THE THIRD BOOK, DECLARING BY Examples out of Ancient Counsels, Fathers, and Later writers, that it is time to BEWARE OF M. JEWEL.  
By john Rastel Master of Art and Student of Divinity.  Math. 7. Beware of false Prophets, which come unto you in the coats of sheep, but inwardly are Ravening Wolves, etc. 
ANTVERPIAE, Ex officina joannis Fouleri. M.D.LXVI.   

To the Indifferent Reader.  
I PERFORM now unto thee (Indifferent Reader) that which I Promised in my last book, which was, to give thee other Arguments, then presently at that time I did prosecute, for which thou shouldest BEWARE of M. jewel: The Arguments constist in these points, that M. jewel  
1 Hath made an unreasonable Account upon the first six hundred years. 
Fol. 1.   
2 That himself useth the Testimonies of what so ever Age. 
Fol. 22.   
3 That he will not stand to the Testimonies of the first six hundred years. 
Fol. 40.   
4 That he useth the self same Testimonies of the first six hundred years, 
Fol. ●3.  against which he bringeth Exceptions.  
5 That he allegeth such Authorities of Fathers, as do plainly confound the procedings. 
Fol. 9●.   
6 That he allegeth for himself the 
Fol. 104.  words and deeds of Old condemned Heretics.  
7 That he hath Abused Ancient Counsels. 
Fol. 123.   
8 That he hath abused the Decrees of the Canon Law. 
Fol. 129.   
9 That he hath abused the very Gloss of the Canon Law. 
Fol. 137.   
10 That he hath abused the Constitutions of the Civil Law. 
Fol. 146.   
11 That he hath abused the Ancient Fathers. 
Fol. 163.   
12 That he hath abused Later Writers. 
Fol. ●08.   
13 That he hath ●alle● into many Contradictions to himself. 
Fol. 216.   
14 That he hath a great account to be made for his Lies. 
Fol. 229.   
15 And that (if the foolish Objection be allowed among the Brethren) he is a borrower. 
Fol. 233.   
These be the Arguments, made to persuade thee, to BEWARE of M. jewel, And these I have confirmed and declared, by their proper and peculiar Examples. What remaineth then? Any other thing, thau that such a destroyer & spoiler of Souls, should be brought to his Answer? This in deed should be done with the first, if there were that care in men, of their Souls, as should be in them, that acknowledge any Immortality of the Soul.  
But I may well compare, the seeing and suffering of false and blind Teachers that now take cure of Souls, to the permitting & honouring of Mountebanks, that go abroad with diverse things for men's Bodies.  
These Mountebanks, 
Mountebanks ●or the Body.  are a free kind of Wanderers, Pedlars, Surgeons, Physicians, Historiographers, poets, or what so ever name besides you will give unto them, men altogether for the penny, which is the cause that they profess so many things. They take up their standing in Market places, or void rooms mere for the ●●course of people, there they set a stool to stand upon, or make a little scaffold for the purpose, from which they play their part.  
Their Greatest Grace is in the Countenance & Tongue, through which, they look so Saddely, and speak so eloquently, that a man would swear upon a book for them, that they think as they speak, & speak no more, than they will do.  
What so ever thing they have to sell, as News out of India, Or The Original of the Turkish Empire, Or Merry Tales, Or Songs and Ballets. Or a Powder to kill worms, Or A preservative against the Plague, Or A Water to make the skin fair and white, Or pings, Points, Laces, whistles, & other such ware, whatsoever it be, they commend it and praise it before. But they do● it with such a Grace, with such a Constancy, with such Copy of words, with such moving of affections, that it is wonderful. As  
If it be a Water, a Powder, an Ointment, a Confection not worth twenty pence, he will make such a do about it, as though it could scarce be bought for half a kings ransom. And standing first up like a worshipful man, Arrayed in his silks and velvets, And all to be rayed with bracelets & bowed pieces of gold, And chained about the neck with a great thing (of copper and guilt, as many iudg●, but) of pure and fine gold, as far as the eye seeth, he will tell his Audience: That he is come unto them for good wills sake, moved in him by the Fame and Worthiness of them and their City or Town: He will tell them, that he can not tarry long, & that, before he depart, he would fai●e bestow upon them some token of his good affection: Then will he bring furth that water or powder, or conceit, which he would utter, and say, That it was brought from beyond calicut, or the Red Sea: and then will he point with his finger towards calicut, and make a like disgression, to declare how far that is of, from their Country, as M. jewel doth to praise (after his manner) the Pope's of Rome: after this, he will show the virtue and strength of his Powder: And further declare, how much thereof hath been bought in great Cities, and of noble Personages which he will name: and further yet, he will make them think, that it is all that he hath left, that which he offereth to be bought of them: He will also disgrace other Mountebanks that go abroad the Country, and say, That their wares are but counterfeit, but that his are fine, and pure, and fresh. For why he seeks not after gains▪ as the covetous and beggarly knaves do, but as it becometh ● good Gentleman, he travaileth far and wide upon his own Charges to get such gear, as may bring Commodities to whole Countries. In Conclusion, when he hath spoken as much as he can, than he provoketh the hearers again and again to buy. And if it be a water which he commended, he putteth in Glasses, made for the purpose, half a score or a score of drops thereof: If it be a powder, he putteth as much as he can hold between his Thumb and Forefinger, in several papers, and beginneth to make merchandise. And that which as it should seem by his tale, should be well worth a Crown a drop, he will sell, with good gains, for a mite or two, of which, twelve do make but a penny.  
Such manner of Fellows be the Mountebanks. But what say the Lords and Signiors of the Towns unto them? They contein●e them undoubtedly in their judgement▪ & think it not all worth the taking up, which they so highly commend. Yet they laugh at them, and say that so good and eloquent an Oration, as they make to the people, doth them a farthing worth of g●od, at the least, in relieving their spirits, and moving their Affections. So th●t there is no great harm done, although it be nothing worth, that which they utter.  
Especially whereas some of the Mountebanks, do either by Singing, or playing upon Instruments, so hold the people in the mean time, whiles th●y look for their merchants, that for their fit of mirth only, they are worthy of somewhat. And besides this, all is not sergeant, that they put forth to sale, and though they make it more in words▪ than it is worth, yet if they should hold their peace altogether, it is not nothing that which they sel. And in Conclusion, whiles they hurt not the Sta●e and the Common wealth, let the people and them cope together, what is that to great affairs?  
A Montebank then, may crack, and lie, and outface his Adversary, and make somewhat of nothing, and mingle sport's with sadness, and play what part he will in the sight of the people, and hundreds will gaze upon him, but none will reprove him.  
Like unto these, in an other kind, there be other Mountebanks, 
Mountebanks for the Soul.  men so fr●e, that they be lawless, So full of fair promises, that they sell, for one coming unto them, everlasting life, So loving & kind hearted, that they forsake their own Country, and without ask of licence, or directly against commandment, buy and sell within other men's jurisdiction.  
Yet, in Faith, they do it somewhat mannerly, they rush not into Cities and Towns at the first, but, without the Town walls, they choose out a place in the open field, or in some wood, and xx. or thirty. tur●es being cut & set one upon the other, there straightways is a place for the Preacher, and there straightways doth the Mountebank begin to open.  
But what stuff it is▪ that he there openeth, it can not be declared in a short time and Preface▪ the So●me yet is this: That he cometh unto them with comfortable wares: That he cometh from far Countries: That except they will be thankful and receive the Grace that he bringeth, he will departed again: That he will ask nothing for his labour: That he delivereth them quite, from fear of Purgatory, and Hell also (for Purgatotorie there is none at all, and to hell he will warrant them never to come) That they shall have no more bond of fasting, watching, praying, performing of lawful vows, etc.: That they shall have no more Sign of Cross, or Christ, or our Lady, or any Saint in their eye, nor any memory of them in their heart, & that they shall have all peace & comfort, if they will buy but one dram of the doctrine that he bringeth.  
And then he instructeth them in the Doctrine of Calvin, Or (if the Mountebank be a Lutheran) in the Doctrine of Luther, Or (if he be an Anabaptist) in the Doctrine of Rotman. For the Mountebanks be of fundry sects, and every one praiseth his own wares most, and contemneth his fellows pack.  
The people then, 
The effect of the Mountebanks drugs.  hearing of so great treasures to be sold so good cheap, And being weary of the discipline and gravity of 〈◊〉 Religion, they quickly take that is taught them, and within very few days after, they were ravished with such a Contemplation of the world to come, that they utterly forgot, all honesty, and justice of this world. And whiles they were in that p●ng●e and extasis, like men clean besides themselves, they run a●out the Cities and Countries, And of all places desired to be in Churches & Religious houses. For the Mountebanks always lightly, do commend Obedience unto the Superior powers, & ex●ort their Audience most earnestly, to keep their hands from doing of wrong to the Commenaltie.  
Therefore, whether it were for Devotion to the Church and houses of Religion, or for re●erence of their Preacher which had counseled them to be Injurious to no man, they did not meddle with private men's houses, nor put them at all, directly, in any Fear●. But in the Churches, their Spirit worked, and in●●●med them, and ●●etted them, and ravished them.  
In heat and force of which Spirit, they pluck down Images, 
〈…〉  break Altars, Spoil the vestry of Copes, Chalices Ornaments, Treas●●es, 〈…〉 very Seats and Ceiling of the Churches away: Tread of the 〈…〉 their feet, and in their hearts, s●ng all that while, praises (I ●row) 〈◊〉 the Lord.  
That done, to show their Charity towards their neighbour also, as they had by these former 〈…〉 clearly before God, They broke open the poor Cells of Friars & 〈◊〉, 
〈…〉.  they take violently from them, their Books, their Clothing, their Bedding, & (which was exceeding Charity) they did not kill them. But that in deed was 〈◊〉 Charity, for 〈…〉 it, and they will study to 〈…〉 into Order, and kill whom they take of the Cloister, the next time that the spirit moveth them.  
But to make an end, after the Church and Cloister spoiled, 
〈…〉  they go into the Libraries, and of one whole one, in y● 〈◊〉 Friars at Antwerp (which was f●l of many and goodly books) they l●●t not one unburned. In other places, they did cut only the Books, Or sell them, or carry them away.  
And by this time they were thirsty, 
Provision of meat c●st away.  I trow. For as for meat, many in these Countries care not much, as appeareth by the casting away of the barreled beef, & other provision, as the Gray Friars had gathered of alms, for this whole year remaining.  
To the good Wine therefore and Beer, they make more haste, and when they had their heads full thereof, for the nonce they pull out the spiket, 
Beastliness.  and let the 〈◊〉 run abroad in the Floor. And in the Abbey of S. Michel's in Antwerp, they drank so much, that they lay down in the c●ller not able to stand or go away, or lie waking. and they let out so much beer and wine, setting all taps open, that they had been drowned in it, if other more sober had not come thither, & pulled them out.  
verily this is a sousing Gospel, which so ●mbrueth the minds of the followers of it: And these are perfit and excellent Mountebanks, which can give such preservatives, against all Godliness, and Obedience, and Honesty. If there had been any Fear of God or Man, remaining in these men's hearts, would they have spoiled Innocentes, Or without lawful Authority, have enterprised feats so desperate? Crack not of these proceedings, O ye fervent and hot spirited Merchants of this world, and send no letters of praise to the Lord for this victory, which consisted in oppressing of Innocentes, and in plain robbing of Churches. Came our Saviour into the world with such terror? Did the Apostles convert the world, by violent and felonious entering into any places? Did they deny lawful Obedience unto the Magistrates, and the Princes & Rulers of any Country? The proceedings of these days, are no more like the preachings of the Apostles, or the Primitive Church, than a Devil is like an Angel. And yet the Mowntebankes continue still, Lutherans against calvinists, calvinists against Lutherans, both they against anabaptists, and anabaptists against them both.  
But what speak I of other? Is M. jewel himself any better than a Mountebank? 
〈…〉.  Consider by that only which I h●ue proved against him, how fair 〈◊〉 he is, how much corrupt stuff he h●●h, how highly be setteth by it, how 〈◊〉 he ●r●keth of it, how singularly he 〈◊〉 himself by it. For when he 〈◊〉 all the learned men that be alive, 〈◊〉 for no more than One sufficient sentence, And requireth to have that b●oug●t o●t of any Old Catholic Doctor or Father▪ or any Old General Council, etc.: What other thing is this, but a Mountebanks Preface, to commend his wares unto the Audience? As if he should say in plainer words 〈◊〉 to them:  
〈◊〉 beloved in the Lord, you m●y t●ke me perchance for a Benchwhist●er, or a man of little knowledge and practice, and altogether unable to reprove the General and Catholic Doctrine of the whole world, and to draw you from those Masters and Teachers which always hitherto, ye have been ruled ●y. But I shall tell you (dear brethren) I have seen and readen as much as any man, yea as all the learned men alive: I have travailed unto the very Primitive Church itself: I have been conversant with Old Catholic Doctors, and Fathers, and old General Counsels. As for these Priests, Cardinals and Popes, whom you follow, they bring nothing, but Conclusions of Schoolmen, and devices of Later Doctors, and Ceremonies of their own making, etc. But I will bring you no other thing, but that which is Ancient. I will bring you back to the Institution of Christ himself. You shall have all things ministered unto you, as they were in the time of the Apostles. You shall hear God himself speak unto you. The Priests shall rob you no more of half the Sacrament. You shall know, what you hear readden in the Church. Ye shall have no Supremacy of Pope, no Real Presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament. Ye shall be brought to Old Customs, which the Council of Nice would have to prevail: And Tertullian shall teach you, how that is true, that was first ordained. And, as I said before, so say I now again, If any man alive be able to reprove me, I will become his obedient Scholar. But I know, there is not one that is able to do● it, and because I know it, therefore I speak it. So beginneth, the Mountebank.  
But in further process he is proved to be so vain in Craking, So crafty in Shifting, So demure in Counterseiting, So false in Affirming, So desperate in Abusing of his Adversary, of old Counsels, and Doctors, yea and of new also, that it is perceived well enough, even of them that say, God save you my Lord, unto him, that all is not so as he saith. Nevertheless they have a good sport, to see the pretty Shifts, and Defences, and Scapes, that the Mountebank can make, And though it be evident that he li●●h, yet they think not, these matters to be so great or necessary, but men may suffer them well enough to be maintained how so ever it be, as long, as neither Trade of merchandise, nor Study of Temporal Law, nor Pastime abroad, nor Pleasure at home, is hindered by it.  
For, like as we may understand by the ma●ket folks, how the market goeth, So, when it is in sight, that in Countries and Cities of greatest policy, private men's goods are not without punishment touched, but the Common Churches of the whole Country, are openly spoiled: And when Papists are neither suffered to speak▪ nor to go abroad, but calvinists, Lutherans, and anabaptists, are not only suffered to speak, but to speak one against the other, And in one City or Country, to set fur●h and maintain contrary Doctrines: it is easy to perceive, that, The wisdom of God, is but folly among men. And that all is for Policy, and nothing for Religion, and that men have so forsaken the old Faith, that they are not settled in any new, And that Faith in deed is almost extinguished, by to much following of Carnal Reason, and that Reason in thousands, is utterly blinded, because they have put from them the Obedience unto Faith.  
Yet this Corruption notwithstanding, I have taken some pains in persuading with thee (Indifferent reader) to BEWARE of M. jewel: Fearng in deed, lest to many be so in Indifferent, that they pass not whether he say true or false: And praying to God that they may have A desire to know the Truth, which as yet, care not for it, and that other may have a constancy to confess the Truth when they know it, And that the rest, condemn not the the Truth, before they know it.  
Farewell. From Louane.   

Qua●doquidem liber hic tertius contra M. jewellum à viris Linguae Anglicanae & Sacrae Theologiae eruditissimis probatus est, judico eum tutô posse distrahi & eu●lgari.  
Ità testor Cunerus Petri, Pastor S. Petri. Lovanij. 3. novemb. 1566   


¶ Faults escaped in the Printing.  Folio. Page. Line. Fault. Correction. 6. 2. 1. latins La●enesse 40. 2. 12. ye he 47. 1. 6. Degrees Decrees 63. 1. 13. Dionysi. of Dionysius 63. 2. 19 them then 80. 2. 2. tel lies to tell lies 118. 2. 14. Constan●in. Constantius 141. 2. 4. the visible that a visible 142. 2. 15. he conclu. he were conclu. 160. 2. 3. primitive Primate 181. 2. 16. the communion prayer 
☞ Specially to be amended.  the lords prayer 191. 1. 3. people un. people might un. 195. 1. 7. of old Fa. of the old Fa. 197. 1. 14. Valentians Valentinians 206. 1. 18. Suprem. pre-eminence 216. 2. 27. that it were that if it were 217. 2. 4. are bound are not bound Ibid.  24. How say How said 221. 2. 10. yet if yet it 225. 2. 11. can say can truly say 230. 2. 8. gather easily gather 234. 2. 16. Trick or two Trick or Toy 
In the Margin.  172. 1. for is for there is 228. 1. jew. 21. joan. 21. Ibidem.  taken out of, taken of   

The Third Book of BEWARE OF M. jewel.  
IT may seem by my Two former Books, that I have detected as great Sophistry, Bravery, & insincerity of M. jewels, as any man lightly, that hath but worldly regard of his Truth and Honesty, may colourably venture to practise. But in comparison of that which I have further to object, the foresaid behaviours, may seem to be perdonable.  
For D. Harding is but one man, and the same not known to the whole world, and much less honoured of the whole. He is also his Adversary, and M. jewel taketh himself, to be in no point perchance, of less worthiness: And if in some one or two, D. Harding far passeth him, yet in many more on the other side, he thinketh himself to be better. And therefore, when he doth handle him at his pleasure, & belie him, Contemn him, Mock him, and Toss him, without doubting or blushing: although it be very il done, yet it is not exceeding ill.  
But to despise men (without all doubt) worthy & notable, To set light by them, whom the whole world hath reverenced, To interpret Laws and Canons after his own liking, To disannul general counsels, To corrupt Ancient Fathers, To set them up, to pull them down again, To bring them in, to thrust them again out, To bind men to the Authority of the first six hundred years, To appeal to the Primitive Church only in his own cause, and to draw his Adversary unto any State of Church within these last fifteen hundred years, and for advantage to make the practice thereof, a Definitive sentence: This is exceeding presumptuous, and exceeding Injurious, and this is that, which I shall now lay to M. jewels Charge.  

¶ Of M. jewels exact accounting upon the vj. C. years next after Christ.  
YOu Appeal (M. jewel) most instantly, to the Witnesses of the next six hundred years after Christ, by which you give us to understand, that either your guilty Conscience feareth, to be tried by God and the Country: either that your simple understanding conceiveth, to help your cause by removing of it. Of which two, there is near a good, neither Conscience already condemning you, by the verdict of ix. C. years together: Neither lack of Wit and Consideration moving you, of xv. uniform Witnesses ix, put aside, to Imagine that the lesser number of vj. only remaining, could be so used, as that they should appear, either contrary to the ●ine, Or of more credit and worthiness, than the nine. Both which things (either that the Church of Christ should be contrary to itself, or in some one part of her Age more worthy of credit than in some other) are plainly and utterly impossible, both by Faith and by Reason.  
For, like as we are assured by right Faith, 
● Tim. 2.  that there is but One God, One jesus Christ God and man, 
1. Cor. 12.  One Spirit dividing unto each as he will, 
Eph. 4.  One Body, One Dove, One Lovier, 
Cant 6.  One Beautiful and One Catholic Church: so is it impossible by Natural Reason, that of Unity, A Division might be made, And that one Part might be found contrary to the other, or One Part worthier than the other, where there is no Parts making at all, and therefore no Parts taking at all, to cause any Discord.  
Is Christ (sayeth the Apostle) divided? 
1. Cor. 1.  Is it yea and na●e with him? Yea, doth not he himself say: 
Luc. 11.  Every kingdom divided with in it self shall be left waste and desolate? 
Da. 7.  And do not both Testaments, 
Luc. 1.  new and old, plainly teach, 
The church is one by Faith.  that his kingdom is everlasting? How then should his Church be Contrary unto itself, and thereby coming to Division, end afterwards in Dissolution?  
Again, The Spiritie of Truth was promised unto her, which should teach her all Truth, and tarry also with her for ever. There be also provided for her, meet Governors and Officers, to continue with her and serve her, to the 
Ephe. 4.  perfecting of the holy, until all do meet together, in Unity of Faith, and knowledge of the Son of God: so that, because of the Authority of the Chief Master, whom it is Impossible to lie, And the continual succession of Ushers under him, 
The church can not err or fail.  whom he maketh to teach as he Inspireth: the Lessons which at this day are readen in the Church, aught to be in deed of as great Credit among us, as any of the Primitive Church's lessons. Except perchance the Spirit be so blind or blasphemous in any person, as to deny his Almightiness in making of such as dwell in his house, of One mind and Accord, Of whose Promise, Provision and Charity towards his church, we have so infallible testimonies.  
Therefore, as the Scriptures persuade our understanding to believe, that the Church is One, That it shall Continue for ever, 
The church is always one and true, by reason.  That it shall never Err in Doctrine: so Reason concludeth by this gift and light of Faith, that because it is ONE, it must either be NONE at all, or continue ONE. And because IT CONTINVETH FOR EVER, it can not therefore be NONE. Remaining then ONE, it is to be credited without all doubt, because it hath the Spirit of Truth with her and can not err: And as well to be credited now, as it was xv. hundred years sense, because it is ONE, and the self same now, as it was then, concerning Assistance of the Holy ghost, Privileges of Honour, infallibleness of Truth, Or any other like, pertaining to the very Substance and nature (as I may say) of the Church of Christ.  
Like as, in yourself (M. jewel,) Or in any of us, the same Reasonable Soul and Sensitive life, that we received of God and our Parents at our beginning, continueth yet still with us the Self same in substance, Notwithstanding many thousand Alterations, in Affections of mind, and Disposition of body, which have in the mean time chanced unto us, 
In what things the Church is not always one.  And changed us, in the chance: so, notwithstanding many Alterations, which have been in the Church of Christ these xv. C. years, concerning external Government thereof, and Ecclesiastical Orders. The life yet, Soul and Sense thereof, is of the same making and worthiness, in all Times and circumstances.  
In the Opinion and Imagination, of faint hearted and weak Christians, it appeareth (I grant) to be of more Authority, If Christ, in his own person speaketh, than if S. Paul his Apostle, by his will and commandment speak it. And, no doubt, they have a good Zeal therein often times and Devotion, but they have not always good knowledge and Understanding. The Maries brought tidings unto the Apostles, of the Resurrection of our Saviour, and though they were but Women, yet they were devout, Wise and blessed women, And their sayings agreed with the words of Christ himself spoken unto them before his Passion, so that they might well, and should have been credited: Nevertheless, their words seemed unto the Apostles no better than A Doting and vain tale, 
Luc. 24.  And S. Peter ran to the Sepulchre, to see perchance whether he could find a better Argument or Testimony of the Resurrection, than the Maries had brought, unto him and his fellows. Which Argument, 
Let us not be unbelieving, but faithful.  when it was the self same day, made after the best manner unto them, that is, by Christ's own presence and words: yet S. Thomas being at that time absent, and hearing at his Return, of the sight and joy which his fellows had: 
joan▪ 20.  Except I see (quoth he) the print of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe. As who should say, that he alone could see more in such a matter, than ten other, Or that if he once tried i● and believed it himself, than it were to be bidden by: but, if he learned and received it of other men's Report and knowledge, then lo, it was not clear, and out of question. Yet the Truth is always O●e. And as faithfully it was to have been believed, that, which the Maries or Apostles saw and heard, As that which S. Thomas not only saw or hard, but felt also.  
Now, in these foresaid Persons and Examples, the inward and hearty devotion, did somewhat extenuate the carnality of the Affection. Marry in other Cases, it is grosser and viler. 
Carnal judgement.  As, when A Noble and Honourable man speaketh A wise word, it is regarded and remembered: but when a poor and Simple Soul, doth speak the like, it lacketh the same Grace and strength, with the hearers. Yet, the Truth and wisdom of the saying being on both sides all ONE in goodness, it might well become all men to honour it, without Respect of persons.  
When our Saviour upon a time, preached in the synagogue of the jews, so singularly well, that all men wondered at his Doctrine: 
Marci. 6.  How cometh this fellow, (said they) by all this learning? Is not this he, that is the Carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of james and joseph? Are not his sisters also here dwelling with us? As who should say, We know his bringing up well enough, And therefore he is not so greatly to be wondered at. Such is the judgement of carnal men, even unto this day. They measure Truths, by their Imaginations, And set a great Price on things, that are farther out of their reach, Contemning as good or better than those things are, when they are easy to be found or always present.  
Which thing, If it come of the Misery of our Nature, it is to be lamented, and the Remedy is to be sought for of him, which therefore took our whole Nature (sin excepted) upon him, that by partaking thereof, we might be purged of our sin and Corruption. If it come of the Folly of any deintines, it is (in some parsons) to be reproved with favour, like as Children and Women are much to be borne withal in respect of their weakness and frailty. If it come of lack of better Instruction, Or dullness of understanding (as in the Rude and Simple of the Country) they are to be warned, as well as we may, and for the rest to be ●raied for and tolerated. If it come of some Pride, Spite or Contention, it is to be condemned and hated, what so ever the person be.  
But in M. jewel, whereof may I think, that this Affection doth come, of which I speak? For you also, in defining of everlasting Truth, by Term of years, do seem to have a spice of their disease, which coutemne the good things that are nigh unto them.  
Shall I Impute this fall, unto the general Misery of our nature, which was corrupted in our first Parents?  
God send you the● Grace to resist evil motions, 
Rep●n●  And for this which you have already done, Repent and be sorry.  
But came it of a certain wantonness or niceves in you, 
Or play no more t●e wanton  that as children crave This piece or Dat piece of one and the self same meat or bread, Or women love far-fet and dear bought things, so you will not be served, but with the Testimonies and Authorities of the first six hundred years of our Lord? Truly, if it be so, you can not look for the favour, that children and Women have in their Infirmities.  
Will you have it then, to be attributed unto lack of Learning, Or plain Dullness, that you are so blind and blunt, 
Or learn more wit.  as to set at nought the Practice and evidences of the Catholic Church for nine hundred years together? It seemeth no, because the Opinion undoubtedly, which your predecessors of late, had of their own judgement, Knowledge and Wittiness, moved them especially, to refuse the General and Approved Faith of the world. And so I believe they lacked no wit, but only Grace, and they were to wise to be Obedient and Faithful.  
How now then? Was it any Spirit of Malice or Contention, that caused you to rest upon the first six hundred years only, that the further you went out of sight, you might the more boldly show ●oule play, 
Or An●●er the Objection  Maintain the quarrel, Make the victory uncertain, And trouble the lookers on? If it be not so, we shall easily believe you, if you show any good Cause or Reason, wherefore you have appealed unto the first six hundred years: And so appealed unto them, not, as the best time to find witnesses in: but as the only time: neither as Preferring those Days, but as Condemning ours.  
But, let us first see the Examples, by which your fact and behaviour herein may be Evident, And then after, we shall the better consider it, whether you have any reason or no, to make for you, And what (by likelihood) was the cause which moved you.  
Leontius Bishop of Nicopolis, 
The fir●● D. Har, Example.  wrote the life of joannes Eleemosinari ' an holy man of the first six hundred years after Christ. Why should I not believe Leontius?  
Marry, 
je. pa. 75  he wrote (say you) A great while after that.  
And what of that? 
Ra.  Is S. Bedes History, of the coming of S. Augustine the Monk into England, to be discredited, because S. Bede began to write, a great while after S. Augustine was departed this world? Or, because the next six hundred after Christ, were much passed when he wrote it? Are the books of Genesis, in any point, to be doubted of, because they declare the beginning of the world, and Acts Dated two thousand years, before Moses the writer of them was borne? Yet sayeth M. jewel against Leontius, This one Circumstance (of his latins) answereth the matter wholly. And in the margin he giveth a special note: 
je. fo. 75.  M. Harding rangeth without the compass of six hundred years.  
Vrbanus Regius, 
The ij. D Hard. Fol. 36.  a Doctor of Luther's School confesseth in his book De locis Communibus, that in the first Council of Ephesus, an Order was taken for Communion under one kind: which, he being a Lutheran, would never have written, if he had not found it, in some Ancient Record and worthy of credit.  
But Vrbanus Regius (say you) departed this life, 
jew. 112.  not above twenty years a go, and therefore, is a very young witness to testify a thing done so long time before.  
In deed to testify it as of certain sight or knowledge, 
Ra.  it were hard for so young a witness: but to testify it, as of good History and Authority, it is possible enough for them, which are twenty years younger.  
What shall we think of S. Bernard: 
The iij.  A man, not only in his own time of most worthy Estimation and Authority, but, in all the Church ever sense, of singular Credit and worthiness? If he were now alive among us, And might be seen and heard sensibly, would there be found in all the world any man of Honesty or Discretion, which considering his Holiness, Wisdom and Gravity would think him A witness of little weight and worthiness? Yet, Father jewel sayeth, as though he had been a Reader of Divinity, when S. Bernard was yet but A Novice in the Faith:  
S. Bernard, 
jew. 116.  calleth the washing of feet a Sacrament. I grant. But S Bernard was a Doctor but of late years, and therefore his Authority must herein weigh the lesser.  
Was he of so late years, 
Ra.  as Luther, Zuinglius, Caluine, Peter Martyr, and other Great Anceters' of your new Religion? Why doth not the lateness of these fellows, offend you? Why think you, the xij. C. years after Christ, to be so far and wide from his Truth, that no certainty thereof may be taken in them: And Conclude, Determine, Protest and Defend, that, to be Sure and authentic, which riseth xv. C. and some odd years after Christ?  
Of the like kind of Imagination and Answer it is, where you say: Lyra and Te●tonicus Lived, 
The iiij. jew. 140  at the least, thirteen hundred years after Christ, wherefore their Authority in this Case must Needs seem the less. No remedy: M. jewel hath so appointed.  
Again. 
The v. jew. 217.  Bessarions Authority in this case can not seem great, both for other sundry causes, (which you leave) And Also, (which must needs be a good cause and not forgotten) for that he lived at the least fourteen hundred years after Christ.  
And again. 
The v●. jew. ●89  Pope Nicolas, was the second Bishop in Rome after Pope Johan the Woman. (Note here that Other men reckon, from S. Peter downward, this man counteth from Pope Johan, An English woman, as the reporter of the tale saith, borne at Magunce in Germany.) Which was almost nine hundred years after Christ. Wherefore his Authority might well have been spared.  
Thus we see then, 
Ra.  by manifest Examples, the exact Account that you make of the first six hundred years after Christ, As though the whole Truth of A matter were lost, if it come to knowledge, any long time after the thing was done.  
Let us consider now, Whether any honest Cause and Reason may be alleged for your so doing, Or whether you did it without cause, Or else were stirred up with some unlawful Affection and Repro●eable Cause. And here now, take no scorn M. jewel if I appose you in a few Questions. For, either you be able to Answer them, and that shall be to your worship: either not Answering them, you shall occasion Truth thereby to be known. And that shall be to God's glory and the Cumfort of the doubtful. Surely, if it were to myself, and if so much might be obtained, that I should be Answered in some One thing thoroughly, and be bid to choose, out of all that which I have to demand, that One thing which seemeth strongest against my Adversary, and surest of the Catholics: I would be glad of the Occasion, 
One place for all: let M. jew. or any other Answer it.  and all other matters quite and clean put to Silence, I would speak of these few points which follow, And either without more words, hold my peace, If in them I were satisfied: Or requ●re, that our Adversaries never trouble their hearers or Readers any further with other conclusions, before these f●we questions were Answered. Therefore, I pray thee (Indifferent Reader) to consider this pla●e which followeth, though thou Read no more of all the Book.  
First, 
The first question. Faith, or ●o Faith?  I ask of you (M jewel) whether you have any Faith at all, or no?  
If you have none, what meddle you, with any Religion: except it be for Civil Policy sake? For which to do as you do, though it would prove you less mad or unreasonable, yet should you be (for lack of Faith) as dead in soul and as Godless, as any Infidel in all the world. If ye have any, 
Faith.  how came you by it? for we are not borne Christians, but Regenerate: neither do we receive faith by Nature, but by Teaching. And, faith is by hearing, 
Rom. 10.  sayeth the Apostle.  
Of whom then have you heard and learned your Faith? 
The ij. question. learned you it, of the quick or the dead?  Of them that lived and died before you were borne? Or of such as preached and taught in the world sens yourself were of remembrance?  
If you learned of the first, how could they teach, without A tongue? Or how could you hear without an care? For they were now dead in body, and clean dissolved, and you were not yet made of body and soul, nor had any instruments of senses.  
If you learned of the Quick and Living, yourself also quick and living, 
Of the Quick. The iij. Question.  were those your Teachers of such Authority with you, that you submitted your senses and understanding, 
Followed you their Authority or no?  to their judgement? Or examined you, by yourself, their Doctrine and sayings?  
If you the Scholar did judge of the Master, you were without all doubt, a Malapert and foolish Scholar. Malapert, because you would break order, and proudly go before him, whom you ought meekly to have followed: And foolish, because in matters of Faith, (of which we now speak) all Wit and Reason of man, is altogether unworthy and unable, to judge of that which is Proponed.  
If you then followed their Authority, 
The iiij. Question.  and submitted your understanding and will unto their Doctrine, without Moving or Mistrusting any doubt about it: What were they in all the world, 
What are they?  unto whom you gave such credit?  
I ask you not this question, for the time of your childhood, in which, though true Faith be Habitually in them that are baptized: yet there is not that Discretion or Consideration, by which they may return their minds upon their owns acts, Or put a difference between their Grandmothers tale of Bloody bone, Raw head, Bloudelesse and Aware wolf, and the Church's Doctrine of Hell and the Devil. But I speak now, as to one that hath Understanding and knowledge of his own state, And Experience of many things, And Learning enough for the purpose, And such a one, whose part and profession it is, to be able to give a good Cause and Reason, for the Faith and Religion which he followeth. Of you therefore I ask, what Authority that was, Or is, which moved you to be, and continue A Christian?  
Here, you must not say unto me, that you considered the writings of the Fathers of the first six hundred years. And that you gave your mind to Reading of the Scriptures. etc. 
Here let all the heretics in the world join with the Papists if they can.  For what so ever such tale yo● tell me, it will always remain to be Answered of you, what Instruction or Authority that was, which either Taught you, Or 〈◊〉 you, to esteem those Ancient Doctors of the Christian Religion, Or these Scriptures of which you make yourself so certain? For by yourself, you could no more know, the difference between Writers and Writers, or true Scriptures and lying Fables, than A Blind man can judge of Colours, Or a Stranger know the right way in A Wilderness, or he Rede, that knoweth no letter on the book.  
You are not (I am sure) wiser than S. Augu. Neither have you better thought upon these matters, than he did. He saith of himself, that concerning the Faith which he had in Christ. 
August. ad Honoratum cap. 14. de utilit ate credendi.  He saw himself, to have believed none, but the established opinion of Peoples & Nations, and the very Common and renowned Fame of him. Than which cause, if you can give any better, it is time that you show it. As for us, neither we find any like, And we need not be ashamed to be persuaded by it, which moved S. Augustine himself, to come unto Christ.  
And I think verily, that neither you, studying never so much for it, 
An evident Demonstration to persuade us to believe.  can bring any so persuasive a Reason, why you believed Christ, as this is: that, So many Nations and peoples of the world do bear witness to him. For this is so Great and so Strong to induce us into Faith, that we should not now be desirous of visible Miracles for Proving Or Confirming of it, S. Aug●stine most wisely and Reasonably warning us: 
De civit.  Quisquis adhuc prodigia, 
Dei lib. 22. Cap. 8.  ut credat, inquirit: magnum est ipse prodigium, Qui MVNDO CREDENTE non credit. Who so ever doth yet seek after Strange and wonderful things, to make him believe: he is himself a strange fellow or Great wonder, which believeth not, when the world believeth.  
This Conclusion then standing so sure, (that the Uoice of the World, so Great, so General, so Certain and so Famous, hath made wise men to come unto Christ) I will, in like sort, dispute with you (M. jewel,) as S. Augustine did against the Manichees. And as he said against them upon the foresaid Truth: 
De Vtilit. cred.  Cur non igitur apud eos potissimum, diligentissimè requiram, quid Christus praeceperit, quorum authoritate commotus, 
Cap. 14.  Christum aliquid utile praecepisse credidi? Tune mihi melius expositurus es quid ille dixerit? Quem fuisse, aut esse, non putarem, si abs te mihi hoc commendaretur esse credendum▪ Hoc ergo credidi (ut dixi) famae, celebritate, consensione, Vetustate roboratae. Vos autèm & tam pauci & tam turbulenti & tam novi, nemini dubium est quin nihil dignum authoritate praeseratis. Seeing I have believed the constant Fame and Report of Nations in Coming to Christ, why should not I then, most diligently seek what Christ commanded, among them most chief, by whose Authority I have been moved to believe that Christ commanded things profitable? Wilt thou better expound unto me what he said? whom I would not believe to have been, Or to be, if from thee, this were Commended unto me to be believed. For I have believed it, (as I said) because of the fame established and strenghtned by Renown, Consent, ancientness: But you, both so Few, and so Troublesome, and so New, there is no man doubteth, but that ye can show nothing worthy of Authority.  
Thus S. Augustine.  
The Manichees would answer as heretics do now. 
●anich.  What? you must make no question of it, whether Christ is to be believed or no.  
S. Augustine 
August.  Replieth and so do we. Quae igitur ista tanta demenia est? Illis crede, Christo esse credendum, & a nobis disce quid dixerit? Cur obs●●ro te? Nam si illi. etc.  
What exceeding madness than is this? Believe them (the Catholics) that thou must believe Christ, and learn of us what he said. By what reason I pray thee? For, if they should fail, and could not teach me any thing, I would much more easily persuade myself, that Christ is not to be believed: than, that I should learn any thing concerning him, but of them, through whom I had ●eleued him. O what a great Boldness is this, or rather what a great foolishness?  
I will teach you (sayeth the Heretic) what Christ commanded, 
Manich.  whom you believe. To whom S. Augustine.  
What if I did not bele●e him? 
August.  Couldst thou teach me any thing of him?  
Nay there is no remedy (saith the Manichee) you must believe. 
Manich.  Saint Augustine answereth:  
Whether by your Commending of him? 
August.   
No (sayeth he) For we lead them by Reason, 
Manich.  that believe him.  
For what Reason then (sayeth S. 
August.  Augustine) must I believe him?  
Because there is A grounded and established Fame? 
Manich.   
Was it grounded by you or by other? 
August.   
By other sayeth he. 
Manich.   
Ergo shall I believe them, 
August.  that you may teach me? Perchance I should, except they had especially warned me hereof, that I should not at all, come unto thee.  
Thou wilt Answer, 
Manich.  They Lie.  
How then shall I believe them concerning Christ, 
August.  whom they have not seen, and shall not believe them concerning thee, whom they will not see?  
Believe (sayeth he) the Scriptures. 
Manich.   
But what so ever Scripture it be, 
August.  if it be brought forth new and unheard of before, the credit is given, not unto it, but unto them that bring if forth. Wherefore, the Scriptures themselves, if you so few and unknown do bring forth, I have no list to believe them.  
Here again (saith S. Augustine to the Manichee) thou wilt call m● back unto the multitude and the fame.  
And so do our Protestants now. What (say they) will you doubt of the Scriptures? 
Confer and consider whether the upstart heretics be not like the old.  Nay then far well. There is no talk with you, we perceive. Why there is no man that denieth them. We see how generally they are allowed and received of all men. Either we must believe nothing, or believe them: whom by so many men's Report and Consent, we find to be agreed upon.  
To whom we answer as S. Augustin did unto the Manichee, which would have the Fame and Uoice of the World, to be an evident and sure Argument, wherefore we should make no doubt of of the Scriptures, And yet, would not be ruled by the Uoice and Consent of that Multitude in the rest of the Christian & Catholic Faith:  
Cohibe tandem pertinaciam et istam nescio quam indomit am propagandi nominis libidinem, 
August.  et mone potius ut huius multitudinis Primates, quaeram diligentissime ac laboriosissime; ut ab his potius de his literis aliquid discam. etc.  
Stay now at length your eagerness and contention, and this, I can not tell what, Unruly desire and Lust of getting and stretching forth a name. And Counsel me rather to seek out the Primates and Chief of this multitude, and to seek them out most diligently and earnestly, that of them rather, I may learn somewhat of these letters▪ (the Scriptures.) Which men if they were not, I should not at all know it, that I had any thing to learn. As for thee (that art the Heretic) return into THY LURKING HOLES AND CORNERS AGAIN. etc.  
Thus far S. Augustine.  
By which his Discourse against the Manichees, and our following of it against the Protestants, how Uncertain, Unsensible, and Contentious must it be, to Appeal to the vj. C. years only after Christ, as though there were none, at this present, in the world, which might and ought to be fully obeyed? For, if the Scriptures themselves are now believed, not because they were believed in the vj. C. after Christ, (for what can we judge by any sense of things passed and gone A thousand years since?) But because they which now li●e, and whom we may justly believe, do report so unto us, that they have been commended unto the World by them that saw Christ, and heard him, and touched him: And that they have continued, these xv. C. and odd years among Christians, always of full Authority, (be it the six hundred or ten hundred, or xv. C. after Christ, that you will count upon.) If, I say, the Scriptures themselves are believed of us, because of the present commendation of this Age which we be in, and Authority which is in the primates of this multitude of Christians:  
How can we go in any matter of the Faith, from the judgement of this present Age, And refuse every thing that is brought unto us, except it be out of the first six hundred years after Christ?  
For suppose it, that no man alive NOW, had openly held with Christ: would M. jewel cleave unto the Creeds of the first six hundred years? And by his own self, would he choose to follow the Christian faith of those days, if there had been in the world, for these last years, no Praise or Speaking of Christ at all?  
How is it credible? For being but a man, how should he not, by all likelihood, follow the common course of men? And if he would needs be Singular, how could he discern between the true and the false Opinions of the first six hundred years, whereas he should find Examples and writings of both? Or not able to discern between them, how could he fasten his mind and belief upon any one of them both, 
Who hath commended Christ unto M. jew. but the report of this age in which himself hath lived.  except he were A Singular one in deed? For wisemen, do not lightly take that way, in which they see not, either the Town plainly before them, or some causey, Paths, or Steps of feet to direct them: Neither do they use (when they go in the right way, and come at length to some turning or double way) to go forward, I can not tell how, without looking back if any follow, Or looking about if any be within sight: but either rest themselves, until they spy of whom to ask, Or go so doubtfully forward in that which leeketh them, that if better Counsel and teaching come unto than, they will be returned and ordered.  
And if it be so in A corporal and visible way, ought it not to be much more so, in following the right way unto truth of understanding and knowledge? And, when the whole world taketh one way, Or diverse cumpanies in the world follow diverse ways, would any man of Discretion be so Bold or Foolish, as to go peaking alone by himself in such an Opinion or Imagination, as no man beside himself alloweth? And so directly go in it, that to live and die, he would not be brought from it? If therefore these forty years last passed (or what so ever it be more that M. jewel hath lived in the world) nor Christ had been Preached, nor the Primitive Church commended: he could not undoubtedly by any good Occasion or Reason, have esteemed the Christian writers of a thousand years since, Or given any Faith unto Christ. Except we should think (otherwise than the Apostle hath taught us) the faith cometh without hearing, Or that no man sent for him, yet by some Miracle perchannce he was brought unto Christ. Of which two, both are out of course: And without some Extraordinary way of making them likely unto us, both are Unreasonable, both are Incredible.  
The present Fame then, Renown, & Testimony of this Age, drawing men of this Age unto Christ, yet doth M. jewel so little set by it, as though it were worthy of little credit, or rather none. And he so clea●eth unto those vj. C. years, past A thousand. years, almost, since: as though he could be sure of the Catholic & true Faith that was then, without the Testimonies of the Catholic Church now, Or as though some secret Mystery or Security were in them, to further him in unreveled Conclusions, And exempt him from all jurisdiction. In so much, that although in xv. C. years reckoning, which the Church hath continued in (as it shall to the worlds end) viij. years can not greatly hurt the Account, Yet, so true an Audite of them, is kept by M. jewel, that he will not receive the Testimonies of the viij. years next after the first vj. C. but noteth in his Book their coming to late, though they came very nigh. His words be these.  
M. Harding knoweth well, 
jew. 242 Sticking upon viij. years.  that this grant (to be called The Head of all Churches,) was made unto Bonifacius the third, which was bishop of Rome in the year of our Lord vj. C. and viij. Even at the same very time, that Mahomete first began to plant his Doctrine in Arabia. And therefore maketh nothing to this purpose, as being without the compass of six hundred years.  
As who should think, 
Did he, think you, persuade with the Emperor, to give the Title, Or with the Pope to receive it? Or how bring you Arabia & Rome here together?  that within those viij. years on this side the six hundred, The Pope, and Emperor, with the whole world, were Suddenly and Strangely, converted from the Faith and Order which they were of viij. years before, And (no History mentioning it) were made of Pure Protestants, Gross Papists.  
Yea, not only of viij. years above the vj. C. he maketh a sad reckoning towards his Uantage, but of the vj. C. year itself (if he can bring D. Harding'S testimony so low) he so vaunteth and braggeth, as though either himself had the victory, Or else, nothing should be won or lost. For, whereas D. Harding, for proof of the Church Service in a Strange Tongue, and unknown to the vulgar people, and that also within the first vj. C. years, alleged the coming of S. Augustine the Monk and our Apostle into England, (which was by his account the 14. year of Mauritius Emperor, & the 596. of our Lord.) Master jewel in answering it sayeth.  
Of the 600▪ years after Christ, 
jew. 192.  whereupon Ijoine wish him issue, Liberally, and of his own accord, he giveth me back five hundred, four score and sixteen, And of so great a number (as 600. are) reserveth unto himself four POOR YEARS, 
Wretched craking.  and yet, is not very certain of the same.  
And then it followeth. But if Marianus Scotus account be true, that Augustine came into this Realm not the fourtienth of the Emperor Mauritius, but four years after, which was just the six hundred year after Christ: then he reserveth not one year to himself, but yieldeth me back altogether.  
Lo what a wise contention here is: 
Ra.  And how sadly M. jewel followeth it?  
Did he think with himself, that none, but Children or idiots, would Read his Reply? And if he provided to make it so, as not only Wisemen should consider it, but the Adversary also might ●e answered by it: how could he for shame of the world, so Trifle, and Wrangle, and Set forth himself so much, upon so little occasion? For, if the vj. C. years shall try the matter, he that cometh four years before they be ended, cometh time enough to confute M. jewel. And his Cause therefore being lost, Or his Bragging at least confounded, if, in any time before the vj. C. years expired, the contrary, to this Assertion, may be proved: Why should he call them four Poor years, or set them at nought, which making to the number of the first 600. years are part of the years upon which he joined Issue, and are (by his appointment) of great Authority.  
The crack herein is, like as if one should say, In all S. Augustine's works, you shall not find this word Missa, and thereupon I will join with you: (as though a great point of Divinity consisted herein.) An other answereth, yes Marry, I find the word in such, and such Sermons. 
Ser. 137. de temp:  Then Replieth the Challenger: Of so great a number of Tomes, as S. Augustine hath written, of so many books in every Tome. etc. (as far as his Rhetoric permitteth) you give me back, Liberally, And of your own accord, all the sort of them almost, and reserve unto yourself two POOR SERMONS: and yet are you not very certain of them, whether they be S. Augustine's or ●oe. As if he should say, I laid hard to his charge, and there was but two poor places between me and the victory, which, although he hath over me, yet, it shall not be said that I lost it easily, and he shall not crack or triumph, that he came lightly by it.  
Confer now this Example with M. jewels foresaid words. The place is before thee, and being so plain as it is, it grieveth me to spend time in Repe●ing and Applying it.  
But M. jewel goeth further, he will not leave so much as one years vantage to D. Harding. For,  
If Marianus Scotus account be true. 
jew. 192.  (Note here that you know not yourself what to answer absolutely) then M. Harding reserveth not one year to himself, but yieldeth me back altogether.  
Go to (M. jewel) be it so. 
Ra.  Let D. Harding give ●uer all other vantage, and let it be supposed (which yet is most false) that he had brought nothing for the proof of the Public Service in the vulgar tongue, beside this History, of S. Augustine's planting the Christian Religion in England: Thus much only than is concluded, that just in the vj. C. year after Christ (what so ever it was before) The Public Service was in some place in such a tongue, as the vulgar people did not understand.  
And what now shall we say to it? Where is the Uictorye? 
Nothing won or lost.  On your side, or D. Harding? But first it would be known whether you, at the beginning, did take the vj. C. years, Exclusive or Inclusive?  
And whether you meant, that if to the last day of the six hundred year, any thing should be found against you, you would subscribe: Or else, that if your adversaries Reason were not of an higher Date than the first day of the last year of the vj. hundred, you would utterly refuse it.  
Well, how so ever it be, it seemeth now that it is but a dead victory, Or a Stolen and that he which will check M. jewel, must begin again, If Marianus Scotus account be true▪ etc. As, on the other side, if it be false, then is he overcomed by four poor years yet, as he termeth them.  
But consider now (Indifferent Reader) whether this be manly Dealing or no? To refuse the Authority that is at this present in the world? To set light by the Practice and judgement of the Church for ix. 
Absurdities.  hundred years space. To pair every thing so precisely by the first six hundred years, that, If it be but a day longer, it must be cut away: And if it be a few years shorter, it must be the less esteemed: And if it answer justly with the year itself, it weigheth in no side. What Reason hath M. jewel, or what Example and Scripture for him?  
Is the Truth of God bound to the first six hundred years? 
M. jew. putteth Truth within a Circle of years.  And must it not pass that compass which M. jewel hath appointed unto it? Is God a God of six hundred years only, and not of all time and all worlds? Was the Holyghost promised to tarry with us, till vj. C. years were come and gone, and not to the end of the world? The kingdom of Christ, which should be everlasting, and his power which should not be taken away: must it be interpreted now, to have their full term out, in vj. C. years only?  
What Grace have the first vj. C, Or what curse of God have these last ix C. years? Now know you also, when the first vj. C. ended, Or what trust have you in them, which number the years unto you? Some Historiographers reckon one way, Other reckon an other way.  
What certainty then can you have of them? Again, those writers whom you follow, either do at this present live, Or he commended unto you by them that now line. And how dare you trust, either those that now live and write of things so long since past: Or those, that a great while since are dead, yourself not then borne to live with them, and examine their doings?  
Consider also, how many have written within the space of these last nine hundred years: how perfit in life, how Excellent in knowledge, how Painful in studies, how Worthy in their own days, How Famous with the Posterity, How meet witnesses in the cause of God, and trial of a Pure and holy Religion? Abbates, Monks, Friars, are in these new Gospelling days, terms of great shame and Ignominy: yet what sayeth and honest Protestant, against S. Bernard, Rupertus, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, Dionysius the Carthusian, and other such? Can M. jewel find any fault in their life, by any Report of brute or Fame? Or any irreligiousness in their books and writings, which are extant, for him to consider? Let him say his worst, Let him leave poring in Gloss of no Authority, to find some mad thing or other, against the wisdom of the Church, And let him confer his leisure to Reading or Examining rather of these Witness (according to the State he taketh upon him) whose sayings, he knoweth, we esteem as we ought to do.  
O, sayeth he, these were of late days. I grant▪ And not only that, but also, and you will, that they were in evil and corrupt days. But were they corrupted in them? Did they not write against corrupt living? Did they suffer new Preachers and Apostolikes, to go out of the Church or come against the church by their evil Doctrine? Or did they communicate with Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, Abbots or any other of all the world in their living? Seing they neither f●ared hatred nor curred Favour, why should not their Testimony be received, no other exception being brought against them, but that they lived in so late days, or such A world?  
All is Ungodly, All is Unreasonable, All is Uaineglorious, to appeal to the times so long passed, As though that God, at this present, had not his Church in the world: Or, as though ye could well follow any other, but such as you hear with our own ears: Or, as though the good and learned men of these Later years, departed this world hundred of years since, were not as nigh to the first six hundred years as ye are, and as ready to follow the best way as ye: Or, as though it were A jolly matter and a compendious way to the Gospel, to contemn all Christendom that now is, and hold with that Christendom that was almost a thousand years since, not knowing yet, what Christianity meaneth, Nor Daring to trust it if ye knew it, were it not for the Authority which is at this present in Christendom, the Greatness of which hath moved you to believe, what so ever you believe upon any good ground.  
Here therefore M. jewel, defend your doings, And show us the cause, wherefore you do, or should refuse the Testimony of the last ix. hundred years which are against you. If it be not for Childeshnesse, or Wantonness, or unsensibleness, that you will none of so many and so grave Witnesses: yet except you allege some honest cause and reason, It will remain, I believe, that you do it upon a very blind Stomach and contention. My questio●s are short, and easy to be answered, if you have any Faith or Conscience at all. As in Example.  
Was there not a Church of God, 
Here l●t any Protestant give a Reason of his faith?  in the world, when you were borne?  
Did not the Greatness, Gravity and Authority of Nations which were of it, move you to believe?  
Did the Invisible and little Congregation work that effect in you?  
If ye trusted the Catholic Church of your time, in commending Christ unto you, and without her commendation would not have credited him: can you, with a safe conscience, contemn the voice of the same Church, And, to colour your defection and Fleeing from it, take hold fast of the first six hundred years only, As though you could with all your wit, judge better what the Primitive Church thought and believed, than the present Church which is of one Spirit with the Primitive. etc.  
But there is no Remedy, upon the first six hundred years M. jewel joineth with us, And if any thing be longer than that measure, he will none of it: he hath said it.   

