A REPLY against an answer (falsely entitled) in Defence of the truth, made by john Rastell: M. of Art, and student in divinity.  
Forte est vinum, 
3. Esd. 3.  fortior est Rex, fortiores sunt mulieres, super omnia vincit VERITAS.  
Wine is strong, a King is stronger, Women be stronger, but, above all things, truth overcometh.  
Imprinted at Antwerp by Aegidius Diest, x. Martij. Anno M.D.LXV. cum PRIVILEGIO.   

Regiae Maiestatis Privilegio permissum est johanni Rastello in Artibus Magistro & Sacrae Theologiae candidato, uti per aliquem Tipographorum admissorum impun● ei liceat imprimi curare, & per omnes suae ditionis Regiones distrahere, librum inscriptum, A reply against an answer (falsely entitled) in defence of the truth, & omnibus aliis inhibitum, ne eundem absque eiusdem johannis consensu imprimant, vel alibi impressum distrahant, sub poena in Privilegio contenta. Datum Bruxellae ten Martij, Anno M.D.LXV.  
Wouwere   

TO THE READER.  
THE more worthy of love and honour, that the nature of Truth is, the more shameful without doubt, and hateful it must be, to do any violence unto it. For, where more occasions are offered, to stay men from their evil purposes, there to pass the bonds of righteousness, it proveth a greater impudency. As for example, in young ladies, whom complexion hath made beautiful, and lack of brothers only heirs, and good education worthy of all praises, and pure love of holiness hath persuaded to continue virgins, if any act dishonourable, or vile rape be committed, what stranger is so unkind and far of from the country or sight of that person and virtue, which but hearing only of her injury, doth not rise in his heart, against the worker of it. But, what virgin ever was there, so fair, so princely, so noble, so chaste, and so without all spot, as Truth? And what greater villainy can be practised, then by dissembling, lying, slandering, & blind reasoning, to go about to deflower such a virtue? Surely, if those eyes and judgements, by which spiritual beauties are considered, were as generally and commonly in men's heads, as the bodily eyes are, which judge of colours, it would offend the gentle blood and heart, a thousand times more, to see the truth abused, then to behold a Lucretia (if you will) of their family violently to be taken of some villain, and constrained to serve him at his pleasure. But, so great and grievous is the plague, which through Adam his disobedience falleth upon every soul, our education also and conversation is so carnal & corruptible, by reason of gross and sensible things, with the which we are so well acquainted, that a blow given unto some worshipful friend of ours, or a fowl word and opprobrious spoken to the face of our natural Prince, doth more fret the heart with compassion or indignation, then when we hear it readen never so plainly and treatably, that: Pilate then took jesus and whipped him. 
10. 19  And the soldiers, plaiting a crown of thorns, did put it on upon his head, and set a purple rob about him. And they came to him, and said: Hail, o king of the jews, and they boxed and buffeted him. After which sort, if but a cusson of any Christian Prince in the world▪ should be ordered of his tenants and servants at this present, what exclamations would we make, and what detestations would we conceive against them? There is not undoubtedly, there is not, that zeal for the truth itself, which is uttered in defence of plain vanity: and God most almighty and glorious, is not so attentively considered, as a man, or a maze, or a badge only upon the sleeve, which are nothing in comparison. For defence yet of which things so small, how great angers and stomachs are taken, and how much is he contemned in the world, which dissembleth an injury in such matters? And in deed, although the things themselves are but simple, yet the truth is in them also, moderately to be followed, and in right judgement it were not to be suffered, that either officers, either orders, should be freely disgraced: how much more justly than are the sacraments & the ancient manners of the Catholic faith, to be considered of all sober heads, and maintained in all humility, and if truth in wordly and common matters be embraced of every honest man, why is the everlasting verity, and cause of our soul, which should be chiefest, either not sought for, when it is easily to be found, either else not cared for, when it is evidently perceived. Hath he (trow you) a good judgement or a noble heart, which either affecteth ignorance, and will not turn over the leffe, lest he should have a conscience of the truth once known, either being convinced by evident reason, that his forefathers believed well and truly, doth think that divines only have to think of such matters, and followeth outwardly the fond and new-found brothers? Or they, which read the books of both sides, and either through lightness and vanity do bear away no more than the phrase and manner of writing of the authors, either for malice and enmity, consider only how to find faults with the writer, do they show therein, any point of great wit and gravity? And so, whiles some think, and those I fear no young babes or beggars, I hold with Christ whom all confess, and further if I should consider the question, I might be made, to my cost, a papist: and others say privily, in deed the old religion is best, when all is done, but we must bear a little with the world: further when on other sort reporteth, it is smoothly done, or he payeth his adversary home, or he runneth like oil, or he biteth like vinegar: and finally whiles others say, directing their eye not to the matter, but against the author, that, herein he declareth little good nurture in not belording some person, or he misseth in congruity of speech, or he telleth old dreams and stories, or he jesteth and dallieth all together: the conclusion is, that very few do honour the truth, or seek earnestly for it. For, they which refuse to be acquainted with it, or dissemble the knowledge thereof, do without all doubt give occasion to disgracing of it. Like as in court, to make as though you knew not some notable and worthy Lord, it is half a dishonour unto him. And others, which busy themselves about words and titles, and pass over, with out consideration, the sense of things and the matter, are like them which look a man in the face, whiles he telleth them a sad tale for their profit, & think all that while upon nothing else in a manner, but what tailor it should be, which made his cote and apparel. I appeal therefore unto every conscience, and myself I provoke to the uttering, and thee, (Reader) to the considering of the truth.  
It is not enough to read, but thou must also consider, and it little profiteth to consider, except it be a truth worth the marking. Of the two women, which strived before Solomon, one told a long tale, of her dwelling in one house together with her fellow, of her own and her fellows childebearing, of her quick child taken in the night season from her side, and the placing of her companions dead boy in her bosom, with other such circumstances more, to move perchance some affections. When she had ended: It is not so (quoth the other woman unto her) as thou sayest, 
3. Reg. 3.  but thy son is dead, and mine liveth. But on the other side, Thou liest, saith she, for my son is a live, and thine is dead. And thus they strived before te king. Now, what sentence the wise Prince gave, it is commonly known, as how he called for a sword, and commanding the quick child to be divided in two parts, sought to find out thereby, in which of the two women the natural compassion over her child would soonest appear. Which straitwayes uttering itself brimly, in one of them, as he wittily had conceived, unto her he appointed the quick child, and sensibly dissolved a secret question. Of which example, this I think, may be well gathered, that in all controversies we go straight to the quick of the question, and rest not upon the by matters. For, in disputing of the Sacrament of the altar, and the necessity whether some always should communicate, thou liest saith one, thou blasphemiest saith the other, this is an itching folly saith one, this is sluttisshe eloquence saith the other, you play apish parts saith one, you be like S. George an horseback saith the other, and this is no little sport unto many to see, how contrary sides can cut one the other. But this undoubtedly is nothing to the question, how even one is with the other. For concerning such odd words, as I can not tell how they come in, and serve to the expressing of affections, so let him take heed which useth them, that they consent and agree with the matter, and let other be warned, which are the readers or hearers, not to gape after such glauncies, which hap now and then in sad writing, but to mark advisedly what truth is in question, and neither by acclamation to the wordly proceedings, neither indignation against the old faith and Catholic, to shrink in any part from it. Which is (me thinketh) to call for a salomon's sword, and not to sit still in judgement with hearkening after such by phrases, as are not of the substance of the question. The sharpness of which sword will show, who is the false harlot, and who is loath to be inwardly examined, caring not what absurdity he permitteth, so that he be not openly confounded, and the nature (as I may say) of the question be not espyied. And this, I speak, not only for the indifferent reader his sake, whom I wish to consider the truth earnestly, but for our ease also in this fight with the Protestants, that we might come to some peace and conclusion. For, to the books of Catholics, which of late have been printed, some of the answers, and the most common are these: It is an unlearned book, it doth not observe the styles & titles which it should do, it nameth him but Master, whom it should call my Lord, it allegeth such authorities as we never saw, it reciteth visions which are not in scripture, it hath false Latin in it, it is full of scoffs and taunts. As who should think, the argument were dissolved, if the maker of it were reproved, for lisping in his utterance, or making a wry mouth upon his adversary. For, if these were heighnous faults, and might in deed be so proved against the Catholics, or if there were not a perfect hatred, which the holy Prophet boldly confesseth, 
Psal. 138  in loving the persons of his enemies, with detesting to the uttermost, and defying all their iniquities, yet a wise preacher, would not speak at all of them, or lightly pass away from such matters, and go exactly to the point of the question, and prove that it toucheth not the state of his religion.  
Yet I grant, if a religion were approved by long use of all Christendom, it were enough to tell the people, that the contrary is not to be credited: and they without more words ought to be persuaded, as bound to follow an universal authority of Catholic priests and bishops. But when new opinions are brought forth in to open pulpits, and they commended by no former authority, also when strange gospels are confirmed by no miracles, but only by naked affirmations, and private interpretations, that this is true, and this we understand it, or else by no likely and probable reasons, by which the understanding might be somewhat directed, it is no honest and indifferent dealing, that when such their words and arguments are disproved, it should be enough for them to answer again, you lie, or you jest, or you favour not the pure and sincere Gospel. I gather by the handling of other Catholics, what I have to provide for, about my own doings.  
A preacher at paul's cross, (in an evil hour) provoked all the Catholics in the world, upon manifold articles, against him (for part of his lying) a short confutation was straightways put in writing. which for the shortness of it, being easily copied out, and for the truth and soundness of it, liked very well of the Catholics, through much going abroad in to many places, and free communicating of it unto divers persons, it cometh at length unto a protestāns hands, which before that, was desirous of it. Which, (to the commendation of his zeal undoubtedly, although not of his science) made with speed an answer unto it, and entitled it, An answer in defence of the truth. etc. Wherein you may note, how much in a short time the world is changed. For, at that season, simple and familiar letters of Catholics, not framed to such purposes, were out of hand answered, and put in print. Treatisies also, which went abroad without name from friend to friend, were sought and inquired for curiously, and set forth in print to be considered. Yet now, when they are provoked again and again, to make good the cracks set on their Gospel, they work (I fear) by deceits and subtleties, and have either no answer at all to make, or that which they have made is not liked of their favourers, or else they will make so many words and so great a work, that like crafty worms they may cover themselves under leaves, and still maintain a rushing, with creeping yet away from the taking, or else they are not so hot in spirit, as they were wont to be. But concerning that called Defence of the truth, being sent unto me by a great favourer of the proceedings, and sent of very good will and frindshipp, that I should be reform (after his desire) by it, by considering how the Papists are always repelled, I tarried not long, but made a reply against it, the verity of our cause was so evident, and the false demeanour of the adversary, that I might well defend the Catholic, and turn the glory of crackers in to confusion. What I did, that it might come in to the hands of our adversaries, and find among them a direct answer unto it, or else a quiet giving over of their further striving against the truth, although it be harmless, yet being needless, I will not declare it. Yet, this I am bold to say, that they might (if they would) have done by this book, as they did by the Apology (as they termed it) of private mass, and have set it forth in print with their answer unto it, for the glory of their religion, and much liberality towards poor Catholics, whose writings without the author his labours and charges, full diligently they have printed. Which, whether it were worth the answer, or no, therein let any reasonable men be judges, and let the truth be considered, I pray thee (Reader) most heartily, without respect of any my manner of writing. Not because I am not willing to answer, to every point that they may have against me, but that the truth should be seen the better, when extraordinary invectives are not intended. For, (as I have said,) I fear, by the examples of other, lest this will be their chiefest answer: It is not worth the answering, it is full of toys and fancies. It forgetteth good nurture in writing. etc. As who should think, that they (like gentle doves) had no manner of gall in their writings, or as though that a wiseman might not dissemble an injury, and answer to the matter directly. But, be it so, you be patiented, quiet, fairespoken, innocent, harmless, you think evil of no man, you pray for the Pope and the Cardinals, you reverence the name of religious folks, you know not how to nickname the Papists, no bitterness, no scoffing, no uncurteousnes, is in your preachings and writings espied, and the contrary vices are in Catholics. forgive us then, I pray you, these our singular faults, considering yourselves, that you also may be tempted. And if a sharp word or sentence, although it be medicinable, must not be spoken unto you, take away all such words in this book, as may trouble your patience, and let the truth by itself be considered, and briefly answer just objections.  
Firstly say, and reply against the maker of the defence, that he proveth or impugneth that, which is not denied or maintained, dissembling (as it seemeth) the answering to the point, upon which the question resteth. Def. fol. 24. 25. 26. See the rep. fo. 46 31. 32. 33. 72 46 113 56 133 63. 64. 65. 147 109. 110. 111. 112. 196  
Furthermore I say, that whereas the question is, whether private mass be against Christ his institution, he altereth the state of the controversy by adding these terms, In case of necessity. Def. fol. 19 pa 1 Repl. fol. 36 If the people will not communicate. 19 2 37 the common use of the private mass. 27 1 49 more to use the sacrament. 29 2  in extremity orderly used. 60 2 141  
Again I say, and would call it a slander, but do you term it as favourably as you may, that he can not stand by his words which he reporteth of the Catholics, and their church, defence fol. 1 pa. 2 lin. 21 See the repl. fol. 4 6 1 10 12 8 2 13 19 28 2 20 52 29 1 4 55 34 2 2 73 45 1 13 84 55 1 24 133  
Besides this, I object, that he doth greatly forget himself, and mistake the matter of which he should speak, Def. fol. 45 pa. 1 linea 22 See the reply folio 106 66 2 9 140 76 2 12 162  
Now concerning the arguments, which he maketh such as the known Logic or Divinity never allowed, they will appear  
Def. fol. 11 pa. 2 lin. 19 See the reply folio 24 30 1 2 58 33 1 10 72 33 2 18 75 41 2 14 94 45 2 3. 11. 108. 110 50 1 1. 7. 118 51 2 19 121 52 2 24 135 58 1 2 136 70 2 18 151 92 1  185 104 1 13 193  
Finally there is one feat much used in his book, and properly it would be called a lie, but how so ever it must be termed, you shall find it Defence fol. 14 upon  pa. 2 li. 9 see the reply fol. 27 18  1 10 31 45 S. Cyprian 1 20 105 21 S. Irenei. 1 17. 18 44 30 S. Austin, 2 18. 19 68 3● & the fath. 2 1 70 31 the doctors 1 15 69 38 S. Chrisost. 1 21 81 38 Christ, and 2 3 84 38 his Apostles 2 24 89 50 S. Jerome 2 5 119 55 Socrat● and 1 13 129 55 Syn. Gang. 1 18 132 57 the Euangel. 1 15 134 86 & S. Paul. 2 6. & 11 173. 174  
I had forgotten almost S. Cyprian, exceedingly abused, Defence fol. 71. pa. 1. reply. 155. and not well understanded, Defence fol. 100 pag. 2. Reply fol. 189.  
therefore let the truth be considered, and the substance of the matter regarded, that, when preachers and prelate's find fault with our manner of writing, as though all the book were then answered, if they say toys and nothing else to be in it, thou (indifferent Reader) be not so quieted, but either judge thou by our doings, 
3. Reg. 3.  whether we be like Luther and scoffers, or whether the cause itself be not separated, from the manner and fashion of handling it. For which purpose, I have gathered this table, of such things as mislike us in the maker of the defence, by which, one may see what religion they be of, and how shamefully they abuse their whole country. The end is this, let no honest man be ashamed of the truth, let no protestant bely the truth, if we defend a evil cause, there are wits to discuss it, and proving our matters so evidently, why is no more regard made of them? If our Lord be the God, follow him, if Baal be he, follow him. If we slander or misreport our adversaries, let the places be noted, and we shall satisfy them. If they have not done so with us, the places are quoted, we look for their answer.  
That they may be short and compendious, I require them to speak to the questions, and that they may not wander in confusion of talk, I have brought our objections in to order.  
They can do to their country at home, and us here abroad, no greater pleasure, (except they would out of hand return unto the Catholic church) then speedily and honestly to clear themselves of such matters as are laid against them, that we may have a further occasion to show the weakness of this new religion, & that others, which through hearkening to the world, and their own private lusts or opinions, have neglected the authority of all Christendom commended to them by long continuance, may with reason believe rather the Catholics, whose words shall be found more truer, & more certain to build, or else beware upon (as they have to mistrust their devotions) lest in deed they be of no religion. For which kind of men, if it were not, less prevailing against the truth and less alteration would be permitted, but seeing man is free and master of his own actions, they can be no more then warned, that they seek after truth, and follow it. God be merciful unto us, and if he hath said it by some of his Prophets, upon us, that for our sins sake, and dishonouring of his exceeding great name, we shall be carried away prisoners in to Babylon, yet, 
4. R●. 20.  as Ezechias the King answered for his time, if we also may be so favoured of him. Bonus sermo Domini, quem locutus est, sit pax & veritas in diebus nostris. It is a good saying, which our Lord hath spoken, yet for our days let there be peace and verity, Far well. From Lovanie, the second of March.   

A REPLY AGAINST THE FALSENAMED DEfence of the truth.  

CAP. I.  
WHETHER M. jewel, or the author of the Apology of private Mass, have for their parts done all things so perfectly, that they may or should be defended of those, which are of the same opinion and faith with them: in the one side it may be a question, and on the other, I know it is none at all. For, as concerning the followers of new religions, which believe that the true light is revealed in these last days, they have to strive and labour for them, whom they take for their apostles: but the Catholic, whose faith is not to finding out in the end of the world, he hath not to hang upon any one man's authority, except he be such as is commended by the whole world's testimony. Yet, forasmuch as the answerer to the Apology of private mass, beginneth first with the author of that very Apology, I will not by my silence, be thought to confess him utterly guilty, and yet I will not make for him such hard shift, and stout defence, as although any part of our cause were lost, if he be not thoroughly cleared. therefore to begin with you, which would seem to defend the truth, what fault do you find with the author of the Apology of private Mass? first of all you reprove him sharply, that he bringeth his own sense unto M. jewels words, and after, so reason against it, as though it were his meaning. But, how prove you this upon him? Marry, the bishop of Salisbury (say you)▪ He never said simply, 
Defence.  that he should make no reckoning of his doctrine, because he was bishop.  
Truly neither the Apology doth simply so report of him. 
Reply.  But his words rather be these: I marvel not a little, why you, being reputed a man of such learning, wtterlie refuse to prove the doctrine you teach: alleging very slender causes of your refusal, etc. Meaning his vocation to so high a Rome, and the place where he taught, and the honourable estate of the audience, and the doctrine authorized by the realm. Now it is two things, to say, I refuse to do this, and, I should not do this. Or else▪ I refuse to do this, and I allege my vocation for one cause, and, I should not do this, because I am a bishop. For in refusing and alleging cause of it, there is greater occasion given of further consideration: but in saying, I should not do this, because I am a bishop, there is small grace showed because of so hasty conclusion. This second kind of phrase, is for them which stand gloriously upon their honour and estimation, but the first agreeth even with such, as are ready to fulfil their vocation. The one sentence doth challenge a thing of duty, the other emploieth within it a reason and conveniency. And to be short, the one may be spoken, mildly, discreetly, and charitably, but the other is uttered (I think) stoutly, unwisely, and presumptuously. wherefore, Sir, you make the matter worse by your telling, than it was in the author his writing: and you find fault with others for misreporting and misconstruing, providing not in the mean while for yourself, to use and show true dealing. The Catholic doth not take M. jewel to be so foolish, as to think that because he is a bishop, he should make no reckoning of his doctrine: but he marveleth rather (his learning considered) that he would allege such causes as he did, for the refusal of proving his doctrine. And so he may yet still marvel at it.  But (say you) my Lord bishop did not say, 
Defence.  he should not prove his doctrine, but that he might not well do it without further licence. 
Wherein truly you do take very much from a bishop his liberty, 
Reply.  if he can not safely confer with such as D. Cole is, without obtaining of licence. And you will trouble also the counsel of the realm with more matters then needful, if they shall make so little of their bishops, that they are not to be trusted, with using of their office, except they first ask leave and licence. If the Catholics, which are in prison, were such grievous offendars against the state, that it might be suspected they would practise all treason, then in deed, for surety that none of their religion might come unto them, it were not done unwisely to make the restraint general: and then might a new bishop doubt perchance to confer with them, without further licence. But where as all the fault, which is laid to their charge, hath no other name but papistry, and old religion, M. jewels doubt was more than needful, to refuse the proving of his doctrine without further licence. But it is well that you will declare unto us, the rightfullnes of his refusal, and make his part more probable. Wherein your reasoning is this: Were it good reason (think you) that a magistrate at the demand of every subject, 
Defence.  should bring reason to prove any law, published by the prince, to be good? etc.  
Neither every demand, 
Reply.  neither every subject is to be answered, and God forbid, that either cardmaker, or tapster, or fiddler, or peddler, should be permitted among their pots and packs, to sit judges upon great Doctors, or reverend Canons of general councils. Yea truly, if either gentleman or merchant, would captiously and proudly appose the priest or curate of his parish, it were not to be suffered. But is D. Cole every man? and the good and learned Catholics, which continue in endurance, are they no more to be regarded, than the common sort of English men? or on the other side, are they to be abhorred, as a singular sort of wicked men? To submit the judgement of the Prince and realm, to the misliking of one wayward subject, I grant with you, it would be great impeachment to the Prince's authority▪ nevertheless to defend the judgement, which hath passed by consent of any Prince, or realm, it commendeth their estimation and dignity. But, concerning waywardness, hath D. Cole showed himself to be such a one, in his request and letter to M. jewel? In deed you speak brodely of him, and say that he required a proof of M. jewels doctrine, under pretence of learning, but in deed quarreling. But a●ee herein your honest and true charity. M. D. Cole in his first letter to the bishop, promiseth by the faith he beareth to God, that he will yield so far as M. jewel shall give him cause. And he again in the second letter▪ to M. jewel, in most hearty and humble wise, desireth him to give ear unto his suit, and he speaketh so loulie and basely, that it may be well marveled, why such a Catholic would submit him self unto a protestant. Yet this notwithstanding, you, which see further in other men's hearts, than you can gather by any outward sign, dare to speak it, and that in print, that for all M. D. Coles pretence, yet in deed, he went about quarreling. And you speak not only for yourself, but you would have other believe, that M. jewel also was of the same opinion, 
The M. of the defence slandereth D. Cole, and Master jewel, both.  as though he had therefore made strange, without further licence, to show forth the proofs for his doctrine, because he had to do with a wayward and quarreling subject. Whereof you do foully and unworthily cause him to be suspected▪ as it doth clearly appear by his answer to M. D. Coles first letter. In which after he had declared the doubt of his mind whether without further licence, he might safely give a reckoning of his doctrine, 
M. jewel in the answer unto D. Coles first letter.  Not withstanding (sayeth he) for as much as I am persuaded that you charitably desire to be resolved, I can also charitably be contented etc. to confer with you herein. wherefore truly, Sir, (what so ever you be) you be much to blame to report in such sort of D. Cole, as neither by him is to be gathered, by the faith he oweth unto God, neither to M. jewel is persuaded, as plainly appeareth by his letters. If therefore D. Cole was not in such sense taken by M. jewel, as you suppose him to have been received, it is evident that as you understood not the meaning of the author of the Apology, so likewise, you have mistaken the mind and saying of your Lord of Salisbury. Which maketh me justly to doubt, whether you understand yourself in such matters, as you have enterprised. As, in an other reason which you bring for M. jewel, it may be partly proved, until I proceed further. Your reason is this, In that he is orderly called, 
Defence.  to the state of a bishop, he is in possession of the truth. And therefore it were not reason, he should ●e requested first to show his evidence.  
What mean you then, 
Reply.  I pray you, by possession of the truth? Is the truth so joined unto the Bishopericke of Sarum, that he which is set in possession of the lands, is straightways placed in the possession of the truth? And because it is not so: how is M. jewel at this day more properly in the possession of the truth, than he was seven years past, when he was out of all possession of land? And if seven years past, he might have been required, and nothing have doubted, to show his evidence, unto a Catholic bishop: wh● is it against reason that at this day (for all his temporal honour) he should do the like? For although palace, parks, revenues, servants, horses, and such like, do make him in the sight of the world more worthier, yet all the riches and glory of the world, should not make him, by one jot, the truer. If the will or counsel of mighty Princes of the world, or if the consent of the commons of any realm, were able to set the students of divinity in the possession of the truth: then, not only such Princes or such commons might be called Lords of the truth, but also the truth, which is one in itself, should be oftentimes changed, even as their minds should be altered which are letters and setters of it. But the wisdom of God hath appointed a better order. And he hath given unto his only-begoten and singularly well-beloved sound Jesus' Christ, the nations of the world, as his just inheretance, which yet is so given of the father, that the sound by his precious death hath truly & dearly purchased it. To take therefore the possession of the world, which he might of right challenge for his obedience unto death, he sent forth his officers and apostles, and by his divine power, 
How the possession of the truth was given, and who be the holder's of it at this day.  and showing of miracles, he placed those so few and so simple persons, in the possession of his lands, and by sending unto them all the gifts and graces of the holy ghost, he set them perfectly in the possession of his truth, 
Io. 16.  as it is written, when the holygost cometh, he shall teach you all truth. Now, that the possession of this truth might not be lost for ever after, and that, although the apostles and Disciples should within few years, depart from this world, yet that such should never be to seeking, as might hold the possession of truth once taken, therefore God (which was able to perform it▪) did appoint in his church, some Apostles; 
Eph. 4.  some Prophets, some Evangelists, other some Pastors and teachers, until all we shall come and meet together in unity of faith, and knowledge of the sound of God. Such therefore as succeed the apostles in their faith and places, and such as have continued in the possession of the truth ever sense Christ hitherto, such also as keep the Catholic tradition and priesthood in the most parts of Christendom, are to be regarded and esteemed as the right heirs of the Apostles and Christ. But if in some corner of Christendom, the old and ancient bishops be driven out of their places, and if a new religion be planted. xuc. years after Christ, although it should continue without interruption in that one particular place unto the world's end, yet could it be never rightly said, to have the possession of truth by order. No verily, it hath not so much as the possession of place orderly, and much less the possession of the truth. For, I pray you, what manner of faith was he of, whom M. jewel succeedeth in the palace of Sarum? Or what order can you number up, sense England was Christened, of bishops and Priests inspired with the like confession of faith, as now is, for the time, used? Well Sir yet again, if the order which any one Realm taketh, be able to settle men in the possession of truth, and if for the time of that order standing, no bishop is to be required to show his evidence: how chanceth it, that in the disputation which was prepared at Westminster, the catholic bishops, which then were in possession, were not yet permitted to enjoy their pruilege? Or why did your bishops now, which then were out of office, refuse to show their evidences as they were required? As the church of Christ had hundred of years together used, so did the bishops and clergy of England observe and keep in their service and order of church, what time you began to rise and reason against them. And whereas it was sufficient cause enough for them to believe and maintain as they did, because they had so received of their predecessors and fathers, whose wisdom's they had not to suspect, yet you were not content with the licence granted unto you, of disputing with them, but you would also appoint unto them, what order they should take in the matter. And for all their possession, yet you would drive them to show their evidencies. What if they had lost their writings? or could not find them presently? or would not show them to such as you were: is their silence, or refusal in that behalf, to be accounted for a loss of their cause? But (thanks be to your Bishoperickes) when you be now well placed, 
The heretics change their arguments, together with the changes of tyme.  you are content that the plaintyfe should first and foremost show his evidence. And now it is against reason, that the possessor should take the person of a plaintyfe, which, before this time, would not be granted, whiles yourselves were out of all possession. But how say you, if the Catholics do continually yet keep their possession? for the bishops of France, Spaigne, Germany, and Italy, are not yet driven out of their chairs and places of the apostles. And as long as they keep their rooms, you can not enter in to the church, as it were a house forsaken and destitute. how then? will you drive them out by force, vi & armis? In deed it is one of the chiefest ways, by which the new gospel hath proceeded, which if you can not, as yet, follow thoroughly, you must then, either let them alone (which you do not as appeareth by your sermons & writings) or else bring forth your evidences against them which be in possession. But no reason shall prevail except it make for you, and therefore you pass not upon the possession, which the Catholics hold and keep in the world, but you will drive them to the proving of such articles as do offend you, and for your own part, you will stand upon the negative. The resting upon which, because you say, it is mistaken, let us hear your exposition, how it must be understanded? M. jewel (say you) perceiving us to make this avaunt, 
Defence.  that the church hath taught as we do, these. xuc. years, did both wyselie and learnedly see, that there was none so fit way to drive us from it: As to rest upon this true negative, that we have, no sufficient proof, out of the authorities of scriptures, fathers, or councils. But, Sir, how can your wisdom serve you to think, 
Reply.  that because you will have us to prove our doctrine, therefore we must do it? If every Catholic bishop in the world, should in his own conscience have misliked, the use of the Catholic church in sundry articles, yet for the reverence, which they own unto antiquity, they should not without evident and manifest reason, have lightly given over their old orders, for the strength of tradition is so great, that although I could see no reason why I should defend it, yet I should not contemn their authority, from whom it was received. For like as in the Epistle unto the Romans (which epistle tradition teacheth me to be S. Paul's) I must not blot out every sentence, which unto my judgement may seem either untrue, either unprofitable, but reverently think, that all is well, although my understanding be very evil: so when the church of Christ doth generally receive and follow a custom, I ought to judge the best of it, although I were not able to prove it. To dispute of that which the whole church through the world doth use, 
August. ad ●anu. epist. 118.  it is (sayeth S. augustine) a point of most insolent madness. If therefore being able to give no other reason for my belief, then only tradition, I should not rashly departed from it, shall my adversary require of me a cause of my doings in writing, and except I show it out of hand, pull me away from my religion? Let me suppose that you brought M. jewel unto me, and that he should find me standing in this point of the Catholic faith, that it is not of necessity required in a Christian man to receive under both kinds. What might he, (think you) say unto me either wisely, either learnedly against me? you would make him, (I know) to speak after this sort, that I have no sufficient proof, out of Scriptures, Doctors, or councils, to make for me. Yes Sir (would I answer) and please you, I have sufficient authority for my belief therein, but I am not disposed to tell you of it, and I would not care to take a blow for so answering a bishop. Yes Mary (shall he say) if you had any, you would allege it, and except you tell me of one or other, you shall be accounted to make only an avaunt, and in deed to have nothing. And here, I trow, if all Catholics should hold their peace, in like manner as I do, it should be declared at Paul's cross the next sunday following, that the papists have no one sentence or word to make for them, in all Scripture, Doctors and councils. Well Sir then, although this be to much injury and oppression, because the Catholics were not disposed to refel your negative, thereupon to conclude, that they are able to say nothing: I will yet go further with you, and grant for disputation sake, that which for truth sake is to be denied. And what is that? forsooth that I have no other cause in all the world, for defence of the article which I mentioned, but only this one, that it hath very long, and quietly continued. How say you in this case? will you stand still upon the negative, which for trying of your wisdom, I grant unto you? And to keep your negative, will you deny, that receiving in one kind only, hath not been long used in the church? No verily, that can you not do, because it is so plain and evident, that receiving in one kind hath continuance of time, and approved practice of Christendom for it, that yourselves do cry out and gapple in pulpits, that many hundred of years together before you were breathed out in to the world, all Christendom, as in sundry other points, so in that also was miserably deceived. How then? you will perchance prove unto me, that my argument is not good, because all the world hath hitherto been seduced. And truly, what other thing you might say, I can not tell. For when I should yield unto you that I have no Scripture, Doctor, or Council, for communion in both kinds, and when you should not well call me unreasonable, for dwelling against you in that article and opinion, alleageing the consent and use of Christendom for me: either you must declare, that reason of mine to be nothing worth the staying upon: or else you must hold your peace, as having no more to say unto me: or else you must repeat your beginning again, and harp madly upon one string, in telling me that I can show no sufficient sentence, example, or authority, why communion should be given under one kind only. Now, as you have to much variety to harp still upon one point, and as your heart is to great in you to be tongtyde, so must it remain that you will refel my argument, and tell me that I do not safely and wisely, to have in regard and estimation a general consent of all Christendom. After which bold saying, you must come to the particulars, and show by council, doctor, example or scripture, that the whole church may be foully deceived, and I miscarye in the following of her. At which point if you tell me of pilgrimages, images, pardons, or purgatory (with the misusing or mistaking of which the church doth never bear) I must answer you, that they appertain to an other time, and that you should more properly talk of communion under both kinds, of which our question is instituted, and of which you make yourself sure. In which matter, if you can and will prove the whole world to have been deceived: then shall you be driven from the rest upon your negative, and take upon you the person of a plainetyfe, in proving unto us, that one kind alone should not be ministered, but both of necessity received. And if you refuse to do so, you shall hold your peace, and hold down your head for all your negative, which you thought should defend you, because I put the case so, that I would grant you your negative. wherefore M. jewels invention of his negative, hath neither so great wite nor learning, as you suppose, because it would never serve him, if the Catholic should tell him plainly, either that he would not, either that he could not answer him. Now, as concerning all this question of apposing and answering, and all the shifts likewise, and practises, which are conuneighed under the name of negatives, it should have becomed right well the professors of a new Gospel, not to have made their chief defence upon the weakness (if any should be) or behavior of their adversaries, but openly and willingly to have uttered their good tidings: and not to invent in their writing what might grieve the adversary, but rather to have taken every occasion, which had been able to edify. Now, because you, which have taken upon you the defence (as you call it) of the truth against the Apology of private mass, do leave the further discussing of these matters, unto some other meeter places, I shall be contented likewise to give over with you, although it would have done us no harm, shortly to have understanded your iud●gement. But this much yet is clearly gotten, that whereas it hath been hitherto avouched, that the Catholics had no one authority for their purpose: now yet there is come forth a little Apology of private mass, containing many good authorities for the proving of the Catholic faith, which book, how truly and faithfully it is answered, it shall appear after just examination and heed taken.   

The second Chapter.  
HERE now we are come to the very matter itself, in which the author of the Apology, for avoiding of endless brabbling, thought good to declare his meaning, as concerning the word and term, Private, when it is applied to the mass. And his conclusion is this, that if you will take the word, private, as it is contrary unto common, so the church hath no private mass. But if a private mass be understanded for a mass in which the priest receiveth alone, without any imbarring of other to communicate with him: the church in deed doth allow sole receiving. Marry, the term of private is not properly hers, but invented in the schools of heretics. This distinction then being laid, the master of the defence, which writeth against him, is very much grieved with his plain dealing, as one which could be well content to fight with his twohandsword, and so to change from one sense to an other, that he might not be directly overcomed. And therefore in his anger, whereas the Catholic spoke it very sadly, that the church acknouledgeth no private mass, as private is contrary unto common, he madly allegeth:  That in deed we have been very bountiful in bestowing the benefit of our mass, 
Defence.  and especially when money was brought in abundantly. 
But, may you not be ashamed, 
Reply.  to object that against your adversaries as their own deed and working, which you can never find written in any of their books, or by any of their talks approved? what if you can descant upon diverse matters, and make gay voluntary sport upon no lawful ditty, although your own side might make you a bishop for your singing, yet, when without all affection the truth should be examined, all your exceeding melody, would be found no better then barking. Do you not think, that as many points might be fott upon tapsters, fiddlers, peddlers, baggpypers also and sowgelders (Sir reverence) which for idleness sake do come unto your ministery, and for lack of better, are received by and by: as you can make upon such wretched men, which make merchandise of their masses? if you can prove, that the church of Christ, doth not teach her scholars, that the mass is a common and no private service: then should you speak unto the purpose somewhat, and be thought to write gravely: but when you can say nothing to the matter, to object against us the bestowing of masses for money, such as the church never allowed, we can gather no better sense hereof, then that you can pleasantly dally. And thus much for the first understanding of private Mass. Touching the other signification of private, by which the heretics have meaned sole receiving, the church doth hold, that the priest may receive alone at his mass, if no other will communicate with him. Against which conclusion, what one wise word have you to bring forth? Marry, you find fault, that the Catholic requireth you to prove the affirmative, which is, that every priest ought, when he receiveth, to have a company to receive with him, which is a shift (as you say) of him that mistrusteth his quarrel. Then further, you blame him, that the question being of private masses, he maketh his issue in sole receiving. And you ask the question:  Is there no difference (think you) between sole receiving and private Mass? 
Defence.  doth every one that receiveth alone, say a private Mass? 
Ask not this question of Catholics, 
Reply.  but of Lutherans. For the Catholics have no such private mass, as you have made. It is the Lutherans invention, whom it pleased to call that service and office of the church a private mass, in which the priest receiveth alone. Which office the church calleth mass, and the Lutherans nickname it private, because of sole receiving. The church therefore doth not say, that he, which receiveth alone, saith a mass, or that sole receiving and a private mass are all one, but she openly telleth you that in deed no mass is private: yet because she hath to do with heretics, and for better expedition of matters is contended to use their terms, therefore the Catholics of this time do call that a private mass, at which the priest receiveth alone, which they do not, out of their own books, but because they read among the heretics, that they have such a sense of private mass. wherefore you have done very unskilfully to tell us of Tully & Panetius, and to require that we should define private mass unto you, which have not been the inventors and first authors of that term. And if the Lutherans for the breeding of suspicion, and bringing forth of errors, have so foolishly mingled sole receiving and mass together, that it is proved an absurdity, that he which receiveth alone, saith thereby a private mass: let the shame light upon their heads, and not upon the Catholics. And yet for all this you will make us believe, that we must define a private mass, and whether we will or no, you will define it for us. But it is well yet that you amend the matter, in saying that you will show out of our own authors (not what we take, but) what you take our private mass to be.  It is a sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, 
Defence.  used in the church, 1 in place of the Lord his supper, 2 by one priest alone offered to God the Father for the sins of quick and dead, which, 3 without any to participate with him, he may apply to the benefit of what persons and things he listeth. 
If this be the definition o● a private mass, 
Reply.  how will you define (I pray you) that mass which is called, and is in deed common? Or where find you in all our doctors a division of mass, in to private and common? here be so many faults in this definition, that not only the schools of the Catholics would never have made it, but not so much as a reasonable scholars head would ever have permitted. first you define that thing (and that out of our own authors you lie) which we do not confess to be extant, because we believe, that there is no mass private. For you may read in the schoolmen of private and solemn mass, 
D. Th. ●. part. q. 83. art. 5. ad 12.  not as it were ij. kinds of masses, but at the most two circunstancies only, and accidents of mass: but of private and common to make such differences, as though the definition of the private were essentially distincted from the common, it is such an invention, as may well becum perchance your pregnant wit, but it is not, I assure you, in the Catholic doctrine. Yet, let us consider the framing of your definition. A private mass (say you of your own head by the Catholics) is a sacrifice. In deed, if you understand by mass, the offering of the body and blood of Christ, so is mass properly a sacrifice: but considering that you in reproving the parts and ceremonies used in the celebration thereof, and the common people together with you do understand it more largely, you should not without some distinction so absolutely have called it a sacrifice, whereas in the commoner sense, it is taken for that office or service of the church, not which is itself a sacrifice, but within which there is offered up a sacrifice. And therefore if I would not, without addition, say, of the mass itself which we hold and defend, that it is a sacrifice, (except I would speak figuratively, and call that which doth contain, by the name of the thing which is contained) how much less would I say that a private mass is a sacrifice. But you add further unto your definition, it is a sacrifice used in place of the Lord his supper: which words do sound so strangely, that a Catholic would never use them, as which beleiveth that he hath, not any such thing which is in place of our Lord his supper, but that undoubtedly he hath the same meat, which was given to the apostles the night before Christ suffered, and that he enjoyeth the self-same supper in deed. Again to make up your definition, you say that it is a sacrifice by one priest alone offered to God the father: As who might think, that there were some kind of masses, in which more priests than one did offer up sacrifice. And again, these words of one priest alone, were craftily thrust in to the heap, that thereof might be gathered some argument of private mass. It followeth further: which sacrifice without any to participate with him he may apply etc. But why do you make mention of participantes with the priest? might he then, apply the effect of the sacrament, when any would communicate with him? And is this it which grieveth you, that he may apply it without any to participate? Who doth not se● (which is a Catholic, or else but indifferent and learned) that you labour as much as you may to bring in such phrases by which a private mass might be suspected? for leave out these words of (one priest alone) and (without any to participate with him) there is nothing in the definition, which might be enforced to serve for mass private. And yet when they be added, we do right well know that they are not essential points of a mass. wherefore I might justly say, that this definition of a private mass, which you attribute to the Catholics, is far unmeet for their learning, as being unproper, heretical, superfluous, and wandering. But for all this, you will prove the truth of this definition unto us, wherein I wonder at your presumption, that you will attempt things impossible. But yet let us give you the hearing. All your sort-doe rasshlie confess, 
Defence.  and stoutly defend, that it is a sacrifice of Christ his body. But first let me hear of what you speak? 
Reply.  Did you not go about to define a private mass? And doth all our sort say that private mass is a sacrifice? How oft shall I tell you, that we know no private mass? We confess that in the mass there is the body and blood of our saviour, and that it is our daily sacrifice, and that it is offered for quick and dead. Yea, but doth one priest alone offer it? Yea Sir except you think it necessary to have more priests than one to celebrate at one altar at one tyme. And doth not the priest, make application of the Sacrament as he lifts? No forsooth, not as he listeth, neither as you mak● definitions by adding and taking away what pleaseth you, but with reverence and horror, and by way of supplication and request, he serveth for some one more than an other, the virtue of the sacrifice in itself considered, continuing always perfect and infinite. And be not all these things defended of all your side? Not these things only, but twenty other more also, and yet every one of those twenty shall not be jumbled up together in one definition of mass. But all this while, how prove you that we define a private mass in such sort as you have invented? You might have made it probable, if you had said that we define Mass, after the same manner as you report (and yet you should have made a lie, for all your sight in our authors) but you can never be able to show, that we make such definition of a private mass, whereas so expressly we answer you, that we have no mass private. But it is to be noted the authority, with which you make your conclusions. I do therefore (say you) take private mass to be not only as you etc. have wrested it, 
Defence.  but as it was commonly used in the world before, and as it was set forth in your schoolmen, to the great defacing of Christ his death and passion. If you have any face at all of à true man, 
Reply.  show in what place of any schoolman, any such private mass is spoken of as you define. And I would also that you had concluded, whether you will take this word (private) in such sense as by the Lutherans it is appointed, to express sole receiving. For although you join your issue with us, about this definition of private mass which yourself have invented: yet you will not refuse altogether, to take private mass as we do (through the occasion of certain heretics) for sole receiving. Which whether you do, because you would not seem to grant unto the Catholics, that private mass hath been in the primitive church (which is concluded easily, understanding by it sole receiving) or rather because you would have some liberty to hide yourself under ambiguities, and thereby to trouble your adversary, when he should not know where to find you, as I fear them both, so I will not determine upon any one. But if you mind to stand with us upon that definition of private mass, which you have made, we say that there is no such thing among us, as you do enforce yourself to prove out of our authors. And yet if you will put out the word (private) which you never learned of us, for the rest we will abide by all that which the church hath received and delivered, concerning our sacrifice, and the value of it, and in what sense the priest may apply a benefit proper to some peculiar person.  
And therefore, when you will, begin, and you shall be answered: or rather answer when you can, for we have already begun. We, I mean, Catholics, which speak in all tongues, that if you find not our arguments in english, yet you may resort to the Italian, Spaynisshe, French, Latin, and to the Dutch tongue. But if now on the other side, you will admit such an interpretation of (private) which word Luther hath joined unto the mass, as shall signify and declare sole receiving: then shall we join this issue with you, that the priest is not bound to have present company to receive with him, but that without all danger of God his indignation, he may celebrate a private Mass, as you term it. etc.   

