner and custom of his time touching the adoration of Christ in the Sacrament, writing thus ad Honoratum, 
Epist. 120. cap. 21.  upon the verse of the xxj. psalm, Edent pauperes & saturabuntur, that is, the poor shall eat and be filled, and upon that other, Manducaverunt & adoraverunt omnes divites terrae, all the rich of the earth have eaten and adored. It is not without cause (sayeth he) that the rich and the poor be so distincted, that of the poor it was said before, the poor shall eat and be filled: and here (of the rich) they have eaten and adored all that be the rich of the earth. For they have been brought to the table of Christ, and do take of his body and blood, but they do adore only, and be not also filled, for as much as they do not follow him.  
Likewise in his exposition upon that Psalm: 
In Psal. 2●  All the rich also (sayeth he there) of the earth have eaten the body of the humbleness of their lord, neither have they been filled as the poor, until the following. But yet they have adored and worshipped it, that is, by adoration they have acknowledged Christ their lord there present.  
Furthermore writing against Faustus the heretic of the Manichees sect, amongst other things he showeth, how the ethnics thought that christian people for the honour they did before the blessed Sacrament, that is of the bread and wine consecrated, did honour Bacchus and Ceres, which were false gods honoured of the Gentiles for the invention of wine and corn. Whereof may justly be gathered an argument, that in those days faithful people worshipped the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament, under the forms of bread and wine. For else the infidels could not have suspected them of doing idolatry to Bacchus and Ceres.  
One other most evident place touching this honour and adoration, we find in him rehearsed by Gratian. lib. Sent. Prosperi. 
De consecrat. dist 2 can. Nos autem.  we do honour (sayeth he) in form of bread and wine, which we see, things invisible, that is to say, flesh and blood. Neither take we likewise these two forms, as we took them before consecration. Sith that we do faithfully grant, that before consecration it is bread and wine, which nature hath shaped, but after consecration, flesh and blood of Christ, which the blessing (of the priest) hath consecrated.  
Leaving a number of places that might be alleged out of the ancient fathers for the confirmation of this matter, to avoid tediousness, I will conclude with that most plain place of Theodoritus. Who speaking of the outward signs of the Sacrament, sayeth, that notwithstanding they remain after the mystical blessing in the propriety of their former nature, as those that may be seen and felt nolesse then before: yet they are understanded and believed to be the things, which they are made by virtue of consecration, and are worshipped with godly honour. His words be these. Intelliguntur ea esse, quae facta sunt, 
Dialogo 2  & creduntur, & adorantur, ut quae illa sint, quae creduntur. These mystical signs (sayeth he) are understanded to be those things which they are made, and so they are believed, and are adored, as being the things which they are believed to be. With which words Theodoritus affirmeth both the real presence, and also the adoration. The real presence, in that he sayeth these outward signs or tokens after consecration to be made things, which are not seen, but understanded and believed, whereby he signifieth the invisible thing of this Sacrament, the body and blood of Christ. Adoration he teacheth with express terms, and that because through power of the mystical blessing the signs be in existence and in deed the things which they are believed to be, sooth the body and blood of Christ. For otherwise god forbid, that christian people should be taught to adore and worship the insensible creatures bread and wine. Of which he sayeth, that they are adored not as signs, not so in no wise, but as being the things which they are believed to be. Now I report me to the Christian reader, whether this Adoration of the Sacrament, whereby we mean the godly worship of Christ's body in the Sacrament, be a new devise or no, brought into the church but lately, about three hundred years past, 
Fol. 20.  as M. jewel maketh himself sure of it in his sermon. And whereas utterly to abolish this adoration, 
Fol. 26.  he allegeth great danger of idolatry, in case the priest do not truly consecrated: thereto may be answered, 
Gen. 29.  that jacob stood in no danger of conscience, for that by the procurement of Laban, he lay with Lya in stead of Rachel, neither for the same was he to be charged with adultery, because he meant good faith, and thought himself to have had the company of his wife Rachel. So idolatry is not to be imputed unto him, that worshippeth Christ with godly honour in the bread not consecrated, which of good faith he thinketh to be consecrate. Touching this case S. Augustine hath this notable saying. 
Inchi. 60  We have need (sayeth he) to put a difference in our judgement, and to know good from evil, for as much as Satan changing his shape, showeth himself as an angel of light, least through deceit he lead us a side to some pernicious things. For when he deceiveth the senses of the body, and removeth not the mind from true and right meaning, wherein each man leadeth a faithful life there is no peril in religion. Or if when he feigneth himself good, and doth or sayeth those things, that of congruence pertain to good angels, although he be thought to be good, this is not a perilous or sickly error of Christian faith. But when as by these things he beginneth to bring us to things quite contrary, then to know him from the good Spirit, and not to go after him, it standeth us much upon diligently to watch and take heed. Thus S. Augustine. This much for th'adoration of the Sacrament, or rather of Christ in the Sacrament, may suffice.   
Or that the Sacrament was then, or now ought, 
jewel.  to be hanged up under a Canopy. 
Of the reverent hanging up of the Sacrament under a Canopy.  
ARTICLE. IX.  
IF M. jewel would in plain terms deny the reservation and keeping of the blessed Sacrament, for which purpose the Pyxe and Canopy served in the Churches of England, as of the professors of this new gospel it is both in word and also in deed denied: it were easy to prove the same by no small number of authorities, such as himself can not but allow for good and sufficient. But he knowing that right well, guilefully refraineth from mention of that principal matter, and the better to make up his heap of Articles for some show against the Sacrament, by denial reproveth the hanging up of it under the Canopy, thereby showing himself like to Momus, who espying nothing reprovable in fair Venus, found fault with her slipper. Whereto we say, that if he with the rest of the Sacramentaries would agree to the keeping of the Sacrament, them would we demand, why that manner of keeping were not to be liked. And here upon proofs made of default in this behalf, and a better way showed, in so small a matter conformity to the better would soon be persuaded.  

diverse manners of keeping the blessed Sacrament.  In other christian countries (we grant) it is kept otherwise, under lock and key, in some places at the one end or side of the altar, in some places in a chapel builded for that purpose, in some places in the vestry or in some inward and secret room of the church, 
In epistola ad Innocentium.  as it was in the time of Chrysostom at Constantinople. In some other places we read, that it was kept in the bishops palais near to the church, and in the holy days brought reverently to the church, and set upon th'altar, which for abuses committed was by order of councils abrogated. 
In Concil. Braccaren. 3. Can. 5.  Thus in diverse places diversely it hath been kept, every where reverently and surely, so as it might be safe from injury and villainy of miscreants and despisers of it. The hanging up of it on high hath been the manner of England, as Lindewode noteth upon the constitutions provincial on high, that wicked despite might not reach to it, under a Canopy, for show of reverence and honour.  
If princes be honoured with cloth of estate, bishops with solemn thrones in their churches, and deans with canopies of tapistry, silk and arras (as we see in sundry cathedral churches) and no man find fault with it: why should M. jewel mislike the Canopy that is used for honour of that blessed Sacrament, wherein is contained the very body of Christ, and through the inseparable joining together of both natures in unity of person, Christ himself very God and man? With what face speaketh he against the Canopy used to the honour of Christ in the Sacrament, that sitting in the bishops seat at Salesburie, can abide the sight of a solene canopy made of paineted boards spread over his head? If he had been of counsel with Moses, David and Solomon, it is like he would have reproved their judgements for the great honour they used and caused so to be continued towards the Ark, wherein was contained nothing but the tables of the law, Aaron's rod, and a pottefull of Manna.  
King David thought it very unfitting, 
2. Reg. 7.  and felt great remorse in heart, that he dwelt in a house of cedars, and the Ark of God was put in the mids of skins, that is, of the tabernacle, whose outward parts were covered with beasts skins. And now there is one found among other monstrous and strange forms of creatures, manners and doctrines, who being but dust and ashes, as Abraham said of himself, promoted to the name of a bishop, and not chosen (I ween) to do high service of a man according to Gods own heart, as David was: thinketh not himself unworthy to sit in a bishops chair under a gorgeous testure or Canopy of gilted boards, and can not suffer the precious body of Christ, whereby we are redeemed, to have for remembrance of honour done of our part, so much as, a little Canopy, a thing of small price. Yet was the Ark but a shadow, and this the body, that the figure, this the truth, that the type or sign, this the very thing itself. As I do not envy M. jewel that honour, by what right so ever he enjoyeth it, So I can not but blame him for bereaving Christ of his honour in this blessed Sacrament.  
Now concerning this article itself, if it may be called an article, wherein M. jewel thinketh to have great advantage against us, as though nothing could be brought for it (though it be not one of the greatest keys nor of the highest mysteries of our Religion as he reporteth it to be the more to deface it) of the Canopy what may be found, I leave to others, neither it forceth greatly. 
Hanging up of the Sacrament in a pyx over the altar is ancient.  But of the hanging up of the Sacrament over the altar, we find plain mention in S. Basiles life written by Amphilochius that worthy bishop of Iconium. Who telleth that S. Basile at his Mass having divided the Sacrament in three parts, did put the one in to the golden dove (after which form the Pyxe was then commonly made) hanging over the altar, His words be these, Imposuerit columbae aureae pendenti super altar. And for further evidence, that such pyxes made in form of a dove in remembrance of the holy ghost, that appeared like a dove, were hanged up over th'altar, we find in the acts of the General council held at Constantinople, that the clergy of Antioch accused one Severus an heretic, before john the patriarch and the council there, that he had rifled and spoiled the holy altars, and molted the consecrated vessels, and had made away with some of them to his companions, praesumpsisset etiam columbas aureas & argenteas in formam Spiritus sancti super divina lavacra et altaria appensas una cum alijs sibi appropriare, dicens, non oportere in specie columbae Spiritum sanctum nominare. Which is to say, that he had presumed also to convert to his own use beside other things, the golden and syluerne doves, made to represent the holy ghost, that were hanged up over the holy fontes and altars, saying that no man ought to speak of the holy ghost in the shape of a dove.  
Neither hath the Sacrament been kept in all places and in all times in one manner of vessels. So it be reverently kept for the voyage provision for the sick, no catholic man will maintain strife for the manner and order of keeping. Symmachus a very worthy bishop of Rome in the time of Anastasius the Emperor, as it is written in his life, made two vessels of silver to reserve the Sacrament in, and set them on the altars of two churches in Rome, of S. Sylvester, and of S. Androw. These vessels they call commonly, ciboria. We find likewise in the life of S. Gregory, that he also like Symmachus made such a vessel which they call ciborium for the Sacrament, with four pillours of pure silver, and set it on the altar at S. Petres in Rome.  
In a work of Gregorius Turonensis, this vessel is called, turris in qua mysterium dominici corporis habebatur, a tower wherein our lords body was kept. In an old book de poenitentia of Theodorus the greek of Tarsus in Cilicia, sometime archbishop of Cantorbury, before Beda his time, it is called pixis cum corpore Domini ad viaticum pro infirmis. The pyx with our lords body for the voyage provision for the sick. In that book, in an admonition of a bishop to his clergy in a synod, warning is given, that nothing be put upon th'altar in time of the Sacrifice, but the coffer of Relics, the book of the four evangelists, and the pyx with our lords body.  
Thus we find that the blessed Sacrament hath always been kept in some places in a pyx hanged up over the altar, in some other places otherwise, every where and in all times safely and reverently, as is declared, to be alwaile in readiness for the voyage provision of the sick. Which keeping of it for that godly purpose, and with like due reverence, if M. jewel and the Sacramentaries would admit, no man will be either so scrupulous or so contentious, as to strive with them either for the hanging up of it, or for the Canopy.   

jewel.  Or that in the Sacrament after the words of Consecration there remaineth only the accidents and shows without the substance of bread and wine. 
Of the remaining of the Accidents without their substance in the Sacrament.  
ARTICLE. X.  
IN this Sacrament after consecration, nothing in substance remaineth that was before, neither bread nor wine, but only the Accidents of bread and wine: as their form and shape, savour, smell, colour, weight, and such the like, which here have their being miraculously without their subject: for as much as after consecration, there is none other substance, than the substance of the body and blood of our lord, which is not affected with such accidents, as the scholastical doctors term it. Which doctrine hath always though not with these precise terms, been taught and believed from the beginning, 
Transubstantiation affirmed.  and dependeth of the Article of Transubstantiation. For if the substance of bread and wine be changed in to the substance of the body and blood of our lord (which is constantly affirmed by all the learned and ancient fathers of the church) it followeth by a necessary sequel in nature and by drift of reason, that then the accidents only remain. For witness and proof whereof, I will not let to recite certain most manifest sayings of the old and best approved doctors.  
S. Cyprian that learned bishop and holy martyr sayeth thus in sermone de coena domini. Panis iste quem dominus discipulis porrigebat, non effigy, sed natura mutatus, omnipotentia verbi factus est caro. This bread which our lord gave to his disciples, changed not in shape, but in nature, by the almighty power of the word (he meaneth Christ's word of Consecration) is made flesh. Lo he confesseth the bread to be changed not in shape or form, for that remaineth, but in nature, that is to say, in substance. And to signify the change of substance, and not an accidentarie change only, to wit, from the use of common bread to serve for Sacramental bread, as some of our new Masters do expound that place for a shift he addeth great weight of words, whereby he far overpeiseth these men's light devise, saying that by the almighty power of our lords word, it is made flesh. Verily they might consider, as they would seem to be of sharp judgement, that to the performance of so small a matter, as their sacramental change is, the almighty power of god's word is not needful. And now if here this word factus est may signify an imaginative making, then why may not verbum caro factum est, likewise be expounded to the defence of sundry old heinous heresies against the true manhood of Christ? Thus the nature of the bread in this sacrament being changed, and the form remaining, so as it seem bread, as before consecration, and being made our lords flesh by virtue of the word, the substance of bread changed into that most excellent substance of the flesh of Christ: of that which was before, the accidents remain only, without the substance of bread. The like is to be believed of the wine.  

De consecrat. dist. 2 ca● omnia quaecumque.  Nothing can be plainer to this purpose, than the sayings of S. Ambros. Licet figura panis & vini videatur, nihil tamen aliud, quam caro Christi et sanguis post consecrationem credendum est. Although (sayeth he) the form of bread and wine be seen, yet after consecration we must believe, they are nothing else, but the flesh and blood of Christ. After the opinion of this father the show and figure of bread and wine are seen, and therefore remain after consecration. And if we must believe that which was bread and wine before, to be no other thing, but the flesh and blood of Christ: then are they no other thing in deed. For if they were, we might so believe. For belief is ground upon truth, and what so ever is not true, it is not to be believed. Hereof it followeth, that after consecration the accidents and shows only remain without the substance of bread and wine. 
De Sacramentis lib. 4. cap. 4.  In an other place he sayeth as much. Panis iste, etc. This bread before the words of the Sacraments, is bread, as soon as the consecration cometh, of bread is made the body of Christ. Again in an other place he sayeth most plainly. 
De ijs qui initiantur.  That the power of consecration is greater than the power of nature, because nature is changed by consecration. By this father it is evident, that the nature, that is to say, the substance of bread and wine by consecration being changed into the body and blood of Christ, their natural qualities, which be accidents contynewing unchanged for performance of the Sacrament, remain without the substance of bread and wine.  
According unto the which meaning Theodoritus sayeth, videri & tangi possunt sicut prius, 
Dialog. 2.  Intelliguntur autem ea esse, quae facta sunt, & creduntur. The bread and wine may be seen and felt as before consecration, but they are understanded to be the things, which they are made, and believed. We do not in like sort (sayeth S. Augustine) take these two forms of bread and wine after consecration, as we took them before. 
In lib Sentent. Prosperi. de conse. dict. 2. ca Nos autem.  Sith that we grant faithfully that before consecration it is bread and wine that nature hath shaped, but after consecration, that it is the flesh and blood of Christ, that the blessing hath consecrated. 
De verbis domini. Secundum Lucan. Sermone 28.  In an other place he sayeth, that this is not the bread which goeth in to the body (meaning for bodily sustenance) but that bread of life, qui animae nostrae substantiam fulcit, which sustaineth the substance of our soul.  
No man can speak more plainly hereof then Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus an old auctor, who wrote in greek, and is extant, but as yet remaining in written hand, and comen to the sight of few learned men. His words be not much unlike the words of the scole-doctoures. Praebetur corpus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. in specie sive figura panis. Item praebetur sanguis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Christ's body (sayeth he) is given us in form or figure of bread. Again his blood is given us in form of wine. A little after these words he sayeth thus. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Ne mentem adhibeas quasi pani & vino nudis, sunt enim haec corpus & sanguis, ut Dominus pronunciavit. Nam tametsi illud tibi sensus suggerit, esse scilicet panem & vinum nudum, tamen firmet te fides, & ne gustatu rem dijudices, quin potius pro certo ac comperto habe, omni duhitatione relicta, esse tibi impartitum corpus & sanguinem Christi. Consider not (sayeth this father) these as bare bread and wine. For these are his body and blood, as our lord said. For although thy sense report to thee so much, that it is bare bread and wine, yet let thy faith stay thee, and judge not thereof by thy taste, but rather be right well assured all doubt put a part, that the body and blood of Christ is given to thee. Again he sayeth thus in the same place. Haec cum scias, & pro certo & explorato habeas, qui videtur esse panis, non esse, sed corpus Christi, item quod videtur vinum, non esse, quanquam id velit sensus, sed sanguinem Christi, ac de eo prophetam dixisse, panis cor hominis confirmat: firma ipse cor, sumpto hoc pane, utpote spirituali. Where as thou knowest this for a very certainty, that that, which seemeth to be wine, is not wine, albeit the sense maketh that account of it, but the blood of Christ, and that the prophet therereof said, bread strengtheneth the heart of man: strengthen thou thyself thy heart by taking this bread, as that which is spiritual. And in 3. Catechesi this father sayeth, Panis Eucharistiae post invocationem sancti Spiritus non amplius est panis nudus & simplex, Sed corpus etc. The bread of the Sacrament after prayer made to the holy ghost, is not bare and simple bread, but the body of Christ.  
Now sith that by this doctors plain declaration of the catholic faith in this point, we ought to believe, and to be verily assured, that the bread is no more bread after consecration, but the very body of Christ, and the wine no more wine, but his precious blood, though they seem to the eye otherwise, though taste and feeling judge otherwise, and to be short, though all senses report the contrary, and all this upon warrant of our lords word, who said these to be his body and blood: and that (as he teacheth) not in the bread and wine: And further sith we are taught by Eusebius Emisenus in his homilies of Easter, to believe, terrena commutari & transire, the earthly things to be changed and to pass, again, creaturas converti in substantiam corporis Christi, the creatures of bread and wine to be turned in to the substance of our lords body and blood, which is the very transubstantiation: 
Transubstantion. In Liturgia.  And sith Chrysostom sayeth Panem absumi, that the bread is consumed away by the substance of Christ's body: And Damascen, 
Lib. 4. de orthodoxa fi. c. 14. In Mar. 14  bread and wine transmutari supernaturaliter, to be changed above the course of nature: and Theophylact, the bread transelementari in carnem domini, to be quite turned by changing of the elements, that is the matter or substance it consisteth of, into the flesh of our lord: and in an other place, 
In Matth. 26.  ineffabili operatione transformari, etiamsi panis nobis videatur, that the bread is transformed or changed into an other substantial form (he meaneth that of our lords body) by unspeakable working, though it seem to be bread.  

