commemoration of hym be offered vp mixt with wyne By which wordes he plainelye declareth his intent and purpose which was that for the tradition of mengling water and wyne in the chalice we should not folow any other order then that which Christ hymself fyrst vsed Therefor if you meane by your maior proposition that which S. Cypriane meaneth the plaine sense thereof is this that as concernyng the offering of wyne alone or water alone we should folow Christ his tradition only which apointeth for the chalice both water and wyne But then your argument will be very ridiculous as in example We ought to do that only which Christ did and nothing els as concerning the ordering and tempering of the chalice But in Christ his institution appeareth neither sole receiuing nor ministring vnder one kynd Therefor you may inferr wheÌ„ you will that if all abbeis were destroied we should haue fortie egges for a penie The maior of this argument is S. Cyprians and much staied vpoÌ„ in his epistle ad Cecilium The minor is your owne The conclusion ys lawfull and currant For to suche agreeable and proper premisses euerie conclusion will serue will inowgh But now if you will haue your maior to be generall first I flattly denie it then I haue declared that it ys not extant in S. Cypriane and thirdly I answer vnto you that you do not beleeue your owne maior because that in your communion no water is put in to the chalice Now as concerning your minor I graunt it vnto you that in the last supper of Christ there appeareth no sole receyuing I allso confesse that S. Iustine and S. Denyse the Areopagâ—te whom you alleage do well proue that in their daies there were coÌ„municants to receiue with the priest But as I must tell you againe our question is not of what was done but of what might haue ben done then and now ys done withowt offence of God and breach of Christ his coÌ„maundement I answer Christs institution the example of the Apostles the common vse of the fathers was otherwaies therefore the priest should not communicate without other I denye your argument for their vsages and doinges are not lawes vnto the church so as they may not be altered And by this reason you may bring vs to receiue after supper because of the institutioÌ„ of Christ example of the Apostles and coÌ„mon vse of the primitiue church As we againe myght bryng yow to take the sacrament in one kind because of the authoritie of Christ and example of the primitiue church But you seeme to yeld that you haue no expresse commaundement to bryng furthe agaynst vs and yet that notwithstanding you will haue vs to be ouercummed And to this purpose you saye You haue no expresse coÌ„maundement which forbeadeth you to baptyse in the name of the father only but that Christ his institution was otherwyse What was the institution of Christ therein was it not that his Apostles should baptise in the name of the Father the Soun and the Holighost Yet the Apostles did baptise in the name of IESVS only without mention made of the Father or the holighost Yf thei did breake Christ his institutioÌ„ thei were not faithful Apostles and yet thei do not seeme to keepe it when thei do not baptise in the name of the three persons What then shall we saie Truly that you vnderstand not the institution of Christ and that the church is the staie of all the Catholikes which doth interprete vnto them Christ his full mynd and order And lyke as it is answered by autentike and good authoritie that in baptising in the name of Ihesus Christ the sacrament is full and perfect For he which saieth CHRIST coÌ„prehendeth in that one word the father which anoynted hym and the holyghost with whom he was anoynted and then Christ which is by interpretatioÌ„ the anoynted and so doth make vp the misterie of the three persons so in receauing vnder one kynd we receaue both flesh bloude as perfectly as if both kindes had ben ministred and in receauing alone we receaue as much of the true and reall profit which cummeth vnto vs by the sacrament as if all the parishe dyd beare vs cumpanie at the aultar Therefor when you talke of Christ his institutioÌ„ of baptisme you speake you can not tell what and you know not I beleue when Christ instituted that sacrament For he baptised before his resurrectioÌ„ were it by himselfe or by his Apostells and he gaue not the commaundement of baptising in the name of the father the soun and the holighost before the tyme of his ascensioÌ„ And againe when yow tell vs that we haue no other proufe against hym which would baptise in the name of the father then Christ his institution yow would seeme to vnderstand and know all our reasons and conclusions and yet you be as ignoraÌ„t in that point as he which