The third Chapter.  
FOrasmuch as M. jewel with other, do think themselves to hurt our church very much in their stout denial, that there was any mass private (as they term it) in the primitive church, the Catholic therefore in his Apology, although he had good authorities to confute that bold conclusion, yet for the better opening of their weak kind of reasoning, he so beginneth with them as though it were true, that there was no ptivate mass in the primitive church. And he seemeth to make these arguments for us. Not, if there were no private mass in the primitive church, therefore it must of necessity follow, that none might or should be used at these days. For many things were then interdicted, which now are permitted. And many things were not extant then in the church, which now are to be maintained. Examples hereof may be perceived in washing of feet, 
10. 13. Act. 15. Luc. 22. Cyp. ser. 5. de laps.  in abstaining from blood, in receiving of the sacrament after supper, in howseling of infants, in temporalties of bishops, and Christening of Princes. To call therefore such things to the state of the primitive church, is, to enforce a tall man to return to his swathing clothes. Again, men at that time were so well disposed, that it was no wonder if at every mass there were communicantes: but now there is such coldness of charity, that if we should always tarry for communicantes, we should very seldom have any mass at all. Furthermore, the people are not commanded, but counseled only to the frequentation of their housel, but the priests are commanded to celebrate oftentimes. therefore it is no reason, that a duty should be omitted, and the priest made to wait upon the pleasure of the laity. And so he shortly concludeth, that, to prescribe of necessity, that there ought to be a company to receive with the priest, it is an itching folly. But now, against these reasons of the Catholic, what saith the M. of the defence? You would seem to take from us, 
Defence. fo. 8.  the true and right rule to reform the church of Christ? You be very suspitiouse Sir, 
Reply.  or very injurious. For no other thing was gone about in this third chapter, but that all things should not be required to be done, as they were used in the primitive church. Which conclusion, do you simply and plainly yield unto, or else will you drive us to the further proving of it? Nay, you confess it to be so evident and true, that you marvel at the Catholic, because he endeavoured to open it. Where then is that fault which you find with him? or what true and right rule of reforming the church might he seem to take away from you? He said nothing else, 
An vnreaso●na●●e manner 〈◊〉 fass●●on of the 〈◊〉 of the def●nce his writing  but that all things should not be so required to be done, as they were used in the primitive church, and yourself confess this▪ to be a most true saying, and yet you mis●lyke with him, because of the speaking of it. Here now it may appear, who lurketh out of the light, or who draweth back. For, whereas you without distinction have abused the name of the primitive church, and made so little reckoning of these last. ixC. years, and more, as though you would admit no other thing, then that which should be proved to agree with the example of the primitive church: what thing is more necessary to be spoken of, than that discretion is to be used in this matter, and that all things are not absolutely to be reduced unto the pattern of the primitive church? For although you, for your own part, be of such judgement, that you can make distinction between things necessary and indifferent: yet when the multitude of light heads, do hear you to appeal simply to the primitive church, and to crack that the right and true reformation, is from thence to betaken: they fall in to such a conceit by and by, that except the Catholics can bring all their orders from the primitive church, they will not be ruled by them. And if I were so suspicious as you, I could say that your own preachers and masters do seem to be of the same opinion, when they make so exact reckoning upon the time, in which orders have by holy men been brought in to the church, as though nothing were to be permitted, but that which hath come from the Apostles, or that those things should be altogether now authentic, which were used in the primitive church. But if the Catholic hath been superfluous, in proving of that which no man (as you say) hath denied, if you will charitably forgive him this once, he shall within the turning of one leaf in your defence, do the like again for you. And now (I trow) we do agree in this one point, that for ceremonies and things indifferent, we are not bound unto the apostles tyme. In what things then are we bound to do after the example of the apostles, and the primitive church?  In truth of doctrines and right use of sacraments, 
Defence fol. 10.  as things in the church most necessary. 
And you do allege this cause of your so saying: In doctrine there is but one verity, and but one right use of the sacraments.  
If I were able precisely to know, 
Reply.  what you mean by the right use of Sacraments, I could soon answer you, how far forth we agree with you in this part of your distinction. For to receive in the morning or evening, to receive fasting or after meals, and to receive with company or alone, they be such things as you may, at your pleasure, understand by the right use of the Sacrament, or say to disagree from the right use of it. 
1. Cor. 11.  For in S. Paul's time among the Corinthians they used to receive at night about supper time, and they made no matter of conscience, if they had dined that day before. And you can not say, but, notwithstanding the breaking of their fasts, or taking of their suppers, they did in that beginning of the church, rightly use the Sacrament. If therefore the use of the Sacrament, is to be taken for that manner and order which they rightly used at the beginning in receiving of the sacraments, I deny unto you, that the right use of them, is to be accounted among precepts and laws unchangeable. For the right use is but one (you say) and therefore like as they of the apostles' time, did sit together in the church about evening, and receive, either after or before other meats, Christ his very natural body: so should we do now of necessity in these days, or else we use not the sacrament rightly. To which case, if you will answer, that time, place, and manner of supping with common meats (which then were used) do nothing appertain to the right use of the sacrament, so shall I again infer, that number of communicantes, and receiving in one or both kinds, are as little required to the right use of the sacrament. therefore, to avoid the occasion of striving, which could not but be given if one part understanded not the other, our meaning is this, that in the articles of our faith and necessary doctrine, we have to keep one verity, which hath been from the beginning: but in canons and orders which have been added sense, unto the substance of our religion, the church of Christ is not so straictly bound unto them, but that she may, with discretion, abrogate, or alter them, or permit the discontinuance of them. And in this kind of orders we understand the use of the sacraments, which in substance are to this day one with those of the primitue church, do they never so much differ in ceremonies, circunstancies, and manner of using them. We do not therefore grant unto you, that the right use of the sacrament is but one, or that the use of a sacrament is in the same authority and estimation, as the truth of doctrine is. For he which receiveth alone (if he be in state of grace) doth well, and he which receiveth with company doth well, if his life be clean. And then again, a conclusion in doctrine can never be removed, but in receiving of sacraments, divers uses may be permitted, except you doubt, whether both parties should be thought baptized a right, of which the one were but once dipped, the other thrice washed and perfunded. Wherefore the use of the sacraments being▪ with us a thing indifferent in itself, (although not indifferent unto every rash controller) you speak very absurdly unto our judgements, 
The intricate talk of the M. of the defence.  first in not binding us unto the observations of ceremonies and things indifferent, and then again requiring of us to keep the ceremonies of the primitive church▪ For when you had said in one sentence, (For the use of ceremonies, and things indifferent, we do not bind you to the Apostles time, and the primitive church,) in the next sentence following, you call for redress, according to the scripture and primitive church, not only for use of sacraments, or false opinions, (which are referred to the first member of your distinction) but also as concerning ceremonies, which although you call superstitious, that you might seem to have some just cause of taking them away, yet you do against right dealing, to call us to the primitive church for ceremonies, which you said before were in themselves indifferent. And here lo you make a rule, and say, 
Fo. 10. &. 11.  that nothing is to be added unto the first ordinances of the law, and that we must bring things unto the institution of Christ. And again: that we must not hearken what other did before us, but what Christ first did, that was before all. And yet again: That, that is true, that was first ordained: and that is corrupted, that is after done: which rule if you will have to be understanded in such matters as concern immutable doctrine, then have you proved that thing which none of ours denieth unto you, and so you are all fallen in to the same lapse, for which you misliked with others. But if you understand generally, by truth of doctrine, the use of Sacraments and ceremonnies, then have you much forgotten your self, which even now made ceremonies, indifferent. But if you do it for that purpose, that a Catholic should not know where to have you, although I seem to ask your loss, yet, for truth sake, amend that fashion. And perchaunse this might be amended also, that you do not truly allege your testimonies, saying that to be Saint Cyprianes in his Epistle unto Cecilius, which is not at all to be found there, but in his goodly treatise De simplicitate praelatorum. In which place the seeking unto the head, 
S. Cyprian mistaken, of the M. of the defence  which you do mention, is not understanded for to seek unto the beginning of a doctrine or custom, but unto that head of whom it is written, 
Math. 17  Thou art Peter (that is to say) a rock, and upon this rock I will build my church. But how rightly you allege the doctors, and how much they make for you, it will be perceived before we have ended. Hitherto let it be marked, that we refuse your rule of resorting to the first institution for the redress about the use of the Sacraments. Because the use of them is a thing indifferent, and it neither maketh neither marreth to receive alone or with company, and to receive in one or in both kinds, or at night or in the morning, or thrice in the year, or ones in all our life, so that the church be obeyed.  
And now we will come to an other part of this third chapter, in which you do exceedingly reprove the Catholic, because of the similitude of a taull man and infant, which he used to the opening of his purpose, and confounding of his adversary. Which so much displeaseth you, that you say: I assure you it was never invented without the spirit of Antichrist, 
Defence. fol. 11.  nor can not be maintained without blasphemy against Christ, and singular reproach of his apostles and their successors. Sir, 
Reply.  I beseech you to pacify yourself, and to use the matter so calmly and quietly, as you promised to do in the end of the two chapter. Consider, I pray you first, whether the Catholic hath such a meaning, as yond make sense upon him. Let us rehearse faithfully the words of the Catholic, and then as far as your grammar rules will suffer you, make your construction upon them. He had spoken before, of the commons of all things in the Primitive church, 
Apol. of private Mass fol. 5.  of miracles, of covering of women's faces, of temporalties of bishops, of receiving after supper, of eating of blouddinges, and houseling of infants, of which all he saith in manner of a conclusion: To call such things to the state of the Apostles time, and of the primitive church again, is nothing else but to enforce a tall man, to come to his swadeling clothes, and to cry alarm in his cradle again. These lo be his very words, in which, do your worst, and tell us what fault you find? He resembleth the primitive church (say you) to infancy, which similitude you term, as please you, an invention of Antichrist, a blasphemy against Christ, and singular reproach of his apostles. But see now, herein how much you be deceived. The Catholic doth not (as you ween) say, that altogether that church was an infant, but in such things as he speak of, concerning order or dispensation which then was used in the church, he saith, and saith it truly, that to require that all things should be now in these days observed, as they were then used, it were no more nor better, then to bring a tall man to his swadeling clothes again. And yet, as though he had made no more of the primitive church, then as if none but boys had lived in it, so you full manly reason against him, and prove yourself to lack discretion.  
For you say: If that time were the state of infancy in the church, 
Defence. fo. 11.  when Christ himself instructed, when his Apostles taught, when the holy fathers governed next their time: 
A fond collection of the M. of the defence  then we must needs reckon Christ, the Apostles, the fathers, to be infants in religion, to be babes in government of the church. If we must needs do so as you say, 
Reply.  then is there no remedy. But certainly it is wonder unto me, how any such necessity should be concluded: yea although I would affirm it, that not only in a few particular causes, but also concerning the whole state of her, the church was then in her infancy. For although the whole house be full of children, yet it must not straightways follow, that the goodman and the goodwiffe must needs be children. Or if in a school of one hundred of scholars, the best is not come unto his Catechism, or the institutions of calvin in english, (books which will soon make one a Doctor) it must not follow of necessity, that the master understandeth not his accidence. The apostles of our saviour Christ, before the coming of the Holyghost in fiery tongues upon them, 
Luc. 18. f 10. 20. b.  they were always full of imperfection, 
Math. 16. c.  both in will and also understanding: 
Math. 26. f  ergo was Christ our master to be reckoned for an ignorant person? For so runneth your wise reason, that if that time were the state of infancy, than we must needs reckon Christ to be an infaent in religion. The Christians also, after the ascension of Christ, and preaching of the Apostles, were for the most part frail and weak, of which the Apostle had need to say: If a man be prevented in any fault. etc. And again: 
Gal. 6.  I speak gently and favourably, 
Ro. 6.  because of the weakness of your flesh. And unto the Hebrews: 
Heb. 5.  Every body that is partaker of milk, is void of the talk of justice, for he is little one: but the sound and strong meat is for the perfect. Yet, not withstanding the imperfections of the weaker, there were many spiritual men apt to instruct others: and the Apostle had many things to tell his countrymen which could not be well interpreted, because they were unable to hear him. But you, to make your part the stronger, do prove that the primitive Church had use of reason, and wisdom, and you go so far in the matter, that you define unto us what the word Infancy doth signify, and you say, that young age is for no other cause named infancy, 
Defence fo●. 12.  them for that it hath not the use of tongue and can not speak. But the primitive church could speak, ergo you would have us discredited, because we say that she had her infancy. In very deed it had been better for you, if you could have neither spoken, neither written so childishly. For (to let that reproof which you deserve, to pass, that you do not rightly conceive his meaning, whom you would seem to answer) you must consider, that he which shall compare the time of the primitive church unto infancy, may have right good meanings therein, such as yourself must allow. For, 
How the church may be said to have her infancy.  like as to infants many things are permitted, which afterwards shall leisurely be taken away: so in the primitive church under the sight and government of the apostles, some ceremonies of the old law were suffered to continue, which now among all Christians are utterly abrogated: 
Act. 15. ● etc. 21. d  as circumcision, purification, and abstaining from certain meats. Again, like as all things are not opened unto children, which in further process of years, serve for their profit and understanding: so the wisdom of God, which was abundantly in his apostles and their successors, did not straightways put forth in writing all mysteries, but as occasion afterward required, so it brought forth in to the open knowledge of the church, the ancient and Apostolical verities. I might also say, that because the church then, was, in external show, both poor and naked, and subject to persecutions, therefore it was in her infancy, but now when it is so glorious, so strong, and mighty, that she hath the Princes of the world obedient and subject unto her, and hath nobly spreaden herself over the compass of the whole world, it is no great absurdity (I trow), if she be said to have come to a perfect age and stature. Which yet, if you will call dotage, because of many evil manners and enormities extant in her, I would not strive with you upon it, concerning some members of her, if you did so speak without privy spite and malice. But yet this doth follow, that the same was then, by our saying, in her infancy, which now is come, as you report, to her dotage. And as infancy then, did nothing prejudicate unto her wisdom, by which she was well able to govern and rule her children, so her dotage now, which is seen in the life of many, doth nothing excuse you, for contemning your old mother. If therefore now, it may be well said, in sundry ways and senses, that the church in the apostles' time, was in a certain infancy, what sprite moved you to make such a sense of it, as against which you might use your indignation, without the matter and purpose? Or with what honesty could you conclude, that the Catholics do make Christ and his apostles infants: of which the one, they honour as true God, the others, they worship as Doctors and patrons of the world? Brothern (saith the Apostle) I could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, 
1. Cor. 3.  but as to carnal, like as to little ones in Christ, I gave unto you milk to drink, not meat. For as then you were not able, no neither yet you can. For as yet you be carnal. And to the Galathians: 
Gal. 4.  O my little children (sayeth he) with whom I am in travail again, until Christ be form in you. Do not therefore, Sir, I pray you, so earnestly take the matter, when you see the Apostle himself, not to lose any of his own strength and wisdom, because of the imperfection of the Corinthians and others: and consider also, whether they might not be called infants, which as yet, were to be fed with milk. But let us go further in to the chapter. You lay the cause of private Mass upon the keycold charity of the people, 
Defence. fo. 14.  (and perhaps the first occasion came thereof in deed) but. etc. Who told you that this was the cause of private Mass? You read it not, I am assured, in the Apology which you would feign answer: and yet you build so much upon it, as though it had been a most plain conclusion of it. The Catholic in his Apology sayeth, that the constant faith, the pure life, the fervent charity, etc., which flourished in the primitive church, were causes perhaps, why no Mass was then celebrated, but that divers Christians did communicate. But what conclusion doth he infer there upon? not that truly which you dream of, 
The M. of the defence mistaketh the Catholic.  but this only which he laboured to prove, that you should not therefore require the like manner of communicating with the priest, to be at these days used, when the like devotion and charity is not in the people's hearts grounded. He said not, that the keycold charity of the people should be the cause of private mass, no more than he said that the number of communicantes was the efficient cause of saying mass, as though there might have been no mass at all, except there had been some prepared to receive. Is there no difference (trou you) betwixt these ij. propositions: There were no masses said in the primitive church, but there were some ready to communicate, and, Except there had been some ready for that purpose, there would have been no masses in the primitive church. The first perhaps was true, and the cause thereof is attributed in the Apology, unto the devotion of the people. The second is denied plainly unto you, because the sacrifice of the church of Christ, doth not depend at all, upon communicantes▪ for like as in these days at an Easter time, the perfect holy men may be espied to go closely in to some one chapel, and there say privately a mass, in great devotion and silence, the cause of which is, not in the lack of such as would communicate, but, together with many other causes, the desire which they have given in to their hearts, to go so much the further from the sight and respect of men, by how much the nearer they would come to the contemplation and admiration of God: so it might right well have come to pass, without any scripture, authority, or reason to the contrary, that even in the most best time of the primitive church, such masses were said now and then, which you do odiously call private. wherefore seeing there is so great fault committed of you in the misconstruing of the Catholic his reason, no wonder if you have taken great pains in commenting upon it all out of purpose. As when you tell us of many commodities, which grow by the oft receiving of the sacrament etc. But who shall bring the people daily or weekly, yea quarterly rather unto the receiving of their maker, if they will not themselves? The priests (say you) should warn them and instruct them, 
Defence. fo. 16.  and tell them plainly, that if they be gazers only and no receivers, they run thereby in to displeasure of God: with many other vehement sentences, which for that purpose you allege out of S. Chrisostome. And you make the matter so easy, as though for the speaking, the priest could bring the people unto the communion: whereas it doth presently appear even in your late erected churches, that, for all that you are able to do, you have most often times no communion at all. And except it were, more for the prince's law, then for that by your vehement exhortations you should persuade the people, I think there would be fewer communions by four parts, then are now in England, which as many as they are, do not lightly exceed one or two a quarter in most parishes. 
Math. 7.  First therefore pluck the beam out of your own eye, and then you shall be better able to take a mote out of an others eye. And when you shall perceive by experience (which already in part doth try it) that except you constrain men by act of parliament, you shall never bring them, by the strength and dailynes of your preaching, unto the frequenting of the communion, then lo you shall be more merciful towards others in your own exact judgement, and think, that with good cause, that may be unspoken, in which you should have no hope of redress to be made by your speaking. But of the diligence and discretion of the church which she hath used, concerning the calling of people unto their housel, because of better occasion which hereafter followeth, I will in this place leave it uncounted.  But ye object, 
Defence fol. 17.  that priests are bounden of duty to the daily frequentation of it, and the people left free. That would I feign learn at your hand, and see some good proof of the Scripture, for the same. 
If you would feign learn, 
Reply.  tarry until I bring our doctors and readers unto you. But as though you had all the learning of the world, set in a table before your eyes, so you answer, that we have less than a light shadow to hide our assertion in.  
Truly, Sir, you give testimony against yourself, that you be very blind, because you can judge no better of colours. For this first I trust you will grant, that priests and lay men are not altogether one. You must grant also, that as we are under a proper and most excellent law, so likewise that we have a correspondent priesthood: as it is written, 
Heb. 7.  When the priesthood is transferred, it must needs be, that there be made a transferring of the law also: because law and priesthood do go● jointly together. Then it followeth hereupon: That every bishop chosen out of men, 
Heb. 5.  is appointed for men, in those things which are to Godward, that he should offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins. etc. But sacrifice for sin there is none in this law and time of grace, besides the body and blood of our saviour, ergo that must be offered. Yet no man should take an office upon him, except he were called, and there is no place in all scripture, where that calling is expressed, but only in the last supper of Christ. 
priests are bound to offer.  therefore whereas he in that his last supper gave authority unto priesthood in saying: 
Luc. 22.  Do this in remembrance of me. I conclude, that priests only, are bound to bless, to break his body, and consequently to eat it. I say not that every priest is bound to daily frequentation of the sacrament, (which if you think us to do, you speak without book therein, and misreport the Catholics) but concerning the whole body of priesthood, and the necessity of a daily sacrifice, priests are not only bound to offer, but to provide that there be daily offering. Knowing this, 
D●. 12.  that it is a most sure token of Antichrist his presence, when the judge sacrificium, the daily sacrifice, shall cease to be offered. For they only are called to that high office, and their duty is to follow their office. And this thing being rightly considered of the ancient fathers, made them so reverently to behave themselves, towards the blessed sacrament.  
As S. Denyse the Areopagite, speaking of the order of mass in his time, saith, that the bishop excused himself, that he offered up the healthsome sacrifice, which is above his power, and that he cried out decently, saying unto God, 
Lib. de Eccle. hire.  Thou hast said: Do this in my remembrance. As who sold say, except thou haddest given licence and authority, what man would have been so bold, as to come nigh to the touching of so divine mysteries. S. justine also the Martyr witnesseth, 
Apo. 2.  that the Apostles in their commentaries, which are the gospels, do declare that Christ commanded them to consecrate the bread by the prayers of his word: at what time he took bread, and after thanks giving, said: Do this in remembrance of me. And S. Cyprian more plainly saith, that in Christ his last supper, those sacraments came forth, which had been signified from the time of Melchisedech, 
Cypr. de coena do.  and that the high priest bringeth forth unto the sons of Abraham, which do as he did, bread and wine, saying, this is my body. Of which bread (saith this blessed martyr) the apostles did eat in the same supper before, according unto the visible form, but sense the time that it was said of our Lord (do this in my remembrance, this is my body, this is my blood,) as often times as the thing is done with these words and this faith, this substantial bread and chalice, consecrated with the solemn blessing, profiteth unto the life and health of all the whole man, being both a medicine and a sacrifice, to heal his infirmities, and purge his iniquities. Wherefore if you, Sir, would consider, how great this mystery is, you should perceive how great honour and pre-eminency all priests are endued with. For when they work, 
Chry. li. 3. de Sacerd.  then are these holy things, which I speak of, begun and perfected. But say you.  Christ his institution was general, and his commandment therein stretcheth as well to the people, 
Defence fol. 18.  as to the priest. 
I have proved unto you the contrary, 
Reply.  both by reason, (because priesthood is a distinct office, unto which certain only are appointed, and chosen out from the laity) and by scripture (as you may consider by S. Paul to the hebrews) and also by Doctors, as S. Denyse, justine, and Cyprian, do plainly testify. But than you bid us to understand, That S. Paul, a good interpreter of Christ his mind, 
Defence ibidem.  applieth the words of Christ to the whole congregation of Corinth, where it is certain, were both ministers and common people. Nay Sir, 
Reply.  understand you this rather, that you understand not S. Paul, which in that his chapter allegeth the institution of Christ to this purpose, that the Corinthians, by consideration of the charity and majesty which was represented therein, should be more felolyke in the communicating of their common meats, from which they were fallen unto several and private tables or suppers in the church. And he doth tell historically, what Christ said unto his disciples, not what Christ appointed the Corinthians and every other of the Christians to do. For I have received of our Lord that which I have delivered unto you, 
1. Cor. 11.  saith the apostle. But what meaneth he by these words, I have delivered? he spoke unto all the Corinthians without respect of spirituality or temporalty, but did he speak by way of instruction, or by way of giving some office and function unto them? And that which he received of Christ, did he deliver unto them as a doctrine and article to be learned, or as a commandment to be executed? if you mean the first, you agree with us: if you mean the second, you disagree from common sense and evident truth. for if it appertain unto all Christians, without distinction, to do as S. Paul received of Christ, and as the Corinthians received of S. Paul: then must every Christian take bread, give thanks, and break it, and when every body is a minister, who then shall be a receiver? Again, in the words of our saviour (Do this in remembrance of me) how much is willed to be done? Are the words, (do this) to be referred only to the taking and eating? no truly. for (do this) doth not follow in Saint Paul, immediately upon the words (take and eat) but after the words (this is my body) and it were better and plainlier englished (make this) then (do this) thereby to give you to understand, 
Hoc facite. Make this.  that by those words, authority of making and consecrating Christ his body, was given unto the Apostles. But taking (do this) after the largest manner, it can not yet be referred to taking or eating only, but must also be understanded of, blessing. now, if you will have these words of (do this in my remembrance) to stretch as well unto the people, as to the high order of priests, then may you complain not only that they receive not as oft as the priest, (which they will not, I warrant you, for all your great moving) but also and rather, that they take not the bread in to their hands, and bless it themselves, and say mass, such as may be called private in deed. Which unsensible and pernicious foolish opinion, because you will not suffer to enter in to your heart, therefore you must of necessity grant, great difference to be, betwixt the priest and the people, and confess that, taking, blessing, and breaking, is so properly his, that it can not rightly be the common peoples. Yea marry (say you) but Christ took the bread, 
Defence.  etc. then the priest in his ministration must do as Christ did, and no otherwise, that is, to take break, and give unto the people. etc. Speak you this of your own mind, 
Reply.  or do you speak it, as it were upon occasion of the Catholics words? If you think as you speak, why find you no fault with your communion, where no rule is appointed unto ministers, of taking the bread in to their hands, or of blessing it, which Christ himself did? But if you believe not, that of necessity every thing must be done, as Christ did, at his maundy: what cause then moveth you, why distributing should be more required, then taking and blessing of the holy host, which by your service is omitted? For, the Catholic church doth teach, that as the body of Christ is a sacrifice and a sacrament, so likewise that it is two distinct acts▪ his body to be offered, and the same to be received. And as S. Cyprian, 
The body of Christ is a sacrifice and a sacrament.  whom I have alleged, doth testify, that the bread which the true Melchisedech, and our high priest Christ, gave to his Disciples, was both a whole burnt offering and sacrifice, and also a medicine, so, as it is a medicine, it is to be received of all Christians, because all without exception are diseased: and as it is a sacrifice, it is actually to be offered for all persons, by such as are properly appointed out for that purpose, because no man should take an office upon him, before he be called. Yet because one may justly say, that to show forth the death of our Lord until he come, doth well agree with every Christian man his part and office, and thereupon untruly conclude, that Do this in remembrance of me, (which is, by the interpretation of S. Paul, to show forth the death of Christ until he come) should in all points be referred as well unto the people, as the priest: therefore I answer further, that although many things which Christ spoke to the Apostles only, and their successors, may be truly applied unto every Christian, so is it in this case of which we talk. Christ said unto the Apostles only, You have not chosen me, 
joan. 15.  but I have chosen you. which although it may be truly verified of every Christian man, woman, and child, (because that Christ in deed hath chosen us to his people, so many other besides continuing in their infidelity or Jewishness) yet it must not follow, that Christ did not mean by those words, that the Apostles were singularly chosen unto the proper office of preaching, and ministering his sacraments. Therefore although one may use the words (Do this in remembrance of me) in respect of the common people's affection, yet it is not true that Christ had no larger or greater meaning in them, then that by eating of his body, we should only remember that he died for us, which every one may do as well as a priest. wherefore Sir, as you have concluded, that the priest is not bound to minister to other, if there be none to receive, (which is quickly to be granted unto you) so I say, that you have nothing at all proved, that Christ his institution, stretcheth as well to the people, as the priest, or that the priest could not lawfully receive, except there were some company. But where now are your scriptures, your Doctors, your general councils, and your cracks, by which you should directly answer, to that which is required of you. We shall perchance hereafter in your defence, read many great arguments against us, but in the mean time, you think it good to provide for a place of refuge, when the overthrow shall be given unto you. And therefore you say: If we had no scripture at all, 
Defence fol. 18.  to prove that the priest should not receive without company, if ye did give us the overthrow in that, yet could ye not triumph therein, as though ye had won the field. And why so, I pray you? Our contention (you answer) is for private Mass, etc. 
fo. 19  of which sole receiving, is but one part. You pitch your camp, 
Reply.  Sir, in a very wide field, and your kind of fight is such, as we perceive, you would never be overcomed. The church of God, whose armies of doctrine and verities do always stand in good order, if she be justly overcummed in any one thing, which she absolutely maintaineth, she straightways shall be forsaken, as one which is not to be credited. But you (in whose name I will not say) are so trimly prepared, that although you be overthrown in one of your articles, yet you will not be overcomed in the state of your whole religion. Yet how well this may be granted, let us consider. Do not you distinct things, some in to necessary, some in to indifferent? Do not you say, 
Defence fo. 10. &. 18.  that the sole receiving of a priest by himself, is not a thing indifferent? And do not you make a necessity of doctrine in it, that the people must receive with the priest, or else Christ his institution is broken? Tell me then now further: 
1. Tim. 3.  Is not the church of Christ, the pillar and stay of truth? And can that be possibly his church, which would set forth a lie? No truly. It is impossible that the church should ere in doctrine, 
lo●. 16.  to whom the Holyghost was promised to teach her all truth, and also to tarry with her for ever. And if but one article which she defendeth, be proved false, I will not say, that all the rest which she uttered is false, but this is most certain, that she is not the church, which is to be followed. Yet see, you can so dispose yourselves, that although you be proved liars, in one of those your articles which you make necessary, yet you will not be mistrusted, but that nevertheless you be the true church of Christ. And whereas the Holyghost, 
joan. 16.  which was promised unto the church, doth teach her all truth, yet you so understand the matter, that for all the overthrowing of one whing of your battle, you nevertheless will not lose the whole field and victory. Which one saying of yours alone, without further stroke given, doth so wound your church and confound it, 
he that discrediteth the church in one point, must either seek an other chur●che, or recant his saying, & judgement.  that in deed you have lost the victory. And it may well be, that your tongue is yet free, and that your feet may serve you to run in to other questions, besides the purpose, but as concerning the truth (which is with you in all points, if you be the true church) you have lost for ever the grace of it, either because (as we know) you can not disprove sole receiving, either because yourself say, that if you were therein overthrown, you had not yet lost the victory. Which is thus much in effect, that the church of Christ, (which honour you challenge unto yourself) might in any one article be deceived, and teach that sole receiving is against the institution of Christ, and grant for all that, that no overthrow is taken, if the clean contrary be proved. But let us consider now, what shifts you can make, to the disappointing of our purpose? Our contention is for private Mass. etc. of which sole receiving is but one part. 
Defence.   
You may freely make, as many and as few parts as you will herein, 
Reply.  because it is altogether of your own private devising. The Catholic church, (as it is oftentimes told you) hath no private mass, and we can not find, for what other cause you nickname it a private mass, then, for that the priest alone receiveth. And if we hitherto have not understanded your meaning, yourselves are very much to blame, which have not defined it unto us. All be it, if one may come to an others mind, by considering his ways in reasoning, we can think no other, but that you mean the priests sole receiving without the people, by the name of private mass, because in all your speaking against it, you argue directly and only against sole receiving. Which whether we have concluded against you or no, what have you to the contrary? This you say: It followeth not, 
Defence. fol. 19  to say, the priest in case of necessity, when none will receive, may take the Sacrament alone, therefore he may do it without necessity, when he may have other to communicate with him.  
yes truly, 
Reply.  it followeth very well. for if it be so as you report, that the right and necessary use of the sacrament, is, to receive it with cumpanie, then can the priest never receive it alone by himself, what so ever necessity should come upon him. for in such things as appertain to the substance of the sacrament, no creature can lawfully use the contrary unto them. But sole receiving seemeth to be granted of you to us, in case of necessity, (which provision or exception you prove not hitherto, out of the express word of God), ergo it is no part of the necessary substance, which must be observed about the sacrament. And if it be not essential, then doubtless it may be dispensed with all, then also may the Church of Christ without breach of his institution, let the priests alone with their sole receiving. what say you then? is receiving with company necessary? if you say, yea: then is it for no man's pleasure or ordinance, in any case to be altered. If you say, no, that is, if you grant it to be indifferent: why then might nor the priest receive alone, for any commandment of Christ or his apostles? And what law have you, either of God or good man, that chargeth him, to have always communicantes with him? And this I speak concerning your weak argument, and also of the liberty which is in the priest, if he be disposed to use it: Although in deed that you can not show the example, where the priest did receive alone when others would communicate with him. But now Sir, I pray you, come nearer to the matter, and show unto us due and good proofs against the priests sole receiving. Because ye urge so earnestly, 
Defence fol. 19  to have due proof against sole receiving by the priest if the people will not communicate, I will show you some reasons: But before I enter. etc. Take our whole meaning with you, 
Reply.  Sir, we require to have your proofs, against sole receiving by the priests, not conditionally, (with your if the people will not communicate) as who should say, 
see how the M. of the defence is ever going from the purpose.  that the only cause of the sole receiving, were thought of us to be in the lack of company, and as though necessity, which hath no law, and not the truth of the cause did make our assertion good: we will not (I say) so unperfectly go to work against you, but we believe and hold absolutely, in the nature of the things themselves, that the sole receiving is not against the word of God. And now, do you what you can, to prove, that upon pain of God his indignation, there ought to be a company to receive with the priest at every mass▪ 
Apology fol. 10.  as the Catholic in his Apology requireth of your side: Or that it were better, not only to pluck him from the altar, but also to cast him out of the church to, rather than he should receive alone, and alter the institution of Christ (as you understand it) and cause the people to run headlong in to God his displeasure. 
Defence fol. 17.  which words whether you spoke in vehemency of sprite or spite I can not tell, (yet who should presume to pluck Ambrose from the altar, when the Emperor himself is commanded out of the choir) But if you spoke as you thought, and can prove that which you spoke, let us have a copy of your reasons, & of the authorities, which so necessarily do move you. And to the end that it may be perceived, who dealeth plainly, and who goeth from the purpose, let this be the form of the question, which is to be talked of betwixt us. 
The stat● of the controversy of private mass.  Whether, upon pain of God his indignation, the priest ought to have always company to receive with him: Now, that you may not say, that sense your defence hath come forth, the state of the controversy is quite and clean altered, turn you, unto the .7. and .10. leaf of the Apology, and you shall read most manifestly, that, unto this state, the question is driven. therefore Sir, after you do perceive the ground upon which we do, and you should stand, march you forward in your captain his name, (what so ever he be) which moved you. You say then: I will show you some reasons. 
Defence. fo. 19  But before I enter in to that, I must warn you once again, that if our reasons, were not so well able to prove necessity, yet could you not conclude your purpose, for that your private Mass is nothing less than necessity. What we can conclude, 
Reply.  it shall appear before we depart. But it may be gathered already, that you are concluded up in to a very hard case, 
Is it not plain, that the M. of the defence shrinketh?  which make such protestations before you come to the matter. You said a little before, that if we did give you the overthrow, yet we could not triumph: and now you warn us, that if your reasons be not so well able to prove necessity, (which is meant, I trow, by the necessity of some to communicate with the priest) that yet we could not conclude our purpose, because our private mass is nothing less than necessity, (by which necessity, you understand, I think, the lack of communicantes, when the priest would receive) wherein if I do not rightly interpret you, you must be contented to excuse me: because that if you yourself were at this place in so great necessity and lack of words, that you could not plainly express your mind, no wonder, if he, which readeth your sentences, be brought in to doubt, what sense he should make of them. As for necessity, in which many things are granted, and as concerning the blessed thief, which never (you say) was baptized, (which you say truly in that he was not dipped in water, and yet he was baptized in the Holy ghost, and in his own blood) because of our principal question, I will not stand about him. And whether in the ordinary use of it, the supper of the Lord, aught of necessity to have communicantes to be partakers of it, (as you would make the controversy to be,) I will not reason with you at this tyme. Either because it is not perceived, what you will mean by the term (ordinary use,) either because the question is more general, as we have put it forth unto you. And whereas at other times, 
The wavering of heretics, & uncertain senses.  in your pulpits and also books, you appeal unto the institution of Christ, and make the matter so weighty, as though it might never be suffered, that one should receive alone with out company, yet now you talk of an ordinary use of the Sacrament, as who should think, that you never denied, but that in particular cases, and for extraordinary causes, one alone might receive, without any injury done unto the institution of Christ. And yet again, when the Catholics do allege diverse examples and authorities, to prove, that company is not necessary, absolutely, in the use of the Sacrament, then lo you be so earnest against them, as though it were in no wise to be granted, that in the primitive church any one example, authority, or argument might be showed, to prove sole receiving, as although your cause were anyiote hindered by it, if in deed you hold the question not absolutely, but only concerning the ordinary use of the Sacrament. wherefore seeing that you go so in and out, hither and thither, without all manner of keeping of order and place, like demilances or light horsemen, or else like the wild Irisshe in their fighting. I therefore think it necessary, again to bid you remember yourself, and to consider the state of the question, upon which the Catholic rested.  
And thee (gentle Reader) I desire to mark exactly, the chief and principal matter which we have to debate upon. which is this. Not, whether in time of necessity a priest may receive alone, Not whether the ordinary use of the Sacrament, aught of necessity to have communicantes, we will not at this time, meddle with these questions, because we have already a greater and more principal in hand: but our question is this, Whether (as I have said before) upon pain of God his indignation, the priest ought to have always company to receive with him. Let this be first examined, and then shall the other, be quickly answered. Trusting therefore that thou wilt mark diligently, where upon the catholic striveth against the adversary, I now return again, unto the M. of the defence, and require the to consider the manner of his fighting. In answering the Catholic his demand, he saith: 
deafen. f. 19  Our proof is this. 
Maior.  In the celebration of this sacrament of the Lord his supper, we ought to do that only and nothing else, 
Minor.  that Christ the author of it, did in his institution: But in Christ his institution, appeareth neither sole receiving, 
Conclusio.  nor ministering under one kind: therefore in celebration of the sacrament, neither sole receiving, nor ministering under one kind ought to be used.  
First to the mayor, then to the minor, 
Reply.  Sir I deny your mayor unto you, 
To do all that Christ did in his last supper, is not, with out all exception and limitation, necessary.  because you affirm, that generally, which is true only in certain points of Christ his maundy. For, if we must do that only, which Christ did at his supper, and do nothing else but that, then must we use sitting, and not kneeling or standing, then must the Sacrament be delivered unto twelve persons and neither to more nor less: then shall we not celebrate before dinner, or in a cope or surplice, or with psalms, organs, and solemnity, such as you also use, because we must do nothing else but that, which Christ did, as your mayor importeth. Now if you be to wise and learned to think that in such a general manner, we ought to do as Christ did at his last supper, then have you just cause to correct your mayor, and we can not but deny it, until we may understand of your limitation, which you will (we trust) add unto it. And what limitation might that be, which being added, we would grant your proposition. Forsooth if for the term institution, you would put tradition. For what so ever Christ did about the consecrating or delivering of his precious body, it may be truly said, that he did it in his institution, but yet such circumstances as he then used, are not believed to be his tradition. For it is also one thing, to say, this is Christ his institution, and it hath a far other meaning, to say, Christ did this in his institution. For his institution importeth a law, and is directly to be observed, but the phrase of in his institution, importeth a signification of time, and place, and circumstances, within which his institution was uttered. Which things, as they be not essential, but stand only about the substance, themselves being accidental and chaingeable, so they may be, without all hurt, altered, as the church shall think good and convenient. therefore, as I grant, that in matter of weight and substance, Christ only, and no other, is to be followed: so in that general manner of speech, which you do use, I am sure, it can never be proved. yes say you: The mayor is S. Cyprianes, 
Defence fol. 19  proved at large and much stayed upon, in his epistle ad Cecilium, de Sacramento sanguinis.  
You may be for ever ashamed, 
Reply.  that you allege Saint Cyprian for the proof of your proposition, which nothing at all maketh for you, and that you do so wickedly, in so earnest a matter, abuse the simplicity of your countrymen, such as can understand no Latin. And because it is not once or twice, that you appeal unto this epistle of S. Cyprian, I will therefore somewhat at large, show it forth in this place, to the Reader, that he take good heed for ever, of giving hasty credit, unto straying and new-found teachers.  
There were in S. Cyprians time, some such priests, which, either for simplicity, or for custom sake, or for certain devout causes, did offer up at the time of the mysteries, not wine and water together, but only water by itself. Against whose doings in that point, S. Cyprian most earnestly writeth, 
Cyprian. li. 2. epi. 3.  and it is the only scope and mark, at the which he shooteth in all that long epistle: alleging first the example of Melchisedech, 
Gen. 14.  which brought forth bread and wine, for he was the priest of God most highest: afterwards the saying of Solomon, 
prover. 9  how that wisdom killed her sacrifices, and mingled her wine in a cup: then further, the prophesy of ●acob, speaking of his sound juda in the figure of Christ, 
Gene. 49  and saying: he shall wash his rob in wine, and his cloak in the blood of the grape: after that again, the testimony of isaiah, 
Esa. 63.  when he saw the vestments of Christ full of red spots, as if he had come lately from the winepress: 
Math. 26.  he allegeth also the institution of Christ, 
1. Cor. 11.  and the testimony of S. Paul, by which both places he proveth, that we should offer up not water only, but also wine. Then he maketh further argument, saying, 
That wine and water should be mingled together in the chalice.  that the mixture of wine and water in the chalice together, doth signify the conjunction of Christ and his church, and that if wine be offered up alone, the blood of Christ is without us: and that if water alone be offered up, than the people begin to be without Christ. Which reason of his, if you will contemn, I am sorry, that S. Cyprian hath so soon displeased you, whom you seemed to make so much of, before. But as concerning the argument of that epistle, he proveth by those testimonies, which I have touched, and by many other ways, that in the offering, which the priest maketh, water and wine both, are to be mingled, and that it was Christ his institution so to do, and that Christ only is to be followed therein, and that we must do herein no other thing, than that which Christ himself did first of all. Now, Sir, then, with what face can you allege S. Cyprian, for proof of your proposition which is general, whereas he speaketh of water and wine to be mingled, when the priest doth sacrifice, which us a special case only? And see how the devil did owe you a shame. If you will refuse Saint Cyprian in that place, then standeth your mayor like a miserable proposition without any similitude of defence. If you allow S. Cyprian, how standeth your religion, in whose communion and lords table, water and wine are not mingled together, which should be so duly and necessarily observed? Will you say here that the field is not lost, and that this is but an overthrow of one wing only? Do you fight for the victory, and not for the verity? so that you may be seemed to have somewhat always to say, do you make no conscience nor reckoning, of your unjust and foul play? Answer directly unto this one argument, or confess your falsehood or ignorance, and give over your striving against the manifest verity. If all things are to be observed in such manner as Christ hath them instituted: wherefore have you no water in the chalice, which Christ (as S. Cyprian proveth) hath so solemnly delivered? 
Let this be answered.  Now, on the other side, if some things may be well unfolowed, which Christ himself appointed: why make you such a general stout proposition, which by yourself is so quickly neglected? For the mixture of wine and water in the chalice, you can not say that you have no authority of scripture, no example of primitive church, no testimony of ancient Doctor, for in that one epistle of Saint Cyprian, of which we speak, which you seem not to have readen only, but also to allow, you shall find all those places, by which the verity of this tradition may be proved. Where then is your memory? That which S. Cyprian of purpose declareth, of the mixture of wine and water in the chalice, you either see not, or regard not. and that which you put forth of the general observing and keeping whatsoever Christ did in the institution of his sacrament, is not at all in that epistle, and yet you can read it there proved at large. And here now, 
Note diligently how S. Cyprian is misconstrued, and the reader abused by the M. of the defence.  I have to say further against you, that you do not rightly interpret, not only his mind, but not so much as his words. For whereas that blessed martyr saith: Admonitos autem nos scias, ut in chalice offerendo, dominica traditio servetur▪ which is: Know you further, that we be warned, that in offering of the chalice, the tradition of our Lord be kept. you interpret it after this fashion: Do you know therefore, that we be admonished, that in offering the sacrament of the Lords blood, his own institution should be kept. For examining of which your interpretation, if you should be brought, but unto a Grammar school, dominica traditio, is to shortly englished, his own institution, and, in chalice offerendo, is to ignorantly englished, in the offering of the sacrament of the Lords blood. so that I believe verily, if the Schoolmaster were not very much a sleep, he would bear softly at your back door, and make you to remember yourself better. But if little regard be taken of construction, which is made in schools, yet it is to be provided diligently, that no false construction be set forth in print, especially in such kind of matter, as appertaineth unto our soul, and is of so great weight and efficacy, that it maketh or marreth an heresy. You english traditio, not tradition, but institution. And why rather institution, than tradition? Verily for no other cause, I think, but for that you abhor the name of tradition, and because you would seem to the ignorant Reader, to be a great favourer of Christ his institution. You english, in chalice offerendo, after this sort, in offering the sacrament of the Lords blood, and why not rather, in offering the chalice, as the words themselves do signify? You had no little craft in your mind, when you set upon the translating of this plain sentence, and for the word, chalice, to substitute, the sacrament of the Lords blood, it was a deceitful enterprise. For if you would have plainly said (as S. Cyprians words do signify) that, in offering the chalice the tradition of our Lord be kept, the diligent Reader would have been moved to require, what tradition that should be, which must be observed in offering the chalice? and he should be truly answered, that it was the tradition of using not wine alone or water alone, but water and wine both, in the chalice, together. which would much disgrace your communion. But when you make S. Cyprian to sound after this sense, that, in offering the sacrament of the Lords blood, his own institution is to be followed, you give occasion to a simple and unexpert Reader, to think, that hereby it is manifestly proved, that the lay people at these days also, must necessarily receive his blood, because he, in his institution of his sacrament, delivered forth also his blood. Which S. Cyprian yet did no more think upon, than he feared least any grammarian should come, many hundred years after him, and interpret his plain words in such a froward sense as you have done. And so in the Englisshing forth of the self-same sentence, after these words, and no other thing to be done, then that the Lord did first for us himself, you make a full period and point: whereas it followeth in S. Cyprian, as clause of the same sentence, that in deed we should do as our Lord had done first himself, but wherein and how far, trow you? in all things, and all circumstances? no truly. For straightways it followeth, in S. Cyprian, and it is the limitation of the whole proposition, that the chalice which is offered up in commemoration of him, be offered up mixed with wine. By which words he plainly declareth his intent and purpose, which was that for the tradition of mengling water and wine in the chalice, we should not follow any other order, then that, which Christ himself first used. therefore, if you mean by your mayor proposition, that which S. Cyprian meaneth, the plain sense thereof is this, that as concerning the offering of wine alone, or water alone, we should follow Christ his tradition only, which appointeth for the chalice both water and wine. But then your argument will be very ridiculous, as in example: 
We ought to do that only, 
Maior.  which Christ did, and nothing else, as concerning the ordering and tempering of the chalice:  
But in Christ his institution appeareth, 
Minor.  neither sole receiving, nor ministering under one kind:  
therefore (you may infer when you will) that, 
Conclusio.  if all abbeys were destroyed, we should have forty eggs for a penny.   
The mayor of this argument is S. Cyprians, and much stayed upon in his epistle ad Cecilium. The minor is your own. The conclusion is lawful and currant. For to such agreeable and proper premises, every conclusion will serve will enough.  
But now if you will have your mayor to be general: first I flatly deny it: then I have declared that it is not extant in S. Cyprian: and thirdly, I answer unto you, that you do not believe your own mayor, because that in your communion no water is put in to the chalice.  
Now as concerning your minor, I grant it unto you, that in the last supper of Christ, there appeareth no sole receiving. I also confess, that S. justine, and S. Denyse the Areopag●te, whom you allege, do well prove, that in their days there were communicants to receive with the priest. But, as I must tell you again, our question is not of what was done, but of what might have been done then, and now is done without offence of God, and breach of Christ his commandment.  I answer: 
Defence fol. 26.  Christ's institution, the example of the Apostles, the common use of the fathers, was otherways: therefore the priest should not communicate without other. 
I deny your argument. 
Reply.  for their usages and doings, are not laws unto the church, so as they may not be altered. And by this reason you may bring us to receive after supper, because of the institution of Christ, 
Luc. 24.  example of the Apostles, and common use of the primitive church. As we again might bring you to take the sacrament in one kind, because of the authority of Christ, and example of the primitive church. But you seem to yield that you have no express commandment to bring forth against us, and yet that notwithstanding, you will have us to be overcomed. And to this purpose, you say: You have no express commandment, 
Defence. fol. 26.  which forbeadeth you, to baptize in the name of the father only: but that Christ his institution was otherwise. What was the institution of Christ therein? 
Reply.  was it not, that his Apostles should baptize, in the name of the Father, the Sound, and the holyghost? Yet the Apostles did baptize, in the name of JESUS only, without mention made of the Father, or the holy-ghost. If they did break Christ his institution, they were not faithful Apostles, and yet, they do not seem to keep it, when they do not baptize in the name of the three persons. What then shall we say? Truly, that you understand not the institution of Christ, and that the church is the stay of all the Catholics, which doth interpret unto them Christ his full mind and order. And like as it is answered by authentic, and good authority, that in baptizing in the name of Jesus' Christ, the sacrament is full and perfect. For he which saith, CHRIST, comprehendeth in that one word the father which anointed him, and the holy ghost with whom he was anointed, and then Christ, which is by interpretation the anointed, and so doth make up the mystery of the three persons: so in receiving under one kind, we receive both flesh & blood, as perfectly as if both kinds had been ministered: and in receiving alone, we receive as much of the true and real profit which cometh unto us by the sacrament, as if all the parish did bear us company at the altar. therefore, when you talk of Christ his institution of baptism, you speak you can not tell what, and you know not, 
joan. 3. & 4.  I believe, when Christ instituted that sacrament. For he baptized before his resurrection, were it by himself or by his apostles, and he gave not the commandment of baptizing, 
Math. vlt.  in the name of the father, the sound, and the holy-ghost, before the time of his ascension. And again, when you tell us, that we have no other proof against him, which would baptize in the name of the father, than Christ his institution, 
The bold ignorance of the M. of the defence.  you would seem to understand and know all our reasons and conclusions, and yet you be as ignorant in that point, as he which never had readen any other than his own doctors. Read in Petrus Lombardus, that learned bishop, in what sense it may be true, 
Senten. li. 4. dist. 3.  that one might baptize in the name of the father, without specifying of the Sound or the Holyghost. therefore to conclude, you have hitherto, either not proved your purpose, either spoken out of the purpose, either made directly against your own purpose.   

