An Apology of private Mass, spread a broad in writing without name of the author: as it seemeth, against the offer and protestation made in certain Sermons by the reverent father Bishop of Salisbury: with an answer to the same Apology, set forth for the maintenance and defence of the truth.  
Perused and allowed, by the reverent father in God Edmonde Bishop of London, according to the order appointed in the queens majesty's Injunctions.  
LONDINI. Mens. novemb. 1562.   

ence before God and you, to discover certain vanities of yours, that the catholic church (once your mother) misliketh in you. And so much the rather, because god of his infinite goodness hath called me back again from all such lewd fancies, by the godly instruction of the learned: in the which I was once so fully persuaded by evil books, that all that time I neither regarded God, nor good religion, nor any good conscience beside. And therefore trusting to do some good with such as simplicity without malice hath persuaded to stay, consciens pricked me to give the adventure: nothing doubting but that God will bring that to a good end, the beginning whereof had no evil meaning.  

1. Cap. ●gainst his refusal in the first Epistle to D● Cole.  And to make mine entry with you (master jewel) which are counted the greatest clerk on your side, I marvel not a little why you, being reputed a man of such learning, utterly refuse to prove the doctrine you teach. 
A.  Alleging very slender causes of your refusal: that serve the contrary side, rather than yours. Your vocation to so high a room, the place where you taught, the honourable estate of the audience, which hard you, the doctrine you taught authorized by the realm, as you allege do not unburden you from the proof of your doctrine, but rather bourden you more to prove the same: because your estate is now such, that is bound to render account of that you teach. Nor it is any dishonour to the realm, if you be able to certiune that by learning, that they (as you say) have passed by laws, nor want of discretion at all in you, to teach them, that would so gladly learn at your hand. For if a man may prove by conference of scriptures any article therein comprised, either in the letter, or by argument bolted forth without any dishonour to God, or blemish to him that taketh the matter in hand, (as a man in deed may) shall you count the Realm dishonoured, or want of discretion in yourself, to prove such doctrine (as yourself do publish) because it is authorized by man, and by th'assent of the Realm? which in time of your baptism assented to the contrary, as all other christian realms did, without any contradiction at all, amongst the learned: whereas in this assent, as many learned clerks, well known to the world, said nay, and more to, then hitherto hath said yea. And if the chief proof of your doctrine be the assent of this realm, shall not other christian realms, that teach quite contrary unto you, rest in doctrine authorized by them, and all christian realms beside? Here you are driven, if you rest so stoutly upon th'assent of realms, to confess that the doctrine taught here is true, because this realm hath authorized it: and the doctrine in strange realms is ●rew, being quite contrary to yours, because by like reason the realms there hath authorized it. You have no refuge in this case, but to say, that this realm followed the scripture in such doctrine, as they authorized, and that other realms followed not the scripture in authorizing the contrary. I am well contented with your answer. But where be the scriptures whereby the realm authorized your doctrine? You may not say, it shall be great dishonour to the realm, to have such scriptures known, for want of discretion in you, to utter them: as you seem to say in your letters. Let us know such scriptures, as your trust is most upon, to prove your doctrine by, and we will departed quietly. And as all wise men will count it the office of a discrete man, either to stay such as stagger, or to persuade such as verily think otherwise: So shall I not only so think, but also if you give me good cause why, yield you great thanks, and my poor service to. In your silence herein, if you have aught to say, you shall do nothing else but hide the candle under the bushel: where as the order is to set it upon the candlestick, to light all such as are within the house. If you have no scriptures to lay for you, then trouble our mother the holy catholic church no longer. You stand in negatives: you say against private Masses and certain other, which as you pretend, cannot be proved. Have we not here good cause to marvel that you, which study so marvelous reformation of all doctrine to the touch stone of scripture, will openly profess, bearing such a parsonage in such places of honour, such doctrine as can neither be proved by scripture, nor any other substantial record: and all because it standeth in negatives? May not children in this sort devise negatives containing false doctrine, and when they are called upon to prove it, 
B.  say they are not bound to prove their assertions, because they are negatives? This dare I be bold to say: 
Against his staying upon the negative.  ●f you had sentence, or half sentence, word, or half word in the scriptures, ●lde doctoures, general counsels, or example of the primative church against private Masses, all England had rung of it ere this day. But you have none, as your silence importeth. It were either great folly to keep that secret, the which without any damage may do good to many, or marvelous envy to enclose that without gain, which law and reason would have to be comen. Quicquid dando non deficit (saith saint Austin) Quamdiu habetur, & non datur: non dum habetur, quomodo habendum est. All that decay not by bestowing, as long as they are had, and not bestowed they are not yet had, as they ought to be had. The laws may in divers special facts, not restrained to time and place, teach perhaps, that a negative can not be proved. But to say that a negative in doctrine, as yours is, can not be proved upon only consideration that it is a negative, as your shift is, that I am well assured no learned man hitherto ever taught: either in law; or in any other science beside. Ye the contrary rather appeareth in Logic: the which teacheth the general grounds of all disputations. Where we have in every figure, negative conclusions. And for other short kind of arguments, there are as many places dialectical of the negatives to destroy, as there are affirmatives to build on. So that shift of descant can not serve your turn. Doth not the scripture many times ioygne issue in the negative, and prove the same? We are not justified by Moses law, and so the like. Doth not the apostles prove it at large? But for as much as you are not able to prove the negative, I will no further trouble you therewith. Yet when there is an affirmative employed in the negative, as there is here, though I discharge you of very gentleness from the proof of th'one, order of schools will drive you to prove the other: though it were in facts, much more in doctrine.  
Your negative was, 
2. Cap.  that there was no private Mass at all, in the primative church: thus you say, and show no cause why. This term private, 
A distiction of private  which you in this place first invented, I mean Luther's school, may be taken concerning this matter divers ways. One way, private is contrary to common, 
A.  to many. And in this signification, we never said that any Mass was private. For the catholic church ever taught, that the Mass is a common or public sacrifice, restrained to none so, but that the whole church, or any lively member thereof, had thereby great commodity: and might, being prepared, and well disposed, be partaker, not only of the common Prayer and Suffrages offered up to God in the Mass, but also of the holy sacrament of Christ's body and blood therein consecrated, and offered. We never yet prisoned up the holy Sacrifice of the Mass, or the sacrament therein received, or the use of any of them, from any that disposed themselves godly. If you had hard us preach that the Mass is only available to the priest, or to princes, or to us of England, or to them of Italy, or to men, and not to women, or to such as are alive, and not to such as are dead, or to say that none ought to receive the Sacrament, but the priest, you might have charged us that we went about to enclose that to some one sort of private profit, that aught to remain in common for all sorts of people. And in this wise we never taught, that any Mass was private. But you have the other signification of this term private. 
B.  That is, the sole receiving of the Sacrament by the priest, imbarring none to communicate with him, yea rather rejoicing, if any would be so well disposed to receive with him. And lamenting, when he seeth the people so evil disposed, that none will order themselves so, that they may worthily receive with him. And yet not forsying them to receive, when they are not disposed, nor ready. And in this meaning of private, the catholic church doth teach, that the priest may receive the Sacrament at Mass alone, when none other is disposed to receive with him. Now if you be able, we require you to prove thaffirmative included in your negative. Which is this. That every priest or any other aught, when he receiveth the sacrament, to have company to receive with him in the same time and place, upon pain of God's high indignation: and then we will yield unto you. If you be able to prove neither the negative, nor the affirmative, storm not so sore against the doctrine of the catholic church, the which falsehood many times assaulteth, and was never yet able to overthrow.  
As you say, 
3. Cap.  there was no private Mass in the primative church, and say untruly, so may you say and say truly, there was no christian king in the Apostles time. 
That all things should not be brought to the form of the primative church.  There was no christian man that then counted any thing his own of such things as he possessed: but all were common. There was then no doctrine taught, but it was confirmed by miracles. There was no woman that might come with open face to the church. There was no Bishop endued with temporalties. There was no distinction commonly of parishes. There was nothing eaten that was mingled with blood. There was no whole realms turned to the faith. There was no receving of the Sacrament, but after supper. There was no infant but was housled. And thus may we roll in a great sort such, there was not truly, as you roll in divers of yours falsely. And will you I beseech ye reform all things to the very state of the primative church now? Will you suppress all christian kings which were not in the apostles time? 
A.  Will you alter the state now, and make all things to be common? Will you disgrace, all preachers that work not miracles? Will you enforce women to hoodwink themselves in the church? will you rail against bishops that keep any temporalties? Will ye set men at liberty to do their duty at what church they will? Will ye inhibit the folks to eat bluddynges, or Pigeons, or Capons, such as are killed by stiffiling? Will you enforce us to be houseled after supper? Will you housel all babes and infants again? 
B.  To call such things to the state of the apostles time, 
The primative church, the state of infancy.  and of the primative church again, is nothing else, but to enforce a tall man to come to his swaddling clothes, and to cry alarm in his cradle again. I trust when you say there was no private Mass in the primative church, not withstanding you disallow private Mass, yet you will allow Mass to be in the primative church: or else wisdom would have said more generally, there was no Mass at all, nor private, nor common. etc. And yet there is an open difference between these two sentences: there was no private Mass at that time, and there ought to be no private Mass at any time. In the one, we conceive the use of that age, not withstanding the law of the church even then might stand indifferently to the contrary, upon circumstances and good considerations. And in the other, we precisely conceive what the law doth determine, either lawful or unlawful. The constant faith, 
C.  the pure life, 
An argument of the comparison of the times.  the fervent charity, the contempt of the world, that then flourished so amongst such as professed Christ, might cause perhaps that no Mass was celebrated, but that divers christians, and specially looking for continual persecution, would be houseled there at, and be always sure to have their viaticum, as it is termed in the old Cannons, that is to say, their usage provision. In that state of burning charity, and of contempt of the world, and all the pleasures thereof, some of the people, perhaps of their own accord, did always willingly and gladly prepare themselves at every Mass to be housled with the priest: And will you now in the state of keycolde charity, 
D.  when the people are nothing willing to dispose themselves to receive their housill, 
E.  pluck the priest from the altar, whose office as to offer that daily sacrifice for the people, unless there be that will receive? Will you imbar him that is bound to offer up the daily sacrifice of duty, because they will not dispose them selves to receive their housill? Who, as concerning so often receiving, are not bound, but stand at liberty. The church doth exhort them to the frequentation of their housil, but giveth no commandment to bind them: as Christ said, Si vis perfectus esse, vade, & vend omnia quae habes, & da pauperibus. If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell all that thou hast, and give it to the poor. Which employeth the nature of a counsel, to exhort men to the highest degree of christianity, concerning the bestowing of the goods of the world: and yet is no commandment to bind any that are not so disposed. Even so we may exhort and counsel folks to frequent the receiving of their rights without any commandment to bind them. Now the ley men are at liberty, concerning the frequentation: the priest is bound to the frequentation. Is it then reason that he, that may choose whether he will frequently receive or no, should, when he is not disposed, cause him to offend the law of God, that is bound thereto? If you had any such text in the holy scripture to bind the priest never to say Mass without some to communicate, as this text, Si vis perfectus esse, vade vend. Seemeth to command him that will be perfect, to sell all that he hath, and bestow it upon the poor. Lord how would ye then triumph: because you had then some colour against private Mass. 
F.  And yet when the matter were well bolted, you shall never be able to prove any commandment thereby against the sole receiving of the Sacrament by the priest, but a counsel to exhort him, if it might be, too the highest and most perfect estate. But to prescribe of necessity that there aught, upon pain of God's indignation to be a company to communicate with the priest at every Mass, or else forbear the celebration of the holy sacrifice, having no title of any such colour in the holy scripture, I will not call that by the name that I may justly, but will temper the matter, and term it an itching folly, to alter all things that are well settled already.  
S. Chrisostome in his third homely upon the epistle to the Ephesians in his complaint there doth so set forth the matter, 
4. Cap.  as it is to be wished both what the people should do, & what the priest may do. If the people will not follow his exhortations, than no man, I suppose without great impudency, will any longer stand in the denial thereof. For as we may well & godly wish that all folks were so well agreed that all suits in the law might surseasse: 
A.  
A similitude that company is not necessary  and yet this godly wish when any contention should chance, that cannot otherwise be finished doth not inhibit but the men may sew for their right. For the highest or the perfectest state doth not extinguish the mean or the low: Even so all good men may wish that all christian people were always so devout and well disposed, that they might with god's favour, receive their housil daily. And yet were it injury because all will not, 
The priest of duty bound to sacrifice.  to inhibit such as would. Or if none would, to imbar the priest that is bound to offer up the daily sacrifice for himself & the people.  
S. Chrisostom writeth thus: 
5. Cap.  In aliis quidem temporibus quum puri frequenter sitis, 
A.  non acceditis. In pascha vero sicet sit aliquid a vobis perpetratum acceditis, O consuetudinem, O presumptionem, sacrificium frustra quotidianum offerimus. In cassum assistimus altari, nullus est qui communicetur, hic non ut temere communicemini dico, sed ut vos dignos reddatis. At other times saith he although you be for the most part in clean light you come not, but at Easter you come, though you have done somewhat amiss. Phie upon that custom, phie upon such presumption, the daily sacrifice is in vain. We stand at th'altar for nought. There is none to be howslid. I speak not these things because you should receive your housil rashly, but for th'intent you should was nothing available, but because he looked that the people would dispose themselves to do as they were exhorted. And that was vain, because nullus est qui communicetur. There was none that would be howslid. And yet the priest did celebrate notwithstanding. For it is said, that he standeth at the Altar, and what to do but to celebrate the daily sacrifice. Can you call that a daily sacrifice that is not daily offered up? 
C.  or that a daily sacrifice that is not celebrated but once in the year, at Easter? At the which time the people used to receive: all other times they refrained, Quia nullus est qui communicetur. 
D.  There is none to communicate. Is it not evident by this complaint of S. Chrisostom that the priest did his duty, not withstanding there was none to receive with him? Or else if he were constrained to refrain when none would receive with him, doth it not appear that then it followeth that he did celebrate but at Easter only, for than he had company, and at other times he lacked. Quia nullus est qui communicetur. And then how could it be called Sacrificium quotidianum. The daily sacrifice. Doubtless it could not. And therefore it is plain that then the priest did his duty in celebration of the Mass, though none received with him. Have we not found then that in Chrisostomes' time there was private Mass, as you do term it? Why say you that in all other things we hold contrary unto you. We had some colour other in scriptures, or old doctors. But in such doctrine as you made your entry upon, whereof this is one, you are assured we had no colour at all to make any proof in very deed. You here that Chrisostome testifieth the use of his time for private Mass plainly and flatly without colour at all. What colour I pray you have you, either in scriptures, old Doctors or counsels, against private do you minister it to the laities, where Christ gave it only unto the apostles that were priests? You will say that we have no commandment to exclude any state of men. Why do you minister it to more or fewer, when christ ministered it only unto twelve? And what answer have you here, but to say as you said before, that as place, sex, time, day, degree, state of people, secretness, are nothing appertaining as necessary to the substance of the sacrament: so number is but an accident or a ornament rather to beautify that devotion of christian people in receiving the sacrament, than thereunto appertaining as necessary unto the substance. And thus may you perceive that when you require the like doing to Christ herein in every small point or title in us, as in place, time, sex, day, state of people, secretness, number, you deceive yourselves, and others. Taking these things to be necessary for the safeguard of the substance of the sacrament, the which are nothing else but very accidents: the alteration whereof do lie in the discretion of spiritual governors, without damage or hurt done to the substance of the sacrament or the use there of: and are to be counted amongst such things, as saint Paul speaketh of, when he wrote. Cetera cum venero disponam. I will set the other things in order, when I come.  
But the great matter you harp on to have company together in one place to receive at any time with the priest is because that in the use of this sacrament there ought to be a communion. 
7. Cay.  And I pray you is not there a communion among all christians in prayer? 
A.  For in our prayer we say our father, not my father which art in heaven, thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven, not in me as it is in heaven, give us this day our daily bread, we say not give me this day my daily bread, forgive us our trespasses, we say not forgive me my trespasses. etc. Whereby we know that we communicate in prayer with all christendom being members of one mystical body of Christ. And will you inhibit me to say my Pater noster when I am alone in my chamber, void of company to say with me, or will you shut up all christendom in some narrow room, that they may be togethers at one time to say the lords prayer? Or will you grant that there may be a Communion in prayer amongst all christians without any respect to have them together at one time in any one place, and that there can be no communion in the use of the Sacrament, unless all the communicantes be together in one place and at one time? Have you any scripture to lead you to say that the communion in the use of the sacrament must of necessity have all the communicantes in one place at one time close up, more than the communion in prayer? One of the articles of the creed is, 
B.  Credo sanctorum communionem. I believe the communion of saints. I believe we have communion in Baptism, in penance, in confirmation, in extreme unction, in prayer, in fasting, in alms deeds. And must all they that practise any of these, be driven to do it, at one place, in one season, or else to have no part of such a communion as there is comprised in these holy sacraments? Is this your doctrine? Where have you these in scripture? There is an old doctor called Dionysius: that teacheth us why it is called a communion. Not because it requireth unity and idemptitée of time and place, in the communicantes: but because all christians thereby being lively members of one body first are brought to an unity with Christ their head, and then every member with the mystical body: and then every member with other. So that in the working of this marvelous unity, number, time, and place are no principal doers, but foreigners and very strangers in deed. And the place of Saint Paul meaneth no less in the first to the Corinth's. Quoniam unus panis & unum corpus musti sumus, omnes quidem de uno pane & de uno casice participamus, whereby we here the christians are partakers of one loaf, and yet there is no one particular place able to receive them, nor yet no one particular loaf able to serve them. Surely as touching your fancy to have of necessity the communicantes closed up in one place, there to be served at one especial time, 
C.  or else to be no partakers of the communion, it will fall in process of reasoning to so many follies: that we must know how large the place must be and how long you will appoint the time appertaining to one communion. And as for the place when the multitude of the communicantes are very great, whether may be a communion betwixt him that receiveth at the Altar in our Lady chapel in Paul's, and him that receiveth in the lowest place of the west end of Paul's church. It there may, why are they not partakers of one communion that receive in two divers churches in London not so far distant the one from the other, as our Lady chapel is from the west end of Paul's? And if they can not, let us know why: and have some scripture for proof thereof. If they may, why may not the communicantes be partakers of one communion in three churches: and why not be partakers of one communion in four or five churches no further distant? If not, limit you then the furthest distance that a communion may be had in, and bring in scriptures, doctors, or any counsels to prove the limitation, and we will cry creak. And in like manner we may reason for the appoinctment of time. appoint you the longest time that a communion may be had, and show some good evidence for your limitation. And likewise we will cry creak. You drive men to these trifles that the world may know you hang in nifels.  
Erasmus Roterodamus in his epistle that he wrote against false gospelers, 
8. Cap.  reporteth how they were wont in the old time in the primative church, 
A.  to deliver every one the sacrament in their hands to bear home with them and receive it when their devotion served. Obim (saith he) corpus domini, dabatur in manu ut domi cum vellent sumerent qui accepissent. The lords body in old time was delivered into folks handis to the intent that they who had taken it might receive it when they would. When divers people took the lords body in their hands to receive it at home in their several houses when their devotion served them to receive it, are any yet so unwise to think that they that so received it were either in one place, considering their houses wer● several, or at any one time, considering the variety of their devotions, wills, purposes, and trade of life? Do you not see in these few words that the partakers of any one communion were not-wonte to be clogged to receive it in any place or at any one especial time? Do not you manifestly hear a reservation of the sacrament confessed here? And where as it was delivered in their hands, as wine is not, understand you not thereby a communion under one kind? But you will say it was but Erasmus report. But I say he reported it as he found in ancient writers. And Erasmus pardie was wont to be a great man amongst you: and do you so little esteem him now? You have overrun him (I grant) as you have done Luther, that was once your God. 
B.  Erasmus is not the first father of this report. But Tertulian himself which flourished not long after the Apostles time: in his second ●ooke that he wrote to his wife, reporteth no less. How that the christian wife kept it close from her husband, being a Panime, that she received every morning secretly before meat. And if it so happened that he espied it, that he would think it were bread: and not that which christian men took it to be. Non sciet maritus quid secreto ante omnem cibum gusts. Et si sciverit, panem non illum credit esse qui dicitur. Thy husband shall not know what thou dost eat● secretly before thy meat. And if he do know it, he believeth that it is bread: and not he whom we call it. Ponder these words well: and see whether it agreeth not with Erasmus report. When the christian wife did secretly receive the holy sacrament, was there any company received with her? Can a thing done in company, be secret? Or could she keep close from the Panime her husband that thing that should be often practised in any open assembly? Were not think you the panimes that at that time were the greater numbered, diligent to search what the christians did? Seemeth it not in her secret receiving before all meats, that she reserved the sacrament at home, to receive it when she would? And where Tertulian saith, that if it chanced that her husband knew what she eat, he would think it to be bread, (making no mention he would think it to be wine) and not the very body of Christ, as the christians do confess. Furthermore seemeth not this woman to have received it under one kind? For her husband that saw her eat the form of bread, that was wont to be first received, would soon have perceived when she drank the form of wine, that should be immediately received after. To conclude, it appeareth by these old writers, that this woman received alone without any company to receive with her. And that she reserved the sacrament with her at home, to receive at mutabitur sacro sanctum corpus christi, sed virtus, benedictio & vivificativa gratia magis in eo est. They are then mad that say the mystical benediction or blessing leaveth from the sanctification, if any leaving remain of it till the next day. For the very holy body of Christ shall not be changed. But the power and virtue and the lively quickening grace is continually abiding in it without company to receive. When ye hear Chrisostome tell of the daily sacrifice, when you hear the ancient father Cirillus, call them mad, that deny the reservation, when ye hear him say plainly and flatly that there is no alteration in the very holy body of Christ, though it be kept, and the virtue, and full power of the consecration, and the lively quickening grace doth continue still in the holy portions that are reserved: when S. Cyprian that holy martyr maketh report of the holy sacrament reserved at home in the woman's coffer, to receive when her lust, when devotion served her: and when he showeth that God wrought the miracle in the stirring of the fire from it, because she thought to use it unreverently, to cause her to forbear. When Tertulian afore that agreeth with the same, and when Erasmus Roterodame, a man famous in his time, recordeth the matter as he had learned it of these holy fathers and other: that the people received it in their hands, received it at home, received it when every man saw his time: Shall any man continued so impudent to deny that ever people used the sole receiving without company, or deny the reservation? The Scripture saith, In ore duorum vel trium. etc. Two or three witnesses are able to try any matter: and especially such witnesses as these are, men of holy life, ancient fathers of great learning, called forth to witness the truth from every quarter of the world, some from Asia, some from Africa, some from Europa. etc. What say you to Satyrus, 
E.  that hanged the hely sacrament about his neck in a stole, when he went to the sea? What say you to the great clerk S. Ambrose bishop of milan, that praised him greatly for his so doing? appeared not there a reservation? And I trow under one kind, unless your brain will serve you to enclose wine in a stole, as mine will not.  
What say you by Syrapion, 
9 Cap.  who being in despair of his life, sent for the priest to minister him the sacrament in the night season. But when the priest lay sick in his bed, and could not go himself, he took Syrapions lad the Sacrament in his hand, and bade him moist it, and so minister it into the mouth of his sick master. The priest was sick and could not rise. The lad came in the night time, the priest delivered the sacrament into his hand, he bade him moist it, and give it to the sick. 
A.  And doth not this prove both that the priest had reserved it, and the moisting thereof that the sick man took it under one kind, and when he sent no more than would serve the sick man, was not there the howseling of one alone without company? The twelfth Cannon of Nicene counsel provideth for such as are like to depart this life, to receive the sacrament or they depart. And if any such that is in the case howseled chance to recover, then to be amongst the communicantes prayer. The words be these De iis qui recedunt excorpore, antiqua segis regusa obseruabitur etiam nunc. Ita ve si quis forte recedat ex corpore, necessario vitae suae viatico non defraudetur. Quod si desperatus asiquis recepta communione superuixerit: sit inter eos qui sola oratione communicant. Concerning those that depart this life, the old rule of the law shall be kept now also. So that any be like to depart this life he be not deceived of his necessary voyage provision for his life. If he that was in despair of life after that he received the communion chance to recover, let him be amongst them that do communicate by prayers only. The holy ancient counsel of all the learned fathers at Nice, thought it convenient that such as were like to die, should be houseled before their departing: And could this rule be unviolably kept amongst so many casualties of sickness and sudden infectiones and divers other chances that fall at divers and sundry times both by day and night, 
B.  unless the holy sacrament were reserved? And unless every man received as necessity served alone with out company, when necessity so required? Some time the priest as Chrisostome saith in the celebration of the daily sacrifice receiveth without the people: and sometime the people without the priest: and some time one alone without any company at all, as we have at large showed afore.  
