¶Although M. Iuell, when you proclaimed your chalenge at the beginning, you promised to yelde and subscribe, if any man alyue were able to bryng anye one sentence out of any old Doctour, Councell, Scripture, or exāple of primitiue Church, for proofe of any one of all your articles: yet verily I am perswaded, no wyse man bele­ued, what soeuer, or how much so euer were brought, that you would stand vnto your promise. &c. So then the largenesse of your promise, to others maketh shewe of your confidence, and to your selfe the regarde of it encreaseth stubbernesse.

WHen king Alaxander had proclaimed war against Darius, a certaine boasting Per­siā in stéede of more manhood, vsed muche vnreuerent talke agaynst them of Mace­donia: and especially against Alexander hymselfe: But Memnon hys Captayne, perceiuing thys soldiours valiantnesse to be all in his railing tongue, at the last, strake hym wyth hys speare and sayde, Ego te alo vt pugnes, non vt maledicas, I retayne thée to fight, and not to speake euyll. The very lyke of thys is happined among vs, and thys pratyng Soldiour doth play hys part agayne. The Byshop of Sarisburie our Alexander in Christian warre and godly courage, hath made proclamacion against the Pope that proude Prince Darius, & Kyng of Babilon. Now least there should want a Soldiour to speake euyll of Alexander, Maister Harding hath taken vpon hym that part: and spareth no péece of hys cunning by all meanes possible to debase thys good enterprise. God (if it be hys wyll) once make hym know hym selfe, or if he shall continue in hys euyll speakyng, sende ouer hym some [Page 2] Memnon that may chasten hys intemperate tongue.

In thys beginning of hys Epistle, there is lyttle woorthy aunswering. He pronounceth boldly of M. Iuels entent: yet no man knoweth the things of a man, saue the spirite of man which is within hym. i. Cor. 2.11. Hys writing is like a Crowe in Peacocks feathers, or an ylfauored Ape in a purple garment. The handlyng of hys matter is very beautifull, and the sub­stance is nothing woorth. And yet in hys maner of resoning bicause M. Iuell wyll not subscribe, he concludeth that he is both confident and stubburne. Hys confidencie I graunt. He hath learned the good lesson of hys heauenly Father, Confi­dite, Iohn. 16.33. Psalm. ego vici mundum, be confident, for I haue ouercome the world. The Lorde is his helper, and he shall not be moued for euer. He is guiltie to him selfe of no crime herein: he waxeth not pale with the memorye of any fault, and therefore in the feare of God he hath sayd vnto hys soule, hic murus aheneus esto, stand fast as a brazen wall. Would God M. Hardyng had had the lyke confidence, the scornfull reproches of the proud should not haue proued hym stubburne.

¶Our Lord yet (if it be his pleasure) once open your eyes, and giue you grace to see the daunger of the poole you wade in. Beware by tyme M. Iuell, you fall not into the horrible gulfe, that Salomon speaketh off. Impius, cum in profundum malorum venerit, contemnit. When the wic­ked man commeth into the bottom of euils, he becom­meth careles, settyng all at nought. If once you fall into thys bottom, what hope is there of your recouery? For whereas none returneth from euyll, but he that re­penteth hym of euil: How can he repent that hath cast away all care? Yea, how can he steppe backe from euill and be made good, that saith (whose miserable state E­say lamenteth) euyll is good, and good is euyll? How can he see the right way, that maketh darknes light, and [Page 3] light darknes? How can he delight in sweete thyngs, that taketh sowre for sweete, and sweete for sowre.

From these vncharitable beginnings M. Harding falleth (as it may séeme) to a charitable prayer: but were the same acceptable in the sight of God, he himselfe should returne from all hys abhominations: now it procéedeth from the Minister of iniquity. We are put in minde of the country prouerb, that it is ill wyth the Géese when the Fox preacheth. If the pray­ers were ryghteous he pretendeth here, not our bloud, but their owne teares should haue watred their eyes. Nowe, bi­cause their prosperitie hath bene the slaughter house of Satan, this submission in aduersity can be but the Crocodiles teares: If God of hys iustice shoulde carye vs agayne captiues into Babilon, we know the purple whoore, and the whyps of hir fornication. But God be praysed, the lynes are fallen to vs in pleasaunt places: yea we haue a fayre heritage, Psal. 16.16 for the waye that Maister Iuell wadeth in, it is not that horrible gulphe, which M. Harding can not sée, wherein the bottom of all euyll abydeth. The spirite of God is our warrant, that it is the narrow way which leadeth vnto euerlastyng lyfe, there is no cause why M. Iuell should repent him of this iour­neying, he walketh in the way of health. God of hys good wyll and mercie shall giue vnto hym that hys course be fini­shed in the same. He maketh not good euill, nor euyll good, Esay. 5.20. he putteth not darknesse for light, nor light for darknesse, he saith not swéete is sower, and sower is swéete. And for as much as the whole controuersie betwéene vs, doth rest in this, whether of vs is in darknesse, it shall not be tedious vnto the Christian Reader, if in the woord of God we doe séeke for triall, for that giueth vnto the simple sharpnesse of wyt, and to the children knowledge and discretion, Pro. 1.4. neyther is it hydden but from the eyes of the scorner, neither yet peruerted, but of the wycked. Pro. 4. 2. Pet. 3.16. Let vs aske of the same woord what is good, what is the lyght, [Page 4] and what is swéete. 2. Pet. 1.19. Psalm. 19. It is good for thée (saith Peter) to har­ken vnto the woorde. And thy woorde saith Dauid is a lantern vnto our féete, & a light vnto our steppes, and the same woorde is more swéete then hony and the hony combe. Then as thys same word is true, so we are assured of all goodnesse, all light, and pleasure, if we follow it: and therefore blesse onesse is pro­nounced ouer hym that readeth, Apoca. 1.3. and them that heare that pro­phecie. Now doe we call the world to wytnesse, whether they or we do set out thys woorde. We haue it in our churches and priuate houses, we expounde it to the people: we exhort them to reade it: we call the ignorant from their errours wyth the same voyce that S. Augustine was called, tolle lege, tolle le­ge, Take vp and reade: and thys is as the holy Ghost doth wit­nesse, good, lyght, and swéete. But these men that crake so of their goodnesse, what haue they done? They haue pulled thys woorde out of their synagoges: they haue not suffred it in the poore mans dwellyngs: they haue not expounded it as the whole world can iudge: they haue not made it the squire of their religion: And if in any place that little booke was séene, though in the houses of Bishops and Prelats, yea, in the verie palaces of Popes & Cardinalls: yet did it sléepe in the dust: or if the candle was light, it was set vnder a bushell. The people did not knowe the meanes of their saluation, the merite of Christes passion was mingled with mans good workes, his continuall intercession darkned with the mediation of saints, his bloudie drops wiped away with the remembring his holye martirs: his crying out on the crosse at the yéelding vp of his spirit, was not hard thorow the abusing the name of his bles­sed mother, and in steade of other vnderstanding, wherwith our soules are comforted, we harkened after the straunge sounds of vnknowen trumpets: in gadding on pylgrimage, in paynting of Tabernacles, in sensing of Idols: in setting vp of Candels before stocks and stones, in blasphemous Masses: in idolatrous Altars, in halowing of Temples: in christining [Page 5] of Bells: in selling of Merites: in turning of Roodes, in a thousand mo iuglings, inuented by Satan and practised by his ministers: that from the top to the toe, from the hill altars vnto the church doore, ther was nothing whole in that froward generation. Neither they themselues can denie this though they like to dissemble it, cry out how they will, y ^t we make euil good, and good euill. And for the charging vs with darknes, the thing so disagréeth, that the ignorant require a further proofe, and the learned doe sée ther much wrangling eloquence: doe we make darknesse light? I say as before, what shadowes doe we walke in? what darkenesse doe we preach? wherein are we blinde leaders of the blinde? Accusations may not goe for arguments, nor slaunderings for sufficient proofe. O Maister Harding turne againe to your writings, examine your au­thorities, consider your counsails, applie your examples, looke if any line be blamable in our seruice, & take hold of your ad­uantage. I think Maister Iuel will accept it as an article. No, no, this offer doeth not like you, you see to great a hazarde of your little estimation. Our seruice is good and godly, euerie title grounded on holie scriptures: and with what face doe ye cal it darknesse? Sure with the same that the prophecies of the holy ghost were sometyme called dreames, the doctrine of the Apostels heresies, & our sauiour Christ a Samaritan. But as for your Portuise which is your light, whether it be darknesse or no, I craue no Arbitrer, I require but triall, and as Elias saide to the priests of Baal, let vs take eyther our bullock and laie the péeces on our aultars, and on which God sendeth fire, let that be the light. You haue halted to long on both sides, it is now time to walke vp right. Offer vp your Portuise to Maister Iuell, if he proue it not a heape of lies, a sincke of iniquitie, a déepe dungion of blasphemouse herisies agaynst the eternall sonne of God & his euerlasting priesthood, we will all subscribe. And for the assuraunce of our meaning, we saie with the Apostle, behold before God we lie not: Galat. 1.20. if you dare not [Page 6] doe this, the Christian Reader must remember you are woorse then Baals prophets. Consider then Maister Harding in what waters you wade, and looke better what is light & darknesse. For the ignoraunce of gods worde the Gentiles were said to sit in darkenesse and in the shadow of death, the vnbeléeuing Iewes to be blinde leaders of the blinde, and he that knewe it not, to go he wist not whether. But the darckning of that worde hath bene your chiefest light, and ignoraunce the mo­ther of your deuotion: and as in the sacrifices of Isis and Se­rapis you haue made Harpocrates image with his finger on his lyps in token that your misteries must be kept secrete, and as the Egiptians you haue your two diuers caracters, that Robin Hoode and Gui of Warwick and Beuis of Hamp­ton & such like shoulde be had of the people in english letters, But the misteries of our redemption, & the glorious tidings of the death of Christ were in straunge figures, & for the ha­sarde of deuotion they might not be made common. So that of Launcelot Dulake, of Lamorake de Galis, of Sir Tristram de Lyones, or Marlin the Prophet we could tell many weary tales: but of Paule, of Peter, Iames or Iohn▪ besides the bare names, not one among a hundred could tell a lyne, not with­standing the continual crying of wysdome in the stréetes, Prou. 1.20. Math. 19.14 the callyng of our Sauiour for the sielie lyttleones. O M. Har­dyng, this is no light. It was the tyme of Dioclesian, when the Scriptures were burned, the abhominations of Manasses when they were hyd in the Temple, the kingdome of Antio­chus when they were cut in péeces: and to compare lyke with lyke, your Antichristian iurisdiction, where they are kept in couert. Wherin you shew that great plague to rest vpō you, which who so heareth, Iere. 19.3. Amos. 8.11. eyther eare shall tingle that you haue the famine of the woord of God. When the cogitacion of mās hart euen from hys youth was euyll, & the worlde ouerrun w ^t couetousnesse, Gene. 7. God purged that iniquitie with his drowning waters: when the crie of Sodome and Gomor did ascende to [Page 7] heauen, God quenched their filthie lustes wyth fire and brim­stone: the frowardnesse of hys people, the breach of his lawes, Gene. 19. the bloud of hys prophetes, with pestilence, famine, banish­ments, & such other sundrie and diuers plagues: but the death of hys onely heire, Math. 21.41 wyth the letting out of the Uineyard to o­thers: and the bloud of hys beloued Sonne, with the scourge of ignoraunce: that vnto this daie they beleue not his glori­ous Gospel. And how must the Popes kingdom néedes trem­ble & feare that acknowledgeth the punishments of Christes death to maintaine their religion? Now for our deliuerie from the maintenaunce of darkenes, Galat. 1.8. S. Paul biddeth vs not beleue an Angel of heauen that bringeth an other Gospell, therefore we dare not be led with any blinde custome to sha­dowe the same light we haue receiued. If you shall otherwyse be alway minded, I se in an Etnick hart, the effect of that et­nicks praier virtutem vt videant intabes [...]ant (que) relicta, that you might sée vertue and pine away with want of it. After this foloweth a sober excuse that Maister Harding maketh of him selfe, that although through infirmitie he oftentimes of­fend yet in matters of faith he hath no peruerse iudgement: The reason is bicause he doth submit him self to the church of Rome ▪ Much better this argument would hold the other way: bicause he is in the church of Rome, he is in all filthinesse & superstition of a sinfull lyfe and of a corrupt religion, hauing the heauie hand of God ouer him, that except he repent: the same woe shall light vppon him, which so vnwisely he hath deriued to other.

¶This matter is well to be weighed, the case you stand in is deeplie to be considered. This much you cannot de­nie: you haue for your parte broken the vnitie, that is so much commended vnto vs in the scriptures, and all holy fathers. The Catholicke churche (sayth Saint Cyprian) can be one, it can not be cut and deuided a sunder. The catholicke Churche alone is the bo­die [Page 8] of Christ, saith S. Augustine, whereof he is the head, the sauiour of his bodie. Without hys body the holye Ghost giueth life to none. Therefore in an other place he saith: whosoeuer is seperat from the catholick chur­che, how lawdable so euer he thinketh himselfe to liue, for this onely wickednesse that he is deuided from the vnity of Christ, he shall not haue lyfe, but the wrath of God remaineth vpon him.

Here is a sad admonition, concerning the catholike Chur­che, which we acknowledge to be the bodie of Christ, and he the onely heade of it, so that without it there is no saluation. But for the triall of this Church we go to the Scriptures and doe examine ech spirit whether he be of God or no: 1. Ioh. 4.1.2. and such as saie they be Apostles and be none, we haue founde them lyars: Apoca. 1.2. therefore we run out from among them, as out of the middest of Babilon; out of their wicked assemblies and donne of théeues, from their abominations of Moab and spirituall fornications, and ar come againe to our merciful Father that hath prepared his fatlings for vs, and put on vs our wedding garment, and placed vs at his great Supper in the felowship of his church, where we abide thorough his mercie, and looke for our resolucion, that our ioy maie be full. And for our assu­rance to be of that number we haue the warrāt of the Scrip­tures: first for that we harken onely to Christ, and heare not the voice of any stranger: Iohn. 10.3. then for that we confesse that they alone can saue our soules. Ia [...]o. 1.21. [...]. Tim. 3.16. And as S. Paul saith, can make the man of God perfit to all good workes. And considering that Prophecie came not in the olde time by the wyll of man, 2. Pet. 1.21. but holie men of God spake as they were mooued by y ^e holy ghost: we dare not admit any priuate interpretation, but take héede vnto the worde, as vnto a light that shineth in a darke place, for that is the daye starre which is risen in our harts. There­fore we presume not to vnderstand aboue that which is méere [Page 9] to vnderstand, but that we vnderstand according to sobrietie, as God hath delt to euerye one the measure of fayth, and we prophesie according to the proportion thereof, sith the Scrip­ture may not be interpreted by other spirit, Rom. 12.3. then it hath bene deliuered. For as no man knoweth the things of a man, saue the spirit of man, which is within him, 1. Cori. 2.11. euen so the things of God no man knoweth, saue onely the spirit of God. As for the exposition of the holy Fathers, and Doctours, the same holy Fathers, and Doctours them selues haue taught vs soberly, and with reuerence to leaue them, if in any wise they thinke other then the truth reporteth. Neither yet of counsails haue we any fore iudged sentēce, to be led by the counsel of Nice, or Areminum, but confer matter with matter, cause with cause, reason with reason, according to the scriptures. And vppon this ground we more esteme one laye man bringing scripture for his defence, than a whole assemblie without the like assu­raunce. For were it not extreme madnesse vpon the credit of men to goe carelesse in the mire, we knowe not whether, sith the thinges are written whereby we may liue? Euen as our sauiour Christ gaue aunswere to him, that sought life, re­ferring him to the scriptures, and asking what he read: Luke. 10.36 so we vpon those scriptures haue buylded vp our church wherin, we haue rather chosen to be dore kéepers, than to dwell in the prowd palaces of vngodlie buildings. But here M. Harding crieth out for the Apostles constitutions, and with rumours, and heresies, & deceitful traditions, bringeth battred weapons against our Church walles. But alas infelix puer at (que) impar congressus Achilli, O vnhappie child, and vnméete match for Achilles. This ordinaunce is but quilles, these pellets are but paper, this powder is but winde, and all these engines are but rotten wood. Thanks be to God that hath made vs our dwelling places, and indewed vs with hope, that shall not be confounded. We haue left to walke in their slipperie wayes, we haue left of to go after them in their vnfruitfull iourneis, [Page 10] we haue left of our gaping so long after flyes: would God Maister Harding you would so tourne from your follie, but you are drounken, Esay. 29.9. though not with wine, and you stagger, though not with strong drinke: for the Lord hath couered you with a spirit of slumber, and hath shut vp your eyes. Concer­ning traditions, I saye breifly, such turning of deuises shalbe estemed as the potters claie, yet meane I not this of all, but of popish traditions, of forbidding mariage, commaunding to abstaine from meates, which S. Paule sayth is the doctrine of Deuills: 1. Tim. 4.1 of lying Legendes, which are the tokens of Anti­christ, of massing garments, which for all new gloses muste néedes signifie the loking for of a new Messias. To be short of all such traditions rites worshippings as at this time set forth the superstition of this romish seruice, concluding this place with S. Paul Phil. 4. what so euer things are true, what so euer things are honest, what so euer things are iust, what so euer things are pure, what so euer things pertaine to loue▪ what so euer things are of good report, if there be any vertue, or if there be any prayse, thinke on those things which you both learned, & receiued, and heard, & sene in me, those things doe, and the God of peace shalbe with you. Nowe he that can bring most aūtient profe what these traditions were, it is best reason he should be beleued. Speake now for your churche Maister Harding, and if you winne, for my part I will yeld. Speake out therefore alowd, and tel vs your witnesse names. Ignatius, Martialis, Abdias, Hippolitus, Amphilochius, Leontius, Dyonitius. Olde witnesses sure euen moulded with their manie yeares: yet such is your fortune, euen these are to yong. Call for your Clemens the Appostles felow, yet he will not serue: Ther is one commeth aganist them longer of continuance, & more trauailed in the world, yet not worne with his yeares, nor w [...]ried with his labour: he is as good as Moyses, Deut. 34.7. his eyes are not dimmed, nor his naturall force aba­ted: [Page 11] he is like vnto Caleb as strong now as when his Moyses first sent him, as strong as he was then, Io [...]. 14.11. euen so strong is he now for warre or gouernment: a companion of S. Paules iourneis: whose prayse is in the Gospell thoroughout all Churches: who saluted the Collossians: who onelye was with Paule at Rome the .xiii. yeare of the raygne of Nero, 2. Cori. 8.18 Collo. 4.14. 2. Tim. 4.11. (though you say Peter was then Bishop) an excellent Phisi­tion, and one that can cure the very hardnes of your hart: If you care not for hys commendacions, yet regarde his name: I doe meane S. Luke the holy Euangelist. Let vs stande to his iudgement, what were these traditions? These traditi­ons, sayth he, are the Gospell and the Actes which I wrote to Theophilus. For these are his very woordes. It séemed good also to me most noble Theophilus, Luke. 1.1. as soone as I had searched out perfitlye all things from the beginning, to wryte vnto you thereof from point to point. All these things thus exact­ly written, he receiued onely of his Maister Paule: And ther­fore, as it is thought, the same Apostle, speaking of S. Lukes writing, calleth it his owne Gospell. So that what so euer Luke reporteth not written by S. Paule, it is Paules preach­ing, and that is his tradition, yea euen from poynt to poynt.

O maister Harding, you thinke not reuerently of the spi­rite of God, if you can imagine that S. Luke, after such a pro­mise vnto Theophilus, pretermitted anye thing that séemed necessarie: there is nothing sufficient, if this be not suffici­ent. And yet there is an other witnesse, more auncient then Luke, and yet more fresh, then all your withered Doctours, and that is S. Paule him selfe, who in the .xv. to the Romaines, as maye well be gathered, saith, Rom. 15.17· that he wrote vnto them that same that he preached. Now sith we haue so sufficient war­rants, call vs not into law, for reiecting your dreamings: but acknowledge, we say truly, in deniyng that Churche, whose faith you professe to be the catholike Churche.

For a briefe aunswere to your order of Bishops, I say it [Page 12] is a token, that maye faile in the Churche, or else was there no Church from the death of Christ, till S. Peter was a bishop, and so like in all vacations of Popes, be they long, or short. The church must be tried by the woord of God. Let Augustine be the Iudge, Aug. ep. 166 Chriso. in Math. hom 49. Epist. 166. and Chrisostome vpon Mathew, hom. 49. Now for the better discharge of Luther and Zuinglius, which in Gods cause haue bene Symeon, and Leui, to reuēge the adulteries of Sichem: I wyll laye foorth your argument, and make it no woorse then it is. S. Augustine saith, if the or­der of Bishops may prooue the Church, there was neuer yet Bishop of Rome a Donatist, ergo saith maister Harding, ther must néedes be an open succession of Bishops. Let who wyll be cheyned in such bandes of yarne.

¶But as it is certayne, you will faile in proofe of your church of the Caluinists, so I doubt not, but the world ere it be long shall see, how weake are the other partes of your doctrine. A man would thinke, who hath herd or read your Chalenge, that either you were well fur­nished with substantiall learning, to defende what you tooke vpon you, or that you were a man of passing im­pudencie, or of extreme madnesse. Your Chalenge was aunswered, you haue replied. What you could doe in this Replie, you haue done. What helpe might be had among that whole side, you haue not wanted, Schoole maisters, Greke readers, Lawyers, Canonistes, Ciuili­ans, Summystes, Glose searchers, Diuines of all your sortes, and all others, that could do ought, haue put to their hands. The whole forces of your side into your booke, are brought together. God be thāked for it. All shall turne to the ioyfull victorie of truth, and to the glorie of God, and to your owne confusion at length.

Now M. Harding, as though you had gotten the victorie, you do vntimely blow vp the triumphe, hasting, as it séemeth [Page 13] to Paris to syng Te Deum for the battell of Aging [...] court: wyth an odious rehersall in your manner of eloquence, of Schoolemaisters, Gréeke readers, Lawyers, Canonistes, Ci­uilians, Summystes, Glose searchers. &c. with whom as with Maister Iuels helpers, like the lusty gréene Knight you wyll néedes encounter. But why doe you vse such vntrue demea­nour, to iudge of any other by your owne doing? Touchyng this Reply, against which such a troupe haue sent out theyr papers, I speake as I haue sure knowledge, that if all these were helpers, yet doth it not shame the doing. If it be maister Iuels owne in good proofe, in elequence, in memorie, M. Har­ding is farre behind him. And for further declaration of this, they that haue séene the former aunswere, & this Reioynder, do know, that if M. Harding cōfesse it, he hath taken by force, if not, he hath stolne of his cunning.

But, saith M. Harding, this Chalenge was aunswered. I graunt he hath written, when the offer was once made vastis cum viribus offert, ora Dares, he for his part hath done what he could. But, saith he, you haue replied: O maister Harding why did you not before consider the fame of the Chalenger? Why saw you not those tokens of victorie hanged vp in hys houses? Though during the silence, your aunswere did séeme so plausible, yet now this replie hath shadowed all your pray­ses, your tentes are spoyled, your defences are weakned, your holdes are ouerturned, and your Captaines slaine. Iames and Chrisostome do say no moe Masses: Dionysius hath renoun­ced the ordering of Angels: Clement hath no more acquayn­taunce with the Apostles: Hippolytus beginneth with enim, Abdias is a Lyar, Amphilochius is a Dreamer, your Mas­sing, or rather masking Priests, are sought for, and beholde women, boyes, children, laymen, fables, dreames, and visions, your Church, and Minister for your halfe Communion, and they are deathbeds, sickfolkes, infants, and madmen: Proofes for your Lattin seruice, and surmises, gesses, coniectures and [Page 14] likelyhoodes: In your supremacie he hath marked your wan­drings, and seldome or neuer he hath founde you in the right way. In the other Articles he hath opened your forgeries, layd abroad your fallacies, vntied your cunning knots, losed euerye ioynt: and your aunswere is fallen. What resteth now, but that you bewéepe your faire Turnus, and cry wyth the pensiue Father, gnate vbi forma vitens niuea (que) in fronte Serenus ille decor, O aunswere, aunswere, where is nowe thine olde shining beautie?

Surely M. Harding, the paintings are rubbed awaye, the goodly feathers are gone, and the Crow appeareth: The Li­ons skyn is pulled of, and the séely Asse is bewrayed, therefore it is no maruail though you complaine of his helpers, as the Cowarde that hath béene once beaten in the darke, thincketh euerye bushe to be a Man, so your aunswere being shaken with euery line of that Replie, made you thincke euery leafe to be a new aduersary, notwithstanding yet you haue grauen a fresh in your buckler [...] with good lucke at ad­uenture, and in a desperate cause maintaine a litle hope with a new Reioynder. But alas, Fortune is deafe, and can not heare, or if she wil do any thing for you, & make this reioyning labour serue worthy aunswere, then alas little booke, cui te fortuna reseruat exitio, what misery shall come vpon thée?

¶Many thought ye were inuincible: By this it is well per­ceiued, ye are easy ynough to be conquered. Men sup­posed some great thing to be in you. Nowe all is seene what ye haue. And when it shall be made manifest that you haue nothing in substaunce, but onelye certaine shewes of things: your craking and boasting shal ende in your contempt and shame.

The opinion of Maister Iuels learning hangeth not vpon M. Hardings commendation. Men be not now led so far into [Page 15] errour, that if M. Harding say anye thing, they will strayght beleue him. As God hath lightned our harts with the know­ledge of his heauenly word, so he hath ioyned vnderstanding vnto our senses, least vaine talking should deceiue vs. And therefore it skilleth the lesse how much M. Harding or his fel­lowes write. Concerning that Challenge, that hath so much enflamed them, I prayse not the Challenger, he hath nothing that he hath not receiued, the glorye doth belong vnto God, the praise vnto God, thankes geuing is due vnto God: May­ster Iuell hath no more to boast of his tenne talents, then hée that hath but two: But this much I dare truly affirme, that as by Elias God destroyed the Prophets of Baal, by Micheas found the Prophets of Achab lyars, by Elizeus killed the rai­ling Children: so by M. Iuell he hath well confirmed vs a­gainst all idolatrous Priestes, all lying Prophets, and al rai­ling Companions.

¶The euent of your vanitie putteth me in remembrance of one Megabysus a great Captaine vnder the Kyng of Persie. This Megabysus came on a time vnto the shop of Appelles, that most famous Painter at Athens. Be­holding the Tables, & geuing his verdite of those ex­cellent workes, he praised, & dispraised, liked, & found fault, as his fantasie blundered, not as skill directed. A­pelles that while standing behinde a cloth, and hearing what he said, stept forth, and spake thus vnto him. Hi­therto Megabyse thy purple, gold, and precious stones, and the trayne that wayteth on thee, made vs beleue, thou were a man of great worthinesse: now these boyes here that grinde my colours, hearing thee to speake so foolishly, set nought by thee, and laugh thee to scorne. Verily, though I be not like to Apelles, yet is your case M. Iuell, not muche vnlike to Megabyses. Heretofore your Rochet, and your square Cap (for I trow you be not yet come to be one of the Roūdcap Ministers) your [Page 16] Bishoprick of Sarisburie, your sightly state and condi­tion, your Rhetoricall perswasions in the pulpit, with a holy holding vp of the handes, and casting vp of the eyes to heauen, and with your lamentable crying out of your Oos, which you vse very commonly, weening thereby to perswade the simple, your stoute asseuerati­ons, your fauour of the common people, and others, that clap you on the shoulder, your vaine Pulpet buz­zing, your Gloria patri at Pauls crosse: all this hath made many a one beleue, that M. Iuell was a great Clarcke, a piller of the Gospell, a peerelesse fellow. But now that you haue sayd all that you, and your whole side had to say, now that you haue discouered that lay hid before, now that your best stoare is laid abroade, now that you haue made the world witnesse of the proofes you haue for your doctrine: they that haue but meane skill be­hold a further weakenesse to be on your side, then be­fore they had conceiued. Better it had beene for you, ye had mayntained your opinion and estimation a­mong your own deceiued brotherhed with silence, and with your accustomed craking, without shewing forth any proofes.

Now is M. Harding come to his pretye solace with one Megabises, a great man, & of little name, & in his own deuice lyking him selfe, well forceth much his eloquence, as if the Owle were the fairest bird in the wood. But we shoulde doe him much wrong to barre him of his pastime, that hath no­thing else to comfort himselfe withall. His cause is nought, his bookes are contemned, his credite is lost, and that whych gréeueth him most of all, he hath made an vnequall matche. In these extremities, what if he vse his tongue at will? Mega­bises & he both can do but litle harme. The one doth but milke an hée Goate, while the other doth holde vnder a syue. It is now no time to spreade abroade anye cunning, to prooue my [Page 17] Lord of Sarisbury is not learned, as long as his Replye ly­ueth, and it shall lyue till his aduersaries be confounded. Nei­ther his square Cap, nor his Rochet, nor his sightly state, nor his Bishopricke, shall at all commende him. We haue the te­stimonies of his minde, which God hath made so bewtifull, that all his other ornaments are knowen to be to fewe: yet concerning his good estate, I doe aunswere with Salomon, God ouerthroweth the wicked, and they are not, but the hou­ses of the righteous shall stand. For thys description of hys maner of preaching, first it becommeth Diogoras better than a Diuine. Then what skilleth it, though Zoilus or Zeropha­nes doe scoffe at Homer. Pardon me, M. Harding if I say the truth [...], it is easier for you to mocke at it, then to doe the like. But what meane you thus bitterly to raile at his preaching? Why iest you at his lamētacion for the peoples disobedience? Haue you lost both your cause and your learning togither? Uerily whē your Pope was Deane of S. Paules, there was then neither lifting vp of handes, nor bringing downe of hartes, neither crying out of Oos, nor in­ward grief of Iis, neither yet gloria patri, nor mors praedicata filij. You might heare the heauens harmonie, for anie pulpet noyse, yet loftye descant within amonge the Balamites, or­gane pipings at pleasure, and although no pulpet, yet goodly chauncell buzzing. I maruail you durst make mention of his preaching? But such is the blind mans hap, that séeth not his way, by making haste, goeth ouer his shooes, ere he be aware, in the mire.