¶ How M. jewel himself doth use the Testimonies of what so ever Age and writer, though he bind other to the first six hundred years only.  
TO the first six hundred years cumpasse then, we must be bound, all against Reason and Conscience, but what shall we do, when the standing in our right against the Adversary, 
How the heretics do appoint 1. questions 2. Order of disputing 3. Manner of Authorities, 4. Age of the witnesses: all at pleasure but nothing, after right and reason.  and the Refusing to encounter with him upon his conditions, shallbe thought of some judges to be A Prejudice unto our cause, and A great Argument that our hearts fail us?  
Dispute (sayeth the Heretic) with me, upon these questions, whether the Public Service in an unknown tongue, Or Receiving under one kind, Or Reserving of the Sacrament in A Pix with A Canopy over it▪ etc. Was ever used in the Primitive Church. No Marry (would I say, if it were to me only), I will not Dispute with thee upon these points. But, if thy heart and Learning serve thee, make few words and Answer me, from whence thou comest? Who sent thee? 
Reasonable Demands.  What are their Names? Where are their Sees? What is their Succession? What is their Authority? In which points if thou satisfy me, not only then, in these few Articles which thou demandest, but in every point and part of the Religion, which thy Church alloweth, I will be Faithful and Obedient.  
Dispute (sayeth he again unto me) on Monday come seven-night. And before that Day cometh, he chaingeth his mind four or five times with me.  
First he will Dispute in Latin: Then he will write his mind, and speak nothing: After that, he will have the matter Reasoned in English, and wise men shallbe judges: And, after that again, he will have it done in the hearing of the people, not by quick Disputation, but by Reading only the Arguments out of a Book.  
If the Catholic Disagree in any point, and stand upon it: either stubborness, either Mistrust of his Cause, either some fault or other, shallbe laid unto him. And so were many great and heighnous matters Objected against S. Ambrose, 
Ambr. lib. 5.  because he refused to have the cause between himself and the Heretic Auxentius, 
Ep. 33.  to be tried in the Consistory of the Emperor, before Secular judges. And his Exception, against the Place only and Audience, was accounted an high and intolerable Treason.  
In like manner: You shall Dispute with me (sayeth the Heretic,) and nothing shall serve you, except it be in express Scripture. If the Catholic refuse that Condition, and allege an hundred Reasons and Authorities, that we must bele●e the unwritten verity, as well as the written, And, that the word and will of God is always to be obei●d, whether it be delivered unto us by Tradition, or left unto us in Writing: Yet except he yield at length, all England shall ring of it, That the Papists will not be tried by the linely word of God, That they flee the light, That they dare not commit their cause to the Scriptures.  
To be short, when M. jewel now, more Reasonably in deed than Some of his Masters or Fellows, which will admit nothing but Scripture: Yet heretically and stately enough, provokes us to join with him, And chooseth his questions, and excludeth all our Answers unto them, except they be taken just out of the v●. C. years after Christ: although it be very unjustly required of him, and A Catholic should never come into such bondage, Or not always condescend in these lesser points unto A Protestant: Yet, if he strive long with him about it, and stand in the Defence of the last nine hundred years, alleging many and them good causes, wherefore the Testimony and consent of so long time should be allowed, the longer he striveth, the worse shall he be esteemed for it, and the earnest maintaining of every Truth on his side, shall go in Print abroad for an Argument, that in deed he hath no good right.  
Be it so then, The Catholic must let go the vantage of ix. C. years, he must fight within that time and compass that the Heretic prescribeth: And although that naturally, all men are more favourable, to them that are called in to the law, than the suers and troblers of them, and suffer the defendant, whom worldly friendship clean forsaketh, to have as much right as his cause will give him: Yet, let all things be forgotten, which may commend the Catholics, and as M. jewel hath appointed, so, let the first six hundred years only be considered and allowed.  
But here now let me ask one Question. As it not Reason, 
A most reasonable condition.  like as our adversary prescribeth unto us, the number and Term of years, out of which we must gather our Arguments: that so likewise he, should not come against us with any Testimony or Authority, which were out of those appointed limits and bounds of years? If a Challenger shall say to the Party whom he Provoketh, come, let us strait ways try the matter between ourselves in the plain Field, and bring thou thy Sword and Buckler as I will mine: when they are agreed, upon the Time, Place, and kind of Weapon, if the Challenger would, against the others single sword, come with sword, dagger, horse, spear, Dag, and what so ever defence or help he could get ●yside, should he not be counted Awretched and Contentious, and A glorious jacke Bragger? He that biddeth the combat, seemeth to take himself for the better man, and to like his own cause and quarrel very well: how Ignominious then and Shameful must it be unto him, not to fight upon equal conditions with his Adversary?  
Reason you against me (sayeth M. jewel) out of the first six hundred years only: but I for all that, will be at my liberty to use any Testimony out of the xv. C. and odd years since Christ. Which in very deed is as much to say, as kneel you here upon one knee, and Fight not out of this Circle which I make to you, As for myself I will go or run at my pleasure about you, and take my vantage where I can find it, sometimes within, sometimes without the Circle, sometimes standing nigh, sometimes coursing about the field.  
Marry Sir, if such Privileges might be granted to Warriors, it were an easy matter to prolong the Battle, and to win the praise of much manliness, by spurring cut hither and thither, and no matter how. For, he taketh no care hereof, how truly he allege, the Testimonies of these last nine hundred years, Or how worthy and approved Authors they be, whom he allegeth, but without exception he taketh all that he findeth, and from the highest to the lowest, from the Text to the Gloze, and among Gloss from the best to the worst of them, he Taketh, and Draweth, and Heapeth against us, All that may seem to help his Assertions.  
Tell us therefore (I pray you M. jewel) what Equity or Conscience you follow? Will you bind the Catholics, to the first six hundred years, And will yourself argue out of compass? May not we use the worthy Authority of Bonifacius, because he was Bishop of Rome in the year of our Lord 680, and will you admit the sayings and doings of Luther, Zwinglius and Caluine, all condemned Persons; through the Catholic Church, and living xv. C years after Christ?  
S. Bernard (you say) was A man of late years. So was Dionysius the Carthusian, So were others, whom I have reckoned up, in the chapter before: And therefore, by your account, of less Authority. And why then do you allege not only S. Bernard, 
jewel.  but Durand, Gerson, Alexander, 
260  Lynwod, Camotensis, Hugo Cardinalis, 
195.  Eckius, Aeneas Silvius, Erasmus, 
150.  and other? I report me to the very margin of your book, 
199  by that it will appear, 
175.  whether you do not stuff your book, 
177  with Canons, Constitutions, Gloss, 
10.  Histories, Interpretations of scripture, Testimonies of Fathers, Opinions of Schoolmen. etc. such as altogether you scrape out of these last nine C. years. For which your so doing, if you can bring any Reason, or show any Special privilege granted to you, against the law of Nature, that you might do against an other, that, which you would not have done to yourself: either, of this unreasonable favour and Licence, you must give some cause, or else you must suffer us to complain of it, that you deal not with us Indifferently.  
But it will be thought, perchance, of others, that you allege not the later Writers, of any time these nine C. years, for the Estimation or Credit, which you have them in, but only, because your Adversary maketh great Price of them.  
Suppose it were so: yet you do him great Wrong, to put him to Answering of more Witnesses, than he should do by right: And to fill your Reply with those men's sayings, whose Authorities though he do not contemn, yet he would not have them to possess, & occupy the place, which more Ancient and worthier Persons should have. And although we think as it becometh us, of s. Bernard, s., Bonaventure, S. Denyse. etc. Yet, if you would needs have us in Reasoning with you, not to pass the Bounds and Term of vj. C. years, you should not, though we allowed the Persons never so much, bring any of A lower degree and later age against us, either to stand in the place which S. Jerome, S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, or S. Chrysostom should occupy, either to commend that place the better by their Presence, which the Ancient Fathers of the Primitive Church, do furnish abundantly by themselves: and which also they only should furnish, by your appointment. And further I say, that if you will not suffer me to take any vantage against you, by the testimony of any good Man or writer of the nine hundred years last passed, it is no equality, that, whether I will or no, you should make me to Answer the sayings, which you bring against me, out of those years which you pass not upon. And whereas it shall do me no good, though I prove, that S. Bernard (for Example) in that place which you will allege, doth not only not hinder, but also further my cause: to what purpose should I spend anyetime at all, in hearing or examining his words, which, although I declare to make for me, may not be lawfully used of me?  
And therefore, notwithstanding you judge truly of us herein and better of us than of yourself, that we, the Catholics, do not refuse the Authority of later Fathers and Doctors, whom the Church yet never condemned or despised: Yet, this our credit which we have them in, must not serve you for any cause or excuse, why ye should bring them forth against us, except we may do the like against you. For, as you have appealed to the first vj. C. years, thereby to let us of our Liberty, so we do require you also, not to pass that number or cumpasse of those years, thereby to cut away your superfluity. And in thus doing, we are not weary of the later Doctors of Christendom, nor afraid of their judgements but we are offended with your vainglorious, and very wretched behaviour, which will not keep the law yourself, that you prescribe unto other.  
There is, I grant, A kind of Argument ad hominem, non ad rem, to the man not to the matter. As, to some of our Country men, at this present, and them of the most perfit and exquisite Trade, in following of the Gospel, if A Catholic do say, that Father Caluine himself, (whose judgement is much praised in the Congregation,) was of this mind, 
Com: ●, Amos  and was also Zealous in it, that they did very ill, which ga●e to king Harry the viij. that he should be head of the Church: this argument so taken of his Authority, that was a Proud, and foolish, And Lousy Heretic, although it be nothing worth in deed, and in that respect not to be used of A Catholic, Yet, to him that accounteth of Caluine, as if he had been one of the lights of the World, the Catholic may right well use it, & drive him by force of the Consequence, either to deny calvin's Authority (which he will not) Or the king's supremacy (which he dareth not.) So y● against him, that is addicted to any one Opinion of his own, or of other whom he buildeth upon, to bring an Argument grounded upon his own Opinion & judgement, & thereby to make him forsake his own opinion, or keep still in his memory the Contradiction which inwardly pincheth him: It is A kind of Reasoning, good and profitable.  
And, in this respect, if any Catholic were so blind & singular, as to set more by the Gloze upon unam Sanctam, Extr. de Maior & Obed▪ than the Commentaries of S. Jerome, and S. Chrisostome: Or by Durand, Gerson, Lynwod. etc. than any of the most Ancient Fathers: M. jewel then, might be suffered to argue ad hominem, that is, to allege Gloss, Schoolmen and later Doctors, to him that hath A special fancy unto those, more than any of the Primitive Church. But now, se the Inequality & odds. For neither D. Har●nor his Inferiors, are so ignorant of the sense & strength of this word Catholic, that they should be addicted to any one, two, or three men's private sayings of what degree or time so ever they have been, (without th● consent or warrant of the Church) neither should M. jewel allege unto them, any Testimony of the last nine hundred years, himself referring the trial of the the whole matter to the first vj. C. only. And having such Adversaries, as are very well content, to be ordered by the sentence and judgement of that first age, and that Primitive Church.  
Yet go to for a while, let M. jewel be suffered: And let it be his excuse, that he hath argued always ad hominem, to the man, when he hath used the Testimonies of later times, thereby to impugn D. Harding. Let him say (I mean) that he hath recited in his Reply, Durand, Gerson, Biel, Denyse, Hugo Cardinal, Thomas Duns. etc. not, because himself alloweth them, but, because they are esteemed of the party against whom he writeth.  
But is this true? And hath not he used their Testimonies in respect also of his own opinion, & confirmed himself in it, because of their Testimonies? When he reasoneth Substantially, and Directly, and Plainly to his Purpose, and ad rem to the matter, and out of his own Principles (as it were) and Authorities, doth he not allege the foresaid Doctors, although they were, all the sort of them, far under the first six hundred years, to which only he would have the Decision of the controversies referred? Whether this be so or no, let Examples try it.  
M. jewel is of the Opinion that no Christian Churches were built in the Apostles time: 
jew. 19●.  And much less than Altars (if his Logic be good.) For may we think (saith he) that Altars were built before the Church? Of which Lie, 
In the Chapter of Lies.  we shall speak in an other place. But to my purpose. It followeth in him:  
Neither afterward, 
jew.  when Altars were first used, and so named, were they strait way built of Stone, as Durandus and such others say, they must needs be, and that, Quia petra erat Christus, Because Christ was the Stone.  
Whereof then were they built, 
Ra.  according to your Opinion? And what Cause or Authority have you for it? It followeth.  
For Gerson saith, 
jew.  that Silvester Bishop of Rome, first caused Stone Altars to be made. etc.  
Is Gerson then, 
Ra  of Authority with you? And a man of so late years, and little Fame and Estimation, in comparison of many Fathers and Doctors of the ix. C. years last passed, all which you refuse, is he now a witness for your● Here it is plain that you bring in this late writer, to serve directly your own Opinion, and, that he standeth you in such steed, that without him, you prove not that which you said.  
You depend not therefore upon your adversaries allowing of Gerson. as who should say: if he admit the Testimony of him, then do I confirm my Assertion, and if he do not, yet have I other Authorities to prove my sayings true: but, you do so absolutely and properly for your own Opinion use him, that without him, you leave your matters unproved. But let us see an other Example.  
It is required of M. jewel, that forasmuch as the Catholics could never yet find, that the Public Service in the Primitive Church, was in any other than Greek or Latin, and he yet is sure of the Contrary, that it was everywhere in a tongue known to the vulgar People: he show therefore his Profess and Authorities, such by all likelihood, as himself is persuaded withal, before he would have other to allow them. Mark then what he saith.  
And, 
jew. 175.  to avoid multitude of words, the case being plain, 
Eckius in locis Com. Durand. lib. 4. ca 1. Nicolaus Lyra. Thomas in. 1. ad Cor. 14.  Eckius saith, the Indians had their Service, in the Indian tongue, Durandus saith, The jews, that were Christened, had their Service in the Hebrew tongue.  
Nycolas Lyra, and Thomas de Aquine, say, The Common Service in the Primitive Church was in the Common vulgar tongue.  
And in the next leaf following, he allegeth Aeneas Silvius and an Extravagant de Officio judicis Ordinarij. 
177.  and john Billet in Summa de Divinis officijs.  
But what are all these? 
Ra.  Were they not writers of very late Years? Were they not Popisshe Doctors, or popish Proctors, not worth the naming (by M. jewels Account) and much less worth the Crediting? Why than doth he allege them? Will he say, he condescended herein to D. Harding's Infirmity? And, that he useth his own Doctors for the better contentation of his mind? No verily he must not say so. For he was required to bring his own grounds and witnesses, and not such, as are allowed only per accidens, that is, because it so happeneth, that an other man liketh them. He was content also to show his profess, and to yield to the foresaid Request, both for the goodness and pregnancy of the cause, 
jew. 175.  and also specially, Good Christian Reader, (sayeth he,) for the better Contentation of thy mind.  
If the cause then be good and pregnant, why use you so ill and barren Testimonies, as all theirs are (if your account be true) which come forth, after the first six hundred years? And, if you seek after the Contentation of your Readers mind, you signify thereby, that the Authorities, which you allege, are worthy and allowable. Not, because Doctor Harding will make no Exception, perchance, against them, but because yourself like them and esteem them.  
Otherwise, what Contentation of the Readers mind, call you this, to Reason upon their Authorities, whom yourself would have to be contemned? Or, to establish any opinion upon such grounds upon which you can build nothing, except unto him, which holdeth them for sure and good? Of which sort of men, you make not (I trust) every your good Christian Reader to be. Especially, many of them, by your oft Appealing to the first six hundred years, being occasioned, to set little by any Testimony of lower time and degree.  
Thus we see again, that M. jewel hath used the late writers Testimony Eckius, Durand, Thomas Aquinas, and john Billet, not, because of D. Harding's opinion or regard of them (which how great or little it is, he doth not know) but, because of his own liking of them.  
Neither doth he peek (as it were) an occasion to use them, out of his adversaries estimation of them, but whether D. Harding alloweth them or no, M. jewel flatly useth them, nor is ashamed of the lateness of them. A thing, at other times so material with him, that on pain of forfeiting all a man's labour, none must be brought in for witnesses, but such as are, within little, a thousand year old.  
See one place more and with that, we shall end this Chapter. It is a question between the Catholics and the Heretics, Whether the words of Christ, in the sixth of S. john, are to be understanded, only of the spiritual eating of his body, Or of the Spiritual and Sacramental both. The first is the new Masters, the second is the Old Fathers. To prove the first, that the words of our Saviour in that Chapter, are taken and meant of spiritual eating only, Thus saith Master jewel.  
For to leave S. Augustine, 
jew. 104  Origine, and others of that age: Nicolas Lyra, a man of later years saith, The said words of Christ, must needs be taken Spiritually, and none otherwise.  
Likewise, one Michael Vaehe, one of late years, a man of M. Harding'S own side, touching the same matter, writeth thus (against Luther.) This saith he, is a weak reason, for, the words, that be spoken of Spiritual eating▪ He Applieth to the Sacramental eating. Here may M. Harding see, besides S. Augustine, Origine, and other old Catholic Fathers, whose Words I have not alleged, what men he hath called New Masters. Nicolas Lyra, was an english man, and lived two hundred years before Luther. Michael Vaehe, was of late years, and wrote namely against Luther.  
here I trow, 
Ra.  it is perceived that M. jewel useth late writers Testimonies, in defence of his side. The question is, whether the sixth of S. john, be understanded of Spiritual eating only or no. If it be, let us set your Authorities (M. jewel) and reasons.  
The new masters (as D. Hard. termeth them) expound it so. They are not all new masters (say you) that have so taken th● How prove you that? For Nicolas Lyra (You Answer) saith it▪ and one Michael Vaehe one of late years. 
M. jew. belieth his witnesses.  They say it not, that it is to be understanded only of Spiritual eating, but of Spiritual eating without ONLY. Suppose yet they said it, what were that to purge the new Masters of the fault of Singularity, or to persuade your Reader that it must be so taken? I do not dispraise neither Nicolas Lyra, neither Michael Uehe, but I can not but mislike it greatly in you, to allege their Names in your defence, whose Authorities are neither Excellent, nor Years Ancient. Especially, whereas you would seem to have S. Augustine, Origine, and others of that age, to stand with you in this matter. But you leave them and come to Nicolas Lyra.  
What do you M. jewel? Is there any man, in all the Catholic Church, which will give you leave, 
M. jew. leaveth S Augustine etc. ● followeth Nicolas Lyra:  to answer him rather by Nicolas Lyra, then S. Augustine? And doth it become your manhood and Courage, (which is so great, that you will have Controversies examined by no later writers, than those of the first six hundred years,) thus to leave, S. Augustine (whose Authority is worthily regarded of all wise men) and clean to Nicolas Lyra, whose testimony any man (except it be of contempt) may lawfully let alone with out using or allowing of it? You commend him to us in two points, He was (you say) An English man, and lived two hundred years before Luther. I have read the contrary, that he was a jew, borne at Liere: nevertheless if you for Country sake (as borne perchance in the old or new jury in London) or for Age sake, as living two hundred years before Luther, do think that he is a worthy witness to English men of this age, I will not reprove your kindness of heart towards your Countrymen, nor affection to the time later by seven hundred years than the primitive church unto which you appeal so precisely: But this, who can abide? To consider M. jewel, so great a Contemner of later divines and Schoolmen, to leave S. Augustine, 
Absurd.  Origen and others, and to defend his fellows, by Nycolas Lyra and Michael Vaehe? And not only that, but to crack (as it were) that S. Augustin is also with him, and yet not so much as to name the Place where it might be sought and found. For consider his words.  
Here may M. harding see besides S. Augustine, 
104  Origene, and other old Catholic Fathers, whose words I have not allegaed, 
M. jew. belieth himself.  what men he hath called New Masters.  
In deed, 
Ra.  he may see that you ha●e brought forth, Nycolas Lyra, and one Michael Vaehe: but that he may see them, bysydes S. Augustine, Origene, and other Old Catholic Fathers, How is it possible? For yourself confess, that, you have not alleged their words. And how then should he see them? If D. Harding do no more, but quote only the Places of the Doctors, in which his sayings be verified, And leave the writing out of their whole Sentences: all this (you will say) is but a camisado, 
Jow. 6.  these be but vizards: They be no faces: They are brought in, like Mummers, for a show, and say nothing. And what pretty Counterfeiting may we call this, to allege A later writers saying fully, and not so much as quote the place of the old Fathers: And yet, to make an Ostentation with, here may M. Harding see, bysides S. Augustine, Origen, and other old Catholic Fathers whose words I have not alleged, what men he hath called new masters? verily, this is beside all reason, to tell me that besides S. Augustine etc. I may See what Nycolas Lyra testifieth, where no one Sentence or Half sentence of S. Augustine's is to be Seen, Herd, or Understanded, in the place on which I am bid to look.  
But, 
This is worse than mummery.  I have not alleged their words, sayeth M. jewel. And why did you not, I pray you, Sir? Were you in such haste to come to Nycolas Lyra and Michael Vaehe, that you could not carry with S. Augustin, Origene, and other old Catholic Fathers? Is it your manner of writing, to spare the Alleging of old Fathers? Or, was their word, not worth the hearing? Or, must we needs believe your Assertion, without further evidence? The Truth is, neither Saint Augustine, nor Origen, nor any other old Catholic Fathers did precisely say, that the sixth of S. John, must be understanded only of the Spiritual eating of Christ's flesh. And you, although you could not have their voices, yet you were so bold as to use their Names: And pretending, as though it were easy to see, that they did testify for you, so, you leave them quite and clean, and bring in, Nycolas Lyra an Englisheman, and Michael Uaehe of late years, to speak somewhat for you.  
Consider now (Indifferent Reader) whether M. jewel useth the later Writers, as Necessary Witnesses in his own cause, or no? And whether he bringeth them in, as Men whom D. Harding is well content withal, Or as Persons, without whom, his sayings, could have no probality at all? For, if he had alleged, first S. Augustine, Origen, and other old Catholic Fathers, and afterwards, had rehearsed the Opinions and judgements of later writers: he might have been thought to have done it for A Surplusage, and to have sought thereby, to persuade rather his Adversary, than to Confirm his own Assertion. But on the other side now, to leave S. Augustine, Origen and other Fathers, and to stay only upon Lyra and Uaehe, what other thing is it, than to Protest that by their Testimonies his cause is Sufficiently proved? And, to take vantage of their sayings, which lived out of the six hundred, next after Christ? And, this is that which deserveth just Indignation, that any man, bearing the Person and Face, of one that had discretion or Conscience, should bind an other to a certain compass of Time and Years, which, in no case, he should pass, in Debating of any controversy: And yet, would in the mean Time himself, Argue, Reason, and Conclude, out of any Time, and require to have it stand, for proof good and sufficient, of his own Assertions: And to use that kind of Liberty or Prerogative, not only when he speaketh ad hominem, that is, to the Meaning, Sense, Opinion, or Fancy of the man, with whom he hath to do, but also, ad rem, that is, according to his own Meaning & judgement, in which, he taketh the testimonies by himself alleged, to pertain, Directly, and in deed, to Confirmation of the cause, which he sustaineth.  
Yet (as I said before) let M. jewels excuse be, that he hath used Late w●yters Testimonies, not for any stay of his own Opinions (the contrary whereof I have showed) but to stop only D. Harding's mouth, and to set one Papist against an other, Let him so say, and let us so take it: yet, is this no indifferent dealing. For, if he will bind us to the first six hundred years, and himself yet, will press us with Authorities of later age, either he mindeth that we shall Answer him in them, or hold our peace and be still.  
If we shall answer: why appointed he the limits of six hundred years to be kept of us? For, when he provoketh us, with matter collected out of the compass of them, we must needs come also out of them, and join with him, thereupon.  
And, if he minded that we should not at all Answer him, and that himself yet, would Object such Testimonies unto us: Why did he then Object them? Except we shall judge of him, that he is so foolish, as to appoint it, or so Proud and Stately, as to conceive it, that it may be lawful for him, in fight against his Adversary, to have certain Places open unto his Desperate Foins, and that no Warding of the Danger, and no Buckler should be used. And therefore,  
It is not to be granted unto you M. jewel, to Bind us to the first six hundred years, And to be Lose yourself, concerning any witness or Authority, of the nine hundred following: To set us within a Circle, and yourself to Discourse out of Order and Cumpasse: To forbid us, the Alleging of S. Bernard, and yet to charge us with the Opinion of Michael Uehe, or any such other. No Sir: to the first six hundred you have Appealed, to the first six hundred only, you shall stand.  
If you will Reply, they be our own Doctoures, and therefore we may not Refuse them: We Answer shortly unto you, that whereas in your Singular judgement they be no Doctoures at all, And whereas you will not Suffer them to be O●res, Or that we may allege them and recite them as our own: we therefore in this Case and State of Reasoning with you, do not take them for our own. Yea, they must be so counted upon and so set aside, as if they were no men's witnesses at all, Because you, in Drawing the matter to the first six hundred years only, do Import and Conclude thereby, that, of all later Times and Writers, you would have A sad Silence to be agreed upon, and kept.  
But, where will M. jewels Glory be then? And, if he himself shall use no Testimony under the first vj. C. years: how little will his Reply be? How uncertain must his Answers be? How great Blindness and Silence must he come unto? Take away from M. jewel, and his fellows the last nine hundred years, and you take away from them the Flowers of their Divinity. 
The flowers of the new Gospel.  Out of those years, they Rake all the evil that is spoken, of Popes, Cardinals, Priests. etc. that by reveling other men's Turpitude, they may commend their own bare Honesties. Out of those, come many Canons of Counsels, Constitutions of Emperors, Uarieties of Historiographers, Conclusions and Distinctions of School men, in the number of which, it is easy to find somewhat, always, that shall sound against the Catholics. Either, because all things, are not to be taken as they lie, but need an Interpretation: either because, when many write of one Fact, Or entreat of one matter, they do not always so thoroughly agree, in every point of the History or Question, but that he, whom it Pleaseth to strive thereupon with an other, may soon find A doubt Or Argument to serve his humour of Contradiction. Out of those, many Gloss are peeked, so Obscure or Trifling, that were it not, for the Diligence of Heretics, which have brought them forth in to light, They would as little have been sought for of the Catholics, As they are now little esteemed of them, when they are Found out and showed to them by the Heretics.  
Take therefore, the writings of the last nine hundred years, away from the Protestants, and there must needs follow, such lack of matter, to make up their Tales, that they will soon be at an end, both in writing and in preaching. And, not only concerning their ill Purposes: (As, to bring either the Departed into hatred, by opening their faults, Or them that at this Present line, into Infamy, by charging them with the faults of their Forefathers (but, concerning also good and wholesome Laws, Decrees, Definitions, Orders of Government, Customs, Ceremonies, which have been in these last nine hundred years, Wisely appointed, a●d Profitably continued, If nothing, that is testified by the Writings and Practice of them, shall stand in any steed to make a Sentence or Argument: what Confusion, Contention, Destruction, Blindness, desperateness, will be caused in both States, Spiritual and Temporal, It is easy to be perceived.  
What Church shall keep her Privileges? what Clergy continue in any Order of Serving God? what King or Emperor, maintain the Crown upon his head? what state of Common wealth in all Christendom may be defended?  
If, the Records, writings, Answers, Decrees, Acts, Dispensations, Conclusions, and Laws of the last nine hundred years, must be, all, either utterly refused, Or better Examined before they be received?  
For in these later years, Countries have been converted: Religion hath been Planted: Heresies, by the Authority of Counsels, have been condemned: The Empire, hath been translated: Our own Realm of England hath been conquered, And, in all these so great points, the judgement and Sentence of the Pope hath always been regarded. And that, which at this day is holden for Truth, in A thousand cases both Spiritual and Temporal, dependeth in deed upon the Decree and Order, which the Governors of the Church for that time, made for it and appointed, when the case was first moved, Or exhibited.  
If therefore, no Authority or Testimony of these later nine hundred years, must be admitted, let M. jewel with all his own wit, And Policy of his friends beside, see how he can begin the World a fresh.  
And, the foundation of six hundred years standing on sure ground, let him pull down all, that hath been builded, and show us some fine pe●ce of work of his own, such I trow as shall in all Proportion agree with the Primitive Church and rise in a most goodly Ordre of every H●ndred year since, one above an other, until he come unto this very time, in which he liveth, and give men to see most plainly and evidently, that his Church now, is of the same making, without any Imperfection, Or gaping of the work that may be espied. Let him I say make an Uniform and Apt work.  
For if he will begin at the end of the six Hundred years, and immediately, join thereto, the state of His Congregation at this Present: either it will be a Miraculous work to see foundations with me●ely high walls, and a Roof a great way from them, without any Stone, Timber, Stay or Workmanship between: Either will it be a very E●ilfauoured matter, to see one piece hanging so far from the other, as Germans of Heretics lips do hang together. If therefore your building be Sure and True, join years to years, and without all gaps or holes, make the whole, perfit, Close, and One.  
But ye are as well able to do it, and knit or join your Church to the Primitive, as ye are to build up again, All the abbeys in England, Or prove unto us that the Stones of them, which lie now broken in high ways, or were carried out of the way, to building of Gentelmen's places, do answer rightly in the form which they have at this present, to the Foundations and Pillars, remaining, yet, unto some Religious houses, from whence they have been taken. Especially this Principle of your Artificio●snes standing, that the Testimony of these last nine hundred years, is not to be Alleged or Allowed.  
Which being so Unjust and Unreasonable, as I have declared, Either, let M. jewel utterly put out of his Reply, what so ever he hath gathered and scraped, out of Canons, Gloss, Schoolmen, Heretics, Historiographers, and other Writers whatsoever of later years, And from hensefurth, fill no more Papers with such kind of stuff: Either else, let him be ashamed, to bind us to the first six hundred only, himself not able to Contain himself, Or Maintain his cause, within that compass.  
But, I know, I ask his loss. For, If he may not peek out of all times such Signs of Defence for his cause, as ma●● seem to serve for it, he will be quickly undone in the best Limb he hath, And, without all doubt will be ●ongtied. As, on the other side, If he will set us have right, and suffer us to prove our cause by godly and learned witnesses, of what so ever Age they be, so that he can make no lawful Exception against them, than is he utterly undone in his own Conscience: knowing that the Catholic Church, doth expressly and by name, condemn his Master's Heresies. So that it is not otherwise likely, but he will have us to stand fast bound to the first six hundred years, and will reserve unto himself, that special Privilege, to Take and Make his vantage, Where, and When so ever he may.   