neuer had readen any other then his owne doctours Reade in Petrus Lombardus that lerned Bishope in what sense it may be true that one might baptise in the name of the father without specifying of the Soun or the Holyghost Therefor to conclude you haue hytherto either not prouyd your purpose either spoken owt of the purpose either made directly against your owne purpose The fourth Chapiter THE Catholike in his Apologie folowing his principall purpose beginneth to shew what the priest may doe And he alleageth S. Chrisostome by whom he would make yt plaine bothe what the priest may doe and what the people should doe that yf the people will not folowe good exhortations then the priest without all doubt maie doe his dutie As who should saie â–ª if communicantes were to be had then were the questioÌ„ a great deale more doubtfull but if none will be brought to receaue with the priest then is there nothing to staie hym but he may receaue alone For as all surseasing of sutes in the lawe ys first to be wished and if that can not be obteined that then a man may sue for his right so all good men may wishe that the people should be allwaies well disposed and yet yf they will not be brought vnto it the priestes may sue for their right Which similitude being alleaged and seruing also well for this purpose that if we can not come to the best we may laufully take the next best vnto it yet the M. of the defence doth make such a doe against it as though it were a principal argument of ours in refelling of which he might shew his florishies And thus he saieth In recityng the authoritie of Chrisostome you bring in a similitude or coÌ„parison which of how small force thei be in prouyng your lerning can not be so litle but that you must needes know The similitude of which you speake was not brought in so much to proue as to open and expound that which then was to be approued
owne institution shall neuer be broken of the church and when you be deliuered of this feare see whether you can proue any better then you haue done hitherto that the necessitie of cumpany to receiue with the priest is determined in scripture And if it be not determined expreslie it standeth as a thing indifferent by your owne vayne principle and then it is no breache of Christ his institution to vse sole receyuing How saye you then Will you forsake that fonde principle of yours that nothing is of necessitie to be credited but that which is expreslie in the scriptures No you will not I know your harte is so great against traditions Make then no more a doe but graunt that the obseruing of number and cumpanye is no more requisite then the obseruing of the tyme place kynde of persons and other circūstances which the Ghospell sheweth to haue ben vsed at the institution of the Sacrament No saye you that Many circumstances of place person and tyme maye be altered c. we graunte you but that cumpanye in receyuyng is one of those circumstances that we can not graunte as well for the reasons before declared as allso that we haue none example of the Apostles or primitiue church that we maye so doe Consider I praye you Syr the maner of your reasonyng We cōclude vpon your owne principle which againe we must call vayne leste anye should thinke that we doe allow it that cumpanie in receiuing is by expresse scripture of no more necessitie then the circumstances of tyme and place which Christ vsed in the delyuering of his sacrament and you answer that it is not founde in the example of the Apostles or primitiue churche that the cumpanie in receiuing was omitted as tyme and place are founde to haue ben altered in which saying you doe but enlarge your vayne principle vpō the graunting of which our argument proceeded Cumpany in receiuing in respect of the sacrament receiued is no greater matter then the circumstance of tyme and place ▪ but yet of sole receiuing saye you we haue none examples of the Apostles or primitiue church as though nothing might be vsed otherwise then as of former example it maye be gathered which addition if you thinke good to vse to make your foresaid principle vayne absolutelye lett it be so then and according to this reformed principle our argument shall thus come against you What so euer Christ did at the institution of the sacrament which we fynde not to be altered by the authoritie or example of Apostles or primitiue churche that is of necessitie to be obserued But our Sauior delyuered the sacrament at night and the Apostles with the primitiue churche of their tyme haue no example or manner to warrant vs to doe otherwyse ergo we must of necessitie receiue at night But it is vnreasonable to bring in such a necessitie ergo it is a vayne principle which maintayneth