In the bishops and priests absence, 
10. Cay.  the Deacons received alone, if they were disposed to receive, as the fouretéenth Cannon of thancient and old counsel of nice hath taken order. The words be these. pervenit ad sanctum consilium ꝙ in locis quibusdam & civitatibus, presbiteris diaconi sacramenta porrigant. Hoc neque regula, néque consuetudo tradit, ut ij, qui offerendi sacrificij potestatem non habent, hiis qui offerunt corpus christi porrigant. Sed & illud innotuit quod quidam diaconi etiam ante episcopum sacramenta sumant. Haec ergo omnia omputentur, & acciplant secundum ordinem post presbiteros ab episcopo ves a presbitero sacram communionem. Quod si non fuerit in presenti vel episcopus, vel presbyter, tuncipsi proferant & edant. It is reported to the holy counsel that in certain places and cities the deacons deliver the sacrament to the priests. Neither rule, neither custom taught this, that they that have no authority to offer sacrifice should deliver the body of christ to them that offer it. And an other thing also came to our ears that there are certain deacons who receive the sacrament before the Bishop. Wherefore let all such things be cut of, let them receive the holy communion orderly after the priestis of the bishops or priest. And if the bishop or the priest be absent, let them selves bring it forth and eat it: If the deacons, as it appeareth by this Canon, that had no authority to consecrate, and to offer the sacrifice of Christ's body and blood, might in the bishops or priestis absens, fetch forth the sacrament, and receive it, can you deny but it was reserved? And that the same grace of Christ's body remained in the holy sacrament after the consecration in the bishops and priests absence? Which could by no means be consecrated, but by the bishops and priests presence. 
A.  I will not cavil with you upon the term above rehearsed in the Cannon, concerning the deacons, that they might in the bishops and priests absence, bring forth the sacrament and eat it: which is proper to the form of bread, and not to the form of wine: and thereby declare that the deacons received it but in one kind: notwithstanding I might as well stand therein and better to, than you stand upon Accipite & manducate, & bibite ex hoc omnes, to drive the sacrament immediately without any reservation to his use, and that at every communion there must of necessity be a company to receive with the priest, and every one of the lay people ought of necessity to receive the same in both kinds. 
B.  I will not I say use no such dalliance upon the word, eat in the Cannon as you use in take eat and drink all of this in the use of the sacrament very sophistically. But let go all such vantage upon titles. I am contented to use none other proof, but such, as all men that have any discretion, do so evidently perceive to be so good, that they are never able to find any occasion in the world to control it. Such as I have used before for the proof of private mass, reservation the sole receiving or ministration of the sacrament in certain cases under one kind, to have been used in the state of the primative church.  
Read S. Cyprian in his fift sermon De sapsis, 
11. Cap.  there shall you see that the deacon gave an infant, that had received before part of such meats as were sacrificed up to the Idols, a portion of Christ's blood out of the Chalis. And as soon as the infant received it, it was wonderfully vexed, because it was marvelous dishonour to the blood of Christ to be powered into the mouth that was a little before defiled with the Idols sacrifice. And thereby may you understand that the infant received the sacrament of the Deacon under the form of wine only, and not under the form of bread. For by that reason if the infant had received it under the form of bread, before being part of the sacrament as precious as the other, it should have been vexed very sore, before the cup had been offered it. But the first vexation that it had was when the Deacon gave the sacrament in form of wine. And therefore it is evident that the deacon gave not the infant the sacrament under the form of bread. And was not this a communion under one kind only? You have hard now I suppose not a word, or half word, not one sentence, or half a sentence as your calling was, but many, and full prouses against certain of your assertions. And by these you have good cause to distrust all the rest of your doctrine.  
Thus far my leisure served me, 
12. Cap.  being otherwise occupied with business though, to answer in the defence of my spiritual mother the catholic church. Not for because it was our part, that are in possession, to render any reason for our right, wherein prescription of time out of mind is a sufficient bar: but partly, because I saw your importunity in calling upon them to strike, that you had bound in recognisance of great sums to be forfeited, if they had gone about to give you any blow. So that you may perceive well by this, that they are better armed, than you thought they were: when I, who am nothing in comparison of the learned Doctors of this realm, being a man of no great reading, 
A.  but in stories, am yet able thus to say in so good a matter, that I trust you will here after leave your importunity of provoking so many learned men of this realm, to show what evidence they have for the truth. It had been more reasonable, that you (that would dispossess us of the interest we have in the true doctrine, that the catholic church first taught us, and hath recorded sufficiently in her practise these. xu.c. years and more, and in records of writers this. lr. hundred years and lx as yourself do seem to confess) should show sufficient causes, why we ought to be dispossessed: rather than we to lay for ourselves prouses to keep possession. I marvel that you think it not hurt to your side, to grant that the hole practise of the church hath run with us this ix hundredth years and three score: where as, in possession of lands, quiet possession for the space of one hundredth years or two, putteth the case out of all doubt. You hang upon the state of the sire hundredth years, that were next after Christ, and you see how that the whole record of the state runneth against you. Tertulian is against you: Cyprian is against you: Eusebius is against you: Ambrose is against you: cyril is against you: The holy and ancient counsel of nice is against you. And yet you will make the people to ween, that all are with you of that state. 
C.  I have not brought in the empty names, as Apothecaries do upon their bores, but have showed you what good drugs they have. I have not cast but from the wall any victayis in your assanite, to make a brag in penury, as many of your part commonly use to do, as though they had great plenty of victuals, but have brought you unto the fight of such provision, as the holy ancient fathers of the primative thurche, such as yourselves do allow, have made for us. But come unto the practice of the church, and records of she fathers, 
D.  of the latter ix hundredth years. They cry so thick and thréesolde against you, that you are not able to abide them. And therefore you were wont to disgrace them art. By what authority, I pray you, would you have them all discredited? It sanorth of a maruerlous arrogancy, to discredit them all. Can your doctrine creep no other ways into credit, unless you deface the practices of the church, and the authority of the fathers, for the space of ix hundredth years and odd? Have you no other means to get honour, but to dishonour so many ancient fathers, as have written this latter ix hundred years? Know you not the scripture, Qui masedixerit patrives matri morte morietur. And what malediction is there greater, then to blaze, that our learned fathers (that lived so godly in prayers, fastings, almsdeeds continual study of doctrine, that hath their common agreements for the space of ix hundred years and more) deceived Christ's flock, know not the right faith, but trained the people to the state of damnation? And I pray you, if they were so many years deceived, and yet given all the while to spiritual exercises, more than you, as it appeareth by their works, or any now a days, what assurance can you make us, that you do now know the truth? Being a man far underneath them in all pein●tes? and one that hath not continued here much (as I here say) above forty years, and not bestowed the fourth part of that time neither (as I here) in study of the scriptures, or old doctors? Shall you with ix or ten years study in the matters of doctrine think yourself able to sit as a judge, to control all such doctors, and the doctrine, which they have left in record for the space of ix hundred years? No man gave you such authority: but yourself. Luther, and Melancthon took upon them to be reformers of religion in all points. But if you mark them, they make no matter of necessity to communicate the laity with both kinds. They acknowledge that a general counsel may take order in it, as a thing indifferent. And having no scripture for the proof of the necessity thereof. They confirm also the being of christis body in a thousand places at once, meaning therein as the catholskes mean.  
If you had acquainted yourself with Abraham and Isaac, 
13. Cay.  (that said that quaecunque promisit deus, potens est & facere: What so ever God promiseth, he is able to perform it. Or with the Angel that said unto Mary in as great a matter as this is, Non est impossibile apud deum omne verbum. There is no word unpossible unto God:) as well as you have acquainted yourself with Ishmael and Agar, that see no farther than the trade of common nature, or if you had marked, but the very rule of nature, how of an antecedent granted, all necessary consequence do by force of reason issue there hence, you would never put the matter in question. We find in scripture that eur saviour said in the consecration of the blessed sacrament, This is my body, that shall be desmered for you. And when the sense of this sentence is, as the catholic church teacheth, the very real presence of Christ's body to be in the blessed sacrament: upon this sense, once settled, many labels do necessarily hang: not expressedly had in scripture, but by drift of reason out of the first verity gathered. And so did saint Chrisostome, S. Ambrose, S. basil, and S. Bernard, when they understood the sense of Christ's words concerning the consecration to be, as the holy catholic church understood it. And not to have power in the parlour at Jerusalem only, where the sacrament was first instituted, but in all places, where the thing was so practised, as Christ began it: Thereunto they saw they must needs confess by drift of argument that Christ's body is in divers places at once: and of the remainders of the accidents, you need no other proof, but your own sensis, your eye, and your tasting. And of the alteration of the substance of bread, the fathers in divers ages saw it so depend upon the first verity, that they have omitted no variety of terms, to express it and to bring it into the knowledge of the world. They have transmutation, transelementation, mutation, conversion, faction, afteration, transubstantiation, and divers other such, that are not to be rehearsed now. You have taken upon you to control that counsel of Constance already: but now you will control the great counsel of Lateran, where were so many learned clerks, as there were never more gathered together. And the counsel of Valense, and the counsel of Rome, sub Nicolao, and the general counsel of Florence, and the counsel of basil. In the which all your errors, concerning the holy sacrament, are overthrown. Concerning your doubt how Christ's hody is in divers places at once, sithen you believe no counsel that hath determined that matter, nor ancient fathers, Greeks us Latins, I will send you to your great god Luther, in a little book that he wrote against the Swinglians, of the sense of the words of the supper of christ. They yet remain undefaced. There he answereth you at the full: Or else to Brentius that great Cane, in the exposition of the article of thascension in the first of the Acts: where he interpreteth thereof at the full: though very far in divers points from the sense of the church. Yet may he not suffer that blind reason of yours to have his force in no case. It is but a very fond dalliance to brawl upon the labels, before you agree upon the original verity. The true sense of this little sentence, This is my body that shall be desivered for you, Is the root and the original of all such labels as we teach, not mentioned in scripture expressly, but bulted out by drift of argument, as these are, 
〈◊〉 similitude for ●uwrittē●●ee●●●●●.  that offend you so sore. When the master saith to his servant, make ready that I may dine: he speaketh nothing in these words of scomming of the pot, of cleans water for the pottage, of the herbs to be chopped, of scalding and drawing the Capons, of making after, of hewing of wood, of laying the cloth, and other things necessary belonging to his dinner. And yet, if the servant would leave the pot unscommed, herbs ungathered, make pottage with stinking water, put the Capon upon the brooch, feathers, guts and all, because his master made no express mention of the particular ordering of all these: I ween no man would allow his wit or honesty. Because in his masters first commandment all such necessaries are employed. And so we answer you as your mother the catholic church hath taught us. We need not to show you of accidents, remaining without any subject, nor of Christ's body being in divers places at once, nor of the adoration of the holy sacrament, nor of many other trifling doubts you make: because all such doubts are answered to the full, in the original verity of Christ's words, being in the nature of the verity, necessarily employed. As these are, against the which you may kick, till you be very: but it lieth not in you to alter the nature of Christ's own words. If you had found in the scripture spoken by Christ concerning the blessed sacrament. This is not my body, but the figure of my body, being absent in substance, and only present to your imaginations, by the sight of the bread. You might have triumphed and blowed up your horn lustily in every pulpit, and made your avaunt, that you had been able to control all christendom. But now the letter is very plain against you, and the sense of the letter also, as the fathers do record in all ages, and general counsels to: As may appear by your own mistrust for the space of the last ix hundred years and odd. I take God to judge, I wrote not this for any malice to such as are otherwise ●ente. I pity them rather, and daily pray for them, that they may embrace the catholic faith. But when I perceived Goltas in his bravery, having trust in his big bones and strong weapons, bragging many times, as though there were none of the Israelites able to match him: notwithstanding there are very many that could have handled him better than I, being a man of small learning, troubled with much business: yet I thought it my duty, for the honour of my mother the catholic church, to hurl out four or five stones in David's sling against this champion: not to hurt him in the forehead, as David did Golias, but to crush in pieces certain untruths that he taught. wishing him as well to do as I would myself: And all my country men of England to be ware, lest they fall into the snares and traps that our ghostly enemy layeth abroad every where: not only to hurt their bodies, but to hurl down both body and soul into the deep dungeon of hell. The which I beseech God most heartily give all men grace to avoid.  
Amen.  
  

An Answer in defence of the truth. Against the Apology of private Mass.  
LONDINI Mens. Novemb. 1562.   

The chief points touched in this defence of the truth.  
Against private Mass, or sole receiving by the minister in the common place of prayer.  
Why the doctors call the sacrament of the lords supper by the name of oblation or sacrifice.  
Against communion under one kind.  
Of reservation of the sacrament.  
Against the arguments of multitude and long continuance of time.  
Against the alleging of the authority & name of the church.  
What is to be attributed to the ancient fathers.  
Of real presence and interpretation of Christ's words, Hoc est corpus. etc.   

❧ The preface to the Reader.  
IT is well known to a great number, partly by presence in hearing, partly by writing set forth of the same, that a worthy learned man and Bishop of this Realm, stoutly in deed, as the matter required, and clerkly also, as learning and knowledge taught him, did openly protest in certain Sarmons not to the furtherance of untruth, as malice carpeth, but to the confusion of falshodde; as the end proveth: that, if any of those things, which he then rehearsed, could be proved of the contrary side by any sufficient authority of the scriptures, old doctors and ancient counsels, or by any allowed example of the primative church, than he would be contented to subscribe, and yield to their doctrine. This his doing, as no less was to be looked for, sum men depraved, many dispraised, all they misliked, that maintained such superstitious errors, as false teaching hath trained people in, the space of certain hundred years. And in deed, seeing they hard their doctrine so plainly defaced, and their wilful misleading of Christian men so openly to be noted: a man may think they had good cause to startle at the matter, and somewhat to look about them, lest they seemed altogether careless. Wherefore, as divers have diversly showed their misliking, so one of that party hath in writing privily spread abroad an answer to the foresaid offer or protestation for private masses: wherein he both persuadeth himself, and would have other also to believe, that he hath so fully satisfied the party's request, as it may seem great folly, and as he termeth it, impudency, any longer to stay upon it. One of the copies of this answer by occasion as it fortuned, not many months sense lighted into my hands: which, I understand, is so spread abroad in divers places of this Realm, as there be few mislikers of the truth, but they have it, and make such account of it, as a great number of the unlearned sort stay their consciences there upon. Who the author is, or what manner of man, I neither know, nor can guess more, than he witnesseth of himself in the entrance of this treatise. Where he signifieth, that once he embraced that religion, which he now detesteth and writeth against. In that part me thinketh he doth deal, as fond men sometime are wont to do: which to displease their enemies, stick not to hurt them selves also. So he, to discredit the doctrine that he is revolted from, giveth such testimony of his own naughty life and conscience, as he would be loath to hear at any man's mouth but his own. All that time (saith he) & neither regarded god, nor good religion, nor any good conscience beside. What malice it is to charge the doctrine, that by hypocrisy he professed, with the cause of his evil doing, I will not declare with such words, as the matter requireth. This much I will say, that he learned this of old Adam's great councillor: Who at the beginning, being blamed for his disobedience, seemed to burden God himself with the cause of it: and excused his own folly by that thing, which his maker had given him to his comfort and commodity. In like manner, when this man's conscience, as it seemeth by his own words, accused him of lewd living and lack of the fear of god, to excuse his own ill disposed mind, he casteth the fault upon the doctrine of the gospel, which God did open unto him undoubtedly to his great commodity, if he would have taken it. And under this pretence, both forsaketh it himself, and by his example exhorteth other to eschew it. But as the wicked life of a man, to his own great harm, may be a blot to the religion, that he professeth: so God forbid it should be counted a full reproof of the same, or a just cause to be of all other rejected. If it were so, men should refuse Christianity, because divers, not of the basest sort, but of the heads of the Church, as their own histories witness, have been of horrible and wicked life. But we must think, that the hypocrisy and traitorous covetousness of judas and his fellows is a confusion to themself, but no just reproach to Christ that they follow, or to his doctrine that they seem to profess. I will judge and hope better of this writer, to whom with all my heart I wish much more good: trusting that god shall once again open his heart to receive the truth, which I cannot but think God hath taken from him in punishment of that naughty conscience, that he witnesseth hath been in himself. But, what soever he be, let him stand or fall to his lord god, I will not take upon me to judge him, neither would I have spoken this much of him, but that he doth odiously excuse his own evil mind by the good doctrine of Christ's gospel. My purpose is to confute his doctrine, I will not meddle with his person. I intend to answer his cavilling at other men's words and doings: I mind not to discredit or deface his estimation or honesty. And yet in this point I know some may judge me presumptuous and arrogant, that I seem to take upon me his quarrel, who is far better able to answer for himself then I am. But I would desire those, which so think, to consider: first, that this is a common quarrel, touching not only him, that is named, but all other that either teacheth or believeth as he doth. Secondly, that he against whom this writing is directed, either knoweth not that any such thing is spread, or if he do know it, either thinketh it not worthy answer of itself, or else hath not at this present such leisure, as he may intend to answer it. Thirdly and chiefly, that by private conference with certain persons, I understand, perhaps more then either he or any other doth think, how much this treatise is esteemed among many, which otherwise happily might be persuaded to embrace the gospel. Therefore I have been moved the sooner myself, in such sort as I might, to shape an answer unto it. For, to all such of the contrary opinion, as have fear of God, and stay upon conscience rather than self will, I acknowledge myself in christian charity to owe this much of duty, as that I should, to my power, travail to lift this stumbling block out of their way, that it may not be a let or stay unto them to come unto Christ, at this day by his word calling them. Wherefore gentle Reader, seeing thou dost understand my meaning and the occasion of my doing, I will cease any more to trouble thee, and will turn the residue of my talk unto the author of this writing: with whom I will make my entry there, where he first beginneth to confute the reasons, that were alleged, why account should not be made to Doctor Cole of that religion that now is taught. In this part I will be the shorter, partly because those things be sufficiently answered in the conference already published, although this writer seemeth to dissemble it: partly, because the questions have more captiousness of words than profit of good matter.   

❧ The defence of the truth.  
WHere you reason against my lord of Salesburée, 
1. Cap.  for refusing to bring proof of his doctrine because he was a Bishop, and at that time preached before the queens grace and her counsel: You deal somewhat like with him, as you do afterward with the Doctors that you do allege. For you first bring your own sense unto their words, and so allege them for your purpose, where as they mean nothing less. So in the words of the first epistle to Doctor Cole you apply your own sense unto them, and after reason against it, as though it were his meaning. Whether this be to be counted a cavilling, rather than a confuting, I leave to the judgement of other. He never said simply, 
A.  that he should make no reckoning of his doctrine, because he was a bishop. For he doth the contrary daily aswell in his preaching as otherwise. He never said that the consent of the prince and realm was a sufficient proof of doctrine in christian religion, as you would have men think of him by your reasoning against him. He said this, that, for so much as he was called to the state of a bishop, and at that time uttered before the prince and her counsel that doctrine, which was confirmed by the authority of the whole realm: he might seem to do unadvisedly, 
I just cause of his refusal.  if he should make account thereof to a subject, and especially such a subject as always hath professed himself to muslike it, and at that time, under pretence of learning, but in deed quarreling, required a proof thereof. Were it good reason think you, that a magistrate at the demand of every subject should bring reason to prove any law published by the prince to be good, which the same subject would protest to be an evil and unjust law, and therefore would not obey it? If that should be so, a gap might be opened to every busy person to pick a quarrel against the law. If that should be so, beside other inconveniences, he might seem to submit the judgement of the prince and realm to the misliking of one wayward subject. Which could not be done without great impeachment to the prince's authority, and wisdom of the whole state of the common weal. That this was his meaning, it may appear in those words, where he saith he might not do it with out farther licence. Wherefore in this part of his answer, knowing with whom he had to do, he respected his doctrine, as it was a law confirmed by the prince and states of the realm: and not as it might be a controversy of religion before the law published. More over in that he is orderly called to the state of a bishop (say you what you will to the contrary,) he is in possession of the truth: And therefore it were not reason, that he should be requested first to show his evidence and take upon him the person of the plaintiff: especially toward those men that make exception to his possession, and claim the right thereof themselves. He ought not lightly to give over to you in this point: he ought to acknowledge and stand in defence of that benefit, whereby, through god's word and authority of the prince, he is set in open possession of that, which you before usurped. Seeing then it is the plaintiffs part first to show evidence, and he now (god be thanked) standeth with other as defendante: You do disorderly and contrary to reason to will him to do that, which by order yourself should first do. He proffered openly to give over to you, if you could show any reasonable evidence for your part out of the scriptures, doctors, or counsels: If you refuse it, all men will think, that either you have no evidence at all to show, or else that, which you have, is such, as you are well assured will not abide the trial. 
B.  In like manner do you mistake his resting upon the negative. You writ not against his meaning, but against that yourself conceiveth to be in his words. He said not absolutely no negative proposition could be proved, neither doth D. Cole find so much fault with him for denying that a negative might be proved (for himself had so said before) but with this, that to grieve his adversary he would stay upon the negative, and put you of the contrary part to prove the affirmative. Which was upon good reason done at that time, to the end, as I think, that he might press upon you somewhat narre, than other before had used to do. 
The cause why he might justly rest upon the negative.  For whereas you have untruly borne the world in hand, and make your avaunt continually, that the church hath taught as you do these. xv. hundred years, that the holy scriptures, ancient fathers & counsels do make altogether for your doctrine & against ours: he both wisely and learnedly did see, that there was no way so fit either to drive you from this avaunt, or to declare it evidently to be false, as to rest upon this true negative, that you have no sufficient proof out of the authorities before rehearsed. For thereby he should either force you to show what you have, which in effect is nothing, or else to confess that the chief points of your doctrine by him recited be, as they are in deed, clean beside the word of god and example of the primative church: or, if you would not for shame confess it, yet that all men in the end might perceive it is so, when that you neither would nor could bring any sufficient confirmation of the same, by the scriptures, old fathers, ancient counsels, or allowed example of the church by the space of. vi. hundred years. I will declare the matter by example of those things, that yourself taketh in hand to prove. All the preachers of this time teach, that the right use of the lords supper is to be celebrated in manner of a communion or feast with company, and that as well the laity as clergy should receive under both kinds. This doctrine they say is according to God's word and use of the primative church and not the contrary. For proof thereof they allege out of the scripture the Evangelists and saint Paul, in which appeareth evidently that company was, and both kinds were indifferently used, and no signification at all of the contrary. For the primative church they bring Justine, Dyonisius, Cyprian, Chrisostome and other there he did of purpose seek a shift to cavil, or else in deed had nothing to say? Or if you do think it reasonable, I will learn at your hand how you could prove that negative by all your law or logic: I do scant think you will say that a man may be orderly required to prove such mere negatives. When a negative or what kind of negatives may be proved, I leave to be discussed in some other place, as a question more meet for Sophisters in the paruise school at Oxford, then for divines in matters of weight and importance.  
After your reasoning against the causes, 
2. Cap.  that, as you say, were alleged not to prove the negative, 
An answer to the distinction of private  as it were to lay the ground of your controversée for private masses, ye begin with a distinction, that this term private may be taken after divers sorts: Either as contrary to common to many for the commodity thereof, or else as sole receiving by a priest alone without any company. In the first way, 
A.  you say ye never affirmed mass to be private, but to pertain to the behalf of all states and sorts of men, whatsoever they be. In deed I were to blame and very injurious unto you, if I would dent, that ye have been very bountiful in bestowing the benesite of your mass: and especially when money was brought in abundantly. For than ye applied it unto high, to low: to Princes, to private persons to absent, to present: to quick, to dead to heaven, to hell, ye and to purgatory to: Over and beside that ye made it a sali●e for all sores and a remedy for all mis●heffes. Here were a large field for me to deseant upon the divers abuses, that you applied it unto, contrary to Christ's institution and ordinance: but that any Christian heart may rather yearn and lament to remember: so ungodly profanation of the holy Sacrament, then to seek occasion pleasantly to dally in the rehearsal and deluding of the infinite vanities thereof. The other signification of private in sole receiving by the priest, not imbarringe any that is willing and ready to be partaker with him, ye say the Catholic Church doth and always hath taught. And here upon making your proposition, ye require a proof of the affirmative included in the negative: that is, that every priest or any other aught, when he receiveth, to have a company to receive with him. Why sir, is this the trust that you would seem to have in the truth of your cause? is this the plain and sound dealing, that ye after profess to use? is this the leaving of all shifts, where by ye may seem to cavil, rather than stay upon the chief profess of your matter? Who seeth not that even in the very entrance, mistrusting your quarrel, ye seek a shiste as it were by policy to help that, which in the open field is not able to defend itself? This was no part of the challenge (as you term it). This is not that ye pretend so earnestly to prove. The matter is of private masses, and you make your issue in sole receiving. Is there no difference, think you, between sole receiving and private mass: doth every one, that receiveth alone, say a private mass? Then may not only priests say mass, but also by your own authorities after brought in, lay men and women also. And yet your reasoning in the residue of your treatise is such, as if it were a sufficient proof of private mass to show, that some men and women in certain cases received alone in the primative Church. But of your arguments afterward. In this place ye shall give me leave to find that fault in you, that Tussy in the beginning of his offices layeth to Panetius: who, intending to write of duty in behaviour, omitteth the definition of the same: where as every reasonable discourse ought to proceed of a viefe declaration of that, which is in controversée. If ye had this done, I doubt not but ye would rather have plucked your pen from the paper, th●● have meddled with the matter, that ye are now entered into. 