The fourth Chapter.  
THE Catholic in his Apology, following his principal purpose, beginneth to show, what the priest may do. And he allegeth S. Chrisostome, by whom he would make it plain, both what the priest may do, and what the people should do, that if the people will not follow good exhortations, than the priest without all doubt, may do his duty. As who should say▪ if communicantes were to be had, then were the question a great deal more doubtful: but if none will be brought to receive with the priest, then is there nothing to stay him, but he may receive alone. For as all surseasing of suits in the law, is first to be wished, and if that can not be obtained, that then a man may sue for his right: so all good men may wish, that the people should be always well disposed, and yet if they will not be brought unto it, the priests may sue for their right. Which similitude being alleged, and serving also well for this purpose, that if we can not come to the best, we may lawfully take the next best unto it, yet the M. of the defence, doth make such a do against it, as though it were a principal argument of ours, in refelling of which, he might show his florishies. And thus he saith: In reciting the authority of Chrisostome, 
Defence. fol. 27.  you bring in a similitude or comparison, which, of how small force they be in proving, your learning can not be so little, but that you must needs know.  
The similitude (of which you speak) was not brought in, 
Reply.  so much to prove, as to open and expound that, which then was to be approved. And whereas you confess, and we know, that similitudes are of small force in themselves, wherefore do you discuss so narrowly, all the parts of this similitude, as though there had not been one special point, for the which it was alleged? which is this: If we can not obtain the best, that then we should take the next best unto it. which verity being so natural, and reasonable, the author of the Apology was not so scrupulous, as to pass upon a most perfect squaring of his similitude, whereas, to his intent and conclusion, it was, he thought, well enough framed. But yet let us consider your wisdom in using of your adversary, and the mighty strength of your reasons, which you bring forth against him. Besides this you conclude here only the case of necessity, 
Defence.  which helpeth the common use of the private Mass, very little.  
As for the common use (as you speak now) or the ordinary use, (as you spoke before) or the term of necessity, 
Fol. 20. p. 1.  (in which necessity, it seemeth by your own confession, that we prove unto you our sole receiving, which you call private Mass,) all these are but shifts of yours, and starting holes, in which you may couch, before the ignorant, and seem to have some heart left unto you. As for us, if we prove that in necessity, when the people will not receive, the priest may take and eat alone: ergo sole receiving may be used, ergo the indignation of God hangeth not over him which hath no fellow communicantes, ergo we have our purpose, which was, to make the state of our question, not upon common use or ordinary use, but generally upon sole receiving, whether, absolutely, it be against Christ his commandment and his truth or no. but let us come to the foresaid similitude which so much displeaseth you.  You make your comparison, 
Defence  between things very unlike and of nature divers: that is, between possible and impossible, and lawf●ll and unlawful. 
I will not greatly wonder, 
Reply.  if you have straying opinions as concerning divinity, whereas in natural matters and reasonable, you make new conclusions besides all truth and consequence. What call you then impossible? Marry (say you) that all contention should be banished from among men in this world. What think you then of virginity? Is it not as impossible, that it should be kept of all Christians, as you think it impossible, that an universal concord might be continued among men, whiles they live in this world? No doubt, but you will grant my saying true, in respect of the whole number of Christians, whereas many of the spiritual fathers, and brothers of your side, do think that virginity can not be kept undefiled, no not in any one person of the world. As a Prophet of your own, boldly preached at Abingdom, in presence of the whole deanery, 
A holy preacher.  to the great commendation, forsooth, of his chastity, that All things which bear horn or hear, must go to their mate, once a year. But, I think not so evil of you, that virginity should be altogether impossible, marry that generally it is to be no more looked for, then surseasing from all contention, in so miserable a world, I am sure, you confess it unto me. Yet, I dare to make this similitude, and stand in it also against you, that, like as queen apples, (or take what other name of good apple you will) are most to be chosen, and yet if a man love a crabb better, God make him merry with it: so it were to be wished, and it is most best in deed, that all should, be virgins, yet if any body have a mind to marriage, I am not master of his taste, therein. How say you Sir, to this comparison? will you tell me, that the nature of apples and virginity, 
A similitude may be made between things, in nature, divers.  are very unlike? or that crabs are sour, and marriage is sweet? or that it is impossible that all should be virgins, but in any market day of the year, a man shall find good apples? or that marriage is honourable, and that crabs are meat for swine? will you make such a searching or Anatomy of a simple and plain similitude, and gather so evil a sense of it, as either folly or malice can devise? Or else rather, will you examine it no further, than the present matter and cause required, for which only the similitude served? for as I do not deny but that a pleasant fellow would make much sport upon my similitude, yet nevertheless my meaning is very true and honest: that if a man will not follow counsel in the best, he may be suffered to follow his fancy, in that which is not the worst.  
Crabs also, are not evil, as some choke pears are, and they add a certain grace unto the cup when they be roasted: and, to be short, they are not so far behind good apples in worthiness, as marriage is far beneath virginity, be it spoken without irreverency, unto the Sacrament of wedlock. Therefore, your conclusion, upon the Catholics comparison, is very false and faulty, because I have showed a good and true similitude, in which yet after your interpretation, the one member is impossible, & the other is possible. Also your merry following of the catholics similitude, and your concluding (as it were by the like argument) that bishops must not forbydd priests to have such cussons with whom Simo non castè tamen cautè: is much like as when jacke an Ape, 
Neither apes, men: neither the M. of the defence doth follow well the Catholics.  doth beside the right way and manner, put a reasonable man his cote upon himself. For as the suing for our right is lawful, so will we prove that sole receiving is lawful: but as the suing for a man his right is lawful, so neither you neither we do think, that priests to have lemans is lawful. We also come to our conclusion by an honest principle, as, When the best is not obtained, let us yet take the next best unto it, but the principle unto your conclusion must be this, (when the best is not obtained, let us take that, which is nought.) Yea truly, not in sport but in sad earnest, you make a worse kind of reason, falling from the not obtaining of the best, to concluding of that, which is worse than nought. As, when you can not have ministers to live chaste, to give them free licence to take open harlots. whom although you cover, with the name of wives or sisters, yet are they in very deed, no better, than I have termed them. Now after all this, you say that all our whole drift is, by alleging the corruption of manners in the world, to prove that priests must therefore receive alone, because none will receive with them. But once again, I tell you, you understand not our drift. for if the whole world might and would receive together with a priest, yet we hold, that sole receiving is, in itself, allowable. And as you do misunderstand us in this, so do you in an other point, saying: Ye have taken order for the people, 
Defence fo. 28.  generally to receive, only at Easter.  
As who should say, 
Reply.  that the church hath provided, that they should not receive generally at other times of the year, but only at Easter. Which is as false as God is true. For the Canon and decree of the church, is, that who so doth not receive at Easter, shall not be accounted a Christian. The words are these. Omnis utriusque sexus sidelis, 
Concilij Lateranensis sub Inno. 3. ca 21.  postquam ad annos discretionis pervenerit, omnia sua solus peccata confiteatur fideliter, saltem semel in anno, proprio sacerdoti, & iniunctam sibi poenitentiam studeat pro viribus adimplere, suscipiens reverenter, ad minus, in Pascha, Eucharistiae sacramentnm, etc. and they are thus much in English, Let every faithful man, woman, and child, after they come to years of discretion, confess by themselves, faithfully, unto their own priest, all their sins, once a year at the least, and study to fulfil according to their power, the penance enjoined them, reverently receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist, 
Note the M. of the defence his honesty or knowledge in understanding of general councils.  at Easter, at the least. etc. By which decree she doth not (I trow,) take order that the people shall generally receive only at Easter, but that if they receive not at that time (ad minus, at the least,) they shall be punished for it. Declaring hereby how much she misliketh, that the people will not voluntarily prepare themselves to receive their maker, whereas she is constrained to put forth a law, that, at the least, they shall receive at Easter, or else be accounted for not Christians. where learned you then, that the people were appointed to receive only at Easter? Or in what text or gloze do you find it, that the church hath taken order for them, not to receive generally at other times? Tell us, I pray you, whether all be one in your judgement, to say, you shall receive at Easter, at the least, and, you shall receive only at Easter? The first the church decreeth, constraining thereby, herr children to remember their duty, and to receive the comfort of their souls. The second is only by you imprinted, to make the laity suspect the government of the Catholic bishops, as though they should study how to diminish the common people's profit and knowledge, and therefore had taken order and diligence, that they should receive only at Easter. What authority you have to make such open and wicked lies, I know not. but although it might be given, yet a good man would not use it. And although you might scape unespied, through the great credence in which your brothers have you perchance, yet should you not show such malice or boldness towards the good and indifferent reader, or towards a never so evillbeloved adversary. But now to an other matter. another matter I may well say. For whereas it was consequent, to bring in the testimony of S. Chrisostome, you defer that over unto the fifth chapter, and occupy the reader and the replier also, (when any such would be found out for you) with the question of the sacrifice. In which matter, although I might be long and copious in answering you, yet, as much as I can provide for it, I will be short and compendious, in declaring the truth. therefore let us hear of you, where your grief is, that, by answering yea or no unto it, we may the quicklier end this extraordinary eruption of yours, against the truth of our sacrifice. First you allege, that to say, that the priest is bound to offer up the daily sacrifice, is, The root of all the abuses of the Lords supper, 
Defence fol. 28.  that have been brought in to the church of Christ. etc. Do you think then, 
Reply.  that if priests were not bound unto it, all abuses which have sprung up (as you say) would straightways decay and whither, the root of them being taken away? But who shall then stand at the altar, and intent upon the mysteries, for duty sake? And when the parissheners shall make courtesy, and say one to the other, (Go you, and, nay go you, and, by my troth I am not ready, and by my troth then, let all stand) will you permit such disorder to continue, when the root of abuses shall be taken away by you? or will you appoint some one or other, which shall be bound to serve in the office? whom yet if you will appoint to be a reader only, and to have no further authority, then to open the book, and tell what is written in it, then shall you disgrace very much the priesthood and order of the newlaw, which by all common reason, should be more worthier, than any ptiesthode that ever was in the world.  
Now, if you, being venturous to take the rule of Christian souls in to your own hands, are enforced to keep offices and dignities among you, for the better commendation of your Gospel, think you that the wisdom of God, and a God himself jesus Christ, would gather a multitude of nations together in to one faith, one hope, and one absolute form of serving and honouring God, and provide no officers concerning that effect, over them? Or when he hath appointed most perfect and excellent offices to be taken and executed of men, for the wealth of his well-beloved, would he leave them to their pleasure, whether they did follow their office, or no, and let them stand unbound and uncharged? It seemeth then, that as by his divine providence, he, as man, began a priesthood to serve for his church, in matters appertaining unto God, so by as necessary consequence, he charged his levetenantes and underofficers in that kind, to execute his will, and do their duty. wherefore that priests should be bound to daily offering (concerning the whole body of priesthood, and not every particular person) it is so far of, to be the root of abuses, that except such a duty were followed, we should by this time have had no supper of our Lords at all, I warrant you. Iniquity would so much have prevailed, when the daily sacrifice should have ceased, and no man his law could have continued it, if by the law of God, it had benfound unrequired. And further I say, that the church hath brought in or allowed no abuses in the ministration of any sacrament. But you go forward and lie: This is, 
Defence. fol. 29.  wherewith you do pitifully deface the death and passion of Christ, making yourself, for your glories sake, as it were means of reconciliation, between God and his people.  
This is a shameful lie, 
Reply.  yea rather it is a slander, whereas you make the desire of glory to have been the cause in the church of Christ, of having her priests endued with such excellencies and prerogatives. And you speak so advisedly, as though Aaron had not stood laudably, betwixt God and the people, when the plague was sent forth against them, 
Num. 16. Num. 14.  or Moses had done presumptuously, to be the spokesman for the people unto God, or as though Christ had not sent his apostles even as his Father sent him, 
Io. 20.  or S. Paul had not given warning unto the Corinthians, 
1. Cor. 4  concerning such as he was him self, that they should take them so, as the ministers of God, and dispensators or distributours of his mysteries. Again, This is it, 
Defence.  that hath discouraged Christian people from the often use and frequenting of the Sacrament. As though that, 
Reply.  if there were no priests at all, there would be continual receiving, or that priests would receive more oft than they do, if they were free and not bound unto it. The people (say you) is left free to come as seldom as they wil You speak crookedly and untruly: Untruly, because yourself confess, that the church hath taken order, that the people receive at Easter, and then are they not left free to come as seldom as they will, which must come ones a year: And cuttedly, because they are left free to come in one year, not as seldom as they will, but also and rather as oft as they will. And if it be in their will and power, to come every week or day, in which mass is celebrated, how should the state of the priest be the cause of stopping their liberty?  
You shall go with him for his wisdom, which being condemned for robbery, said, that if he had never prayed to Saint, he had never come to hanging. As you do now put the cause of the people's fault, in the holy order and office of priesthood. But, I trust, you had somewhat that moved you against priests, about their office of sacrificing. Where upon it followeth: Sure I am, that neither the institution of Christ maketh mention of any oblation or sacrifice to be done by the minister, saving only the sacrifice of thankesgeaving, nor yet the scripture appointeth any bounden duty for the priest, more to use the sacrament, than other godly and well disposed Christians.  
Whether the priest is bound to use the sacrament, more than other good people, it is nothing to the purpose to ask it, except you take the word (use) for sacrificing. I tell you so oft of your evil manner herein, because you should hereafter amend it. But for the other matter, which in deed is now in question, what if you read not in the institution of Christ, special mention, of oblation to be done by the priest, are you straightways at your wits end, that you can not tell where to seek further for the truth? Do you not know, that our Saviour was found after iij. 
Luc. 2.  days seeking, in the middle of doctors? and, do not holy men interpret us our saviours meaning, such as ourselves should never find in scripture, if we looked till our eyes were out, in the letter only and text of it? Also where find you in the institution of Christ, any precise mention made of the sacrifice of thanks giving? which only sacrifice you find there, or else you lie. Then, as you might think us of very small judgement, if we would deny the sacrifice of thanks geaving, because we do read no such word (sacrifice) in the text of Christ his institution of the sacrament: so, (as we may be content, that you show unto yourself therein, some part of favour, and believe that which is not expressie written) yet do ye not use, such argumentations by negatives, with us hereafter, except we should reason, only for making of sport, or spending of tyme. Yet to declare unto you shortly, that some see more than you do in this matter, I answer that (hoc facite) which is to say, do this or make this, standeth among other his significations there, also for sacrificare. For so is facere taken, in sundry places of the scripture. And if you take (facere) in his most common signification, 
Leu. 24. Iud. 13. Ezech. 45  I say, that Christ did make an oblation and sacrifice of his body, in his last supper, and his Apostles are authorized and charged to do as he did, ergo they were bound to offer, and to sacrifice, bishops also & priests now must follow their example, whom they succeed in office. 
The priests are bound to offer.  For Christ our Saviour, after he had ended the eating of the lamb, according to the manner of the old law, he instituted and brought in, the eating of his own flesh, of the truth of which the old paschal was but a figure. Read S. Jerome upon the. 27. of S. Matheu. But the paschal lamb was offered up to God before it was eaten, 
Ex. 14.  therefore undoubtedly, (that the truth might answer the figure) Christ offered himself in his maundy before the Apostles received him. Consider also, that a sacrifice properly, is, when any thing is made holy to the honour of God: and what thing in old or new testament, did ever set forth the honour of God more worthily, than the geaving of his own flesh to feed wretches?  
Or where was there any thing ever made of profane holy, if not then, when Christ took bread in to his hands, and said in his allmightines, 
Math. 26.  This is my body? I note, besides all this, unto you, that in S. Luke his Gospel it is said expressly of our Saviour, taking the bread in to his hands, 
Luc. 22.  This is my body, which is given for you. Not, which shall be given only upon the cross, but which presently is given, neither given only to you at this present, as though all consisted in the eating, but even now given for you, by which, an oblation, a present, a sacrifice, or some such service of his body, is signified. Think you then, that you might not read in the very institution of the sacrament, that his body was offered of himself, and that the Apostles had commandment to follow his example therein, if you had a simple and faithful eye, to see all that to be true, which the church spelleth unto you? But a sacrifice is a thing given unto God, 
Defence. fol. 30.  the sacrament was a thing given unto us, nothing can therefore be of nature more contrary, than your sacrifice, and Christ his sacrament.  
You must not stand herein, 
Reply.  if you do well. For Luther's opinion, and Zuinglius encountering him in the sacrament, are a thousand times more contrary, 
A sacrament and sacrifice may stand together.  than a sacrifice and a sacrament. For they can never be brought to agreement, but sacrament and sacrifice, do very quietly stand together what? Did you think that we offered sacrifice unto any other then to God? Or if we had any part in it for ourselves, weened ye, that God must be unserved? Marry, Sir, if there were nothing else, yet because we have a God, there is nothing more convenient, then to have a sacrifice for him, and nothing to him is more welcome, than his very own sound his body. Were it not a great absurdity, that of our corn or any like thing, we might make both an offering unto God, and meat also for ourselves afterward, and that Christ of his body, the true and sweet flower or meal, should make no larger commodity, them to give undeserved bread to sinners? where learned you, that one, the self same thing, can not be both a sacrifice and a Sacrament? we have sucked (you say) our error, out of the fashions of speaking, which the old fathers used (perverted yet of us,) but what old father or young brother hath taught you, the mighty contrariety (which you speak of) between sacrifice and sacrament. Yet go to, if we have mistaken the old fathers, how well do you understand them? you can not deny, but the old fathers do call the sacrament an oblation or sacrifice, but you will expound their meaning unto us. Whereupon, you tell us, that in the beginning, the people at the celebration of the Lord his supper, offered up, wine, bread, and other victuals, partly to find the priests, and partly to refresh the poor, and also to serve the communion. And so partly 
It came to pass (the example being taken first 
Defence fol. 30.  of the common people) that the administration of the sacrament of this offering, was called an oblation:  
An other occasion, 
fol. 31.  that the Doctors used those terms of sacrifying and offering, was, that in the celebration of the sacrament, they had prayer for all states, and thanks giving to God, for all benefits:  
After, 
Ibidem.  the fathers called every good action a sacrifice, were it private or common: And therefore their successors by little and little, bend the same name, unto the action and celebration of the Sacrament:  
An other cause that the holy fathers call the sacrament an oblation or sacrifice, 
Fol. 32.  is, because according to Christ's ordinance, we celebrate the remembrance of his death and passion, which was the only and true sacrifice.   
Where I may begin to speak against you, 
Reply.  for this your division of sacrifice, I can not readily tell, there are so many things, which are to be moved and reproved. First the imperfectness, that you have used in it▪ because you have not expressed the full compass of this word, sacrifice, as the holy Fathers have understood it. Then your superfluousness, because you make many parts of that, which you should have concluded in one member. As, if every good action be called a sacrifice, them should you have well brought the other kinds which you speak of, under this one signification, as the principal largest, above all other. Although you, in devising three manners, after which the fathers take the word sacrifice, do leave this one out of the number, by which every good action (as you report) is called a sacrifice, which yet deserveth to have the first place among them, if that which is most general, should not be omitted in dividing. thirdly your division is to be reproved, for the great untruth which is contained in it, as I shall declare unto you hereafter. If first you will consider, what an other manner of division was to be learned out of the Doctors, and in what sense it is spoken and believed of us, that a sacrifice propitiatory is offered in our mysteries. 
what a sacrifice is.  Understand you therefore, that A sacrifice, is a reverent service and worship, due unto God only. Now again: Of sacrifices, some be internal and invisible, 
August. li. 10. de ci●i. Dei ca 4.  other some external and visible. The inward and internal sacrifice may be thus defined: It is that worship and service, 
what an internal sacrifice is.  in which our heart and will is given unto God, and this is done upon the altar of our heart, when either we burn the incense of holy and devout love in his sight, or when we vow to him ourselves and his gifts in us, or when we remember his benefits in solemn feasts and holidays, or when upon the altar of our heart, with the fire of charity, we burn the offerings of humility and praise, unto him. And this is the pure and acceptable sacrifice, which only God requireth of us, not because of his own profit and vantage, but that we, by uniting of ourselves to him, might live and continue for ever with him. But how shall a man know, that there is such a spiritual, invisible, and acceptable sacrifice? Of his own doing a man perchaunse may know, but of an others mind, who can tell, without some external sign or token showed? Again, if a man would utter his own inward devotion, how can he exemplify it, without some external sign, either of bowing of knees, or holding up of hands, or lifting up of eyes, or knocking of breast, or offering up of some gift? yea rather the soul and body being so nigh together as they are, it is impossible, that the heart & soul, should entirely be occupied, in the true worship of God, and that by no manner of similitude it should be perceived in the body. therefore, by necessary and natural consequence and following, there must be an external sacrifice. And that is defined of S. Augustine, by these words, The visible sacrifice is a sacrament, 
what an external sacrifice is  that is to say, an holy sign of the invisible sacrifice. Of this second kind of sacrifice if you require examples, you may easily find them in the sacrifices of Abel, Noah, Abraham, and others in the law of nature, 
Gene. 4. 8. 13. &. 20  and in the book of Leviticus, as concerning the old law, and in the churches and devotions of Christians in this time of grace, as when they offer candles, burn frankincense, take ashes, bear palm, and do anything outwardly to the honour of God. In which things, except the offerer have an internal devotion and piety, all those external ceremonies are not to him worth the using, and if he be in heart and memory fully disposed and advised to consider his own misery, and god his mercy, then are these outward actions and observations, holy signs and tokens of the internal sacrifice, and may be called external sacrifices. But let us speak of one singular example for all. The visible and bitter death of our Saviour Christ upon the cross, was an external and bloody sacrifice. But in what sense and meaning? undoubtedly as it was and is called visible. But what mean I by visible? I mean, that so painful manner of his hanging by the hands and fcete upon the cross, and so universal a wounding of every part of his precious body, so that from the crown of his head to the soele of his feet, there was no whole place in him, and the panting of every vain and stretching of every joint, and incredible torment in all his blessed flesh, these things with many other, were (I mean) holy signs of his inward sacrifice, in which he offered up (before him and to him which seeth all secrets) his life, his heart, his will, his thanks, his praises and prayers, and all that was his, for the saving of mankind, and satisfying of his fathers justice. Yea, concerning the eyes of men, not only the sight of God, who may doubt of his patience, which in all those torments did never once murmur? who can mistrust or suspect his charity, which among so many cruellties done to him, forgot not to love his enemies? who should not but consider his endless obedience, whose soul could not be removed from the keeping of his father's will, when the body was disjointed, the one member from the other? In very deed, this was an holy sign and sacrament, of the invisible and principal sacrifice of his pure heart and mind, and by this we understand, that God exceedingly loved man, which of mere good will and compassion, was content so to suffer for man. What shall we give then again unto God, for all this, which he hath done for us? we own to him remembrance of these benefits: we own unto him thanks: we own unto him love. Remembrance is moved by representation and sign: Thanks require a present and gift to be uttered by: Love desireth to be made one with that which is loved.  
To keep his benefits in remembrance, we might use, either reading, or hearing of his acts out of books, or painting of his passion, and expressing of his life in colours. But images, we know are similitudes only, and are far from the things themselves. To the signifying of our thanks, we might either sing them by mouth, or sound them by instruments, of show them in the building of churches, and decking of them with ornaments. And as concerning Love, we might fetch deep sigthes, and have earnest desires, but as the servants of holy job said by their master, in token of their exceeding love, who might give us to have our full of his flesh? 
job. 31.  We ought to render singular devotions, because we have received singular benefits, but our memory is so unstable, our power so little, and our charity so faint, that although very reason persuadeth, that we, after a most best manner, should remember, thank, and love, so merciful and bountiefull a Saviour as jesus is, yet the misery of nature declareth, that we are not able to do, either as we should, either, perchance, as we would.  
In this doubt therefore, who shall help us, but he, which hath died for us? which because he is made our head, hath therefore this office to direct and rule the body. And so truly he hath done. For in his last supper he took bread, and said This is my body, he took the cup, and said, This is my blood of the new testament, and with this body and blood which he hath and doth give unto us, we are able to discharge all our duties, and make a full and perfect offering. Of which body, and the mysteries and treasures thereof, if I would particularly speak, all time and study were to little for the greatness of the matter. But for those three points, the which I make mention of, they may be perfectly brought to pass, in the having and enjoying of his true body.  
For as concerning our charity and love, it is the most that we can desire in the state of his life, to be corporally, spiritually, really, faithfully, bodily, and ghostly joined unto him, which only is to be loved. 
Communio.  Of which our conjunction with Christ our God, the body and blood which he gave under the forms of bread and wine, are a sign and sacrament, and are called in respect of this signification and effect, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek, Communio in Latin, and Communion in our english.  
Then for giving of thanks, what greater present is there in earth or heaven, them the firstfruct of the virgin's womb, and the chiefest portion of all creatures, which is the body and blood of jesus Christ? So that if holy Abel, No●, Abraham, and other, have testified their inward sacrifice of thanks, by lambs, corn, grapes, oil, and so forth: and if Moses with all his people hath pleased God, in offering the firstfructes of their vineyards, 
Exo. 23. &. 34.  and glebeland, with firstfructes of men and beasts, 
Eucharisti●.  in testimony of the honour and thanks which they gave unto God: how much more acceptably, are we now able to offer unto God a most worthy and precious gift, which have received for that purpose the body and blood of Christ, in whose only body, the particular values and prices, of all other presents, that ever were under any law, are shortly comprised, and reckoned summarily? And so in this respect, the body of our Saviour is unto us Eucharistia, or a sacrifice of thanks giving.  
But now, for the third point, who thanketh him, whom he remembreth not? or who remembreth him, whom he is not warned of? or what warning can be greater, than the real presence of the party? and the party being present, what is first considered but his chiefest and worthiest benefit? That we should therefore always remember our saviour his death, which he so openly suffered, that all creatures should behold it, he left unto us the same body that suffered for us.  
In presence of which, if we will not be brought to remember him, we will never be brought. And in this respect, our Sacrament is called a Sacrifice, 
Sacrifice.  because it is, unto all such as have the true and sincere faith, a most holy sign and token of that sacrifice of the cross, which so long time sense is ended, as concerning the painefullnes and bloudnies of his crucified body, and yet continueth still in fresh memory, by reason of the real presence of the same body which then suffered.  
And like as when Easter draweth nigh, we say, to morrow or the next day after, is the passion of our Lord, because it is a like day unto that in which he suffered his passion: so, because that in the mysteries of Christians, the representation of Christ's perfect sacrifice, which he offered once for all, is perfectly worked, therefore it beareth the name of that bloody sacrifice, which it representeth. For in deed, we do not at this day, sacrifice Christ bloodily, but rather celebrate the memory of his painful sacrifice, which memory is by no mean, more effectually preserved, then by this, that the same body is now made really present before us, which at that time was sensibly offered for us. But how then is it propitiatory? forsooth, because of the offering of one self-same body. for although we make a commemoration only of his death, & not put Christ to death in deed, yet we have (through his gift) the self-same body, which them being put to death rose again to life, that it might never more die, which then was offered up bloodily, and now is offered mystically, and is in both manners the same Christ verily, and to the same effect dispensativelie. therefore, as Christ is the true fountain of life, and the everlasting and shining light of comfort, and as his precious side after it hath been once opened, is never shut up and stopped again, but always giveth out the streams of mercy and peace: so it can not but make for the cleansing of their sins, which stand before it, and hope after remission, forgiveness, and mercy, by it. And as the word propitiation, doth signify nothing else, but graciousness, favour, cause of favour, or some such like, so the mystical offering of his real person, which is the deserver and giver of all pardon, can not be but propitiatory unto them, which come lowly before his gr●ce, and do him faithful honour, not withstanding his external baseness, and the curtains, which he keepeth himself under.  
Thus I have shortly declared, what a sacrifice is: And, that one is internal, an other external: And that under the name of internal sacrifice, all piety and devotion of the heart is contained, in to how many kinds so ever it may be divided: And that all good external actions, done in respect of God, are comprehended under the name of external sacrifice, with all the variety and number of them, be they never so diverse and many. In which kind of external sacrifice, I have put the sacrifice of the church, giving warning unto you, in what sense the church doth call it a sacrifice.  
And now therefore to return unto your division of sacrifice, you may learn hereafter to do your things, in better order. For the oblations, which the people made, of bread, wine, and other victuals: likewise the praying for all states in the ty●e of celebration●: thirdly every good act and consequently the action of the priest at the altar, should have been put of you, under the title or member of external sacrifice. And then you should have spoken somewhat of internal sacrifice: And before you had come unto that, you should have defined unto us, what a sacrifice had been, that we might have a little perceived your good judgement in the doctors. But let us forgive you this unskillfullnes, and consider now, whether that, which you have spoken without order, be not spoken also of you, without truth or reason.  
First we agree with you, that the people made such offerings as you speak of. 
the oblations of the people, in bread, wine, and victuals, was not the cause why the doctors call the sacrament a sacrifice.  But we deny, that the offering of the people, was cause unto the holy fathers, that they should give the title of sacrifice, unto the sacrament. For it is unreasonable, that the Sacrament should borrow the name of oblation, of the people's offering, and not rather the people's wine and bread, be honoured with that title▪ because of the Sacrament. For in every kind of thing, the first and chiefest in that kind, is first and formest to be accounted. As for example, the offering of Christ, which he made of himself upon the cross, because it was the most perfectest and best that ever was made, you should not therefore say, that by the example taken of the offering up of calves, sheep, or lambs, Christ is said to be offered, but rather because of his principal sacrifice, all other must from thence have and borrow their name. And so because the oblation, which is made in the mysteries, is of more excellency, and of higher degree, than the offerings of the people: no doctor of the church would be so unlike himself, as to call that, which the priest consecrated at the altar, by the name of sacrifice, because it was a selected portion out of the people's offering. Again, if it were true, that in respect that the bread and wine was taken out of the people's offering, therefore the bread and wine consecrated, should have the name of an oblation, yet you could never call the priest an offerer, except for some action, in which his offering might be perceived. And this shall be the better proved, by considering of your example, which, to show your purpose, you bring out of S. Irenei, which speaking of the bread and wine, of which Christ said, This is my body, 
Iren. lib. 4 cap. 32  this is my blood, witnesseth, that Christ therein taught them (not us, as you construe it, but the Apostles first, and after them, and by them, us) a new oblation of the new testament, which the church taking of the Apostles, offereth up to God in all the world. Here lo in this sentence, if it were possible that the term (oblation) should be applied, not properly unto the sacrament, but in respect, (as you think) of the oblation of the people, yet how doth the church offer, when by your saying, there is nothing to offer. But consider for shame the words of S. Irenei: He taught (saith he) the apostles, a new oblation of the new testament. If Christ taught them, they were to learning of it: if he taught them a new oblation, it was such as they never had before. Yet of the offering of bread and wine, and such like, 
Leu. 23.  they had not only hard of before, but were also offerers of it themselves, because all the nation of jews had example or commandment of it, in the law. Again, if it were a new oblation of the new testament, it is plain, it was more worth, and more royal, and more true, than any of the old law, what time all things chanced unto them in figures, 
1. Cor. 10.  and were done for us, which live now in the later end of the world.  
And therefore, if in the old law, the priests oblations were true oblations, and had not that name or title, because they were offered up before of the people: what a vile reproach is this, to the everlasting and new testament, to say, that when the Doctors do speak of the oblation made at the mass, they mean thereby, that the common people made offerings of bread and wine, to serve therewith the altar, the priests, and poor beggars.  
Also, this holy father saith, That the church, receiving (that oblation) of the Apostles, doth offer it up to God, in all the world. Furthermore he bringeth in, the testimony of the Prophet Malachi, to prove that the sacrifices of the old law should be abolished, and one pure and clean sacrifice succeed them, and please God more than all they had done. I have no mind to you, 
Mala. 1.  (saith God, by the Prophet, unto the jews, as concerning their sacrifices) because, from the East to the west, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in all places there is sacrificed and offered up unto my name, a pure oblation or offering, because my name is great among the Gentiles. This testimony of the Prophet, S. Irenei allegeth, to prove the new testament of which he spoke. And by all this, which the church hath received, the Apostles have delivered, the son of God hath taught, the Prophet hath foreshowed, the whole world doth celebrate, is this (trow you) understanded, that the people should in the time of the new law and kingdom of Messiah, come in to the churches with bread, wine, butter, eggs, and cheese, and other good victuals, that of the bread and wine, which they offer, a portion should be taken, to serve at the communion? I will be short with you, we the Christians, either have no external sacrifice, and then we be in more worse and discumfortable case, than ever any before have been, in any kind of religion, or else we have an excellent oblation delivered unto us, as the Prophet Malachi foreshowed, and Christ exhibited, and the church observeth. But this excellent oblation, and so much spoken of, is not the oblation, which the people make, (for the offering of come, wine, and victuals, was more largely and plentifully used among jews and Panimes both, than it is with us) Ergo the Prophet Malachi spoke of an other and better kind of offering. Ergo also S. Irenei, did not mean in his sentence by you alleged, the simple and obscure oblations of the people, because he speak of that, which the Prophet Malachi had written of.  
Yet to show the grace which you have in understanding of the Doctors, whereas this present testimony of S. Irenei maketh so plainly against you, you say, that he expoundeth himself in an other place, as in the .34. chap. of the foresaid book, And signifieth, that he speaketh not of the offering of the sacrament consecrated, 
Defence. fo. 30.  but of the bread and wine, offered partly to the use of the supper, partly to the finding of the poor. It is wonder to see your boldness. 
Reply.  For the place of S. Irenei, by which you would prove this your comment, doth neither make mention of the use of the supper, 
An ancient doctor foully abused by the M. of the defence.  neither of finding the poor. But rather he saith, we make offering up to God, etc. offering unto him the firstfructes of his creatures, etc. and this pure offering, the church only offereth to our maker, etc. But where doth he say in that place (which either should have served your purpose, or else not at all have been alleged) that the new oblation of the new testament, and the prophesy of Malachi, of which he had spoken in the 32. Chapter before, were to be understanded of the bread and wine, offered to the use of the supper, and finding of the poor? we do not deny, but that the people offered bread and wine for such intentes, but you should have proved, that same to be the pure offering, which the church only offereth, as S. Irenei saith. Which can not possibly be ever concluded, because neither the offering of the people singularly pure, neither the Church only doth offer bread, wine, and firstfructes, which the very paynims, & that naturally, do offer up, against reason, unto their false Gods & Idols. wherefore you have brought S. jerenei out of place, not to expound himself, but to confound your miserable lying. And thus much for the first signification, which you make of the word oblation and sacrifice.  
Now as concerning the second, we grant, and the church also hath taught it you, that there is a sacrifice of prayer, and a sacrifice of thanks giving. But how can you prove, that the sacrament itself is not also a sacrifice, that is to say, an external and visible sign, of our thanks giving and prayer? for not only Te Deum laudamus, or, Agnus Dei miserere nobis, are sacrifices of thanks giving, and humble praying, but most especially the holy host consecrated. And you must not by one truth take away an other, as, because no man will deny, that the prayers to God, and praises of God used in the mass, are true sacrifices, to conclude therefore, that the body and blood of Christ, are for us no sacrifice. Further, where you say, concerning the prayers and thanks given at the celebration of the sacrament: That the Doctors in infinite places affirm, 
Defence fol. 31.  that to be the true and only sacrifice of the new testament:  
It is most false and unreasonable. 
Reply.  For thanks and prayers are connion sacrifices unto all religions, and all laws, new and old, supernatural and natural. And then if we should speak exactly, there is none true and pure sacrifice, 
Our thanks & prayers are not the only and true sacrifice.  but only that which our Saviour maketh of himself, in what so ever form, place, and manner, it pleaseth him to be offered. For all our justice, considered by itself, without relation made unto the holiness and merits of Christ, 
Esaie. 64.  are like the foul clothes of women, all unclean and polluted. And the stars themselves being not clean in his sight, 
job. 25.  much less any prayers or praises of men, if without mercy they should be considered. Again, where you draw the matter out with more length than truth. That the fathers called every good action, a sacrifice, 
Defence fo. 31.  were it private or common, as S. Austin also signifieth: (but you tell not where) you report of them untruly, 
Reply.  as S. Augustine may prove unto you. For he saith not, 
Not every good work is a Sacrifice, but:  that every good work absolutely, but every work that is done to the intent we might cleave unto God in holy society, is a true sacrifice. As if you should give an alms to one, because he is your poor friend which asketh it, and not refer the geaving of it unto that supreme end and point, which is God himself, all though the act be good morally, yet can it not be called a sacrifice. After this you bring in Ireneus, 
The M. of the defence occupieth himself in matters which are not in question.  Eusebius, Chrisostome, Austyne. but to what purpose? verily to prove that which is not denied, that the Christians do offer up the sacrifices of thanks giving, of prayers, and the remembrance of that great sacrifice of the cross. For who denieth this unto you? I tell you again, that (to go no further than the self-same places of the Doctors which you recite) we offer to God most high, 
Euseb. de demonstr. evan. li. 1.  a sacrifice of praise, but also as it followeth, we offer a full, a sweet, and holy sacrifice, after a new sort, according to the new testament. Yet if you mean the simple praises of our heart and lips, they are not worth the honour of so many epithetons and titles, as Eusebius attributeth unto the sacrifice of this our time of grace. 
The M. of the defence beaten down with his own weapons.  Again, according to the same Eusebius, true it is, we celebrate the remembrance of that great sacrifice, but yet we take that which followeth, according to the mysteries instituted by Christ himself. By which words he giveth you to understand, that the matter hangeth not upon your newly devised apprehension, by which we represent unto our memory, the passion and merits of the Sound of God, but through the institution of the mysteries, which the fatihfull have always honoured, that remembrance of the high and bloody sacrifice, is continued and celebrated accordingly.  
We hold furthermore, 
Lib. 22. de civit. Dei cap. 10.  with S. Austin, that the Martyrs are the mystical body of Christ, but yet we hold also with him, that, at the sacrifice which we offer unto God, the Martyrs in their place and order, are named. For as our saviour hath true bodies, one mystical, an other natural, so the offering of the mystical, must not exclude the presence and offering of the natural. Yea rather, how can the mystical body be offered, except it be through the presence of the natural? For the offering of ourselves, is not the offering of Christ his whole mystical body, although you affirm it. And if the whole parish would join itself never so strongly together, how do they offer S. Peter, S. Paul, and all the rest of the elect and chosen? But when the natural body of Christ is offered, (unto whom, as the head, all the elect, as members, are joined, and not only they which are departed this world, or which are in it at this present, but all they which ever hereafter shall be borne, until all the number be fulfiled) then lo and only than it is verified, that Christ his mystical body is offered: because he the head is offered, which, as concerning God his everlasting appointment, will, and pleasure, never wanteth any one part of his perfect and full mystical body. Otherwise how can the body be well offered without the head, which for that cause only is an acceptable body, and worth offering, because it cleaveth unto such an head. Again, S. Austin in this place, although he denieth, that the priest offereth sacrifice unto the Martyrs, yet he confesseth, that the Martyrs are named at our sacrifice, declaring thereby most plainly against you, that we have a sacrifice, which they are not, but at which they have a due and convenient commemoration.  
Likewise again, we say with Chrisostome as you do, 
Chris. 〈◊〉. 17. ad Hebr.  that we offer every day, doing it in remembrance of his death: but we add further out of the same place, that this sacrifice is one, and not many. And also, that we do not offer up now one, tomorrow an other, but always the self-same. For else, because it is offered up in many places, they be many Christ's. Not so. But Christ is every where one, being whole both here and also there, one body. For like as he which is offered up every where, is one body, and not many bodies, even so is the sacrifice also one.  
therefore to conclude with S. Austin, true it is, that in our sacrifice, there is a thanks giving and remembrance of the body and blood of Christ, 
Aug. ●. de fide ad P●.  (but consider that which followeth) that he gave and shed for us. By which words he willeth you to understand, that we have in deed a remembrance of Christ his body and blood, not in respect of his real absence from us, but in respect of his painful suffering for us. You may see then by this time, that you have proved a sacrifice of prayers, of thanks giving, and a remembrance of Christ his passion to be celebrated in the church, (which the schools did teach, many hundred years before you or Luther war borne, and which we know better than you) and that you may be ashamed to have gone so far besides the purpose, being in deed able to disprove by no authority the sacrifice propitiatory of Christ in his church, 
An evil manner of reasoning by authority, negatively.  against which all your malice is. I except this argument only, which in deed your wisdom doth use more than once, when you say: Eusebius here maketh no mention of propitiatory sacrifice, 
De demonst. evang. li. 1. Aug. lib. de fide ad Pet.  and, S. Austyne saith not, that here is an offering of Christ his body and blood for sins, Ergo there are no such things at all. As though that all things could be spoken at once, or all mysteries should be straightways revealed, or as though there were no difference, betwixt not speaking of the thing, and denieing the thing. In which kind of reasoning, you continued for the rest of your chapter, alleging out of S. Cyprian, (you tell not where) & out of the Greek canon of the Mass, that they offered for our Lady, and out of S. Chrisostome, that thanks were offered for the whole world, and as well for them which were before, as them which shall come after, of which you conclude, saying: This was their offering for the dead, 
Defence. fol. 34.  and not a practice to pull souls out of purgatory, for merchandise and money, as you have used in your private Mass.  
This is your practice, both in reasoning and in slandering. 
Reply.  In slandering, because you attribute unto our religion, a selling and byeing of souls out of purgatory for money, which you never find to be taught or allowed of any one good man, and much less of the whole church: In reasoning, because you conclude, that not to be at all in the author, which you find not expressed in some place which pleaseth you. For (to continued in the testimonies which you do bring) although S. Cyprian, 
Cyp. li. 4. Ep. 5.  in the .5. epistle of his fourth book, make mention of sacrifice for martyrs, undoubtedly to thank God for them, yet in his first book and ix epistle, 
Lib. 1. ep. 9  he proveth, that there is an oblation which the priests do make for the dead, such as were no martyrs, and he testifieth also of a deprecation and prayer which the church useth in their names. For in charging the clergy, unto which he there writeth, to make no oblation and prayer, for the soul of one Victor, which had transgressed a canon and decree of the bishops, he showeth therewithal, what the clergy would have done, had not his commandment stayed them, and he proveth that, for some kind of such as were departed, not only praises and thanks, but supplications rather and prayers were offered.  
Then as concerning the greek Canon, which of them you did mean, I could not tell, but now, by reason of M. Grindal sermon, which he made not long sense at an english funeral, of Ferdinand the Emperor, it is evident unto me, that you mean the mass of S. Chrisostome. In which, 
One truth must not be impugned by an other.  although I can not find any oblation made for our lady, the prophets, or Apostles, (although that a commemoration of thanks may be offered also for them,) yet if it were true, that in one place of that greek Canon, an oblation were made for our lady, that doth not prove, but in an other place of the same Canon, an express oblation and prayer was made for the dead, such as were not yet at rest. For after the consecration of the sacrament ended, he saith within a few lines, 
Chris. in Liturg.  we offer unto thee, this reasonable service, for those which sleep and rest in the faith, for our fathers and our great grand fathers, through the intercession of patriarchs, Prophets, apostles, Martyrs, and all Saints. But especially, for the supplications and prayers, of the perpetual virgin Marry mother of God, our Qnene, for ever blessed, undefiled, and most holy, Saint john the baptist, prophet and precursor, the holy and most renowned apostles, and the Saint whose memory we celebrate, and all thy Saints, visit us (o God) and remember all them which sleep in our Lord, in hope of the rising again unto everlasting life, and grant them rest, where the light of thy countenance doth intend over them.  
Now again, although you allege a true saying out of S. Chrisostome, upon the eight Chapter of S. Matthew, that the priest standing at the Altar, when the sacrifice is set forth, commandeth the standers by, to offer up thanks to God for the world (in which testimony it is plain to see, that the sacrifice proposed is one thing, and the sacrifice of thanks an other) yet, (to let go this vantage) you can not deny but he in an other place saith, 
Chris. ho. 3 ad Philip.  It was decreed by the Apostles, not in vain, that in the celebration of the venerable mysteries, a memory should be made of them, which were departed hence. They knew, that much commodity and much profit did come hereof unto them. For the whole people standing by, with lifting up their hands unto heaven, and also the company of priests: and the venerable sacrifice being laid out and proponed, how should we not pacify God, in praying for them?  
therefore it is clear, that your argument is very unlearned and childissh, to say, that Chrisostome upon the eight of Matthew, maketh mention only of thanks giving for all men which are passed, or which are to come, ergo there is no other sacrifice but thanks, to be offered for the souls departed: or else, (to declare more sensibly the absurdity of your reason,) ergo in his third homely upon the epistle unto the Philippians, he hath no word of the apostles tradition, that in the presence of the reverend mysteries, prayers should be made for the dead, to cause God to be merciful unto them. But see again: S. Ambrose offered for Valentinian the Emperor then dead, 
Defence.  and S. Ambrose doubted not of his salvation, ergo he did no more but thank God for him.  
This is your argument without reason and knowledge. 
Reply.  For every soul, of whose salvation we need not to doubt, is not straightways in heaven. As S. Austin, although he doubted not but that his mother Monica, did yield at her death a saved soul unto God, of whom he testifieth, that she so lived, that God was praised in her faith and manners, and that she was a merciful woman, and forgave all them which had trespassed against her, and that she came every day to church, and served God before the altar, from which she knew the holy sacrifice to be dispensed, by which the bill of debt, which was contrary unto us, was put out and canceled, Yet for all this, knowing the account, which every soul shall give, 
Mat. 12.  for the least word that is spoken against the commandments of God, and leaving a side her good deeds, for which he joyfully thanketh God, he prayeth for his mother, that her sins might be forgiven, and saith, Let no creature pull her from thy protection. 
Conf. lib. 9 cap. 13.  Let not the lion and dragon put himself in between, neither by force, nor by subtlety: etc. Grant, that she may be in peace with her husband, before whom and after whom she was married to no other, etc. And inspire, in to thy servants my brothers, and thy children my masters, that, as many of them as shall read these things, may remember at thy altar, thy servant Monica with Patricius her husband.  
Therefore that you may know your folly, and learn from hence forward to hearken unto the whole tale, before you give definitive sentence, I will say unto you with S. Austin unto Laurentius, It is not to be denied, that the souls of them which are departed, 
In Enchiri dio, c●. 110  are relieved and eased by the devotion of their friends living, when the sacrifice of our mediator is offered for them, or when alms are given in the church. etc. and, in the end of the chapter, he concludeth, Therefore, when the sacrifices, either of the altar, either of any kind of alms, what so ever it be, 
Prayers & helps for the dead.  are offered, for all such as have departed with baptism, they are for the very good, thanks giving: they are propitiations, for such as are not very evil: for the stark nought, although they are no help, as concerning them being now dead, yet they are cumfortes, (such as they are,) for the quick. Understand you this english? and do you mark, how one self-same sacrifice, doth serve to render thanks by it, and to be also a propitiation for sinners, such as die not desperate? Will you bear away the distinction of three sorts of men, which S. Austin here maketh? and see by reason, that some die in such case, as not praises but prayers rather are to be made for them? do so I pray you then. And never fill your papers in writings or your audience ears in preaching, with such arguments, as are taken of authority of holy father's negatively, or with such commendation of one truth, as craftily shall disgrace an other, 
Note the sheep skins of heretics.  as true. Like as many use to prove, that the true fast is in abstaining from sin, (which no man denieth,) and infer thereupon wylilie, that to abstain from corporal meats, serveth not to any kind of reasonable fasting. Or, as some do show by many authorities, that Christ is to be received spiritually by faith, and deny therefore, that he is eaten really, which yet is as true, as the other. Or like as you in this chapter, have abused your reader, in proving a sacrifice of prayers and thanks giving, and denying any oblation to be in the church for sins, which yet the holy fathers in their writings have expressed.   