¶Howe little truth you haue for your side, and howe ma­ny vntruthes you haue vttered by your replie, partlye by this Reioynder, and more largely by the labours of other men, it shalbe declared.

Nowe after this long a doe, what proofe bringeth Maister [Page 16] [...] [Page 17] [...] [Page 18] Harding against this Replie? for sooth he referreth vs partly to this Reioinder, partly to the bird in y ^e bush, that is, to other proofes that shall come hereafter. I knowe not well in thys case what to write. If I shoulde vnrippe this Reioynder, and shew all the faultes it hath, then os & impudentia a bande of Louanistes, cry out in the ayre of lyings, corruptions, miscon­struings, alterations, and a thousand such other. Some sende ouer their pamfletes, some returne their vntruthes, some whet leaden hatchets, some séeke reall presence, some make blinde discourses, some hunt out their Purgatorie, some fight for their images: some stumble on their rocke, and suche as can doe nothing else, cry, beware of M. Iuell. But truth must not be still for feare of the sclaunderer. God giue vs grace to take héede of thys Reioynder, in vttering of an heresie, it is more talking, thā the Turtle, in speaking out the truth, more dumme, than a Fish: in auoiding authorities, more winding than the Serpent: in resisting Gods spirite, more hard than yron: in substance, an open market of all maner of euill. We that sée it, doe giue God the prayse, that maketh his truth to shine through so many cloudes: They that fauour their do­ings, may bewayle wyth Andromache, lifting vp Astionax handes, Spes nullas habet Troia si istas habet, Troy hath no hope at all, yf it haue no hope but this. Concerning those other proofes that shall come hereafter, I can say but this, pro boscide vnius abscissa monstratum est mori posse belluas, we know by this Reioynder, all your other bookes are soone aun­swered.

¶As concerning your aunswere to my preface, it is lyke the rest of your booke, all together voyde of truth, and plaine dealing. &c. that you haue discouered our wants therein, you speake vntruly.

Now is M. Harding come to the defence of his Preface, [Page 19] and as his manner is, blaming M. Iuels whole writing, re­ioyneth, as hée séeth good, where it liketh him best, and first boldlye ynough denieth, that M. Iuell coulde discouer anye wants on their side. But alas, this is but a bragge. Is there no want on their side? Why then doth he handle his friends so vngentlie? Why turneth he them ouer to their owne de­fence? Why dissent they one from an other? If perhaps he say, their Church hath no wants, his owne fellowes are a­gainst him. Scotus sayth, Can. Apost. ca. 6. [...]t. 6. sy­nodus. ca. 12. the Churche hath somewhere the harder part. Their Councels conclude some, one against an other, some against the Apostles them selues. Their Popes haue extremelye hated one an other, in suche sorte as neuer Turke or Infidell hath done the like. Yea, such is the impu­dencie of their Church, and so little account they make of dis­agrement, that they would make Christes Apostles teache one contrary to other. The .6. Canon, and the .40. Canon, and the .50. Canon of the Apostles, alow the mariage of prie­stes, the .25. Canon forbiddeth them to marrye. The .80. Ca­non of the Apostles doth straightlye charge and commaunde that no Bishop or Priest do debase him selfe to any worldlye labour, and alledge for their purpose this scripture: No man can serue two maisters. Const. Apost. lib. 3. cap. 67. And yet the cōstitutions of the same Apostles doe quite contrary, and commaund that the Priests do labour, vsing their own example, of which some were Fi­shermen, some Tentmakers, some Husbandmen, and suche like, this contrarietie of Apostles could neuer be in Christes Apostles. Then by like M. Hardings Church, that is faine to make them Apostles, hath some wants. And yet bicause M. Iuell sayd thus much, he falleth out in a rage, that his Chal­lenge was foolish, his Replie without learning, his arrogan­cie much, his Gospell false, his weakenes discouered, his mo­destie stained, and I wot not what. A heape of shamelesse lies in halfe a side of a lease. The Challenge was foolish: yet Har­ding, Dorman, Rastell, Marshall, Stapleton, Heskins, Saun­ders, [Page 20] and Shacklocke, doe sweate these .iiii. or .v. yeares about it, and are neuer the neare. The Replie was vnlearned. Yet M. Harding in a yeare, could reioyne but with a few leaues, and that non absque theseo, Summysts or Glosesearchers, euerie one doth helpe a little. Concerning these other sclaun­ders, his pride can not be much, that alwayes commendeth his aduersaries cunning. His Gospell is not false, that em­braceth nothing but the Gospell of Christ. His weakenesse is litle, that is vpholden with so manye authorities. His mo­destie is not stained, whose enimie euill reporteth him. Nor his bragges are manie, where the victorie abideth. Therfore this filthie fome of such vncomely railing, doth rather bewray the sicknes of the wryters mynde, then reproue the person a­gainst whom it is vttered.

¶That you loked fiercely, and shoke your sword terribly, I sayd it not, as you reporte me. &c. from thence to di­gresse to the odious vpbraiding vs with crueltie. &c. it was more spitefull, then pertinent to the matter.

Maister Harding much blameth the racking of this exam­ple, but he may not nowe well discemble his meaning. His owne writinges, and Maister Shacklocks old withered trée, doe showe howe gladly they woulde bring vs into hatred o [...] bloudinesse, and when they secretly insinuate it, is it not wis­dome to bring open remedies? They may not well discharge them selues of such secrete doinges. Maister Harding was but little gone in this Epistle, when he would closely séeme to be Appelles. But his painting was not singular, and ther­fore I passed it ouer. After that he hath saide in this matter what he can, he commeth to his woonted rhetorike of Run­nagates, Apostataes, Forsakers, and Rebels, as if he were talking of him selfe or Staphylus and such companions. But Maister Hardings mouth is no slaunder, our constancy is yet [Page 21] vnblamable. He blameth much our vncourtesy towarde our aduersaries, but he sheweth not wherin we do so euill entreat them. We neither tye them vp in cheines, nor shut them vp in cole houses. Perhaps he will saye they are in [...]uraunce. Yet that is but his own false surmise. Their great good lyking is a token of little hard handling. As touching these manye yffes of the beginning of Maister Iuels profession, they néede no aunswere. What he ment, a godlye man maye iudge, in seing gods blessing of his proceadinges. He findeth not hym selfe guilty with Core, Dathan, and Abiron, in gods mercies he feareth not the fall of Lucifer. And as you Maister Har­ding, haue regarde to the saluation of your soule, for Christes sake, he requireth you, to enter into your owne conscience. If promotion made you shrinke, remember Ieroboam, that made Israel to synne. If shame make you cōtinue, remember Pharao, that would not yéeld to Moyses: What euer kepeth you back from the true ioye of Gods gospell, remember Iuli­anus. You shall crye in time, vicisti Galilee, O Galilean thou hast the victory.

¶That you were enforced therto by our importunity, as you say, who can beleue you. For who of vs al troubled you? Who prouoked you? Who did so much as pull you by the sleue? Had you not before shut vs vp. &c.

Where he denieth that M. Iuell was prouoked by their im­portunitie, and thereto rayseth a heape of his idle questions: what priuate cause he had, I know not. Of their great impor­tuniti, all the world is witnesse. What if M. Bonner were in prison, that had tied vp so many? What if testie M. Watson held his peace? Or what if M. Harding were quiet? Are there no moe enimies of Gods truth, but they? Was all at rest? Was al husht? Was not the world dayly seduced by their po­pery? Was not Christes merites darkned? Antichrist stil figh­ting [Page 22] for his seate in the temple? And will not this impor­tunitye stirre vp a good Byshop? I pray you M. Harding (I speake it not to vpbraide you, but to admonish Gods people) what if your watchmen, were blinde and had no knowledge? what if they were domme Dogs, and they would not barke? what if they laye a sléepe and delited in sléeping, doo you thinke therefore that the vigilant pastor of Sarisburie coulde sée the woolfe come and runne awaye, sée the théefe, and kéepe silence? Your great murderer Hosius was buste, your Sorbonists wer occupied, your Louanists at their labour, this might moue the byshop, though a few of you foxes dyd not much trouble y ^• fold, dissemble not your knowledge for shame anie longer, confesse this was great cause both of griefe and vehemency.

You finde fault with my want of modesty for shewyng forth your bosting, for my part I pray God I be neuer found more faulty for want of modestie.

Maister Harding excuseth him selfe, that he hath not passed modestie, and prayeth God that therein hée be neuer founde more faultie: but whosoeuer readeth ouer his writing, and raketh vp togither the scourings of his modestie, shall finde such a heape of railings, that if he yet feare, going ouer them: it is very true that he that is once past shame, is like to proue notoriously impudent. But it skilleth not much, how immo­dest he be in writing, that defendeth such a shamelesse cause.

¶If the truth you meane were manifest and knowen, why could not Luther see it, by whose spectacles you haue espied many pointes of your Gospel, by his minde, the truth of you that be Caluinistes, is not manifest.

Now M. Harding falleth into his common place of Lu­ther and Caluine, and those men, the more excellent their [Page 23] vertues were, the more opprobrious [...]ye he reporteth them. I could haue wished in the one lesse vehemencie. But it was a froward world when he first preached, the people coulde not be wonne with entreatie. The other may be a spectacle in al posteritie, to behold the great mercies of God, that endued his sinfull creatures with so rare vertues. He preached so often, and wrote so many bookes, that if the truth bare not witnesse, it might séeme incredible. He expounded the scriptures in such vertue of the spirite (giue me leaue to speake as I thinke, se­ing all is to the glorye of God) that neither S. Augustine nor S. Ierom the great lightes of Gods church haue euer done the like. But let such men rest in the peace of the Church, Mai­ster Hardings reuilings can not blemish their good names.

After this he expoundeth his meaning in calling Maister Iuell Goliah, which he saith he did not for his strength, but for his craking. I maruail he hath so sone forgot his Philo­sophie, Aristotle sayth, that craking is to boast of that thing which a man hath not, but Goliah had more strength, then a­ny one Israelite, had not God of his mercy toward Israel con­founded it: so take away this comparison, and he must con­fesse his ouersight: let it stand in force, and he must acknow­ledge M. Iuels strength: which strength, seing that God doth not ouerthrow, but encreaseth it with his mercie, it is not Go­liathes boasting, but it is Dauids faith, against which, bicause M. Harding hath so aduentured, both his strength is weake­ned, and his ignorance bewrayed. By Dauids slyng and hys scrip (he sayth) he knoweth not what is ment: yet me thync­keth, a man of his yeares, should not be ignorant, that by de­nying one mans things, to appertaine to an other: We saye the persons are not like. But M. Harding, bicause you know not what is ment by this sling and scrip, you must remem­ber Dauid came against this Philistine, in the name of the Lord: but you come girt with Saules sword, and his Target, that is, with mens deuises to counteruaile Gods word. Dauid [Page 24] came to shew, that Israel had a God. But you come to declare that there is a Pope in Edom. Dauid confessed that the bat­taile was the Lords. But you woulde helpe win the field with your own merits. So sith you neither haue Dauids minde, nor his purpose, Maister Iuell saide you had nether his scrip nor his sling. And you shall neuer haue them, till you cast awaye your owne armour, and in matters of faith take vnto you the furniture of the woord of God. Wrest not therfore against the sayntes of the Lord this saying of our sauiour, obmutesce, et exi de homine. We can abide your sayings with the comfort, that we haue receiued, blessed are you, when men reuile you, and saye all manner of euill against you. Math. 3.11.

¶For that I, and certaine learned men by sundrie treati­sies haue wrought to the cōfusion of your goliathship, we looke not for the praise of ladies. The loking after such rewarde we leaue to you, whome the hope therof entiseth to sustaine this wicked trauaile. &c. How you haue knockt Goliath in the forehed, as you crake, let it be iudged by that is of late returned vpon you, by him, that wrote a returne of vntruthes vpon your Replie.

Maister Harding is very good in insinuations, euen nowe by Appelles, & now by learned men. He would haue vs wéene him selfe is sombody, but what he is God knoweth. Héere he doeth grosely imagine of the ladies of Ierusalem. But wyth better aduisement he will forget this fancied pompe, and re­member a spiritual triumphe. So he shal not be very hasty to sing before the victory. He saith he will dissemble Maister Iu­els vaine, and ministerlike talke of the Pope. In déede it is his fashion in most partes of this Reioinder, when he can not aunswere the auctority, to passe it ouer with dissimulation. But why doeth he with such disdaine name this ministerlike talke? Doeth the name of a Minister so muche offende him? [Page 25] God graunt he once looke better to his féete, and sée where he wadeth. Let him remember the Prophets prayer, make the hart of this people fat, make their eares heauy, Esay. 6.10. and shut their eyes, least they vnderstand, and be healed. It is to be feared, God hath giuen him vp to a reprobate sense, he is pleased with the name of a priest, and the thing belongeth not vnto him, he misliketh the name of a minister, yet all the Apostels of Christ so named them selues. But neither the Apostels na­mes, nor yet their religion can please a popish prelate.

After this Maister Harding commeth to the issue of thys controuersie, and howe he hath handled his matter, he doeth appeale to the censure of the retourne of vntruthes. Why sir is Thomas Stapleton made Pope of late? You told vs euen now Maister Iuell had challenged all the learned men in the world, and shall this yong man sit Arbiter in so great a con­trouersy? May he now iudge, and be iudged of no man? Take héede you make not two heades of your synagoge. Good Lord, to what issue is Maister Harding come? Diruta sunt aliis vni tibi pergama restant, though other might well scale the ghost­ly walles of Ierusalem, yet to you they stand stronglie fen­sed. When he hath giuen sentence, you may haue roume for your history of Megabises. Apelles hath set out his tables, and you bring the Shoomaker to be iudge, but if he passe the slipper, we may not then forbeare him, we will not set to his decrée, the note of the tribune, in token that we agrée as he decideth in his cheyre. But an euyll cause, feareth an indif­ferent Iudge.

¶But to what purpose is it to stande long in ripping vp your aunswere to my preface? you start from place to place, and seriouslye prouing nothing, fill your paper with much matter impertinent. &c.

Maister Iuell (saith M. Harding) doth start from place to [Page 26] place. I perceiue it is ill halting before a Créeple, who soeuer starteth aside, he soone espieth him: In holes, creauises, cor­ners, & bywaies, he hath made many a scape in this Reioyn­der, he is seldome long togither in the right way. Whoso­euer séeth the great skyps in this article, would muse how he came headlong so soone ouer it: and yet seing his stayes in many places one would thinke surely he had no further to go, so Tigellius like he walketh in his Reioynder. As touching M. Iuels maner of confuting his preface, seing it is no part of their purpose, it skilleth not much whether he confute all in order or no. If M. Harding can saye no woorse by hym, let him haue his saying. For the matter, whether it be imperti­nent or no, the booke is his own Iudge, and let it rest vpon triall.

¶You make much a doe about your negatiue, and beare the world in hand, you may lawfullye, and reasonablye stand vpon the negatiue in denying manye pointes of our faith, and religion, bicause S. Gregorie vsed a nega­tiue proposition agaynst Iohn B. of Constantinople. What though S. Gregorie sayd by way of Negatiue, no B. of Rome euer tooke vnto him this name singulari­tie? Agayne what though S. Augustine by a negatiue said, In this order of succession, there is founde no B. that was a Donatist, what though I wold sai, as I might say truly, if the whole number of them, that haue bene B. of Sarisburie before this time, ther can be none foūd that was a Caluinist? Likewise, that of all the Bishops, that euer were in Englande, none was maried before Cranmer? Bicause these things are said by way of nega­tiue, in defence of the truth, shall it therefore be lawful for you to vtter your heresies, and sclaūderous doctrine by a negatiue, to impugne the truth?

In this long tale of M. Harding, we haue to note many things, first how vnwares he speaketh, contrarie to him selfe. [Page 27] He confesseth flatly that this negatiue of S. Gregorie, wherin he denieth any ought to be vniuersall Bishop, is in defence of the truth. Yet Maister Harding in the fourth article goeth a­bout to proue that the pope is vniuersal B. so by his own con­fession he goeth about to proue a lye. Secondarely, he con­fesseth at the last, that Maister Cranmar was a Byshop, and Maister Iuell with other his felowes are Bishops, yet at other times, he, and his fellowes wil in no case graunt it. Thirdly, he saith, no B. of Sarisburie was a Caluinist, before Maister Iuell, and that is a manifest lye. Fourthly, that no Byshop of Canterbury was maried, before Cranmar, and that is an otherlie. So in al this former péece, either he speaketh nothing but lyes, or if it be true, it is such truth, as by open writing he hath impugned. But Maister Harding bicause he can not deny this contrarietie, he will bid vs proue the other, that any B. of Sarisbury hath bene of one religion with Caluin, or that any B. of Cant. hath bene maried. In déede this is the ground of their whole religion, bold asseuerations without any man­ner warrant, and then they bid vs proue the contrary. But although this vnequall dealing be not good, and he that tea­cheth anye thing, shoulde proue the same to be true: yet I am content for truthes sake, to reproue in fewe woordes these ne­gatiues of Maister Hardings.

First, this forbidding mariage, was vniuersally established by Pope Siluester the seconde, who was made Pope by the meanes, and woorking of the deuil, as their own writers con­fesse, in the yeare of our Lord 980. Yet I graunt, Socrat. lib. 1. cap. 11. Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 11. Sozom. lib. 1. cap. 11. through the folly of vnlearned bishops, about .400. yeares after Christ, ma­trimonie in the cleargy began to be misliked, especially in the West church. For in the East church, they made no account of it, yea they thought it was no hinderaunce to the minister for perfourmance of his dutie in Gods church. But as I haue said, the West church in many places forbad it. And S. Ierom, although in many places he speake reuerently, and well of it, [Page 28] yet in some places, vpon his owne priuate affection, he misli­keth it. But as touching this purpose, more then thre hun­dred yeares after Christ, Priestes mariage was thought verie lawfull. But the English men receiued the faith of Christ in the latter time of Nero, as Gildas witnesseth, an olde writer and a Britan, who liued in the yeare of our Lord .580. and will Maister Harding say, that the thing being lawfull, yet in .300. yeare togither, there was neuer a Byshop maried?

And let Mayster Harding héere make no exception, either that in those dayes ther was no Byshops of Canterbury, or Sarisbury, De curand. gra. affect. li. 9▪ or that Gildas auctority is not good. Theodoretus saith, that S. Paule him selfe preached héere in his latter time. Nicephorus and other moe, say they receiued the fayth in the yere of our Lord 63. by Ioseph of Arimathia. Pol vir. angl. hist. lib. 2. After this super­sticion began againe to bréede, then an .179. many preachers were sent, for to call them againe to their former profession. Whervpō Tertullian, speaking of this age, saith, Britānorum inaccessa Romanis loca, Christo fuerin [...] subdita. And Petrus Cluniacensis, Ad D. Bern­hard. speaking of the Scots, calleth them christianos antiquiores, the most auncient christian men. And the story is knowen, how Lucius then King of England, was very di­ligent in setting out the Gospell. Thus it appeareth the true faith hath bene in Englande almost euer since our sauiour Christ died. Now y ^t in those daies ther wer bishops in Englād, it is likewise manifest. Naucl. vol. 2. gen. 7. When Eleutherius the Pope 177. sent preachers into England, they found here .3. called archiflami­nes, and .25. called flamines, which he turned in to thrée arch­bishops, & .25. byshops. Thus much then is clere, that in Eng­land were Christian bishops, and they might mary. Now to proue that they were maried, Gildas de ex­cidio Britan. it is plaine by Gildas, in the lat­ter ende of his booke, where he reproueth the Bishops, their wiues, and their children. So this lying negatiue of M. Har­ding is reproued, that sayth, no Bishop was euer maried in England, before Bishop Cranmer. For the other negatiue, [Page 29] that there was neuer B. of Sarisburie, of that religion which Caluine taught, it appeareth by M. Iuels Replie, which sheweth, that not onely in England, but in all Christendome that religion was in the chiefest articles professed. And yet bicause it is here brought with the suretie of M. Hardings warrant, we wyll speake a little of this negatiue. It is boldlye auou­ched of manye popish Priestes, that Christianitie was placed here by Augustine, which is called the Englishe Bishop. He was sent from Rome, and landed in the Ile of Tenet in Kent an. 596. But it is alredy shewed, that we had the faith of Christ long before. Then what did Augustine here? I will tell thée Christian Reader, and I wyll tell thée that, which M. Harding shall nener be able to confute. He did first perswade the King and Quéene, not to enforce his new religion, but to leaue it fréely to men to follow, if they would. Afterward, being made Bishop of Canterburie, by consent of a Synode, he thrust in­to that Church altars, vestiments, images, Masses, challices, crosses, candlesticks▪ sensers, banners, processions, holy wa­ter, holy bread, funerals, tithes, and such other stuffe, whych before that time was neuer séene in England. Then he chan­ged their kéeping of Easter day, taught them manye ceremo­nies in Baptisme, and when he coulde not bring all men to his diet, Beda. lib. 2. cap. 2. hist. Anglic. Bed. lib. 1. cap. 29. & .33. he moued great persecution against such as defended the libertie of the Church. Then he receiued from Rome re­lickes of diuers Saintes, buylt a Monasterie to Saint Peter, wrought many fained miracles, and so at the last he died about the yeare of our Lord .610. Now for further proofe of this, that Augustine marred, and not made our religion, it is verye probable, that we neuer receiued our faith from Rome, but from the East Church. First, bicause we (vntill Augustine came among vs) kept our Easter after the manner of the Gréeke Church. Now it is well knowen, Pet. Clunia. ad D. Ber­nard. what mortall hatred there was for that matter, so that he which was enstructed of the one, would in no wyse vse the order of the other. Agayne [Page 30] when Augustine should be sent vnto them, he came backe for feare, and the Britaines would not receaue him, Cal. card. de Brit. hist. lib. 8. cap. 4. nor acknow­ledge anye authoritie of Pope Gregorie ouer them. Which sure they would neuer haue done, if they had receaued theyr fayth from Rome.

Thus much then followeth, we had the faith of the Gréeke Church, without all superstitious ceremonies of the Church of Rome, and so it is manifest our bishops were then of Mai­ster Caluines profession, in the whole substaunce of their reli­gion. And so is this other negatiue of M. Harding prooued a lye. This I haue sayd the more at large, bicause M. Hardyng and his fellowes, woulde haue vs beleue, that our faith came from the Pope, and Dan Augustine the Moonke, was the mes­senger. Now to quit these negatiues, with which M. Harding is so well pleased, with like negatiues we may well and truly ouerthrow all popish religion, taking example of our sauiour Christes doing. For he neuer alowed of their ceremonies. He neuer celebrated his last supper alone. He neuer ministred in one kinde. He neuer made any vniuersall bishop. He neuer named Transubstantiacion, Masse, Mattens, Euensong, Di­rige, nor Trentals. He neuer went a procession, with cope, crosse, or candlesticke. He neuer [...]ensed Image, nor sang La­tin seruice. He neuer went to shrift, nor sat in confession. He neuer preached of Purgatorie, nor pardons. He neuer hono­red Saintes, nor praied for the dead. He neuer fasted Friday, Uigil, Lent, nor Aduent. He neuer hallowed Churche, nor chalice, ashes, nor palmes, candels nor bels. He neuer made holy water, nor holy bread. He neuer wore Rochet, nor Tip­pet. He neuer had Crosse nor Myter, Corporas nor Portas, shepebooke, nor Massebooke, Frankincense nor Peterpence, wax, nor flax, nor any such trumperie. And therefore by these negatiues we may well conclude, that M. Hardings religion is not of Christes institution.

¶Vpon this negatiue it liketh you well to dally, and bi­cause (say you) it offendeth vs, you wyll turne it on our side. &c. And when you haue made all your turnings, you doe as muche for vs, as if you gaue a Snake for an Adder. &c. What proofes we haue, and how iustlye we confute your Obiections, and Replies, let our treatises be examined.

Maister Iuels negatiue is this, that they can not prooue by Scripture, Doctour, Councell, or anye example, anye one of these articles, which are called into controuersie. This ne­gatiue misliketh them. Therfore sayth M. Iuell, we will take the affirmatiue, and prooue their religion not to come from Christes Apostles. This I trow is not to dallie, but plainlye, and vnfainedly to séeke [...] the truth. Yet, saith Maister Har­ding, this is a Snake in stede of an Adder, & in deede it is true, the calling of these articles into question, hath stoonge that whorish religion euen vnto death. And that Aesculapius Ad­der, that hath lurked so long in Rome, for all his quicke sight, is by this meanes discouered, God be praysed for it, for euer and euer. Wher Maister Harding saith further, let this mat­ter be tried by treatisies, I feare not such iudges, for sure of all mens doinges their owne lyinges, dreamings, visions, oracles, coniurings, and such deuises, haue giuen their reli­gion the greatest ouerthrowe.

¶You report my wordes vntruly, as your common maner is, making men beleue although, I sayd all these arti­cles were of light importaunce. &c. The lightest of them is of weight to drawe you downe to the rufull state of damned soules, if for maintenaunce of your priuate opinion, you feare not to breake the vnitie of the church. Yet, as though I had said, what you faslie report me to say, you procede, and scoffingly demaūd whether ye may thinke that our religion encreaseth, [Page 32] and vadeth, waxeth and waneth as doth the moone.

These be Maister Hardings woordes, in his Preface to his aunswere. Why treate you not of matters of more impor­tance, then these be of, which yet lye in question betwene the church of Rome, and the Protestantes? As the presence of Christes bodye and bloude in the Sacrament, of Iustifica­tion, of the value of good woorkes, of the Sacrifice of the Masse. &c. Thys obscure manner of speaking maye séeme to make light of these waightye mattters, and therefore who so euer should say so of them, deserued litle blame. But héere Maister Hardings choler is to much inflamed, bicause Mai­ste Iuell noting their inconstancie, asketh whether their Reli­gion encreaseth, and vadeth, waxeth and waneth, as doeth the moone. And hath he not, thinke you, good occasion to aske this question? Doeth not Maister Harding saye in many of these articles, that they be no keyes of their Religion? Yet héere he saith, if a man denie them, when they be receiued, they are of value inoughe to dampne him. Where is his wit become? What is so contrary to it selfe, as this? What is waxing, and waning? What is increasing and vading, if this be none? And what Christian eares can abide this saying, that suche tri­fels as they be of them selues, and such filthy whooredomes as they be now made of, should condempne vs, if we shoulde speake against them? He paide not the price of soules, that so easily sendeth them away from ther maister, vnto Satan. The casting awaie such scourings of the Romish vncleannes, shall neuer doo it, nay it is a witnesse vnto our consciences, that we be the children of the highest.

¶Concerning the rest of your aunswere, wherin you treat certaine cōmon places, & vtter much spite against the Pope &c. against transubstanciatiō, against inuocation of saints, against aultars. &c. Prayer for the dead you [Page 33] condemne, and shew no cause why. &c. I thinke good to let passe, and contemne it.

Now sure well done maister Harding, where you can not reade, skip ouer, but take good héede least in your l [...]aping you hurt your selfe, and do your cause no good. If men shal vnder­stand, that you wil not alow the authority of Pope Nicolaus, Pope Leo, Pope Boniface, Pope Sergius, and the common Law, all which Maister Iuell alledgeth, you shall make the Pope that now is, beshrew you, and so peraduenture you shal get a curse, and you shall make all good Christian people mis­trust you. Of transubstantiation, & aultars, we will say more héereafter. Prayer to saintes is now nighe forgotten. You aske in the margine, why we doe not aunswere the booke of Purgatory. In déede now you come to the point. This article is very auncient about .1900. yeares a gone. Plato spake of it in his booke de animo, where this your cleansing place hath his first ground, & foundation. And therfore for our good, and sufficient discharge in this matter, I aunswere out of the same booke of Plato. We meddle not with your booke of pur­gatory, bicause we feare not our shadowes. You know, that y ^e yōg nouice in Philosophy feared not y ^e three hedded Cerberus, the roring of Cocytus, the rolling stone of Sisyphus, and how shoulde we feare your painted paper walles of Purgatory? Christ is our Sauiour. God engraffe in vs a desire to be with him, and for my part, sith purgatory hath no graunt in Gods woord, I recken it scarce woorthy aunswer. Yet bicause you ar importune, somwhat shall be sayd hereafter.

¶You haue piked out, or set some a worke, to pike out for you, all the tearmes and woordes vsed in my booke, which a good man may iustly bestow in rebuke of vice vpon euill men. &c.

