FOR so muche (Gentill Reader) as Maister Iuell hitherto hath refused my reasonable request, tou­ching his sermon at Paules Crosse of the .27. of Maie last, to be impar­ted vnto me, so as he will stand vnto it, and hath since that time eftsones doubled his euill demeanour towardes me, and his iniurie towardes the truth, by his other late sermon of the .8. of Iuly last: I trust I shall seme to do neither besydes the du­tie of an honest man, if I cleare my selfe of slaūder obiected, neither besydes that apperteineth to my calling, if I defend the truth impugned. I confesse in very dede, it shold better become my person to bestowe a iust treatise vpō these poin­tes, thē such short pamflets, which I wold willingly do after the measure of my sim­ple lerning, if I had the said sermons ei­ther [Page] printed, or by M. Iuell hymselfe sub­scribed. But the case standing as it doth, and the same being yet denyed: I thinke it better thus to write briefly, then by si­lence to seme to acknowledge a gylt, to suffer thee to remaine deceiued, and the truth iniured.

If the points whereto now I make an­swere, were mo or fewer, or vnder an o­ther forme of wordes vttered, then here thou findest them reported: therein I am blameles, who folow such informations, as fresh from Paules Crosse I haue recei­ued. That such thinges were there spokē, I am not without cause persuaded: seing that the informations by sundry persons aparte made, without diuersitie agree in one. And because thou art desyrous with many other to be resolued therein, to be short, thus it is.

COncerning his sermon of the .27. of Maie, there was no great thing said worthy to be answered, besydes his dis­proufe [Page] of certaine auncient fathers in the first article of my boke alleaged. Of whose good auctoritie I purpose to treate here­after at large, for so the matter requireth. Whiche to do at this present, the tyme and occasion serueth not.

Touching his other sermon of the eight of Iuly, as the matter he treated of was of more weight, so was his dealing therein of more falsehed and shamelesnes.

First, whereas he bare his hearers in hande, that in my secōd article for proufe of receiuing vnder one kinde, I had belyed S. Paul, as though I had said, that in the tenth chapter of his first Epistle to the Corinthians, he had made no mencion of the cuppe, for whiche he triumphed at me not a litle:

How truly this was said, let my boke be triall, where vpon occasion of S. Pau­les receiuing of one only kynde after S. Chrysostomes mynde, thou shalt fynde Reader, these wordes, in the first print, [Page] fol, 41. a. in the later print, fol. 61. a.

It is not to be marueiled at, albeit S. Paul deliuered to the Corinthians the institution of our Lordes supper vnder both kyndes, that yet vpon occasion geuen, and when condition of time so required, he ministred the commu­nion vnder one kynde, sith that without doubt he tooke that holy mysterie vnder one kynde for the whole Sacrament, as we per­ceiue by his wordes, 1. Cor. 10 where he sayeth: Vnus panis, & vnū corpus multi sumus, omnes, qui de vno pane participamus. One bread and one body we being many are, all, that do participate of one bread. where he spea­keth nothing of the cuppe. Thus there.

Now iudge who list, whether in respect of those wordes of S. Paul, I might not saye as I dyd, where he speaketh nothing of the cuppe. for in those wordes in dede he speaketh not of the cuppe. And that my word (where) hath relation to that sen­tence of S. Paul only, not to the whole chapter. For neither coulde I be so blind, [Page] as not to see mention of the cuppe made in the next sentence before, and how ab­surd had it ben by denying so knowen a trouth, to haue geuen such aduantage to the aduersarie? Now that S. Paul in that sentence speaketh nothing of the cuppe, I will be tried by the most auncient and truest copies both Greke and Latine, and by iudgemēt of them of M. Iuelles owne secte them selues, yea by thenglish Bibles and new testamentes of best auctoritie.

Item where I saye in my boke,In the first print, fol. 14. in the 2. fol. 29. that the blessed sacrament is not called commu­nion, because many, or as M. Iuell teacheth, the whole congregation communicateth toge­ther in one place, but because of the effect of the sacrament, for that by the same, we are ioyned to God, and many that be diuerse be vnited together, and made one mysticall bo­dy of Christ, which is the church, of which body by vertue and effect of this holy sacra­ment all the faithfuls be members one of another, and Christ is the head: for profe where [Page] of there I alleage Dionys. Areopagita:

Against this he pretended to haue the auctoritie of Pachymeres, of Haimo, of Hugo Cardinalis, and Gerardus Lori­chius. For his proufe he alleaged certaine wordes as out of Pachymeres.