The fifth Chapter.  
IN this chapter, you find fault with the Catholic, that he allegeth the place of Chrisostome, other wise than it is in him. which as concerning the interpretation of Musculus, you might say perhaps, but, (I trow,) ye should not report of him, that he reciteth the place otherwise then it is in S. Chrisostome, except you disproved him by the greek text itself, which you have not. And truly, what great reprovable diversity should be, in saying: Sacrificium frustra quotidianum offerimus, or, frustra habetur quotidiana oblatio, whereas both come to one end, that the daily oblation or sacrifice is made in vain, I can not readily tell, except you mislike the term of offering, and think that the having of a daily sacrifice, might be made without the act of offering. But go to, for quietness sake, we are content with Musculus interpretation, and what say you then unto the argument of the Catholic? The words of S. Chrisostome are these: Frustrà habetur quotidi●na oblatio, frustrà stamus ad altar, nemo est qui simul participet, Our daily sacrifice is had in vain, we stand at the altar in vain, there is none to take part with us. By this testimony, to conclude shortly, there was daily sacrifice in S. Chrysostom's time, and there was not daily receiving with the priest, ergo to have communicantes, is not of the substance of the Catholic mass. Unto this argument, I find, as it were four answers for your defence, of which the first is, that Chrisostom, to exaggerate the people's slackness, saith, (there is none to be partaker) meaning they were very few and seldom, 
Defence. fol. 37. The first answer to S. Chrisostomes' places.  in comparison of that their duty was.  
Do you think then, that every day, there was one or other of the people, which did come to the communion? then did he not stand in vain at the Altar, except you can prove, that in that world, such a canon was made, that there should be no communion without three to receive at it: on the other side, if in any one day at all, there was found no one to communicate, the sacrifice being offered every day, it was celebrated some times without communicants. For, it is not material unto us, whether the people received, some at Easter, some at tweluetyde, and other some more ofter, but whether as the oblation was daily, that so the receiving appropriated (as you think) unto it, should have been daily. And all the authorities which you bring of S. Ambrose, Austin, Chrisostome, and Concilium Elibertinum, to prove that the people did communicate more than once in the year, and that great fault was found with manies slackness in that behalf: 
The M. of the defence speaketh out of his purpose, to the Catholics commodity.  as they do make directly against him, which would maintain the opinion, that the people never received but at Easter, so they confirm rather our conclusion, which is, that communicantes are not necessary at every time of mass to be celebrated. For, whereas the bishops or Synods, as you confess, appointed and charged the Christians to receive once, twice, thrice, or four times in the year, and whereas the council called Elibertinum, decreed that all the faithful should communicate, at the least, thrice in the year, it may be very well gathered hereof, that there was no daily receiving with the priest. Because the council, in charging them to receive thrice at the least, showeth thereby consequently, that they came not so oft, as thrice in the year. And S. Ambrose, in that he reproveth the custom in the East parts, 
Amb. li. 4. de Sacra.  of receiving no more than once a year, he proveth therein unto you, necessarily, that there was such a custom. Wherefore, to grant unto you, that S. Chrisostome, in saying there is none to communicate, useth a certain exaggeration, and meaneth that there are very few and seldom which communicate, yet the sacrifice being daily, he offered and received some times without communicants. For although a few might have come daily, and so have made up a communion, yet when S. Chrisostome meaneth, (after your comment upon him) that they came seldom also, there were undoubtedly some vacant days between, in which the daily sacrifice was offered, and yet none did communicate with the priest.  
But let us come to your second answer, in which you say, that although this place did prove, 
the second answer.  that none of the common people would communicate, (whereupon we have concluded, that the priest received alone, for any coming of theirs) yet, say you to us: Ye can not, 
Defence fol. 37.  by this testimony, declare, that none of the ministers and clergy received with him, being bishop there. etc. for the manner was not then, as you do use it now. etc. but all the ministers and clergy did communicate together with the bishop, or chief minister that celebrated.  
You speak herein very reasonably, 
Reply.  that the bishop himself celebrating, had (according unto the manner of that time) not all the clergy, I believe, but always some of them to communicate with him. And likewise in Cathedral and principal churches, it is very credible, that some of the clergy did receive with the chief minister. Such was the order then, and manner in the church. But how can you prove, that the bishop himself, celebrated every day, solemnly? or that he said mass always in a great or Cathedral church, with his priests, archdeacon's, deacons, and other officers, about him? Or that there were no small and little parish churches; oratory's, chapels, and such like, in that world, which one priest and a clerk might have served well enough, without more company of the clergy? Then also, if the populous cities of Antioch or Constantinople, (in which S. Chrisostome, did bestow the most of his life and learning,) had either but one Cathedral church, (which is as convenient and reasonable, as one city to have one bishop,) or if they had a number of fair and great churches, and them all furnished, with priests, archdeacon's, deacons, subdeacons, readers, singers, exorcists, and other officers pertaining to the clergy: yet, that the clergy and ministers, did every day receive with the priest at the altar, (as we grant that sometimes they did so in deed,) or that the sacrifice went not forward, except some communicantes were prepared, (which properly is our question,) I deny it flatly unto you, until you can prove the contrary. For I see no urgent cause, why I might not think, that the clergy also of that time, was slack in the daily coming to the communion, and that they having one to execute and to offer the daily sacrifice, for the rest, contended them selves, with communicating in prayer only and spiritual eating, and not in the Sacramental receiving. Especially if it be considered, how vehemently S. Chrisostome noteth and reproveth his clergy, for laughing not only abroad with good merry fellows, but also in the church itself, 
Chr. ho. 15. Epist. ad Hebr.  at the time of prayer. Against whom among other strange arguments, and well worth deep consideration, this is one, that he saith, The priest of God doth stand offering up the prayers of all, and thou dost laugh, and he truly doth tremble in offering prayers for thee, and thou settest light by the matter. By which, it is credible, that not only the people, whom canons had need to constrain to come thrice a year to receive their maker, did suffer the priest to receive alone, but that also in the clergy, there was such lack of consideration (as it is in many Catholics now, whose faith is stedfastinough) that they were not in haste to accumpanie daily the priest which celebrated, nor glad to make them selves ready to communicate with him, but talked or laughed (the more pity) to gather, thinking perchance that all will be well enough, because the priest, in all their names, offereth a most acceptable sacrifice for them. The which fault, I would it were not among the Catholics, and that they would keep themselves as attended and devout, when they hear mass only, minding not to communicate sacramentally, as the truth is, that their part is in the oblation, and remember that not only the priest must behave himself reverently, but all the clergy and laity present, though they stand never so far from the altar. therefore, as we will not strive against you in this one point, that the ministers received with the bishop or chief priest, so we bid you to prove it, that always the ministers did communicate, when the daily sacrifice was offered. Which, because you thought (as I guess) that it should be over hard for you, therefore you invent a third shift, for your defence, which is this: But if I should flatly deny, 
Defence. fo. 38.  that the minister received, when none of the people were partakers, how could you prove it, 
A third answer or shift.  by this place?  
This is your third answer to S. Chrisostome. As who should say, 
Reply.  if I can not prove, first, that the people did communicate with the priests, or secondly, that the clergy did always communicate, yet thirdly will I answer, that the priest at the altar did not receive, when he saw that none would come and eat with him. And here, you require our proof against our saying: unto which I answer, that because the oblation and sacrifice was daily, therefore it was offered and taken of the priest, although none were prepared to receive with him. But you are not pleased with this, and therefore you interpret S. Chrisostome, that He named it oblationem, 
Defence. fol. 38.  either for that it was done in remembrance of Christ's sacrifice, or for the offering up of the bread and wine, to the celebration of the Lords supper. Well Sir, 
Reply.  first of all, what understand you by that, which, you say, was done, in remembrance of Christ's saerifice? Can, you understand any other thing but the taking and blessing and breaking of bread? for in doing these things, we follow Christ's example, and remember his passion. If then, according unto your first sense of this term, oblation, you grant, that, without any to communicate, the priest alone did offer, ergo you grant as much as we require, that the priest did take, bless, and break, in remembrance of Christ's sacrifice.  
But on the other side, if you take the word, 
The M. of the defence put to the foil on bo● the sides.  oblation, for the offering up of bread and wine for the provision of the Lords supper, that was not the priests offering, of which S. Chrisostome speaketh, but it was the offering of the people. And according unto this your sense, S. Chrisostome could not say, that there was none to communicate, because the good people, which offered the bread and wine towards the supper of the Lords, were in that point, not only communicantes, but also chief ministers and doers. Or, at the least, the priests and poor folk, which were sustained by such oblations, were never so evil taught, that they would not remember their daily bread, or so well fed otherwise, that they needed not to care for the welthiers' alms, and make S. Chrisostome to complain upon it, that there is no body to communicate. And further more, none of these two kinds of oblations, of which you now speak, were in vain or fructlesse unto the people, but as concerning the oblation which S. Chrisostome meaneth, his words be plain, that the daily oblation is in vain offered. Also, if these words, (daily oblation and sacrifice,) by putting the case that none at all did receive, are to be understanded for that which is done in remembrance of Christ's passion, or for the offering up of bread and wine to the celebration of the Lords supper, you leave (I do trust) a more excellent sense of these words (daily oblation,) for that time and place, when the people do communicate with the priest. For if you doenot, than is the oblation all one, whether some or none do receive: and if you do, then must you tell us of one way more, of taking this word oblation, than you have yet uttered. Again if a man will consider how royally, and yet truly, 
ho. 3. ad Ephes.  S. Chrisostome in the foresaid homely, speaketh of this daily sacrifice, calling it an oblation, at which the very Angels do tremble, 
Consider how reverently we should behave our selves in the presence of the sacrament.  and warning the people to think well upon it, how the king's table standeth there, that, the Angels are waiting, and serving at it, that, the king himself is present, that, Christ the lamb of God is offered up: further, if one should mark well, but those external preparations, of which he there speaketh, as, the drawing a side of curtains, the making clean of the table, the setting down of patins with all reverence and diligence, can he think that S. Chrisostome did mean, by daily sacrifice, no more but a remembrance (you do not tell what) of the sacrifice which Christ made upon the cross, or else the only offering up of bread and wine towards the mainteaning of the Lords supper? But let us go further. If you be so cunning, in expounding of (oblation) against the mind of the author, and besides all colour of reason, make an end of your comment, and tell us what Chrisostome meaneth by quotidiana, daily?  
He calleth it Quotidianam, 
Defence fol. 38.  to the imitation of the sacrifice of the old law. May one then imitate the old law in speaking? he may do it undoubtedly. 
Reply.  Yet you, fo. 33. of your defence, do make that odious, by an unreverent and suspitiouse manner of uttering it, which in itself is honest and lawful, and which yourself do use at this present. For to say, Quotidianam, and daily sacrifice to be so called, to the imitation of the sacrifice of the old law, it soundeth well and tolerably, and yourself do take S. Chrisostome an that sense to no dispraise or contempt of him. Yet when the Catholics now a days, call their mysteries by the name of sacrifice, you will not say, that they have taken that manner of speaking out of the old law, (for that soundeth to no reproach) but of the jewish priests, as who should gather a suspicion of jewishness upon us. It is worth the noting, because it is worth the amending. But to S. Chrisostome his Quotidianam, what answer you?  He calleth it Quotidianam. 
Defence.  etc. not because it was done every day, without intermission. 
How then doth it imitate the old law, which had daily offering? 
Reply.  or how can it be called Quotidiana, which is daily? The daily sacrifice of the old law, was two lambs of one year, without spot, which God appointed to be offered up in sacrifice, 
Nu. 28.  every morning and evening, for ever, and they made the quotidianum, the judge, and the daily sacrifice of the jews. You say therefore, 
the inconstancy of the M. of the defen.  and unsay. First, that the sacrifice, which S. Chrisostome calleth Quotidianam, is so termed, to the imitation of the jews, whose daily, and specially also daily sacrifice is commanded by God to be always continued, and then you tell us, that it was not done every day without intermission, which is in effect to say, that it is not called quotidian to the imitation of the jews. Yet let us hear further: He calleth it Quotidianam, not because it was done every day, but for that it was oftentimes celebrated, 
Defence. fol. 38.  that is, so often as the people assembled together to the church or common place of prayers etc. at which times, he always had, either some of the people, or the residue of the ministers and clergy, to communicate with him.  
Mark here, 
Reply.  gentle Reader, the foolish hardiness of this M. of defence, and consider by this one example, how wickedly the learned and holy doctors are abused. Did the service then of the church, depend upon the coming of the people? or did some one or other always receive, when the daily oblation was offered? where should we seek more better for the truth of this question, then in Saint Chrisostome his own mass and works? for as concerning the daily saying of mass in the latin church, it is plainly concluded by the testimony of S. Austin, which reporteth of his mother, that she served and honoured God at his altar nullius diei pretermissione, 
Conf. li. 9 cap. 13.  without letting one day pass. But let us be contented with that which S. Chrisostome alone shall give us. It appeareth then in his mass, that they had for every ferie in the week, a certain song in the praise of our lady, S. Michael, S. john the Baptist, and other, 
Chrisost. in Liturg.  which they used immediately after the Gospel, and called it apolitition. Further it appeareth, that they did not first ask among the people who were disposed to receive, and upon the answer given, 
That the sacrifice of the church was daily in deed, & not daily, that is to say often.  frame the matter to a communion, but first of all they went to the consecration, and after that the oblation was finished, and the priest with such about him as would, had received, then did the Deacon turn himself to the people, and say, Come you near in the fear of God. Which is confirmed by Saint Chrisostome again, in his Homilies upon the Epistle unto the Hebreus, where he faith, that the Deacon crieth out, and calleth unto the people with these words, sancta sanctu, which is, these holy things are for the holy, not before the priest doth consecrate, but, hanc emittit vocem postquam sacrificium perficitur, he speaketh this word after the sacrifice is thoroughly ended. Wherefore as the offering of the sacrifice did not then hang uncertainly upon the coming or going of the people, so, it is unreasonably and unlearnedly spoken, that the daily sacrifice had that name, not because of the daily celebration, but because of the seldom using of it, when the people did gather themselves unto the church. Furthermore, if for your pleasure sake, (Quotidiana) when we talk of oblation, doth not signify daily, what will you say unto singulos dies, every day: by which we shall better perceive the disease of your quotidian. Nónne per singulos dies offerimus? 
ho. 17. ad Hebr.  sayeth Chrisostome, Do we not offer up day by day? how can so express mention of offering day by day, be interpreted of you, (without a manifest lie) to signify a sacrifice celebrated, not daily, but oftentimes? you have readen also, (if you remember it,) that the greek church in the lent season did not celebrate but upon saturday only and Sunday, using for the rest of the week, those hosts which were consecrated before. And what other thing is this special observation of theirs, 
Concil. Const. 6. can. 52.  in the lent, but a manifest argument that all the year before and after, they used daily consecration? therefore truly Sir, you were to hardy in venturing upon so straying and untrue interpretation of quotidian sacrifice, especially whereas in so doing you are come within danger of much folly. For whereas by driving of your daily oblation unto seldom, you would seem to gather company for every such seldom oblation, you forget the Sundays and many feasts of our blessed Lady, apostles, and Martyrs, which in the primitive church were devoutly observed, by fasting, watching, lying on the ground, and praying, unto all which, the people resorting, if they did receive at them all, then make you S. Chrisostome, yea and S. Ambrose, S. Austin, and the council named Elibertinum, very forgetful and hasty, which either reproved the people, because they did communicate only at Easter, or at some one or two feasts more in the year, either provided against their slackness, that they should receive at the least thrice a year. Whereas, (after your saying) there failed no such day, in which the people assembled together for prayer sake, but that ordinarily communicants were ready to go up and receive with the priest. Which yet is so unlikely, (that, I mean, at every holydaie, the coming together of the people, did always serve to have communicants) that you may well doubt, whether the best among the people did receive at the very principal feasts and solemnities. For, by S. Chrisostome himself it appeareth, that the end of his vehement calling upon the people, was not, to have them in all haste to communicate, but to make them provide for cleans of life and conscience, that they might safely and profitably communicate. For, 
Hom. 17. ad Hebr.  sayeth he, we do allow, neither those which receive once, nor those which often, nor those which seldom, but those which come with a pure conscience. And the preparation which they were bid to make, was of such reverent manner, that even the honest married men should abstain from the company of their lawful wives, certain days before they received, as it is manifest by a decree of Concilium Elibertinum, and by S. Austyne in his sermons unto the people. 
Ser. 2. do. 10. post trinitatem.  What would S. Austin then, or the fathers of the primitive church have thought of your married priests, which within an hour, two, or three, after they are departed from their paramours, do come unto the communion table with heads full of wordly cares and nights fancies, and there dare to call for the people, and press them, (if they come not) with the institution of Christ, and Paul the first unto the Corinthians the xj chapter? Whereas, if there were any reverence or regard of Christ, in this new law of yours, the example should never be suffered, by which his special ministers might be provoked unto carnality. For if lay men, before they communicated, were commanded to abstain from their lawful wives, what doth a minister, a man of God, and quick of the spirit, with an unlawful woman or yokefelow, which should exhort others to the right and worthy manner of receiving? And again, if such cleans was required in them, whose life was occupied in worldly business and labour, how could they receive daily, which could not be ready daily? And yet the daily service of the church failed not, because that peculiar and proper ministers were found to intend upon it, and the sacrifice depended not upon the coming of the laity, because it is a principal and singular part, of the clergies duty.  
But this, you say, is dallying, to stand upon the proper signification of the word, quotidianum. As though it were in you, true dealing, to bring by your exaggeration a quartan to a quotidian, or by your extenuation a quotidian to a quartan, as to say, that the sacrifice is named, daily, in respect of the people's receiving, which perchance was but quarterly, or to deny that the sacrifice was daily, because the people were not ready but at principal and quaterlie feasts of the year. And herein, to grieve us again, you press us with the word frustra, in vain, yet you do it so mannerly, that although much wrong be done therein unto us, we should not, for all that, be justly or greatly offended with you. For if we will give over the hold, which we have in the word quotidianum, then will you also, let go the word frustra, but if we will defend (as the words literally do sound,) that by S. Chrisostomes' testimony, the sacrifice in his time was daily, then say you. Then must you give me leave, 
Defence. fo. 38.  as extremely to urge these two sillabes frustra. in vain is our oblation, in vain is our sacrificing, etc. because it is done without company to receive with us.  
It lieth not in us, 
Reply.  to give you leave to make a lie. and if the place itself will admit your interpretation, you are not so shamefast, as to spare your advantage, for reverence of the church your mother. But, 
How feign the M. of the defence would be at one, or divide stakes?  whether you can have any vantage in the extreme urging of these two sillabes frustra, it is not in vain to consider. First, we say with S. Chrisostom, that the oblation was daily, and we take the word daily, in his proper signification. Then, (say you) I will use the word frustra, and I will say, that the daily oblation was had in vain. There is no reason to let, that you should not use it. For we both do see that it is plain, in S. Chrisostome, frustr● habetur quotidiana oblatio: the daily sacrifice is had in vain. And as we require, that (Quotidiana) be taken in his proper signification of daily, so do we grant unto you that you shall use the word frustra in his most proper signification, neither do we contrary you in it, but that frustra in this place, is taken for vain. Therefore, you can urge the word frustra no more extremely than we do, except you can make worse of it then vain. Yea, (say you further) it was done in vain, because it was done without company, but we think rather it was in vain, as concerning the priest his looking for the people. And so it appeareth that you do not hurt us in alleging of (frustra), which we take in the proper signification of it as well as you, but our striving must now be upon the referring of that word, unto the people's receiving, or unto the offering of the sacrifice. And further, it appeareth, as we do urge the word Quotidiana, that you do not so urge the word frustra, (as you asked leave to do) but quite leaving the signification of the word, (as upon the which we do not disagree) you run unto the constrewing of the word. And if we will have the oblation to be daily, you will have it so understanded, that, by Saint Chrisostome his own words, it should seem to be done in vain, because it was done without company, which how well it may follow, I require but indifferent judgement. For if it were (according to your thinking) done in vain, when the people did not receive: ergo yet it was done. In vain, you say. Be it so, for a while. But yet it was done. For of that which is not done at all, you can not say any thing, the one way or the other, to the praise or dispraise of the doing. Now, if the sacrifice were offered in vain, when no communicantes were ready, do you make such a trifle of Saint Chrisostome, that he would do any thing which he was persuaded, should be in vain? And if he did think, that all was to no purpose, which he did in the sacrificing, except the people did communicate: would he not first of all, have been assured to have communicantes, before he would enter unto the act of offering? And in so high matters, would he have entered in to the celebration of mass, of which he could not presently tell, whether he should say it in vain or no? Nay, the church of England yet is more wiser than so. For, left their pains should be lost, in the lords supper, the ministers must be warned before hand, if any will communicate, that (according unto your interpretation) the oblation be not in vain, if they shall have no company to receive with them. And yet, your wisdom, to prove that our daily oblation, which we gather out of S. Chrisostome, should not be as we understand it, doth bring S. Chrisostomes' saying unto such a sense, which doth not become any common wit and understanding. For by you S. Chrisostome might have this meaning: Here good people, I have stood all this while at the altar, and have prayed for all states, and have consecrated the sacrament of the lords body, which you should receive with thanks giving: and now I perceive, all that I have done, is in vain, because there is none to receive with me. But, phye upon such a sense, in that learned and godly heart of Chrisostome. For we might say unto him: Sir, you which do make so great price of the mysteries, why did you go unto them, before you were sure to make a fructfull end of them? why did you not send your Deacon, to know how many would receive with you, lest you might proceed further in vain, when you should in the end lack communicantes? And if you were persuaded, that you did receive in vain, except some communicated with you, why would you receive at all? or how do you, but receive that to your own condemnation, in which you do not follow the institution of Christ, and take company with you? This, with much more, might be justly said against Saint Chrisostome, if the daily sacrifice, which we read so plainly in him, could be thought of him to be done in vain, if none did communicate, as you full clerkelye do urge the two syllabes frustra. Then besides this, I answer, that how so ever you will take the word sacrifice, although none, either of the clergy or laity, would communicate with the priest, yet the act of sacrificing can not possibly be therefore vain, because there lacketh company to receive. For, if you understand by daily oblation, either daily alms, or daily praises and thanks, or daily remembrance of Christ's passion, or the very body and blood of our Saviour, what one of all these are vain, only because the people do not communicate? Therefore in grawnting unto us, (which you can not deny) but that the oblation was daily, how can you use the word frustra, to prove (as it were by S. Chrisostomes' own meaning) that it was to no purpose, when the people did not receive? Whereas every kind of Christian men's oblation, is good and acceptable in itself, by reason, either of the good will with which it is offered, or the price and pureness of the thing which is offered, as in the example, of the body and blood of Christ. Who, but unsensible, can think that S. Chrisostome did judge, at the end of his mass, when company did not come to receive, that all his supplications and prayers, which he had made before with all his heart and power, for the quick and the dead, and all his praisings of God in the memory of his Saints, and all his prayers unto Christ in the sacrament, that he might not receive him to his condemnation, which sitteth at the right hand of God his father in heaven, and yet was there invisibly present before him: who (say I) can think, that S. Chrisostome did eonclude all those things to have been done in vain, because the people did not receive? How then? If the people do receive, are all things straightways trimly wrought? Ergo it is the people's will, which giveth strength unto the sacraments, and not the institution of Christ. And the consecration is perfected, not by the allmightynes of the word (as S. Cyprian sayeth), 
Cypri. de coena Domini.  nor by these words of our Lord, This is my body, (as S. Ambrose witnesseth), 
Amb. li. 4. de S●.  but by the coming of the people to receive, at the end of service. 
Liturgic Chrys.  For as I have showed before, after that the priest had received, and had fully ended his office in offering, them were the people called, and then were they served without the chancel, in a place meeter for them. Now, these things not with standing, you be so vain in your two syllabes frustra, that although at the beginning you asked leave to use them, and took leave also to do it, conditionally, if we would abide by it, that the word Quotidianum signifieth daily, and not seldom, yet in further reasoning you do so far pass your own self in knowledge, that you affirm absolutely, that these words, (the daily oblation is had in vain) declare plainly S. Chrisostomes' mind, that he thought it to be of the substance of the sacrament, that a number should be partakers of it. As who should say, that in the third Hom. upon the Epistle to the ●phesians, he had spoken against sole receiving, and not rather signified unto them, that he laboured, not upon their daily coming, but only their devout and worthy coming. For, after he had said: 
Chr. ho. 3. ●d Ephes.  we stand at the altar in vain, there is no body to communicate: lest the people should think, as you do now, that their receiving pertained to the substance of the sacrament, he addeth: I speak not these things, because ye should simply communicate, but that you should make yourselves worthy. Do we then deny, that the daily sacrifice was done in vain? No. But we understand it, how it was done in vain. Not in respect of the sacrifice itself, but in respect of the people, for whom the meat was ready, and for whom preparance was made, but they would not come unto it. As in an other place, speaking against certain, which did not consider and bear away the texts of scripture, which were readen in the church twice or thrice in the week, the reader always telling them the name and place of the Prophet which was then in hand: 
Chr. ho. 9 ●d Heb. 5.  Therefore (sayeth he) they ought to be more clearer unto you, and you ought to know not only the text, but the causes also, of the things which are written, and his name which wrote them. But all is in vain, and without fruct. Yet he meaned not absolutely, that all the labour of the reader was in vain, nor that all the hearers were fructlesse, (of which he excepteth a few in that very place) but that as concerning the people's common profit, which was intended in those lessons, all was vain and fructlesse. Which being so reasonable, and so convenient a sense, it is wonder that you would not see it, but follow rather your own invention, and lose the meaning of S. Chrisostome. And truly no great marvel, if you mistake an other man's mind, whereas in your own inventions you may be proved so forgetful. For in this last end of your fifth chapter, you conclude plainly, that S. Chrisostome understandeth, the oblation to be vain, which hath no company to receive at it: and that company is taken of him, to be of the substance of the sacrament: to which purpose you allege, that who so ever is not partaker of the mysteries, doth impudently and wickedly, to stand there by in presence. Well Sir, if you call this vain, how doth S. Chrisostome say truly, that the oblation is had in vain? For now you call it vain, 
the M. of the defence is over cast in his own turning.  because of lack of company, and by your answers in this chapter before, you proved that he never lacked company. How can you make these your two devices to agree together? Our daily sacrifice, sayeth S. Chrisostome, is had in vain. He meaneth (say you) that he had no company, the having of which being a substantial point, ergo that must be in vain, which was done without it. But (say I now against you) S. Chrisostome did never lack company, when he received, ergo it is not truly said of him, that the oblation was in vain. Either he then, so good a bishop, lieth, which so sayeth that the oblation was in vain: or you do lie, in the interpreting of him, and making him to have such a sense of this word vain, as destroyeth a certain other verity, as you do make it. But how prove I, that he never received alone? truly not by my own knowledge, but by your answers. For, your second answer, unto the Catholics objection, was, that in S. Chrisostomes' time, the clergy did always receive with the bishop, or chief ministre. And this you promised to prove more largely hereafter. But the better you prove it hereafter, the worse it is for you in this present place. You said again, that daily was taken for, often, and that at those times, in which the people did not daily, but often come, he always had either some of the people, or the residue of the ministers and clergy, to communicate with him. So then, by these your own conclusions, I prove, that the priest did, at that time, never receive alone. How have you then now so forgotten yourself, in this end of your chapter, that you make S. Chrisostome to say, that none doth communicate with him, and that the oblation is therefore in vain? whereas at the beginning of this chapter, you would have it clear and evident, that the priest never lacked company to communicate with him solemnly. Sir, I confess plainly, we shall be overcomed, if we strive long with you, or if we can not be overcomed, because faith doth not refer herself, unto the event of disputations, yet we shall be (I trow) confownded, because we can not tell where to have you. For, when we think, that upon the sight of S. Chrisostomes' words, which we have so much spoken of, you would say, that we had at the least some colour of argument for sole receiving, you make shift by and by, with all the learning that you have, to prove that there was always some company or of clergy, or of laity, to receive with the Bishop, or chief minister. And when we think to find you standing in that conclusion, and draw nearer unto you, straight ways you fall beside yourself, and run in to a contrary corner, where you fight against your own saying, and prove, that although there were oblation and sacrifice daily, which, by force of the word Quotidianum, you could not deny unto us, yet that granted, none received with the priest, (say you) and therefore it was frustra. Wherefore (good Sir) take the counsel unto yourself, which you do give unto us, and use not to ground doctrines upon the conjecture of a few syllables: and (with further counsel unto you) beware that you give not your adversary so much, that you make your own case the worse: as to permit us to enjoy Quotidianum, in his proper sense, by which we proved daily sacrifice, and then to labour to prove that it was in vain, because of lack of company, as although you had not concluded before, that no oblation was without company. Which to tell you of, although it be a little disadvantage unto us, yet it is recovered an other way by having of a reasonable and plain dealing adversary.   