What private mass is.  I will therefore show you out of your own authors, what I take your private mass to be. 
B.  It is a sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ used in the Church in place of the lords Supper, by one priest alone offered to God the father for the sins of quick and dead: which, without any to participate with him, ha● may apply to the benefit of what persons and thinge●● he listeth. That it is a sacrifice of Christ's body, that it is used in place of the lords Supper, that one may offerat for quick and dead, that it is in the priests power to apply it, all your sort do not only without resistance easily confess, but without reason stoutly defend. Therefore I shall not need to make any further proof of the parts of this description. I do therefore take private mass to be, not only as you and some other patrons of your cause of late years have wrested it, sense the ministers of gods truth in this latter time have driven you to the best shifts of interpretation: but as it was commonly used in the world before, and as it is set forth in your school men to the great defacing of Christ's death and passion. And yet ye shall not think that we of truth can or aught to yield to the best of your interpretations that ever I could hear. Of this private mass that I have now declared to you, the challenge, that ye take so grevousy, was made: And therein do I also at this time join issue with you, and say, that neither you nor any of your part will ever be able to prove the same by the ho●y scriptures, ancient fathers, or allowed counsels: yea and because you urge the negative, that, with gods help, we will abundantly prove the contrary. This will I do quietly and calmly, without storming or tempestuous blustering either at you or at your doctrine: as one most glad to bring you again to that heavenly truth of the gospel: which, under the blasphemous names of falsehood and phantasée, you declare yourself to have forsaken.  
In the residue of your discourse ye would seem to take from us the true and right rule to reform the church of Christ, 
3. Cap.  that is, to prove that in doctrines and use of the sacraments all things should not be reduced to the pattern of the Apostles time and the primative church. Herein you do as they are wont, whose conscience doth prick them to have done amiss. For such always draw back and lurk out of the light: being loath to come there, where they know that truth would be tried. Even so you, fearing to be found faulty, would wring us from that rule, whereby all truth in doctrine ought to be examined. To this purpose ye may seem to bring three reasons. One is a rolling in of a rabble of such examples as no reasonable man would deny unto you. The second is a resembling of the primative church unto an infant in the swaddling clouts: and this latter time to a tall man of perfect years and ripe age. The third is the comparison of the times and the fervent charity that then was, with the key-cold charity that now is. As touching the first, I cannot choose but greatly marvel at your manner of reasoning: which endeavour to prove the contrary of that, that no man did ever affirm. Did ye ever here of any, 
A.  that would have all things without exception reduced to that very form of the world, that was in the primative church? And yet your examples tendeth to the rupted, either with false opinions depraved, or with superstitious ceremonies defaced, is it not full time think you to call for redress according to the scripture and primative church? So to do we have good example in Christ himself, and in his apostle S. Paul. When Christ would purge the law from pharisaical mitigations, and interpretations, he had recourse to the first fountain & original: 
Math. 5.  saying, Dictum est veteribus. etc. Ego autem dico vobis. So he ruduced all to the first fountain. In the matter of divorcement he alleged not the rabbins and late writers of jews: but said, Ab initio non fuit sic. Counting what soever was added to the first ordinance of the law to be a corruption of it. S. Paul minding to redress the abuse of this sacrament of the lords supper, even in this point, that they took it in parts and not together, bringeth the institution of Christ from the beginning and saith: This have st received of the Lord. Willing to alter nothing therein. The like doth S. Cyprian epist. ad Cecisium, against Aquarios. We must not hearken (saith he) what other did before us, but what Christ first did, that was before al. And here he speaketh of the same sacrament, and against them that abused if contrary to the first foundation were they never so holy. This, Tertussian also taketh to be a sure rule against all heresies and abuses, who saith in this wise, This reason is of force against all heresies. That is true, that was first ordained, & that is corrupted, that is after done. And Cyprian in the same epistle before mentioned. Hereof (saith he) arise divisions in the church, because we seek not to the head, nor have recourse to the fountain, nor keep the commandments of the heavenly master. Therefore, seeing it is so good a rule in religion to resort to the first institution, we also without any just reproach may require to have the sacraments reform, according to the scripture and the primative church. But you think perhappꝭ, although for shame ye may not say it, that their successors in calder age of the church, were of more wisdom and discretion, and know better what they had to do, than the Apostles and old fathers. Thereto tendeth your similitude of bringing a tall man again to his swaddling clouts: 
B  therein resembling the primative church to infancy, and this latter time to ripe age and discretion.  

That the primative church was not of the state of infancy.  This is not your only similitude: It is much in the mouths: of such as maintain your doctrine. But, I assure you, it was never invented without the spirit of antichrist: nor cannot be maintained without blasphemy against Christ, and singular reproach of his Apostles and their successors. If that time were the state of infancy in the church, when Christ himself instructed, when his Apostles taught, when the holy fathers governed next their time: then we must needs reckon Christ, the Apostles, the fathers, to be infants in religion, to be babes in government of the church, not to be able so well to see what was convenient in the use of the sacrament, as their posterity were. Can any christian man's heart fall into that cogitation without fear of God's wrath and displeasure? And yet that must needs follow upon this defence of your doctrine. I pray you, when hath a man best discretion to rule himself? Will ye not say, when he is most endued with the use of reason and wisdom? When had the church of God such abundant wisdom and knowledge of his heavenly mysteries? When was it endued with so plentiful graces of the holy ghost, as it was in time of the Apostles and first fathers? Did it not appear in their pure life, in their fervent zeal, in their miraculous working? And will you then to defend your ceremonies affirm that time to be the state of infancy in the church? Do you not remember, that immediately after ye attribute to the primative church passing fervent charity, with exceeding holiness of life, & contempt of the world? To this latter time keycolde charity, slack devotion, love of the world, and contempt of virtue? Whereof I pray you cometh this? Not because in the first time they were strong in godliness, abundante in lively spirit and grace of God? and we now feeble and faint to all virtuous doing, lacking wisdom, and as it were doting for age? For what other cause was young age of children called infancy, then for that it had not the use of the tongue, nor could not speak? But the primative Church could speak, and continually declare the good will of God and his great benefits to his people. S. Paul spoke with a loud voice and a strong spirit: Woe be to me, if I preach not the gospel. The same was the voice of all the old fathers and godly men in the beginning. They were occupied in nothing but either in teaching and confirming truth, or in reproving and defacing falsehood and heresée: but after. 600. years the prelate's of the church well near clean lost their voices. Wealth of the world, honour and riches had stopped their mouths in such sort, that within few years it came to pass, that it was a rare matter, and almost a reproach, to see a bishop in the pulpit, and hear him speak to the people. Wherefore ye can not so aprely resemble the primative church to infancy, as ye may this latter time to doting old age: wherein they that should do nothing but preach the word of God and teach the people, have either clean lost the use of their speech through infancy and ignorance, or else babble they wots not what, through dotage and folly: That ye may not think me to speak of stomach more than truth, read the histories of this latter time, read those that writ particularly of the Bishops of Rome, see how many be praised for preaching to the people and for teaching the word of god, either by speaking or writing. So that they may not only seem for age to have lost the strength of their voice, but as it were with a palsy to have lost the use of their hands, unless it wear in writing of decrees or fingringe of pence. In that ye attribute unto the primative Church so good devotion, 
C.  
An answer to the comparison of this time, with the primative church.  so earnest zeal, so fervent charity, and there by that they came daily to the receiving of the Sacrament: it is most true that ye say. But you must again consider, that the often frequenting of the lords Supper, by grace therein conferred, did both breed and increase that same lively faith and fervent charity, that in mutual love and contempt of the world so flourishingly did show itself in them. So that their earnest zeal did not so much cause them to come often to the lords Supper, as the often frequenting thereof did increase their so great zeal and charity. For by that means it was always fresh in their memory, not only by hearing, but also by feeling in themself, that they were all members of one body, all the children of one father, all delivered out of bondage by one ransom, all fed with one food, and nourished at one table. And therefore that it was as meet and necessary for them to embrace one another, as for one limb of the body to help another: for one brother to love another: one delivered out of thraldom to rejoice with the other: One household companion to tender the good estate of the other. Therefore that kaycolde charity, that you say, and truly say, doth reign in these days, may not more justly be attributed to any one thing, then to your private mass. 
Cold charity is not so much cause of private mass, as private mass is of cold charity.  For there by the common use and frequentation of the holy Sacrament of unity, love, and concord, hath been taken from among the people of God being persuaded by you, that it was sufficient for them to be present in the church, when one of you alone did say a private mass. You lay the cause of private mass upon the keicolde charity of the people: (and perhaps the first occasion came thereof in deed) but your scalding hot and firebourning charity may be more justly charged with the continuance thereof. And therefore the people of God may worthily cry out upon the chief masters and maintainers of it: for all the mischief and diveleshnes either in naughtives of life, or corruption of doctrine, that the Church hath been drowned in this certain hundred years, may seem to be drawn in first by that occasion. Hasten you (saith signative) to the sacrament of thanks geninge and to the glory of god. For when that is continually frequented, all the powers of the devil are expelled. Then must it of necessity be, that the slack use of the same doth bring in weakness of faith, coldness of charity, contempt of virtue, love of the world, and the hole heap of those things that the devil most desireth and chiefly showeth his power in. Therefore, not without a cause, that perpetual enemy of mankind quickly did seek occasion even in. S. Paul's time to corrupt the right use of this Sacrament, and bring them to factions in receiving of it. He did well see of how great force it was to maintain concord, love, and charity: which is, as it wear, the very cognisance of a Christian man. For that cause he endeavouring, as he doth always traitorously to train away the servants of God: first always by the abuse of this Sacrament of unity, he, as it wear, cutteth of the cognisance from their liveries: that, not being known whose Soldiers they are, he may the sooner convey them into his camp, and there put on his badge of hatred, malice, & dissension. Your fault therefore in furthering his endeavour cannot be excused: But is to be taken of Christian people as very grievous and heinous. 
An objection.  But ye will say, that the priest doth not imbar any that will communicate: that he would rejoice to see them dispose themselves unto it: that they do lament to see the contrary. 
The answer.  These be fair words without any sound truth at all. I assure you sir, if the matter were so indeed unfeignedly, & not you by force of truth against you driven to seek that interpretation for a shift, your sole receiving had been much more tolerable. But when I pray you did any of you use in private masses to call for the people? to reprove their slackness? to show them the danger of being priesente and not receiving? to tell them of the great commodities that cometh by the use of it? When did any of you stand at the altar as Chrisostom did, and cry for the people to be partakers: declaring to them, that, in being present at this heavenly feast as gazers and no receivers, they did run into the indignation and displeasure of god: even as they, which, being bid of a prince to a feast, and coming into the house where tables be laid and furnished with meat, will stand looking on and eat none of it, must of necessity greatly displease that prince, whose provision and furniture they do so disgrace. When (I say) did any of you follow his example, whom unjustly ye bring for defence of your error? Is not the whole manner of your Mass contrary to this? Do you not turn from the people? Do you not whisper softly to yourself? Do you not use a strange language, that neither the people, neither the priests sometime do understand? Do you not persuade them, that they may have the benefit of it, though they receive not the sacrament? Chrisostome proveth and other doctors witnesseth, that those, that be present and not receive, do wickedly and impudently: and you teach that, being present and not receiving, they do holily and godly. If this be not to teach contrary to the fathers and to the primative church I can not tell what may be contrary. To conclude therefore, if the people be slack and not well disposed to frequenting of the sacrament, the fault is in you. And you, whose duty it was to warn and instruct them, shall make account for their decay and perishing in their negligence. But the effect of your argument, wherein ye allege the cold charity of the people, there by to drive us necessarily to grant sole receiving, tendeth to this end: if their devotion be so little, as they will not with calling and exhortation dispole themself to receive, whether their we will (as your phrase is) pull the priest from the altar. first, acknowledge and amend that saute of your mass, wherein appeareth neither calling and exhortation, nor gesture and language sit for that purpose. Then, I say it wear better not only to pluck him from the altar, but also to cast him out of the Church to, rather than he should under that pretence both himself continually alter the institution of Christ, and also cause the people being present, by Chrisostomes' witness, to run into god's displeasure. Moreover this keycolde charity, that ye say the people's hearts be frozen with, doth it stretch unto priests or no? Is their devotion any hotter? surely their burning zeal, that of late time they have used, proveth, and their hole behaviour to the world witnesseth, that right devotion and true charity is even as little among your massing priests, as among the ignorant people. How happeneth then, that they do so offen frequent the Sacrament in these days? There were never half so many Masses (though ye take Mass for the communion) as there is in this time. Ye shall never read in the primative church that they had more than one celebration in a day: unless the church were so little, that it would not receive the communicants. (As Leo in a certain epistle mentioneth.) But in your churches ye have sometime. xx. or. thirty. and yet not two communicantes at any of them. Ye must then confess either a great and horrible abuse of the sacrament: or else that your priests devotion now is much mor than in that primative church. But ye object that priests are bounden of duty to the daily frequentation of it, 
●.  and the people left free. That would I feign learn at your hand, and see some good proof of the scripture for the same. But I answer that you, which say we have no colour of scripture for that we herein defend, have less than a light shadow to hide your false assertion in: and that in this ye speak clean beside the word of god. Christ's institution was general, and his commandment therein stretcheth as well to the people as to the priests. Take, cafe, drink you all of this, do this in remembrance of me, bindeth the people as well as the priests. That ye may not reply, that all which were present were priests, because they wear apostles, and so apply the sacrament unto priests of necessity, and to the people upon free pleasure: Understand you that S. Paul, a good interpreter of Christ's mind, applieth the same to the whole congregation of Corinth: where, it is certain, were both ministers and common people. As for the duty of ministration, whereby perhaps ye think priests more bounden: Ye should not attribute more to the priest ministering, then to Christ ministering. But Christ took the bread, gave thanks, broke it, gave it to them present, willed them therein to remember his death. Then the priest in his ministration must do as Christ did, and no otherwise: that is to take, give thanks, break & give unto the people. But why should he break it, or how should he distribute it, if there be none present to receive it. So that hereon I conclude the priest is not bound to minister, if there be none to receive.  
If we had no scripture at all to prove that the priest should not receive without company: If ye did give us the overthrow in that: yet could ye not triumph therein, as though ye had won the filled. It wear but the shifting back of one wing of the battle, which ye might overthrow, and yet miss of your purpose. Our contention is for private mass, and your purpose is to prove your use of private mass to be good: of which sole receiving is but one part: and yet have not sufficiently concluded that neither. For it followeth not to say, the priest in case of necessity, when none will receive, may take the Sacrament alone: Therefore he may do it without necessity, when he may have other to communicate with him. Do you never receive alone in your mane, but ye he driven for lack of other? How happeneth then, that in one church ye shall have at●one time. seven. or. viii. massing in sundry corners, where they might communicate all together: as the manner was of the ministers in the primative church? Is it of necessity or a purposed altering of Christ's institution, when that ye turn it from a Communion and Supper, to a work that one man may do to the benefit of many: and there by have made it a merchandise to buy and fell for your own gain? What colour or shadow have you for this in the Scripture? Surely, wear my moderation much more than yours is, I could not choose but term this, not an itching folly, but an impudent wilfulness, so plainly to go against the express and appointed form of the sacrament. 
F.  Because ye urge so earnestly to have due proof against sole receiving by the priest, if the people will not communicate: I will show you some reasons. But before jenter into that, I must warn you once again, that, if our reasons wear not so well able to prove necessity: yet could you not conclude your purpose, for that your private mass is nothing less than necessity. In necessity many things may be granted, that otherwise are not tolerable. The thief, that Christ at his death witnessed should be with him in Paradise, was never baptized: being excluded by necessity. The ancient histories make menciou of divers martyrs, that died before they wear baptized, being excluded by necessity. And yet is this sentence never the less true: Baptism is necessary to a christian man. Likewise if was should grant your case of necessity, yet is this sentence always true: The supper of the Lord in the ordinary use of it ought of necessity to have communicants to be partakers of it. But ye shall hear the foundation of our proofs against sole receiving by the priest in place of ministry: and they shall not be gaily garnished with colours and amplifications, to make them appear more goodly than they be, but plainly and nakedly set for thee, that even the meanest may see what force and strength they have. For I writ not this so much to you, whom I know not, as to an number partly of unlearned persons, partly young men lea●●ed, but not much conversant in the scriptures, to whose hand, these your writings being brought hath boon greater face of proof, than any man meanly conversant in the controversées of this time: can acknowledge to be in them. Our proof is this. In the celebration of this Sacrament of thee: 
proofs against private mass, out of the scripture.  Lords Supper we ought to do that only and nothing else, that Christ the author of it did in his institution. But in Christ's institution appeareth neither sole receiving, nor ministering under one kind: Therefore in celebration of this Sacrament neither sole recoun●●ge nor minystringe under one kind ought to be used. The mayor is Saint Cyprian proved at large and much stayed upon in his Epistle, ad ce●isium de sacramento sanguinis, in the beginning whereof he seemeth to signify that by inspiration he was admonished of God, to advertise men only to do us Christ did in the institution of his Sacrament. I thought if (saith he) both godsy and necessary to write, if any man continue in this error (he meaneth using water only in the Sacrament in stead of wine) that he, seeing the fight, do veturne to the root and beginning of the lords ordinance and institution. And think not that I do this upon my own fantasy or any human judgement. etc. but when one is charged by the inspiration and commanndment of god, it is necessary for a faithful servant to obey: being hofden excused with all men, because he taketh nothing upon him arrogantly, that is compessed to fear the displeasure of god, if he do not as he is bid. Do you know therefore that we be admonished, that in offering the sacrament of the lord blood his own institution should be kept and no other thing be done, then that the lord did first for us himself? No man can make any exception to this proposition, unless he will clean weaken Cyprians reason against those abusers of the Sacrament. And then shall we have no ground to stay upon, but every gloze or interpretation upon human pretences shallbe admitted. This assertion of Cyprian is confirmed by Ambrose upon the first to the Corinth's. There he saith, that they receive the Sacrament unworthily which celebrate otherwise then the Lord delivered it. For he (saith Ambrose) cannot be devouie, which presumeth to do it otherwise then the aucth our hath taught. Yea and addeth that we shall make an account how we have used it. For the proof of the Minor, let us consider the history thereof as it is set out in the Evangelists. In the celebration of the Sacrament used by Christ there appeareth two parts: the matter and the form: The matter is bread & the body of Christ; wine and the blood of Christ, of which, he that altereth or taketh away any, doth alter and maim Christ's institution, as appeareth by Cyprian. The form of ministering the Sacrament must be taken out of Christ's doings. At that time it was taken, blessed with thanks giving, broken, distributed, eaten, drunken, charge given to remember Christ and his death. Therefore he that altereth or taketh away any of these things maimeth the form of Christ's institution, and breaketh Cyprian'S rule. Moreover the force of these words, Gave to them present, doth bind to a company: because it signifieth a bestowing of the death of christ not to one but to many. Therefore in Luke he giveth an express commandment of distributing, as he doth of eating, and drinking: saying, Take you this and divide it among you. But how can he divide it, it there be not a company to receive it: unless we should, to the deluding of Christ's ordinance, make such a fantastical breaking and dividing, as you do in your mass. For therein by Sergius decree ye break it into three parts: th'one of which ye let fall into the wine, which there soaked signisieth the body of Christ raised from death, and sitting in the glory: The other dry part, that the priest eateth, signifieth the body of Christ being upon the earth. The third part, which is wont to tarry on the altar to the end of mass, signifieth the dead in the sepulchres until the day of judgement. O great vanities wherewith God punisheth the rashness of foolish men following their own fantasies, and leaving his holy word. But to return to the proof of the matter. I will follow cipryan's example, and confirm the manner of Christ's institution by the testimony of. S. Paul. In him I find two arguments. One is in these words, unus panis unum corpus musti sumus. Nam omnes de eodem pant participamus. Which words the holy father's interpreting, call the Lords holy supper a Sacrament of unity. Because that as the bread consisteth of many grains, and the wine made of many grapes, so we, that be partakers of that one loaf and one cup, should be knit together in love and charity, as the members and parts of one mystical body. Wherefore Chrisostome noteth that it is not said, this eateth of one bread, and he of another: but all be partakers of one bread: and addeth why we be one loaf and one body. Because of the common participation that we have of the sacrament. This signification is clean taken away by private mass: the use whereof may seem rather to be a Sacrament of separation and dispension, as after shall more appear. The second argument out of Saint Paul is, where to the Corinthꝭ he reprehendeth the abuse of the lords Supper brought in by dissension and factions, that wear among them. Whereby it came to pass, that one company would not tarry for another to communicate, but one sort would receive with out another. Against this abuse he allegeth the institution of Christ signifying the same to be against such receiving in parts, and therefore exhorteth them to tarry until the congregation came together, that they might receive according to Christis institution. That this was. S. Paul's mind, it appeareth by his first proposition and reason, and by the conclusion that he addeth in the end. When ye come together (saith he) ye can not eat the Lord supper, where first it is to be noted that to the celebration of the sacrament they resorted together, and were not privately in sundry corners. He addeth the reason why they could not at their meetings celebrate the lords supper. Because every man is occupied in eating his own supper. Herein Paul blameth them, not only for immoderate feeding of their own meat, but also for the disordered using of the lords supper in parts: where as they should be together, as Christ and his Apostles were. This he declareth more plainly in that conclusion, that he inferreth upon the rehearsal of Christ's words in ordering the sacrament. For he saith. Therefore my brethren, when ye come together to eat the lords supper, do you tarry one for an other. What can more plainly declare that S. Paul took the right use of the sacrament to be a common receiving together, and not a several use by one man alone. As if he had said: In christes supper ye see the master together with the disciples, the table and the meat common to all, not so much as judas the traitor excluded, one loaf and one cup discributed among the whole company. Therefore when ye come together ye must imitate the concord and equality, that he then used. If he thought it an abuse in the Corinth's to receive in parts, he would count it a far greater abuse for ten or xii. to receive each of them severally in one church, at one time, as though they were of divers religions, or membres of divers mystical bodies. If the Corinth's in receiving by parts were blamed of Paul, for that they seemed one to contemn an other: may not priests be as justly blamed, because they seem in their private Mass to disdain and contemn the people? I will now therefore conclude with Cyprians words. If so be both it be ordained by christ, and the same confirmed by the Apostle, that we should do in this sacrament as our Lord did: we find that we steep not that is commanded, if we do otherwise then Christ did. Seeing then Christ used company in ordaining the sacrament of that holy feast and supper: Priests also ought to have company in ministering the same. For the authority of the primative church to confirm that this is the right use of the sacrament, 
Proofs against private mass, out of the fathers.  I will in this place bring in only two witnesses: which shall not speak of this matter lightly or by the way: but of very purpose declare the manner that then was used among the people of God, allowed and confirmed by godly and holy fathers. In so much that if any other manner had been then used, they could not have omitted the same: especially seeing they professed to declare that manner of christians therein. justine the martyr in his Apology descriveth it thus.  
After prayer we safute each other with a kiss: then bread and the cup mixed with water is brought to the chief brother, which after he hath taken giving praise and thanks unto the father of all in the name of the sun and holy ghost, for a space he continueth in thanks giving. After prayers and thanks giving, the whole company saith Amen. When the ministers giving of thanks, and the people's well wishing is finished: those which we call deacons geue parie of the bread and cup, over which thanks is given, unto every one that is present, yea and suffer the same to be carried to them that be absent. This nourishment we call Eucharistiam, the sacrament of thanks giving. A little after he declareth the same thing again. On sunday (saith he) companies of the town and country come together. Where lessons of the prophets and Apostles be red. When the clerk ceaseth, the minister exhorteth and allureth them to the imitation of so holy things. Afier, we all arise and pray. Then (as I said) bread and wine mixed with water is brought forth, and the chief minister so much ae he can prayeth, and giveth thanks, the people singing Amen. Then the things consecrated are distributed to all present, and be sent by the Deacons to those that be absent. The same form and manner of celebration of the sacrament with very little difference is witnessed by Dionysius: who in Ecclesiastica Hierarchia after he hath described a few other circumstances, and noted that only they tarried in the church which wear meet for the sight and communion of the divine and holy sacrament addeth this. After he hath she, when the gifts of those divine works he both cometh to the communion of the same himself, and also allureth other. When the dynine communion is both taken and given, it endeth in holy thanks giving. Would a man desire any plainer testimony of the use of the lords supper in the primative Church? Doth not all things agree with the institution of christ and example of the Apostle? Is here any conjecture either of the laity receiving under one kind? or of sole receiving by the priest? or of sacrifienge the body and blood of Christ for quick & dead? Is here any word or ceremony that signifieth such use to have been at that time? Yet (as I said) these men writ not of this matter by the way, but of purpose undertake to show the manner of the church in their days. And will you yet continue to affirnie that we have no colour or title in the scripture and fathers for the reproof of your private mass. But ye will urge, after your manner, to have an express sentence, that forbiddeth the priest to receive without company. I answer Christ's institution, the example of the apostles, the common use of the fathers was other ways: therefore the priest should not communicate without other. Ye have no express commandment that forbiddeth you to baptism in the name of the father only, but that Christ's institution was otherwise. Will ye therefore say that ye may without offence baptize in the name of the father only? If Christ's institution in baptism be a sufficient forbidding of the contrary to be used: why should not his words and maver used in the supper forbid you to do the contrary? Cyprian (as I have said) taketh it for a full prohibition of the contrary: and if you will not, ye must of necessity weaken his reasoning against those that he writeth: which did bring even as good reasons and as holy considerations for their part, as ye be able to devise any for yours. Now that I have in this manner-layed the foundation of our proofs, I will proceed to examine the residue of your arguments against us.  