1 That M. jewel refuseth to ●e tried by the Sentence or Testimony of the first six hundred years, to which only he appealeth.  
WHat Remedy then? If M. jewel shall provoke manfully, and wretchedly appoint us a bound, which we may not go beyond in coming against him: If he may use xv. C. years and odd, and we not vi. C. and one day over: If he shall fetch need less vagaries, and we be restrained of our lawful liberty: what Remaineth▪ verily to have patience, until it shall please Almighty God either to conuer●e his heart to repentance, either to move the minds of other, to hau● a better consideration of these Matters which pertain to their Salvation, either to come himself in judgement, and make an end of all Proceed. Yet this in the mean time, thou mayst consider (indifferent Reader) that we are two manner of ways abused, by M. jewel.  
First, that ye will prescribe unto us from whence we shall take our Arguments against him. Secondly, that himself will not be content with those Conditions, which he prescribeth unto us.  
But is this all the wrong that Master jewel doth unto Us? No, it is n●t all. For now, I shall declare unto thee, how Himself will not admit the Witnesses of the very first six hundred years, unto which he straightly bindeth us. And what can be more unreasonable? For in separating the last nine Hundred from the first six, and in allowing the first, and condemning the Latter, what doth he but note unto us the Incorruption and Purity of Faith in those days, and not warrant the Testimonies to be good, if it be taken out of the first six hundred years after Christ.  
Of the first he saith, 
jew. ●. ●.  If any learned man. etc. be able to bring any one Sufficient Sentence. etc. that the things upon which he Challengeth us, were used or allowed in the Primitive Church, for the space of six hundred years after Christ, I am content to yield and subscribe. Of the Later years he saith. 
116.  S. Bernard is a Doctor but of late years, therefore his Authority must weigh the Lighter.  
If therefore there be no Excellency or Prerogative in the first six hundred, why divided he them, so Precisely and Diligently from the later nine? And, If there be so Great, as he seemeth to make, why will not he himself stand unto the judgement of that Primitive Church, And that first age so chaste and undefiled? Choose one of these two (M. jewel,) which you will: And let us see an Example and token, either of your wisdom and prudency, in Separating, for some just cause, the Beginnings of the One, and whole Sum of xv. C. years, from the latter ends of it: either of your justice and Indifferency, in regarding the witnesses of the First six hundred years, which you require to be exactly followed of others.  
For as you say, 
jew. 140.  Lyra and Teutonicus, lived at the least, thirteen C. years after Christ: Therefore their Authority must needs seem the less: Why say ye not also, S. Leo, and S. Gregory, lived five hundred years after Christ, Therefore their Authority must needs seem the less? Or why put you A Difference, between the Former and the later years of the xv. C. in which Christ hath ruled his church? And, if your wisdom saw good causes, wherefore you should sort the years which have passed sense Christ's Incarnation after a rare manner, & cull out (as it were) the best from the worst: with what Conscience then and Equity, can you refuse to be ordered by the Testimony of the better sort of them?  
For, if against the later nine hundred years which you take from us, this Exception of yours is enough to discredit them, 
M. jew. special Exception against the last ix. C. years, proveth that he would be ordered by the vi. C. that went before.  that they were Late: It followeth consequently, that to the first six hundred years, this alone is Commendation enough, that yourself make no Exception against them, but permit us to take all the vantage we can out of them. As if you should have expressly said unto us: for as much as I will admit no Late Catholic Doctor, Father, or Council, but Catholic, Old and Ancient, And, for as much as I take the last nine hundred and odd years sens Christ, to be but late, and out of the compass, which I will allow unto you in reasoning against me: Therefore, if you look, that I shall make no Exception against the Authority and Witnesses which you will bring, Provide by time, that they be taken out of the vj. C. years, next after Christ.  
This Truth therefore so standing, that, In refusing the witnesses of Later years, you must be understanded to allow unto us the catholic writers of Ancient time, and this Ancient time, being defined unto us by you, that it consisteth just in y● vj. C. next after Christ, so that if it be found later but by one year, you will not take it to be old enough: Let us see now, in what Manner and Fashion, you conform yourself to the judgement of that very Time, which you took yourself unto, So precisely, as if it should make altogether for you.  
first of all, you do not allow, Clemens de Consti Apost. Neither Abdias: 
jew. 7. 8. 9 12. 233. 264. 66. and. 223.  nor Hippolytus Martyr. And Athanasius Epistle is to you a Scar crow stuffed up in straw, and julius Epistle seemeth to favour of some corruption: And at one word, 
Ancient Authorities denied by M. jewel.  the Decrees and Epistles decretal deprave the Scriptures, Maintain the kingdom of the Pope, Publisshe a multitude of Vain Ceremonies, and I can not tell what. For how worshipful and worthy causes, you make Exceptions against them, you shall better understand that by him, which alleged them.  
But concerning my Objection, I have more plain and sensible Demonstrations, to declare, how you refuse Ancient Fathers, and witnesses, that I need not to reason at all with you, about your Ignominious and Injurious Extenuations of the foresaid Authorities. And, if by these Examples which I shall now bring, it be not made Open and manifest, that in deed you little regard Antiquity, then will nothing ever make it plain: And, if this which I shall declare, do prove so much to the Indifferent Reader, Enough is as Much, as he can require.  
Here then, it would be remembered or considered, that, which D. Harding bringeth, 
Hist. Eccl. li. 8. ca 5.  out of the Ecclesiastical History, for A token and argument of Communion under one kind: The Story is, of A noble woman and Heretic, which, being driven thereto, by fear of losing her husband, promised him to Receive with him. And, at the time of the Mysteries, having the Sacrament delivered into her hands, she Received it not, but took of her Mayed that stood by, A piece of Bread, that she had caused to be brought for the purpose, from her own house. Which, as she would have biten, it hardened in to a Stone. Hereof D. Harding gathereth, that.  
If both kinds had then been ministered, 
Harding. Fol. 45  she would have practised some other shift, for the avoiding of the Cup, which, had not been so easy. what sayeth M. jewel hereunto?  
I may not disgrace the credit of this Story, 
jew. 136. Flateringly.  albeit, in Sozomenus and Nicephorus, of both whom, the same is recorded, there be sundry things, that may well be Filled.  
You signify then, 
Ra.  that you might do more, than you will. And, were it not for A certain quiet Affection, that is suddenly come over your mind, we see, that, because Sozonemus and Nicephorus have sundry things, that may well be filled, Undoubtedly, this Story should be one of them, If it were, at this present your Pleasure. But, because you fear no Inconvenience, If you should grant it, therefore you make no Exception against it. And yet, least by this letting of the Story to pass so quietly, you should seem to give Occasion to some hereafter, of taking vantage against you thereby by: you give your Reader a watch word, that you do not allow the Story absolutely, but that you do not Disgrace it, And that this self-same not Disgracing of it, cometh rather of your free will and Humanity, than of any bounden Duty. For, In Sozomenus and Nicephorus both, Sundry things (you say) may well be Filled. But perchance ye need not in this Story, to show how finely you can file it. For it followeth.  
But I see no cause yet, 
jew.  wherefore M. Harding should blow the Triumph.  
As who should say: 
Ra.  If there were any loss coming unto you, by this Story, then lo, you would File it. But there is no Fear of any. And why so? For,  
Why might she not take the Cup, 
jew.  and feign that she drank: and yet, Drink nothing.  
She might have done so in deed by the nature of Absolute Possibility, 
Ra.  but we speak now, what is likely to have been done, by the course of the Story.  
And whereas in bowing down, after she had taken the Sacrament into her hands, and making resemblance to Pray, she might have so handled the matter, that she should have seemed to have put somewhat in her mouth. etc. And yet did not so, but provided between herself and her maid, to bring Bread from her own house and to eat that in steed of the Sacrament: And yet practised no shift to avoid the Cup, It is very Likely and Probable, that there was no receiving of the Cup, at that Present: for which, because there is (as you will not deny) a ●leight in a woman's wit, she should have rather provided, as being more hard to bring to pass.  
For in deed, to put the Cup unto her mouth, and feign that she drank, It was an Easy matter: And more easy it was, when she bowed down herself, (after the taking of the Sacrament into her hands), like one that would pray, to put her hand only unto her mouth, And, either feign that she Received, or convey the matter so closely, that it should not be perceived: But, the Circumstance of the Story geaneth it, that she could not escape so: (For then undoubtedly she had been a very Natural, to trouble her Mayed and herself, with care, to coweigh the household bread unto her, and care to receive it. etc.) Ergo, neither by putting the Cup only to her mouth, (if any than had been used) she could have satisfied her husband Or the common expectation of the lookers on, or her own fear.  
Now, whereas no Cup was at that present received, she was delivered of the care, to find A shift to avoid it, And the Precise and Singular providing to receive household bread, under colour of the Sacrament, proveth, that she was not troubled with any Fear of receiving the Cup, or care of avoiding it. And this Reason or Argument, is problablye gathered out of the Story itself. But let us hear M. jewels Devise and Imagination.  
Touching the Truth of this whole matter, 
jew. 13●.  if a man list only to go by guess, as M. Harding doth, why may he not thus Imagine with himself: If this Woman would thus dissemble in a Case so dangerous, what needed her to take the Bread at her maids hands, And specially at that Time, in that Place, And in the sight of the whole people? Or, how could she so openly Receive it without Suspicion? Or why might she not have brought it in A napkin, secretly about herself? The burden than was not great: Her feigning and hypocrisy had been the easier.  
Thus (sayeth M. jewel) Why may not A man Imagine with himself, 
Ra.  if he list. But, will ye know why not? I will tell you. No man ought to make such A Gloze, as shall mar the Text. Nor Imagine that, which goeth Directly against the Literal Sense of an History? For, the History, the credit whereof you may not disgrace, 
Consider M. jew. listing and imagining against the Story. which he promised not to disgrace.  (you said before) maketh express mention, of bread taken at her maids hands, And of the same received by the Maestres in the open Church, And of her feigning and Hypocrisy, how it was confounded. And this now, is done and passed above A thousand years since, And how it was done it remaineth in writing. But you, nevertheless, come in with your Listing and Imagining. Not to find out that, by probable Conic●tures which lieth hid in the Story, but by clean Contrary and froward Fancy, destroying the very Literal state and Description thereof.  
And to this effect, as though that the Sleight of a woman's wit were little worth, you add of your own invention A further fetch. Which, perchance, the woman would have followed, if she had known it in time: but now, after all is done, to ask, what need she had to take the Bread at her maids hands. Or to wonder, how she could so openly Receive it without Suspicion. Or to teach her, that she might have brought it in a napkin Or to persuade with her, that the burden was not great, as though the gentelwoman had been so tender and fine, that she could not have carried the weight of A Singing cake more than her Ordinary, Or to Conclude with her, that her Feigning would be the Easier: thus, I say when all is past remedy, to feed your own Fancy, or fill your Readers ears, with so long and so vain A tale, It is to simple for any woman's wit.  
For Imagine you, as much as ye lift, that she needed not to take the bread at her maids hands: The Story so plainly testifying, that she took it, what must follow? No other thing surely, but that the Story is unlikely. 
Such is M. jew. w●en him listeth.  And so of every other of the circumstances, which your man that hath A list to Imagine, gathereth of that which himself thinketh meet to have been done, what other thing followeth, but that the Story, which reporteth the Contrary to have been done, is very unlikely and Incredible.  
Such a Favourer you be of Antiquity, and promising at the beginning of your Answer, not to disgrace the credit of this Story, you fall afterward, into such A path of your accustomed Rhetoric, that by A Figure of listing and Imagining, and by certain howes and why's, ye destroy A plain fact and confessed. Who may trust you in Obscure or Long matters, which is an Evident and Short history, do so boldly argue against it? No wonder if you persuade your Fellows or followers, to Discredit Clemens, Abdias, Hippolytus, Martialis, Athanasius, and all the whole Book of Degrees and Decretals, which have the Grace and Feat, to let an History stand for true: and yet so rightly to guess at it, that, If the guess be True, the history must be False.  
The History saith, the Gentelwoman took the Bread at her maids hand: M. jewels, or his guess that (by his grant) lifteth, is, What need she? how could she without Suspicion? Why might she not have brought it in a napkin. etc.  
Now whether D. Harding's guess, (as M. jewel termeth it,) concerning the Receiving in this place under one kind only, be as unable to stand with the history, as the Imaginations which M. jewel hath here reckoned up for greater, than the Sleight of a woman's wit did attain unto, let the Indifferent Reader confer and judge. My proper intent and purpose was, to show by this Example, how M. jewel, can speak, so favourably, of the Ancient Histories of the first vj. C. years, as though he would not Discredit them: And yet how in deed, he practiseth with such Liberty or Licentiousness rather against them, as though what him listeth to Imagine, might be better allowed and liked, than the fact itself, which the History witnesseth.  
But let us try M. jewels fidelity, in an other Example. What say you, to the Liturgy of S. james? I trust you will not make exception against it, that it was found very lately in the isle of Can die, Or, sought out, and found, and set abroad of very late years, Or, that it is a very little book of small price lately set abroad in print about seven. years past: (which are so great matters in your judgement, that for these causes, you will repel an Authority,) I trust, that you have no such thing, to lay against S. james Mass. For, by the testimony of an ancient Council, we understand, that S. james wrote a Liturgy or form of a Mass. What say you then unto it? It may be doubted of, you say. And why so? For,  
S. james Liturgy hath a special prayer for them that live in Monasteries. And yet it was very rathe to have Monasteries built in all S. james time.  
You mean, I think, that there were no such Monasteries then built, as of late have been pulled down in England, large & fair, & Commodious places for holy purposes, with Church, Cloister, chapter house Refectory, dormitory, Infirmatorie, besides Revenues & lands for ever, left there by Devout, Noble, and worthy Men & women, to that end, that God might be served of men and women accordingly, & the religious having all things provided unto their hands, might serve him quietli.  
But, what then? The form & accidents of an house, do not make a Monastery, no more then the manner of apparel doth make a Monk. And although, in the Apostles time, no such peace or glory was in the church, that by great buildings or temporalties, it was known & esteemed in the world: yet (without all doubt) the Ordres and Rules among some Christians of that time so rathe (as you call it) were so religious and well appointed, that S. james might well pray for such as lived in a singular manner and fashion of a Monastical and Spiritual life.  
I will not trouble you with many witnesses in a matter so plain and evident. 
Euseb.. Ecc. ●isi. lib. 2. ca 17. et 17  I refer you to Eusebius, and He will direct you to Philo judeus, which lived in the time of the Apostles, and wrote such things, as himself knew to be practised of Christians, before the name of Christians was well known abroad.  
First, he testifieth of them, that they renounced all their goods, that they went out of the City, and lived together, like with like, in their small grounds and gardens abroad.  
He declareth also, that they had certain special houses appointed for Prayer, which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
He testifieth of their Excercisies, that from Morning to Night, they were occupied in the studying upon Scriptures.  
He telleth, how they leied Chastity, and Continency, as it were a Foundation in their Hearts, and that the Women and Virgins lived by themselves and the men by themselves.  
He showeth, that none of them did eat or Drink, before Sun set, and that they neither did eat Flesh nor drink Wine.  
He Testifieth of their watchings all night long, and fastings together with it, at some times especially, as at Ester. And, of their order in Singing of Psalms.  
To conclude. He showeth how the priests and Ministers did then their Duties, and how the bishops See was above All.  
This doth Philo testify, as done, at the very beginning, under the Apostles, in whose time himself also lived. And how far is this of, from a Monastical life? Yet, saith M. jewel.  
It was very rathe, to have Monasteries built in all S. james time.  
But was it very rathe, to have Men and women live in A Monastical kind of life by Sequestering themselves from resort, and haunt of Towns, by wilful Poverty, Obedience, Chastity, and Spiritual exercisies of Fasting, watching, and Praying? You here what Philo testifieth, and how can you then for shame either deny it, or doubt of it?  
If therefore there were that so lived, they lived in some Places I trow. In Caves under the ground, or under trees, or under Rocks at the least, if you will allow them no better room. And yet, of their special place of Prayer, where they met together, Philo maketh an express mention, calling them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 monasteries. And who, but wilful & wild Adversaries, will think, that they lived here and there, out of order, in the open Fields and Air, without any defence or cover, against wind and weather, Or any distinction and closeness of dwelling, which both, are so much desired, and are so necessary, for the religious in deed?  
Now, if they had places to pray, to confer to Eat, to Sleep, & to do other things in▪ which our Infirmity requireth to be occupied or sustained by, what let is there, but y● S. james might pray for them that lived in Monasteries? Or, what Repugnance or Impossibility is there in the matter, that, because such Monastical houses were not then builded, as are now extant, therefore the Monastical and Religious persons which then were extant to the praise of Christianity, and Glory of our Saviour, might not be commended unto God in S. james Prayer?  
But consider in this place, how M. jewel carrieth the Readers mind away, from the matter: And turneth it, from the persons to the places: from the edifying of souls, to building of houses: from setting of men in an order of perfit life together, to joining of Stones and framing of Timber: from that which no man will deny, (As, that in the Primitive Church, there were found, which for the love of God conte●●ning the world, did live solitarily and orderly & contemplatively) to that which no man will say (As, that monasteries were built in the Apostles time) understanding by Monasteries, such places as commonly now in this Age, go under that name.  
But what should he win by it, so to change from the persons to the places? marry thus much at the least: that, whereas every man, without further Examining of the matter, will reasonably gather, that the poverty and Paucitye, of the Christians in the Primitive Church, could not well stretch to the Building of any such rich & great houses for the service of god, as are now called, by the name of Monasteries: it should therefore be suspected, that there could be no Monks at all in those days. For although wise and learned men, may easily consider it, that the thing itself must go before the name, and the Monk before the Monastery, and the Substance before the Accidents, yet, through the Desperateness of Heretics, which care not what they speak or feign against the Catholic Faith, the Simple or Common sort is made to believe, that the Papists do put so great A Religion and Excellency in external things, that it must follow, there were no Monks in the Apostles time, if it be granted there were no Monasteries. And Monastetries, they can not conceive, what they were, or will not believe that any were, except we should prove, that they were of like making with these which they remember, to have stood very fair once, in England, or yet to stand and remain beyond the Seas.  
It was therefore nothing else, but A very Craftiness of M. jewels, to argue against the Religious, for whom Saint james prayeth, because there was no building of Monasteries, in S. james time. Or, if it was not Craftiness, it was plain unsensibleness.  
For what can he answer? S. james Liturgy (sayeth he) hath an express prayer for them that live in Monasteries. Be it so. But what call you them in one word? for A name, I am sure they have. Surely what so ever name you give them, your Argument must be this: there were no Monasteries built in S. james time, Ergo, there were no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: that is to say, there were no Religious men, so rathe in the world, neither living alone in solitariness, neither in fellowship with all things Common among them. etc. As though S. John the Baptist, or before him, Helizeus, and Helias, could not in their life time be Commended unto God, in a Special Prayer for Monks, hermits, or Religious persons, because it was very rathe to have Monasteries or Religious houses built, so long before the Gospel of Christ.  
Not to espy therefore, the rudeness of this Argument, it was very gross and unsensible, and unlike, perchance, to be found in M. jewel: But, to remove the Intention of the Reader, from the Persons to their houses: and to draw the question unto this Common place, not, whether Monks or Religious Persons were extant in the Apostles time▪ But, whether Monasteries were built so rath, (In which question, taking the word Monastery Grammatically, he should be easily confuted, but taking it Commonly, as it is now used of the people, he might probably maintain his Assertion, and also, under the Ambiguity of the word, go from one Sense to an other, and make A show of a good cause and plentiful, because in some sense his words be true.) This in deed proceedeth of M. jewels wit. Of whom that thou mayst the better Beware, Remember how he seemeth to allow and esteem the Testimonies of the first six hundred years, and Consider upon how light and vain Occasions, he taketh Authority away, from the Liturgy of S. james the Apostle.  
Of the like Reverence to Antiquity, and wisdom in making of Arguments, that also cometh, which you gather, against S. Chrisostomes' Mass: saying.  
Chrisostomes' Liturgy prayeth for pope Nicolas▪ etc. 
jew. 10.  And likewise in the same Liturgy, 
S. Chrisostomes' Liturgy denined.  there is A Prayer for the Empire, and victory of the Emperor Alexius. etc. Now it were very much, for M. Harding to sai, Chrisostome prayed for men by name, seven hundred years before they were borne. I trow that were prophesying, and not Praying.  
Your troweing is Reasonable: 
Ra.  And if S. Chrisostome should be affirmed unto me, to have prayed for A Pope and an Emperor, borne five or six hundred years after him, I could not but suspct the matter. 
M. jew. hasty in his judgement.  But will you examine and consider it no better? Or will you give sentence against a Book, before you have seen the Copy of it?  
Why, you will Answer me, that you read in the printed Liturgies which are now extant, and attributed to S. Chrisostome, the names of Nicolas & Alexius. Yea but where read you, that S. Chrisostome used those Names, when he came to his Memento in his Mass? Why say you, did not he speak every word, as it is now expressed unto us in Print, that he did speak: No forsooth, concerning the names. For, in setting out the form of A Mass, the most of the things that should be followed, he might so appoint, that they should never need to be changed. 
All these things are found in S. Chrisostomes' Liturgy: Whether are they also in y● ne● Cōmuniō●okes, in which the form of all Antiquity (they say) is expressed?  As, the manner, of coming to the aultare, Of standing & tarrying there, Of Bringing thither the bread that should be consecrated, Of putting wine and water together, Of Praying aloud, Of Praying Secretly, Of Drawing the curtains, Of showing the Sacrament, Of receiving the Sacrament and so forth: the manner (I say) of these things, might so be Invented or Delivered at the first, that they might (if it pleased the Posterity) well continue for ever after.  
But, whereas in certain places of his Liturgy, he would have special mention made of the holy Saints in heaven, or some singular Persons on earth: could he put presentli all their names in, whom he would have to be remembered in those places? In deed, that required A gift of Prophesying, which in this place needed not. For, in all Forms and Patterns not only of Public Service, but also of Common and temporal matters, (as, the Styles of Princes, the tenors of Indentures and Obligations, The manner of Inditements. etc.) the rest of the words are expressed, as they shall continue, only, when the place cometh, where the Persons name must be specified, to whom the cause pertaineth, there is no certain name Defined, but A great N. set, to keep the room, and to signify, that when you put that form of write in Practice, you shall place the parties Name, where that letter standeth.  
So was it in S. Chrisostomes' Liturgy. The Form whereof being well liked, and therefore copied out that it might go abroad and continue, was not changed in any point, concerning the manner of Celebrating and Praying, which presently then might be defined. But, where as he maketh, in Distinct places of his Mass, special mention of the Saint, whose feast shall happen to be celebrated that day, and of the patriarch and Emperor, which should be alive when his Mass would be said, he could not presently put in their Names.  
What remained then but that he should put in such a phrase (as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) by which it should be declared, that what so ever Saint, Patriarch or Emperor he were, there his name should be rehearsed where y● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ was found to stand.  
Yet, this notwithstanding who can let, but he that would, might in copying out the Liturgy, apply it to his own time, & name the Emperor then living. But when the Emperor shall afterward departed, his name must be scraped out, to give place to an other, except priests should always do so much without book, as to pray for the Emperor that liveth, though the name of the dead Emperor continued in the Mass book. Of the name therefore, of either patriarch or Emperor, which is specified in some Liturgy, no Argument can be made that the form thereof was not extant, before the Persons therein expressed were borne, but only, that when they lived and Ruled in those quarters, they were prayed for in the Public Mass.  
But of this matter, how some Copies have the name of Nycolas universal Patriarch▪ 〈…〉 ●lexius: And, the Greek Liturgies printed at Uenys and Paris, have no express mention of any, though special Prayer be made in them, both for the Patriarch and Emperor: Also, by what occasion Nycolas and Alexius names, came in: Again, how the Nycolas, whom you speak of, was not the Pope of Rome, which lived 200. years before Alexius, but the Patriarch of Constantinople which lived at one time with him: And in conclusion how evidently it may be perceived, that this Liturgy, which is said to be Chrysostom's, was in very deed, that blessed Doctors making, of all this, Master Pointz in his Testimonies for the Real Presence, 
M. Pointz ca, 7.  hath spoken truly & abundantly. There may he, that will see, find how absurdly and Ignorantly M. jewel hath argued. For me it is enough to declare, that he make light of the Authors within the first vj. C years. And, that he hath no other shift, but to deny them. And, that his reason, upon which he groundeth his opinion in refusing some of them, is so feeble & vain, y●, as it confirmeth his purpose nothing at all, so it declareth, that he hath a very light head of his own, and a very Presumptuous mind, which upon small Occasion, yea rather against all Occasion, was so ready to take authority away from that Liturgy, which, both the Greek Church useth, And the Latin alloweth, for Chrisostomes' own.  
But tho● seest not yet (Indifferent Reader) the worst of M. jewel, As in some examples more I will make plain unto thee, and so end this Chapter. Of Dionysius Ariopagita, in whom express and reverend Signs or Examples of the Catholic Religion or Popish, is to be seen, thus he saith.  
Dionysius although he be an Ancient writer, 
jew. 10.  as it may many ways well appear, yet, it is judged by Erasmus, john Colet, and other many grave and Learned men, that it can not be Ariopagita S. Paul's Disciple that is mentioned in the Acts.  
I will Answer you with your own wise Reason, 
Ra.  which you make Against S. Bernard, 
M. jew. answered, by M. jewel.  Lyra, Teutonicus, and Bessarion: and in your Terms I say unto you: Erasmus and john Colet lived at the least, xv. C. years after Christ, wherefore their Authority must needs seem the less.  
Here, If you like your own Reason, you be Answered: If you mislike it, I am glad that you are wiser, than you were wont to be.  
Yet, I do not refuse Erasmus, or D. Cole●s judgement, because, they were of late years, but I prefer the Gravity, Learning, and Number of their betters, and their elders. Those I mean, which lived and flourished A thousand year together, before Erasmus was borne, and of whom, you can find no one, which hath denied the Dionysius of whom we speak to be S. Paul's scholar: 
Dionysius Alexander.  And I can name some unto you which have not only believed it, 
Maximus.  but for reverence and worthiness of him, 
Pachymeres, Dionysius Car●hus.  have given light to his books by their Commentaries.  
But consider you (M. jewel) in this place, whether it be not most true in you, that you seek always, how to Destroy or Diminish all things, as much as ye can? For, if there be no false Doctrine in these ●okes, nor any thing contrary to good manners, 
The spirit of the new Gospel is a spoiler.  what should it hurt you or your cause, to have men believe, that they be the works of that Dyonisius, which was S. Paul's scholar? And because you shall see my meaning in an other Example, as also have it noted unto you, that Erasmus, whom, in disgracing of S. Denyse, you bring in, as A grave and learned man, is better entertained of you than he deserveth, I say:  
Before Erasm●s (more bold, 
Erasmus justly reprehended.  surely, than wise in that point) before he began to play the Censor, and by once reading of A Book over, to gather A private council within his own head, and give A Definitive sentence, against ancient father's works, or else for them, before (I say) he took so much upon him, and executed it not always discreetly, the book ad Quirinum, 
In Censura de libris ad Quirinum.  was embraced as S. Cyprians. Erasmus yet putteth the matter in question, and after great arguments made Pro et Con, within himself, his final answer is, that, probabilius videtur non esse Cypriani, it seemeth more probable that it is not S. Cyprians.  
Well M. Doctor and Censor, S. Jerome is witness that it is, and useth A Chapter thereof as an Authority of S. Cyprians, 
Hier. lib. 1. adverse Pelag.  wherefore you may perceive, that either you have not seen all things, either have not remembered them, Or else that your judgement is not all of the best.  
But let this pass, that S. Jerome is directly against you, was there any thing in the Book ad Quirinum, hurtful either to Faith or good Manners? No verily, you find no such fault in the book. Why Disputed you then, whether it were S. Cyprians or no? And, if for your exercise sake, you would needs move the doubt, you should better have invented an Answer against the Objection which did hinder the Estimation of it, than by needless making of it, minister any Occasion unto your Reader to set less by such a work, as by much crediting of which, he could take no harm.  
For suppose it so, that being not S. Cyprians in deed, I so love and Read the book, as if it were his: what danger hereby is coming unto me: the Book being Sound and good, which I do read?  
But now on the other side, the Book being tried to be S. Cyprians, or if it should not be so tried, yet, in truth▪ being his: yourself first, do hurt your own Fame and Estimation, in giving so rash A sentence, And you cause me to have le●sse mind unto a good book, and to Suspect that, which should not be disinherited. So that in letting the titles of Books alone, as we found them, though they should (by putting the case so) bear false names, there is no Injury done or taken, if the book be allowable: but in Changing or Disgracing them, when it needeth not, (for any harm which is to be feared in Reading of the book,) it lacketh not a piece of vain Glory, Or of angry Folly.  
As in our case now (M. jewel) of the Book de Ecelesiastica Hierarchia, you tell us that it is judged (of such men, as neither you nor we, make great account upon) that it can not be the book of Ariopagita, S. Paul's disciple, that is mentioned in the Acts. But to what end tell you me so? Is the book to be Credited or no, tell me that? Is there any Heresy in it? Is there any Irreligion? Is there any Folly?  
Is there any thing that you can contemn? Or forbidden to be readen? I can not so think of you, whereas yourself confess it, that the Author of the foresaid book was, 
jew▪ 10  An Ancient writer, as it may, many ways well appear.  
To what purpose then is it that you ●each us, that he can not be Ariopagita S. Paul's disciple. For, If he be an Ancient and ●●rthy writer, though he should not be so old, as an Apostles Scholar, what is tha● to us, which seek after auncie●tnes in writers, such as may suppress with grave countenance, the lusty and high looks of youthful Scribblers, and not such, as must be so old, that there may not well be A Superior? And if, by your own confession, the Author be Aunc●ent, though his name be not Dionysius Ariopagita, what is that to the dispro●e of the matter which we defend by him?  
Did you think (M. jewel) by wryring your mind in this fashion, not to hinder, in any respect, the credit of the foresaid book, but only to show a point of your knowledge, And how that you were not Ignorant, what Erasmus, john Colet and others (I can not tell, who) thought in this matter? 
Vanity.  Vanity (M. jewel) vanity: to make your own Fame the end of your doings, without any profit to your reader.  
But, said you so much as you have done, that the book might be disgraced, & that some Scruple might be cast in the Readers way, to trouble him only, that he should not quietly assent, 
Contention.  unto the contents thereof? And how can you then excuse yourself, of blind Folly and contentiousness?  
For, whereas S. Denyse the Ariopagite, is not he alone, that must be credited, but every Ancient writer (whom you do allow for ancient) may well stand for a witness: what wiseman would ever enterprise, to diminish the Estimation of A Substantial witness, by casting in against him (of his own or other men's Suspicion,) that in some Corners he hath an other name, than generally he is taken by? And, whereas it helpeth your cause nothing at all, though Dyonisius Ariopagita were not Author of the book de Eccles. Hierarch: so that you deny him not to be an Ancient and credible wi●nesse, who but Unquiet and Contentious, would labour to make A question about it?  
Surely (M. jewel) if you were not more desirous, of marring than making, and of contrarying your adversary, than agreeing with Reason: you should always follow, the more Peaceable and Harmless Opinion. And whereas you might know, that for One Erasmus and john Colet, there have been in these last thousand years, a thousand learned men, which have taken S. Denyse the Ariopagite, for the Author of the foresaid Book, what Quiet and Good nature would incline to the worse of the two, and think, that more probable, which tendeth to the Disgracing (so much as it is) of a Divine & Excellent piece of work? But (if there be no Remedy) keep yourself in your Trade of mistrusting, Denying, & Spoiling the Monuments of the Catholic and True Religion, and let me hold my peace, and permit unto you, that the Author (of whom we speak) was not Dio●ysius Ariopagita▪ What was he then?  
An Ancient writer, 
jew. 10.  as it may, many ways, well appear.  
We Require you then, to stand to his Testimony. For no doubt, he is within the first six hundred years, whom you vouchsafe to call Ancient And what so ever his Name be, 
M. jew. requited to stand unto Ancient witnesses.  so that he be A writer whom you admit, all is One to us, which seek only, to declare A Truth, and not to Prolong A Talk. After which sort, if you also be disposed, let us not strive upon it, whether he be Ariopagita, or no, but spend the time better, in considering what he telleth of the Church's Orders in his days. And then, comparing it with the Popish Religion, and the Protestants Reformation, let us see, which of the two, is more like unto it.  
First you shall find in his Ecclesiasticae Hierarchia, that, the Apostles delivered heavenly things under sensibles signs. etc. partly by by write●, 
Unwriten Uerities:  partly unwriten Institutions and Traditions. And this is directly against them, to whom there are no Uerities but unwritten. After this.  
In the ministration of the Sacrament of Baptism, you find plain mention made, Of Hymns: Of Kissing the holy Table▪ Of God Father: 
Godfather  Of turning the party which is to be baptized, towards the West: Of bidding him to Blow and Puff out the Devil three times, And thrice to pronounce solemn words, of abrenunciation and Defiance against him: 
abrenunciation.  Of Turning him again towards the East: Of Blessing him, and putting of hands upon him: Of Stripping him: 
Sign of the Crosse.  Of making the Sign of the Cross upon him three times, 
Oil▪ hallowing of the water.  before he be Anointed over the whole Body: Of Sanctifiing the water, with thrice pouring in, of Oil thereto, in form of A Cross: Of Dipping him thrice in to the water, with naming of the three Persons in Trinity: Of putting a new Coat upon him, 
chrisom.  Of Anointing him again: 
Confirmation.  Of Pronouncing him ready for the Sacrament of the Aultare.  
These Ceremonies and holy Signs, in which the Apostles covered the Secret Mysteries, (which were not to be told all men,) how unreverently you esteem of, Your grinning, and Railing at them, and Abrogating or Abbrigging of them, doth prove abundantly. But let us go further.  
Concerning the reverent administration, of the Communion, you shall find expressly declared. How the Bishop beginning at the Aultare, 
Incensing.  goeth censing about the holy Place. How, after his return thither made, he beginneth to sing psalms: 
Singing of Psalms.  Then, how the Lesso● 〈◊〉 be read in order. 
Reading of Lessons.  How the Cathecumini (which were Novices yet in the Faith & Lerners of it) And Energumini (which were possessed and troubled with evil spirits) And Poen●●entes, 
Putting out of the unworthy  (which had not fully done their 〈◊〉) were, all, pu● out of the Church: how the Ministers are divided in their Off●cies, 
Orders of offices.  Some standing at the Doors, 
Hym●es.  some bringing forth Bread and wine, 
Washing of hands.  some doing other things: how they Praise God: how they they Sal●te one an Other: How the Bishop washeth his hands, and standeth at the midst of the Aultare: how the Priests wash their hands, and stand about him, with the Select Ministers only. How the bishop, ea quae divinissima sunt, 
Consecration.  rite persicit, doth work and perfit dul●e, 
Showing of the Sacrament.  those things that are most divine: 
Communion  how he showeth the Gifts Divinely wrought: How he receiveth himself, and inviteth other thereto. How he endeth 〈◊〉 Thanks giving.  
Now, with how reverent behaviour of body, with how convenient Gestures, with how solemn words, Signs and Ceremonies, with how singular Preparation, Attention, Devotion, Adoration, all those things were done, it is easy to gather, of these few points which are noted here unto us, which could not be so quickly done, as they are shortly spoken, and of which, as shortly as they be spoken, the Author maketh Divine and high Mysteries.  
For Incensing, 
Are these signs and tokens of a Communion, after the last manner of the English church Or of A Popish Mass.  Singing, Shutting of doors, washing of hands, standing alone, perfecting of the Gifts, (which are the bread and wine proponed) shewing of the Sacrament, Receiving, And Thanks giving, These things are soon told, but if a man had been Present, to see, with what Countenance, Gate, Action, Circumstance, Order and Reverence, every one of them was executed, I doubt not but it would have seemed unto him, a more Popish and Superstitious Service (as the Heretics now call it,) than that which is now done every Sondaie, at S. Michel's in Antwerp. To which Church, I refer myself, because the Deacon and Subdeacon, do Ordinarily, there, Communicate on such Days with the Priest, so that M. jewels old shift, shall not serve, in making his Reader believe, that our Mass is such A thing as is Distincted from A Communion. And true it is in deed, Of an English Communion, but not of A Catholic and Christian Communion.  
But here is not all, that is to be marked, out of the foresaid Author. For, he declareth also how Oil was hallowed▪ 
hallowing of Oil.  Fi●st the unworthy were put out. Then followed incensing, Singing, Reading of Lessons, putting of the Oil upon the Aultare covered before, with xij. whinge: Praying over it, and hallowing it with holy Ceremonies, 
Reservation.  and keeping of it, to serve in all Bishoply Office.  
He declareth further, how Bishops, how Priests, how Ministers are Consecrated, Some kneeling on both knees, 
giving of Orders.  some upon one, some by Imposition of hands, other with the Bible also holden over their head. But, all, have the Sign of the Cross made upon them.  
He declareth also how Monks are Consecrated, 
Monks.  They stand only behind the Priest, which having ended his mystical Prayer for them asketh whether they Renounce all Secular and distracted kind of Life, 
Professio  Then, doth he make the Sign of the Cross upon them, 
Sign of the Crosse.  and shear them, in the name of the Trinity, And putting them out of their former Apparel, 
Shearing.  he doth other on them, 
Investing.  Saluteth them, and Ministereth the Sacrament unto them.  
He declareth, last of all, the manner of Burying. 
Distinction of places in burying Solemnities in Funerals.  If he that is departed were A Priest, he is laid before the Aultare, If he be of the laity, or A Monk, he is laid before the holy Place where the Priests go in. But who so ever he be: Solemn Prayers and Thanks, are made and given unto God. Promises of the Resurrection are rehearsed, Psalms are Song, Cathecumeni are put out of the Church, 
Praying for the Souls departed.  The Good men departed are praised and blessed, The Living and present are exhorted to pray for a good end. And then cometh the bishop to the departed: Prayeth for him: Saluteth him, and after him, 
Pouring of Oil.  all that be present: Poureth Oil upon him: And Layeth his body in an honourable place, with others of the same Order.  
Thus have I, somewhat largely, gathered out of the foresaid Author, these Particulars: that, by the more open sight of these matters, it might the better be considered, 
Judge now, who soever will  which of the two, the Church or the Congregation, the Papists or the Protestants, the Old men or the New, are liker in their doings, to the Primitive Church. And here now let us join with M. jewel.  
Sir, Allow you these doings of the Primitive Church, or do ye not? If you do: why are they not extant then, in your Congregation? Or, if yourself will be more Spiritual and Deiforme, than to use External & Sensible means, to conduct you unto that, which is One, Single, Pure, and Invisible: why have you not suffered others, which have not the like Elevation and Abstraction of mind, to use these visible and holy signs, of Incensing, 
The joining of the issue with M. jew.  washing, Crossing, Anointing, Consecrating, Shearing, and other which I have mentioned?  
If you do not: how look you like one, that would follow authentic and Grave Examples, testified by Ancient and sad writers? And, wherefore do you make the world believe, that you, good men, would have all things reform, according unto the Pattern of the Primitive Church, whose procedings are found to be so contrary, unto the Ecclesiastical Orders of that time?  
Be plain (M. jewel) in that which you intent, and Quod ●acis sac citius.  
If you esteem Antiquity, let neither Baptism lack abrenunciation. etc.: neither Confirmation, Oil●: neither the Sacrament of the Aultare, singular demonstration of it, & Reverence: neither Priests their due Consecration: Nor the Living, Occasions to bring them by outward Signs to Devotion: nor the dead, Prayers: And that Sign, which hath been used in all holy Functions, and which, of old, they made in the Forehead, to testify that they were not ashamed of Christ, the sign I mean of his CROSS, which is not only new A Folly to Panimes, or Offence to jews, but an ignominy to the Gospel, and Apishnes in the Catholics, as some worse than jews or Painimes do Blaspheme, this Sign of the Cross (Master jewel) restore again unto the Churches, and suffer not them to be in Honours, which think it a shame to have a Token of our Redemption, before their Eyes: If you esteem Antiquity.  
And if ye regard it not, why make ye us believe, that you would be ruled by it? Or why feed you the common sort with sweet hope of having a Sincere and Pure Religion restored unto them, according to the example and Orders of the Ancient and holy Church, whereas you have, either blindly abandoned them, before you knew them, either desperately do contemn them, after ye be advertised of them.  
O, say you, He, that wrote those books De Ecclesiastica Hierarchia, was not S. Denyse the Ariopagite. As who should say, that if it were he, you would in no wise contrary him. But how shall I believe you? Whereas you pretend, that you will be content with the Aunciedt Fathers testimonies, and yet cry out against that form of administering the Sacraments, which every man seeth to have been used in the Catholic ancient world, by report of this writer. whom yourself confess to be Auncie●t and that it may so appear many ways.  
And now, after it is evident, th●t whosoever he be, he maketh against you would you Change you Opinion (M. jewel) and Repent yourself of all former Lightness, If in in deed a more Learned and Grave man, than Erasmus, john Collet, or any other that you can tell of, should testify, that it is S. Denyse the Apariopagitas work? verily S. Gregory the Great, 
greg. ho. 34  maketh mention Dionysius Ariopagita, which is unto him, Antiquus & Venerabilis, Pater an Ancient and venerable father, whom he saith, by report of other, to have written of the nine Orders of Angels. Of which books this that we speak of, De Ecclesiastica Hierarchia, is the fellow: Origene also maketh an express mention of him, 
Orig. Ho. 1 in joan  alleging a text out of these Books which you mistrust.  
But would this make you Change you Opinion? No: you would have xx. questions unto me, and escape from me by xx. ways, rather than I should hold you so fast, by this Argument out of S. Gregory or Origine, that you should not but confess unto us, that you are deceived in your judgement, concerning this Book de Ecclesiastica Hierarchia. And, if to prove me to be suspi●ious, you would, in deed, incline to that side, that not only some Ancient Father, but Ariopagita himself, were Author of this book: Reform then yourself, and stop the mouths of the Railing and Ignorant, unto whom, Crossing, Incensing, Anointing, & Signifying of Spiritual things by Corporal and external Forms and Imagies, seemeth to be, altogether Papistry.  
Yet it is no matter to me, in this objecting against you, what the name of that Author was. You confess him to be ancient: 
Short and clear.  I infer them, that he is worthy of credit. You will not be ruled by his Testimony, I gather then, that you Regard not the Ancient. And that I prove by an other Example. The Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, of how great force and strength it is, the Catholics & Heretics both, do see. And as we do prove it by true Experience, that nothing is more needful to be persuaded unto such as love to have a sure Stay in all matters of Controversies: so, our adversaries do set against nothing so Earnestly and Outrageously, as the Prerogative of that See. Here upon starteth a Challenger up: Show me (sayeth he) that the Pope was ever Called Head of the Church. The Catholic Answereth, He was, in deed, Head of the Church, as appeareth many ways, though he were not called in his Ordinary Style of writing, Head thereof.  
Nay, 
jew. 306.  sayeth the Challenger, show me the name itself, That, is the very thing that we deny. But ye can not.  
Sir, 
Ra.  how oft must I bring forth the name?  
Marry, 
jew. 1.  If any learned man of our adversaries, or if all the learned men that be alive, be able to bring any one sufficient sentence etc. I am content to yield and subscribe. And again. As I said at the beginning, one good sentence were proof sufficient.  
Very well Sir: 
Ra.  One you shall have, if that can persuade you to Subscribe.  
Eugenius Bishop of Carthage answered to Obadus, requiring A Council to be kept in Aphrica, wherein, The Arrians might dispute with the Catholics, concerning Religion and Faith: that, he would write to his brethren, that his fellow Bishops might come. Et praecipue, Ecclesia Romana que Caput est omnium Ecclesiarum, and the Church of Rome especially, which is the head of all Churches.  
Here now, of this Story and Text, I gather, that the Bishop of Rome, is HEAD of all Bishops, & so much aught the Adversary to grant unto me, if he loved not, by force of consequence, to be driven unto the confession of Truth, but, of his own accord, to yield unto reason. For, when Eugenius the Bishop answered, that he would write, that the Church of Rome (most chief,) should come to the Council, what meant he thereby? Did he mean that any message should be sent, to the marble Pillars, Foundations, Rolls, walls of Stone, or any such unsensible thing, pertaining to the Material Church of Rome? Truly, then, for his wit, who so ever should think so, might be Precedent of that Council, where Posts and Pillars should meet together, and hear the cause of our Religion debated.  
But did he mean by the Church of Rome all the Christians of Rome? Who then should keep the City whiles they were from home? Or how was all Carthage, able to receive them? Or what hath the laity to do in Counsels? If then, neither the walls etc. of Rome, neither all the Christian people of it, be rightly understanded by the Church of Rome, which B. Eugenius would have to come to the Council at Carthage, what other thing may be meant thereby?  
You will say, perhaps, the Clergy thereof. Whether all, or some? If all, do you think Eugenius to be so simple as to require, that all Priests, Deacons, Subdeacons, Lectours, Exorcists, Sextines, Clerks, belringers, and Quieresters, might come to the Council?  
If some: what should they be? Exempted from the jurisdiction and Government of the Pope, Or subject unto him? If Exempted: who should they be in all Rome, with whom the B. of Rome, should have nothing to do? If subject: how could they come without his leave and licence? Or how should not he that sendeth them, be much more higher and worthier, than those which must ask leave to go?  
What so ever you Answer, If the Church of Rome be head of all Churches, because of some part of the Clergy thereof: must it not much more be head of all Churches because of the Bishop there, which is head over that Clergy?  
For, if the lesser thing, be in Estimation and Authority, much more the greater in the same kind must be in Authority. As, if an Angel naturally doth pass in degree of worthiness, every man, much more he▪ that by the gifts of nature doth excel among Angels, must consequently be far above man.  
We need no● use so many words, in opening this Argument, if we had to do with Quiet and Reasonable men: but M. jewel will needs be Ignorant, or Contentious. For (saith he) Victor which reporteth the foresaid Answer of Eugenius the bishop, 
jew. 310.  Doth not call the Bishop of Rome the Head of the universal Church, only he saith, Rome is the Chief, or Head Church of all other.  
No, he saith not Rome, but the Church of Rome. And if you will defend yourself, that by Rome the Church of Rome is meant in common speech, I pray you Sir, can you not also remember, that in naming the Church of Rome, the Bishop of Rome is understanded to be spoken of? And, if in other places it might be sometimes otherwise, yet in this testimony of Victor, it can not but be meant of the Bishop of Rome especially.  
For consider, I pray thee (Indifferent Reader) the circumstances of the Story.  
Obadus the captain required a Council to be kept in Aphrica. In which, it is for Bishops, not only to sit, when it is called, but first to determine whether it shallbe called or no.  
He required it also, of the bishop Eugenius. For although Huneryke his Master, King of the Uandales was in those parts a Conqueror, yet there were not at that time such Flatterers or Gospelers as might tell his Grace, that him self was Supreme head of the Church, a●d that he needed not to care, what the Popish bishops would think in any matter.  
Thirdly Eugenius answered, that ●e would write to his brethren, that his felowbishopes might come. By which it is clear, that he wished, not, either for the material Church of beyond the seas, or all the Ministers and officers of those Churches, but only for bishops.  
Finally and Chief, he would write (he answered) that the Church of Rome the head Church of all Churches, might come. And how can this otherwise be understanded, but according to the nature of the Mater, and Persons which he spoke of before? For, whereas A Council requireth bishops to be present, And himself expressly declareth it, that he would have his Felowbishopes come: In saying, immediately after, that above all other he would the Church of Rome to come, he must so take these words, the Church of Rome▪ as they may serve for A Council, and for the meeting together of Catholic Bishops. But to such A purpose, it was neither possible, to bring the external Church of Timber and Stone, neither was it convenient, profitable, or customable, to have the whole Clergy of every country, to be present at Counsels: Ergo he meant it of the Bishop of Rome, himself.  
Then whereas he would, the Church of Rome most Chiefly to come, because it is head of all Churches, he signifieth thereby, that his mind and desire was, to have other Churches to come also. For else he would have said, I beseech the Church of Rome, only to come, and not Chiefly. Because the word (Chiefly) hath A Relation to other that should come also, though not so principally and agreeably to his intent and purpose.  
Now in expressing this his mind, that he would have other Churches, of beyond the Seas, to come, what words useth he? Doth he not call straightways for his Felowbyshopes? And in respect of them, doth he not require, that most Chiefly the Church of Rome should come? And what other sense can that have, by any reason, but that the Bishop of Rome should come? For, if he had said thus, I will vyrite to my Brethren, that the Churches of beyond the Seas may come, and most chief to the Church of Rome▪ then had the sentence gone forward in like terms. And in this case, who but Rude and Ignorant, would deny, that by Churches he meaneth the Bishops themselves, Or by their appointment some to represent or fill their place? But he changed the Terms, and in one part speaking of Bishops, in the other he nameth not the bishop, but the Church of Rome.  
Yet what of this? Shall this changing of Terms alter his meaning?  
A●d wishing in the former part of his sentence, that Bishops should come, but especially the Church of Rome, what can he rightly mean by the church of Rome but the Bishop of Rome, if one part of the sentence hangeth with the other? For this were all together out of reason, that, naming first Bishops, and then a thing more requisite in the same kind of purpose, than Bishops: he should mean by that thing which he preferreth, a less in effect and Authority, than they were whom he had less counted upon.  
This place then making so plainly, for the Authority of the Bishop or Church of Rome (for all is in effect one, to them that understand the common phrases of Speech) what will M. jewel do? Subscribe to antiquity, Or maintain still his Heresy? No, he loveth himself, and his own vain glory so much, that rather than he will seem to take a foil, and to have spoken more, than he is able to assure, he will not lack his Exceptions, against the witnesses of the First six hundred years. For thus he openeth himself more and more, 
jew. 310.  saying:  
Touching Victor that wrote the story of the Vandals, 
Consider by this that followeth how willing M. Ie●. i● to admit Antiquity, & how profoundly h● reasonet●.  he is neither Scripture:  
For Scripture he was not alleged. And this also is against sincere and honest dealing, to promise or rather protest that you would be tried by any Doctor, Father, Council, or Example of the Primitive Church: and now so desperately to come in with this exception, that Victor is no Scripture. It followeth.  
Nor Council. 
jewel.   
Remember yourself M. jewel. There are, among your Favourers, some discrete, Sad, and Just men. Whom, your Invention in this place, will little please. And your much seeking to extenuate victors' Authority, will be an Argument unto them, that you fall to Copy of words, and shifts of Rhetoric (meet for children) when Copy of Sense▪ and certainty of good Answer, doth not serve your great Stomach.  
You said well once, 
151.  that one good sentence were proof sufficient, and are you so much changed, so suddenly, that you dare set light by an Ancient and grave witness, because he is no Council? You need surely some good counsel, least by extreme following with all your wit, the defence of your mad Challenge, you chance to fall besides your wits, and have no sense at all of your doings. It followeth.  
Nor Doctor. 
jewel.   
Now define you then, A Doctor? For in deed, whom you will allow to bear that name, I can not tell. And, such Liberty you have taken now unto your self, of binding us to your meaning, that if you will understand by a Doctor none other, but either S. Ambrose, S. Jerome, S. Augustine, or S. Gregory, which are called the four Doctors of the Church, Or some such, as hath been solemnly Created and made Doctor in some University: we must be conten● with your sense, and let you have your own mind and meaning.  
But if you will be ordered by reason, you will not deny (I suppose) that Victor might well be A Doctor, which being a Bishop of no small City in Aphrica, had by all likelihood the knowledge of Scriptures, and grace of expounding them, and diligence in executing his office. Except that M. jewel will be so Injurious to the first six hundred years after Christ, in which Victor lived, that he will judge any one to have been made Bishop in those days, which was unworthy to be a Doctor.  
Again if he were no Doctor, was he therefore no Father? And yourself promising, to admit any sufficient testimony of any Father, how wisely make ye now, an Exception against Victor▪ because he was no Doctor. It followeth.  
Nor writeth the Order or Practise of the Primitive Church. 
jewel.   
O worthy Exception. Doth S. Augustine in his books of Confession, writ the Order or Practise of the Primitive Church? Nothing less. For altogether they are compiled, of his own Acts, Life, Chances, Cogitations, and Interrogations. But what then? Might not one, for all this, bring a good testimony out of those books, for prouse of any matter that is in controversy?  
And when the Heretic denieth prayers for the Dead, 
Confes●. lib. 9  should not the example of S. Augustine (whose prayer for his Mother's soul, is extant in his Confessions) quite and clean s●oppe his procedings, and make his very Impudency, ashamed?  
What new found reason then, is this of M. jewels, to contemn an Ancient writer, if he writ not of those Matters, and write also, in such Order, of them, as he requireth?  
When we allege Clemens, de Constitutionibus Apostolicis, S. Denyse de Coelesti & Ecclesiastica Hierarchia, S. james Liturgy, S. Chrysostom's Liturgy, Sozomenus, Nicephorus, Or▪ the Decrees and Decretales: straightways you either deny them, either suspect them, either will file them better, before you believe them. Yet, there are not, in whom you may see more expressly, the prints and the forms, of the order or practise of the Primitive Church. For where shall one better find, what the Religion was in every Age, than, in the Histories of those times, and in Decrees, Answers, and form of public Service, that in every of them was used?  
You therefore which, so little set by those writers, by whom we may understand most plainly, what the particulars were, of the cause and state of our Religion in the Primitive Church: now when Victor is brought against you, suddenly you be so changed, as though it might be an exception against a witness, that he writeth not the Order or Practise of the Primitive Church.  
And yet, this Exception of yours, cometh not so luckily against Victor. Which although he take not into his story, the Acts of the Apostles, or the succession of Bishops, after them, or all the persecutions throughout Christendom, or the Martyrs of all Countries, Or the perfection and rule of those holy Monk's ●hat lived in wildernesses, Or the Decrees of all Counsels, Or every other such matter as might be spoken of, by a General Historiographer: yet, what state the Church was in, under the Uandales, he describeth sufficiently. And by his telling this much we understand of the Order and Practice, (if not of the Primitive Church, yet) of that Church, which was within the six hundred years after Christ, the which time you have allowed us, that in a matter concerning Faith, and in a Council to be gathered, it was thought m●ete then, to make other Bishops besides them of Aphrica privy thereof: and especially to have the presence of the Bishops of Rome, because The Church of Rome is head of all churches. Which Evidence, because it is so plain against you, therefore having nothing to said reasonably against the sentence, Yo● h●●e stretched your wits to find●●x●eptions against the Reporter o● it. And you sai● farther against him.  
Nor is it well known, 
jewel.  either of what credit he was, or when he lived,  
Concerning his Credit, he was Bishop of Uti●a, and by likelihood therefore, of good Estimation among the Catholics, and A Man worthy to be hele●ed. For in all kinds and Contrarieties of Religion, such as are high Priests, Bishops, or Superintendents, it seemeth that they are of the better sort, of the Family, Church, or Cougregation: out of which they are taken do do that Office. And further, whose books were counted then worthy the copying out, and were so kept then, that they remain yet unto us, And are so accepted at this present, that they be translated into French: His credit needeth not to be mistrusted, or called without cause into question. He wrote also unto Hunericus King of Uandales an account of his faith being driven thereto by the Commandment of the King. By which you may perceive that great account was made of him.  
Concerning then his age, he lived not long after the time of S. Augustine: far within the First six hundred years, out of which, any Testimony is sufficient against you. For when the Uandales were in Aphrica, and were busy in furthering the procedings of the Arrians, than lived Victor, as may appear by his Answer to Hunericus, & by diverse places of his history, in which he speaketh of himself as one present at the doing of things. For in this very place which is alleged ou● of him for the Supremacy of the Church of Rome, he saith, that when Hunericus had required by his Edict and Commandment, that the Catholic Bishops, should by a day, meet at Carthage, there to have their faith examined and tried:  
Cognoscentibus igitur qui aderamus simul, etc. We then that were together knowing of this Decree, did tremble at the heart, especially because of those words of the Edict, In Provincijs nostris à Deo nobis concessis▪ scandalum esse nolumus, quasi id diceret, in Provincijs nostris, Catholicos esse nolumus: W● will, that in the Provinces granted by God to us, there be no scandalum or offence, as though he should say. we will not that any Catholics be in our provinces. Himself therefore being then present when Hunericus Edict came to the Bishops of Aphrica, and that persequ●●ion of the Uandales beginning about the year of our Lord. 435. no man should reasonably doubt, of the age in which Victor lived.  
But these things you say, are not well known. If they be known, it is enough: As for the well knowing of them you are either so suspicious or malicious y● (I fear) it will never be well known, the which cometh directly against your procedings. For how easy a matter is it to deny, and doubt, and object, and find fault, and make somewhat always lacking?  
You find the Book extant, and that before this age in which your Heresies have upstarted, and the Catholics have sought to suppress them: You see it alleged: You see it allowed: you bring nothing against it, neither that it was ●ound of late, neither that the phrases of Speech are uncongrue and barbarous, neither that he hath any fault in his story, neither that grave and learned men have doubted of him, nor any other exception which may take Credit away from it. And what reason then, is there in it, that you should make strife and contention, where none was before, and rather follow your own Negative, without any cause or probability, than the Catholics affirmative, which bring forth the Evidence of the book itself, for them?  
May we think you to have any regard to the first six hundred years, Or any Reverence towards Ancient writers, which are so loath to admit the books that come forth in their names, and so Ready to make all the Exceptions, that ye possibly can, Or Suspicions against them?  
It is not well known (say you) of what Credit he was, or when he lived. Is it not well known? If he made in any point, for the Lutherans or Sacramen●aries opinion, you would not only have known him well, but also praised him exceedingly, but now, becasue he confirmeth the Catholic Faith, and declareth such cruel practices of the Barbarous Uandales then, against the Catholic Priests and bishops, as are most like the merciful proceedings of the Gentle Gospelers of these times, against the Catholics: And because he preferreth the Church of Rome, before all other Churches, And prayeth to the Saints, And showeth himself most Evidently to be A Papist: you know him not, and you regard him not. So that you be ruled by Affections and not by Reasons, and you pass no more upon Antiquity, saving for the fashion that all learned and wise men do make account of it, than you do upon your rochet, gown, typet, four cornered Cap, and other such things, that go clean against the Conscience, saving that you condescend therein unto the weaklings, as yet, in your faith, lest you should make them weries of you, altogether.  
Yet, although you be very wise hypocrites, out breaketh for all that sometimes, the jesting and Scoffing inward Spirit, that in open Sermons and printed Books, speaketh of the holy and old Fathers, full Reverently, As shall by most manifest examples appear.  
S. Benet, how Virtuous, wise, holy, Contemplative, and Divine a Father he was, if the world that hath been ever s●ns, would or could say nothing, S. Gregory alone hath said enough. Which being now ●ope, and to good a man, to mind unprofitable tales, and to much occupied, to intend it, in writing four books of notable and worthy men and m●ters, the Second he bestoweth upon S. Benet alone: Declaring such things in it, as he had heard of most Reverend Fathers, 
●ial. lib. ●in praef.  and S. Benet's own Scholars, Constantius, Valentinianus, Simplicius, and Honoratus: by reading of which, the Faithful could not but be moved, 
Ps. 67.  to believe that God is Wonderful in his holy ones, 
Psal. 138.  and that his friends are exceedingly honoured. In telling then many things of S. Benet, he cometh at length unto this. 
〈◊〉 lib.   
When a certain young Monk of S. Benet's, 
edial. 〈◊〉.  had upon a time gone out of the Monastery, without his blessing, home to his Father & Mother's house, which he loved more than he should have done, the self same day, as soon as he was come unto them he died. And after he had been now buried, his body the next day was found cast up, which they provided to bury again. But they found it the next day cast up again, and unburied as before. Then lo they ran with speed unto ●ather Benet's feet, and with much weeping desired him, to be so good as to grant his favour aend mercy unto him. To whom, the Man of God gave strait way with his own hands the Communion of our lords body, saying. G●e ye, and put ye this body of our Lord upon his breast, and so bury him. Which as soon as it was done, the earth took and kept his body, and canst it up no more.  
Thus far S. Gregory. But wha● saith M. jewel to the matter? Forsath his sentence is this.  
It was but fond done by S. Benet, 
jew. 〈◊〉  as Gregory re●orteth of him, 
Impudently.  to cause the Sacrament to be laid upon a dead man's breast.  
Was it but fond done? 
Ra.  How dare you so interpret the fact of an Ancient and holy Father? How dare you descent from the Opinion that S. Gregory and other elder Fathers whom he followed, had of it? Are you he, that regardeth Antiquity? Are you he, whom one sufficient sentence of any Catholic Father or Doctor shall make to yield?  
The fact you do not deny: Against the worke● of it you bring no exception: S. Gregory the Reporter of it, lived within the first six hundred years, And he reporteth it to the Praise of S. Benet, And the effect which God gave, declareth that it was not misliked: and how ●are you say, it was but fond done?  
But this is it that I say. Though you look demurely upon Reverend and old Fathers, and speak, as though you regarded their words and deeds: yet sometimes your Spirit is so moved in you, 
A Lurking spirit and watching for more opportunity to break openly out.  that from the pit of your heart, it cometh up to the tip of your tongue, and boldly giveth sentence against those persons, whom the whole world, for age, Holiness, Learning and I●dgement, doth worthily esteem, and whom yourself dare not dishonour but covertly. Wherefore, that this fowl Spirit of Contempt of Old Fathers which lurketh in the breast of M. jewel, may be the better examined and espied what it is, whiles it waggeth now his tongue: we shall not need to have an Exorcist for the matter, but any reasonable and Indifferent man, shall be able, to convince him, by these short questions.  
For first of all, how know you (●. jewel) that it was fond done of S. Benet to cause the Sacrament to be laid upon a dead man's breast? 
S. benet defended.  Did S. Benet himself, think it to be fond done? Then would neither he ever have do●e it, or they which sought Remedy of him against that terrible chance, you may be assured, nor they so willingly have obeyed.  
Did S. Gregory find any such fault in it? He would never have rehearsed it then, to the disgracing of him, whom he intended to honour. And besides this, the Epiphone●●● or sententious conclusion which he inferreth immediately upon the foresaid example or fac●, doth prove that he highly esteemed it. For, unto Peter his Deacon, with whom he talketh in those Dialogues:  
Perpendis Petre etc. Thou seest Peter (saith he) What merit and worthiness, this man was o●, before jesus Christ our Lord, that the earth did cast forth his body, which had not the favour and blessing of S. Benet.  
Did God himself mislike with it? The event doth prove otherwise. For, as the casting up of the Child's body again and again, after it was buried, doth signify that all was not well about it, where such extraordnarie effect followed: so the resting of it in the earth after the body of our Lord was put upon it, doth declare that he was now pleased, which before was offended. If than none of all these can be perceived to have misliked S. Benet's precept or Counsel: by what Authority sayeth M. jewel, it was fond done by him?  
Again, what thinketh M. jewel of S. Benet? It seemeth▪ that he contemneth him not utterly, because of thee (S.) which he putteth before his name. Except he would have it understanded, that the (S.) in this place must go not for Saint Benet, but for Sir Benet. He lived also within the first six h●●dred years, and was for all virtue and holiness, A very miracle in the world. It seemeth then, that his dominges are to be judged of, with Reverence. Forth then to S. Gregory.  
What opinion hath M. jewel of him? I should think very good. For he was an holy and learned Father, and lived also within the first six hundred years. And (which is more worth than all this) A Late writer in deed, but as he would be thought, a great Friend and Patron of Antiquity, One M. jewel hath these words of him: 
〈…〉  Verily S. Gregory's Authority in this case were very good, if he would say the word. If therefore, so gr●ate Authority make for this fact of which we speak, and if the spirit of God were in those two Fathers S. Benet and S. Gregory: what knowledge is that in M. jewel, by which he is able to say, It was but fond done by S. Benet, & c?  
If the like case should happen unto him, that any of his brethernes bodies in the Congregation of Sarum, should be cast up again after it were once buried, what would his politic wisdom do? Command it he would perchance, to be buried against. So might he in deed.  
But if it were cast up again after the second buri●ing, and if further yet, as oft as it should be put under the earth over night, it were found upon the ground in the morning: what then would his holiness or wisdom do? Would he bid the Brothers or Sisters, cast that (with all care after it) out of the way, and suffer that to rot above ground, which will not lie still under ground, when it was well enough buried? For his wisdom and devotion he might do it well enough.  
But if God, which suffered the foresaid castinges up again, of the dead body, to signify thereby a displeasure justly conceived, if he now would by other ways declare the same, even upon this body which M. jewel should leave unburied, were he able to abide the ●error of it? And would he not seek for some Remedy against an extraordinary and strange effect of God's indignation?  
And what remedy would that be? I can not tell verily, there is so little power or none rather at all, in any thing that they can do. Yet (for example sake) if it were put in his mind to make a Cross upon the breast of the dead body, or to put a Relic of some holy man upon it, Or the Gospel of S. john, Or a piece of holy bread, Or (if these things would not like him) if he should venture to put upon it a leaf of calvin's Institutions, Or of the Communion books, Or a piece of Latimers' staff, Or Cranmers' gown, or Hoopers' bones, Or any other thing that he esteemeth: If that after any of these things were put on the Body, it should be quiet & lie still where it were cast or buried: were it a likely matter that it should be fondly done, to have applied that to the dead Body, of which a marvelous and comfortable effect should be seen to follow?  
Surely, if by your Communion book, or any bone of your false Martyrs, a Miracle should seem to be wrought, I would never think, that you did fond to use the means of those things that are precious among you, to the bringing of some purposes to pass: but this I would certainly judge, that yourselves are very fond men to esteem those things that you do, and that the Devil had power to illude you. Now if you dare say, that S. Benet did not well, to have so excellent and great opinion of the Sacrament as he had, Or that it was the work of the devil of hell and not of God, that the Monks body remained under the earth, after the Body of Christ was laid upon it: then lo, I perceive that you have spoken very favourably of S. Benet in saying, that it was but fond done by him, and that in deed, you judge it to have been wickedly and shamefully done of him. And you must judge, not of him only, so, but of Constantius, Ualentinianus, Simplicius (S. Benet's successors) And of S. Gregory ● most excellent Father, And of all other a● the time, unto whom, the●e men's authorities were singular, of all these, you must judge, that they were blind, fond, gross, superstitio●s, wicked, deceived by illusions of devils, & ●oid of the Grace of the Gospel.  
Put of your vizard (M. jewel) and show yourself in your own likeness. Put of your apparel of a sad and discrete person, which knoweth his nurture, and can tell how to give place unto Reverend and holy Fathers: & come forth in your own solemn Robes, with jags & tassels enough about it, that your cote may declare what you are. For in deed were you not desperate, you would more quietly have judged of S. Benet's fact, than you have done, and not so quickly have condemned it as but fond done: a●d were you not yourself very fond, you would never have contemned that, which was done and registered and commended within the first six hundred after Christ, yourself so appealing unto those years, as though you would be reform by the Example and Testimony of any Catholic Father within those years.  
Yet if you continue still in your Hypocrisy, the Indifferent Reader will (I trust) perceive well enough, that you are but a Counterfai●t, and that you bear no hearty good will and reverence, towards old and blessed Fathers. For what would not he not do, if fear of the Magistrates 〈◊〉 shame of the world (as yet) did not let him, which is so foolish hardy, as to put in one case or degree the tales of Heathen poets, & the Records of Christian Historiographers: the Fancies of Idle men, and the Dispensations of almighty God: the Conceptes that move sensuality, and the Examples that procure devotion? He bringeth it in, by occasion of S. Basils' vision which Amphilochius speaketh of: and so much the more uttereth his cankered Stomach, by how much he had the less occasion to follow it. His words be these.  
We may now the better believe that jupiter with his Gods went down sometimes for his pleasure to banquet in Aethiopia, 
jew. 83. Shame 〈◊〉 thee.  Or that an Angel evermore ministered the Sacrament unto Marcus that Holy Monk: Or. etc.  
As who should say, the one is as likely as the other, Or, the one as vain as that other. But what man of honesty would ever say so? If some brutish and unsensible Heretic should plainly, at the beginning, protest, that he would no better esteem what so ever Father's Testimony▪ than Christian men do regard Homer's Poetry, although for his bluntness he might be condemned, yet for his plainness he should not be blamed. Marry if an other man, who knoweth the price of sundry books though they be not scripture, and most distinctly signifieth it, that he will admit any Catholic writer, of the first six hundred after Christ, if he suddenly will liken any Ancient writer's narration, to Homer the Father of all poets Imagination, he shameth utterly his own study, doings, promise, and honesty.  
Are the coming of jupiter down to a banquet in Aethiopia, and the Angels coming to Marcus an holy Monk to give him the Sacrament, are these two so like, that M. jewel could think it reasonable, to put them in one sentence, and in one kind of case together? As for Jupiter's Godhead and his banqueting in Aethiopia, not only all Christians do take for a wretched and vain fable, but the Painimes also themselves, such as were of the more learned sort, 
Aug. de civi. Dei. lib.  did never so account of him: as in outward words they seemed to do. 
4▪ cap. 27. & 〈◊〉.  But Marcus the Monks holiness, and the Service that the Angel did under God, unto him, none surely but Infidels will judge to be feigned. For to a good and faithful mind, what is there in this story that doth sound absurde●y?  
To have a Monk holy, should that seem incredible? He doth very ill himself when he is alone, that judgeth so wickedly of the Solitary life. And this Reproach or Slander, doth not touch only Marcus, 
The story of the holy Monk Marcus, defended.  Milarion, Antonius, Moses and other of whom ecclesiastical Stor●es make m●ntion, but Helias also and Helizeus, and S. john the Baptist himself.  
But is it like to be feigned, when the Sacrament is said to be given unto some persons by the ministery of an Angel? what shall we think then, 
〈…〉.  of the Angel that carried the Prophet Abacu● by an hear of his head, from judea to Babylon? Or, of the Angel Raphael that went like a goodly young man, with Toby the younger, and did eat drink, talk, make merry with him, and instructed him in all things, in like manner as dear and hearty friends and fellows behave themselves towards their friends and companions? verily, whereas almighty God himself hath so debased himself, that he is become man, and giveth himself wholly unto man, to be eaten of him, that man might be united unto God and live by his life: it were no wonder at all, in comparison, if the Divine food should be always ministered to man, by the visible service of Angels. For neither can the Angels disdain at it, to serve that Creature, the nature of which he seeth to be exalted above all Principates, Potestates, Dominations, Cherubins, and S●raphins: And when God's infinite majesty will be mea●e, he can not be loath to carry the Dish.  
Wherefore then, doth M. jewel join so wickedly together: An Angel ministering the Sacrament, and jupiter going to banquet in Aethiopia?  
Was Sozomenus that reporteth i● A fabler only, as Homer was, so much the more at liberty tell lies, because he wrote in prose, and no● in verse? He lived within the first six hundred years, he was A Christian, he wrote an Ecclesiastical History, and not Poetical Fables, his writings are allowed and received, and this, which he reporteth, of the Angel's ministering the Sacrament to Marcus an holy Monk, 
Sozome●us lib. 6. cap. 29.  he confirmeth by the Testimony of Macarins' an Ancient and Famous Priest. Which not only said it, but for the Truth and certainty thereof assured it, that at the time of receiving, an Angel did always give marcus the Sacrament, and not he. And that he saw always an hand only, as far as unto the wrest of it, at which Marcus took the Sacrament. In testimony undoubtedly of the clea●e and singular good soul that was in Marcus. For he was even from his youth m●rueilous expert in the Scriptures, and Gentle, and Chaste, and devout, and at that present, one of the most notable in all the world.  
What findeth M. jewel in this story, that he may contemn? Or why refuseth he the judgement of Sozomenus and of Macarius? Of whom, the one reporteth it, the other confirmeth it: And the one in reporting it, signifieth it to be credible, the other in seeing it, assureth it to be notable.  
If it were altogether feigned in deed, and if other yet should be persuaded to accept it as Truth, what harm could come to them by it? For all, that may be gathered thereof, is, that Marcus was a marvelous holy, and angelical man. And that God even in this world, doth exceedingly comfort his servants by more ways than one: And th●t the Service and attendance of the Angels upon men is singular: And that, if the vnclea●es of our wretched life did not let it, we should find the Angels more present and comfortable, than they are perceived to be. And is there any harm in this, to judge well, of man, Angel, and God? If M. jewel can find no greater faults or hinderancies to good life and true Faith, in the going of jupiter to bankette with his younger Gods in Aethiopia, I would never stick to believe it, or at the least ways, to permit it. But the adds is so grea●e 〈◊〉 ●●ident, that he which hath put 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 in one case, may 〈…〉.  
〈◊〉 that 〈…〉 have, you that have 〈◊〉 ●aith remaining yet unto you: And ●ou that have no s●ith, And mind (〈◊〉 knoweth when) 〈◊〉 for all that, 〈…〉 it, 〈…〉 the 〈◊〉 themselves will not, in some points, 
〈…〉 time is▪ the world is n●t y●t at the worst.  speak against it. For now, not to believe the Canonical Scriptures who dareth? And how great cause hath A faint and weak heart to assent unto them, whiles the enemies of the Catholic faith, do not openly deny them? But, when hereafter, Iniquity and Impudency shall so abound▪ that faith shall be measured by Reason and not by Authority, and when by little and little men shallbe accustomed to conte●●e & mock the Apparitions made unto holy persons by Angels, saints, the Mother of God, or Christ himself, and liken them to fables and Illu●ions of the 〈◊〉 poets and wicked Spirits that reigned among the paynims: what credit will be given shortly after to the Scriptures themselves?  
Will not the Coming of the three Angels to Abraham, 
Ge●e. 1●.  and the Feast which they took at his hands, will not the wrestling of the Angel with jacob a whole ●●ght long together, 
32.  will not the Angels that appeared to Agaz, joshua, Balam▪ Man●e, David, 
Gen. 21.  Elias, will not the fiery Chariots that Elize●s saw, 
josu. 5.  will not the Terrible horse w●th one in golden 
N●m. 22.  armour sitting upon him, 
jud. 13.  and two goodly and glorious young men in beautiful 
●. Paral. 21  apparel, 
3. Re. 1●.  which scourged Heliodorus that would have spoiled the Orphans, 
4 Re. 6.  and widows, 
Mach. 2.  and other, of their goods that late in safe keeping in the Temple of Jerusalem: will not the Angel's appearing to the Maries, 
Mar. 16.  and the Apostles, all in white, 
Acto. 1. & 12.  and the Angel that bid S. Peter arise, and put on his hose and shows, will not all these things be quickly and desperately resembled to the conversations which Homer's Gods and Goddesses had with such as they favoured?  
Nothing is so easy as to call things into doubt, & to disgrace a true and holy Story, by objecting a like unto it, of the telling of idolaters, or the making of poets. In which kind of Confounding, Marring, and Spoiling of things, M. jewel hath a Folissh Grace: and if he had any Reverence to Old and Approved Stories, he would never have joined Sozome●us, and Homer together.  
He therefore that hath Faith, let him thank God for it, and pray for the increase: he that hath none, but is negligent or Indifferent, let him think advisedly upon the saving, of both soul and body, and make speed to believe the Scriptures themselves, whiles so little contradiction is, against them. For other writers then afterwards, let him consider, whether it will stand with salvation to believe none, or whether it be of necessity, to admi● all: Or whether it can agree with any reason and constancy, to contemn them, whom he hath, for good cause, once allowed.  
In believing nothing but Scripture there is present danger. For by that Reason, Scripture itself can not be credited, because it is not written in all Scripture.  
In believing every thing there is absurdity, because of so many Contradictions and Contrarieties as are found among Writers.  
In believing of certain books not yet as Scripture, but as the books of learned, Ancient, and Generally received Authors, and sayings as worthy to be credited and esteemed as our own opinions, there is wisdom and discretion.  
But▪ if (as M. jewel hath given most shameful Examples) any man will contemn the self-same, whom he would seem to allow, that is such a point, not only of Hypocrisy, but of Injury also, that, as he should BEWARE OF M. JEWEL for it, so should ●e take heed to himself lest he fall in it.   