The treatises of these greek writers have been set forth of late by one Claudius de Saints.  Finally, sith that the greek Doctors of late age affirm the same doctrine, among whom Samona useth for persuasion of it the similitude, which Gregory Nyssene and Damascen for declaration of the same used before: which is, that in consecration such manner transubstantiation is made, as is the conversion of the bread in nourrishing, in which it is turned into the substance of the nourrished: Methonensis, like S. Ambrose, would not men in this matter to look for the order of nature, seeing that Christ was borne of a virgin beside all order of nature, and sayeth, that our lords body in this Sacrament, is received under the form or shape of an other thing, least blood should cause it to be horrible: Nicolaus Cabasila sayeth that this bread is no more a figure of our lords body, 
Cap. 27.  neither a gift bearing an image of the true gift, nor bearing any description of the passions of our Saviour himself, as it were in a table, but the true gift itself, the most holy body of our lord itself, which hath truly received reproaches, contumelies, stripes, which was crucified, which was killed: Marcus Ephesius though otherwise to be rejected, as he that obstinately resisted the determination of the Council of Florence concerning the proceeding of the holy ghost out of the son, yet a sufficient witness of the Greek churches faith in this point, affirming the things offered to be called of S. Basile antitypa, that is, the samplers and figures of our lords body, because they be not yet perfitly consecrated, but as yet bearing the figure and image, referreth the change or transubstantiation of them to the holy ghost, donec Spiritus sanctus adveniat, qui ea muter. these gifts offered (sayeth he) be of S. Basile called figures, until the holy ghost come upon them, to change them. Whereby he showeth the faith of the Greek church, that through the holy ghost in consecration the bread and wine are so changed, as they may no more be called figures, but the very body and blood of our lord itself, as into the same changed by the coming of the holy ghost. Which change is a change in substance, and therefore it may rightly be termed transubstantiation, 
Transubstantiation.  which is nothing else, but a turning or changing of one substance into an other substance: Sith for this point of our religion, we have so good authority, and being thus assured of the infallible faith of the church declared by the testimonies of these worthy fathers of diverse ages and quarters of the world: we may well say with the same church against M. jewel, that in this Sacrament after consecration there remaineth nothing of that which was before, but only the accidents and shows, without the substance of bread and wine.  
And this is a matter to a Christian man not hard to believe. For if it please God the almighty Creator, in the condition and state of things thus to ordain, that substances created bear and sustain accidents, why may not he by his almighty power conserve and keep also accidents without substance, sith that the very heathen philosophers repute it for an absurdity to say, primam causam non posse id praestare solam, quod possit cum secunda, that is to say, that the first cause (whereby they understand God) can not do that alone, which he can do with the second cause, where by they mean a creature?  
And that this being of accidents without substance or subject in this Sacrament, under which, the bread not remaining, the body of Christ is present, may the rather be believed: it is to be considered, that this thing took place at the first creation of the world, 
Basilius' hexaemeron. hom. 6 Damas'. li. 2. cap. 7. Paulus Burgensis. Gene. 1.  after the opinion of some Doctoures. Who do affirm that that first light, which was at the beginning until the fourth day, was not in any subject, but sustained by the power of God, as him liked. For that first light and the sun were as whiteness and a body withed, sayeth S. Basile. Neither then was wickliff yet borne, who might teach them, that the power of God can not put an accident without a subject. 
Lib. 2. histor. hussitarum.  For so he sayeth in his book de apostasia cap. 5. as Cochlaeus reporteth. Hereof it appeareth, out of what root the Gospelers of our country spring. Who smatching of the sape of that wicked tree, and hereby showing their kind, appoint bounds and borders to the power of God, that is infinite and incomprehensible. And thus by those fathers we may conclude, that if God can sustain and keep accidents with substance, he can so do without substance.   
Or that the priest then divided the Sacrament in three parts, and afterward received himself all alone. 
jewel.  
Of dividing the Sacrament in three parts.  
ARTICLE. XI.  
OF the priests receiving the Sacrament himself alone, enough hath been said before. This term All, here smatcheth of spite. For if any devout person require to be partaker with the priest, being worthily disposed and examined, he is not turned of, but with all gentleness admitted. And in this case the priest is not to be charged with receiving all alone. Albeit respect had to the thing received, how many so ever receive, it is all of all, and all of every one received. Concerning the breaking of the Sacrament, and the dividing of it in three parts, first, it is broken by the priest, that we may know our lord in fractione panis, in the breaking of the bread, as the two disciples acknowledged him, to whom jesus appeared in the day of his Resurrection, 
Luc. 24.  as they were going to Emaus. And also that thereby the passion of Christ may be represented to our remembrance, at which his precious body was for our sins broken, rend and torn on the cross. And this manner was used at the Sacrifice in the Apostles time, as it is witnessed by Dionysius S. Paul's scholar. 
Ecclesias. hierarch. cap. 3.  Opertum panem Pontifex aperit, in frusta concidens etc. The bishop (sayeth he) openeth the covered bread, dividing it in pieces etc. Now touching the dividing of the Sacrament in three parts, 
The dividing of the Sac. in three parts, a tradition of the Apostles.  it may appear to be a Tradition of the Apostles, or otherwise a custom very ancient, for as much as Sergius the bishop of Rome, who lived within lxxx. years of the six hundred years after Christ, that M. jewel referreth us unto, wrote of the mystery of that breaking or dividing the outward form of bread, and declared the signification of the same.  
It is no small argument of the antiquity of this observation, that S. Basile, as Amphilochius writeth of him, divided the Sacrament in three parts at his Mass, as is above rehearsed. 
De consecrat. dist. 2 can. Triforme.  And where as Sergius sayeth, that the portion of the host which is put in to the chalice, betokeneth the body of Christ that is now risen again, and the portion which is received and eaten, showeth his body yet walking on the earth, and that other portion remaining on the altar signifieth his body in the sepulchre: what I pray you is there herein, that any man should be offended with all? I acknowledge that the mystery hereof is otherwise of some declared, and of all to this end, to put us in mind of the benefits purchased to us by Christ in his body. Now that this custom or mystical ceremony was not first ordained by Sergius, for aught that can be gathered, but of him expounded only touching the mystery of it, as used before his time from the beginning of the church, no one ancient council or author found upon whom it may be fathered, of good reason, sith it hath generally been observed, we may refer the first institution of it to the Apostles: and that according to the mind of S. Augustine, whose notable saying for that behalf is this. Quod universa tenet Ecclesia, nec in concilijs constitutum, sed semper retentum est, non nisi auctoritate Apostolica traditum rectissimè creditur. What (sayeth he) the universal church keepeth, neither hath been ordained in councils, but hath always been observed: of good right we believe it hath been delivered (to the church) as a Tradition by the authority of the Apostles.  
To conclude, if any spark of godliness remain in our deceived country men and brethren, they will not scorn and despise this ancient ceremony of dividing the Sacrament in three parts at the blessed Sacrifice of the Mass, whereof any occasion of evil is not only not ministered, but rather contrariwise, whereby we are admonished and stirred to tender our own soul health and to render thanks to God, for the great benefit of our redemption.   
Or that who so ever had said the Sacrament is a figure, 
jewel.  a pledge, a token, or a remembrance of Christ's body, had therefore been judged for an heretic. 
Of the terms figure, figne, token, etc. by the fathers applied to the Sacrament.  
ARTICLE XII.  
IN this article we do agree with M. jewel in some respect. For we confess, it can not be avouched by scripture, ancient council, doctor or example of the primitive church, that who so ever had said, the Sacrament is a figure, a pledge, a token, or a remembrance of Christ's body, had therefore been judged for an heretic. No man of any learning ever wrote so unlearnedly. Much less to impute heresy to any man for saying thus, hath been any of the highest mysteries or greatest keys of our Religion, with which untruth M. jewel goeth about to deface the truth. Wherefore this article seemeth to have been put in either of malice toward the church, or of ignorance, or only to fill up the heap, for lack of better stuff. Perusing the works of the ancient and learned fathers we find, that oftentimes they call the Sacrament a figure, a sign, a token, a mystery, a sampler. The words of them used to this purpose in their learned tongues, are these. Figura, Signum, Symbolum, Mysterium, Exemplar, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Imago, etc. By which they mean not to diminish the truth of Cristes' body in the Sacrament, but to signify the secret manner of his being in the same.  
For the better understanding of such places, where these terms are used in the matter of the Sacrament, the doctrine of S. Augustine in sententijs Prosperi, may serve very well. 
De consecrat. dist. 2 can. hoc est quod dicimus.  Which is thus. Hoc est quod dicimus, quod omnibus modis approbare contendimus, sacrificium Ecclesiae duobus confici, duobus constare, visibili elementorum specie, & invisibili Domini nostri jesu Christi carne & sangnine: Sacramento, (id est externo sacro signo) et re sacramenti, id est, corpore Christi, etc. This is that we say (sayeth he) which by all means we go about to prove, that the Sacrifice of the church is made of two things, and consists of two things, of the visible shape of the elements (which are bread and wine) and the invisible flesh and blood of our lord jesus Christ, of the Sacrament, (that is the outward sign) and the thing of the sacrament, to wit, of the body of Christ, etc. By this we understand, that this word (Sacrament) is of the father's two ways taken. First for the whole substance of the Sacrament, as it consisteth of the outward forms, and also with all of the very body of Christ verily present, as saint Augustine sayeth the Sacrifice of the Church to consist of these two. Secondly, it is taken so, as it is distinct from that hidden and divine thing of the Sacrament, that is to say, for the outward forms only, which are the holy sign of Christ's very body present under them contained. 
How the fathers are to be understanded calling the Sacrament a figure, sign, token, etc.  Whereof we must gather, that when so ever the fathers do call this most excellent Sacrament a figure, or a sign, they would be understanded to mean none otherwise, then of those outward forms, and not of Christ's body itself, which is there present not typically, or figuratively, but really and substantially, unless perhaps respect be had not to the body itself present, but to the manner of presence, as sometimes it happeneth.  
So is Saint Basile to be understanded in Liturgia, calling the sacrament antitypon, that is, a sampler or a figure, and that after consecration, as the copies, that be now abroad, be found to have. So is Eustathius to be taken that great learned father of the Greek church, who so constantly defended the catholic faith against the Arians, cited of Epiphanius in 7. Synodo. Albe it concerning S. Basile, 
E●. 4. c. 14. in caput Matth. 26  Damascen and Euthymius, likewise Epiphanius in the second Nicene council actione 6. and Marcus Ephesius, who was present at the council of Florence, would have that place so to be taken before consecration. As S. Ambrose also, calling it a figure of our lords body and blood. lib. 4. de sacram. cap. 5. And if it appear strange to any man, that S. Basile should call those holy mysteries antitypa after consecration, let him understand, that this learned father thought good by that word to note the great secret of that mystery, and to show a distinct condition of present things, from things to come. And this consideration the church seemeth to have had, which in public prayer after holy mysteries received, maketh this humble petition, ut quae nunc specie gerimus, 
Sabbato 4. temporum mensis Septemb.  certae rerum veritate capiamus: that in the life to come we may take that in certain truth of things, which now we bear in shape or show. Neither do these words import any prejudice against the truth of the presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament: but they signify and utter the most principal truth of the same, when as all outward form, shape, show, figure, sampler and cover taken away, we shall have the fruition of God himself in sight face to face, not as it were through a glass, but so as he is, in truth of his Majesty. So this word antitypon thus taken in S. Basile, furthereth nothing at all the Sacramentaries false doctrine against the truth of the presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament.  
And because our adversaries do much abuse the simplicity of the unlearned, bearing them in hand, that after the judgement and doctrine of th'ancient fathers, the Sacrament is but a figure, a sign, a token, or a badge, and containeth not the very body itself of Christ, for proof of the same alleging certain their sayings uttered with the same terms: I think good by the recital of some the chief such places, to show, that they be untruly reported, and that touching the verity of the presence in the Sacrament, they taught in their days the same faith, that is taught now in the catholic church.  
Holy Ephrem in a book he wrote to those that will search the nature of the son of God by man's reason, 
Cap. 4.  sayeth thus. Inspice diligenter, quomodo sumens in manibus panem, benedicit ac frangit in figura immaculati corporis sui, calicemque in figura pretiosi sanguinis sui benedicit, & tribuit discipulis suis. Behold (sayeth he) diligently, how taking bread in his hands, he blesseth it and breaketh it in the figure of his unspotted body, and blesseth the cup in the figure of his precious blood, and giveth it to his disciples. By these words he showeth the partition, division, or breaking of the Sacrament, to be done no otherwise, but in the outward forms, which be the figure of Christ's body present and under them contained. Which body now being glorious, is no more broken nor parted, but is indivisible, and subject no more to any passion. and after the Sacrament is broken, it remaineth whole and perfit under each portion. Again, by the same words he signifieth, that outward breaking to be a certain holy figure and representation of the crucifying of Christ and of his blood shedding. Which thing is with a more clearness of words set forth by saint Augustine, in Sententijs Prosperi. Dum frangitur hostia, 
De consecrat. dist 2 can. dum frangitur.  dum sanguis de chalice in ora fidelium funditur, quid aliud quám Dominici corporis in cruce immolatio, eiusue sanguinis de latere effusio designatur? Whiles the host is broken, whiles the blood is powered in to the mouths of the faithfulles, what other thing is thereby showed and set forth, than the sacrificing of Christ's body on the cross, and the shedding of his blood out of his side? And by so doing the commandment of Christ is fulfilled, Do this in my remembrance.  
That it may further appear, that these words, figure, sign, image, token, and such other the like sometimes used in ancient writers, do not exclude the truth of things exhibited in the Sacrament, but rather signify the secret manner of th'exhibiting amongst all other, the place of Tertullian in his fourth book contrâ Marcionem, is not to be omitted, specially being one of the chief and of most appearance, that the Sacramentaries bring for proof of their doctrine. Tertullianes words be these. Acceptum panem & distributum discipulis suis, corpus suum illum fecit, hoc esse corpus meum dicendo, id est, figura corporis mei. The bread that he took and gave to his disciples, he made it his body, in saying, this is my body, that is, the figure of my body.  
The double taking of the word Sacrament, afore mentioned remembered, and consideration had, how the sacraments of the New testament comprehend two things, the outward visible forms, that be figures, signs and tokens, and also, and that chief a divine thing under them according to Christ's promiss covertly contained, specially this being weighed, that this most holy Sacrament consisteth of these two things, to wit, of the visible form of the outward elements, and the invisible flesh and blood of Christ, that is to say, of the Sacrament, and of the thing of the sacrament: Tertullian may seem to speak of these two parts of the sacrament jointly in this one sentence. For first, he speaketh most plainly of the very body of Christ in the Sacrament, and of the marvelous turning of the bread into the same. the bread (sayeth he) that he took and gave to his disciples, he made it his body. Which is the divine thing of the sacrament. Then forthwith he sayeth, that our lord did it by saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body. By which words he showeth the other part, the sacrament only, that is to say, that holy outward sign of the form of bread, under which form Christ's body, into the which the bread by god's power is turned, is contained: which outward form is verily the figure of Christ's body present, which our lord under the same contained delivered to his disciples, and now is likewise at that holy table to the faithful people delivered, where the order of the catholic church is not broken.  
That Tertullian in this place is so to be understanded, we are taught by the great learned bishop saint Augustine, and by Hilarius, who was bishop of Rome next after Leo the first. Saint Augustine's words be these. 
De consec. dist. 2. canon. utrunsub figura  Corpus Christi & veritas, & figura est. Veritas, dum corpus Christi & sanguis in virtute Spiritus sancti, ex panis & vini substantia efficitur. Figura verò est, quod exterius sentitur. The body of Christ is both the truth, and the figure. The truth, whiles the body of Christ and his blood by the power of the holy ghost, is made of the substance of bread and wine. And it is the figure, that is with outward sense perceived.  
Where S. Augustine here sayeth, the body and blood of Christ to be made of the substance of bread and wine, beware thou unlearned man, thou think not them thereof to be made, as though they were newly created of the matter of bread and wine, neither that they be made of bread and wine, as of a matter: but that where bread and wine were before, after consecration there is the very body and blood of Christ borne of the virgin Mary, and that in substance, in sort and manner to our weak reason incomprehensible.  

Dist 2. cano. corpus Christi.  The words of Hilarius the Pope utter the same doctrine. Corpus Christi quod sumitur de altari, figura est, dum panis & vinum videtur extrà: Veritas autem, dum corpus Christi interius creditur. The body of Christ which is received from the altar, is the figure, whiles bread and wine are seen outwardly: And it is the truth, whiles the body and blood of Christ are believed inwardly. Thus the fathers call not only the sacrament, but also the body and blood of Christ itself in the sacrament, sometimes the truth, sometimes a figure. the truth, that is to wit, the very and true body and blood of Christ a figure, in respect of the manner of being of the same there present, which is really and substantially, but invisibly, under the visible form of the outward elements. And so Tertullian meaneth by his, that is the figure of my body, as though Christ had showed by the word (Hoc) that which was visible, which verily is the figure of the body, right so as that which is the invisible inward thing, is the truth of the body. Which interpretation of Tertullian in deed is not according to the right sense of Christ's words, though his meaning serve not from the truth. For where as our lord said, this is my body, he meant not so as though he had said, the outward form of the Sacrament, which here I deliver to you, is a figure of my body under the same contained, for as much as by these words, Hoc est, he showed not the visible form of bread, but the substance of his very body, in to which by his divine power he turned the bread. And therefore none of all the fathers ever so expounded those words of Christ, but contrary wise, namely Theophylacte, and Damascen. He said not (sayeth Theophylact) This is a figure, 
In Matth. cap. 26. Lib. 4. ca 14.  but this is my body. The bread, nor the wine (meaning their outward forms) sayeth Damascen is not a figure of the body and blood of Christ: Not so, in no wise. But it is the body itself of our lord deificated, sith our lord himself sayeth, This is my body, not the figure of my body, but my body, and not the figure of my blood, but my blood. etc.  
And the cause why Tertullian so expounded these words of Christ, was, that thereby he might take advantage against Martion the heretic, as many times the fathers in heat of disputation do handle some places, not after the exact signification of the words, but rather follow such way, as serveth than best to confut their adversary. Which manner not reporting any untruth, S. Basile doth excuse in the setting forth of a disputation, not in prescribing of a doctrine. 
Epist. 64.  As he defendeth Gregorius Neocaesariensis against the Sabellianes, for that in a contention he had with Aelianus an Ethnic, to declare the mysteries of the trinity, he used the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in stead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And the learned men that be well seen in the fathers, know they must use a discretion and a sundry judgement between the things they writ agonisticῶs, that is to say, by way of contention or disputation, and the things they utter dogmaticῶs, that is by way of setting forth a doctrine or matter of faith. Neither in that contention did Tertullian so much regard the exact use of words, as how he might win his purpose, and drive his adversary denying that Christ took the true body of man, and that he suffered death in deed, to confess the truth, which he thought to bring to pass, by deducing an argument from the figure of his body, which consisteth in that which is visible in the sacrament, to prove the verity of his body. and therefore in framing his reason by way of illation he sayeth, Figura autem non esset, nisi veritatis esset corpus. There were not a figure, unless there were a body of truth or a very body in deed.  
And whereas Tertullian useth this word figure in this place, it is not to be understanded to be such, 
The words figure, sign, token, etc. exclude not the truth.  as the figures of the old testament be, as though it signified the showing of a thing to come, or of a thing absent, which is wont to be set against the truth, as contrary to the same: but it is such a kind of figure, as doth cover the truth present, and so as it were joined with the truth, as it is wont to be taken in the new testament, where it showeth rather the manner of a thing to be exhibited, then that it taketh away the truth of presence of the thing which is exhibited. For else concerning the truth of Christ's body in the Sacrament, if any man doubt what opinion he was of, he showeth himself plainly so to judge of it, as ever hath been taught in the catholic church. Whereof he giveth evidence in many other places, but specially in his second book to his wife, exhorting her not to mary again to an infidel, if she overlived him, lest if she did, she should not have opportunity to observe the Christian Religion, as she would. Speaking of the blessed Sacrament, which was then commonly kept of devout men and women in their houses, and there in times of persecution received before other meats, when devotion stirred them, he saith thus. Shall not thy husband know, what thou eatest secretly before other meat? And if he know it, he will believe it to be bread, not him who it is called. the latin is recited before. I omit many other places, which show him to acknowledge Christ's body in the Sacrament, because I would not be tedious, which verily by no wresting can be drawn to the signification of a mere figure. The like answer may be made to the objection brought out of S. Augustine, contrà Adimantum Manichaeum. cap. 13. Non dubitavit dominus dicere, Hoc est corpus meum, cum tamen daret signum corporis sui: our lord sticked not to say, This is my body, when notwithstanding he gave the sign of his body. For this is to be considered, that S. Augustine in fight against the Manichees, oftentimes useth not his own sense and meaning, but those things, which by some mean, how so ever it were, might seem to give him advantage against them, so as he might put them to the worst. as he witnesseth himself in his book de bono perseverantiae cap. 11. & 12.  
Gregory Nazianzene oratione 4. in sanctum Pascha, showing difference between the passover of the law, which the jews did eat, and that which we in the New testament do eat in the mystery of the Sacrament, and that which Christ shall eat with us in the life to come in the kingdom of his father, uttereth such words, as whereby he calleth that we receive here, a figure of that shall be received there. Caeterum iam Paschae fiamus participes, figuraliter tamen adhuc, etsi Pascha hoc veteri sit manifestius. Siquiden Pascha legal, audenter dico, figurae figura erat obscurior: at paulò post illo perfectius & purius fruemnr, cum Verbum ipsum biberit nobiscum in regno patris nowm, detegens et docens, quae nunc mediocriter ostendit. Nowm enim semper existit id, quod nuper est cognitum. But now (sayeth he) let us be made partakers of this passover, and yet but figuratively as yet, albe it this passover be more manifest, then that of the old law. For the passover of the law (I speak boldly) was a dark figure of a figure: but ere it be long, we shall enjoy it more perfitly and more purely, when as the Word (that is the son of God) shall drink the same new with us in the kingdom of his father, opening and teaching the things, that now he showeth not in most clear wise. For that ever is new, which of late is known. Where as this learned father calleth our passover that we eat a figure, whereof the law passover was a figure, terming it the figure of a figure, he asketh leave, as it were, so to say, and confesseth himself to speak boldly, alluding as it seemeth to S. Paul, or at least having fast printed in his mind his doctrine to the Hebrews: 
Heb. 10.  where he calleth the things of the life to come, res ipsas, the very things themselves, the things of the New testament, ipsam imaginem rerum, the very image of things: and the Old testament, imaginis umbran, the shadow of the image. Which doctrine Nazianzene applieth to the Sacrament of the altar. And his meaning is this, that although we be gotten out of those darkness of the law, yet we are not come to the full light, which we look for in the world to come, where we shall see and behold the very things themselves clearly, and we shall know as we are known. To be short, by his report the sacraments of the old testament be but figures and shadows of things to come, the Sacraments of the New testament, not shadows of things to come, but figures of things present, which are contained and delivered under them in mystery, but yet substantially at the end all figures in heaven shall cease and be abolished, and there shall we see all those things that here be hidden, clearly face to face. And where Christ sayeth, that he will drink his passover new with us in the kingdom of his father, Nazianzen so expoundeth that word (New) as it may be referred to the manner of the exhibiting, not to the thing exhibited. not that in the world to come we shall have an other body of our lord, which now we have not, but that we shall have the self same body, that now we have in the Sacrament of the altar in a mystery, but yet verily and substantially, after an other sort and manner, and in that respect new. for so had without mystery or coverture in clear sight and most joyful fruition, it is new in comparison of this present knowledge.  
Thus the word figure reporteth not always the absence of the truth of a thing, as we see, but the manner of the thing either promised, or exhibited. that for as much as it is not clearly and fully seen, it be called a figure. so of Origen it is called imago rerum, 
In Psal. 38 homil. 2.  an image of the things, as in this place. Si quis verò transire potuerit ab hac umbra, veniat ad imaginem rerum, & videat adventum Christi in carne factum, videat cum pontificem offerentem quidem & nunc patri hostias, & post modum oblaturum, & intelligat haec omnia imagines esse spiritualium rerum, & corporalibus officijs coelestia designari. Imago ergo dicitur hoc quod recipitur ad praesens, & intueri potest humana natura. And if any man (sayeth he) can pass and depart from this shadow, let him come to the image of things, and see the coming of Christ made in flesh, let him see him a bishop that both now offereth sacrifice unto his father, and also hereafter shall offer. And let him understand, that all these things be images of spiritual things, and that by bodily services heavenly things be resembled and set forth. So this which is at this present received, and may of man's nature be seen, is called an image. In this saying of Origen this word image doth not in signification diminish the truth of things, so as they be not the very things in deed, for the things that Christ did in flesh, were true things: but when they are termed the image of things, thereby is signified, so far, as the condition and nature of man can behold and see them.  
This is most plainly uttered by Oecumenius a Greek writer, upon these words of saint Paul to the Hebrews. Non ipsam imaginem rerum. 
Hebr. 10.  Not the image itself of things, id est, veritàtem rerum, that is the truth of things, sayeth he. and addeth further. Res appellat futuram vitam, imaginem autem rerum, Euangelicam politiam, umbram verò imaginis rerum, vetus Testamentum, imago enim manifestiora ostendit exemplaria: adumbratio autem imaginis obscurius haec manifestat, nam haec veteris testamenti exprimit imbecillitatem. The sense of which words may thus be uttered in English. S. Paul calleth the life to come, the things, and the ordinance or disposition of the things in the gospel, he calleth the image of things, and the old testament, he nameth the shadow of the image of things. For an image showeth samples more manifest: but the adumbration or shadowing of the image showeth these things but darkly, for this doth express the weakness of the old testament. By this place of Oecumenius we see, that although it be proper to an image to exhibit the truth of things, and therefore by interpretation he sayeth, Imaginem, id est, veritatem, the image, that is, the truth yet the proper and right taking of the word, signifieth the way or manner of a thing to be exhibited, not the thing itself: that what the image hath less than the thing itself, it is to be understanded in the manner of exhibiting, not in the thing itself exhibited.  
Hitherto we have brought examples to declare that the words, figure and image, signify the truth of things exhibited in deed, though in secret and privy manner. Certain fathers use the words signum & sacramentum, that is, sign and Sacrament, in the same signification. Saint Augustine in libro Sententiarum Prosperi, 
De consecra. dist. 2. can. Vtrun sub figura  sayeth thus. Caro eius est, quam forma panis opertam in sacramento accipimus, & sanguis eius, quem sub vini specie & sapore potamus, car● videlicet carnis, & sanguis est sacramentúm sanguinis, carne & sanguine, utroque invisibili, spirituali, intelligibili, signatur visibile domini nostri jesu Christi corpus, & palpabile, plenum gratia omnium virtu●um & divina maiestate. It is his flesh that we receive do ●●●ered with the form of bread in the Sacrament, and his blood, that under the shape and savour of wine we drink, sooth flesh is a sacrament of flesh, and blood is a sacrament of blood: by the flesh and the blood both invisible, spiritual, intelligible, our lord jesus Christ his visible and palpable body full of the grace of all virtues and divine Majesty, is signified, or as it were with a sign noted.  
In these words of Saint Augustine we see the flesh of Christ called a sacrament of his flesh, and the blood a Sacrament of his blood, in as much as they be covered with the form of bread and wine, yet verily and in substance present, and likewise he letteth not to call this verity or truth of the things themselves thus covertly exhibited, a sign of Christ's visible and palpable body: so that the naming of a sign doth not import a separation from the truth, but showeth a distinct manner of the truth exhibited: And therefore according to the truth of the manner of exhibiting, it is not the flesh of Christ, but the sacrament of the flesh of Christ, for that the flesh doth not exhibit itself in his own shape, but in a Sacrament. And therefore in an other place he writeth thus. Sic●t erg● coelestis panis, 
De consecra. dist. 2. can. Hoc est quod dicimus.  qui caro Christi est, suo modo vocatur corpus Christi, cum re vera sit sacramentum corporis Christi, illius videlicet quod visibile, quod palpabile, mortale in cruce positum est, vocaturque ipsa immolatio carnis, quae sacerdotis manibus fit, Christi passio, mors, crucifixio, non rei veritate, sed significant mysterio: Sic Sacramentum fidei, quod Baptismus intelligitur, Fides est. As the heavenly bread (sayeth Saint Augustin) which is the flesh of Christ in his manner is called the body of Christ, when as in very deed it is the sacrament of Christ's body, even of that which is visible, which is palpable, and being mortal was put on the cross, and the sacrificing itself of his flesh, which is done by the priests hands, is called the passion, the death, the crucifying of Christ, not in truth of the thing, but in mystery signifying: So the Sacrament of faith, which is understanded to be baptism, is faith. By heavenly bread he understanded not wheaten bread, but that heavily meat, which he sayeth to be the flesh of Christ, and this far he affirmeth the truth of his flesh itself; which he sayeth to be called suo modo in his manner the body of Christ: as who should say, whose truth notwithstanding if ye behold on the behalf of the manner of exhibiting, in very deed it is a Sacrament of Christ's body, which is in visible shape, so as he speaketh of Christ's body, that hath suffered.  