The sixth Chapter.  
THat which is not evidently determined in scripture (saith the catholic upon his adversaries granting, of this vain principle) ought to stand as indifferent.  
But the necessity of company to receive with the priest, is no where determined:  
Ergo it ought to remain indifferent.  
In denying and controlling the parts of this argument, the Master of the Defence, doth bestow his sixth chapter. And first he denieth the second proposition, afterwards he cometh to the declaration of the first, in which part, he casteth in, between so many new devices and conclusions, that we have to abhor them, which are not of the ancient religion. Let us follow the same ways which he taketh, and let us defend the Catholic his argument, in that self same order, by which he doth impugn it.  
Go to then Sir, what misliketh you in our argument?  Your second proposition is not true. 
Def●nce. fol. 41.  For I say, that it is determined in Christ his institution. In luke he sayeth, Take this, and divide it among you. 
Is this your text, 
Reply.  by which you will conclude, that the priest must have of necessity company to receive with him? Christ, 
Luc. 22.  you know, spoke then to his Apostles only, he spoke nothing of the people to receive with them. Take (saith he) and divide this among you, and not, (as you would fain have it to be,) take you and divide it among other. For as concerning other, whom afterward they should have the government of, he left it unto their wisdom, to give it or deny it, as they should see it expedient. Except you think, that the priest, for divers considerations, might not keep back the Sacrament from some, which would receive with him. which yet, (if they would be ruled by you,) being repelled, might answer the priest again, and stoutly say, that it is of the substance of the Sacrament, that it should be divided, and therefore that they have great wrong done unto them, except they may be admitted. And they might truly allege, that Christ gave the Sacrament unto judas the traitor, which without controlling did receive it, because of Christ his institution, Take and divide among you. But, as all the Christians generally, can not by virtue of these words, (divyde among you) challenge their part in the communion, if the priest should think them unworthy, even so, neither Christ had this meaning in them, that they should be as a necessary commandment to charge thereby his priests, always to divide and distribute his sacrament, but for that present company of his most dearest Apostles, he said, Take and divide it among you. How then? May not the sacrament be divided among the people? Yes truly. But that it should be divided among the people, such necessity is not gathered out of, Take ye, and divide it among you. But say you How can it be taken at the minister his hands, 
Defence.  and divided or distributed among them, unless there be a company?  
But what talk you, 
Reply.  of, to be taken at the minister his hands, as though that S. Luke did make thereof any signification? He telleth us, that Christ our saviour said unto his Apostles, Take this: but he maketh no word at all, of taking at the minister his hands. But, this would serve well your purpose, if that when Christ said distinctly unto his twelve, Take this, you could persuade the rude, that he spoke unto the people, and commanded them to take his sacrament at the minister his hands. Then further, where you ask, how it can be distributed among them, except there be a company? For whom you do speak, I can not readily tell. For if you mean the Apostles, there was a good company of them, to take that which was distributed: and if you mean the people, I wonder why you call them unto this matter, the Evangelists speaking of the Apostles only. You allege the text of the scripture: go not then, I pray you, from the text. The words be plain: Take and divide among you. If it had been said indefinitely, divide, you might have thought with some reason, that a commandment of distributing the sacrament for ever afterward, had been given in those words. But, our saviour determineth the word divide, in saying, Divide this among you. Which words yet if you think to have been spoken, not only to the Apostles personally, but to all bishops and high Priests, which should have in time to come, the place or office of the Apostles, as I grant this sense, because it is convenient and true, so yet the people (you see) are not comprehended within the text of which we speak. For, 
The M. of the defence hath promised more than he can perform.  of these three points, Take you, divide you, among you, no one can be understanded, as spoken unto the people. And if one may, why not all, as well as one, seeing that in those three points, the persons are not varied? Where then do you find now any commandment of distributing the sacrament unto the people? It can no be divided, (say you) except there be company. You speak somewhat therein, but tell us first, what company you mean? 
The sacrament is truly divided among us every day.  For I say, that unto this day, if you consider the whole church, as one house, and every altar in the world, as one table, and the body of Christ, as it is one, although the mystical signs of it be in many places, so shall you see it performed, that which you be so glad to hear, that the sacrament is daily taken, eaten, and divided among us. But now, tell us further, what necessity you find, why it should be divided? In deed distribution presupposeth company. But we ask what necessity doth require distribution? For the words of our Saviour do not absolutely command it, 
Let the M. of the defence speak to the question.  but unto the Apostles especyallie his words were directed, because they were with him, to receive at his hands. And so, the same words may appertain to all that celebrate mass, when some are ready to receive. But as, if twelve be not ready to receive, yet four may: so, if four be not ready, one may receive alone. But than you complain upon us, and say, that we may as well leave out, eating, drinking, and doing in remembrance of Christ, as we do dispense with distributing. Fear not (I warrant you) we be nothing so foolish. For meats are necessary, but not distribution, and without other men's mouths we can eat: but we can not distribute, without others hands or mouths to receive it. Also, the remembrance of Christ his passion, is and may be always used: but distribution of the Sacrament, is not always possible. And (to be short) the sole receiving can not be without eating, etc.: but the sole receiving at mass, is and may be without distributing. And here now, for fear lest we should not regard the institution of Christ, you tell us again, out of Saint Cyprian, that nothing must be altered in the precepts of Christ, which saying you extend unto sole receiving▪ and receiving under one kind, (which S. Cyprian never thought upon in that epistle,) and you forget to mingle water and wine together at the communion, which S. Cyprian in that place so earnestly requireth to be done, as I have before declared at large. Wherefore Sir, have no mistrust, but that God the Holyghost provideth abundantly, that Christ's and his own institution, shall never be broken of the church: and when you be delivered of this fear, see whether you can prove any better, than you have done hitherto, that the necessity of company to receive with the priest, is determined in scripture. And if it be not determined expressly, it standeth as a thing indifferent, by your own vain principle, and then it is no breach of Christ his institution, to use sole receiving. How say you then? Will you forsake that fond principle of yours, that nothing is of necessity to be credited, but that which is expressly in the scriptures? No, you will not, I know, your heart is so great against traditions. Make then no more a do, but grant, that the observing of number and company, is no more requisite, than the observing of the time, place, kind of persons, and other circumstances, which the Gospel showeth to have been used at the institution of the Sacrament. No say you, that Many circumstances of place, person, and time, may be altered etc. we grant you: but, that company in receiving is one of those circumstances, that we can not grant, as well for the reasons before declared, as also that we have none example of the Apostles, or primitive church, that we may so do.  
Consider, I pray you Sir, the manner of your reasoning. We conclude upon your own principle, (which again we must call vain, lest any should think, that we do allow it) that company in receiving, is by express scripture, of no more necessity, than the circumstances of time and place, which Christ used in the delivering of his sacrament: and you answer, that it is not found in the example of the Apostles, or primitive church, that the company in receiving was omitted, as time and place are found to have been altered, in which saying you do but enlarge your vain principle, upon the granting of which our argument proceeded. Company in receiving, in respect of the sacrament received, is no greater matter than the circumstance of time and place▪ but yet of sole receiving (say you) we have none examples of the Apostles, or primitive church, as though nothing might be used otherwise then as of former example it may be gathered, which addition, if you think good to use, to make your foresaid principle vain absolutely, let it be so then, and according to this reformed principle, our argument shall thus come against you. What so ever Christ did, at the institution of the sacrament, which we find not to be altered by the authority or example of Apostles, or primitive church, that is of necessity to be observed. But, our Saviour delivered the sacrament at night, and the Apostles with the primitive church of their time, have no example or manner to warrant us to do otherwise: ergo, we must of necessity receive at night. But, it is unreasonable to bring in such a necessity: ergo it is a vain principle which maintaineth such absurdity. And what you might answer unto this, I can not devise, except you will take examples of the primitive church which followed the Apostles. But then remember what you be wont to say out of Tertullian, how that is best which was first: and again out of S. Cyprian, Christ is most to be followed, which was the first of all. And consider also, 
1. Cor. 11.  whether the church of Corinth did not receive the sacrament at night, 
Acto. 20.  and read in the acts of the apostles, whether there was not breaking of bread at night: and find, if you can, in all scripture, that ministering of the sacrament was used in the morning. Are you wiser than Christ? can you better dispose the times, than the maker of time himself? Did not the Corinthians receive at night? 
An easy matter it is to trouble the church if men would follow the common places of heretics.  Is there any mention in scripture of receiving before none? These, lo, be your common places, which if I would follow, I could make as great exclamations at the breaking of Christ his institution in the time, as you do make for the lacking of communicantes. For it is no matter to us, whether you do bring two or three causes, wherefore the receiving at night, is or may be altered, (for if good causes would have prevailed, you would never have played so mad parts in crying out against sole receiving) but, all things (you say) must be brought to the institution of Christ, and as he gave example, so must we follow: and wherefore then, might not one first break his fast, and afterward come to the Lord his table? And, if business let a Merchant all the day, why might he not receive at night? If you can dispense with one thing, you may do the like with all. If you altar the time, you may alter the manner, the place, the bread, the wine, and all that Christ did. This kind, Sir, of rhetoric and Logic we learn of you, which if you do greatly mislike, when you hear it of an other besides yourself, look then upon yourself better, and correct that vain glorious principle, which hath a show of learning and piety, but is in deed most rude and wicked, when you say, that nothing should be necessarily observed, which is not expressly in scripture, or, nothing thereof might be altered, without authority or example of the Apostles and primitive church. Which example of Apostles or primitive church you need not to pass upon in this kind of matter. For if you be most surely persuaded, by the very text of the scripture, that company to receive with the priest, is of the substance of the sacrament, although example might be found in the primitive church of sole receiving, or receiving under one kind, you would yet condemn that example, by the plain institution of Christ, as you would take it: what good then should an example do to you, which, although it were never so plain, yet you would not be persuaded, but that the company at the communion is always of necessity? 
Note this point.  But, of our examples, we shall speak hereafter, in the mean time, what bring you, to show that the having of company, is of the necessity of the sacrament? And mark, that we ask you not of company, whether it be laudable, convenient, or honourable at the celebration of every mass, but whether it be necessary. Of necessity our question is, and of express commandment, and you tell us of the paschal lamb of the jews, and apply it unto our Sacrament, that like as company was of necessity to the eating of the paschal lamb, so that it should be as necessary to the receiving of the sacrament. After which argument, you triumph without victory, and ask of us: Will you say, 
Defence.  that company to eat up the paschal lamb was not of the substance of the sacrament? etc. If you mean by the word (sacrament) in this place, 
Reply.  the paschal lamb itself, company (you know) was no more of the substances of the lamb, them you with your bidden gests, be of the substance of your meat, when you have provided for yourself and them a fat goose and a capon. But, if you understand by sacrament, all the act and ceremony of preparing and eating the lamb, the calling of company unto it was in some case material. For if the numbered be less, then shall be able to eat up the lamb, 
Exo. 12.  than (saith God) he, whosoever he be, shall take his next neighbour. But you may say, although the calling of company were conditional, 
company in eating of the Paschal lamb was not of absolute necessity.  yet the having of company was of the substance of the sacrament, It was so of the substance, as other things were which God in that place commanded, I mean girding of their loins, and having of shoes on their feet, and holding of staffs in their han●es. But if by reason of some wound or disease, any one of them had not been able to suffer his shoe on his foot, although his feet would not bear him, yet if his stomach served him, could he not have eaten with his fellows, and eat as fast as the best, without breaking of the matter? Likewise if one had been borne without hands, or had lost his hands in fight for his country, so that he could not hold any staff in the hand which he had not, was he to be excluded from his part in the lamb? If these points then, which God so distinctly commanded, have their interpretations, and are not so absolutely to be observed, but that, for considerations, they may be omitted, I see no cause, why the having of numbered in eating of the lamb, should be so necessary, that it could not be omitted. But the matter would be plainer, if we were once agreed how the term of (substance) is to be taken, when you speak of it. For if you mean, that to be of the substance of a precept, which, without case of necessity, and without dispensation of the chief governors, can not be rashly omitted, as every private man shall think good in himself, than I grant, that all those points, which are comprehended within the ceremony of eating the paschal lamb, were of the substance of it: But, if substance shall signify such parts of any sacrament, as which no man for any respect may omit or change (in which sense we do take it, in speaking of the necessary form and matter of every sacrament) then do I deny unto you, that every point comprehended within the ceremony of eating the lamb, was of the substance of that matter. therefore if your comparing of all Christendom unto all the jews, and our particular churches unto their sundry houses, and the eating of our Sacrament unto their lamb, did never so well agree together, yet, because it is not proved of you, that every point commanded of God, about the eating of the lamb, is so essentially of the sustance thereof, that in no case it may be omitted or altered, therefore you come nothing nigh to the answer of our question, which is, whether that of necessity there must be company always, to receive at the mass? Then again, it is to be noted, that in the old law, God did not command them to have company at the eating of the lamb, but, rather than any part should be left uneaten, he willeth them to call more conpanye, presupposing that there would be in every household company enough to eat a lamb, but yet giving no commandment of company to be at it. For if one by himself alone, had eaten a whole lamb, his wife and children round about him, not loving that kind of meat, and yet delighting in the histories which he would tell them of Egypt and the red sea, I see not that you were able to burden him with the breach of God's institution. Besides this, whereas the lamb of God which is eaten of the Christians, is not more meat unto a thousand then unto one alone, and one alone receiveth the whole, that he needeth not to send for his neighbour, your proportion betwixt the lamb of the jews, and our Sacrament was not rightly devised of you. Also, if I could find no fault with your application, yet, except you brought greater authority for the defence of it then your own, I would likewise of mine own head, invent an other sense besides yours, and say that my understanding of that place, serveth better to the purpose then yours. In which case, as both of us, might use perchance probable interpretations, so yet none of us both should conclude any thing of necessity. And yet, I need not to run unto mine own wit for this matter, because that, long sense, Saint Denyse the Carthusyan doth say in his Commentaries upon Exodus, 
Dionysius Carth. in 12. ca Exp.  that the calling of a neighbour to eat of the lamb, if household company were not sufficient, doth signify that every Christian, which is never able by himself to consider, sufficiently, the mercies of God, showed unto us in the death and sacrament of his son, should call his neighbour to him, and provoke him to help forward that all thanks and praises might be given unto the author of so excellent benefits. Now, to speak somewhat more of this lamb, (whilst you are of so good a mind and remembrance, to confess that there is a proportion and likeness betwixt our sacrament and it,) consider that the lamb was offered up to God before it was eaten, 
An allegorical exposition of the paschal lamb.  which proveth that Christ offered his body and blood in his last supper, before the Apostles did receive him. The blood also of the lamb, was put upon both posts of the doors, which signifieth, that good Christians do receive Christ in the mouth and in the heart. And they which receive unworthily, 
Euseb. Emi scenus in hom. feriae 2. post Pascha.  or else in receiving, do not believe it to be the blood of Christ, these put the blood upon one post only. You are commanded also, to devour the head with the feet, and the appourtenances, that you should not be curious and nice in your feeding, but faithfully and humbly receive his divinity, his humanity, and all other profond and secret mysteries. In which, if any thing shall seem absurd unto your gross understanding, you must refer all unto the working of the Holyeghost, and so you shall fulfil the law, which commandeth the residue of the lamb to be burned with fire. It is sufficient to believe if it be not granted to understand, 
Eusebius ibid.  for more do eat this flesh, through believing, then understanding. Wherefore, as the figure of the paschal lamb doth nothing make against the order which the church useth, so it doth most plainly confound your suppositions and imaginations, by which you take Christ's real presence from us, and the offering of his body. And now, what followeth in your defence? You lay unto our charge, that We take upon us to alter, 
Defence. fo. 45.  change, and take away, by our spiritual governors, all the parts of the Lord his supper, as you will declare to us in order, by the doctrine of our defence of private Mass.  
Certainly, 
Reply.  this is a great accusation, and we are never to be trusted in any thing, if this be proved. Do we (say you) take upon us to alter, change, and take away, all the parts of the Lord his supper, by defence of private mass? What a wicked and shameful lie is this? For there was never yet any mass celebrated among us, 
Note how freely and sensibly the M. of the defence belieth the Catholics.  so quickly, so shortly, so secretly, and so much without company, but it had in it, bread, wine, and water, blessing, breaking, remembering of Christ his passion, together with all that, which the Apostle speaketh of unto Timothe, 
1. Timo. 2.  saying: Therefore I pray thee, first of all, that besechinges, prayers, requests, and thanks giving be made for all men. etc. But why should we make wondering at this lie, being not the first in your defence, and having many after followers? Will you declare this in order, which you have taken in hand to prove against us? Your heart is good ever, although your matter be nought. For this you say: The Sacrament, 
Defence fol. 45.  as it is in use, hath two parts, the matter and the form. What parts hath it then, 
Reply.  before it come to the use of which you speak? And if there should chance to be no such present use of the sacrament, what matter and form hath it, as it is considered without the use? Can you define this sacrament, which are so cunning in the numbering of the parts of it, as it is in use? And hath not every sacrament matter and form, 
The matter and for me of the sacrament.  of which two it is constituted? Is not the sensible thing and element (as bread, wine, oil. etc.) called the matter of them: and the words, which are added to those elements, are not they called the forms? The word, 
Aug. tract. 80. super loan.  sayeth S. augustine, cometh unto the element, and there is made a sacrament. Bread, is the matter of the sacrament of the altar, and the words This is my body, are the form of it: which two, when they are brought together by the intention of such as are called rightly to the office, straightways there is a sacrament, consisting of the visible sign, and of the invisible and natural body of our saviour. And whether it be received or reserved, God doth not pull back his word at the departing, or not coming of men. But go to. what say you of the matter of the sacrament, as it is in use?  The matter, 
Defence. fo. 45.  is bread and the body, wine and the blood of Christ. 
If the body of Christ be the matter, 
Reply.  as you separate the matter from the form, how cometh it to pass, I pray you, that there is the body of Christ to him which will use the bread? Do you think, that where so ever any bread is, there is also the body of Christ, to him which will use the bread? If this be false, (as it is) than I say that the body, with which (and the bread) you make up the matter of the sacrament, as it is in use, doth not come to the bread without some di●ine operation. Except you think, that any power of creature is able to exhibit the body of his creator and maker. What operation then is that, by which this matter, which you say is bread and the body of Christ, doth come to that perfection, to be the body of our Saviour. For we know, that bread may be had from the bakers, or if (as yourselves now do mislike with bakers bread) you will have clean and fine cakes, to be made for the purpose, they are men or women which make them, and their houses are not invisible. But how come you to have that body, 
Let this be distinctly and directly answered.  with which (and the bread) you make up the matter of the sacrament as it is in use?  
For you can not use the words of the Gospel to bring that to pass, because they are the form of the sacrament, and you in this place do so speak of the matter, as it is distincted from the proper form. Then again, how ignorantly▪ and unreverently is it devised of you, to make the body of Christ, the material part of the sacrament as it is in use, to the exhibiting of which body, all matter and form serveth which is required to the sacrament? But if this be the matter, what is the form? The form of ministration is, 
Defence fo. 45.  that the minister should take the matter, and with the words of the gospel give it to them present, as Christ did. God send you better memory, 
Reply.  or if memory fail not, God send you more honesty. Did you not begin to tell us of the matter and form of the sacrament, as it is in use? make then an end of that which you began. The matter you have defined. what is the form of the sacrament? The form (say you) of ministration is, etc. The form of ministration? Who required it of you? You must tell us of the form of the sacrament as it is in use, and not the form of ministration. And whereas among all learned men, the form is the perfection of the matter, either else you should never have made such a division of the sacrament as it is in use, 
Consider, by this one place, what proper schoolmen the new gospel hath created.  or else you should have told us of such a form, which doth give (as I may sai●) a grace unto the matter. Is the form of the sacrament and form of ministration all one with you? or the form of the sacrament as it is in use, and the form of ministration, is it all one? what you might make of the first you could not tell, and therefore you turned out of your purpose unto the second. And although you speak nothing of the matter of ministration, you expound yet the form of ministration unto us, and whereas you began with the matter of the Sacrament, you refuse to declare unto us the form of it, which we looked for. Now, if your judgement served you, to make all one thing of the sacrament as it is in use, and of the ministration of it, then must the bread and body (as you lie) of Christ, be the matter of ministration, like as it is the matter of the sacrament as it is in use: which if it be true, I put the case, that the minister would not deliver that foresaid matter unto the people with his own hands, but bid them take it themselves, and distribute it among them? were it not the body of Christ? It could be no otherwise, because you say, that the matter of the sacrament, as it is in use, and as it is considered as a separate part from the form, is bread and the body. But how can it be his body before the words of the gospel do come unto it? and how are the words of the gospel used to that purpose, whereas you say that the minister taketh the matter in to his hands, (which is by your interpretation the bread and the body) and delivereth it with the words of the gospel. So that the words come after, and the body is already in his hands before. Also what words of the gospel are those, which you mean, when you say, that the matter must be delivered with the words of the gospel? If you mean the words of consecration (this is my body, this is my blood etc.) Then is the English ministration unperfect, which used not those words in the delivering of their, what shall I call it. And except you mean those words, what other in the gospel may serve to that purpose, I can not devise? For as concerning those words, Take, eat, divide it among you, do this in my remembrance, they need no repetition by mouth, but only expressing of them in deed. And then, as concerning the word (divide) when it is spoken to each one of the communicantes, to whom shall each one of them divide any part● of that the which he receiveth wholly himself? Yet if the word (dividite, divide it) be an essential and formal part, of the sacrament as it is in use, then must every one which shall rightly use it, make parts and division of it, except you mean, that the use of the sacrament pertaineth only unto the minister, or that the people must take and eat, as the Gospel commandeth them, and that, to divide it, was not spoken to them, although that word doth also follow in the gospel. But to what purpose have you, so scholastically, made such a distinction between the matter and the form of a thing? Truly that you ●ight with some order declare it, that our spiritual governors have changed all the parts of the Lord supper, for they which take away both matter and form, leave no substantial part or point of the thing: And you say, we have done so. Ergo (if this be proved) the Catholics be very traitors unto God. But how prove you, that we have changed those principal parts belonging to Christ his supper? say first as concerning the form, and tell us wherein we have altered it? marry Sometimes (say you) the priest may receive alone without the people, 
Defence.  sometime the people without the priest, sometime both together.  
Call you this the altering of the form? 
reply.  and have you so quickly forgotten, that you said the form to be, 
what a dodger i● this M. of the defence.  when the minister did gea●e the matter with the words of the gospel? how think you then? when he giveth it to one alone with the words of the gospel, hath not that one person received the perfect Sacra●●nt with all his parts, according unto your newly devised division? what if the priest alone receive the matter with his own hands, and use the words of the gospel, doth he not fulfil all that which is to be required? The priest, you know, doth first receive himself, before he giveth unto other. And what doth he receive, I pray you? doth there lack either matter or form, or any essential part, unto that which he receiveth? Or will you say, that the sacrament which he hath already taken and eaten, hath not his just form, before the people also have received? if the case be so hard, then were it necessary, that when the matter is taken into the hands of the communicantes, a watchword should be given, when all they at once with the words of the gospel, should receive that matter. But if this be but a foolish toy, meet for an idle brain, to think that each one doth not receive the sacrament with all the parts of it, except his neighbour eat with him, how do the Catholics take away that very form which you speak of, in using of sole receiving? for your form (which you have invented) is, to deliver the matter with the words of the gospel, but the matter may be delivered unto one alone, or received of one alone, with the words of the gospel, ergo, the allowing of sole receiving doth not take away your form. And this I speak, as though it were true, that which you babble of the form of the sacrament. For as concerning the very form of the sacrament, the church hath always taught, and in all schools it is openly declared, that these words (This is my body) are the form of the Sacrament. But (say you) I talk of the form of the ministration of the sacrament. Why did you not tell us so much of your mind at the beginning? And if we did not keep the form of ministration, how could you prove thereby, that we altered the formal part of the Lord his supper? For (I trust) you be not so void of natural sense, but that you understand, the matter and form of a good dish of meat, and the serving in of the same meat, to be sundry things and different? And, as the man and the meat are different, so is the matter and form of either man or meat separately to be distincted and talked of. Yet you, in so plain a matter, have so forgotten yourself, that beginning to speak of the matter and form of the sacrament as it is in use, and having ended the defining of the matter, you skip straightways to an other thing, and tell us of the form of the ministration. Much like as if you would say, I will tell you, my masters, the matter and form of a marchepane, when it is come to be eaten: the matter of it is, sugar, rose-water, allmondes. etc. The form is, not that you should fetch it out of the oven your selves, but tarry until one clean fellow or other, bring it to the table, and some other divide unto every geste a convenient part an portion of it. Which yet, is no more the form of a marchepane, than it is of a roasted piece of beef, when it is cleanly brought unto the table, and divided among the gests. But make an end of your accusation, and declare how we do change the other substantial part of the sacrament: which is the matter?  The matter also▪ ye signify, 
Defence fo. 45.  may be altered at your pleasure. 
This is a most evident lie. 
reply.  For all our schools do hold, that the necessary matter of the Sacrament, 
Note the lie of the M. defender of the truth.  is, bread and wine, and the most due and convenient matter, is, unleavened bread and wine mixed with water. Yea we be so earnest in the defence of this truth, that we be angry very much with a certain kind of heretics, which will use no water in the celebrating of the mysteries. I marvel therefore much, what reason you may allege, to prove this fault by us. Yet you say: For to receive the Sacrament of the blood is not of the substance of Christ his institution, 
Defence  for if it were, the church could not alter it, as you do commonly in the ministering to the people.  
If this be true, 
Reply.  tell us, what name that hath, which the geave to the people in steed of the blood? Do we give them the sacrament of blood, either in ale, beer, milk, or any other liquor, besides wine? if we do not, how can you say, that we change the matter? no marry, (say you) you give them no sacrament of the blood at all. That which we do, we have received from antiquity and authority, and the receiver taketh no loss therein, except he think that Christ his Saviour is not perfectly under the form of bread. And again, if you consider, that the people with us, do always receive unconsecrated wine, after they have eaten the body of Christ in form of bread, and that the cup which you give is unconsecrated, they did receive in the form of wine as much good as you minister unto then, and so by indifferent reckoning, you can not complain that the Catholics take any thing from the people, which give them as much as you do, that is to say, clean wine and no more. But, do you call this an altering of the matter of the sacrament, when we use none other matter at all besides that which Christ appointed, but only admit a good dispensation and order, in the use of it? if there might be any fault found with us in this point, for ministering the sacrament, at one time under the form of bread, at an other time under the form of wine, yet it is not proved hereby, that we change the matter of the sacrament. For how so ever we do it, yet we minister in none other matter then bread or wine, how then do you prove that we change not only the form, but also the matter? may not every reasonable man than see, that you prove yourself, what you are? do you make any regard, either what you promise, either what you perform? here I challenged you, to make good your word, or else, if you be an honest man, to revoke your word. 
Answer if you can.  Where is that matter of the sacrament, which the Catholics do alter? Show, if you can, that we use in our ministries, any other thing than bread, wine, and water, or any thing more or less, for the matter of the sacrament? But this can never be proved. Yet you, as though it were proved, so ye conclude most wickedly and slaunderouslye, that the sacrament of the Lord his supper, hath by our doctrine either no part that is of the substance, or else, that we have the authority to change every part of it. Which conclusion of yours, is not only so false, but so foolish also, that if I would grant all your premises, which you have out of all fashion divided, yet this your conclusion will not follow. For all that which you understand by the terms, of (matter and form of the sacrament) pertaineth only to the manner of ministering the bread and the body, wine and the blood, with the words of the gospel. In which points, if I would (for spedines sake) grant, that we observed nothing of that which you require, yet you should not so absolutely and boldly report of us, that we leave either no part of substance, as concerning the sacrament, either change it, at our pleasures, and take away Christ his institution. For, (as I say again unto you) we hold the words of Christ, This is my body, as the form, and bread, wine, and water, as the matter, which can not be altered. We believe also, after the words are spoken by a lawful priest, upon the bread, wine, and water, that Christ is really present, under each of those forms, to be unto us, a sacrifice for sin, a food for our hunger, a comfort in this misery, a pledge of the everlasting glory. And we believe his words to be so true, that if none will receive him, when he cometh before them, yet that their incredulity, or their lack of charity, doth not make his presence nothing. How say you then now, for shame? do we leave no part that is of substance in the sacrament, because we do not agree with you in such kind of substantial parts as you have invented? Do we make our governors omnipotent (as you say) in transposing and altering the sacraments instituted by Christ? or may we defraud the people of the whole sacrament? I would you did no more harm to the people, or take no more upon you, than the church hath done. They should not be served with signs and figures, in steed of verities, and the words of Christ should stand as he meant them, saying This is my body, which is given for you, and This is my blood of the new testament. But for this matter we shall have an other time and leisure.   

The seventh Chapter.  
THE Catholic in his Apology, considering that our adversaries do so eagerly strive for the having of company to receive with the minister, because they would make up a communion, answereth directly, and truly, that although none doth visibly receive at the same altar with the priest, yet never the less, that there is a communion. For like as in prayer, when I am alone, I pray together with all them which be of the same body and faith with me: so although I receive the Sacrament alone, yet in deed I communicate with other. Against which so plain reason, although nothing can be directly spoken: yet the master of the defence will show his cunning, how many pretty florysshes he can devise beside the matter. And first he advanceth himself with standing a-tiptoe, and overlooking of other, with these words: Who seeth not, 
Defence▪ fo. 46.  that prayer, and the Lord his supper in the use of them, be nothing like?  
But who seeth not, 
Reply.  that you can●not tell yourself how like they are? For as prayer is made for other, so in like manner is the body of Christ offered by him for other. Offered (I say) once upon the cross immediately by himself in a bloody and visible manner, to the redemption of mankind: and yet daily still offered by him, through the ministry of his priests, in mystical and unbloody fashion, to the employing of that redemption. But who goeth about to prove that praying and receiving should be both in all points a like? Prayer (you say) is a common action, 
Defence.  which done of one may stretch to the benefit of many, but the Lord his supper is no such common action.  
The commodity of prayer is always common: but it the act of praying is more oft private then common. The receiving of the sacrament is a personal and singular action: but the commodity, when it followeth, is communicated with the whole body.  One may pray without a guide: one can not baptise himself without a minister. A man's prayer also may profit him which prayeth not, but any ones baptism may not profit him that is not baptised. And what of all this? Christ (say you) taught us to pray one for an other, but he never said, receive the communion, or be baptised one for an other. 
O Sir, 
reply.  remember yourself. The Catholic, against whom you writ, doth not meddle with this question, of which you speak. He saith not, that one may be baptised or houseled for an other: but he sayeth (if you will mark) that like as in our praying alone, 
a perfect communion is in all things among Catholics.  we communicate with all Christendom, so in receiving alone, we communicate with the whole body of Christ. And to make this his saying plain unto your running wit, he allegeth the article of our Crede, which is, that we believe the communion of saints. And to make the matter further yet out of all doubt, he reciteth a testimony of S. Denyse the Areopagite, in which it is proved unto you, that the supper of our Lord is therefore called a communion, because all the lively membres of the church are brought thereby to an unity with Christ their head. And if all this be not sufficient, then do you further understand, that, like as in our natural body, when one part rejoiceth, all the rest is glad of it, and if any one be pained, all the rest doth feel it: so, in the mystical body of Christ, there is a divine, entiere, and chartable communion, of all the fructfull pains, actions, and graces, which any one of the singular membres, either receiveth, either practiseth. And this communion is not only in respect of the uniformity of the church in Sacraments and scriptures, (as you say,) but also, as concerning the communicating of benefits, which are received by those sacraments, or deserved by good deeds, and meritorious. Of which fellowship, it cometh to pass, that the obedience of Abraham, and patience of job, with all their virtues which lived in the fear and knowledge of God before the coming of Christ, and the humility of the most blessed virgin, labours of the Apostles, constancy of martyrs, and holiness of all good souls, sense the Ascension of our saviour, go forth without envy, to the beautifying and comforting of every joint of the whole mystical body. Of which, 
Io. 1.  Christ is the head, which is blessed for ever, which is full of grace and truth; of whose fullness every member receiveth a portion, 
Psal. 48.  whom the holy ghost hath anointed with the oil of gladness and rejoicing, which oil from the head droppeth down into the beard, 
Psal. 132.  and so continueth in communicating his graces, until that the very skirt of his vestiments, and the lest of all his church, receive of his influence. And this heads example, all the membres do follow, each of them gladly communicating with his next fellow, some part and measure of his merits and glory, unto whom again the inferiors do ascend with a sweet savour of thank and praises, so that in the whole body, there is no one part for itself, but as God is for all, so all they are for God, and are, both for their beginning and ending, in most perfect society. therefore in this body, how can any part do any thing for itself alone? or how can there be but a communion betwixt all the membres of so perfect a dodye? And to this end only doth the Catholics argument come, not as you grossly understand him, that he went about to prove, that as one may pray for an other, so one might receive for another. Against which point, the more you talk, the more you make some to laugh, and some to be angry, that you reason so hardly without any occasion. And yet, you can not pretend ignorance herein, for at length you espy your own fault yourself, and you declare, that you see well enough what we might say against you, and therefore you come in with these words: You will say perhaps you do not infer this upon the argument of general communion. 
Defence fo. 49.  but only that they which are in divers places may communicate. Yea Sir, we say so without perhaps, 
Reply.  and if you had been a reasonable man, you would never have made such an earnest battle against your own fancy▪ supposing one to stand before you, which should say, that as one may pray for an other, so one might receive the Sacrament for an other. Against which conclusion, you might have some advantage, by gathering thereof this absurdity, that, so it would follow, that our baptism here in England, might benefit some that are in France, yet our only meaning was, to show, how they which are in divers places, may, that notwithstanding, communicate together. Of which thing what say you now? well Sir, 
Defence.  I grawnte you that.  
Remember, 
reply.  I pray you then, what you grant. you grant us this, that they which be in divers places may communicate. well Sir I grant you that, 
Defence fol. ●od.  but yet, ye should have inferred the other point, etc. That is: to be like communion in the Lord his supper of one alone received, as there is in prayer, when one man in place alone, prayeth for a multitude.  
That yourself may not seem to have spoken much out of the purpose, 
Reply.  therefore you tell us, 
See how the M. of defence will appoint the Catholic what argument he should use, that himself might have r●me and opportunity to reason against him.  what we should have inferred. But let the Apology be considered again, and if it can be proved that any such conclusion was intended as you do speak against, then shall you have the victory. You understand the catholic in this fashion, that whereas he said, there is a communion between all faithful Christians, as well in receiving the Sacrament as in prayer, you conclude, that like as one alone may pray for a multitude: so, that we should infer, that one alone may receive the Sacrament for a multitude. As who should say, when a similitude or proportion is made betwixt two things, that they must in all parts answer one an other, or else the comparison is nothing worth. Yet we read in wise men's works this similitude, 
Cypr● ad ●ulianum.  Like as a monkey doth counterfeit and follow a man, so do the heretics covet to appear like unto the true catholics: 
It is not necessary that two things compared together, should be in all points one like the other.  in which so saying, no man (I trow) doth mean that all heretics have tails, but only that in the act of imitating perfect and good Christians, they play very munkyshe parts. which comparison, if you shall despise, because it is made of two things of nature very divers, and tell us that a monkey hath an other manner of hear and coat than a man, or make sport, against the author of that similitude, as though he would have concluded, that a reasonable man is no better than a beast, I would not give over so, but further continue in the similitude, and say, that like as monkeys, when they have spent all their other knacks, do make moppes and mows cunningly, to delight thereby the lookers on: so some men in the world, when they have no more to say or do, lest they should seem to be y●le, resort unto making of new constructions, as it were distorted and mad faces. For in deed, it is of your own making, when you say that the catholic should have proved, if he had followed good order, that like as one may pray for a multitude, so likewise that one may receive for a great number. For it was not said unto you, that receiving and praying were in all things like and proportionable, but only, as concerning the strength of communion, which goeth through the whole mystical body of Christ not in prayer only, or receiving of the sacrament, but in fasting, alms deeds, penance, or any other good act or benefit. And therefore, concerning the proportion, which is in this respect betwixt prayer and receiving of the sacrament, you have to answer, why there is not a communion to be granted, when one alone receiveth, as you can not deny, a plain communion, when one alone prayeth. We ask not o● you, why one may not be houseled for an infidel as well as he may pray for an infidel, but, whereas in our most private and secret prayers, we say, Our father which art in heaven, and not my father, by which words, we declare that we be not alone, but accompanied with a numbered of other so●nes and brothers. by what reason then may you say, that he which receiveth alone, (to your sight) hath no communion with other of the faith, hope, and charity? It is two things, to say, I pray for other, and I pray with other, 
Note, to receive for other and with other  or, I receive for other, and I receive with other. To pray for other, is not always in hour intent, because of private and peculiar cases which do so fully occupy us, yet a faithful man doth always pray with other, because he is in that body, whose parts are joined together and animated with charity. To receive for other, is a question of an other time, and in some sense unpossible, but to receive with other, is most consequent for all times, except a man be out of that body, which copleth and uniteth all Catholics together.  
And now, what followeth hereof? Truly this, first of all, that you which make your arguments against receiving for other, do very much range out from the matter, which is of receiving with other. And again, seeing there is such a fellowship and communion, between the membres of one body, how can any priest, in his sole receiving to our sight, lack such as receive with him, whereas he communicateth with all other which receive of the same body, why then, (say you) we infer this, 
A sore objection of the M. of the defence.  that he which saith Mass in our lady chapel in Paul's at six of the clock in the morning, doth communicate with him, that doth the like in jesus Church at Nine of the clock the next day.  
But Sir, we did not speak of this day and the next day, which times, although they make great difference in the judgement of foolish unlearned men, yet before God, unto whom all things are present, six of the clock this day, and nine to morrow make no breach of communion, except you think that when all candles be put out in the night, the world is at an end, and with the next morning, the world beginneth again. For otherwise, why might not he, which saith mass this day, communicate with an other which shall celebrate an hundred years after him, as well as we communicate with the Apostles, which have departed this world fifteen hundred year before us. Then what need you to encumber yourself, with this day and to morrow, whereas your cause is utterly lost, if for the day which is present, there be found at every sole receiving of the priest a communion? which is shortly concluded in this manner. There is a communion between them which being of one religion and faith, receive in sundry places. But (for example sake) Sir Thomas celebrateth Mass and receiveth alone in Paris, and Sir Ambrose doth the like in Venyce: Ergo Thomas and Ambrose do communicate together.  Sir I deny your argument, 
Defence fol. 50.  and say, that neither th'one, nor tother doth communicate with any Christian man, because neither of both receiveth according to Christ his institution. 
You be always like yourself, 
Reply.  in forgetting yourself. For here you deny the argument, and the cause of your denial is the fault which you find with the mayor and minor propositions of it. 
what new logi●●e is this?  But if the fault be only in the propositions; why deny you the argument? And if the argument be faulty, how uncunnynglie do you prove that, by the denying of the propositions? But go to, let the first proposition be interpreted as you would have it, and let us then repeat the argument, saying, They which receive in divers places, according to the institution of Christ do communicate together. But Sir Thomas. etc. (as before) do so: Ergo they communicate together. How say you? doth this argument please you? yea truly I think it doth: why then did you deny the former argument, which was altogether of the same form and making with this? But such disputors they be, with whom the church hath to do. Now again, if you admit the argument as concerning the form of it, what say you to any of the propositions? Marry, you deny the second proposition, and say, that none of those two priests, whom I named, do work according to the institution of Christ. And why so? Forsooth (say you) because they receive alone by themselves. Yea but herein you say falsely, because the one of them at the least, receiveth with the other, and so they have a communion, and observe the institution of Christ. Nay, say you again: There should be a particular communion (as I may term it) between the members of one congregation. 
Defence fol. 50.  You do wisely to mitigat the matter, and as it were, 
Reply.  to ask leave that you may call it a particular communion. But you must have none, your request is so unprofitable. For this particular communion is nothing worth, yea it is no communion at all, except it be referred unto the true and general communion in deed. And if the communicating in the most perfect and best manner, 
The needless and upstart invention of a particular communion.  be fulfilled, will you bring us so fair downward, that we must have the particular, or else say the whole is destroyed? May I not, because of your fancies, rest in the end, when I am at it, but come back again to the beginning, or middle of the matter? The end of a Christians desire, is, to be united unto God, through Christ our head in the unity of his body, and to this end I receive his body in the sacrament, which, because he is both God an man, is therefore able to join us together in unity with God & man. And therefore when I receive him, I communicate both naturally and mystically with his body. Can I desire any more, and is any thing unperfect herein?  Yea marry (say you) Christ would have us make a particular communion also. 
But how prove you that by Christ? he which was wisdom itself, would he make such an account of a particular, that although the whole some and perfection might be obtained without it, yet he would have a particular communion? He which communicateth with the whole body, communicateth also with particulars, and therefore what talk you of a particular communion, as though that could want, when the whole is obtained? If you would deny, that there is a perfect commonion between men of one religion, notwithstanding they be not in one time and place together, although you should speak untruly, yet you should speak not most absurdelie: but, when you grant the general communion, and yet besides require of necessity a particular, you speak so far out of all form and fashion, that no reason or probability, may be perceived in your saying. Yes (say you) unity and concord is lively represented, as well for the multitude, which do communicate, as for the apt signification of the external elements. But what of this? for, every thing of which a good meaning may be gathered, is not, of necessity, to be observed of us. To communicate with Christ our head and his mystical body, is a thing most necessary, if we think to receive him worthily: but to have a particular communion, (as you term it) although it be very laudable, yet is it not necessary, and the institution of Christ doth not require it of us. For if his blessed will had been, as you do seem to interpret it, that there should be a visible company to receive together at his table, that the beholding of one the other, might lively represent the unity, which Christ with them and they have with Christ, and that, without this particular communion, there might be no receiving of the sacrament, woe then unto poor blind folks, which can not see how many receive with them. Whom, if the mercy of our Saviour hath not excluded from coming to his table, it must follow then necessarily, that it was not Christ his institution and commandment, that without a visible company of communicantes, his sacraments could not be ministered. And as such a commandment did not become his wisdom and his bountefullnes, so would it have been a great foil and discomfort unto his church, if the neighbours slackness should have letted the devotion of the well willing persons, or if no receiving at all, might be suffered without a particular communion, whereas any one Christian receiving all alone, doth yet therein communicate with Christ his whole mystical body. Now, because this general communion of which we speak, doth grieve you very sore, which love to make parts and separations, you complain that excommunication seemeth to be taken away, by this our devise (as you call it) of a communion between such as are absent and distant. But, as you are always very discrete and witty, so you give a reason hereof, to excuse you from folly. And what reason is that? Marry, After your devise, a priest, that is excommunicated of the bishop, 
Defence.  may say mass in his chamber, and affirm that he will communicate with him, whether he will or no. If you think as you say, you be very dull of understanding, 
Reply.  or short of memory, because our opinion proveth the clean contrary. For whereas we tell you, that he which receiveth alone, doth communicate yet, with the rest of the body of which he is a part, how far and wide so ever the whole be dilated: so he which is separated by excommunication from the body, communicateth with no part of it, whether he receive alone, or receive with many. But, if your sentence were true, as concerning particular, communion, then would it straightways be very hard, to have any excommunication. For if England would not receive one, he might seek after the congregation of Scotland. If they would reject him, he might seek many corners of Germany and Hungary. If Lutherans would defy him, he might be entertained of the zwinglians. If they both were to honest for him, he might receive after the institution of Christ (as they would say) with anabaptists, Arrians, and such other. But with us, how can it come to pass by any devise of yours, that he, which is excommunicated by the Bishop, and therefore quite separated from the communion of all Saints and Catholics, should communicate with the Bishop, or any other, whether they would or no? Nay truly Sir, if Christ his institution had specially commanded a particular communion, as you say it doth, so in deed if the bishop should excommunicate you, yet you might call half a dozen of good fellows unto you, and in chamber, orchard, grove, den, stable, or under hedges, celebrate a memory of Christ his passion, and challenged unto yourselves the following of his institution, which institution whilst you understand so grossly as you do, you must further expound unto us, in what quantity of numbered, time, and place, a communion may be celebrated. And if for all your fancying of particular communion, you have no joy to speak of such particular cases, albeit you may tell us, that you have weighty matters in hand, and can not therefore dally, yet we see plainly, that you have not what to answer us, lest you should be driven unto many absurd follies. And therefore to shift your hands of those questions, in which your spirits might be tried, you tell us, that you see in the Evangelist and S. Paul, that Christ took bread, broke it, gave it. etc. and that he did his things, in convenient time and place, and that he had company, which if we either did not know, either would deny unto you, than had you said somewhat. But our principal question is, whether such a company and numbered, as he used, be necessary, or no: as yourself have before confessed, that the observation of place and time, which Christ used, is not necessary. And because you styffelie hold, that company is necessary, we would understand your mind further, within how great and how small numbered, that necessary company consisteth. For it is written in the English service, that without three, no communion may be celebrated, except upon the special request of the sick person, and in time of plagues, when one may receive with the priest alone. But yet, (I trow) the institution of Christ, doth permit well enough two alone to receive together at all times. Now if you be to seeking, for your answers in such questions, which would declare unto us the full meaning of your opinions, how dare you set up a religion, 
Blind guides.  which know not the parts of your own religion, and can not tell how fa●r you may grant, or how much you may deny. As concerning accidences without their subjects, and other such true consequencies, which do follow necessarily upon other principles of the Catholic faith, we are able to prove them, if you were able to understand them. Of which things, we are not ashamed, because they have been openly declared and believed in all the Universities and divinity schools of Christendom (many fair years before your divinity was published;) and if the● might be any offence taken of them, or else not sufficient defence made for them, (if your side should be judge,) yet the questions are so subtle and curious, that a good bishop might with honesty say, that he needeth not to prove them. But you, which are the finders out and founders of the gospel▪ the controllers of Christendom, the special vessels of God, and reformers of the perfect and Apostolic religion, in so plain and sensible a matter, as place, number, and time is, for them which will communicate, to run into corners, 
The false heart of the M. of the defence.  and fain that you have weighty matters in hand, and command your adversaries to silence, and not to trouble your gravities with any particular questions, it is much against your worship and honesty, which would be accepted of privy counsel with God and Christ, as concerning the ordering of sacraments. Also, that accidences may be comprised without subjects, and bodies be without dimension, it is openly in schools concluded, to see who can prove the contrary. But how few, or how many may make o● mar your communion, you dare not, or can not answer unto it, lest you should be reproved. wherefore, seeing that you make silence your defence, and will not utter the state of your religion, it is no little comfort unto us, that you be confounded yet in your own conscience. And as we have so faithful minds, that in God his mysteries we go no further, than he and his holy church leadeth us: so yet (thanks be to God) our wits are not so simple, that in a plain and sensible question we can not tell what to answer, but say that either our adversary dallieth, or fain, that the question which is asked, containeth a mystery.   