How M. jewel useth the self-same testimonies, of the first six hundred years, against which he bringeth Exceptions, when his Adversary allegeth them.  
THus far then we are come against M. jewel, that I have proved him, to ●ind the Catholics unto the first six hundred years, besides all reason and equity, And that himself allegeth Authorities of later years, with all boldness and liberty: Thirdly, that he will not stand, to the witnesses of the first six hundred years, unto which he appealed so precisely.  
A●d what is there now, that may be added unto his Chivalry? For in deed, this may be well called his Chivalry, to provoke, as it were all the world, and, to make conditions such as 〈◊〉 him, and when the battle increaseth▪ to change his armour, to put on a 〈◊〉 face, to deny that he allowed, to allow that he denied. In which, as he hath showed himself (like as I▪ by Examples, have declared) A 〈◊〉 so, what he may or hath added thereunto, to would be considered. And I find that his noble Courage and tried Magnanimity is so great, that, the self same Authorities, against which he fought too the and nail, in the Chappiter before, he himself, in his own proper person, alloweth in other places of his Reply, and useth for substantial and good Arguments.  
This, to prove at large, were very easy, but in recompense of the last Chappiter before, which hath been longer than my opinion, I will make this present one, shorter than my first determination. And shortness also may well be taken when the matter is in sight that is to be proved. I say therefore.  
Against S. Chrysostom's Mass, M. jewel doth argue in the 10. page of his Reply, And not only reasoneth simply, that it can no● 〈◊〉 his, but taunteth also them prettily, that would have it to be S. Chrysostom's. But▪ how much he is deceived in his Argument, and how little cause he hath to dally as though he had the victory, it is sufficiently declared already fo. 53. of this book.  
The same M. jewel in the 89. and 90. page of the Repli● where the place of S. Chrysostom (There is none to Communicate) is laid against him, there, I say, he useth the testimony of this Liturgy, & confesseth it to be S. Chrysostom's. For these be his words.  
Chrysostom himself in his Liturgy saith thus. 
jew. 89.  Again. But what needeth much proof, in a Case that is so plain? Chrysostom himself in his Liturgy that Commonly beareth his name, 
90.  followeth the same order. Again, This was the order of S. Chrysostom's Mass, touching the Clergy, and that by the witness of S. Chrystostom himself.  
Note the words (Indifferent Reader) and see what proportion is in M. jewels doings. 
R●.  That Liturgy, which, before, could not be S. Chrysostom's, because it prayeth for Pope Nicolas: and because, 
jew. ●. 10  A prayer is there, for the Empire and Victory of the Emperor Alexius: and because, I trow it were prophesying and no● praying, that Chrysostom prayed for men by name, seven hundred years before they were borne: that same now is S. Chrysostom's, by M. jewels own confession. And not only S. Chrysostom's, but Chrysostom's himself.  
For herein also is a great strength: that the place, which was objected against him, being taken out of S. Chrysostom, he thought to add a Grace unto his Answer by continuing in the testimonies of the self same Doctor, and by making S. Chrysostom to agree with S. Chrysostom. And so he repeateth oftentime. 
Chrysostoms' Liturgy confessed by M. jew.  Chrysostom himself, saying: Chrysostom HIMSELF in his Liturgy. Chrysostom HIMSELF in his Liturgy. Chrysostom HIMSELF in the Liturgy. The very order of Chrysostom's Mass, by the witness of Chrysostom HIMSELF. As though that nothing were so much to be feared, as that some like himself, would dame it to be S. Chrysostom's Liturgy, and then should he lose a good Argument. Therefore he setteth the Book forth very well, and nameth it the Liturgy of Chrysostom himself, and maketh so much of it, that he signifieth it, to have in itself Authority enough to prove an assertion, without any more words. For thus saith M. jewel.  
But what needeth much proof, 
jew.  in a case that is so plain? Chrysostom himself. etc.  
As if he should say: 
〈◊〉  That the Clergy received in old time, with the Priest that celebrated. I have proved it, by the Cano●s of the Apostles, by Pope Anacletus 〈◊〉, by the Council of Nice, 〈◊〉, Laodic●a, and of Toledo. But what needeth much proof in a case that is so plained? I could allege more witnesses, Antiquity is full of Examples, The case is clear and evident. But to be short, I will bring one Testimone for al.  
And what is that? Marry, Chrysostom himself▪ Where I pray you? In the Liturgy. Why did Chrysostom ever make any? Where should one find it? By what note might one know it? In the Liturgy (saith M. jewel) that commonly beareth his name. Speak you that to the discommendation, o● p●ai●e of it● 〈◊〉 to the 〈◊〉 as though it were not S. Chrysostom's in deed, but ●are only his name, how agreeth it, that Chrysostom himself, should witness any thing by this Liturgy? For if you should have said no more but this, Ch●ysostome in the Liturgy that commonly beareth his name etc., you might have been thought to have called it S. Chrysostom's Liturgy, because other so name it, and no certainty might be gathered 〈◊〉, of your own opinion and iudgem●●●. 〈◊〉 now in saying Chrysostom himself etc., you declare by the addition of the pronoun himself, that your opinion is, s. Chryso●tom, even ●e that made the 61. Domel●e ad populum Antiochen. to be the very Author of this Liturgy. If therefore you cast not in these words that commonly beareth his name, to the dispraise or discredit of the Liturgy, then have you not only confessed, that Chrysostom himself should be maker of it, but farther also, you teach us to find out that Liturgy by the title of the book and name of s. Chrysostom, which it commonly beareth, either you make A good Argument against singular and precise Heretics, which will needs have things otherwise to be taken, then commonly they are called.  
Now, if you did put in, the foresaid words (that commonly beareth his name) neither to the praise nor dispraise of the Liturgy, but as it came to your mind so you let it fall out into the Paper, that which might well enough have been spared: let so take it then. And what remaineth, but that Chrysostom himself must be 〈◊〉 undoubted Author of this Liturgy, by your conclusion? Otherwise you have not proved by Chrysostom himself, that the Priests and Deacons (which no man denieth) received with the Bishop or Chief Executor at the Aultare, if the Liturgy, by which you prove it, be not S. Chrysostom's own.  
Ergo, say I now, whereas M. jewel in the 10. page of his Reply, disproveth the Liturgy of S. Chrysostom: And, in the 89. and 90. of the same Reply, affirmeth S. Chrysostom himself, to say that, which in the Liturgy is affirmed: It is most plain and evident, that the self-same Authorities of the first six hundred years, which he will destroy and deny rather, than his Adversary should use them, he yet himself will occupy at his pleasure, and make a great show and countenance, that he is a follower of Antiquity.  
In like manner in the. 66. page of his Reply, he argueth against a Decree of Soter Bishop of Rome, and in the. 76 page following, he applieth the self same Decree to his purpose. Read and consider the places themselves, you to whom M. jewels sayings are precious, I will note only the brief some of the whole matter.  
Soter bishop of Rome (saith D. Harding) made this statute or decree, 
Hard. De Consdist. 1. ca● Hoc quoque.  That no Priest should presume to celebrate the solemnity of the Mass, except there were two present and answer him, so as he himself be the third. For whereas he saith, Dominus vobiscum, Our Lord be with you, and likewise in the Secrets, orate prome, Pray form: it seemeth evidently convenient, that answer be made to his Salutation accordingly.  
Now of this Decree he gathereth, that a● t●e 〈◊〉 were not present of necessity ●t the Service, and much more, that all did not receive with the Priest when so ever he celebrated. For it had been unreasonable so earnestly to provide by a solemn Decree, that without the presence of two mo●e besides himself, no Priest should be so 〈◊〉 as to celebrate, if the general & necessary practice of that time, had so defined it that all the parish should communicate, or that without a number of Communicantes, there should be no Mas●e said at al. This Decree therefore, which so evidently destroyeth the position of M. jewel, see how he laboureth to disgrace.  
First he setteth men together by the cares (as it were) with Some sa●e, 
jew. 66. Note the process of M. jew.  this decree was made ●y Pope Anacletus. Some others say by Soter. And so whiles some say one thing some an other, be thinketh that the quiet Reader which loveth concord and peace▪ will follow his resolution, which is to follow none of the both, but 〈…〉 an opinion of his own, that it is 〈…〉 nor 〈◊〉 his decree.  
After this he falleth into a common place, that It was evermore the common practice of Deceivers, to blaze their doings by the names of such, as they knew to be in estimation in the world. And in this place to let pass Homer, Hesi●de, Ticero, Plautus, he allegeth S. Paul. 2. Thess. 2 And counterfeit Gospels and works, in the name of Peter, Th●m●s, and other the Apostles, Concluding, that we ought the less to marvel, if the like have happened unto Anacletus, Evaristus, Soter, etc. So that the Conclusion is brought to an If.  
Thirdly, 
Soters Decree refused by M. jew. Dist. 19  he speaketh I●d 〈◊〉 against the Decretal Epistles, Alleging 〈◊〉, that they have been doubted of among Learned men, a●d D. Smith, although his authority be not great, that they can not possibly be theirs, whose names they bear.  
Fourthly, he confirmeth D. Smiths sayings by certain reasons not of D. smith's, but of his own: as, These Decretal Epistles, manifestly deprave and abuse the Scriptures. They ma●ntaine nothing so much as the kingdom of the Pope. They publish a multitude of vain and superstitious Ceremonies. They proclaim. such things as M. Harding knoweth to be open and known lies, & this later point is proved by certain conjectures.  
But all this hitherto, is nothing to the disproving of the foresaid Decree, either that it is not Soters, either that it is not to be credited, if as others say, it were Anacletus. He busieth himself in general and Indefinite propositions, to no purpose, or conclusion, but to breed Suspicions and Doubts. Much like as if in reasoning against some heretic, I would not, nor could not prove that he were a Devil, but yet would tell a long tale and prove it very substantially, that the Devil hath oftentimes gone abroad and been conversant with men, and spoken very mannerly of Religion, so like an honest and true man, as any may seem to be in all the world.  
Fifthly then, after all Preludes or Preambles ended, he toucheth specially the decree itself, upon which the Argument of D. Hardings was grounded. And his reasons against it, are shortly these. S. Austin, & ●. Hieron who lived. 250. years after Soter, Have recorded that the people of Rome used to take the Communion together every day, ergo that practice will hardly stand with soter's decree. As who should say, that all the people might not receive at ou● priests hands if any other priest, when they were departed, should go to the Aultare, and have no more but two to answer him.  
Item, this word, Sole●●● seemeth to import a solemn company or resort of people. Yea but Missarum solennia doth import, not by seeming, but by plain construing, neither company of masses, neither of people, but the Appointed and Reverend & Catholic manner of executing the Mysteries.  
Item, It may well be doubted, whether Dominus vobiscum, and, Orate prome fratres (which words are in the decree) were any part of the Liturgy of Rome in Soter's tyme. What harm I pray you is in those words, that it might be well doubted, whether they were used so timely in the Church? In Dominus vobiscum, our Lord be with you, the Priest saluteth the people Charitably and Godly, And in Orate pro me, pray for me, he confesseth himself a sinner, and requires their help, both devoutly and humbly. But because the self same words are now in the Mass, M. jewel can not brook them, as he can neither the word Mass itself, for which in this place (●ul finely forsooth) he useth the term of Liturgy of Rome and not of Mass of Rome. 
Fine M. jewel.  And so he that can not abide to have S. Chrysostom's Liturgy called A Mass (which is our English word, to signify that Service of the Church, 
jew. 12.  that answereth the Liturgy of the Grecians) he now like a merry Greek, speaking of that Service of Rome which was ever called among the Latinistes Missa, and among the English, Mass: termeth it very ●rymly in English, the Liturgy of Rome. But let us go forward.  
After all these foresaid Inventions to move an Altercation and business about the decree of Soter, he would make the Catholics afraid, as if he should say: If you will hold with soter's decree, I will drive you to an Inconvenience, and therefore you were best to let go your holdfast. But wha● is that Inconvenience? Mary saith he, in that Soter requireth, that the two (of whom he speaks) make answer unto the Priest, there in is included both nearness of place, for the people to stand in, and to hear, and also a Common known tongue. Which both are Contrary to M. Harding's Mass.  
But he standeth nigh enough, I ●rowe, that standeth by the Aultare, and he answereth in a Common known tongue, that answereth in the Latin tongue. And both these things are done, by the simple parish Clerk, or little boy that serveth the Priest at Mass. And therefore the decree of Soter hindereth the Catholics, nothing at al. And if you have no more to object against it, than these foresaid trifles, you may either hold your peace, or bring some other fresher Arguments.  
But other Arguments you have none: Only you take it for a good sport, to note the questions which are moved by the canonists about this Decree. As, whether the two whose presence is required, aught to be two Clerks or two lay men, 
jew. ●8.  or one Clerk and one lay man, or one man and one woman. The Resolution whereof is, that they must be two Clerks▪ Yet you declare out of Summa Angelica, that in Private Mass one is sufficient. And to this you allege Gersons Opinion, that the Priest may well say, Dominus vobi●cum, our Lord be with you, though but one be present, because he speaketh unto the whole Church of the Faithful, and not to that one only, that 〈◊〉 by him. Or (as Innocentius 〈◊〉) because it may be thought, there be Angels there, to supply the men's Rome.  
Thus you make some sport to yourself by reckoning up of the canonists opinions, but what sad conclusion you can peak out thereof, against soter's Decree, it is not perceived. Except you will reason after this sort, that, because the Late Doc●ours or Rulers of the Church, have either expounded according to Charity the words of that Decree, Or have loosed according to their Authority, the bond which was put upon the Priests by the Positive Law thereof: therefore So●er was never author of it.  
The last quarrel that M. jewel hath to soter's Decree, is that it maketh mention of Secreta the Secrets of the Mass, which to have been in the time of Soter, it were very hard for D. Harding to prove. For then Every piece of the Mass was spoken aloud. But, how prove you th●●? For concerning D. Harding, he may speak upon some Authority, because he allegeth the plain words of soter's Decree for it.  
But it is not my purpose, exactly to refel M. jewels Arguments made against Soter: Only this I pray thee now to consider (Indifferent Reader) how many fetches and devices he hath in this place had, against that Decree of his. Anacletus (quod he) as some say, made it: Then, Counterfeit Books have been set abroad. 
A b●ndle of shifts.  Furthermore Decretal Epistles have been doubted of. And more specially to the matter, The practice (sa●eth he) of S. Augustine and S. Hieromes time can hardly stand with that is here imagined. Again, Solennia seemeth to import, a resort of people. Again, it may he well doubted whether Dominus vobiscum were any part of the Liturgy of Rome in Soter's tyme. Again, That any Secreta were in the time of Soter, it were very hard for M. Harding to prove. Then add unto this. That question is moved by the canonists what those two ought to be, whose presence is required, at the priests Mass. And first, the Resolution is this, Straightways, The matter is otherwise determined. Then, Gerson saith this. Yet, Pope Innocentius hath an other fetch.  
How think we now, hath this fellow left any corner unsearched, out of which he might scrape any guess, conjecture, or Suspicion, to diminish the Authority of this decree of Soter? From Generals which proved nothing, cometh he not to bare conjectures against the Specialties of the decree? When he could say no more against the decree itself, sought be not to bring it into contempt by questions, Resolutions, & variations of the canonists about it? Well, M. jewel, you shall have your ask. Let not this be Pope soter's decree, which D. Harding hath brought against you. And that, which you, with so great bending of wit and turning of Books, have sought to conquer us in, let us (in trial of a ●urther conclusion) yield voluntarily unto you. And so it remaineth, that it be not used of any of us, as an Ancient Decree of Soter.  
Tell me then, wherefore do you allege it? This very Decree (Indifferent Reader) about Discrediting and disgracing of which, M. jewel bestowed a whole leaf together in his Reply, this self-same he useth, not six leaves after, in the self-same Reply. But consider with what Constancy he doth it, 
Soters decree alo●wed by M. jew.  & with how great Reverence towards Ancient decrees. His purpose was to disprove the Private Mass, which joannes El●●mosina●ius an Ancient and holy bishop is reported to have said. His words be these. M. Harding's Leontius saith, john the Almoner said Mass in his Oratory at hom●, 
jew. 76.  being sure of no more company but of one of his own household servants alone.  
Here is a double lie. 
Ra.  For neither Leontius saith so much, neither D. Harding gathereth it. For by Leontius, it appeareth that be seen for A certain noble man to come unto him, as though it had ●en about some matter of▪ the common weal: And so, was the noble man also present, at the private Mass with the bishops servant. And D. Harding gathereth not that he was sure, of no more company, but of one of his own household Servants alone, but rather, that he was sure neither of the noble man, neither of his servant, that they could or would receive with him. But of their company concerning presence in the place, though not in participation of the Mysteries, he was so sure as one may be of that which he presently seeth before his eyes, because both were with him at Mass and Answered him. But this lie of M. jewel must be dissembled, if you will see how earnestly he allegeth the decree of Soter. Suppose it then to be so, (against both Leontius, and D. Harding's plain sayings) that the Bishop was sure of no more but one, to be present at his Mass. What can you lay against him for it?  
Let us consider (say you) how safely he might so do by the order of holy Canons. 
jew. 76.   
Why Sir, 
Ra.  in breaking of them, what danger is there? Marry,  
To break them, 
jew  Damasus saith, is blasphemy against the holy Ghost.  
Show then, against what order of holy Canons, joannes Eleemosinarius hath done in saying Mass, none but his servant (according to your sense) being present?  
Pope Soter as it is before alleged by M. Harding straightly commandeth, 
jew.  that no Priest presume to celebrate the Sacrament without the company of two together.  
What say you M. jewel? 
Ra.  that very Decree of Pope Soter against which not fine leaves before you were so vehement, is it counted now among the holy Canons? That Decree, against which that you might have the more vantage, you entered into a Common place of bringing the whole Book of Decrees and Decrecretals into discredit or contempt, (so great was your Stomach against Soter) the same now do ye allege so formally, and with so great Charge commend ye it unto us? For to break the order of holy Canons (you say out of Damasus) that it is blasphemy against the holy ghost.  
And where then was your modesty (for God's sake) when of the Decretal Epistles, you utter a Copy only of tha●, which lieth in your Store against them, 
jew. 67.  affirming that they manifestly deprave & abuse the Scriptures, Maintain the kingdom of the Pope, Publish a multitude of vain and superstitious Ceremonies, Proclaim open Lies? For if to break the order of holy Canons, it be blasphemy against the holy Ghost: How far of are you from the Sin against the holy Ghost, which plainly do contemn Ancient Canons (as this of Soters) & yet allege the self-same afterward, which you contemned before? For, if in speaking against it, you followed your Conscience, could the same Conscience also permit you to hold with it? And if, on the other side, your conscience gave you, that it was Soters' Decree (as in this place you allege it for no less) was it not of plain malice, and directly against your own knowledge, that you busied yourself so much, as I have declared, with seeking & ●umpassing to deface it?  
Consider then (indifferent Reader) and see by this which I have declared, whether M. jewel use not for his own poor vantage, the self same Testimonies of the first six hundred years, which he striveth most extremely to discredit, when the Catholics do allege them. Concerning which point, if thou co●et to have more examples, remember what he saith against Dionysius, 
jew. ●▪ 136. 66. 223.  Sozomenus, The Decrees and Epistles Decretal, and then do no more but look in the quotations only of his Reply, whether thou findest them not alleged of him. And if thou find them not, never trust me hereafter: but if thou shalt perceive, Dionysius, Sozomenus & others to be brought in of him, as occasion sometimes serveth, but the Decrees & Decretal Epistles to be so thickly set in his Reply, as though he were some great Canonist & Papist, & not the exact follower of fine Divinity, them have I proved my Objection. And now what is he worthy to have, which so abuseth the world in setting up & pulling down of Ancient & approved witnesses? For whereas by writing & reasoning we seek always to come nearer and nearer to some Conclusion, by this liberty of Replying which M. jew. followeth, we shall be always the further of from the ending of controversies. For if he would have plainly said, you shall bring forth no witness, except he lived within the first six hundred years, and of those very years I will not allow all witnesses, and especially the Decrees and Decretals I refuse utterly: then would his Reply have been shorter by. xx parts, & with more speed it should have been answered, and with more facility it would have been perceived. But now, when he is so uncertain, that he can not readily tell, what to allow or refuse, and is so mutable, that he alloweth in some one place the same which he disproved in an other, how should it not be both cumberous and injurious? Cumberous, because of the heaping of many Authorities and Testimonies, such as himself knoweth and maketh to be uncertain & doubtful: Injurious, because of taking away from an other, the free use of those writings, which himself with all boldness avoucheth. So that when D. Harding allegeth Pope soter's Decree, all the decrees and Decretals should hear the worse for it: And when M. jewel allegeth the self same Decree, straightways it is blasphemy against the holy ghost, to break any of the holy Canons.  
Such Hypocrites and wranglers, and bragger's, & Gospelers, by whose means new Contentious and troubles are raised a●d continued in the world, it is pity (to speak the least) that ever they were admitted before they were examined, or that now still they should be credited, a●●er that they be detected.   

How M. jewel allegeth, to small purposes, such Authorities of Fathers, as do plainly confounded the proceedings.  
BUt what shall we say? We are not Masters of other men's wills? neither do we believe that this creature (man) whom God hath made after his own Image, should lack that power of his soul, and gift of God, which consisteth in free wil If therefore men will not Beware, when they may, what should we do? I have already declared in special chapters, such matter against M. jewel, that of all men that ever yet wrote, there was never any of less Gravity, Sincerity, or Conscience in his writing. To him that hath a will to save his soul, so much is sufficient to make him seek after better Instruction: To him that thinketh only of Civil Policy, or of Temporal life and living, and will not trouble his head with the everlastingness of the Soul, and a world to come, no Arguments against M. jewel can be sufficient. But concerning them which would in sad earnest save one, and are not fully resolved that M. jewel behaveth himself unreasonably & wickedly, may it please them to consider, how he shall be yet better taken in his Hypocrisy.  
To Antiquity he appealeth: And (because he would be seen to deal plainly) he appointeth out the first six hundred after Christ, for trial of the matter. Now when some witnesses of that time come against him, he will not yet allow them.  
And yet when he hath taken them away from his Adversary, himself for all that will afterwards allege them. And of these points we have spoken already: but what may be added more, to the discovering of his behaviour? Marry this much I can say & prove more, that such testimonies of Holy Fathers & Counsel's, as he bringeth in against the Catholics, do in the self same sentence that he allegeth, give a great wound to his Religion. So greedy he is of troubling the Catholics peace, that to make some of them shrink, as if in deed a blow were coming, he is content himself to bring his own cause into the danger, that he that will take the advantage may quickly so strike it, that it will never be good after. And not only so, but so little favoured he is of Antiquity, that in veri many places he cannot utter the full sentence, but it shall straightways be perceived, that the late proceedings do impugn directly the orders, practice, and Religion that were used in the Primitive Church. As in Example.  
M. jewel, thinking to destroy thereby, the Sole Receiving of the Priest, proveth it, that in the Primitive Church, they which would not Communicate, were bid to avoid. 
The firs● Example.  For, It is Decreed (saith he) by the Canons of the Apostles, that all faithful that enter into the Church, and 〈◊〉 are the Scriptures, and do not continue out the prayers, 
Can. Apost Can. 9  nor receive the Communion, should be excommunicate, as men working the trouble a●d disorder of the Church. 
jewel.  Again: If thou be not worthy to receive the communion, 
pag. 39  than art thou not worthy to 〈◊〉 pres●●● at the prayers. 
Chrysost add popul. Antiochen. Hom. 61.   
Therefore M. Harding should drive his unworthy people from the Church, and not suffer them to hear his Mass.  
Let me ask you then one question M. jewel. 
jewel.  Why do you constrain, 
pag. 23.  by fear of high displeasure▪ 
Ra.  Loss of goods and imprisonment, such as never were yet of your Religion, to come into your Congregations, & to receive also which you? You would have D. Harding to drive them out which are unworthy by the authority of this saying of S. Chrysostom: 
Compelling of catholics to come to the Congregation.  Should not you by the same reason, cease to draw them into your Congregation, which are no brothers of your Religion? D. Hard. gathering it of your Sermon, that you should be of the mind, to have all the people to Receive, Or them that would not, to be driven out of the Church, you cry out and say: 
Fol. 79.  O M. Harding, how long will you thus wilfully pervert the ways of the Lord? You know, this is neither the doctrine neither the practice of the Church. howbeit the Ancient Doctors have both taught so, and also practised the same. Anacletus de Cons. dist. 1. Episcopus Calixtus de cons. dist. 2. Peracta.  
But O M. jewel why say you so? Do you confess that ancient Fathers have used it, and yet dare you Protest, that your Church hath no such practice? Where is your Reverence now, to the first six hundred after Christ? Where is your bringing all things, to the first Pattern? I perceive by this, what your answer willbe to my question out of S. Chrysostom. You will plainly say, that your Church followeth him not. And wherefore then do you make out of him, Rules to the present Church, whom yourself will not follow, in the self-same sentence, which you lay against us? O M. jewel, how long will you Imperially allow and refuse the Authority of ancient Doctors, 
The second Example.  all at will and pleasure?  
Likewise to prove that which no ma● denieth, that in the primitive Church the people did communicate with the priest, M. jewel declareth the manner of their assemblies, 
jew. 11.  saying out of justinus Martyr: 
justinus Martyr. in 2. Apol.  Before the end of our prayers, 〈◊〉 kiss each of us one an other. Then is there brought unto him, that is the chief of the brethren, bread and a cup of Wine and water mingled together: Which, having received, he praiseth God and giveth thanks a good space. And that done, the whole people confirmeth this prayer saying, Amen. After that, they that among ●s be called Deacons▪ give unto every of them that be present, part of the bread and likewise of the wine and water that are consecrate, with thanks giving, and ary he same home unto them, that happen to be absent.  
Again speaking of the effect of the Sacrament, by which we are made all one in Christ, and all one among ourselves, he allegeth S. Chrysostom. 
jewel fol▪ 27.  Propterea in mysterijs etc. 
Chrysost. 〈…〉 Hom.▪ 61.  For that cause in the time of the mysteries we embrace one an other, that being many we may become one.  
Again, speaking of the people receiving of the Sacrament in their own hands, 
jew. 〈◊〉 48.  which is also a matter indifferent in itself, he saith to prove it: I speak of him, 
August. ●on●ra. lit. 〈…〉 23.  whose co●●e of peace ye received at the ministration, and at whose hands ye laid the Sacrament.  
The Testimonies are of your own bringing, 
Ra.  and therefore, I would think of your own allowing. Where then is your mingling of wine and water together▪ 
Water and wine migled together.  in your Mysteries? Where is the embracing of one an other, and the Cosse, somuch used in the primitive Church? The Church sense that time, 
giving of a cross.  hath changed the manner of kissing, and kept the signification which was in it, by giving of the pax or peace.  
But this peace (say you) was not a little table of silver or somewhat else, 
jew. 153.  as hath been used (yea and is still used) in the Church of Rome: but a very cross in deed in token of perfect peace and unity in faith and religion. So justinus Martyr saith speaking of the time of the holy Mysteries: we salute one an other with a cross, So likewise Chrysostom and others.  
True it is M. jewel, 
Ra.  and knowing so much of the practice in the Primitive Church, why do ye not use this so Ancient and holy a Ceremony? If you will not have the Pax of silver, either for sparing of charges, Or fear of Commissioners upon Church goods, Or in despite of the Church of Rome: use then in your mysteries a very cross in deed, according to the Pattern of the Primitive Church. And i● neither old nor new Ceremonies can please you, why crack you, in contemning the Later, that yet you regard still, the Ancient and Approved Orders? Or with what face do you allege these approved Father's testimonies, by whose sayings you will not be ruled?  
M. jewel is always ●●sie i● pro●ing, 
The third Example.  that the people in the Primitive Church did Communicate with the Priest. As though the concluding of that were a clean overthrow to the Catholic Religion: yet no Catholic did ever de●se it, and a● this time also when Charity is 〈…〉, 
jew. 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉.  yet do the people often in the year 〈◊〉 with the Priest. Now by occasion of pro●ing this, which (I must again say) no man denieth, he saith in diverse places of his Reply. 
Chrysost. in Litur.  The Deacons receive the Communion, afterwards the Mysteries be carried unto a place, 
〈…〉  where the people must Communicate.  
It is lawful only for the Priests of the Church, 
〈◊〉.  to enter into the place, 
〈…〉.  where the Aultare standeth, and there to Communicate.  
Let the Priests and Deacons Communicate before the aultare, 
Con. Tol●●. 4. cap. 17.  the Clerks in the choir, and the people without the choir.  
How like you these dstinctions of Places and Pers●ns, 
Ra.  M. jewel? Yea rather why like you them not? Have not yo●●ulled down Chancel, Taken away partitions, made the pavement throughout level, 
Distinction of places.  Set the Communion table in the middle, Set forms for the laity to sit about it? And have not yourself given strange orders, as it were to all the people, noting it by your own wit (as appeareth) out of Fabian the Pope: that men and women made the sacrifice of the aultare, and of bread and wine, and therefore after the order of Melchisedech? But, if the people could not so much as come nigh the Aultare where the Priest stood, or recey●e, at the most, in the quire: how far of were they, at those days, from the irreverency that now is used? And how far wide are you, from the towardness is reform all things, by the pattern of the primitive Church? Yet are you not afraid nor Ashamed, to allege those Counsels and Authorities, which condemn your proceeding utterly. 
The fourth Example.   
S. Basile (saith M. jewel, thinking still all things to help him that prove a communitating of more together) reporteth an ecclesiastical decree or Canon, 
Basil. exe. ad piet. serm. 4.  that at the receiving of the holy Communion which he calleth Mysticum pasca, 
jew. pa● 3.  there ought to be twelve persons at the least, and never under.  
And you, 
Ra.  to prove yourselves followers of Antiquity, and Restorers of ecclesiastical Canons, have decreed, that three shall make up a Communion, and for A need, 
The fifth Example.  the Priest and the sick person alone.  
Si haec vasa etc. If the matter be so dangerous, 
Chrysost. in opere imper. Hom. 11.  to put these sanctified vessels unto Private uses, wherein is contained, not the very body of Christ, but the mystery or Sacrament of Christ's body, etc.  
You judge, 
Ra.  I perceive, the Author of that book to be S. Chrysostom, and this place to be true and godly. Therefore▪ that you may consider it the better, and, by your commendation, other Protestants: I will english the whole sentence unto them. The Author of that book, whosoever he were, persuading with the people, to use well their tongue, least unclean spirits do enter thereby into their bodies: If it be sin and danger (saith he) to put haloved vessels, unto private uses: as Balthasar teacheth us, which, because he drank in hallowed cups, was put beside his kingdom and his life: If then it be so dangerous a matter to put these sanctified vessels unto private uses, in which the true body of Christ is not, but the mystery of his body is contained: how much more behoveth it us concerning the vessels of our body, which God hath prepared for himself to dwell in, not to give the devil place to do in them what he will?  
A strong argument surely and persuasible. For, 
Ra.  if dead metal, which by itself is not apt to receive holiness, be had yet in Reverence, because of the special use which it serveth for, in the temple of God: how should not our bodies, the lively vessels of our reasonable Souls be kept still pure and Inviolated? If, for the vessels which Balthasar orphaned, which served in the Figur●● of the old law, which had not the very body of Christ in them▪ but A sign and Mystery only thereof: If for these, God plagueth and striketh, how shall they escape, which receive into their bodies, the very true Body of Christ, and have God corporally dwelling in them, through the Mystery of his Incarnation and virtue of his Consecration: And yet dare turn themselves, unto profane & unclean uses? This is the true sense of that place.  
But when begin you (M. jewel) to tell openly the danger which they incur before god (though the world allow it) which, Either after vow made of Chastity, have turned themselves, first out of their Monasteries, and shortly after, have overturned themselves into Incestuous Car●alitie: Either spoiling the Churches of God, 
Church goo●●s.  of the hallowed and consecrated vessels, have converted them into profane uses, and drink in Chalices at their Tables? No doubt, by the example of Balthasar, but that they are in sore danger, which serve themselves an● their private Affections, with the 〈◊〉, and proper vessels appointed for God. And if it be so in corruptible and base matters, are not the polluted weddings of Non●es, Monks, harlots, and Renegates, much more accursed and execrable? But when will you protest this much M. jewel? And if you like not this consequence, why refuse yo● your own witness?  
This place also that followeth, is made to serve for prouse, 
The. ●. Example. jew. 74.  that there were that Communicated with the Priest.  
They that have fallen into Heresy and do penance for the same, when the Novices that be not yet Christened be commanded to departed out of the Church, let them departed also▪ Ergo they that remained, did Communicate together.  
Well to let go the Argument, 
R●.  the granting of which proveth nothing against us: What place is that in all your Communion, where Novices or Penitentes must go out? Or how agreeth this with the compelling of men into your Congregation against their wills? 
The▪ 7. Example. jew. 174.   
The people rise before day and hie them to the house of prayer.  
You bring in this upon occasion of Praying in a known tongue, 
Ra.  which the Greek and Latin both are. 
Basil. in epist. ad Clericos Neoc●s.  Of which I have spoken of, in the third Article of my first book. But how like you this rising before day?  
Non sum, 
The. 8. Example.  inquis, Monachus. etc. Tho● wilt say, 
Chry●ost. in Mat. Hom. 〈◊〉  I am no Monk, I have wife and children and charge of household. This is it, that as it were with a Pestilence, 
jew. ●08  infecteth altogether, that ye think the reading of the holy Scriptures belongeth only unto Monks.  
This is spoken of M. jewel, 
Ra.  to exhort the people to the getting of knowledge which may be well spoken to them, and soon gotten of them, if Curiosity doth not let it. But what were these Monks, so distincted by the study of Scriptures, from the rest of the people? And what like Profession or Example have you, 
The. 9 Example.  in all your Reformations?  
Decernimus ●um extran●um esse. 
Concil. Chalced. actione prima.  etc. We decree that he shall be removed from his office of Priesthood, and from our Communion, and from the Primacy of his Abbey. 
jew 245   
This is alleged of M. jewel, 
Ra.  to prove a confessed Truth, that Primatus is taken for any preferrment before others. But let him consider it: were Abbeys then within the .600. years after Christ▪ And in such reputation, that a general Council counted it, among other things, for a great Ignominy and Punishment, a Monk to be deposed from the Primacy in them? M. jew. hoping to conclude thereby that the B. of Rome should not be Supreme over all, showeth what large privileges Emperors have given to the Clergy, which for Civil Actions he may do well enough, as being in them Suprem himself: 
The▪ 10. Example.  Omnes qui vbic●que sunt, etc. All that be or hereafter shall be Priests or Clerks of the Catholic faith, 
Cod. de Episc. & Clerical Omnes.  of what Degree so ever they be, Monks also, let them not in any Civil A●tions be drawn forth to any foreign judgement by the summon or commandment of any judge more or less: 
jew. 267  neither let them be driven to come forth of either the Province, or the place, or the country where they dwell.  
If you see then how greatly the Clergy was honoured in times past, 
Ra.  and allow the Authors of their privileges: Why labour you, as much as ye can, to to bring all the Spiritual power into subjection? 
privileges granto priests & mo●kes  Or why defend you not the right of the Clergy, like Reformers of the Church?  
Priests and Clerks are before your 〈◊〉, drawn before temporal judges into their Courts. Monks, not only not saved from the pains, to go for any matter out of the Country, but not suffered to have any place in your Country. Such charity hath been taught by your Gospel, and with such pure following of antiquity you have proceeded.  
The place appointed unto the priest for the hol● ministery as it may be gathered by S. Chrysostom, 
The. 11. Example. jew. 196  at certain times of th● Service, was drawn with Curtains.  
This proveth not, 
Ra.  that the Aultare was placed in the midst of the Church, as M. jewel would have it, but by this we may well gather, that great reverence was used then about the Mysteries, which you, forsooth, have so maintained, that as though the Celebration of the Mysteries was not open enough before, you have, in some places pulled down the Partition, between the body of the Church and the Quire, And have caused generally, the Communion Table to be ●●ought down nearer the people, lest 〈◊〉 Curtains, which you occupy, should let their sight.  
Ergo ut 〈◊〉 p●ssint. 
〈…〉  etc. Therefore that these things may ●e well examined, 
Conc. Ni●. primum.  it is well provided, that every year in every Province, at two several times, there be holden a Council of Bishops: 
Ca●. 5.  that they meeting together out of all parts of the Province may hear and determine such 〈◊〉. 
jew▪ 26●   
When begin you to put this Canon in execution? 
Ra.   
Truly Liberatus saith, 
The. 13. Example.  The manner was in Alexandria, that who so ever was chosen Bishop there, 
Libera●us Cap. ●0.  should come to ●e bear, and lay his Predecessors hand upon his head, 
jew. 283  and put on S. Marks Cloak, and then was he sufficiently confirmed Bishop, without any mention made of Rome.  
You are a special friend to the Bishop of Rome, 
Ra.  which rather than he should have to do with Consecrating of Bishops, you can well fancy a dead man's blessing, and the solemn using of a Relic: which how heartily ye favour, I am in doubt.  
I prove it therefore unto thee by these Examples (Indifferent Reader) not only that M. jewel is a deceitful Man, but I give the also occasions how to try him, whether he be in deed an hypocrite, or no. For if he think the foresaid testimonies out of the holy Fathers or Counsels to be of such force and generality, that we may in no case receive a diverse order from theirs: Why are not Monasteries standing with them? Why are not old Ceremonies observed? Why is not water and wine mingled together in their Chalice, as plain Examples of the Primitive Church, declare unto us, to have been then used? And, if he Answer, that the Canons, Orders, and fashions, or practices of old time, are not so to be understanded of us, as though the Ages following might not by lawful Authority & f●l consent, put an other Canon in place of the old: Why layeth he it to the catholics charge, that the Priests now say Mass, though but one alone be present, which was otherwise by Pope soter's decree? Or why telleth he us (out of S. Basil) of an old Canon that appointed twelve at the least to receive together?  
Here (I should think) he must needs be taken, (for who knoweth the uttermost of his Art in shifting?) but I think verily he could not escape in this place, a just note either of high malice, in objecting that, against his Adversary, which himself knoweth to be little worth: either of deep Hypocrisy, in pretending a Reverence towards Antiquity, which in very deed he c●ntemneth.   

How M. jewel allegeth for himself, the words and deeds of Old condemned Heretics.  
BEWARE therefore of M. jewel, you that seem to have, as it were, A Conscience, and make a Religion of Religion. For many there are that live among Christians, themselves also being Christians, which so heartily follow the world & their own concupiscences, that neither Catholic books will do them good, they are so careless, neither heretical do them harm, they are so desperate. But you, which are not past all fear of God, and care of Salvation: whom examples of sin, which were to be seen among the Papists, or were gathered out of all Stories and Countries against them, did make to abhor even the Religion itself, which corrupt persons professed: Whom fair Promises of Gospelers, that they would show you a ready and short way unto Heaven, in which you should have no carriage of Ceremony, Tradition, Lentes, Fast, Penance, Fear of Purgatory, etc. And that you should have all things ministered unto you, in like order and manner, as they were used among the faithful in the Primitive Church: you I say, whom these fair promis●●, have made to forsake the Old and Catholic Religion, upon hope to find a more Ancient and Received Religion which the new Masters & holy Doctors & counsels would teach you: BEWARE you of M. jewel.  
For whereas you would not have forsaken the religion in which you were baptised, & which all Christians then in all the world professed openly, ex●●pt you had believed y●, as it was told you, so you should ●e reduced to the perfit state of A true Religion, even as it was to be found in the Primitive Church: how miserably are ye now deceived, where your M●sters do not in deed regard the Example and practice of the same Church, for love and des●er of which you followed them, leading you quite away, from the Obedience of the present Church? How well may every one of you, whom M. jewel hath perverted, ●aie unto him?  
Sir, have you put me in this hope, that in following of you, I should go in the safe way of the primitive Church, of holy Fathers, of Ancient Counsels? And my mind giving me, that all was not well in this present Church in which you and I both were baptized, and that the nearer one might come to the beginnings of the Christian Faith, he should find it the more surer and purer, ha●e you served my humour therein? and promising to reform all things according to the pattern of the Ancient Catholic Church, are you proved in the e●d to neglect those self same orders, which were observed in the most best and most Ancient times? Spoke you fair unto me, until I was come unto you, from the company where I lined, and do ye not 〈◊〉 those things unto me, for hop● of which I broke from my 〈…〉 cross, I know, or a curtain, Or A 〈◊〉 in the Church, are not essential, an● without them we may be saved: But yet, if in the pure and Primitive Church such things were allowed, you have not done well, to make me contemn the Pax, or vestments, or distinction of places, such as were used in the Church, from which I departed.  
And yet: If these things be bu● light, and Rags, as some will say, of the 〈◊〉 Religion, was the building of Monasteries a light matter in the primitive Church? And that Rule of life, which Monks then followed, was it of small importance, by the judgement of that world so nigh to Christ? You have made me believe, that to live in such Order, should be a derogation to the merits of Christ, A trusting to our own works, A ●ondage of conscience, a promise of things impossible, A Superstitio●s and 〈◊〉 fashion, and at one word, that Monkery should be Trumpery: And yet doth it appear, by our own allegations, that Monks and Abbates were in the Primitive Church, and that they were also in great rep●●ation.  
What shall I say of the most high and dreadful Mystery, the Sacrament of the body and Blood of Christ, whereas the witnesses that yo● bring in for other purposes, do testify unto me, that the Cup of the Lord was mingled with wine and water: can I take in good part and with a quiet Conscience, that you put no water at all in the Cup of the Lord?  
If you had not challenged, if you had not provoked, if you had not given most infallible tokens (as me thought) that all Antiquity had gone smooth with you: or, if you had refused at the beginning all other Authority besides the Express Scriptures, I might have deliberated whether I would have followed you, or no: But now, making so large & goodly promises, that you would not take my Religion away from me, but that you would only reform it, & that you would not deny the Faith, which the whole world professeth, bu● require it to be reduced unto the order of the Primitive Church, I yielded quickly therein unto you, and thought, that these surely be the men of God, which shall purge the Church of all superfluities, and leave it in as good health & constitution, as ever it was in her florisshing tyme. And are you not ashamed, that the very prints, and steps of papistry, are found, even within that age, which you warranted unto me to be altogether for the Gospel? And that, in those self-same testimonies, which yourself upon occasion, do bring out against the Papists? what were not they themselves likely to show, if they might be suffered to utter, what diversity there is betwixt this Late well-favoured Gospel, and the Catholic old Religion: seeing that you can not so order the matter, in reciting of Ancient Fathers & Counsels, but it must be strait ways perceived, that your proceedings are not conformable unto the Primitive Church.  
O wretched and vile Glory, to fill the margin of a Book, with the Counsels of Nice, Carthage, Chalcedon, Constantinople, Ephesus, etc. and with the testimonies of Anacletus, Felix, Soter, Calixtus, Chrysostom, Basile, Ambrose, Augustine, etc. as though that it were not M. jewel that made any thing of his own, but as though in all that he concluded, he followed most exactly, the holy Counsels and Fathers▪ and, before all be known, to be conuin●●● most clearly and evidently, that his doings are not like the holy Father's Religion, what a confusion is it unto that Glory, and what a Detriment to right meaning and well willing consciencies?  
In this sort might an honest and grave man complain, and say less than M. jewel deserveth. For now I will show unto thee (Indifferent Reader) that he allegeth, and that very sadly and solemnly, the testimonies of Heretics as though it were no matter at all, how well it would be admitted among the learned, so that the common Reader be persuaded that M. jewel speaketh not without his Authorities. For proof thereof let this be one Example.  
The bishops of the East part of the world being Arians, 
jew. ●6●  writing unto julius the bishop of Rome, took it grievously, that he would presume to over rule them. 
Sozome. lib. 3. ●a. 3.  And showed him, that it was not lawful for him, by any sleight or colour of appeal, to undo that thing, that they had done.  
This is one of M. jewels testimonies, to prove against the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy. In alleging of which, although he lacked a point of discretion, in bringing of their sentences forth, 
Arrians witness for M. jewel.  whom all the world hath condemned for stark Heretics: yet he hath not forgotten all conscience and charity, in that he confesseth to his Reader, that these Bishops of the East, whose doings he thinketh worthy to be considered, were Arians. Which I pray thee (Indifferent Reader) to think well upon, that it may be perceived, how well the Protestants and Arrians agree together, in their proud and rebellious behaviours: & how well the testimony of blasphemous Heretics may ser●e, to disprove any Catholic and honest conclusion. another Example is.  
Donatus being condemned, 
jew. 272  by threescore & ten Bishops in Aphrica, Appealed unto the Emperor Constantinus, and was received.  
But what was Donatus? 
Ra.  A singular proud heretic. For proof whereof, let the Epistles and books, which S. Augustin wrote against him and his followers, be witnesses. Let that 〈◊〉 also be witness, which S. Augustine wrote purposely of heresies: In which the Donatiani or Donatistae have their proper place. For when Cecilanus, 
Aug. de ●●●resibus ad Quod●ul● deum.  A Catholic and good man, was made against their wills, bishop of Carthage, they objected certain crimes against us, which being not proved, and sentence going against their, Donatus being their Captain they took such a Stomach, that they turned their Schism into heresy, and held the opinion, that all they, whatsoever they were in the world besides, that agreed not with them, were infected, and excommunicated persons. And hereupon (as the nature of heresy is to go, deeper and deeper still, into desperate blindness and presumption) they did baptize again, such as had been already baptized in the Catholic Church. It appeareth als●, what an honest and Catholic man 〈◊〉 was, in that M. jewel confesseth him to have been condemned of three score and ten bishops, which was not, I believe, for any humility, Obedience, Faith, or Charity of his.  
Donatus then being an Heretic, 
Donatus the Heretic ● present witness for M. jew.  what hath M. jewel to do with him? Like will to like perchance, and the same Spirit that inflamed Donatus, warmeth M. jewel: otherwise, it is not to be gathered out of the practices of Heretics, what the Order that we ought to follow, was in the Primitive Church: But of the Catholic and allowed Examples. And if M. jewel, could show, that this Appeal of Donatus unto the Emperor from the bishops that condemned him, was good and lawful, in the judgement of any Father or Doctor of that age, than might this example have some likelihood in it, to serve his purpose: otherwise himself doth minister the Catholic an Exception against his own witness, the Ancient and Re●●rend Heretic Donatus.  
But Constantinus the Emperor received his Appeal. What of that? Is all well done, that Emperors do? And are no● many things permitted unto them for Civil Policy, and quiet sake, which, by right following to Ecclesiastical orders, should not be suffered? Again, Constantinus, was a Christian, Catholic and good Emperor: and he received in deed Donatus Appeal. but recea●ed he it willingly, or no? And thought he himself to do therein lawfully, as A Supreme head and Governor, or else to pass the bonds of his Imperial Authority, and to meddle with a jurisdiction belonging to more excellent Officers? UVndoubtedly, he would feign have been rid, of the importunity of the Donatists, and liked it not in his own conscience, that himself should be taken for the highest judge in matters Ecclesiastical. HJow pro●e I this now? Sufficiently enough: by S. Augustine. And mark the place well (Indifferent Reader) that thou mayest see the devotion of that so mighty an Emperor.  
First, Donatus and his fellows, 
The true story of the Donatists appeal to the ●mperor  perceiving that, although they had condemned Cecilianus the bishop of Carthage, and set an other, of their owns making in his place: Yet the rest of the bishops of the world, did still write and send to Cecilianus, as the true bishop in deed, and such as they communicated withal: they (I say) perceiving this, made suit to Co●stantin●s the Emperor, that they might have the cause of Cecilianus examined, before the bishops of beyond the seas. In which point, S. Augustine findeth, that they had a double fetch and subtlety.  
The one, that if those Bishops, whom the Emperor had procured to hea●e the whole matter, should condemn Cecilianus, then lo, they should have their lust fulfilled: The other, that if those should absolve him, than would he with his fellows say, that the judges were not indifferent, and so, by consequence, appeal from them. In which case, though (as S. Augustin saith) there remained a general Council of the univerfal Church, in which the cause between them and their judges, should have been handled, yet what did they? Marry, they went to the Emperor, and accused the foresaid bishops before him. And how was this taken (think we) of the Catholics? verily not well, as appeareth by S. Augustine, which noteth the Donatists of foolish boldness therein.  
judices enim Ecclesiastic●s etc. 
August. Epist. 16●.  For the Ecclesiastical judges, bishops of so great Authority, by whose sentence and judgement both the innocency of Cecilianus, and their naughtiness was declared (these men of such worthiness saith S. Augustine) they durst accuse, not before other their fel●webishopes and Colleges, but unto the Emperor, that they had 〈◊〉 judged well.  
But now, when they had broken the order of the Ecclesiastical Law, and were come to the Emperor, what did he? Did he commend their Obedience, or Wisdom? Did he prefer his own Court and Authority, before the Consistory and judgement of Bishops? What he did, the Acts and Registers of his own Court declare, as S. Austin recordeth out of it. For after the Donatists were now condemned by the Pope of Rome & other bishops assistant, and refused to stand to their sentence, requiring help at the emperors hands: Dedit ille aliud judicium Arelatense, aliorum scilicet Episcoporum: He gave and appointed unto them other judges at Arles, I mean other bishops  
Why: if the Emperor had in those days taken the Pope for chief bishop in all the world, would he have further committed, unto the Bishop of Arls, the sitting upon that cause, which already was decided by the Bishop of Rome?  
It seemeth altogether unlikely: And therefore M. jewel may be thought to bring in deed an invincible Argument for the emperors Supremacy, against the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome.  
But mark the Circumstances and Considerations which moved the Emperor, and then will the contrary conclusion be manifestly proved, that the Emperor took himself to be the inferior unto Bishops, even in that cause, which was brought unto him after bishops, and which he caused to be examined again, after it was sufficiently judged. For thus it followeth in S. Austin.  
Dedit ille aliud Arelatense judicium, non quia iam necesse erat, sed eorum perversitatibus cedens & omnimodo cupiens tantam Impudentiam Cohibere. That is, He gave other judges, not because it was now necessary, but because be yielded to the frowardness of them (the Donatists) and desired by all means, to restrain so great Impudency of them. Neque enim a●sus est Christianus Imperator, sic eorum tumultu●sas & fallaces querelas suscipere, ut de iudici● Episcoporum, qui Romae sederant, ipse judicaret, sed alios, ut dixi, Episcopos dedit. For the Christian Emperor (as who should say, other Emperors, which forget themselves to be Christians, and in whose ●ares nothing standeth so much, as Obey the higher powers, &, obey the King as the chief, which is by the interpretation of blind Gospelers and Flatterers, that every Prince is for his own Country Suprem under God in all matters both Ecclesiastical and Temporal, such Emperors: would not only have contemned the sentences of Priests in comparison of their majesties judgement, but also have punished such as would signify it, by never so small a token, that the Emperor can not well be Supreme judge in matters Ecclesiastical, But) The Christian Emperor durst n●t receive their (the Donatists) Sediti●us● and deceitful complaints, in such sort, as that himself ●●v●uld judge of the sentence of the bishops that sat at Rome but he appointed (as I have said) ●ther bish●pes. And that, for the causes above mentioned: which were, the frowardness and the Impudency of the Donatists.  
A quibu● tamen illiad ipsum rursum Impera●orem provocare maluerunt. From which bishops for all that they ch●se to provoke again to the Emperor. And what said he unto them? Forsooth, he judged C●cilianum Inn●centissimum, illos improbissimos, Caecilian to be most Innocent▪ and them most wicked.  
Yea but, you will Reply, did not the Emperor 〈◊〉 judge upon the matter, when it had been, twice before 〈◊〉 to Bishops? True it is in deed, that you say: But consider, that they were Heretics, which appealed from bishops to the Emperor, and that although he heard their Cause, yet he detested their contentiousness; and thought also before upon it, to ask pardon of the bishops, for meddling in the matter after them. For thus it followeth in Saint Augustine.  
Qua in re illos quem admodum det●stetur, audistis. Atque utinam saltem ipsi●● judicio insanissimis animositatibus suis finem posuissent. Atque ut eis ipse cessit, ut de ill● causa post Episcopos i●dicaret, à Sanctis An●ist●●ibus postea veniam petiturus, dum tamen illi, quod ulterius dicer●nt non haberent, s 〈◊〉 eius sententiae non obtemperarent, ad que● ipsi pro●ocauerunt, sic & illi aliquand● cederent Veritati. In which thing (that they appealed unto him, after they had been with two several judges of the Clergy) how he detested them, you have heard. And Would God they had made an end of their most outrageous stomaching of the matter, if it had been for no more than for his sentence sake. And as he (the Emperor) yielded unto them, to judge of that cause after the bishops, min●ing to ask● pard●n● afterward of the holy Bishops, 〈◊〉 that they (the Donatists) ●hould n●t han● 〈◊〉 say further, if they would not obey his sentence, unto whom they appealed: So would God, that they once yet would yield unto the truth.  
Consider now indifferently with me, upon this whole matter (gentle Reader) And this appealing of the Donatists unto the Emperor, and his hearing of the whole cause, being not once or twice, but very oft alleged by M. jew. it is worth while to be well remembered, that which I have already said, & that which by occasion hereof may be further gathered, and well be noted.  
See then first, what busy Heretics these Donatists were, and how full they were of Shifts and Quarrels making: From the Emperor to Rome: From Rome they go to the Emperor again: From him then by appointment and agreement, they go to Arls and the Bishops there: And from Arls, they return, with complaint, to the Emperor yet again. At last, the Emperor himself heareth the cause, yet would they not stand to the emperors sentence, but maintained still their false bishop, whom to put in the See of Carthage, they thrust out Cecilian, and they continued still in their heresy, accounting all the Christians of the world accursed, which were not of the side of Donatus.  
Such is the nature and practice of Heretics, they pretend conscience, they commend holy and Ancient Fathers, They appeal to the Primitive Church: They crave for General Counsels, for free disputations, for surcease of Inquisition, for Service in the vulgar tongue, for Comm●●●on in both kinds, and other such things more. If the Princes & 〈◊〉 resist them in any point, strait ways they make exclamations, they stir up angers, ●hey complain of sentence given upon them before they be heard, of the lack of ghostly consolation, which should come to the people by understanding of Scriptures and receiving the Sacraments, of the penalties of laws and Statutes. What is it so little, th●t they will not murmur against, if they may not have their f●l will▪ In respect then of peace and public tranquillity▪ if you will not strive with them upon mater● indifferent, but dispense with them in their requests or demands, yet will they not suffer the Catholics to be in rest: And if you put them out of fear of the Inquisition, they will trouble yet the whole Country with preaching in the open field: And if you provide a General Council to satisfy them, they will not come at it: if at every mass there should be Communicantes, they will not allow the Sacrifice. And when the Prince is made by them the Supreme Governor under God▪ in any country, yet will they stoutly disobey the prince in a small matter of wearing a 〈◊〉 gown & cap. So that all that they do, is 〈◊〉 to maintain talk, and find always somewhat, in which they may occupy the Catholics, until that at length, when their power is so great, that they ●are meet in field with their Adversaries, they may boldly and desperately, leave all reasoning, conferring, Applealing, demanding, protesting, and Lawleying, and with open face com● against the Catholics: Pull down Churches, 〈◊〉 offices: Take away Sacraments, Altar the sta●e of common weals, hang, draw and quarter Priests: Set Inquisition against Catholics: And confirm their Gospel by terror.  
These and such like things we in our days see by experience. Constantinus the Emperor did not see so much: Yet fearing the busy nature of Schysmatykes, and hoping by fair demeans to bring the Donatists to a peace with all Christendom, he yielded as much unto them as he could, and (as ye have heard) he received their provoking to him, not because he thought that himself was the chiefest judge in all the world, even in matters Ecclesiastical, but because he hoped, in yielding unto the Donatists in all their requests about apointing or changing of the judges, to bring them at length unto such a remembrance of themselves, that they should cease, for shame, to make any further brabble about that, in which by every judge that did hear the cause, they were condemned.  
Now, if at those days, either the wise and learned about him, or he himself, had believed the hearing of causes Ecclesiastical to belong unto his court or consistory, what needed him to borrowed point of the law, & to account upon asking of pardon of the bishops, for his meddling with that cause, which they already had ended? Can we have any thing more plain and manifest, that this Christian and wor●hie Emperor, did in conscience think himself to base to sit and judge after bishops, whereas enforced thereunto by the importunity of the Donatists, and trusting, by that his yielding, to pacify the commotion that was raised in the catholic Church, yet was not sure of his doings herein, but determined to ask forgiveness of the holy bishops?  
As if he should say: The Donatists here, trouble the Church, They appeal unto me, as though I were chief. If I will not hear their cause, there is no man shall Rule them: And if I take open me to hear it, the Bishops, which alreahave decided it, will be offended. Well, I will venture yet, And if the Donatists will stand to my judgement, and be quiet for ever after, that is so great a benefit, that to cumpasse it, I may stretch my conscience. And if, for all that pretence, my fact shall be misliked, I will ask pardon of the holy bishops, which have already judged of the matter, This is the very truth of the emperors receiving of the Donatists Appeal. He did it upon occasion, and if it were not well done, he was ready to take a pardon for it. In all things he sought the best way to help the Church, and showed his most due, and humble, and Obedient affection towards bishops.  
Yet doth M. jewel bring in this Story, 
jew. 272  to prove that It is well known, that Appeals even in the Ecclesiastical causes, were made to the Emperors and Civil Princes. secondly, that the bishop of Rome determined such cases of Appeal, by warrant and commission from the Emperor. Thirdly, that matters being heard and determined by the bishop of Rome, have been, by Appeal from him, removed further unto others. Which Conclusion will seem well enough to follow upon the Appeal of the Donatists unto the Emperor, and the emperors sending of them first unto the bishop of Rome, and then to the bishop of Arles, but consider the matter truly, and M. jewels Arguments mu●t be these.  
Schismatics Appealed in an ecclesiastical cause▪ unto the Emperor Constantinus: Ergo Catholics, maie● like causes, appeal to Ciuil● Princes.  
Again, Constantinus the Emperor, received for 〈◊〉 sake the Schismatics appeal, and 〈…〉 Rome there to be tried, and durst not himself judge of that cause, when the bishop of Rome had determined it. Ergo the bishop of Rome had a warrant and commission sent unto him, to hear and determine that matter.  
Again, Constantinus the Emperor yielding unto the importanitie of Schismatics, when they would not obey the Sentence of the bishop of Rome, sent th●m to the bishop of Arls, and when they would not be ruled neither by that Sentence, he heard the cause himself, and minded to ask pardon of the holy bishops, for his sitting upon that matter, which already by them was determined: Ergo Appeals may be lawfully made from the bishop of Rome to other bishops, and the Emperor is Supreme hea● under God in earth: So that all causes must in the end be referred unto him. These be the only premises which the Story giveth, unto which if he can join his conclusion, then shall he make contraries agree: but whereas he can not, why maketh he conclusions without premises? Or why maketh he Arguments out of y●, which either Schismatics used, or that which Catholics yielded unto, in con●●deration of Schismatics? Will M. jewel never leave his impudency: But let us go further. 
The third Example.   
The Council of Antioch deposed Pope julius: 
jew. 289  Yet was not julius therefore deposed.  
This you bring in (M. jewel) to declare, 
R●.  that the sentence given in Counsels was not always put in execution. To which I answer, that if the Council be lawful and Catholic, the decrees ought to be put in 〈◊〉: if they be not, it followeth not, that the Sentence of the Council may be 〈◊〉, or neglected, but that they which being of Authority do not see the Counsels 〈…〉, are to be 〈…〉 Counsels, neither their 〈…〉 their examples are to be 〈◊〉.  
You reason much like, as if one should say against the Obedience due unto the privy Council of a Realm: The Sons of King David, the Capitanes of the hosts, Abiathar also the high Priest, consented and agreed, saying: Vivat Rex Adonias, God save Adonias the King, and yet Adonias was not king, ergo the Proclamations or Determinations of lawful Authority may be little esteemed. For this Council of Antioch, was a Schismatical assemble, and whereas they deposed him, over whom they had no Authority, there is no absurdity at all, nor fault to be laid unto any man's charge, that will not obey, or like their proceedings & doings therein. But when the lawful & head bishop of the world, doth define and subscribe in a General Council, though there follow no execution in act, yet there is one to be done by right. And it can be no sufficient excuse before God, when the conscience shall be examined, to allege, that because Schismatics decrees have not been executed, therefore the Obedience which is due to the Sentence of Catholics, may be diminished. But see yet an other Example.  
M. jewel will prove that Bishops of other Countries, never yielded to the Pope's Supremacy. For faith he:  
The bishops of the East, 
The. 4. Example.  writing unto julius, allege that the faith that then was in Rome, 
jew. 278  came first from them, and that their Churches, as Sozomenus writeth, ought not to be accounted inferior to th● Church of Rome: And as Socrates further reporteth, that they ought not to be ordered by the Roman bishop.  
You have much to do M. jewel with the bishops of the east, 
R●.  and no man, I think, that readeth your Book will judge otherwise, but that they were learned and good men, such as whose opinions both yourself allow, and commend unto others to be regarded. And truly, if they were such men, I will say nothing, but that he that is disposed, may esteem their sayings: but, if it shall be proved most manifestly, that they were rank and obstinate Arrians, then truly, the more ignominiously and contemptuously they spoke against the Bishops of Rome, the better they do declare, of what kind and succession they are at this present, which set their whole studies against the See apostolic, and will not be ruled by the highest Bishop in Christendom.  
For proof of your assertion, you refer us to Sozomenus, and Socrates, Ancient and lawful Historiographers, whom we also do admit. And, as though any man would strive with you hereupon, that the bishops of the East, did not so little set by the Bishop of Rome's Authority, as you seem to gather, you put in the margin the greek text itself, that he which knoweth no greek at all may yet say to himself: by'r Lady M. jewel allegeth the express Text for himself, and it appeareth by the English thereof, that the bishops of the East made no such account of the Pope, as at these Days is allowed.  
But what shall we say? It can not be denied, 
Arrians alleged by M. jewel full ●adly:  but the Bishops of the east, those of whom Sozomenus and Socrates speak, did take themselves to be as good as the Bishop of Rome, and disdained to yield obedience unto him.  
But, were they catholics, or Heretics? Undoutedly Heretics, and that of the worst ●●king. For they were Ar●ians. How prove I this? Marry by Sozomenus and Socrates both, which agree in telling the Story. And that is this.  
At what time, 
Sozomenus lib. 3. Cap. 8.  S. Athanasius fled to Rome, being persequ●ted of the Arrians, ●or defending of the Consubstantiality of God the Son with the Father, 
Socrates lib. 2. ca 15.  it so ●ame to ●asse, that, at the same time, Paulus bishop of Constantinople, and Marcellus bishop of 〈◊〉, and Asclepas bishop of 〈…〉 Bishop of Hadriano●le, 〈◊〉 also to Rome, being all Catholic bishops, and all driven out of their Churches and Sees, through the Accusations and Invasions of the Arrians.  
Hereupon julius the bishop of Rome, understanding what faults were laid to their charges, And perceiving, that all were of one mind concerning the Decrees of the Nicene Cou●cell, he thought it meet to communicate with them, as with men of the same faith and opinion with him.  
And as Sozomenus writeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of the worthiness and digniti of his See, or as Socrates saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, forasmuch as the church of Rome had the Prerogatives & privileges▪ he restored every one of them to his See, 
See with what Authority Pope Lucius writeth to the bishops of the East.  And wrote freely and sharply to the Bishops of the East which had expelled them, declaring that they had troubled the Church, and that they had not judged aright, of the foresaid Bishops Requiring furthermore, that some of them should appear at an appointed day before him, a●d that he would not suffer it, if they ceased not to be new-fangled.  
The Arrian Bishops, upon the receipt of this letter, and for indignation that the Bishop of Rome had restored to their lawful Sees, the catholic Bishops ●●hanasius, Paulus, Marcellus, As●le●●●, Lucius, whom they had unplaced, they called a Council at Antioch, 
〈…〉  and 〈◊〉 again a fair letter to Pope julius, full of pretty scoffs and taunts, and not without sharp threatenings also.  
And, among other points, these that M. jewel reckoneth are some, that, forsooth, they ought not to be accounted inferior to the Church of Rome, And that they ought not to be ordered by the Roman bishop. Hitherto is the story as I gather it out of Socrates and Sozomenus.  
Consider now of it indifferent Reader.  
Was Athanasius an holy bishop, or no? Was he a most worthy and tried defender of the Catholic faith, or no? Did almighty God miraculously defend him against all his enemies, or no? Eusebius, Sozomenus, Socrates, Theodorit●s, all that ever wrote the story of the time, speak so much good of him, 〈◊〉 declare such a providence of God to have been about him, that he must be a very blind and wretched Arrian, which seeth not his worthiness, Or 〈◊〉 at his Glory.  
And whom then follow you M. jewel? Those Bishops of the East, whom your wisdom and Religion bringeth in for substantial witnesses? They condemned Athanasius. And for what other cause so principally, as for his defending of the Catholic faith, against the blasphemies of the Arrians? Allow you then his condemna●o●? Utter now your stomach and speak plainly, whether you believe that Christ is of one & the self same Substan●ce with his Father. Show yourself, as you are, in your Opinions, and put of the name and person of an honest superintendant, which you would seem to bear, and with all boldness, utter your secret Divinity.  
For h●re now I challenge you, & here I charge you. 
The Challenger challenged.  Allow you the Condemnation of athanasius, which your Bishops of the East concluded upon? If you do, Avaunt Arria●●▪ If you do not, how can you but think evil of such arrogant and wicked Arrians, which not only put him our of his See, but also, when he was restored again unto it, by the judgement of the Bishop of Rome, contemned that his Sentence, with greater spite and Insolency, than they had expelled Ath●nesius and others, at the first.  
I say further: If Athanasius, Paulus. Marcellus, Asclepas, and Lucius, so 〈◊〉 Fathers▪ ●eing ●r●elled by the 〈◊〉 of the east, thought themselves safe enough against all their Enemies, having the letters of the Bishop of Rome for their lawful Return unto their Sees, should not this alone, be Argument enough to any Indifferent Protestant in all the world, that he should not Contemn, Abandon and Accurse the Authority of the See of Rome? For, whereas the Examples of Learned and Holy men are to be followed: And, whereas M. jewel the Challenger with others of his vain, 
I● Fathers shall be followed, here they are.  do pretend great Reverence towards Antiquity, provoking their Adversaries, to bring Testimonies out of the Primitive Church, And exhorting their Hearers and Readers, to consider the practice of the Ancient times and Fathers: how should he not have the Bishop of Rome in great Admiration, whom he seeth to have been so highly esteemed, of the great Bishops or patriarchs, rather of the east Church Athanasius, Paulus, Marcellus etc. that his letters were of more force with them, to restore them to their Sees, than their own Power & ability was, to keep themselves in their own places, when they had them?  
Note also, that whereas they were expelled by violence, And were se●t home again, not with an Army, but with Letters only, Yet those letters prevailed so much with the People also of their Cities and Countries, that strait ways they were gladly received. And had it not been for the Conventicle and Conspiracy of the foresaid Arrian Bishops of the East, in which they not only set all their own Power, against the Catholic Bishops Athanasi●s, Paulus, etc. restored by the Pope of Rome, but accused them to the Emperor Constantinus, making him to use violence against them: the Catholic people of Constantinople, Alexandria, and other places, would have honoured and Obeyed them still, as their own true and lawful bishops.  
Of which it is easy to gather, 
〈…〉.  that, First the Blessed and Reverend Bishops themselves Athanasius, Paulus, etc. did se● very much by the Bishop of Rome's letters and sentence: And then, that the Catholic and devout people also of those quarters, did regard and obey the same: Thirdly, that such as resisted then the Authority of the bishop of Rome, were plain Arrians. And last of all, that it was not done by law or any order, that those holy bishops, Athanasius, Paulus etc. enjoyed not the right of their own See●, but by false Accusations of the Arrian Superintendente●, and Indignation, Stomach, Edi●●, violence, & Persecution, of the Emperor Constantius.  
How little then doth this Example of the Arrian Bishops make for M. jewels purpose? Yea rather, how much doth it make clean against him? For when wicked and naughty men's facts are put forth in writing, they are for this end put forth, to be abhorred, and not to be followed: As cain's murdering of his brother, or judas betraying of his Master.  
Yet, when the persons are notorious, as Cain and I●das, Or the facts themselves are evidently nought, as to kill or berray. Inno●entes; he should not do much harm, which would desperately go about to persuade any to follow such Examples. But here is the mischief, when Historiographers are brought in, as allowing tha● which they condemn in deed, Or wh●● heretics are made to go for catholic Bishops: And when that is put forth as an Example to be followed, which served rather to dehort men from resisting Truth and Authority: And when by natural reason the matter is not so evident, but examples of former times in the one si●e or other, may well move the vnlea●ne● to follow them.  
And in this art M. jewel is a doctor. For if he would have expressly said, The Arrians and Heretics of the east Church when they had wrongfully expelled the catholics and good Bispopes, Paulus, Athanasius, etc. out of their sees, they contemned the bishop of Rome's letters by which they were required to receive them again, and to set aside all Injury and new●anglenes: Ergo the bishop of Rome is supreme head of the Church: If M. jewel would after this open and plain● manner have used himself, there is not, I suppose, so unsensible A Protestant, which would not have judged him, to have reasoned very foolishly.  
But now whiles he giveth them no worse name than the Bishops of the East, and keepeth from the knowledge of his Readers, that they were Heretics and Arrians, he maketh them to think, that all is well, And that these bishops were men of much credit and worthiness, and that not only late Gospelers, but old Catholic Fathers also, have denied Obedience to the Bishop of Rome. Which things being altogether otherwise, the Readers are driven into perdition: And M. jewel either seeth not that an Argument brought from the Authority of blasphemous heretics is nothing worth (which is incredible in him that hath so great insigh●e in the true Logyk● and Divinity) either seeing it, he maketh no conscience of it, to bring his purposes to an end, by what means soever he may, & this is so credible, that it agreeth very well both with the desperateness of his cause and of his stomach.  
BEWARE therefore (Indifferent Reader) of M. jewel, and know this for most certain, that as I have declared by a few Examples in this Chapter that he allegeth the condemned sayings and doings of Heretics under the colour 〈◊〉 Catholic and approved witnesses, so in many more places of his Reply, he doth in like manner, abuse them most shamefully. But of them thou shalt read in other Books.  
And what now is there more (M. jewel) that ye will require or use against us? To the first six hundred years only you have appealed, yourself yet do use the testimonies of all ages. To the first six hundred only you have appealed, and yet against the approved writers of that self time, you have excepted. Besides this as though there were not to be found Catholic witnesses enough in the cause of the catholic Faith, you covertly bring in against us, the accursed sayings and doings of Heretics. Which one point excepted (that you shall not in question of the catholic Faith and Tradition▪ make any old Heretics judges in the cause, Or witnesses) for the rest I dare grant unto you, to take your vantage, where you can find it.  
But having so large compass granted unto you, against the express reason & Equity which should be in your Challenge, shall it not become you, to use this privilege discreetly and truly? And so to allege your witnesses, as in deed they mean in their own sense, without false applying thereof: And as they speak in their own tongue, without adding unto their sayings, or taking away from them, any thing that is of the substance of their verdict? Thus, whether you do observe or no, let it be tried.  
And that it may be tried the better, I will briefly and plainly prove against you (M. jewel) before any indifferent Reader: First, that you have abused Counsels, than Laws, Canon and Civil: Thirdly, Fathers and Doctors, Ancient and Late: And that ye have spared no kind of writer that came in your way.   