In Psa. 98. In 1. cap. Ephes.  Again S. Augustine sayeth in an other place. Non hoc corpus quod videris comestari estis. Not this body which ye see, shall ye eat. And Saint Hierom sayeth, divinam & spiritualem carnem manducandam dari, aliam quidem ab ea quae crucifixa est. that divine and spiritual flesh is given to be eaten, other beside that, which was crucified. Wherefore in respect of the exhibiting, the flesh is divided, that in itself is but one: and the flesh exhibited in mystery, is in very deed a Sacrament of Christ's body visible and palpable, which suffered on the cross. And thus it followeth of convenience, whereas the flesh is not the same according to the qualities of the exhibiting, which was crucified, and which now is sacrificed by the hands of a priest: again where as the passion, death and resurrection are said to be done not in truth of the thing, but in mystery signifying: it followeth (I say) that the flesh is not the same in qualities, so as it was on the cross, though it be the same in substance.  
Many more authorities might be alleged for the opening of this matter, but these for this present are enough, if they be not too many, as I fear me they will so appear to the unlearned reader, and to such as be not given to earnest study and diligent search of the truth. By these places it is made clear and evident, that these name's figure, image, sign, token, sacrament, and such other the like, of force of their signification, do not always exclude the truth of things: but do only show and note the manner of presence. Wherefore to conclude this matter, that is somewhat obscure to senses little exercised, the figure of the body, or the sign of the body, the Image of the body, doth note the coovertnesse and secretness in the manner of the exhibiting, and doth not diminish any whit the truth of the presence. So we do accord with M. jewel in this article, touching the form of words, but withal we have thought it necessary, to declare the true meaning of the same, which is contrary to the doctrine of the Sacramentaries.   

jewel.  Or that it was lawful then to have thirty. xx.xu.x. or .v. Masses said, in one church in one day. 
Of plurality of Masses in one church in one day.  
ARTICLE XIII.  
AS M. jewel here descendeth by diverse proportions and degrees, from xxx to .v. first by taking away ten the third part of the whole, and then .v. from the rest three times: So it might have pleased him also to have taken away three from live the last remanent, and so to have left but two in all. Which if he had done, then should we so have made up that number, as in this audile he might not other wise do, in regard of his own free promiss, but allow our account for good and sufficient. For that number we are well able to make good. And what reason hath moved the ancient father's governors of the church, to think it a godly and a necessary thing, to have two Masses in one church in one day, the same reason in cases either hath, or might have moved them and their successors after them likewise, to allow three or fover Masses, and in some cases five or more.  
Now if that reckoning could duly be made of our part, M. jewel perhaps would then say, as commonly they say that confess their error in numbering, that he had mistolde himself. Albe it here it is to be marveled, that he appointeth us to prove a number of Masses in one church in one day, that utterly denieth the Mass, and would have no Mass in any church any day at all. And standing in the denial of the whole so peremptorely as he doth, it may seem strange, that he should thus frame this Article. For what reason is it to challenge us for proof of so great a number, sith he taketh away all together?  
It appeareth that being not unwitting how good proofs we have for the Mass itself, he thinketh to blank us by putting us to the proof of his number of thirty. xx.xu.x. or .v. Verily this kind of men fareth with the church much like unto strong thieves, who having rob an honest wealthy man of all his money, say afterwards unto him uncourteously, ah carl how camest thou by so much old gold? 
Lydford law used by the gospelers.  Or if it like not them to be compared with thieves, in regard of the Rome they have shuffled themselves into, they may not unfitly be likened to a judge of the Stemerie at Lidford in Devonshire, who (as I have heard it commonly reported) hanged a felon among the Tynners' in the forenoon, and sat upon him in judgement at afternoon. And thereof to this day such wrongful dealing in a common proverb is in that country called Lidford law. Sith that you M. jewel and your fellows that now sit on the bench, require of us the proof of more Masses in one church in one day, as it were a verdict of twelve men: of equity and right, ye should have heard our verdict, ere ye had given sentence and condemned the Mass. 
Plurality of Masses in one church in one day.   
Now touching the number and iteration of the Mass, first we have good and ancient authority for two Masses in one church in one day.  
That eloquent and holy father Leo the first, writeth thus to Dioscorus bishop of Alexandria. Volumus illud quoque custodiri, ut cum solennior festivitas conventum populi numerosioris indixerit, & ad eam tanta multitudo convenit, quae recipi basilica simul una non possit, Sacrificij oblatio indubitanter iteretur ne ijs tantum admissis ad hanc devotionem, qui primi advenerint, videatur ij qui postmodum confluxerint, non recepti. Cum plenum pietatis atque rationis sit, ut quoties basilican, in quae agitur, praesentia novae plebis impleverit, toties sacrificium subsequens offeratur. This order we will to be kept, that when a number of people cometh to church together at a solemn feast, if the multitude be so great as may not well be received in one church at once, that the oblation of the Sacrifice hardly be done again lest if they only should be admitted to this devotion who came first, they that come afterward may seem not to be received: for as much as it is a thing full of godliness and reason that, how oftentimes the church where the service is done, is filled with a new company of people, so oftentimes the Sacrifice there eftsoons be offered,  
By this father, whom the great General Council of Chalcedon agnized for supreme governor of the church of Christ, and honoured with the singular title of the Universal Bishop, it is ordained, that if anywhere one church could not conveniently hold all the people together at one time they that came after the first company, should have their devotion served by having an other Mass celebrated again. And lest perhaps some might doubt wether that were lawful so to be done or no, or be cause then some doubted thereof, as now likewise some seem to doubt of it to put the matter out of doubt, he sayeth assuredly, Sacrificij oblatio indubitanter iteretur. Let them not stick to iterate or do again the oblation of the Sacrifice, that is to say, let the Mass be celebrated again, indubitanter, without casting peril, without sticking, staggaring, or doubting. In that epistle he showeth two great causes, why more Masses than one, may be done in one church in one day. The one is, lest the after-comers should seem rejected, non recepti, not received, the other is, that the one part of the people be not defrauded of the benefit of their devotion▪ As himself sayeth, Necesse est autem ut quaedam pars populi sua devotione privetur si unius tantum Missae more seruato, sacrificium offerre non possint, nisi qui prima diei part convenerint. It must needs be that a part of the people be bereft of their devotion, if the custom of having one Mass only kept, none may offer the sacrifice, but such as came to church together in the morning, or first part of the day. Now the people may neither be rejected, whom God hath chosen, nor sparkled abroad, whom our lord hath gathered together, neither ought they to be defrauded of their devotion, by withdrawing the Mass from them, but rather to be stirred thereunto by their devout presence at the celebration of the same, where the death and passion of our lord is lively represented before their eyes, the very same body that suffered on the cross, of them by the ministery of the priest offered to the father, in a mystery, but truly, not to be a new Redemption, but in commemoration of the redemption already performed.  
By this testimony we find, that it was lawful within six hundred years after Christ, (for Leo lived about the year of our lord 450.) to have two Masses in one church in one day, for so much the word iteretur doth import at least, and if there where more, the case so requiring, the word will bear it well enough.  
Now by this holy bishops godly will, the custom of having one Mass only in one day was abrogated, and this decreed, that in time of two sundry resorts of people to church, two sundry Masses should be celebrated, for the avoiding of these two inconveniences, lest the aftercomers should seem not received, but rejected like excommunicate persons, and that a part of the faithful people should not be put beside their devotion. Whereupon I make this reason. The causes standing, the effects follow: But the danger of the people's seeming to be rejected, and the defrauding of their devotion, which are causes of iterating the Mass in one day, did in that age in some holy days of likelihood thrice, yea iiij. or v. times hap, and in our time most certainly doth commonly so often, or oftener happen: wherefore the Mass may so many times be said in a day in one church.  
Where great multitude of Christian people is, as in towns, we see some resort to church early in the morning, making their spiritual oblations to th'intent to serve God, or they serve man in their worldly affairs. All can not come so early. others come at their convenient opportunity, some at six, some at seven, some at eight, some at nine or ten of the clock. If they which through lawful lets can not come at the first hours, coming afterward be rowndly told by the priest, come ye at such or such hours, or else ye get no Mass here shall not they according to Leo his saying seem to be rejected, and defrauded of their devotion? All well disposed people about Paul's can not come to postelles' Mass at four or five of the clock in the morning, neither at high Mass there. Shall all such in a Term or Parliament time, when great resort is, be denied that spiritual comfort? And if they be, shall not they seem rejected and put from their devotion?  
Which inconvenience that it might not happen, Leo willeth not only two, but three, four, or more Masses to be done on a day, for his words report no less. Cum plenum pietatis atque rationis sit, ut quoties basilicam, in qua agitur, praesentia novae plebis impleverit, toties sacrificium subsequens offeratur. Let there be no sticking at the iterating of the Mass. For as much as (sayeth he) it is a thing full of godliness and reason, that how often the church where the service is done, is filled with a new company of people, so often the Sacrifice there eftsoons be offered. Here he willeth plainly that Mass be done, toties quoties, at every new resort of the well disposed people, and that for these weighty causes, lest part of the people should seem not received, and that they be not defrauded of their devotion. Wherefore, they that reprove the plurality of Masses in one church in one day, after the judgement of this worthy father, be reiectours of the faithful people and robbers of their devotion. But they that have utterly abrogated the Mass, which is the outward and the ever enduring Sacrifice of the new testament, by verdict of Scripture, be no less than the forerunners of Antichrist.  

Non licet super uno altario in una die duas Missas celebrare: nec in altario, ubi Episcopus Missas dixerit presbyter illa die Missas dicat. Concil. Antisioren. ca 10. an. domini. 613.  Here that I may add somewhat more for proof of this article, If the plurality of Masses in one church in one day had been utterly unlawful, the fathers of the council of Antisiodorun, would not have decreed, that it should not be lawful to celebrate two Masses upon one altar in one day: neither where the Bishop had said Mass, that a priest might not say the same day at the same altar. For beside that the prohibition presupposeth the thing prohibited to have been before used, (else prohibition had been superfluous, and so far forth it appeareth that before the making of that decree more Masses were said at one altar in one day) the argument of this decree serveth very well for proof, that by force of this council, it was then lawful to say more Masses in one church in one day. For this prohibition of the council is not general but special, restricted to a particular place of the church, in uno altario, at one altar, which includeth not of any reason a more general and larger matter than itself, as, neither at any other altar in the same church the same day it shall be lawful to say Mass: But of consequent this being but one special case forbidden inferreth a permission and good leave in the rest eiusdem generis & subiecti, that be of the same kind, and about the same matter, and not included by words of reason in that prohibition. So that we may not argue by reason in this sort, it is forbidden to say more Masses at one altar in one day, ergo it is forbidden to say many Masses at all in one church in one day upon diverse altars: but the contrary reason followeth, ergo ye may say many Masses upon diverse altars in one day. And likewise ye may not say Mass that day on th'altar, where the bishop hath said, ergo ye may lawfully say that day at an other altar. For other wise the law would have forbidden generally, ye shall not say Mass in the church where the bishop hath said that day: and then ye had been forbidden that altar and all altars there at one word. but in forbidding the one altar, the law grawnteth you the use of the rest there.  
And this kind of reasoning and arguing of the law, that forbiddeth one case specially, to affirm the rest, that is not mentioned in the prohibition, the lawyers will defend by their principles against M. jewel, who I think will not wade far, to stand against them in this match. For they say, 
In genere permissorum, omnia intelliguntur permissa, quae specialiter non reperiuntur prohibita●  an edict prohibitory in such things which are not wholly in their kind unlawful, forbidding special cases, granteth the rest, and doth permit all that, which is not specially forbidden. And by that, all may be witnesses which are not specially forbidden, all may make their proctors to answer for them in judgement, which are not forbidden in the special prohibition, for that the edicts of proctors and witnesses are prohibitory. 
L. julia. ff. de testibus.  And because Lex julia did forbid a woman condemned for adultery to bear witness in judgement, thereof the text of the Civil law concludeth, that women may bear witness in judgement.  

Exceptio confirmat regulam, in non exceptis.  And they say further that exception in one case, confirmeth the general rule, and maketh the rest that is not excepted, more sure and stable, and to be in force in contrary sense to the exception.  
But I will not bring M. jewel out of his professed study to far to seek laws. For in deed we need not go to law for these matters, wherein the church hath given sentence for us, but that our adversaries refuse the judge after sentence. Which if they had done, when order permitteth it at the beginning, and had plainly (as I fear me some of them think) denied themselves to be Christians, or at least of Christ's court in his catholic church: we should not have strived so long about these matters. We would have embraced the truth of God in his church quietly, whiles they sought an other judge according to their appetites and fantasies, as Turks and infidels do.  
Now if M. jewel be not so precise in his judgement of allowing the first six hundred years after Christ, as to condemn the church that followed in the next generation: then we may allege unto him the twelfth council of Toledo in Spain, holden in the year of our lord. 680. for proof that many Masses were celebrated in one church in one day. For the same appeareth plainly by this decree of the fathers there.  

Can. ●.  Relatum nobis est quosdam de sacerdotibus non tot vicibus communionis sanctae gratiam sumere, quot sacrificia in una die videntur offer: said in uno die, si plurima per se Deo offerant sacrificia, in omnibus se oblationibus à communione suspendunt, & in sola tantum extrema sacrificij oblatione communionis sanctae gratiam sumunt. quasi non sit toties illis vero & singulari sacrificio participandum, quoties corporis & sanguinis Domini nostri jesu Christi immolatio facta constiterit. Nam ecce Apostolus dicit: Nun qui edunt hostias, participes sunt altaris? 
1. Cor. 10.  Certum est quòd hi qui sacrificantes non edunt, rei sunt dominici sacramenti. Quicunque ergo sacerdotum deinceps divino altario sacrificium oblaturus accesserit, & see a communione suspenderit, ub ipsa qua se indecenter privauit, gratia communionis anno uno repulsum se noverit. Nam quale erit illud sacrificium, cui nec ipse sacrificans particeps esse cognoscitur? Ergo modis omnibus est tenendum, ut quotiescunque sacrificans corpus & sanguinem jesu Christi Domini nostri in altario immolat, toties perceptionis corporis & sanguinis Christi se participem praebeat.  
It is showed unto us, that there be certain priests, who do not receive the grace of the holy communion so many times, how many sacrifices they seem to offer in one day. But if they offer up to God many facrifices by themselves in one day, in all those oblations they suspend themselves from the communion, and receive the grace of the holy communion only at the last oblation of the sacrifice, as though they ought not so oftentimes to be partakers of that true and singular sacrifice, as the sacrifice of the body and blood of our lord jesus Christ hath been done. For behold the Apostle sayeth: 
1. Cor. 10.  Be not they which eat sacrifices partakers of the altar? It is certain, that they, who doing sacrifice do not eat, be guilty of our lords sacrament. Wherefore what priest so ever hereafter shall come unto the holy altar to offer sacrifice, and suspend himself from the communion, be it known unto him, that he is repelled and thrust away from the grace of the communion, whereof he hath unseemly bereaved himself, (whereby is meant that he standeth excommunicate) for the space of one year. For what a sacrifice shall that be, whereof neither he himself that sacrificeth, is known to be partaker? wherefore by all means this is to be kept, that how oftentimes so ever the priest doth sacrifice the body and blood of jesus Christ our lord on the altar, so oftentimes he receive and make himself partaker of the body and blood of Christ.  

Sacrifice taken for the Mass.  Here by the word Sacrifice and offering of the sacrifice, the fathers understand the daily sacrifice of the church, which we call the Mass. For though the word Missa be of great antiquity and many times found in the fathers, yet they use more commonly the word Sacrifice. Neither can the enemies of this sacrifice, expound this canon of the inward sacrifices of a man's heart, but of that sacrifice, which the priest cometh to the holy altar to offer, of the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ our lord offered on the altar, (for so be their words) where he receiveth the grace of the holy communion, which is the participation of the body and blood of our lord.  
This much granted, as by any reasonable understanding it can not be drawn, nor by racking can be stretched to any other sense: we have here good authority for the having of many Masses in one church in one day. And where as the fathers of that council allowed many Masses in one day said by one priest, there is no reason, why they should not allow the same said by sundry priests in one day. If our adversaries say, this might have been done in sundry places, whereby they may seem to frustrate our purpose touching this article: we answer, that beside th'approving of the Mass by them so confessed, it were vain and frivolous to imagine such gadding of the priests from church to church for saying many Masses in one day. doubtless the fathers of that Toletane Council meant of many Masses said in one place in a day, as Leo did, for serving the faithful people's devotion, that resorted to church at sundry hours, as we see the people do now, that so all might be satisfied. Which should not have been, if one Mass only had been said.  
If M. jewel agnize and accept for good the authority of this Council, as the church doth, then must he allow these many things, which he and the Sacramentaries to the uttermost of their power and cunning, labour to disprove and deface. First, the blessed sacrifice of the Mass, which the fathers of this council call the true and singular sacrifice, the sacrifice of the body and blood of our lord JESUS CHRIST, the sacrifice of the body and blood of jesus Christ our lord, which the priest offereth on the altar. next, the truth and real presence of the body and blood of our lord in the sacrifice offered. Then altars, which this council calleth divine or holy, for the divine and holy things on them offered, the body and blood of Christ. Furthermore, the multitude of Masses in one day. for they speak of many sacrifices, that is, many Masses, plurima sacrificia. Lastly, private Masses. For the words nec ipse sacrificans, rightly construed and weighed, import no less. For where as no word in this decree is uttered, whereby it may appear the people to be of necessity required to receive, if the priests had received themselves at every Mass, no fault had been found. And if the people had received without the priests, in this case it had been reason, this decree should other wise have been expressed. And so it is clear, that at that time private Masses were said and done.  
Now if M. jewel refuse and reject the authority of the church represented in that council, than he giveth us a manifest notice, what mark we ought to take him to be of. Then may we say unto him the words of S. Paul. 
1. Cor. 11.  Nos talem confuetudinem non habemus, nec ecclesia Dei. We have no such custom, neither the church of God hath not, to condemn the church. And in this case he must pardon us, if according to the precept of Christ, 
Matth. 18.  for that he will not hear the church, we take him for no better, than a heathen and a publican.   
Or that Images were then set up in the Churches, 
jewel.  to the intent the people might worship them. 
Of Images.  
ARTICLE. XIIII.  
THat Images were set up in churches within six hundred years after Christ, it is certain, but not specially either then, or sithence to the intent the people might worship them. The intent and purpose hath been far other, but right godly, as shall be declared. Wherefore the imputing of this intent to the catholic church, is both false, and also slanderous. And because for the use of images, these new masters charge the church with reproach of a new devise, breach of God's commandment, and idolatry: I will here show, first, the Antiquity of Images, and by whom they have been allowed, Secondly, to what intent and purpose they serve, Thirdly, how they may be worshipped without offence.  
Concerning the Antiquity and original of images, they were not first invented by man, 
Antiquity of Images.  but commanded by God, brought into use by tradition of the Apostles, allowed by authority of the holy fathers and all councils, and by custom of all ages sigh Christ's being in the earth. When God would the Tabernacle with all furniture thereto belonging to be made, to serve for his honour and glory, he commanded Moses among other things to make two Cherubins of beaten gold, 
Exod. 25.  so as they might cover both sides of the propitiatory, spreading abroad their whinges and beholding themselves one an other, their faces turned toward the propitiatory, that the Ark was to be covered with all. Of those Cherubins S. Paul speaketh in his epistle to the Hebrews. 
Cap. 9 Exod. 37.  Which images Beseleel that excellent workman, made at the commandment of Moses, according to the instructions by God given. Again Moses by the commandment of God made the brazen Serpent, 
Num. 21.  and set it up on high for the people that were hurt of serpents in wilderness to behold, and so to be healed. In the temple also that Solomon builded, 
●. Reg. 6. ●. Paral. 3.  were images of Cherubins, as the scripture showeth. Of Cherubin's mention is made in sundry places of the scriptures, specially in Ezechiel the prophet. cap. 41. josephus writeth of the same in his third and eight book antiquitatum judaicarum. The image of Cherubins representeth angels, and the word is a word of angelical dignity, as it appeareth by the third chapter of Genesis, where we read that God placed Cherubins before paradise, after that Adam was cast forth for his disobedience.  
It were not much beside our purpose here to rehearse the place of Ezechiel the prophet, 
Ezechi. 9  where God commanded one that was clothed in linen, and had an ynkhorne by his side, to go through the mids of Jerusalem, and to print the sign of Tau, 
In commentar. in Ezechielem. The sign of the Cross commended to men by gods providence.  that is the sign of the Cross (for that letter had the similitude of the Cross, among the old Hebrew letters as Saint Hierom witnesseth) in the foreheddes of the men, that mourned and made move over all the abominations of that city.  
Touching the sign, Image, or figure of the Cross in the time of the new testament, God femeth by his providence and by special warnings, in sundry revelations and secret declarations of his will, to have commended the same to men, 
Euseb. eccles. hist. lib. 9 ca 9  that they should have it in good regard and remembrance. When Constantine the Emperor had prepared himself to war against Maxentius the tyrant, casting in his mind the great dangers that might thereof ensue, and calling to God for help, as he looked up, beheld (as it were in a vision) the sign of the cross appearing unto him in heaven as bright as fire, and as he was astonished with that strange sight, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sozomen. tripart. hist. lib. 5. cap. 50.  he heard a voice speaking thus unto him. Constantine in this overcome.  
After that julian the Emperor had forsaken the profession of Christian Religion, and had done sacrifice at the temples of painyms, moving his subjects to do the like as he marched forward with his army on a day, the drops of rain that fell down out of the air in a shower, formed and made tokens and signs of the cross, both in his, and also in the soldiers garments. 
Eccles. histor. lib. 10 in fine.   
Rufinus having declared the strange and horrible plagues of God, whereby the jews were frayed and letted from their vain attempt of building up again the temple at Jerusalem, leave thereto of the Emperor julian in despite of the christians obtained: in the end sayeth, that least those earthquakes and terrible fierce which he speaketh of raised by God, whereby as well the work houses, and preparations toward the building, as also great multitudes of the jews were thrown down, cast abroad, and destroyed, should be thought to happen by chance: the night following these plagues, the sign of the cross appeared in every one of their garments so evidently, as none to cloak their infidelity, was able by any kind of thing to scour it out and put it away.  

Histo. tripart. li. 9 Cap. 29.  When the temples of the paynim were destroyed by the christians in Alexandria, about the year of our lord 390. in the chief temple of all, which was of the Idol Serapis, the holy and mystical letters called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  by God's providence, were found graven in stones, representing the figure of the cross, the signification whereof after their interpretation was, life to come. Which thing espied by the christians and by the painimes present at the spoil, served marvelously to furtherance of the christian faith, no less than the inscription of the altar at Athens, Ignoto Deo, 
Actor. 17.  unto the unknown God, served to the same purpose through S. Paul's preaching. Which all together was before wrought by God's holy providence, as Socrates, one of the writers of the ecclesiastical stories, reporteth.  
Thus it appeareth plainly, how God's providence hath commended unto true believers, the sign of the cross. For which cause and for remembrance of our Redemption, it hath been in old time and always sithence, much frequented and honoured. For beside that we read hereof in Tertullian, who was near the Apostles time in Apologe●ico, 
Cap. 16.  we find in the writers of the ecclesiastical stories, that the Christian people of Alexandria, 
Eccl. hist. lib. 11. ca 29. autore Rufino  after they had pulled down and taken away the arms and monuments of Serapis the Idol, every man caused the sign of our lords cross in place of them to be paineted and set up in their posts, entreis', windows, walls and pillours, that where so ever the eye was turned, it should light on the holy sign of the cross.  
Constantine the Emperor loved and honoured this sign so much, 
Histo. tripart. li. 1. Cap. 9  that he caused the same to be paineted in all his flags and banners of war, to be strooken in his coins and monneys, to be purtraited in his arms, stutchins and targets. Of this Aurelius Prudentius maketh mention. 
Lib. 1. contrà Symmachum.   
Christus purpureum gemmanti textus in auro,  
Signabat labarum, clypeorum insignia Christus  
Scripserat, ardebat summis crux addita Christ's.  
The sense whereof is this much in English. The chief banner which was of purple, had the image of Christ in it wrought in gold and stones. The targets were paineted all over with Christ. The Cross shined fyerbright in the crests of their helmets. That the banner commonly borne before the Emperor in war, in Latin called Labarum, was of this sort, it appeareth by an epistle, that S. Ambrose, wrote to Theodosius the Emperor. 
Lib. 5. epistol. 29.  Neither was the figure of the cross then only in flags and banners, paineted, woven, embroidered, or otherwise wrought, in gold or precious stones: but also made in whole gold and set upon a long staff or pole, and borne before men, (as the manner is now in processions) as it seemeth plainly by these verses of Prudentius.  
Agnoscas Regina lubens mea signa necesse est,  
In quibus effigies crucis aut gemmata refulget,  
Aut longis solido ex auro praefertur in hastis.  
It hoveth you Madam, that gladly you acknowledge mine ensigns, in which the figure of the Cross is either glittering in stones, or of whole gold is borne on long staves before us. This much have I gathered out of the ancient father's writings concerning the sign of our lords cross, the fight whereof the professors of this new gospel can not abide, to the intent the diversity of our time and of old time may appear, to the manners of which fos a perfit reformation, these preachers would seem to bring the world again.  