Héere Maister Harding is fallen into a very shamelesse veine of writing, and thinketh good at large to excuse his own modesty. The woordes, in which he séeketh after it, are these, Thersites, Goliath, Heathens, Publicanes, sacramentaries, Lucians, scoffers, rashe, presumtuous, ignorant, péeuishe, and such lyke these, he goeth about orderlye to applie vnto Maister Iuell. To aunswere them all in order, were to enter into néedelesse labour, and to contend in woordes, with those, which delight in rayling. But bicause Maister Harding for some proofe of thys matter, bringeth this authority of Doctor Luther against vs, & so vseth our cōtention against our selfes, let vs all praye vnto the God of peace, and consolation, that he would giue vnto vs to be all like minded, that with one hart, and one voyce, we may prayse God, euen the Father of Iesus Christ. Rom. 15.5. Our agréement shall soone spread abroad Gods glorious Gospell, and stop the euill mouth of the sclaunderer. It shall defend the common hold of all good men, and turne ouer the refuges of the Papists. There is no way so straight to set out Gods glory, as where the Preachers go al togither. There is no perswasion so effectuall, to pull the people from y­dolatrie, as the Ministers to loue, one an other. Happy were those times of the Israelites, when the people were in Ierusa­lem ▪ as if they had bene one man. Happye was the condition of the Apostles, when they were al with one acc [...]rd in the same place. 1. Nehe. 3. Then did Israel buylde an altar vnto the Lord. Then did the Apostles receiue the holy Ghost, when they were all of one minde in Salomons porch, Actes. 2.4. manye signes and woonders were shewed by them. When the Philippians did continue in one spirite, Actes. 5.12. and in one minde, helping forward the labou­ring faith of the Gospell, they did well become the Gospell of Christ. Phil. 1.27. If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if a­ny comfort of loue, if any fellowship of the spirite, if any com­passion, Phil. [...].1. and mercy: let vs fulfil our ioy, that we be like min­ded. Christ pleased not him selfe, but euen, as it is wrytten, [Page 35] the rebukes of them, that rebuked, they fell on me, Rom. 15.2. and shall we abide strife, and contention? He was wounded for our transgressions, and broken for our iniquitie, Esay. 63.5. and shall not we beare the infirmities of our brethren? A brused réede he dyd not breake, and the smoking flaxe he did not quench, Esay. 42.3. and shal we treade them downe, that we thinke are a little deceiued? Where is that voyce of Saint Chrisostome, Chrisostome. Charitie is more strong, than a wall of Adamant stone? Where is the voyce of S. Paule the Apostle, beare one an others burthen? Paule. Where is the voyce of our sauiour Christ, by this all men shal know, you are my Disciples? Haue we forgotten the cōmaudement, that was so lately giuen vs, be you one, as my Father, and I am one? Consider, I beseche you, O my fellowe seruaunts, howe daungerous times are come vpon vs of the Christian common wealth. Consider the great perils, Iohn. 15. whereinto wée are fallen. In the heades of a verye fewe, very manye of our weake brethren haue great daunger. The wicked doe tri­umphe, and reioyce, when the bold, and vngodlye Louanis [...]s haue nothing to obiect vnto vs, they set our owne contention in the eyes of all men, w [...]en they haue no testimony of scrip­ture to bryng against vs, & (such is the mercy of our God) are not vpholden with the fauor, & aucthoritie of our Prince, yet they haue a certaine confidence in our disagréement. Take from them this hope, which yet they leane on, and it shal come to passe, that either they shall leaue their popish thraldome, & with the lost Childe returne vnto the mercyfull Father: or if they will still abide in those papall tempests, they shall be bro­ken with the rockes of errours, and perish in the shipwrackes of their own deuises. God the Father of all mercy, giue vnto vs for his Sonnes sake, that with one will, and agréeable mindes, we may all prayse hys name. And thus farre of thys argument.

¶There was neuer any Hickescorner, that ieasted more [Page 36] pleasant at any toy in an enterlude, then Maister Iuell scoffeth blasphemously, at the most holy and dredful Mysteries. And may no man be so hardy, as to name him a Lucian, or a Scoffer?

Surely, a man woulde thinke by these procéedings, that Maister Hardings newe Dioclesian, hath enstructed hym in olde Genesius learning. He would defend his modestie, and yet neuer was ther a more sawcie gester, against a Christian bishop. But let him come forth on the stage, and beholde his vnnourtered gestures. Maister Iuell scoffeth, saith he, at the dreadfull misteries. And how proueth he it? Is his woorde an oracle? No, no Maister Harding, he is no Lucian, that abhor­reth your vngodly sacrifice. Hée is no Scoffer, that speaketh by the spirit of God, against your wicked misteries. Ezechias called the brasen serpent nehushton, 2. Reg. 18. yet he iested not at Gods institution. 2. Reg. 23. The scripture calleth moūt Oliuet, the mount of corruption, yet blameth it not Gods creature. S. Paul calleth circumcision ouerthwart cutting, Phillip. yet doeth he not scoffe at Gods sacrament. Christ saide, the Temple was a denne of théeues, Math. yet he confessed it ought to be a house of prayer. And may not a man call your misteries by their name, in which is as great abuse, as euer was in the brasen Serpent, in moūt Oliuet, in Circumcision, in the Temple of God? Yea M. Harding your Misteries are Idolatrous, though you crye out, that Ezechias hath taken away the high places of God, and his altars. Para. 2.32 But who can let Achabs Prophets to speake ill of Micheah?

¶What mad man euer ouershot him selfe so farre, as to make such a hasty Chalenge, specially in matters of re­ligion, by so long practise of the Churche determined? Who euer presumed so to make defiance, as it were to al learned men, yea to al men aliue? who euer defended a matter so stoutly auouched, with lesse learning? Who [Page 37] in so weighty pointes made Argumentes of lesse pith, so light, and so childish? And yet this ioly felow stan­deth so high in his owne conceit, that whiles he laieth about him, flingeth, and stryketh at all men, spareth not the reuerence of his Mother, no not the Maiestye of the holy Ghoste, and Christ our Lord, he may not be touched, so much as it were with a venue of these most deserued termes.

Now is Maister Harding come to his last, and least reason, and wyth a company of braue Interrogations, of what mad man? and who euer? wythout anye aunswere made, con­cludeth at aduenture, that these, & many moe modest termes were well applied. But softe syr, a hasty Bitch bringeth forth blinde whealpes. If you come to this issue, by my former graunting of euery question, let the fault be mine, if by your owne presuming, you are neuer the neare. You haue roled vp Sisyphus stone, and it is fallen downe againe, and therfore you must begin a freshe. What mad man say you euer ouer­shot him selfe so farre? &c. Maister Harding, when he tooke vpon him to aunswere the Chalenge. Who euer presumed so to make defiance? &c. God, when he sayde, come nowe, and blame me, if you can, Esay. 1.18. And his sonne Christ, Esay. 1.18. quis vestrum arguet me de peccato, which of you can conuince me of sinne? Who euer defended a matter? &c. Your doctours at Oxford against these reuerend Fathers D. Cranmer, D. Ridley, and M. Latimer. Who euer in so weighty pointes? &c. You, in your aunswer, and héere in defence of your modesty. And yet this ioly fellowe, &c. I will speake nothing of this modesty. For vndoubtedly it is far spent. But this is a Popes disputation, to aske vs first our mindes, and then to conclude whether we wil or no. But fare you well Maister Harding, nowe you are off the stage, giue vs leaue a little to speake to the audience. Marke christiā reader this mans intemperancy. He hath purposed to defend his vaine, and beastly Religion, [Page 38] and thou shalt sooner ouerturne the whole estate of his lyfe, then bring him from it. Hée hath woorshipped so long in the church of Rome, that Elizeus, the Prophet cannot call him out of it. He careth not, what he saith, nor how boldly he affir­meth, and he is not ignorant of this him selfe, but he is so far of from hauing any thing for him selfe, that he thinketh he must not onely speake against vs, but euen against nature, a­gainst the warnings of reason, against the opinion of al men, against the scriptures of God. He defēdeth his modestie, with mostim̄odest woordes. He shameth not to saye Maister Iuels Booke is foolish, which is a looking glasse of learning to al that vnderstand it. He saith his arguments be péeuish, which yf they be not grounded in Gods woorde, I require thée beleue them not. He saith, he spareth not the maiesty of the holy ghost, and Christ our Lord, and yet in so great blasphemy, bringeth no one coniecture. And how doeth he handle all this? With so good, and chosen woordes, so handsome colours, so whole sen­tences, that although he hath made warre against God, and his Church, yet he séemeth to speake déepe diuinity. God giue vs grace to beware of him. He is a blinde leader of the blinde. But he is come againe, & let vs sée what he hath more to say.

¶You would haue men thinke, this were Vetus Comoedia. No M. Iuell, it is Zelus Dei, it not Vetus Comoedia. The imi­tation of Vetus Comoedia, hath euer bene takē for a badge of men of your profession. &c. You mocke, and scoffe at our persons, as the naughty boyes of Bethel dyd at Elizeus, but at our auncient Religion, & at the church of Christ. Yet wee curse you not in the name of our Lord, as he did those euill nourtered children, that ye might be toren of Beares. &c. With your wicked doc­trine you haue so brought the people from God, as now for a great number, they may seeme not to halt on both sides, but to be fallen downe right. Yet doe we not [Page 39] call for fire to discend from heauen, and burne you vp. Neither doe we stirre the people to take you, and de­stroye you, as Elias bad the people to destroye the false Prophetes.

Haue you not left iarring of this vnmodest string? Be­like it is very pleasant musicke in your eares. This manner of behauiour, say you, is not Vetus comoedia, no open na­ming of men vpon stages. What is it then? It is Zelus Dei. I may not iudge directly what you are within. Paule was a persecutour in defending their traditions, but sure your zeale is not according to knowledge, you loue darknesse, more thē light, and therfore you dwell in ignorance, you seeke not after wisdome, as after siluer, and gold, and therfore you finde hir not. You saye we scoffe at you and your Religion, as the. &c. At your persons we scoffe not, God is our witnesse, we wéepe to see the temple of the holye Ghost to be the temple of an Har­lot, it gréeueth vs, that in the Image of God shoulde appeare Sathans vglye visage. And you want not our prayers for your returne. But your auncient Religion we hate, and ab­horre it. It is so olde, that it is rotton, and one péece wil not hange with an other, it is a smoke, that at the flaming out of gods woord is vanished, it is a stinking mist, it is ouerblowen with the swéete windes of the holy spirit. And therfore doo not blame vs, if we cannot abide it. Your Religion is as good, as your vaunt is true, when you commende your selues for cle­mencie aboue Elizeus, or Elias. You saye you praye not, that we maye be torne of Beares, nor that fyre from heauen maye come downe to destroye vs. What your prayer is inwardely, I say it oft, I know not. But for your good will towarde vs, if you coulde commaund either beastes, or Elements, we should not escape neither Beare, nor fyre. The aboundance of our bloode crieth out to heauen, that you are as mercifull as the woolfe, or the Tyger. But O passi grauiora, dedit deus his [Page 40] quoque finem, his name be praysed for euermore.

¶Certaine false preachers, for their great impudency, and for that they barked at the light of the Gospel, as dogs do at the Moone by night, S. Paule called dogges, and bad the Philippians beware of them. &c.

Here Maister Harding would couer his vngodly demea­nour, with the cloke of godlynes, for that S. Paule called cer­taine vngodly teachers, doggs, and euill labourers, and ther­fore he woulde gladlye saye, as much to Maister Iuell. But who were they, that thus barked at the Gospell? Uerily men of their owne Religion. Phil. 3. For thus saith S. Paule: Beware of doggs, beware of euill workers, beware of concysion. For we are the circumcysion, that worshipp God in the spirite, and reioyce in Christ Iesu, and haue no confidence in the fleshe. But O the wretched Church of that confounded Babylon, what one-péece hath it of this spirituall woorship, that is, to reioyce in Christ alone, and haue no confidence in the fleshe? Do they not make Angels their mediators? Do they not call vpon Paule and Peter? Doe they not say, that their whoorish Masse is propitiatory? Doe they not byd men go range a pil­grimage for the greater meades? Doe they not say, ther is a merit of our workes? And what say they not, that leaneth to flesh, and bloode? This▪ is the barking doctrine, this is the tearing, & renting in peces of Christ his merites. S. Augustine saith, non gratia ex merito, sed meritum ex gratia. Grace commeth not of deserte, but deserte commeth of grace. Let them leaue off their iesting, at Maister Iuells worship, it is no tyme to speake euill of authority. Euen in such language, the hart is sorowfull, and the ende of that myrth is heaui­nesse.

¶Ieremie calleth them of Iewry Staliens, for that they ney­ed [Page 41] eche one at an others wyfe. Ezechiel calleth the false Pro­phetes of Israel Foxes, so Christ him selfe named He­rod a Fox.

Yet M. Harding procéedeth in the long space of his owne modestie, and as he must néedes doe, alledging truth for false­hood, heapeth vp scriptures against himselfe. Ieremie. Ezec. 13. Ieremie calleth the people of Iudah Stahens, Ezechiel, the false Prophetes, Foxes, and so doth Christ call Herode. But who were these fed horses of Iudah? those, sayth God by the Prophet, whose children haue forsaken me, Iere. 5. and sworne by them that are no Gods, that when they were fed full, yet they committed ad­ultery. And who sweareth by them, that are no Gods, eyther we, or they? Haue not they taught vs, to sweare by the saints of God, by his holy Euangelies, and by their wicked Masses? And trow they, this is not swearing by false Gods? Ezech. 13. Of whom speaketh Ezechiel that they ar like Foxes in the wasty places, euen those that Prophecied of their owne spirite, and lying diuinations, and whether doe prophecie of their owne spirite, we that search onely the woorde of God, or they that preach forth their owne traditions? Who hath séene lying diuinati­ons, we that reiect all their dreames, and visions, or they that doe staye their whole Religion on them? Though all the reue­lations, which are written, in maner infinite, dyd not shewe it, Maister Hardings owne aunswere, would sufficientlye proue it. This is a special note, that their Pope is Antichrist, oft spoken of in the scripture, 1. Timo. 4. and bewayled of S. Paule to Ti­mothe in his earnest exhortation to continuall preaching, wher he saith the tyme will come, when they will not suffer holsome Doctrine, but hauing their eares itching, shall har­ken after their owne lustes, get them a heape of teachers, 2. Timo. 4. and shall turne their eares from the truth, and shall be giuen vnto fables. Thus while Maister Harding doth mayntayne his modesty, he hath ouerthrowne his religion, and in heate of [Page 42] spirit as he goeth forth in euil, he doth breath out euill termes in suche sorte, that chaste eares maye not well abyde them. He calleth mariage an vnchaste life, wyues strumpets, and an vndefiled bed a lecherous neying. O Lord, are not thy eyes vpon the truth? Thou hast stricken thē, but they haue not sorrowed, thou hast consumed them, but they haue refused to receiue correction, they haue made their faces harder than a stone, and haue refused to returne. But they knowe not the waye of the Lorde, nor the iudgement of their God. I will aunswere no otherwise but with S. Paules woordes, that their doctrine is a doctrine of Diuels. He telleth vs of spitefull guyles, and wyles, with which we intrappe men, of our lewd­nesse, and our false dealing, that maketh them to smart, and yet he saith, he will not chasten vs with reuiling woordes. How full of gall is Maister Harding, that these woords do not yet seme bitter? What shall we looke for, when his spiryt is moued, that thus quyetly breathed out such reproches? But so his tonge maye runne, or his pen be walking, it séemeth, he careth not what he write, or speake. Why doth he not tell vs what he meaneth? Is it like he knoweth any harme by vs, and will not tell it? Such silence would require a mylder sto­macke. Now after a litle talke to no purpose, when he hath swet long in bringing much for his modesty, yet can prooue none, he thinketh good pollicy, to make other compartners of his impudency, and after mature deliberation, with a fewe prety metaphores, thinketh it good to bestow his talke vppon Maister Iuell, and so with a bolde asseueration beginnes his purpose.

¶Verily of all the wryters that I haue read, I neuer found any, that vseth the lothsome manner of scoffing, and mocking so much, as you doe. When reason faileth, a scoffe is at hand. When an argument presseth, a mock serueth for aunswere. When the matter goeth playne [Page 43] on the contrarie side, then Hickescorner be stirreth him, and with ieasting pulleth away the minde of the reader to an other light thought, that so all might be laughed out, and the chiefe point let passe.

Now verily Maister Harding you are in a mad case. You maye be Simo for your lucke, your harmes come so in order, your arguments are so slender, your witnesses so vndiscrete, your aduersarie so strong, that when you haue done what you can, at last you kéepe the shame your selfe. You told vs before of blasphemyes against the dreadfull mysteries, of strikinge at all men, not sparing the reuerence of his mother, no not the maiesty of the holy Ghost, and is this bloody tragidy en­ded with a poore scoffe? Hath Maister Iuell so tempered his Reply, that Maister Harding can finde in it no one reuyling woorde? Why then M. Harding, call togither your friendes, and let manye handes make the burden lighter. Unlesse your reuylings be meruailous vncomelye, you shall haue them of your own syde that will beare them vp stoutly, and M. Iuell is content with a litle iesting, in tyme conuenient. But that either scoffe, or mocke, or your Hickescorner, doeth stande in steade of an aunswere, this is an other of your railings, and you must be content to beare it your selfe. If you will haue vs beleue it, why shewe you not the place? Must the enimies wordes stande for good accusation? But who can bring proofe of a shamelesse lye?

¶In olde tyme Philosophers had names giuen them of some speciall property and disposition of mynde. So­crates was named the dissembler, Plato the Diuine, Heraclitus the Darke, Carneades the Subtile, Chry­sippus the sharpe, Theophrasius the sweete, Diogi­nes the Doggish. Certainely, had you bene aliue at those dayes, you had bene named, Iewell the Scoffer. [Page 44] Yet for your learning, I wene, you had not ben annum­bred among Philosophers.

Here to helpe to discredite his aduersary, he vttereth a litle cunning in old Philosophers names, and yet in the ende is very lothe to account him among them. This is the craking M. Harding told vs of, to set out his learning after so vnlear­ned fashion. But this is no faulte in the rethorike of Louain. The Tarentynes, and the Sicilians, to whome he writeth, shal accept it for good eloquence. But let the cunning goo, let vs examine the cause, he doth measure his forefathers by his own affection. What if we shoulde deale in like maner with him, and reason thus. Ptoleme for his foolishe pyping was called a minstrell, Ochus Artaxerxes for his cruelty Machera, Tar­quinius for his vnciuill behauiour, the prowde Deniochares, for his bolde prating [...]. Aristogiton for his impu­dency a Dog, Antiochus for his great promysing, and litle perfourming, Dosas, Trebonius for speaking ill of his bet­ters, Asper. And had M. Harding of our dayes, bene then ly­uing, he should haue bene called for his little modestye, Har­ding the rayler. Certaynly, though he might be one of those, for his behauiour, yet I will not bestow of him, anye particu­ler name, I leaue him to the iudgement of others. Now once againe for his full discharge, he sheweth out his generall ac­quitance, and sayth that in all his aunswer, he hath vsed great modestie. Much like to Ptolome, one of the Kings of Egypt, that when he had killed his Father, and hys Moother, and hys brother, yet he would néedes be called [...]. So M. Harding wyll say néedes he is modest, but his woord is no warrant. Concerning M. Iuell, whether his greatest grace be in scoffing, I maruaile that he now doth aske the question. In prefat. be­ware of Ma­ster Iuell. Doth not M. Rastall, his owne dearlyng, confesse, he hath a rare gift in writing? Though his aucthori­tie be otherwise very light, yet against M. Harding it is very [Page 45] weightie. And why will not M. Harding confesse as much? Is he not as well learned, as M. Rastall? Yes sure, but ma­litia mutauit intellectum, malice hath chaunged his vnder­standing.

¶If ye seeke to be reuenged on me, for that I haue bene so bold, as to aunswere your vaine Chalenge, and by this Reioynder, to confute part of your colourable Reply: either hold your peace, or speake so, as you be not foūd a lyer, if you can. For truely, by your euill speaking of me, you shal but encrease the heape of my felicitie. &c.

Maister Harding would haue the world to thinke, we are offended with his writing. And in déede we are so, and take it as a scourge of God, to kéepe vs in humilitie, and a mana­cing against our sinful liues, that as oft as we se their bookes, we should repent vs of the idolatries, wherein we haue beene drowned. But he in his impiety, runneth desperatly forward, and appealeth vnto Gods iudgement, with such securitye as appeareth, as Flauinius at Thrasimenus, or Varro at Cannae went to méete with Hannibal. Well may I vse this simili­tude, sith all his doings are nothing else but gentillitie. Mai­ster Harding doth accuse vs of euill speaking, before we offēd him. Where he saith, he is sure he standeth vpon a sure groūd, let him take héede he be not wise in his own conceit. Not euery one that saith, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdome of heauen, but he that doth the will of God. They are not all true worshippers that go vp to Ierusalem, but suche onely as woorship in spirite, and veritie. The Iewes with as great a confidence, sayde they had one Father, which was God, but Christ aunswered, they were of their father the Deuil. Saint Paule speaketh of the wicked, that gloried so of God, but hée sayth, by such meanes the true God is dishonored. The Scri­bes, and the Pharises bragged muche of Moyses, but Christ [Page 46] sayd, the same Moyses should be their accuser. All Israel dyd euer boast, they were the children, but yet onely in Isaac shal the séede be called. Euen so these braggings of Christ, séeing he followeth not his Testament, shall be his owne confusion. But by like he feared this, that here I do aunswere, and ther­fore with a vaine occupacion he thought best to preuent it, and make a false clayme him selfe, to that sayinge of Christ. And to proue it, doth alleadge that weary argument of their Romish church, which bicause it is so oft alleadged, it shall not be amisse to speake somwhat of it, & to way a litle the diffe­rence 1 of the two Churches. The Churche of Christ is not bounde to any mans traditions, it is not tyed to any certaine place, the som [...] hath made vs frée, and therfore we are frée in déede. Neither in Ierusalem, nor in this hill, the true wor­shippers doo worship, but in spirite, and veritye. But the Church of Rome, doeth hang vpon olde rotten postes, they obserue monethes, and dayes, that they maye be made frée, they runne into cloisters, and monckery, for to worship, and 2 serue God. The Church of Christ is not inclosed in any cer­tain cuntry, the Apostels are gone into al the world to preach the Gospell, Math. 28. who soeuer doth beleue, and is baptised, shalbe saued. But the church of Rome doth condemne them that goe one foote from hir, she pronounceth them accursed that wil not drinke of hir adulteries, and without hir she saith, ther is no 3 helth. The Church of Christ wil not heare a strangers voice, she will not beleue an angell from heauen, that shall preach any other doctrine, Gala. 1. then Christ hath deliuered, & the scripture is the rule of hir whole religiō. The church of Rome doth har­ken after vnwritten verities, she giueth credit vnto dreames, and visions, she saith the Scriptures maye be drawen in­to diuers senses, and will not allowe them, but after hir 4 fansied interpretations. The church of Christ is buylt vpon the doctrine of the Apostles, and Prophets, Christ him selfe being the heade corner stone, 1. Cor. 13. she doth receiue with méeke­nesse [Page 47] the woorde that is ingraffed in hir, and doth confesse, Iaco. 15. that it can saue our soules. The church of Rome is buylt vp­pon mens deuises, and for insufficiencye of the word, adioy­neth pilgrimages, and pardons, sacrifices for quick and dead, Masses, and purgatoryes, Inuocation of Saints, worship­ping of Images, and a thousand such trumperies, and will not confesse that all is written, which is necessary to salua­tion. The Church of Christ doth acknowledge that by Christ 5 alone she is saued, by Christ alone she is deliuered from hir vaine conuersation, and from the bondage of sin, not by the woorks of righteousnes, which she had done, but according to his mercy which hath saued hir. But the church of Rome maketh merits of hir own, hath inuented wor [...]es of superero­gation, hath great confidence in Bulles, Reliques, Indul­gences, and salutations of the Pope. The church of Christ, 6 is the communion of Saints, the society, and the felowship, of these that walke in righteousnes. But the church of Rome, is a den of théeues, her hye Priestes are sorcerers, coniurers, necromancers, murderers, vnchast adulterers, Sodomits, church robbers, and such like infamous creatures, as is eui­dent by Platina, Be [...]no, and all other that haue written their liues. The church of Christ doth vse the keies aright, as she 7 hath receiued them, she pardoneth the penitent, & bindeth vp the sinnes of the disobedient, and as she frely hath receiued, so frelye she bestoweth them. The church of Rome doth binde and lose at aduentures, sendeth pardons to persons that she neuer sawe, and bicause she hath not receiued fréely, she sel­leth vnreasonable deare, and hath made men paye for their sinnes, an hundred thousand ounces of golde. To conclude, 8 the church of Christ, is the members of Christ, the bodye of one head, of which heade she hath receiued hir saluatiō, bicause he hath purchased hir with his blood. The church of Rome, Actes. 20.28 is the body of Antichrist, the members of an Idolatrous harlot, that hath gone a whorehunting after diuers louers. Therfore [Page 48] the church of Rome, is not the church of Christ. And as this church of Rome is in déede the synagogue of the Deuill, so she hath not so much as the marks of Christes congregation. The right vse of the sacraments, which is the badge of Christs church, Psalm. and the reading of scriptures, wherby hir steppes are lightened, are as farre out of Peters church in Rome now, as in the tyme of paganisme ther were out of the capitol, as it shall appeare vpon further discussion. First, if they haue the right vse of the sacraments, then haue they nothing in them but Gods owne ordinance. For we maye not intermeddle our own constitutions w ^t Gods cōmaundement, as the prophet doth likewise witnesse of the sacrifice. For if we doo follow our owne wayes, Esay. 66.3. he that killeth a bullocke, is as if he slew a man, he that sacrificeth a shéepe, as if he cut a dogs necke, he that offreth an oblation, as if he offred swynes bloode, he that re­membreth incense, as if he dyd blesse an Idoll, so much doth God hate to haue our deuises ioyned with his wisedome. And who knoweth not how the sōnes of Aaron, for offring strange fyre were miraculously consumed from heauen. Leuit. 10. Se nowe whether the Romish sacramentes are not in like sort defiled. I speake not of the huge multitude, which they haue made on their own head. The two sacraments of the bodye of Christ, and of Baptisme, howe doe they vse them? As Christ dyd? Woulde God they did so, they woulde returne with the lost sonne, into the lap of the heauenly father. How then do they vse them? The sacraments them selues they haue propha­ned, with giuing them to vnméete creatures, the cōmunion bread vnto dead men, Baptisme vnto Bels, and Ships, and restraine them from fyt persons, as the sacrament of Christes bloode from the Laytie. The maner of Christes institution they haue all togither peruerted. For where as Mathevv, Marke, Luke, Paule, doe witnesse, that Christ onelye tooke, blessed, brake, and deliuered, they like not thys simplicitye, they haue inuented new guises. [Page 49] Concerning his apparell, first he putteth on much masking attire, as if he should go somewhether a mumming, not as though he should go to serue God. In canone missa rubrica. His body sometyme must bende forwarde, sometyme be vpright, sometyme turne rounde about, sometyme but the halfe turne, sometyme bende ouer the aultare, sometyme not touch it. His handes sometyme hée layeth downe, sometyme hée lifteth them vp, sometyme he ioyneth them flat togither, sometyme one finger with an other, somtyme he rubbeth his hole handes, beyond the chalice, least any crummes should stick on them, somtime he rubbeth but his fingers, some tyme he toucheth the bread, sometyme the aultare, his eyes sometyme hée lifteth vppe, somtyme he casteth them downe, somtyme he must looke very demurely, sometyme after the common manner, sometyme he must crosse his face, sometyme bende downe his heade, his armes, sometyme he must holde them vp a crosse, some­tyme with his handes togither, he must pray, sometyme for himselfe, sometyme for his friendes, sometyme for his pa­rishoners, sometyme for all men, sometyme for no mothen are present, his wordes sometyme a lowde, somtyme secret. Sometime the Clarke alone must aunswere, sometyme the Quire. He speaketh sometime at libertie, sometime certaine woordes with one breath. Sometimes he kisseth the aultar on the right hand, somtime in the middest. But with the Cake, and the Chalice, especiallye, he hath most straunge diuises. His Chalice must sometime stand still in the middest of the aultar, sometime it is a little lifted vp, sometime it is couered with the patin, sometime with a clout, sometime he maketh three crosses on the Cup, and Cake togither, sometime seue­rally on eche of them. Sometime he holdeth the Chalice a­right, sometime with his sore fingers and thumbes fast ioy­ned togither. Sometime he maketh .v. crosses togither, one quite beyond the Chalice, an other before it, on [...]che side an other, and the fift on the bottome. Sometime he crosseth it [Page 50] thrise within, where the wine is. Sometime the Deacon holdes the couer in his hand, and stretcheth his arme out, as farre as he can, Dist. 93. dia­coni. and vpon payne of presumption, the Priest may not touch it, till it be giuen him. Sometime the Priest taketh it, & doth kisse it. Somtime he toucheth his eyes, som­time he crosseth his heade with it, somtyme he laieth it downe. Likewise the Cake somtime is on the Chalice, somtime be­fore it, somtime he crosseth it, sometime he lifteth it, somtime he taketh two péeces of it, and holdeth them in his left hande, and the third in his right hande. Sometimes he taketh one péece of it, and dippes it in the Chalice, sometime hee ta­keth an other péece, and maketh a crosse before his mouth, and when his pastime is done, sometime he hangeth it vp in a boxe.

All these, & such other toyes they teach in the canon of their Masse, and what christian hart woulde not bléede, to sée Gods mysteries so impurely handled, yet reade the booke, thou shalt sée moe Monsters then these. There are woordes which thou must not speake, but first the one half, thē make a crosse, after speake out the rest. If the worde be of moe then two syl­lables, yet thou art taught how to vtter it, in benedixit thou must first say be, then a crosse, after that nedixit, in calicem, first ca, then after a crosse licem, in immaculatam, first im­macu, then a crosse, then latam. Diuers such wordes they doo crossecut, & what shall we say to it, but as S. Paul saith: Ca­uete canes, Philli. cauete concisionem, cauete malos operarios. Be­ware of dogs, beware of cutting, beware of euill labourers. I passe ouer for breuity diuers moe contrarieties, betwene our sauiour Christes institution, and their doing. The godly, and faithfull man shall sone perceiue them. And thus much of the eucharist. Concerning baptisme Iohn dyd baptise in Iordan, Philip by the way side, no coniurings, or incantacions before vsed, and our sauiour saith, ite in vniuersum mundum. &c. Goo in to the whole world, and baptise them in the name of [Page 51] the father, and of the sonne, and of the holy ghost. But thys plaine doing of our Sauiour Christ, doth not like their satani­zed imaginations. They must haue salt, oyle, creame, spittle, breathing, sensing, crossings, candle droppings, hallowings of the Funt, putting their hands in the water, the Infant must holde the taper, and then he that worst maye, doth holde the candell, and such other iuglings they haue, that I can not re­hearse. Which doings being compared with the institution of the Lord God, they shall appeare nothing else but an apish mocking of his eternall wisdome. Which being duelye con­sidered, their church of Rome shalbe knowen, for a dungeon of Iniquity, or as Maister Harding tearmed hir, a sincke of Sodome, and a forge of the Deuils mysteries. We contemne therfore these vyle reproches against the B. of Sarisbury, Lu­ther, Zuinglius, Galuin, Peter Martir, Beza, and such other, and pray vnto the liuing Lord, if it be his good will, and plea­sure, to mollifye the hartes of our enimyes.