How M. jewel hath abused Counsels.  
Counsels, in one sense, are abused, when that which is found in them to be condemned, is brought forth by any Protestant as though it were approved. As in example whereas D. Harding concluded, upon the profit which cometh of celebrating the memory of our Lord's Passion, that the Sacrifice of the Altar, which is made in remembrance thereof, should not be intermitted, although the people would not communicate: M. jewel,  
To add a little more weight to this silly reason, saith further in D. Harding'S behalf.  
If this Sacrifice be so necessary, 
jews. 15.  as it is supposed, then is the Priest bound to Sacrifice every day, yea although he himself Receive not.  
But how proveth he this? 
Ra.  it followeth.  
For the Sacrifice and the receiving are sundry things. 
〈…〉   
And what of that? 
Ra.  For although Communion bread and wine be sundry things, yet you will not permit the Receiving of the Lords supper in one kind o●ly. And so although Sacrifice and Receiving be distinct: yet doth it not follow, that a Priest may offer and not receive. But you will prove it, by better Authority than your own, for thus you say.  
As it is also noted in a late Council holden at toledo in Spain. 
jew.  Quidam Sacerdotes & caet. Certain Priests there be, that every day offer many Sacrifices, and yet in every Sacrifice withhold themself from the Communion.  
What is your Ergo then upon this place? 
Ra.  Your Conclusion should be, Ergo A Priest may Sacrifice, although he himself do not Receive. But can you gather this out of the Council? Doth it not rather make expressly to the contrary? Doth it not reprove the Priests, which Sacrifice, & receive not? Let the place be considered, & then conferred with M. jewels collection. The whole place is this.  
Relatum est, & caet. 
Con. Tole●. 1●. cap. 5.  It is told us, that certain among the Priests, do not so many times Receive the grace of the holy Communion, as they seem to offer sacrifices in one day, but if they Offer more sacrifices in one day, they withhold themselves in every offering from the Communion, and they take the grace of the holy Communion, only i● the las●e offering of the Sacrifice: A● though that they should not, so oft participate the true & singular Sacrifice, as oft as the offering of the body and blood of our Saviour jesus Christ shall be sure to have been made. For behold, the Apostle saith, do not they eat the sacrifices, which are partakers of the Altar? Certain it is, that they which do Sacrifice and do not eat, are guilty of the Sacrament of our ●ord. From henceforth therefore, whatsoever Priest shall come to the Divine Altar to offer up Sacrifice, and withhold himself from the Communion, let him know, that for one years space he 〈◊〉 repelled from the grace of the Communion, of which he hath unseemly deprived himself. For, what manner of sacrifice shall that be, of which no not he that doth Sacrifice, is known to be partaker? Therefore, by all means it must be observed, that as oft as the Sacrificer doth offer and Sacrifice upon the Altar the body and blood of our Lord jesus Christ, so oft he give himself to be partaker of the body & blood of our Lord jesus Christ. Hitherto the Council of Toledo.  
How think we then? Hath not M. jewel properly alleged it for his purpose? could he have brought a place, more plain against himself? M. jewel saith that Sacrifice and Receiving are sundry things: And meaneth thereby, 
〈…〉  that the priest may do y● one & leave the other, that is, Offer and not Receive: the Council defineth, that what so ever Priest do Offer and not Receive, he shallbe kept away from the Communion a twelvemonth together. And what other thing is this to say, than that Sacrifice and Communion are so sundry, that the Priest for all that, can not put them a sunder, Or do one without the other? Thus hath M. jewel, to put more weight to his silly reason, confirmed it by a fact condemned by the same Council, in which it is found reported. And this is one way of Abusing of Counsels.  
In an other kind, it is an abusing of Counsels, when that is Attributed unto them which at all is not in them. As in Example.  
The Intention (saith M. 
jewel.  jewel) of the Church of Rome, is, to work the Transubstantiation of bread and wine, 
Flat lie.  The Grek church had never that Intention, as it is plain by the Council of Florence.  
Thus you say M. jewel, 
Ra.  and in the Margin you refer us to the last session of the Council of Florence, but in that Session there is no mention at all of Transubstantiation, Or, Intention. The greatest and the only matter, therein Discussed and defined, was, concerning the Preceding of God the Holyghost from the Father and the Son, in which point the Grecians then were at one with the Latins. It followed then, after a few days that the union was made, that the Bishop of Rome sent for the Grecians, and asked of them certain questions, concerning their Priests and bishops, and Anointing of their dead, & Prayers in the●● Liturgy, and choosing of their patriarchs.  
But it was neither Demanded of them what Intention they had in Consecrating, Neither Answered they any thing to any such effect, Neither did the Bishop open unto them, his Faith and belief therein. So that altogether it is a very flat lie, that M. jewel here maketh upon that Council. Except he mean the Doctrine that there followeth given to the Armenians, in which Transubstantiation and Intention both is comprehended, whereunto the Sacred Council whereof the Grecians were a part, gave their consent.  
A third manner of Abusing Counsels, is, to allege them truly in deed as they say, but yet to allege them to no purpose. As in example. The fourth Council of Carthage decreed, that in certain cases, the Sacrament should be powered into the sick man's mouth. of which word (powered) being proper only to things that are fluent and liquid, D. Harding gathereth, that the Sacrament which they received, was in the form of win●, and not of bread. Hereupon M. jewel cometh against him, and he calleth it a guess, that the bread can not be powered into a sick man's mouth. But how proveth he it to be but a guess? Or what sayeth he to the contrary? It followeth.  
And yet he may learn, 
jew. 140. Concil.  by the third Council of Carthage, and by the abridgement of the Council of Hippo, 
Carth. ●▪ Ca 6.  that the Sacrament was then put into dead men's mouths.  
Your Argument then is this: 
Ra.  One (that is so foolish or superstitious) may put the Sacrament into a dead man's mouth, Ergo D. Harding doth not guess well, 
A worthy consequence of M. jewels.  that bread can not be powered into a sick man's mouth. But all things are here unlike, both Persons, and Acts, and Terms.  
First of all, dead men are distincted from Sick men, and the dead you may order violently, but the sick will be used Reasonably, except none but Enemies be about them.  
Then, in the one side, the Act is unlawful (to put the Sacrament in a dead man's mouth) On the other, it is lawful (to power it into a sick man's mouth).  
Beside this, Putting is one thing, and Pouring is an other, and whether it be bread or wine, you may be suffered to say, that they are put into the mouth, but how bread should be poured into one's mouth, except in all haste you minded to choke him or fill him, I can not tell.  
Last of all, the term Sacrament, which is forbidden to be put in the dead man's mouth, may signify any of the two kinds: That is, either of Bread or wine▪ but in naming the Bread, you are bound to that one kind only of the Sacrament, and must not mean thereby, wine. So that there is neither Rhyme nor Reason in it, to tell us full solemnly, that the Sacrament was put in dead men's mouths, the Proposition, which you thereby would disprove, being only this, that Bread can not be poured into sick men's mouths. And therefore to speak the least, and best of it, this is a very vain and idle Abusing of the Authorities of Counsels.  
But of all other it passeth, when M. jewel taketh, 
Mark this trick.  as much as pleaseth him, of any Canon of Council, and maketh a full point before he come to the end of the Sentence: Maintaining his Heresy, by that Piece which he pulleth away, And dissembling that which remaineth, by which his Objection should be straightways refelled. For otherwise, to rehearse no more of a Canon, than serveth our purpose, it is common and tolerable. But when that point which an Heretic leaveth out, pertaineth to the qualifying of that other Piece, which he would have to be understand absolutely, that is such a point of an Heretic, as may well cause any reasonable man to BEWARE of him.  
But is it possible, that M. jewel may be taken in this fault? If he be not, then will I grant, that he hath not, in as Ample and Shameful manner abused Counsels, as any of the most Desperate, of all that ever wrote. And if he be, I ask no more, but that he may go for such as he is. The Example shall make this plain.  
In the Council of Laodicea it is decreed like as also in the Council of Carthage, 
jew. 153.  that nothing be read in the Church unto the people, saving only the Canonical Scriptures.  
I wonder then, what your Homilies do in the Church, 
Ra.  except you think that they be Canonical Scriptures, 
What answerye?  Or else, that you so precise followers of Antiquity, are not bound to the Canons of Ancient Counsels. But as I do grant unto you, that the Council of La●dicea hath, that such only books as are of the old & new Testament should be readen in the Church, so, that the like also is declared (as you boldly say) in the Council of Carthage, it is so manifestly untrue, that it may not be suffered. For these are the very words of the Council. 
〈…〉   
Item placuit, 
〈…〉  ut praeter Scripturas Canonicas ●ihil in Ecclesia legatur sub nomine Divinarum Scripturarum. 
Can. 47.  that is, We like it also, that nothing besides the Canonical Scriptures be readen in the Church, in the name of the Divine Scriptures.  
The Council therefore forbiddeth not other things besides the Canonical scriptures to be readen in the Church, but it provideth, that nothing be readen there, as in the name of Scripture which is not true Scripture in deed. And this appeareth most evidently by other words, which follow in the self same Canon where it is said.  
Liceat etiam legi Passiones Martyrum, Cum Anniversarij eorum celebrantur. Be it lawful also to have the Passions of Martyrs readen, when their yearly Days are celebrated and kept holy.  
By this, 
Passions of Martyrs readen in the Church, & their yearly days kept  it is most evident, that other things besides the Canonical Scriptures, as the Passions of Martyrs (such undoubtedly as we have, for a great part, in the Legends of the Church) were permitted to be readen in the public Service: And that M. jewels comparison (that the Lessons then read in the Church were taken out of the holy Bible (ONLY as he meaneth) as it is now used in the church of England,) hath no agreableness and Proportion. For wh●t one Martyr is there in all the whole book of the Common prayer of England (S. S●euen only excepted) which hath any Festival day appointed out for him, or any story of his Passion declared?  
But like perfit Divines, you will no other thing, but Scripture only readen in your Churches: in which point, you would be seen to follow the Council of Carthage. You deceive the people, by your glorious lying. 
An Impudent lie of M. jewel.  The Coun●●l of Carthage (as you perceive by the words which I have alleged) alloweth not only Canonical Scriptures, but Martyrs Passions also to be Readen in the Church. Why say you then so impudently, that it it was there Decreed, that nothing should be read the Church unto the People, saving only the Canonical Scriptures?  
I ask of you also, where the Passions ●f those Martyrs are, which at the beginning had their Holidays in the Church: And should to this day have them if (as you do challenge it) you were of the holy and Catholic Church? S. Clement, Cornelius, Cyprian, ●istus, Laurence, Uincent, Sebastiano, and other, whom the whole world honoureth: what solemme Feasts have you of them, or what Lessons and Homilies are Readen in your Churches, of their Passions? Were there no Martyrs in the world, after the Apostles were once departed this life? Or know you any more excellent, than these whom I have named? Or have you no mind or affection to any of them? Or have you spied a Canon in the Council of Carthage, that nothing but Canonical Scriptures shall be readen in the Church? And could you no● see the plain Exception, which is strait ways in the same Canon made against it, that, notwithstanding the former words, the passions of martyrs should be readen in the Church, when their yearly days are celebrated?  
But of the beggarlines of this new Religion▪ and how it is altogether d●stituted of Martyrs, Confessors▪ Virgins, of all kind of Saints, it is to be spoken at more leisure: in the mean time, this I lea●● most evidently proved, th●● M. jewel hath abused Counsels.   

How M. jewel hath abused the Decrees of the Canon Law.  
THere is small hope, that he which dareth wrest, Beli●, and pervert Counsels, will spare to use all looseness and Liberty in squaring o● Decrees and Decretals to his purpose. And many will think on the other side, that M. jewel is so honest and good, of nature, that he would not, no no● of the devil himself (if he might) win ●ny thing by lying, and much less in the cause of God & his true Religion, report any thing, of any man that ever yet wrote, otherwise there▪ the Truth is, and the words of the Author. Examples than must confirm my objection, among which this is one.  
Fabianus (s●●●th M. jewel) Bishop of Rome hath plainly decreed, 
〈…〉  that the people should receive the Communion every sunday. His words be plain. Dec●rnimus etc. We decree that every sonda● the Oblation of the Aultare, be made of all men and women, both of bread and wine.  
True it is, that Fabianus willed such Oblations of bread and wine to be made, 
R●.  and them to this end, 〈◊〉 à peccatorum suorum ●ascibus liberentur, that the people might be delivered of the burden of their sins. But offering every Sunday, and Receiving every sunday are two things. To provide, that the people should Offer Bread and Wine every sunday, it was necessary, because, that is the proper matter of which the Sacrament of the Aultare is made, and because the Clergy also lived then, of the offerings of the people. But to decree, that all men and women should Receive eu●rie Sunday, it is altogether unreasonable, that it should have been Fabianus mind.  
For, in the very same place, there is an other Decree of his, that men should Communicate thrice, at the least (if no oftener) in a year, that is At Easier, 
〈…〉  ●itteso●●ide, and Chrisimasse, except perchance some man be letted by any kind of the grievous crimes.  
If then ●e required no more, but that the people should Receive thrice a year, how is it possible, that, by this decree, of which M. jewel speaketh, and in which there is no m●ntion of the people's receiving, ●ut of their Offering only of Bread and Wine, 
〈◊〉.  any charge should be laid upon all men and women's consciencies, to Receive every sunday? Ye might as well conclude, that in every parish of England, th●re was some one or other of the lay people, that Received always on sunday, in one kind, at the least, with the Priest, because an holy loaf (as we call it) was Offered every sunday.  
But consider yet further (Indifferent Reader) how finely and properly, M. jewel gathereth Arguments out of Ancient Pope's decrees. He noteth, out of the foresaid words, not only that men and women Received every sunday, but also that they Offered bread and Wine every sunday, according to the Order of Melchisedech. By which account, so many Priests and Sacrificers were in the Church, as were men and women that offered bread and wine.  
Yea, not only men, and women that are of perfect discretion, but all the bo●es and wenches of the Parish, may, with little charges, be quickly within orders. For, as M. jewel counteth, there is no more in it, but to Offer bread and wine to the Aultare, and straightways all that do so, are Priests, after the Order of Melchisedech.  
But if that be so, how is the order of Melchisedech more perfect, than the Order of Aaron? Or how was there such a Religion and Reverence about the order of Aaron, that none but of a certain tribe should be made Priests, neither they also, without vocation and consecration: if to the order of Melchisedech (at that coming of which, that of Aaron is perfected and accomplished) every woman be within the Order, by offering of bread and wine to the Altar? You M. jewel that have such knowledge in the understanding of the Pope's decrees, are you Ignorant in the law of Moses? Remember you not, 
Leu. ● &, 〈◊〉  that among other things that the people Offered, Bread and wine were in the number? But what speak I of the people's Act? The priests themselves, that ● ●oke s●ch bread at their b●ndes, and lifted it up before their Lord, & offered likewise of the wine, by pouring out of it in the sight of the Lord: were they of the order of Melchisedech or no? No surely not of Melchisedechs' order, but of the order of Aaron only. 
〈…〉  If therefore a solemn offering of bread & wine, even in persons consecrated, doth not include the o●der of Melchisedech, you are much to ●eking of your purpose, which note, that the men and women that offered in S. Fabians ●●ne▪ bread and wine to the Altar, were 〈◊〉 after the order of Melchisedech. So absurd it is, that a Pope of Rome should have any such meaning in his de●●●e, as you do gather thereof, that I believe the most foolish heretic in all the world, would not, but which much study have peeked it out. 〈◊〉 us consider an other example.  
Certainly (saith M. jewel) it seemeth 〈◊〉 S. Gregory in his time, 
〈◊〉. 154.  thought singing 〈◊〉 the Church to be a fit thing for the multitude of the people, 
〈…〉  them for the priest. For he expressly forbiddeth the Priest to sing in the Church. But I do not remember that ever he forbade the People.  
The more you warrant it with your Certainly, 
Ra.  that S. Gregory should be of the mind which you imagine, the more earnestly I beseech thee (indi●●er̄t reader) to mark how substantially M. jew. bu●ldeth without any foundation. For this first is manifest, there have ben, from the beginning, distinct orders & officers in y● 〈◊〉 of christ as Bishops, 
Co● C●●. 40.  priests, deacons, subdeacons, acoli●es, exorcists, reade●●, sexti●s, Singers. And if these 〈◊〉 were ever kept in the Church, without question, they were observed most orderly, in S. Gregory's time, whom, for his great diligence in setting forth of the service of god, the heretics themselves do call, saving their charity, Magistrun ceremoniaun, the Master of ceremonies. He therefore seeing this fault in the Church of Rome, that men appointed to higher offices, were also chosen to serve in lower functions, as in example, the Deacons to become singing men, provideth by a special decree, to have it reform. The Decree is this.  
In sancta Romana Ecclesia, dudum consuetudo est valde reprehensibilis exorta, 
Dist. 9●. In Sanct● Rom●na.  & cae● There is risen of late, a very il custom, in the holy Church of Rome, that certain, which are appointed to serve at the holy aultare, are chosen to be Singing men And that they, which are placed in the degree of Deaconship, should be occupied about the sweet tuning and delivering of their voices: whom it were more meet, to intend their office of preaching, and to be diligent in distributing of Alms. ●hereof, ●or the more part, it cometh ●o pass, that whiles a sweet voice is sought for, a tunable & agreeable life is neglected: and the Minister or Deacon which is A Singing man doth prick and grieve God with his manners, whiles h● delig●teth the people with his voice. Wherefore by this present decree, I appoint it, that, in this See, the Ministers at the holy Aultare, shall not sing, (●●derstand beneath in the quire as Singing men do●) a●d that they shall only do their Office in Reading the Gospel at the Celebration of Mass. As for ●●●●mes▪ and ●o forth lessons, I decree that they shallbe done by the Subdeacons, or (if necessity require) by the lesser Orders.  
This is the whole decree. But where is it here, that a Priest should not sing▪ The cause of making this decree, was the 〈◊〉 of the Deacons. And, the Singging▪ which was forbidden them, was of that kind as the Singing men used, and no such Singing, as is used in Reading of a Gospel.  
To speak also of the Priest, thinketh M. jewel, that the Mass which he celebrated solemnly in S. Grigories' time was of his part celebrated without note? And that in beginning of, Gloria in excelsis, Or in saying of, Dominus vobiscum, Or, Sursum corda, and so forth in the Preface, he sang 〈◊〉 not out, in a certain quiet and easy tun●? The contrary is so clear, that the note which is used in the Church in prefaces of the Mass and in hallowing of the Font, which are done by a Priest only or Bishop, is called Cantus Gregorianus.  
But go to M. jewel, proceed in your Abusing of Decrees: If singing be not fit for a Priest, for whom is it fit? You answer that:  
Certainly, 
jew.  it seemeth that S. Gregory in his time thought singing in the Church, 
How ●●●●tainly h● 〈…〉  to be a thing fit for the multitude of the People, then for the Priest.  
Now for shame of yourself, 
●a.  dare y● put it in print, that Certainly it seemeth so? And dare ye note unto us the Decree In Sancta Romana, for proof thereof? Ther: is no one word in the whole Decree, that soundeth to the purpose. There is no mention of the multitude. Yea the multitude of people is excluded, as it is certainly to be gathered, of the decree. For it appointeth the Psalms to be song of the Subdeacons, by name ●ut if necessity should require▪ y● then, th●i of the inferior orders of the Church, might excecute the office. If therefore, it was not Ordinari●, no not for every one of the Clergy, to sing the Psalms, & if when the case of necessity came, that only ca●e made it lawful, for the inferior Orders to sing & read in the Church: how absurdly or impudently gather ye out of this Decree, that to sing in the church was thought fit for the multitude of the people, then for the Priest?  
It is to be noted further, y● M. jewel speaketh not of people Indefinitely, but of the multitude of people, Confusely. For people to b● suffered to sing, may have a tolerable sense, when certain meet for the purpose, should be taken thereunto (And yet in S. Gregory's time, this would not 〈…〉 suffered in Rome, as appeareth by the foresaid Decree) but the multitude of people to be counted fit for singing in the church, it is altogether so o●t of tune and Order, that they lack both ears and reason coa● 〈◊〉 it.  
And whereas in S. Gregory's time, none (as it appeareth) but of the Clergy did serve in the church, And in our more lose days, all persons yet, without 〈◊〉, are not permitted to execute the office of Singing or Reading in the Church: M. jew. in speaking for the 〈◊〉 ●hat (by likelihood) as a copy 〈…〉 be seen, at their Sermons, so in the churches, Men, women, boy●●, wenches, soldiers, mariner's, merchants, beggar's, tag & rag, all should be fit 〈◊〉 to bear a part: as he is therein more open & lose than we of these disool●●e days, so, with S. Gregory & his time, he agreeth nothing at al. Confer, and judge.  
another Example. 
jew, 18●.  Omnes Episcopi, qui huius apostolice ●edes ordinationi subiacent. 
Neither true inter pre●ation, nor Collection.  etc. All Bishops saith M. jew. out of an episile of Anac●et●s) that be bound to have their orders confirmed by this apostolic see, etc. whereby it may be gathered, that other bishops were not subject to the ordinance of the see  
This Decree is two ways abused: first in englishing i●, 
R●.  then in reasoning 〈◊〉 it. Concerning the Interpretation: it is two things, to say, All bishops that are bound to have their orders of the apostolic See. And, All bishops that are bound to have their Orders confirmed by the apostolic See: Because the second is twenty times larger than the first. Of the first Anacletus speaketh, meaning that all they, which are immediately subject to the Bishop of Rome, and take Orders immediately at his hands, shall (as it followeth in the Decree) come or send yearly about the Ideses of May, to S. Peter & Paul's Church in Rome. Of the Second M. jewel speaketh, which are out of the peculiar Province of the bishop of Rome, And which yet, when they are by their Clerg● named & elected at home must be afterwards confirmed by the B. of Rome, and ar● so ordained and consecrated in their 〈◊〉 Province: So that the bishops of Italy, are ordained and confirmed both, by the B. of Rome: but the Bishops of France or England (when it was good) are not made by him, but confirmed, that is to say (as the word i● sel●e geue●h) he ratifieth that which other have or shall do.  
The Interpretation therefore of M. jewels is false: so is also his collection and Argument. For, although all the bishops that are under the bishop of Rome, and bound to receive their orders at his hands immediately, although all these (I say) be within Italy only, or nigh thereabout, as far as his special Province goeth, yet doth it not follow thereupon, that the bishop of Arls, or Caunterburie are not at all subject unto him. Like as in an Army, where the King himself is present, when he shall divide the battle, and appoint the government of diverse bands to diverse Captains, reserving to himself one among all of which he, by himself, will have the charge: Although these now that he hath chosen out, be all that he hath to set in array and order by himself, yet must you 〈◊〉 infer, that he hath no Authority over the other parts of the Army, because he doth not as immediately govern the whole, as his special part? For, Immediately, but one part is under his charge, but by means of his Captains, whom he only hath appointed, & whom he again by his authority mai utterly displace, or other wife 〈…〉 he is King over the whole. So is 〈…〉 B. of Rome. His authority is as 〈◊〉, ●s the name of Christians doth 〈◊〉 abroad, And Christ which committed unto S. Peter his Lambs & Sheep, charged thereby, all that would be of hi● flock, to obey his Uicepastor.  
Now, because the faithful are so multiplied, that one man by himself, can not Personally ●ome to every place, therefore, even from the beginning, there was made distinction of Provinces, and jurisdictions in the Church of Christ: in so much, that the Pope himself had and hath still, a determined portion. Not that any Archebishope in the world, should take himself for as good as his patriarch, Or that the Primates themselves should presume to ●e as Supreme as the Pope: but that the charge being divided among many, the whole might ●e with more speed & less trouble, 〈◊〉. He ruleth therefore his own ●art. as if he were but a bishop. archbishop, or Pa●riarche, he ruleth the whols, as the Vicar of Christ, & head of his Church under him. He ruleth his own part, Proportionably, because he is a man which can not do all by himself: he ruleth the whole by special prerogative of Christ's grace & power, because he is the chief Steward over the house of Christ, which he hath purchasen by his more▪ 〈◊〉 death, the whole world. Concerning his own part, other Bishops be his fellows, as labouring to the perfection of that whole, in which every of them hath also a part. Concerning the whole, some are archbishops, & Primates, some patriarchs, every one of a larger jurisdiction than other, and one alone, is ●o●e.  
This distinction then being most plain & manifest, that Rule and Government, is put in practice, both Immediately by the Rulers own Act, And mediately, or by means of other: to take away the second by affirming the first, whereas first & second do in sundry respects well stad together, it is without reason or consequence. As, if one would say, The King chargeth all his Lords & Officers about him, to meet where he hath appointed, ergo it may be gathered, that no other with●● England beside them of the Co●rt, are bound to appear where he shall appoint them.  
And so doth M. jewel reason, All bishops that are bound to take their Orders, (or as he falsi●ieth the text, to have their Orders confirmed) by the apostolic See, must (as it followeth in the Law) come or send yearly to Rome: Ergo other bishops that are not Immediately, but Mediately under him, are not subject to the ordinance of that See.  
Note also, that whereas the Decree of Ana●letus, is concerning the yearly coming of bishops to Rome▪ and not of any other point of Obedience and duty: M. jewel might well argue thus.  
The bishops only of Italy, that are subject to the apostolic See, are bound ●er●ly to come to Rome, etc. Ergo the Bishops of other Countries, that are further of, are not bound to come yearly ●hither. But, from this one particular for which only the Decree was made, to reason generally, of the Obedience and Subjection due to the ordinance of that See, it is Sophistically and Unreasonably done.  
By this I move then sufficiently, that he hath abused the Canon Law.   

How M. jewel abuseth the very Gloss of the Canon law.  
BUt doth his boldness stretch no further, than to the Text? or doth he not corrupt also the Gloss? verily he leaveth neither them untouched, ●hat is to say, uncorrupted. For if M. jewel once touch a place, it is very ●ard but it will be the worse for his handling. And cause truly he hath none, why he should allege any Gloze of the Canon law, at al. For whereas himself regardeth not, no not the Text itself, and the catholics also will not be bound to make ●ood the private sailing of any Gloser, it is a great vanity, to bring in such witness, as himself may well know are not sufficient. Yet, though I say so, ●e shall not require of me, to mock straightways at any Gloss, Or to bring forth unto the knowledge of the si●e wits of the world, some simple devices and discourses that they have made, to th'intente●tent they may be laughed at. For there are Degrees in every thing, and he that will not be so good as to praise every Invention of the Gloze, needeth not to be so ill, as to seek how to find fault with it, but may well enough be suffered to hold his peace.  
Now concerning M. jewels behaviour, if he hath such an itch, that he thinketh to rub us on the gall, by alleging such witnesses as we may and do lawfully refuse, Why doth he not allege them truly? Why doth he tell their tale after them in such sort, as he findeth not in their own words? Why doth he (upon this prejudice among the greater number that Glosers are but Ignorant and trifling men) bring forth blind and vain sentences out of them, which in deed are not theirs, (though it will be easily suspected) but M. jewels: whom many count so honest, that he will not in any case make a Lie, or missuse his own witnesses in any point?  
This Objection of mine, to Exemplify or Prosecute at large, I doo● not intend, but, in one or two examples, I will begin the Chapter, that he which hereafter will add more unto it, may have a plain & peculiar place where to put it.  
In the Answer to D. Harding's Preface, it pleaseth M. jew. to open his mouth awide, and to avouch that the Pope speaketh after this manner.  
I can do what so ever Christ himself can do: 
jewel i● the Answer to D. Harding'S Preface.  I am all, and above all: All power is given to me, as well in Heaven as in Earth.  
You are not so honest as to be trusted upon your bare word, 
Ra.  and therefore name unto us your witnesses which may depose for you, that the Popes have ever uttered words with such Arrogancy.  
And you refer us to the Gloze De Maioritate & Obedientia, unam Sanctam. But what saith that Gloze? Doth it tell of any one Pope by name, Or doth it report so much of the order and succession of them, that every one of them, hath in his course and for his time, 
jewel.  ●ounded it out into all the world, that, I can do, what so ever Christ himself can do, & c?  
You will Answer (because there is no other shift) that the Gloser speaketh such words of the Pope, not that the Pope himself, doth speak them, in his own person of himself. Why then, I judge you by your own words, that you have made an open lie, in attributing that, unto the Pope's own Act, which is not his▪ but the Glosers collection upon the Canon law.  
Then, further I say, that many things are verfied in sundry Persons, concerning their Uocation, or Office, which i● cannot become the persons themselves, to appropriate to themselves. For the Apostles of Christ were light● of the world. 
Mat. 5.  Yet if S. Peter had begun his Epistl●s with this stile and Title, Peter the Apostle of jesus Christ, and one of the lights o● the world, he could not have be● thought to have followed the humility which was in jesus Christ. Likewise, every man that is in the state of Grace, is undoubtedly the Son of God, and Fellow of Angels, and Conqueror of Devils, 
〈…〉  vutyl he doc forsake that Grace: ●et if you (M. jewel) should ●●ent yourself of all your bragging, 〈◊〉▪ lying▪ etc. and Return to the Catholic Church, & be received into the Communion of Saints, it would not be liked in you, to write yourself John jewel A Conqueror of the wicked Spirits, A terror to heretics, A Comfort to Catholics, A well-beloved of all Virgins, Confessors, Martyrs, Apostles and Patriarches, A fellow with the Angels, A Cusson of our Ladies, A son of Almighty God.  
And so the Conclusion being true, that there is no Authority in the world comparable to that which Christ gave to S. Peter & his Successors▪ yet doth it not agree that the Pope should in the first person crack or sound out of himself, I can do whatsoever Christ himself can do. For whereas high dignity & Authority is given unto men, for others sake which are to be governed, & not for their own which bear the Office, and whereas such Gifts & Graces fo government make not the 〈◊〉 of them acceptable (as saith, hope & charity do) there is no occasion to ●rake of that which pertaineth not to any man in respect of his Person, but only of his Office.  
On the other side, whereas to conferee the worthiness of an Office, may well become a wise and worshipful man, so that he attribute nothing thereof unto himself as he is one singular person: if the Pope Concerning his Office do confess it that the chief Bishop in the Church, must rule all Christians and be subject to none of them all: M. jewel must not therefore slander him, that he openeth his mouth a wide, and uttereth blasphemies and soundeth out these words into all the world: I may judge all men, but all the world may not judge me. But by such form of speech the simple Reader, and common Protestant, conceiveth of the Pope, that he standeth a tipp toe: And overlooketh all the world: And is in great love and conceit of himself: And respecteth always his private Estimation: And forgetteth that there is a God and right judge, and that himself is a Man and a Sinner as other folks are: and that he attributeth an Omnipotency to his own proper person, etc. Whereupon, he taketh an Indignation, and accounteth him to be a very Beast or Devil and no man, that so preferreth himself before other men, And is ready to accurse, and detest, and revile, and speak, and judge the worst that he can of the Pope.  
And this is one of the vile and wicked kinds of Rhetoric, that is used n●w in the world. For, when it is plainly and simply said, 
Devilish rhetoric▪ jew. ●0.  Christ breathed upon the Apostles, and said, take ye the holy ghost, whose sins ye forgive, they be forgiven, whose sins ye retain, they be retained, he that will find any fault, must not be angry with the Apostles which take the Grace, but with the Author and giver of it, jesus Christ: But no Christian I (think) and faithful man, doth abhor to hear these words spoken. Now than  
The Devil which seeth Christ his own person to be in much honour, and that when words are considered as spoken of him, the Christians hearts are subdued by them: What doth he? He turneth his form of speech, and understanding well enough the Pride and Malice of our corrupt nature, he maketh his Orators and Interpreters, to bring the self-same words (which in deed have strength of Christ only) out of the mouths of spiritual People. Bishops or Priests: And deviseth, that they shall utter them in their own persons: as in example, 〈◊〉 maketh the Pope to say: Whose sins I forg●●e they be forgiven, Whose sins I ret●ine they be retained. Which because it is Proudly & Arrogantly spoken, it is easy to make him contemned which taketh s● c●eeding much upon him, and to bring the Office & Authority itself into disecredite, b●cause it agreeth not with the nature & infirmity of the persons, to speak so bigly and to perform it accordingly.  
Concerning then now the Gloze of which M. jewel speaketh, if in deed it be there found, that All Power is given to the Pope, as well in heaven as in Earth, yet to make the Pope speak it in his own person, All power is given to me as well in Heaven as in Earth, it is spirefully & wickedly turned.  
But let us see the Gloze it s●lfe, whether it hath that Sense, which M. jewel gathereth thereof. For touching the form of word●, it is manifest that they are not to be found there, as spoken in the first person.  
The question, which the Gloze moveth, 
〈…〉  is this. Whether the Spiritual power ought to Rule the Temporal. And it seemeth (saith the Gloze) that no: whereupon he bringeth in certain Arguments, for the Temporal, against the Spiritual jurisdiction, but afterwards be dissolveth every doubt & objection laying this one Argument for a ioundation.  
Christ committed his ●●arshipe, 〈◊〉 the biggest bishop:  
But all power was given to Christ in Heaven and in Earth, Mat. 28.  
Ergo the highest Bishop which is his 〈…〉 this ●ower.  
And what is the thing now, that M. jewel in this place doth mislike: Or what Sense, gathereth his understanding hereof? Marry sir of this place he concludeth the Po●e to say, All power is given to me, as well in Heaven as in Earth. But the Glsse (M. jewel) concludeth not so. For ac●●●ding to the matter which is uroponed, the 〈◊〉 of th● Conclusion must be ordered. Of the Spiritual and Temporal 〈◊〉 here in earth, the Glos● 〈◊〉: It speaketh also, of the government, as it pertaineth to one that supplieth the place of Christ on Earth, and not as it is enlarged to heaven. That visible man should be left, after the departure and astension of God and man, to govern that visible Church which consists of men: It is so Comfortable and Reasonable, that Faith, Order, and Peace, without it, could not well have been kept. 
The gloze 〈◊〉.  But to make any man, living yet on earth, A Doer and Officer, concerning the Triumphant Church in heaven, where Christ himself is in his person so present, that he useth not a Vicar, that is absurd and unlikely, and with this, M. jewel, chargeth the Pope, that he should Open his mowthe awyde and say, all power is given to me, as well in Heaven as in Earth. Which Conclusion is not uttered nor intended in the Gloze.  
No say you, 
〈◊〉  doth not the Gloze, vp●on this text of the Scripture spoken of Christ, 
Math. 〈◊〉.  all power is given to me in Heaven and in Earth, Doth it not infer, that the ●igh Priest, his Vicar on earth, hath the 〈◊〉 it speaketh not of the same, 
〈◊〉.  but of 〈◊〉 power. And this power is meant not generally of all power that Christ hath, but of that which is proponed in the question, that is, the Spiritual & Temporal power here in Earth. As if he should more plainly have concluded: All power both in Heaven and Earth, is given to Christ: Ergo that in Earth. Again, the highheste bishop hath Christ's place and Rome in Earth, Ergo he hath all power in Earth: Ergo the Spiritual power ought to Rule the Temporal.  
The weak brother in Faith and wit may reply. 
Objection  If the Pope have as much power on Earth as Christ, It will follow that Christ's power in Earth being infinite, the Pope also may do what he will, as in example, Remove hills, go dryshod over great rivers, turn water into wine, strike five thousand men down with a word, as our Saviour did in the Garden.  
No my friend, the Generality of a propo●ision, 
〈◊〉.  is to be measured by the matter which is in question. And because the question, moved in this place by the Gloze, is not of working miracles, or 〈◊〉 it be, over which the almightiness of o●r Saviour hath absolute power in Earth, but of the Authority, 〈◊〉▪ and jurisdiction, which the Spiritual rulers should have above the Temporal, with●n the Church of Christ, that is yet militant; therefore the supplieing of Christ●● place in earth, and the Receiving of the same power which he had, must be extended no further, than to the ruling and Governing of men here, beneath in the world or though out of the world, yet in their way unto heaven.  
And therefore M. jewel hath shamefully abused this gloze, as though it made the Pope a God. and that without a●●e Limitation or 〈◊〉, or interpictation, be concluded to have all power, as well in heaven as in Earth, even as Christ him 〈◊〉 hath.  
another gloze M. jewel hath peeked ent. 
〈…〉  from the decree 24. 〈◊〉 ●aieing 〈…〉.  
But▪ do not you M. jewel, 
Ra.  most shamefully err in 〈◊〉 the gloze? Let us see for what 〈◊〉 it was alleged of you, & 〈…〉 better consider, whether it 〈◊〉 that, for which you alleged it. 〈…〉 greably to the catholic saith, that Although the See of Rome hath failed sometimes in charity, yet it never failed in Faith. Against this conclusion M. jewel cometh in with these words.  
Certainly the very gloze upon the Deeretals putteth this matter utterly out of doubt: 
jew. 〈◊〉  these be the words, 
This is not the matter.  Certum est quod Papa errare potest: It is certain that the Pop● may err.  
As if he should say: 
Ra.  to pro●e by the text itself of the decretale. that the church of Rome, may err in Faith, it is so easy a matter, I●●de not work the way. But the very gloze upon the decr●tals, which always is favourable to the see of Rome, & which by all means possible, maintaineth the Pope's kingdom, & which is, not of the making of any ancient or learned doctor, but of some old munsimns papist & barbarous master, 
How 〈◊〉 dely?  yet this very gloze is against the 〈◊〉 of the see if Rome, that it can not e●e in faith. But is this true: Yes certainly quoth M. Ie●● putteth this matter out of doubt, & that utterly.  
Certainly, if the gloze hath so taken the matter, it is a great argumenr, the much more the text is against us. or if the text be 〈◊〉 the Catholics, It is a simple argument of M. jewels, to bring a Gloze against the Text, and so to speak of the Gloze, as though the text were much more for his purpose? For the very Gloze (saith he) putteth the matter utterly out of doubt. Let us see then, first of all, what is the Text.  
Lucius the Pope, writing to certain Bishops which were troubled with heretics, And showing them, where upon to stay themselves, that they might no: waver hither and thither: willeth them to follow the Church of Rome, 〈◊〉 praise of which, 
〈…〉  thus he saith. 〈◊〉 sancts & ●pos●olica, matter omnium Ecclesiarum Christ, 〈◊〉, qua per Des Omnipotent is graia●●. a tramite Apostolica traditiones nunquam errass: probatur. This holy and apostolic Church: is the mother of all churches of christ: 
〈…〉  ●hichs (through the Grace of almighty God) hath never been proved to have erred from the right trade end path of the Tradition of the Apostles. Thus saith Pope Lucius, and he maketh expressly for D. Harding, as far downward, as Lucius own Popedom was, ●nno Do 258.  
This conclusion then being certain, by the express text of the law, 
Let M. jew answer, or give over  what saith the Gloze thereupon? Doth it follow the text or no? If it do not: Remember then (I pray you M. jewel) your charitable and affectuous words to D. Harding: O M. Harding, It is an old saying: Maledicta Glosa quae corrumpit textum. Accursed be that Glozing construction, or Gloze that corruppteth the text. Remember well this old saying, & forget not yourself, which bring forth with so great a confidence, a Gloze that impugneth the text.  
But doth the Gloze follow the text? If it do, be ashamed man then of yourself. which do so Certainly warrant it, that the very Gloze putteth this matter out of doubt (that the See of Rome may err in Faith) the text itself making to the contrary.  
But of this, perchance, you have little regard, how the Gloze agreeth or disagreeth with the Text. And where you find your vantage, 
〈…〉.  there you are determined to take it, having a simple and plain eye, neither looking to that which goeth before, nor that which followeth, neither that which is of any side of you. And so▪ the Gloze saiting. that Certain it is the Pope may err, that is enough for y●u, and that, putteth the matter utterly out of doubt, that the Church of Rome may err●.  
You are deceived, M. jewel, through your Simplicity: For if you, or your ●rindes about you, had been circumspect, you would never have brought this Gloze forth, with such confidence, as you have done. It is two things, to say, The Pope may err, and, the Church of Rome may err. The first is granted: 〈◊〉 it may possibly be, that the Pope, concerning his own private mind and opinion, may crre in understanding, as joannes 22. did, or whom soever else you can name unto us. The second is utterly denied, that the Church of Rome can err. For that presupposeth, that the Pope should ●e given over, to decret, Set ●●rth or determine by his judicial Sentence, some thing, contrary to the apostolic Faith, & that it should be received & believed in the Church. Which absurdity (that any error should be suffered in have credit in that Church, which is the Mother of all Churches: & that under the government of the holy ghost which continueth with it, & is the spirit of Truth) becasue it is impossible, therefore it is also impossible that the Church of Rome should err, in any point of the Faith. And in such extremities, where the Pope, for his own person, is persuaded in a contrary conclusion unto our Faith, almighty God, that his care over the church may be manifest, provideth always, to take such persons out of the way, when they might (if they had lived) done harm, as he did, joannes. 22. and▪ Anastasius.  
Now that the Gloze faith no more, but, the Pope may err, 
the Pope to ere and the Church of Rome to ere▪ are two suntry things even by the very glo●e which M jew. allegeth.  which we will not deny, 
Causa. 24  and not that the Church of Rome may err, 
qu●st ●.  which was D. Harding'S affirmation: by whom shall I better prove it, 
In Glos●.  than by the gloze itself, which is a little before in this very cause. 24, q. 1. out of which M jew. peeked his Certainti y● out of doubt the See of Rome mai err. In the chapter Quodcunque ligaveris, the Gloze upon a certain word there gathereth an Argument, that the sentence of the whole Church, is to be preferred before the church of Rome, if they gainsay it, in any point. And he confirmeth it by the 93. Distinction, Legimus. But doth the Gloze rest there? & as M. jew. Certainly avoucheth it doth it put the matter utterly out of doubt th●● the church of Rome may err▪ judge of the mind of the Glosator, by the words of the Gloze. For thus it followeth.  
Sed 〈…〉 And for confirmation of his belief he referreth us to the Chap. 〈◊〉 which followeth in the cause & questions Nis (faith he) erraret Romana Ecclesia, 
〈◊〉 M. jew. the Gloze, if ye like not the Text.  quod no credo pos●e fieri, quia Deus non mitteret. Arg. infra ead. c. 4 Rect a etc. Pudenda Except the church of Rome should err. which I believe cannot be, because God would not suffer it As it is proved in the chapters following, which begin, A Recta & Padenda.  
Consider now (Indifferent Reader) & judge between us both. M. jew. saith The Gloze putteth the matter utterly out of doubt, that y●; Church of Rome may err, because it saith, the Pope may ere. I answer, that the Gloze upon the chapter a Recta, 〈◊〉 it, that the Pope may Err: but, in the third Chapit●● before. Quod●●qu● ligaveris. it believeth, that it can not be, that the church of Rome should err because God would not permit it. Whereof I gatder. that the Pope to err, & the Church of Rome to err, are 〈◊〉 points, & that if it be granted unto him, that the Pope in his own prina● sense may hold an heretical opinion, yet the church of Rome for all y●, cannot err, because God will not suffer it, that any thing should be decreed by the Pope, that is contrary to faith. And this is manifest, even by the very Gloze which M. jewel trusteth so much, that he took the matter to be utterly out of doubt, when the Gloze had once spoken it,  
What is abusing of testimonies if this be not? what conscience is there, either in preferring of Gloss before the text: either in expounding of Gloss against the Text: either in set●ing of one and the self same gloze against itself (whereas being rightly interpreted, it agreeth well enough with itself) either in objecting the part of the gloze against the Adversary, which being granted hurteth nothing, & dissembling or not seeing an other part of the same gloze, which clearly confirmeth the purpose of the Adversary, except the Gloze could speak more plainly for D. Harding, than it hath done, when it saith: Credo non posse fieri, 
24. quaest I● Glos●  quia Deus non permitteret. I believe that it can not be (that the Church of Rome should err) because God would not suffer it. Now  
For more Examples I am not careful, And more might be found, if I would take the pains to seek. But I would wish the learned in the Law, to examine and consider right well, M. jewels testimonies out of the Law. They shall speak with more Grace, as speaking of things in which they are practised, and with more facility, they shall discover M. jewels unskilfulness, as knowing at the first sight, wherein and when the Laws of Gloss are abused. And if nothing else were, the common Enemy to all Truth, should be convicted by the expert in every Faculty.   

