proceed from his premises, especially in regard to the red herring of the
‘private Mass’.^44
But let this be graunted to your spirite of arroganceie, that you maie
saie frelie that yow have sene all the writers, which no man elles
alive hath done: let it be a figure of rethorick that yowe have
ransacked every corner in their worckes, who have not reade the
twentieth parte thereof, and of that little which you have reade, have
not borne awaie perhapps the hundreth. Yet all this I saie being
graunted, what logike is this of youres to reason after this sort? All
these holy doctours have geven us perfect evidence of a communion,
without mencion making of any private masse, Ergothere was in
Christes church within the first six hundred no private masse. If
apon your witnesse yow bring not in this conclusion yow saie
nothing against us. If this be your conclusion, in effect yow saie as
little: forasmuch as every childe is in a manner able to teache yow,
that this consequent is nought: he speaketh no of such a thinge, ergo
there is no such thing. Or as yowe reason, they did not, Ergo,
though coulde not.
I would alleage your auctorities of Clemens, Dionisius, Iustinus
martir, Ambrose, Hierom, Austen, Leo, saving that we finde in them
that which we denie not, that is to saie, that with the priest, the
people did use to communicate: but that if (as yow saie) the people
would not, the priest should not, thereof we finde not one worde,
which till yow rove us, Chrisostome his yea will be taken for better
then youre naie .... That as the catholices forbidde no man to
receive with the priest that will: but hartelie wisshe that all men
would so dispose themselves, that at every Masse with the priest
there might be some to communicate: so neither can they constreine
them to receive whose devotion thereto serveth them not, nor maie
them selves absteine from the sacrifice whereunto Christes
institution bindeth them.^45Stapleton also slighted Jewel’s argumentium ad consequentiam, and
illustrated his contentions by employing the Pater Noster, that not one
example could be found that any private person said this to himself in
the first 600 years, and likewise, you could find no written record in
136 JOHN JEWEL AND THE ENGLISH NATIONAL CHURCH
(^44) Dorman was quite pointed in defending his mentor, in his 1567A Request to M.
Iewell(Louvain: John Fowler) he wished to show Jewel in some few instances his ‘evident
corruption’, ‘execrable lye (5b)’, and to point out that ‘if you had as good a stomacke to
digest your meate that you receive, as you have a liberal and large conscience in uttering
of falsehod, you might eate horseshewes and take no harm (6a)’, ‘when you prove falshood
in other, have made so lowde and impudent a lye your selfe’, for example, ‘Is your
conscience, say you, free and cleane from all falsehoode that every you uttred? Nowe surely
then have you as strange and as large a conscience, as ever I hearde of, or rather no
conscience at all. For of al manie hundreds of untruthes, wherewith by diverse men you
remain charged in printe to chose one, the rather because your selfe have chosen it in this
Sermon of yours, I praie you Syr tell us, howe youre Protestation, and the evident
corruption of the Councel of Carthage agree together?’
(^45) Dorman,A proufe of Certeyne Articles(Antwerp: Johann Latius, 1564), ff. 98a–99a.
http://www.ebook3000.com