In reciting the authority of Chrisostome you bring in a similitude or comparison, 
4. Cap.  which of how small force they be in proving, your learning can not be so little, but that ye must needs know. 
A.  Even as (say you) it is to be wished that all contention and strife were clean banished, and yet men are not to be forbidden to sue for their right when they be injured: so is it to be wished that people were so devout, as they would daily receive their howsill (for so ye term it.) And yet is not the priest to be letted to receive, when the people will not dispose themselves unto it. Beside that ye conclude here only the case of necessity (which helpeth the common use of your private Mass very little.) Ye make your comparison between things very unlike and of nature divers: that is, between possible and unpossible, and lawful & unlawful. That all cotention should be banished from among men in this world is a thing unpossible, & a perfection not to be looked for in this frail life. But in a christian congregation to have some of the people or ministers to communicate orderly with the chief minister celebrating is a thing so possible, as both the space of many hundred years it was continually used in the church, and may at this day with good example and instruction of the ministers be brought to pass, although not every day, yet very often times. Moreover to sue for ones right is not only a thing suffered, but of itself lawful and good: and we have thereof example and authority in gods word. But for the priest to minister the lords supper alone, is a thing neither tolerable nor lawful, but contrary to the form that Christ himself used, neither have we either authority or example in the scripture as a sufficient warrant to alter that form that he used and appointed. Therefore your comparison is faulty on both parts: and especially for that ye seem to gather thereby, that it is no more necessary for company to receive with the priest, than it is to have all contention banished from christian men: which, as I have said, in the frailty of this world is unpossible. If such similitudes should be allowed, a man might break all gods commandments, and yet prove himself not to do amiss. Is not this a jolly reason think you? As it is to be wished that all variance and strife were clean abandoned from among christian men, and yet are not they to be forbidden to sue for their right, which be injured of other: so it is to be wished that all unmarried priests did live chaste: but if they can not, the bishop must not forbid them to have a●coosen of theirs to keep their house, with whom, Si non caste, tamen caute. This comparison is as rightly applied as yours is, and yet, how well it proveth. I will make yourself judge. All your drift in this part is, by alleging the corruption of the world and slackness of devotion, to signify, that the people can not be brought to communicate with the priest: and therefore of necessity that he may receive alone. But, be the world never so corrupt, I think it as unpossible, to have a priest to celebrate devoutly every day: as it is to have some of the people often times to communicate with the priest. Wherefore I may as effectually conclude, upon the corruption of this time, that priests can not be brought devoutly to Mass every day: as ye do, that the people can not dispose themself, in this cold charity, godly to frequent the sacrament. And then were ye best to restrain your daily massing priests, and apoincte them, either to once, or at least to fewer times in the year: as ye have taken order for the people generally to receive only at Caster. 
B  But the priest (say you) is bound to offer up the daily sacrifice for himself and for the people. This is the root of all the abuses of the lords supper, that ye have brought into the church of christ. This is it, wherewith ye do pitifully deface the death and passion of Christ, making yourselves, for your glories sake, as it were means of reconciliation between god and his people. This is it, that hath discouraged christian people from the often use and frequentation of the Sacrament. For hereby ye signify, that, of necessity, it appertaineth only to the priest, and (as you wrote before) the people to be left free to come as seldom as they will. This ye take for the ground of your reason in this place: and yet within few lines have twice rehearsed it without any proof at all. But in deed ye must of necessity leave that unproved: that ye be not in any wise able to prove. For, sure I am, that neither the institution of Christ maketh mention of any oblation or sacrifice to be done by the minister, saving only the sacrifice of thanks giving: for yet the scripture appointeth any bounden duty for the priest more to use the sacrament than other godly and well disposed christian men. What signification have you in the words that christ used in ordaining the sacrament, or in the manner of his doing, that he then offered himself to his father? He did that the next day after himself upon the cross, as S. Paul saith, perfectly once for ever: neither doth he grant his privilege of the everlasting priesthodde to any, but to himself. Therefore when your priests take upon them his office to offer sacrifice propitiatory: they go beyond their commission, and take more upon them than their duty, not without just reprehension of arrogancy and presumption. Christ's institution (as the evangelists & S. Paul setteth it forth) is a teaching that he gave to us his blessed body and blood: and not that we should offer it up to god the father. He said, Take, eat, do this in remembrance of me, he said not, give, offer, and sacrifice for your sins. A sacrifice is a thing given to God: the sacrament was a thing given to us. Nothing therefore can be of nature more contrary than your sacrifice, and Christ's sacrament. Wherefore it must needs be that ye sucked this error out of the phrases and fashions of speaking, that the old fathers used, perverting the same to a far worse sense, then ever they meant it. 
For wh● causes th● lords supper is called of the Debtors a sacrifice. 1.  This thing more evidently to declare, it behoveth to consider, that the fathers upon divers occasions used to call the Sacrament, by the name of an oblation or sacrifice. First, Csemens', Asexander, Teriussian, Jraenens and other make mention of a certain oblation or offering that Christian people commonly used, when they came together to celebrate the lords Supper. In this they offered up bread, wine, and victuals abundantly, not only to serve the communion (as we had a shadow of late years in the holy loaf): but also that of the overplus thereof aswell the ministers might have their finding, as poor people also be refreshed. Hereof partly it came to pass, (the example being taken first of the common people) that the administration of the Sacrament, of this offering, was called an oblation. As in Jraeneus sib. 4 cap. 32. He taught us a new oblation of the new testament: which, the church taking of the apostles, offereth up to god in all the world. But in other places after, as in yt. 34. cap. he expoundeth himself and signifieth that he speaketh not of the offering of the Sacrament consecrated, but of the bread and wine offered: partly, to the use of the supper: partly, to the finding of the poor.  behoneth us (saith he) to offer to god the first fruits of his creatures. And again a little after. We must make offering up to god and in all things be found thankful to god our maker, offering up to him the first fruits of his creatures, in pure mind, in faith without hypocrisy, in firm hope, in fervent love. And this pure offering the church only offereth to our maker, giving to him part of his creatures with thanks giving. Instine also, in his Apology, affirmeth: that, after the communion, all that would offered to the behalf of poor people, fatherless children, and sick persons. another occasion that the doctors used those terms of sacrifienge and offering was, that in celebration of the Sacrament, they had prayer for all states, and thanks giving to god for all his benefits: which the doctors in infinite places affirm to be the true and only sacrifice of the new testament. Csemens' Asexan. Strom. 7. sib. Of god rejoiceth to be honoured, when a● by nature he needeth nothing: not without good cause we honour him with prayers, and send up to him that most excessent and holy sacrifice. And after in process of writing he giveth the same name to the reading and study of a godly man. Whereby it may appear (as Saint Augustine also signifieth) that the fathers called every good and godly action a sacrifice, wear it private or common. And therefore their successors, by little and little bent the same name unto the action and celebration of the Sacrament: wherein most solemnly prayer and thanks giving were offered. So writeth Jraeneus sib. 4. cap. 34. We offer to him not as one that needeth, but giving thanks for his benefits to us. And again. He will have us to offer our gift to the aulier often times: our anlter is in heaven. For thither our praiere and offerings be directed. To this agreeth Eusebius de demonstr. evang. sib. 1. We offer (saith he) to the most high god a sacrifice of praiser we offer a full, sweet, and holy sacrifice, after a new sort, according to the new testament. And that ye may not object, that in this place he speakech not of the sacrament: It followeth in this wise. net my prayer be made as intense in thy fight. Therefore we do sacrifice and burn incense to him: sometime, celebrating thee, remembrance of that great sacrifice, according to the mysteries instituted by himself, both giving thanks to god for our salvation, and offering holy hymns and prayers unto him: some time, consecrating and bequethinge ourselves wholly to him both in body and mind. Here he speaketh of the sacrament and maketh no mention of any sacrifice propitiatory, but only of the sacrifice of remembrance by prayer and thanks giving, and of the offering up of ourselves to god: which is the offering of Christ's mystical body, that, saint Augustine speaketh of in divers places: Of whose testimonies ye are wont to bring some for the confirmation of your sacrifice. As that he hath, De civitate dei. The sacrifice (saith he) that we offer is Christ's body. But immediately he declareth, that he meant his mystical body, that is, the unity of the faithful congregation. For he addeth. which we offer not to martens, because they be the same body themself. How the bishop or chief minister offereth up the people in the communion, he showeth in his. 59 Erist●e a● Pausinun Another cause, 
3.  that the holy fathers call the sacrament an oblation or sacrifice is, because, according to Christ's ordinance, we celebrate the remembrance of his death and passion: which was the only, true, and perfect sacrifice. And so may ye perceive, that Eusebius did take it in the place before recited. For he saith, we sacrifice, celebrating the remembrance of that great sacrifice. etc. Chrisoston●e likewise Hom. 17 ad Ebreos. After he hath in many words declared, that there is no more but one sacrifice once offered by Christ for ever, he addeth this. Do not we then offer every day? yes verily we offer, but doing it in remembrance of his death. And again, That we do is done to the remembrance of that was done Before. Saint Augustine also de fide ad petrum, declareth the same very plainly. Belene steadfastly (saith he) and in no wapee doubt, that the only begotten of God, being made flesh for us, did offer himself a sacrifice to God as a sweet savour. To whom with the father and holy ghost in the old testament beasts were offered: and to whom now, together with the father and holy ghost, with whom he hath one divinity, the church ceaseth not to offer the sacrifice of bread and wine. (He saith not of the body and blood of Christ.) For in those carnal sacrifices there was the figure of the flesh of Christ: which. etc. but in this our sacrifice, there is a thanks giving and remembrance of the body and blond of Christ, that he gave and shed for v●. Here he saith not, there is an offering of the body & blood for our sins, which he would not have omitted, if the church had taught so in his time. For some of these causes before rehearsed, the fathers used to call the Lordis supper a sacrifice: not meaning, as you do, that it was a sacrifice propitiatory to be offered of the priests for themself & for the people. This your fashion of speaking ye seem to take of the manner of the jewisse priests: which had an offering for them & the people. As though Christ had left to us a like sacrifice, as they had, daily to be repeated: where as S. Paul in his whole Epistle to the hebrews reasoneth against it: and proveth the contrary, that Christ did it perfectly once for ever, in such sort, that it needeth not to be reiterated. But perhaps ye will object S. Cyprian, where he speaking of the dead saith. We offer sacrifice for them. But it is evident he offered there for Martyrs: which, he was thoroughly persuaded, were in heaven, and needed no offering for their sins. Likewise Ambrose mentioneth, that he offered for Valentinian the good Emperor: of whom (in the oration made at his burial) he witnesseth that he doubted not of his salvation, but believed, by the witness of Angels, that he was carried to heaven. Therefore their offering for the dead was no more, but, as I mentioned before, the sacrifice of praise and thanks giving to God for them. This thing the Greek Cannon declareth more plainly: where it is mentioned, that they offered for the patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, ye and for the blessed virgin Mary the mother of God. For whose sins, it can not be, that they offered: which, by the testimony and faith of the whole church, be with God in heaven. This thing is well described by Chrisostom upon the. 8. cap. of Math. Therefore (saith he) the priest standing at the austere, when the sacrifice is proposed, commandeth us to offer thanks to God for the whole world, for them that be abset, for those that were before us, and for those that shall come after us. The same Chrisostome also calleth this their offering, Rationalem cultum, which ye can not interpret a propitiatory sacrifice, but a reasonable worshipping of God by prayer and thanks giving for his holy saints: by the which he hath builded his church, and which now remain as membres and parts of his mystical body: whereunto we also, by the celebration of the sacrament, be joined, and so, as it were, knife in unity with them. This was their offering for the dead, and not a practice to pull souls out of Purgatory for merchandise and money, as ye have used in your private Masses a great numbered of years, to the great defacing of the death and passion of Christ. Wherefore your Mass can not justly be called the Lordis supper, but a perverting of the institution and ordinance, clean to an other purpose and end, than he willed to be kept among his people. For the lords supper (as I said before) is a gift of God to us: which we must receive with thanks giving. Your sacrifice is a price to be paid to God, and of him to be taken as a satisfaction. The lords supper is a remembrance of one perfect sacrifice: whereby we were once sufficiently purged from sin, and continually are revived by the same. Your sacrifice is a daily offering up of Christ for our sins: as though it had not been perfitly done at the first. The lords supper is to be distributed in the common assembly of his people, to teach us the communion whereby was all be knit together in Christ jesus. The use of your sacrifice in private Mass seemeth, by the priests se●le receiving, to be a testimony of separation, and a mean to bring the community out of christian men's minds. For, after they once believed, that priests must sacrifice for them: they began to leave the communion, and frequentation of the sacrament, as a thing either not appertaining, or very little appertaining to them, but especially to priests. And, by that means, the way was made to your common use of private Mass. So much difference therefore as is between to give, and to receive: to remember one perfect sacrifice, and daily to reiterate a sacrifice: to celebrate in common as a testimony of unity, to creep in corners or by chapels as a sign of separation: so much difference is there between the sacrament by Christ appointed, and the sacrifice of the Mass by you devised. This have I spoken more largely of this matter, then either I purposed, or you gave me occasion by any proof brought for the confirmation of your sacrifice. First, because this is an other great abuse in your private Mass, that yes take upon you to defend. Secondly, that I might declare the ground of your reason to be very weak, where ye affirm the priest to be bound of duty to sacrifice for himself and for the people. Thirdly, that I might answer more aptly to Chrisostomes' authority, which next is to be examined.  
The place of Chrisostome, 
5. Cap.  that you allege, is otherwise in him, than you recite it. 
A.  For he saith: Frustra habetur quotidiana oblatio, Frustra stamus ad altar: nemo est, qui simul participet. In vain we have our daily offering: in vain we stand at thanlter: there is no man to communicate with us. As touching those words that ye most beat upon, 
An answer to Chrisostom  There is no man to communicate, by them to prove, that they received only at Easter, and, at other times, there were none at all to communicate with the ministers: I will show you out of Chrisostome himself, that they must of necessity have an other sense: and that in those words he useth that figure of aggravating, that he commonly useth in all places. For even in the same place, 
D.  not many lines before the words that ye recite, he declareth that a number used to receive at certain other times. 
C.  I see many (saith he) rashly, not passing how, and more of a custom then lawfully and of good consideration, to be partakers of Christ's body. If the holy time of lent were at hand (say they) if the day of epiphany were come: having no regard what he is, that is partaker of the mysteries. But the time of coming to it, the epiphany, the holy season of Lente doth not make them worthy that come: but the sincerity and putitie of mind. Do ye not here perceive, that many used ordinarily to come to the Communion at the epiphany, and in lent, as well as he mentioned before at Easter? how can ye then gather by Chrisostome that there was no company to receive but only at Easter? but what if I declare out of Chrisostome, that some used to receive oftener times? will not your collection upon this place, that ye seem to triumph upon, appear to be of very small force. Hom. 17. ad Hebreos. Many (saith he) take of this sacrifice once in the whole year, some twice, some oftener times. Hereby it is most evident, that Chrisostom had other to communicate with him at divers other times beside Easter. The manner was (I grant) that some of custom addicted themselves to certain days. And in some places the bishops or synods appointed men to receive, once, twice, thrice or four times in the year (as Augustine witnesseth). Concilium Eliberinum appointeth to communicate thrice in the year. But these prescript times were ordained only for them, that used seldom to come to the sacrament, that at the least, they should receive at those times, if they would knowledge themselves to be of the church. notwithstanding they did not only lean free to other to frequent the sacrament, but earnestly calleth them to it at every assembly of the people. As Ambrose grievously blameth the custom of many in the east parts, that used to come but once in the year: and saith, that he, which is not meet to receive every day, will not be meet to receive once a year. Therefore as in the primative church very many in divers places used to be partakers of the sacrament, but ones, twice, or thrice, in the year: so it is evident, that divers other better disposed did receive with the bishop and ministers at sundry other times. That fort, because they were not so many as they should have bene, and as Chrisostome wished for to have in his church, to exaggerate their slackness, he saith, There is none to be partaker with be. Meaning that they were very few and seldom in comparison of that their duty was. But if ye will stand upon these few syllables, Nemo est, to prove that sometime the minister received alone: I answer, all be it this place did prove, that none of the common people would communicate, whose slackness, he there reproveth: yet ye cannot by this testimony declare, that none of the ministers or the clergy received with him being bishop there. For the manner was not then, as you do use it now, that every priest received particularly at an altar by himself: but all the ministers and clergy did communicate together with the bishop or chief minister that celebrated. This to prove true, although I could bring in many examples and testimonies, yet I will content myself with one, that yourself putteth me in mind of, in reciting afterward the .14. cannon of Nicene counsel: for therein order is taken by that holy counsel, that the deacons should not minister to the bishop and priests, nor receive before them, but after in order as it seemed more convenient. Look for further declaration of this, in examining the cannon that ye afterward allege. Wherefore this your place of Chrisostome doth not sufficiently justify sole receiving by one minister, as ye would have it seem to do, for proof of your private mass. But if I should flatly deny, that the minister received, when none of the people were partakers, how could you prove it by this place? Ye will say, because he calleth it, Quotidianam oblationem, and the people, as appeareth, did not every day communicate. I answer, he named it Oblationem, either for that it was done in the remembrance of Christ's sacrifice, or for the offering up of the bread and wine to the celebration of the lords supper: he called it Quotidianam, to the inmitation of the sacrifice of the old law: not because it was every day done without intermission, but for that it was oftentimes celebrated: that is, so often as the people assembled together to the church or common place of prayer: as he himself witnesseth upon the. 8. chapter of Matthew. At which times he always had, either some of the people, or the residue of the ministers and clergy to communicate with him: as the manner of that time was. But ye will here dally upon the proper signification of this word, 
B  Quotidianum, every day without intermission, every day daily sacrifice, every day mass, every day at the altar. Then must you give me leave as extremely to urge these two syllables Frustra, in vain is our oblation, in vain is our sacrificing, to no profit or commodity is our mass, in vain we stand at the altar, because it is done without company to receive with us. And surely, if a man rightly consider this place, he may justly marvel, why ye would allege it for private mass. For in deed there is no thing, that hath any colour for it, but only the wrested argument, that you wring out of the sound of these words, Quotidiana obsatio, and Nemo est qui parbicipet: by the tone part gathering, that the people then used to receive only at Easter, as they do now: by the t'other, that the priest received every day, and there upon conclude your sole receiving. Which your collection of how small effect it is, any man may perceive, if he consider these two things before declared. First, that at that time all the ministers received together, as it shall be afterward more plainly proved by your own testimonies. Secondly, the I have evidently showed out of Chrisostome himself, that many used to receive at divers other times of the year beside Easter. For in deed he doth not there blame the general manner of all without exception, but of a number, that addicted themself either to Easter, or some other times, whether they were meet, or unmeet: And at other common seasons would not frequent the sacrament, though they were more meet to receive. But these were not all (as I said) but a number of the common people: and the residue of the better disposed were so few, as oftentimes when the lessons of scripture wear red, when prayers and thanks giving were made, when bread and wine were (as the manner was) offered up for the communion: (which were the first parts of celebration as appeareth in justine) than he was compelled either to suffer the ministers and clergy to receiure alone: or else for lack of communicantꝭ to leave of the residue of the ministration. And that is it, that be complaineth of, and saith is done in vain: because it was unperfitly done. For the preparing to communion, the prayers and thanks giving for that purpose, the offering up of bread and wine, the calling of the people to it, may seem to be in vains, when none did come to participate with the ministers. Wherefore Chrisostome in this place doth not only nothing confirm private mass, but also maketh very much against it: and declareth, that he took the right and true use of the lords supper to be, when the people were together partakers of the same. For if he had taken it as you do, for an offering up of the body of Christ for himself and the people, Or if he had at such times received alone, and thought it well done, he neither could nor would have said: Frustra babetur quotidiana obsatio, in vain we have our daily offering, giving no other reason why it was vain, but because the people at such times did not receive. Therefore it appeareth by those words, both how necessary he esteemed the people's communion, and also that he took not Oblationem for a propitiatory sacrifice, as you do. For than he could not have said frustra habetur. To this purpose it maketh, that the same Chrisostome in the same place so earnestly calleth the people to it: as he saith to them: Whosoever is not partaker of the mysteries, doth impudently and wickedly to stand there. And in the. 17. Hom. upon the epistle to the hebrews, he signifieth, that the manner than was, that a deacon stood in a place higher than other, and with a sign of his hands and a loud voice called the people to the communion. This was not only at Easter, but at other times also. By this earnest manner of calling, therefore it may appear how much this doctor took it to be of the substance of the Sacrament, that a number should be partakers of it: and how far divers his manner was from the fashion of your private mass. Now than your amplified conclusion, wherein ye claim Chrisostome to be wholly with you, showeth itself to be very vain. And we may now, as justly say as we did before, that ye have no proof out of the ancient fathers, for that ye do herein so earnestly defend: And that we have right good testimonies both out of the scripture and out of the Doctors against it. For ye must not use to ground doctrines upon the conjecture of a few syllables in one sentence: but compare the same with divers other places, as well of the same doctor, as of other, and all together with the common use and manner of that time: and thereby gather a perfect conclusion. If you will scan and stay upon every word or clause in the Doctors, as you do of the holy scriptures, and not consider them by conference with themself and other: you may easily erect infinite new doctrines, that hitherto were never heard of in the church.  
The reason, 
6. Cap.  that you bring in, grounded (as you say) upon our principal, is even of as much force, as the other before mentioned. 
A.  That is not evidently determined in scripture (say you) ought to stand as indifferent: but the necessity of company to receive with the priest is no where determined: ergo it ought to remain indifferent. Your second proposition is not true. For I say, and partly before have proved, that it is determined in Christ's institution. In Luke he saith, Accipite hoc & dividite inter vos. But how can it be taken at the ministers hands and divided or distributed among them, unless there be a company. I see no sufficient warrant, that ye can bring us for the discharge of this commandment. If ye will say Dividite is no commandment, but a counsel, that may be undone, and yet the substance of the sacrament remain: then belike ye will say, Late, drink, is no commandment: nor yet, do this in remembrance of me. But all be indifferent counsels that may be altered (as you after say) by spiritual governors. So that your spiritual governors may by this means clean alter Christ's institution: and leaving out eating, drinking, distributing, doing in remembrance of Christ's death, (as they have done) devise a a new fashion of their own brains more fit for the church to use, than that order which Christ hath left. But as he taketh away the right use of the sacrament, that taketh away from it, eating, drinking, and doing in remembrance. etc. So I say that he taketh away the same, that leaveth out distributing. Which because it can not be without company, I conclude the Sacrament can not be used in the celebration without company.  
Cyprian teacheth you, that Christ's institution should be of more authority with you, than, so lightly, to change it at your own pleasure. Only Christ (saith he) is to be heard in the order of this sacrament. And we must not in any wise depart from the precepts of the Gospel. The Apostle also more constantly and stoutly declareth in an other place, that the disciples ought to observe and do the same things, that their master taught and did before them: saying in this wise. If either I or an angel from heaven teach you otherwise then I have taught you before, accursed be he. Seeing therefore, neither the apostle himself, nor an Angel from heaven can tell us or teach us otherwise, then that Christ hath once taught us already, and the Apostle declared to us: I marvel how this came in use to do contrary to that which Christ did. And what I pray you can be more contrary, then, when Christ had them drink, to take away the cup: and, when Christ bade them distribute among them, and S. Paul willed one to tarry for an other, until they came together: yet contrary to this (as you do) to minister and receive alone. Therefore I say with Cyprian, that in altering the sacrament, either by sole receiving or giving under one kind, ye worship God in vain with men's traditions. The matter that Cyprian wrote against (that is) using of water alone in the Sacrament in steed of wine, might perhaps, in case of necessity, be granted to some, that of nature could not abide wine. Nevertheless the necessity of a few is not to be drawn to a general example in the common use of the lords supper. Even so it may be granted that in cases of necessity one may receive alone: and yet that is not to be taken for a common manner and fashion in the church, when the sacrament is celebrated, as you used in the private Mass. That many circumstances of place, person, and time, 
B.  may be altered or taken away for good considerations, without impeachment to the right use of the sacraments, we grant you: but that company in receiving is one of those circumstances, that we can not grant: as well for the reasons before declared, as also that we have no authority or example of the Apostles or primative church, that we may so do, as we have in all other things that you recite with more words than needeth. We dare minister in other places than jury, because we see in scripture, that the Apostles did so.  