How M. jewel abuseth the Constitutions of the Civil Law.  
IF the Canon law be, at these days, of so little price among Heretics, that, for spite they have to the Pope, and the Clergy, they care not how they misreport it and disorder it: of the Constitutions yet of Temporal Princes, they should have some more regard, lest whiles they be manifeslly proved to use their accustomed liberty, of alleging or interpreting the texts also of the Civil law, they care not with how little truth or honesty, they should be rightly convinced to have neither Spiritual nor Temporal law for themselves. Now, whether M. jewel he as bold with Constitutions of Princes, as Decrees of Popes, I will bring in his own words as they lie, and confer them with the Constitution, upon which he groundeth them. Thus he saith.  
If only the negligence of the People have enforced Private Mass, 
jew. 17. Auth. Collat. ●. ut. determinatus sit numtrus Clericorum.  How then came it into Colleges, Monasteries, Cathedral churches, yea (mark now indifferent Reader, how constantly he speaketh) even into the very holy church of Rome, whereas be such numbers of Clerks, Vicars, Monks, Priests, and Prebendaries, that the Emperor justinian was feign to stay the increase of them, all Idle, all in study and contemplation, all void from worldly cares, all confessed, all in clean life, all prepared?  
I trust, 
Ra.  after so great a vomit, your Stomach be somewhat better at case. And first concerning the question itself, D. Har. hath it not, that only the neligence of the people, hath enforced private Mass, but that oft times the Priest at Mass hath no compartners to receive with him, it proceedeth of lak of devotion of the peoples part. And so hath it sometimes come of lack of devotion, the religious men have not received so oft as they might. And if this doth comfort your heart, that I grant unto you, faults to have been found among religious people, I cannot let you of your own will, but I wonder at your fausie, to feed upon carrion.  
Sometimes therefore, the Priest receiveth alone, because none is ready to be his compartever, & sois his Sole receiving or as M. jew. would say, his private Mass, not enforced but occasioned thereby. For that lak of devorion or diligence in the people is not an Essential, 
〈…〉  but an Accident 〈◊〉 a cause that goeth before, but that followeth af●●●, & it doth not make the Sole receiving, but is made rather thereof. For, to speak property 〈◊〉 orderly, if I were asked what 〈◊〉 the cause, why the Priest receiveth alone I would answer: The Caufe is, that he is not bound to have company, and that he hath a godly desire to celebrate & receive, and that the celebrating of the Mysteries & enjoying of them, dependeth not upon the mutability of the people's mind but upon commission, power authority, grace, & effects, that Christ hath endued his Priests & his Sacraments withal. And this much concerning M. jewels Objection, lest any should be troubled with it. 
〈…〉  Now to the constitution of justinian. First M. jew. would have it conceived that Themperor should find fault with the numbers of Clerks, etc. in his time, because of some disorder or misbehaviour among them, & to to this purpose, he thrusteth into his sentence, by a certain figure of lying & mocking, All Idle, all in study & contemplation, all void from worldly cares etc.  
Then would he have it to be conceived that either there were that went about to redress this gear & could not prevail, or that in deed neither Pope, nor Cardinal, nor Bishop cared for it, so that the Emperor justinian was fain to stai the increase of them. Thirdly, he so speaketh as though Vicar's Monks and Prebendaries were noted in the Coustitution.  
Last of all, which is chief to be marked, he is so bold as to say it, that justinian should be fain to stay the increase of Clerks, etc. ye even in the holy Church▪ of Rome, where, etc. As though the Emperor had been so lofty, as to take upon himself the office of the Pope, and in the Churches, which are specially under the government of the B. of Rome.  
Concerning therefore the first & second of these points, it is manifest in the Constitution, that the cause of staying the number of Clerks in Constantinople, & thereabout, was not for any such misliking as heretics have now with the number of Priests which are not all of the best, but only because the Revenues of the church in Constantinople were not able well to find them. And therefore (how much the Spiritual Rulers did think of the matter, 〈◊〉 can tell, but) the Emperor, for the honour of the Clergy, and not for contempe of the Degree, wrote unto Epiphanius, the archbishop of Constantinople about this matter, & no doubt but with his advise and consent, appointed that order which should be taken. Which was this, that as many as already, had allowance or living in the great Church or other of Constantinople, should have it still, but that from thencefurth, no more should be found of the Church, than answered the just number of the persons, which by the foundation of the Churches had portions and stipends to maintain them.  
To the third point than I answer, that justinian speaketh not of Vicars, Monks and Prebendaries, and that herein M. jewel showed a point of an heretical 〈◊〉 pite, to give such names to the persons whom the Emperor should seem to bring under his law, as are at these days most odious, and to move suspicion to his Reader, that the number of Monks were even in justinian's time abhorred. Which is so false, as it is true, that in all tha● Constitution, there is no mention of Monk or Religious person but only of such as served in the Cathedral Church, and other of Constantinople, or the quarters there about.  
And by this, it doth well appear, that it is to to impudently said (touching the fourth point) justinian's Constitution for staieing the increase of the number of Clerks etc. should be made, yea, even for the very holy Church of Rome. For it is directed only to Epiphanius. archbishop of Constantinople, and all the constitution, through, he maketh mention only, Huius Regia Civitatis; of this princely City. meaning Constantinople, and especially, of the great Church there. Of which, he hath such care, and for which, he taketh such a Special order, that he appointeth, how many Priests, Deacons, and Subdeacons etc. it should have, and not above. As three score a hundred Deacons, 
What should all 〈…〉  and Women forty (which were not, you may be sure their wives, except two men and an half should have gone to one) Subdeacons ninety, Readers a hundred and ten, Singers five and twenty: so that all the number of the most Reverend Clerks of the most holy Great Church shall consist in four hundred twenty and five, besides and above a hundred of them which are called O●●arij that is, Porters.  
So many then, justinian alloweth to the number of one Church in Constantinople, for all his stay made, that Clerks should not increase. And that▪ because that one Church was well able to find so many, without borrowing of others or laying to pleage of their own. 
〈…〉  But with the Church of Rome or with Monks, he doth not once meddle, I fai● it again M. jewel, he doth not meddle, so much as once.  
With what Face then and Conscience refer you this Constitution to the Church of Rome? And in so greait a matter, as the Supremacy is, wherefore abuse you the Authority of the Emperor, in making your Reader conceive, that justinian for all that the Papists call the Church of Rome, Holy, feared not yet to made a Law, that it should not have above a certain number of vicars, Monks, and Prebendaries, of which it would follow by likelihood, that the Emperor took himself for a worthier Head of the Church, than the Pope.  
A plainer Example than this to show M. jewels falsehood, I can not lightly have: but that he shall not say that this is all I can object against him, for mistaking or mi●nsing of the Clin●e Law, behold an other.  
The Law saith, 
jew. 172 〈◊〉 lie at the first.  Generaliter dictum, Generaliter est accip●endum. The thing that is spoken Generally, most be taken Generally.  
The Law saith it not▪ 
Ra.  But whereas a Legacy is to be paid parentibus & liberis, to parents and children, no mention being made in the Testament, how far these names should stretch, (For in the name of Parents, Father, Mother, Grandsire, and Grandmother, And in the name of Children, not only the Natural, but the Adoptive sons and daughters, etc. are understanded) The Praetor in this case, answereth that they may be referred unto all that may be comprehended within the foresaid Names. Hereof the Lawyers gather a Rule, that The thing that is spoken Generally, must be taken Generally. But the Law itself 〈◊〉 it not.  
Now these Rules of the lawyers wit and collection are not General but indefinite, neither they in all places true, but in certain. They are, as some call them, but Burchardica, that is, of the making of Burchardus the B. of worms, or (as other say) Brocardica, that is to say, meet Rules for such fine fellows among Lawyers, as brokers are among the Merchants. They give a show of cunning & learning, as though he that useth them, bo●h knew and spoke law: but in deed none but triflers and pelters use them, except they prosecute them in their right sense.  
For, how soon may it be Objected, by any man, that, if this Rule were true, no man should be so hardy, as to kill a louse: because the law of God saith, thou shalt not kill, 
Ex●d. 10.  and M. jewels law saith, that, the thing that is spoken generally, must be taken generally, upon which objection, if M. jewel would bid me stay a while, and to understand the law of God, 
M. jew. opposed in his own Rules.  according to the Rule of reason and equity, and that the killing only of man is forbidden, such as proceedeth without lawful Authority, or tendeth to the breach of Charity etc.: I would Reply (not so wisely in deed as it should become a reasonable man, but after as wise manner and fashion, as M. jewel useth) and say, 
jew. 172.  It is commonly said, ubilex non distinguit, stiguit, nos distinguere non debemus. ●here the law maketh no distinction, the●● ought we to make no distinction. And therefore away with this Sophistical distinction, of lawful and unlawful kill, and go to the Text itself, which saith expressly: Theu shalt not kill. And so by this mean which M. jewel followeth, an Heretic might be lousy by Authority, nor only of the Law of God, but the Rule of man: except he would be so merciful as not to kill the vermin, but, by some other way put them away from him.  
Now, if M. jewel know not so much, as that these Rules, which he allegeth, are not to be understanded Generally, although they sound Generally: why would he meddle with that, which he did not know? On the other side, if he know well enough, that there are many limitations upon these rules, why would he put that forth to be taken of his Reader, absolutely and Generally, which is not true but in certain cases only?  
certainly▪ the learned in law, when they. speak of these very rules they restrict them many ways, which I need not rehearse unto you, being acquainted very well with the civil Lawyers, or law. Otherwise if you were not, you should do well to read Alciat de verboru singnifi. & Nico●aus Ever ardus in his book entitled Loct argumentorum legales And because one example against you to open your naughty dealing in this point, 
Aliciatus de vet. sig. lib. 1  is enough, as also, because the example is better ●ercei●ed of the common people than the rule, 
Euerard in loco à rati●us l● gisstrict●.  I will rehearse y● one most sensible case, which the lawyer's themselves do put to prove, that the foresaid rules which you have put forth for general, must he limited.  
Suppose, that there is an act or law made by the prince, that whosoever striketh A man within his court, and maketh him bleed, shall lose his head, or his hand for it. Here, the law is general, in saying whosoever, without exception of persons, 
What thus heath M. jew▪ in this case?  & therefore (as M. jewel would have it some) it must be taken Generally. It chanceth then after this, that some of the privy Chamber lieth sick of a pleurisy. And the Physician being at hand, he counseleth the party to be let blood. And this being the most present remedy: the Bargar cometh, stretcheth the vain, maketh the Gentleman bleed, and looketh for a good reward: I ask them whether the Barber shall lose his head or his hand for his labour? And who seeth not, that no? Yet the law was general that whosoever stretcheth etc. yea but the Rule is not general, that, the thing that is generally spoken, must be taken generally. For where the common wealth should take hurt by it, if the law were understanded generally (as in the case of the Barber, it is not for the common wealths profit, that he an Innocent should lose either life or limb) there must be used necessarily one Restriction (at the least) of the laws Generality.  
Wherefore then doth M. jewel, so like dodger, 
dodger  come in with such Rules, as deceive the simple Reader, and fill his papers to no purpose? Wherefore maketh he Objections which he knoweth to have easy answer? Or why hath he no care by what means he bringeth his matters, to pass, so that for the present, he say somewhat to his Adversary.  
Upon confidence of these general Rules, which at the first feeme reasonable, he carrieth the Readers away with him, into blind knowledge, maintaining his own heresies and their errors, by the superficial words of the Civil Law, either not atteiving to the sense thereof, Or quite leaving it. And this will I prove by a manifest example, so much the more willingly, because I shall have in the end a further Occasion, to show an other limitation unto this rule which M. jewel would have to be taken Generally.  
D. Harding alleged out of an Edice of justinian's this evident place, for the Supremacy of the B. of Rome. Sancimus, etc. We ordain, according to the determinations of the Canons, that the most holy Pope of the Elder Rome, be foremost and chief of all bishops. But it is worth the marking, to hear how justinian bringeth in these words.  
We Decree (saith he) that the holy Ecclesiastical Rules, 
In Author De Ecclesi●is.  which have been set forth and established of the four Counsels (of Nice, Coustantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedone) shall stand in stead of Laws. For we receive the Decrees of the four Synods, as the ●oly Sceptres, and the Rules of them wc●h serve as Laws. And therefore we ordain, according the determinatoions of them, that the most holy Pope of the Elder Rome, shall be foremost and Chief of all Priests Now unto this so ●laine an Argument for the Supremacy, what Answereth M. jewel? Forsooth  
The Emperor lustinian had a special inclination to the City of Constantinople, 
jew. 241 The 〈…〉  for that it was now grown in wealth & puissance, etc. And for that it was as he saith, Mater pictatis nostrae, the Mother of his Majesty.  
Well▪ here is some cause why he should favour the City of Constantinople, 
Ra.  but what is this to Rome? It followeth.  
For like Consideration the Emperor gave out this special Privilege (upon which D, 
jew.  Harding groundeth his Argument) in favour of the See of Rome.  
Let this also be granted, 
Ra.  that he favoured Rome as well as Constantinople. But what reason can ye show, wherefore h● should prefer it before Constantinople, and s●t Rome in the first degree & place, and Constantinople in the next? For by all likelihood. Constantinople being the place where he kept his court & to which most resort was made, concerning matters of the Empire, if the giving of Prinilegies unto See and Bishops had depended of his favour only, he would have honoured first of all, the patriarch of his Chief and Imperial City.  
But is it not a manifest lie, 
Note the Lie.  that the Emperor gave the Chiefdom to the B. of Rome upon a special inclination which he had to the City? Consider the words of his Edice. What are they? We Ordein● (saith the Emperor) according ●o the determination of the Canons, that the Pope of Rome be Chief of all Priesetes. He followed then, the Law of the first four general Counsels, & not his own Inclination. And he honoured the See of Rome with his Edict, not because he favoured Rome in his special a●●ection, above all other Sees, but because the former Counsels which he regarded as the Scriptures themselves, & as inviolable laws, had so decreed & determined, that the B. of Rome, should be Primus, First or Chief of all Priests. How impudently then doth M. jew. abuse the Emperor's edict, by making y● to be the chief cause thereof, which in deed was not the cause? But let him go forward.  
And by the way lest any error happen to grow of this word Papa, 
jew. To what purpose?  it behoveth thee. Good Reader, to understand, that Papa in old times, in the Grek tongue, signified a Father etc. And further in S. Augustine's time & before, the same name was given generally to all bishops, etc.  
You say truly, 
Ra.  and you prove it exceedingly, and if ye would be rather called Pope jewel, than bishop jewel, be it at your own choice, and your friends most wise. But returnem, I pray you, again into the way, and Answer the Edict of justinian.  
But to return to the matter. 
jewel, Fear, where no cause is showed.  M. Harding may not of every thing that he readeth, conclude what he listeth.  
If he do. you can with fewer circumstances tell him of it. 
Ra.  But Primus ●mnium Sacerdotum▪ is in English the First and Chief of all Priests. And he which hath so much given unto him, by General Counsels of the Primitue church, he is higher (I trow) then any of his Fellows. And therefore it is much looked for, that you should Answer directly to the Privilege.  
This Privilege granted unto the 
jew.  Bishop of Rome, to be the First of all Priests was not to bear the whole sway, and to over rule all the world.  
Ye speak like a man that were offended with tyranny, 
Ra.  and ye speak of over ruling. But we think not, that, as the chief among the Brothers, when he hath gotten, Hugono●es, Guses, Loiterers, Lutherans, calvinists, anabaptists, and other divine fellows enough, about him, than he beginnneth to over rule and over run the Country, by spoiling of Churches, killing of Religious persons, ravishing of holy Virgins, and doing of other feats of your Gospel: so the Pope may set and let, pull in, pluck out, kill and save, and do what him listeth upon a Fury or Bravery: but that power only we require to be given him, which they acknowledged, that determined him to be First or Chief of all Priests.  
And we ask you, of his Power that he hath to rule over all the world, and not of over rule all the world. For although the places, to which his Jurisdiction extendeth itself, are not limited, yet his power to rule them is limited: and he that over ruleth any one Country, be it never so much his own, doth more than he ought to do, by that which is over measure and Rule. Leaving therefore to press us which your odious & slaundcrous terms, as though any Catholic were of the opinion, that the Pope might or should play the part of a Tyrant, & care for no law nor reason, but over rule all the world, and bear the whole sway in the world, Answer to the Authority of justiniaus Edict, & show wherein was the Privilege granted unto the bishop of Rome. It was not (you say) to over rule all the world.  
But only in General meetings, 
Iewe● , and Counsels to sit in place above all others, and for avoiding of Confusion, to direct and order them in their doings.  
How prove you this? And remember, 
Ra.  that you must prove, that the Privilege granted unto the bishop of Rome was to sit only above others. & cet.  
The emperors words be plain, 
jew. This was not spoken for ther●. of Rome.  Praerogativea in Episcoporum Consilio, vel extra Concilium ante alios residendi. A Prerogative in the Council of bishops▪ or without the Council, to sit in order above other.  
Oh Desperateness. The emperors words (you say) be plain.  
They are so in deed plain to the eye, both in your Book which is well printed, and in the Code of Parise print, where they may be readen without spectacles, except a man's sight be very ill. But dare you say, that this place pertaineth to the Bishop of Rome? For of the Bishop of Rome our question is, whether his Privilege to be First and Chief of all Priests, consisted only in sitting above other, in General meetings. I will tell thee (Indiffetent Reader) the Sense of these foresaid words, and the Cause of making the Decree in which they are found, that thou mayst judge whether M. jewel be a fine and upright Lawyer.  
Whiles the Emperor Leo was gone towards the east, Odactus A Tyrant, invaded in the mean time the Churches, and set forth many Laws and Statutes, against the Liberties and the privileges of them.  
The Emperor here upon made a Law, after the Country was delivered of the Tyranny, that, those things being abrogated and taken away, which had been done against the true Religion of God, all other concerning Churches and Martyrs Chapels should stand in the same state which they were in before his time. And further, he Decreed that it should be utterly abrogated, what so ever had been newly brought up, against the Churches and the bishops of them, 
C●d. de Sacrosact. Eccle. Decernimus.  Seu de iure Sacerdot alium ●reationum, seu de expulsione cuiusquam Episcopi à quolibet his temporibus facta, seu deprarogativa in Episcoporum Concilio, ●el extra Concilium ante alios residendi, Either concerning the right of making of Priests, either the expulsion of any bishop made by any man at this time, or the prerogative of sitting before other, either in the Council of bishops, or without it.  
Consider now (Indifferent Reader) whether the Prerogative, of which the Law here speaketh, was meant only of the bishop of Rome: Or whether the emperors woe. d●s here be plain, to prove that the bishop of Rome should ●it ●irst 〈◊〉 General meetings, whereas there is no mention at all in this place of the B. of Rome, but only of Acatius, by name, patriarch of Constantinople, and of other Bishops in general, which had taken wrong under Odoactus the Tyrant. And whether the B. of Rome were one of that number, it appeareth not by any word of the Decree: so that it is altogether boldly and nothing discreetly said, that the Prerogative spoken of in this place, is plain for the Pope's sitting above other, or that the Pope's Prerogative is no more but to sit above all others. 
jew. 142  It followeth.  
This Prerogative in Greek is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, the Privilege of the first place. 
Greeks for the 〈◊〉 privilege of the first place.   
So is the feigning of a Person, 
Ra.  and making of that to speak, which hath no sense or tongue, called in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: but we require not here of you, to tell your Countrymen what is Greek for this or the thing, but what is the answer to the Argument that is made, against you. For let it be so, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in greek signifieth the Privilege of the first place: you do not yet show unto us, that the Privilege, spoken of in this Edict of the Emperors, is so called: or that it is meant of the bishop of Rome, to prove that his Prerogative is to more but A 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A privilege of the first place. But you proceed out of the purpose and say,  
That these phrases in that tongue be known, 
jew. 242  and Common 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Like as also the●e in he latin tongue, 
Who will learn phrases of the Greek: or latin tonue.  obtinere primas, secundas, Tertias, that is, to have the Preominence of the first, Second, and Third place.  
This would serve well, 
Ra.  if either we doubted, Or were ignorant of these phrases, or if the declaring of them pertained any point to the quesion. and yet I say unto you, that, Obtinere primas, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is, not only to have the first place, but also, to win the best game, Or to have the chiefest part in any Flare or Act, Or to bear the highest Office, and so forth. So that, to your matter of the Place, they do not serve necessarily. And if by Obtinere Primas, this only thing were meant, to sit in the First Place, yet should not this prove, that the edict of the Emperor, in which you show not that the self same Phrase is used, doth plainly make for it: That the Pope's Prerogative is no greater, than to sit first at General meetings. For this is the question, And not what, Obtinere Primas, or Secundas, signifieth in good Latin. And to this we look for your Answer.  
But you say (as though you had proved so much) in further confirmation thereof,  
And that the Emperor justinian meant ONLY thus, 
jew .142 You do not prove it.  and none OTHERWISE, it is manifest even by the self same place, that M. Harding hath here alleged.  
Marry Sir that is worth the hearing: 
Ra.  but mark thou (Indifferent Reader) M. jewels words ONLY, and NONE OTHERWISE. For except I be foully deceived, he will not prove so much as he pretendeth. But let us hear the Emperor, and M. jewels Comment upon him.  
Sancimus etc. 
jew.  We ordain.  
Your etc. Here, first of all, hath no Place: 
Ra.  For it putteth these words out, 
〈…〉  which are much to the matter. And they ●re these: Sancimus secundum Canonum defi●tiones, v●● ordain according to the determinations of the Canons, that, etc.  
By which it appeareth, that justinian did no more but excute the former Decrees▪ and was not himself the Author or giver, of the singular Privilege which is due to the See of Rome. And now let M. jewel go forward.  
We ordain, 
〈…〉  & caet that the Pope (read Sanctissimum, most holy) of the Elder Rome shallbe (Read, is) the first of all the Priests, and that the most holy Archebishope of Constantinople, which is named New Rome, have the second place: It followeth in the Decree. After the holy apostolic See of the Elder Rome.  
But what concludeth M. jewel hereof? It followeth. 
Ra.   
Hereby it is plain, 
〈◊〉.  that this Privilege standeth ONLY in placing the B. of ●ome in the first Seat above others. 
〈◊〉.   
It is so plain, 
Ra.  that no man seeth it. Be thou judge, Indifferent Reader: Yea let any Protestant in all the world tell Truth l●e and not. Doth he find in the foresaid wo●●s of 〈◊〉 Decrec, this word ONLY? Doth he find, that the 〈◊〉 of the B. of Rome, is declared by the Emperor, to stand in none other thing, but in sitting first?  
A worthy matter in deed, for An Emperor to set forth Seats for bishops, if he have no further respect, than unto the Seat. But First, he declareth the bishop of Rome to be Primum omunm Sacerdotu● that is, to be Chief of Priests, and not I trow to sit only in the best Chair. Then, he appointeth the bishop of Constantinople to have the Second place. But wherein Over Scates, Or over Priests? verily he spoke not of Seats but of Priests, in respect of which, he saith, let the B●shope of Constantinople have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is, as M. jewel limiteth it, The second place, but as the Tr●eth 〈◊〉, ye 〈◊〉 english it, the Second Dig 〈◊〉 Or w●rshipe. For the word 〈◊〉 signfceeh, A room, A: Oder, An Office, A Dignitit, A degree, and A p●●ce, not only to sit first in, but to Go, to Stand, to Fight to Speak, to Determine, or to do what so ever it be, worth the speaking.  
And therefore (M. jewel) hath in this place, 
●ho saith M. jew. death not lie?  twice together abused the decrce of justinianisirst, restricting that, unto sitting in A place, which was spoken of Prerogative over Pricstes. And then in saying, that the privilege consisted only in sitting in the first Seat, whereas this term only, or any other word to like effect is not at all in the Decree.  
But I beseech thee, 
jew. ●41  Gentle Reader, weigh well the words that follow in the same Decree.  
And I beseech thee also, 
Ra.  Gendtle Reader, to weigh them well.  
It followeth Immediately. 
jew.  We ordain that the most holy Archebishope of justiniana the first which is in our Country, shall have for ever under his jurisdiction the Bishops of the provinces of Dacia, Dania, etc. and that he, in the provinces subject unto him, shall have the place of the Apostolkie See of Rome.  
But what of this▪ 
Ra.   
Here we see, 
jew.  the Bishop of justiniana set in as high Authority, and power within his own lurisdiction, as the B. of Rome within his.  
But by whom was he set in so high Authority? By the Emperor? And who gave the Emperor such power? Or was he so privileged by the Pope? Yea surely by the Pope, if any Authority were lawfully taken and exercised. But so much doth not appear by the Decree. Yes verily doth it. But M. jewel taketh his vantage, and mangleth Decree● at his pleasure. For thus it followeth in the law▪ that the bishop of justiniana shall have in the P●ouincies subject unto him, 
More 〈◊〉 of senteaces. that is, more of M. Iewe●s 〈…〉,  the place of the Apostolic Sec. 〈…〉  
Set then, if the bishop of justiniana, for all that the Emperor honoured that Con●trie so much, if he received so great Authority from the Pope: how ●uch was the Pope above him, that gave him the authority▪ Can the Pope, subject unto a new bishop the Proiunces of Dacia, Dania, Dardania, Misia, and Pannonia? Or exempt him from the jurisdiction of his Metropolitan, or primitive, except in deed his authority had been universal? Yet such privileges gave the Pope unto the B. of justiniana, and the Emperor was not the doer in it, but the Executor only of the Pope's determination.  
Note also and see (M. jewel) that it is not in this decree, that the B. of justiniana, shall have within his own jurisdiction, 
〈…〉  as high authority as the Bishop of Rome within his, there is no such comparison made, but only that he shall have within his jurisdiction, the place of the apostolic See of Rome. And so have many of the Pope's Legates, in the provinces unto which they be directed, but none was ever yet so foolish, as to gather hereof, that the Pope therefore can do no more than his Legate. For as that is true, in such cases as the Pope permitteth unto the Legates ordinance: so absolutely it is most false, because the Pope may when he will depose his Legate, or abridge his Authority, or send an other to govern with him, but no such thing may be exequu●●● against the Pope.  
If therefore the B. of justiniana do never so much enjoy the privileges granted unto him by the B. of Rome, let him take them as Privileges, not as Canons: Let him acknowledge himself to supply the Place of the bishop of Rome within his own provinces, and not to sit, as it were, in his own proper and ordinary Place: Let him give place to the B. of Rome, if he should personally come within his jurisdiction, and let him not crack of it, that he hath as high Authority within his jurisdiction, as the B. of Rome within his. For if he do, Uigilius the Pope that gave him such prerogative, may pull it away again from him, And M. jewels argument shallbe utterly dashed, that thinketh, the Privilege of the apostolic See, granted to any particular bishop over his country, to derogate from the Authority of the apostolic See which is in Rome, And which hath jurisdiction over all bishops in Christendom.  
Now one place more, and so we shall end this Chapter. M. jewel goeth further and sayeth.  
In like sort, the Emperor justinian saith: 
jew. 242  Ecclesia urbis Constantinopolitanae Romae veteris praerogativa laetatur. The Church of the City of Constantinople, enjoyeth now the prerogative of Rome the Elder.  
Let me be answered then in one question. You said, 
Ra.  not twenty lines before, that the prerogative of the Bishop of Rome censisted only in sitting in the first place, 
How can it be Answered?  at general meetings. If therefore the B. of Constantinople have the same Prevogative that the B. of Rome, who shall sit first I pray you? Or shall they sit one in an others lap? Or, shall one of them stand whiles the othersitteth? Or shall the prerogative of the B. of Rome be interpreted, to signify some other thing beside the sitting only in the first place?  
For, if the prerogative, of the Pope be to sit only first, and if the B. of Constantinople have the like prerogative as the B. of Rome, he must likewise sit first: Ergo, justinian's Constitution, that the B. of Constantinople, should sit in the second place, is void. Ergo M. jewel by one law (through his blind interpretation) d●th destroy an other. Surely this alone doth prove sufficiently, that you huddle up Constitutions one upon an other, to make a show only of great learning, and not because either you understand the law, Or speak after it, or seek to make the truth plain and evident.  
But let us consider the place itself. The Church (you say) of Constantinople enjoyeth the privilege of the Elder Rome. But what privilege is that? To Rule the whole world? To call general Counsels? To Confirm them? To disprove them? To increase the jurisdiction of Bishops or patriarchs, and to diminish it again as it shall be profitable for the Church of Christ?  
The B. of Rome, is able to give unto any B. in all the world, as great precogative over his diocese, as himself hath over Italy, like as Uigilius the Pope gave to the B. of justiniana: but is any Archebishope in all the world able to give an other, either the Prerogative of the Church of Rome, either the Prerogative which himself ●ath from the Church of Rome, without ask of leave of y● B. of Rome? No surely, the Effect can not work upward towards the cause, or work so excellently downwardly, as the cause: neither the Bishops of Constantinople or justiniana, taking their Prerogatives from Rome, can endue others with like Privileges, without consent of the Bishop of Rome.  
Therefore, although the Bishop of Constantinople hath the Prerogative of the Litie of Rome, it followeth not, that the Bishop of Rome is nothing superior to the Bishop of Constantinople. And if the Lord Precedent in Wales should have given unto him all the Prerogatines of the King's Court in England, it followeth not, that the King and he are Hail fellows well met for ever after. And Christ our Saviour although he said unto his Apostles As my father sent me so I send you, giving thereby unto them as great Prerogative as himself had, yet he meant not, that the Apostles should think themselves as good as their head, even in those things which they should do as well as Christ.  
M. jewel therefore doth very unteasonably conceive of the Law, that the Pope's Supremacy was not acknowledged, because, the Communicating of his Prerogative with some other Bishops, is found expressed in the Law.  
But it will be replied, that Generaliter dictum generaliter est accipiendum, The thing that is spoken generally must be taken Generally. I answer: this Rule faileth, when by other expressed text of the Law, that which seemeth to be spoken Generally in one place, is restricted & limited in an other. For in the next title before this of which we speak, the Emperor saith to y● B. of Rome. Omnes Sacerdotes, universi Orientalis tractus, 
De Sū●● Trinit. & ●id. Cath. l. Nos reddentes.  & subijcere & unire Sedi vestrae Sanctitatis proper avimus. We have made speed, both to subject and to unite unto the See of your Holmes, all the Priests of the West parts. Again in the same law, a little after. We will not suffer (sayeth justinian) that anything, which pertaineth to the state of Churches, although that which is in controversy be undoubted and manifest, shall not also come to the knowledge of your Holiness, Quae Caput est omnium Sanctarum Ecclesiarum, Which is the Head of all holy Churches.  
Let the bishop then of Constantinople enjoy the Prerogative of the City of Rome, in as large and General sense as M. jewel will, yet this must be provided for, first of all, that the Prerogative which the B. of Constantinople shall enjoy, do not contrary the former law, which subjecteth all Priests of the west unto his holiness, And which confesseth him to be head over all Churches.  
Thus have I sufficiently and manifestly proved, that M. jewel hath abnsed the Canon Law. The Lawyers themselves have more to say unto him for his impudency, if he be so impudent as ever to show his face before them.  
And now to the Old Fathers, and Doctoures.   