such absurditie And what you might aunswer vnto this I can not diuise except you will take examples of the primitiue church which folowed the Apostles But then remembre what you be wonte to saye out of Tertullian how that is best which was fyrst and agayne out of S. Cypriane Christ is most to be followed which was the first of all And consider allso whether the church of Corinth dyd not receiue the sacrament at night and reade in the actes of the Apostels whether there was not breaking of bread at night and fynde if you can in all scripture that ministring of the sacrament was vsed in the mornyng Are you wiser then Christ can you better dispose the tymes then the maker of tyme hymselfe Did not the Corinthians receiue at night Is there anye mention in scripture of receiuing before none These loe be your common places which if I would follow I could make as great exclamations at the breaking of Christ his institution in the tyme as you doe make for the lacking of communicantes For it is no matter to vs whether you do bring two or three causes wherefore the receiuing at night is or maye be altered for if good causes would haue preuailed you would neuer haue plaied so madd partes in crying out against sole receiuing but all thinges you saie must be brought to the institution of Christ and as he gaue example so must we follow and wherfore then might not one first breake his fast and afterwarde come to the Lorde his table And if busynes lett a Merchant all the daye why might he not receiue at night If you can dispense with one thing you maye do the lyke with all If you alter the tyme you maye alter the maner the place the bread the wyne and all that Christ did This kynde Syr of Rhetoryke and Logike we learne of you which if you do greatly myslyke when you heare it of an other besides your selfe looke then vpon your selfe better and correcte that vayne glorious principle which hath a shewe of learning and pietie but is in deede most rude and wycked when you saye that nothing should be necessarylie obserued which is not expreslie in scripture or nothing thereof might be altered without auctoritie or example of the Apostles and primitiue church Which example of Apostles or primitiue church you neede not to passe vpon in this kynde of matter For if you be most surely persuaded by the very text of the scripture that companye to receiue with the priest is of the substance of the sacrament allthough example might be founde in the primitiue church of sole receiuing or receiuing vnder one kynde you would yet condempne that example by the playne institution of Christ as you would take it what good then should an example do to you which although it were neuer so playne yet you would not be persuaded but that the cumpany at the communyon is allwaies of necessitie But of our examples we shall speake hereafter in the meane tyme what bring you to shewe that the hauing of company is of the necessitie of the sacrament And marke that we aske you not of companye whether it be laudable conuenient or honorable at the celebration of euerie masse but whether it be necessarie Of necessitie our question is and of expresse commaundement and you tell vs of the Paschall lambe of the Iewes and applye it vnto our Sacrament that lyke as cumpanye was of necessitie to the eating of the Paschall lambe so that it should be as necessarie to the receiuing of the sacrament After which argumēt you triumphe without victorie and aske of vs VVyll you saie that companye to eate vpp the Paschall lambe was not of the substance of the sacrament c. If you meane by the worde sacrament in this place the Paschall lambe it selfe cumpanye you know was no more of the substances of the lambe thē you with your bydden gestes be of the substance of your meate when you haue prouided for your selfe and them a fatt goose and
with staÌ„ding in two sundry external thinges geaue the communion of them to his Disciples This letteth nothing our beleif which do know as well as you that Christ gaue his body and bloud vnder two formes of bread and wyne and yet notwithstanding one Christ was receiued vnder both formes of bread and wyne But therefor he deliuered hymselfe vnder those two kyndes and not one that we might the better consider his passion in which the bloud was separated from the bodye Therfore the fayth of the communicantes in the one parte receiueth the body trusting to Christ his promises the same fayth in the other parte receyueth the bloud beleiuing also our Sauior his wordes therein You haue not to proue that in the one part the body was receiued but that the bodye onlye without bloud is receiued And then further where you say that the faith of the communicantes receiueth