¶Now I come vnto your other point, wherwith as with a most haynous crime, you charge me, which is my departing from your Cospel, as you say. This you ob­iect bitterly vnto me, not onelye in your Aunswere to my Preface, but also in very many places of your Re­plie, and specially in your Conclusion. ctc.

You gesse very oft at Maister Iuells meaning, yet hither­to to haue you not once gessed charitablye. But the God of loue doth not direct your goyngs, and therefore you make suche often reaches at hatred. What preiudice should Maister Iuell bring vnto your cause, which of it selfe is weake, and of all Godly men forsaken? What harme vnto your person, whose returne should be his exceding ioye, and whose obstinacy is the encrease of his commendations? Bicause, say you, in the person of an other, he putteth you in remembrance, from [Page 52] whence you be fallen. Why M. Harding are you offended to heare of your euyll doyng. Uerilye the wise man sayth. He that refuseth instruction, Pro. 15.31 despyseth his own soule. But what speaketh this person, whom you meane, vnto M. Harding not long since. &c. O custome of euill speaking, what a plea­sure doost thou bring vnto the euill disposed person? We haue hearde often of Maister Iuells rai [...]inges, and scoffings, euery leafe of his vncourteous dealing, a long common place of his bitter kinde of writing. After so much a doo, seing there will be required some proofe, he séeketh busylye, and when he can finde none, he maketh the greatest leape, though there be many very wyde, that is in the reioinder, euen out of this preface quite ouer the Replie, in to the conclusion, and there he hath found a poore man which asketh a question, which hath set him in these fiery passions, what is there in such manner dealing, but either singular impudēce, or extreme foly? Beare yet with him good Reader. Barre him of these leapings, and all his pastime is done. But let vs heare what Maister Har­ding can aunswere to this poore man. Thus Maister Iuell maketh him speake vnto Maister Harding. Not long since you taught them of our side the Gospell, euen in like sorte, and fourme, as it is tought now. Here Maister Harding bicause he can make no good aunswere, thinketh it not amisse to stop this pore mans mouth with a litle sophestrie. You taught vs, sayth this poore man, the Gospell. By this, saith Maister Har­ding you doo vs to wéete what your gospell is, and wherin it consisteth. Blame not this poore man, though he can say no more. I haue béen a scholar almost this twentye yeares, and yet I can not sée what this aunswere meaneth. They must be L [...]nces eyes, and such, as can looke through milstones, that can sée this conclusion, very déepe cogitations must go so far into sentences, and a man had néede of a warme nightcap, that should folow them. But seyng we can get no better aunswer, the poore mans saying shall stande still for true, and Maister [Page 53] Hardings obscure gatherings shall verifie the cōmon saying, that it is better to saye nothing, then to holde ones peace. In the ende Maister Harding denieth, that he euer spake these woordes, wherby he doth empayre his credit in all other mat­ters. Let the Christian reader for his contentation, when time, and occasion may serue, enquire of any, that then liued in Ox [...]orde. This simple way may not countervaile so many witnesses.

¶To answere to the matter simply, and truly, as before God, I will not here for my better excuse, accuse the will of the Prince, in whose dayes I was brought vp in learning, the ernest endeuour of the Gouernours, then being, to satisfie his desires, the crueltye of the lawes, the yeelding of all in generall, except a very fewe, the great silence of preachers, that then durst not teach ne­cessaries, the common ignorance of men. Omitting [...] all these, which I might bring for some part of excuse, I am content for truthes sake freely to accuse my selfe. In certaine points I was deceiued I confesse by Caluin Melancthon, and a few others, as you by them, and sundrye others are nowe deceiued in many.

Now he commeth to the simple, and true aunswere for hys turning, but he turneth so many members in one sentence, that he turneth all sense quite out of the periode. Perhappes he thinketh he speakes to the poore man againe, therefore he speaketh in riddles. Or if it bee not so, the truth I trowe breaketh out. And againe, he accuseth the iniquitie of those dayes, but his darke hart cannot abide the light, straight he starteth backe againe, and is content to take the fault vnto him selfe, bicause all other excuses are vayne, and vngodlye. And as well as he can, in so great a storme, he runneth vn­der the couering of S. Augustines auctoritie, but it may not [Page 54] helpe him, sithe their turnings are not like. Saint Augu­stine turned from traditions vnto scripture, but he turneth from the scripture, vnto traditions. Againe, S. Augustine turned from the vayne trust, that he had in man, vnto the sure confidence, that is fixed in Christ. But he is slidden away euen from Christ, to sée how farre men haue established hys auctho­ritie. This is true, as his own conscience doth iudge, and hys writings doe testifie, when vnder the name of the Churche, he g [...]eth from the woord of God. Therefore is his turning ney­ther modestie, nor repentance, but a shamelesse falling away, and an obstinate forsaking of God. God giue him grace here­in to iudge him selfe, that in the day of wrath, he be not iud­ged of the Lord.

¶Now, as to confesse this much, truth requireth, so to ac­knowledge your false reportes, wisdome forbiddeth. Them would I haue also not let to cōfesse, if I wist God were delited with our lies. Wher then you say I taught your Gospell, euen in like sorte and forme in al respects as it is taught now, that I deny vtterly. In dede I hobde and roued sometimes, but your pricks I euer tooke to be to farre for me to shoote at. Neither trulye coulde I see the marke, that you M. Iuell, and suche as you are, shot at, it was so farre of, and therefore I stoode out, and shot smaller game.

Now after this confession made, you go as you say, from the truth to your wisdome, and tel vs in what sorte you prea­ched the Gospell. You say you hobde, and roued, but you ne­uer shot at any certaine marke. Why were you one of Baals prophets, that haulted on both sides, that woulde serue both God, and Mammon too? That eate meate with the Gen­tiles, and yet dissemble it before the Iewes? The waueryng is vnconstant in all his wayes, and bicause thou art neyther [Page 55] hoate, nor colde, I will spue thée out of my mouth, sayth the Lord? This hobbing was the cause that you fell agayne to your vomit. And this rouing euer since, made your shooting vncertaine. You could not sée the marke, that M. Iuell shootes at, the vale of colde deuotion was before your eyes. You loo­ked euen now like an Eagle, in the poore mans question. But nowe you haue oyled your blere eyes, that you can not sée Christ. God lighten your eyes, that you sléepe not styll in death. You stoode without (you say) and shot smaller game, in déede you shot such game, as was not worth your labour. At the imaginations of mans brayne you roued so muche vn­certainly, that you shoote yet now beating the ayre. Therfore haue you eyes, and sée not. &c. There be manye suche hobbers now adayes. God giue vs grace to beware by your example, and to take héede of such cold play.

¶As for your respectes, to saye truely I neuer knew. what they were. At the gaming of your Gospell, you shote, to strike downe the true, and reall body of Christ, on [...] of the blessed sacrament of the aulter, with certaine phrases of spech with, telling the people of your tropes, and figures, with comparing the Eucharist to the bap­tisme, with making the presēce of Christ, like in both. You bend your force to strike away the eternall, and singuler sacrifice of the church, with such a sort, and forme, as I hetherto neuer vsed, and yet thinke to be very straunge, as for example with teaching as you do, that missa signifieth not the masse, but your Cōmuniō, that Eucharistia is to be taken not for the sacrament consecrate, but for common bread, wherewith one Bi­shop did present another. That Melchisedech, and Ma­lachias signified the sacrifice of your cōmunion, wherat the people lift vp their handes, and hartes, as you say, vnto heauen, praieth, and sacrificeth togither, reioysing [Page 56] in the Lorde. That in the sacrament of the aultar, ther is no vertue, nor grace, but when it is vsed, no more then in water, after that one is baptised. That ther is no difference betwixt the priest, and the people, in the holy ministerie of the sacrifice, and that lay folke, mē, and women, do make the sacrifice, and be priestes after the order of Melchisedech, that God is the author of euill, and driueth men to sin. Many other such sortes, and formes of shooting, you, and your companions vse at this daye, with which I was neuer acquainted, as ne­ther any man liuing can burthen me, and God is wit­nesse, which to me is a sufficient discharge. Wherfore you do me the greater wrong, in that you say, I taught your Cospell, euen in like sorte and forme, and in all respectes, as it is taught nowe.

But you procéede at your rouers, and tel an vncertaine tale of the respectes of your preachinges. You saye you neuer preached against transubstanciation. These are vaine repeti­tions, to fill vp your paper. How coulde you preach against such filthynesse of the Sea of Rome, that were alwaies hob­bing, and neuer preached out Christ in the simplicitye of his Gospell? I am easily perswaded, that you neuer did it, seing, whervnto you are againe returned. But whether you did it, or no, one day it shalbe reuealed. All these pointes here alled­ged, are fully discussed in Maister Iuells Replye. And good reader, leaue of hobbers instruction, & with the formest shoot [...] at the very marke, which is Iesus Christ, and thou shalt soone perceiue, what is his truth. Now for thy better instruction, I will speake of those markes, which are laid out, as bre [...]fly as I can. Transubstan­ti [...]tion. Clement. lib. 3. tit. 16. cap. Si dominum. First this transubstanciation was first mentioned in the councell of Laterane .1215. yeare after Christ. And corpus Christi daye instituted in Vrbanus tyme, more then .40. yeares after that. So thou séest the antiquity is but of late yeares, it hath no warrant in scriptures, as their owne doc­tors, [Page 57] Fisher, Biell, and Scotus, doo witnesse. How it disagre­eth both from scriptures, and Doctours, M. Iuels Reply hath aboundantlye taught thée. Yet for thy better furtherance, I will laye before thee for thyne instruction certaine of those places, which ouerturne this fonde Doctrine. August. de doct. Christi. Thou must first consider that this sacrament, and Baptisme are the two sacraments that Christ hath left vnto his church, which two were prefigured in the olde lawe, baptisme in circumcision especially, and the Eucharist in the pascall Lambe. Exod. 10. Now for the true vnderstanding of these Sacramentes, thou must remember that the Scripture vseth in them suche a phrase of speakinge, that the thynge signified, is giuen vnto the signe. So of Circumcision, whych God had commaunded Abraham, the scripture expressely saith, this is my couenant, Gene. 17.10 yet was it the signe of his couenaunt. Of the pascall Lambe it is saide, this is the Lordes passeouer, Exod. 12.11. yet was it but a token of the passage of the Angell. Likewyse of the rock Paul spea­keth. The rocke was Christ, 1. Cor. 10.16 which was yet but a figure of Christ, and the sacrifices are saide to be the purifiynges, yet were they but a token of ther sanctification. And as this was spoken thus in the figure, so it is now in the truth. S. Paule calleth baptisme lauacrum regenerationis the washinge of the new birth, yet it is but a signe of the inward renewynge of the holye Ghost. In like sorte it is written, baptizare. Titus. 3.5. Actes. 22. &c. he baptised, and washed away thy sinnes. Yet baptisme was but a token, that his sinnes were washt away. So Peter, 1. Pet. 3. bap­tismus nos quoque saluos reddit, yet it is but the seale of our saluation. The holy Ghost must come vpon them before they receiue grace, In like maner it is saide, Actes. 19.6. of the other parte of this Sacrament: This cuppe, yet the holye Ghost meaneth the wine. It is sayd further, this cup is the new Testament, yet the wyne is not the same, but a token of it. Iere. 31.33. The newe testamēt is, that God is our God, and we are his people, that he hath forgiuen our iniquity, and that he will remember our [Page 58] sinnes no more. But wo be vnto that man, that shall looke onelye to be saued, by that, which is in the Priestes Chalice. What madnesse is it then, séeing this maner of speaking is so vsuall to the Sacraments, to choose onely this sentence of our Sauiour Christ, this is my body, which thou wilt receiue with out figure, when neither the scripture it selfe doth alowe it, nor the phrase of the spirite of God so often vttered vnto vs, doth inforce it. I neede not here to recite the playne sayinges themselues, Luke. 22.19. 1. Cor. 11. [...]4. which literally layed togither, can not stand, this is my body, saith Christ, [...] which now giuen for you, yet Christes body was not then betrayed. So saint Peter, [...], which is broken for you, yet was not his body then crucified, whereby they are infor­ced, yea euen in the same sentence, to forsake the letter. And for the better assuraunce, that we may doe this, vpon a good warrant, Iohn. 6.63. we haue the exposition of our sauiour Chirst, it is the spirite that quickneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. The words, that I speake vnto you, are spirite, and life. And saint Paule doth cal it bread, 1. Cor. 16. euen when it is ministred. The bread which we breake, is it not the communion of the bodye of Christ? This is sufficient for him, that will vnderstand, how these woordes are taken, this is my body. He that wil yet stick vnto the letter, let him further consider the saying of Saint Paule, that the letter killeth, and manye other sayings of the scripture, which be in like maner, as thys is, spoken of our sauiour Christ. Iohn. 1. The woord was made flesh, saith S. Iohn, yet the deitie of Christ, which is the woorde, was not turned into man. My Father is greater than I, yet Christ, and his Fa­ther in deitie were one. In the Gospell some were called the brothers of Christ, yet it is knowen, they were but his Kyns­men. Iohn was called the sonne of Mary, and Mary, Iohns mother, yet it is manifest the meaning is not so. These pla­ces are [...] sufficient to instruct vs, that somtime in the scrip­ture, we must haue spirituall vnderstanding. He that requi­reth [Page 59] further, manye places are playne of Christes corporall departure. It is good for you, that I goe hence, Iohn, 16.7 sayth Christ in the Gospell. And agayne, but now I go away to him, that sent me. And in the same chapiter twyse, I go to my Father. 16. &. 18. And least of these sayings we make any straunge meaning, the Disciples doe make aunswere, loe, now speakest thou 19 playnly, and thou speakest no parable. It is like that other where is spoken, you shall haue the poore alwayes with you, but me ye shall not haue alwayes. And yet an other most vn­doubted testimonie, of his bodilye absence. Nowe am I no more in the world, but these are in the world, Iohn. 17.11 and I come vnto thée. And in the actes of the Apostles, Actes. 6. Steuen did sée him stan­ding on the right hand of his Father. And it is written, that in his returne, he shall come agayne, Actes. 1.11. euen as he was taken vp, which could not be so, if the Priest might fet him agayne with whisperings, and incantations. This maye suffice the Christian Reader, concerning this transubstantiation, which M. Harding so vpholdeth. God giue his children grace, that such brightnes of his holye woord, may illumine their darke harts, that they may behold clerely, what is his truth. And thus much of his first marke. Another is, that he neuer shot at the externall sacrifice of the church, meaning hereby, Externall sa­crifice. that the priest doth offer vp Christ vnto his Father, a sacrifice pro­pitiatorie for the quicke, and the dead. This romish presump­tion of the childe of perdition, though it sufficiently be beaten downe by disproofe of transubstantion, yet bicause M. Har­ding will néedes make this an other marke, I wyll speake somewhat of it.

Let vs first lay downe this straunge opinion in plaine woords, euen as they teach it, so shall we the more easily re­member, what they say, & the more effectually hate their wic­ked doctrine. Thus then they teach. The priest daily at the aul­tare doth offer vp Christ vnto his father, a sacrifice propicia­torie, and vnbloudy, both for the quicke, and for the dead. Out [Page 60] of this one outrageous sentence all the froth, and filth of the sea of Rome in manner floweth. There are in it welnigh as manie lyes, as ther are woordes. For as it is héere ment, we haue nowe no Priest, no dayly Oblation, no Aultare, no offring vp of Christ vnto his father, no propitiatory Sacrifice, no Masse, no remission of Sinnes with out bloud, no Sa­crificing for the dead. All these thinges being proued by testi­monie of the scriptures, I trust all godly consciences shalbe quieted, and all Maister Hardings sacrificing imaginations shalbe buried againe in that pit of iniquity, out of which they are spronge. First then, as touching this name Priest, we haue to consider, A priest. both what the scriptures doo attribute vnto our sauiour Christ, and againe what commission he hath giuē vnto his ministers. Of Christ S. Paule saith, pontifex factus in aeternum, Heb. 6.20. he is made priest for euer, euen as the prophet saith, thou art a priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech. And againe, Psal. 100, 4 bicause he endureth for euer, he hath an euerlasting priesthoode, [...] a priesthood that cānot be transferred vnto an other. Therfore al other are blasphemous y ^t either make thē selues his successours, or pretend any other sacrifice. And yet for an absolute proofe, that onely Christ is nowe a priest, and no other, the name [...] is properly giuen vnto him alone in all the newe Testament. Neyther Paule, nor Peter, nor any other Apostle, or Euāgelist did euer claim it, but called them selues commonly the ministers of Christ, Christ alone beinge our highe priest. Wherby we sée these massing sacrifices, first in the name, rob Christ of his ho­nour, and in their further arrogancie contempneth the name of minister, wherin S. Paule did so often glory. And thus much of the priesthood of our sauiour Iesus Christ. Now it resteth, we should see what authority he hath giuen to his Apostels, and this we are taught by S. Mathevv, where Christ giueth his Apostles their commission altogither indifferently, saying to euery one, Math. 28.19 goo and teach all nacions, baptizing them in the [Page 61] name of the father, the sonne, & the holy ghost, teaching them to obserue althings whatsoeuer I haue cōmaunded you. And loe, I am with you alway vnto the end of y ^e world. Here is the whole authority of the minister out of the new Testament ex­pressed. For thei ar told what they should do, y ^t is docete teach, & baptize. &c. and how far they shall go, docete cos. &c. teaching them to obserue althings which I haue cōmaunded you. And in the woordes following, loe, I am with you alway, he confir­meth that authority, which before speakinge vnto Peter, he had giuen vnto al, that whosoeuer they bound in earth, should be bounde in heauen, and what soeuer they did loose on earth, shoulde be loosed in heauen. This selfe commission is like­wise expressed by S. Iohn, when Christ saith to his Discipels. As my father sent me, so also I send you, Iohn, 20.21. where immediatly followeth, and when he saide it. &c. whose sinnes ye remit, they are remitted. And in what sorte God sent his sonne, it is likewise expressed by the prophet, sayinge as S. Luke resiteth it, Spiritus Domini super me. &c. Esay. 61.1. The Spirit of the Lorde is vpon me, bicause he hath anointed me, that I should preach the Gospell to the poore, he hath sent me, Luke. 4.18. that I should heale the broken harted, that I shoulde preach deliuerance to the Captiues, and recouering of sight to the blinde, that I should set at liberty them, that are brused, and that I should preach the acceptable yeare of the Lord. Thus in these thrée is the whole office of the minister, to preach, to minister the sacra­mentes, to remit sinnes, no one woorde concerning sacrifi­cing. And this is the miserable blindnes of the whole papacie, to foster vp, and norish that incestuous Religion, wher euery one committeth whooredome with his owne deuises, yet the chiefest keies of their religion hath no one woorde for warrant in the scriptures. What manner of lanterne do they make the word of God? What maner of light to guide our steps? Psalm. What maner of rule to correct our euil wayes? and what ma­ner a testamēt, that is sealed with the bloud of Christ, if so ma­nie [Page 62] thinges are necessary, which our onely sauiour, and his eternall worde haue not commaunded? But the Apostle hath spoken, and it must be fulfilled, that the tyme should come, when mens eares would itch to harken after lyes. But let vs sée, how do these massing Priests execute that, which Christ hath committed to the Minister of the Gospell. Doe they preache? Doe they instruct the people? The great ignorance in the time of their rule, is an euerlasting witnesse, that they did not. If thou wilt yet be contentious, examine the thyng farther. Did they teache to obserue those things, which Christ had commaunded? Howe coulde they then haue pulled hys commaundements, and his whole Bible out of their Chur­ches? Dyd they giue sight vnto the blinde? Who could abide to heare it spoken, they made it their common Prouerb, Ig­noraunce is the mother of deuotion. Did they preach the ac­ceptable yeare of the Lorde? as the Prophet sayth, alluding to the yeare of Iubyley. Nay, their own conscience doth crye no, & their déedes witnesse against them. As though mans de­liuerie had not bene yet wrought, the Pope hath set vp a new yeare of Iubyley, and in a marueilous sorte of innumerable people forgaue sinnes after his owne pleasure. O horrible wickednes, and blasphemie against the bloud of Christ. But let their preaching go. How are their sacramēts administred? Reade, that is sayd before, alledged out of the Canon of theyr own Masse, and thou shalt thinke their ministration a Pup­pet play, rather then Gods seruice. But do they remit sinnes? Sure as they doe the other, they preach in abhomination, mi­nister in apish toyes, and forgiue sins in blasphemye. Christ doth bid, heale the broken harted, but they will sende their pardōs, if they be paied therafter to men, that thei neuer saw. They holde fast this promisse, to thée I giue the keyes of the kingdome of heauen, but they do not consider, that Peter be­fore made his confession. Math. 16. Tu es Christus ille filius dei viuētis, thou art Christ the Sonne of the liuing God. They heare, we [Page 63] maye binde sinnes: but they remember not, Math. 18. wh [...]t Christ bad doo before we accounte our brother, as an Ethnicke. It shall not be necessary to tary longer in this. It is sufficiētly proued by this, that Christ onely is our euerlastinge Priest, and we ministers of his Gospell, and that the Popish Prelates are no priestes, and therfore haue no bodyly sacrifice, neyther yet are true ministers, and therfore they are not of God. The second lye, that is founde in this assertion of M. Harding, is, that ther is dayly oblation, that is, Dayly obla­tion. Christ is now dayly offered in their Masse. And for proofe of this, S. Paule saith, Christ is entred into the very heauen, to appeare in the sight of God for vs. Non vt saepius offerat semet ipsum, Heb. 9.25. quemadmodum pon­tifex, &c. Not that he should offer him selfe often, as the high priest entred into the holy place. If therefore Christ can not be offred againe, the imagined sacrifice of their daily Masse, is wickednesse. Christ is once deade, and he can dye no more, Rom. 6.9. than how can the priest sacrifice him? So saith S. Peter, Christ hath once suffred for sinnes, the iust, for the vniust, 1. Pet. 3.18. and againe S. Paul, Christ was once offred to take away the sinnes of ma­nye, and vnto them, that looke for him, Heb. 9.28. shall he appeare the seconde time without sinne vnto saluation. And againe, the Apostle comparing the sacrifice of the law, with the sacrifice of Christ, saith: Euery Priest appeareth dayly ministering, Heb. 10.11. and oft times offreth one maner of offering, which can neuer take awaye sinne, but this man, after he had offered one sa­crifice for sinnes, sitteth for euer at the right hande of God, and after, for with one offering hath hee consecrated for euer, them that be sanctified. These wordes are very plaine, and the gates of hell cānot obscure their vnderstanding. If the simple Reader doe muse, why the Papistes doe not credit it, let him remember, the Scribes and Pharises woulde not credit Christes miracles, hauing farther the manifest testi­monie of the worde of God. Such are the plagues that God doth sende vpon the contemners of his worde. Esay. 29.14. The wisdome [Page 64] of their wise men, shall perish, and the vnderstanding of their prudent, Esay. 29.14 shalbe hid, and he hath sent in message vnto them the plagues, that he hath prepared, commaunding his prophet to speake vnto the obdurate people. Esay. 6.9. Ye shal heare in déede, but ye shall not vnderstande, ye shall plainely sée, and not per­ceyue. God for his mercies sake, when his good wil, and plea­sure is, lighten their darke harte. I haue sufficiently decla­red, that Christ hath ben offred, and he shall be offred no more. So is there no such dayly sacryfyce, as Maister Harding san­cieth. If they will make here escapes, and say they make no more offerings, but it is the very same which Christ did offer, this is a poore shift in déede, and a common vayle, that shado­weth all their eyes, least they should sée the truth. But Paule taketh away this stumbling block out of the path of the godly, saying, that by Christes will, we be sanctified, Per oblationem corporis Iesu Christi semel peractam, Heb. 10.10. euen by the offering of the body of Iesus Christ once made the sacrifice, is not onely one, but it is semet peracta, once made, and no more be repea­ted, no new sacrifice may be sought for. And thus appeareth we haue nowe neyther Priests, nor dayly offeringes.

The aultar.The third lye that is found in this assertion, concerning the aulter. For it is manifest now we ought to haue no such. The aulter, Exod. 27.1. as we reade in Exodus, was made for the brent offe­rings, take away brent offerings, and we take away the aul­ter, and if it be lawfull to be had, it must be made of Setim wood. We must haue the foure hornes on the corners, and we must corner it with brasse. We must haue the ashpans, and the besoms, the basons, and the fleshhookes, the censors, and other instruments of brasse. God commaunded all in the Mount, and we haue no commission to retayne what we wil, and what we will reiect. I leaue the good proofe, that I maye haue of the woord [...], as much to saye, as a place ap­pointed wherein to make a sacrifice. So take away the sacri­fice, and take away the aulter, and I thinke Maister Hardyng [Page 65] wyll not say that [...], this sacrificing is [...] yet remayning. For saint Paule saith, [...], Heb. 10.12. he hath offered one sacrifice for our sinnes. And our sauiour Christ sayth it in the Gospell, [...], Math. 9.13 I wyll haue mercy, and no sacrifice. Teaching vs, that in his kingdome, that saying of the prophet Oze should be fulfilled. Oze. 6.7. But what néede we séeke after many reasons? Saint Paules woordes be plaine. We haue an aulter, Hebr. 13.10. of which it is not law­full for them to eate, that serue in the Tabernacle. Teaching vs, that our conscience is confirmed by no outwarde thyng, but onelye by grace. For the Tabernacle he meaneth all fi­gures, and ceremonies that are adioyned vnto it, so whosoe­uer will retayne them, can not eate of our aultar, which is the onely foode of our soule, euen Iesus Christ the righteous. And this was figured in the offering of a red Cow, Num. 19.2. whych God commaunded to be giuen to Eleazar the Priest, and he should burne hir without the hoste, with hir skyn, and hir fleshe, and hir blood, and hir doong. And Eleazar the high priest, and the inferiour priest that burned hir, shoulde washe their clothes, and their flesh, and be vncleane vntil Euen. Likewise he that gathered the ashes of the Cowe, should wash his clothes, and his flesh, and be vncleane vntill Euen. No parte of it shoulde be reserued for the Priest, whereby we are taught, that the sa­crifice of our sauiour Christ, whereby his people are sancti­fied, must be alone made with out any thinge appertaining either vnto the priest, or tabernacle, for which cause as S. Paul saith, he suffered without the gate. Heb. 13.13. Let vs go forth therefore out of the camp, bearing his reproch. For we haue here no cō ­tinuing city, but we séeke one to come. Let vs therefore by him, offer sacrifice of prayse alwayes to God, that is the fruite of the lippes, which confesse his name. Let Massings, and Massing garments go, let the hill altars alone, meddle not with Ieroboams golden calues, to do it nowe were open blasphemy, which before Christes cōming, God had cōmaun­maunded [Page 66] our sauiour Christ is the truth it selfe. He wyll not be coupled with the Tabernacle, which is blinde shadowes. Saint Paule maketh a playne seperation of the aultar, and the Gospell, 1. Cori. 9.13. where he disputeth for the maintenaunce of the Minister. Doe ye not know, sayth he, that they which mini­ster about the holy things, eate of the things of the Temple, and they which wayte at the aultar, are partakers of the aul­tar? So also hath the Lord ordeyned, that they which preache the Gospell, should lyue of the Gospell. Which argument of the Apostle had not bene well gathered, if the aultars shoulde haue bene in the Christian congregations.