How M. jewel hath abused the Ancient Fathers.  
IT is incredible, how M. jewel hath abused the Doctors. Incredible (I mean) not, in respect of Protestants which think so well of him, that they believe no ove evident untruth to be within all his Reply: but of Catholics, which knowing the cause that he defendeth, to be utterly false, may justly suspect every Witness, that he bringeth in for his Doctrine, And which having already taken him in manifest corrupting of Witnesses, cannot but know him for one that looketh suspiciously, when so ever he is about Ancient Fathers. Yet (I assure thee▪ Indifferent Reader) the Catholics themselves did not think, that any man would so have corrupted true Sentences, as he hath done: Or so oft have followed such unlawful crafts, as are not once to be used of honest men.  
But these, you will say, are but words: let us therefore come, to the things themselves. And first, concerning such Illations of M. jewels, as he useth in giving of the cause or proof of his sayings, He applieth thereto, the Testimonies of Ancient Fathers, so loosely and so disagreeably, as if a man would say: The Waters of Bath are exceeding good against the Ache in the joints. And 〈◊〉 the Prophet saith: Omnessitientes venite ad aquas, Alye that be a thirst, come to the waters. Yea M. jewels Applications do worse agree with the premises. For his position, lightly, is heretical or erroneous, and his Authority for it, is no more proper unto it, than the foresaid sentence of isaiah serveth to the commendation of the Baths in England. For proof hereof I will choose but our place, in which, for establishing of his Assertion, he bringeth one upon an other very thick, four Ancient Doctors together, Of all which there is not one that serveth his purpose.  
M. Harding's Athanasius saith, Power to bind and loose is given to the holy See of Rome, 
jew, 23● you prove 〈◊〉 not by any of the testimonis 〈◊〉 follow.  And yet the old Catholic Fathers could never understand any such special Privilege.  
Mark now, 
Ra.  Indifferent Reader, wh●ther the places which M. jewel will allege, do prove any such thing at al.  
S. Cyprian abused.  
S. Cyprian saith: Quàmuis Dominus Apostolis omnibus etc. 
jew. Faults 〈◊〉 in 〈…〉  The Lord (read, And although our Lord) after his Resurrection gave like power unto his Apostles (Read, all his Apostles) yet to declare unity, he disposed by his Authority, the Original of unity (Read, of the same unity) beginning of one: The rest of the Apostles were even the same that Peter was, endued with like fellowship, both of honour and of power (here doth M. jewel make a full point, yet it followeth in the same very sentence) But the Original cometh of unity, to declare that the Church is one.  
In this testimony of S. Cyprian, 
Ra.  those words (And although) which M. jewel left out in the beginning of the 〈◊〉 are first to be considered, as depending of the sentences, which immediately went before, And opening the question which now we have in hand. For after S. Cyprian had declared, that the Devil, seeing the Idols and Temples which he occupied before, to be forsaken and left void, through the increase of the Faithful, converted his craft to devising of Schisms and Heresies, by whi●h he might overturn the Faith, corrupt the truth, and cut or divide unity. After this he infers: ●oc eò fit, fratres dilectiss. dumb ●d veritatis orig●em non reditur, 
Cypr. de Simplicitatep●●lat.  nec caput quaeritur, nec magistri coelestis doctrina servatur: This most dear brethren, (understand, that Heresies are set abroad) doth therefore come to pass, for that we return not unto the original of truth And for that an Head is not sought for, nor the Doctrine of our heavenly Master is observed.  
Now because every man perceiveth not the force of this saying, and diverse would have it better opened and expressed unto them, He addeth: Probatio est ad fidem facilis compendio veritatis, that is, The proof hereof, to make thee believe it, is easy, because of the compendiousness of the truth. And how is that? It followeth, Loquitur Dominus ad Pe●rum, etc. Our Lord speaketh to Peter, I tell thee (saith he) that thou art Peter, and upon this Peter (or Roc●e) I will build my Church, and the gates of hell sh●lnot overcome it. Unto the will I give the keys of the kingdom of Heavens, and those things that thou shalt bind in earth, shall be bound in the heavens also, and what soever thou shalt lose upon earth, shall be loosed also in the Heavens.  
And unto the same (Peter) after his 〈…〉 my sheep.  
By these words than it is manifest, what is, Original, Head, and Doctrine of our heavenly Master, that is, to the forsaking of which, Saint Cyprian imputeth the proceedings of the Devil, and of Heresies. verily no other, than that, which our Saviour by the foresaid express Scriptures, gave to S. Peter.  
But now, here ariseth a grea●● doubt and question, that S. Peter can not well be the Head, because every one of the Apostles, was as great in Power as he. And this in deed is the Argument, that M. jewel maketh, out of S. Cyprian, against the Supremacy.  
Which if Saint Cyprian had not espied and Answered, 
Note vn●easarable foul dealing  then should M. jewel easily be pardoned: But now, what an intolerable kind of soul dealing is this, to take an Objection out of an Old Father, and either for Hast. Or Negligence, Or Craftiness, Or Desperateness, to let go the right answer unto it?  
For, concerning the Objection, Saint Cyprian thus withstandeth it, saying: And although he gave after his resurrection, like power unto all his Apostles, etc. yet to declare unity, he disposed by his Authority, the Original of the same unity, beginning of one. By the Objection than it scemeth, that no more account should be made of S. Peter, then of the vest of the Apostles, which severally was as great in power as he: But by the Answer, made with this Aduersatiue Tamen, Yet, it is manifest, that, notwithstanding the equality among the Apostles, S. Peter yet was the First and the Head among them. For Christ disposed by his Authority (saith S. Cyprian) the Original not of unity (as you mangle it M. jewel) but, 
Is not this mangling of sentences:  of the same unity (which undoubtedly was in the Apostles) beginning of one, which is S. Peter.  
As in the Sentence following, more manifestly appeareth, to the further opening of S. Cyprians right meaning, and your false dealing. For the one half of the Sentence is this: in deed the rest also of the Apostles were the same that Peter was: endued with like fellowship, honour, and power: This half M. jewel you rest upon, and build your Conclusion, that one of them had no more Privilege than an other. 
Clipping of Sentences.  And why interpreted you no further; Is the sentence or Sense, (think you) at an end, when you have your purpose? Doth not S. Cyprian Interpret, Correct, Amend, or Determine it with an Adnersative yet, saying (lest any man should through his former words set less by S. Peter or his Chair) But yet the Original cometh from unity, that the Church may be showed to be one? And what other thing is this to say, but that, notwithstanding it to be true, that the Apostles were endued with like honour & power as S. Peter was, yet no man ought to gather hereof, that there was no Order among them, Or that one bishop now hath as large and absolute Authority as an other. But this rather must follow, that because schisms and Heresies do grow apace, where no Original or Head is sought for or regarded, And because it should be perceived, that the Church is One, in that it consists of one Head, unto whom all the rest, were they never so high or fellow like, must be refer red: therefore Christ, by his Authority, disposed the Original of that unity, ● endued S. Peter with a singular Prerogative, that he should be that One in the Church, from whom whosoever departed, should not be of the Church.  
And note well the Cause, why the beginning must rise of One, ut Ecclesia una monstretur, that the Church might be showed to be one. 
The unity of the Church, i● proved by the one Head there of.  Why; Should it not be One, though in every Diocese, through the world, every several Bishop were Chief therein; No surely, by S. Cyprian, it should not be. But, in that the Head thereof is but one, the unity of her doth follow necessarily. How doth it follow; Marry, Whosoever holdeth not with this Head, he is not in the Church, and so must none remain within her, but the Catholic & obedient Christians. How can they but agree then all in one Head, if they mind to continued in the Church, whereas the departure from h●m, is to take an other Church, besides that, whose special mark is Unity in one Head. This conclusion then standing, that S. Peter was set, by the Authority of Christ, 
Simple conclusions  in the first place, was that no special Privilege, trow you? Or was he First, to that intent only, that in reckoning up the Apostles, men should know where to begin? Or, that in their meetings together, he should sit first? Or speak first? Or subscribe first? How simple things are these for the wisdom of God to think of? And how little available to the preserving of the Church in Unity, if no further pre-eminence were given him?  
And again, if the B. of Rome's authority now, as S. Peter's was then, were of no more force, yet being of so much, if other would sit before him, Or speak before him in any Council, should they not be Offenders against the ordinance of God? How can it be otherwise, whereas he appointed by his Authority the Original of Unity to begin of One? Suppose then, that some one transgresseth this order, who shall reprove him? If none, how unreasonable is it, to set a law, and not to include thereby an authority to punish the transgressor of the Law? If any: who more worthy of that Office than the Chief bishop? Ergo there was in S. Peter, 
The Privilege of S. Peter must be more then to sit or 〈◊〉 first.  a proper Authority joined to that dignity of his first place (which M. je. granteth unto him) by which he had power to control them, that should or would ●esist that Primacy of his in how small thing so ever it consisted. And if there were such Authority, Ergo, some special P●●●lege of Binding or Losing, which no other of the Apostles had. Except ye will be so mad as to think, that in controlling of a fault committed against any Excellent Person, his Inferior should be judge in the matter, and bind or lose at his will or discretion.  
I leave it therefore as most manifest, that notwithstanding the Apostles were equal in fellowship of honour and power▪ with S. Peter, yet the Original of 〈◊〉 was appointed by our Saviour himself, to begin of S. Peter only, and none other. And this his pre-eminence (make you it as little as you can) requiring A Proportional Authority to be granted unto him, for the defence thereof against all disdain or disobedience that might be procured or used against it: he had, without all doubt, some Prerogative of jurisdiction above any other, and by Consequence some more power, than the rest of the Apostles bad.  
And this I speak with the least, because our Adversaries be contentious, knowing in deed, that if I would press them further with this Testimony of S. Cyprian, they could not honestly deny, but such a wisdom of God, and prerogative of S. Peter was expressed, in erecting one Head and beginning, as should keep the Church in unity, And be a sure and certain way for all them to take, which live in danger of heresies. Which can not be so mean a thing, as to sit first only in a place, or speak only before other, without further superiority above other: but enough is already said, both to declare the truth of S. Cyprians words, & the falsehood of M. jewel in abusing them.  
Origene abused.  
Origene saith: 
jew 239.  An ver● soli Petro etc. What, hath Christ given the keys of the kingdom of heaven, 
In a mystical sense this is true, not in the literal.  unto Peter only? and shall no holy man else receive them? This saying, To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, is common also to the rest.  
To whom the rest? verily to every good man, 
Ra.  which shall have it revealed unto him, that Christ is the son of the living God. How think you then M. jewel, 
Absurdities following upon M Tewels sense.  hath every good and Faithful Christian in the world, as great & as special authority as S. Peter? If it be so: how doth S. Paul say, that, God hath appointed in his Church first Apostles, than Evangelists, Thirly doctors etc. 
1. Cor. 12.  How saith he in an other place, that, Christ hath given to his Church some to be Apostles, some Prophets, other Evangelists, and other to be Pasteurs and Doctors. Or how is not the Subdeacon as 
Eph. 4.  great in authority as the Priest, and the Priest as the Archebishope? Yea the common lay men or women steadfastly confessing Christ, how have not they, the Reies' of the kingdom of heaven in their hands, even as the Apostles or S. Peter himself had? For Origene pronounceth without exception, that, to have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, is promised to all that have it revealed unto them, that Christ i● the Son of the Living God.  
If therefore this sense can not stand, we must▪ of necessity seek an other. And consider in what sort Origen saith, the keys of the kingdom of heaven to be given, not only to S. Peter, but to the rest also of good & godly men. But nothing more easy to be found. For Origen the place (as his manner is) gathereth a mystical or moral sense of the literal and plaint history: Not by denying the History, but by applying it to edificati●. Like as●. Paul, writing unto the Galathians, & declaring unto them, that the two sons of Abraham, the one borne of Agar the servant, 
Gala. 4.  the other of Sara the free woman, signified the two Testaments: meant not to make us believe, that there was not such a man, as Abraham is described to have been, or that such real and corporal promises were not made unto him, as the Scriptures do testify, but out of the Literal history, he gathereth a mystical sense, knowing that unto the Fathers of the old law, all things chanced in figures, 
1. Cor. 10  the Truth of which is revealed by Christ unto his Church.  
Now, that Origen doth so as I do say, it is plain by his own words. For after he had shortly gone over the text, of Christ's question to his Apostles (whom do men ●ar the son of man to be) & the Apostles answering thereunto: then entering, as it were, into a new matter, & leving the history that he might come to the morality, 
Orig. tr●●1. in Ma●.  he saith: Fert assis autem quod Simon Petrus respondens 〈◊〉 Christus filius dei 〈…〉 Thou art Christ the Son of the living God, If we shall likewise say as Peter did, being revealed unto us not of flesh and blood, but of the light which lighteth our heart from the Father which is in heaven, we also are that which Peter was etc.  
And afterward he saith, that if we confess as Peter did, it shall be said unto us, Thou art Peter, and so forth as it followeth in the Gospel. So that the Church is builded, upon every such good man, and the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, are given unto him, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against him.  
And again, if any man say to Christ: Thou art Christ the son of the h●ing God: 
●rigen himself 〈◊〉 I Difference between the Literal and Mystical sense of the foresaid place.  Non ex carnis a●t sanguinis revelatione, sed patris qui in coelis est, consequetur ea quae dicta sunt, ut evangelii quidem scriptum habet, ad illum Petrum, ut ver● docet illius spiritus ad quemuis quit alis factus ●uerit, qualis erat ille Petrus. That is, If any say to Christ, thou art the son of the living God, not by revelation of flesh and blood, but of the father which is in heaven, he shall attain unto those things which (as the writing of the Gospel hath it) were spoken of to that Peter, but as the spirit of him, or thereof, teacheth unto whomsoever you will, which shall be made such a one as Peter was. It is plain then by these words of Origene, that he setteth a difference between the Literal sense, and the Spiritual, And, that according to the text of the Scripture, Thou art Peter, was spoken unto that singular Apostle S. Peter. But according to a Mystical or Spiritual sense, it is and may be spoken, unto any good and Faithful Christian. Yet every one of them shall not be an Apostle, Or have power to forgive sins or exercise jurisdiction.  
This is therefore much to be noted, 
Note wherein consisteth 〈…〉  and to be abhorred in M. jewel. He taketh the words of A Doctor, which in the Doctors own sense are true and godly, and draweth them to his own Interpretation, in which they are most false & unreasonable. So have rebels done heretofore, as the rebels of jermanie, saying out of the Scriptures, brethren ye be ●alled 〈◊〉 liberty, and gathering thereupon that 〈…〉  
The greater is M. jewels fault, 
Do ●o no 〈…〉  which knowing (except he have utterly lost his wi●re) that it is to the present danger of the common Reader, to have the words of any Doctor alleged unto him, without the plain declaration how they are taken: doth, for all this, suffer, yea teach him to believe, that Literally, which is true only mystically or morally. As, that S. Peter had no greater Privilege than any other, because, after a spiritual understanding, it is said unto every one that confesseth Christ accordingly, Thou art Peter. After which rate, our Lady only, should not be the singural and natural Mother of Christ, because whosoever doth the will of his Father, is his Mother.  
S. Cyril abused. 
jew. 139 He falsi●ieth the place, for is no mention of power.   
S. Cyril saith: Apostolis & eorum in Ecclesijs Successoribus plenam concessit potestatem, Christ gave ●ul power unto the Apostles, and others that succeeded them in the Churches.  
〈…〉 And the Correction, due and ready for them which without licence obtained, meddle in an other man's Office, do plainly prove the contrary.  
And therefore undoubtedly, if you will have this place understanded particularly of every bishop, and say, that God hath given each of them, full power: the practise not only of all Christendom, but of your own congregation, will confute you, In which there is difference between the superintendant of Sarum and of Canterbury. But, if you will refer the gift of full power, unto some singular successors of the Apostles, then is this text nothing prejudicial, to the Supremacy of the bishop of Rome, in whom alone, when full power resteth, the saying of S. Cyril may be verified. For what they have, it is true to say, that the Apostles successors have it.  
And this alone were enough to answer: But now I say further, That S. Cyril hath not as you report. For in repeating shortly the Spiritual sense, which was to be gathered out of those two acts of Christ, the one, when he passed over the See of Tyberias (signifying thereby, the forsaking of the jews) and went up again into an hill with his disciples: The other, when he cast up his eyes, and beholding a number of people coming toward him, fed them to the full, with five loaves and two fishes, of this miraculous fact of our Saviour he saith: Quare, vetera & nova scripturae mandata, fidelibus per Apostolos apposita intelligebamus, cuius myslerij plenam & Apostoli & eorum in Ecclesijs successores gratiam possidebunt: By which thing (that is by Christ's feeding of five thousand with five loaves and two fishes) we understand the Old and Nevy Commandments of the Scripture, to be set by the Apostles before the faithful. 
Cyril. in joan. l. 3. cap. 20.  The full grace of which ministery, both the Apostles and their successors in the Churches shall possess.  
Confer now (Indifferent Reader) these things together. 
Is not this wickedly done of M. jewel?  M. jewel telleth thee (as out of S. Cyril) of a full power: S. Cyril speaketh of no more than a full grace. M. jewel by this full power, would have thee think, that in the authority of binding and losing, no Bishop is higher than an other: S. Cyril by his full grace comprehendeth the grace of preaching only, & instructing of other. The full grace which S. Cyril nameth, is so confessed to be in the Apostles & their successors, that yet he signifieth not, 
〈…〉  whether all should have it equally, or some be therein before their fellows, or whether the heads of the Church, should appoint the Preachers (which is nothing contrary to a Supremacy) or every man use his gift before he be licensed, which were altogether one of order: M. jew. concludeth of that full power (which he maketh S. Cyril to speak of) not only that such a power was in the Apostles, & is in their Successors, but also that it is full in every one of their successors, & that the B. of Rome hath not the Supremacy for which his handling of the ancient Fathers, if he may yet escape the note of a Falsifier, then go not the proceedings forward by indifferency, but with hatred of the contrary side, & with evident injury. And now followeth immediately the abusing of an other Doctor.  
S. Basil abused.  
And S. Basil saith: 
〈…〉  Christ appointed Peter to be Pastor of his Church after him: And consequently gave the same power unto all Pastors and Doctors. 
vita Solitaria c 23 quemad● modam ille.  A token whereof is this, that all Pastors do equally bind and loose as well as he.  
First let us see upon what occasion, 
Ra.  & to what end, these words are spoken. S▪ Basiles purpose in the whole Chapter out of which those words are taken was, to exhort unto obedience, such as lived in solitariness & excercise of perfecti●. hereupon he bringeth forth the authority of Scripture, saying, 
Rom. 13.  Let every man be subject unto the higher powers. Which Text, by his collection, proveth more strongly that Religious men should obey their Priors, than Temporal men the Princes of the world. Again, 
Heb. 13.  he allegeth Obey your Prepositors and be ye subject unto them.  
After this, he cometh to the Examples of Abraham, in the Old Testament, and the Apostles in the New: and 〈…〉 hanging upon Crosses, and diverse other things. But how? For their own sakes only? No, but Vt per eos formam relinqueret ●and● secuturae posteritati, that by them he might leave the same Example and Pattern, to the Posterity that should follow. 
How liketh M. jewel this Obedience?  What Pattern? Marry the Pattern of Obedience, that as the Apostles followed Christ through all Contradictions of the world, and Adversities, and Deaths: so should Religious men obey their Fathers and Superiors in all things. Then doth it follow.  
Atque hoc à Christo ipso docemur, 
Basil. c. 23.  dum Petrum Ecclesiae suae pastorem post se constituit. 
Conceit.   
And this we be taught of Christ himself, 
Monast.  when he appointed Peter to be the Pastor of his Church after him. What This, be we taught?  
Whether that one Apostle is as good as an other, or one bishop as high as an other, or the Curate of as great Authority as the Person, or the Person of as large a jurisdiction as the bishop?  
No. But that we should be obedient unto our Pastors. For thus it followeth in S. Basile.  
Quem admodum igitur. etc. Therefore like as Sheep obey the Shepherd, and go what soever way he will, so they that excercise themselves in godliness, must obey their Rulers, and nothing at all search their commandments curiously when they have no sin in them, but contrariwise to accomplish them with most readiness of mind and diligence. As if he should shortly have said:  
Christ appointed Peter and other after him in order to be Shepherds,  
Ergo Christ appointed such as were under their Charge to be as Sheep.  
But Sheep obey their Shepherd without making any inquisition upon his leading and guiding of them:  
Ergo we be taught obedience by Christ himself, in this also, that he made Peter the Pastor of the Church after him.  
To this end, by these means, S. Basile bringeth his discourse in the foresaid Chapter, which I have the more at large opened unto thee, that thou mayst see (Indifferent Reader) how little he intended to speak against the Pope's supremacy, or for the equality of Priests of bishops, that one of them should be as high as an other.  
What moved then M. jewel, to use S. Basil in this place? Or what words are they here, by which he con●irmeth his Assertion? His Assertion is y●, 
jew. 239  the old Catholic Fathers could never understand any such special Privilege of binding and losing, as M. Harding's Athanasius attributeth to the See of Rome? But how proveth he this? 
S. Basile for the supremacy.  Christ (saith he out of S. Basil) appointed Peter to be Pastor of his church after him. Note then, that Christ is First and S. Peter Next. And this maketh directly for the Supremacy. But it followeth.  
And so consequently gave the same power unto all Pastors and Doctors.  
Be it so. But what is consequently? How M. jewel taketh it, I can not tell, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in greek, which phrase S. Basile useth, signifieth the Pastors that follow in order and row after S. Peter. Now Order requireth, that although all be pastors, yet they may not take upon them, and rule confusely all in a clampe together, but every man in his place & degree, according unto the proportion of his Flock and Charge. And therefore this, hitherto proveth rather that the Pope of Rome, is the Chief after Christ, and that all other what so ever they be, go not cheek by cheek by him, & as worthy or Supreme as he, but every man in his order and degree after him. But this that followeth, is perchance altogether for M. jewel. what is that? Marry  
A token whereof is this, that all Pastors do equally both bind and loose as well as he.  
True it is M. jewel, 
Ra.  the most simple in all the world doth bind and loose, like as the Pope himself. But this is true, in such things, as are permitted unto his jurisdiction. For in some kind of Faults, the party must be referred unto the judgement of the Bishop▪ And in cases of Heresy, Breaking of vows, and Robbing of Churches, the Bishop hath not in his hands to absolve the offender, but the whole must be reserved unto the Pope. And therefore, although in such faults as every Prior or Priest may forgive or retain, the jurisdiction, which he excerciseth, be as effectual, as if S. Peter himself had absolved or bound the Parties: yet this is nothing against the special privileges above all others which are granted unto the See of Rome. As in example of five hundred Captains in a Field, Or five hundred Lords in a Country, every one commandeth the Soldier of his band, or Tenant of his land, and yet this is not prejudicial unto the worthiness & excellency of the General Captains and chief Lords. 
All that do one thing equally, are not of like Authority.  The Angels do all of them wait and attend upon God, and at the later Day, all the Elect shall have every one his penny and reward: yet the Cherubins are of higher Authority than the inferior Angels, and the Apostles shall be in greater Glory, than Confessors. What shall we say of Christ himself? 
joan. 20.  As my Father (saith he) sent me, so (end I you, And when he had said this, he breathed upon them, and saith unto them: Take ye the holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive them, they are forgiven them, and whose sins, ye do retain, they be retained. Here lo, you may see that he hath made the Apostles equal with him. How then? will you conclude that Christ is not supreme in his Church, and that he hath not the authority of binding and losing in a more high degree than any of his Apostles? Such yet is your divinity (M. jewel) that because all Pastors do equally bind & lose, therefore the Pope hath no special Privilege above other. But you lacked the understanding, that all do equally bind & lose in such cases and Persons, as are subjecteth unto them, And that, because every Bishop can not exercise the power of his Orders when and where it pleaseth him, therefore it is evident, that all are not equal, but that the Superiors may restrain the jurisdiction of the Inferiors, which is enough to prove a Supremacy.  
Thus hath M. jewel brought four several Ancient Fathers, all in a company together, to prove that, the B. of Rome hath no special Privilege above others of binding and losing. and there is not one of them all, which proveth that Conclusion. For S. Cyprian, is plain for one head, notwithstanding the equality of the Apostles in honour and power. Origen, and S. Cyril, speak not literally but mystically, And S. Basile last of all telleth such a Truth as every Catholic will confess, and is nothing contrary to the doctrine of the Supremacy, except there be so unsensible an heretic, that will think the lowest Minister in the congregation, to be as high in Authority as the greatest superintendant or general, because he preacheth and baptizeth, and ministereth the lords Supper, and burneth (if need be) in his opinion, in like sort as the Chiefest Superintendentes themselves do.  
And this vanity and falsehood of M. jewels, when he allegeth Ancient Father's words without their Sense, is so common, that I will be bound to make a whole book of his So saith S. Cyprian, and Therefore S. Jerome saith, and other such Idle Illations: if either it were not enough, to note only what he is, Or if my will and leisure served me so much, as to be occupied in so tedious A matter. But now let us go forward with the Doctors, and show how shamefully he hath abused them.  
Our Saviour (saith D. Harding out of S. Augustine) gave not commandment, in what Order the Sacrament should be received, meaning to reserve that matter unto the Apostles, by whom he would direct and dispose his Church.  
Ergo, the observation, of number of Communicants, of Place, of Time, of Order, Manner, and Circumstance in Receiving, dependeth of the Church's ordinance, and not of Christ's Institution.  
S. Augstine abused.  
S. Augustine speaketh not one word of any number. 
jew. 20.   
He speaketh of a power left with the Apostles, 
Ra.  to appoint in what order the Sacrament should be Received, but the Order and Manner of doing a thing, extendeth itself to all Circumstances: ergo to number also. And therefore it is no wrong dealing, to infer A particular upon the grant of the proper universal thereof.  
Again, whereas the blessed Apostle, after certain talk had about the Sacrament, 
1. Cor. 11.  concluded saying: Caetera cum venero ordinabo, As for the rest when I come myself I will set in Order, S. Augustine inferreth, unde datur intelligi●quia multum er at, ut in epistola 
Todispose and set 〈…〉  totum illum agendi ordinem insinuaret, quem universa per orb● servat ecclesia, ab ipso ordinatum esse quod nulla morum diversitate variatur. Whereof it is given us to understand, that it was ordained of the Apostle, that which is not varied by any diversity of manner & fashion, because it was, much for him to show in an epistle, all that order of Celebrating and Ministering the Communion, which the whole Church through out all the world doth observe.  
As who should say: If it had not been, that the Apostle had not place enough, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, to declare his mind at full: In what order, and with what Ceremonies and circumstances, he would have the celebrating of the mysteries to proceed, he would have left it in plain writing, how all things should be done: but because that was to much for an epistle, to receive, And because the order which he would have observed, was not so quickly appointed, as to Read A▪ Chapter or two of the Bible, and to tell the story of Christ's entering into his passion, and that done, to receive bread and wine in remembrance thereof, and to be thankful: therefore he promised to come himself, and set things in order: and therefore such orders and manners, as the whole Church hath and doth thoroughly use, about the celebration of the Mysteries, are to be thought to have come from the Apostles.  
Of these words then also (As for the rest when I come myself, I will dispose) it may, with good reason, be gathered, that the Apostle did prescribe orders and rules to be observed concerning Persons, Time, and Place, with other Circumstances, And that the Institution of Christ, stretched no further than to Consecration, Oblation and Participation of his precious body: And that one alone or many together to receive, was not, by Christ, appointed, but left to his Apostles to be ordered. But it followeth in M. jewel: that,  
S. Augustine in this place, 
jew. 20.  speaketh not one word of any number. But, only of the time of Receiving, whether it might seem convenient to minister the Communion after Supper.  
You be very bold, 
Ra.  either with S. Augustine, or with your Reader. Do ye call the speaking only of the time, 
●. Iew● boldness  where the question of time is not at all spoken of? Read the place who will, and if there be any such question entreated, as M. jewel reporteth, although I have many Arguments to the contrary, yet will I say he is an honest and true man.  
In the fifth chapter of that epistle, these questions are mentioned, whether upon good friday, Oblation and Sacrifice should be done twice, in the morning first, and then after supper, Item, whether the people should, first keep their fast, then eat that days meal, and last of all have the Oblation and Sacrifice made. Or, first keep their fast, and then have the Sacrifice made, and last of all go to their meals meat. To which questions his answer is, that every man should, in these points, do, as the use of the church is, unto which he cometh. Because there is nothing in them, against either Faith or good manners.  
In the next chapter following, out of which D. Harding took his testimony, the question & doubt is, not, whether one might Offer or Receive in the morning, or at evening (which pertaineth to time) but, whether he that had eaten the same day before, might afterwards either Offer, or Receive the body of Christ, which is A Question concerning the state of the Persons only, And not the quality of Time. 
The reverence given to the Sacrament.  Unto which, his answer is, that it hath pleased the holy Ghost, that for the honour of so great a Sacrament, the body of our Lord should first enter into the mouth of a Christian, before external and carnal meats.  
Now because the heretic might say (as some in these days uphold) where is it in all the Scripture, that a man should come fasting to the communion? And why might not one (if he would) receive after Supper, as the Apostles did, or in the Supper time, as the Corinthians did: S. Augustine meeteth with this objection, alleging that sentence which M. Harding to like effect used, and saying: That in what order the Sacrament should be received, Christ gave no precept thereof, but left that office to his Apostles.  
Let M. jewel now, defend himself, if he can, and prove, that he hath not falsely reported of S. Augustine, in the place of the Epistle ad ●anuarium, saying of him, that he speaketh not one word of the number (of Communicantes) but only of the time of Receiving.  
That he speaketh only of the time of Receiving, it is false. For these be his words: salvator non praecepit quo deinceps ordine sumeretur, ut Apostolis, per quos dispositurus erat, ecclesiam, seruaret hunc locum. Our Saviour gave no commandment, in what order it should be Received, to the intent he might leave that matter to his Apostles, by whom he would dispose his Church.  
Hereof I gather this Argument. The appointing of Order, how things should be done, doth extend itself to more, than appointing only of the time, in which it is to be done: 
S. 〈…〉  But, of the Authority left with the Apostles, to set an Order in Receiving of the Sacrament, S. Augustine doth speak, in his epistle 〈…〉 speaketh only of the time of receiving.  
S. Gregory abused.  
In the communion, 
Jow. 76.  As the people said the lords prayer altogether (as it is noted by S. Gregory) so they Received all together. 
impudency   
Are ye not ashamed so to say, 
Ra.  that it is noted so by S. Gregory? we have (I think) his epistles in the same pri●t as you have them, and the effect of that epistle, out of which, you have gathered this note upon S. Gregory, is, that he answereth certain persons, 
it agreeth not here. it to like▪ was a 〈◊〉 mass so long ago?  which thought it was unmeet, that he should go● about to keep under the Church of Constantinople, but his own Church. And of the Pater noster he saith: Dominica oratio apud Graecos ab omni populo dicitur, apud nos autem a solo Sacerdote. Our lords prayer is said among the Grecians, of all the people, but with us, it is said by the Priest alone.  
Here than I appose you again (M. jewel) was the Mass of S. Gregory's time, a Communion or Private Mass▪ (for you make an opposition between these two things). If it were a private mass, then must you yield and subscribe, because it is then found by your own confession, within the first six hundred years. 
I wonder what can be answered.  If it were a Communion, how say you, that the people said the communion prayer all together, as it is noted by S. Gregory, whereas you see him, so plainly, to testify, that in Rome, the Priest alone did say our lords Prayer?  
Yea (say you perchance) but it was otherwise among the Greeks, and in their Communion the people said the Lord's prayer all together. 
Ergo M. jew hath belied him  Yea, but S. Gregory noteth not only such point, and he speaketh not, of their communion, or not Communion. So that you be exceeding much to blame for abusing the names of holy Doctors so vainly, and making them to be counted to think that, which they do not speak.  
S. Cyprian abused.  
The Catholic Faith is, that the Church is not bound by the virtue of Christ's Institution, to deliver the Sacrament, under form of wine, unto the people. The heretics repined against it, and say, that by Christ's Institution the people should Receive the Cup also. But how will this be proved? By many old Fathers. But,  
In steed of many, 
jew. 106  for shortness sake, to allege but one, S. Cyprians words in this matter be very plain.  
Remember then, 
Ra.  what the matter is. You must prove out of S. Cyprian, that the people should Receive not in the one kind alone of Bread, 
Mark what is to be proved.  but of wine. also And if you (M. jewel) will not remember it, yet I pray thee (gentle Reader) to mark diligently whether he prove any such thing out of S. Cyprian.  
Some there be, 
jew.  that in sanctifying the cup, and delivering it to the people, do not that thing that jesus Christ our Lord and God, 
Cypri. li 2 Epist. 3.  the Author and Teacher of this Sacrifice, both did and taught.  
Surely, whosoever he be that doth so, 
Ra.  is much to blame. For Christ's Institution is to be observed. But the question is, whether to deliver the Chalice to the lay people, be of the necessity of Christ's Institution. But go ye further in S. Cyprian.  
He addeth further. 
jew.  If any man be in this error, 
Truly said, but to no purpose.  seeing the light of the Truth let him return again unto the Root, and unto the Original of the lords Tradition.  
This also is well done, so charitably to warn the deceived, 
Ra.  to return unto the truth. But I think it is not wisely done, to speak so generally of error and truth, our question being specially about one Article. But you have more to say out of S. Cyprian.  
And after in the same Epistle, 
jew.  we keeps not the thing that is commanded us, 
〈◊〉  unless we do the same that the Lord did.  
Here is much a do to prove, 
Ra.  that we must keep the institution of Christ, which we do not deny: but where is it ●ere, that give the Cup unto the people is Christ's Institution, so absolute, that they may not be served in one kind? Prove this, which we ask, out of S. Cyprian, and let that pass, which we nothing doubt of. It followeth.  
In these few words, 
jew.  S. Cyprian saith, the Lord both did it & taught it to be done. 
Craftily  He calleth it the lords commandment.  
What is this (it) of which you speak? 
Ra.  Why name ye not the thing itself, that we may know where about ye go? Say, if ye dare, that by this term (it) you understand the delivery of the Cup unto the people. If ye dare, how can you verify it, That the Lord did it? For Christ, 
M. jew. apprehended.  I am sure, gave not the Cup in his last supper to the people. If ye dare not, what honesty is this, to bring in so craftily into your conclusion, that, which was not proved by the premises?  
Is this the S. Cyprian, whom in steed of many you promised to allege? Is this the shortness for which sake you would allege but one Father? Call ye these words of S. Cyprians, very plain, for proof hereof, the Christ's Institution chargeth us to deliver the Cup also, unto the people, whereas he speaketh of no such controversy at al.  
M. Harding (you say) can not here steal 
jew.  away in the mist and say, S. Cyprian meant all this of the cup that the Priest consecrateth for himself. For his words be plain to the contrary, In chalice dominico sanctificando & ministrando, that is, in sactifieng the lords cup, and ministering it unto the People.  
Steal you away, 
Ra.  no more than D. Harding doth, and it will soon be perceived who is the thief. For in deed, you play that good fellows part, which being himself in danger of ●aking, would point to another that is guiltless, 
〈…〉  and did the standers by to look that he scape not away from them. As if he should say, my masters and friends, of all things I hate stealing and juggling. And see therefore I pray you, diligently to that fellow that goeth yonder, that he cast not a mist before your eyes, and so steal away.  
For that which you speak, as it were to take D. Harding, as though he would flee from that, which you imagine against him, that is nothing so. D. Harding will not, I warrant you, say, that S. Cyprian meant all that you have recited out of him, of the cup that the Priest consecrateth for himself. But as the Catholic Church leadeth him, he confesseth, that in the primitive Church the people received in both kinds. And therefore S. Cyprian speaking of the Cup sanctified and distributed unto the people, can not move him (which confesseth it, to be agreeable with that time) to steal away for the matter.  
But here is the question, whether this distributing of the Cup to the people, be That tradition, for keeping of which, S. Cyprian maketh, so justly, so many words? Do you mark this M. jewel? Steal not you, I pray you, away here in this place. We confess that the cup was delivered unto the people, in S. Cyprians time, but we ask now, whether S. Cyprian in this foresaid epistle, 
Answer directly  saith, that it is the Institution of Christ that it should be so. The fact we grant, but of the necessity of it, whether upon pain of God's Indignation, the people must have the Cup delivered unto them, that we demand, And to that you answer, that they must, And to that you apply these foresaid testimonies, making your Reader, to believe that the lords Tradition and the Lords commandment of which S. Cyprian speaketh so earnestly, 〈◊〉 meant of the delivery of the Cup unto the people.  
But, if there were no other argument to the contrary, what yet could be spoken more absurdly and idly? For if the Tradition of our Lord, which S. Cyprian mentioneth, is to be understanded of the delivery of the cup to the people, of which point only, our question is, then joe, when he saith: Some there be, that in 〈◊〉 the Cup. and delivering it unto the 〈◊〉, do not that thing, that jesus Chrifst both 〈◊〉 and taught. he should mean thus, that Some there be that in sanctifying the Cup and delivering it to the people, do not deliver it unto the people, as our Lord both did and taught. 
〈…〉   
And how then doth this gear hang together, that, in delivering it unto the people, they should not deliver it unto the people? Or, that S. Cyprian should reprove any man for not keeping of our lords tradition in delivering of the Cup to the people, whereas he plainly saith that it is sanctified & delivered, and yet, that our Lord's tradition is not observed? By which it is most evident, that the Tradition, which S. Cyprian in this place, so grievously taketh to be omitted, can not possibly be referred to the delivery of the Cup to the people, which he confesseth to be observed.  
And this much might be said with good reason, if S. Cyprians meaning were not to be found expressed in open words, within ten lines of these, which M. jew. hath rehearsed. But it is so evident, that even at the very beginning of the Epistle, he declareth▪ what the cause of his writing is, and what the fault is, which he would have amended. For the first Sentence thereof hath this sense.  
Albeit I know (most dear brother) that many Bishops do keep the Order and Rules of our lords Tradition, yet because some in sanctifying the Cup and delivering it unto the people, do not that thing, which our Lord both did and taught, I thought it good and necessary to write letters thereof unto you, that if any man be deceived, he may return, unto the Original of our lords Tradition.  
This is the first sentence, in which there is Generally signified a thing to be amiss, but what that is, it is not yet specially declared. And out of this one sentence, M. jew. peeketh an absolute Testimony, that it is Christ's Institution, that the people should have the Cup delivered unto them, because he loveth not the truth should be stolen away in a mist. The sense of the next sentence is,  
And think not (most dear Brother) that I write this upon mine own mind and will, but when any thing is commanded by the Inspiration of God, the faithful servant must obey.  
So that this hitherto is nothing but a preface or entrance to the matter. Then followeth the third sentence.  
Admonitos autem nos scias. etc. But ye shall understand, that we are warned (by special revelation from God) that in offering of the Chalice the Tradition of our Lord be kept, & that no other thing be done of us, than that which out ●ord did for us, first▪ that the Chalice which is offered in remembrance of him, should be mixed with 〈◊〉.  
Lo this is the state of the whole Epistle, and the Tradition & Commandment of God, which so oft & so earnestly he speaketh of, is referred to this end only, the wine & water should be offered up together in the Mysteries. And the fault which he findeth with the celebrating that some used, was, that they took water only into the Chalice, 
Wine and water to be mingled together in the Chalice is the Tradition and Commandment of Christ.  like as on the contrary side the Heretics now take only wine. Both which extremes the Tradition & Commandment of God (which S. Cyprian doth prove, by the old and new Testament most abundantly) doth so fully & perfitly confound, that as the Aquarij then were disproved, so the Vinarij now should be ashamed.  
But as concerning the dilivering of the Sacrament, in one or both kinds, he intended it not, nor determineth it. And this M. jewel perceived well enough, y● S. Cyprian in that Epistle was wholly bend against Aquarij (were they schismatics only or heretics) and, that the fault which he laboureth to amend in them, was, not for not giving the cup unto the people, but for giving water only in it, and not wine mixed with water.  
Where then was M. jewels wit to let go many fathers, 
〈…〉  which he would have it thought, to be for him, and, for shortness sake to allege only S. Cyprian, and, that S. Cyprian should speak nothing at all, of that question which properly is demanded of us, and to which we looked for an absolute and perfit answer from him?  
It is not credible but he saw well enough, what we could Reply, and therefore he provided this safeguard for his estimation. For thus he saith:  
If S. Cyprian might well write thus against 
jewel.  the Heretics called Aquarij, 
See the fetch, least 〈…〉  which in the holy ministration, would not use wine but in stead thereof did Consecrate water, and Ministered it unto the People, much more may we say the same against our Adversaries, which Consecrate and Minister unto the people, no Cup at al.  
What you may say, it is an other question, but we seek now, what S. Cyprian did say. If that Learned and blessed Father, whom you have alleged in stead of many, if he spoke nothing directly of our question, it is no matter to us, what you will Apply him unto, neither was it cunningly enough done of you, to bring him alone (whereas you had, except you bely yourself, copy) which maketh nothing at all for you, but by a consequence of your own devising.  
And yet this very Consequence of yours, 
M. jewels fetch, dissapointed  doth nothing follow. for to consecrate in water only, and to minister it so unto the people (which clause of ministering it unto the people, is in deed out of the matter which S. Cyprian discussed. But let it occupy a place, if you think it will ease you) To Consecrate (I say again) in water only, and to minister it so unto the people, is against the Tradition, Institution, and Commandment of our Saviour. And this is proved at large throughout the whole epistle of ●. Cypri●●.  
But, to consecrated the wine & water together, & not to minister it unto the people who is against it? what Scripture, council, or father? You say it is against Christ's Institution. We deny it. You made, as though you would prove it ou● of S. Cyprian. But S. Cyprian speaketh not of this question: yet, you say, y● as ●. Cyprian spoke against the Aquarios for 〈◊〉 in water only, and ministering it so unto the people: so may you much more speak against the Church, for ministering no Cup at all unto the people. I have showed how unlike this comparison is.  
But will you have a good Argument, and like to that of s. Cyprians? This it is.  
S. Cyprian justly found fault with the Aquarios for consecrating in water only, 
In Invincible Argument except M jew, will deny S. Cyprians authority which only he hath used in steed of many Fathers.  and ministering it so unto the people: Ergo, he would have found fault with your proceedings, which put wine only in the Cup, and minister it so unto the people.  
For the Reason on both sides is one, that the Tradition of our Lord, is to be observed, and that to Consecrate wine and water together, was his Tradition.  
Answer this Argument with all your cunning (Learned M. jewel) and answer your dear friends expectation, which will think, that you have not abused S. Cyprian. The judgement whereof, I permit, unto any reasonable Adversary.  
S. Augustine abused.  
S. Augustine, willing the Priests to apply their studies, 
jew. 156  to correct their errors of their Latin speech, addeth thereunto this Reason, Vt populus ad id quod planè intellig●t, dicat Amen. That the people unto the thing, that they plainly understand, may say Amen. This of S. A●gustine seemeth to be spoken Generally of all tongues.  
How can it seem so, 
Ra.  whereas he so expressly speaketh of the Latin tongue only?  
S. Augustine (you say) willing the Priests, 
jew.  etc. 
Ra.  This first of all is falsely reported. For S. Augustin in this place, 
False.  went not about to exhort the Priests to the study of the Latin tongue, as who should think that it were not to be suffered, A Priest or Bishop to be ignorant therein: but he showed, how such, as come fresh & fine from the Schools of Grammarians, and Rhetoricians, with knowledge and Eloquence enough of words, should, in their first entrance into the church, there to be instructed of the Catholic Faith, learn to be humble & wise in judgement, & not to contemn the Scriptures, because they be not writenin so lofty & exquisite a Style as profane books, nor to set more by flourish of words, than substance of Sense. And further he saith:  
Noverint 〈◊〉 n● esse vocem ad aures dei, sed animi affectum. it a enim no ●●●deb●t, si aliquos Antistites & 〈◊〉 Ecclesiae forte animaduerterint, vel 〈◊〉 barbarismis & solaecismis Den̄ muocare, vel ead● verba quae pronunciant non intelligere, ●turbate ●ue disi●●guere. that is, Let them understand al●s, that it is not the voice, that soundeth in the ears of God, but the ●artines and denotion of mind. For so they shall not laugh the Bishops and ministers of the church to scorn, if perchance, they shell perceive them to call upon God, either with barbarous and incongrae Latin: or else not to understand the words that they speak, either to point them out of order.  
To such therefore, S. Austin directeth his talk in the place, & maketh no exhortation at all to Priests, to learn their latin tongue better. And why should M. jew. dissemble the true persons, of whom s. Augustine there speaketh? I will tell you: 
〈…〉  There is not a place more plainer than this, if it be considered, to prove that it was not thought in S. Augustine's time, so necessary a m●t●r, that all things in the Church should be done in a known Tongue, as now it is avouched to be.  
For if the Public Service was every where executed, at that time, in the vulgar Tongue, or in a known one to the common people, although it were not their vulgar, how is it possible, that the bishops themselves, should be to seeking in the right pronouncing, & pointing, and understanding of that, which they openly said in the Church?  
The Sir john Lacklatines' (of which there is much speaking among the brothers) they have been such an occasion of ruin and perdition to the worldly wise, as none hath been greater. For the evil life of Priests, although it be A great Argument unto them, that the Religion is not effectual, which hath such holy on's in it: yet whiles they see in every kind of Protestation or Confession, 
Lack of knowledge doth more hurti this 〈…〉 lack of good li●e.  many such to be found, of whom they may well enough be ashamed, they temper their judgement, and will not utterly condemn a Religion for this cause only, that some Professors thereof be wicked.  
But when they see Public Service to be said of them which understand it not, and for them which are also as ignorant, this seemeth to be so absurd, that they can not conceive, how the Spirit of God should direct their doings, which see, and suffer, yea and defend, that Public Service may be done, in a tongue which the vulgar people do not understand. And in this point, they are so much the more vehement, because they see, how all the new Gospelers follow a contrary way, and use no learned Tongue at all in their Ordinary Service, but the vulgar and known Tongue of the Country, where they pitch. So that, the Protestants are counted herein, to work so sincerely, to speak so reasonably, and to challenge so invincibly, that thousands of the worldly wise, whiles they stand in their own judgement, fall in deed into everlasting per●ition, by the judgement of the blessed and learned Fathers.  
For, if all things must be done in the Church, so, as the people do understand what is prayed, how should that case ever be heard of in the Primitive Church, where some Bishops, understood not what they prayed in the open Church?  
May we think, that any of them, understood not the vulgar speech of his country? That is very incredible, because, unto the high office, of Ruling and teaching the whole People, 
That the Service was in S. Augustine's time in the latin Tongue which was unknown to y● vulgare● people.  he should not be chosen, which could not well be understanded of the people.  
But may we rather think, that the public Service, was in a learned tongue, sometimes not perfectly known of the bishop himself, like as unto the vulgar people it was not known? Of this, there is no doubt: Because in praying to God, devotion and not eloquntion is required, and because he might have a good grace, of preaching in his natural tongue unto the people, which yet had very simple understanding, of any Greek or latin writings: And because, it is plain by S. Augustine, that some such were in his tyme.  
How then (you will say) is Ignorance in a bishop to be suffered? I say not so, neither on the other side, I think that all is marred, except every man, woman and child may have the Bible in the vulgar Tongue. Or, that no Tongue is to be suffered in the Church of God, but that, which is the common and known tongue, of the Country. But as there is a difference between winking and staring, so is there a discretion and judgement to be used in this matter of Tongues of which we speak. And S. Augustine alloweth it not, that a bishop should not understand the Latin tongue in which he prayeth, neither yet doth he cry out against that lack of theirs, requiring that all Public Service should straightways be in the vulgar Tongue. For after he had told it, how some bishops pray in false and barbarous Latin, and understand not what they pray, he addeth further lest, you should think him to allow Ignorance, and saith:  
Non quia ista m●●me corrigenda sint, 
Aug. de Catethi. rud. ca 9  ut populus ad id quod plane intelligit, dicat, Amen: I would, that the fresh and trim Scholars, coming lately from their Eloquent Lessons, should not laugh the Bishop's to scorn, which speak in their prayers false Latin: not because these things were not to be amended in the bishops, to the intent the people might answer, Amen, to that which they clearly understand. (as who should say, I allow not their lack of knowledge: And it were well, that they did so speak, as the people understand them) Sed tamen pie toleranda sunt ab eis qui didicerunt ut sono in soro, sic voto in ecclesia benedici. but yet these lacks, are charitably to be borne withal, of them, which have learned, that as things are well said in court before judges, by sound (of voice) so are they well said in the Church, by vow of mind.  
Of which words I gather, that as he would wish it better, that the Bishops & Priests of the Church should so speak, as the people might understand: yet, he would not have the Service of the church utterly changed from the Latin tongue not understanded, to the vulgar tongue which nor Priest nor peole could be ignorant of. But, even those wants of some bishops and Priests, 
The Ignorance of the latin tongue in the Latin prayers is to be tolerated in A Priest or Bishop, & not moke●●  in the true Reading, Pointing, and Understanding of their Public Prayers, he would to be charitably borne and suffered, upon this consideration, that although in the ears of men, their words sound not plain and good, yet in the sight of God, the good affection of their heart is allowed.  
Now if S. Augustine had been of the Protestants mind, he would not have taken the matter so quietly, but with great Stomach would have said, away with this murmuring of prayers not understanded: away with this Latin and Strange tongue, which, 
S. Augu. would never have said so.  the Priest himself knoweth not, what it meaneth: Away with this lip labour: Let us have the Bible turned into the vulgar tongue, let every man come to the Church and sing Psalms to the Lord: let the people understand what is said: let us do as the Apostle commandeth us, let us speak with tongues: and so forth, with a great tale, out of the xiv. Chapter of the first to the Corinthians, altogether out of purpose.  
But, as it appeareth by this place, which I have opened, S. Augustine was of an other mind, & would have given such Protestants an other lesson, that they should not mock at poor Sir john's, which pray in latin and yet understand not latin, like as his counsel is, to eloquent and smooth tongued Gentlemen, that come from secular Schools, to the Church of Christ, there to be instructed.  
And because the opening of so much, would have been a great disadvantage to M. jewel and his fellows, therefore he speaketh only of Priests whom S. Augustine willed to correct the errors of their latin tongue, and dissimbleth the answer, which S. Augustine giveth to those jolly fellows, which would be ready to mock at Priests, because of their barbarous and false praying, in the Public Service. By which we understand, that the public Service was then in Latin, and that it was so straying also unto the vulgar people, that some of the Priests and bishops did not understand it.  
Of this also it followeth, that the conclusion which M. jewel peeketh out of this testimony of S. Austin, is so gross and unsensible, that I wonder where his wits were when he wrote it. Thus he saith.  
This of S. Augustin seemeth to be spoken generally of all tongues. 
jew.  
False and absurd.   
Seemeth it so in deed? 
Ra.  And do not yourself so understand the place in the very beginning of your alleging thereof, that you say, S. Augustine willeth the Priests to correct the errors of their latin tongue? If then it be the latin tongue by name, for which he reasoneth, how doth it s●me unto you that he speaketh generally of all Tongues?  
Again, if he spoke generally of all tongues, ergo of the Punic tongue. I ask you then, which of the two, it is like that the africans understood better, the African and Punic tongue, Or the Latin?  
If the African (as being their natural and vulgar tongue) was more familiar with them, why doth S. Augustine will the Priests to study the Latin tongue, that the people might understand them the better, whereas (by your account) they should have spoken in their own vulgar tongue, and so with less labour, the people should have been more edified?  
If the Latin was more familiar, how could any Priest or bishop in Aphrica, be so ignorant thereof, 
Here is no escape or shift for M. jew.  that he should not pronounce his Latin prayers, and understand them? Or, how doth S. Augustin seem to speak generally of all tongues, which extendeth out his Reason and argument, no not unto the Punik tongue? Here again I pray thee (Indifferent Reader) to consider, whether M. jewel hath not clerckly alleged the Doctors.  
S. Irenens abused.  
S. Ireneus, hath a manifest tastimonie for the Supremacy of the Church of Rome. 〈◊〉 Church (saith he) must resort 
Lib. 3 Cap. 3.  to this Church of Rome, because of the mightier Principality of the same. And this place troubleth M. jewel very much, as it appeareth by the extravagants, and idle discourses, which he maketh about it. But out of his Answers is this, that,  
The Principality that Ireneus meant, 
jew. 244.  was the Civil Dominion and Temporal Sta●e of the City of Rome, 
Impudence or blindness.  in which God had then planted the Empire of the world, and made all nations subject unto it.  
See the impudency or blindness of the man. 
Ra.  Are ye not very carnal in your judgement, and make ye not the like arguments, as the worldlings do? What society, between light and darkness? and what participation, between Christ and Belial? what hath the everlasting kingdom, to depend upon the transitory and temporal kingdom▪ And why should the wealth or dominion of any City diminish or increase the Estimation of any one Church?  
Consider I pray thee, Indifferent Reader, what a wise interpreter M. jewel is? He maketh the learned Father ●. Ireneus to have this dull & gross sense in him. 
M. jew. a gross in terpretour  All the Churches of the world must resort unto the Church of Rome, because the civil dominion and state thereof, is the greatest in the world, Or thus, All the faithful in the world, must resort to S. Peter's Successors, because the Roman Emperors, are the migthtiest Princes in the world.  
By what consequence? The cause undoubtedly, which should move the Faithful to come to Rome, must have been spiritual and not temporal. They should have resorted thither, to be instructed in their faith, against the heresies that troubled their understanding, and not to ask any Counsel, or seek any worldly benefit,  
Again, in this one sentence, S. Ireneus doth twice name Ecclesiam Church. If therefore in the first place, 
〈…〉  M. jewel will have the Civil dominion of Rome to be understand by, hanc Ecclesiam, this Church: th●n is it reason that he mean by omnem ecclesiam every Church (which words fo●●● in the sentence) the Civil dominion in every part of the world. But S. Ireneus by every Church, understandeth as himself expoundeth it, eos qui undique sunt fideles, the faithful that are every where about: Ergo by Ecclesiam the Church, in the former part of his sentence, he meaneth the company of the Faithful that are in Rome, of which the Bishop there is the principal head.  
I add further, If the Principality of the Civil dominion in Rome, did seem a worthy cause unto the learned and ancient Father Ireneus, why all Faithful should resort chief thither, than which Conclusion, he thought nothing less, yet if M. jewel will needs have that consequence, how chanced it, that, when Constantine the great, gave place to S. Peter, and went with his Principality of Civil dominion unto Const●ntinople, that all the Churches of the world did not for all that so resort unto the Church of Constantinople, but that the Church of Rome continued still in her Supremacy?  
As for that which you say, 
jew. 244.  that principalis Ecclesia is sometime used of old Fathers, to signify the civil dominion and principality of the City, where the Church is: (although in the Examples which you bring, in the first of them. 7. qu●s●. 1. placuit principalis cathedra, 
〈…〉  doth properly signify a spiritual office & not a worldly dominion, And in the second, inter epi●tolas Augustini 35. epi. although the word principalis, be referred to Alipius as bishop) yet let me grant so much, and consider your di●ine Logic. After the alleging as the foresaid testimonies, which in deed make quite against you, you conclude saying.  
Thus the principality that Iren, meaneth, 
jew.  stood not in the preaching of the Gospel, but in the civil estate and worldly dominion, not in the Bishop that professed Christ, but in the Emperor that was an heathen, not in the Church, but in the persecutors and enemies of the Church.  
 
If you would have said▪ Ireneus taketh Principalitas in this sense, Ergo, Paulinus in using the word Principalis, may be interpreted to have the like sense: Although this also were no good Argument, when the word hath more than one or two Relations: yet in the descending from the superior to the inferior, there might appear a show of likelihood. But this Logic passeth in deed (for it is M. jewels) that Paulinus which was borne three hundred years after Ireneus, useth the word principalis in this sense, Ergo Principalitas of which Ireneus speaketh stood not in the bishop that professed Christ, but in the Emperor that was an heathen.  
Thus thou maise see (Indifferent Reader) what fowl shifts, and devices, and lies, M. jewel had made to turn away the Authority of Ireneus, that it should not be taken for the Principality of the Church of Rome. But his conclusion is notable. 
jew.   
To be short (saith he) If the Church 
The cause of the Supremacy is not desperate. M. jewel will allow it on condition.  of Rome would now faithfully keep the Traditions, and Doctrine of the Apostles, we would frankly yield her all that honour, that Ireneus giveth her: but she hath shaken of the yoke of Christ.  
O good men. It was then, by likelihood, 
Ra.  for pure love of God and godliness, that you are departed from the See of Rome. There were so few Sacraments, and those of so little effect, there was so little Fasting, Watching, Praying, so little chastity, Discipline, and Order, that you could not abide to live so loosely, but would needs take an yoke upon you, to keep your bodies low (by carrying your yoke●elowes about the Countries with you be●ides other burdens) And to keep your spirits humble (by obeying, neither spiritual nor temporal jurisdiction). For the Saxons in Germany, the Hugonots in France, the Guses in Flaunders and Brabant, which of late, because the yoke was not heavy enough upon their shoulders, have (I can not tell for what penance sake) made themselves great farthels and packs of Church goods, and sweat again with the carriage of them away, were not they, and are not these, Cusson germans unto you?  
But you will do more for Christ's sake than this. You will be content, I perceive, to go even to Rome itself, upon certain conditions. And what are they? Forsooth, if the church of Rome would keep the Traditions & doctrine of the Apostles, than ●o, you would frankly honour it. And, is this possible? Traditions you know, are verities and orders not written in the Scriptures, but delivered without writing. And is there any thing which you will frankly bear, except it be written in express Scriptures? Surely, I can 〈◊〉 believe it, yet if ye would, upon conditions give the honour to the Church of Rome, which S. Ireneus absolutely gave, without any such cautels, you are not so unlike to be a Papist as I thought you were.  
For let us suppose it, that as you would with, so all the Traditions and Doctrine of the Apostles, were faithfully kept in Rome, would ye frankly yield her, all honour that Ireneus giveth her? helm then, if 〈…〉 or any other Heretics, would devise 〈◊〉 of their own, & trouble the Church of England with them, would ye go to Rome for the matter, and ask of the Civil Estate there▪ Or the Emperor if he were a heathen, Or of the persecutors 
M. jew. would not do as 〈◊〉 saith.  or Enemies of the Church (if such fellows had dominion there) would ye ask of them, what should be thought of the Old Heretics newly upstarted?  
If ye would go to them that have no Religion, to 〈◊〉 counsel of them about For, concerning plain be●●sies, we are now so accustomed to read them & hear them, that they are not strange v●to us, but, when hypocrisy is joined with heresy, Or when verity is dissembled through ●eare or 〈◊〉, there we are desirous to have the party examined, And con●●re●ned, either ●la●●ly to confess his here●●e, Or faithfully to stand with the verity.  
Shortly therefore to you M. jewel.  
If you would honour the Church of Rome in like sort as S. Iraeneus chargeth all the faithful to do, how 〈◊〉 ye give to the ●●nges of England, and that by the ●●●esse scriptures (as you interpret them) such Supremacy in matters ecclesiastical, as can not stand possibly with the going to Rome, 
〈…〉  in any question of Faith? For by Aet of Parliament, and your own oth●●, and the practice of the Realm, there is no 〈◊〉 power that hath to do with the Church of England. And therefore, were Rome never so per●●●●, no greater Principality could be attributed to the Church of Rome, than the ●ing of England hath, whom you behold to be 〈…〉.  
On the other side, if ye will defend still that, which hitherto ye have set ●●rth, by Laws, Oaths, Sermons, 〈…〉 etc. What an Hypocrite are you, so to speak as though ye would, as frankly yield to the Church of Rome principal honour, as arenous both earnestly require it, that for the 〈…〉 all Church's 〈◊〉 for trial of true doctrine, resort unto it.  
〈…〉 you of these days have them in contempt & dishonour, therefore you speak of no more than the Temples built in their remembrance. And yet this very building of Temples, in the honour of Martyrs, it seemeth not that you like very well, whereas unto any one of your so stinking a company of Martyrs, 
〈…〉  we hear● of no gro●nd that you have meat●● out as ye●, to lai● therein y● 〈◊〉 of any Pulpit. House, or 〈◊〉, of your Champions.  
Now to the sense of S. 〈◊〉 words. Why do they not go to the Mar●●●? Why 〈◊〉 they not to the Church? That is▪ as you (M. jewel) understand him, 〈◊〉 Receive they at home, and not at Church? But this is not S. hierom's meaning. For he reproveth not their Receiving at home, but their Receiving at home the next day that followed their nights pleasure taking of their Wives. 
S. 〈◊〉 reproveth not Recc●●uing at home.  Mark that Circumstance, and you shall quickly perceive, that you are deceived, or have deceived.  
For take the whole Sentence with you. 
〈…〉 Apologia  I know (saith S. Jerome) ●hat this Custom is in Rome, that the faithful do receive daily the Body of Christ. And what say you than to that Custom? 
adversus iovinianum  He Answereth. Q●●d nec reprehends, 〈…〉. which thing I neither reprove nor allow, for every man aboundeth in his own sense.  
What shall we say then to this case? If a man be sufficiently prepared, and 〈◊〉 the Sacrament in his own house at home, and never go to the 〈…〉 for it pertained not to the question of 〈…〉, of which he there consumeth. Yet, M. jewel thinketh, that S. Jerome Answereth this foresaid question, and that he maketh a full determination thereof, with an earnest reprouf of the parties offending against it. As if S. Hierom should say to the Romai●ts: 
〈…〉  what mean you to doubt in this plain matter? Or why should ye think that Receiving at home were lawful? Do ye not know that the lords supper is ● Communion, and must not be taken of one alone? Why dare ye not go to the Temples of the Martyrs▪ Are ye afraid of 〈◊〉? Why go ye not to the Church? Is not that, the proper place, to Receive the Communion in?  
Such a Comment would M. jewel make upon S. Jerome, And to this effect, he draweth his earnest and sharp Interrogations. But the case unto which S. Hieromes words do rightly answer, is only this. Whether he, that hath had carnal knowledge of his Wife the night before, do not well to abstain the next day from going to the Memories of Martyrs, and the Churches abroad, Or whether he may not Receive the Sacrament at home? To which his Answer shortly is this, that he may as well receive at church as at home, and that he should do well not to receive at all, the day following the night of his carnal pleasure, which his wife.  
For after he had said, that he would neither reprove nor commend the Custom of daily receiving of the faithful of Rome: he cometh in with an adversative But, in this sort: Sed ipsorum conscientiam convenio, qui eodem die post coitum communicant etc. Quare ad Matyres ire non audent? Quare non ingrediuntur ecclesiaes? But yet I appose their conscience, which communicate the same day after they have carnally known their Wives. Why dare they not go to the Martyr's Memories? Why go they not to Church? Is Christ one abroad, an other at home? That, which is not lawful at Church, is not lawful at home. To God nothing is hidden, ye● darkness also shineth before him. Let every one examine himself, & so come to the body of Christ.  
To this end therefore S. Jerome bringeth his whole Argument, not, that it were simply to be reproved to rece●ue at home, but, that such as had companied with their wi●es the night before, should not the day after Receive at home, considering that they are worthily abashed to come before the Martyr's Relics after such nights, and that Christ is to be honoured, above all, and in all places, both at home and abroad. Of which conclusion it would follow, that Matrimony is not so good as virginity, which was one of the heresies of the Protestant joninian, whereas by the Act of Matrimony, the party is made for a time unmeet to Receive the blessed Sacrament.  
judge thou now (Indifferent Reader) whether S. Jerome doth earnestly reprove the custom of Receiving at home, without any addition of such Circumstance as varieth the whole question.  
S. Angustine abused.  
●ho is he (saith D. Harding out of S. Augustine) that knoweth not, that the Principality of Apostleship, is to be preferred before any Bishopric that is? Which words S. Augustine speaketh, because of a comparison which he made, between S. Peter and S. Cyprian. For whereas the Donatists, did much object against the Catholics, that S. Cyprian, with many other his Felowbishopes, concluded and determined in a Counsel had among themselves, that such as were baptised of heretics should be rebaptized again, when they came to the Catholic Church, by which Authority of S. Cyprians name & other Bishops many, they thought to bear down the papists before them: S. Austin, like an holy & reverend father, contemneth not the Authority of S. Cyprian, but preferreth the authority of S. Peter, before it.  
Now, these foresaid words making expressly for the Principality of the Apostleshipe which was in S. Peter, what saicth M. jewel unto them? Marry his first Answer is that Principatus Principality, doth not signify an universal power, 
jew. 249 Spoken grammatically.  Of which Answer we have already spoken, but shortly, this may be repeated, that although Principatus, put alone by itself, doth not signify always an universal power (for in every degree of act and art the best hath the Principality, and yet he shall not be Pope or Emperor) yet Principatus Apostolatus, the Principality of Apostleshipe, 〈◊〉 declare, that in that Order itself of Apostles, he that hath the Principalititie is the Chief. And surely then, the Chief among the 〈◊〉 which were heads of the world, must needs be Supreme Governor over all Christendom. And thus much shortly concerning M. jewels first Answer. The second Answer, or not answer properly, but Ca●●laud and quarrel, is, 
jew. 250   
That M. Harding dissimbleth the words, that S. Augustine in the very same place allegeth out of S. Cyprian, very well serving to this purpose. 
Ra.   
To what purpose? To prove that there is no Supremacy in the Church? 〈…〉  
The words be these, Nec Petrus vendicavit etc. Neither did Peter challenge any thing, 
〈…〉  or proudly presume of himself, to say, that he had the primacy, and that therefore others, as Nou●●es and Vnderlinges should be Obedient unto him. All these things M. Harding dissimbleth.  
Is this it, that very well serveth to the purpose? Doth the omitting of this sentence, 
Ra.  make D. Harding A Dissimbler? In these words, as you allege them, I see the humility of S. Peter much commended, but I see not the Principality of his Apostleshipe disproved. Wherefore then should D. Harding have alleged them, or why lay you dissimulation to his charge, for omitting that, which if it had been uttered, had nothing hindered the Principality of Apostleship, which he sought to declare?  
But I pray thee (Indifferent Reader) to consider M. jewels sincerity in this place. In this place I say, where he 〈◊〉 it again an● again, and triumpheth upon it, 
Mark this place again and again.  that M. Harding dissimbleth, and that to fournisshe out his matter, and to smooth his Reader, he leaveth out, what he listeth.  
O the Truth that is in M. jewel. It seemeth by him, that if he might win whole kingdoms, be would not leave out any jot of Chapter, that should very well serve to the purpose. 
This that followeth will try it.  But is he not deceived in his own opinion of himself? Is not he himself properly a dissembler?  
Behold what be hath done. In this very sentence, for leaving out of which, he noteth D. Harding, himself leaveth quite and clean out those words, which if he had interpreted, as he did the rest of the sentence, it should easily have been perceived, that D. Harding had no cause to dissemble. What m●a●e I here by? Marry this I mean, that this sentence, which M. jewel would have to be taken, as qualifying and diminishing, the Principality of Apostleshipe, by which D. our Lord chose him to be first, and that vpp●n him he builded his Church. 〈…〉.  
But will A man see a dissembler? You M. jewel are he. And that in this 〈◊〉 place where you are busy in finding fault with other for dissembling. 
〈…〉  These words, M. jewel, touching S. Peter, Whom our Lord chose to be first or Chief, and upon whom he builded his Church, Did ye not see these words M. jewel? How could ye but see them, whereas they stand in that sentence which you so much tied, that for not speaking of it, you ●ind fault with D. Harding? The beginning and end of which, whereas you interpreted unto the Reader, how could ye but see the middle? And therefore seeing the words, and yet skipping them, who now is the dissembler, if we may come before equal I●dges? The words which you leave out, are not light, they are not impertinent to the question of the Supremacy, they are plain and evident, that Our Lord chose Peter to be first or Chief, and that upon him, he builded his Church. And yet you (good man) have dealt plainly, in leaving them out altogether.  
And now, because such dissimulation is very wicked, and 〈◊〉 your honesty (M. jewel) may the better be noted, I will bring one place more out of the Doctors, in which I will show, that you have abused them in this special point of dissembling, and Smoothing your Reader, and leaving out what listeth you.  
S. Ambrose abused.  
To prove, that S. Peter's Supremacy was no greater than his fellows, you allege S. Ambrose after this sort. 
jew. 246 Most shameful dissimulation and craft.  Even so saith S. Ambrose too, and that, in the very same place that M Harding hath alleged. Inter Petrum & Paulum quis cui praeponatur, incertum est. Of Peter and Paul whether ought to be preferred before other, it is not known.  
Doth S. Ambrose speak these words, 
Ra.  as doubting which were higher in dignity 〈…〉  
 
How say you then, doth not this plainly declere, that the doubt in which S. Ambrose was, 
〈…〉  whether of the two ought to be preferred before the other, came not of ignorance of that point, which concerned the Supremacy of the See and Church of Rome, but of this which pertaineth to their personal deserts and merits. In which, he thinketh that the one was equal with the other?  
And wherefore then have you left out those words that followed so immediately, by which the true and right understanding of the place might be perceived? Is not this crafty dissembling? Will you say that you did not see so much, whereas so much followeth immediately in S. Am●rose? Or can you say that you thought it little to serve to the purpose, whereas the true Answer to you● Objection, is thereby uttered and expressed? But let us come nearer.  
Not six lives before this place of which you would have your Reader to gather, that S. Peter had no greater Supremacy than S. Paul, thus saith S. Ambrose after a short discourse made upon S. Peter and Paul. Ambo igitur clau●s à Domino perceperunt, Scientiae iste. ille potentie. So then both of them have received 〈◊〉 of our Lord, S. Paul of science, S. Peter of power.  
Consider now of this place, Indifferent Reader, was S. Ambrose in any doubt, which of the two, S. Peter or S. Paul was to be preferred? He was, 
〈…〉  and he was not. Concerning their godliness and Merit●s, he knew not whom to prefer before the other, but thinketh them to be equal therein. Concerning Authority and Office, 
〈…〉  he knew how to give each of them his own, preferring S. Paul for his knowledge, and S. Peter for his power. It is not therefore simply true, as M. jewel rehearseth the words of S. Ambrose, that, whether of them ought to be preferred before the other it is not known. For if he would have looked to that, which went but a little before, he should have readen the keys of Science given to S. Paul, and the keys of power to S. Peter.  
What say we then to this blindness or Craft? Is M. jewel that fellow, that doth not dissemble? Doth not he take what him liketh, and refuse what him listeth? He beginneth sentences where him pleaseth. He endeth senses when he is disposed. The middle of sentences, he leaveth quite and clean out, That which went before or cometh after, he looketh nothing unto, such is his Simplicity. To make himself the less suspected, he findeth (without just occasion) fault with other for leaving out I can not tell what. To be short, there was never, I think, an Heretic so full of words, so untrue in words, so fair spoken, so foully intending, so much alleging Ancient Fathers, so little regarding any Authority, So precise in appealing to phrases, terms, and titles, And so lose in abusing the sense and the meaning of his Witnesses. And thus much concerning the Ancient Fathers.   