The aight Chapter.  
THE Catholic in his Apology, to prove that numbered of communicantes is not necessary in the receiving of the Sacrament, allegeth a saying of Erasmus, which he showeth to be agreeable unto the testimonies of learned and holy fathers, Tertullian, S. Cyprian, S. ciril, and S. Ambrose. which if we should dilate so far forth as we might, our reply would he very long and tedious, and except we do declare in what sense they serve for our purpose, it can not be but intricate and cumbrous. Shortly therefore to make a state of our question in this chapter, and to have the more leisure to speak of the testimonies brought in for v●: Let this be our argument, which I pray the good reader to bear away, E●as●us sayeth, that in old time the body of our Lord was delivered into folks hands, that they which had taken it might receive it at home, when they would, Ergo it is not necessary to have always communicantes. Now unto this argument what do you answer with all your defence? Sir it seemeth very strange to me, 
Defence fol. 52.  that you, which have so much hated Erasmus, etc. should now in your need take help and succour at his hand. Sir, 
Reply.  our store is so great, that we need not Erasmus authority, but our behaviour is so reasonable, that we do condescend to you, in alleging your own doctors. And it seemeth very straying unto me, that Erasmus, whom you call a singular instrument provided of God to begin the reformation of his church, 
Eras▪ contra Euamgelicos Item, contra fratres inferioris Germaniae  should yet be proved to have written by name against the false gospellers and beginners of this new reformation of Christianity. For is God divided? or hath he no better provided, but that such as you call the singular instruments of uttering his pleasure and will, should be found so contrary among themselves and so far repugnant, one unto an other? But as concerning this learned man, we take his confession, we use not his testimony. And we tell you what he thought, if perchaunse that may move you, but we take him not for a witness in our cause, as though we might not well spare him. And this doth hereby well appear, that we bring forth holy and blessed men's authorities to prove that most true which Erasmus hath confessed. Of whom, if you be now weary, for all that God provided him singularly (as you say) for you, what say you then to S. Cyprian, S. ciril, S. Ambrose, and Terrullian, by whom it is proved, that in old time, there was sole receiving among Christians? And here now to declare pe●chaunse that you be well seen in antiquities, you tell us a sad tale of much trouble, vexation, and persecution which was used in the primitive church, and that the Sacrament was sent to such as were absent, 
Defence fol. 54.  and that Hereof it came, that divers received alone in their houses. Now thanks be to God, 
reply.  that at length yet, you can not but confess that sole receiving was used in the primitive church. Where now are your loud exprobrations, 
The M. of the defence confesseth sole receiving to have been used in the primitive church.  that we have not one word or syllable in all the Doctors, for the space of six hundred years after Christ, to make for us? That we have not so much as any colour or similitude of truth, as concerning sole receiving▪ & c? That Christ his institution is wholly against us? That there must be necessarily (as you do term it) a particular communion? You be not far from the kingdom of heaven, you be almost welcome home, or at least ways, you be looking homeward a little. But this news is to good (I fear) to be true, and although you can not deny sole receiving, yet you will not be quiet, but continue still in your striving. For you say this: But you should bring such places, 
Defence.  as might prove, that the common minister in place of the Lord his supper, did celebrate and receive alone, other being present, and not partaking.  
No Sir, you must not rule us in the manner of our reasoning, 
Reply.  and appoint us to prove that, which we take not upon us. This is it, which I have wished before to be well remembered, that our question is not, whether any priest than did receive alone, but whether he might do it lawfully, or no, that is our question. And as the Catholic in his Apology fol. 8. warned you most plainly, that there is an open difference between these two sentences: There was no private mass at that time▪ and▪ There aught to be no private mass at any tyme. So take a fair warning again, that we labour to prove, not what thing was then commonly done, but what may now, and might then have been lawfully done. Marry, we can not prove (say you) that the common minister did celebrate and receive alone, 
Note again how the M. of the defence runneth from the question.  other being present. Ver●●e what the priest did we take not upon us to prove, but what he might do, that we can show unto you. Do not you always appeal unto Christ his institution? Do not you make yourselves so cunning in it, that you can tell us of the indifferent parts, and of the substantial parts of it? Have not you defined it, that, to receive with company is a substantial part of it? And do not you conclude hereupon, that the priest can not receive by himself alone, without breach of Christ his institution? These being your principles, if we do disprove any of them, than is your conclusion destroyed. But how can we more plainly do it, then by reciting the examples of the primitive church, by which you are contented to be tried, in which age sole receiving was used, and yet Christ his institution not thought to be violated? Can you deny that sole receiving was then used? you can not. But you make this limitation, that it was used in case of necessity, and of lay men, not of priests. Well, make the case how hard so ever you will, we ask no more, but that all men should know, that sole receiving was lawfully then used. Now therefore (say you) let us see, how aptly upon this grant you conclude your purpose? More aptly (I trust) than you have done it for us, which behave yourself so uprightly, that all is the worse for your handling. We therefore do not straightways look for a priest at an altar, but first, we take your confession that sole receiving is lawful, as being used in the primitive church: and then we infer that Christ his institution doth not require of necessity a numbered to receive always together: Ergo then Christ his institution is not broken, when a priest alone by himself receiveth: Ergo you should amend your needless appealing unto that institution which you do not understand, and confess that there is no impediment wherefore a priest may not say mass, and receive alone. For if it had been a substantial point of Christ his institution, to have communicantes, no necessity might have made for sole receiving, but in the primitive church there was sole receiving: Ergo that, which you term particular communion, is not of the necessity of Christ his commandment. For as concerning the persecutions of those times, which caused that the Christians could not come together, they served well, to deliver men's consciences from the scruples, which they might have had, for not receiving, but they do not licence them, to receive against Christ his institution. As for example, at an Easter time, when all Christians do receive of duty, if through persecution, certain of them were driven unto such extremytes, that they could have neither wheaten bread, nor wine, nor priest to minister the communion unto them, this necessity doth not make it lawful, that they celebrate in oaten cakes and whey, or that with their laical hands they take, bless, and receive, in the remembrance that Christ died for them, and be thankful: but only it maketh for their quietness of mind and conscience, that they think not themselves to have transgressed the law of the church, because of the present necessity, which hath none other remedy, but patience. And so likewise, if th● bishops which governed the church in those persecutions, had thought it to be ●f the substance of Christ his institution, that without your particular communion the sacrament might not have been received, they would not have sent it home to Christians houses, there to be received of them privately, but they would rather have exhorted them, not to be discomforted for all the lack of the visible sacrament, and willed them to pray for a quiet and good time, in which they might communicate after Christ his institution. But for all the troubles of persecution, they did not so, Ergo it is plain to perceive, that they thought not as you do of Christ his institution. And this being once confirmed, that the institution of Christ doth not require of necessity, communicantes, we do rightly infer, that a priest may receive alone, without any inivire done to the institution of our saviour. But, (good Lord) how miserably are you tormented within yourselves, as it may seem? You grant sole receiving in some case, you confess it to have been used in the primitive church, and yet you say, that Christ his institution doth always require company. To deny the authority of the primitive church, 
A great distress of the ●. of the defence.  you dare not: and revoke your own comment, made upon Christ his institution, you will not. What will ye do poor souls? you turn and w●nde yourselves, loath to refuse the authority of the primitive church, and sorry that you can not make it agree with Christ his institution, as you expound it. And therefore, not withstanding your former grant, that sole receiving was used in the primitive church, yet now you temper the matter, signifying, that it was then, either tolerable, or pius error, but, that now it should be intolerable and impia prophanatio. As who should say, In deed, it can not be denied, but that in the primitive church sole receiving was used, undoubtedly against the institution of Christ and example of S. Paul in his epistle to the Corynthians, but yet, we must not say so expressly (for then we shall mar all) but confess the matter, making the best that we can of it, and saying, that it was tolerated and not allowed, or a certain good and harmless error in the people, and not a wicked profanation of Christ his commandment. But whether this be true or no, that in the primitive church a plain transgressing of Christ his commandment in the substance of the sacrament, would have been tolerated of the blessed clergy of that age, or that they would have smiled at the breach of Christ his institution, and called that fault by no worse name than pius error, it will easily appear by this, that sole receiving at home was never yet thought untolerable and wicked. Yes say you: Hyerome against jovinian mentioneth, 
Defence fol. 55.  that in his time some used to receive in their houses, but he earnestly inveigheth against that manner. Why (sayeth he) do they not come into the church? Is Christ sometime abroad in the common place, sometime at home in the house?  
Believe not every spirit (sayeth the Apostle) but try them whether they be of God. 
reply. 1. ●o. 4.  But (alas) how shall he, which knoweth none other tongue then his English, try the truth of his sayings, which speaketh unto him out of Latin authors? But if the simple can not, or should not rather, examine these matters, let the indifferently learned take an example by this one place, with what conscience and honesty you allege and abuse the doctors. Might not a man think, which had never read S. Jerome against jovinian, 
Mark how shamefully S. Jerome is belied of the M. of the defence.  that he expressly condemneth the receiving at home, out of the church? Yet he sayeth nothing less, which to make more plain unto you, consider the occasion of Saint Jerome his words in that place. jovinian the heretic, would have no excellency to be in virginity above marriage, S. Jerome confuteth him at large, using among other arguments, that weddlock is not so great a good thing, seeing that prayer is hindered by it, the Apostle saying: Do ye not defraud one the other, 
1. Cor. 7.  except it be upon consent for a time, that ye may intend to pray. He said also, what manner of good thing call you that, which letteth a man from the receiving of Christ his body? For he presupposeth, 
Exod. 19  that if the Israelites did abstain from their wives three days before they received the law, and if David the king with his company were examined whether they had lain with their wives lately before, when they desired to have some of the loeves which are called propositionis panes: 
1. Reg. 21.  much more a Christian should abstain a certain time from his lawful wife, before he did presume to receive Christ his body. Yet saith S. Jerome, 
In Apologia adversus lovinianum.  I know that this custom is in Rome, that the faithful do at all times receive the body of Christ, which thing I do neither reprove, neither allow, for every man aboundeth in his own sense. But I ask of their consciencies, which do communicate the same day, after they have had carnal knowledge of their wives, & i●xta Persium, noctem flumine purgant, wherefore they dare not go unto the Martyrs? wherefore they go not unto the church? is Christ one abroad, and an other at home? that which is not lawful in the church, is not lawful at home. etc. How say you then? Doth S. Jerome in this place inveigh against the manner of receiving at home? Is it not most plain and evident, that he speaketh against such, as had no fear to communicate at home after the nights pollution, and yet would not venture to come unto the places where Martyrs bones rested, or into the church? And why should any man fear to come unto the chapels, or memories of Martyrs, after the nights, what shall I call it, with his wife? Undoubtedly for reverence sake, and honour, which they gave to Martyrs, as S. Jerome also testifieth of himself, 
Hieron. adversus vigilantium.  saying: I confess unto the my fear, lest perchance it come of superstition: when I have been angry, and have thought upon some evil thing in my mind, and when some fancy of the night hath deluded me, I dare not go into the churches of Martyrs, I do so thorowghly quake for fear, in body and soul. Therefore, whereas the Romans, after the use of their wives the night before, would not come the next day into the presence of Martyr's memories, and yet were not ashamed to receive the body of Christ at home, he asketh of them earnestly: Wherefore they go not unto the church? not in this sense which you have invented, as though he should say: Wherefore do you receive at home? why go you not to the church? why receive you in corners? why come you not to the open congregation? I like not these communions at home, the doors of the congregation be open to the faithful, it is a shame so to receive by yourselves alone, the institution of Christ is exceedingly broken, he instituted not his sacrament, that they should have it brought home to them, or that they might carry it home with them, I know not what place is better for that purpose then the house of God, where all the people may be present together, and edify one the other through beholding the fellowship and communion of themselves. S. Jerome was not so full of the spirit, or so empty of wit, but only he correcteth their folly, which in some things made a conscience, in other some of greater force, made none at all. And he asketh, why they do not as well come in to the church, and in to the chapels of Martyrs, after they have companied with their wives, as they dare to receive the body of Christ at home, for all the former nights fancy and pleasure? Is Christ one abroad, and an other at home? As who should say, will it hurt you if you come to church in the presence of Christ his Martyrs, and make you no conscience of rec●●uing Christ his body at home in your houses, whose Martyrs they were? Yet he doth not reprove them for receiving at home, as by his own words appeareth, saying: That the faithful receive at all times the body of Christ, I neither reprove, neither allow. But to this conclusion he laboured to drive the matter, that whilst they should be sorry, that they had not communicated some certain day, because of their pleasure, taken the night before with their wives, they might thereby abstain a little from them, that they might communicate with Christ. But go you forth. Have you any other authority, to prove that sole receiving at home was ever condemned?  In Socrates the second book we read that Synodus Gangrensis condemned Eustathium, 
Defence. fol. ●5.  for that, contrary unto the Ecclesiastical rules, he granted licence to communicate at home. 
Where a man should find this Socrates, 
Reply.  of whom you speak, you only (I believe) do know. For in the second book of the Tripartite history, Socrates maketh no mention at all of any such Eustathius as you speak of, 
Tripart. hist. ca 4● lib. ●.  but in the .2. of that book, we do read of one Eustathius a ver●e good Bishop, condemned by a false forged tale made against him by a common harlot, his judges being to the outward show Catholic Bishops, but in heart and deed Arrians. For which cause, sayeth the history, Many holy me● and priests with others, forsaking the company which resorted unto the common churches, did come together among them selves, whom, all other call●d Eustathianos, b●cause that after Eustathius departure, they 〈◊〉 together a side from others. Now if you do allow the condemnation of this Eustathius, then must we beware of you hereafter, lest you bring forth new Arrians unto us. And any other, besides this catholic Eustathius, I can not find in the second book of the Tripartite history. Therefore I turn me unto the Councils, and there in deed, I find that Synodus Gangrensis condemneth one Eustachius (not Eustathius) for many notable heresies, but yet there is no mention, that he was condemned (as you say) for granting of licence to receive at home. 
The M. of the defence doth doubly ●elie Socrates and Synodus Gangrensis.  But rather, as it appeareth by the epistle prefixed before that Synod, these Eustachians were of the opinion that no prayer or oblation should be made in married men's houses, they contemned also the places of holy Martyrs, or churches, and reproved all such as resorted to them, they took further upon them to distribute the oblations made in the church, and therefore the fifth canon of that Council is this: 
Concilij Gangrē●is ca 5.  If any man do teach, that the house of God, is to be contemned, and the meetings which are celebrated in it, let him be accursed. And the sixth canon saith: If any man doth make conventicles without the church, and despising the church, will usurp those things which be the churches, without the priest coming unto it, let him be accursed, according 〈◊〉 the decree of the bishop. This much 〈◊〉 I find in Gangrensis Synodus, which doth not so much as seem to found any thing nigh unto your purpose. Where then is, that your Eustathius which was condemned for granting licence to communicate at home? or how well have you proved, that the custom of the primitive church, which for that time was tolerated, was at any time after forbidden as profane and wicked? If therefore these testimonies of S. Jerome and Gangrensis Synodus, by which you would prove, that to receive at home, was greatly inveighed at and condemned, do no more make for your purpose, than to say that a lay man should not lie with his wife the night before he receiveth, or that those heretics are to be condemned, which contemn Martyrs chapples or churches: how little at all could you prove, that any misliking was ever had, of the sole receiving at home, used in the very primitive church? The use of which time, you dare not openly condemn, but privily you leave to be gathered, that it was pius error in them. Whereas contrary wise, if sole receiving be such a matter as you make it, that it goeth most directly and plainly against the substance of Christ his institution, than I am sure, that the contempt of this life and world, was so great in the Christians at those bless●● days, that rather than they would have received alone, to the confounding of Gods l●w and ordinance, they would have been content, never to eat any thing in this world, but suffer the most cruel death of hunger. And upon this ground so s●re, that it is not against Christ his institution to receive alone, we can do none otherwise, but confess that the priest receiving alone is not to be pulled, by you, from the altar, not denying, but that in the primitive church the people most times received with the priest, and that if they had not done so, they were commanded to go out of the church (which thing yet you do labour so to prove, as though the obtaining of it, did make any thing to the purpose) but orderly following our intent, which is, to prove that sole receiving is not against Christ his institution, and that it is not necessary to have always a particular communion.  
Now, because the Catholic in his authorities of tertulyan, S. Cyprian, and S. Ambrose, proved, not only sole receiving to have been used at that time, but also communion under one kind (which thing secondly in this chapter you take upon you to reprove) let us mark your fighting in this part, and try masteries with you. first you say, that the institution of Christ, 
of communion under both kinds.  is expressly against us, for, In the Evangelists and S. Paul, 
Defence fol. 57  we see testified, that Christ took bread, and gave with it his body, and afterward took the cup, and gave with it his blood, and willed them to observe and use the same.  
You make a shameful and wicked lie, 
Reply.  in saying that it is testified either in the Evangelists or paul, that Christ took bread and gave with it his body, for it is manifest, that he took bread and delivered it saying, This is my body, and not as you report, with this I give my body. But the scriptures, I perceive, are not yet plain enough for your purpose, and you will (I fear) never be contented, 
The M. of the defence addeth unto the scriptures, most shamefully.  until, after many affected translations of the scripture in to the mother tongue, you altar the authentic and pure text of it, by conneighing in, these words, (Take and eat, with this is my body.) Then, as concerning Christ his institution, like as he spoke then, to his Apostles only, and in them unto his priests ' of the new law: so the priests do always, when they consecrated, receive under both kinds, but as for priests not consecrating, or the lay people standing by, it is not of necessity, to deliver it unto them in both. And hereof, we have alleged this cause unto you, that it is a matter indifferent, and not of the substance of the Sacrament. O (say you) ye flee to your old place of refuge. why (Sir) what would you have us to do? if you keep still one argument, may not we likewise apply one answer? And is every thing fresh and gay, which you bring, although it be twenty times repeated and not once proved, and shall not we have licence to refel your objections with such an answer, as you never yet have disproved? yet, we have not barely affirmed our saying, but we have given good cause for it, that to receive under both kinds should not be of the necessary substance of the Sacrament, as concerning the people. Of which causes, you choose out one, where we say, that per concomitantiam, the body of Christ is never without his blood, and his blood is not separated from his body, so that no loss or hindrance cometh unto the receiver, which taketh as much under one kind, as he should have done under both. At which cause, you peck with a scornful exclamation, and say, O profound and deep fett reason, wherein you seem to make yourself wiser than Christ himself, that ordained the sacrament. But I would that you, or the best of your side, were but a quarter so godly, or learned, or wise, as those Masters of divinity which were authors of the word (●ōcomitantia) the meaning of which word, was ever believed in th● church of Christ, It is yet a comfort unto us, that such things as we believe, 〈◊〉 not invented of late by ourselves, but received of the teachers of Christendom, but o superficial and light wits of yours, which make Christ not to have been so wise as he was, which resist his holyeghost, and go about to read a lecture unto the Church of God. What fault do you find, with concomitantia? Marry say you, The communion of Christ his body and blood, 
Defence fol. 57  is not the work of nature in this Sacrament.  
What mean you by the words (communion of his body) we talk of concomitantia, 
Reply.  that is, whether under the form of bread there be his body accompanied with his blood and his flesh together. And you tell us, that the communion of his body is not the work of nature. Speak unto the matter and show some reason, why that his body should be without blood, in the sacrament of bread?  What so ever is here given unto us, 
Defence 〈◊〉. 58.  is to be taken by faith. 
As who should say, 
Re●●y.  that faith might rest upon a fancy or figure, or that by the same faith, by which I believe that I receive his body, I might not also believe, that I receive together his blood. But again, So much is given unto us, as God appointed to give, 
Defen●●. fol. eod.  of whose will and pleasure, we know no more, than his words declare unto us.  
Why Sir, 
Reply.  doth not the word (body) declare well enough that it is not without blood? When Saint john in his gospel sayeth, 
Io. 1.  The word was made flesh, will you say, with old heretics, that the word took not also our life and soul unto him, because S. john mentioneth none of them expressly, but only that the word was made flesh? Yet almighty God, w●●ch spoke by the Evangelist, was wise and able enough to declare his mind. In Christ's natural body, 
Defence. fol. eod.  that is in heaven, I know, his flesh is not without his blood, but in the sacrament, which is no natural work, how will you assure me, that the flesh and blood ysjointly signified and given unto me, under one part only? If the sacrament be no natural work, 
Reply.  what is it then, Supernatural, or artificial? If you make it a less work then natural, then do you debate greatly the glory of the new testament, whereas the manna of the old law, 
Exod. 16. & 17.  and water which issued out of a rock for the Israelites, were more excellent figures, than the verities of them, which are among true Christians. But if you think, that they be not natural, to make us thereby to conceive a greater estimation of them, then say I, so much the more it is credible, that the blood should be joined unto the body, because that in very common nature we see it so, and nothing wonder at it. But yet (say you) Christ which knew as well as you the joint condition of his flesh and blood, 
Defence. fol. 〈◊〉.  did not with standing, in two sundry external things, give the communion of them to his Disciples.  
This letteth nothing our belief, which do know, 
Reply.  as well as you, that Christ gave his body and blood under two forms of bread and wine, and yet notwithstanding one Christ was received under both forms of bread and wine. But therefore he delivered himself under those two kinds, and not one, that we might the better consider his passion, in which the blood was separated from the body.  Therefore the faith of the communicantes in the one part, 
Defence ibidem.  receiveth the body, trusting to Christ his promises: the same faith in the other part, receiveth the blood, believing also our Saviour his words therein. 
You have not to prove, that in the one part the body was received, 
Reply.  but that the body only without blood is received. And then further, where you say that the faith of the communicantes receiveth the body, doth it receive it as a dead carcase, (shame to think it) or else as the body of the son of God? Christ our Saviour saith: 
Io. 6.  The flesh profiteth nothing, it is the spirit which quickeneth. 
That the communicantes receive not a body without blood and life.  How then, doth the communicantes faith receive such a sole body, which hath neither blood, neither life, neither divinity in it? The forgiveness of sins cometh only from the Deity, but the chief instrument, by which God worketh, is Christ's our Saviour most dearly beloved Humanity. Which, if a man conceive, as separate from his Divinity, then truly as it is among all creatures most excellent, so yet is it but a creature, and very little available unto us: marry, as it is the body and blood of him, which was not only man, but also God most glorious, his body and blood doth relieve us through the presence of his majesty. You therefore which do divide Christ, and by your faith (which no wise man doth ever trust) make a receiving of a body without all blood, life, or divinity, do most plainly take the fruit of their redemption from the people, and make them to hang upon gross imaginations of a body without blood, and blood without a body, to their exceeding loss and injury. But now, if all other arguments failed us, and if your devise were not so obscure and vile, as it is, yet the authority of the church, is no small thing among Christians, against which you speak so like a mad master, as though you knew the voice of Christ, better than the church of Rome, which yet do not know whether there be any Christ, or no, except it were for the authority of the church of Rome. And whereas you build all your institutions and articles, upon the texts of the scripture, and your private interpretations, and contemn your mother Church, yet except you follow the voice of the church of Rome, you can with no reason defend that this which you hold, is scripture. And here again you call upon us to remember S. Cyprian, which in all that epistle of his, unto which you do refer us, doth so make against them which ministered only in water, that he confuteth also them, which minister only in wine, proving both by the old and new law, that wine and water both should be mingled together in the mysteries. But as concerning t●e receiving under one kind, of which we have to speak, what answer you unto the place of Tertullian, or unto S. Cyprian his authority? You say, that our arguments taken out of them are but conjectures, and the same very uncertain, for often times in the Doctors where one kind is mentioned, 
Defence. fol. 59  both are understanded, as after shall more appear. Let the words of the authors them sel●es try it, 
Reply.  whether you, or we do use the uncertain conjectures. Tertullian, in his second book unto his wife, where he telleth her of the sundry faults and inconveniencies into which those women do bring themselves, which after their husbands death do become wifes unto infidel and heathen rulers or gentlemen, themselves being Christians, among which this is a very principal one, that in the houses of paynims they shall not well be able to keep the orders of Christian people: he sayeth, after other persuasions: Shalt thou not be espied (cùm lectulum, 
Tertull. ad uxorem, proved to make for receiving under one kind.  cùm corpusculum tuum signas. & c?) when thou dost bless thy bed and thy body with the sign of the cross? when thou dost spit out with exu●flation some unclean thing? when also, thou dost arise in the night time to pray: and shalt thou not be thought to work some witchcraft? Shall not thy husband know what thou dost taste secretly of, before all meat? And if he know it, he believeth it to be bread, and not that which it is said to be. Of these words you gather that in the name of bread is understanded also wine, and why so? Marry because that some times among the Doctors (of which hereafter we shall speak more) both kinds are understanded, when but one is expressed: ergo Tertullian in this place is in like manner to be construed. But our collection is otherwise, that because we read but one kind specified, therefore without any necessity we do not make conjectures that he meaneth both. And we see, that Tertullian in this book, was not in such haste that he needed to speak by figures unto his wife, or to number six for the dozen. Then by common reason, we see that wine, in so little a quantity as one's part cometh unto in the distributing of the mysteries, was not to be reserved of any person, because of the quick alteration of it. Also we believe, that under one kind Christ wholly is given, and therefore that the governors of the church were not so foolish or scrupulous, as to make a necessity of both. And whereas you perceive by this testimony, that sole receiving was then used, (which by your sayeing Christ his institution doth not permit) we had no just occasion to mistrust the receiving under one kind, which we know to be of no greater force than the receiving with company. And you also (if you had good wits) might for good cause fear, lest you were deceived in the question of receiving under both kinds, whereas in the controversy of sole receiving, you be so openly confounded, which yet you do as earnestile endeavour to prove, as you do shift to understand both kinds in Tertullian, whereas he mentioneth but one. 
Note the chaingeablenes of heretics.  Note further, that when Christ said, This is my body, you will have no blood to appertain unto it, and when any Doctor doth speak only of bread, you will at your pleasure make wine to be understanded. Injurious in the one, and superfluous in the other.  
Therefore let it be tried, which of our two sides doth use more uncertain conjectures. Now as concerning S. Cyprian, When a certain woman (saith he) assayed with her unworthy hands, 
Serm. 5. de Lapsis.  to open her chest, in the which (Sanctum Domini fuit) the holy body of our Lord was, she was made afraid by fire arising from thence, that she durst not to touch it. Of this place, if you will not admit our collection, that the sacrament was in her chest, under one kind, whereas S. Cyprian termeth it, Sanctum Domini, (which is spoken of one singular thing, whether you will English it, the holy body of our Lord, or that holy thing of our Lords, which phrase hath much reverence in it) yet understand you, that the Catholic did not bid you note in this example the receiving under one kind, 
the Catholic mistaken of the M. of the defence either ignorantly, either craftily.  but the sole receiving and reservation of the Sacrament, with the miracle also that was here wrought. Yet▪ (see your craft) you say that the Catholic used S. Cyprian his authority in this place, to prove communion under one kind, that whiles you might make some probable argument, or conjecture about it, he might seem to have been fully answered as concerning that point for which he alleged S. Cyprian. And with like subtlety you examine the testimony of S. Ambrose, in that part of your chapter, where you talk of receiving under one kind, whereas the principal point for which that authority was used, served to prove reservation, which you can not deny, and then afterwards receiving under one kind, unto which only purpose, you do 〈◊〉 apply it. Yet for all that, let us consider how properly you do handle that history, that it might not seem to make for receiving under one kind.  
Satyrus, 
Ambros. inoratio●e funebri de ●●itufrat.  S. Ambrose his brother, what time that upon the sea, the vessel in which he was carried himself, was driven upon the rocks of the shore, and shaken with the waves which laid upon her on every side, he, not for fear of death, but for fear lest he should departed this life without our mysteries, required of the full and perfect Christians, (S. Ambrose calleth them Initiatos) whom he knew to be there, that divine sacrament of the faithful, not to fasten a curious eye upon those secrets, but to get some help for his faith. Whereupon he made it to be bound up in a stole, or (because that word doth not like you) in a linen cloth or napkin, and the napkin he wrapped about his neck, and cast himself out in to the sea. This is a part of the history, and out hereof we gather this argument, that the sacrament was then used under one kind. And what can you say to the contrary? Mary first of all, you contemn the argument, and you are so much deceived, that you ask, whether that any fear of God be in them which in most weighty matters will use so weak reasons? And then you report it again with much scornful bravery, and ask of meet audience for such a preacher, whether ours be a strong reason as they think? For, (say you) Though it had b●n here mentioned, 
Defence  that Satyrus in this extremity received one kind alone, it had been no argument to prove that it might orderly be used. It is a very evil manner of all such as you are, 
Reply.  to go from the principal question, and to talk of that which is not yet in hand. I tell you again, that our arguments are not directed to prove, that in case of necessity, 
another example of the M. of the defence his flitting from the purpose.  or in some extraordinary cause, one may receive alone, or under one kind: but we seek to prove, that you are foully deceived, which preach and write, that to receive with company, and to receive in both kinds, is of the necessary substance and form of the sacrament. Against which your conclusion we say, that if those things had been thought of the fathers of the primitive church, to have been of the substance of the Sacrament, they would never have suffered them at any time to be used, but in some examples, we see that they were not only suffered, but also allowed, therefore you be very ignorant or peevish, to make there a necessity where none should be at all. You do harp in this chapter very oft, upon this one st●●g, that we can not prove that the common use, or the ordinary use of the sacrament in the primititive church, was to be received of one alone, or under one kind. And this you will enforce us to prove against you, upon the which we strive not with you, but as we read what the common use was, so we read that it was not such a necessary use, as would admit no dispensation, For we bring you forth good examples, by which you should understand, that even in the primitive church, receiving under one kind was used. We do not say that it was used commonly, either ordinarily, or as a general rule, (for you be so full of play, that it is best to keep you short) but we say, that it was used, and the use of it was not reproved, and that the presence of Christ under one kind was confirmed by miracle, all which points do appear in this one history of Satyrus. Whom if you can prove not to have had the Sacrament about his neck, under one kind only, then shall you say somewhat to the purpose. If we can prove by any one example, that reservation, sole receiving or receiving under one kind was allowed, your buildings shall straightways come into contempt and confusion, because that you work, (or else you lie,) after the substantial and lively pattern of Christ his institution, which is never to be altered (say you) in the substantial points, 
The story of holy Satirus delivered from the suspicions and lies, which the M. of the defence would bring in to it, and proved to make for receiving under one kind.  of which you speak. The better willing therefore I am, to consider the history of Satyrus, which maketh (we think) so directly for us. In answering of which, you tell us first that Satyrus was a novice in our faith, wherein you say very truly, and make the example the greater, if he, which was not yet fully instructed in our mysteries, did think so divinely and excellently of them. Further you allege that it doth not appear whether they, of whom Satyrus received the Sacrament, were ministers or other. Why Sir, to what purpose would it serve, if you could prove, that they had been ministers? Do you think, that upon the sudden, when the tempest was coming, they prepared themselves to a communion, and had not the Sacrament prepared before? And if they had been of your order, would they have suffered a sage person, to tie the Sacrament about his neck for safeguard sake, and not rather to make a communion of it, after the right use of Christ his institution? Then to put you out of doubt, they were no ministers. For the history saith, that when holy Satyrus had escaped drowning himself, and himself coming first to land had either holpen to save other, or saw them all to be recovered, than he straytwaies asked where the church was, there to give thanks, and receive also those everlasting mysteries, aeterna mysteria. Also, proving so great defence to have come unto him, by having the heavenly mystery folded up in a cloth, how much (thought he) shall I win, if I do receive him in my mouth and with all the bottom of my heart? But although he were desirous, yet he was not foolish venturous. Therefore he calling the Bishop unto him, asked whether he did agree with the Catholic bishops, that is to say, with the church of Rome, for the church of that country, as concerning that place, was in a schism. Which being well considered of him, and that although they of those quarters had belief in God, yet they were not faithful unto the church, he departed from thence, differing the payment of his thanks, & the debt which he was in for receiving the Sacrament, and went forth until he came to such place where he might be safely discharged. Now therefore, if they had been ministers, which delivered the Sacrament unto S. Satyrus in the ship, he might have received it at their hands when he was now come to land, and never have sought further for the matter, but whiles he was so desirous to receive his Lord and defender (Praesulem suum sayeth S. Ambrose,) and yet was not so bold as to receive him in that country, he declareth thereby, not only that he had no priests in his company, but also that we should not communicate with schysmatikes▪ and he interpreteth unto us what a Catholic Bishop is, saying that he is such a one as agreeth with the church of Rome. 
what a Catholic bishop is.  But to make more doubts, and that in speaking much, it should appear that the history of Satyrus is not clean and clear against you, There is (say you) nothing to the contrary, 
Defence fol. 61.  but that the same persons which had the Sacrament of our Lord his body, had also about them the Sacrament of the blood. If you lose the cause yet you provide to win the praise of a man full of nimbleness and activety in his invention. 
Reply.  And truly, you find nothing to the contrary, but that Christ delivered the Sacrament of his body only without the cup, unto the rest of his disciples and followers, which were in other chambers of the house where he kept his maundey. But if they (of whom ye speak,) had the Sacrament of the blood about them, wherein had they it, I pray you? Either in some convenient vessel, 
Defence ibidem.  or else after some other fas●ion as divers of simplicity upon a zeal at that time used. Doth the history give you any occasion to think so, 
Reply.  or else do you speak it, but upon your own head? For if some at the beginning, when the church was persecuted openly by the princes of the world, did carry the sacrament of Christ his blood about them, it doth not follow that in Saint Ambrose his time, when the church was more enlarged and better settled, the like manner was always used. You tell us, that in taking of a long journey some carried the sacrament of the blood with them, and because they could not convenietly carry wine with them, they soaked the Sacrament of the Lord his body in the blood.  
As who should say, that they might not more convenient lie have carried the blood in some vessel for the purpose. Other (say you) moist a linen cloth in the Sacrament of blood, Some, either because they could not by nature, or would not for religion drink wine, used only water. Some other used milk for wine. But what of this? Can you infer, upon these particular cases, that it is likely that they which delivered the Sacrament unto Satyrus, (as S. Ambrose writeth) had the Sacrament of blood also about them as you do suppose? As well it will follow then, that they had the Sacrament of Christ his blood, either in form of water only or of milk, because that you have readen that in such forms it hath been received. Consider also, that in S. Ambrose his time the church was not so much under fear of princes as before, neither was holy Satyrus such a simple soul, although a novice then in our faith, as to receive the Sacrament of such whom he knew not to be perfectly instructed in the Christian religion. And he, being a man of honour, it is not likely that the Ini●●ati, the full Christians I mean, which were in the self same ship with him, did keep the sacrament with them in such sort, as was to be winked at for a time, and not absolutely to be allowed. But let it be with them as you will, and you shall freely make as many supposings as you can, that they had the Sacrament of the blood either in a vessel, or soaked in bread, or in a linen cloth, or in any other manner. Yet what say you to holy Satyrus? how did he receive it at their hands? In a stole (as you call it) 
Defence ibid.  Well Sir, the word is orarìum, which if it be not well Englished a st●le, 
Reply.  what other name do you give it? You leave it with out a name, and will have orarium to signify perchance a what shall I call it, to the intent you may apply it to what so ever thing you will. 
Ambros. in oration● de fide resurrectionist  S. Ambrose in his oration made of the belief which we should have of your resurrection, speaking of Lazarus, sayeth, that Fancies eius orario colligata erat. His face was bound up with a sudarye or kerchey. 
Epist. 85.  Again, in his tenth book of epistles, speaking of the holy relics of Geruasius and Prothasius: Quanta oraria iactitantur, quant a indumenta▪ supra reliquias sacratissimas, ut tactu ipso medicabilia reposcantur? How many napkins or kercheyes, how many coats or clothes are cast upon the most holy relics, that being made medicinable through the very touching of them, they might be required for, and had away again? therefore, if orarium shall not be englished a stole, yet that you may not think, that it was a bottle to carry wine in, I have showed you two places out of Saint Ambrose, in which it is taken for a linen cloth. And now, if holy Satyrus did put that sacrament which he received, in a linen cloth, and wrapped it about his neck, it is very probable unto us, that it was in form of bread only, except you will yet still continue in your imagination, and make a guess, that it was either a mylkesopp or a wynesopp, or a linen cloth moist with wine, which he folded up in a kerchey, napkin, or stole. And then let any indifferent man be judge, which of us two speaketh most reasonably, you which think that he had the sacrament of blood together with the sacrament of Christ his body, or we, which can not devise how wine should be there enclosed, where we read no mention of other thing, but only of a linen cloth. Now, as concerning that, where you say, that learned and holy men did wink and bear with many things in the beginning, (as though the reservation of the blessed Sacrament, or using of it in suchesorte as that holy Satyrus did, were to be numbered in that kind of things) you make S. Ambrose therein to lack a great part of his fortitude of mind and wisdom. For he, such a Bishop, would never have suffered any substantial part of our faith to be defaced within his knowledge, and especially with his brother he might and would have been so bold, as to reform his simplicity and superstitious zeal of mind towards the sacrament. And if you will imagine, that he was loath to tell his own brother the perfect truth of things in his life time, yet at least, after his death he should never have praised him, (as he doth in a most exquisite manner) for that, which (according to your saying) was to be tolerated only in the quick, and not praised and commended in the dead. Saint Ambrose therefore, in a most sad manner and time, praising his good brother, which then was departed this world, for many and sundry virtues, of justice, clemency, temperancy, and chastity, and especially commending him, for his faith and piety, which showed itself in the shipwreck of which we have spoken, how can it be thought, that so wise and constant a Bishop would allege that history to prove the piety of his brother, which rather (after your interpretation) was to be winked at and kept under silence, lest he should seem to betray & utter his superstitious behaviour and folly? You mingle also milk, wine, water, sops, & moist linen clothes altogether, as though there were no difference, whether one did celebrate in milk alone, or wine alone, or as though that, if the soaking of the sacrament of Christ his body in his blood was by julis decrees reproved, therefore also receiving under one kind, or sole receiving should be in like case misliked. And yet, against water alone, or milk in steed of wine, you have the express institution of Christ, and the express canons of bishops and Councils, but you can bring no such proof against us, that the sole receiving or receiving under one kind is in no case lawful. One thing I must confess unto you, that in deed you have taken pains to prove, that the common manner of receiving in the primitive church, was under both kinds, and in this part you allege Gelasius, Tertullian, justine, Cyprian, Ambrose, Gregory Nazianzene, Jerome, Hilary, and Chrisostome learned men all, and the most of them Saints. How well they serve for your purpose, what should I need to examine, whereas you will conclude no more by them, 
The fallacy or folly that the M. of the defence useth against so, le receiving.  but that which we grant without proving. It was a common manner to receive in both kinds, and to receive with company, but what of that? May you conclude thereby that it was also the only manner? and except you prove that it was the only manner, all your reasoning make nothing against us. therefore Sir, as you fought all this while out of the field and matter proposed, so have you triumphed, without any victory at all obtained. And although you lay almost desperate stubbornness unto our charge, and exhort your readers to behold the slenderness and feebleness of our reasons, yet we will not be afeard to resist you in those points, against which you can say nothing, and we shall counsel likewise the reader, not to walk upon other men's feet, but by his own sense and disctetion, to consider whether that you have not halted out of the question of which only we had to talk, proving unto us, that receiving with company and under both ●yndes was ordinary, and accustomable, in the beginning of the church, (which we grant,) but nothing at all disproving, that sole receiving, or receiving under one kind may and hath been used without any breach of Christ his institution.  
Thirdly now it followeth, to speak of reservation of the Sacrament, which you think that no man hath ever flatly denied to have been used in the primitive church▪ how now then? 
Of reservation of the Sacrament.  are not they impudent which will speak against it? No say you. And why say ye no? Marry because we may deny  Either that we have any testimony in the word of God to justify it, 
Defence fol. 67.  or that all the holy fathers did approve it. 
Nay verily, 
Reply.  this can not excuse some man of impudency, 
The M. of the defence would feign bring down the challenge, and make the question more larger out of time, place and expectation.  those I mean, which are so● full of boasting, and so void of doing, that they stand not upon these two points, whether it be first in express scripture, or whether all the Doctors approve it, but say plainly, that we have not one word, one sentence, one example of the primitive church, to prove our assertions. Against which kind of men, it is sufficient for us, to show, that the things which we affirm have been used, and that also of good men. In deed it is sufficient to show that it was then used, 
Defence. fol. 67.  but it is not sufficient, that it must therefore be always used, or all did well at that time in using of it. Sir we do not conclude a necessity, 
Reply.  that it must be used, because it was once used, 
See again how the M of the defence runneth from the question  but a possibility and lawfulness, that it may be now used, that which in the primitive church was not refused, and we say, not that all than did well in using of it (for what can we judge of all their doings) but, if S. Ambrose his brother alone, did well, it is enough for our purpose against certain heretics, which make so much a do about the use of the Lord his supper, that except them sacrament be straightways received, there should be no body of Christ at all. And if we had no more, but S. C●rills testimony against you it is enough for us. Whom, before you answer, or rather not answer, but deny, you make a protestation, and tell us what authority you attribute unto the old fathers. And because your saying should have the more weight, you conclude with S. augustine, that you do not count any thing therefore true, because men of excellent holiness and learning were of that opinion. But because, they can persuade you, either by scripture or good reason, that it is not against the truth▪ which saying of S. augustine, we gladly admit, and add further unto it, that although scripture and reason be alleged plentifully, yet that there is a further and greater authority, 
Neither scripture neither reason can settle our faith, but only the authority of the church  by which we ought to be ruled. For albe●●, that you do make this objection against yourself, as it were in our behalfs, that men of great holiness and learning would never write that which they thought not to be agreeable with God his word, by which your objection it might be suspected, that we do stiffly and stoutly hold with every saying of the excellent doctors, yet the truth is far otherwise. And we know better than you (because it was the Catholic church which hath defined it and not you) that Lactantius, Cyprian, Origen, and many others, had their private opinions and errors. And if you, will stand by that which you have protested, why be you not of S. Cyprian his mind, as concerning rebaptisation, whereas he wanted neither scriptures, neither reasons for his purpose? or why do ye not hold with Origen, Clemens, Alexandrinus, Tertullian, and other great clerks in such their false opinions which they defended with apparent scripture and reason? Therefore as S. augustine saith wisely, that he will believe no Doctor upon his bare word, without scripture or reason, and as we follow his lesson therein: so yet we add further, that, be a man never so ancient and well learned, and let him bring never so much scripture and reason, yet except he be allowed of the church, he is to be eschewed, with all his 〈◊〉 and learning. For if it shall please you to learn more judgement, this 〈◊〉 must understand, 〈…〉 in all places, 
The place● of refuge in doubtful times. August▪ ad lanu▪ epist. 118.  of all persons. To dispute of that which the whole church doth observe through the world▪ it is (saith S. Austyne) a most impudent madness, and therefore it may be rightly and well believed, first of all, 
Universality.  that which the whole church doth teach us. But what if there be schisms and divisions in the church, for thetyme present? Marry Sir then, we must resort unto Antiquity, 
Antiquity  and ask counsel of the most ancient fathers. But then again, what if the ancient fathers agree not among themselves? Truly then, 
Consent.  we must follow the voices of the most and best learned of them. And so by these means, we have three places of refuge, universality, Antiquity, and Consent. And we the Catholics have most certain and infallible rules, by which we do try private opinions of doctors, giving less unto them than you do (which esteem your own judgements so highly) except th●● agree with the church of Christ, or agree with other of their 〈…〉 (as though that the Catholics did make an article of faith, of every thing which they read in the fathers) but consider rather that we try them more exactly than you do, and we can not be straightways persuaded, without further question, if the best learned that ever was, should bring scripture and reason, to prove his singular opinion. Yet, seeing that you can find in your heart, so quickly to yield unto the learned and holy men's scriptures or good reasons, although there is a better way which you should take, nevertheless, to let you have a little your own mind, what say you now unto S. cyril? his words be these unto Calosyrius: They are then mad, 
D. cyril. ad Calosyrium.  which say, the mystical benediction or blessing to recise from her sanctification, if any leavings remain until the next day. ' Because the very holy body of Christ, shall not be changed, but the virtue, blessing, and lively quickening, is in it rather. This is S. cyril against you, a how can you avoid him? You will not (you say) plainly deny the place, 
Defence fol. 70.  because it is alleged of divers other. Yet because this work of S. cyril is not extant, you have good cause to suspect it. Although the work be not extant unto you, 
Reply.  yet it may be in some libraries of the world: and the place being alleged of many, an honest plain dealing man would not suspect, without some good and great cause, that it were falsely fathered upon S. ciril. For if the Catholics could have found in their hearts, to have misused the simplicity of others, and to attribute unto holy fathers, such sentences as were never there's, it had been an easy matter for the bishops of Christendom, in that great consent and peace of faith, which hath been in the church for eight or nine hundred years together (until the devil raised up Luther) to have agreed upon such a book, which should make expressly against new upstart heretics, and have the name of S. Augustine, S. Ambrose, S. Jerome, or some other. And again, it had been an easy matter for some one Bishop, Abbot, or Doctor, to feign that he had found such or such a book of S. Augustine, S. Ambrose, S. Jerome, or other, if there had been no more conscience in Catholics, then is proved to be now in heretics. It is soon said, this is not Saint cyril his testimony, and as the proverb is in some schools, Plus potest asinus negare, quàm Aristoteles probare. And further also, if the Catholics should be perceived never to have had among them this testimony of S. cyril, before that late heretics of these days began to impugn them openly, as one might easily allege, at all adventure, upon some private wilfulness, that S. cyril sayeth this unto Calosyrius, so might he probably be suspected of an other, lest perchaunse he invented false testimonies. But you can not prove it by us, that we have used this defence out of S. cyril, only sense we have strived against you, but rather, when all things were quiet, you shall find those testimonies which you suspect, to have been recited of Catholics. And especially that saying of his, which maketh for the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, which some hundred years ago, S. Thomas Aquinas hath recited out of S. cyril Thesaurorum twelve which testimony if it be not in the latin now extant, yet it may be in the Greek, and what Greek copies are beyond sea you can not tell, and if it be not in print, yet it may be in written books, whereas many years, before any printing was in the world, this testimony is alleged by approved men and excellent, both for learning and living. Also, if you have cause to suspect the testimony which hath not the work extant, out of which it was taken, what cause moved you then, to make so great store of a fragment of Gelasius which you do always allege most busily, 
All is fish that cometh to heretics nets.  when you talk of receiving under both kinds. And although Gela●sius in that self same abrupt and short sentence, doth expressly declare, that he speaketh against such as which upon a certain superstition, abstained from the receiving of Christ his blood, and serveth nothing at all unto the purpose of which we talk: Yet you delight so much in it, as though all were fys●he which cometh to your net, and no testimony were to be suspected, which may seem to serve for your purpose, although the work be not extant. Whereby it appeareth, that you pick only a quarrel against the testimony which we bring out of S. cyril, and mislike with it, not because the work is not extant, but because he calleth you mad men, in reproving reservation of the sacrament. Now when you have said as much as you could, to the disgracing of the testimony, then flatter you with it again, and say: But be it so, 
Defence fol. 71.  that these are cyril his own words in deed▪ we have for that one suspected place, a numbered of sound testimonies, that all did not allow reservation, 
Reply.  nor think it according to the word of God.  
You give and take away again. You grant that they shall be Saint cyril his own words in deed, and yet stratwayes you call it a suspected place. But let us consider, how sound your testimonies be● First you allege Origine, which in deed hath those words which you recite, but his meanings yet was not to reprove all reservation of the sacrament▪ For he, 
〈…〉  expounding those words Leu. 7. in which it is commanded that the flesh of the sacrifice which shall be offered in way of thanks giving, shall be catch the same day, and that nothing thereof shall remain ●●●yll the morrow, 
〈…〉  sayeth, The flesh which is appointed for the priests 〈◊〉 of the sacrifice●, 
Orig. in. 7 Leu●tici.  is the word● of God, which they teach in the church. For this therefore they are warned by mystical figures, that when they begin to preach unto the people, they bring forth not the yesterdays leavings, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 old things which are after the letter, but that they speak always, ●re●●e and n●w things, through the grace of God, and find out always spiritual things. Now to set forth, 
Origine proved not to make against reservation.  as it were, this his interpretation, ●he gathereth many arguments very 〈◊〉, out of many things, in such sore yet, that you may rather praise his invention, than require it to be taken of us for an assured conclusion. For (sayeth he) our Lord also did not di●●●● the ●read which he gave to his disciples, saying. Take and 〈◊〉, neither did be command it to be kept v●tyl the morrow. 
Mat. 26  Perc●a●●●● also this myst●rye is 〈◊〉, in that, that he doth not command bread to be carried in our w●y● or iourney●, to 〈◊〉 that we should bring ●●rth the bread of the word of God, 
Luc. 9  which we carry with us always new and fresh. Those Gabaonytes also, (of whom it is written in the 〈◊〉 of joshua) are therefore condemned and made hewers 〈◊〉 wood, and caryars of water, because they brought old 〈◊〉 bread unto the 〈◊〉, which the spiritual law 〈◊〉 command to occupy fresh and new. Hereby therefore it doth appear manifestly, that Origine did not intend to make a necessary conclusion, that the sacrament must not be reserved, no more than he doth affirm that the cause why the Gabaonites were made bondmen unto the jews, was; that they brought old crusts of who●e bread in their pouches and budgetes. But, as he was an exceeding subtile divine, and latbored to draw all things unto a good spiritual sense, so he sayeth, that Christ gave bread unto his Disciples, and bade them ●ate it straightways, and not keep it until the morrow, to signify that our preaching unto the people, and our praising of God, should be always new, that is to say, spiritual and hearty. Unto which his argument and reason, if I would answer and say, that neither Christ did bid his Apostles to eat his body straightways, and that granting also so much unto him, yet reservation of the sacrament in the church, might stand with Christ his fact in his supper well enough, I see not what might be replied against me, or how he should maintain his proposition. Yet because his conclusion is true (that in preaching of the Gospel, and praising of God, we should bring forth a new and spiritual sense,) I will not strive with him upon the premises, but rather be glad of his wyt●●e interpretation. As in an other example, to make this matter more easy, when some holy father saith that God at the beginning made two lights, one greater, an other smaller, to signify that the Christians are governed by spiritual and temporal officers. etc. I have not to contend with him upon his subtile collection, but to grant him that I see so much in the Son and Moon, because I am not hindered by his conclusion. To be short, this mystical Theology is not ●ounde and certain to make arguments by. Therefore if you think Origine, in this place, to serve for your purpose, and so to serve, that it is a more sound place for you, than is S. cyril's against you, then truly, as you may have perchance a good taste to try which baker of the town hath the best bread, so have you a very corrupt judgement undoubtedly, in the understanding of ancient Doctors, But let us hear now an other sound testimony of yours. He that wrote the sermon de coena Domini in Cyprian, 
Defence. fol. 71.  sa●eth plainly of the sacrament, Recipitur, non in●luditur, it is r●ceyued, not enclosed and shut up. First you might do well to name him which wrote these sermons, 
Reply.  and to show some probable authority why they are not S. Cyprianes. Then whereas you promised to bring such testimonies, which should be ●ound and not suspected, 
see the absurdity.  why allege you that sermon for your defence, which beareth the name of blessed S. Cyprian, and yet draw the authority of his name away from it, whereby it hath less commendation. Yet it is no● I, which doubt of the authority of that sermon, but glad I am, that though it be not S. Cyprians, yet it is of such a truth and antiquity, that a sound testimony may be borrowed always out of it. Only this I would have you warned of, that after fair and great promises of sound and ●●tentik● testimontes, you disgrace not your own cause, and give advantage unto your adversary to refuse that work as altogether of no authority, which yourself do think unworthy to be fathered upon a right learned Doctor. But now, whereas S. Cyprian, or that other, which (as you report) wrote that sermon, saith: The sacrament is received, and not included, or enclosed, and shut up, as you English it, what understand you, by shutting up of the sacrament? doth that place make against reservation of the sacrament? and is this an other of your sound testimonies, which you make so to sound as though the sacrament were not to be enclosed within a pyx, or shut up within some convenient place, one or other? S. Cyprian in that sermon, after many other excellencies, which he found to be in our sacrament of the altar, above the sacrifices of the jews, saith in further commendation of it, in this sort: The prerogative of the Levitical dignity, 
Cypr. in serm. de coena domini.  doth admit to these loeves and bread, not priests only, but the whole church is invited unto these banquets. An equal portion is given unto all, he is bestowed continuing whole, he is distributed and not dismembered, he is incorporated and not wronged or injuried, he is received and not included, dwelling with the weak● and sickly, he is not weak. etc. he is not offended with the service of the poor. A pure f●●yth, a 〈◊〉 mind doth delight this dweller, and the narrowness of our silly poor house, doth not offend or bind in the greatness of God, which is large and almighty. How say you then? is not the sense of those words, he is received, and not included, referred only unto the commendation and setting forth of Christ in the sacrament, which continueth always whole and one, although he should be divided among never so many persons? and is not included within them, which yet do receive him? Yet what a sense have you put upon this place? as though this were the meaning of it, 
they which have any understanding, let them for truth sake consider, how S. Cyprian, and the unlearned lay people are abused.  that Christ is received and not included, that is to say, we must receive the sacrament and keep no part of it until the next day, nor shut up any portion of it within pyx, box, or coffer, but straightways make a perfect communion, that there may be in any case no reservation. Yet in that place, there is nothing less intended, which (as every mean learned may perceive) is wholly set forth and decked, with the coupling of contraries together, as, To be distributed, which importeth a making of parts, and not to be dismembered, which signifieth no part to have been pulled from the whole. To be incorporated, which should not seem to be done without some alteration, and yet not to be injuried, which declareth again the thing to continent in his former estate. To be received, by which word we seem to have it within us, and not to be included, which setteth again the thing at liberty. Wherefore this place as it maketh nothing for your purpose, so yet it may serve us, and all other which have regard of their souls, to beware how they go upon other men's feet, or ride (if they be gentlemen) upon an others bayard, except they be sure before, that together with his boldness he hath also his eyes. After this, you allege out of Isichius that the residue of the sacrament not received, was in his time burned, and out of S. Clement, (whom you contemptuously do call our Clement) you recite that the ministers must with fear and reverence, eat up the remaynent of the consecrated hosts, whereupon you conclude that reservation was not generally used, which being granted unto you, it remaineth yet that S. cyril may stand well enough with S. Clement and Is●chius. For as examples are brought for declaration of both parts, so is reservation a thing indifferent to be used, or to be omitted. And like as we should prove ourselves very ignorant, if we should deny absolutely that reservation was at any ●yme omitted, so doth S. cyril say wisely and truly, that they are mad men, which make no price of the sacrament, if it be once reserved. In the later end of the chapter, you press us with S. Clement his authority, as though we had ever granted unto you, that all is to be followed now of necessity, which was once observed in the primitive church, or as though our answer had not ever been, that receiving alone or with company is in itself a thing indifferent. But it seemeth, you were well apaied, that you had shifted away the article of reservation, which troubleth you very ●ore, to which your answer is exceeding simple and unperfect, yea rather it is no answer at all. Because you confess as much as we do require, that reservation was then sometimes used. But you tell us, that sometimes it was not used, which maketh nothing so the purpose. Now one thing more will I say, and so end this chapter. You protested to admit the Doctors, in such degree as S. augustine teacheth you, which is to say, if they bring either scripture or good reason. therefore what say you to the reason, which S. Cyril maketh, that the sacrament, if it be reserved, is for all that of one state and strength, because the virtue and power of consecration continueth with it? It is not man which blesseth or consecrateth the bread, but it is Christ himself, which doth sanctify and change the bread and wine, whose word being permanent, and out of the danger and mutability of time, how can it be otherwise then his body, that which is once consecrated, if it should remain unreceived a thousand years to gather? unto this reason and question, you have to answer with all your cunning and learning.   