Christ is not offered vp a­gaine vnto his Father. Heb. 5.4.The fourth heresie, that is founde in this popish article, is this, that Christ is offered againe vnto his father. S. Paule sayth, no man taketh this honour vnto him, but he that is called of God, euen as was Aaron. But no title in the woord of God, that giueth vnto a mortall man this authority, there­fore they may not claime it. And our sauiour Christ sayth to the Samaritan woman: Iohn, 4.21. [...]3. Beleue me, the houre is come, when neyther in Ierusalem, neyther in this hill you shall worship the father, but the true worshippers shall worship in spirite, and verity. For the father requireth euen suche to worship him. God is a spirit, and they, that worship him, must worship in spirit, and truth. But if Christ were really offered vp to his father, there were a truer woorship, than the worship of the spirite. Againe, S. Paule saith, let them haue mysterium fidei the mysterye of faith in a pure conscience. 1. Tim. 3.9. He would [...] doubtles haue saide, mysterium sacrificij, the mystery of this sacrifice of Christ shoulde yet oftener haue ben offred. And S. Iames faith pure religion, Iacob. 1.27. and vndefiled before God, euen that father, is this, to visite the fatherles, and widdowes in their aduersity, and to kéepe him selfe vnspotted of the world. But Maister Harding saith thus. Our Religion must haue a sacrificing of Christ vnto his father, and therfore we are assu­red that Maister Hardinges Religion is not pure, and vnde­filed. [Page 67] The scriptures are full of such places, which teach vs how to please God, and take holde of saluation. But in all those places no such sacrificing of Christ is mencioned, and therfore to fancie any such imaginations is, neither to please God, nor to walke in that way, which leadeth to saluation. If this be not sufficient, which is sufficient to a christian man, we haue besides most certaine proofe, which by no meanes can be coloured. S. Paule saith, where there is remission of sins, Heb. 10.18. there is no more offering for sinne, but Christ hath alreadye forgiuen vs all our trespasses, and put out the hand writing of ordinaunce, which was against vs. &c. Collos. 2.13. 1. Pet. 1.19. And as saynt Peter sayth, we are redeemed with the precious bloud of Christ, as of a Lambe vndefiled, and without spot. And therefore Christ is not now offered for sinne. And here appeareth moreouer the fift heresie in M. Hardings proposition. For if Christ be not offered to his father, neither any oblation for sinne is re­mayning, then is there now no propitiatorie sacrifice, but onely one, which God hath already made, vpon the aultar of the crosse. And that this should be but once made, it appea­reth, Leuit. 26.2 for that Aaron might but once in the yeare goe into the holy place, within the vaile, before the mercy seate, where he made attonement for him selfe, and for his house. So spea­keth S. Iohn, of the sacrifice once made, meaning it alone to be propitiatorie. If any man sinne, 1. Iohn. 2.7. we haue an aduocate wyth God the father, Iesus Christ the iust, and he is the propitia­tion for our sinnes, he maketh intercession before hys father, he is not sacrificed on the altar. Againe he sayth, herein is loue, not that we loued God, but that he loued vs, and sent his Sonne, to be a propitiation for our sinnes. When Christ made this propitiatorie sacrifice, he was sent of his father, 1. Ion. 4.10 and he was sent but once, euen than as S. Paule sayth, when the fulnesse of time was come. Now is the time of his imbassage done. He hath satisfied the law of God, first toward his father, Gala. 4.4. in that he was obedient vnto death, euen vnto y ^e death of the [Page 68] crosse, thā toward his brethern, in that he had that great loue, that he gaue his life for his friendes, from hence forth he cea­seth from that legacy, and sittes at the right hande of his fa­ther in glory, and maketh continuall intercession for vs. Therfore nowe his father doth no more send him, and he wil not againe be sacrificed. This is ynoughe, if we were not dull of hearing, to take from vs these vngodly deuises, concer­ning any other propitiatory sacrifice, than that, which is al­ready made. But M. Harding, and his fellowes, that can so well peruerte the scriptures of God, they haue many shiftes to defende their owne fancies. This our sacrifice, say they, is no newe sacrifice, but the same which Christ made, yet Saint Paule saith it was one oblation, and semel peracta, but once made. Heb. 10. To this againe they aunswere, that it was but once made bloudy, but theirs is vnbloudy. But the Apostle saith, Absque sanguinis effusione non sit remissio, without sheding of bloude there is no remission of sinnes, Heb. 9. what than auaileth this vnbloudy sacrifice? But they saye further, it is an appli­cation of the death of Christ. But the Apostle proueth, that the sacrifices of the lawe were vnperfite, Heb. 10.3. bicause in them was a remembrance againe of sinnes, euery yeare, so there is now no such kinde of application. They cannot possible so turne their deuises, but the Apostle must néedes proue their Masse full of Sacriledge. Christ onely was méete to offer vp hym­selfe, but they in their Masse will haue a priest to offer him. Christes sacrifice was but one, and once finished. In their Masse, if their sacrifice were one, yet is it daily iterated. There can be no remission of sinnes without bloud. In their Masse they make it vnbloudy, yet they haue it to cleanse sins. Thus their Masse, and the Apostle cannot be reconciled. God for [...]is mercy roote it out, that we may be made frée from that wicked mistery. There resteth yet one péece in this idolatrous assertion, Purgatorie. whether there be any sacrifice for y ^e dead. This con­trouersie is verye foolish, and full of olde wyues dreames, [Page 69] neyther grounded on the worde of God, bicause it is vngodly, nor requireth much impugning, bicause it hath no reason. Yet seing M. Harding coulde neuer sée the marke to shoote at, I will let it plaine before him, if he will shoote at it with the worde of God, he shall be sure to ouerthrowe it. King Salomon hath made him fit arrowes, euen for the nonce, if he will drawe truely, he shall hit the marke. What soeuer saith Salomon, thy hande doth finde to do, do it spedily, Eccle. 9.10. for there is neyther worke, nor inuention, nor knowledge, nor wisedome in the graue, whether thou goest. If the case stande thus with vs when we are gone, concerning our doinges, then is there no more purgatory. Againe he saith, if the trée doe fall towarde the South, or toward the North, Eccle. 11.3. in the place that the tree falleth, there it shalbe, and these wordes of the holy Ghost are true. Therfore no Pope, no Trentalles, no Indulgences, nor pardons can moue the trée out of his place, in which it is once fallen. Againe it is written, defraude not thy selfe of the good day, Eccle, 14.14 and let not the portion of good desires ouer passe thée meaning therby, we should take the tyme of our lyfe. For after it will be to late to aske repentaunce, and in that chap. it followeth. Giue, and take, & I sanctifie thy soule, worke thou righteousnes before thy death, for in the hell ther is no meat to finde, which sayinges are likewise confirmed by that which is spoken by S. Paule. Behold now is the accep­table time: behold now is the day of health. To the same sense it is likewise spoken. All corruptible thinges shall faile, and the worker thereof shall go withall. By which scriptures it appeareth how little holdfast these purgatory patrons haue. And here I would haue them aunswere if they can. We haue often in the scriptures the death of men described, yet neuer any worde of purgatory mencioned. In the lawe there were sacrifices, for the prince, for the people, for the priest, for ie­losie, for childe birth, for the leprosie, for diuers kindes of diseases, for sundrye infections, and griefes, pertaining vnto [Page 70] men, and yet in the whole lawe not once sacrifice apointed for them in purgatory, an vndoubted token, that purgatory was than vnknowen. Dauid fasted, and went in, and lays all night vpon the earth, while his childe was sicke, but when he was dead, 2. Sa. 13.16. he arose vp, and washed, and annointed hym­selfe, and did eate, and aunswered whye he did so, while the childe, saith he, was yet aliue, I fasted, and wept. &c. but now being dead, wherefore should I now fast? The popish priests might soone haue aunswered, to release him out of Purgato­rie. But the prophet Dauid did knowe of no suche matter. When we obiect these, and such other proofes, some stagger, and haue not what to saye. Some make this aunswer, that Purgatorie was not in the time of the law, but these good pa­trons doe litle spare the great mercies of Iesus Christ, if they teache, that he brought his people this place of torment. The testimonie, that he giueth of his own good will, can not beare it, Iohn. 17. where he prayeth: Father, my wyll is, that where I am, there they may be with me, whom thou hast giuen vnto me, that they may sée my glorie. But the glory that his elect shall sée, is not (I trow) the paines of Purgatorie. If M. Harding will make exception, and say that was spoken onely of the A­postles, & such as should be of greater perfitenesse, than other are, that deuice is confounded euen by the testimonie of the same Iesus Christ, where he sayth in the same chapiter. I doe not pray onely for them, but for suche also as shall beleue in me, through their preaching, so that whosoeuer dyeth in the fayth of Christ, he shall not know Purgatorie, but euery one, which is saued, shall dye in the same fayth, according to that, which is written, Abacuc. the iust man shall lyue by his fayth. And this is againe proued by the example of the théefe, who in no poynt was of such perfection, as the Apostles were, yet to him it was sayd, this day shalt thou be with me in Paradise. And S. Paule him selfe testifieth the same, where he writeth, that the crowne of righteousnes was layd vp for him, a rewarde of [Page 71] all his labours. And least we should misconstre hys saying, as the Papists doe, and say, that for his great perfection, he passed from this life straight, into the kingdome of righteous­nesse, he taketh awaye that vaine gessing, & saith further, that crowne is reserued against y ^t day, Non solū mihi. &c. not one­ly to me, but to euery one y ^t loueth the cōming of Iesus Christ. They maye not well doubt, that Paule ment by that daye the daie of his death, sith he defineth it him selfe in an other place, Cupio dissolui &c. I desyre to be dissolued, & be w ^t Christ. Philli. 1 Then if all sortes of men, as many, as be beleuers, bi accepted a like concerning their present happinesse, as the scriptures euery where do testifie, then let all these foolishe deuises passe. Such manner hobbings, and rouings, what haue we to doe with them? Let vs harken after the word of God, the soueraigne, and alone medicine for the wounded soule. Besides all this, that we shoulde not feare any purging fire, S. Paule testifieth of Christ, that he is able perfitely to saue all them that come, Heb. 7.25 vnto God through him. But whan we go vnto God, if Christ from thence sende vs into purgatory, how doth he than make perfite our saluation, which the soule doth inioy, till such time, as it be againe ioyned to the body, and than made ful? Againe in the same Epistle: I will be mercifull vnto their vnrighte­ousnesse, and their sinne, Heb. 3.8.21. and will remember their iniquity no more. Much lesse than will he sende vs into Purgatory. But what néede we séeke longe for the ouerthrowe of such buildings? S. Paul in one word derideth y ^t whole controuersy. Heb. 9.27 It is appointed saith he, vnto all men, that they shall once dye, and after that commeth the iudgement. If it be so, what then auaileth praier for y ^e dead? What helpeth it to haue trentals? Where is purgatory? After death saith the Apostle, commeth iudgement. Here is no colour of shift, least except they wil say after death, that is, when the generall daie of iudgement shall bée. And if this might serue, then had they somewhat to saye. But S. Iohn hath preuented such wrestinge of scrip­tures. [Page 72] After death, as he teacheth, is, immediatly, as soone as we be with God, for this he writeth. Blessed ar the deade which dye in the Lorde, Apoc. 14.13. from henceforth saith the spirit, they rest from their labour. No labour abideth any more for them, after death, immediatlye they are receiued into ioy, and their workes doe follow them. And this present ioy of the godlye is likewyse specified, where the same Apostle writeth, that an hundred, fourty, and foure thousand did stande with the lambe in y ^e mount Sion, meaning the elect, which wer w ^t Christ in his kingdome. An hundreth such other places there are in the scripture, which testifie of our estate after death, and do quite ouerthrowe the Popes purgatory. Nowe for the better con­tentation of the Reader, it were worth the labour to answere to al those places of the scripture, in which they make so many blinde gesses at purgatory. The places are Math. 5.26. &c. 12.32 &c. 18 34. Luc. 12.59.16.19. l. Co. 3.15. Phil. 2.10. Apo. 5.15. But read these places who list, in the feare of God, and true desire of knowledge, he can by no imaginations haue one gesse at purgatory, and yet for the establishing of such a doctrine, it had bene requisite they could haue shewed euen the name for the interpretation of other men be they neuer so olde. We may saye with the Apostle. Euery man aboundeth in his own vnderstanding, but no man knoweth the thinges that are Gods, saue God alone, and his woorde, if we will not be de­ceiued, must be our onelye guider. But they haue one place 2. Mach. 12.44. in plaine words, that it is good to pray for the dead, 2. Ma. 14.41 if that booke be of able autority. We rede likewise of one Razias, an Elder of Ierusalem, which first ran vpon his own sworde, and when he missed of his stroke, he ranne to the top of the wall, and threwe him selfe downe among the multi­tude, and yet hauing life in him, went to the top of an highe rocke, and pulled out his owne bowels, and threwe them among the enimies, and for this doing he is commended. So by the authoritye of the same booke, a man maye kill him­selfe, which Maister Harding him selfe, I trowe will not con­stantly [Page 73] affirme, yet this being scripture it might not be doub­ted. Againe the same author saith: If I haue done well, and as the story requireth, it is the thing, that I desired. 2 Mac. 15.35 But if I haue spoken slenderly, and basely, it is that I coulde. These Iffes, and Andes are not of that spirit, which hath written the scriptures. Thus doubting of his own ability, besemeth not the holy ghost. Beside this, the gréeke in the same place is so corrupt, that scarce any sense coulde be made of it. And Ioseph ben Gorion, out of whom that story semeth to be gathered, Lib. 3. cap. 10 in the same place, doth quite leaue out this praying for the dead. But it maye be, that in those dayes some ignoraunt Iewes, vpon an vnwyse deuotion, did thinke it good to praye for the deade, and likewise to praye againe vnto them, that they would helpe vs. Which if it were so, by such meanes this place might come into the Machab. And that some did thinke thus, thoughe they were alwayes otherwyse instructed, it appereth by one manifest place, which is read in Philo Iudeus, where he writeth the death of Debora, Bib. antiq. cap. 40. who made a godly exhortatiō to hir people before she dyed. For afterward they should finde no repentaunce. There some made aunswere vnto hir, Ecce nunc mater moreris, & ora itaque pro nobis, & post recessum tuum, erit anima tua memor nostri in sempiternum. Praye for vs after thy departure, and let thy soule be mindefull of vs for euer. To whom Debora maketh aunswere. Adhuc viuens homo potest orare, et pro se, & pro filijs suis, post finē autem, non poterit exorare, nec memor esse alicuius, yet while a man is liuing, he may pray for him selfe, and for his chil­dren, but whan he is deade, he can neyther intreate, nor be mindeful of any. And it followeth, your similitude then shal be like the starres of heauen, which are now manifest in you. Hereby we sée what iudgement the common people mighte haue in such matters. And yet howe the godly did otherwise instruct them, reade this place, thou shalt finde it so plaine, that no wrangling may shift it of, but nedes we must confesse [Page 74] that it teacheth vs, that we ought neither to praye vnto sain­tes to help vs, neyther yet agayne can we helpe them when they be gone. Wherby it appeareth what manner of archer Maister Harding hath ben, that could not shoote at so plaine a marke. But he did shoote at his own dreames, and so he ligh­ted on Purgatorie.

Yet there follow a great many of markes, at the which M. Hardyng could neuer shoote home. The first is, that the masse and our Communion is one, Masse and Communion. wyth that marke, sayth he, I was neuer acquaynted. Hys loose without doubt is very ill, or he shooteth to low a compasse, or else he draweth not close. For M. Stapleton, that shooteth with the same bow and ar­rowes hitteth this marke, The return of vntruthes, the 7. vntruth. euen at the first. The Masse and the Communion, saith he, duelye ministred, is all one, and it is folly to thinke any contradiction betwéene the Communion and the Masse. Thus it appeareth M. Harding is a verye wrangler, that wyll not shoote at that marke, which his owne fellowes finde. An other marke, that M. Harding could neuer shoote at, Eucharistia. is this, that Eucharistia doth signifie not the Sacra­ment, but common bread. I maruail he could neuer shoote at this marke. For sith he began first that babling aunswere to M. Iuels learned Challenge, he hath alwaye bene hobbing a­mong those marks, wher this is one, though he neuer shot at the selfe same, yet hath he seldome shot, but at such like. For it is a marke of slaundering, and a marke of lying, at whych marke, as well in this Reioynder, as other where M. Har­ding most commonly doth shoote very nere. I neuer said (saith he) that Eucharistia was common breade, but the sacrament. This marke I could neuer sée. In déede no maruail, for who can well sée the thing that is not. But you father this saying vpon Maister Iuell, which reporte is all togither vntrue, and slaunderous, and in shootinge at this marke, you drawe mar­uailous cleane, and haue good deliuery, be it prickes, or ro­uers, you haue measured the ground so oft, that you knowe [Page 75] what to shoote. But I pray you M. Harding, where sayth M. Iuell thus? What be his woordes? Wher are they to be foūd? Thinke you, notwithstanding your oft vntrue demeanour, that you can discredite your aduersary, vpon your bare word? The place whereunto you direct vs, hath no such saying. Thus it hath: In my iudgement this woord Eucharistia in this place of Irenaeus, signifieth not the sacrament alreadye consecrate, The Reply pag. 40. but rather other common breade. After this he alledgeth thrée sundrie aucthorities, that it maye be so taken, and in fine, hée sayth, how be it herein I will not striue. Other wordes then these Maister Iuell hath none, and is this to say Eucharistia, is not the sacrament? Hath he any such absolute saying? Or doth he affirme any whit at all? O that the Replie had bene of M. Hardings penning, he would then sure haue good matter against it. Now it is the bishops own doing, he can say little, and not corrupt his woordes. But marke Christian Reader, in this shooting, what ill fauoured feathers he hath vpon hys arrowes. The vpmost is corruption of M. Iuels woordes, the 2. that lye vpon the bow, the one is deceite, the other ignorāce. The corruption is already manifest, the deceite is, where he would haue thée to thinke, that Eucharistia might not signifie bread, but where euer it were found, it shoulde make for hys transubstantiation. The ignorance is, in that he maketh it so straunge a thing, that Eucharistia might signifie breade, not yet consecrate. When in his popish Masse before consecration the bread, and wyne are called sancta, & illibata sacrificia, ho­lye and immaculate sacrifices.

Concerning the word Eucharistia, it is found in the new te­stament often times, Actes. 14. 1. Cori. 4.14. Ephe. 5. 2. Cor. 4.9. yet alway signifying either open thanks giuing, or else thankfulnes of the minde, so in that the sacra­ment is called Eucharistia, it is a good argument against tran­substanciation. An other marke, that Maister Harding could not shoote at, is, concerning the prophesie of Malachie, that it shoulde signifie the sacrifice of our Cōmunion. Malachi. Of this mark [Page 76] reade the vntruth. An other make is this, that in the sacramēt of the aultare, ther is no vertue, but when it is vsed. This marke saith he, was out of my reach. But if he say true, he is then but a bragger, eyther he hath not read so much, as he pretendeth, or else he is a loytering truant, [...] that hath for­got so good a lesson. In this one thing he offendeth both waies, the godly, in that he wil not shoote at that marke, which the ho­ly Ghost hath set vp, the vngodly, and men of his owne deuo­tion, in that he denyeth any vertue to be in the water of bap­tisme, but when one is christined. For if it be so, why sing they ouer that water, where none is christined, sis fons viuus, aqua regenerans, vnda purificans. &c. be thou a liuing spring a water of new birth, a water that doth purifie. &c. Maister Harding cannot deny how merily this hath bene song in Col­ledges, yet none haue bene christined I trow among them. And a Doctor of their own side, saith, si Asinus bibit aquam illam, 1. q. 1. detra in Glossa. bibit sacramentum, if an Asse drinke that water, hee drinketh the sacrament. Whereby it appeareth they repose vertue in the water, though none be baptised. Yet in this o­pinion they agrée not. Scotus sayth, it is Asinina quaestio, a question méete for an Asse. But of the water he sayth, it is cold, running, cleare, necessarie, and common, cold to represse concupiscence, running to turne the course of our disobedi­ence, cleare to lighten our fayth, necessarye to bring vs into the way of health, common to all men. And in commendati­on of this iudgement, In. 4. sent. dist 3. quest. 3. it is written in the margine, doctrina singularissima, a most singular doctrine, fit lattin for suche a purpose, to attribute such vertue to the water. But M. Har­ding will say, these vertues are in the water, as Scotus spea­keth, in ipso fieri, but euen while the childe is a baptising. And of that opinion Thomas Aquinas séemeth to be, wher he saith such prayers as are sayde ouer the water, 3 part. sum. qu. 66. ad ter. are not necessarye, but onely for the solemnitie. But here we may ill beleue ey­ther Thomas, or Scotus, for Pope Celestine saith otherwise: [Page 77] Siue paruuli, siue iuuenes, whether they be Infants, or whe­ther they be yong men, let them not come to the sacrament of regeneration, which is the wel of life, De cons. dis. siue paruuli. before the vncleane spi­rite be driuen away, exorcismis, & exsufflationibus Clerico­rum, wyth the cuniurings, and the blowings of the Priests. And of this opinion is the Maister of the Sentences. Where­by it appeareth, howe little Maister Hardinges Doctours are manye tymes beholding to hym, that will so flatlye de­nye their opinions. For if these thinges be necessary before the christeninge, then hath the water vertue in it selfe at other times, then the very tyme of christening. But thus muche he said rather against his Doctours, then against him self, for his wordes seme in this place to confesse a truth. There is no manner vertue in the water, but onely in the vse of it. But where he saith, it is not so in the sacrament of the aultare, but that there is vertue in it, though it be not receiued, that offen­deth the godly, and varieth quite from the worde of God, and robbeth vs of our great comfort, that we haue in Gods myste­ries. For S. Paul saith: Panis quem frangimus the bread which we breake, is it not the communion of Christes body? 1. Cori. 10.16 For we being many, are one bread, and one body, bicause we be pertakers of one bread. By this opiniō we might be thus per­swaded, if vertue be in the sacramēt, when it is not receiued, then we may be incorporate into Christes body, though we receiue it not, contrary to S. Paules doctrine, that saith, to be of this vnity, we must be pertakers of one bread. And here I woulde faine aske Maister Hardyng this question, if by these wordes hoc est corpus meum, the breade is become no breade, and a newe grace is put into it, whether it be receiued, or no? I demaunde, what if the bread be kept till it be consumed, concerning the flesh? He aunswereth, the Lorde departeth againe, when he is prophaned, or when he is denyed. What then is done with the grace? Doth it likewise returne? How is it then true, that the prophet wryteth, verbum meum non [Page 78] reuertetur ad me vacuum, my word shal not return vnto me in vaine. But how doth it not return in vain, when being im­ploied vpō a dead creature. It returneth vnto him again w ^tout farther quickning his liuely image, which is mā, or hardening the hart y ^t is already obdurate, to Gods further glory. Againe, be it thus that a lofe once consecrated be set before a stranger, who feedeth on it as vpon common breade, if ther be vertue in it, 1. Corin. 11. he discerneth not the Lords body, so shoulde he receiue his own damnation. How could it be then true, that our sauiour saith, Mat. 15.11 that, which goeth into the mouth, defileth not the man, or that which S. Paule saith, al things are cleane, to them that are clean, & nothing is to be refused, that is receiued with thanks giuing. And in an other place, whatsoeuer is set before you, eate it, and aske no question for conscience sake. These say­ings cannot stande with Maister Hardings religion, about such questions, how the word of God might agrée with it selfe. Those busye heades might haue ben better occupied, then in mouing such doubtes, as a Christian heart adhorreth to re­member. But if they had ben so occupyed in Gods most holy euangelies, as they were in Peter Lumberdes fancies, they woulde soone haue turned ouer these winde shaken opinions. Now while Maister Hardings friendes shal muse, how these sayinges may agrée, I will shewe thée godly reader, how the Eucharist hath no vse, except it be receiued. Consecrate while they will, crosse round about the bread, breath ouer it at their pleasure, looke demurely as they can, intend what they list, except the breade be receiued, no maner conueyaunce can bring Christes presence. Somewhat for proufe of this, maye appeare by the vsage of the pascall Lambe, and of Manna. Of the lambe nothing might be reserued til the mor­ning, Exod. 12.10. what did remaine, should be burnt with fire. Therfore we may coniecture it should not be lawfull to reserue the sa­crament. So likewise of Manna, nothing might be reserued till morning, Exod. 16.20. if ought were had, it was turned into wormes, [Page 79] and stanke. These being both figures of our sacrament, the coniecture is not euill, to thinke lykewise the Eucharist might not be reserued, then the case were plaine, it had no vertue, but being receiued. Howe be it, I wyll not force any suche comparisons. God doth lighten, whom it pleaseth him. The scriptures doe other where testifie plentifullye this, that we teache. First the Eucharist is to vs, as the peace offerings a­mong the Iewes, which was a sacrifice, or thanks giuing of­fered for peace, or prosperitie, and as they that made any such offering, must doe it before the doore of the Tabernacle of the congregation. &c: so Aarons sonnes sprinckled the bloude a­bout the aultar, otherwise it had bene no peace offering. So we in the Eucharist, must come to the Congregation, gyue thankes, and prayses vnto God, preache out the death of hys sonne Christ, and eate, and drink of that heauenly mysteries, or els it is not the Eucharist. And the church naming this sa­crament Eucharistia, hath well declared, that without open thankes-geuing, there is no suche sacrament. But who can doubt any whyt of thys matter, that readeth the woordes of our sauiour Christ, reported by S. Iohn, or the other Euan­gelists, and S. Paule? Labour for the meate, sayth Christ, Iohn. 6 27. that the sonne of man shall giue vnto you. He sayth not, for the meate which is hanged vp in the Pixe. And the people make their aunswere, Lord, giue vs euermore of this bread. Againe Christ sayth, The breade which I will giue, is my flesh, which I will giue for the life of the world. Ther is then no benefite, where this bread is not giuen, and in this chapter it is often repeated, that we must eate this flesh, or els we haue no lyfe in vs. Yet in all this place, nor in any place of scripture, any one word is found y ^• commendeth, either mencioneth this sa­cramēt without the vse of it. So if we wil apply this .6. chap. of Iohn, to the sacrament, as M. Harding in anye wyse will doe, we sée how there is no grace, no vertue in it, if it be not vsed. Concerning the woordes of this sacrament, reported by the [Page 80] other Euangelistes, and by saint Paule, they are very plain: Take, and eate, thys is my bodye, saye they, and of the Cup: Drinke ye all of this, thys is my bloude. &c.

But by M. Hardings doctrine, the holye ghost might haue spoken in this sorte: Looke all vpon this, and worship it, this is my body. And of the cup: Drinke none of you of this, yet it is my bloud. Such is the sacriledge of that wicked masse, in doing, to vndoe that our Sauiour hath saide. But here I cannot a little wonder at them. In their owne inuentions they haue placed in their Masse these words, accipite, mandu­cate, and some thinke they are very requisite to transsubstan­ciation: yet when they vtter them, they meane nothing lesse, than that any other, but them selues, should take part. They prepare but a litle cake, and a draught of wyne, to make sporte with. They intende not to communicate with other, yet they saye alway: take, and eate. A lye is very euill in any maner doing, but in the seruice of God, it is very detestable. God when he will, turne their hartes. Here we se concerning this sacrament, Christ commaunded nothing, but that we shoulde in a holy company eate, and drinke, in remembraunc [...] of his death, and passion. But how turneth the Pope, our sauiours commaundement? He careth neither for eating, nor drinking, but when he goeth forth, he setteth vp his sacrament vpon a white horse backe, and men of eche syde with tapers, and litle belles, and so teacheth the horse, that he will go to the aultare, and there knéele vpon his knées, till his Maisters god be taken downe. Thus will the Pope teach horses to worship God, euen as somtyme the Leuites woulde cary the Arke in a newe carte, when they brought it out of the house of Ami­nadab. For neyther haue we any one word, to cary about the sacrament, Sam. 6.3. neyther had they of the carte. And this is a greate misery, that hauing no warrant for our Marchandise, our candels, our sensors, our vestiments, our oyle boxes, our corporasse, our por [...]uisse, and sixe hundred thousandes suche [Page 81] other, yet we make no account of them as though they plea­sed God. If any thing séeme somewhat doubtfull, then we turne vs to Doctors, to councels, to decrees, to scholemen, and to the holy closet of the Popes owne brest, as thoughe Gods worde were not our wisedome, and our vnderstanding in the sight of all people. Deut. 4.6. But God be thanked for his owne ordinaunces, and lawes that are so righteous. Now to the next marke that Maister Harding coulde neuer shoote at, and this marke hath a great many péeces, and such as is not easly discerned, which is the greatest, so I knowe not certainelye wher at to measure. The first péece is this, there is no diffe­rence betwixt the Priest, and the people, in the mystery of the sacrifice. But what meaneth Maister Harding, to finde the marke him selfe, and then refuse to shoote at it? Would he haue vs thinke, this were Maister Iuels marke? He saith no such thing. Sure M. Harding hath verye straunge artillery. His bow is made of slaunders, and it will shoote nothing else but lies. He can get nothing with cunning, therfore he would saue him selfe by facing. This stode them in good stede in the disputations at Oxford, wher their friends wer moderators, but in a booke that is written to all men, this shift is shameles. Let vs sée, what saith M. Iuell of this marke? Not one word. Why doth Maister Harding reporte it? He is disposed to lye. But whervpon doth he gather it? Forsoth out of Bernard, for he saith as Maister Iuell alledgeth, not onely the priest sacri­ficeth, but also the whole company of the faithful. But what maketh this for Maister Harding? The priest, and the people both doe sacrifice, therefore is there no difference in the mini­sterye? S. Peter saith, you are a kingly Priesthood, therfore is ther no difference in the function betwene the minister, and the laye man? True it is, that the minister, and the people do offer vp a lyke one sacrifice vnto God, but that maketh no­thing to Maister Hardings saying. Thus we se while he hob­beth, and roueth, and shooteth at euery marke a lie, he was an [Page 82] hypocrite, when he was at the best, and nowe is led forwarde still to be an open enimie. Reade the .222. vntruth. An other péece of thys marke, is this, that men, and women make the sacrifice of the aulter, and be Priests, after the order of Mel­chisedech. Of this reade the .158. vntruth. The last péece of thys marke is yet woorst of all, nothing else but malice, slaun­der, and wickednesse, here agaynst M. Iuell, bicause he wry­teth not one such woord, and commonlye agaynst the truth of God, God is not authour of euill. which the wicked doe alwaye peruert. And this is that marke, that God is the author of euill, and driueth men to sin. What should I here aunswere, but euen saye with the Pro­phet: Esay. 28.15. The scornful haue said: We haue made falshood our re­fuge, and vnder vanitie we are hid. If euerye such euyll say­ing myght clayme an aunswere, M. Hardings one Reioyn­der would require many volumes. But for a sufficient con­tentation of the Reader, I say in all M. Iuels booke, there is no one such woord. I adde further, nor in all the bookes that euer were wrytten by any godly man of M. Iuels profession. Let M. Harding, or all hys companions, in searching ouer theyr wrytings, bryng but one letter, whereby we may gesse that euer such a saying was ment, and for my part, let hys writings be approued. If he can not doe this, consider of hys religion. Iob. 13.7. He would not speake wyckedlye for Gods defence, nor talke deceitfully for his cause. If anye man require what our opinon is, let hym reade any learned man, intreating of the predestination of God, or of mans frée wyll, or for a better warrant, let him reade the scriptures it selfe. We say, al that God made, was very good. He created man in honour, and gaue hym frée wyll, Gen [...]. and man of himselfe gaue place to in­ordinate affections, where hee might haue obeyed Gods woord, euen as it is written: He hath set water and fire before thée, stretch out thy hand vnto which thou wilt. And agayne, God created man without corruptiō. And concerning sinne, we say, Eccle. 15.16. Sap. 1.23. through the enuy of the Deuill, came death into the [Page 83] world. Neither néede we make exception agaynst this autho­ritie, bicause it is not in the canō. For the Apostle doth autho­rize it, where he writeth: He that committeth sinne, 1. Iohn. 3.8. is of the Deuil. For the Deuill sinneth euen from the beginning. And in an other place: Diabolus est mendax, & pater eius, Iohn. 8, 44. the De­uill is a lyer, and the father thereof, not as your friende May­ster Dorman doth interprete it, and so was hys father before hym, for that were in déede to make God the authour of euill, which is the marke you talke of. Now euen as the Deuill is authour of euil, so we by his suggestiō haue the next cause in our selues, which is an vncleane hart, lyke as our Sauiour saith: Out of the hart procéede euil cogitations. &c. Mat. 15.11. Of God we say, and we say againe, and we preache it, and we wryte, and beleue it, and in it we reioyce, that God is neyther the author of euyll, neyther yet would it should be committed. The shepe goe astray, without the shepherdes wyll. The groate is lost, and the poore woman would not so. Christ woulde gather to­gither Ierusalem, as the Hen doth hir Chickens, but they would not. But this we say, that the wayes of God, are not like the wayes of men, that he should not know what thynges were to come. He could not be deceiued in his own creature. Rom. 9.19. He did foresée the fall of Adam, and by his omnipotency could haue made him stand. For who can resist hys will? He coulde haue made him so pure, that he should not haue sinned, euen as he hath now made his Aungels, and wyll make the whole number of his elect, Iohn. that no man anye more shall take awaye theyr ioye from them.