We minister to women and lay men: because S. Paul applieth Christ's institution to the whole congregation of Corinth: where were both lay men & women. We celebrate upon any day indifferently, because the Apostles did so, Actum. 20. uno die sabbatorum. We minister to fewer or more than twelve, by the example of the Apostles in .20. of the Acts, and of Paul in .10. and .11. to the Corinthꝭ. We receive in the morning, both because time is a thing indifferent in this sacrament, and also for that we have plain examples in the primative church, without case of necessity or extraordinary chances. Christ said not do it after supper, as he said, Divide it among you. He did it after supper himself: because he would institute the Sacrament of the new law, in place of the sacrament of th'old law, that at the same supper he had celebrated. Neither is it so much of the substance of the sacrament to be done after suppper, as it is to be celebrated with company: because of the signification of unity and charity among christian men receiving together.  
Which is one chief point in this sacrament of the lords supper. The very proportion and likeness of that ceremony of the old law, in place whereof the lords supper is ordained, may teach us the right use of it. The passover was a solemn eating of the Pascale lamb together in remembrance of Gods great benefit of their deliverance and passing of his plague from them. This ceremony they could not solempnice alone: but if they had not company of their own house, they should take of their neighbours. Even in like manner Christ, having finished at his last supper the celebration of that ceremony of the passover, ordained for his, even a like sacrament, a supper, a feast, wherein they, being together, might celebrate the remembrance of their redemption, by his body and blood given and shed for them. And even as the jews in solemnizing their sacrament had a community of the remembrance of that benefit, when their companies were in sundry houses separate, and yet might not one alone eat the paschal lamb in his own house, for that god had ordained it to be done with company: so all the churches in the world have community in the sacrament, be they never so far asunder: and yet can not any one alone minister it in one church without company to celebrate with him, because Christ's institution was otherwise. Will ye say here, that company to eat up the pascal lamb was not of the substance of the sacrament, but an ornament to commend it or set it forth, and might be altered by spiritual governors? Although the jews wear very bold in altering many ceremonies, yet we read not, that ever they durst altar this chief sacrament: as you take upon you to alter, change and take away, by your spiritual governors, all the parts of the lords Supper: as I will declare to you in order by the doctrine of this your defence of private mass. The sacrament, as it is in use, hath two parts, the matter, and the form: the matter is bread and the body, wine and the blood of Christ. The form of ministration is, that the minister should take the matter, and with the words of the gospel give it to them present, as Christ did. This form (say you) may be altered by your spiritual governors. For sometime the priest may receive alone with out the people, sometime the people without the priest: sometime both together. So that no certain form of ministration is needful (as you say) in this sacrament to be kept. The matter also, ye signify, may be altered at your pleasure. For, to receive the sacrament of the blood, is not of the substance of Christ's institution. For, if it wear, the church could not alter it, as you do commonly in ministering to the people, and as you conjecture by Tertus. and Cyprian, that they did in the primitive church. Likewise the sacrament of the body is not so much of the substance, but that upon considerations the church may commonly omit it, and minister the wine only. For so you seem together by the history of the child, in Cyprian, to which the priest gave only wine, as you say. So that the sacrament of the lords supper, by your doctrine, either hath no part, that is of the substance of it, but consisteth only of mutable accidences: or else your church is of such power, that it may clean alter and take away Christ's institution. For if you have considerations, for which ye may commonly leave out the wine, and use bread only: and other considerations, for which ye may omit bread, and use wine only: when both those considerations come together, then may you take away both bread and wine, and defraud the people of the whole sacrament, or in stead of that may point them another. What is this but, with exceeding arrogancy, to make your spiritual governors omnipotent in altering and transposing the sacraments by Christ ordained? How much more comely wear it for you revoking your error: to say with Cyprian. If we will walk in the sight of Christ, (in the order of his sacraments) we must not serve or depart from his precepts and instructions: giving thanks for that he, instructing us what we ought to do hereafter, doth pardon us for that offence, which by simplicity we have before committed.  
Where you endeavour to prove, 
7. Cap.  that there may be communion in the sacrament, although it be received alone: in th'one part you make your comparison (as you have done before) between things of nature very divers: that is, between prayer, and the lords supper. In the t'other, where ye confirm general communion between all saints, you prove that no man denieth. There man be communion in the benefit of prayer (say you) though one do pray alone: 
A.  therefore in the lords supper, also. Who seeth not, that prayer and the Lords supper in the use of them be nothing like? That prayer is a common action, which, done of one alone, may stretch to the benefit and commodity of many, we have authority in the scripture, and example in Christ himself: but that the lords supper is such a common action, we neither have authority, nor example in gods word. By as good a reason we may prove, that a man may baptize himself without a minister, because one may pray alone without one to guide him in the form of his prayer: Or that one's baptism may profit another, that is not baptized: as a man's prayer may profit him that prayeth not. But you must consider that there is great difference between the nature of sacrament, and other common good works. The sacraments have an external form by christ appointed in the administration of them: which we may not alter. In other good works and godly exercises it is not so. And yet you reckon them up together, as though they wear in all points like. As prayer, baptism; penance, confirmation, fasting, alms deeds. etc. Another man's pra●●r or alms d●●de may profit you, I grant, and procure gods grace for you. May an other man's baptism therefore receive you into the church? or an other man's penance satisfy for your sins? I think you will scant affirm it, although ye be ready to affirm strange things. No more therefore can your receiving profit another, that receiveth not. Christ taught us, and his holy word commandeth us, to pray on for another. But he never said receive the communion, or be baptized one for another. To confirm your purpose, you bring an article of our creed: 
B.  that is, I ●eseue the communion of sainted. By this you prove that there is a communion of all good things between them that are in place and time far distant: which we deny not. But to understand how little this communion of saints doth serve your purpose of sole receiving: it behoveth to consider what communion is. It is called of the Greeks, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and may be defined to be a society of a company or multitude, which, by certain laws and covenants, are all partakers of one thing. As among Merchants, that upon certain conditions occupy jointly, and are partakers of like gain and damage. So all Christian men have a certain society or conjunction: which consisteth in this, that they are all partakers of one salvation, and all members of one mystical body, the head whereof is christ jesus. The laws & covenants, whereby we be all thus knit and joined together, are the word of God, & the sacramentis used according to Christ's institution. Therefore all churches of the world have the same word of God, and the same sacraments: & by them through faith are graffed into one and the same body of Christ, though they be thousands of miles a sunder. By the word of God our faith is instructed: By baptism we be received first into the society of christian communion, and made members of the mystical body. By the lords supper we have from time to time, heavenly food ministered unto us, and, as it were, lively spirit from the head of this body jesus Christ. He therefore, that is baptized in India, hath the same baptism that we have: and, being graffed into the same body, hath communion with us in baptism. Likewise they, that receive the lords supper, be fed with the same feed of the body and blood of Christ, that we be: and so have communion with us in that sacrament, though in place they be far of. This is the communion between christian men: and this we most reddely grant. But will you conclude here upon, that there is like communion of the benefit of sole receiving in private Mass, as there is of prayer, when a man prayeth alone? Then must ye say the same of baptism also. As for example, that our baptism here may benefit some, that are in France, and receive them into the church: like as our prayer here may obtain the help and grace of God for them, that be there. Which were great folly to affirm. In deed we have communion in baptism: but every man's own baptism bringeth him the grace of that sacrament. And in like manner is it in the lords supper. We have all communion therein: and yet every man's own receiving doth profit him. You will say perhaps, you do not infer this upon the argument of general communion, but only that they, which be in divers places, may communicate. Well sir I grant you that, but yet, ye should have inferred the other point, if ye would orderly prove that ye began. That is, to be like communion in the lords supper of one alone received, as there is in prayer, when one man in place alone prayeth ●●r a multitude. The multitude, that prayeth not, may have benefit by one man's prayer. But prove you by God's word, that one man receiving or ministering the lords supper alone, doth benefit those that receive not, or that it is such a thing as may be done of no for many. And surely, it standeth you upon, substantially to prove that point, or else your private Mass will fall to the ground, and be of no estimation. For if people shall understand, that your sole receiving in your Mass doth not only nothing profit them, that be present: but (as Chrisostome witnesseth) bringeth them in god's displeasure, if they receive not themself: think you that the gain and advantage thereof will be so great, as hath been before? Assure yourself it will not. But what do you infer upon this proof of communion between them that are in place far distant: forsooth in effect, this. That if there may be communion between those that are not together in one place: then a priest, saying Mass in our Lady chapel in Paul's at six a clock in the morning, doth communicate with him, that doth the like in jesus Church at ix of the clock the next day: although in place and time they be separate. Sir I deny your argument, & say that neither th'one nor tother doth communicate with any Christian man, because neither of both receiveth according to Christ's institution. I confess there is communion between them, that receive in sundry places according to the order by Christ appointed, as there is likewise in baptism. But, if they altar the sacrament, they do not cummunicate. I said a little before, that in the pass over all the companies of the jews in sundry houses did communicate, and yet one might not eat up the lamb alone, because god had taken an other order. Likewise all societies of Christian men communicate together in the lords supper: and yet should not one celebrate it alone, seeing Christ's example showeth, and the Apostles interpretation declareth, that in ministering of it, there shousd be also a particular communion (as I may term it) between the members of one congregation. Wherefore the granting of community between all christian men in use of the sacrament, doth make nothing against this, that Christ ordained it to be received as a feast with company: to th'end it might more lively represent, both the general giving and bestowing of his body to death for many, and also the unity and concord, that aught to be between Christian men, receiving together of one lose and one cup. For this purpose, as S. Augustine signifieth, he used those external elements of bread and wine: to declare, that, as the bread of many grains is brought into one loaf, and the juice of many 〈◊〉 apes is made wine in one cup: so the multitude of a christian congregation, receiving together the lords supper, are made members of one body, knit together in like faith and charity, and having like hope of salvation. The like effect is done in baytisme (as S. Augustine witnesseth In sermone ad infants) and we be graffed into Christ and made partakers of his body and blood. But he would have it more lively represented and set forth in this sacrament of communion: as well for the multitude, as for the apt signification of the external elements. More over the ecclesiastical histories declare, when Chrisostome was banished, much against the people's hearts, that divers of them would not communicate with his successor, but had their assembles and received the sacrament in an other place by themselves, so that divers of them by the emperors threatenings could not be constrained to communicate with him, that was bishop after him. This their doing was to no purpose, if diversity of time and place do not declare a separation between them, that be of one congregation. The whole use of excommunication in the primative church doth so sufficiently prove this, as no reasonable man needeth greatly to doubt it. The effect whereof, this your devise may seem to take away. For what other thing is excommunication (as touching the external act) than a debarring of the party to receive with other of the same congregation, and thereby to note him not to be of that mystical body. But after your devise, a priest, that is excommunicated of the bishop, may say Mass in his chamber, and affirm that he will communicate with him, whether he will or no. Because distinction of place maketh nothing to the purpose. Because we necessarily require a numbered together, you press upon the matter very earnestly, and think, by your dalliing folly, to drive us to many follies. For, you curiously require a measure of place, a prescription of time, and a certain number of persons: as it were thereby to portray unto you a perfect plat of a christian communion (for so it pleaseth you to dally in this weighty matter.) I answer that we see in the Evangelists and S. Paul, that Christ took bread and gave with it his body: that he took wine also and gave with it his blood: that he did it in convenient place and time: that he had a company with him to receive, and willed them to distribute among them. Therefore (with S. Cyprian) we count his example in these things necessary, and not to be altered. As for the kind of bread or wine, the fashion or quantity of place, the conveniency of time, the increasing or diminishing of the number or company, we reckon among those things that may be altered (as you say) by spiritual governors. But to appoint a geometrical measure of place, a prescript proportion of time, or one certain number, that may serve for all churches, times, and ages, is far above our reach. And therefore I leave it to be devised of such profound and curious brains, as you and yours have. Which, beside the word of god, and contrary to his working in his creatures, can comprise accidences without subjects, and bodies without fashion, quantity or measure, with other such high mysteries, which neither scripture, nor any necessity of reason doth teach. For in deed our wits are so simple as, in gods mysteries, we can see no more, than his holy word leadeth us unto.  
next is, that you burden us with Erasmus authority, 
8. Cap.  and challenge us, that we will not believe his report. Sir it seemeth very strange to me, that you, which have so much hated Erasmus, 
A.  as ye have often chased him out of grammar schools, and driven him into the fire, should now in your need take help and secure at his hand. 
Answer to Erasmus, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Ciril.  Truly we do now esteem Erasmus, as we have always, for a man of excellent learning, and a singular instrument provided of god to begin the reformation of his church in this latter time: and yet think we not all his opinions to be true. For you, I think, do esteem Tertullian and Origen and that right worthily. And yet if ye will grant all, that they writ, to be true: I will prove you an heritke. notwithstanding we deny not that, which Erasmus saith in this matter, and knew whence he had his assertion, before you told us. How little it serveth your purpose I will show hereafter. You confirm Erasmus opinion with that Tertullian writeth in his. 2. book Ad uxorem, of the paynims wife that was Christened, and every day privily received the sacrament at home in her house. And also with the history that Cyprian rehearseth of the woman, that unreverently opened the chest, where in she kept the lords body. To this also ye add Cirilles authority for reservation. Out of these places you suck not only sole receiving, but also ministering under one kind, reservation, yea, and real presence also. 
Of sole receiving.  first, for sole receiving, it behoveth to consider, that in the time of Tertullian, 
B.  Cyprian, and all that age, the church was in much trouble, vexation, and persecution: so that they could not have their ecclesiastical assembles and congregations for common prayer and ministration of the sacramentis so conveniently, as afterward in time of peace. For every paynim, especially if his wife, child, or servant, were turned to Christianity, was ready and sought occasion to bewray them, and bring them in trouble (as it may appear by the same book of Tertullian that you allege). Therefore they were oftentimes compelled of necessity to send the sacrament to such as were absent, and either durst not or might not conveniently come: as ye may perceive by justine the Martyr that the fashion was in his time. Hereof it came, that divers received alone in their houses. But nor these places, nor any other, that you be able to allege, can prove, that there were ministers or priests privately celebrating with other standing buy, that received not. That, which these persons received at home, was part of that was distributed in the common celebration where company were: and, upon case of necessity, sent by the ministers to them being absent. But you should bring such places, as might prove, that the common minister, in place of the lords supper, did celebrate and receive alone, other being present and not partaking. For such a sole receiving is your private Mass, that you pretend to strive for. Now therefore let us see, how aptly your argument, gathered upon these places, doth conclude your purpose. Women and lay men sometime, in case of necessity, privately received at home part of that, which was sent from the common celebration: therefore common ministers, as often as they list, out of necessity may consecrate, and receive alone in the common place of prayer, when the people is present, and doth not communicate. I think yourself may easily see, of what force this collection is. That may be granted to a lay person receiving, that may not to a priest ministering: that sometime in necessity, which may not always at pleasure: that at home where none is, that may not in the church where many be. Wherefore these testimonies are but weak grounds to build private Mass upon. You will perchance object, that such receiving in houses was used, when the church was in quiet, and without persecution. I grant you, (as the manner is) that fashions, brought in by necessity or some great consideration, be oftentimes kept and followed with abuse, when neither necessity doth constrain it, nor good consideration can maintain it: and so was it in this matter. Jerome against jovinian mentioneth, that in his time some used to receive in their houses: but he earnestly inveigheth against that manner. Why (saith he) do they not come into the church? he Christ sometime abroad in the common place, sometime at home in the house? etc. In Socrates the. 2. book, we read, that Sinodus Gangrensis condemned Eustathium for that, contrary to the ecclesiastical rules, he granted licence to communicate at home. So that hereby it may appear, that a custom, that, in necessity, to some persons, is either tolerable, or pius error: is at another time, and to other persons untolerable and Impia prophanatio. If you diligently examine that manner of receiving in their houses at that time, which ye think to make with you, you shall well perceive it not a little to make against you. When they did celebrate (as justine before rehearsed doth witness) they did not only distribute to them, that were present, but, by the deatons, sent it to such, as could not be present. Did they not in this point declare a necessity of partaking, if it were possible at every ministration? In so much that when their place would not receive all, or other necessary cause did let them to come to the common place of prayer: yet, that they might be partakers of the lords supper, they sent it to them where they were. How well doth this fashion agree with your private mass? Wherein ye neither call, nor proffer, nor send to the people: but so do it all alone in sight of the hole congregation, as though it wear a thing, that nothing appertained unto them. Now than you may evidently see, that none of these authorities, hitherto alleged, doth prove directly your Mass: that is a sole receiving in the celebration of the sacrament. But how necessary that time of the church did think it to be, that the people should be partakers with the priest, that Epistle signitieth, that you attribute to Anacletus: where it is this written. Peracta consecratione omnes communicent, qui noluerit ecclesiasticis carere liminibus. Sic enim apostoli statuerunt, & sancta Romana tenet ecclesia. After consecration (saith he) let all be partakers, which will not be excommunicate. For so the Apostles decreed, and the holy church of rome observed. The same words by some are attributed to Calixte. Do you not hear excommunication threatened to all, that do not communicate? Do you not hear that the Apostles decreed it, and the holy church of Rome observed it? And will you yet stand so stubbornly in your assertion, that there was private mass in the primative church? Will you have better witnesses of that time than justine, than Dionysius, then Anacletus, then Calixte, than the other holy fathers before mentioned? would Ambrose have blamed the people for not resorting to the sacrament daily? Would Chrisostome have said, that they, which be present and not receive, do wickedly and impudently? Would they have commonly used (as justine saith) to send to those that could not be present, if Christ's institution and the manner of the primitive church had been such, that the minister might celebrate alone without calling or offering, and people without offence be present and not communicate, as you of long time have used it? Surely say what you will, and allege as oft as you list the authority of your holy mother the church of Rome so many hundred years: I think very few, that have fear of god and care of their salvation, will give credit unto you. Especially seeing you can bring no better testimonies for your purpose, then in this defence you have used.  

Against communion under one kind.  another point, that you pick out of these authorities of Tertul. and Cyprian, is for ministering under one kind: wherein we have the institution of Christ expressly against you, as we had in the other. For in the Evangelists and S. Paul we see testified, that Christ took bread and gave with it his body: and afterward took the cup and gave with it his blood, and willed them to observe & use the same. Here you must of necessity flee to your ●lde place of refuge: that is, that, to receive under both kinds; is not of the substance of the sacrament, but such a thing as may be altered by spiritual governors. For Christ's body (say you) is not without his blood, & therefore he, that receiveth his body under form of bread, receiveth his blood also, Per concomitantiam. Therefore you say the people is not defrauded of that Christ's will was, that they should receive, yea and, for good considerations & honourable to the blood of Christ, they receive it more convenient then under booths kinds. O profound and deep set reason, wherein you seem to make yourself wiser than Christ himself, that ordained the sacrament. While you will seem with your gay gloss to glorify the blood of Christ, you clean take away the right form and manner of his sacrament. These are the vanities wherewith God justly doth punish you for your rashness in leaving his word and following the fantasies of your own brain. But it should have been your obedience to God's word to consider, that the communion of Christis body and blood is not the work of nature in this Sacrament. For, what so ever is here given in these things, is to be taken by faith: and is offered to us in the words of Christ's promises. So much is given us as God appointed to give. Of whose will and pleasure we know no more, than his words declare unto us. But Christ (as I said) took two parts of the sacrament: in one of the which he said we should be partakers of his body: in the t'other of his blood, and left his prescript and appointed words, as well for the tone as for the t'other. Wherefore we must more trust him than man's subtle devise. You allege a perpetual society of the body and blood, which ye call Concomitantiam. It is your own devise and not Christ's promiss in his sacrament. In Christ's natural body, that is in heaven, I know his flesh is not without his blood. But in the sacrament, which is no natural work, how will you assure me, that the flesh and blood is jointly signified and given to me under one part only: seeing Christ himself, who knew, as well as you, the joincte condition of his flesh and blood, did notwithstanding, in two sundry external things, give the communion of them to his disciples. Therefore the faith of the communicantes in the tone part receiveth the body of Christ, trusting to Christ's promises: The same faith in the other part receiveth the blood, believing also our saviours words therein. It hath respect to Christ's words and promises, it looketh not how the body and blood is in Christ naturally. What ground shall our faith have if we leave the word of God? Oh ye will say our holy mother the church hath so ordained it. Yea, but I say to you, that, if your mother the church of Rome be the fold of Christ, and if the sheep thereof be his sheep, they will hear his voice and obey his word. If they do not, allege the name as oft as ye will, I will say you be sheep of an other fold and not of his. For he saith, Oues meae vocem meam audiunt. He saith not they hear themself & their own devices, but they hear my voice. Remember what Cyprian saith. Only Christ is to be heard in this. And we must not look what other did before us, but what Christ did before all other. When we doubt, we must have recourse to the order taken by Christ and by the Apostles in their writing. But ye will say the church hath authority to alter divers things especially being indifferent, and not of the substance of the sacrament. Yea but Cyprian saith the precepts of this sacrament be Grandia & magna. And if he be called least in the kingdom of god, that altereth one of the least commandments, what shallbe said of him, that taketh away these great and weighty commandments. Cyprian wrote against those that were called Aquarij, water drinkers: which used only water in stead of wine in the ministration of the sacrament. But they offended not so much as you do. For they altered only the liquor, and that upon holy considerations. They kept the words and promises of Christ. But you take away the one part clean, and leave out the words and most comfortable promises of Christ's blood to be shed for us. If then Cyprian were so earnest against those users of water in steed of wine, how much more earnest would he have been against this manner, if it had been common in his time? Here, those places that you recite may seem to help you, and to make against us. For, where Tertullian speaketh of the paynims wife, he mentioneth bread only. And when Cyprian reporteth that the woman kept the lords body in her coffer, it may seem to be under one kind. These are but conjectures, and the same very uncertain. For oftentimes in the doctors, where one kind is mentioned, both are understanded, as after shall more appear. But to make this more probable: you allege afterward out of Ambrose the history of Satyrus his brother, that hanged the sacrament about his neck in a stole (as you call it,) when, in a shipwarke, he leapt into the sea: which must néedꝭ be inform of bread only, because neither our brain nor yours can devise, which way wine can be in such an instrument enclosed. Surely if we had not known before, that you had nothing in the ancient fathers directly to maintain your maiming of Christ's sacrament: this your conjectural gatherings and surmising reasons would most evidently declare it to be true. Would a man think that any, having the fear of God, would in so weighty matters, either ground his own conscience, or seek to confirm others by such feeble proofs and arguments? Is not this a strong reason think you? Satyrus S. Ambrose brother, in extreme danger of shipwreck, purposing to leap into the sea, took of one, that was in the ship, only the sacrament of the lords body, and tied it about his neck: therefore in the primative church in ministration of the sacrament they gave only one kind unto the laity. Though it had been here mentioned that Satyrus had, in this extremity, received one kind alone: it had been no argument to prove, that it might orderly be used in the church. But (as Ambrose signifieth) this Satyrus at that time was, but, as I might say, a novice in Christian religion, not so far instructed in the faith that he was as then admitted to the communion of the lords supper. And therefore he had not the sacrament about himself, but took it of other christian men, that were there. Which whether they were ministers or other, the place maketh no mention: but that it calleth them, Initiatos. That is, such as in the congregation were admitted to the communion. Neither is there any thing to the contrary, but that the same persons, which had the sacrament of our lords body, had also about them the sacrament of the blood, either in some convenient vessel, or else after some other fashion, as divers of simplicity upon a zeal at that time used. That is either by sokinge the sacrament of the body in the wine, or else by moystinge a linencloth in the sacrament of the blood, and so carrying it with them. For, even as I signified before, that persecution and trouble of the church at the beginning drove some to receive at home in their houses: in like manner the same troublous time, and other cases of necessity with fervency of zeal, caused men to seek other shifts also, and to do those things by simplicity upon zeal at a time, that in the common use of the sacraments they could not do according to the word of god. Therefore as some learned and holy men for the time did wink and bear with such things: so afterward other even as holy and profoundly learned did mislike and reprove the same. As for example, when men did travail any dangerous journey, and for zeal and devotion would have the sacrament with them: because they could not conveniently carry wine with them, that they might go as nigh to Christ's institution as might be, they would soak the sacrament of our Lordis body in the blood. Some other would moist a linen cloth in the sacrament of blood (as I said before) and keep it to moist with water when they would receive. Some, that either of nature could not, or for religion would not drink wine, at other times used only water. Some upon other considerations used milk for wine in the sacrament. Some were persuaded that in such cases men might use one kind. Wherefore to sick men or children they would use wine alone. But the particular cases of a few, ought not to be taken for a general rule of the holy church. Neither those things, which some did (as Cyprian termeth it) upon simplicity by sufferance, should be brought as testimonies, what the church either than did, or aught now commonly to do. For a man may well doubt whether these shifts, that men in necessity did use beside the institution of Christ, were acceptable to god or no, although divers of them might seem to proceed of a fervent zeal, and to be done of good and godly men. It appeareth in Cyprian, that many of them, that used water for wine, were godly men: and yet by zeal and simplicity did err. Therefore he saith of them in this manner. If any of our predecessors either by ignorance or simplicity did not observe and keep that, which the lord by his example and instruction did teach us to do: by good mercy his simplicity may be pardoned. But we cannot be forgiven, which be instructed & admonished by the lord to do as he did. etc. The godly and holy fathers did bear in many points with the zeal and simplicity of a number, in that tyme. Wherefore those examples cannot be brought justly to prove the common manner used in the primative church, which by manifest testimonies I will a little after declare to have be far otherwise in the same times, that these things were done. That the same things, before rehearsed, were not generally allowed, it may appear by this, that, when the church was settled, they did forbid those things, and bound them, so nigh as might be, to Christ's institution. Hereof ye have example in julius his decrees. 1. Hom. Conc. Where all the fashions before recited are expressly forbidden. We hear (saith he) that some led with schismatical ambition, in the divine mysteries do consecrate milk for wine: some serve to the people the sacrament of the body moist in the blood, as a perfit communion: other offer in the sacrament of the lords cup, the juice of grapes squished: some deep a linen cloth in the wine, and keep all the year. Therefore (saith he) henceforth it shall not be lawful for any in their sacrifice to offer any other thing, but only the cup mixed with water and wine. Gelasius also after him even as flatly forbade receiving under one kind: saying. We find that some taking a portion of the fords body refuse the cup: which, because I know not of what superstition they do it, either let them take the whole sacrament, or be kept from the whole. For the division of this mystery cannot be without great sacrilege. Here you see that Gelasius doth count it and call it sacrilege to receive under one kind: and your sort contrary to this, affirm it to be Heresy, if a man say the people should receive under both kinds of bread and wine. If you would rightly have proved your ministering to the laity in one kind: you should not have brought conjectures upon such rare chances, as may seem for the time to be borne with, rather than allowed: but you should have showed some plain and evident examples, that it was in the primative church commonly used in celebration of the sacrament. But that you were never able to do, and so was it said in the protestation, that you call the challenge. For herein the whole number of the fathers be against you. And that you may not justly say, that we brag of our empty boxes, that have the name only, and no stuff in them: I will rechearse and show you some of the matter, which shallbe directly applied to that malady and disease, that you have brought to the right use of the lords holy sacrament. You hard before rehearsed out of justine declaring the manner of the church of Rome in his time, that both bread and wine were given to companies of the town and country, and the same also sent unto those, that were absent. Here is manifestly declared, that such as were absent, and received at home in their houses, had both kinds sent unto them, contrary to your conjecture upon Tertullian, where (you say) one kind only is mentioned and therefore received. Tertullian and justine were both of the church of Rome, 
B.  and were not in time far asunder. Therefore it is like one manner was used in both their ages. The flesh (saith Tertullian himself) is fed with the body and blood, that the soul may be filled of god. He saith not only the body, wherein the blood also may be understanded: but he addeth separately the Blood. declaring the manner of Christ's sacrament ministered in two sundry parts. Cyprian also speaking not only of priests, but of other lay men, that were like to abide persecution and martyrdom for Christ, saith in this wise. How do we teach and provoke them to shed their blood in confession of Christ, if we deny them his blood. or bow make we them meet for the cup of martyrdom, if we do not first by communion admit them to drink the cup of the lord? Is not this a plain testimony, 
C.  what manner of ministration was used in Cyprians time? And will you then, upon a surmise, gather the contrary? If ye read this father in all places, where he speaketh of the sacrament: you shall find nothing more common, then, Bibi sanguinem Christi. How wisie thou (saith Ambrose to Theodosius the Emperor) with those hands receive the holy body of our lord? how wilt thou be so bold, with thy mouth to be partaker of the lords blood. This Emperor was a lay man: 
E.  neither is it likely, that he received any otherways, than the other people did at that time. And shall we think by a vain conjecture of the history of Satirus, that the custom of that time was otherwise, because your mocking head could not devise how to carry wine in a stole? and yet they of that time (as ye may perceive by dipping a linen cloth in the sacrament of the blood) had devised which way it might be done. But to our purpose. Without confusion and doubt (saith Gregory Nazienzene) eat his body and drink his blood, if thou have any desire of life in thee. And yet he speaketh to the people, Oratione. 4. in sanctum pascha. Hilarius also. li. 8. de trinitate. These things (saith he) being eaten and drunk make that we be in Christ and Christ in us. Basile de baptismo, upon these words. As often as ye shall eat. etc. What profit have those words (saith he)? That we easing and drinking may be perpetually mindful of him that died for us: and so may be instructed in the sight of god and his Christ, of necessity to keep the doctrine delivered by his Apostles. Here, beside the mention both of eating and drinking, he addeth, of necessity to keep this doctrine of the lords supper: which you in many points, without prick of conscience take upon you to altar. priests (saith. S. Hieronym upon Sophon) which make the sacrament and distribute the blood of the lord unto the people. This man was priest in Rome in Ambroses' time: and yet he signifieth, that the manner than was to minister the blood to the people. 