Images from the Apostles tyme.  Concerning the images of Christ and of his saints, that they have been greatly esteemed and used in houses, churches, and places of prayer from the Apostles time forward, it is so evident, that it can not be denied. Athanasius writeth that Nicodeme, who came to jesus by night, made an image of Christ with his own hands, and that when he lay in his death bed, he delivered it to Gamaliel, who was S. Paul's schoolmaster. Gamaliel when he saw he should die, left it to james, james left it to Simon and Zachaeus. This image came from hand, to hand by succession, and continued a long time in Jerusalem. From Jerusalem it was carried into Syria, and at length it was brought to the city Berytus, not far from tire and Sydon. Where how despitefully it was used of the jews, and what wonders ensued thereupon, who list to know, may he read it largely declared in a little book written by Athanasius of that matter. Eusebius Caesariensis in the seventh book of his ecclesiastical story, 
Cap. 14.  writeth of the ancient image of Christ made in brass, and of the woman, that was healed by our Saviour of her bloody flux, in the city of Phoenicia called Caesarea Philippi, whereof that woman was a citizen. Which image he sayeth he saw, as likewise the images of Peter and Paul kept by some of old tyme. And there he confesseth, that the images of Peter and Paul and of our Saviour were in his time made, and painted in tables and set forth. After Eusebius death julian the renegade took down this image of Christ, 
Lib. 6. tripart. cap. 41.  and set up his own in the same place. Which with violent fire that fell from heaven, was cleft asunder in the breast, the head broken of with a piece of the neck, and sticked in the ground. The rest of it so remained long after, as a token of lightning and gods displeasur might be reserved. That image of Christ after that the painimes had haled, pulled, broken, and mangled it villainously, by the christians was taken up, set together, and placed in the church, where it is yet reserved, sayeth Socrates of his tyme. Of the miraculous herb that grew at the foot of this image, which after that it had grown, so high, as it touched the images skirts, taken and ministered was a medicine and present remedy for all diseases, as Eusebius writeth: because it pertaineth not specially to the matter of images, I rehearse nothing.  
It is evident by Chrysostom's Mass, that there was some use of images in the church of Constantinople in his time, for he speaketh of the image of the crucifix. Who so ever is desirous to see testimonies of the fathers for proof of images, let him read the seventh general council holden in Nicaea the city of Bythinia against image-breakers, and there he shall find no small number.  
I will not let here to recite some, which, so far as I remember, be not found there, every one, one only excepted, which is of S. Basile, of right good and ancient authority.  
Simeon Metaphrastes a greek writer, describing the life of S. Luke th'evangelist, sayeth that he made the images of Christ and of his mother Mary. Saint Ambrose witnesseth, that in his time the Images of the Apostles were used in pictures, for where he declareth the marvelous appearing of the holy martyrs Geruasius and Protasius unto him in a vision, 
In vita Geruasij et Protasij  he sayeth, that a third person appeared with them, that told him where their bodies lay, which seemed like to S. Paul the Apostle, as he understood his face by view of his picture.  
Gregory Nyssene S. Basiles brother writing the life of Theodorus the martyr, bestoweth much eloquence in the praise of the church, where his holy relics were kept, commending the shape of living things wrought by the carver, the smoothenes of marble poolished like silver by the mason, the lively resemblance of the martyr himself, and of all his worthy acts, expressed and excellently set forth to the eye in imagery with the image of Christ, by the painter. In which images he acknowledgeth the fights of the martyr to be declared no less, then if they were described and written in a book.  
Paulinus the bishop of Nola, in his book that he made in verses of the life of Felix the martyr, praiseth the church which the martyrs body was laid in, 
In decimo Natali.  for the garnishing of it with painted images in both sides, of both kinds men and women, the one kind on the one side, and the other kind on the other side. Where he speaketh expressly by name of the Images of scabbed job, and blind Tobye, of fair judith, and great queen Hesther, for so he nameth them.  
Athanasius hath one notable place for having the Image of our Saviour Christ, which is not common, where he maketh Christ and the church, to talk together as it were in a dialogue, in sermone de sanctis patribus & prophetis. The greek may thus be translated. Age (inquit) dic mihi, cur oppugnaris? Oppugnor, (inquit Ecclesia) propter doctrinam evangelii, quam diligenter & accuratè teneo, & propter verum & firmum Pascha quod agito, & propter religiosam & puram imaginem tuam, quam mihi Apostoli reliquerunt, ut haberem depictam arram humanitatis tuae, in qua mysterium redemptionis operatus es. Hic Christus, Si propter hoc (inquit) te oppugnant, ne graviter feras, nève animum despondeds, cum scias, si quis Pascha neget, aut imaginem, me eum negaturum coram patre meo, & electis angelis. Rursus verò qui compatitur mecum propter Pascha, conglorificaturum. an non audisti quid Moysi praeceperim? Fancies, inquam, mihi duos Cherubinos in tabernaculo testimonij, scilicet ad praefigurandam meam imaginem, etc.  
The English of this Latin or rather of the Greek is this. Come on (quoth Christ to the church) tell me, wherefore art thou thus invaded and vexed? declare me the matter. Forsooth lord (quoth the church) I am invaded and vexed for th'exact observing of the gospel, and for the keeping of the feast of the true and firm Easter, and for thy reverent and pure Image, which thy holy Apostles have left to me by tradition, to have and keep for a representation of thine incarnation. Then (quoth our lord) if this be the matter for which thou art invaded and set against, be not dismayed, be of good comfort in heart and mind, being assured hereof, that who so denieth Easter, or my 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  clean image, I shall deny him before my heavenly father and his chosen Angels. And he that suffereth persecution with me for keeping of Easter, the same shall also be glorified with me. Hast not thou heard, what I commanded Moses the lawgiver to do? Make me (said I) two Cherubins in the tabernacle of the testimony, to be a prefiguration or foretokening of my image. etc.  
Of all the fathers none hath a plainer testimony both for the use and also for the worshipping of Images, than S. Basile, whose authority for learning, wisdom, and holiness of life, beside antiquity, is so weighty in the judgement of all men, that all our new masters laid in balance against him, shall be found lighter than any feather. 
Citatur ab Adriano Papa in epistola Synodica ad Constantinun & Irenen.  Touching this matter, making a confession of his faith in an epistle inveghing against julian the renegade, he sayeth thus. Even as we have received our Christian and pure faith of God, as it were by right of heritage: right so I make my confession thereof to him, and therein I abide. I believe in one God father almighty, God the father, God the son, God the holy ghost. One God (in substance) and these three (in persons) I adore and glorify. I confess also the sons incarnation. Then afterward saint Mary, who according to the flesh brought him forth, calling her Deiparam. I reverence also the holy Apostles, Prophets, and Martyrs, which make supplication to god for me: that by their mediation our most benign god be merciful unto me, and grant me freely remission of my sins. Then this followeth. Quam ob causam & historias imaginum illorum honoro. & palàm adoro: hoc enim nobis traditum à sanctis Apostolis, non est prohibendum, sed in omnibus ecclesijs nostris eorum historias erigimus. For the which cause I do both honour the stories of their images, and openly adore them. For this being delivered unto us of the holy Apostles by tradition, is not to be forbidden. And therefore we set up in all our churches their stories. Lo M. jewel here you see a sufficient testimony, that Images were set up in the churches long before the end of your six hundred years, and that they were honoured and worshipped not only of the simple christian people, but of bishop Basile, who for his excellent learning and wisdom, was renowned with the name of Great.  
Now that there hath been enough alleged for the Antiquity, original and approbation of Images, 
Three causes why images haven been used in the church.  it remayeth, it be declared, for what causes they have been used in the church. We find that the use of images hath been brought into the church for three causes. The first, is the benefit of knowledge. For the simple and unlearned people, which be utterly ignorant of letters, in pictures do as it were, read and see nolesse than others do in books, the mysteries of christian Religion, the acts and worthy deeds of Christ and of his saints. What writing performeth to them that read, the same doth a picture to the simple beholding it, 
Ad Serenum episcopum Massilien. li. 9 epistol. 9  sayeth S. Gregory. For in the same the ignorant see, what they ought to follow, in the same they read, which can no letters, therefore Imagery serveth specially the rude nations in stead of writing, sayeth he.  
To this S. Basile agreeth in his homily upon the forty martyrs. Both the writers of stories (sayeth he) and also paineters do show and set forth noble deeds of arms and victories, the one garnishing the matter with eloquence, the other drawing it lively in tables, and both have stirred many to valiant courage. For what things the utterance of the story expresseth through hearing, the same doth the still picture set forth through imitation. In the like respect in old time the work of excellent poets was called a speaking picture, 
Pictura loquens, poema tacens.  and the work of payneters, a still poetry. And thus the use and profit of writing and of pictures, is one. For things that be read, when as they come to our ears, than we convey them over to the mind, and the things that we behold in pictures with our eyes, the same also do we embrace in our mind. And so by these two, reading and painting, we achieve one like benefit of knowledge.  
The second cause of the use of Images, is the stirring of our minds to all godliness. For whereas the affect and desire of man is heavy and dull in divine and spiritual things, 
Sapient. 9  because the body that is corruptible weigheth down the mind when it is set forth before our eyes by images, what Christ hath done for us, and what the Saints have done for Christ: than it is quickened and moved to the like will of doing and suffering, and to all endeavour of holy and virtuous life. As when we hear apt and fit words uttered in a sermon or an oration: so when we behold looks and gestures lively expressed in images, we are moved to pity, to weeping, to joy, and to other affects. Wherein verily it hath always been thought, that paineters have had no less grace, than either orators or poets.  
Who listeth to see examples hereof, he may peruse the second Nicene council, 
Action. 4.  where he shall find among other most notable things concerning this point, one of saint Euphemia the martyr, an other of Abraham sacrificing his son Isaac worthy of everlasting memory; that of Asterius the holy bishop, this of Gregory Nyssene, very elegantly described. Virgil maketh Aeneas to weep, to hope for better fortune, to gather courage of mind, to take good advise and order for redress and help of his great calamities, by occasion of beholding a painters work at Carthago, wherein the battle of Troy was expressed. Which that wise poet would not have done, were not that pictures have great force to move men's hearts.  
ovid likewise in the epistle of Laodamia to Protesilaus her husband being forth at wars, maketh her so to write of his image, which she had caused to be made of wax for her comfort in his absence, as it may well appear, that images have a marvelous power to stir vehement affects, and to represent things absent, as though in manner they were present, in the minds of the beholders.  
Among all other examples for this purpose, that seemeth to me most notable, which Appianus writeth of C. julius Caesar. lib. 2. de bellis civilib. After that Caesar had been murdered of the Senators in the counsel house, one of his friends to show the cruelty of the fact to the people, laid Caesar's bed in the open market place, and took forth of it his image made of wax, which represented three and twenty wounds after a beastly sort stabbed in to his face and all the rest of his body, yet gaping and as it were fresh bleeding. With which show he stirred the people to more wrath and rage, than he could have done with any oration or gesture. Which was declared forth with. For as soon as the people saw it, not able to bear their grief nor stay their fury any longer, wrought great and strange cruelties against them, that were found to have committed that murder.  
The third cause why images have been set up in Churches, is the keeping of things in memory necessary to our salvation. For when we cast our eyes on them, our memory which otherwise is frail and weak, gathereth together and embraceth the benefits and merits of our Saviour Christ, and the virtuous examples of saints, which we ought to follow: that if we be such as they were, we may by god's grace through Christ attain the bliss they be in, and with them enjoy life everlasting. And verily they that have images in regard and reverence, must be so minded, as they behold not only the things by them represented, but also perform the same in deed with most diligent imitation.  
And now we are come to declare, how Images may he worshipped and honoured without any offence. 
How images may be worshipped without offence.  That godly worship which consists in spirit and truth inwardly, and is declared by signs outwardy in recongnizing the supreme dominion, which properly of the divines is called Latria: is deferred only to the blessed Trinity. As for the holy images, to them we do not attribute that worship at all, but an inferior reverence or adoration, for so it is named. Which is nothing else, but a recognizing of some virtue or excellency protested by outward sign, as reverent kissing, bowing down, kneeling, and such the like honour. Which kind of adoration or worship, we find in the scriptures oftentimes given to creatures. The whole act whereof is notwithstanding referred not to the images principally, but to the things by them represented, as being the true and proper objects of such worship. For although the honour of an image passeth over to the original or first sampler, which the learned call archetypum, as S. Basile teacheth: 
Li. ad Amphiloch. cap. 18.  yet that high worship called Latria, belongeth only to the blessed Trinity, and not to the reverent images, lest we should seem to be worshippers of creatures and of matters, as of gold, silver, stones, wood, and of such other the like things. For we adore not images as God, 
In questionib. ad Antiochum Principem.  sayeth Athanasius, neither in them do we put hope of our salvation, ne to them do we give godly service or worship, for so did the gentiles: but by such adoration or reverence, we declare only a certain affection and love, which we bear toward the originals. And therefore if it happen their figure and shape to be defaced and undone, we let not to burn the stocks, as very wood, and being of other stuff, to convert the same to any use, it may serve best for.  
S. Gregory praising much one Secundinus, for that he desired the Image of our Saviour to be sent unto him, to th'intent by having his image before his eyes, he might the more be stirred to love him in his heart after a few words uttered in this sense, he sayeth further. We know thou demandest not the image of our Saviour to th'intent to worship it, as God: but for the remembrance of the son of God, that thou mightest be enkindled with the love of him, whose image thou desirest to behold. And verily we fall not down before it, as before God. But we adore and worship him, whom through occasion of the image, we remember either borne, or done to death for us, or sitting in his throne. And whiles we reduce the son of God to our memory by the picture no less than by writing, it bringeth either gladness to our mind by reason of his Resurrection, or comfort by reason of his Passion. And if men pray kneeling before any image or triumphant sign of the holy Cross, they worship not the wood or stone figured, but they honour the highest God. And whom they can not behold with senses, they reverence and worship his image representing him according to ancient Institution, not resting or staying themselves in the image, but transferring the adoration and worship to him that is represented. Thus far S. Gregory.  
Much might be alleged out of the father's concerning the worshipping of Images, but this may suffice. And of all this one sense redowndeth, that what reverence, honour, or worship so ever is applied to Images, it is but for remembrance, love and honour of the primitives or originals. As when we kiss the gospel book, by that token we honour not the parchment, paper and ink, wherein it is written, but the gospel itself. And as jacob, 
Gen. 37.  when he kissed his son josephes' cote imbrued with kids blood, holding and embracing it in his arms, and making heavy moan over it, the affection of his love and sorrow rested not in the cote, but was directed to joseph himself, whose infortunate death (as he thought) that bloody cote represented: So Christian men showing tokens of reverence, love and honour before the Image of Christ, of an Apostle, or Martyr, with their inward recognition and devotion of their hearts, they stay not their thoughts in the very Images, but defer the whole to Christ, to the Apostle, and to the Martyr, giving to each one in dew proportion, that which is to be given, putting difference between the almighty Creator and the creatures, finally rendering all honour and glory to God alone, who is marvelous in his saints. Such worshipping of Images is neither to be accounted for wicked, nor to be despised, for the which we have the testimonies of the ancient fathers, both Greeks and Latins: unto which further authority is added by certain general Councils, that have condemned the brekers and impugners of the same.   

jewel.  Or that the lay people was then forbidden to read the word of God in their own tongue. 
Of the people's reading the Bible in their own tongue.  
ARTICLE. XV.  
THat the lay people was then forbidden to read the word of God in their own tongue, I find it not. Neither do I find, that the lay people was then, or at any other time commanded to read the word of God in their own tongue being vulgar and barbarous. By vulgar and barbarous tongues, I understand, as before, all other, beside the three learned and principal tongues, Hebrew, Greek and Latin. Which as they were once native and vulgar to those three peoples, 
Three sundry opinions concerning the scriptures to be had in a vulgar tongue.  so now to none be they native and vulgar, but common to be attained by learning for meditation of the scriptures, and other knowledge.  
They that treat of this Article, concerning the having of the scriptures in a vulgar tongue for the laity to read, be of three sundry opinions.  
Some judge it to be utterly unlawful, that the Bible be translated into any tongue of the common people. Some think it good it be translated, so that respect be had of time, and of place, and of persons. Some be of the opinion, that the holy scriptures ought to be had in the mother and native tongue of every nation, without any regard of time, place, or persons. The first opinion is holden of few, and commonly mysliked. The third is maintained by all the sects of our time, the Swenkfeldians excepted, who would the scriptures to be in no regard. The second is allowed best of those that seem to be of most wisdom and godliness, and to have most care for the health of the church, who have not severed themselves from the faith which hath continued from the beginning. Here that I say nothing of the first opinion, as they of the third reprove the moderation of the second, so they of the second, can not allow the generality of the third.  
That the scriptures be not to be set forth in the vulgar tongue to be read of all sorts of people, 
Five considerations why the scriptures are not to be set forth for all sorts of people to read them with out limitation.  every part of them, without any limitation of time, place, and persons, they seem to be moved with these considerations. First, that it is not necessary. next, that it is not convenient. thirdly, that it is not profitable. Foverthly, that it is dangerous and hurtful. And lastly, although it were accorded the common people to have liberty to read the Bible in their own tongue, yet that the translations of late years made by those that have divided themselves from the catholic church, be not to be allowed as worthily suspected, not to be sound and assured.  
First, that the common people of all sorts and degrees, aught of necessity to read all the holy scriptures in their own tongue, they say, they could never find it hitherto in the same scriptures. 
Lib. 3. adversus haereses. ca 4  Irenaeus writeth, that the Apostles preached to the aliantes and barbarous people the faith of Christ, even to those, that were aliantes and barbarous in language, and sayeth that having heard the gospel preached, they believed in Christ, and keeping the order of tradition which the Apostles delivered unto them, had their salvation and faith written in their heart without print, pen, or ink, and utterly without letters. And further he showeth, that if the Apostles had left to us no scriptures at all, yet we should be saved by the tradition, which they left to them, whom they committed their churches unto, as many nations of aliens be saved by the same.  

Prologo in explationem Psal.  Hilarius likewise declaring that the mystery of God's will, and th'expectation of the blessed kingdom, is most and chief preached in the three tongues, in which Pilate wrote on the Cross, our lord jesus Christ to be king of the jews: confesseth notwithstanding that many barbarous nations have attained and gotten the true knowledge of God, by the preaching of the Apostles, and the faith of the churches remaining amongst them to that day. Whereby he doth us to understand, that the unlearned barbarous peoples had their faith without letters or writing, whereof they had no skill, by tradition and preaching, as well as the other nations, who were helped by the benefit of the learned tongues, Hebrew, Greek and Latin.  
That it is not convenient nor seemly, all sorts of persons without exception to be admitted to the reading of the holy scriptures, I need to say nothing, every reasonnable man may easily understand the causes by himself. This is certain, diverse chapters and stories of the old testament, contain such matter, as occasion of evil thoughts is like to be given, if women, maidens, and young men be permitted to read them. Gregory Nazianzene, 
Lib. 1. Theologiae.  whom the greeks called the divine, sayeth, moved with great considerations, that it is not the part of all persons to reason of God and of godly things, neither behoveful the same be done in all times and places, nor that all things touching God be meddled withal. Which advertisement taketh no place, where all be admitted to the curious reading of the scriptures in their own vulgar tongue.  
And the scripture itself (say they) showeth plainly, that of covenience the scriptures ought not be made common to all persons. For Christ affirmeth the same with his own words, where he sayeth to his Apostles. 
Lucae. 8.  Unto you it is given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God: but to other in parables, that when they see, they should not see, and when they hear, they should not understand. They to whom it is given to know these secrets, be none other than the Apostles and their successors or disciples. They to whom this is not given, but must learn parables, be they, for whom it were better to be ignorant of the mysteries, then to know them, lest they abuse them, and be the more grievously condemned, if they set little by them, which we see commonly done among the common people.  

Vide Hilarium in Psal. 2.  It is reported by sundry ancient writers of great authority, that among the people of Israel, the seventy Elders only could read and understand the mysteries of the holy books, that we call the Bible. For whereas the letters of the Hebrew tongue have no vocalles, they only had the skill to read the scripture by the consonantes: and thereby the vulgar people were kept from reading of it, by special providence of God, as it is thought, that precious stones should not be cast before swine, that is to say, such as be not called thereto, as being for their unreverent curiosity and impure life, unworthy.  
Here I need not to spend time in rehearsing the manifold difficulties of these holy letters, through which the reading of them to the simple and unlearned people, having their wits exercised in no kind of learning, their minds occupied in worldly cares, their hearts carried away with the love of things they lust after, 
Bernard. Super cantica.  is not very profitable. As the light shineth in vain upon blind eyes (sayeth a holy father) so to no purpose or profit is the labour of a worldly and natural man taken for the attaining of things that be of the spirit. Verily amongs other, this incommodity is seen by daily experience hereof to proceed, that of the people, such as aught of right to take lest upon them, be now become censors and judges of all, despisers of the more part, and which is common to all heretics, mockers of the whole simplicity of the church, and of all those things, which the church useth as pap or milk to nourish her tender babes withal that it were better for them not to read, then by reading so to be puffed up and made insolent. Which evil cometh not of the scripture, but of their own malice and evil disposition.  
The dangers and hurts which the common people's reading of the scriptures in their own language bringeth, after the opinion of those that reprove the same, be great, sundry and many. I will here, as it were but touch a few of them, leaving the whole matter itself to the judgement of the church. First, seeing the poison of heretics doth most infect the common people, and all heretics draw their venom out of the Bible under pretence of god's word: it is not thought good by these men, to let every curious and busy body of the vulgar sort, to read and examine the Bible in their common language. Yet they would not the learned, discrete and sober lay men to be imbarred of that liberty.  
Again if heresy spring of wrong understanding, 
De trinitate li. 2.  not of the scriptures, (as Hilarius sayeth, heresy is of understanding, not of scripture, and the sense not the word is a crime) who shall sooner fall into heresy, than the common people, who can not understand that they read? verily it seemeth a thing hard to believe, that the unlearned people should understand that, which the best learned men with long study and great travail can scarcely at length attain.  
Whereas Luther would the scriptures to be translated into every vulgar tongue, for that they be light and easy to understand, he is confuted by the scripture itself. For both S. Peter, and also S. Paul, acknowledgeth in them to be great difficulties, by occasion whereof some misconstrue them to their own damnation, 
2. Pet. 3. 1. Tim 1. 2. Cor. 4.  some understand not what things they speak, nor of what things they affirm, and to some the gospel that S. Paul preached is hidden, even to them which perish. If the scriptures were plain, how erred Arius? how Macedonius? how Eunomius? how Nestorius? how many more, men of great learning? specially seeing they all took occasion of their errors of the scripture not rightly understanded?  
Luther sayeth that S. Jerome was overseen in the understanding of the scripture, that S. Augustine erred in the same, that S. Ambrose, Cyprian, Hilary, Basile, and Chrysostom, the best learned doctors of Christ's church, were oftentimes deceived. And yet in the preface of his book de captivitate Babilonica, he speaketh of them very honourably, and granteth, that they have laboured in the lords vinyeard worthily, and that they have employed great diligence in opening the scriptures. If these being of so excellent learning after long exercise in the holy letters, after long study and watch, after long and fervent prayer, after mortification of themselves, and purgation of carnal affections were deceived, as he witnesseth: how can he say they are clear, plain and easy to be understanded? And if these worthy fathers were deceived in one point or two, is it not likely the common people may be deceived in many, specially their diligence and study not being comparable to theirs, and their lives not being such, as the cleanness of their inward affects might lighten their understanding, and the anointing of god might teach them.  
And lest all the unlearned lay people should seem hereby utterly rejected from hope of understanding gods word without teaching of others, it may be granted, that it is not impossible, a man (be he never so unlearned) exercised in long prayer, accustomed to fervent contemplation, being brought by God into his inward cellares, may from thence obtain the true understanding and interpretation of the holy scriptures, no less than any other always brought up in learning. Of what sort S. Antony that holy and perfect man the Eremite of egypt, was. Who, as saint Augustine writeth, 
Prologo in libros de doctrina Christiana.  without any knowledge of letters, both canned the scriptures by heart with hearing, and understood them wisely with thinking. And that holy man, whom S. Gregory speaketh of, who lying bedrid many years for sickness of body, through earnest prayer and devout meditation, obtained health of mind, and understanding of the scriptures never having learned letters, so as he was able to expound them to those that came to visit him, who coming unto him with pretence to bring comfort, through his heavenly knowledge, received comfort. But among the people how great number is there of lewd losels, gluttons and dronckerds, whose belly is their God, who follow their unruly lusts: is it to be thought this sort of persons may without meditation and exercise of prayer pierce the understanding of the scriptures, and of those holy mysteries, which god hath hidden (as Christ confesseth) from the learned and wise men?  