And as we are sure this is Gods omnipotēcy, so why he did it not, we cā not assigne any cause, but bicause he would not. For we knowe he hath done al things that he woulde. Psalm. Yet a cause ther was, and that a most iust, and good cause. For their is no iniquity with him. Roma. And this cause he did knowe in his eternall secret counsell before all worldes, for as much as all thinges are present with him. To enter further into Gods [Page 84] councell, and aske why he appointed such a course in which the reprobate, both Angels, and men shoulde fall away, this were presumptuous folly. Roma. 9. Shall the pot say vnto the potter, why hast thou made me so? The Godly will staye here, and in the feare, and loue of God wil professe, and beleue, both that God ruleth all thinges with his mighty worde, Heb. 1. and yet wyl­leth he no man to sinne. We haue so much corruption in our selues, that we néede no further prouoking vnto wickednesse. Now to Maister Hardings purpose, thus much we saye, that God permitteth synne, and with longe patience doth suffer the vessels of wrath prepared to destruction: Roma. 9.22. but yet this per­mission we say, doth appertayne vnto the will of God. For he doth not suffer it, eyther inforced, or against his will: neither yet doth he so suffer it, that he doth nothing him selfe. For he ruleth, and gouerneth, euen their iniquity. He suffereth it not, to rage at will, but guideth it, either to the punishment of the wicked, as he oft punished the Israelites with the wic­kednes of straunge Princes, or to the triall of his elect, as it is well acknowledged of the prophet Dauid, saying of Shimei: he curseth, [...]. Sa. 16.10. euen bicause the Lord hath bid him curse Dauid, yet God made not the malice of Shimeis mynde. Likewyse where it is sayde of the destruction of Ierusalem, that God brought vpon them the king of the Chaldeans: God did not ingraffe in Nabuchadoneyzar his great cruelty, but being bred in his own mind, 2. Par. 36.17 he brought it vpon whom it pleased him. Therfore Christ saith, all the heares of our head are numbred, and with out Gods appointment, Luke: [...]1.7.21.18. ther shal not one of them perish. This therefore is our doctrine, God is no cause of wickednesse, but men cannot apply their owne wickednesse, but where it plea­seth God, neither do they exercise their wickednes, but when, and how far his grace doth leaue them. For plainer declara­tion of this, we may compare the grace of God, and the sunne, If the sunne be ouer the earth, ther is then light, if it be gone, then is ther darknes: yet is not the Sunne cause of darknes, [Page 85] but such is the nature of the worlde, where the Sunne is not, there is foorthwith darknes: So God is the light, and man is full of darkenes, Iohn. 1.4. bicause of corruption which it hath recei­ued. When the light of Gods grace doth shine in this darknes, then man séeth his goings, and walketh forth in righteous­nes, but if the darknes do not comprehend the light, then man thorow his owne impurity, doth walke in all vncleanes: yet is not God cause of this euill doings, no more then the Sunne is cause that the worlde without it, is darknes. Ion. 13. But who so doth receiue this light, he is borne, not of bloud, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Rom. 9.16. And as S. Paule saith, it is not in him that willeth, nor in him that runneth, but in God that sheweth mercy, for it is he that worketh in vs, Phil. 2.13. both the will, and the déede, euen of his good pleasure. There­fore the prophet Oze saith, thy destruction O Israel, doth come of thy selfe, but thy saluation is of me. Thus we se man doth of him self the thing that is euil, God onely doth that which is good, yet in such sort y ^t what so euer is done in the world, good or euil, by consent, or vnaduisedly, God disposeth al. Chaunce, and fortune hath no place, all maner circumstances are at Gods will, to his glory, and the comfort of the elect. And this is plainly taught vs in that law of Moyses, wher he that presumptuously doth kil a man, is cōmaunded to be taken frō the aultar, that he may die. For there it is sayd, if any one do kil an other, & haue layd no waite for him, Exod, 21.13. thē God hath offred him into his hand. So chaunce is no chaūce, fortune is no for­tune, but God is all in al, & therfore it is wel sayd of S. Ierom, nihil accidit bonorum, aut malorum temere, et sine proui­dentia, sed omnia iudicio dei accidunt. No good nor euill doth happen without a cause, or by fortune, without Gods pro­uidence, but al thinges do happen after his iudgement. For al creatures are, as it were, Gods instruments, to vse after his owne counsell: yet man doth of him selfe, that which is wic­ked. Thus vsed the Assirians, the Caldeans, the Persians, the [Page 86] Grecians, the Romains, they through their owne ambition made warre vpon the Iewes, but God appointed the tyme, when it should be a scourge for his peoples disobedience. So in all wickednesse God doth also worke, but he onely that which is good. In the punishment of Iob, the Deuil worked to satiate his malice against mankinde, God to the triall of his ser­uauntes faith, that he might poure againe his mercyes more abundantly vpon him. Christ was crucified on the Iewes behalfe, that they might worke, as enuy moued them, but on Gods behalfe, that he might paye the raunsome for the sinnes of the worlde. Now if this be to saye, God is the authour of euill, then hath Maister Harding founde out a true marke, if it be not, he then shooteth in a false ground, and his lying arowes are broken vpon vngodly stones. Thus it apeareth, what part we gyue vnto God in euill doyngs. And thys the scripture, when so it sheweth, how God worketh in the repro­bate, Exod, 4.21. Psal. 5, 4. as wher it is saide, ego indurabo cor Pharaonis, I will hardē Pharaos hart, we must know God is not he, that loueth wickednes. For God hath said of Pharao, I know that y ^e king of Egypt will not let you go, Exod. 3.9. but by strong hande. So his wickednesse was of his owne will, when God dyd not molle­fie his hart with new grace. But God did vse this wickednes for his glory, euen as he testifieth. For this cause haue I ap­pointed thée, Exod. 9.16. to shew my power in thée, & to declare my name throughout all the worlde. Now to aske further why God did not sende Pharao more grace in mekenesse of spirite: we must aunswer with S. Paul: O man, who art thou that plea­dest with God? He hath mercy on whom he will, & whom he wil, he hardeneth. Our wisdome is but foolishnes w ^t him, we must séeke no further, then Gods word hath reueled. Sure we are, he is a righteous God, & sheweth mercy vnto thousandes of them, that loue him. So that, if by testimonie of our owne conscience, we hang vpon that mercy, and walke as he hath commaunded, the lesse we sée is in our selues, the more sure is [Page 87] our hope. For how often we thinke on him, so many testimo­nies we haue of hys loue, and we are sure no man can pul vs out of his hands. And thus we doe sée the markes M. Harding coulde not shoote at, méete markes for Christian Archers, saue those, which he him selfe hath set vp. With which markes, bicause he was neuer acquainted, we haue to vnderstand, that as he is now a professed enimye, so he was then a dissembler, and a man pleaser. Therfore we yeld vnto him this conclu­sion, that he hath not taught the Gospell in such sinceritie, as we teach it now. We beleue him with out his oth, he shal not néede to take God to recorde, that hath brought their imagi­nations to confusion.

¶Touching the other pointes of your Gospell, which you speake, how so euer I spake once at Oxford of purgatory, and at an other time of the Masse, otherwyse then now by Gods grace, and study of more mature yeares, I haue ben instructed: yet that any tyme I tolde you of the Paper walles, & painted fiers of Purgatory, and that the Masse was a heape of Idolatrye, and the Mystery of iniquity, it is all together false. Those Mi­nisterlike termes of Paper Walles, and painted Fiers, in good sooth I remember not, that euer I heard before your booke came forth.

This that M. Harding graūteth here, maketh great presūp­sion y ^t he hath said more. For if he hath spokē against Purga­torie, then he hath confessed those fiers are but paintings: if he haue thought wickednes to be in the Masse, how could he not abhor these former wicked opiniōs? But we must pardon him in speaking not considerately, & he will prouide to speake litle truely. Once he spake against purgatory, an other tyme a­gainst the Masse, but very modestly. In déede they be such ten­der chickēs of the Popes brood, that if ye handle them roughly, [Page 88] they will surely dye. But if Maister Harding do speake now from his hart, when he is so vehement: doubtlesse if he were then so modest, he was an hipocrite. Now his zeale is so much to his holy father of Rome, that he spareth no reproches a­gainst Gods ministers. Then his deuocion was so cold in set­ting forth Gods glory, that he could not spue out his déepe dissimulation. But what skilleth it how he preached then, sith he is now reuoked, and like a dogge is returned vnto his vo­mite? Here he sheweth vs the cause why he was conuerted, or rather peruerted. And in that he is not constant, as he was before in his Religion, the grace of God (saith he) and the study of more matures yeares did instruct me otherwise. This cause doth sufficiently confute it selfe. For Maister Harding chaunged his Religion in seuen dayes, in which he had not many yeares to study▪ nor yet quiet time to deliberate. Héere followeth a little iesting at the name of Ministers, and vn­godly Metaphores, to the defacing of their preaching, all not woorth the aunswere. And in déede who so would scoure away all that froth from his writinges, should leaue him in most places, nothing but white paper.

¶What I should haue done, and how farre I should haue gone, in case Gods prouidence had not changed that state: he sawe, to whom nothing is vnsene. And per­haps in continuance of time, I should haue ioined fur­ther with you, except his speciall grace had called me backe, and seuered me from you. What soeuer in those dayes I thought or said amisse, our Lorde forget, and forgeue. Verye like it is, had not the condition of that time bene altered, that I shoulde haue thought, and said worse then I did, and haue bene carried away further. But nowe I see what great cause I haue to re­ioyce and thank God, who vsed the change of the time as an occasion, and meane, whereby to chaunge me [Page 89] vnto the better. For whiles I feared to suffer that I would not, by new condition of the time, I was com­pelled to seeke the truth, which before I knew not, and willingly to holde that, which before I refused.

In this paragraphe before, Maister Harding saith, that the grace of God, & more mature yeares did better instruct him. But he had little hope to finde many yeares in seuen dayes, therfore now he saith, that Gods especial grace, & the change of the Prince, did change him also. So y ^t whether of both did helpe, many yeares in a weeke, or the change of a Prince, he hath called God to witnes to a lye. But let it be, the change of the time did change Maister Harding, yet let him not as­cribe it vnto God, which is his owne euill doing. Surely for the Minister to turne sodenly with the worlde, it is an vn­wéented kinde of calling, and such as the holy Ghost hathe left none in example. Advince. Epist. 48. But you defend your selfe with S. Aug. saying. True it is, a man may be brought vnto Christ through feare of punishment, else why serueth authority? Yet as this liked you in. S. Aug. to know it might be done, so may it please you also in y ^e same Epistle, to know how it is done. S August. saith, ac sic ista cogitatione docibiles facti, non in calum­nijs, et fabulis humanis, sed in diuinis libris, promissam per omnes gentes inuenirent eccleziam, that by this due con­sideration of earthlye punishment, we being made apt for instruction, not in mens wranglinges, and deuyses, but in the heauenly bookes, we shoulde finde the church promysed through all the world. This péece Maister Harding hath con­cealed. For in his turn he did not séeke for the church in Gods Scriptures, but in mens tradicions. Therfore he is little helped by S. Augustine. Nay he doth rather shew y ^e cause, why Maister Harding is now so obdurate, quam multos, saith he, obduratae consuetudinis graue vinculū colligabat, how many hath the heauy yoake of olde custome tyed togither, that it [Page 90] might be fulfilled in them, the froward seruant shall not be a­mended with the woorde of God: so that he not clayming his turne by the aduertisement of the scriptures, but cleauyng fast vnto olde custome, hath deliuered him selfe from thys helpe of S. Augustine. Héere he maketh a long discourse of his priuate doings, impertinent to his priuate Masse, which I can not meddle with, bicause I know them not.

¶If I may be beleued, telling that of my selfe, which I my self, & God know best, this is the truth. My errour was of ignoraunce, not of malice. My vnderstanding was obscured, my will was not of selfe purpose peruerted. Wherin I offended, it was not so much through malice of will, as through want of skill, I did not with animo­sitie, as S. Augustine calleth it, mainteine what lyked my priuate choise, but ignorauntly I receiued, what guilefully the condition of the time obtruded.

Here M. Harding, vpon better aduise, assigneth yet agayne the third cause of hys turning. He hath nowe forsaken better instruction, by mature yeares, he taketh holde no more of the chaunge of the Prince, but for his more commendation saith, he was turned by prayer, I trow, by saying our Ladies Mat­tines, & this cause, bicause it is the best cause, he setteth it out with his best maner of writing, and with the dissolute figure, sometyme speaking ryme, sometyme hauing no reason, he concludeth this third cause, that is héere alleadged. But what néedeth this any long aunswer. If his errour wer ignorance, how got he so spéedy knowledge? If his vnderstāding wer ob­scured, how was it so quickly lightned? What bookes red he? who was his teacher? Hath he found so many miracles for his priuate Masse, that he woulde haue vs wéene he was turned by a Miracle? Yet he saith it soothly, that his offence was not so muche through malice of wyll, as through want of skyll. [Page 91] Now verily M. Harding, this like falling figure, falleth in this place quite out of order. This other repetition about the sayings of our sauiour Christ, séeke, and you shall finde. &c. hath preatie turning in wordes, but M. Harding in hys lyfe hath turned himselfe quite from them.

¶That I proceded no farther in errour, it was the goodnes of God, who with his mercifull hand stayde me backe, from running to the extremitie, that you be run vnto.

Nowe M. Harding can shewe no good cause of his falling awaye in to the power of darknesse, it liketh him to gesse, what brought him so farre into the kingdome of light. For séeing by his hobs and rouers, his hart was not vpright to­ward God, he can not iudge, why he was estemed such a prea­cher of his Gospell. But this gessing at his going forwarde, is as vayne, as the causes of his returne haue bene found vn­constant. Satan can turne him selfe in to an Angell of light, to make his Ministers thinke they doe God good seruice. The idolatrous Israelites would séeme to séeke God daylye, Esay. 58.1. euen as a nation that did righteously, and had not forsaken the sta­tutes of their God. So M. Harding would faine haue his tur­ning, for his more humilitie, and hys suddaine reuolting, for his further well doing. But what néedeth so busie searche, in so playne a matter, [...], his own hob­bing, and double dealing, made God giue him ouer to his old idolatries, out of which before, of his frée mercie, he had dra­wen him. So let M. Harding séeke no farther cause. Esaye. 59.1. His ini­quities haue seperated betwene him, and his God. God for his mercies sake once turne him agayne. For now he doth no­thing, but hatch Cockatrices egges, and weaueth the Spy­ders webbe.

¶You seme to maruail how I became so perfite a Catho­like [Page 92] in so shorte a time. As you say, I preached the con­trary many yeares, wherin you say vntruly. For neither preached I ful two yeares, and that not many Sermons, neither was I priest before Quene Maries time. So you pretend it to be an impossible thing, that in seuen daies (for of that tyme you speake more then once) I should reade ouer all the Scriptures, Counsels, and Doctours. as though a man by Gods speciall grace, could not be turned from errour to truth, whose hart was not stub­bornlye set to mainteine a part, nor yet drowned in manye errours, vnlesse he first read ouer all bookes of Diuinitye. What meane you M. Iewell. Wil you ap­point God a tracte of tyme to work in, when he touch­eth the hart of mā? S. Ambrose could haue taught you to iudge otherwise, wher he saith, Nescit tarda moliminae sancti spiritus gratia.

Now Maister Harding in a long discourse commeth again to his former matter, and as the Poet saith, sopitos suscitat ignes, stirreth a broade againe the fire, that was well raked vp, and telleth vs a new cause of his tourning, and that was Gods secrete inspiration, and therto alleadgeth the sayings of Ambrose, and Leo, and the exampels of Elizeus, Paul, and Mathew. As touching the grace of the holy Ghost, I must needes confesse, it néedeth no protracte of time. It may make in one moment, of a plough man a Prophet, of a persecutour an Apostle, of a Publicane a Disciple. But shall Maister Harding therefore think, that by the same spirit he was made of a preacher an apostata? And for further proofe of this, he tel­leth vs when he was made priest, as though he had taken the charecter of the beast, and fallen downe, and worshipped hir, by the mocion of the holy Ghost? Better had Maister Harding stoode to his other causes, that longer yeares gaue him more vnderstanding, or the change of the Prince chaunged him, or else he was conuerted by prayer, then to make the holye [Page 93] ghost author of his euill doing. But O miserable state of that man, that shoulde be plunged thus in errours, and yet séeth not his sinnes. Such confidence had the Iewes in al their fornications, that being stirred to repentaunce, Malac. 3.7. would deny their euill doing, and saye wherein shall we returne?

¶And why doe you charge me with the suddaine change of seuen dayes? Was it not one whole yeare after king Edwardes death, before I came in pulpit? And did I not of myne owne accorde, without all compulsion, or request of others, simply, and fully acknowledge, and confesse my former ouersight, and errour? Was not all the vniuersity of Oxforde witnesse hereof? O Maister Iewel, I doubt not, but by that my voluntary and humble confession, I haue put the Diuell to silence, thorow the same. He shall not haue power to obiect vnto me myne errour before Christ our Iudge, in that dreadfull daye.

Now least for all this trifling, we shoulde accuse M. Har­ding of rashnes, in fine he bringeth a whoole yeares delibera­tion. But Lord what manner of defence is this? After so long reasoning, to proue nothing. Was all this defence of a sodaine chaunge to excuse the thing, hee neuer committed? This was the first cloke for his turning. If it shadowed it well, why did he cast it of? If it did not, why doth he take it now againe? Cast it away Maister Harding, if you be happy, your tourning and all, and yet againe turne once for the bet­ter, you haue not put the Diuell to silence with this turning, our Lord deliuer you from him. It is he that walketh through drye places, and when he can finde no rest, returneth thither againe from whence he was driuen out, and as thoughe he had found you sweapt, and garnished, so after made his ingre­dience, in your seuen folde wickednes. You say Maister Iuels [Page 94] malice doeth séeme to passe the malice of the deuill. But it is ynough for the Disciple, to be as his Maister is, and the seruaunt, Mat. 10. [...]5 as the Lord. If they haue called the Maister of the house Beelzebub, how much more them of his houshold? The authority here brought of S. Cyprian, is to little purpose. But had you better considered that Epistle, you would with better aduice haue spared the reuerence of that good Bishop. You know what his name doth signifie. And S. Cyprian saith, this alwayes is the worke of the deuill, that he should be lye the seruauntes of God, and with false opinions, gloriosum no­men infamet, slaunder their glorious name, that they which are very shining in the testimony of their owne conscience, might be defiled with other mens reporte. Wel God graunt vnto you, according to Maister Iuells prayer.

¶But what meant you Maister Iewel of all men, thus vncourteously, and with all verye falsly, to deale with me?

After all these deuices in defence of his owne dooing, he fashioneth a new inuention against his aduersary, and in long examination of his whole lyfe, he hath espied in him once, a little going back, and of that would faine make a couer to hyde his owne apostasy. And that this péece of the Epistle may be all lyke in it selfe, he maketh the first entry with an open lye, and saith, Maister Iuell hath reported falsly of hys turning. But the world is witnesse both of Maister Iuels say­ing, and Maister Hardings doing. But he goeth forwarde, and asketh Maister Iuell this question: Are not you one M. Iohn Iuell, that once subscribed to certaine articles? &c. Why bringeth M. Harding this? This is confessed in his aunswere to Doctour Cole. Therfore I graunt Maister Harding it is euen he, that when the anointed of the Lorde was taken in your [...]ettes, R [...]m. 4.20. vnder whose shadow he shoulde haue ben preser­ued [Page 95] among the heathen, he was scattered among the other shéepe, till God turned his hand vpon his little ones, to cary forth his name among the Gentiles. Zacha. 13.7. But marke good Christi­an reader, what this man hath espied in this Bishops lyfe. He did once subscribe in S. Maries church in Oxford, & did not all Christes Disciples once forsake him in Ierusalem? Math. 26.36 Gaia. 3.11. Actes. 18.18 Actes. 16.3. Did not Peter dissemble at Antioch? Did not Paule shaue his head at Cenchrea? did he not circumcise Timothy at Lystra? Haue not all the serauntes of God, Patriarches, Prophets, Apostles, and martyrs done as much? Is this the greatest fault you can laye to that good bishop, that for feare of your tyranny, he did ones write Iohn Iuel? God be praysed, that hath so directed y ^• course of his seruant, and God send vs all his spirit, that do professe his Gospel, that our liues may so answer our profession. Now touching those disputations at Oxforde, where Maister Har­ding saith, the vttermost was heard, that could be brought on our syde, that is one among his other vntruthes. It is kno­wen how vncourteously those reuerend Fathers were entrea­ted, their sayings coulde not be heard for the others shame­lesse [...]issings. This commendation of Maister Hardings ca­tholike Doctours is out of season. Their learning, bicause it is Gods gift, I do reuerence, their vsage I detest, and ab­hor. The rumours of some of their doings, are yet hot in Cam­bridge. If I would make base notes in the mergin, as Maister Hardings companions do vse, where they doe speake slaun­derously, I could say the truth, and make [...] Christian mans eares to glowe at their filthynes. But God amend them, and let the report of their euill, be buried with their euill.

¶What if God so dispose, that nowe also the hart of the Prince, detesting the lewdnesse of their liues, who pro­fesse your Gospell, and seing the vntruth of your doc­trine, and lamenting this vniuersall decay of vertue proceding thereof, and the vtter damnation of so ma­ny soules, be wholy bent to restore the Catholique [Page 96] Religion of the Church, and abandon all these wicked new deuises of Geneua? What will you then do?

Now after that Master Harding hath enquired much after Maister Iuells inconstancy, and can espy little worthy repre­hension, in an vncharitable imagination, he will néedes gesse what Maister Iuell would doe, if he were againe put to his triall. And héere with a sighing supposition he doeth féede his Popish veine, and asketh. What if God so dispose the hart of the Princes. &c. To this I aunswer, that if God should so do, his iust iudgement should be vpon the sinnes, as well of the Prince, as of the people. For it is his mercy that we be not consumed. But what if God will not so deale with his enheritance? What if he wyll not shew his people such hea­uie things? Psal. 60. What if the king of Ashur shal ouercome vs no more? What if we shall no more be led captiues into Babi­lon? Psalm. 3, Psalm. 9. What if the téeth of the wicked are broken? What if de­structions be come to a perpetuall end? Surely if our iniqui­ties doe not turne awaye Gods blessings, the hope of the vn­godlye is like a thinne fome, Sa [...]. 5. that is caried awaye with the streame. As touching our Princesse, hir hart is in the hande of the Lord, and though we be no men pleasers, yet this is the contentation of our conscience, that we sée in hir the ex­presse tokens of the childe of God, and we are witnesses vnto our selues, how willinglye we obey hir. Dauid was a good king, 2. Sam. 7. though he would builde God an house, thoughe it liked him not, that the tabernacle shoulde be couered with Goates heare. Ionathas was a good king, & very zealous, though the high places were not taken away. 2. Par. 21. a Ezechias was a very godly king, though when God left him, to trie him, & to knowe all that was in hys hart, 2. Para. 32 he found him faultie. Iosias was a ver­tuous yong Prince, as euer was in Ierusalem, yet he was a feard of Necho king of Egipt. 2. Para. 33. Deborah was a good Quéene, and is not blamed in the scriptures, yet no doubt she was not [Page 97] with out fault, and what if our Quéene, that hath restored Gods religion should doe something, that liked Maister Har­ding? Doth he therfore thinke, she will peruert the wayes of the Lorde, and set vp againe his Romish Idolatries? Their prophecies are now expired, and that olde rotten Epistle be­fore the confutation of the Apology, is now forgotten. From what stomaks such flatteries proceded, it is not hard to iudge. But peace be vpon Quéene Elizabeth, and vpon the Israel of the Lorde. For this great decay of vertue, wherof Maister Harding complayneth, it is not in the worde of God, it is our corrupte manners. This is an olde obiection made a­gainst true Religion. S. Paul doth complaine of it, that for this cause Gods name was euill spoken of among the gen­tiles. So y ^e wicked Iewes would complaine: Roma. [...]. Since we left to burne incence to the Quene of heauen, Iere. 44. we haue ben consu­med with the sworde, and with famine. Yet the leauing off of their Idolatry was no cause of their euills.

¶You did once confesse to mee plainly in Sarisbury, when ye came thither in visitation, that you neuer lyked the Supremacie of the temporal Princes ouer the Churche of England. Did you not tell mee, that it stode neither with Scripture, nor with Doctours, nor with the iudg­ment of the learned men of Germany, Geneua, and the parties where you had ben? And why then preach you not this Doctrine abroade?

As touching this priuate talke of Maister Iuell, had with Maister Harding at Sarisbury, concerning the Quéenes su­premacie, it is a malicious lye of Maister Hardings vncha­ritable hart. If it were true: yet I might well aunswere with the Philosophers, that there are .iiii. sorts, in whome is singular impudence, in a woman, that putteth on a mans gar­ment, in a gheast, that thinketh him selfe as good, as his hoste, [Page 98] in him that will be talking of Princes, wher he hath no occa­sion [...], & in him that when a thing is tolde him in secrete, doth tel it abroad openly. Now if this accusation were true, yet what witnesse hath Maister Harding to crye out of his impudency. But what if it be false? What if it be a shamelesse lye? A christian man will saye with weeping eyes: God amende the euill spea­kers. But Demosthenes sayd to the people of Athens: If you sée a Uiper, or a byting Spider, though they did neuer sting you, yet you will kill them, [...]. Contra. Ari­stog. prāoc. 1. in fine. Lyke wyse O ye men of Athens, when you sée a slaunderer, hauing this vipers nature, tary not till he sting you, but kill him as sone as you se him. If this accusation were true, the very Gentiles could not abide it, if it be false, they thinke M. Harding not woorthy lyfe. And that it is false, his own words are a sufficient witnesse, which say, he spake after the opinion of the learned men in Germany, and other where, who do all graunt that their is no authority in the earth next vnder God aboue the authority of a Prince, and that in all causes, and estates ecclesiasticall, and temporall, euen as S. Peter sayth: Submit your selues vnto all ordinaūce of man, whether it be vnto the King, [...]. Pet. 2.13 as vnto the chiefe, or vnto gouernours, as vn­to them that he sendeth. This supremacy which S. Peter graū ­teth vnto the king, the papist wil in no wise acknowledge, but will haue the prowde Pope to treade vppon the Emperours neck, and Princes to holde his stirrop while he goeth to hors­backe, and waite bare foote at his gates, to abide his papall pleasure. Good Lord how was that worlde droonken with su­perstition? We giue our Princesse hir authority, we submit our selues to hir gouernmēt, she is the anoynted of the Lord, and chosen chiefe ruler of his church of Englande, and God graunt hir many yeares to reigne, till the fretting enuy be confounded in all flattering stomackes. That euer Maister [Page 99] Iuell denied hir supremacy, it is doubtlesse an abhominable lie, foreged out of secrecy, bicause it should not be cōuinced by witnesse. But it shal not be a misse, bicause this thing cōmeth to question, to note what M. Iuell might saye, and what the Prince must doe. It is not vnknowen, what authoritie hath bene giuen vnto the Pope, that he hath rule both of heauen and earth, Dist. 22. om­nes. Dist. 40. Li. Papa. and he that taketh one iote of this authoritie from that church, is an hereticke. And that he may not be iudged, as Pope Boniface hath decreed, though he drawe innume­rable soules headlong into hell, and that he hath all know­ledge in the closet of his brest, De. cor. pr [...]b. proposuition glossa. Dist. 19. in me moriam. Dist. 19. enim­vero that he can dispence against the Apostles, and against the old testament, and that we must a­bide the yoke that the Pope layeth vpon vs, though it be in­tollerable, and that seate is apostolica sublimitas, euen as high as the Apostles, and that quicquid statuit, quicquid or­dinat, what soeuer the Pope appointeth, what soeuer he ordei­neth, perpetuo, & irrefragabiliter obseruandum est, it must be obserued for euer, without any contradiction. Suche blas­phemous authority giuen vnto the Pope, made, that in the time of restoring the Gospell, euen good men attributed more vnto the Prince, then was conuenient, and flatterers more then was to be borne with all, as in the time of the sixe arti­cles Bishop Gardiner, and his felowes, did vnto King Henry the eight, when they gaue him authority, in the church of God to institute or disanull Lawes, as it lyked him best, to forbid the mariage of ministers, to deny the people the cup in the Lords supper. The graunting of such authority is flattery in the subiect, & the receiuing it, presumption in the Prince. The church is y ^e spouse of Christ, purchased with his precious bloud, and ioyned vnto him, euen as a woman vnto hir hus­bande. The Prince is héere a subiect, and may set the church no Lawes, but as hir heade appointed. Christ doth sanctifye his church with the washing of water through the worde, that is, with baptisme, Ephesi. and the preaching out our iustification in [Page 100] his frée mercy, if the Prince say it shall be sanctified, with crossing, and créeping, with diredges, and Trentalls, with holy Breade, and holy Water, with Pilgrimage, and Bon­fiers, the Prince is rebellious, and the Subiect must yéelde his lyfe. Then for a briefe conclusion, if the Prince wil make any new holynes, or forbid the minister to preach y ^e word, that is written, or if he will say we shall Prophecie no more at Bethel, Amos. 7.13. bicause it is the Kings chapple, and bicause it is the kings Courte, it lyeth not in his authority. Wo be vnto the Prince, that shall be so led with errour. But if the Princes will doe nothing, but she will aske councell at the mouth of God, if she will humble hir selfe vnder him as low as the poo­rest creature in the world, if she will set out his glory, and [...]presse the wicked blasphemyes of the honorable, if Christ crucified for hir sinnes, be alwayes pictured before the eyes of hir soule: then shall she runne a happy course, and in the end haue a happier garlande. If she shoulde héere of enimies, hir owne conscience shoulde make hir without feare, if all ini­quitie should stirre vs to rebellion, she should sit vnmoueable. The Lord hath placed hir, and who is he shall put hir downe? She is a good nourse of Christes misticall body, and no autho­rity is alone hereof, yet in all this supremacy we tye hir vnto the worde of God, and as she hath regard vnto hir owne soule in the name of hir God, we charge hir not to go beyonde it, In this is hir prerogatiue, that she can inforce other to this obedience, and no man can enforce hir. This supremacye Maister Iuell did neuer deny, the popish supremacy no good man will graūt. Let it then be contemned, wherwith Maister Harding maketh vp this tragedy, that we teach one thing at home, an other thing abroade. After this vsuall inuention he frameth a little Philosophy of his owne, and then furthereth it on Epicure, wherwith he faineth his comparison. Now let the indifferent reader iudge, which of these is the wauering man, Maister Iuell, that in his life hath gone not one hower [Page 101] backe, or Maister Harding, that many yeares hath preached contrary doctrine. Doutlesse had he liued in Seuerus time, not­withstanding this long apology, Alex. ab. cl. lib. 2. cap. 13. his armour shoulde haue ben pulled off, and he left naked in token of an apostata, and his aduersary commended, that in all his lyfe hath ben founde so constant.