How M. jewel hath abused the Later Writers.  
TO speak of the Later writers, whom M. jewel hath all used, I have no great mind, because if I prove, never so plainly, any article of the Catholic Faith by them: that anaileth nothing unto them, which utterly refuse all Late writers, at their pleasure. Yet that M. jewel may hereafter, use more Truth and Sincerity in his writings, he shall perceive that they are like to be marked, how tedious 〈…〉 them through his he●ps of 〈◊〉: I will begin the Chapter unto which, such his abusing of Late Writers is to be referred, as shall be ●ound ●as●ly in his writings.  
And first, concerning holy and 〈◊〉 Fath●rs though not so old as others, I will b●ing in S. Bernard as M. Jewel saith, but as the Truth is 〈◊〉: I● the second Place 〈◊〉 de Halely for Schoolmen: In the third Polid●●e Uergile, ●or humanitians, that 〈◊〉 few k●●de of Writers M. jewel spares, it may easily be perceived in E●am●ples. As thus▪  
〈◊〉 abused.  
Men and Women made the Sacrifice of the Altar, 
〈…〉  and that of Bread & wine. And therefore a●ter the order of Melchi●edech. Therefore S. B●rnard saith, Non solus Sacerdos sacrific at, sed totus conventus Fidelium, not o●ly the Priest Sacrificeth, but also the who●▪ Cumpanie of the Faithful.  
Is it possible that S. Bernard might s●y so? 
Ra.  An Abbo●●, A Saier of Mass, A notable Papist? 〈◊〉 is it possible that M. jewel, ●ath in all his art, any shift to defend 〈…〉 place from lying?  
First it is most evident, that S. Bernard hath no such words. 
In any of these two points M. jew. may be apprehended.  The Sermon which M. jewel referreth us unto, is the holy Fathers Guerricus Abbot of Igniacum.  
Then, neither he saith as M. jewel concludeth. For why? there is not in all his Sermon, any mention of Bread and Wine offered at the Altar, Or, to the Altar, by men and women, Neither of the Order of Melchisedech.  
Of the offering up of Turtles and Doves, he speaketh, but he meaneth not of the birds themselves, but of the virtues represented by them: as Chastity of body and soul, Compunction of heart, Simplicity, Patience, Charity, & such like. Whereupon he inferreth, concerning Priests, saying:  
Such manner of men it becometh us to be, 
Guerricus in Ser. de purificatione.  when we Consecrate the Body of Christ etc. And concerning the laity: Such manner of men also it behoveth you to be, which receive of our hands, the holy Sacrament, etc.  
Now because it might be objected, that it is for Priests to have the foresaid virtues, Or that it is their charge only, to prepare themselves, lest they receive the Sacrament unworthily (as though the standers by, had little to do with him in those matters) he answereth, We must not believe that the foresaid virtues are necessary for the Priest only, as though he alone should Consecrate or offer the Body of Christ. He doth not sacrifice alone, he alone doth not consecrate, 
A point of M. jewels art.  but all the company of the faithful (and here M. jewel maketh a full and a fowl point) that standeth by doth consecrate with him, doth sacrifice with him.  
But how? After the order of Melchisedech, Or, by their own Act & Priesthood, as M. jewel gathereth? Surely, except Guerricus himself had made it plain, in what sense the Priest and the People do offer, no doubt, but M. jewel in this place, would outface us, that this Abbot meant, that men and women were Priests after the order of Melchisedech. Notwithstanding that it is not said, the culpani of the faithful do consecrated, as though they might do it by themselves, but they consecrate with him (the Priest) signifying the Office to be singular. And it followeth in the Sermon.  
Neither the Carpenter alone doth make a house, but one bringeth rods, an other rafters, an other posts or beams and other things. By which Similitude, it is manifest, that the people consecrate, in this sense, that they bring somewhat to that end. And what is that? By this that followeth it will be understanded. For thus he concludeth.  
Therefore the standers by, aught to have of their own, even as the Priest ought? What? A Cope trow you M. jewel, upon their backs, or a Surplice like Ministers, or power and Authority of Priesthood? No. but, a sure faith, a pure prayer, a godly devotion. Where then is the Bread and Wine, 
Answer to this point.  or the Order of Melchisedech, which you would prove to per●eine to the common people with, Therefore S. Bernard saith, or Otherwise called Guerricus.  
Here is a Conclusion without Premises, And a comparison without any likelihood. And A falsification without truth or honesty.  
Alexander of Hales abused. 
jew. 98.   
The people taking but one kind only receiveth injury, as M. Harding may see by Alexander de Hales, and Durandus, & other of his own Doctors. Alexander's words be these. Licèt illa Sumptio, etc. Although that Order of Receiving the Sacrament▪ which is under one kind, be sufficient, yet the other which is under both kinds, is of greater merit.  
All this, 
Ra.  M. jewel, is true: but this proveth not, that the people have any injury done unto them. For to Receive ●nder one kind, it is sufficient by Alexander's express words: but undoubtedly, 
〈…〉  if any thing lacked of that which were d●e▪ there were not sufficiency: Ergo, how prove you by Alexander, that the people are Injuried, in receiving under one kind?  
You will Reply out of him, that it is of greater merit to receive in both kinds, than one. And what of ●hat? It is a greater merit to Celebrate thrice a day (as at Christmas) then once, 
〈…〉  as Ordinarily Priests do use. Do ye think then, that any Priests have Injury done unto them, because the Order is otherwise, that they say but one Mass in one day, except one day only in the year?  
Again I say, that Alexander noteth a greater merit to be in Receiving under both than one kind, not in respect of the Sacrament, which is as perfit in one as both, and in the least part of one, as the whole: but in respect of the Receivers, because their devotion is increased, and their Faith dilated by longer continuing in th● Act of Receiving, and their Receiving is more Complete as being ministered in both kinds. And as the causes on the behalf of the Receiver, do make it, to a person so disposed, more effectual, to Receive in both than one: So other causes there be, which do make the Receiving under one kind, to be to the party so affected, more fruietful and meritorious, than if he took both. For, 
〈…〉.  he that would say unto himself, I will content myself with the common Order of the Church, I will not make any Stir about both kinds, knowing y● as much is under one as both: undoubtedly such a man should both for his Humility, and for his Faith, deserve more a great deal, then if he should Receive in both kinds, and find a certain sense and taste of Denotion.  
The strength therefore and efficatie which Alexander speaketh of, depending upon the Act of the Receiver, and not upon the Virtue of the Sacrament, which is all one in effect, whether it be ministered in one or both kinds: M. jewel doth very injuriously, to put a fault herein, that they Receive not under both, & to make Alexander of this opinion, that to minister in one kind, were an Injury unto the people.  
For this I would ask further of him, whether the simple and devout people, are not more stirred up to remember the Death and Blo●d of Christ, 
A Case to M. jew.  if they should Receive in Claret or Red Wine, than in White? No doubt, but the imagination would be more affected and moved, by seeing a like colour unto the which it would conceive, than a contrary or diverse colour. How then? Would M. jewel think it an Injury to minister in white wine unto the people, though they would be desirous of Red? He should not think it, if he be wise. And why so? Marry, because they have as much in the White as the Red, and to receive in Red, hangeth upon their private devotion, & not upon any precept of the Church, or doctrine of the Apostles, or Institution of Christ, to which only, the Priest is bound, and which, if he observe, he doth his duty,  
Be it so then, that many good ●olke for diverse causes, should be exceedingly moved and edified, by drinking of the Chalice, and contemplating of more than is Ordinary in their mind: should they have any Injury done unto them, if they received afterwards, when the Priest should judge it expedient, under the form of bread only? Neither doth Alexander de Hales so say, neither any reason doth make for it. But let us see an other place of Alexander, which M. jewel hath abused.  
The same Alexander again saith, 
jew. 99 Shamefully abused.  Totus Christus, etc. Whole Christ is not contained under each kind by way of Sacrament but the flesh only, under the form of bread, and the blood under the form of wine.  
The words can not be denied to be Alexander's, 
Ra.  but what se●se gathereth M. jewel of them?  
Here M. Harding's own Doctors confess, 
Few. Open Lie  that the people Receiving under one kind, receiveth not the full Sacrament, nor the blood of Christ by way of Sacrament.  
You understand not Alexander, 
Ra.  or you will not. For, whereas he saith: Christ is not contained under each kind Sacramentally, he meaneth not, that the people Receive not the Full Sacrament and their own Maker, god and Man, under each kind: but by this word Sacramentally, he meaneth, that concerning the form of words, by which consecration is perfected in each kind, and by external form of the Signs under which Christ is exhibited, the flesh only is contained under the form of Bread, and the blood under the form of Wine As, when Christ said: This is my blood: the words which we hear, do signify no more than Blood to be there present, And the external Sign and liquor of wine, doth represent a presence of blood only. And this is that ●hich Alexander meaneth, by the word Sacramentally, when he saith, Whole Christ is not contained under each kind Sacramentally. For he speaketh of the representation only which is made to our senses, by exter●al words & Signs, and not of the thing itself and substance of the Sacrament, which is apprehended by Faith.  
Now that Alexander was not of this mind, which M. jew. would make him to be of, that whole Christ should not be received under each kind, though whole Christ were not signified by the sound of the words of Consecration in each kind, it is manifest by the next article in him, 
q. 4●. Mem. 3. art. 3.  where he concludeth, that, Christus integer Deus & homo est sub specie Panis, Whole Christ God and Man is under the form of Bread. And, both sayings are true, that whole Christ is not under each kind▪ if ye consider only the Sign of the words that are spoken, 
Let M. jew. distinct things rightly and he shall perceive quickly his own ignorance.  or the things that are showed (for in saying, this is my body, no mention is made of blood). And again, that, whole Christ God and man is under the form of Bread, if ye consider the matter Really.  
Alexander therefore, speaketh no otherwise in this point, than it becometh A faithful and Catholic man to do. And M. jewel doth no otherwise, than he is wont to do, but otherwise surely than becumneth an honest and learned man, specially having no need to allege any Schoolmen, and less need to corrupt them, when he allegeth them.  
Polidorus Uergilius abused.  
S. Cyprian calleth the Church of Rome, 
Cyp. lib. 1. Epist. 3.  Ecclesiam principalem, unde unit as Sacerdet alis exorta est, the principal Church, from whence the Unity of Priests hath sprung. Out of which testimony M. jewel gathereth A force, as it were, of two Arguments that might be made, the one in that it is called, Ecclesia principalis, the principal or chief Church: the other because it followeth, unde unitas Sacordotalis exorta est (which words D. Harding doth interpret thus) from whence the unity of Priests is sprung. M. jewel thus, from whence the unity of the Priesthood first began. In which his Interpretation there is a plain falsehood and craftiness.  
For in repeating the words, and in writing of them, so as if they were D. Harding'S, it becummed him to deliver them forth in the same form, as he ●ound them in D. Harding. Then, whereas it is not all one to say, the unity of Priesthood sprang from Rome, and the unity of Priesthood began first at Rome (for there may be springs two or three in one place, and although the water issue not out, first at the lowest, yet the lowest of the three may be the chief head unto all the rivers beneath) M. jewels intent was not simple, to cast in this word (first) into the sentence, as though the question were, not whether the Chief Priest in all the world were at Rome, but, whether the first Priest in all the world began at Rome. 
Craft in chainging and interpreting.  Between which two propositions, there is a great difference.  
But what saith M. jewel to these words, unde unitas Sacerdotalis exorta est, from whence the unity of Priesthood first begun, as he englisheth it for a vantage?  
For that these words seem for to weigh much, 
Jow. 305  I think it good herein to hear the judgement of some other man, that may seem Indifferent.  
Why should Polidore Uergile be Indifferent? 
Ra.  He lived not fifty years since he was a collector to the Bishop of Rome, and therefore to you not Indifferent. And to us on the other side, not Indifferent, because this very book de Inuen●or●●●s rerum, is condemned by the General Council at Trent. But you ha●e found somewhat in him by likelihood, which maketh for you, that you esteem of him so well. And what is that, I pray you? We ask you for the Answer to S. Cyprians words, you bring in Polidore to expound them. but what will ye conclude of Polidore? That, 
jew. Falsehood in collecting of arguments.  This commendation (of which S. Cyprian speaketh) was given by S. Cyprian to the Church of Rome in respect of Italy, and not in respect of the whole world.  
Whether this be so or no, 
Ra.  Polidor's own words shall try it. In his fourth book the s●xth Chapter, 
〈◊〉. li. 4. ca▪ b. de Inuen. rer.  his purpose was to show, of whom first the Order of Priesthood was Instituted. And he proveth, that Christ himself was the first maker of Priests. Then both it follow in him.  
A● pos● Chris●um Petrus in Sacerdotio praer●gatiua● habuis●e dicitur, quòd primus in Apostolorum ordine, & eius Sacrosancti Collegij Caput fuisset▪ Quapropter D. Cyprianus epist. 3. a● Cornelium Cathedram Petri Principalem vocat. But after Christ Peter is said to have had the prerogative in priesthood, because he was the first in the rue of the Apostles, and head of that holy College. ●herefore S. Cyprian in his third epistle to Cornelius, calleth the Chair or Sec of S. Peter the 〈◊〉 or principal.  
〈◊〉 then this, touching any wo●ds of S. C●prian, 
〈…〉  if any man can there find i● Polidore, I will le●se my right hand for 〈◊〉 and never write hereafter against any heretic. but the Book is common, the place is intelligible, and my eyes and understanding serveth me so well, that, I am sure, Polidore in that place expoundeth not these words of S. Cyprian, ●nde ●nitas Sacerdot alis exorta est.  
What Impudency then is it in M. jewel, for that these words seem to weigh much, to bring forth the judgement of Polidore, a man that may seem to be Indifferent, 
impudency  whereas they are not at all in Polidore? Polidorus Virgilius (saith he) expoundeth the same words of S. Cyprian. Dare ye say he expoundeth them, whereas he hath not them? He bringeth in S. Cyprian, to prove that the See of S. Peter was principal, but, of unitas Sacerdotalis, the unity of Priesthood, Upon which words, you made haste to show his exposition, he maketh no mention. He saith in his own words, not in S. Cyprians, that the order of Priesthood can not be sated to have grown first from the bishop of Rome, unless we understand it only by Italy, for Priesthood was rightly instituted at Jerusalem but that the Commendation given by S. Cyprian to the Church of Rome was given in respect only of Italy, and not in respect of the whole world, he said it not, nor intended it.  
The Order also of Priesthood, and unity of Priesthood are two things. In the Order, is considered, the Author and effect of that Sacrament: In the Unity is considered, the preservation and Government of that Order. Of the Order itself, and where Priesthood first began, Polidore doth speak. Of the unity, and of the Relation which all Priests should have to their chief head and Governor, S. Cyprian doth speak, and Polidore saith nothing. The Order began at Dierusalem and not at Rome. The unity, I will not say begun at Rome, but after y● s. Peter had by his martyrdom there taken full possession of that See, than was it seen, where the Principal Church in all the world was, and to what beginning all things should be referred, and in what unity they should be preserved.  
Hath not M. jewel, then, done very sincerely, to allege Polidore, so far and wide from the meaning of Polidor? I would there were some man so indifferent, as M. jewel taketh Polidore to be, to judge between him and us, whether he hath not shamefully abused the Later writers.   

Of M. jewels Contradictions.  
Hitherto, by many Examples I have proved it, y● M. jewel hath not understanded other men: now will I show it, by a few Arguments, that he doth not well understand himself. And no marvel truly, if in speaking so many words, he hath not remembered every word, Or, if in coveting to save his honesty for the present place, he say and unsay again, like A man that were not sure yet what to bide by. But because his Friends and Fellows will think this incredible, that out of his smooth month, & doctrine squared by the rule of the Scriptures, Fathers, & Counsels, any thing should proceed hacked & slittered, therefore will I give an occasion to the Indifferent, to Beware of the double tongue and mind, in one and the self same 〈…〉.  
The Receiving with Company, 
jew. 25.  is no substantial p●rt of Christ's Institution▪ Ergo, we are not bound therein, to follow the Example of Christ. 
We are ●ound to the example of Christ.  First this Antecedent i● false, and if it were no part, of the substance of Christ's Institution, Yet we are nevertheless bound to his Example, because he hath commanded us so to do.  
Here in this place (M. jewel) you are of the mind that there is a difference, 
Ra.  between the Institution of Christ, and the Example of Christ. Otherwise your saying were very foolish, As by which this only is imported, that, it were no part o● Christ's Institution, yet are we nevertheless bound to his Institution. Which maketh a plain contradiction, if that by Institution and Example, you mean but one thing. another thing that I note here, is, that you say, we are bound to Christ's Example, although the thing which is to be done, were not of his Institution.  
What say ye then, to washing of feet, for which you have the express words of our Saviour in the Gospel? 
〈◊〉. 13.  If I (saith he) your Lord and Master have washed your feet, you also aught to wash one the others feet. For I have given an Example unto you, that as I have done, so likewise that ye also do. What say you then (M. jewel) to this example of our Saviour? shall it be followed, or no? You Answer,  
That this Objection of washing of feet is common, 
jew. 116.  and hath been often Answered. And in the same page. The washing of feet, was neither Institution of Christ, 
We are not bound to the example of Christ.  nor any part of the Sacrament, nor Specially appointed to be done by the Apostles, nor the breach thereof ever deemed Sacrilege.  
To let pass the manifest lie, 
Ra.  which here you make, that Christ appointed not washing of ●eete to be done by the Apostles, I mark this only for the present, that you labour with all your wit, to prove, that ye are bound to keep the Example of Christ. Reconcile me then (I pray you) these two places, And tell us how it may stand together, that we are bound to Christ's example, in that which is not of the Substance of Christ's Institution, And yet that you may freely (as ye do) let go washing of feet in your Congregation, because it was not Christ's Institution?  
In the Primitive church, 
jew. 31.  this order (of sending the Sacrament to them that were departing this world) was thought expedient not for the Sick: 
Not for the sick.  For they in their health received daily.  
Ergo, if in health, they needed, 
Ra.  or used that daily sustenance, was it not provided for them in their sickness? yes, ye confess so much, And therefore you say:  
And in their sickness, 
jew. For the sick.  had the Sacrament Ordinarily sent home unto them.  
How say ye then even now, 
Ra.  that this order (concerning the necessary victual, the Sacrament) was not thought expedient for the sick? Except you know that a man may be in sickness, and yet not sick. But g●e ye forward, and make an end of your ●ale. If the necessary victual, was not for the sick, for whom was it then?  
Not for the sick etc. 
jew. For persons excommunicate.  but for persons Excommunicate, etc.  
Very well. How long will you tarry in this mind? Ye amend it, 
Ra.  within xx. lines following. For thus ye remember yourself better.  
Howbeit I confess, 
jew. For other than excommunicate.  sometimes it was otherwise used.  
We take your confession, 
Ra.  that you know not well where to stay. For dividing (as it were) all the Faithful, Into Sick, 
A pretty Division.  and Excommunicate, And subdividing the Sick, into them that were either in health, either in Sickness: You le●t none but Persons Excommunicate, for whom the necessary victual, called viaticum, should serve. How be it, ye confess it was Sometimes otherwise used, and so it must necessarily follow, that it was not for the Excommunicate only. How these things agree, I do but ask you the question.  
If there had been in it any show of truth, 
jew. 111  M. Harding as he is eloquent, would have laid out all the circumstances, when this strange error first began, where, and how long it continued, 
Declaring of Circunces required.  who wrote against it, And by whom, and in what Council it was condemned. Verily this great Silence declareth some want.  
See how earnest the man is, 
Ra.  to have all Circumstances declared. But, I trow, he will not tarry still in this mind. For when D. Harding (as reason is) asked, when the Latin Service began in England, and when the English ceased (for Heretics say, that in the primitive Church, all public prayer was in the known and vulgar Tongue, And the Catholics think, that some token then or Monument should be extant, of so general A matter) M. jewel with open mouth replieth:  
O what folly is this? 
jew. 187 Declaring of Circunstancies refused.  Who is able to show any Book written in English a thousand vere ago? Or if it could be showed, yet who were able to understand it?  
Lo, 
Ra.  now it is folly to require, but some little sign of the beginning or ceasing of a public and common matter, but in an other place he thinketh it wisely spoken (for he speaketh it himself) to demand particularly of diverse Circunstancies, when, where, how, who, by whom, and in what Council, errors began or appeared.  
That certain godly persons both men and women in time of persecution, 
jew. 42. receiving at home allowed.  or of sickness, or of other necessity received the Sacrament in their houses, it is not denied.  
Ergo Receiving at home is not reprovable, 
Ra.  for which there are to be found the Examples of Godly persons both men ●nd women.  
This manner of receiving at home was not lawful for the Laiemen. 
jew. 42. Receiving at home disallowed  For it was abolished by godly Bishops in general Council.  
You belie the Council, unto which you refer us. 
Ra.  For of Receiving at home it speaketh no one word, but, If any person▪ saith it, 
Concil. Caesaraugustanun. Cap. 3.  be proved not to have received in the Church, and not to have made an end, of the Grace of the Eucharist, let him be accursed for ever. Now this forbiddeth not, but that the Priest may carry the Sacrament home to the houses of Christians, as it is, at this present, used in the catholic church, And that they may with good Conscience receive it. But let this be referred to the Chapter, How M. jewel hath abused Counsels. In this place, I press him only with his contradiction: that sometimes he doth not deny, but that Godly Persons did receive, Privately at home, and, at an other time, he is altogether changed, and will needs have receiving at home to be an Abuse condemned by Counsels and Fathers.  
The Single Communion was never taken for lawful, 
jew. 59 Singl● Communion in some cases lawful.  but only in consideration of circumstances, and cases of necessity.  
How then is the Mystical distribution a part of the substance of Christ's Supper, if, 
Ra.  for any respect it may be altered or omitted?  
Thinketh M. Harding, 
jew. 61. Distribution is of y● Substance of Christ's Supper. And so is Single Communion absolutely unlawful.  that the Sacrifice, whereof neither Christ nor his Disciples ever spoke one word, is the substance of his Supper, And that the Mystical Distribution in remembrance of his Death, whereof he gave us such a strait Commandment, in so manifest and so plain words, is no part of the Substance?  
And think you, that if Distribution be necessary, 
Ra.  any man may receive by himself alone, in any kind of Case or Circumstance? For as no necessity can make it lawful, to Consecrate in Cheese or Milk, because Bread and Wine pertain to the matter and Substance of the Sacrament: So, if the Single Communion be lawful, that is, if one by himself alone may Receive the Sacrament, it must needs follow, that to Receive with Company, is not of the Substance of Christ's Institution.  
The simple people hearing Mass in a strange Language, is dea●e, 
jew. 70. Hearing and not Hearing.  and heareth not at al.  
You must expound your meaning, 
Ra.  or else hearing, and not hearing, will not be well perceived. For, if ye refer hearing of Mass, to the hearing of the words, the ●ownd doth s●●ike the ear, though the meaning come not to the mind. And if ye refer hearing of Mass, to the understanding of the which is there done, then doth every faithful, that believeth the body of Christ there to be offered up unblondily, for him, etc. hear the Mass as excellently, as if he could construe and p●rse every word of the Canon. And therefore you can not without plain injury, make the people not to hear y●, which they do hear with their ears: or not to apprch●●d that in their heart, which they be assured of by Faith.  
Melanchthon and Bucer accounted the receiving in one or both kinds a thing indifferent. M. jewel answereth: 
jew. 110.   
Thus far forth their desire was, it might be judged free, not that they thought Christ had not ordained the Sacrament to be ministered unto the people in both kinds, 
Not indifferent.  or that in itself it is Indifferent, 
Indifferent  but that the Faithful of God might indifferently and freely use it without controlment.  
These words need A Reconciliation, 
Ra.  to bring them at one together. For if the receiving in both kinds be not in itself Indifferent, how may the faithful of God indifferently use it? And if they may Indifferently use it, how it is not Indifferent?  
Note also the Craft or blindness of M. jewel. He Interpreteth Melanchthon and Bucer, in such sort, as if the question had been, Whether the people might not choose, whether they would receive in both kinds, 
M. jewels private comment upon Melancthon & Bucer.  or not receive at all. And he maketh them to answer, that they wish it to be free and Indifferent, to Receive in both if they wil But the question in deed, is of Receiving in both kinds, or in one: And they Answer, that it is a thing Indifferent. And what is y● to say? Whether that it should be free for the people to Receive in both? Yea truly this is one part of the sense. But another is, that it should be as free, for them that would, to receive in one also.  
For the two points, between which the Indifferency goeth, are, to receive in one kind, Or to receive in both, without controlment. Which being granted to the Protestamts, they should not inveigh and cry o●t against th● Papists, for receiving in one, but they might think themselves charitably dispensed withal, for their free Receiving under both. So that Melanchthon and Bucer were not of the mind to condemn the manner of other Christians, as M. jewel in this 〈◊〉 falsely interpreteth them, but like 〈◊〉 ●●r●tikes, they provided for their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, wishing that it might be law●●● 〈◊〉 their brothers, to Receive in both kinds, without c●trolment, and that it should 〈◊〉 be made a matter of conscience and ●●●●gion, whether the people were served in both or one kind, the thing in itself being Indifferent.  
To minister unto the vulgar people in both kinds was not Christ's Institution, 
jew. 119 ●e only saith it.  saith D. Harding. M. jewel replieth: Thus he saith, and saith it often, and only saith it. Other Authori●●e than his own he bringeth none.  
Surely we must look for no reason or cause of his so saying. Yet is followeth Immediately: 
Ra.   
The Reason that moveth him, 
jew. His reason is this.  I we●ne is this. ●or that there was no Lay people at that banquet with Christ, but the Apostles only.  
I ween then, he doth more than only say it, 
Ra.  when he giveth A Reason for it.  
It doth not follow, We may break A Ceremony: 
jew. 117 The 〈…〉  Ergo we may break the Substance of Christ's Institution.  
It followeth not in deed. And hereby you may see, that the Terms of 〈◊〉 and Substance, in Christ's Institution, are not Unnecessary and vain.  
This difference in Terms of 
jew. ●0.  Substance and Accidents in Christ's Institution, 
The Terms of 〈◊〉 and 〈…〉  is newly found out, and hath no warrant, neither of the Scriptures, neither of the Old Fathers.  
You be to fine and precise, M. jewel, for simple Catholics, 
〈…〉  And it seemeth 
Ra 〈…〉  that yourself would not speak but out of Scripture or Old Father, like as some in the world more curious than ●digent, will have no one word in all their writings, which they can not bring out of Cicero.  
But, I pray you, is not the Distinction of things about Christ's Institution, into Substance and Accidents, as reasonable and as necessary, as into Substance and Ceremonies? For by Ceremonies you must needs mean a diverse thing from Substance▪ and such as may be let alone or taken away, without corr●ption, of Subject or Principal 〈◊〉 And what other thing is that but a plain Accident?  
If y● find then any 〈◊〉 of the Scriptures or of the old Fathers, to 〈◊〉 your Terms of Substance and Ceremonies about Chri●●es Institution: you may be bold without further warrant, to admit the Terms of Accidents and Substance, about the same Institution. And if that you (notwithwstanding you find not that former distinction in Scriptures or old Doctors) dare boldly say, that it doth not follow, we may break a Ceremony, Ergo, we may break the substance of Christ's Institution: it followeth then, that the Distinction is good, and, that we may affirm, well enough, A reasonable Conclusion: And use proper Terms and words to express it by, although we have no warrant of the Scriptures neither of the old Fathers.  
The Council of Basile above one hundred and thirty years past, 
jew. 9●.  made no conscience to grant the use of both kinds unto the kingdom of Bohemia, 
The Papists ●raunt the use of both kinds.  and this Council now presently holden at Trident, upon certain conditions hath granted the same, to other kingdoms and Countries.  
Of whom then speak you these words, 
Ra.  in an other place of your Reply?  
These men take quite away from the people both the Element and kind of wine, 
jew. 115. The Papists take 〈…〉  and also the words of Consecration.  
Call you this, taking of the kind of wine quite away, 
Ra.  the use whereof was permitted to Bohemia, and at this day is ready to be permitted unto other, if that would deliver them from their heresies? If needs you will lie, you should do it always so warily (as ye can, well enough, when you be disposed) that you might not yet be convinced thereof, through any of your own words, spoken at other times. But now it is past remedy, except you will Repent, because I point you to the places, where ye confess, both that the Papists have granted the use of wine to other kingdoms and Countries, besides Bohemia, and also object, that they have quite taken away the kind of wine from the people.  
All the East speaketh the Greek Tongue saith S. Jerome. 
jew. 16●  To this I Answer, (saith D. Harding) that some of all Countries of the East spoke Greeke. M. jewel Replieth:  
M. Harding'S distinction of all in General, 
It cannot be general onlesse it include every particular.  and all in Particular, that he hath here devised to shift of S. Jerome, seemeth very homely and home made. For how can it be a general, unless it include every Particular? By M. Harding's construction we must take ALL, for SOME, or ALL, not for the 〈◊〉 part of ALL, And by this Rhetorize, less than half, is as much as ALL, and so ALL is not AL.  
I would say unto you, saving that you be a fore fellow when you come to quiddities, 
Ra.  and also that you would ask for a warrant of the Scriptures or old Fathers, ●o justify my words by it, else I would say, that ALL that you have now spoken, is Nothing and that should seem more 〈◊〉, than that ALL is not AL. But I will not geau● you this vantage, I will put your own words unto you.  
All the jews Generally gloried of the Law, 
jew. 164  even so, all the Greeks Generally, gloried in their wisdom. And S. Paul sayeth Generally of them both: 
●. C●r. 10.  The jews call for 〈◊〉 and Miracles▪ and the jews 〈…〉. And therefore one of the Philosophers said, In old times there were Seven Wise men among the greeks, but now there are not so many Fools, for that they all Gloried in their Wisdom,  
What think you then of the Apostles, 
Ra.  Or of our ●lessed Lady herself, and other good and holy jews, did they call for Signs? If they did, 
M. jew. cōst●●ned to take ALL, for not AL.  then were they reprovable, because the strength of a Christian, resteth upon Faith, which cometh by hearing of God's word, and requireth not the showing of marvelous Signs. If they did not, How did all the jews call for Signs, except you also will take ALL for SOME, or ALL, for not ALL?  
The Philosopher also, which said very wittily, in reproach of the Grecians vain Opinion of themselves, that there were not so many fools among them, as of Old time were Wise men, for that they all Gloried in their Wisdom: He meant, I trow, that there were almost seven fools in Greece, nigh to the number of the Seven wise, that were i●● Old times there. And he took himself perchance to be one of the Seven: So that his General Proposition included not every Particular. But I have yet a better Example to declare my purpose.  
What say you (M. jewel) to S. Chrysostom's words? 
jew. 88  No body doth Communicate▪ You Answer: His purpose was to rebuke the negligence of the people, for that in so populous a City, they came to the holy Communion in so small companies, which companies, he, in a vehemency of speech, by an exaggeration, 
It may be general although it include not every particular  in respect of the whole, calleth NO BODY. The like manner of Speech, is used also sometimes in the Scriptures. S. john saith of Christ, Testimoniuneius nemo accipit, not for that no body at all received his witness (for his Disciples and many other received it) but for that of a great multitude, very few received it. In like Phrase Chrysostom himself saith other where, Nemo divina sapit, No Body savoureth Godly things.  
These be your own words, M. jewel, 
Ra.  & whose were those other, where you said: How can it be a General, unless it include every Particular? 
jew. 162  Be not these also yours? How make you then, both to agree together? For NO BODY importeth an universal and general Negative, and then by your very homely and home made Logic, it includeth every Particular. 
M. jew. beaten ● his own 〈◊〉.  How make ye then in this place, of NO BODY, SOME BODY, and of NO BODY not NO BODI, but Disciples of Christ, and many other?  
Thus you see, that by your own words in one place, you be driven from your own Sense in an other, And by reason of your Contradictions, none more Enemy to M. jewel, than M. jewel.  

jew. 185 Converted from 〈◊〉. not turned to Religion.  Notwithstanding S. Augustine (whom S. Gregory sent into England) withdrew the English Nation from their gross Idolatry, wherein he had no great travail (for perchance it is an easy matter to convert Countries) Yet it is certain he planted not Religion in this Realm.  
What did he then unto them whom 
Ra.  he withdrew from their Idolatry? Did he leave them without a Religion? Did he pull their old Coat from them, and give them no new? He baptized at one Christmas, 
Greg. lib. 7 ep. 30.  more than ten thousand English men, as S. Gregory witnesseth. And before he baptized them, did he not plant Religion in their hearts? Otherwise how is it credible, that ever they would have come to Baptism? Yet I note this place, not for the open lie, which is in it, but for the Contradiction, for that it seemeth impossible, that a Nation should be converted from Idolatry, and yet not turned to Religion, whereas, the very Conversion itself, doth import a forsaking of one mind and taking of an other. And no Heretics have power to turn Nations, and the Catholics to whom God giveth that Grace, do for that end turn them from Idolatry, that afterwards they may become Christians. Which End if they be not brought unto, Who can say that they are converted?  
S. Gregory judgeth Generally of the Name of Universal Bishop, 
jew. 226 The title of Universal Bishop, condemned jew. 242 The title of Universal Bishop, alleged. Ra.  that it is vain and hurtful, the Corruption, the Poison, and utter and Universal destruction of the Church, etc.  
Verily justinian himself writing unto Epiphanius the Bishop of Constantinople, calleth him the Universal Patriarch.  
Whom then damn you follow, the Pope or the Emperor▪ S. Bregorie, or justinian? ye follow both, and ye are contrary unto yourself, at one time defying the Title, at an other, alleging it.  
Certainly Balaam, 
jew. 274 For the cuil life sake of the preachers  notwithstanding he were a False Prophet, yet he opened his mouth and Blessed the people of God: Cayphas, although he were a wicked Bishop, yet he pphesied and spoke the truth: 
we must not condemn the Lawful doctrine.  A Seal although it: be cast in Lead, yet it giveth a perfit Print. The Scribes and Phari●eis, although they were Hypocrites and lived not well, yet they instructed the Congregation and said well.  
By these Examples than it appeareth, 
Ra.  that A Doctrine is not to be forsaken, because of the evil life of the Preacher. What fault then is Doctor Harding in, for saying, that  
Be the Bishop of Rome's life never so wicked, yet may we not sever ourselves from the Church of Rome?  
For if other causes be alleged, wherefore we should do it, they are to be Answered: but this Objection of the evil life of the Bishops of Rome, is sufficiently confuted by these Examples which M. jewel, here hath clearly allowed. Yet (see the nature of the man) when D. harding had said so much, he could not abide it, but straightways cometh against it with this Authority.  
How be it, S. Cyprian saith otherwise, 
jew. 276 For Y ● evil life sake Y ● people must sever themselves from their Rulers.  Plebs obsequens, etc. The people obeying God's Commandments, must sever themselves from the Wicked that ruleth over them.  
S. Cyprian speaketh of Basilides and Martialis, 
Ra.  Bishops that had defiled themselves with Libels, 
Lib. 1. ●p. 4  in which they gave their names to Idolatry. For which cause, they were excommunicated of other bishops, and the people were forbid to come to their Sacrifice. But it is no matter to M. jewel, how the case standeth with any Testimony, that he bringeth. So desirous he is to gaynsaie D. Harding, that he falleth into Contradictions with himself also▪ speaking at one time for credit to be given to Priests, notwithstanding their evil life, And at an other time making it lawful, to forsake the Doctrine of the Preacher or Ruler, for because of his evil life.  
When Christ had delivered both kinds unto his Disciples, 
jew. 103 The Argument Ab Authoritate negative, 〈◊〉.  he said unto them, this do ye, the same that you see I have done. But where did Christ ever say, Minister un to yourselves one way, and an other wai un to the people? The like Argument he maketh. pa. 119. Where did Christ. & caet. As who should say, Christ hath not expressed it, Ergo it is not to be observed.  
Here lo we see, that M. jewel alloweth the Argument called in Scholes Ab Autoritate Negative. except you will say that himself useth that, which himself alloweth not. But hear now what he saith in other places of his Reply.  
M. Harding Gheasseth thus It appeareth not by Beda, 
jew. 187 The Argument Ab Authoritate negative, disproved.  the Service was in English, Ergo the Service was in Latin.  
What kind of Logic have we here? Or how may this Reason hold? It concludeth Ab Autoritate negatives. I believe M. Harding himself will not allow it.  
The Argument in deed he will not allow, as you have made it. 
Ra.  But for as much as Bede purposely speaketh of such things, as concerned Religion, It is not to be thought, that he would have passed it over in Silence, if the Mass had been translated into the English tongue.  
But how agree you M. jewel, with yourself, that can both refuse and use, one and the self same kind of Argument? You have, I trow, some defence for you self in this matter. For you say in an other place:  
The weight of M. Harding's Argument, 
jew. 126  is taken, as they name it in Schools, Ab Autoritate negatiuè, and unless it be in consideration of some other circumstance it is so simple, that a very Child may soon Answer it.  
What Circumstance then is that, 
Ra.  which being observed maketh the Argument ab Authoritate negatiuè, good? Surely that Circumstance were well worth the learning, that we might perceive, both, how to make such Arguments ourselves, without doubt of your reprehension, and also how to warn you thereof, when yourself go without the compass of your own Circumstance. Perchance you mean hereby not more, but that which you have already expressed in the first Article, where H. Harding objecteth unto you, the Common use of this kind of Reasoning, which is ab Authori●ate negatives. For thus you say, and it is (I believe) the most you can say, 
jew. 68  that,  
The Argument ab Authoritate negatives 
Few, 68  is thought to be good, 
The Argument Ab Authoritate ne●atiuè, taken out of God's word is good.  when so ever proof is taken of God's word, and is used not only by us, but also by S. Paul, and by many of the Catholic Fathers. S. Paul sayeth: God said not unto Abraham, In thy SEEDS all nations shall be blessed, but in thy SEED, which is Christ. And thereof he thought he made a good Argument. 
Galat. 3.   
Suffer me than to make a like 
Ra.  Argument out of Good word, and let me have your Answer used it. Christ saith to S. Peter, 
jew. 21.  Feed my sheep, he said not these or them: Ergo without Exception he com●●itted his sheep unto S. Peter But you like not this Argument. For you say, it is against the Rules of Logic, and that it was  
An Error in Bonifacius, 
jew. 305 The Argument Ab Authoritate negatiuè taken out of Gods worde●s nought.  to reason thus, Dominus dixit Generaliter, etc.  
The Lord said Generally unto Peter feed my Sheep, he said not specially feed these or them: therefore we must understand, that he committed them unto Peter altogether.  
Yet this Argument, is like to that of S. Paul's of SEEDS and SEED, which in deed is not 
Ra.  〈…〉 negatiuè, but Affirmatiuè. For he presseth the word of the Scripture SEED, in the Singular number, which to make the better observed, he biddeth it to be noted, that it was not said, SEEDS. But how so ever that be, M. jewels Art may be well enough espied, which all at pleasure affirmeth and denieth, saith, and unsayeth, maketh Rules and Observeth them not, and is contradictory unto himself in very many places.  
This very name, 
jew. 306  the HEAD of the universal Church, is the very thing that we deny.  
Then are you a very unwise man, 
Ra.  to set the State and Substance of your question upon a Name: And to contend upon words, affirming them to be the very things. And there appeareth here unto me to be a manifest Contradiction, that the name should be the thing. For if it were so, that all this writing on both sides, were no more but an Alteration of Brammarians or Rhetoricians, then in deed it might be a question, whether this word HEAD were ever Readen in such a Case, or such an Author, or ever applied to such and such a person, & then ●roprely the Name should be the thing.  
But now whereas all our conflict, is about the Truth of things that are to be believed, and we seek not after Terms and Phrases of Speech, but sense and meaning of Truths, And whereas the understanding (which both parts think to instruct) is not bettered by any NAMES, but by the very things themselves: It is all together unreasonable, to say or think, that the very name should be the very thing, among the Divines.  
Yet who so considereth diligently, M. jewels manner & behaviour of writing, shall soon perceive, that he so handleth the matter, as though he were a Grammarian only, or a Rhethorician, and not a Divine, and as though in deed he passed not upon the very Things, so that he might have the very words that could serve his turn. For which cause he hath furnished himself with Testimonies and Phrases enough, For the church, Against the Church, For Custom, Against Custom, For Fathers, Against Fathers, For Counsels, Against Counsels, For Receiving at home, Against receiving at home, For Receiving in One kind, Against Receiving in O●e, For Receiving alone, Against Receiving alone, For S. Peter's Pricipalitie, Against S. Peter's principality, For equality of Bishops, Against equality of Bishops, For Distinctions, against Distinctions, For Arguments taken of Authority, Against Arguments taken of Authority, And so truth in many things more, which I have showed partly in the Second Book, partly in this Chapter of Contradictions, And were more to be showed, if time or occasion required. But now to an other matter.   

A Note Concerning M. jewels Lies.  
ANd what other matter might that be? For I have already discovered his unreasonableness and falsehood, by so many ways, that it may seem, both that I am at an End, of finding any more Objections, and he of ministering any more Occasions. For as concerning his Lies, of which I either intended or promised to make a special Chapter, there can be no worse nor plainer, than I have already declared, and therefore let me be excused, if I satis●ie not 〈…〉 that, by now and 〈…〉 which is so abundantly 〈◊〉.  
D. Harding doth charge him, with 225. Untruths.  
M. Staple●on (●●●●pting the Untruths of the first Article, 
〈…〉  in which he can not but 〈◊〉 with D. Harding) doth charge him with. 474.  
I reckon not the .218. which D. Saunder obiectech against him.  
And of the 〈◊〉, which myself 〈◊〉 found in him, in talking with him about the State of the Question in the first 〈…〉, and about his shameful ordering of D. Harding, And about his 〈◊〉 of 〈…〉 Gloves, 〈…〉 And Later writers: the truth is, I have kept no reckoning.  
But this I am sure of, that although 699. 〈◊〉 are found in his four first Articles only, yet many of them that I object unto him, are none of the number of those. 699. And yet I pass not the cumpasse of the same Articles.  
More specialties than these, if any man will require, I am not myself at leisure, but if he think it expedient, he may by himself gather the Particulars into one Chapter, by telling only the bart untruth, without further discoursing upon it. And he should do well, not to reckon every one (for that would occupy a great room) but such notable and singular Lies, as might not only be understanded, but fel●●s it were and seen. As if this Lie should be the First in the rue.  
The Bishop of Rome and his Cardinals, 
●ew. 1●.  scarcely have leisure to Sacrifice once in the whole year. And Again:  
They do scarcely Communicate once in the year. 
15.   
For this is so notorious a Lie, and so palpable, that he that would report it, to another that never yet was at Rome, might be thought never to have come to Church, whiles be tarried there: And he that shall have occasion to journey thither, shall sensibly perceive and see, that it is a most shameful Lie.  
And so forth in other of the like making, the number of which, although it would be less, yet it should appear most manifestly, that the plain meaning consciencies, had need to BEWARE of M. JEWEL.   

How M. jewel hath left some places altogether unanswered.  
THus than the Chapter of Lies, being referred to the diligence of other that would have them set in their Ranks, and which have leisure to bring it to pass by themselves, Is there any more to be objected against M. jewel? Yea marry is there, and that to his reproach and ignominy. For pretending to Answer every word of D. Harding'S, and showing a countenance of such Learning, that he could, and such diligence, that he would leave nothing undiscussed, and unperfited: a great and just shame it is, for him, that many and 〈◊〉 Arguments and Testimonies against him, he so passeth by, as though he had never seen them. As in example:  
Do ye reprove the Mass, 
jew. 57  (saith D. Harding) Or do ye reprove the Private Mass? And M. jewel Answereth with other questious unto him again, concerning Sole Receiving, and Single Communion, Private Mass and Sole Receiving. Sacrifice of the new Testament and A li●●le Book of his own, but to the question itself, he Answereth not.  
Concerning the public Service of our 〈◊〉, if it had been in English at the beginning, 
jew. 117  Doubtless (saith D. Har. some mention would have been made of the time and causes of the leaving such kind of Service, & of the beginning of the New Latin Service. As certain of S. Gregory's works turned into English by Bede himself have been kept so as they remain to this day: But M. jewel will not, or cannot answer.  
Si Benedixeris Spiritu, 
jew. 197 〈…〉  etc. If thou make thy prayer in the Congregation, with thy Spirit or noise of Strange words, how shall the unlearned man, thereunto say Amen? Thus doth M. jewel interpret the place: But the translation (saith D. Harding) authorised by King Edward and his Council, is truer, which hath thus:  
When thou blessest with the Spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned, say Amen, at thy geaving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? And M. jewel answereth not one word in his own defese, for saying, The unlearned, in steed of, He that occupieth the room of the unlearned.  
Of the Service in the vulgar tongue the people (saith D, Har.) will frame lewd & perverse meanings, of their own lewd senses. Of the Latin they cannot do so: Ergo Latin is more meet for public service. 
jew. 215  M. jew. answereth nothing.  
S. Peter (saith Hilarins') deserved for the confession of his blessed faith, Supereminentem Locum, A pre-eminence above other. 
jew 146  To Supereminence, or pre-eminence above other, which is imported by Super, above, M. jewel answereth nothing.  
How shall the Contumacy and 
jew. 258  pertinacity of mischievous persons be repressed, specially if the Bishops be at dissension within themselves, if there be not a Supreme Power, who, towards some, may use the rod, towards other some, the spirit of Lenity?  
M. jewel answereth nothing.  
Cum tantum etc. Whereas we see (sayeth S. Augustine) so great help of God, 
jew. 148 Aug. de 〈◊〉. credend. c. 17.  so great profit and fruit, shall we stand in doubt, whether we may hide ourselves in the Lap of the Church, which (though Heretics bark at it, round about, condemned partly by the judgement of the people themselves, partly by the Sadness of Counsels, and partly by the Majesty of Miracles, even to the Confession of Mankind) from the apostolic See, by Successions of bishops, hath obtained the top or highest degree of Authority? To which Church, if we will not give and gra●t the Primacy, sooth it is a point either of most high wickedness, or of headlong arrogance.  
To this place M. jewel answereth nothing, I believe, because he had nothing. For, his diligence and Order in Answering three other places of S. Augustine, which went Immediately before this, in his 14. Division of the fourth Article, do● prove, that he lacked not Occasion to Answer this also, which was so largely alleged by D. Harding, and followed so Immediately, in the 14. Division, but that, he knew not well what to say unto it.  
After this manner, it were easy to find more places, and them of no small weight, which should declare M. jewel, for all his fair show of an Absolute Reply, not to have touched yet many principal Reasons and Testimonies of D. Harding'S. But I have already proved my purpose sufficiently.   

Of a new devised and childish Objection, solemnly used of late, against the Catholics, by which M. jewel also is touched.  
ANd now to make an end, what may any Indifferent Reader ask for more, to persuade him in this one point and Conclusion, that he ought to BEWARE OF M. ●EWEL?  
There cannot be a greater Bragger, than he that provoketh all the men alive: Nor a greater Shifter, than he that will 〈◊〉 no question to ●and in the state, in which he did first put it: Nor a greater Wrangler, than he that 〈◊〉 the meaning of his 〈◊〉, almost in every Argument: Nor a greater Corruptour of Witnesses, than he that will suffer nor Text, nor Gloze, nor Canon nor Civil Law, nor Old nor Late Writer, to continue in his right form of Verdie●: Nor a Writer more perilous, than M. jewel.  
But in one thing, I tr●we, he is 〈◊〉 And what is that? Marry he  
In Schools, it is a vain glory and pride 〈◊〉 the boy's, to contemn that, which is common, to affect singular and 〈◊〉 things, to refuse that which an other 〈◊〉, and to fall out with their fellows, that 〈◊〉 out of their Notebokes, any of their treasures. Which Affection although they be not beaten for, because of the first beginnings which are nourished with hope of praise: yet the ●umour is 〈◊〉 and corrupt, which breedeth such an itch of Folly, or canker of Envy in them.  
In Courts also, it is a sad Pride and glory, to have such a Cut of Appataile, or such a Trick or two about it, as none ●ls useth. which after it begin to be 〈◊〉 of other, the Authors are strait 〈◊〉 weary of it, and turn them 〈◊〉 to other fashions. Concerning which matters, there be great Rules and Ohseruations, As that a man must not 〈◊〉 one Coat above a certayen 〈◊〉. Also that he wear his own & not an other man's Coat, And generally, that in all his manners, he may seem to stand by bu●selfe alone, and to depend of no other. In so much, that it is a great grief unto some, to hear it s●yed unto them, I know where you had this, or where you bought that, As 〈…〉 were lost, beacause they can not be singular.  
Now, if this Contention and Folly shall be allowed also in matters of 〈…〉  
 
Let him understand briefly, how M. jewel also may be pressed with it.  
S. Cyprian. Lib. 2 Epist. 3. For the Institution of Christ. Alleged, in the Defense of the Truth. Fol. 11. Used by M. jewel. Pag. 106.  
Tertulliams' place, adversus ●raxeam. That is true, that was first ordained. Alleged, in the Defense of the Truth. Fol. 11. Yn the Apology of England. Used by M. jewel Pa. 258. 313.  
The Sorry of 〈◊〉. Declared by Fox. Pag. 9 Used by M. jew. Pag. 236.  
The Gloze, Domine cur ità facis? Sir why do ye so? Alleged by M. Nowell. Fol. 26. Used by M. jewel. Pag. 258. & 313.  
That the Book called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is not S. Basiles. Laboured by the Magdeburgenses. Cent. 4. Cap. 10. Col. 946. Used by M. jewel. Pag. 86.  
That S. Augustine, whom S. Gregory sent into England, was of no apostolic Spirit, etc. Set forth by Bale. Lib. 2 de acts. Ro. Pomisicum Pag. 51. 52. 53. Alleged, by the Magdeburgenses. Cent. 6.ca.10.col.748. Used by M. jew. pag. 185.  
The discourse upon the first bringers in of the Faith into England. Made by the Magdeburnenses, Cent 1, lib. 2cap.3.col.23. Cent. 2.cap.2.col.6 & 8. cent.3.cap.2.col.4. Used by M. jewel. Pag. 190.  
The arguments against the 〈◊〉 Epistles. 

ab Autoritate negatiuè of 

S. Hierom.  
Bennadius  
Damusus.   Made of the Magdeb Cet. 2. ca 7 col. 151.  
And of the sayings of 

Clemens. Cent. 2.ca.7.col.185  
Antherus. Cent. 3.ca.7.col.189  
Marcellin. Cent. 4.ca.7.col.576  
Marcellus. Cent. ibiden.col.578  
Zepherin. Cent. 3.ca.7.col.179  
Meltiades. Cent. 4.ca.7.co 577      
Arguments against Anacletus Epistles gathered. 

1 Of the Story of times. 1 Alleged by the Magdebur. Cent. 1 li. 2.c.10.co.637.  
2 Of the building of S. Peter's Church. 2 Centur. 2. cap. 7. col. 140.  
3 Of the alleging of old Father's Decrees. 3 Centur. 2. cap 7. col. 144.  
4 Of the Phrases of the Epistles. 4 Cent. 2 c. 7 col. 143.  
5 Of the Interlacing of the Scriptures. Centur. 2. cap. 7. col. 143.  
6 Of the needless alleging of them. 6 Cent. 2 c. 7 co. 140. 141. 142. 148.   Used by M. jewel, not one argument left out. Pag. 67. 223. & 224.  
This for an Example is enough. For if a man were so disposed, to spend long time in examining of this one Point, Whether M jesels great & full stuffed Reply, came immediatli from his own singular Invention & diligence, or no: there is no doubt, but he hath either none at all, or very few Arguments & Authorities, which are not to be sonnde also in other that have written before him. Especially if it shall be rightly considered, how much Peter Martyr, Caluine, and the Magdeburgenses only (to let other s●rapers pass) have written against the Catholic Church, even upon these very ●●estions which M. jewel hath proponed.  
Yet I think not, that all that he hath gathered, hath come out of them, although it may be found in them also (for why may not an English Protestaut, be as soon taken up, to serve the Devil in setting forth of Heresies, and to Receive secret Intelligence from him, what he shall study upon, and mark especially, as any Heretic of beyond the Seas?) And if it were gathered out of them, I would not Object it unto him, as one of the Deadly sins for which men should BEWARE of him. For among friends all things are common, and no man that wise is and honest, writeth to make himself a name in the world, but to help the common cause, for which himself, with other, standeth.  
But this much only I note, 
Pluck out the beam out of your own eye.  that such as seek very eagerly and impotently, to hurt the Catholics estimation by it, in telling them that they are Borowers, may understand, that the same Objection (if it be any thing worth) may be easily returned back upon them again.  
In making of which, I think in deed, 
M. Nowell no borrower, for none so 〈…〉  that the Author thereof was no borrower, although there hath been already so much invented and imagined against Catholics, as more, by any occasion, could not be uttered. Let him therefore alone have the praise of it, for devising & maintaining so unsensible an Objection, as neither hath been used of former Heretics, though they sought all means how to deface us, neither can be reproachful unto the Catholics, which know that nothing is new under the Son, And, that all Scriptures, and Doctors, and Writers are ours, which make for the Defense or Sense of the true Faith.  
Unto your charge therefore, M. jewel, I do not lay it, whether you have taken out of the M●gdeburgenses, or any notebooks of other men, that which you utter, 
M. jewles' charge  but, with your Appealing unto the first six hundred years, and your Refusing of the Authorities within the same years, And with your Excoursing into all Ages for witnesses. And for your Abusing of the witnesses of all Ages, with these so principal matters, I burden you. Wh●ch if it seem light unto you, I do not care (for I make no account upon it, that yourself should have leisure or respect to my small writings) but that other might think better of it, I have provided by special noting of such matter, in which M. jewel might be taken for no great jewel when all is known.  
In gathering and setting forth of which, if I se●me to have d●ne otherwise than well, I am ready either to defend it, either to confess it. Assured for all that, that there is no one P●ot●rtant in all England, that shall be able to disprove my Objections, and trusting, that in the judgement of the Catholics, I shall not much need to crave any pardon.  
And now, as from y● 〈◊〉 through the Book, I have always appealed to th● Indifferent Reader: so now to conclude, I say unto him, and desire of him, that he neither favour jewel, because of the procedings: nor hate Rastel, because of his Religion, but judge according unto that which is alleged & proved, whether M. jewel be not that Fellow, of whom the whole country ought to BEWARE.