E.  And shall the history of Satyrus, nothing pertaining to the matter, persuade us the contrary? What can be more plain and expressly against you, then that Chrisostom hath Hom. 18. in poster. ad corinth? There he saith, that in this sacrament the priests part, is not better than the peoples. For it is not (saith he) as it was in the old law, where the priests had part and the people part: neither could the people be partaker of that was the priests. But now it is not so, for one body and one cup is indifferently offered to all. And it is notable that he saith. All be like worthy to be partakers, neither doth the inferior differ any thing at all from the priest in that matter. Why do you then (so plainly against Chrisostome) make difference of dignity between the priest and the people? Is not this, which Chrisostom speaketh against, one of the chiefest reasons, that you have for the giving of one kind to the people? But S. Paul to Timothy and Titus, declareth other causes that should make the order of ministery honourable: & not to defraud the people of one part of the sacrament. Cyprian again, in the same sermon De lapsis, that you afterward allege, and the same History, showeth, that all the company of lay men and women took the sacrament of the lords cup and drunk of it in order, one after an other. But I fear I shall seem to most men to commit much folly, in that I stand so long with authorities to prove that thing, which of itself is most manifest: that is, that in the primative church the only manner, in the common celebration of the sacrament, was, that all received under both kinds of bread and wine. saying therefore justine saith, that on sundays bread and wine consecrated were distributed to companies of the town and country, saying Gelasius calleth it sacrilege to divide the sacrament; saying Cyprian counseleth that lay men should be admitted to the communion of the lords cup, and by an History showeth that in his time they used it: saying Chrisostome affirmeth no difference to be between the priest and the people in use of this sacrament: seeing all the residue of the fathers of all countries and all ages of the primative church agree to the same, were it not more then wilful blindness not to see, that holy men at that time in celebration of the sacrament ministered both parts to the people, according to Christ's institution and the doctrine of S. Paul to the Corinth? Were it not almost desperate stubborness to persuade the contrary to ignorant people, and by libels privily spread to detain the unlearned in error? But it stood you upon to say somewhat, lest you should seem to have nothing to say. And yet in very deed it had been better for the confirmation of your doctrine to have said nothing. For then perhaps such, as of simplicity depend upon your authorities, would have thought, that you had had far better provision for your defence in so weighty matters. Which now, seeing your selender and feeble grounds, will begin, I doubt not, as they have the fear of God, to mistrust your dealing, and more diligently examine the residue of your doctrine. It is not good for them any longer to walk on other men's feet, nor to be guided by other men's eyes, but themself to see what way they go: lest their guides, either by ignorance or wilfulness, lead them into the pit of continual error.  

Of reservation.  The third point, that you gather out of these testimonies, is reservation of the sacrament: which to deny (say you) is extreme impudency. I think you have not met with any, which have flatly denied; that in the primative church divers used reservation. But it followeth not thereupon, but that a man may deny without any impudency at all, either, that we have any testimony in the word of God to justify it, or, that all the holy fathers did approve it. Or if ye will say the contrary, I will not doubt to make the crime of impudency, that you charge us withal, to rebound upon yourself. But you will say, you have witness that it was used, and that of good men, which is sufficient. Indeed it is sufficient to show, that it was then used: but it is not sufficient to prove, that it must therefore be always used: or, that all did well at that time in using of it. Oh ye will say, this is your old manner, so long as the fathers make with you, you will admit them: if they seem to be any thing against you, ye will reject their authority. 
What authority is to be attributed to the doctors.  Because, you commonly take hold here, and, through this odious report, often use to stir men's stomachs against us: before I answer your reservation, I will protest what authority we attribute unto the old fathers. This will I do not with my own words, but S. Augustine's in his epistle to Jerome. I confess that I have learned to attribute this reverence and honour only to the canonical scriptures, to believe steadfastly without controversy all, that is written in them. As for other I so read them, that, be they never so excellent in great holiness and learning: I do not therefore count it true. because they were of that opinion: but because they could persuade me, either by scripture or good reason, that it was not against the truth. Here you may object that men, of such learning, holiness, and devotion, would never have written any such thing, if they had not thought it to be agreeable with God's word. Ye sir, I think they as good men, were so persuaded: but that they did leave in writing many things, not only beside the word of God, but also against it, I think it is not unknown to you. And that other also may know it, and thereby hold us excused when we do not in all points agree unto them, I will recite some proofs thereof. Clemens Alexand. with justine and divers other taught, that Angels fell from their estate for the carnal love of earthly women.  
Which doctrine, I think, you will not say riseth of true interpretation of the scripture. The same Clement, Strom. 2. &. 6. writeth, that men's souls are transformed into Angels, and first learn a thousand years of other Angels: afterward teaching other new transformed Angels, at the length become Archangels. Which can not be sound taken out of the scriptures.  
justine, Lactantius, Iraeneus and other wrote, that good men, after the resurrection, should live a thousand years in all joy before Christ should come to judgement. And yet is that but a misunderstanding of the scripture.  
Tertullian seemeth to attribute a bodily substance to God and in divers places, De trinitate, speaketh dangerously of Christ: for which, and like things, many would have had his works counted Apócryphas. Therefore he doth not always agree with scripture. Cyprian would have Heretics to be rebaptized, and speaketh so dangerously of them that are fallen from the faith, that he might seem to give some occasion to novatians heresy. What shall we say of Origine, in whom be found so many perilous doctrines, as both I, in this place, am loath to rehearse them, and in the primative church divers great learned men would have had his books burned for the same. I could say the like of divers other, but that I fear some will maliciously gather, that I rehearse these things of purpose, so much as in me lieth, to deface the authority of the holy fathers.  
Which, God is my witness, I mean not: but only to signify, that, when we measure their doctrine by God's words, or teach not in all points as they did, we be not so much to be blamed as that men should count us, as you do, to control the doctors, and as it were to set them to school. For if God hath suffered them to err in so weighty matters as is before mentioned: (although for good cause I have omitted the greatest) it may be also, that they have taught amiss in some other lighter things, and therefore are to be read with judgement, as Augustine counseleth both in himself and in other. Notwithstanding we do greatly esteem the fathers: not only as holy men endued with singular grace of God: but also as right good witnesses and strong defenders of the chief articles of our faith, at that time, when Satan endeavoured, partly by cruelty of persecution, partly by infinite numbers of Heresies to deface and extinguish the same. Therefore who doth not much honour them, & (when truth constraineth) with reverence go from their opinion, is scantly worthy the name of a christian man. Nevertheless, I think not the contrary but, if they had seen, what abuses and superstitions would have followed upon divers things, that they either taught, or for the state of that time winked at and suffered: undoubtedly they would either have recanted those things, as Augustine did many, or else would have made a more perfect interpretation of their minds. Before the Pelagians Heresy began to be spread, S, Augustine so wrote of free will, as he seemed not to himself afterward, sufficiently and as the truth required, to express the mere grace of God. Therefore, upon occasion of that Heresy, he writeth more perfectly of that and of predestination, then either the other doctors do, or, than it is to be thought, that himself would have done, if that occasion had not been. So doubtless both he and many other would have done of divers things now in controversy: if at that time they had been brought in question. This much by the way have I spoken of my opinion in the doctors, so much as I can, to eschew the malicious report, that your sort is most ready to spread of us in this matter. Now I will return to reservation. 
Of reservation.  We deny not (as I said) that some, in that time, did use it, as it appeareth by your witness of Ciril As touching whose words by you in this place recited, 
D.  I have this much to say: that, as I know the same place is alleged of divers other, and therefore I will not plainly deny it: so, because that work of Ciril is not ertante, I have good cause to suspect it. And so much the more, for that divers of your sort have alleged out of the same doctor in his work Thesaurus, certain words for the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, which are not there to be found. This unjust fathering of your own late devised fantasies, upon the ancient doctors and writers of the church, may cause us justly to suspect the residue of your doing. But be it so, that those are Cirils own words indeed. We have for that one suspected place a number of sound testimonies, that all did not allow reservation, nor think it according to the word of God. Origine upon the .v. chap. of Leviticus. The Lord (saith he) deferred not the bread, that he gave to his disciples: saying, take and eat: neither commanded it to be kept until the morrow. The residue of his words, upon the same place, be such, as he seemeth thereupon to gather an argument, that it should not be reserved. He, that wrote the sermon De caena domini in Cyprian, saith plainly of the sacrament, Recipitur non includitur. At is received, it is not enclosed or Butte up. Isychius upon Leviticum, at large declareth how that in his time, if the ministers and people were not able to eat up so much as was consecrated, the restdue was burned, and consumed by fire, that it might not be kept until the next day. Therefore you may not force upon us to receive reservation as a thing either grounded in scripture or generally allowed by the primative church.  
What will you say to your second. Epistle of Clement bishop of Rome. Ret so many holy loves (saith he) he offered upon the altar, as may be sufficiently for the people. If so be any shall remain, let them not be kept until the morrow, but, with fear and trembling, let the ministers eat it up.  
This was a bishop of Rome, this was Peter's successor, this was (as you say) head of the church: and yet you hear his appointment and order taken expressly against reservation. If ye will not believe us, why do you not believe your own? Will you say, with your testimony of Ciril, that Origine was mad, that Isychius was mad? Or if ye be not afraid to say it of them: Will you say that Clement was mad also? Well sir, if ye will prove us impudent or mad for not receiving reservation: I trust you see, that we shall have company in our impudency and madness. But Clementꝭ Epistle presseth you hard in sole receiving and private Pass also, and signifieth that all the ministers received together with the people. For, in the words before rehearsed, he speaketh of the Pass that was used, when that Epistle was made: and yet it willeth you to prepare for the people. Why do you not follow his authority in these poinetes? You will say, as you said in the beginning, if the people be absent, and, when the sacrament is prepared, either will not or can not come to receive, Clement then sayeth not that the priest consecrating should forbear, because tother bidden guests will not come. The church (you will say) did always profess a communion, prove, out of the same history, that it were no abuse, to have boys and children to minister the sacrament commonly: because, in that extremity, Sirapions' boy delivered him the sacrament, which the priest sent. Surely in this your manner of defending private Pass, wherein you show yourself to be able to bring nothing for the maintenance thereof, but only extraordynary chanses in extremity and necessity, you do much bewray the evil use of it: and manifestly declare, yea and as it wear protestée, that in deed it is evil and without all authority or example of the primative church, if you be not bryven to it by necessity and lack of communicants. You will reply perhaps and say, by these examples it may appear that company in receyninge is not of necessity, or if it had been they would not have used the contrary. Yes sir, necessity and extremity may cause some kind of gods commandments at times to be omitted, and yet out of necessity the same commandments ought necessarily to be observed and kept. The jews were commanded on the Sabbath day to do no bodily or toiling work. Nevertheless sometimes we read, that, by necessity of there enemies constrained, they kept war and fought on the Sabbath day. Yet can you not say but that commandment was necessary. I said the like before of baptism: and the same must I say in the lords supper: that a case of necessity may perhaps for a time, altar some necessary part of it: and yet not be taken for any general rule. Therefore if ye will receive alone in your Pass, or minister under one kind: you must never do it but in extremity: otherwise your proofs help you nothing at all. Yea but in the history of Sirapion but one kind is mentioned, and reservation manifestly appeareth in that it was so ready to be boy to soak the sacrament consecrated in a liquor not consecrated: And especially if he were of your opinion in transubstantiation. This may you see by your own place, that in reservation they used often to keep both kinds: Which might well stand with the manner of that time, wherein they did every day communicare: so that the wine also might well tarry until the next day.  
The xiiii canon of Nicene council in no sense doth prouce sole receiving, 
10. Cap. Answer to the xiiii Cannon of Nicene counsel.  as you would have it seem to do. It appointeth who should minister, and in what order they should receive: first the bishop, than the priests, after the deacons, and so forth other that did communicate. This order taken by that holy counsel maketh so plainly against the manner of your private Mass, as I assure you, I marvel, that you could for shame allege it. Who seeth not by this testimony that all the ministers used commonly to receive together with the bishop being present? Here was not my lord at the high altar, and the residue of his chaplains and priests in sundry chapels celebrating by themself: but all received together deacons and all: that it might appear to be a heavenly feast or supper, and not a work or sacritice to be done of one to the behoof and benefit of a number, that stand by and look on. The council speaketh not here in this point of any extraordinary chance, as it doth in that part that you allege, but of the common ordinary manner which by the authority of the same council was appointed to be used in the church. It we had lacked testimonies for the truth against private Mass: we had been much beholding to you, for putting us in mind● of this place. I think, such as favour your assertion, will smally thank you for bringing in this council. But thanked be god, that you are driven so much and better to, you may prove, out of the same place, that priests also received but only the body and not the blood: because: it saith, Corpus christi porrigant, and mentioneth not, Sanguinem The like you shall read in many places of the old fathers, where one part only is mentioned when they speak of the priests receiving. And yet both are understanded. If you will upon this gather, that deacons used but one kind: I will infer upon the same place, that priests also used the like manner. But a reasonable man will easily conceive that in speaking of one part, both is understanded. For in the acts of the Apostles the whole celebration of the sacrament is termed breaking of bread: whereby we must not gather that Apostes used only bread in ministration of the lords supper. I marvel why you make such courtesy to recite this for a proof of one kind then used, saying the best of your collections for this matter be even of the same sort. Is not your conjecture out of Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, even in the same manner gathered? For that they seem to mention but the one part only? And yet you make such a brag upon them as you count all such to lack discretion as will not by and by without contradiction yield unto them, and acknowledge them unvincible. In deed it standeth you upon, seeing your proofs are of themself so slender, somewhat to help them with stout words: that men may be almost afraid to doubt of them. You object to us that we dalley, 
B.  when we press you with the words of Christ's institution: Accipite, manducate, bibite, dividite: and yet you will urge the words of the fathers, as though every syllable in them were in like manner to be scanned as the words of the bible, written wholly by the inspiration of the holy ghost. But in deed you declare of what authority you count Christ's words, that esteem it a dalleinge to repeat often his commandments. Did Cyprian think you, dally, when, in one Epistle, to Cecilius, he doth well néene twenty times repeat and beat upon this: that the sacrament is to he ministered in no other manner than Christ himself did use it? Did he dally when he pressed upon the matter in this wise? If in that sacrifice, that is Christ himself, none but Christ is to he followed: then must we obey and do that Christ did, and willed to be done. When as he in his gospel faith, if you do that I hid you, than I call you not servants but fuendes. And that Christ is only to be heard, his father witnesseth from heaven saying. This is my dear beloved son, him you must hear. Wherefore if only Christ is to be heard, we must not geue ear what other did before, but what Christ did before all. Neither must we follow men's custom but good truth: semge he saith by his prophet, in vain they worship me teaching men's traditions and doctrines. And again, the lord saith in the gospel, you reject my command mente for your own tradition. And in another place, he, that breaketh one of these least commandments and so teacheth, shall be called feast in the kingdom of god. If then it be not leeful to alter one of the least commandments: how much less may we alter so great and weighty commandments, as these are, so nigh touching the sacrament of the lords passion and our redemption: or to turn them to any other purpose, by man's tradition, than the lord ordained them. These are not my sayings, but word by word as they lie in that holy father: and will you say that he cavilleth or dallieth, when he this urgeth Christ's institution to be kept: and would have nothing therein to be altered for any cause, that man could devise? The matter, that he wrote against, was of no more effect, than these are of sole receiving and ministering one part of the sacrament: and yet is he so earnest, as you see, with a great number of words more to the same purpose. Think you not, they could have brought for the use of water only the examples of holy men, and also goodly considerations in appearance? full and negligent, as we neither knew the place, nor would seek to examine it: Or lastly, that of purpose you did abuse the simplicity and ignorance of them, that you conveyed your writing unto: which commonly believe all that you say without examination: and therefore do you allege for yourself, that maketh expressly against you, if the place be red: which in Cyprian is in this wise. The child being among the holy company, was not able to abide our suffrages and prayers: but the ignorant soul in the simple and young years, sometime with weeping and crying did sterile: sometime with trouble and anguish of mind tossed hither and thither: and as it were by a tourmentour constreininge it, by such means as it could, did confess the guilt of the fact, (meaning the eating of the idol offering) And, when the residue of the celebration was ended, the dearon began to offer the cup to them, that were present: and after other had received and the child's course was come: the babe, as if we are by institution of god, turned away the face, held the mouth and lips together, and refused the cup. Yet the deacon continued, and, although the infant strived against it, poured some of the sacrament of the lords blood into her mouth. Then followed ye●ing and vomiting. etc. Here were gathered together with Cyprian, not priests only but lay men, women, and Children also: and you see the cup of our lords blood was offered to all, and all drank in order without exception. Neither is hear any thing, that by conjecture can lead a man to think otherwise, but that this was the common manner then used. How than can you gather by the extraordinary chance, which you recited before out of the same Tertullian and Cyprian, that the laity then used to receive the one kind of bread only: whereas this place, brought by yourself, showeth, that, in celebration, they used the cup also. The child you say in this history received but wine only, and so one kind. That you make probable, because the child, that had received the Idol offering, was not them to say that which they never meant. In like manner you do a little after in Luther and Melancthon, saying that they count it a thing indifferent to communicate the lay people under one kind: and that a general counsel may take order in it as a thing of no necessity. Sir it had been plain and sound dealing, that you should have recited some place where they had so said: but that ye were not able to do. For any man that hath been conversant in their works, may right well judge that it is not so. I will not trouble you with looking on many places. There is a little treatise of Melancthons' entitled De usuintegri sacramenti: in which ye shall find divers arguments concluding the necessity of both kinds, and that they sin and grievously offend, that do restrain the people from one part of the sacrament. But I perceive this is your common fashion, to make Doctors & writers to speak whatsoever you would have them to speak.  
Now sir, 
12. Cap.  if ye have no better proofs and testimonies out of the holy scriptures and old fathers, than these which ye have in this your Apology alleged: I assure you, the challenge, that before was made, may justly be again repeated. And, 
A.  it may be said to you, that you have out of the scripture nor syllable nor tittle: out of the ancient doctors nor sentence nor half sentence, that doth directly prove either your private mass or communion under one kind to the laity. For all, that here you have uttered, be nothing but writhed conjectures upon cases extraordinary, and shifts of extremity, to prove a continual or general rule to be observed in the church of Christ, contrary to the example and order by himself appointed: Wherefore there is no cause, that you should so confidently conclude, as though you had profoundly been fair cloaks for them to hold their peace, where as in deed they have in these points or little or nothing to say for themself. And surely, if I had been of your sort, I would have wished, that you also had been bound in recognizance, if that would have stayed you from writing. For both your reasons and authorities by you uttered, though they seem to yourself never so strong, doth rather bewray your part, the● pithily defend it. But if you and yours had never so great store of armour, provision and furniture, as to the terror of men, you would pretend to have: yet ye should never be able to bear down the manifest truth, so evidently appearing in the words of Christ's institution, nor the witnesses of the primative church agreeing with the same. 
Answer to the argument of multitude, continuance of time. etc..  Therefore the thundering in of the authority of the holy catholic church, the prescription of xv C. years, the consent of most part of Christendom, the holiness and learning of so many godly fathers, as hath been these ix. C. years, the age and slender learning of those that stand against you, doth nothing at all either fear us or move us to suspect that doctrine, which, by Christ's authority and witness of the Apostles, we know to be true. We have been accustomed of long time to those vain voices. We see they all be either manifestly false, or at the least of small effect. These are the mists, which you have always cast before the eyes of the simple and ignorant, as it were to blind and amaze them: to the end, that either they may not see the truth; when it is brought to them: or, if they see it, to make them suspect it, when they hear that xu C. years the more part of the world have been of contrary opinion. But this is evidently false, that you say. For .600. year after Christ & more, these doctrines were never heard of in the church, much less under one kind, prohibition of marriage in priests, purgatory, the supremacy of Rome, nor a number more of your errors. Yea and at this day think and do contrary to you in those things. And will you then so falsely bear men in hand that the whole church was always of your opinion? But be it so, that the most part of christendom ix C. years hath taught as you do. Is that a sufficient argument to reject a doctrine evident by the word of god? May not all christianity be clean defaced, if such argumentis of continuance of time and multitude of persons should be rules to govern men's conscience? Might not the gentiles have alleged the like against the Apostles and their successors? Might not they have said, and said more truly than you, that the worshipping of their gods had continued, not hundreds, but thousand of years? that the whole world held with them? that the wise and profound learned Philosophers defended their doctrine? that the Apostles were but new heretics. Idiots and unlearned persons? that their doctrine came from the doting people of the jews? that the gods declared their displeasure and indignations against the new teaching of Christ, with seditions, tumults, wars, plagues, dearthes', tempestuous weatheringes, and such like? Might not the Israelites have counted great folly in the house of juda, that they would serve from them in worshipping of god: seeing they were ten parts to one? Might not the priests in the old law, yea did they not allege against the prophets, continuance of time and multitude of doctors, priests and rabbins? Were they not hundreds to one poor Micheas? Did they not the like in Christ's time? Did they not beat upon the long continuance of Moses' law: which, they said, he came to destroy? Did they not none can forsake the guiding and instruction of our holy mother the church, without manifest peril of their own souls, and such as they do lead from the church. In deed this accusation is grievous, and may not lightly be passed of me, although you stay not long upon it. This is that you fear men's consciences withal. This is it that in deed maketh many to stagger in receininge the truth: when they hear you continually beat upon the name of your holy mother the church, and in words claim that to you, which verily and in deed is not in you. For all be not the sons of Abraham, that brag and avante that they came of Abraham's stock: All be not the people of god, that say, they be the people of god: All be not Israelites, that descended of Israel: All be not Christian men in deed, that name themself Christians. I will therefore in few words declare what the church is, and how we may, if we take not good heed, be deceived by the name of the church, taking the church of Antichrist, for the true and right church of Christ.  