¶What fault so euer you finde with my chaūge, certaine it is, al chaungs be not reproueable. He chaūgeth wel, that chaungeth from euil to good. It is a happy chaunge, that is made from errour to truth, from schisme to vnitie, from heresie to right faith, from contempt of Reli­gion, to the loue of Religion, from darkenesse to light, from pride to humilitie, from pleasing men, to study how to please God. Who so euer maketh this chaunge, he is not to be accompted mutable, nor inconstant.

Hitherto Maister Harding can not deny his turning, now least it should preiudice his estimation, he thinketh good to commend it, true it is, he turneth well, that turneth for the best, it is better to returne, then to run alwayes euill, but whether you haue made this turne, or no, it must be tryed not by your worde, but by the truth of God. The Prophet Dauid doeth aske the question how one shoulde turne aright, Psal. 118.9. and doth aunswere him selfe, by taking héede vnto Gods worde. Now I appeale to Maister Hardings conscience, what part the worde of God did worke in his turning, he maketh con­tinuall crying out of the church, the church, but very déepe silence of the worde of God. Yet Christ saith, heauen and earth shal passe, before his word do passe. S. Paule saith: We may not beleue an Angell, that preacheth any other doctrine. S. Iames saith: It is the word, that can saue our soules. S. Peter saith: It is as sure, as the voice of God him selfe, that was herd from heauen, and what meane these men vnder a vaine title of the [Page 102] church, so to neglect it? Christ promised to be with his church vntill the latter end of the world, Math. 28. but his word is his presence, not mans inuentions, his Euangelies are our learning, not supersticious ceremonies. The dayes are now come, that we shall say no more, Ier. 3.16. the arke of the couenaunt of the Lord, but by Christ alone we must make our prayers, and by him alone offer vp the sacrifice of praise vnto God, that is the fruit of our lippes which confesse his name. Therfore if you will make a good turne, you must turne to that church which turneth only vnto him, and to the simplicity of his Gospell. But you haue put on the adulterous attire of straunge intercession, and clothed hir selfe with altares, and altare clothes, with Copes, vestimentes, Awbes, Tunicles, Curtaines, Sensors, Can­dlestickes, Crosses, and such other. You are not turned from errour to faith, but from the church of God, to the synagoge of the deuill. And for our owne defence with the prophet Da­uid we make aunswere vnto the blasphemers: Psal. 118.42 Our trust is in the worde of God. After this Maister Harding findeth fault with to much constancye, and considering his owne changes, woulde haue it seme some commendation to turne vp, and downe a little. Then he bringeth in the examples of Arrius, and certaine heretickes, which in their owne opinion were founde to obstinate, and compareth Maister Iuell with them in wilfulnesse, and otherwise speaketh contumeously against him, and for all this, will be iudged by his Reioinder. Nowe consider good Reader what maner of wryting this is. In long talke before he required that his doings might be wayed, and doubted not, but Maister Iuell should be founde the more vn­constant. Then fearing that he coulde not colour the great difference betwen them, excuseth his own turning, as though he had done well. Now that his writings might be as vncon­stant, as his lyfe hath ben, he ouerthroweth quite his first ac­cusation, and confesseth that Maister Iuell hath ben as obsti­nate, as euer was Arrius, or any hereticke, which had rather [Page 103] dye, then in any point to seme to relent. If this be true, wher is all that a doe which was made about the sixe articles, and I know not about what subscription? O M. Harding, oportet mendacem esse memorem, it behoueth a lyer to be mindfull. Giue Lord vnderstanding, and M. Hardings writings shall néede no aunswere, one leafe doth confute an other. Concer­ning these examples, which he vseth, it appeareth, that as in these tragedies he hath set apart al honesty, so in mani places he hath more shew, than learning. How can this saying agrée with it selfe, some had leuer suffer death, then to séeme at any time to haue ben out of the way, they vse examples of Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius, Eutyches. Sozom. lib. 2 cap. 21. Theod. lib. 1. cap. 34. Did not diuers Arians sub­scribe in the Councell of Nice, and made open protestation, that Arrius held the same fayth, which the Councell set out? And did not Arrius himselfe make the same profession, both in woord, and writing vnto Constantinus the Emperour, af­ter his return vnto Constantinople? Toerat. lib. [...] cap. 25. Did not Macedonius so vse the matter, with Alexander B. of Constantinople, that when he dyed, he commended him to be his successour, and af­ter set vp by the Arrians, and deposed by the Emperour, Sozo. lib. 4. cap. 27. dyd he not quite forsake his Arrian heresie? Did not Eutyches, ci­ted to the Councell of Constantinople, send one in his roome to subscribe to the fayth of the Ephesine, and Nicene Coun­cels? Did not Nestorius cry in the open councell at Ephesus, Dicatur Maria Deipara, & cesset haec molestia, let Marye be called the Mother of God, and let this trouble cease? Thys I haue shewed, that it might appeare, howe fitlie M. Harding doth apply hys examples. Now hys writings standing thus, sometime without learning, often ill agréeing, and most com­monly wythout honestie, what skilleth it in this behalfe, if the Reioynder sit in iudgement? They say, a scabbie horse is good ynough for a scaule Squire.

¶I say not onely as you do in your preface, but in this Re­ioynder [Page 104] I do manifestly proue in due place, some Doc­tours by you to be vntruly alleadged, some corruptly translated, some peruersly expounded, some guile­fullye applyed, their woo [...]des sometimes abbridged, sometymes enlarged, sometimes altered, sometimes dissembled. With these false sleightes you burthen me in word, & with the same here I haue charged you in dede. Sundry auncient fathers, which you deny, by good au­thority I haue auouched. Your own childish argumēts, falsly, and fondly by your selfe deuised, and fathered vpon me, I haue wholy contemned, and so returned them vnto you againe. For the .45. Vntruthes, which you pretend to haue noted in my aunswere touching your first Article, I haue returned vpon you .225. noted in your Replie of the same Article. Those which you impute vnto me, be now already partely, and maye shortly be iustified. And therfore proued not to be vn­truthes at all. Yours you shall neuer iustifie. When you attempt it, you shall do it, but with a multiplication of infinite other vntruthes.

Now M. Harding, as he is wittie, séeing it is not all golde which he hath made to glister, and fearing least hys colours might be rubbed away from his writing, vpon good courage sayth boldly, he hath spoken nothing, which he will not prooue in his Reioynder. Much after such a sorte began Cyclicus the Poet, fortunam priami ca [...]abo, & nobile bellum, and when Cyclicus hath made an ende of his Iliades, M. Harding shall be as good as his woord. He chargeth M. Iuel with corrupting the fathers, yet in all this Reioynder, as appeareth by hys vntruthes, he is not able to conuince one authoritie of false­hood. He sayth, there is no proofe in M. Iuels Preface, yet in his own Epistle, here is neither truth, nor honestie. The chil­dish arguments he will passe ouer with silence. So he doth in déede many of them, and a great péece of thys first article be­side. Where no shew of aunswere may be had, silence can do [Page 105] least harme. But Maister Harding, though he saye it, yet per­haps will not sticke much in this. Upon entreaty he will yéelde vnto vs true allegations of the Doctours, and will sticke to take vnto him his Arguments againe, but touching the .44. vntruthes, in that he will neuer yéeld. They are all iustified, and shall be iustified, and .225. returned vpon Maister Iuell, which shall neuer be aunswered, and if we but attempt it, we shall but multeply moe Untruthes. But softe, good Reader, be not a fearde of vanity. I remember a certaine Lacedemonian, that when he sawe one tying togither longe circumstaunces of speach: Now I make God a vowe sayde he, this is a hardy man, that when he hath no reason, yet can roll his tongue so handsomely, and what other is this of M. Hardings, but tongue rolling his owne Untruthes, he saith are all iustified. Yet Maister Stapleton confesseth that in one place Maister Harding was ouerséene. I haue returned saith he 225. vntruthes, yet he hath turned some one of thē .7. times. If he had serued them so all, he had returned aboue fiftene hundred, and these, as he saith, can not be aunswered without multiplying of mo vntruthes. How true this is let the reader iudge. Sure for my part, if it be so, I will reuoke that I haue written. But this I must forewarne them, I doe not take it for vntrue, to say their Pope is Antichrist, and their Masse Idolatrous, and their church a sinagogue of iniquitye. If otherwise I make any vntruth▪ either in misconstring the worde of God, or falsifying other mens authoritye, by Gods grace, when I shall vnderstande it, I will reuoke it, but my conscience is yet cleare, I haue written nothing deceitfully.

¶Sith it is thus, the best aduise I can giue you, is first, to consider better of these matters, and to call to your minde, what hath moued you to enter so farre. Next, how faithfully you haue delt in the same. Then what [Page 106] rewarde you may looke for in the ende.

Of this wicked Epistle gentle reader thou art now come to the peroration, although it be long, and odious, as the ma­ner of olde buyldinges is to haue wide ruinous kitchins: yet thou shalt do well to reade it, to learne to take héede of such manner doing, and although the filthy synckes be somewhat lothsome at the first, yet by the grace of God the sauor shall not infect thée. First saith he, what moued you to enter so farre. Doublesse Maister Harding the frée mercy of God the father, poured vpon him through Iesus Christ, & this was the efficient cause. His ende was to glorifie God, that God might glorifie him againe, 1. Sam. for his faithfull dealing. It hath ben such as flesh, and bloude coulde suffer. That which is wanting shall be accounted vnto him by the merit of his sauiour Iesus Christ. The rewarde that he looketh for, is not of merite, but of grace, and it is the inheritaunce of that kingdome which was the porcion of Gods chosen, ordeined from y ^e beginning. Now these beginnings being thus, Maister Hardings fur­ther running can be but hastening to new lyes, what so euer he shall further say of Maister Iuells profession. These other vngodly woords, y ^t came after, full of much bitternesse, are not worthy aunswere. Euery one may inuent them, that deligh­teth in euill speaking, and they can not cary any good man to mistrust.

¶If this councell can not sincke into you, if neither this, nor any other the like aduise shall take place with you: what is my parte to do, but to leaue you to your selfe, and to the will of God?

After sundry waies atempted, how Maister Harding might bring our doinges into suspition, at the last very modestlye he doth leaue vs vnto God, but by and by he breaketh out a­gaine, [Page 107] he cannot suppresse his coler, and for a full proofe that all his fayer speaking is hipocrisy, he raueth streight so out of measure, that he doth excéede him selfe, not prouing anye thing, but as if his worde were Apollos oracle, he presumeth with out controlle to speake what he listeth, and goeth away so fast in his frothy matter, that contrary to his woonted cun­ning he forgetteth how to speake, for after a great heape of words, of which euery one according to his number doth spe­cifie a new vntruth, he writeth thus. Leaue to do as not only through your whole Replye, but also through your first article you haue done. Who euer spake after this maner? what wri­ter? what scholer? what childe? when [...] after [...] doth sig­nifie nothing. This phrase of Maister Hardings shal be allow­able, but that surely he shall not onelye neuer proue, but also not before he set out his next booke. After this vncomelye speaking he bringeth in very absurd matter, and chargeth Maister Iuell, bicause he bolstreth vp his Religion with the authorities of late wryters. Yet where Maister Harding brin­geth one sentence out of the olde fathers, giue me leaue in a doutfull matter to vse one of Maister Hardings gesses, Mai­ster Iuell, I thinke bringeth twenty. But what forceth he to speake, that speaketh, he knoweth not what?

¶If you intend to write against any of our Treatises, cul not out our sayings forth of a whole heape, as your ma­ner is, leauing what toueheth the point in controuersie, and taking parte that being put alone and besides the rest, semeth to haue lesse force.

It were hard to finde such an other Caligula, that so appro­ueth this [...] a shamlesse behauiour in him selfe. He chargeth Maister Iuel with culling out of sentences who lay­eth forth his whole aunswere word for worde, and findeth no fault with him selfe, that skippeth at aduentures, sometime [Page 108] two leaues at once, and aunswereth not a worde. Againe, about this he vseth a heap of vaine words, as though in much bibble babble all controuersy were decyded. This maner of wryting doeth make me remember a certaine Lacedomian, which tooke a nightingale, and pulling of hir fethers, when he saw hir little body, thou art euen a voice saide he, and no­thing else, and surely Maister Harding is but a nightingale take away his fethers, that is his gaye wordes, and there is nothing but a little withered carcase vnderneth. He accuseth Maister Iuell of a childish wit, but with how childish a iudge­ment, who séeth not? I will make no comparison of the man, he hath nothing, which he hath not receiued, if any man doe not thinke hym as well learned as anye Englishe Loua­nist, if Apollo might awarde him his hyre, he shoulde haue Midas eares. It forceth not what correction Maister Harding vseth to discredite his Replie. All the learned men in Englād will seale it with their iudgement, y ^t it sheweth a rare replier. He talketh of burning it, and no doubt him selfe woulde cary a fagot to helpe make the fyre, but it is cast in a good moulde and shall kéepe his fashion, notwithstanding this rable of new carpenters that woulde disfigure it.

¶Remember Maister Iewel, it is the cause of God, you would seme to treate. God hath no nede of your Lyes. Leaue wrangling, ieasting, scorning, mocking, scoffing. Contend not about wordes, and syllables, forsaking the matter. Obscure not the truth with vaine Rethorique, ouerwhelme it not with your abundance of woordes. Bring not confusion to the matter, when it is cleare of it selfe, make not shew of victorie, where you are least able to answere. Make not your reader to laugh, where he would be taught. Affect not so much to be pleasant, seeke rather to be a true handler of Gods causes. Put not the hope of your victory in the coldenesse of your Aduersary, but in the truth of the matter. Refuse not [Page 109] to stand to their iudgemēt alleadged against you, whose witnesse you bring for you. Allow not a writer in one place, condemning him in an other place.

Nowe sure if Mayster Harding were a boy in the Gram­mer schoole for this pretie tale he deserued to go to play. I haue not séene one in copia verborum varie a sentence more hand­somly. And how shall all this be aunswered? Euen as Cleo­menes aunswered the Ambassadours from Samos, to such a long oration of so little purpose, the whole hangeth so loose­ly, that the beginning I can not remember, and therefore I vnderstand not the middest, but such things as are in the end are altogither disalowed. For Mayster harding sayth in the ende, he is a colde aduersary, if he meane colde in religion, it may be well graunted, if otherwise colde, it may not be alow­ed, looke what heate of wordes eyther will, or abilitie can vt­ter, in his Epistle, and Reioynder, there is nothing wanting.

¶If you wil vse the testimonie of the Scholemen, and Ca­nonists, consider it to bee reason, that you subscribe to their fayth. It is well knowne vnto you, they be catho­like in doctrine, as whome therefore you account for Papistes. Yet who euer alleaged them so thicke as you haue done, though to no purpose, in your Replie? It seemeth you were desirous to shew all your wares at one market. Vse their testimonies, and beleue them. If you beleue them not, what meane you to vse them?

Now Maister Hard. hath gone well forward in vntruthes, as the violence of his nature draweth him, he falleth into a paradoxe. If you vse a mans authoritie (sayth he) it is reason you subscribe vnto his religion. What reason is there in these words? or who would speake thus, that knew what to speake well? Doth not Mayster Harding meane to blind the eyes of [Page 110] the simple, when he will aduenture to speake such monsters? or hath he not little to say, Act. 9. where he taketh hold of this? Christ vsed the testimonie of the Scribes, and Phariseis, of Pindarus an Ethnike Poet. S. Paule of Epimenides. Yet it is no rea­son Christ should subscribe to y ^e Iewish religion, Paule should become an Ethnike, I néede not make this long by examples, they are in maner infinite euery where to be founde. But bi­cause Mayster Harding maketh this so straunge, I must put him in mind of a saying that Tullie vseth against Verres: Tu­um testimonium, Diuin in ver. quod in aliena releue esset, id in tua, quo­niam contra te est, grauissimū debet esse. The witnesse which in an other mans matter were little worth, yet in thine own, bicause it is agaynst thy selfe, it must be of great authoritie. Now surely this saying of Mayster Harding is verye grosse. But yet ludus, & iocus, prae vt huius rabies quae dabit. It is nothing, if you compare it with that which followeth. He bid­deth Mayster Iewell leaue off to fill his readers eares with vaine, Plut. Phil. 2. & false fables. Now Lucullus may haue leaue to speake like Cato. & Antonie to accuse Tullie, for placing shakebuck­lers in the Capitoll. Gracchus may speake of sedicion, and Verres may reproue men of theft. Maister Harding doth find fault with fables. I must aunswere as Tullie doth: O miserū siue haec tibi nota non sunt, sine sunt, qui apud tales viros tam impudenter loquare, O wretched man whither he know it, or know it not, that speaketh so shamelesly vnto his readers. Mayster Iuell hath not one tale to proue any article. Maister Harding and his companions haue aboue one hundred thou­sand to proue their religion, and howe could it be otherwise, when the Legend it selfe, whence they fet their diuinity is no­thing but lyes. After this, bicause Mayster Harding can espy neuer a fable auouched by Mayster Iuell, he thinketh good to charge him with that, he sayth not, wherby such as will beleue him on his word, may think at the least he hath brought som­what for himselfe, and vpon some such consideration this he tel­leth [Page 111] foorth his tale.

¶Where as you make so much adoe with me for one visi­on of S. Basile, which neuerthelesse is reported by men of good credite, remember your owne selfe are not able so well to iustifie youre owne fables, which you tell at the beginning, as that Pope Gregorie, whom you had rather call Hildebrand, was a Necromancer, and a Sor­cerer. that Emperor Henry was poysoned in the Com­munion bread, that Pope Victor was poysoned in the Chalice.

Here, Christian reader, thou hast foure lyes in foure lines. First sayth he, Mayster Iuell findeth much fault with me for one fable, that is one lye, for Mayster Harding hath manye fables, one out of Abdias. diuis. 5. an other oute of Leontius. diuis. 32. the thirde out of Amphilochius, diui. 33. beside all the allegations out of other petie Doctours. This is then one vn­truth, forasmuch as M. Hardings words seme to acknowledge but one fable. The second lye is, that it is reported by men of good créedite, and that is not so. Vincentius, and Antonius are of little better credite in their histories, then Arthur of little Brittaine. I haue not numbred their lyes, but sure it is, ney­ther of them haue so fewe as a thousande. For triall, read the bookes, and if thou go ten lines without a lye in Antonius, thou must light vpon the couer, and in Vincentius thou shalt not séeke much further. These Authors then are not of good credit. The thirde lie is, that maister Iuell is not so well able to iu­stifie the histories of Victor, Henrie, and Hildibrand. For he can hardly alleage any of lesse credite then Vencentius & An­tonius. But let the defence of the Apologie be a triall of this matter. The fourth lie is, that these fables are Mayster Iuels owne. For he doth not so much as once say they be true, but onely writeth that this it is reported, and he alleageth Her­mannus [Page 112] contractus, neyther in that place doth Mayster Iuell care whether they be true, or no. But Mayster Hardings tale of Amphilochus is soothly auouched, set out with many cir­cumstances, and made a solemne proufe of his priuate Masse. Yet I haue heard many better tales tolde by olde women of Robin goodfellow. Then the warest councell that I can giue him, is, if he will further his Masse, let him speake no more of fables. The residue of this Epistle, which is very little, is con­cerning certaine vntruthes, which are aunswered in theyr places, the maner and forme of wryting is still like it selfe, full of vncomely wordes against the Replie. At the last he conclu­deth thus.

¶ If men be not vtterlye blinde, and as I may say, so be­witched with the spirit of errour, and lying, as to beleue what soeuer you say, be it true, be it false: I doubt not but after they shal haue read my Reioynder, and what is written by others here of late, in their iudgement your Replie shall finde small credite. Nowe to ende. If you feare not God, to whome of so many vntruthes you shall giue account, yet reuerence man, of whose word­ly estimation you depende. For my parte, I shall pray, that eyther God moue your hart to repent, and amend, or that he giue the people grace not to beleue you.

It is true which our Sauiour Christ hath sayde, the tyme should come, when if it were possible, the very elect should bée deceyued. For who can sée these bolde asseuerations, which M. Harding vseth, and the great assuraunce he pretendeth for his Religion, and would not thinke, that the worde of God were his warrant. But be not deceyued. Such confidence is not straunge, neyther toward God, nor man. Cossutian in no wise would feare Caesar. Esay. 36.10. And Rabsaketh the Capitaine of proude Senacharib, sayd the Lord [...]ad him come to destroy Ie­rusalem, [Page 113] the Grecians haue a prouerbe [...], some mannes mynde maye as hardlye bée pearced as A [...]ax Buck­ler, and the Scribes said, Iohn. 9.29. we know that God spake with Moi­ses, but this man, we know not, what he is. But Theog [...]s sayth [...] by foolysh perswasion I am vn­done. And oure Sauiour Christ. Euen Moyses, Iohn. 5.45. in whome you trust, he shall accuse you. So that if Mayster Harding had this confidence, he woulde séeme to haue, yet had he not the truth. But euen as the Prophete sayde, Zach. 7.12. we myght saye of hym, posuit vt Adamantem cor suum, he hath made hys heart euen as the Adamant stone. Apo. 5.15. But his vayne assuraunce shall bée as the dust, that is blowne away with the wynde. Thoughe he saye, peace, peace, yet there shall be no peace. Ier. 6.14. Ier. 7.4. Though he cry, the Church, the Church, yet their wicked Si­nagog is not the Church. The prowde Citie did say, I am, and none else. Yet was shee sinne, & iniquitie, and nothing else. Esa. 47.8. The Prophetes sayde swoorde, and famine shall not be in thys land. Yet by swoorde, Ier. 14.15. and famine those Prophets were con­sumed. Sith then it is so, that the wicked may haue this vaine trust, let vs not bée deceyued with eyther bolde, or entysing woordes. Let vs not be wyse in our owne conceyte, let vs lay no foundation of our fayth, other then is alreadye layd, but let vs looke after Chryst Iesu, and learne what is hys wyll, let vs searche in his holye woorde, and séeke what is our wise­dome. So shall neyther the spirite of errour violentlye drawe vs captiues, nor vayne imaginations leade vs away. Wee shall be followers of Iesu Christ the righteous, and wee shall walke as they doe, that haue hym for theyr example, we shall care for those thinges, that are aboue, and wée shall haue our conuersation in heauen, from whence also we looke for a Sauiour, euen the Lorde Iesu Christ, who shall make our vyle bodye, that it may be fashioned lyke vnto his glori­ous bodye, which tyme for his mercye sake he vouchsafe to [Page 114] hasten, who of his mercy hath ordeyned vs vnto that kindgome, where he lyueth one God, and thrée per­sons, the father, the sonne, and the holye ghost, to whome bée all honour, and glorye, worlde with­out ende. Amen.

Mayster Harding maketh his first entrye with a Cauill.

The .1. vntruth. It is no Cauill.

NOW MAISTER HARDING hath so diligently examined this first ar­ticle, & searched out, as he sayth, many, and great vntruthes, I must craue of thée which art the indifferent reader, to yéeld vnto those thinges, whiche he can not blame: and to acknowledge it for true, which he can not controll. Of this shalt thou haue this great benefite, that when thou hast duely try­ed all that is written, thou shalt cleaue in the ende to the truer part, and finde the saluation of thine owne soule. Read them with an indifferent, iudgement, and beleue as the spirite of God shall moue thée. If Mayster Harding say true, that in this first article there be .225. vntruthes, for my part I craue no parcialitie, saye boldly Mayster Iuell is not, as he preten­deth. But if this be false, and Mayster Hardings report be altogither slaunderous: then pray that he may soone repent, and confesse that godly, and learned Bishop, to be a faythfull labourer in the haruest of the Lord.

This first vntruth is that Mayster Harding in his aun­swere beginneth not with a Cauill. The question is moued, [Page 2] whether within the space of .600. yeares after Christ, there were any priuate Masse. Mayster Harding maketh answere, that euery Masse, Hard. diuis. 1. linea. 1. concerning the oblacion, and Communion is common, as likewise it is concerning the first institution, and will of the Priest, Linea. 6. Diuis. 3. But in consideration of place, tyme, audience, purpose, rytes, and other circumstances, it may be priuate. The vntruth lyeth, whether this answere be a cauill. Here we may aunswere two wayes. One after the common vse of speaking, an other after the nature of the worde. For our common speach it is certaine, we call that a cauill which is a drawing of any word knowne wel inough, into a straūge signification, as Mayster Harding vseth here his Masse. For who knoweth not that by priuate Masse, we doe meane that, which the priest practiseth alone at the altare? Nowe here to come in with this distinction, which (I wéene) neuer before was heard of, what is it else but to Cauill? Thus if we follow the common speach of men, this is no vntruth. If it lyke M. Harding to sticke vnto the nature of the worde, let vs exa­mine it, and so sée whether this distinction, be a Cauill. Cauil­latio, saith the Lawyer, est subdola ratio, quam conscij nobis mendacii proferimus, a Cauill is a subtile reasoning, which we our selues know is false, but yet we vse it. Nowe if this distinction be false, and that Mayster Harding know well y­nough, then is it manifestly a cauill. The distinction is this. Euery Masse by institution, will of the priest, oblation, & com­munion, is common, as touching persons, place, time, &c. it may be priuate. Nowe first whether the Masse by institution be common. Gabriel Biel sayth, as touching the substaunce, and first institution of the Masse, Biel. in can. in proemio. ca. 1. & 2. Biel cap. 3. & de consecrat. dist. 1. hoc quoque in glossa. there is nothing necessarie, but, in the thing, bread, and wine, in the priest, orders, good pronunciation, and a pure will. These being rightly had in all places, at all tymes, whether any be present or no, Missa rite celebratur, verum est sacrificium. The Masse is truely cele­brate, there is a true sacrifice, therfore Masse by institution is [Page 3] not common. If Mayster Harding will replie, and say, that euen in such Masses, the sacrifice is effectuall to the whole Church, and so the Masse is common, that aunswere were very childish, and would bréed dissention in their own church. For both G. Biel denieth it in plaine wordes, and the thing it selfe altogither disagréeth. Biel sayth, Biel. ca. [...]. impeditur tamen fructus, eò quòd inordinatè, & indignè consecratur, & sumi­tur, though the Masse be a true Masse, yet there is no fruite of it, for as much as consecration, and communion are vnor­derly, and vnworthily ministred. And for the thing it selfe, M. Harding knoweth the benefite of his Masse is so applied, if their be one to aunswere in the name of the people, but in these Masses it is not required, Biel. cap. 3. that anye one be present to make aunswere. It followeth then, that some Masse by no meanes is common, and so Ma. Hardings distinction is a ca­uill. I passe ouer for breuitie the beginning of this Masse, how it hath nothing of the Apostles. And before the sixt Synode of Constantinople no part of it was euer song in Latine, but this spoken of Biels authoritie, is proufe sufficient for thys present purpose.

The seconde thing that we haue to consider, is whether the Masse be common by will of the priest, or no. And thys question though it be hard to decyde, yet we may haue some probable coniecture, why the priest doth not alway meane to bestow his deuocion vpon euery man. We haue had a com­mon prouerbe, rising vpon the disagréement of the priest, and the lay man, that vpon the displeasure conceyued, we woulde say one to another. Let him neuer be in thy Memento. If as the Philosopher sayth, the voyce of the people be the voyce of nature, then it is certaine, that sometyme the priestes wyll was, to abbridge the commoditie of this common Masse, and in his Memento to seclude some from this common benefite, so that euen in this poynt Mayster Hardings distinction is a méere cauill. Againe concerning this will of the priest, I [Page 4] might aske of Mayster Harding, what maner of Masses Pope Gregorie the .vii. said, y ^t minded nothing more than sorcery, or the priest, that poysoned Pope Victor the thirde in the Cha­lice, or such priestes as I haue knowne some in Cambridge, that when they haue played all night at dice, in the morning being called away to Masse, haue sworne a great othe, that they would make hast, and come againe. A man had néede to knowe his condicions well, that would ground his Religion vpon the priestes intent. Thus it appeareth, that neyther by institution, nor will of the priest, euery Masse is cōmon. Con­cerning the oblation, and communion, how can they be com­mō, when in some of their Masses they haue none at al. First, their is no oblation without bread, in Can. Miss. catech. par. 2. Decretal de cele. Miss. ca 5 and wine, as the cannon of their owne Masse doth commaund, and as Biel doth wit­nesse. But in some of their Masses y ^e vse of wine is forbidden, as appeareth by pope Gregorie, therefore in some of theyr Masses there is no oblation, or sacrifice. Then how can that bée common, which is not? Likewise it is manifest in the com­munion, how can that be made of the priest, without bread, and wine? Nowe is there no excuse remayning, why this distinction being false should not be a cauill, except Mayster Harding will say, him selfe did not knowe so muche. Yet if he doe, that will not serue. For the very nature of a cauill is onely this, In reg. iur. lege [...]a est. vt ab euidenter veris res perducatur, that the mat­ter may be brought to open falshood. And thus much is sayde, for the exact discussing of the word, so that it is plaine, both by the common speach, and by due tryall of the very worde, that Mayster Harding maketh his first entrye with a cauill.