The ninth Chapter.  
SYrapion of Alexandria lying in his death bed, 
Euseb▪ lib. 6. cap. vlt.  sent in the night season for the priest to minister the sacrament unto him. The priest, being sick himself, delivered it to his lad, and bad him moist it, and so give it to his sick master. Of this history it is to be gathered, (sayeth the Catholic,) that the Sacrament was reserved, that it was received under one kind, and that it was received without company. Therefore what say you the Master of the defence unto it? First you answer, that It was a case of necessity, or great difficulty. 
Defence   
As though that were not enough for us to show, 
Reply.  that sole receiving, reservation, and receiving under one kind, are not against the substance of Christ his institution. secondly you tell us, that The history speaketh not generally of all that lie in their death ●edd, but only of one sort, 
Defence fo●. 73.  but only of one sort, that before were restrained from communion, whom they called penitentes.  
As though it were material what manner of person it was which lay in his bed, 
Reply.  and not rather in what manner of fashion he received the Sacrament, which in those days was reserved. For how soever the person was, the thing which belonged for, 
the shifts of the M. of the defence concerning the story of Sirapion are clean put ●waye.  is called his viaticum, which is his voyage provision, and was not so much given unto him because he should be thereby delivered from danger of excommunication, as that he might have comfort of the sacrament in the terrible passage from this world unto an other. And the p●●nitentes of the old time were not properly excommunicated, as they now are, which by definitive sentence are cut of from the body of Christ, but they continued in the pain which the officers of Christ his church did set upon their fault, and were in the mean time yet in the state of grace, so that if they had departed this world without the external receiving of the sacrament, yet they should not have been damned for ever, with those which died excommunicated. And therefore although Syrapion, was in a great necessity and difficulty, as concerning his own life, yet there was no such necessity wherefore he, more than any other Christian, should receive the sacrament as he did. Yea rather, if they which have not fully satisfied for their offences, are favoured yet so much of the church when they are at the point of death, that they shall enjoy the benefit which is reserved for true & upright Christians, how much more is it good reason, 
if excommunicate persons receive the Sacrament at their death, why should the upriht & free Christians be kept from it?  that he which hath not fallen into lapse, and hath not in any thing offended the church, should enjoy the comfort of his voyage provision, which is not denied unto the manifest before, & now penitent sinners? If the beggars at our door be served with the white bread of children, when pangs of sickness or death come upon them, how much more ought the children, to have of their own proper loaf, when they come unto the like cases? Ther● was one which told me, (saith blessed Chrisostome,) not which had been taught it of an other, 
De Sacer● dotio. lib. 6.  but which was accomp●ed worthy to see it and hear it him self, that they which are departing out of this life, if they be made partakers of these mysteries (meaning the Sacrament) with a p●●●e and clean conscience, when they are giving up the ghost, they are carried from hence up straightways into heaven by Angels, which for that holy thing sake, which was r●ceyued, do stand thick about their bodies in manner of a guard or of ranchmen. Therefore, as you can never prove, that reservation was used only for their sak●s, which perchance were like to die before they had done their penance: so yet, if that were true, we nevertheless obtain our purpose, which is, to declare that reservation, sole receiving, and rece●uing under one kind, are not necessarily forbidden by Christ his institution of his Sacrament. Which conclusion of ours you do (for the most part,) make as though you did not see, and you require still that we should prove the ordinary use of the Sacrament to have been at those days as it is now▪ and yet privily (your conscience I think pricking you) you come unto the same state at the which we hold the question, 
Hypocrite  and make as though yourself had invented what we might say, and that it were not already to be seen expressly in our writings. And therefore say you.  You will reply perhaps, and say, 
Defence fol. 7 ●.  by these examples it may appear● that 〈…〉 receiving is not of necessity, or if it had been, they would not have used the contrary. 
Yea Sir, this in deed is and shallbe always our conclusion, 
Reply.  not, as you devise, that we go about to prove, that the ordinary common and whole manner of receiving in the primitive church was with out company, or in one kind only, and therefore your answer in this point is much to be marked: which is this Necessity and extremity may cause some kind of God's commandments at times to be omitted etc. 
Defence  No doubt thereof, especially if the commandment appertain unto ceremonies and ordres in government, 
reply.  but to have company in receiving, it is (you say) a substantial part of the sacrament, without the which the sacrament hath not his inward perfection. Wherein, if you say true, Syrapion or any other should never have been suffered to receive the sacrament alone, and most plainly to go against Christ's own law and commandment. And if, in that case, he should have died without his comfort and voyage provision, them might you have used you● maxima and rule, that necessity had no law. As concerning the Sabbate day, which the jews were commanded so expressly to keep, which yet in time of necessity they did omit without breach of the commandment, it serveth nothing to your purpose, because it is in some respect ceremonial. For the tables of Moses comprehend in them nothing else, but the law of nature, unto which we are bound as well as the jews ever were, but how do we keep it, whereas our day of rest is not the Sabbate of the jews, but the next day after, and that, for the honour of Christ his resurrection?  
Christ hath not set us at liberty, to omit the natural law, but only the positive and ceremonial law of the jews. But now, we keep not the Sabbate day as they did, 
How the sabbat day is of necessity to be kept and how it admitteth dispensation.  ergo that commandment as concerning that day, pertaineth unto the positive law, which admitteth dispensation, and not the law of nature, which for no necessity is to be broken. If then i● were a point of ceremonial or positive law, to keep the seventh day holy, the jews, notwithstanding the charge which God gave unto them, might in cases of necessity work or fight upon the Sabbate day. But as concerning the natural precept, which is, that we shall take ourselves at some times unto quietness and rest from all worldly business, to consider therein the more earnestly the benefits and works of God towards us, there is no such necessity which may cause it to be omitted. Marry the appointing of the time for that purpose, and the naming of the first, second, or third month or day of the year, or the week, in the which we shall leave of all wordly toiling, and intend only upon God, this, as it is ruled by positive law, so in time of urgent necessity it may be dispensed withal, without breach of the law. Therefore some commandment of God may be not fulfiled in time of necessity, and after the necessity overcomed, it may return unto his former strength. But if God make, not politic orders, but immutable sacraments, and give unto those sacraments form and matter, such as shall be of the substance of them, 
No necessity can serve to omit or break any commandment of God concerning the substantce of it.  I say, that in this case no necessity is able to make it lawful, that the substantial order which he appointed, may be omitted. And so, no man can use cheese or milk in consecrating of the sacrament. And if receiving with company, be (as you report) a part of the substance of the sacrament, it can not at all be omitted, what so ever necessity should be alleged.  
Therefore, whereas reservation, and sole receiving, is so plainly proved by the history of Syrapion, that you can not deny it: it is not of necessity to receive straightways the sacrament, as soon as it is consecrated, or to receive it with company. Last of all, whether Syrapion received in form of bread only, or wine, because it were to no purpose to prove any one of them both, whereas you are provided to understand both forms under that one, which I might show to be agreeable unto that place, therefore I will not labour to prove receiving under one kind, by this history of Syrapion, contenting myself with this, that it proveth most manifestly the reservation and sole receiving of the sacrament.   

The tenth Chapter.  
IN the xiiij canon of the Nycene Council, it is proved, that Deacons have no authority and power to offer sacrifice. In the same Council and canon it is decreed, that neither Deacons should minister the sacrament unto Priests, neither receive it before Bishops. And further it is granted, that if the Bishops or Priests be absent, the Deacons may bring forth the sacrament, and eat it. Upon which propositions, the Catholic maketh this argument, to prove reservation, and saith: If the Deacons, (as it appeareth by this canon) which had no authority to consecrate, and to offer the sacrifice of Christ his body and blood, might in the Bishops and priests absence, fetch forth the sacrament, and receive it, can you deny, but it was reserved? how say you to this argument? The 
Defence fol. 76.  xiiij Canon of Nicene Council in no sense doth prove sole receiving, as you would have it seem to do. You be foully deceived, 
Reply.  and besides you make a shameful lie upon the Catholic, 
The M. of the defence doth overshoot himself wonderfully.  because he concludeth only (by that canon) reservation, and not sole receiving, in so much that he useth not the place to prove receiving under one kind, which, if he would follow your example in commenting upon a text, he might have done right well enough. But as concerning sole receiving, he hath no one word by which you should or might gather that he used the canon for that purpose. He asketh you most expressly, whether you can deny that, by the testimony of this Council, the sacrament was reserved? and you answer him, that it doth not prove sole receiving, and thereupon you make a great talk, and ye triumph in your own folly, and say, that you are beholding unto him for putting you in mind of this canon, and you think that he shall be little thanked for bringing in this Council, and, to be short, as though all were won, you sing, as it were, Te Deum, and you thank God that we are driven so much to our shifts, that we can not maintain falsehood, but that we are constrained to promote the truth. But, o Lord God, what hath been said wherefore this fellow should have such a vantage against us? or what falsehood is that, which we would maintain by this canon? or what truth is so singularly uttered, by reason of this our testimony?  
This canon (say you) doth not prove sole receiving. Marry, Sir, neither we have used it for that purpose. It proveth, (say you) that in the primitive church the manner was to receive with company. We knew this before you told us. Ergo (say you) all sole receiving is by this testimony confounded. I deny your argument, for as we confess and know, that receiving with company was ordinary in the church for some times and places, so we believe and have proved it before, that sole receiving hath sometimes been allowed. Where now then is your gay victory? We resist not your authorities, by which you may prove many to have received together, but we mislike with your discretion, which conclude that sole receiving is not therefore allowable. And again, what talk you in this place of sole receiving? Answer rather unto our argument, which proveth reservation. The Deacons could not consecrate, the Bishops and Priests being absent, in this case then (sayeth the holy Council) let the Deacons themselves bring forth the sacrament, and eat it. But how should they eat it, except they had it? and how should they have it, except it were first consecrated? or how could it be presently consecrated, when both Bishops and Priests were absent?  
Must it not follow necessarily, that it was reserved, in that they are licenced to take it forth themselves, and eat it? If you can deny, reservation to be proved by this place, we must wonder at your ignorancy: and if you confess it plainly, where is your proper answer unto it? Oh (say you) in these Deacons, which received in absence of the Bishop and Priests, There appeareth an extraordinary case. 
Defence fol. 77.   
Such is your ordinary answer, but wherein is the case extraordinary? 
Reply.  In that the Deacons receive it in absence of the Bishop and Priests, or in that it was reserved? It was ordinary, that the Priests should give the sacrament to the Deacons, but what if no Priest had been present? then, sayeth the Council, the Deacons may bring it forth, and serve themselves. And in this respect, you say truly, that here is an extraordinary case. But as concerning the reservation of the sacrament, how can you devise that it was extraordinary? Do you think when the Bishops or Priests were sure to tarry at home until the morrow, that they then did not make any store of the sacrament, 
The xiiij Canon of the Nicene Council confirmed to make for reservation.  but presently bestow it among the communicantes, and when they could not intend the mysteries the next day following, think you, that they consecrated more hosts than needed for that time present, and said unto the Deacons: Sirs, here is the sacrament for you in store until to morrow? But what necessity was there for the Deacons to receive on the morrow, that the breach of Christ his institution might be somewhat thereby excused? Truly the Deacons should tarry, not only one day, but one whole year, rather than reservation should be admitted, if so great fault (as you say) be in it. Now, if the sacrament were not reserved upon such a special case, how can you say, that the reservation was extraordinary? And if the reservation were ordinary, (as undoubtedly it was,) make the case then of the Deacons receiving as extraordinary as you will, and it letteth our purpose nothing. For we consider, not the act of the Deacons in any other sense or meaning, then as it proveth reservation. And here you shall note further, that the sacrament was reserved not only for such which lay in their death beds, and were not reconciled unto the church, 
Fol. 73.  (as you said in the chapter before) but also that it served the uncorrupted and faithful Christians, whiles they were yet in good health, except you can think that the Deacons, whom the Nycene Council permitteth to take forth the sacrament, and eat it, were either excommunicated persons, either such as could not go abroad for weakness. Now, as concerning the receiving under one kind, as it might be showed out of this place, if we would dally, as you do use, and as concerning your great invective against us, (as though any of us did make a trifle of Christ his institution, and not rather reprove your interpretations, which make that to be Christ's which is not his,) as also concerning S. Cyprian, 
Cypria. ad Cecil. ep.  whom you full madly allege for your purpose, which all together in that his epistle, proveth that wine and water should be mingled together in our sacrifice, I will not speak at this present, because the first is not maintained of us, the second is not to be regarded, and the third had been spoken of before. But as concerning reservation, which we say, and say again, to be most manifestly proved by the testimony of the Nycene council, therein we have you so fast bound that all accustomed shifts do fail you: & you w●ll not say (I trust) either that council to be of small reputation, although the Bishop of Rome's legates were chief men there, either the case of reservation to have been extraordinary, or that the church was driven unto it by plain necessity for their syckmens' sake, which lay at the point of death, and were excommunicated from other Christians.   

The eleventh Chapter.  
SAint Cyprian in his fifth sermon de lapsis, declareth, how an infant, which had received before of bread and wine offered up to Idols, had afterwards among Christians the blood of Christ powered into her mouth by the Deacon of the church. And straightways yexing and vomiting followeth, because that the sacrament could not abide in a body and mouth defiled. Of this history it is gathered, that the babe received the sacrament in form of wine only. For if the body had been received before, it would no more have tarried in a polluted mouth then the blood did, but she was wonderfully vexed, or sore vexed, (for both these phrases are used of the Catholic in his Apology) not before the blood was powered into her mouth, but immediately after, therefore it is very evident, that she received only in form of wine. Nay (say you) the first trouble which the child had, was even in the ●yme of prayer, before the sacrament was distributed. It was so in deed. For the child cried out, and turned herself hither and thither for anguish of mind and inward torment. But who suspected any harm thereof? or who did collect thereby, that the child was defiled within, by reason of wine sops, which were given to her, of the offerings to Idols? But the sore and grievous vexing of her, the yexing and casting up of that which she had received, appeared first when the blood of Christ was powered into her mouth. And note the cause wherefore it appeared then first, that the child had been before polluted. Marry (sayeth Saint Cyprian) the drink which was sanctified in the blood of our Lord, did burst up out of the polluted bowels. So great is the power of God, so great is his majesty. If therefore, the presence, and majesty of God, when it came into the babe, did straightways reveal that, which before was unknown, his power and presence being no less under the form of bread, than it is of wine, out of all doubt the fact of the child had been bewrayed, before she had come to the receiving of wine, if it had received the sacrament first of all in form of bread. Because the power and majesty of God, 
The story of the child in S. Cyprian. Ser. 5. de lapsis, confirmed to make for receiving under one kind.  which is fully and perfectly under the form of bread, would not have stayed in the defiled mouth or body, but straightways have worked to the example of others. And therefore, the argument of the Catholic continueth in all his strength and force, although the child were vexed before it received of the chalice. For it was not vexed at the time of prayer, so sore that it cast up anything, and the fault was not espied before the blood was powered into her, and then it was first of all opened, because of the presence and majesty of God, whose presence being as certain under one kind, as under the other, the sacrament of the body would no more have tarried within her, than the sacrament of the blood, if the child had received the body before the blood. well then, say you, If it were so, 
Defence fol. 82.  it is not most evident, that it was either because the child was so young that it could not, or so troubled, that it would not take the sacrament of the body? As concerning the foremost of these causes, 
Reply.  it is very credible. for that it seemeth by S. Cyprian, that it was a sucking child left upon the hands of the nurse the parents being fled away. But the second is very unlike, for as the resistance on the child's part did not let the Deacon, but that he powered the blood into her mouth, so although she would not have taken the sacrament of the body, yet she might as well have been enforced thereunto, as to receive of the chalice. And also, if that opinion which you hold now, had then been in the church, that it is against Christ his institution, to receive under one kind, they would never have proffered the chalice unto any such as would not have received first and for most the body, as you are wont to recite a fragment out of Gelasius, which you understand not, that the division of one and the self same mystery, can not be done without great sacrilege. But let both your reasons stand, is it not proved then sufficiently, that to receive in both kinds is not of the necessity of Christ his institution? And where then is your wit, to grant us that, by which our purpose is brought to pass? For although you think, that you shall take no foil, to grant that in necessity one kind might be used, and that necessity which hath no law, may cause a commandment of God to be omitted, and although you may be so easily entreated to permit receiving in one kind, that because the child, of whom we have spoken, would not or could not receive the sacrament of Christ his body, you think it to be a case of necessity, in which the institution and law of Christ should or might be omitted: yet if you consider, that yourself do take the receiving under both kinds to be of the substance of Christ his institution, and not of the circumstance, and to be, not an ornament only but an express commandment, certainly when you grant us, that in any kind of case, it may be allowed to receive the Sacrament under one form, either of bread or wine, you be straightways convicted, that Christ his institution doth not necessarily require them both. For such commandments of God, as are given concerning circumstances and ceremonies, they may be omitted in time of necessity without any offence committed, but if he give commandment for the necessary and substantial either form or matter of any sacrifice or sacrament, necessity can not excuse us, if we should offer sacrifice or minister sacrament in other form and matter, than was appointed by God. But to omit and leave altogether undone, (the commandment I mean of sacrifice or sacrament) therein necessity shall have good place, and save us from the danger of the law. Wherefore you, which make the receiving under both kinds to be of the necessary substance of Christ his institution, do utterly destroy this your straying conclusion, in granting that sometimes one kind may be lawfully used, and you speak also in labouring for communion in both kinds, 
Vide Hosium in confession Cathol. pa. 87  directly against your father Luther, which in more than one place declareth the precept of receiving both kinds to be in itself indifferent, 
Lutherus in libro de formula Missae.  and such as he, at his own pleasure, in some cases would either use or refuse. Whereby it may well be gathered, how little ye pass, either what ye affirm, either what ye deny, which say, that any man conversant in Luther's books, may right well judge, that it is not so, as we report of him.   