First, how necessary indeed it is for a christian man to believe the faith of the holy church, it may by this appear, that to be borne to everlasting life and salvation, to be made the son of God and heir of the kingdom of heaven, of necessity we must be conceived in the womb of the church of Christ, and, as it were, fostered up in her lap. For she is the mother of all those, that are the true children of God: And in her custody Christ hath left the treasure of his grace, by her ministry to be bestowed among his people. Therefore if we covitte to have entrance into the kingdom of God, and be partakers of the graces and promises of Christ, I confess we must remain in the faith of his holy church. But what is this church, or how may it be known?  

What the church is and whether it may err.  Forsooth the scripture speaketh of the church of Christ two ways. Sometime as it is indeed before God, & not known always to man's judgement. Into this church none be received, but only the children of grace and adoption, and the very members of Christ by sanctifying of the holy ghost. This church doth not comprehend only holy men and saints living on the earth, but all the elect from the beginning of the world. This church is the pillar of truth, that never continueth in error. This church is never forsaken of the spirit of God. This is the holy communion of sainctis that in our creed we profess and acknowledge. But this church, as after shall appear, doth not always flourish in sight of the world. Sometime the church is taken for the universal multitude of all those, which, being dispersed through the world, acknowledge one Christ, and, being through baptism admitted into the same, by the use of the lords supper openly profess the unity thereof in doctrine and charity. Sometime the church is taken for the multitude of those that bear rule in the church. This church is resembled to a net, which cast into the sea, bringeth up both good and bad. It is resembled to a field, that hath not only pure corn, but also Cockle, darnel, and other weeds. And as we often see, that good corn in some groundꝭ is so choked up, and over run with wédes, as the good grain may hardly be discerned, for that the wéedꝭ bear the chief rule: Even so in this church the evil and corrupted doth sometime bear down the better sort, that a man can hardly judge, which be the true members of the church, which are not. This church therefore, for the most number, may be misled, and in many things stray out of the way. This church may err, and not continually abide in pure and uncorrupt worshipping of God, as I will now with good proof farther declare unto you. God hath had this his external church from the beginning of the world, instructed by his holy word, instructed by his Patriarches and Prophets, instructed by hi● appointed law and ceremonies: and so continued till the coming of his d●●● form jesus Christ. This church he called his spouse, his tabernacle, his privy garden, his loved city, his elect and chosen vineyard. But did it always continue in flourishing estate? Did it always in like manner retain the truth of Gods morde, that it was taught in the beginning? Did it always cherish and maintain such ministers, as God sent from time to time into it, to redress and reform his law according to his holy will? In what state was this church in Nous time, when viii only were saved? In what state was it, when the ten Tribes forsook the right worshipping of God, and lest only the Tribe of juda? In what state was it afterward, when the same one Tribe of juda under divers kings sell to Idolatry? In what state was it, when Elias pitifully complained, that he only was left, and all other were departed from God? Where was the enternall face of the church at that times In what state was it when Esaias, jeremy, Ezechiel, and all the Prophets of God were persecuted & put to death. I pray you was not jury then called the people of God? Had they not at that time the law of God? Did not they use his ceremonies? Did not they brag and make their avaunt that they could not err? that the truth could not depart from the mouth of their priests and doctors? that they had the temple of God, the temple of God? Yes certainly they had even then the law of God. They had even then the sacraments and ceremonies by God appointed: or else the Prophet? would never have used their temple or compante of their prayers and ceremonies. Yet how miserably the law of God and his sacramentis were corrupted among them, it appeareth by that Esay sayeth: The silver of the people of God is iourn into dross. How they entertained the messengers, that God sent to reform his law, it is evident in this, that all the Prophets were slain among them. This external church than did err, this external church refused the truth of God's law. This external church did persecute the Prophets. And yet did not the Prophets think, that they could cast them out of his true church, or make them not true members of his people, to which the promises were made. Neither did the Prophets for that cause cease to call for a redress of the pure law and ceremonies of God, and worshipping him according to his holy word. They did not refrain to tell even those, that faib they were the chosen people of god, the elect vinyeard of God, the city and habitation of God, that they had fortaken the law of God, that they followed their own devices, that they worshipped God in vain with their owist traditions. And therefore that he would not acknowledge them any more for his people: that he would set his vinyeard open to spoil: that he would bring his own city into thraldom and captivity. After the captivity of Babylon, when the same church was restored, and his people taught by adversity to reform the law, and receive again the right worshipping of god appointed in his word it continued of many years, but that it was agayné corrupted horribly, and led far out of the way, to lowing again their own fantasies. For when Christ himself came, for whose cause God had so preserved that people, they said, that they had Moses' law, that they were the seed of Abraham, that they were the chosen people and true church of God: that he went about to take away the law and destroy the temple, and for that cause did they put him to death. In like manner did they use the Apostles▪ They reproved their doctrine as vain and fantastical: they cast them out of their synagogues as Schismatics and Heretics. Yea and, when they did this, they had in face of the world those things, wherein the church is counted to consist. They had doctrine out of the law of God. They has the ministery of the same by their Priestis and Doctors. They had the sacrament of circumcision as the covenant, whereby they were admitted as the people of God. They had the other ceremonies▪ wherein they were practised to the confirmation of the same. They had the counsels whereby the condemned Christ, wherein they condemned the Apostles and refused their doctrine. They blamed their predecessors, for that they had ●illed the Prophets: and yet they persecuted Christ and his apostles. Shall we think therefore, that the Apostles were not of the church? or rather shall we judge, that them, which have the government of the law and sarr●mentes; and to the world have the fac● and name of the church, may so foully er●e, as they may refuse the true doctrine of god's law, and persecute the ministors and setters forth of the same● There lacked not gods promises among the jews. There lacked not succession of bishops and ●●istes. There lacked not opinion of great holiness and austerity of life. There lacked ●●●t great s●il and knowledge of the law of god: And yet is it most evident that they erred: that they refused the truth, that under the name and gay show of the church, in very deed they persecuted the church. Why shall we not think that the like may bee in this time? Yea why should we not surely persuade ourselves, by the course of gods beings, and by the testimonies of holy scripture, that the like is now in this ●urtime. Our saviour christ and his Aposties have left warning abundantly, that it would he so in his churche● and especially toward the end of the should. Christ himself prophesied that desolation should stand in the holy place that is, in the church. Sain● Paul witnesseth that Antichrist should sit in the temple of god, that is, in the church. Where it is also signified, not that he should be an abject in the church but a power avainting himself above the name of god. Peter sayeth; that in the church should be masters and teachers of lies. Paul affirmeth for surety, that, in the latter days, such shall come, as shall give eat to doctrine of the devil, for bidding to marry and eat such meats, as god had created to be taken with thanken giving. These things were prophesied to come, not among Turks and Saracens, not among Infidels and Pagans, but in the temple of god, in the church of god, in the society of them that did profess Christ. We have therefore great cause to mark the working of god, by the example of the old church among the jews. We see that the Prophets were first vexed by those, that bore the name of the church, and should have most gladly received them. We see that in Christ's time and the Apostles, not the Gentiles first refused the comfortable tidings of the gospel, but they that called themself the people of god, and had among them the custody of his law and ceremonies. Even in like manner we have to think that he will do in this time, seeing ●ée hath of the same forewarned us. For even as the old law and religion of the jews was a shadow and pattern of the true religion brought in by Christ so the state and manner of that church may well resemble the state of Christ's church in the latter time: As the old church therefore to ward the ●ndedid forsake this law and right use of gods ceremonies, and, being denyeded in sundry sects, devised new worshippings according to their d●●●● fantasies: in so much that, for the mainterance thereof, they refused Christ and his Apostlis So in like manner and we justly think, that the church, after Christ toward the end of the world, shall depart from the truth of God's word, & right ministration of his sacramentis, cleautinge to their own inter pretations? & being divided in sundry sects of religion, for the defence of the sane, shall refuse and cast out of the church such, as god will send so renew the truth of his holy word and gospel. Wherefore it ought to comfort and confirm us, and cause us to think, that we be in deed in the church, rather than to fear us: seeing they, that in the pomp and glorious face of the world seem to have the government of the church, doth refuse us and take us to be none of the church. For such they were always, that from the beginning refused and oppressed the truth: Such they were, that vexed the Prophets: Such they were, that refused Christ: Such they were, that persecuted his apostles. Here perhaps some curious conscience will be pricked, and think it is not likely, that god of his great mercy would suffer his church and so great a number of people to err so many hundred years. But we must beware how by our reason of likelihodde, we enter into god's judgement and unscrutable providence. We must think of him, as the court of his doings showeth us, We must think of him, as his holy word teacheth us. We must not think of him, as our so●de reason will lead us. Is it not marvelous, think you, and to our judgement unscrutable, that thousands of years he suffered all the nation●● of the earth to be ●●selled in: Pola●●y, and opened his knowledge to only one little people of the jews? Is it not marvelous, that, of twelve parts of that one people, he suffered ten and a halse to forsake him at one time: yea & that one part, that remained, not a fold times clean to give ovel: the trus worshipping of god: so that in those days he might scant séente to have any true church upon the whole face of that earth. Be not these things beyond the likelyhoddes of man's feeble reason? Nay ●●●e not say with S. Paul, O vnscru●●sse and bottomless deepness of his diu●●●e judgement, and leave to seek what is likely in his ddinges? The jews were his chosen people, from which the sausour of the world● should rise▪ They had among them his law a●●● ceremonies, his abundant promises and sacraments. They had his tabernacle, out of the which he, as present, spoke unto them. If then the deepness of god's judgement were such toward them, that he suffered them so oft and so long to go astray: and sense Christ's time most miserably. 1560. years hath scattered them upon the earth: may 〈◊〉 not fear the like also among us in this latter time? Doth not S. Paul put us in fear, that, if god did break away the natural branches of the Olive, he would also, if cause were given, cut of those, that were but graffed on beside nature: Doth not Christ in the gospel forewarn us, that in the latter days should be such mischief and blindness in the church: that even the elect should be in danger to be seduced? And shall we then hope at that time to seacute; e the true church in so triumphant glory of the world, as it shall make even the greatest Emperors and Princes of the earth in world, might & power subject unto it? Truly that agreeth not with Christ's prephecie, nor the warnings of the apostles, wherein they tell us of the great danger, that shall happen in the church, toward the end of the world▪ That it may not be thought to be my evely fantasy that the adversary of Christ shall in the latter days sit in the church, and bear the face of religion: Hear you what Hylarie saith; Conrra Auxentiu●●n. In whose time the Arrians, by the furtherance of the Emperor, and a number of Bishops, took on them the name of the Catholics, and persecuted the true christian church. Ye do ill (saith he) to be infout with walls: ye do ill to worship the church of God in gay honfes and buildings: ye do ill to bring the name of peace under them. Us it not certain that Antichrist shall sit in them & Mountains, woods, marrice●, prison's, denne● are more safe for me. For in those the Prophets, either vosuntarely abiding, or cast thither by violence, did prophesy by the spirit of god. How could a man more plainly declare that the true church both than was and after should be vexed and persecuted by those, that, in sight and power of external government, were taken for the church. At is notable also that Augustine hath Decivit. dei. lib. 20. speaking of antichrist, Rectius putant etiam latine dici sicut in graeco est: non in templo, sed in templum dei sedeat, ●●nq ipse sit templum dei, quod est ecclesia. Some think it were better spoken in Latin as it is in the Gre●e, as to say, that A●●ithriste sho●th sit, not in th● temple of God, but as the temple of God: a● though himself were the temple of God▪ which is the church. What bernard did think of the church in his time above 400. years ago, it appeareth in vivers places. There is no sound part now (faith he) in the clergy: it remaineth therefore that the man of sin be revealed. And in an other place. All my friends ut now become my foes, all my mainteinere ●●e now become aduetsari●●▪ The 〈◊〉 of Christ ●o service so Antichrist. If I should preite out of authors, and Histories all such testimonies as serveth to this purpose, I should be a great deal longer than this place requireth. I will therefore at this time omit them. Setting therefore it doth evidently appear; that in the latter time they shall bear the name of the church, which in deed be not the right church? we must book diligently that we geue not over to every power that will claim the name of the church, but consider, whither the true mark of the holy church be among them. 
What is the true mark of Christ's church.  Christ the true pastor, noting which were his sheep, faseth, 〈◊〉 sheep will here my voice. And as by his word and voice he calleth them into his fold, so by his sacraments there he marketh them. The right church therefore as the fold of Christ hath the true word of God and use of his sacraments according to the same, for the due marks thereof. So much then, as the word of God and use of the sacraments be corrupted among ady people, or congregation, so far shall that company be from the share of the true and perfect church of Christ.  
Therefore it is easy to judge what is to be thought of them that leave the word of God, and worship him well near altogether with their own devised fantasies. That the scripture, which is the voice and word of God, is the true trial of the church, we have good authority in the ancient fathers. S. Augustine contra Petilianun. cap. 2. The controversy is between ve● the Donatiste● (saith he) where the church is. Therefore what shall we dot? shall we seek if in our own words, or in the words of out ford jesus Christ the head thereof? & think we ought rather to seek it in his words, that is truth, and best knoweth high body. Therefore they be not to be counted the church; that with their own words will sand they he the church: but they whose doctrine ●●●réeth with the word of Christ that is head of the church. In like manner hath Chrisostome in Mat. cap. 14. wherefore (saith he) in this th●● off chaif●ou● men ought to resort to the se●●●● ture●, because in this time since theresy is come into the churches, there can be no other proof of true christianity, nor any other refuge for christian men desiring to know the tune faith, but only the holy for ipture●: for before it was she wed by many means which was the church of Christ, which was gentility. But now to them that will know, which is the right church of Christ, there is no means but only by the scriptures. S. Augustine hath the like in many words in the. 16. cap. contra epistolam Periliani, which I let pass here for breviries sake. The place beginneth in this wise, Vtrum Donatistae ecclesiam teneant, non nisi divinatu scripturarum canonicis libris ostendant. Quianee nos, ppterea dicimus nobis credere oportere quod in ecclesia Christ sumus. etc. Wherefore a Christian conscience, that in this dangerous time will walk safely, must take the word of god to be his only state: must ●ake the holy scripture to be as well the rule whereby his shall measure the true pattern of the church, as the very touchstone whereby he must try all the doctrine of the same. For god in time passed spoke by his prophets many and sundry ways, but last of all by his dear son. Whose doctrine, how perfit it was, the woman of Samaria witnesseth saying. When Messiah cometh he shall tel●● all things. And the same Messiah himself saith I have made known to you all that I have heard of my father. And therefore sending his Apostles he saith. Teach them to observe all that I have commanded. As if he had said, ye shall declare unto the gentiles not whatsoever shall seem good to yourself, but those things that I have commanded you. Those things therefore are to be hard, those things we must stay upon: In those we must seek our salvation and life. What soever is not agreeing with them, must be cast of and counted of no force. So saith Origine. We must needs call the holy scriptures to witness. 
In Hierem. Hom. 1.  For our senses and declarations without those witnesses have no credit. So saith Hierom. That hath not authority in the scripture, in even as lighily contenmed, as it is spoken, And again in psal. 86. Consider what he saith. Which were in it, not which be in it. So that, except the Apostles, whatsoever should be spoken afterward, let it be cut of: let it not have authority. Therefore be one never so holy after the Apostles, be he never so eloquent, he hath not authority. Because the lord will make his declaration in the writing of people and princes that were in it. In that place Jerome at large declareth that the doctrine of god must be proved by such writings as were in the church until the Apostles time, and those that after followed to be of no sufficient authority, were they never so holy. Let us stay therefore upon the canonical scriptures and holy word of god. For (saith S. Cyprian) Hereof arise schisms, because we sel●e not to the head, nor have recourse to the springe, nor keep the commandments of the heavenly master. Let he ask Peter (saith Ambrose) let us ask Paul if we will find out the truth And Christ himself biddeth us search the scriptures and not presume of our own spirit upon unwritten verities beside the word, of god. What credit is to be given to those that so speak, Chrisostome teacheth us. As Christ (saith he) when he understood that they said commonly of him that he was a deceiver, to purge himself of that suspicion witnessed that he spoke not of himself, because he spoke out of the law and prophets: even so if any man saying that he hath the holy ghost speaketh of himself and not out of the gospele, we must not believe him, For as Christ said the holy ghost shall not speak of himself, but shall declare unto you those things that it hath heard. That is those things, that I have spoken, he shall confirm. These words of Chrisostome clean overthroweth the ground of all your unwritten verities beside the word of god, much more such doctrines as be expressly against the same, as is your sole receiving and communion under one kind. Wherefore neither your multitude of sundry nations, and great learned clerks, neither the continuance of ix C. years (if it were so,) neither the name of your holy mother the church, which you so often repeat, can be any sure proof of your doctrines without the express testimonies of the scripture to witness the same. For the holy ghost, which you assure your church of, doth not speak of himself (saith Chrisostom) but confirmeth that Christ spoke before. After that you have at your pleasure in sundry parts of your treatise charged him that you writ against with folly, rashness, arrogancy, and impudence, even in those points that the same crimes may be more justly returned to yourself and yours: in this place also you endeavour to debase and imminishe his estimation, extenuating his age, continuance in study of holy scripture and manner of life, in comparison of your late holy fathers, which you do greatly extol. Such is your shifts, when the matter will not help itself, to transfer your talk to the persons, & by scornful disdaining of other to procure yourself authority. What your opinion is of him, your writing declareth: but they, which have been of longer and better acquaintance with him than you are, do right well know, and in his behalf do protest, that twenty years sense he was able fully to have answered stronger argumentis for these matters, than any that you have brought at this time. But whatsoever he is to you, god be praised in him, he so liveth, as the most malicious of your part cannot justly blame him: and his learnings is such, as, when the matter shallbe tried, I doubt not, but it will fall out, that he with his xl years age, and such other, whom in like manner you disdain, shall show more true divinity, than a many of your hoar heads and great reading clerks, as you think: whose authority and name alone ye judge sufficient to bear down whatsoever shall be brought against them.  
Toward the end you show your opinion of real presence of Christ's 
13. Cap. Of real presence.  body in the sacrament, and in that part blame us, as though we had more acquainted ourself with Ishmael and Agar (as you say) then with Abraham and Isaac: thereby signifying that we misdoubted the almighty power of god in bringing that to pass, which he promiseth or speaketh in the institution of his sacraments. But I must needs judge this to be in you, either ignorant blindness, or hateful malice. Blindness, if you do not understand and see; that in this controversy we stay not upon god's omnipotency: malice, if you know it and upbraid us with the contrary. We grant as freely as you with Abraham and Isaac; That god is able to perform whatsoever he both promise. We grant as freely as you with the Angel, Th●● no word it 〈…〉 to god. We grant as freely as you with David, That god hath done whatsoever his 〈…〉 We grant with the holy fathers, that 〈◊〉 great and marvelous mutation and change is made in this sacrament by the power of good word. We detest even as much as you all such, as see no more but common bread or a bare sign in this holy supper: neither can we think well of you, when you do so falsely charge us with that assertion. But how can you show, that it was gods holy will to have so many miracles wrought, as you without necessity do make in this sacrament? Yea and of such sort as be contrary to the manner of all those miracles, that the holy scrinture mentioneth to be wrought by his divine power. Moses' turned his rod into a serpent: but all that were present saw that it was a serpent. He made water miraculously to come out of the rock: but all the children of Israel saw and tasted of the water. Christ turned water into wine: but all the company drank and felt it to be wine. The same is to be said of all the residue of marvelous works. And when gods power had miraculously turned these things, that, into the which they were turned, reserved and kept that nature, that was agreeable to such a thing. The serpent had the very nature of a serpent: the water was of such nature, as it behoved water to be: the wins lost not the right nature of wins. Otherwise it may seem rather a iudglinge then miraculous working. You never read in all the course of the scripture, that gods power turned the substance of any thing, and left the qualities of the other thing that it was before: saving only in this case that you imagine it. God is able to turn darkness into light, and light into darkness but it were madness to require at gods almighty power to make light, and not to have a shining, that is, to make light, to be light and not to be light all at ones: or to make light & darkness all one. This were nothing but to pervert the order of god's wisdom. Do you not this in the sacrament, when you appoint the body of Christ to be without quantity, proportion and figure, or to be in a thousand places at one's: which is proper only to his divinity? Is not this to take away the nature of a body from his body, and in deed to affirm it to be no body? And yet we say not, but that god is able to work that also, if it be his pleasure. But we say it was not gods will and pleasure in ordaining the sacrament to have it so. For neither is there any necessity, that should constrain him to it: nor doth his word teach us, that over he did the like. Oh ye will say we must believe Christ's words, This is my body, which be of as great power now, as they were in the parlour at Hierusalent, to make the very body of Christ really and carnaly present: and so the Catholic church (say you) doth teach us. Wherefore upon this verity once settled, divers other things must of necessity follow by drift of reason, although they be not expressly mentioned in scripture: as the adoration of the sacrament, the turning of the substance of bread and wine, the being of Christ's body in many places at on●●. etc. In deed in such is the vanity of man's reason in gods holy mysteries. For when it is once departed from the true sense of god's word, it draweth in, as it were by links, a number of other absudities: none of which can have any profft in scripture, seeing the first root of them came not out of the true sense of scripture. Even so, when you had devised and given to Christ's words another sense, than the meaning of them doth import, no marvel, if the same reason do lead you to a multitude of other doctrines, not only beside the word of god, but expressly against it. Whether that interprefation, that you make upon these words, do more agree with the scripture and ground of our faith, then that which we teach: any indifferent man, that is not contentiously bent to the one part or to the t'other, may easily discern. Your sense is, when Christ saith. This is my body, that the natural substance of the bread, which Christ took, was turned into the natural substance of the very body, that Christ died in: notwithstanding that the colour, taste, form, and power to norishe; that were before in the substance of bread, doth still remanyn●▪ And yet under those qualities and accidences of bread; is really contained the natural body of Christ, having neither bigness, nor any proportion or sensible quality rightly appertaining to such a body. To express this your meaning, you use to say, that the bread is transsubstantiate into the body of Christ. In what tongue or language was it ever seen: In what author was it ever red that Sun●, es, fui, the verb substantive might be iuterpreted by transsubstantiare? Or if the propriety of the word will not in any wise admit that sense: what one sentence or clause have you in all the course of the bible, that under the like words can receive the like interpretation: Or what prouses can you bring by conference of other places of the scripture, that these ●●●des in this place ought of necessity in this manner to be interpreted. If neither the propriety of the tongue can bear the sense, nor you can bring any examples or prouses out of the word● of god, where upon men in so weightis a matter may stay their consciences is it not extreme cruelty in you, under pain of damnasion to compel them to believe it? Here you will burden us with the authority of the holy catholic church: which, as you say, hath always received & allowed that interpretation. Unto this I answer, that the catholic church of Christ never generally received the meaning of any sentence, but that they gathered the same, either by examples of the like, or else by grounded reasons, taken out of the scripture, declared, that of necessity it must be so understanded. This rule was appointed to the church by Christ and his Apostles: who in their doubts willed men, Serutari scripturas, to search the scriptures. Therefore when the church decreed against the Arrians and other Heretics, that in this sentence, In principio erat verbum, the word was in the beginning, that Verbum was to be taken for the person of the son of God: Or when they decreed, that the son was eiusdem substantie cum patre, of the same substance with the father: they stayed not only upon their own consent and authority: but brought a great number of prouses out of the scripture, that it must of necessity be so taken: as it appeareth in cyril and other of the holy fathers. Now than if this, that you defend, be the judgement of the catholic church it hath undoubtedly good proof in the scripture: or if you can bring for it no such testimony out of the word of god, it is evident that you do wrongfully father this interpretation upon the holy catholic church, and under the covert of that name you do promote & set forth your own error. And this much for your opinion. On the other part, when we interpret Christ's words: we say it is a figurative speech, and such as the holy ghost often useth in the institution of sacraments and ceremonies, or in the deseriving of other mysteries. The figure is named Metonymia: when the name of the thing is given unto the sign. When these words therefore be laid unto us, This is my body, we say it is most true. But mystically, sacramentally, figuratively, not really and according to the natural substance. For this interpretation we have a number of examples out of the canonical scriptures. God, speaking of circumcision, saith: This is my covenant. And yet was circumcision not the covenant indeed, but the sign & testimony, whereby they were assured to be the people of God and partakers of his promises. The Paschale lamb is called the passover: and yet was it but a testimony and remembrance of the great benefit of God, in passing his plague from them. This is the victory, saith S. Paul, that overcome the world, even your faith: And yet is not our faith the victory itself, but the instrument or means whereby the victory is gotten. In like manner divers other places: As, I am a vine: God is a consuming fire: The seven kine be seven years: And that S. Paul hath to the Corinth's. Petracrat Christus: The rock was Christ. And yet was not the rock Christ himself really: unless ye will take it, as he there doth indeed, for the spiritual rock. For that spiritual rock was Christ himself verily and indeed, not only in a mystery or signification. So in the lords supper, if you take bread for spiritual bread, as Christ doth in the vi of john: I will say with you, that it is really and essentially the very true body of Christ itself, and not only mystically. If we had not these many examples with a great number me in the holy scripture to justify our manner of interpretation: yet the very words, which the spirit of God by singular providence hath used in the Evangelist and S. Paul, doth manifestly lead us unto this sense, rather than to that you have devised. For in the second part of the sacrament, where Math. and Mark say: This is my blood of the new Testament. That, Luke and Paul utter in this manner: This is the new Testament in my blood. Which can not be otherwise understand, but that this sacrament is a testimony or pledge of his last will and gift of our salvation confirmed by his most precious blood. Wherefore if you say never so often times with Math. and Mark, This is my body: This is my blood: we will repeat as often with Luke and Paul, who were led with the same spirit, This is the new Testament in my body and blood.  