To this I answer. First, that Georgius Pachymeres in his Greke Paraphrasis v­pon Saint Dionysius, where only he had cause thereof to treate, wrote no suche wordes, as according to thinformations Maister Iuell alleaged. Neither without doubt hath Haimo, Hugo, or Lorichius any thing to the contrary of the doctrine, which in that behalfe my boke reporteth. Now whereas M. Iuell byndeth vs to the auctoritie of the first six hundred yeres after Christ, and admitteth none for vs that wrote sithens: what reason is it he shuld be heard, bringing against vs such as be farre out of the compasse of those yeres, and otherwyse in his opinion ob­scure men, and of no fame?

[Page]Lorichius lyueth in our time, Hugo Cardinalis lyued Anno Domini. 1230. whom M. Iuell doubtles litle estemeth, as he who in his replyes to M. D. Cole disgraceth men of greater lerning then this Hugo was of, with the contemtible name of the blacke Gard. Yet now he thinketh good to make his most aduan­tage of them, and of who so euer come to hand, albeit their wordes that make for his purpose against the doctrine of Saint Dionysius touching this point, are not yet brought forth.

Georgius Pachymeres a Grecian, wrote not full three hundred yeres past, Haimo long before, about the time of Charle­maigne. These, as the two other, notwithstanding their age, I esteme as I ought. But their bare names without any sentēce alleaged, proue no more the contrary of that I affirme, thē potecaries empty pain­ted boxes yelde holesome medicines for the sicke.

[Page]Item where in my booke among ther places of holy scripture for proufe of cōmunion vnder one kynde,In the first prmt, fol. 41. in the secōd print fol. 61. I saye, that the place of the .17. chapter of the Actes might be alleaged, and adde for better auctoritie of that point, the iudgement of S. Chrysostome, with these wordes: Where Chrysostome and other fathers vn­derstand the bread that S. Paull in perill of shipwracke tooke, gaue thankes ouer, brake, and eate, to be the holy Sacrament.

Hereof M. Iuell tooke occasion to saye his pleasure of me, that I mysrepor­ted S. Chrysostome, and belyed him, and therefore was not to be trusted. &c.

Vnderstand Reader for my discharge, how good cause I had so to wryte, and how litle cause M. Iuell had so to saye. For S. Chrysostome writing vpon the se­uenth chapter of S. Matthew, hom. 17. operis imperfecti, which worke hath ben alleaged hitherto both of catholikes and ghospellers of all sortes vnder the name [Page] of Chrysostome, though it hath ben in some places corrupted by Origenistes & other heretikes for maintenance of their heresies, sheweth himselffe in playne wor­des to be of that opinion. Neither ought the errours of the Grekes by false meanes cōueyed in to that worke, diminish the creditie of the whole, specially of that which to this day no man euer found fault with al. Because the place is notable, and ma­keth clearly for proufe of the reall pre­sence in the sacrament, and for commu­nion vnder one kynde: I may do well to recite the whole, thought it be somewhat long. Sed quia de Sanctis coepimus dicere &c.

Because we haue begonne to speake of holy thinges, it is not to be left vnspoken, that san­ctificatiō is one thing, and that which is sancti­fied, an other. For sanctifiication is that, which sanctifieth an other: but that which is sancti­fied, can not sanctifie an other, though it selfe be holy. As for example, thou makest the signe of the crosse ouer thy bread which thou eatest, right so as S. Paul saith, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer, thou hast sancti­fied [Page] it, thou hast not made it sanctification. But that which the Priest geueth with his hand, is not only thing sanctified, but also san­ctification, for asmuch as not only that is geuē which is sene, but also which is vnderstanded. And so it is laufull to cast of the sanctified bread to beastes, and to geue it to infidels, be­cause it doth not sanctifie the rceiuer. But if that which is taken of the hand of the Priest were such a thing, as that is which is eatē from of the boorde, all would eate from of the boor­de, and no man woulde receiue of the Priestes hand. Luc. 24. Wherefore our Lord also did not only blesse the bread in the waye, (he meaneth at Emaus) but gaue it also with his hand vnto Cleophas and his felow. Act. 27. And Paul as he was vnder saile, did not only blesse the bread, but al­so with his hand gaue it to Luke, and to his o­ther disciples. Now that which is geuen with the hand, is not to be geuen to beastes, nor to infidels, for that is not only sanctified, but al­so sanctification, and sanctifieth the receiuer. Thus Chrysostome.

In which wordes he doth both expoū ­de the place of the .24. of S. Luke for the Sacrament, and also saith expressely tou­ching the place of the .27. of the Actes, [Page] that S. Paul in the shippe gaue the bread with his hand to Luke, and to the rest of his disciples, and that the same was not only a holy thing, but also sanctifica­tion, which sanctifieth and maketh holy the receiuer, which is this blessed Sacra­ment that we speake of, which M. Iuell and the rest of his felowes make to be but a signe, and figure of a holy thing.