Matth. 11. The gospelers divided in to contrary sects  And whereas learned men of our time be divided into contrary sects, and write bitterly one against an other, each one imputing to other mistaking of the scriptures, if amongst them who would seem to be the leaders of the people, be controversies and debates about the understanding of the scriptures: how may the common people be thought to be in safe case out of all danger of errors, if by reading the Bible in their own tongue, they take the matter in hand?  
If any man think, I slander them, for that I say they be divided into contrary sects, let him understand, their own country men, I mean them of Germany, and special setters forth of this new doctrine, report it in their books, and complain lamentably of it. Namely Nicolaus Amsdorffius in his book entitled, Publica confessio purae doctrinae evangelii etc. Also Nicolaus Gallus, in his book of Theses and Hypotyposes: who acknowledgeth the strifes and debates that be amongst them, to be not of light matters, but of the high articles of christian doctrine. For even so be his words in Latin. Non sunt leues inter nos concertationes, de rebus levibus, sed de sublimibus doctrinae Christianae articulis, de lege & evangelio, etc. The same man in the last leaf of his foresaid book, with great vehemendie reporteth, haereses permultas esse prae manibus, plerasque etiamnùm h●rere in calamo, that very many herelies be already in hand, and many as yet stick in the pen, as though he meant, they were ready to be set forth.  
Of late there have been put out in print two great books, one by the Princes of Saxony, the other by the Earls of Mansfeld, chief maineteiners of the Lutherans: in which be recited eleven sects, and the same as detestable heresies condemned they are contained in this catalogue or roll. Anabaptistae, Seruetiani, Antinomi, jesuitae, Osiandrini, Melanchthonici, Maioristae, Adiaphoristae, Suencfeldiani, Sacramentarij. Albeit the jesuits have wrong to be numbered among them. This much is confessed of the sects and controversies of our new gospelers by their own princes, that stand in defence of the confession of Auspurg, and by two of the Lutheran superintendentes.  
No man hath so exactly declared to the world the number and diversity of the sects of our time, 
Fridericus Staphylus.  which hath sprung of Martin Luther, as Fridericus Staphylus, a man of excellent learning, one of the emperors counsel that now is, who might well have knowledge herein, for as much as he was a diligent student ten years at Wittenberg among the chief doctors of them, and for that time was of their opinion, and afterward by consideration of their manifold disagreeinges and contentions within themselves, induced to discredit them, and through the grace of God reduced to a whole mind, and to the catholic faith, and now remaineth a perfect member of the church. This learned man in his Apology showeth, that out of Luther have sprung three diverse heresies or sects. the anabaptists, the Sacramentaries, and the Confessionistes, 
Protestants.  who made confession of their faith in open diet before the Emperor Charles, the princes and states of Germany at Auspurg, anno domini. 1530. and for protestation of the same there, are called Protestants. Now he proveth further by testimony of their own writings, that the anabaptists be divided into six sects, the Sacramentaries into eight sects, the Confessionistes and they which properly are called protestants, 
Protestants divided into twenty Sects.  into twenty sects, every one having his proper and particular name to be called and known by. This lamentable division of learned men into so many sects in the countries where the gospel (as they call it) hath these forty years and is yet most busily handled, may be a warning to the governors of Christendom, that they take good advisement, how they suffer the rude and rash people, to have the scriptures common in their own tongue.  
The peril of it is known by sundry examples both of times past, and also of this present age. For out of this root hath sprung the sect of the Valdenses, 
Valdenses  otherwise called Pauperes de Lugduno. For Valdo a merchant of Lions their first author, of whom they were named Valdenses, being an unlearned lay man, procured certain books of the scripture to be translated into his own language, which when he used to read and understood not, he fell into many errors. Of the same wellspring issued the filthy puddles of the sects called Adamitae or Picardi, Begardi, and Turelupini, and of late years beside the same sect of Adamites newly revived, also the anabaptists, and Suenkfeldians. Wherefore that edict or proclamation of the worthy Princes Ferdinando and Elizabeth king and Queen of Spain, is of many much commended, by which they gave straight commandment, that under great penalties, no man should translate the Bible into the vulgar Spanish tongue, and that no man should be found, to have the same translated in any wise. These and the like be the reasons and considerations, which have moved many men to think, the setting forth of the whole Bible, and of every part of the scripture in the vulgar tongue, for all sorts of persons to read without exception or limitation, to be a thing not necessary to salvation, nor otherwise convenient, nor profitable, but contrariwise dangerous and hurtful.  
Yet it is not meant by them, that the people be kept wholly from the scripture, so as they read no part of it at all. As the whole in their opinion is too strong a meat for their weak stomachs, so much of it they may right wholesomely receive and brook, as that which pertaineth to piety and necessary knowledge of a christian man. 
What parts of the scriptures appertain to the people to know.  Wherein they would the examples of the old holy fathers to be followed. S. Augustine hath gathered together into to one book, all that maketh for good life out of the scriptures, which book he entitled Speculum, that is to say, a mirror or a looking glass, as Possidonius witnesseth in his life. S. Basile hath set forth the like argument almost in his foverscore moral rules pertaining all together to good manners. S. Cyprian also hath done the like in his three books ad Quirinum. Such godly books they think to be very profitable for the simple people to read. But how much and what parts of the scripture the common people may read for their comfort and necessary instruction, and by whom the same may be translated: it belongeth to the judgement of the church. Which church hath already condemned all the vulgar translations of the Bible of late years, for that they be found in sundry places erroneous, and partial in favour of the heresies, which the translators maintain. And it hath not only in our time condemned these late translations, but also hitherto never allowed those few of old tyme. I mean S. Hieromes translation into the dalmatical tongue, if ever any such was by him made, as to some it seemeth a thing not sufficiently proved: And that, which before S. Jerome ulphilas an Arian bishop made and commended to the nation of the Goths, who first invented letters for them, and proponed the scriptures to them translated into their own tongue, and the better to bring his Ambassade to the Emperor Valens to good effect, was persuaded by the heretics of Constantinople and of the court there, to forsake the catholic faith, and to communicate with the Arians, making promise also to travail in bringing the people of his country to the same sect, which at length he performed most wickedly.  
As for the church of this land of Britain, the faith hath continued in it thirten hundred years until now of late, without having the Bible translated into the vulgar tongue, to be used of all in common. Our lord grant, we yield no worse souls to God now having the scriptures in our own tongue, and talking so much of the gospel, than our ancestors have done before us. This Island sayeth Beda (speaking of the estate the church was in at his days) at this present, according to the number of books that God's law was written in, doth search and confess one and the self same knowledge of the high truth, and of the true height, with the tongues of five nations, of the English, the Britons, the Scots, the pights, and the Latins, Quae meditatione scripturorum caeteris omnibus est facta communis. Which tongue of the Latins (sayeth he) is for the study and meditation of the scriptures made common to all the other. Verily as the Latin tongue was then common to all the nations of this land being of distinct languages, for the study of the scriptures, as Beda reporteth: so the same only hath always until our time, been common to all the cowntries and nations of the Occidental or West church for the same purpose, and thereof it hath been called the Latin church.  
Wherefore to conclude, they that show them selves so earnest and zealous for the translation of the scriptures into all vulgar and barbarous tongues, it behoveth them after the opinion of wise men to see, first, that no faults be found in their translations, as hitherto many have been found. And a small fault committed in the handling of God's word, is to be taken for a great crime. next, that for as much as such translations pertain to all christian people, they be referred to the judgement of the whole church of every language, and commended to the laity by the wisdom and authority of the clergy having charge of their souls. Furthermore that there be some choice, exception, and limitation of time, place, and persons, and also of parts of the scriptures, after the discrete ordinance of the jews. Amongst whom it was not lawful, that any man should read certain parts of the Bible, before he had fulfiled the time of the priestly ministery, which was the age of thirty years, 
Praefatione in Ezechielem.  as S. Jerome witnesseth. Lastly, that the setting forth of the scriptures in the common language, be not commended to the people as a thing utterly necessary to salvation, lest thereby they condemn so many churches, that hitherto have lacked the same, and so many learned and godly fathers, that have not procured it for their flocks, finally, all that have gone before us, to whom in all virtue, innocency, and holiness of life, we are not to be compared. As for me, in as much as this matter is not yet determined by the church, whether the common people ought to have the scriptures in their own tongue to read and to hear, or no, I define nothing. As I esteem greatly all godly and wholesome knowledge, and wish the people had more of it, than they have, with charity and meekness: so I would, that these hot talkers of gods word, had less of that knowledge, which maketh a man to swell, and to be proud in his own conceit: and that they would deeply weigh with themselves, whether they be not contained within the lists of the saying of S. Paul to the Corinthians, 
1. Cor. 8.  If any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. God grant all our knowledge be so joined with meekness, humility and charity, as that be not justly said of us, which S. Augustine in the like case said very dreadfully, to his dear friend Alipius. Surgunt indocti, & coelum rapiunt, 
Confess. lib. 8. ca 8  & nos cum doctrinis nostris sine cord, ecce ubi volutamur in carne & sanguine? The unlearned and simple arise up, and catch heaven away from us, and we with all our great learning void of heart, lo where are we wallowing in flesh and blood?   
Or that it was then lawful for the priest, 
jewel.  to pronounce the words of Consecration closely and in silence to himself. 
Of secret pronouncing the Canon of the Mass.  
ARTICLE XVI.  
THe matter of this article is neither one of the highest mysteries, nor one of the greatest keys of our religion. how so ever Master jewel pleaseth himself with that report, thinking thereby to impair the estimation of the catholic church. The diversity of observation in this behalf, showeth the indifferency of the thing. For else if one manner of pronouncing the words of consecration had been thought a necessary point of religion, it had been every where uniform and invariable. That the bread and wine be consecrated by the words of our lord, pronounced by the priest, as in the person of Christ, by virtue of which through the grace of the holy ghost, the bread and wine are changed into our lords body and blood: this thing hath in all times, and in all places, and with consent of all invariably been done, and so believed. But the manner of pronouncing the words, concerning silence or open utterance, according to diversity of places, hath been diverse.  

The manner of pronouncing the consecration in the Greek and latin churches divers. In libello de Sacramento Eucharistiae.  The greeks in the East church have thought it good to pronounce the words of consecration, clara voce, as we find in Chrysostom's Mass, and as Bessarion writeth, alta voce, that is, plainly, out aloud, or with aloud voice. Sacerdos alta voce iuxtà Orientalis Ecclesiae ritum verba illa pronunciat, hoc est corpus meum, etc. The priest (sayeth Bessarion) after the rite or manner of the east church pronounceth with a loud voice those words, this is my body, etc. Which manner of loud pronouncing was thought good to be used in the Greek church, as it may be gathered by that Bessarion writeth (who being a Greek borne and brought up in learning amongst the Greeks knew rightwell the order of that church) to the intent the people might thereby for the better maintenance of their faith, be stirred and warned to give token of consent and of belief thereto: when the priest (sayeth he) pronounceth those words with a loud voice, the people standing by, in utraque part, that is, first, at the consecration of the body, and again at the consecration of the blood, answereth amen: as though they said thus, truly so it is, as thou sayest. For where as Amen is an adverb of affirming in Hebrew, in Greek it signifieth so much as truly. And therefore the people answering Amen, to those words, verily say they, these gifts set forth are the body and blood of Christ. So we believe, so we confess. This far Bessarion.  
It is declared by Clement, lib. 8. constitut. Apostolicarum, that the people said Amen, when the words of consecration had been pronounced. Whereby we understand, that order to have been taken by the Apostles. The same custom also may be gathered out of S. Ambrose, who sayeth thus. Dicit tibi sacerdos, corpus Christi, & tu dicis, Amen, hoc est verum, quod confitetur lingua teneat affectus. de sacramentis lib. 4. ca 5. The priest sayeth, the body of Christ, and thou sayest, amen, that is to say, true. Hold with thy heart, that which thou confessest with thy tongue. He sayeth hereof likewise, de ijs qui initiantur mysterijs. cap. 9 Frustrà ab illis respondetur Amen, etc. 
Serm. 6. de jeiunio 7. mensis.  Amen is answered in vain by them, who dispute against that, which is received, sayeth Leo.  
And that the people should give their consent and apply their faith to this truth without error and deceit, and that by saying Amen, they should then believe and confess the bread and wine to be made the body and blood of Christ, when it was made in deed, and not else, for so were it a great error: 
De ecclesiasticis diversis capitulis. constitut. 123.  for this cause justinian the Emperor made an ordinance, that the bishops and priests should to this intent pronounce their service plainly, distinctly, and so, as it might be understanded, that the people might answer Amen, (which is to be referred to each part of the service, but specially to the consecration) that they might believe and confess it was the body and blood of Christ, when it was in deed, and not so confess, when it was not, which might happen, if they heard not the words of consecration plainly pronounced. And hereunto specially that Constitution of justinian is to be restrained, as pertaining only to the Greek church, wherein he lived, and not to be stretched further to serve for proof of all the service to be had and said in the vulgar tongue in the West church, as to that purpose of our new teachers it is untruly alleged.  
Now in this West church, which is the latin church, the people having been sufficiently instructed touching the belief of the body and blood of our lord in the Sacrament: it hath been thought by the father's convenient, the words of consecration to be pronounced by the priest closely and in silence, rather than with open voice. Wherein they had special regard to the dignity of that high mystery. And doubtless for this point they understood, 
Lib. de spiritu sancto. ca 27.  as Saint Basile writeth, that the Apostles and the fathers which at the beginning made laws for the order of Ecclesiastical things, maineteined the mysteries in their due authority, by keeping them secret and in silence. For it is not (sayeth he) any mystery at all, which is brought forth to the popular and vulgar ears, whereof he wrote very truly before. Ei quod publicatum est, & per se apprehendi potest, imminere contemptum. Ei verò quod remotum est ac rarum, etiam naturaliter quodammodo esse coniunctam admirationem. That, what is done openly and made common, and of itself may be attained, it is like to come in contempt and be despised. But what is kept far of, and is seldom gotten, that even naturally in manner is never without wondering at it. And in such respect Christ gave warning, that precious stones be not strewed before hogs.  
If in the old law priests were chosen (as Saint Ambrose writeth) to cover the ark of the Testament, because it is not lawful for all persons to see the depth of mysteries: If the sons of Caath by God's appointment did only bear the ark and those other holy things of the Tabernacle, 
Nun. 4. Vide Origenen homil. 5. in Numer. cap. 4.  on their shoulders, when so ever the children of Israel removed and marched forward in wilderness, being closely folded, and lapte within veils, courteines and palles, by the priests: and might not at no time touch nor see the same upon pain of death, which were but figures of this: how much more is this high and worthy mystery to be honoured with secretness, closeness, and silence?  
For this cause as they report, 
In fragmento Caroli Mag. de ritib. veteris ecclesiae.  sayeth Carolus Magnus that noble, virtuous and learned Emperor, writing to his Schoolmaster Alcuinus our cowntrie man, and first teacher of Philosophy in Paris, it is become a custom in the church, that the Canon and consecration be said by the priest secretly, that those words so holy and pertaining to so great a mystery, should not grow in contempt, whiles all in manner through common use bearing them away, would sing them in the high ways, in the streets, and in other places, where it were not convenient. Whereof it is told, that before this custom was received, shepherds, when they sang them in the field, were by God's hand strooken. Luther himself in praeceptorio, is much against them, that would have the Canon of the Mass to be pronounced with a loud voice for the better understanding.  

what persons the primitive church excluded from presence of the sacrament.  The fathers of the primitive church had this Sacrament in such reverence and honour, that they excluded some sorts of faithful people, from being present at the celebration of it, thinking them unworthy not only to hear the mystical words of consecration pronounced, but also to see the forms of the outward elements, and to be in the church, whiles that most holy Sacrifice was offered. They were these, Cathechumeni, Energumeni, and poenitentes. The first were learners of our belief, who as they were daily instructed, believed in Christ, and as Saint Augustine writeth, 
Tractatu in joan. 11  bare Christ's cross in their forehead, and marked themselves with the same. The second were such, as notwithstanding they had been christened, yet for the inconstancy of their mind, were vexed with unclean spirits. The third sort were they, who for their sins committed, had not yet made an end of doing their open penance. All these were judged by the governors of the church at the beginning unworthy to be present at these holy mysteries.  
Now if this great reverence towards the ho y things, in them was justly praised, the admitting of all sorts of people not only to be present and to behold the same, but also to hear and understand the words of consecration, (that hath thus always been honoured with silence and secretness) can not seem to wise, zealous and godly men a thing commendable: specially in these times, in which the holy Christian discipline of the church, is loosed and utterly shaken of, and no difference nor account of any diversity made between the perfit and godly people, and them, that aught to do open penance, that be possessed with devils, and be infamous for heinous and notorious crimes committed. Where as in old times, when by wholesome discipline the faithful people were kept in godly awe and obedience, that prayer also which was said over the oblation before consecration, was pronounced closely and in silence, and therefore it was called of the latins, secreta, of the Greeks mystica oratio, meaning thereby, that it ought not to be uttered openly and made common.   

jewel.  Or that the priest had then authority, to offer up Christ unto his father. 
Of the priests authority to offer up Christ to his father.  
ARTICLE XVII.  