the bodie doeth it receiue it as a dead carkas shame to thinke it or else as the bodye of the soune of God Christ our Sauior saieth The flesh profiteth nothing it is the spirite which quyckeneth How then doth the communicantes faith receiue such a sole body which hath neither bloud neither lyfe neither diuinitie in it The forgeauenes of synnes commeth only from the Deitie but the cheif instrument by which God worketh is Christes our Sauior most dearlye beloued Humanitie Which if a man conceiue as separate from his Diuinitie then trulye as it is emong all creatures most excellent so yet is it but a creature and very lytle auayleable vnto vs mary as it is the bodye and bloud of hym which was not only man but also God most glorious his body and bloud doth releiue vs through the presence of his maiestie You therfore which do diuide Christ and by your faith which no wyse man doth euer trust make a receiuing of a body without all bloud lyfe or diuinitie doe most playnelie take the fructe of their redemption from the people and make them to hang vpon grosse imaginations of a bodye without bloud and bloud without a bodye to their exceading losse and iniurie But now if all other argumentes fayled vs and if your deuise were not so obscure and vyle as it is yet the authoritie of the church is no small thing emong Christians againste which you speake so lyke a madd master as though you knew the voyce of Christ better then the church of Rome which yet doe not know whether there be any Christ or no except it were for the authoritie of the church of Rome And whereas you buyld all your institutions and articles vpon the textes of the scripture and your priuate interpretations and coÌ„tempne your mother Church yet except you folow the voyce of the church of Rome you can with no reason defende that this which you holde is scripture And here againe you call vpon vs to remembre S. Cyprian which in all that epistle of his vnto which you do referr vs doth so make against them which ministred only in water that he coÌ„futeth also them which minister onlye in wyne prouing both by the old and new law that wyne and water both should be mengled togeather in the misteries But as concerning tâ—e receiuing vnder one kynde of which we haue to speake what aunswer you vnto the place of Tertullian or vnto S. Cyprian his authoritie You saye that our argumentes taken out of them are but coniectures and the same very vncertayne for often tymes in the Doctors where one kynde is mencyoned both are vnderstanded as after shall more appeare Let the wordes of the authors them selâ—es trye it whether you or we do vse the vncertayne coniectures Tertullian in his second booke vnto his wyfe where he telleth her of the sondrye faultes and inconueniencies into which those women do bring themselfes which after their husbandes death do become wyffes vnto infidell and heathen rulers or gentlemen theÌ„selues being Christians emong which this is a verye principall one that in the houses of paynyms 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 cùm corpusculum tuum signas c when thow doest blesse thy bedd and thy bodye with the signe of the crossâ— when thou doest spet out with exuâ—flation some vncleane thing when also thou doest aryse in the night tyme to praye and shalt thou not be thought to worke some witchcrafte Shall not thy husband know what thou doest taste secretely of before all meate And if he know it he beleiâ—eth it to be bread and not that which it is said to be Of these wordes you gather that in the name of bread is vnderstanded also wyne and why so Mary because that some tymes emong the Doctors of which hereafter we shall speake more both kyndes are vnderstanded when but one is expressed ergo Tertullian in this place is in lyke maner to be construed But our collection is otherwise that because we reade but one kynde specifyed therefore without any necessitie we doe not make coniectures that he meaneth both And we see that Tertullian in this booke was not in such hast that he needed to speake by figures vnto his wyfe or to number syx for the dozen Then by common reason we see that wyne in so lyttle a quantitie as ones parte commeth vnto in the distributing of the mysteries was not to be reserued of any person because of the quyck alteration of it Allso we beleiue that vnder one kynde Christ wholye is geauen and therefor that the gouernors of the church were not so folysh or scrupulous as to make a necessitie of both And whereas you perceyue by this testimonye that sole receyuing was then vsed which by your sayeing Christ his institution doth not permit we had no iust occasion to mystrust the receyuing vnder one kynde which we know to be of no