The twelve and xiij Chapter.  
From this place forth, although the Catholic doth frame the conclusion of his treatise, unto which when any one cometh, he seemeth to be at the end of his labour, yet by reason of this conclusion, such principal matters are moved, that if they should be answered throughly, we had need to make a new beginning. For we have to reason about the continuance of the church, the authority of the Fathers, and the real presence of Christ in the sacrament, which are so necessary and chief points to be considered, that I must not speak nothing of them, and yet I have been so long here before in trying the master of the defence, that I must not say all that I can, but with convenient speed dispatch these worthy questions.  
First then as it hath been proved against you, that the six hundred years, which immediately followed the a●cension of our Saviour, are not wholly with you, for all your great cracks, so we may wonder not a little, why you make exception against these last nine hundred years, by the practise of which you refuse to be tried? Is this (think you) a small and week argument to confirm and stay our consciences upon, that for ix hundred years space, you, our adversaries, can not deny unto us, but that all Bishops, Universities, Realms, and states of Christendom, have quietly continued in one kind of true Apostolic faith, until within these few days, that all the old catholic religion hath in some places been abolished by public authority? If a rennegat and dissolute friar, be thought worthy of estimation, because he hath at these days many followers, are not the religious in deed, which continued in great numbered and with much praise in their orders, much more to be regarded? If this be the time of grace and light, in which we may see and lament, vows broken, monasteries overturned, the lands of Christ and his church alienated, virginity, fasting, praying, and all rules of good and perfect life contemned▪ what time was that, in which the contraries of all these, were highly commended and practised? 
Continuance of time, doth not a little make for the doctrine of the catholi●●● church.  The continuance only, of a religion .900. years▪ without interruption, is a very probable argument not lightly to pass away from it. But when it is considered, how many learned and godly men, how great Universities, how mighty Princes lived within the compass of those years, and that of them all no one of the good and learned, did any thing write or preach against it, and none of the Princes either would either could resist it, who but unsensible, may think that it should not be of God? Although that heresies do very shamefully increase, and that there be so many sects and divisions among them, that no one part can ever be great, although the whole world were overturned unto heresy, yet at this day more Catholics are in Christendom, than Lutherans, zwinglians, Osiandrians, Caluinyans, anabaptists, and all the rest, of the like making, together. For these heresies are yet (God make them narrower) but here and there dispersed, and germany the mother of them, is for a great part of it full Catholic. Yet as little place as the new gospel hath, in comparison of Christendom, see how much he, whom you take for no small fool, 
the author of the Apology of the English church f●lio. 8.  doth crack and brag of that little. Be ye sure (saith he) so many free cities, so many kings, so many Princes, as at this day have abandoned the sea of Rome, and adjoined themselves to the Gospel of Christ, are not become mad. Lo Sir, if this fellow might so truly have reported, that all Kings, all Princes, all free cities of Christendom were of his religion, as he doth falsely make an account of so many free cities, so many kings, so many princes, etc. how great an argument would you think that he did make for your side? And again, if he had been able to prove, that for ix hundred years together, Kings, and Princes, and free cities had continued in his faith without open contradiction, how mad would he have said all such to be as resist a religion confirmed by such authority and continuance? But this is your practice, to deny all things, which make presently against you, and to allow the same again, when hereafter they may serve for you, 
As the world changes, so do the conclusions of heretics.  and so long as you be in danger of law, No man must be violently constrained to receive the religion which his conscience can not allow. And when the Prince and power is with you, then say you, Hanging is to good for him, which will not believe as you do. And so, in the apology of your English church, the argument was ●ound, and comfortable, that because many Kings had abandoned the sea of Rome, therefore they might seem not to be mad, which did follow them: and now in this your defence of the truth, (as you call it) when we allege continuance, and authority of ix hundred years, you say, that multitude maketh not to the purpose, and you think yourself not a little wise in reproving of our argument. But how wise you prove yourself therein, it is worthwhile to consider. First, you say, that the prescription of xu hundred years, the consent of the most part of Christendom, the holiness and learning of so many fathers as have been these ix hundred years, the age and slender learning of those which stand against you, (all which things we do bring for our defence,) These things (say you)  Do nothing at all, either fear us, 
Defence.  or move us, to suspect that doctrine, which by Christ's authority, and witness of the apostles, we know to be true. 
Stood you by the Apostles at their elbows, 
Reply.  when they wrote their gospels or epistles? or were you then present with Christ, when he walked visibly upon the earth, and by signs and miracles proved himself to be the son of God? truly, because your eye was not present at the writing or working of our redemption, 
Faith cometh by hearing.  you must therefore resort unto such as may instruct you of all things by the ear. And because credit is not lightly to be given, to an history which is told us of things passing reason, 
Authority persuadeth  therefore they ought to be of good authority, whose words we should believe in the articles of everlasting salvation. But there can be no greater, than the testimony of all Christendom: and they be few, obscure, 
No greater authority, than the testimony of the whole world.  and unknown, whom you would have to be our masters: therefore no reasonable and wise man will suspect the authority of the world, and falsely persuade himself, that he beleiveth Christ or his Apostles, when he hath contemned the voice of Christendom, which caused him to believe in Christ, and credit his Apostles. For how know you what doctrine Christ or his Apostles have taught in the world? If you know it by the scriptures, what persuadeth you these scriptures to be true? For when any new scripture and unheard of us before, is alleged or commended unto us by a few, without any reason which is able to confirm it, 
Aug. de utilitate credendi cap. 14.  we believe not first the scripture, but them rather which brought it forth unto us. Therefore, who told you that these be true scriptures? If you name Luther, and such as he was, you have done very rashly to believe incredible articles at the report of an upstart rennegate, which confirmed his authority by no miracle. But on the other side, if Luther and you both have been content to receive the scriptures of the Catholics, lest you should be accounted over frantic or scrupulous, in doubting whether all Christendom were not deceived therein, by what reason then can you suspect the continuance, piety, learning, and multitude of Catholics in the church of God, and refer yourself unto Christ, and his Apostles, with contempt of the mystical body of our Saviour? whereas you could not by reason, without miracle, believe in Christ and trust the Apostles, except the authority of the Catholic church, which you see to continue in the world, did move you? I would not believe the Gospel, (sayeth holy S. Augustine) except the authority of the Catholic church did move me thereunto. 
Aug. c●. 5. contra epist. fundamenti  Wherefore, the continuance of ix hundred years, is and should be so worthily regarded, that even the authority of the church, which now is, should by herself persuade you to believe her. But, (say you) our possession which we brag of, hath not been quiet. For in the .600. next after Christ, our doctrines were never heard of (which is a very fowl lie, as it hath been already here before proved) and as concerning the 900. following, they did not take place so soon as we would have wished them. Let us see then, how you prove that. Marry, say you when they were rooted, 
Defence fol. 86.  God stirred up from time to time, divers in all ages, that reproved them.  
This shall be no lie at all, 
Reply.  if you can name the persons. And because we will not trouble you much, we shall require of you but the name of one for your side against us, for every one of the last .900. years, in which Christendom generally hath gone against you. If you dare, and if you can, show now your cunning and learning, 
An honest proffer.  so shall the world easily perceive, what manner of predecessors you have had in your religion, and what manner of credit you give to holy & blessed men, or else what a great and open lie you have made in this matter. For to make this more plain in one short example: In S. Bernard's time we read of certain, which named themselves Apostolicos, as if you should say, followers of the Apostles, and some of their opinions were these: That marriage was unlawful, 
D. Ber. Ser. 66. sup. Can. Cant.  except it were between virgin & virgin: that all meats which come of engendering are unclean: that children are not to be baptized: that the dead are not to be prayed for: and that there is no fire of purgatory after death, but that straightways the souls go up to heaven or down to hell.  
How say you then by these fellows? shall they be in the numbered of them, whom God stirred up against our doctrines for that age, in which S. Bernard was? If you say, they were of God, then do you condemn Saint Bernard, which of purpose wrote against them in his .66. sermon upon Cant. Canticorum, and you must also then forbid marriage, flesh meats, and baptizing of children. If you say, they were not of God, then let us have your testimony, that they were vile heretics, and so shall you hold with praying to Saints, praying for the dead, purgatory. etc. And further, tell us what they were in S. Bernard's time▪ (except they were these) which God stirred up to reprove our doctrines? Now, if you will or can tell what they were in every one of these last .900. years, whom God sent to testify his truth against the doctrine of our known Catholic church, it will follow, I am assured, that you shall name either plain heretics, or else condemn most holy and learned men, whom now you will not seem, but to receive with much favour and reverence. But now again what an unlike tale is this, that for these .900. years God hath from time to time laboured, and at no time prevailed, and that he, being almighty, hath stirred up the hearts of divers in all ages to reprove our doctrine, and yet that no man knoweth their writings, or the only names of those jolly prophets? when the holy Ghost was not yet given, because JESUS was not yet glorified, and in the night and shadows of the old law, yet the longest captivity that ever the people of God had, was much less than .400. years in Egypt, and when it pleased God to send them deliverance, consider with what divine force and power, he made Moses and Aaron to overturn the might of Pharaoh. But we, 
Exo. 13.  which are in the time of grace, and are conducted, not by Moses, and a pillar of fire, or a cloud, but by JESUS CHRIST, and his holy and comfortable spirit: yet (say you) we have been in miserable and blind captivity these. 
Io. 14. & 16.  900. years together, and the prophets, whom God hath sent unto us, have left no sign of their doings. The spiritual powers (you say, 
Defence.  but you lie) have disgraced such men and abolished their books, and memories as much as might be, flatterers also have corrupted ancient fathers, and forged new works, etc. It were pitty to trouble your weak head with the proving of all these things at large, 
reply.  therefore we will ask no more of you at this time, 
slanderous lies of the M. of the defence.  but that you tell us the names only, of those spiritual powers, corrupters, and flatterers, with the place where we shall find it declared, that there were such, as you report some to be. Not because I deny that flatterers and forgers are to be found among the Christians, but because you can never prove, that by such means our doctrine hath been maintained, against the will of God, and labours of his servants. As for the donation of Constantyne, (although it appertain to no article of our faith, who so ever gave it, so that the church lawfully have it,) yet we have to say further therein against you, when you have declared how Saint Sylvester came by the possession of Rome with many Seignioryes belonging unto it, or what Constantyn the Emperor did with the old and ancient Rome, when he builded his palace at Byzant, and called it Constantinople and new Rome? Then for your reciting of places out of the Decrees, such as are not found in the Doctors upon whom they are fathered, except any place in all the Decrees, contain an untrue and ungodly doctrine, it is no matter of my faith, (I assure you,) if the author be mistaken, and if the scribe or the printer do fail in his memory or attention. And last of all, where you say, that the east church hath not allowed our errors, I will make no other reply against that your saying at this time, but desire you to consider quietly, how well they are rewarded for their labour. For whilst they, contentiously and wickedly endeavoured to make themselves and their Archebishopp as high as the Bishop and church of Rome, 
Pride will have a fall.  and to depart from the unity thereof, they were brought in to miserable and pitiful bondage, and affecting the first place, whilst they flourished in the second, they are long ago fallen in to the lowest and worst of all. And if you think it more sure, to believe the Greek then the Latin church, tell us, I pray you, what you believe of the holy ghost? And so, whereas the donation of Constantyne, and quotations of the decrees do make nothing for you, so should the example of Grece give an occasion to amend you. When you consider that the whole West church within itself hath continued so many hundred years in one state of doctrine, and that her sister and fellow the East church in coveting to be maestres, hath lost her perfect liberty, of body, by reason of the Turks, of soul, because of schism and the devil. But, as you be always good unto us, when it is not worth thanks, (as you do give it) so you suffer us to take that, as it were a gift of your hands, which for very truth and evidency of the matter, we do wring clean out of your fingers whether you will or no. And you say: But be it so, 
Defence fol. 87.  that the most part of Christendom ix hundred years, hath taught as you do, is that a sufficient argument, to reject a doctrine evident by the word of God? Sir, if a doctrine be evident by the word of God, 
Reply.  there is no cause left to reject it, but in this case, when one shall say, here is Christ in Geneva, an other say, here is Christ in Wyttenberge, an other say, behold he is 〈◊〉 the woods of Bohemye, every faction pulling the simple unto it, here lo, to try such voices whether they come of God or no, the sure way is, to hearken unto the practise and doctrine of the most part of Christendom, as it hath been for hundreds of years together. And continuance of time in one doctrine with multitude of followers, doth make a very good persuasion to reject the upstart and unaccompanied religion. Nay, (say you) if continuance of time, and multitude of persons, might be rulers to govern men's consciences, than would that argument serve For the Israëlites against the jews, 
Defence fo. 89.  for the priests against the prophets, for the jews & Gentiles against Christ & his Apostles, for the Turks against us Christians at this day.  
See, 
Reply.  lo, how you be deceived? For I would say, first, not that a multitude of Turks are better than a few Christians, or that a long continued Idolatry, is better than a new religion, 
In what sense, the multitude of followers and the continuance of a religion, are to be considered.  but in conferring Turk with Turk, jew with jew, Christian with Christian, and so forth, I say, if the Mahomates law were good, and that schisms and divisions should arise among the professors of it, that then, the surest way should be, so to understand and receive that law, as it hath been taken of longest time before, and of the most part of all Turks. And in like manner, when so ever among us which profess one Christ, divisions and taking of parts do trouble men's consciences, the best way is, by all good reason, to follow that side which hath longest continued, and which hath most voices for it. And so, it a Turk or paynim, would allege continuance of time to prove thereby his religion to be good, the next and wisest way to answer him, is not to call him unreasonable and foolish for the bringing of that argument, (for undoubtedly unto our natural and common reason it is no tryfeling persuasion to see continuance and multitude of followers to be with us,) but the right way of converting or confounding them in that argument, is, either to show that natural reason is against them, (as it was in their worshipping of stocks and stones,) either by miracle to persuade them, (as the Apostles in their days have done, or as good and religious persons do in this our time among the Indians,) or else to show, that it is no wonder, if the religion of which they be, hath already long continued, and shall from hence forward increase daily, because it giveth liberty unto the flesh, and unto all bodily pleasures. But the continuance and multitude of followers which commend the doctrine of the church are so notable and myraculouse, that except the finger of God were here, it is unpossible it should be regarded. For prescript fastings, watchings, prayers, preferring of virginity before wedlock, submitting of our own wills unto the commandment of others, confessing of our secret faults, quiet suffering of hard penance, these are very much against the nature and appetite of our flesh: on the other side, that which the church teacheth, 
the miracle of the continuing of the Catholic faith.  of saints, of souls departed, of seven sacraments, and especially of that one, in which almighty God is received, all this is so far beyond the capacity of carnal reason, that except faith be infunded, it is never rightly believed. Yet this religion so repugnant unto natural appetite, so much surmounting all reason, hath been embraced of the poor and rich, the simple and the learned, the stout and the tender, the beggars and the Caesar's, and in spite of the devil, the world, the flesh, and heretics, hath continued these xu hundred years, as we believe, and as you be sorry for it, these nine hundred years together. It is no wonder, if a turkish religion be much made of and cherished, for they are permitted to have here carnal pleasures, & for the world to come, they are promised to have their full of them. Again, I do not marvel, if many follow Luther the Father, or any of his evil favoured brood and children, for the flesh doth well allow it, to eat what it will at all times, to be free from early rising, to have short service in the church, to have matrimony no sacrament, to be bound to no ceremony, and to be subject unto none other authority, than the express scripture. But, that the Catholic religion, which is so exact, so devout, and so grave, that it maketh the carnal men to wyssh that it were out of the world, should have continual followers of it, and before so long time preserved, it is not for flesh and blood to bring it to pass, but it is the very work of God, whom nothing can resist and withstand. Consider also their lives and manners, which have been among other, the maintainers of it. And because none are more odious unto the world, than prelate's, monks, and friars, I wish that some of them were rightly considered. For if you can believe histories and monuments, what fault do you find in S. francis, and S. Dominike, if you will read their books, what can you say against S. Bernard, S. Bonaventure, S. Thomas of aquine, Rupertus, Anselmus, Dionysius the Carthusian, with a numbered of such holy and reverend fathers? whose writings sufficiently declare, how much they remembered Christ, how diligently they did read the scriptures, how freely they reproved faults, and lamented the evil life of Christians, how much they were acquainted with the sweet spirit of God, and practised in fighting for the soul against the devil. The doctrine therefore of our church, hath not only continued marvelously, but continued in many, and in those many no few have been excellent, and in such sort excellent, that, if not before, it might our religion have been now allowed, because such godly and grave heads did use it. Whereas on your side, if your inventions were tolerable, yet those Apostles of yours, whom in these latter days (you say) God hath stirred to reprove our vice and irreligion, and to revive his truth and testament, have been so vile themselves, that undoubtedly God did never send them, and a reasonable man should never follow them. What an Apostle was Luther? who gave him leave to break his vow, which those holy men, whom even now I named, did keep unto death? who moved him to lie with a noun? If he lived chaste, being yet within his order, what spirit (trow you) was that, which could not afterwards keep him chaste, when he was selected to preach a Gospel? Then, 
Luther.  if he lived abominably when he was kept in Cloister, was he a meet instrument for God, to work the redemption of his church so long deceived? And if God had forgeaven his former great offences, that he should be more humble in preaching of grace and mercy, would he so soon have forsaken him, that in the heat of his preachementes, he could not but take a noun to his bedfellow? And as he was in his doings, so is he in his writings, so shameless, so filthy, so unclean, so slanderous, so mutable, so presumptuous, and so desperate, that it is wonder that he is accounted for a man, & much less, for a man of God. I speak these things, to declare, what difference there is between our holy Abbates, and your rennegate friars, the followers of our religion, and the founders of yours, to enforce you hereby, to show what you think of S. Bernard, S. Bonaventure, S. Denyse, and others, and to signify hereby unto you, that as we stay upon continuance and numbered, so yet we rejoice at the virtues and graces, which have and do appear plainly in many of this numbered. wherefore, it is not without cause, that we are confirmed in our faith and doctrine, because of such a continuance of it. Note, that I say, such a contynuanbe. For Turks, Sarracenes, and paynims may allege continuance, but such a continuance, in which the doctrine taught, is grievous unto the carnal man, and yet received, and the greatest professors of it, are hated of all heretics, and yet for conscience and wordly shame are not condemned: such a one (I say) is much to be regarded, and such a one is not found, but only among the Catholics. whose ways in doctrine, if they be not open & secure, especially so great company for so long time going in them with prosperous faring to their journeys end, then will I never trust any way, but be, as the company is, indifferent to go with every one, until I am weary. But thanks be to God, he hath better provided for us, appointing his catholic church to be the pillar and stay of true religion. 
1. Timo. 3.  Which, although it is quickly to be found out, because it is in deed Catholic, yet you think it necessary to examine what is the church, and how it may be known. Go to then, we will follow you to the end of your defence, in every conclusion which you make against us. 
The Scripture (say you) speaketh of the church two ways, 
Defence fol. 90. &. 91.  sometime as it is in deed before God, & not known always to man's judgement. etc.  
Sometime the church is taken for the universal multitude of all those, which being dispersed through the world, acknowledge one Christ. etc.  
Sometime the church is taken for the multitude of those that bear rule in the church.  You perform more than you promised. 
Reply.  We looked but for two ways, and you have declared three, in which the scripture speaketh of the church, by which it appeareth, that you have pretty knowledge, but you keep little good order in setting forth your divisions. Yet go to, as concerning the first sense, which you make of the church, what make you of her? Can it ere, or no? No (say you) this church is the pillar of truth, that never continueth in error. This church is never forsaken of the spirit of God. In to this church none be received but only the children of grace and adoption. How might a man then (I pray you) know this church? Verily neither you, neither any other can tell. 
Of the church as it consisteth of the chosen whom God only knoweth, little profit is to be gotten.  For whereas it consisteth of such, as be the elect and chosen, who can say either of himself, that he is one of them, or how can one say that of an other, whose heart he seeth not, which he can not understand of his own case, which is best known unto himself? Therefore as concerning the profit and commodity which they that would, might take of this church, which is the pillar of truth, we can receive very little of it, because she is invisible unto man, and known only before God. And if you dare say, that this church may also be known unto man, I would you had shown one token or other of her, that we might be sure where to find the pillar of truth.  
Now as concerning the church, which is dispersed through the world, and acknowledgeth one Christ, and is Through baptism admitted thereunto, and by the use of the lords supper, openly professeth the unity thereof in doctrine and charity: Is this church (trow you) the pillar of truth, or what other opinion shall we have of her? This church, (say you) is resembled unto a net, 
Defence fol. 91.  which hath good and bad in it, it is resembled unto a field which hath pure corn and cockle also in it.  
You say herein truly, and you agree now very well with the catholic church, 
Reply.  which teacheth us, that in this world, the good and evil Christians are mingled together. You make also much, against certain heretics, which stand in it stoutly, that only the elect are of the household and family of God, which yet (as you have clerkly defined it,) can not be so, because the good and the bad which acknowledge one Christ, and receive the sacraments, are the true church of Christ. Granting therefore unto you, that the church hath good men and evil in her, I ask now the cause of you, wherefore you labour to prove that this church may go out of the way for some part of her? you tell us of Noah, of the ten tribes of Israel, of the Prophets, of the captivity of Babylon, and other such histories. But to what end and purpose? if you will prove thereby, that they which bear the name of the people of God have often times forsaken his law, and destroyed his Prophets, you have spoken that, for proof whereof I would never have gone to the flood of Noah, having so many examples at home, to make this conclusion manifest. For all they which be Christened, do bear the name of the people of God, and the promises are made only unto them, yet this world may declare how many coniurars, dissemblers, wicked livers, faithless ministers, lecherous friars and desperate perverters of all law and honesty, do live in the church. But if you would prove, that, because a great numbered was deceived, therefore the whole church was subverted, you speak altogether without book. For, (to consider one example for all,) in the time of Elias the Prophet, when he, good man, thought, that all had forsaken God besides himself, yet said God unto him, I have left myself seven thousand in Israel, 
3. Reg. 19  which have not bowed their knees before Baal. And before that, it is plain by the book of kings, that Abdyas the steward of king Achab his house, 
3. Reg. 18.  did hide a hundred Prophets of God from the sight of jezabel the queen, and fed them with bread and water. Therefore, as it can not be denied, but that they which have borne the name of the people of God, have not always and wholly followed him, so yet it can never be proved, that the visible church of God hath been in all her parts subverted. And yet in the old law, the church was not then so richly endowed as it was afterward in the coming of Christ and his holy ghost, neither were those words spoken then, which have been spoken sense and now presently do take place, our Saviour faithfully promising unto Saint Peter, 
Matth. 16.  that Thou art Peter (which is to say) a rock, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. So that if nothing might be said to the contrary, but that in the old law the church of God was not to be found, (which is unpossible to be proved, 
Psal. 2. ) yet in this time of grace, when all nations of the world are in the heritage of Christ, as only the Israelites than were: 
Io. 1.  and when for figures we have truths: for Moses' the servant and his chair, 
Hebr. 3.  jesus the son of God and his lieutenant: for the inspirations which came at sundry times upon the Prophets, a continual presence of the majesty of the holy ghost: 
Io. 14.  for promises under condition to tarry with them if they would follow his commandments, most absolute performance of the spirit of truth to be with us until the worlds end: in this time of grace so glorious, so much made of, so dear and welbe loved, so defenced, so privileged, to make so hard and pinching reckoning, that the light of the world should be covered under some bushel, and that city be unperceavable, which Christ himself planted upon the top of a hill, 
Math. 5.  it is an ignominious and jewish, and cruel disgracing of the church of Christ. But because we may have a better time and leisure, to speak against you in this matter, if this visible church, which hath continued so long in one manner of doctrine and sacraments, be not the true church of God, because the visible church of the jews had not always the truth of doctrine, And if it must follow, because the kings of juda were some times idolaters, that the clergy of those times agreed unto them, 
Unreasonable consequencies  and if some did so in deed, that all therefore without exception did it, or if, because the Prophets reproved the manners of the high Priests, therefore they condemned their doctrine and religion, or if Christ, because he was condemned of the high Priests, said not unto the people concerning the doctors of Moses' law: Do that which they say unto you, 
Matth. 23.  but do not after their doings. And, (to be short) if all these unreasonable consequencies (which would please you very well) should be granted unto you, tell us then, for conscience sake, what church we shall follow? If the church of Rome, which hath been and is so well received, hath been and may be untrue persuaded, may not that church, which you perchanse, shall point out unto us with your little finger, be also with good likelihood very foully deceived? And may not one third person, commend unto us an other church, which agreeth with none of our two, and yet is nothing the better? In this doubt, which doth so necessarily arise, what is your ghostly counsel unto such as are fearful of conscience? The right church therefore, 
Defence fol. 98.  as the fold of Christ, hath the true word of God and use of his sacraments, according unto the same, for the due marks thereof. After this manner, you shall have some times the simple idiots of the country to make answer unto strangers ask the right way unto this or that place, 
Reply.  which they would come unto. For, (say they) you must go by my grandsires close, and then keep the straytwaye, and you shall never miss. Or else, like as a man would send his servant to London for a cup of pure and clean wine, 
uncertain marks to know the church by, alleged by the M. of the defence  and tell him that he shall be sure to have it there, where he seeth an ivy garland to hang at the door, or the drawer of the wine to use no deceitful brewing of it, (whereas the ivy garland is no certain token of good wine ready to be sold, and every tapster will easily say for his own truth and honesty,) so you have told us such marks to know the true church by, that as the true church hath them in deed, so yet every misbegotten congregation, will challenge them unto herself. Except you think, that Luther and Zuinglius, with all their forked tails of heresies, do not each of them stand in it, that they have the true word of God, and right use of the sacraments on each of their sides, which yet are contrary the one to the other. I had thought, you would have told of one such mark and sign to come by the knowledge of the true church, that in all the controversies of opinions, and all the evil conditions of living, we might have been directed unto one certain and approved stay of our consciences, and you, (to declare your wisdom and understanding) have named two such marks, as every kind of religion will boldly challenge unto herself. First, the true word of God (say you) is one true mark of the church.  
what mean you then, by the word of God? for if you mean the volume of the old and new testament, and that wheresoever we find the bible in any persons hands, that we must thereby straightways take this for a certain token, that he which hath the bible in his hand is one of the right church, so shall you have not only yourself, but Arrians, anabaptists, and all the rabble of miscreants, to be of the true church, by good likelihood. On the otherside, if you mean by the word of God, the two testaments, not as they are to be sold at bookebynders shops, but as they are expounded of sincere and true preachers, what token them shall we have of you, to know readily who is a true preacher? And as I have said of this first mark which you give, so may I say again of your second, which is, the right use of the sacraments. Which as I will grant unto you, to be rightly practised only within the true church, so yet you have to show us further, how I may know such as do minister them accordingly. You would prove by S. Augustine, S. Cyprian, Saint Chrisostome, and Origine, that the scripture is the true trial of the church. Yea Sir, in one sense that is true in deed, as also that the church maketh the trial and declaration of the true scripture. But, that ever any good and reasonable man had this meaning, that who so ever would, might take the scriptures into his hands, and sit judge over the church, I deny it utterly, and I am sure, you can never prove it. For as the scripture declareth which is the true church, so doth the church show the authority of the scripture, and the scripture and the church, are the better, the one for the other of them. Do you think to make us afeard by the appealing unto scripture? or do you labour to move a suspicion, that you only have the Gospel for you? Verily we are content to be tried, not only by the scriptures, but even by those holy fathers, which you deprave in this place towards your purpose. The controversy now, between us and you, is the same, 
Mark this place.  which was between S. Augustine and the Donatists. We seek for the church, and the place where she resteth. You say, that it hath been unknown, defaced, obscured, and coarcted, you say that it is now in England, and before these last lx years, you knew not where she was to be found. On the other side, we believe that it hath been and shall be continually visible, tholike, upon the top of the hill, not in gardens or chambers, not in corners of countries, but in the open sight of the world. And here now at this point we shall have no other thing, but our yea and our nay. Yes (say you) let the matter be tried by scripture. So let it be, and because you are so trimly seen in them, that you will make us altogether ignorant, show us your scriptures to prove your pretty, narrow, and shamefast church. If you can show none, read, for the truths sake, those places which we shall name unto you. 
Gen. 26.  In thy seed all nations shall be blessed. Ask of me, and I will give the for thy heritage the gentiles. 
Psal. 2.  He (meaning the Messiah) shall rule from sea unto sea, and from the flood even unto the ends of the world. Again: The stone which was cut out of the hill without hands, 
Psal. 71.  filled the whole world. 
Da. 2.  So it hath been written, and so it behoved Christ to suffer, 
Luk. e ● 4.  and repentance and remission of sins to be preached in his name, through all nations. You shall be my witnesses in jury and Samaria, 
Act. 1.  and unto the ends of the earth. But what of all this? Marry Sir, that you should read in these scriptures, how plainly it was promised, that the whole world should be Christ his inheritage, and that his church should be sought for, not in pelting corners of Africa, of Europa, or Asia, not in wyttenberge, Geneva, or England, but in all nations and in all countries of the world. And if you mislike this our conclusion gathered out of these places of scripture, consider then, better than you have done, S. Augustins reasoning against Petilian, and against all other Donatists, when so ever he wrote against them, as in his. 162. 166. 170. 171. and other of his epistles. In all which places, he proveth, that it is unpossible, that Donate, which was an upstart heretic in Africa, should have the truth on his side, because the scriptures do so plainly promise us, that the church of Christ should be enlarged over the whole world, and because it was so sensibly performed, that every one might see that church, which was extended through all nations. Now, if you have any scriptures, or authorities, or reasons, to prove that the church should not be openly known for 900. years together, or that about the year of our Lord God .1500. the light of the Gospel should begin to appear, or that the church may be in one country only, or that Christ should lose his inheritage, which was promised him over the world, or that all the drift of S. Augustyns reasoning against the Donatists, doth not expressly make against you, then shall you speak somewhat worth the answering. Against which time provide also to tell us, how S. Cyprian (whom you allege, 
S. Cyprian alleged against the M. of the defence himself.  to prove that recourse should be had to the scriptures) doth make any thing for you? Yea rather he maketh clean against you, and if you had taken but small leisure to consider him, he teacheth you, that to come unto the truth, and to be sure of it, there is an other and better way than you have yet invented. For after those words, Hereof arise schysmes, 
Cyp. tract. 3. de simple. praelat.  because we seek not to the head, nor have recourse unto the spring, nor keep the commandments of the heavenly master. After which words, you make a full point, as though you had told all his meaning) he saith further that to prove this, there is no need of long talk or reasoning. Our Lord spoke unto Peter, and said: I tell thee, thou art. Peter, 
Math. 16.  and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not overcome it. etc. And although he gave like authority unto all his Apostles after his resurrection, and said: 
Io. 20,  Even as my father sent me, I also sent you, receive you the holy ghost, if you remit any man his sins, they are forgiven him, if you retain them, they are retained, yet that he might make plain, and set forth an unity, he disposed by his own authority the head and spring of that unity which beginneth of one. And a little after he sayeth: Doth he believe, that he holdeth and keepeth his faith, which keepth not this unity of the church? How then could you bring in S. Cyprian in the commendation of any of your two marks of the church, which so expressly warneth you to consider the unity thereof, and the authority which was given unto S. Peter, in which unity who so ever is not found hath lost all true faith, crack he never so much of his sacraments and scriptures? But now, because it is not enough, to declare that your marks of the church are uncertain and controversious, except we give some better signs, which may lead all men unto the true church, therefore it is to considered, what we profess openly in one of the articles of our Crede. I believe (sayeth every Christian) 
The true & certain marks of the church  one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church: and if he knoweth also what he speaketh, then shall he never be to seeking of the church. For she must be first of all, One church, that is to say, she must have one profession of faith, one order in sacraments, and one head for her government: by which one word, they be quickly tried for no good Christians, which can never agree upon their faith, or have no certain head or governor. secondly, the church is holy, in this sense, either because none are holy which are out of this church, either because she hath been bought with blood, (a dear price,) either because she is stable and inviolable. Which note doth warn us to beware of them which have no continuance in their religion, but are quickly altered at every new preachers invention. Thirdly, the church must be Catholic, 
Catholic.  which is to say, she must go through the whole world, not only in respect of place, but also of persons and time, whereupon it followeth, that all such religion as lurketh only in particular countries, or which hath no antiquity and continuance at all, is to be rejected as a singular nought, and no Catholic or good religion. And last of all, the true church must be Apostolic, 
Apostolic  by which word I mean, that if they of England now, or those of Geneva, can by degrees ascend, and from one minister unto an other go upwards in a continual order, until they do come unto one of the Apostles, whom they will prove to have been a father to their religion, that then, they have one good sign to commend their doings. But, because this is unpossible to be done of them, therefore they are not of the church Apostolic, and for good cause they are to be dyscredited. Lo Sir, if you be of a good conscience, continue in the faith which you have professed, and for two simple marks, which every man will set upon his religion, take these four notes which all christendom alloweth, of which four there is no heretic, which (work he never so craftily) shall ever be able to prove that any one may serve for him.   

The xiiij Chapter.  
IF you had acquainted yourself with faithful Abraham and Isaac, and did believe that God is able to perform what so ever he promiseth, you would make no question of the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament, and that chief principle being once confessed, you should never make great quarrelling about certain consequencies which follow thereupon. As, whether Christ his body be upon a thousand altars at one time, or whether accidents be without substance, and body without place, or whether reservation may be allowed, with divers other questions. This is the fault which the Catholic in this last Chapter findeth with you, in avoiding of which, you say, first  We grant as freely as you, with Abraham and Isaac, 
Defence. fol. 102.  that God is able to perform what so ever he doth promise. 
If you think as you speak, 
reply.  why are these bodging and souterly arguments so oft repeated among you, that Christ his natural body is in heaven, ergo it can not be on the earth. Item, a natural body occupieth only one place, but the sacrament is in many places. 
B●dging reasons & such as argue a faint & doubtful faith.  Again, accidences can not be without substance, ergo the substance of bread is not changed into the substance of Christ his body. Are not these your arguments, most manifest tokens, that you speak against the possibility to have Christ his natural body in the Sacrament? For otherwise, you should not ask, how it might be, after the jewish fashions, but rather prove, that it is not so, after the manner of wise heretics. Well yet, thanks be to God, that you be not so foolish as your fellows, and that you grant, that it is possible enough unto God, to bring all that unto pass which the church teacheth us, as concerning the sacrament, but, say you  How can you show, 
Defence fol. 130.  that it was God his holy will to have so many miracles wrought, as you without necessity, do make in the Sacrament? 
Marry Sir, 
Reply.  we show it by his own words (This is my body, This is my blood) upon which one miracle, all the rest of our belief therein, doth follow by necessity of consequence. You ask also for an example in some place of all the scriptures like unto this marvelous work which is believed to be in the sacrament. Wherein I answer you, with the same words, as S. Augustine answered Volusianus, 
Augustin. epist. 3. ad Volusianun  as concerning the incarnation of God, If you ask for a reason, the thing shall not be wonderful, and if you require an example, the thing shall not be singular. Also, the miracles which the scriptures speak of, are not therefore believed, because they have other miracles of like suit with them, but because God is almighty, and because all scripture is true. We do not appoint, (as though all were of our one making,) but we believe, that Christ his very body is truly in the sacrament, and that it is there, not in manner of proportion, quantity, or figure, also that it may be in a thousand places at once, and yet in never a one of them all locally, which is to say, as in a place of his own. Oh, say you, Is not this to take away the nature of a body from his body, 
Defence. fol. 104  and in deed to affirm it to be no body?  
See lo where you be now. Do not these words import, 
reply.  that it can not be, that a natural body should continue natural and be in a thousand places at once? in which your saying what other thing do you, but privily conclude that it is impossible. In which, lest you should seem to deny the power of God, of which you spoke reverently a little before, you amend the matter, and say: Yet we say not, 
Defence. fol. eod.  but that God is able to work that also, if it be his pleasure. Verily verily you be uncertain in all your conclusions, 
reply.  for if you grant that God is able to do that, 
Note the doubtfulness of mind and understanding in the M. of the defence.  which we report of him, that he worketh in our Sacrament, why talk you of the nature of a body and taking away of the nature of it, if Christ be really in the Sacrament. And if it be unpossible to have a body without quantity, and in a thousand places at once, (as it is to make that one self same thing should be a body and no body,) why say you, that God is able t● work this also, if it be his pleasure? you offend in both sides, doubting at one time of God his allmightmes, by which we believe his natural body to be in the sacrament, and at an other time making him so almighty, as though he could bring to pass, that such things might agree together, as are in them, selves plain contradictory, the one to the other. But as in this later point, you go beyond all truth and possibility, so in the other, I trust you will hereafter be more stedefast, and never argue against the power of God which is able to perform all those articles, which the Catholics have gathered, upon the sacrament. Which now you begynn to do at length, and say, that it is not God his will to do, as we believe he hath done in the sacrament. But how prove you this? For neither is there any necessity that should once train him to do it, 
Defence fol. 104  nor doth his word teach us that ever he did the like. These be your own reasons, 
Reply.  as it is easily to be perceived by the weight of them. which if you will follow in other points of our faith, you may conclude all our Crede, 
Feble reasons.  to deserve no credit at all. For, neither any necessity constrained God first to make, and afterward to redeem mankind, and the most of all his works are of such a peculiar excellency, that we may think right well of each of them, that they are in their kind singular. what necessity constrained our Saviour, to take our death upon him, and what example have you in all the scriptures, like unto the miracle of the death of God? Ergo, (according unto your divine logic,) it is only an invention of the papists, that God himself did suffer a most painful death for man. It is wisdom for us, rather to believe the church, then to allow such arguments by which we may destroy all true religion. And yet not only the church teacheth, but the scripture also witnesseth, that this which the Christians receive in the Sacrament, is the body of Christ himself, as he said most plainly, This is my body which is given for you. Now whether the verb substantive Sum, es, fui, 
Luc. 22.  might be interpreted by transsubstantiare, tell me first, I pray you, whether Sum, es, fui, may be taken among the grammaryans Assumere naturam, non personam? which sense of the verb substantive, Sum, es, fui, after you have not found in any dictionary of the best making, how will it sound in your ears, to say, Deus est homo, God is man? The word was made flesh, 
Io. 1.  sayeth the blessed Apostle and Evangelist, by which we confess and believe, that God the word was not changed into flesh, or mingled and confounded with it, or in any part altered, but that he took unto his person, the very nature of man, and united it unto his Godhead. Which sense if you repine against, because the propriety of the tongue can not bear it, that (factum est,) might be interpreted by, unita est divina persona humanae naturae, the person of God was united unto the nature of man: truly then, as your learning perchance is such that you may be suffered to read an open lesson in some grammar school, so without all doubt you are to be amended for the unright construing of our Christian rules. But, (say you) we must search the scriptures as Christ and his Apostles taught us, and as the holy Fathers did use against the Arrians, and other heretics. As who should say, that (This is my body which shall be delivered for you) were not scripture plain enough, or as though the Arrians had not in sight, more places of scripture than the Catholic Fathers, or else as though the most holy men of these fifteen hundred years, whom we follow in the faith of the sacrament, had written whole and large treatises of it, and used no scripture at all. Well Sir, if we lack scripture, you, perchance, do abound in it, and therefore what is your opinion of the sacrament?  when we interpret Christ his words, we say, 
Defence fol. 106.  it is a figurative speech, and such as the Holyghoste often useth in the institution of sacraments and ceremonies. 
It is most true that figurative speeches are often used in the scripture, 
Reply.  as when Christ said: I am the vine. etc. but can you therefore conclude, 
Io. 15.  that they are always used? and if, I am the vine, be figurative, is, This is my body, like unto it? When the high Priests of the jews asked Christ, whether he were the son of God, he answered, 
Mare. 14.  I am, he said again unto his disciples, 
Io. 14.  I am the way, the truth, and life, and yet he was not a figurative life, but real life in deed. And although that Christ speaking of S. john the baptist, and saying, If you will receive him, he is Helyas, 
Math. 11.  meaned not yet that he was Helyas in deed, but that he represented Helyas for some points, nevertheless saying of himself, 
Io. 8.  I am the beginning which speak unto you, he willeth us to understand, not that he representeth only or signifieth the beginning which is God, but that in very nature and substance, 
Of particular premises to conclude generally it is no good fashion.  he is the author of all things. Whereby you may or should rather perceive, that this argument which you gather out of particular phrases in the scriptures, doth help nothing your purpose, except you could prove them to be general. Now as concerning these words of S. Luke and S. Paul, 
Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11.  This is the new testament in my blood, by which you understand, that the Sacrament is a testimony or pledge of his last will and gift: concerning also the numbered of testimonies which you bring out of the ancient Doctors, to prove that Christ gave a memory, token, sign, figure, and similitude of his body. I will not speak against them, because they be true sayings & Catholic. But when will you leave to prove that which we deny not, and show directly unto the purpose that Christ gave no body at all, but a figure only unto us? The catholic faith is this, that the external signs and forms of bread and wine are figures of the natural body and blood of Christ which are under them, (for as bread is the most natural and necessary food, so we understand the flesh of the son of God, to be unto the faithful,) Also, that the very natural body of Christ in the sacrament, is a figure of the glory to come, and representeth that unity which shall be between him and his elect in heaven, (for he which communicateth himself so freely and fully in earth unto sinners, 
the catholics confess signs & figures in the Sacrament but not only them.  what will not he do to the holy ones in heaven?) Furthermore, both the external visible signs of bread and wine, and the true body of our saviour which is under the visible sacraments, are a figure and sign of the mutual unity of Christ with his church, (for she is made one bread, through Christ, as it were of many grains, and one body consisting of many members.) Again, the breaking of the visible sacrament, and the real presence of the body of Christ, are in sign and memory of his passion, (for if a man should seek a thousand ways to styrremen up to think on Christ, this passeth all other without comparison, to bring the self same body before them.) But with all these figures and signs which are founded in the sacrament, we confess also, that there is a real presence, not spiritual only, 
Lib. 8. de trinitate  but corporal. For S. Hilarye proveth at large, that Christ unto thi● day is in us not only through concord and agreement of will, 
E●thimius in su● P●noph. pae. 2.  but also truth of nature. Also Saint Gregory Nyssene hath this conclusion, that like as the bread which our Saviour did eat, whiles he lived yet on earth, was converted into his divine nature, 
Christ is really in the sacrament.  because that man, which did so eat it, was also God: even so, the bread of our mysteries, is converted into the flesh of the word. Furthermore S. Hyerome witnesseth, that the blood and flesh of Christ, 
In epist. ad Ephes. li. 1. cap. 1.  is understanded two ways, either for that spiritual and divined flesh, of which he himself said, 
Io. 6.  My flesh is meat in deed, and my blood is drink in deed▪ etc. either for that flesh which was crucified, and the blood which was shed with the spear of the soldier. According unto this division, diversity of flesh and blood is taken to be also in his Saints, so that it is one flesh which shall see the salvations of God, and an other flesh and blood, which can not possess the kingdom of God. Of this testimony therefore we gather, that as our flesh in heaven shall be true and real flesh, although it be made spiritual: so the spiritual flesh which Christ promised unto us, is his very true and natural flesh. Again, S. Chrisostome testifieth, that we are turned into one flesh with him, 
Ho. 45. in Io.  not only by charity, but in very deed. And in an other place, He hath made us his body, sayeth he, 
Ho. 60. ad po. An●.  not only by faith, but also in very deed. And it is so true, that Christ his natural flesh is given unto us in the sacrament, that we should also see it with our bodily eyes, except divers causes were to the contrary, 
Amb. lib. 4▪ 〈◊〉. 4. de sa.  of which this is one, lest some horror & loathsomeness might trouble us, if it were given in visible form of flesh and blood unto us. And to conclude: The son of God is united unto us through the mystical blessing, 
cyril. lib. 11. ca 26●. in Io.  corporally as man, spiritually as God. Wherefore we do not destroy one truth by an other, neither so believe the presence of Christ his body, that in no case we will admit any signification or figure, neither again so magnify signs and figures, that we take away all real presence, 
De consecrat. 2. cap. Vtrum.  S. Augustine teaching us, That the body of Christ, is both a verity, and a figure: a verity, whiles the substance of bread and wine is made his body and blood by the power of the holy ghost: and a figure, because of that which is outwardly seen and perceived. And so against the next time, (if you can have any answer,) provide to prove, not that Christ gave a figure, but that he gave nothing else but a figure. For if you will so grant a figure, that yet you will not deny the real presence, then will all our other conclusions, which you despise now, be deduced out of the principle of Christ his real presence, that you need to make no further question about them. As for the kings broad seal, unto which you resemble the sacrament, it may be well and truly said, that in deed the sacrament is a most sure confirmation of all the acts which Christ did work for us, in the time of his visible conversation among us. For how might we have his very true body among us, except he received a true nature of man upon him? or how might we Christians doubt of it, whether he be risen from death to immortality, whose flesh and blood is daily given to such as will, to save them from corruption? But, if you make no more of it, then that, as the king his broad seal doth give a force to his letters patents, 
Goodly great words among the protestants but small and simple sense.  so likewise the sacramental bread should confirm the testament and promises of Christ, and that in such a sense, that as truly as our body is fed with that bread, so truly our soul is nourished with his spirit: verily you have taken a great wonder at a common and easy matter. For every man, when he will, not only in the church, but at home and else where, and not only by bread or wine, but also, by every thing that is true, may use the like phrase, and say: as truly as I stand, as I sit, as this fire burneth, as the son shineth, as I live, as I eat, etc. so truly God died once for us to save us from death everlasting. And if you will contend, that although one may so say of all things which are true, yet that there is a special regard to be had unto bread & wine which Christ himself appointed for that purpose, yet you have no great cause of wonder, no more than you should marvel in some weighty account which the king himself would set for some profitable effect, that one such piece of gold which right now stood but for a shilling, should be suddenly removed and made to signify. 1000000. Li. For if all the dignity and price of the Sacrament consisteth herein, that it representeth a most wonderful gift and benefit, which the son of God bestowed upon us: then are you very much to blame for defacing, spoiling, breaking, and burning of crucifixes, which did more lively represent the death of Christ, than any external form of bread and wine can do. Whereunto if you will answer, that Christ appointed the one and not the other, you may yet gather thereby, that (according unto your imagination) there is no such great excellency in the institution of bread and wine to represent and declare unto us the verity of Christ his promises, but that a painter or carver may as evidently express them by his art and colours, and more effectually also perchance, for the plain, simple, devout and good men of the world. wherefore that the holy doctors and fathers of Christ his church▪ should mean nothing else by their terms of (transmutation, transelementation, mutation, conversion, alteration, etc.) But the change of the external elements into this meaning, that they do show the effect of the Sacrament, and seal up unto us the promises of Christ: it is a very abject and vile misconstruing of them. For they declare most expressly, that in the external elements there is no change at all, but the change is only in the substance of the bread into Christ his body, which at an other time is to be proved more largely, 
Serm. de coena Domini.  but now S. Cyprian alone, may suffice, saying This bread, which our Lord● did unto his disciples deliver, being changed not in outward show, but in nature is made flesh by the allmightynes of the word, etc. But as much as you can for shame you extenuate and debase the greatness of Christ his benefits towards us. 
The M. of the defence will not ●aue the benefits of God to be so great as they are in deeds.  For Christ saying this is my body, you understand him to mean a figure only of his body, and the holy doctors proving unto us, that it should not be uncredible, that of simple bread he maketh unto us his precious body, because he made all things of no thing, and can do more than is ordinary by the common course of nature, yet, (say you) they speak of no other change, but that which is about the external elements. And one of them, having this similitude, Like as wax being set unto fire, is likened unto it, no substance remaineth, no overplus resteth: so do thou think, the mysteries to be consumed by the substance of Christ his body. No, (say you) it is not so, or else it is to be understanded after this manner, that like as when the king his broad seal is set unto his letters patents, then have those letters their effect, so, (I trow) that the Sacrament should be like a piece of wax to confirm I can not tell what letters. For if you mean the promises of everlasting life, before we come to receive the Sacrament, we believe God and his church, & doubt nothing of them, and therefore I confess my ignorance, that I can not tell, what manner of leases or grants you conceive to be unconfirmed, before the seal of bread and wine be added unto them. But (as I began to tell you) you take all things at the lowest and basest manner, and this perchance is that, which you object unto us, (when your delicate and dainty eloquence could not abide to hear the Catholic to speak of the pulling, skaulding, drawing, and roasting of a capon, before you did eat him,) resembling us unto the servant, which being commanded to make the dinner ready, would think upon great provision, the master himself meaning to have nothing else but such cold meat set upon the table, as was in the house. As who should say, 
Cold ro●● among heretics.  we shallbe saved and far well enough, if we do but imagine that Christ died for us. As for the having of his natural body, because it is a matter of great provision, and it keepeth a great stir within a man's heart, to conceive how it should be a natural body, and placed now in heaven, and yet present and perfect on every altar in the whole world, and because it were little enough to think all night long and morning before, how to come to such a feast with contrition, confession, and satisfaction, therefore it is but superfluous cost, and a torment unto the conscience. Cold meat shall serve us well enough, and we shallbe as merry with bread and drink in the remembrance that Christ died for us, as with all the provision which the papists say Christ to have made. In which similitude, you have as rightly expressed your inward thoughts, as may be. And we truly, if we make great provision, we do no other than we are commanded, because we be his servants which every day giveth the fat calf, for joy of his sons which were lost and are returned again, which was never a niggard of his meat and drink, in so much that when he had none other, but servants in his house, yet he provided so royally for them, that as every one of them wished, so did his meat taste in his mouth. For consider only the excellency of Manna of the old law. First of all it came from heaven without any labour of the Israelites: it came daily, (except one day in the week) that they should have it fresh and fresh: 
Exod. 16.  it came so plentifully, that it covered all the ground about their tents: and yet so equally, that he which gathered more did not abound, and he which gathered less did not want it came so simply as if it had been the seeds of coryander: 
Num. 11.  and it tasted so wonderfully that it contained all delicates and hearts desire: 
S●p. 16.  it continued to them xl 
losue. 5.  years together, and as surely as their bodies were nourished with that bread, so sure they might be, that their souls & minds were fed with the grace of Christ. And all this yet, was bestowed upon the jews, before the incarnation of the sou●e of God, before the coming of the holy ghost, in the law of bondage, in the time of figures, and when God (as I may say) did not yet keep open household in all contreyes of the world, neither make so great cheer, as he minded to do afterward. therefore, if such things were given unto the jews, 
Christians are worse fed than the jews were, except they receive the true body of Christ.  what was to be reserved for Christians? and if we have not in deed the real body of Christ among us, what like thing have we, unto their Manna. If there were no other argument but this one, which is gathered upon the conferring of time with time, state with state, figures with truths, Moses with Christ, jews with Christians, yet of very congruence and conscience, we should look to far better than the Israelites did in the barren wilderness. But, except our Saviour his words, (this is my body, this is my blood) be understanded literally and really, we far a thousand parts worse. For as in our bread unity is represented, so might it have been in 〈◊〉 Manna: and as you be as verily assured, that your soul doth participate Christ in spirit, as your body doth receive the external bread, so likewise they, which were spiritual among the Israelites, did, in their Manna, conceive and receive the bread of life and the Saviour of the world: and again, as your sacramental bread is a token and seal unto you of the goodness and promises of God, so was Manna unto them; and that with much more miracle and comfort. So that you have nothing in this your Sacrament of the new law, (which should be most excellent,) which one may not find in the Manna of the old law, which yet was but a shadow and figure of the body of Christ in the Sacrament, but Manna of that time, had many wonderful prerogaty●es, by which it far passeth in estimation, the Sacrament of Christ his body and blood, if there be no more in it, than you do conceive and utter. Which because it is unreasonable, therefore we can not but understand Christ his words, (This is my body, etc.) in that sense which we do, and we do not fear lest we shall offend in making to great a price and value of the Sacrament, but rather we confess that we shall never be able to express the majesty, the miracles, and the dignity of it. As for you, if you be delighted with cold roast, and would not, (if you might) have Christ really and naturally God and man, body and soul, to be given unto you, but can satisfy your appetite, with only figures, signs and similitudes, you shall sit by yourself for the Catholics, until God shall send you more charity. Which if it were, (as it should be in you) you could not find fault with the real presence of Christ in his Sacrament, 
Defence fol. 118.  and call it a torment unto your conscience, but rather you would be weary of all scraps and leavings of an yesterdays feast, and contemn all counterfeit dishes, which have more appearance than substance. When you were a child, if one had brought unto you a bird or a fish made in fine and sweet paste with a fig or such like thing within, you would have been more delighted in it, than with the true meat of the bird or fish, but after that you be come to the state of a man, you should covet the sound and strong meats, and let all such creeks and knacks alone, to serve for children. God grant that you find not hereafter, fault also with the Catholics, that they teach you to believe a true and natural flesh and soul in Christ and that you reprove not the charges and cost which God hath bestowed upon the redemption of mankind, because the only word of his blessed will, was able to save us, so that his incarnation needed not, but only a similitude of a body.  
But for this time, let this be an end of this Reply, and I would to God, here might be an end of all controversy, which because it is not very credible, in such confusion and unruliness of sects and divisions, therefore some answer is to be looked for, or rather some similitude of it. For as concerning any true answer in the defence of your part, you can never make it in those points, which you are burdened withal in this Reply, as, your misconstruing of holy Fathers, and reasoning out of the purpose with many absurd and unlearned conclusion. Yet no doubt, but you will continue still in your stoutness, and by one mean or other, maintain your Captains against us. For if Goliath be strooken down, yet you set up an Achilles, and by chainging of the name you think to change the cause. But if your bastard bravery, had not been sufficiently exemplified, by the fact of the uncircumcided Goliath, yet now by the crack, which you set upon your profane Achilles, you prove yourselves more like that fell Giant than ever you were before. For although Goliath was bygg in stature and words, and contemned the simple staff and scripp with which the lovable david came against him, yet after the stone once fastened in his forehead, and the overthrow given unto him, the Philistians hearts were in their heels, and they fled away without any further bragging. But he, whom you nickname Paris, although he hath utterly killed your Achilles, shooting (as you say) his arrows out of a corner privily, but how so ever they were shot, hitting (as we believe) the mark perfectly, yet you make your Achilles so invincible, as though he could not be wounded at all in this quarrel, and as though he passed no more of any shot of ours then if benettes or straws should be cast again him. Which is so exceeding and vain glorious a crack, that it may rather be thought that your Achilles would be very glad, if he might never hereafter hear any more words, about his open and loud challenged. For as concerning the manifest objections, which are made against him, they are to be read in plain prent, which he hath not been yet in haste to answer (as far as we know) because perchance he knoweth his own imbecility. And if this apology of the private Mass had been also put in print, that it might have come unto his sight, he would (I think) have dissembled the matter or despised the arguments, to shift away from him all the labour of answering. But how so ever your Achilles be disposed, you have showed yourself a frindlye Patroclus, which to save his worship, have taken upon you to answer in his behalf. Which although you have done, with much infelicity, yet you have declared, your good heart and fidelity. You shall cause Achilles himself, to take the matter into his own hands, partly for the challenge sake, which he first of all pronounced, partly for you his friends sake, whom he will be loath to see undefended. God send you of his grace abundantly, that you fight not for an Helena in deed, maintaining the lusts and appetites of your carnal reason, striving for your own inventions, and following your own praises. The church and spouse of Christ is shamefast, chaste, gentle, faithful, obedient, without mumur and spitefullnes, full of good vows, steadfast in her profession, always desirous of unity, which virtues whiles some have neglected, they have themselves been contemned of God, and permitted to follow their own frowardness, to the increasing of their just damnation. Of this kind was Luther and his followers, which as though they had nothing else to study upon, but only how they might invent sects and divisions, so they left no one thing which the church taught them, uncontrolled, or uncorrupted making, at their will and pleasure, of things necessary, no matter at all, (as appeareth in the seven sacraments, which they have brought to two only or three, and them corrupted,) of universal and authentic, so indifferent, that every one might omit them, (as prescript fastings, orders of praying, and ceremonies) and of indifferent in the nature of them, so necessary and absolute, that no dispensation may serve for the altering of them, (as in sole receiving, receiving in one kind, and reservation of the sacrament.) So that nothing pleased them, that the church, in which they took their faith, delivered unto them, because they loved themselves to much, and their own dear Cate and Helena. Whom, God shall at length, destroy with the spirit of his mouth, and by sending of his fear into their hearts which honour her, drive away that wicked one, which maintaineth the battle, and make such peace and tranquillity in their conscience, that it may have good space and mind to consider the security which is in the catholic church, and learn among many other, this one point of charity, that neither sole receiving under one kind, neither receiving under both kinds with company, doth commend us unto God, but the keeping of his commandments, and obeying of his ordinances, which he hath or shall utter, either by himself immediately, or by the Catholic church his interpreter.  
Amen.    

Quandoquidem viri docti & scripturae sacrae atque Anglicae linguae periti, librum hunc joannis Rastelli adversus falso nominatam defensionem veritatis, Anglicè scriptum in quindecim ternionibus, testati sunt apud me, se eundem accuratè examinasse, seque reperisse eum non solùm esse catholicum, sed etiam utilem qui ad aedificationem typis excudatur, omnino putamus operaeprecium esse ut imprimatur.  
Ita esse testor Cornelius jansenius Theologus.   

¶ A table of particular matters which you shall find in this book.  

That the church had her infancy. 24  
That priests are bound to offer. 30. 54  
A discussing of a testimony of S. Cyprian lib. 2. epist. 3. 43  
Of the sacrifice of the altar. 59  
S. Chrisostome his words discussed, frustra habetur quotidiana oblatio, the daily sacrifice is had in vain. 77  
Of the analogy & proportion between the paschal lamb and the sacrament of the altar. 83  
Of receiving alone at home. 130  
Of holy Satirus and his shippwracke with the manner of his receiving. 142  
Of reservation of the Sacrament. 148  
Of Sirapion & his sole receiving in one kind. 158  
The xiiij Canon of the first Nicene Council, examined. 162  
That continuance of time is a great commendation to a religion. 170  
Of the church, and where it is to be searched for. 188  
Of the true & certain marks of the church. 190  
Of the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament. 196    

¶ faults escaped folio. pag. linea. Pruilege 6 2 22 privilege. not 9 2 12 put it out contended 13 2 10 contented. speak 24 1 15 spoke. although 33 2 23 like as. fol. 19 41 2 in the margin. 20 himself 45 2 2 himself. herr 53 1 6 her new testament 67 2 16 the sacrament of the new testament. Singularly pure 69 1 6 is singularly pure. Much less 70 1 3 much less are. war 72 1 25 were. writings 76 1 23 writing. contended. 81 1 2 contented. strange 81 1 11 strong. Substances 100 2 26 substance. of the matter 101 1 26 of the substance of the matter. used 107 1 24 useth. geave 110 1 21 giveth. divided 111 2 5 devised. it 113 2 19 yet. the faith 117 1 21 the same faith. fair 119 2 6 far. said 129 2 20 saith. body 140 2 3 body. julis 147 1 6 julius. make 147 2 9 maketh. man 148 1 18 men. recise 150 2 18 cease. had 165 1 19 hath. before 180 1 14 be for. it. 180 2 18 yet.