Threefold oblation of Christ.  CHRIST is offered up to his father after three manners. figuratively, truly with blood shedding, and sacramentally or mystically. In figure or signification, he was offered in the sacrifices made to God both in the time of the law of nature, and also in the time of the law written. And therefore Saint john calleth Christ the lamb, which was killed from the beginning of the world, meaning in figure. The sacrifices of Abel, 
Agnus occilus est ab origine mudi. Apoca. 13. Heb. 10. Lib. 6. ca 5  Noah, and Abraham, and all those of the people of Israel commanded by the law of Moses, figured and signified Christ. For which respect chief, the law is reported of Saint Paul, to have the shadow of the good things to come. S. Augustine writing against Faustus the heretic, sayeth: Testamenti veteris sacrificia omnia multis & varijs modis unum sacrificium, cuius nunc memoriam celebramus, significaverunt. All the sacrifices of th'old testament, signified by many and sundry ways this one sacrifice, whose memory we do now celebrate. And in an other place he sayeth, 
De fide ad Petrum diaconum, cap. 16.  that in those fleshly sacrifices, there was a signification of Christ's flesh, which he should offer for sins, and of his blood, which he should shed for the remission of our sins.  
Truly and with blood shedding, Christ was offered on the Cross in his own person. where of S. Paul sayeth: Christ gave himself for us, 
Tit. 2. Ephes. 5.  that he might redeem us from all iniquity: And again: Christ hath loved us, and hath delivered himself for us an oblation and sacrifice to God into a sweet savour.  
Sacramentally or in mystery, Christ is offered up to his father in the daily sacrifice of the church under the form of bread and wine, truly and in deed, not in respect of the manner of offering, but in respect of his very body and blood really (that is in deed) present, as it hath been sufficiently proved here before.  
The two first manners of the offering of Christ, our adversaries acknowledge and confess. The third they deny utterly. And so they rob the church of the greatest treasure it hath or may have, the body and blood of our Saviour Christ once offered upon the cross with painful suffering for our redemption, and now daily offered in the blessed Sacrament, in remembrance. For which we have so many proofs, as for no one point of our Christian religion more. And herein I am more encumbered with store, then straighted with lack, and doubt more what I may leave, than what I may take.  
wherefore thinking it shall appear to the wise more skill to show discretion in the choice of places, rather than learning in recital of number, though we are over peartely thereto provoked by M. jewels vaunting and insolent challenge: I intent herein to be short, verily shorter, than so large a matter requireth: and to bring for proof a few such authorities, I mean a few in respect of the multitude that might be brought) as ought in every man's judgement to be of great weight and estimation.  
The scripture itself ministering evident proof for the oblation of Christ to his father by the priests of the new testament, in the Institution of this holy Sacrament, in the figure of Melchisedech, and in the prophecy of Malachi the prophet: the authorities of the fathers needed not to be alleged, were not the same scripture by the overthwart and false interpretations of our adversaries wrested and turned to a contrary sense, to the horrible seducing of the unlearned. For where as the holy Evangelists report, that Christ at his last supper took bread, gave thanks, broke it, and said, this is my body, which is given for you: 
Luc. 22.  Again, this is my blood which is shed for you in remission of sins: By these words, being words of sacrificing and offering, they show and set forth an oblation in act and deed, though the term itself of oblation or sacrifice be not expressed. Albe it to some of excellent knowledge, datur here soundeth no less, then offertur or immolatur, that is to say, is offered or sacrificed, specially the addition pro vobis, withal considered. For if Christ said truly, (as he is truth itself, and guile was never found in his mowth) then was his body presently given and for us given, at the time he spoke the words, that is, at his supper. For he said, datur, is given, not dabitur, shall be given: And likewise was his blood shed in remission of sins, at the time of that supper: for the text hath funditur, is shed. But the giving of his body for us, and the shedding of his blood in remission of sins, is an oblation of the same: ergo Christ offered his body and blood at the supper. And thus datur, signifieth here as much as offertur.  
Now this being true, that our lord offered himself unto his father at his last supper, having given commandment to his Apostles to do the same that he there did, whom then he ordained priests of the new testament, saying do this in my remembrance, as Clement doth plainly show. lib. 8. Apostolicarum constitut. cap. ultimo: the same charge pertaining no less to the priests that be now the successors of the Apostles in this behalf, then to the Apostles themselves: it doth right well appear, how so ever M. jewel assureth himself of the contrary, and what so ever the devil hath wrought and by his ministers taught against the sacrifice of the Mass, that priests have authority to offer up Christ unto his father.  
That Christ offered himself to his father in his last supper, and that priests by those words, Do this in my remembrance, have not only authority, but also a special commandment, to do the same, and that the figure of Melchisedech, and the prophety of Malachi pertaineth to this sacrifice, and maketh proof of the same: let us see by the testimonies of the fathers, what doctrine the Apostles have left to the church.  
Eusebius Caesariensis hath these words. 
De demonstrate. Euamgeli. lib. 1. cap. 10.  Horrorem afferentia mensae Christi sacrificia supremo Deo offer, per eminentissimum omnium ipsius Pontificem edocti sumus. We are taught (sayeth he) to offer unto our supreme God the sacrifices of Christ's table, which cause us to tremble and quake for fear, by his bishop highest of all. Here he calleth Christ in respect of his sacrifice, God's bishop highest of all bishops, the sacrifices of Christ's table he calleth, the body and blood of Christ, because at the table in his last supper he sacrificed and offered the same, and for that it is his very body and very blood, imagination only, fantasy, and figure set apart, he termeth these sacrifices, as commonly the ancient fathers do, horrible, causing trembling and fear. And where as he sayeth we have been taught to offer these sacrifices to God, doubtless he meaneth by these words of Christ: Do this in my remembrance, this is my body, which is given for you: this is my blood, which is shed for you. Clement in his eight book often cited, speaking of the sacrifice offered by the Apostles, commonly addeth these words, secundum ipsius ordinationem, or, ipso ordinante: Whereby he confesseth it to be Christ's own ordinance.  
That Christ sacrificed himself at his supper, Hesychius affirmeth with these words. Quod Dominus jussit (levit. 4.) ut sacerdos vitulum pro peccato oblaturus, ponat manum super caput eius, & iugulet eum coram Domino, Christum significat, quem nemo obtulit, sed nec immolare poterat, 
joan. 10.  nisi semetipsum ipse ad patiendum tradidisset. Propter quod non solum dicebat, Potestatem habeo ponendi animam meam, & potestatem habeo iterum sumendi eam: sed & praeveniens semetipsum in coena Apostolorum immolavit, quod sciunt, qui mysteriorum percipiunt virtuten. That our lord commanded (sayeth he the priest which should offer a calf for sin, to put his hand upon his head, and to stick him before our lord, it signifieth Christ, whom no man hath offered, neither could any man sacrifice him, except he had delivered himself to suffer. For the which he said not only, I have power to lay down my soul, 
joan. 10.  and I have power to take it again: But also preventing it, he offered up himself in sacrifice in the supper of the Apostles, which they know, that receive the virtue of the mysteries. By these words of Hesychius we learn, that Christ offered and sacrificed his body and blood twice. First in that holy supper unbloodily, when he took bread in his hands and broke it, etc. Without division of the sacrifice, for it is but one and the same sacrifice: And afterward on the cross, with shedding of his blood, and that is it he meaneth by the word preventing.  
And at the same very instant of time, (which is here further to be added as a necessary point of Christian doctrine) when must understand, that Christ offered 'em self in heaven invisibly (as concerning man) in the sight of his heavenly father, and that from that time forward that oblation of Christ in heaven was never intermitted, but continued always for our atonement with God, and shall without ceasing endure until the end of the world. For as S. Paul sayeth, 
Heb. 9  jesus hath not entered into temples made with hands, the samplers of the true temples, but into heaven itself, to appear now to the cowntenance of God for us. Now as this oblation and sacrifice of Christ endureth in heaven continually, for as much as he is risen from the dead and ascended in to heaven with that body which he gave to Thomas to feel, bringing in thither his blood, as Hesychius sayeth, and bearing the marks of his wounds, and there appeareth before the face of God, with that thorn prikte, naileboared, sperepearsed, and other wise wounded, rend, and torn body for us: (whereby we understand the virtue of his oblation on the cross ever enduring, not the oblation itself with renewing of pain and sufferance continued) so we do perpetually celebrate this oblation and sacrificing of Christ's very body and blood in the holy Mass, in remembrance of him, commanded so to do until his coming.  
Wherein our adversaries so foolishly as wickedly, scoff at us, as though we sacrificed Christ again, so as he was sacrificed on the cross, that is, in bloody manner. But we do not so offer or sacrifice Christ again, but that oblation of him in the supper, and ours in the Mass, is but one oblation, the same sacrifice, for this cause by his divine ordinance left unto us, that as the oblation once made on the cross continually endureth and appeareth before the face of God in heaven for our behalf, continued not by new suffering, but by perpetual intercession for us: So the memory of it may ever until his second coming be kept amongst us also in earth, and that thereby we may apply and bring unto us through faith the great benefits, which by that one oblation of himself on the cross, he hath for us procured, and daily doth procure.  
Now for further proof of the offering and sacrificing of Christ, of those words of our lord, Do this in my remembrance, to recite some testimonies of the fathers: First, Dionysius Saint Paul's scholar, and bishop of Athenes, writeth thus. 
Ecclesias. hierarch. cap. 3.  Quocirca reverenter simul & ex Pontificali officio, post sacras divinorum operum laudes, quòd hostiam salutarem, quae super ipsum est litet, se excusat, ad ipsum primò decenter exclamans, Tu dixisti: Hoc facite in meam commemorationem. Wherefore the bishop (sayeth he) reverently, and according to his bishoply office, after the holy praises of God's works, he excuseth himself, that he taketh upon him to offer that healthful sacrifice, which is above his degree and worthiness, crying out first unto him in seemly wise, lord thou hast commanded thus, saying, Do this in my remembrance. By these words he confesseth, that he could not be so hardy, as to offer up Christ unto his father, had not Christ himself so commanded, when he said, Do this in my remembrance. This is the doctrine touching this article that S. Paul taught his scholars, which M. jewel denieth.  
Irenaeus received the same from Saint john the Evangelist by Polycarpus Saint john's scholar. He declareth it with these words. Eum, qui ex creatura punis est, accepit, & gratias egit, dicens, 
Libro 4. cap. 32.  Hoc est corpus meum. Et calicem similiter, qui est ex creatura, quae est secundum nos, suum sanguinem confessus est, & novi testamenti novam docuit oblationem, quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens, in universo mundo offert Deo. De quo in duodecim prophetis Malachias sic praesignificavit, Non est mihi voluntas in vobis dicit Dominus exercituum: 
Malac. 1.  & munus non suscipiam de manu vestra. He took that which by creation is bread, and gave thanks, saying, this is my body. And likewise the cup, full of that creature, which is here with us, and confessed it to be his blood, and thus taught the new oblation of the new testament, which the church receiving of the Apostles, doth offer to God through the whole world, whereof Malachi one of the twelve prophets did prophecy thus. I have no liking in you, sayeth our lord almighty, neither will I take sacrifice of your hands: because from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, my name is glorified among the nations, and incense is offered to my name in every place, and pure sacrifice, for that my name is great among the nations. What can be understanded by this new oblation of the new testament other, than the oblation of that, which he said to be his body, and confessed to be his blood. And if he had offered bread and wine only, or the figure of his body and blood in bread and wine, it had been no new oblation. for such had been made by Melchisedech long before. Neither can the prophecy of Malachi be understanded of the oblation of Christ upon the cross, for as much as that was done but at one time only, and in one certain place of the world, in Golgoltha a place without the gates of jerusalem near to the walls of that city. Concerning the sacrifice of a contrite and an humbled heart, and all other Sacrifices of our devotion, that be mere spiritual, they can not be called the new oblation of the New testament, for as much as they were done as well in the old testament as in the new, neither be they all together pure. Wherefore this place of Irenaeus, and also the prophecy of Malachi, wherewith it is confirmed, must needs be referred to the sacrifice and oblation of the body and blood of Christ daily throughout the whole world offered to God in the Mass, which is the external Sacrifice of the church and proper to the new testament: which, as Irenaeus sayeth, the church received of the Apostles, and the Apostles of Christ.  
Now let us hear what S. Cyprian hath written to this purpose. Because his works be common, 
Lib. 2. epist. 3.  to be shorter, I will rehearse his words in English. If in the Sacrifice, which is Christ, none but Christ is to be followed, sooth it behoveth us to obey and do that, which Christ did, and commanded to be done. For if jesus Christ our lord and God, very he himself be the high priest of God the father, and himself first offered sacrifice to God the father, and commanded the same to be done in his remembrance: verily that priest doth occupy the office of Christ truly, who doth by imitation the same thing that Christ did. And then he offereth to God the father in the church a true and a perfit sacrifice, if he begin to offer, right so as he seeth Christ himself to have offered. This far S. Cyprian. How can this Article be avouched in more plain words? he sayeth that Christ offered himself to his father in his supper, and likewise commanded us to do the same.  
Here we have proved, that it is lawful, and hath always from the beginning of the new testament been lawful for the priests to offer up Christ unto his father, by the testimonies of three holy martyrs, two Greeks, and one Latin, most notable in sundry respects, of antiquity, of the room they bore in Christ's church, of learning, of constancy, of faith steadfastly kept to death, suffered in places of fame and knowledge, at Paris, at Lions, at Carthage.  
Our adversaries crack much of the sealing up of their new doctrine with the blood of such and such, who be written in the book of lies, not in the book of life, whom they will needs to be called martyrs. Verily if those Moonkes and freres, Apostates and renegates, wedded to wives, or rather (to use their own term) yoked to sisters, be true martyrs: then must our new Gospelers pull these holy fathers, and many thousands more, out of heaven. For certainly the faith, in defence of which either sort died, is utterly contrary. The worst that I wish to them, is, that God give them eyes to see, and ears to hear, and that he shut not up their hearts, so as they see not the light here, until they be thrown away into the outward darkness, 
Matt. 15.  where shall be weeping and grynting of teeth.  
Leaving no small number of places, that might be recited out of diverse other doctors, I will bring two of two worthy bishops, one of Chrysostom, the other of S. Ambrose, confirmig this truth. Chrysostom's words be these. Pontifex noster ille est, qui hostiam mundantem nos obtulit: ipsam offerimus & nunc, 
Chrysost. in epist. ad Heb. Homil. 17.  quae tunc oblata quidem, consumi non potest. Hoc autem quod nos facimus, in commemorationem fit eius, quod factum est. Hoc enim facite, inquit, in mei commemorationem. He is our bishop, that hath offered up the host, which cleanseth us. The same do we offer also now, which though it were then offered, yet can not be consumed. But this that we do, is done in remembrance of that, which is done. For do ye this sayeth he, in my remembrance. S. Ambrose sayeth thus. 
In Psalm. 38.  Vidimus principem Sacerdotum ad nos venientem, vidimus et audivimus offerentem pro nobis sanguinem suum: sequamur ut possumus, Sacerdotes, ut offeramus pro populo sacrificium, etsi infirmi merito, tamen honorabiles sacrificio. Quia etsi Christus non videtur offer, tamen ipse offertur in terris, quando Christi corpus offertur. We have seen the prince of priests come to us, we have seen and heard him offer for us his blood: Let us that be priests follow him, as we may, that we may offer sacrifice for the people, being though weak in merit, yet honourable for the sacrifice. Because albeit Christ be not seen to offer, yet he is offered in earth, when the body of Christ is offered. Of these our lords words, which is given for you, and, which is shed for you and for many, Here S. Ambrose exhorteth the priests, to offer the body and blood of Christ, for the people. And willeth them to be more regarded, then commonly they be now a days, for this sacrifices sake, though otherwise they be of less desert.  
Now for proof of the sacrifice and oblation of Christ, by the doctoures mind upon the figure of Melchisedech: 
Lib. 2. epist. 3.  first S. Cyprian sayeth thus. Qui magis sacerdos Dei summi, quàm Dominus noster jesus Christus, qui sacrificium Deo patri obtulit, et obtulit hoc idem, quod Melchisedech, id est, panem & vinum, suum scilicet corpus & sanguinem. Who is more the priest of the highest God, than our lord jesus Christ, who offered a sacrifice to God the father, and offered the self same, that Melchisedech did, that is, bread and wine, that is to say, his own body and blood. S. Jerome in an epistle that he wrote for the virtuous women Paula and Eustochium, to Marcelia, hath these words, Recurre ad Genesim & Melchisedech regem Salem. Huius principem invenies civitatis, qui iam in typo Christi panem & vinum obtulit, & mysterium christianum in salvatoris sanguine & corpore dedicavit. Return to the book of Genesis, and to Melchisedech the king of Salem. And thou shalt find the prince of that City, who even at that time in the figure of Christ offered bread and wine, and dedicated the mystery of Christians in the body and blood of our Saviour. Here this learned father maketh a plain distinction between th'oblation of the figure, which was bread and wine, and the oblation of the truth, which is the mystery of Christian people, the blood and the body of Christ our Saviour. Of this. S. Augustine speaketh largely in his first sermon upon the 33. Psalm. and in the 17. book de civitate Dei, cap. 20.  
Of all other Oecumenius speaketh most plainly to this purpose upon this place of S. Paul alleged out of the Psalm, Tu es Sacerdos in aeternum secundum ●rdinem Melchisedech. Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech his words be these. Significat sermo, quòd non solum Christus obtulit incruentam hostiam (siquidem suum ipsius corpus obtulit) verum etiam qui ab ipso furgentur sacerdotio, quorum Deus Pontifex esse dignatus est, sine sanguinis effusione offerent. Nam hoc significat (in aeternum.) Neque enim de ea quae semel a Deo facta est oblatio et hostia, dixisset in aeternum, sed respiciens ad praesentes sacrificos, per quos medios Christus sacrificat & sacrificatur, qui etiam in mystica coena modum illis tradidit huiusmodi sacrificij. The meaning of this place is (sayeth he) that not only Christ offered an unbloody sacrifice, for he offered his own body, but also that they which after him shall do the office of a priest (whose bishop he vouchsafeth to be) shall offer without shedding of blood. For that signifieth the word (for ever.) For concerning that oblation and sacrifice which was once made by God, he would never say, (in aeternum) for ever. But (he said so) having an eye to those priests that be now, by the mediation of whom Christ sacrificeth and is sacrificed, who also in his mystical supper taught them by tradition the manner of such a sacrifice.  
Concerning the prophecy of Malachi for proof of this oblation, though the place of Irenaeus above recited may stand in stead of many authorities, yet I will not let to rehearse the sayings of a father or two, for confirmation of this Article. Chrysostom sayeth very plainly, 
In Psal. 95  In omni loco sacrificium offertur nomini meo, & sacrificium purum. Vide quâm luculenter quanque dilucide mysticam interpretatus est mensam, quae est incruenta hostia. In every place a sacrifice shall be offered to my name, and that a pure sacrifice. See how plainly and clearly he interpreted the mystical table, which is the unbloody sacrifice.  
Saint Augustine hath many evident sayings touchig this matter in his works. One shall suffice for all which is in a little treatise he made contra judaeos, uttered in these words. 
Cap. 9  Aperite oculos tandem aliquando, & videte ab Oriente sole usque ad Occidentem, non in uno loco, ut vobis fuit constitutum, sed in omni loco offerri sacrificium christianorum, non cuilibet Deo, sed ei, qui ista praedixit, Deo Israel. Open your eyes at last you jews, and see that from the rising of the sun to the setting, not in one place, as it was appointed to you, but in every place the sacrifice of the Christian people is offered, not to every God, but to him that prophesied of these things before, the God of Israel. And even so with that protestation which saint Augustine made to the jews, I end this tedious matter consisting in manner altogether in allegations to M. jewel. Open open your eyes at last M. jewel, and see how all the holy and learned fathers, that have preached the faith of Christ from the rising of the sun to the setting, have taught this doctrine, by word and writing left to the posterity, that they which under Christ do use the office of a priest after the order of Melchisedech, have not only authority, but also express commandment, to offer up Christ unto his father. The proof of which doctrine, although it depend of the weight of one place, yet I have thought good to fortify it with some good number, that it may the better appear to be a most undoubted truth, not moved greatly with the blame of tediousness, where no thanks are sought, but only defence of the catholic Religion is intended.   
Or that the priest had then authority to communicate and receive the Sacrament for an other, as they do. 
jewel.  
Of the priests saying Mass for an other.  
ARTICLE XVIII.  
What you would say M. jewel, I wot not, what you say, well I wot. 
The priest receiveth not the Sacrament for an other.  Verily we do not communicate ne receive the Sacrament for an other. Neither hath it ever been taught in the catholic church, that the priest receive the Sacrament for an other. We receive not the Sacrament for an other, no more than we receive the Sacrament of Baptism, or the Sacrament of penance, or the Sacrament of Matrimony, one for an other. In deed the priest sayeth Mass for others, where he receiveth that he hath offered, and that is it you mean I guess: In which Mass being the external sacrifice of the New testament, according unto Christ's institution, the thing that is offered, is such, as maketh our petitions and requests acceptable to God, as S. Cyprian sayeth, 
In sermone de coena domini.  In huius (corporis) praesentia non superuacué mendicant lachrymae veniam. In the presence of this body tears crave not forgiveness in vain.  
That the oblation of the Mass is done for others then for the priest alone which celebrateth, it may sufficiently be proved by an hundred places of the fathers, the matter being undoubted, two or three may suffice. First Chrysostom writeth thus in an homely upon the Acts. 
In Acta. homil. 21.  Quid dicis? in manibus est hostia, & omnia proposita sunt bene ordinata: adsunt angeli, adsunt archangeli, adest filius Dei, cum tanto horrorè adstant omnes, adstant illi clamantes omnibus silentibus, & putas simpliciter haec fieri? Igitur & alia simpliciter, & quae pro ecclesia, & quae pro sacerdotibus offeruntur, & quae pro plenitudine ac ubertate? absit. Sed omnia cum fide fiunt.  
What sayest thou hereto? the host is in the priests hands, and all things set forth are in due order. The Angels be present, the Archangels be present, the son of God is present. Whereas all stand there with so great fear, whereas all they stand there crying out to god, and all other hold their peace, thinkest thou these things be done simply and without great cause? Why then be those other things done also simply, both the things which are offered for plenty and abundance? God forbid, but all things are done with faith. Saint Ambrose in his funeral oration made of the death of Valentinian the Emperor, calling the Sacrament of th'altar the holy and heavenly mysteries, and the oblation of our mother (by which term he understandeth the church) sayeth, that he will prosecute the godly soul of that Emperor with the same. This father writing upon the 38. Psalm, exhorteth priests to follow Christ, that as he offered for us his blood, so priests offer sacrifice for the people his words be these, Vidimus principem sacerdotum, etc. We have seen the prince of priests coming unto us, we have seen and heard him offering for us his blood. Let us that be priests, follow as we can, so as we offer sacrifice for the people, though weak in merit, yet honourable for the sacrifice, etc.  
That the oblation of the Mass is profitably made for others, S. Gregory witnesseth very plainly, homilia, 37. expounding the place of S. Luke. cap. 14. alioqui legationem mittens, ea quae pacis sunt postulat.  he sendeth forth an ambassade, and sueth for peace. Hereupon he sayeth thus. Mittamus ad Dominum legationem nostram, flendo, tribuendo, sacras hostias offerendo. Singulariter namque ad absolutionem nostram, oblata cum lachrymis & benignitate mentis, sacri altaris hostia suffragatur. Let us send to our lord our Ambassade, with weeping, giving almose, and offering of holy hosts. For the host of the holy altar (that is the blessed Sacrament) offered with tears and with the merciful bounty of our mind, helpeth us singularly to be assoiled. In that homily he showeth, that the oblation of Christ's body in this Sacrament present, which is done in the Mass, is help and comfort not only to them that be present, but also to them that be absent, both quick and dead, which he proveth by examples of his own knowledge. Who so listeth to see antiquity for proof hereof, and that in the Apostles time bishops and priests in the dreadful sacrifice offered and prayed for others, as for every state and order of men, and also for wholesomeness of the air, and for fertility of the fruits of the earth, etc. Let him read the eight book of the constitutions of the Apostles set forth by Clement.   

jewel.  Or that the priest had then authority to apply the virtue of Christ's death and Passion to any man by the mean of the Mass. 
Of the application of the benefits of Christ's death to others by mean of prayer in the Mass.  
ARTICLE. XIX.  
THe virtue of Christ's death and passion is grace and remission of sins, the appeacing of God's wrath, the reconciliation of us to God, deliverance from the devil, hell and everlasting damnation. Our adversaries imputing to us, as though we said and taught, that the priest applieth this virtue, effect and merit of Christ's death to any man by the mean of the Mass, either belie us of ignorance, or slander us of malice. Verily we say not so. Neither doth the priest apply the virtue of Christ's passion to any man by the mean of the Mass. 
what applieth the priest unto us in the Mass  He doth but apply his prayer and his intent of oblation, beseeching almighty God to apply the merit and virtue of his sons death, (the memory whereof he celebrateth at the Mass) to them, for whom he prayeth.  
It is God and none other, that applieth to us remission of sin, the priest doth but pray for it, and by the commemoration of his sons death, moveth him to apply. So as all that the priest doth, is but by way of petition and prayer, leaving all power and authority of applying to God, which prayer is to be believed to be of most force and efficacy, when it is worthily and devoutly made in the Mass: in the which the priest beareth the person of the whole church, and offereth his prayer in the sacrifice, wherein the church offereth Christ, and itself through Christ to God. Which his prayer and devout service he beseecheth to be offered up by the hands of Angels unto the high altar of God, in the sight of the divine majesty. 
Sermon● de coena Domini.  Of what strength prayer made at the Mass is, the holy bishop and martyr S. Cyprian witnesseth, where he sayeth. In the presence of this Sacrament tears crave not in vain, and the sacrifice of a contrite heart, is never denied his request.   
Or that it was then thought a sound doctrine, 
jewel.  to teach the people, that the Mass ex opere operato, That is, even for that it is said and done, is able to remove any part of our sin. 
Of opus operatum, what it is, and whether it remove sin.  
ARTICLE. XX.  
IN deed the doctrine uttered in this Article is false, and derogatory to the glory of our Saviour Christ. For thereby the honour of Christ's sacrifice, whereby he hath once satisfied for the sins of all, should be transferred to the work of the priest, which were great wickedness and detestable blasphemy. And therefore we will not require M. jewel to yield and subscribe unto this Article. For we grant, this was never thought a sound doctrine within six hundred years of Christ's Ascension, nor shall be so thought within six thousand years after the same of any man of sound belief. Neither hath it been at any time taught in the catholic church, how so ever it liketh our adversaries to charge the scholastical doctors with the slanderous report of the contrary. For it is Christ only and none other thing, that is able to remove our sins, and that hath he done by the sacrifice of his body once done upon the cross. Of which sacrifice once performed upon the cross with shedding of his blood, this unbloody sacrifice of the altar, which is the daily sacrifice of the church, commonly called the Mass, is a sampler, and a commemoration, in the which we have the same body that hanged on the cross. And whereas we have nothing of ourselves, that we may offer up acceptable to God: we offer this his sons body as a most acceptable sacrifice, beseeching him to look not upon our worthiness, our act or work: but upon the face of Christ his most dear son, and for his sake to have mercy upon us.  

How the Mass is vaileable ex opere operato.  And in this respect we doubt not this blessed sacrifice of the Mass to be vaileable and effectual, ex opere operato, that is, not as M. jewel interpreteth, for that the Mass is said and done, referring opus operatum to the act of the priest, not so: but for the work wrought itself, which god himself worketh by the ministery of the priest, without respect had to his merit, or act, which is the body and blood of Christ. Which when it is according to his commandment offered up to god, is not in regard of our work, but of itself, and of the holy Institution of his only begotten son, a most acceptable sacrifice to him, both for quick and dead, where there is no stop nor let to the contrary on the behalf of the receiver. The dead, I mean such only, as through faith have recommended themselves to the redemption wrought by Christ, and by this faith have deserved of God, that after their departure hence, as S. Augustine sayeth, this sacrifice might profit them.  
But to speak of this matter more particularly and more distinctly, the term Mass may be taken two ways. 
Mass taken two ways.  Either for the thing itself which is offered, or for the act of the priest in offering of it. If it be taken for the thing itself that is offered, which is the body of Christ, and is in this respect of the scholastical doctors called opus operatum: no man can justly deny, but that it removeth and taketh away sin. For Christ in his flesh crucified is our only sacrifice, our only price, our only redemption, 
1. Cor. 6 et 7. Tit. 2. Apoc. 14. 1. joan. 2. In 3. cap. ad Romanos.  whereby he hath merited to us upon the cross, and with the price of his blood hath bought the remission of our sins. and S. john sayeth, he is the propitiation for our sins. So Oecumenius sayeth. Caro Christi est propitiatorium nostrarum iniquitatum. The flesh of Christ is the propitiation for our iniquities. And this not for that it is offered of the priest in the Mass specially, but for that he offered it once himself with shedding of his blood upon the cross for the redemption of all. Which oblation done upon the Cross, is become a perpetual and continual oblation not in the same manner of offering, but in the same virtue and power of the thing offered. For since that time the same body of Christ appearing always before the face of God in heaven, presenteth and exhibiteth itself for our reconciliation. And likewise it is exhibited and offered by his own commandment here in earth, in the Mass, where he is both priest and sacrifice, offerer and oblation, though in mystery and by way of commemoration, that thereby we may be made partakers of the reconciliation performed. And so it is a sacrifice in very deed propitiatory, not for our act or work, but for his own work already done and accepted. To this only we must ascribe remission and removing of our sins.  
If the term Mass be taken for the act of the priest, in respect of any his only doing, it is not able to remove sin. For so we should make the priest gods peer, and his act equal with the passion of Christ, as our adversaries do unjustly slander us. Yet hath the Mass virtue and effect in some degree, and is acceptable to god, by reason of the oblation of the sacrifice, which in the Mass is done by the offerer, without respect had to Christ's institution, even for the faithful prayer and devotion of the party that offereth, which the school doctors term ex opere operantis. For then the oblation seemeth to be most acceptable to god, when it is offered by some that is acceptable. Now the party that offereth is of two sorts. The one offereth immediately and personally. the other offereth mediately, or by mean of an other, and principally. The first is the priest that consecrateth, offereth and receiveth the Sacrament, who so doth these things in his own person, yet by god's authority, as none other in so offering is concurrent with him. The party that offereth mediately or by mean of an other and principally, is the church militant, in whose person the priest offereth, and whose minister he is in offering. For this is the Sacrifice of the whole church. The first party that offereth, is not always acceptable to God, neither always pleaseth him, because oftentimes he is a sinner. The second party that offereth, is evermore acceptable to God, because the church is always holy, beloved, and the only spoose of Christ. And in this respect the Mass is an acceptable service to god, ex opere operantis, and is not without cause and reason called a sacrifice propitiatory, not for that it deserveth mercy at gods hand of itself, as Christ doth, who only is in that principal and special sort a sacrifice propitiatory: but for that it moveth god to give mercy and remission of sin already deserved by Christ. In this degree of a sacrifice propitiatory, we may put prayer, a conttite heart, almose, forgiving of our neighbour, etc. This may easily be proved by the holy fathers.  
Origens' words be very plain. 
In levit. Hom. 13.  Si respicias ad illam commemorationem, de qua dicit Dominus, Hoc facite in meam commemorationem, invenies, quòd ista est commemoratio sola, quae propitium faciat Deum. If thou look to that commemoration, whereof our lord sayeth, Do this in my remembrance, or in commemoration of me: thou shalt find, that this is the only commemoration, that maketh god merciful. Saint Augustine sayeth thus. Nemo melius praeter martyres meruit ibi requiescere, ubi & hostia Christus est, & sacerdos, scilicet, ut propitiationem de oblatione hostiae consequantur. 
Sermone 11. de Sanctis.  No man hath deserved better, than the martyrs to rest there, where Christ is both the host and the priest, (he meaneth to be buried under the altar) to the intent they might attain propitiation by the oblation of the host. But here to avoid prolixity in a matter not doubtful, I leave a number of places, whereby it may be evidently proved, that the Mass is a sacrifice propitiatory in this degree of propitiation, both for the quick and the dead, the same not being specially denied by purport of this Article. And this is the doctrine of the church, touching the valour of the Mass ex opere operato, whereby no part of Christ's glory is impaired.   

jewel.  Or that then any Christian man called the Sacrament his lord and God. 
Of calling the Sacrament lord and God.  
ARTICLE. XXI.  