greater force then the receyuing with company And you also if you had good wyttes might for good cause feare least you were deceyued in the question of receiuing vnder both kindes whereas in the controuersie of sole receyuing you be so openly confounded which yet you doe as earnestile endeuor to proue as you doe shifte to vnderstand both kyndes in Tertullian whereas he mencioneth but one Note further that when Christ said This is my bodye you will haue no bloud to appertaine vnto it and when any Doctor doth speake onlie of bread you will at your pleasure make wyne to be vnderstanded Iniurious in the one and superfluous in the other Therefore let it be tryed which of our two sydes doth vse more vncertaine coniectures Now as concerning S. Cyprian When a certayne woman saieth he assayed with her vnworthye handes to open her cheste in the which SanctuÌ„ Domini fuit the holy dody of our Lorde was she was made afrayd by fyer arysing from thens that she durst
dissolute fryar be thought worthy of estimation because he hath at these dayes manye folowers are not the religious in deede which continued in great numbre and with much praise in ther orders much more to be regarded If this be the tyme of grace and light in which we may see and lament vowes broken monasteryes ouerturned the landes of Christ and his church alyenated virginitie fasting praying and all rules of good and perfect lyfe coÌ„temned â–ª what tyme was that in which the contraries of all these were highlie commended and practysed The continuance onlye of a religion .900 yeares â–ª without interruption is a very probable argument not lightlie to passe away from it But when it is considered how many learned and godlie men how great Vniuersities how mighty Princes lyued within the compasse of those yeares and that of them all no one of the good and learned did anye thing write or preache against it and none of the Princes either would either could resist it who but vnsensible may thinke that it should not be of God Although that heresies do very shamefully encreace and that there be so many sectes and diuisions emong them that no one parte can euer be greate although the whole world were ouerturned vnto heresie yet at this day moe Catholikes are in Christendome then Lutherans Zuinglians Osiandrians Caluinyans Anabaptistes and all the rest of the lyke making togeather For these heresies are yet God make them narrower but here and there dispersed and Germanye the mother of them is for a great part of it full Catholike Yet as litle place as the new ghospell hath in comparison of Christendome see how much he whom you take for no small fole doth crake and bragg of that lytle Be ye sure sayth he so many free cityes so many kynges so many Princes as at this daye haue abandoned the sea of Rome and adioyned themselues to the Ghospell of Christ are not become madd Loe Syr if this felow might so trulye haue reported that all Kynges all Princes all free cityes of Christendome were of his religion as he doth falselye make an accompt of so many free cityes so many kynges so many princes c. how great an argument would you thinke that he dyd make for your side And againe if he had ben able to proue that for .ix. hundred yeares togeather Kynges and Princes and free cityes had contynued in his fayth without open contradiction how madd would he haue said all such to be as resist a religion confirmed by such authoritie and contynuance But this is your practise to denye all thinges which make presentlye against you and to allow the same againe when hereafter they maye serue for you and so long as you be in danger of law No man must be violentlye constrayned to receyue the religion which his conscience can not allow And when the Prince and power is with you then saye you Hanging is to good for hym which wyll not beleiue as you doe And so in the Apologye of your Englysh church the argument was â—ound and comfortable that because many Kynges had abandoned the sea of Rome therefore they might seeme not to be madd which did folow them and now in this your defence of the truth as you call it when we alleage contynuance and authoritie of .ix. hundred yeares you saye that multitude maketh not to the purpose and you thinke your selfe not a lytle wise in reprouing of our argument But how wise you proue your selfe therein it is worthwhile to consider First you say that the prescription of .xv. hundred yeares the consent of the most part of Christendome the holynes and learning of so many fathers as haue ben these .ix. hundred yeares the age and slender learning of those which stande against you all which thinges we doe bring for our defence These thinges saye you Doe nothing at all eyther feare vs