This interpretation and meaning of Christ's words, which we gather by conference with other places of holy scripture, is confirmed also by the consent of the ancient fathers in many places. Whose testimonies I will recite more copiously: partly, because you seem to signify, that they altogether make for you in this matter: partly, that all men may see how unjustly your sort do term us Figuratores, because we interpret that sentence by a figure, whereas it is not our devise, but the exposition of all the ancient fathers of the primative church. First I will begin with Augustine contra Adimantum cap. 12. There it appeareth that Adimantus used Moses' words, Sanguis est anima, trumake this sonde argument. ●loud is the ●●oule, saith Moses, 〈◊〉 flesh and blood (saith Paul) shall not possess the kingdom of God. Therefore the soul shall not possess the kingdom of God. Augu●tnes answer to that argument is; that this sentence Sanguis est anima, must be understanded figuratively, and not literally, as he in that argument took it. To prove that, he useth these words of Christ, Hoc est corrusmeum. saying in this wise. Possum interpre●● illud praeceptum in signo positum esse. Non enim dubitavit dominus dicere, hoc est corpus meum, cum daret signum corporis sui. I may (saith Austin) interzete that precept to consist in a sign or figure. For the lord bonbted not to say, This is my body, when he gave the sign of his body. As if he had said, in a far greater matter than this, that is, in instituting the sacrament of his death and our redemption, the lord doubted: not to use a figure, and to say, this is my body, when be gave the sign of his body. Therefore this sentence, ●loud is the soul, man sooner be interpreted figuratively. So that the meaning of it is, that blood is the sign of the soul or life, and not the very soul in deed. The same Augustine in his exposition upon the thirds psalm. judam (inquit) adhibuit ad conuivium, in quo corporis & sanguinis sui figuram discipulis suis commendavit. He admitted judas to that feast, wherein he commended to his disciples the figure of his Body and blood. The same exposition Tertullian maketh most evidently in his forth book against Martion. Panem (inquit) acceptum & distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit: Hoc est corpus meum dicendo: Hoc est, figura corporis mei. Christ (saith Tertullian) made that bread, that he took in his hands, and gave to his disciples, his body saying, this is my body: that is to say, the sign of my body.  
What can be plainer than this exposition of this ancient father, if men did not study rather to maintain parts, then to confirm truth. His purpose was there to prove against Martion that Christ had a true body in deeds because in the sacrament he ordained the sign or figure of his body, and therefore afterward he addeth. Figura autem non esset, nisi veritatis esset corpus. That should not be a figure of his Body, unless he had a very true body in deed. Augustine again in. 23. Epistle to Bonifacius. Si (inquit) sacramenta similitudinem quandam earum rerum, quarum sunt sacramenta, non haberent, omnino sacramenta non essent. Ex hac autem similitudine plerumque rerum ipsarum nomina sortiuntur. Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est: & sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est, ita sacramentum fidei, sides est, And a little after. Sicut de ipso Baptismo Apostolus, Consepulti (inquit) sumus Christo per baptismum in mortem. Non ait, sepulturam significamus, sed pror sus (inquit) consepulti sumus. Sacramentum ergo tantae rei, non nisi eiusdem rei vocabulo nuncupavit. If sacraments had not a certain similitude of those things, where of they be sacraments, they should not be sacraments at all. And for this similitude or likeness they commonly have the names of the things themself. Therefore as the sacrament of Christ's body after a certain fashion is Christ's body: and the sacrament of his blood is his blood: so the sacrament of faith is faith. etc. As the Apostle speaketh of Baptism: We be buried (saith he) in death to Christ by baptism. He faith not, we signify burial, but plainly, we be buried. Therefore he doth nothing else but term the sacrament of so great a thing, by the name of the thing itself. Saint Augustine's meaning is to declare to Bonifacius, that Baptism might be called by the name of faith, and that therefore the infant baptized might be truly affirmed to believe, or to have faith, because it had Baptism the sacrament of faith. This he proveth by comparison with the sacrament of Christ's body and blood: Which, for a similitude or likeness, he saith is called the body and blood of Christ, & that after a certain fashion: adding, that Baptism in like manner is faith. And yet no man will be so unwise to say, that Baptism is faith in deed really. Wherefore the like is to be judged of the sacrament of the lords body, whereby. S. Augustine proveth it.  
This also is diligently to be noted that Augustine saith, all sacraments generally be uttered by name of the things themself, because of a certain similitude or likeness: & therefore Paul saith not we signify our burial, but we be buried: calling the sacrament by the name of that thing, as Austin saith. Again, in Libro sententiarum prosperi, as it is recited in the decrees De consecratione distine. 2. cap. Hoc est. The same father hath these words. Coelestis panis, qui est caro Christi, suo modo nom inatur corpus Christi: cum revera sit sacramentum corporis Christi. Vocaturque ipsa immolatio carnis, quae sacerdotis manibus fit, Christi passio, mors, crucifixio, non rei veritate sed significant misterio. The heavenly bread, which is the flesh of Christ, after a fashion is named the body of Christ: where as in deed it is but the sacrament of his body. And the offering of the flesh, which is done with the priests hands, is called the passion, the death, the crucifying of Christ, not in verity of the thing, but in a signifying mystery. The gloze in expounding these words of Augustine, saith, this. Caeleste sacramentum, quod vere repraesentat Christi carnem dicitur corpus Christi, sed improprie: unde dicitur: suo modo: &, non rei veritate, sed significant misterio.  sit sensus: vocatur corpus Christi, id est, significat. It is called the body of Christ, (saith he) that is to say, it signifieth the body of Christ. To this I will add Chrisostome, Operis imperfecti Homil. 11. Si, inquit, vasa sanctificata transferre ad privatos usus peceatum est, in quibus non est verum corpus Christi, sed misterium corporis Christi continetur, quanto magis vasa corporis nostri. etc. If (saith he) it be sin to transfer holy vessels unto private uses, in which is not the true body of Christ, but that mystery of his body is contained: how much less should we. etc. What can more plainly declare the figurative sense of those words of christ, hoc est corpus meum then that Chrisostome saith, in which vessels is not the very body, but the mystery of it. For if those words were literally to be understanded (as you say) then should the holy vessels that contain the sacraments have in them, not only the mystery of Christ's body and blood, but his very body really in deed. Which Chrisostome denieth. In the. 83. Homil. upon Matthew the same doctor saith. Si mortuus jesus non est, cuius simbolum aut signum hoc sacrificium est. If Christ be not dead: of whom is this sacrifice a figure and sign? And upon the. 22. psalm.  quotidie in similitudinem corporis & sanguinis Christi, panem & vinum secundum ordinem Melchisedech nobis ostenderet in sacramento. That he might daily show us in the sacrament bread and wine according to the order of Melchisedech, as the similitude of his body and blood. As before he used Symbolum, signum, misterium: so he hath here, Similitudinem. Likewise. Dionysius de ecclesiastica Hierarchia: cap. 3. Per venerabilia signa Christus signatur & sumitur. By those reverent signs Christ is signified and received. Ambrose also, De hijs qui imciantur misterijs. cap. 9 Ipse clamat dominus jesus, Hoc est corpus meum. Ante benedictionem verborum caelestium alia species nominatur, Post consecrationem corpus Christi significatur. Our Lord jesus crieth, this is my body. Before the blessing of the heavenly words one kind is named: after consecratione Christ's body is signified, In the. 4. book also, De sacramentis. cap.▪ 8 The same Ambrose saith. Fac nobis hanc oblationem ascriptam, rationabilem, acceptabilem, quod est figura corporis & sanguinis domini nostri jesu Christi. Make to us this offering allowable, reasonable, acceptable, which is the figure of the body and blood of our lord jesus Christ. Here he acknowledgeth the sacrament to be a figure. In the. 6. book De sacramentis. cap. 1. He hath these words also. Ideo in similitudinem quidem accipis sacramentum, sed verae naturae gratiam virtutemque assequeris Therefore thou receivest the sacrament as a similitude, but thou atteinest the grace and virtue of the true nature in deed. This sentence of Ambrose containeth our whole doctrine of the sacrament of Christ's body and blood: which is, that it is a figure or sign of his body: and yet not a bare or naked figure, but such a one, as there by we attain in deed the full grace and benefit of his body: that suffered for us and was crucified upon the cross, and have our souls fed and nourished with the same to everlasting life. Origine upon Matthew saith. Panis sanctificatus juxta id, quod habet materiale, in ventrem abit, & in sesessum encitur. etc. The sanctified bread (saith he) according to that it hath material, passeth into the belly, and is avoided out of the body. But according to the prayer, that cometh to it, it is profitable: making that the mind understandeth and hath regard to that is profitable. Neither is it the matter of the bread, but the word spoken over it, that profiteth him, which receiveth it not unworthily. And thus much have I spoken of the typical and figurative body. Much also may be said of the lively word itself, which was made flesh and very meat in deed: which meat, he that eateth shall surely live for ever: which no ill man can eat. etc. Here note you, first, that Origine saith that the matter of the consecrated bread of the sacrament passeth into the belly and is avoided out, expressly against your interpretation of Christ's words, whereby ye say the bread is transsubstantiate, and no matter of it left but only accidencies. Secondly that he calleth the sacrament, Typicum & symbolicum corpus, the typical and figurative body. thirdly that he affirmeth constantly, that no ill man can eat the very flesh of the second person in Trinity. And yet that is one of the necessary labels that your sort doth teach to depend upon your wrongful interpretation of Christ's words. Wherefore Origine with this one sentence teareth of divers of your counterfeited Labels, that you stitch to Christ's testaments by drift of reason, without the warrant of his holy word. More over Austin de doctrina Christ. lib. 3. cap. 9 After he hath declared, that in the new Testament God hath left unto his people but few sacraments and ceremontes, and the same to be understand not carnally & servilely according to the letter: and there for example hath mentioned baptism and the celebration of the lords body and blood: in the end he addeth these words. In which (saith he) as, is follow the letter, and to take the sygure for those things, that are signified by them, in a poincie of servile infirmity: so, to interpret the signs evil, is the poincie of wandering erron●. As he counteth it a fond and wicked error not to interpret the sigkes well and according to God's word: so, by a straight literal sense, to take the signs for the things signified, he esteemeth a servile infirmity. What can be more plainly spoken against that interpretation that you make upon these words of Christ: whereby you do bind us to a servile & literal sense of this word, Is, and in such fort take the signs of this sacrament for the things signified, as you affirm bread and wine (which S. Augustine and the other Doctors call the external signs) clean to be turned into the body & blood of Christ.  
The same Augustine contra Adimanrum Manich. The Lord faith, this is my booby, when he gave the sign of his body. Also upon the. 98. psal. he speaketh in this manner. Ye shall not eat that body, that you see, not ye shall not drink that blood, that they shall shed. It is a mystery, that I tell you, which shall relive you, if you understand it spiritually. Will you not yet understand, from whence our men received this interpretation? will you not yet perceive, that we sucked not it out of our own singers, but were led unto it by the testimonies of holy scriptures and teaching of these ancient fathers? Will you not cease unjustly to bourden us, that we cavil and dally upon titles and syllables: whereas yourself in this sentence would drive us to such an understanding of this one syllable, Is, as the like is not in the whole Bible? But ye will allege for yourself, as you signify in you writing, that Ambrose, Cyprian, Chrisostome, and other ancient fathers have in this case used the terms of transmutation, alteration, conversion, transelementation. etc. Whereby they have plainly declared their meaning to be as yours is: and that no bread there remaineth, but only the substance of Christ's body. True it is in deed, that those holy fathers used such words, not for that they were of your opinion, but only to th'end they might more reverently, as meet was, and more lively express the dignity and effect of that heavenly mystery: wherein jesus Christ, by his unfallible promiss, unfeignedly giveth to the faith of his people the very fruition of his body and blood, with the hole benefit of his precious death and passion: and, by the working of the holy ghost, marvelously joineth us in one body together with him. Is not this think you a marvelous change and to man's estimation a miraculous work: when by the power of the holy ghost & word of god, of comen bread and wine, such as we daily feed our bodies with, is made the dreadful and reverent sacraments and mysteries of jesus Christ: whereby (as I said) he doth, not by a bare sign only, but verily and in deed, endow is faithful people, and make them partakers of his body and blood? Yea and that in such sort, that even as truly as the bread doth nourish our body: and even as truly as the wine doth comfort our spiritis: so truly and unfeignedly doth the heavenly food of his body and blood torn and shed for us, by in time of that holy supper, no ryshe, strengthen, and comfort our soul: and, by the wonderful working of his spirit, make our bodies also apt to resurrection. Truly when I earnestly consider the effect of this sacrament, as it must needs be by the truth of Christ's promises, I confess I am not able with words to utter so much, as in my mind I do conceive, and together withal eschew the absurdity of your real presence and transsubstantion. Wherefore I marvel not if those holy father's fearing no such inconveniences, but looking rather pithily to express the thing, did use those earnest words and manners of speaking: and yet mente not as you now of their words do gather. All though no similitude can sufficiently declare the thing: I will, for the simplar forte, so much as I can, endeavour by a comparison to set for thee, that I do conceive. If a temporal prince, for certain causes moving him, would give you a thousand pound land by the year, and for that purpose had caused the writings to be made: The same writing, until it be confirmed by the prince, is nothing but common parchment and ink framed into letters by some inferior man's hand, neither doth it bring any effect: but when the prince hath once added to his seal, & confirmed the grant, it is no more called parchment or common writing, but the kings letters patents. And now hath that reverence, that all to whom they be showed, do veil there bonetes, as bringing with it some part of the prince's majesty. Such a change is now made in those trifling things, that before no man esteemed. You also, to whom this land should be given, would not think this writing common parchment blotted with ink, but the perfit deed of your prince: whereby you were assuredly possessed of the foresaid lands. Moreover, when the prince, at the delivery of the same, should say: sir, here is a thousand pound land that I give freely to you and to your heirs. I think you would not be so fond to think, either that the Prince doth mock you: because you see not the lands presently, or else to conceive with yourself, that you have the lands really enclosed within the compass of your writing. For the kings authority, in the writing, giveth you as full possession of the lands, as though you held them, if it were possible, in your hand. And you in this case might justly say to your friend, showing your letters patents: Lo, here is a thousand pound land, that my prince hath given me. If then there be so great a change made in framing the covenant & deed of an earthly prince: If his seal do bring such force & effect to his gift and letters patents: How much more marvelous change, alteration, or transmutation must we think it to be: when the base creatures of bread and wine be consecrated into the sacrament of the everlasting covenant and testament of jesus Christ: wherein he giveth us, not earthly vanities, but the precious food of his body and blood, remission of sins, and the heritage of his heavenly kingdom? how much more of effect must this sacrament be, that is sealed with the promiss and words of our saviour Christ: who is truth itself, and cannot deceive any, that trusteth in him? Wherefore, to express this change of the external elements into so heavenly mysteries: to show the effect of this sacrament: to withdraw the ignorant minds of the people from the profane cogitation of a bare sign in this matter, the ancient fathers had good cause to use such words. And yet therein do they nothing at all defend your miraculous works, that you devise to be made in the lords supper. As for the similitude, wherewith you would declare the necessity of your Labels, depending upon the first founded absurdity, it is both of as small force as other, that you before used: and you handle it with more sluttish eloquence, then is meet for such a matter as this is. For the drawing of the Capons, the scumming of the pot, the stinking water, the hewing of wood, the putting on the brooch with guts, garbage and al. etc. Be phrases and terms more meet for the kitchinne, then for the divinity school, and such as yourself, I think, would not have used, if your mocking spirit had not so ravished you, as you witted not what you did. If we had resembled your Labels, which you cut out by drift of reason, unto so base matters: you would have said that we had railed, and done otherwise then it became us. But since yourself doth so take them, we must think, that God oftentimes moveth his adversaries to utter truth against themselves. But if the same master, that you imagine to command his servant to make ready, that he may dine, did mean only that he should set upon the table such cold meat, as was in the house, because he saw no cause or necessity of greater provision: And the servant, upon his own foolish head, would mistake his masters commandment, & conceiving that he would have great strangers, did kill his Capons, Chickens, and other provision about his house, and busied himself, with more labour than thank, to make them ready: Do you not think, I pray you, that he might justly be counted an unprofitable servant and worthy by correction to be taught more wit, for that he putteth his master to greater chargies, and himself to more pains then the matter required: if he had rightly understanded his masters will and commandment? Even so sir those things, that you say followeth by force of reason and argument upon the first sentence, do follow indeed only upon that sense, that yourself doth imagine mistaking your masters will and pleasure, and not upon that meaning that Christ himself would have his words to be taken in. For all that he would have done may be sufficiently done without the working of so many miracles, as you in this case would drive his omnipotency unto. Wherefore we are not so much to be blamed for mistrusting the almighty power of God, which we confess to be in all things, that his pleasure is to have it shown, as you are for presuming upon the same to have miracles wrought beside his will and without necessity.  
For by the means of your manifold miracles without the express word of God, whereupon men's faith in such matters should be grounded, you make that sacrament a torment to try men's weak and feeble consciences: which Christ ordained to be a comfortable and spiritual feeding, to increase and strengthen the consciences of christian people. This have I thought good to answer your defence of private Mass: and, as a champion not meet to match with any great clerk, yet in such sort as I could, to resist your assault, that you make upon the foresaid protestation, not as good David valiantly assaulted Goliath in defence of his Prince and country: but as amorous Paris traitorously shot at Achilles in the behalf of his love Helena. For neither is it Goliath that you fight against in his bravery, as you say, bragging against the people of God, but rather Achilles manfully revenging the incest committed with the spouse of Christ, which with your amorous cuppꝭ you have alured from him: nor yet do you come stoutly as David did in the name of the living God, before the face of both the armies to hurl your stones, but privily out of a corner shoot your arrows against him as Paris against Achilles. You were afraid perhaps, if he had seen you, that, with shame enough, he would have wrong your bow and arrows out of your hand: but truly I think he would not have so done, but rather, knowing that in this quarrel he could not be wounded, he would have suffered you to shoot your in, and with his naked hand receiving your blunt arrows, in such fort would have picked them at your face, as for shame either you should have run out of the place, or at the least submitted yourself & yielded to the truth, that you protest yourself to have forsaken. Wherefore as you have the fear of God, as you have care of your soul's health, I most earnestly exhort you, to leave study of contention: and with a single heart diligently to ponder the reasons on both parts as the weight of the matter requireth. Consider, as the holy father Cyprian counseleth, of what authority Christis institution ought to be: that we should not be so bold to alter any part of those weighty & great precepts that so nighly touch the sacrament of our salvation. Consider that neither Christis ordinance, nor the testimony of S. Paul maketh any signification of sole receiving, or ministering under one kind, but all contrariwise. Consider that justine, Dyonisius, Cyprian, the holy counsel of Nice, withal other the ancient fathers testify the common manner of the primative church to have been in form of a communion & that in both kinds. Consider that Chrisostome & other so earnestly call the people being present unto it, as they affirm them to do impudently that do refrain. Consider that the manner of the primative church was, as Dyonisius witnesseth, that none did remain in the church, but those only that would communicate. Consider the Anacletus, Sixtus, the cannons of the Apostles & Antioch counsel threatened excommunication & punishment to such, as, being present at consecration & reading of the lessons of scripture, would not receive. Consider I say, and unfeignedly weigh these things with yourself, and ye cannot choose but see that the authority of God's word and consent of the primative church maketh wholly with us in these matters. And on the contrary part you shall perceive that you have no colour in the scripture for private Mass: that you are fain to seek defence in the church's authority beside God's word: that your reasons be grounded on false principles and such as have no proof at all. That your authorities out of the doctors be either abuses of the primative church, or such extraordinary cases of necessity, contrary to the common manner, as they can not be rules to show either what was then orderly done, or what now ought of right to be done. Be not these gay reasons think you to build men's consciences upon? Private Mass is nothing but sole receiving in case of necessity: therefore it is lawful. The Priest may celebrate alone in th'assembly of the people, because divers in necessity and extremity received alone in their private houses. The priest may receive alone when the people will not, because he is bound to offer, and the people is left free. The priest may do it when he will, because he may do it in necessity when the people will not. The minister may receive alone, for company is but an ornament and not of the substance of the sacrament. The Doctors in divers places name one kind. Therefore one kind only was received of the people. How will you be able to prove that private Mass is nothing but sole receiving in necessity? How will you be able to prove, that it is all one thing for the minister in the congregation, and a lay man at home in peril to receive alone? How will you prove that the priest is bound to the frequenting of the sacrament, and the people lest free? How will you prove, that company is but an accident or ornament to the sacrament, or that one kind only was received, because one kind only was named? And yet these arguments must be good, or else those prouses and testimonies that you would have to seem unvincible, shall indeed be of no force. Oh sir, for the love of God, weigh the matter more indifferently. Do not dissemble that you must needs know. If you will have your doctrine tried by the balance of the scripture and primative church, add more weight to your side of the balance, or else confess that your part is the lighter. Let not the vain sound of the holy church's name, where the thing is not, lead you to be enemy to that doctrine, which you see to have more force in the word of God. Remember that the true church is ruled and guided only by Christ's word and doctrine. If you abide (saith he) in my word, then be you my true disciples. Christ is the good shepherd, and the church is the fold of his right sheep. Christ is the wise master: and the church is the company of his diligent scholars.  
Christ is the bridegroom, & the church is his dearly beloved spouse. The true church therefore will not go ranging what way she lusteth, she will not learn of her own brain, she will not follow her own fantasy. They be wild Goats, they be not tame sheep, that when the shepherds voice calleth one way, will run headlong an other way. They be selfwill moichers, they be not diligent scholars, that leaving their masters teaching will follow their own interpretations. She is a froward and presumptuous woman, she is not an obedient wife, that will make light of her husbands commandments, and think she may alter them at her pleasure. The true sheep of Christ therefore, the diligent scholars, the obedient spouse, that is, the right and true church will hearken only to her good shepherds voice, will follow her masters precepts, will obey her husband's commandments.  
How then can you excuse yourself by your holy mother the church, if you teach otherwise then Christ hath taught? and make such interpretations of your own head as have no ground in his holy word. You do under that name maintain your own error, ye follow not the church's authority. If you will hearken to Christ's church, to the Apostles church, to the old father's church, neither Christ, nor the Apostles, nor the fathers teach you any such thing. And so ye seem yourself in a sort to confess, or else ye would never strive so much for unwritten verities, and authority of the church in doctrines beside God's word. You needed no such helps if your teaching had just proof in the scripture and ancient fathers, as indeed it hath not. This have I framed my answer unto you in such sort, as I trust the indifferent reader may judge, that my mind and purpose is, rather directly and plainly to consute the sum of your untrue doctrine, thou, as you do, to seek shifts by caviling to discredit my adversary. For if I should have scanned every syllable, word or sentence, that in this writing hath passed you, and endeavoured capciously to have taken advantage at every trifle, (as your sort is wont to deal with us for fault of better matter) both I should have fallen into that fault, that I protest myself to mislike in you, and my answer would have grown to such a length, as it might justly have wearied the reader.  
I have therefore meddled only with the principal points of this your Apology, which may seem to be of chief force in those matters that you touch: And of purpose have let pass many small trifles, wherein both you might justly have been reproved, and some men, I know, will think meet and worthy to be answered. I will now end, and cease any further to exhort you to a more diligent examining and discussing of the residue of your doctrines: trusting that your own conscience, having now more fear of God, than you say you had before, will drive you to the same. Which I pray God may be, if not by this occasion, yet by some other, when his holy will shall be.  
FINIS.   

¶ Imprinted at London in Fléetestréete, by Thomas powel.