Sacrament two ways taken.  THis word Sacrament (as is declared before) is of the fathers taken two ways. Either for the only outward forms of bread and wine, which are the holy sign of the very body and blood of Christ present and under them contained: Or for the whole substance of the Sacrament, as it consisteth of the outward forms, 
In sent. Prosperi. de conse. dist. 2. lib. 4. cap. 34.  and also of the very body and blood of Christ verily present, which S. Augustine calleth the invisible grace and the thing of the Sacrament, And Irenaeus, calleth it rem coelestem, the heavenly thing as that other, rem terrenam, the earthly thing. Taken the first way, no Christian man ever honoured it with the name of lord and God. For that were plain Idolatry, to attribute the name of the Creator, to the creature. But taken in the second signification, it hath always of Christian people and of the learned fathers of the church, been called by the name of lord and God. And of right so ought it to be, for else were it impiety and a denial of God, not to call Christ the son of God, by the name of lord and God, who is not only in truth of flesh and blood in the Sacrament, after which manner he is there ex vi Sacramenti, but also for the inseparable conjunction of both natures in unity of person, ex necessaria concomitantia, whole Christ, God and man. That the holy fathers called the Sacrament taken in this sense, lord and God, I might prove it by many places, the rehearsal of a few may serve for many. Origen in an homily speaking reverently of this blessed Sacrament, sayeth, 
In diverfos evangelii locos. homil. 5.  that when a man receiveth it, our lord entereth under his roof, and exhorteth him that shall receive it, to humble himself and to say unto it: Domine non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum. Lord I am not worthy that thou enter under my roof.  
S. Cyprian in Sermone de lapsis, telleth, how a man, who had denied God in time of persecution, having notwithstanding (the sacrifice by the priest done) privily with others received the Sacrament, not being able to eat it nor to handle it, opening his hands, found that he bore ashes. Where he addeth these words. Documento unius ostensum est, dominum recedere, cum negatur. By this example of one man it is showed, that our lord departeth away, when he is denied. The same S. Cyprian in th'exposition of the Pater noster, declaring the fourth petition of it, give us this day our daily bread: understandeth it to contain a desire of the holy communion in this blessed Sacrament, and sayeth. Ideo panem nostrum, id est, Christum dari nobis quotidie petimus, ut qui in Christo manemus & vivimus, à sanctificatione & corpore eius non recedamus. Therefore we ask our daily bread, that is to say, Christ, to be given unto us, that we which abide and live in Christ, depart not from the state of holiness, and communion of his body. Here S. Cyprian calleth the Sacrament Christ, as he is in deed there present really, so as in the place alleged before he calleth it lord. And I ween our adversaries will imbar the Sacrament of the name of Christ, no less then of the name of lord or God.  
unless they make less of Christ, then of lord and God. Verily this holy martyr acknowledgeth this sacrament not for lord and Christ only, but also for God, by these words in his sermon de coena Domini. Sicut in persona Christi humanitas videbatur, & latebat divinitas, ita sacramento visibili ineffabiliter divina se infudit essentia. As in the person of Christ, the manhood was seen, and the godhead was hidden, so the divine essence (or substance of God) hath infused itself into the visible sacrament unspeakably.  
Chrysostom doubteth not to call the Sacrament God in this plain saying. Nolimus obsecro, nolimus impudentes nos ipsos interimere, 
In priorem ad Cor. Homil. 24  sed cum honore & munditia ad Deum accedamus. & quando id propositum videris, dic tecum: propter hoc corpus non amplius terra & cinis ego sum, non amplius captiuus, sed liber. Let us not, let us not for gods sake be so shameless, as to kill ourselves (by unworthy receiving of the sacrament) but with reverence and cleanness let us come to God. And when thou seest the sacrament set forth, say thus with thyself: by reason of this body, I am no more earth and ashes, no more captive, but free.  
And lest this sense taken of Chrysostom should seem over strange, this place of S. Ambrose, who lived in the same time, and agreeth with him thoroughly in doctrine, may seem to lead us to the same. Quid edamus, quid bibamus, 
De ijs qul mysterijs initiantu● cap. 9 Psal. 33.  alibi tibi per prophetam Spiritus sanctus expressit, dicens: gustate & videte, quoniam suavis est Dominus, beatus vir qui sperat in eo, in illo Sacramento Christus est, quia corpus est Christi. What we ought to eat, and what we ought to drink, the holy ghost hath expressed by the prophet in an other place, saying: Taste and see, how that our lord is sweet, blessed is the man that trusteth in him. In that Sacrament is Christ, because there is the body of Christ. Here S. Ambrose referring those words of the psalm to the sacrament, calleth it lord, and that lord, in whom the man that trusteth, is blessed, who is God.  
Agreeably to this sayeth S. Augustine, 
In collectaneis in 10. cap. prioris ad Corinth.  in a sermon de verbis evangelii, as Beda reciteth. Qualem vocem Domini audistis invitantis nos? Quis vos invitavit? Quos invitavit? Et quis praeparavit? Inuitavit Dominus servos, & praeparavit eye cibum seipsum. Quis audeat manducare Dominum suum? Et tamen ait, qui manducat me, vivet propter me. What manner a voice is that ye have heard of our lord inviting and bidding us to the feast? who hath invited? whom hath he invited? And who hath made preparation? The lord hath invited the servants, and hath prepared himself to be meat for them. Who dareth be so bold as to eat his lord? And yet he sayeth, he that eateth me, shall live for cause of me.  

In joan. lib. 4. cap. 15.  Cyrillus accounteth the sacrament for Christ, and God the word, and for God, in this saying. Qui carnem Christi manducat, vitam habet aeternam. Habet enim haec caro Dei verbum, quod naturaliter vita est. Proptereà dicit: Quia ego resuscitabo eum in novissimo die. Ego enim dixit, 
joan. 6.  id est, corpus meum quod comedetur resuscitabo eum. Non enim alius ipse est, quàm caro sua, etc. He that eateth the flesh of Christ, hath life everlasting. For this flesh hath the word of God, which naturally is life. Therefore sayeth he, that I will raise him in the last day. For I, quoth he, that is to say, my body which shall be eaten, shall raise him up again, for he is no other, than his flesh, etc.  
No man more expressly calleth the Sacrament by the name of God, then S. Bernard in his godly sermon de coena Domini ad Petrum presbyterum. where he sayeth thus. Comedunt angeli Verbum de Deo natum, Comedunt homines Verbum foenum factum. The angels eat the Word borne of God, men eat the Word made have, meaning hereby the sacrament, which he calleth the Word made have, that is to wit, the Word incarnate. And in an other place there, he sayeth. Haec est verè indulgentia coelestis, haec est verè cumulata gratia, haec est verè superexcellens gloria, sacerdotem Deum suum tenere, & alijs dando porrigere. This is verily an heavenly gift, this is verily a bountiful grace, this is verily a passing excellent glory, the priest to hold his God, and in giving to reach him forth to others. In the same sermon speaking of the marvelous sweetness that good bishops and holy religious men have experience of, by receiving this blessed Sacrament, he sayeth thus. Ideo ad mensam altaris frequentius accedunt, omni tempore candida facientes vestimenta sua, id est, corpora, prout possunt, melius, utpote Deum suum manu & ore contrectaturi. For this cause they come the oftener unto the board of the altar, at all times making their garments that is to say, their bodies, so white, as they can possibly, as they, who shall handle their God with hand and mowth. another place of the same sermon, for that it containeth a wholesome instruction, beside the affirming of our purpose, I can not omit. I remit the learned to the Latin. the English of it is this.  
They are marvelous things brethren, that be spoken of this Sacrament. faith is necessary, knowledge of reason is (here) superfluous. This, let faith believe, let not understanding require, lest that either not being found, it think it incredible, or being found out, it believe it not to be singular and alone. And therefore it behoveth it to be believed simply, that can not be searched out profitably. Wherefore search not search not, how it may be, doubt not, whether it be. Come not unto it unreverently, lest it be to you to death. Deus enim est, & quanquàm panis mysteria habeat, mutatur tamen in carnem. For it is God, and though it have mysteries of bread, yet is it changed into flesh. God and man it is that witnesseth bread truly to be made his flesh. The vessel of election it is, 
1. Cor. 11.  that threateneth judgement, to him that putteth no difference in judging of that so holy flesh. The self same thing think thou o Christian man of the wine, give that honour to the wine. The creator of wine it is, that promoteth the wine to be the blood of Christ. This far holy Bernard.  
Here let our adversaries touching this Article, consider and weigh with themselves, whether they be Lutherans, Zuinglianes, or genevians, what english they can make of these words used by the fathers, and applied to the Sacrament in the places before alleged. Dominus, Christus▪ Divina essentia, Deus, Seipsum, Verbum Dei, Ego, Verbum foenum factum, Deum suum. The number of the like places that might be alleged to this purpose, be in manner infinite. Yet M. jewel promiseth to give over and subscribe, if any one may be found. Now we shall see, what truth is in his word.  
In the weighing of this doctrine of the church, little occasion of wicked scoffs and blasphemies against this blessed sacrament shall remain to them, that be not blinded with that gross and fond error, that denieth the inseparability of Christ, but affirmeth in this mystery to be present his flesh only, with out blood, soul, and godhead. Which is confuted by plain scriptures. Christ raised from the dead, now dieth no more. Rom. 6. He suffereth himself no more to be divided, 1. Cor. 1. Every spirit that looseth jesus, this is Antichrist. 1. joan. 4. Hereof it followeth, that if Christ be verily under the form of bread in the Sacrament, as it is other wheres sufficiently proved: then is he there entire and whole: flesh, blood, and soul, whole Christ, God and man, for the inseparable union of both natures in one person. Which matter is more amply declared in the Article of the adoration of the sacrament.   
Or that the people was then taught to believe, 
jewel.  that the body of Christ remaineth in the Sacrament, as long as the Accidents of the bread remain there with out corruption. 
Of the remaining of Christ's body in the sacrament so long as the accidents be entire and whole.  
ARTICLE. XXII.  
THese five articles here following are School points, the discussion whereof is more curious, then necessary. Whether the faithful people were then, that is to say, for the space of six hundred years after Christ, taught to believe concerning this blessed Sacrament precisely according to the purport of all these articles or no, I know not. Verily I think, they were taught the truth of this matter simply and plainly, yet so as nothing was hidden from them, that in those quiet times, (quiet I mean touching this point of faith) was thought necessary for them to know. If sithence there hath been more taught, or rather if the truth hath in some other form of words been declared for a more evidence and clearness in this behalf to be had, truth itself always remaining one: this hath proceeded of the diligence and earnest care of the church, to repress the pertinacy of heretics, who have within these last six hundred years impugned the truth herein, and to meet with their perverse and froward objections: as hath been thought necessary to find out such wedges, as might best serve to rive such knotty blocket. Yet this matter hath not so much been taught in open audience of the people, as debated privately between learned men in schools, and so of them set forth in their private writings. Wherein if some perhaps through contention of wits have been either over curious, or over bold, and have overshot the mark, or not sufficiently confirmed the point they have taken in hand to treat of, or through ignorance, or favour of a part, have in some thing swerved from reason, or that meaning which holy church holdeth it is great uncourtesy to lay that to our charge, to abuse their oversights to our discredit, and to reprove the whole church for the insufficiency of a few.  
Now concerning this Article, whether we are able to avouch it by such authorities as M. jewel requireth, or no, it shall not greatly force. The credit of the catholic faith dependeth not of old proofs of a few new controversed points, that been of less importance. As for the people, they were taught the truth plainly, when no heretic had assaulted their faith craftily. 
The doctrine of the church.  The doctrine of the church is this. The body of Christ after due consecration remaineth so long in the Sacrament, as the Sacrament endureth. The Sacrament endureth so long as the forms of bread and wine continue. Those forms continue in their integrity, until the other accidents be corrupted ad perish. As if the colour, weight, savour, taste, smell, and other qualities of bread and wine be corrupted and quite altered, then is the form also of the same annichilated and undone. And to speak of this more particularly, sith that the substance of bread and wine is turned into the substance of the body and blood of Christ, as the scriptures, ancient doctors, the necessary consequent of truth, and determination of holy church leadeth us to believe: if such change of the accidents be made, which should not have sufficed to the corruption of bread and wine, in case of their remaindre: for such a change the body and blood of Christ ceaseth not to be in this Sacrament, whether the change be in quality, as if the colour, savour, and smell of bread and wine be a little altered, or in quantity, as if thereof division be made into such portions, in which the nature of bread and wine might be reserved. But if there be made so great a change, as the nature of bread and wine should be corrupted, if they were present: then the body and blood of Christ do not remain in this Sacrament, as when the colour and savour and other qualities of bread and wine are so far changed, as the nature of bread and wine might not bear it: or on the quamtities' side, as if the bread be so small crommed into dust, and the wine dispersed into so small portions, as their forms remain no longer than remaineth no more the body and blood in this Sacrament. Thus the body and blood of Christ remaineth in this sacrament, so long as the forms of bread and wine remain. And when they fail and cease to be any more, than also ceaseth the body and blood of Christ to be in the Sacrament. For there must be a convenience and resemblance between the Sacraments and the things whereof they be sacraments, which done away and lost at the corruption of the forms and accidents, the sacraments also be undone and perish, and consequently the inward thing and the heavenly thing in them contained, leaveth to be in them.  
Here because many of them, which have cut themselves from the church, condemn the reservation of the Sacrament, 
Of reservation of the Sacrament.  and affirm that the body of Christ remaineth not in the same, no longer then during the time whiles it is received, alleging against reservation the example of the paschal lamb in the old law, 
Exod. 12.  wherein nothing ought to have remained until the morning, and likewise of manna: I will rehearse that notable and known place of Cyrillus Alexandrinus. 
Ad Colosyrium Arsenoiten Episcopum. citat Thomas part 3. q. 76.  his words be these: Audio quòd dicant mysticam benedictionem, si ex ea remonserint in sequentem diem reliquiae, ad sanctificationem inutilem esse. Sed insaniunt haec dicentes. Non enim alius fit Christus, neque sanctum eius corpus immutabitur: Sed virtus benedictionis, & vivifica gratia manet in illo. It is told me, they say, that the mystical blessing (so he calleth the blessed Sacrament) in case portions of it be kept until the next day, is of no virtue to sanctification. But they be mad, that thus say. For Christ becometh not an other, neither his holy body is changed: but the virtue of the consecration and the quickening or life giving grace, abideth still in it. By this saying of Cyrillus we see that he accounteth the error of our adversaries in this Article, no other than a mere madness. The body of Christ (sayeth he) which he termeth the mystical blessing, because it is a most holy mystery done by consecration, once consecrated is not changed, but the virtue of the consecration and the grace that giveth life, whereby he meaneth that flesh assumpted of the word, remaineth in this sacrament, also when it is kept: verily even so long, as the outward forms continue not corrupt.   
Or that a Mouse or any other worm or beast may eat the body of Christ, 
jewel.  for so some of our adversaries have said and taught. 
What is that the Mouse or worm eateth.  
ARTICLE. XXIII.  
Whereas M. jewel imputeth this vile asseveration but to some of the adversaries of his side, he seemeth to acknowledge, 
jewel contrarieth himself.  that it is not a doctrine universally taught and received. The like may be said for his next Article. And if it hath been said of some only, and not taught universally of all, as a true doctrine for Christian people to believe: how agreeth he with himself, saying after the rehearsal of his number of Articles, the same, none excepted, to be the highest mysteries and greatest keys of our religion. For if that were true, as it is not true for the greatest part, then should this Article have been affirmed and taught of all. For the highest and greatest points of the catholic Religion be not of particular, but of universal teaching.  
Concerning the matter of this Article, what so ever a mouse worm, or beast eateth, the body of Christ now being impassable and immortal, sustaineth no violence, injury, no villainy. As for that which is gnawn, bitten, or eaten of worm or beast, whether it be the substance of bread, as appeareth to sense, which is denied, because it ceaseth through virtue of consecration: or the outward form only of the Sacrament, as many hold opinion, which also only is broken and chawed of the receiver, the accidents by miracle remaining without substance: In such cases happening contrary to the intent and end the sacrament is ordained and kept for, it ought not to seem unto us incredible, the power of God considered, that God taketh away his body from those outward forms, and permitteth either the nature of bread to return, as before consecration, or the accidents to supply the effects of the substance of bread. As he commanded the nature of the rod, which became a serpent, to return to that it was before, when God would have it serve no more to the uses it was by him appointed unto.  
The grave authority of S. Cyprian addeth great weight to the balance for this judgement in weighing this matter, who in his sermon de lapsis, by the report of certain miracles showeth, that our lords body made itself away from some, that being defiled with the sacrifices of idols, presumed to come to the communion, ere they had done their due penance. One (as he telleth there) thinking to have that blessed body, which he had received with others in his hand, when he opened the same to put it into his mowth, found that he held ashes. And thereof S. Cyprian sayeth, Documento unius ostensum est, dominum recedere, cum negatur. By the example of one man it was showed, that our lord departeth away, when he is denied. It is neither wicked, nor a thing unworthy the majesty of that holy mystery, to think our lords body likewise done away, in cases of negligence, villainy, and profanation.   
Or that when Christ said, Hoc est corpus meum: 
jewel.  this word Hoc, pointeth not the bread, but Individuum vagum, as some of them say. 
What this pronoun Hoc pointeth in the words of consecration.  
ARTICLE XIIII.  
What so ever hoc pointeth in this saying of Christ after your judgement, M. jewel, right meaning and plain christian people, 
2. Thes. ●  (who through god's grace have received the love of truth, and not the efficacy of illusion to believe lying) believe verily, that in this sacrament after consecration, is the very body of Christ, and that upon credit of his own words, 
The benefit of the Genevian Communion  Hoc est corpus meum. They that appoint themselves to follow your Genevian doctrine in this point, deceived by that ye teach them (hoc) to point the bread, and by sundry other untruths, in stead of the very body of Christ, in the Sacrament rightly ministered verily present, shall receive nothing at your communion, but a bare piece of bread not worth a point. As for your some say, who will have Hoc to point individuum vagum, first learn you well, what they mean. and if their meaning be nought, who so ever they be, handle them as you list, therewith shall we be offended never a deal. How this word Hoc in that saying of Christ, is to be taken, and what it pointeth, we know who have more learnedly, more certainly, and more truly treated thereof, then Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin, Cranmer, Peter Martyr, or any their offspring.   

jewel.  Or that the accidents, or forms, or shows of bread and wine, be the Sacraments of Christ's body and blood, and not rather the bread and wine itself. 
Who are the Sacramen●tes of Christ's body and blood, the accidents, or the bread and wine.  
ARTICLE. XXV.  
FOr as much as by the almighty power of god's word pronounced by the priest in the consecration of this Sacrament, the body and blood of Christ are made really present, the substance of bread turned into the substance of the body, and the substance of wine into the substance of the blood: the bread (which is consumed away by the fire of the divine substance, as Chrysostom sayeth, 
In homil. Paschali.  and now is become the bread which was form by the hand of the holy ghost in the womb of the virgin, and decocted with the fire of the passion in the altar of the cross, as S. Ambrose sayeth: 
De conse. dist 2. ca omnia. ) can not be the sacrament of the body, nor the wine of the blood. Neither can it be said that the bread and the wine which were before, are the sacraments, for that the bread is become the body, and the wine the blood, and so now they are not, and if they be not, then neither be they sacraments. Therefore that the outward forms of bread and wine which remain, be the sacraments of Christ's body and blood, and not the very bread and wine itself: it followeth by sequel of reason, or consequent of understanding, deduced out of the first truth, which of S. Basile in an epistle add Sozopolitanoes, 
Epist. 65.  speaking against certain that went about to raise up again the old heresy of Valentinus, is called, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Of which sequel of reason in the matter of the Sacrament, many conclusions may be deduced in case of want of express scriptures. Which way of reasoning Basile used against heretics, as also sundry other fathers where manifest scripture might not be alleged.  
And whereas there must be a likeness between the sacrament and the thing of the sacrament, (for if the sacraments had not a likeness of things whereof they are sacraments, 
Aug. epis. 22. ad Bonifacium Episcopum.  properly and rightly they should not be called sacraments: as the sacrament of baptism, which is the outward washing of the flesh, hath a likeness of the inward washing of the soul) and no likeness here appeareth to be between the forms that remain, and the thing of the Sacrament, for they consist not, the one of many corns, the other of grapes, for thereof cometh not accident, but substance: hereto may be said, it is enough, that these sacraments bear the likeness of the body and blood of Christ, for as much as the one representeth the likeness of bread, the other the likeness of wine, 
De conse. dist. 2. ca hoc est quod dicimus.  which S. Augustine calleth visibilem speciem elementorum, the visible form of the elements.  
Thus the forms of bread and wine are the sacraments of the body and blood of Christ, not only in respect of the thing signified, which is the unity of the church, but also of the thing contained, which is the very flesh and blood of Christ, whereof the truth itself said: 
joan. 6.  The bread that I shall give, is my flesh for the life of the world.   

jewel.  Or that the Sacrament is a sign or token of the body of Christ, that lieth hidden underneath it. 
Of the unspeakable manner of the being of Christ's body and blood under the forms of bread and wine.  
ARTICLE XXVI.  
THat the outward form of bread, which is properly the sacrament, is the sign of the body of Christ, we confess, yea of that body, which is covertly in, or under the same, 
In libro Sentent. Prosperi.  which S. Augustine callet, carnem domini forma panis opertam: the flesh of our lord covered with the form of bread. But what is meant by this term (lieth) we know not. As through faith grounded upon god's word, we know that Christ's body is in the Sacrament, so that it lieth there, or underneath it, by which term it may seem a scoff to be uttered, to bring the catholic teaching in contempt, or that it sitteth, or standeth, we deny it. For lying, sitting, and standing, noteth situation of a body in a place, according to distinction of membres and circunscription of place, so as it have his parts in a certain order correspondent to the parts of the place. But after such manner the body of Christ is not in the Sacrament, but without circumscription, order, and habitude of his parts to the parts of the body or place enuironning. Which manner of being in, is above all reach of humane understanding wondrous, strange and singular, not defined and limited by the laws or bonds of nature, but by the almighty power of God. To conclude, the being of Christ's body in the Sacrament, is to us certain, the manner of his being there to us uncertain, and to God only certain.   

jewel.  Or that Ignorance is the mother and cause of true devotion and obedience. 
Master jewel had great need of Articles, for some show to be made against the catholic church, when he advised himself to put this in for an Article. Verily this is none of the highest mysteries, nor none of the greatest keys of our Religion, as he sayeth it is, but untruly, and knoweth that for an untruth. For himself imputeth it to D. Cole, 
Fol. 77.  in his replies to him, as a strange saying by him uttered in the disputation at Westminster, to the wondering of the most part of the honourable and worshipful of this realm. If it were one of the highest mysteries and greatest keys of the catholic religion, I trust the most part of the honourable and worshipful of the realm, would not wonder at it. Concerning the matter itself, I leave it to D. Cole. He is of age to answer for himself. Whether he said it or no, I know not. As he is learned, wise, and godly, so I doubt not, but, if he said it, therein he had a good meaning, and can show good reason for the same, if he may be admitted to declare his saying, as wise men would the laws to be declared, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  so as the mind be taken, and the word spoken not always rigorously exacted.  August. de Trinit. lib. 1. cap. 4. 
Haec mea fides est, quoniam haec est catholica fides.  
This is my faith, for as much as this is the catholic faith.    