Now Reader, for so muche as Chryso­stome sayeth, that this sanctification, this thing that maketh other thinges holy, is geuen by the Priestes hand: I wold thou shouldest demaund of M. Iuell, when thou meetest him next, what that is. Re­quire him to answere thee directly. And tell him, that it can not be vnderstanded of Christ spiritually receiued, for that is not the thing which is geuen by the prie­stes hand. Aske him further, where this sanctification resteth, whether it be in the bread, or in the priest. for seing that after the mynde of S. Chrysostome, it is [Page] geuen by the hand of the priest, it must be either in the priest that geueth it, or in the thing that is geuen. I trow, M. Iuell will not saye, that the great power to sanctifie other is in the priest, for it is the proper act of God, as him selfe wit­nesseth, Ego Dominus, cod. 31. qui sanctifico vos, it is I your Lord, which do sanctifie you. Then the priest sanctifieth not, but only deliuereth the sanctification. Now yf this Sacrament were nothing in it selffe but bread, as M. Iuell, and all that newe Geneuian clergy teacheth; how could this sanctification by their doctrine be in it? For the bread being but a domme creature, is not apt to receiue sanctifica­tion, as they saye, much lesse can it san­ctifie an other. Then sith there is a thing geuen by the hand of the priest, in which this sanctification resteth, and the same can neither be the priest, nor the bread: what remaineth, but that of force M. Iu­ell must confesse, that it is none other, [Page] but the most precious body of our Sa­uiour Christ in that holy Sacramēt, who as S. Paul saith,1. Cor. 1. is our righteousnes, san­ctification, and redemption, which body neuer being separated from the godhed, is euen that which sanctifieth vs?

Item where I saye in the third article of my booke, that I neuer read, neither I thinke M. Iuell, or any the best lerned of his syde is able to proue, that the church Seruice was within the first six hundred yeres in any barbarous or vulgar tonge:

Against that M. Iuell would seme to alleage me against my selfe, making me forgetfull of that I had said before, and contrary to my selfe. And therefore he alleaged out of my boke certaine wordes, where I make as it were an antithesis be­twene the Nouices in faith of S. Paules time,in the first print fol. 70. a. in the second fol. 95. a and the church of our time, vttering these wordes: Their prayer (I meane the first lerners of the faith) was not vailea­ble for lacke of faith, and therefore was it to [Page] be made in the vulgar tonge, for increace of faith. Our faith will stand vs in better stede, if we geue our selues to deuout prayer.

To this I answere. I speake of the church Seruice, and M. Iuell alleaged a­gainst me my wordes mencioning the prayer of the first lerners of the faith, which commonly was pronounced in an vnknowen tonge through the working of the holy Ghost miraculously to litle profite of the hearers. Now betwen such maner of prayer in the begynning, and the publike Seruice which afterward in continuance of time the church had in due and setled order, is great difference. I speake of the one, M. Iuell obiecteth the other to no purpose, but only to shew of a will to discredite me. Verely by this he proueth no contrarietie to be founde in me, where with (as I am informed) in his Sermon full bitterly he charged me. If he had either charitie, or honestie, or iudgement, hauing read the third article [Page] of my booke, he might well haue vnder­standed, that I meane by church Seruice a farre other thing, then the vncertaine and as yet vndisposed prayer of the very first infantes and entrers in to the faith in S. Paules time.

For proufe that certaine Nations had the church Seruice in vulgar and barba­rous tonges, he alleaged S. Thomas of A­quine and Eckius, whom otherwheres he scoffeth at as men of small auctoritie, to such streightes for this point is he dryuē. And yet that which they saye is farre from prouing his assertion. For as concerning that which he brought out of Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, S. Chrysostome, Hierome, and Augustine, much lesse per­teineth it to this purpose. He that being asked the way to Yorke, answered a potte full of plummes, said as aptly to the que­stion, as M. Iuell answered to this direct point out of the forsaid fathers.

Neither more maketh the decree of Iustiniā for proufe that the seruice was in [Page] any other thē the Greke and Latine tong in the East and West church,De Ecclesiast. di­uersis ca­pitulis, cō stit. 123. which to that ende he alleaged: but only that Bi­shops and Priestes should pronoūce their wordes at the Masse and other Seruice with an audible and distinct voice. Nei­ther is he able to proue, that that decree was to be extended to the Latines, and to all the people of Christendom, to whom in his Sermon he said it to perteine. If he would stand to Iustinians decrees, he would sone be brought to recant in the chiefe pointes that be in questiō betwixt vs and the Ghospellers, as the lerned in the Ciuill lawes do well knowe.