or moue vs to suspect that doctrine which by Christs authoritie and wytnes of the Apostels we know to be true Stode you by the Apostles at their elbowes when they wrote their ghospells or epistles or were you then present with Christ when he walked visibly vpon the earth and by signes and myracles proued hym selfe to be the soune of God Trulye because your eye was not present at the wryting or working of our redemption you must therefor resort vnto such as maye instruct you of all thinges by the eare And because credit is not lightly to be geauen to an historie which is tolde vs of thinges passing reason therfor they ought to be of good authoritie whose wordes we should beleiue in the articles of euerlasting saluation But there can be no greater then the testimonye of all Christendome and they be few obscure and vnknowen whom you would haue to be our masters therefore no reasonable and wyse man will suspect the authoritie of the world and falsely persuade hym selfe that he beleiueth Christ or his Apostles when he hath contemned the voyce of Christendome which caused him to beleiue in Christ and credit his Apostles For how know you what doctryne Christ or his Apostles haue taught in the world Yf you know it by the scriptures what perswadeth you these scriptures to be true For when any new scripture and vnherd of vs before is alleaged or coÌ„mended vnto vs by a few without any reason which is able to confirme it we beleiue not first the scripture but them rather which browght it forth vnto vs. Therefore who told you that these be true scriptures If you name Luther and such as he was you haue done very rashly to beleiue incredible articles at the report of an vpstart rennegate which confirmed his authoritie by no myracle But on the other syde if Luther and you both haue ben content to receiue the scriptures of the Catholikes lest you should be accompted ouer frantyke or scrupulous in doubting whether al Christendome were not deceiued therein by what reason then can you suspect the contynuance pietye learnyng and multitude of Catholikes in the church of God and referr your selfe vnto Christ and his Apostles with contempt of the mysticall bodye of our Sauiour whereas you could not by reason without myracle beleiue in Christ and trust the Apostles except the authoritie of the Catholike church which you see to contynew in the world dyd moue you I wold not beleiue the Ghospell sayeth holye S. Augustine except the authoritie of the Catholike church dyd moue me thervnto Wherfore the contynuance of .ix. hundred yeares is and should be so worthelye regarded that eueÌ„ the authoritie of the church which now is shold by her selfe perswade you to beleiue her But say you our possession which we bragg of hath not ben quyet For in the .600 next after Christ our doctrines were neuer heard of which is a very fowle lye as it hath ben allready here before proued and as coÌ„cerning the 900. folowing they dyd not take
preuailyng against the truthe and lesse alteration would be permitted but seeing man is free and master of his owne actions thei can be no more then warned that thei seeke after truth and folowe it God be mercifull vnto vs and if he hath saied it by some of his Prophetes vpon vs that for our synnes sake and dishonoring of his exceding greate name we shall be caried awaye prisoners in to Babilon yet as Ezechias the Kinge answered for his tyme if we allso maye be so fauored of hym 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 daies let there be peace and veritie Fare well From Louanie the second of March A REPLIE AGAINSTE THE FALSENAMED DEfence of the truthe CAP. I. WHETHER M. Iuell or the author of the Apologie of pryuate Masse haue for their partes done all thinges so perfectly that they may or shold be defended of those which are of the same opinion and faith with them in the one syde it may be a questiō and on the other I know it is none at all For as concernyng the folowers of new religiōs which beleiue that the true light ys reueled in these last dayes they haue to stryue and labor for them whom they take for their Apostells but the Catholike whose faith ys not to finding owt in the end of the world he hath not to hang vpon any one mans authoritie except he be such as ys commended by the whole worlds testimonie Yet forasmuch as the answerer to the Apologie of priuate masse beginneth first with the author of that verie Apologie I will not by my silence be thowght to confesse hym vtterly giltie and yet I will not make for him suche hard shift and stoute defence as thowgh any part of owr cause were lost if he be not thoroughly cleared Therefor to begyn with yow which would seeme to defend the truth what fault doe