THE CONCLUSION EXHORting M. jewel to stand to his promise.  
THus your Challenge M. jewel is answered. Thus your negatives be avouched. Thus the points you went about to improve, by good authority be proved, and many others by you over rashly affirmed, clearly improved. Thus the catholic Religion with all your forces laid at and impugned, is sufficiently defended. The places of prouses, which we have here used, are such, as yourself allow for good and lawful. The scriptures, examples of the Primitive church, ancient Councils, and the fathers of six hundred years after Christ. You might and ought likewise to have allowed, Reason, Tradition, Custom, and authority of the Church, without limitation of tyme. The manner of this dealing with you, is gentle, sober, and charitable. Put away all mists of blind self love, you shall perceive the same to be so. The purpose and intent towards you, right good and loving, in regard of the truth, no less then, due, for behoof of Christian people, no less than necessary. That you hereby might be induced to bethink yourself of that, wherein you have done unadvisedly, and stayed from hasty running forth, pricked with vain favour and praise of the world, to everlasting damnation, appointed to be the reward at the end of your game: that truth might thus be tried, set forth and defended: and that our brethren be lead, as it were by the hand, from perilous errors and danger of their souls, to a right sense and to surety.  
Now it remaineth, that you perform your promise. Which is, that, if any one clear sentence or clause be brought for proof of any one of all your negative Articles: you would yield and subscribe. What hath been brought, every one, that wilfully will not blindefold himself, may plainly see. If some happily, who will seem to have both eyes and ears, and to be right learned, will say hereof, they seen hear nothing: no marvel. The favour of the part, whereto they cleave, having cut of themselves from the body, the despite of the catholic religion, and hatred of the church, hath so blinded their hearts, as places alleged to the disprove of their false doctrine being never so evident, they see not, ne hear not, or rather they seeing see not, 
Matt. 13.  ne hearing hear not. Verily you must either refuse the balance, which yourself have offered and required for trial of these Articles, which be the scriptures, examples, councils, and doctors of antiquity: or, the better weight of authority swaying to our side, that is, the truth found in the ancient doctrine of the catholic church, and not in the mangled dissensions of the Gospelers: advisedly return, from whence unadvisedly you have departed, humbly yield to that you have stubbornly kickte against, and embrace wholesomely that, which you have hated damnably.  
Touching the daily Sacrifice, of the Church, commanded by Christ to be done in remembrance of his death, that it hath been, (and may be well and godly) celebrated without a number of communicantes with the priest together in one place, which you call private Mass, within the compass of your six hundred years after Christ: That the communion was then sometimes, (as now also it is and may be) ministered under one kind: Of the public Service of the church, or common prayers in a tongue not known to all the people: That the Bishop of Rome was sometime called universal bishop, and both called and holden for head of the universal church: That by ancient doctoures it hath been taught, Christ's body to be really, substantially, corporally, carnally, or naturally in the blessed Sacrament of the altar: Of the wondrous, but true being of Christ's body in more places at one time: and of the Adoration of the Sacrament, or rather of the body of Christ in the Sacrament, we have brought good and sufficient proofs, alleging for the more part of these Articles the scriptures, and for all, right good evidence out of ancient examples, councils, or fathers. Concerning Elevation, Reservation, Remaining of the Accidents without substance, Dividing the host in three parts, the terms of figure, sign, token, etc. applied to the Sacrament, many Masses in one church in one day, the reverent use of Images, the scriptures to be had in vulgar tongues for the common people to read, which are matters not specially treated of in the scriptures by express terms: all these have been sufficiently avouched and proved, either by proofs by yourself allowed, or by the doctrine and common sense of the church.  
As for your twelve last Articles, which you put in by addition to the former, for show of your courage and confidence of the cause, and to seem to the ignorant to have much matter to charge us withal, as it appeareth: they report matter (certain excepted) of less importance. Some of them contain doctrine, true, I grant, but over curious, and not most necessary for the simple people. Some others be through the manner of your utterance perverted, and in terms drawn from the sense they have been uttered in by the church. Which by you being denied, might of us also be denied in regard of the terms they be expressed in, were not a sleight of falsehood, which might redound to the prejudice of the truth, therein worthily suspected. Verily to them all we have said so much, as to sober, quiet and godly wits, may seem sufficient.  
Now this being so, what you mind to do, I know not, what you ought to do, I know right well. I wish you to do that, which may be to your own and to the people's soul health, that being by you and your fellows deceived, depend of you, to the setting forth of the truth, to the procuring of a godly concord in Christ's church, and finally, to the glory of God. This may you do, by forsaking that, which perhaps seemeth to you truth, and is not: that, which seemeth to you learning, and is but a flourish or varnish of learnig: that which seemeth to you clear light, and is profound darkness, and by returning to the church, where concerning the faith of a christian man, is all truth, and no deceit, right learning, 
joan. 1.  and the very light, even that, which lighteneth every man coming into this world, which is there to be found only, and not else where, for as much as the head is not separated from the body.  
O that you would once mind this seriously M. jewel. As for me, if either speaking, writing, or expending might further you thereto, I should not spare tongue nor pen, nor any portion of my necessary things, were it never so dear. I would gladly power out all together, to help you to attain that felicity. But o lord what lets see I, whereby you are kept from that good! Shame, wealth of your estate, your worldly acquaintance, beside many others. But Sir, touching shame, which always irketh those, that be of any generosity of nature, if you call your better philosophy to counsel, you shall be taught, not to account it shameful, to forsake error for love of truth, but rather wilfully to dwell in error, after that it is plainly detected. As for the wealth of your estate, which some assure you of, so long as you maintain that part: I can not judge so evil of you, but that you think, how fickle and frail these worldly things be, and how little to be esteemed, in respect of the heavenly estate, which remaineth to the obedient children of the church, as the contrary to the rebels, Apostates, and renegates. Touching your acquaintance, what shall the familiarity of a few deceived persons stay you from that felicity, which you shall achieve with the love and friendship of all good men, of whose good opinion only riseth fame and renome, 
Luc. 15.  and also with the rejoicing of the Angels in heaven?  
This your happy change, the better and wiser sort of men will impute to grace mightily by god's power in you wrought, 
Genes. 1. 2. Cor. 4.  which sundreth light from darkness, and maketh light shine out of darkness. Neither shall they judge that inconstancy, where is no change in will, but only in understanding. Where the will remaining one, always bend to the glory of God, the deceived understanding is by better instruction corrected and righted: there is not inconstancy to be noted, but amendment to be praised. Neither shall you in this godly enterprise be alone. Many both of old time, and of our days, have gone this way, and have broken the ice before you. Eusebius of Caesarea in Palaestina, Beryllus of Bostra in Arabia, and Theodoritus of Cyrus in Persie: who forsook heinous heresies against Christ, and by grace returned to the catholic faith again. So have done in our time, Georgius wicelius, Fridericus Staphylus, Franciscus Balduinus, and many more.  
Thus having called to my mind the considerations, that are like to withhold you from yielding to the catholic faith, from returning to the church, and from performing your promise: I find no bands so strong, to keep you fast in the chair of pestilence, which this long time you have sitten in: that through God's grace working humility and denial of yourself in your heart, whereof I spoke in my preface, you should not easily lose and be in liberty, where you might clearly see the light spread abroad over the whole Church, and espy the darkness of the particular sects of your new gospel, which you lived in before.  
But all this notwithstanding, peradventure your heart serveth you to stand stoutly according to the purport of your challenge, in the defence of the doctrine you have professed, and for which you have obtained a bishopric, thinking great scorn, to be removed from the same, by any such means, as these to you may seem. And now perhaps you enter into meditation with yourself and conference with your brethren, to frame an answer to this treatise, and by contrary writing to fortify your negatives. Well may you so do. But to what purpose, I pray you? Well may you make a smoke and a smooder, to darken the light for a time, as men of war are wont to do, to work a feat secretly against their enemies. But that can not long continue. The smoke will soon vanish away, the light of the truth will eftsoons appear. Well may you shut the light out of a few houses, by closing doors and windows, but to keep away the bright sun from that great City which is set on high upon a hill, do what ye can, 
Matt. 5.  therein all your travail, your devices and endeavours, shall be vain and frustrate.  
As iron by scouring is not only not consumed, but kept from rust and canker, and is made brighter: so the church by the armours and hostility of heretics is not wounded, but through occasion strengthened, stirred to defence, and made invincible. When it is oppressed, than it riseth, when it is invaded, than it overcometh. When by the adversaries objections it is chekte and controlled, than it is acquitted and prevaileth. Wherefore talk, preach, and write against the doctrine of the church whiles ye will, ye shall but spurn against the stone, where at ye may break your shins and be crushed to pieces, 
Matt. 21. Act. 9  the same not moved. Ye shall but kick against the prick. Ye shall but torment your own conscience condemned in your own judgement, 
Tit. 3.  as witting that ye resist the church, and for the life to come increase the heap of everlasting damnation. All the reward ye shall win hereby, is the vain favour of a few light and unstable persons by you deceived. Whom the blasts of your mutable doctrine, shall move and blow away from God's floor the church, 
Matt. 3.  like chaff, the good and constant people remaining still, like weighty and sound wheat.  
The arguments and reasons you shall make against the doctrine of the church, may happily persuade some of the worldly wise, who be fools in God's judgement, as the reasons of them, that have commended infamous matters, 
Phavorinus. Synesius. Glaucus' apud Platonem. Cornelius Agrippa. Erasmus.  have persuaded some. Of whom one praised the fever quartan, an other drunkenness, an other baldness, an other unrighteousness: and in our time one, ignorance, and an other foolishness. Which by the authors hath been done only for an exercise of wits, and rather to the wondering, then corrupting of the Readers, Would God of all the writings of your sect against the catholic faith, which be no less beside reason and truth, the intent were no worse, the danger ensuing no greater. And as for commendation of those unseemly and unworthy things, those Rhetoricians have not brought good and true reasons, but only a probability of talk: right so for confirmation of your negative divinity, and of many new strange and false doctrines, you have no sure proofs, but shadows, colours, and shows only, that perhaps may dazzle blear eyes, and deceive the unlearned: but the learned wise, and by any ways godly wise, will soon contemn the same, For they be assured, how probably so ever you teach or write, that the church always assisted and prompted by the holy Ghost the spirit of truth, in points of faith erreth not, and that against truth already by the same spirit in the universal church taught and received, no truth can be alleged.  
As he is very simple, who, being borne in hand by a Sophister, and driven by force of sophistical arguments to grant, that he hath horns, thinketh so in deed, and therefore putteth his hand to his forehead: So who so ever through your teaching fall from the catholic Church into the errors of our time, from the straightness of Christian life, into the carnal liberty of this new gospel, from devotion into the insensibility which we see the people to live in, from the fear of God, to the desperate contempt of all virtue and goodness: hereby they show them selves to be such, as have unstable hearts, which be given over to the lusts of their flesh, which have no delight ne feeling of God, which like Turks and Epicures seeking only for the commodities and pleasures of this world, have no regard of the life to come. But the godly sort, whose hearts be established with grace, who pant and labour to live after the spirit, continually mortifying their flesh, whose delight is to serve God, who be kept and holden within the fear of God: though they give you their hearing, and that of constraint not of will, yet will not they give you their liking nor consenting.  
Wherefore M. jewel seeing we have performed that, which you have over boldly said, we were not able to do: seeing for proof of these Arcicles we have brought more, than you bore your hearers in hand, we had to bring: seeing you perceive yourself herein to have done more, then standeth with learning, modesty, or good advise: seeing in case of any one clause or sentence for our part brought, you have with so many protestations promised to yield and to subscribe unto us: seeing by performing your promise, you may do so much good to the people and to yourself: seeing nothing can be justly alleged for keeping of you from satisfying your promise, and returning to the church again: seeing so great respects both of temporal and of heavenly preferments invite you and call you from parts and sects, where you remain with most certain danger of your soul, to the safe port of Christ's church: seeing by so doing, you should not do that which were singular, but common to you with many others, men of right good fame and estimation: finally seeing if you shall, as always for the most part heretics have done, continue in the profession of your untrue doctrine, and travail in setting forth erroneous treatises for defence of the same, you shall gaigne thanks of no other, but of the lightest and worst sort of the people, and persuade none but such as be of that mark: we trust you will upon mature deliberation, in your sadder years change the counsel which you liked in your youth: we trust you will examine better by learning the new doctrine, which you with many others were drawn unto by swea of the time, when by course of age you wanted judgement: we trust you will call back yourself from errors and heresies advisedly, which you have maintained rashly, and set forth by word and write busyly, and therein assured yourself of the truth confidently. Thus shall your error seem to proceed of ignorance, not of malice. Thus shall you make some recompense for hurt done. thus shall you in some degree discharge yourself before God and men, thus shall you be received into the lap of the church again, out of which is no salvation: whether being restored, you may from hence forth in certain expectation of the blessed hope, 
Tit. 2.  lead a life more acceptable to God, to whom be all praise, honour, and glory, Amen.   


A TABLE OF THE ARTICLES UTTERED Affirmatively, against M. jewels Negatives.  

OF Mass without a number of others receiving the Communion with the priest at the same time and place, which the gospelers call private Mass. Folio. 9  
Of Communion under one kind. Fol. 31.  
Of the church Service in learned tongues, which the unlearned people in old time, in sundry places understood not. Fol. 50.  
Of the Pope's Primacy. fol. 75.  
Of the terms really, substantially, corporally, carnally, naturally, found in the Doctors treating of the true being of Christ's body in the blessed Sacrament. Fol. 96.  
Of the being of Christ's body in many places at one tyme. fol. 104.  
Of the Elevation or lifting up of the sacrament. fol. 109.  
Of the worshipping or adoration of the sacrament. fol. 111.  
Of the reverent hanging up of the sacrament under a Canopy. fol. 121.  
Of the remaining of the accidents without their substance in the Sacrament fol. 123.  
Of dividing the sacrament in three parts. fol. 128.  
Of the terms figure, sign, token, etc. by the fathers applied to the sacrament. fol. 129.  
Of plurality of Masses in one church in one day. fol. 138.  
Of images. fol. 145.  
Of the people's reading the Bible in their own tongue. fol. 153.  
Of secret pronouncing of the Canon of the Mass. fol. 161.  
Of the priests authority to offer up Christ to his father. fol. 164.  
Of the priests saying Mass for an other. fol. 172.  
Of application of the benefits of Christ's death to others by mean of prayer in the Mass. fol. 173.  
Of opus operatum, what it is, and whether it remove sin. fol. 174.  
Of calling the sacrament lord and God. fol. 176.  
Of the remaining of Christ's body in the Sacrament so long as the accidents be entire and whole. fol. 182.  
What is that the Mouse or worm eateth. fol. 184.  
What this pronoun Hoc pointeth in the words of consecration. fol. 185.  
Who are the sacraments of Christ's body and blood, the accidents, or the bread and wine. fol. 185.  
Of the unspeakable manner of the being of Christ's body and blood under the forms of bread and wine. fol. 186.    

A TABLE OF THE CHIEF points in these Articles uttered. The number shewth the leaf a, the first side, b, the second side of the leaf. etc, noteth the matter further prosecuted in that as followeth.  

ATTICLE. I.  
NO Mass private in itself, but in respect of circumstances. 9 a.  
The term Private in respect of the Mass after the sense of the Gospelers, new, and used by Satan. 9 b.  
In what sense and consideration the Mass called Private of some Doctors. 9 b.  
What the Lutherans call Private Mass. 9 b.  
Private Mass in word, but in deed the sacrifice of the church, impugned by M. jewel. 10. a.  
Proofs for the Mass briefly touched. 10. a.  
The chief cause why the Gospelers storm against private Mass. 11. b.  
Three essentials of the Mass. 12. b.  
Number of communicantes, place, time, with other rites be not of Christ's Institution. 12. b.  
Why the Sacrament is called a communion. 14. a.  
There is a communion between the faithful, though they be not together. 14. b.  
Necessity of many communicantes together, contrary to the liberty of the gospel. 15. a.  
For mengling water with the wine in the Sacrament, a place alleged out of Clement. 15. b.  
Many may communicate together, not being in one place together. 16. a. etc.  
Proofs for private communion, and consequently for private Mass. 17. b. etc.  
Reservation of the Sacrament. 19 b.  
Unclean doings bewrayed at Martyr's tombs. 20. b.  
Light of the west churches taken from Rome. 21. b.  
The fathers oftentimes complain of the people's forebearing the communion, but no where of the priests ceasing from offering the Sacrifice. 23. a.  
The people's forebearing the communion, is no cause why the priest should not say Mass. 24. a.  
Mass done without a number of communicantes in the same place. 24. b. 25. 26. etc.  
A true declaration of Chysostomes' place, nullus qui communicetur. 30. b.   

2.  
Christ's words drink ye all of this, bind not the laity to the use of the cup. 33. a.  
Luther and his offspring doth not necessitate communion under both kinds. 34. a. etc.  
Lutheres conference with the Devil against the Mass. 34. b  
Causes moving the church to communicate under one kind. 36. b.  
The exact straightness of certain Gods ordinances may without offence in cases be omitted. 37. a. b. etc.  
Proofs for Communion under one kind. 40. b. 41. etc.  
Our lords cup only in certain cases ministered. 46. a. b  
The administration of the bread styped or dippeth in the cup, unlawful. 46. b.  
The Canon of Gelasius guilefully by M. jewel alleged, truly examined. 47. b. 48. etc.   

3.  
Church Service in due order disposed in the Greek churches before the latin churches. 51. a.  
Usage of church Service in any vulgar barbarous tongue with in 600. years after Christ, can not be proved. 52. a  
All people of the Greek church understood not the greek Service. 53. b. 54. etc.  
M. jewels allegations soluted. 57 a. etc.  
justinianes ordinance truly declared. 58. b.  
M. jewel noted of insinseritie and halting. 58. b. 59 a.  
The number of languages by account of the antiquity. 59 a. b  
All people of the Latin church understood not the Latin Service. 60. a. 61. 62. etc.  
The antiquity of the Latin Service in the church of England. 63. a.  
Cednom the divine poet of England. 65. b.  
The first entry of the English Service. 66. a.  
The place of S. Paul to the Corinthians maketh not for the Service in the English tongue. 66. b. 67. etc.  
The word Spirit in s. Paul diversely taken of diverse. 68 a  
The benefit of prayer uttered in a tongue not understanded. 71. a.  
Such nations as use church Service in their own tongue, continue in schisms. 73. b.   

4.  
Of six growndes that the Pope's Supreme authority standeth upon, the first and chief, God's ordinance according to the scripture expounded. 75. b. etc.  
The 2. Councils. 77. b.  
The 3. Edicts of Emperors. 79. a.  
The 4. Doctors. 79. b. etc.  
The 5. Reason. 81. a.  
The 6. practice of the church syxfolde. 83. a. etc.  
1. Appellations to the Pope. 84. a.  
Evil lice of the b. of Rome, ought not to sever us from the faith of the church of Rome. 85. b.  
The 2. practice, corrections from the Pope. 87. a.  
3. Confirmations by the Pope. 78. b.  
4. The Pope's approving of Councils. 88 a.  
5. Absolutions from the Pope. 89. a  
6. Reconciliations to the Pope. 89. b  
The Pope above a thousand years sithence called Universal bishop, and head of the universal church. 90. b.  
Peter, and consequently the Pope Peter's successor called head of the church, both in terms equivalent, and also expressly. 91. b. etc.  
Peter and his successor called head of the church, expressly. 93. a. etc.  
The Pope's Primacy acknowledged and confessed by Martin Luther. 94. b.   

5.  
What occasioned the fathers to use these terms really, substantially, corporally, etc. 97. b.  
Berengatius the first sacramentary. 98. a.  
The flesh and blood of Christ of double consideration 98. b.  
Bucer confesseth the body of Christ to be in the Sacrament, in deed, and substantially. 100 b.   

6.  
Christ's being in heaven and in the Sacrament at one time, implieth no contradiction. 105. a.  
Christ's body in many places at once. 105. b. 106. etc.  
Truth confessed by the enemy of truth. 107. b.  
God working above nature, destroyeth not nature. 108. b  
Being in a mystery, what it is. 109. a.   

7.  
Elevation of the Sacrament proved. 109. b. 110. etc.   

8.  
What Christian people adore in the Sacrament. 112. b. 113. etc.  
Contrariety in the first devisers of the New Gospel. 115. a.  
Adoration proved by the scripture, and that according to the zwinglians against luther. 115. a. etc.  
The term concomitantia, by the Divines profitably devised. 115. b.  
Adoration of Christ in the Sacrament avouched by the fathers. 116. b. etc.   

9  
Sundry manners of keeping the blessed Sacrament. 121. b.  
Hanging up of the Sacrament in a pyx over the altar is ancient. 122. b.   

10.  
The remaining of the only Accidents without substance in the Sacrament dependeth of the Article of transubstantiation. 124. a.  
Transubstantiation and the truth of our lords body and blood avouched. 124. 125. etc.  
Transubstantiation taught by the old fathers, and by the Doctors of the Greek church of late age. 126. 127.  
Accidents believed of some learned fathers to remain without substance at the beginning. 127. b.   

11.  
What the dividing of the Sacrament in three parts signifieth. 128. a.  
The dividing of the Sacrament in three parts probably thought to be a Tradition of the Apostles. 128. b. 129. a.   

12.  
How the fathers are to be understanded calling the Sacrament a figure, sign, token, etc. 130. a. etc.  
The words, figure, sign, token, remembrance, etc. exclude not the truth of being. 134. a. 135. etc.   

13.  
Lydford law used by the Gospelers. 139. a.  
Plurality of Masses in one church in one day. 139. a. etc.  
This word Sacrifice taken for the Mass. 143. b.   

14.  
Antiquity of Images. 145. a.  
The sign of the Cross commended to men by God's providence. 145. b.  
Literae Hieroglyphicae. 146. b.  
Images from the Apostles tyme. 147. b.  
Three causes why Images have been used in the church. 150. a.  
Pictura loquens, poëma tacens. 150. b.  
How Images may be worshipped without offence. 152. a   

15.  
Three sundry opinions concerning the scriptures to be had in a vulgar tongue. 153. b.  
Five considerations, why the scriptures are not to be set forth for all sorts of people to read them without limitation. 154. a.  
Some through holiness of life may understand the scriptures without learning. 157. a.  
The Gospelers divided into contrary sects. 157. b.  
Fridericus Staphylus. 158. a.  
Protestants whereof so called. 158. b.  
Protestants divided into xx. sects. 158. b.  
Valdenses, Adamitae, Begardi, Turelupini, etc. sects. 158. b.  
A proclamation of Ferdinando and Elizabeth against the translation and having of the Bible in the Spanish tongue. 159. a.  
What parts of the scriptures pertain to the people to know. 159. a.  
No translation of the Bible into any vulgar tongue ever allowed by public authority of the church. 159. b.  
That S. Hierom translated the whole Bible into the Dalmatic tongue, it seemeth not sufficiently proved. 159. b.  
ulphilas an Arian bishop first invented letters for the Goths, and translated the Bible into their tongue, and brought them to the heresy of the Arians, moved through ambition. 159. b.  
Five nations of five sundry tongues confessed Christ in this Island in Bedes tyme. and to them all the Latin tongue was common for study and reading of the scriptures. 160. a   

16.  
The manner of pronouncing the Consecration in the Greek and Latin churches diverse. 161. b  
For what cause the Canon is pronounced secretly in the West church, after the mind of Carolus Magnus. 163. a.  
What persons the primitive church excluded from presence of the Sacrament. 163. b.   

17.  
Threefold oblation of Christ. 164. b.  
Proofs for the oblation of Christ to his father in the daily Sacrifice of the church out of the scriptures. 165. b.  
Testimonies of the father's alleging scripture for this oblation of Christ to his father. 166. 167. etc.  
The oblation of Christ in the Mass and that in the supper, one and the same, and to what intent. 167. b.  
The oblation spoken of by Malachi must be understanded of the daily sacrifice of the church only. 168. b.  
A manifest place for the priests offering up of Christ to his father out of S. Cyprian. 169. a.  
The same proved by sundry ancient fathers. 170. etc.   

18.  
The priest receiveth not the Sacrament for an other. 172. a  
Proofs for the oblation of the body and blood of Christ to be done for others, then for the priest only that offereth or sayeth Mass. 172. b.  
For what persons, and what things, Mass is said, that holy sacrifice offered, and prayers made, proofs out of Chrysostom, Ambrose, Gregory, Clement. 172. 173.   

19  
What applieth the priest unto us in the Mass. 173. b.  
Of what strength prayer is, made at the Mass. 174. a.   

20.  
Christ only removeth sin. 174. b.  
How the Mass is vaileable, ex opere operato. 174. b.  
Mass taken two way. 175. a.  
How, and in what sense the Mass is a Sacrifice propitiatory. 175. a. b.  
In what degree the Mass is vaileable ex opere operantis, and may be called a sacrifice propitiatory. 176. a.  
Sundry Sacrifices propitiatory in some degree. 176. a.   

21.  
Sacrament two ways taken. 176. b.  
In what sense the Sacrament called lord and God. 179. a.  
Proofs out of the fathers for calling the Sacrament lord and God. 179. 180. etc.  
A wholesome lesson touching the blessed Sacrament, out of S. Bernard. 181. a.  
The inseparability of both Christ's natures in unity of person duly considered, taketh away occasion of many vile and wicked scoffs and blasphemies against the b. Sacrament. 181. b.   

2.  
The doctrine of the Sacrament within these last six hundred years more amply, clearly, and subtly handled, then before in quiet times, to meet with the objections of heretics. 182. b.  
The doctrine of the church concerning the remaining of Christ's body in the Sacrament. 183. a.  
Reservation of the sacrament 183. b.   

23.  
M. jewel cotrarieth himself. 184. a.  
The body of Christ sustaineth no violence, injury ne villainy. 184. b.  
When a Mouse eateth the Sacrament, either the nature of bread returneth the body of our lord done away, or the accidents supply the effects of the substance. 184. b   

24.  
The benefit of the Genevian communion. 185. b.   

25.  
The bread and wine by consecration changed into an other more excellent substance, leave to be, and therefore neither be they the Sacraments of the body and blood of Christ. 186. a.  
That the forms of bread and wine remaining be the Sacraments, it followeth by sequel of reason. 186. a.  
Where manifest scripture wanteth, sequel of reason used by S. Basile against heretics. 186. a.   

26.  
Christ's body is in the Sacrament, it lieth not there hidden underneath it. neither is it there, as in a place, but after manner unspeakable, and to God only known. 187. a.     

Liber hic Anglicano idiomate conscriptus ab eximio Doctore Theologo, Anglo. D. Thoma Hardingo, examinatus est diligenter à viris doctis & probis Anglicani idiomatis peritis. Qui mihi attestati sunt, catholicam fidem & religionem, quae gravissimè in Anglia oppugnatur hac tempestate, solidè, eruditè & streuuè in eo propugnari, & magnum fructum popularibus Angliae hominibus allaturum.  
Ita attestor judocus Tiletanus Doctor Theologus & Praepositus Walcurien. haereticae pravitatis inquisitor.