In the .j. print, fol. 80. in the se­cond, fol. 107.Item where in the fourth Article of my boke, I alleage a testimonie out of Saint Augustine lib. 1. contra. 2. epistolas Pelagia­norum ad Bonifacium, cap. 1. in which that holy and lerned Bishop acknowlegeth the Bishop of Rome his superioritie, En­glishing his wordes so smoothly as the roughnes of the Latine phrase, which in sundry bokes I founde vniforme permit­ted, [Page] and there do note in the margent this part of the sentence in Latine, so as I founde it in bookes of sundry impres­sions, Quamuis in eo praemineas celsiore fa­stigio speculae pastoralis:

Hereat M. Iuell toke occasion to carpe me, and to saye his pleasure of me, that I had mangled S. Augustines place, left out the verbe est, placed a nominatiue case without a verbe, put communis without a substantiue, writtē speculae for specula, had made S. Augustine to speake false Latin, and had done I can not tell what.

To all this I answer. I alleaged the place faithfully as I founde it. And if M. Iuell will trye my truth herein, let hym vewe the bokes of sundry Paris printes in folio, and of Lions print in octauo, and he shall fynde speculae, not specula. And in tourning the place into English, not being so hardy as to alter any worde of the boke, where­in I should geue the aduersarye occasion to charge me with the crime of a falsa­rie: for that I thought not to be vpright [Page] dealing: I englished it so, as the wordes semed best to beare. Wherein the fault which M. Iuell charged me with, is not to be imputed to my falsehed, putting the wordes as I foūde them, but to the prin­ters ouersight, if any were. Neither do I make S. Augustine to speake false latine, but so as the bookes which I consulted, report him to speake. But what fault so euer he found with my grammer, certaine it is as touching diuinitie, that Saint Au­gustine for all that in the forsaid place to Bonifacius, acknowlegeth the Bishop of Rome his superioritie ouer and aboue all other Bishops.

By this I perceiue, whereas M. Iuell to impaire my credite in the opinion of the vnlerned people, charged me with incon­grue speach in the Latine tong, he would if he could, also charge me with incōgrue behauioure in Christian life. For that is the marke he shooteth at, to discredit my person, whereas he seeth, he is not able to disproue the doctrine that I defend.

[Page]If these be the greatest faultes he could fynde in my boke, there is no great cause why his huge booke made against it, that now is in printing, shold be so much de­syred, or susteine so great an expectation. Which expectation the greater it is, the more it shall cause men to contemne it, and laugh at it, if they shall see so great a hill after so long trauaile, brought a bed but of a foolish mouse. If greater faultes had ben founde, Paules Crosse had rong of them. For these foreronning sermons haue set forth the specialst pointes, to disproue the doctrine of the Catholike church, to discredit me, and to gete cre­dite to his owne booke.

And whereas he vaunted him selffe to haue noted against my boke .97. errours within the compasse of the first .80. lea­ues of his said booke: In case they be of the same coyne that these be of, which he hath pyked out for his best shewe in the pulpite, as by such coyners they be ease­ly coyned: so may they be sone reiected, [Page] when they come to sight, as being light of weight, and counterfeites. If all were erroneous and faulty, that M. Iuell is not ashamed for such to note and reproue, then were the whole summe of the Ca­tholike faith and Christian religion erro­neous and faulty. With the teachinges & promptinges of the holy ghoste,Iohn. 14. where­with the church hath hitherto ben preserued from errour in faith: it is small shame my simple doinges by M. Iuelles light re­port to be named erroneous and faulty.

I vnderstand by myne informations, that he spake of certaine other pointes, wherin he sought how to impugne the truth, & to discredit me, as of the secrete pronouncing of the Canon in the West church, of thaulters standing in churches of olde time toward the East, and such the like matters of smal weight not wor­thy thanswering. But now I intend not by making any answere thereto, either to trouble thee, or to payne my selfe be­ing otherwise fully occupied. This much [Page] I thi [...]e to be ynough for this time, to satis [...] thy request, to defend the truth, and to cleare me of the vntruthes, with which I was of M. Iuell vniustly charged.

Now to ende Reader, if thou be setled in the catholike faith, there staye thee, what so euer thou heare and read to the contrary, and thanke God of it. If thou be wauering, nor yet thoroughly setled, but indifferent as it were to the one sy­de or the other: be well assured, that the faith of the catholike church of these ny­ne hundred yeres past be sufficiently dis­proued and confuted, which in dede can not be Christes promise standing,Mat. 28. and his prayer made to his father for the church performed:Iohn. 14 before thou aduēter thever­lasting state of thy soule by thy priuate choise of a newe founde faith in these la­ter perilous times towardes the cōming of Antichrist first preached.