yow fynd with the author of the Apologie of priuate Masse Fyrst of all yow reproue him sharplye that he bringeth hys owne sense vnto M. Iuels wordes and after so reason against it as though it were his meaning But how proue yow this vpō hym Mary the Bishope of Salisburie say yow ▪ He neuer said simplie that he should make no rekonyng of his doctrine because he was Bishope Trulie neither the Apologie doth simplie so report of hym But his wordes rather be these I maruell not a litle why yow being reputed a man of such lerning wtterlie refuse to proue the doctrine you teache alleaging verie slender causes of your refusall c. Meanyng hys vocation to so high a Rome and the place where he tawght and the honorable estate of the audience and the doctrine authorised by the realme Now it is .ij. thinges to saye I refuse to do this and I should not do this Or els ▪ I refuse to do this and I alleage my vocatiō for one cause and I shold not do this because I am a Bishope For in refusing and alleaging cause of it there ys greater occasion geauen of further consideration but in sayng I should not do this because I am a Bishope there ys small grace shewed because of so hastie conclusion This second kynd of phrase ys for them which stand gloriouslie vpon their honor and estimation but the first agreeth euen with such as are readie to fullfill their vocation The one sentence doth challenge a thing of dutie the other emploieth within it a reason and cōueniencie And to be short the one may be spoken mildlye discreetly and charitablie but the other is vttered I thinke stoutlie vnwyselie and presumptuouslie Wherefor Sir you make the matter worse by your telling then it was in the author his writyng and yow find fault with others for misreporting and miscōstruing prouiding not in the meane while for your selfe to vse and shew true dealing The Catholike doth not take M. Iuell to be so folishe as to thinke that because he is a Bishope he should make no rekonyng of his doctrine but he marueleth rather his lerning cōsidered that he would alleage such causes as he dyd for the refusall of prouing his doctrine And so he may yet still maruell at it But say you my Lord Bishope dyd not saye he should not proue his doctrine but that he might not well do it without further licence Wherein truly you do take very much from a Bishope his libertie if he can not safely cōferr with such as D. Cole is withowt obteinyng of licence And you will troble allso the coūsell of the realme with more matters then needfull if they shall make so litle of their Bishopes that they are not to be trusted with vsing of their office except they first aske leaue and licence Yf the Catholikes which are in prison were such greuouse offendars against the state that it might be suspected they would practise all treason then in deed for suertie that none of their religion might come vnto them it were not done vnwyselie to make the restraint generall and then might a new Bisshope doubt perchaunse to conferr with them without further licence But where as all the fault which is laied to their charge hath no other name but papistrie and old religion M. Iuels doubt was more then needfull to refuse the prouyng of his doctrine without further licence But it ys well that you will declare vnto vs the rightfullnes of his refusall and make his part more probable Wherein your reasonyng is this VVere it good reason think you that a magistrate at the demaund of euerie subiect should bring reason to proue any law publisshed by the prince to be good c. Neither euery demaund neither euery subiect is to be answered and God forbed that either cardmaker or tapster or fyddler or peddler should be permitted emōg their pottes and packes to sitt iudges vpō great Doctours or reuerend Canons of generall Councells Yea trulie if either gentlemā or marchant would captiouslie and proudlie appose the priest or curate of his parishe it were not to be suffered But is D. Cole euery man and the good and lerned Catholikes which continue in indurance are they no more to be regarded then the common sort of Englishe men or on the other syde are they to be abhorred as a singular sort of wicked men To submitt the iudgement of the Prince and realme to the myslykyng of one wayward subiect I graunt with yow it would be great impeachmēt to the Princes authoritie ▪ neuerthelesse to defend the iudgemēt which hath passed by consent of any Prince or realme it cōmendeth their estimation and dignitie But concernyng waywardnes hath D. Cole shewed hym selfe to be such a one in his request and letter to M. Iuel In deed you speake brodely of hym and say that he required a proufe of M. Iuels doctrine vnder pretence of lernyng but in deed