For where the matter is agreed vpon, it is follie to picke a quarrell vp­pon the worde.

The 2. vntruth. It is not agreed vpon.

Mayster Harding hath purposed to espie a great many of vntruthes, and fearing least they should not amount to their iust number, he thinketh good where oportunitie serueth, to make of one, eyther two, or mo. For where Mayster Iuell sayth, this distinction of Masse, is but a cauill, bicause the sig­nification of Masse is knowne: Mayster Harding here noteth two vntruthes, one, it is no cauil, an other, it is not knowne. And what néedeth this doubling, if through vaine babling he did not think to blind the eies of the simple? Who euer would denie, both antecedent, and argument, both where they hang one of another. The noting of this vntruth, is a good proufe, that y ^e other was a cauill. Whether the signification of Masse be knowne or no, small proufe will serue, let the worlde bée iudge. But whye is Mayster Harding so pleased with hys owne distinction, that vpon it, he will fownd mo vntruthes? Forsooth he is a defender of antiquitie, and such distinctions are very auncient, more than 2000. yeare agone, Anaxagoras made such another, and stoode stifly in it, Cic. in acad. quest. that snow was not white, bicause it was vnderstand two wayes. One as it was water in substance, & so it was blacke, another as it was con­gealed, & so it was white, but such déepe fetches do not sinck in shallow wits. Let vs be content with plaine vnderstanding, & so it shal be knowne, that priuate masse is w ^t the priest alone, no man communicating with him, & snow shal be whyte stil.

Euery Masse sayth he, is common, and none priuate. If it be so, then hath he already concluded fully on our side.

The .3. vntruth. I say not so, but vvith addicion.

What addicions you make, onelye wrangling excepted, I sée not. If there be any vntruth in these wordes, the fault is [Page 6] your owne, take it vnto your selfe. Mayster Iuell affirmeth nothing, but vpō your saying, that euery Masse is publike. He inferreth if it be so, then you haue concluded on his side, you are not zealous for the truth, that would thus cary away your reader with trifling. Were your addicions neuer so good, and godly, yet Mayster Iuels wordes might stand without misre­port of your saying. But bicause we be fallen into these addi­cions, marke good reader, what maner ones they bée. Euerye Masse, Reio [...]d. sayth he, is common concerning both oblation, & com­munion. If it be so, then his Masse it selfe must néedes be som­what else, which Mayster Harding I am sure wil not graunt, and so vnawares for gréedinesse of an vntruth out of tyme, he quite ouerturneth his vntrue religion. For the whole sub­stance of his Masse is nothing else but this oblation, and com­munion, these be the additions of his Masse, oblation, & com­munion, Hard. diui. 8. and all the other vsages are referred vnto it, without all which these foure wordes hoc est corpus meum are a per­fite Masse, as Mayster Harding himselfe, and also his owne doctours do confesse. In steede of many, it shall be sufficient to alleage one. Clingius a great doctour of Mayster Hardings writeth thus. Essentiale Missae sunt ve [...]ba Christi, hoc est cor­pus meū, hic est sanguis meus, &c. omnia alia quae circa Mis­sam fiunt, vt orationes, ceremoniae, vestime [...]ta, gesta, crucis signaculum &c. non sunt Missa, sed sunt ad maiestatem & ornatum sacramenti ordinata, vt cum omni gloriositate hoc officium Missae celebretur. The substaunce of the Masse are these wordes of Christ, this is my body, this is my bloud. &c. all other things about the Masse, as prayers, ceremonies, vest­ments, gestures, crosses, and such other are not the Masse, but are ordeined for the maiestie and ornaments of the sacrament that the Masse might be sayde with all gloriositie. Now thys being true, as most of their doctours confesse it is true, what a monster will Mayster Harding make of his Masse, that tea­cheth the whole substance of it to be but accidēts, or as he cal­leth [Page 7] them addicions. And thus much, if it were true, that M. Harding spake not but with addicion. But nowe, what if he make no such addicion? what if he belie him selfe? what if his plaine wordes be these, euerye Masse is common? is it not then a shame for him to say the wordes, and then to get an vn­truth▪ or to mocke his reader. Denie them againe? read the .112. vntruth, thou shalt sée these are his verye wordes: I say not that euery priuate Masse is common, but that euery Masse is common. If these be his plaine and expresse wordes without all addition, euery Masse is common, what meaneth he here to denie them? if they be false, well may he proue himselfe a lyar, he can make no vntruth in Maister Iuels wordes.

If there be no priuate Masse at all, then was there no Priuate Masse in the primitiue Church, which was my first assertion.

The 4. vntruth. I say not there is none at all. For there is priuate Masse, as priuate is taken in another sense.

This vntruth standeth vpon a distinction of priuate, and yet he telleth not how priuate is taken diuerse wayes. He hath forgotten his Logicke, and therefore gesseth out blind distinc­tions at aduentures. We talke of his masse, and how can that be priuate mo wayes than one. If none receiue but the priest, then that which should be the communion, is priuate to the priest alone. If he haue other companye, then is there no pri­uate Masse, that his Masse standeth in the oblation, and com­munion. What this distinction hath other but deceite of the people, a clowdie shew of a little misterie, and in déede a blind imagination, no man, I trow, but Maister Harding can sée. But a short aunswere will serue this vntruth, his owne Re­ioinder [Page 8] doth sufficiently confute it. He saith plaine no Masse is priuate, & that saying he yet auoucheth. But he denieth that he saith none is priuate at all, Reioind. fo. 4. and what a childish asseueration is this in a doctor of diuinity. I speake not this in debasing of M. Hardings learning, which I confesse is good, but so are Gods iudgements, where is the wise man, where is the scribe, when God doth confound their vnderstanding. If these propositions are one, there is no priuate Masse, and, there is no priuate Masse at all: whereto is this [...] this vaine repetiti­on to make one vntruth both the thirde, and fourth, and yet the same without any reason? If he thinke that in these pro­positions, those words, at all, do make any difference, to much malice hath chaunged his vnderstanding. Well knoweth he, that in a negatiue proposition, the latter worde is alwayes v­niuersall. And it is one to say, a man is no stone, and a man is no stone at all. Mayster Harding hath not yet forgot his Logick: in omni negante enunciatione attributum vniuersè capitur. Many suche vntruthes would soone shame the fault finder.

In the .22. Article of his booke, entreating of the accidents of bread, and wine.

The .5. vntruth. In that place I speake not hereof.

This vntruth is soone decyded. Reade the place, if Maister Harding say true, then is this an vntruth. If he say other­wise, such impudency will wound his credite, euen among his friendes. Reade. Art. 22. diuis [...]. 3.

He sayth these matters were neuer taught in open audience, but priuat­ly disputed in the scholes, and set abroade by learned men in their priuate [Page 9] writing.

The .6. vntruth. I say not so, but othervvise.

There is nothing so plaine that impudencie and boldnesse will not affirme. But it is well, that the booke maye be the iudge. Reade. Art. 22. diuisi. 2.

As touching Masse, sometime he maketh it the sacrifice, sometyme the Communion.

The .7. vntruth. I neuer sayde the Communion to be the Masse.

Yet well worth Maister Stapleton, that thus beginneth his .7. slaunderous vntruth, the Masse & the Communion is al one. Alow this doctours iudgement, and I will soone proue Maister Harding a fonde man. For this Maister Stapleton wryteth against mayster Iuell, you do fondly to make anye contradiction betweene them. Here maister Harding sayth you say vntruly, that you doe not make a difference betwéene them. Belike whatsoeuer mayster Iuell say, they are at a poynt it shall be controlled. Yet more warenesse in such vne­quall doing, would not be amisse. This great disagréement betwéene D. Harding, and mayster Stapleton, is a discharge for the B. of Sarisburie, that this is no vntruth. It is not good for them to meddle any more with this. They must take heede how they endaunger one anothers credit. If one of them vpon good aduice, would forsake the others euill companie, he would disclose so muche conference, that not so much as M. Shacklocke could be blamed. But M. Saunders, & Harding [Page 10] should haue rebuke.

But if his Sacrifice be common, why doth he giue it these priuate titles, this for the liuing, this for the deade.

The .8. vntruth. I giue it not these titles.

If Maister Harding doth not giue it these titles, then can it not be denied, this is an vntruth. Yet what occasion maister Iuell had to report them, for his better discharge, I thinke it good to admonishe thée. In the Canon of maister Hardings Masse, when Iacke an apes is at all his gestures, the rubrick, that maketh all the sport, doth bid the priest, sometime to be­stow his deuocion vpon himselfe, somtime vpon his parishio­ners, sometime vpon his father, and mother, sometime vpon those that are by, sometime vpon all men, and at the eleuati­on of the Chalice, the priest sayth. Offero pro peccatis meis, pro salute viuorum, requie defunctorū. I offer this for mine owne sinnes, for the health of the liuing, for the rest of the deade, and for whom soeuer it liketh the priest. This béeing commaunded to all Massing priestes, who would not thinke, that maister Harding did obserue the same. But perhaps his great acquaintance with Amphilochius his Basill, he woulde faine say Masse after his owne fashion. Let him yet remem­ber, nisi quid rubrica vetarit, he hassards his whole consecra­tion, if he go any whit beyonde his commission. And here I trust maister Harding will make no difference betwéene M. Iuels saying, and the commaundement of his Rubricke. If he thinke these wordes are not plaine inough, Gabrel Biel will help out euen to the vtmost. In 4. sent. dist. 1 [...]. q: 2. conc. 2 For thus he wryteth. What­soeuer our sauiour did merite vpon the crosse, generally for [Page 11] all men. &c. Hoc sacrificio applicatur particulariter singulis ▪ by this sacrifice it is applied particularly to euery one. And in another place, defining more exactly of this matter, he saith, Non potest ex aequo, & aliis, & primo, In supplem. dis. 45. q. 2. p. in eodē applicare gra­du, he cannot equally apply his deuocion vpon him, for whom he especially sayth Masse, and vpon other. Lo, here we are ex­presly taught, that the sacrifice hath these priuate names, this for one, this for another. Yea, and here they moue a learned doubt. What if he that haue hyred the Masse, will not haue o­thers partakers of it. Biel aunswereth, recurrendum est in hiis casibus ad iudiciū viri sapientis, in such cases we must haue recourse to some wise man. But what néede so déepe philosophie, to search out so plaine a matter? It is the vsage of their whole Church, and the doctrine of all their preachers, that the sacrifice may be applied to one or other, euen as the priest will. And where their Masse booke biddeth that the priest breake the host in thrée péeces, Durand. lib. 4 cap. 53. and holde two péeces in his left hand, and one in his right, the misterie of that deuice is this, that one péece, I trowe that in the right hande, be for them in heauen, an other for the liuing, the thirde for them in purgatory. I graunt this is but a foolishe deuice to fancie any sacrifice for those in heauen, yet so it is, & so they teach. Whe­ther maister Harding say Masse as he is commaunded, or no, that no man, I trow knoweth but himselfe, his breach of order may be no good proufe of an vntruth.

His second reason is this, it is a feast, therefore it is common, and so he salueth one errour with another.

The .9. vntruth. It is no errour to say it is a feast.

Maister Hardings worde, is no very good warrant, there­fore [Page 12] it shall not be amisse to sée his reason. As a dinner may be a good dinner, sayth the Reioinder, though the gestes doe not come: Reioind. fo. 6. so this may be a feast, though it be not eaten. Note good people, this is an argument a simili, and that you should note it the better, Maister Harding hath caused it to be prin­ted in the margine. This argument by lyke is verye plau­sible among them. In exam. 5. Philp. With such an other did mayster. Bonner once proue transubstanciation, but bicause whatsoeuer that wise man speaketh, is not streight way reason, I would glad­ly know of maister Harding this one thing, whether that be a good dinner, when neyther the gestes come, nor yet any good meate is prepared? All men knowe that such a banket they make of their Masse. There is nothing at all prepa [...]ed but for the priest alone. These weake vntruthes would haue well borne some stronger reason.

What if his wil be to work sorcery, as it is reported of pope Hildibrand.

The .10. vntruth. This is reported by no true vvryter.

Or what if his will be to poyson some bodye, as Henrie the Emperor was poysoned in the Communion bread, Pope Victor in the Chalice.

The .11. and .12. vntruth. They dyed othervvise.

Well may this Reioinder of M. Hardings be called a booke of distinctions, & this great number of vntruthes .225. wrang­lings. For neyther without a distinction can he defende one iote of his double Religion, nor without wrangling argue [Page 13] one vntruth. It is reported, sayth mayster Iuell, of Pope Hildibrand, that he was a sorcerer, of Henry the Emperour, and Pope Victor, [...]hat they were poisoned in the Cōmunion. Here commeth our late vntruth maker of Louein M. D. Har. & where as nothing is affirmed, in his maner of multiplicatiō, he saith there are thrée vntruthes. The first of Hildibrand, the seconde of Henry, the thirde of Victor. Concerning the truth of these histories, pardon me good reader, though I dare say nothing. I can not mend that which M. Iuell hath written, Reade the defence of the Apologie. God for his mercy sake pre­serue that good Bishop, to the accomplishing of many other such labours. As touching our present purpose. No man I trow, but Maister Harding would haue noted any vntruth. Maister Iuell doth onely say, these histories are reported, and so they be, as thou thy selfe must néedes confesse. What if they be false? yet it is the errour of the historie, no vntruth in mayster Iuell. What if no man defendeth Papistrie, but enimies of Gods worde, and true religion, yet we may say, that Papistrie is defended? We may say of Gargantua, that it is reported. Of the Legend of lyes that they are written. Of Basils priuate Masse, that Amphilochius telleth it, and yet is there no controuersie, but these are all lyes. Then what if it were not, y ^e Pope Gregory were a coniurer, yet it is reported, yea, and thou thy selfe, good Christian reader, vpon the sight of mayster Iuels booke, shall confesse it was so. But here I must require of thée a little to consider, the vnegall dealing of these english Louanists. Maister Harding in his aunswere speaking of Abdias, sayth that he sawe Christ in the flesh, that bicause it is altogither false, maister Iuell noteth it for one vntruth. Now commeth maister Stapleton, and for the re­turne of this vntruth, he sayth. If it be vntrue the fault is in the author that so affirmeth, and not in maister Harding. Stap. in the 7. vntruth, slaunderous. And yet maister Harding speaketh this affirmatiuely, as though he would auouch it. And shall lying Abdias be a sufficient [Page 14] ground for maister Harding, to say, this is true. And shall not so many good wryters, be a warrant for maister Iuell to say this is reported? Sure maister Hardings owne friends must nedes wish, that eyther this had béene vnquoted by him­selfe, or that other vndefended by maister Stapleton.

Or what if his will be to worke fayned miracles, as Lira sayth many are wrought in the open Church, to mocke the people.

The .13. vntruth: Lira sayth it not. The .14. vntruth. He saith not to mocke the people.

We had euen now thrée vntruthes in one sentence, if these were to many, in token of some moderation, here is one aba­ted, and yet such successe hath this vntruthmaker in his col­lections, that euen these two can not stande with his honestie. This is maister Iuels allegation. Lira sayth, many miracles are wrought in the open Church, to mocke the people. Of these wordes thus doeth Maister Harding gather two vn­truthes. The first, Lira sayth it not. The second, he sayth not to mocke the people. Here would I faine learne of Maister Harding in the first vntruth, Lira sayth it not, what he mea­neth by the worde▪ it, if he doe meane the whole sentence, why doth he repeate this peece, to mocke the people, and so maketh an other vntruth, if he meane Lira hath all but this, why doth he note the residue for an vntruth. If he meane that Lira ne­uer sayth this, nor the other part, why doth he not marke mo vntruthes. The first, as it is one generall, Lira sayth it not. The other deducted perticularly out of euery word, as, he saith not there are many. He sayth not there are many miracles, he saith not, they are wrought, he sayth not in the open church. [Page 15] He saith not to mock, & so this last he saith not to mock the peo­ple. This would well haue furthered M. H. number, to haue had .vii. in stéed of two, & sure the sentence hath no priuiledge, but that in euery part, it may as wel be broken off, as in this one. But sith it is so, M. H. durst not note to many, let vs examine these two, how good ground they stand on▪ Lira, saith Maister Harding, sayth it not. He sayth not to mocke the peo­ple. In these vntruthes my labour shall not be necessary. Lira himselfe must be mayster Iuels discharge. Reade then the place, thus he wryteth. Similiter sit in ecclesia maxima de­ceptio populi in miraculis, fictis a sacerdotibus, Lira in. 14. cap. Daniell. & eorū ad hae­rentibus propter lucrum temporale, likewise it happeneth in the church, that the people are very much deceyued through fayned miracles wrought by the priests, and their adherents for temporall gaine. Let Mayster Harding denie it, and denie it, and denie it againe, these are Liraes very wordes, let the booke be iudge. And what fault is there in mayster Iuell, who reporteth of Lira, that many fayned miracles are wrought in the open church, to deceyue the people? Forsooth, sayth M. Harding, Lira saith not that miracles are wrought. Yet Lira sayth, similiter fit, in like maner it is done. Further, Reioind. fo. 9. sayth M. Harding, he sayth not in the open Church, yet these are his wordes, in ecclesia, in the open Church, for what meane Gretian woulde denie, that [...] is the open congrega­tion, and [...] to call assemblies. Last of all, maister Harding denieth that Lira saith to mocke the people. Yet thus Lira wryteth, maxima deceptio populi fit in miraculis. The people are very much deceyued with fayned miracles. But it foloweth in Lira, propter lucrum temporale, for temporall gaine, and therefore, sayth mayster Harding, it was not to mock the people. Nowe sure this is a very ill defence of hys friendes. Turpe lucrum res pessima, filthy gaine is the woorst of all thing. That it is, which hath layde to sale Masses, Dir­ges, Trentals, Dispensatiōs, Iubileis, Pardons, Indulgen­ces, [Page 16] Purgatorie, and all the Popes pedlarie. This defence the truer it is, the more it verifieth Mayster Iuels saying. For he that hath pleasure in such gaine, would haue some pastime in the peoples errour. But I pray mayster Harding was all your miracles for gaine? When S. Andrevv saw dogs run­ning after a hare, Sulpitius in vita Martini. lib. 3. and sodenly made the dogs féete all cleaue to the ground, what gaine had he by it? When our ladie came downe from heauen and sowed Thomas Beckets hearne brea­ches, In vitis san­ctorum. that hir priest might haue leaue to say Masse againe, what got she by it? when Saint Thomas rose out of his king­ly tumbe, and asked those, that watched them, what they made there, saying, non hic sum, ascendi enim, I am not here, but I am ascended, Abdias histo. apost. lib. 9. who gaue Thomas euer a grote for his labor? And that we maye vse your owne example. What helped it Christ, or all his Apostles to come downe from heauen and helpe Saint Basil to Masse, what was he the ritcher? or when all the Apostles came, Legend. aurea in ass. Mariae. some a thousande, some two thousande myle in lesse than a quarter of an houre, to sée our ladies as­sumption, what got they by theyr hastie iourney? And to come nerer home, among vs, when Roodes were made sweat, or roll their eyes, or nod theyr heades, what gaine was their in it? When Christ and our ladie came downe to walke vpon the aultare, when foure angels came downe to minister the Chalice vnto the Abbot, when the Crucifixe did walke from the sepulchre to the aultare on Easter day in the morning. When twentie such other miracles were made, was it all for gaine? Ten thousand haue seene it, and neuer cost them pen­nie. Then we our selues are witnesses, that sometime blinde miracles were wrought onely to deceyue the people. Why therefore doth Mayster Harding note this for vntrue, if the estimacion of his honestie, the regarde of his reader, the loue of truth, or the feare of god, do moue him, why doth he blame this allegation of Lira? except as Thraso sayth, he was neuer any where, where all men did not loue him, to M. Harding [Page 17] thinketh no man will reade his Reioinder, Ter in [...]. Act. 5. sc. e. vl. that will not be­leue him. But what he thinketh, onely God knoweth. Sure his doing hath very great suspicion of euill meaning.

Pighius acknowledgeth errours in the priuate Masse.

The .16. vntruth. He acknovvledgeth no errours in the priuate Masse.

Nowe mayster Harding beginneth to hew and mangle Mayster Iuels wordes, and will not, as he is requested, lays them out plainely and so say against them what he can. But we must beare with greater faultes then this, or else burne the Reioinder. Therefore I will let his skipping alone, it is a good proufe, he could not confute it. Let vs sée what is this vntruth. Pighius, sayth he, acknowledgeth no errours in the priuate Masse. Why then doth he not shew vs Pighius hys words. He would, no doubt, if they had furthered his purpose, but it was good to conceale them. Some man wil perhaps be­leue him on his worde. In déede Pighius doth not say, there be errours, vsing this worde, in the priuate Masse, but he spea­keth plainly, that there are well nighe all maner abuses in it. These are his words, Quod si qui abusus in rem sacratissimā, & saluberrimam irrepserunt, In loc. cōmu­nibus de pri­uata Missa. velut irrepsisse plerosque non diffitemur▪ &c. What will Mayster Harding haue vs thinke that plerique is a fewe, or certaine, or is this worde so taken in Louaine. Sure I am that in the Romaines time, it signi­fied a great sort, very many, the most part. I néede not to vse example. Euery childe of the Grammar schole doth knowe it. But I thinke maister Harding will not stand in this. He will denie that an abuse is an errour, that is a simple shift in déede, and the saluing of one errour with an other. Erro, is vnwit­tingly [Page 18] to be deceyued, to faile, to go amisse, and error, or er­ratum, a fault comming of ignoraunce, and therfore it is cal­led quasi deceptio, in maner a deceyuing. And Tullie sayth, Etsi aliqua culpa tenemur erroris humani, a scelere tamèn li­berati sumus. Although in some part as men we are deceiued, yet we were frée from any great offence, & in another place. Errauit, an potiùs insaniuit Apronius? Was Apronius deceyued? nay he was rather mad. Hereby it appeareth that an errour is but a small offence. Nowe if Pighius had sayde, there had béene errours in the priuate Masse, he had sayde but little to the disproufe of it. But he sayth there are almost all abuses in it, as no doubt it is a sincke of all abhominati­ons. Abusus sayth he, that is euill, vnhonest, vncomely, wic­ked vsage, not of ignoraunce, but of purpose, and malice. So Donatus sayth, we vse by right, and dutie, we abuse with in­iurie, which is a rooted vice. Vtimur cùm honore, abutimur cum iniuria. So Pighius graunting Plerosque abusus in his priuate Masse, meane what he will thus he sayth, that in hys Masse of malice, of set purpose, of a wicked desire, Gods peo­ple are iniuriously abused. This doe the very wordes enforce. Yet I doe not thinke that Albertus Pighius did so meane it, though his tong would not let his hart to lye, but as it were some iniury to racke the worde so farre, so is it great folly to denie that it may well be englished errours. Yet about this vntruth Mayster Harding maketh so great exclamations, as if he should declame for the victorie. Such Hercules buskins, he can applie to little leggs, and make so great vaunts, where himselfe is furthest deceyued.

The name of Masse is seldome, or neuer found among the Catholyke fathers.

The .17. vntruth. It is often found among the olde writers.

Note good Reader how this man feareth not to note vn­truthes so his number may grow. This word is seldom found [...]aith, Maister Iuell in the catholike fathers, it is found often, sayth he in olde writers, as though who soeuer were auncient, he were straite way Catholyke. Himselfe hath remoued in the 21. vntruth, certaine commentaries of Ierom. And I must cer­tifie thée, there be other which notwithstanding their age, yet haue no more authoritie than olde Aesopes fables. Then not­withstanding Maister Hardings note of olde wryters, yet M. Iuels saying of the catholike fathers may be true. But I will not vrge Maister Hardings wordes, admit he ment no guile in the naming of olde wryters. How proueth he this vntruth. He bringeth in .ix. fathers and counsels in which this worde Masse is found, he sayth he could bring thrée mo, that is .xii. in all. The olde bookes which are written are almost infinite, so in .12000. bookes he can finde that he seeketh for, but .12. ti­mes, yet sayth he it is found often. Maister Iuell graunteth, it is found somtimes. Such vntruthes wil soone shame the con­troller. Now this worde Masse, or Missa, least it shoulde be­guile thée, for that it is sometime in catholike fathers, I will brieflye declare vnto thée what it is, and in what sence it is found. That which maister Harding calleth so ofte the Masse, as Basils Masse, Chrisostomes Masse, and Iames his Masse: in Gréeke it is [...], which signifieth an open, or common function, and this signification it hath, as well in prophane writers, as in the scriptures [...] sayth Aristotle, he is occupied in the administration of the commō wealth, Polit. 5. and [...] to execute common offi­ces. So [...], the open worshippinges, and seruice of their Gods. Actes. 13. In like sort it is vsed in the scriptu­res, [...] as they were openlye prea­ching, and Saint Paule sayth, Rom. 15. [...] that I might be an open minister among [Page 20] the Gentiles, and this is proued by the Etimologie, or true explication of the word [...] quasi [...], he that hath common businesse in hande. Hereby it appeareth that eyther M. Hardings Masse is not [...], and so ney­ther Chrisostome, nor Iames, nor Basil, nor the other Gréeke authors euer sayde, or named Masse, or if they did, the verye worde doth quite ouerthrow the priuate Masse. As touching the Latine worde, Tert. cōt. mar. lib. 4. Cip. de bono par. & li. 3. ep. 14. Missa, we haue to learne it, as the fathers sayde, remissa, for remissio, so also they sayd, missa for missio, that is a sending away, when in the primatiue Church such as were Nouices in christian fayth, were sent away from the true beleuers, which was before the communion. And this appeareth by Saint Augustine, where he sayth. Ecce post ser­monem fit missa cathecumenis, Serm. de tem­pore. 237. manebunt fideles, venietur ad locum orationis. Beholde after the sermon, the Nouices are dimissed, the faythfull shall abyde, and shall go vnto the com­munion. For so maister Harding doth witnesse, that orationis in Saint Augustine doth signifie, and in déede in this place it is true. Here haue we thrée especiall things to note, the craft, and subtilitie of Maister Harding, and his friend Stapleton, who both, as it may be well thought, vpon conference haue a­ledged the same places oute of doctors, and councels, where this worde (Mis [...]a) is found, and yet neyther haue mencioned this place of Augustine. If they knewe it not, they are not of that reading they pretend, if they knew it, it is to maliciously concealed. Secondarily there abode no more in the Church, but such as were communicants. So this late gazing at a po­pish Masse, was not then in vse. Thirdly they did all commu­nicate, and then where was priuate Masse? So this gorgious shewe to bleare the simple peoples eyes, with the antiquitie of this worde Masse, is an inuincible argument, whereby pry­uate Masse doth fall. Examine the places, that they themsel­ues bring, thou canst not wreast any likelihoode of priuate Masse out of them. Yet this is moreouer to be noted that with­in [Page 21] .380. yeares after Christ, the worde was neuer named in any probable author, whereby it sufficiently appeareth, that it was neuer knowne in Christes time, nor in his Apostles after him. And thus much of this worde Masse.

Clement was very lately found in the yle of Candie, by one Caro­lus Capellius a Venetian, written in Greeke, and in these Countreis neuer heard of, nor seene before.

The .19. vntruth. It hath beene seene before.

Here Maister Harding committeth thrée great faults, the one to charge maister Iuel with an vntruth, when he allea­geth Peter Crabs authority, an other for misconstruing those wordes which are plaine, and common, the thirde for clipping of Maister Iuels wordes. For where he wryteth it was neuer séene in these coūtreis, Maister Harding quoteth his vntruth, it hath beene séene. But considering these poore shiftes where­vnto maister Harding is driuen, I will graunt these wordes to be maister Iuels, that it was neuer séene. Who knoweth not that neuer here signifieth of long time or seldom, if it had béene neuer séene, howe could it haue bene written? These grosse gatherings in so fine a wit, néedes must sauour of ma­lice. It is the phrase of al lāguages, [...]. Saith Achilles, Iliad. 1. Ho­merus. they did ne­uer wast my fertile fieldes in Pthia, & yet not many yeres be­fore were great iniuries done by the Troians, euē in Achilles countrey. So Agamemnon, Hom. Iliad. 1. [...], O prophet of harmes, thou neuer yet toldest me pleasant things. Yet it were much for M. Harding to say Cal­chas pleased not Agamemnon, Iliad. 2. when he foretolde what tyme [Page 22] Troie should be destroyed. In lyke maner sayth Euripides, [...]. There was neuer good son of an euill father, yet was Ezechias good of wicked Ahaz. So in the common prouerbe [...], more aun­cient than the worlde, we meane great continuance. We say the same in Latine. Cic. in verr. Nunquā tam palestricus praetor. There was neuer such a wrastling chiefe Iustice, meaning very sel­dome. And in our english, I neuer sawe such an other. But what we meane by it, that in déede was neuer doubted of, ney­ther is Maister Harding so simple, that he knoweth it not, but he had rather speake against his owne knowledge, then say nothing against Maister Iuell. This is ynough to any indif­ferent reader, to shewe that these vntruthes are but wrang­lings. But read the replie, and thou must néedes confesse it, were thou neuer so parciall. For Maister Iuell himselfe al­leageth Leo, Gelasius, & Bessarion, which disalow this booke, and how could that be, if it had neuer bene séene. These hastie vntruthes haue yet little spéedy successe. Let vs se the residue.

That they were written in Greeke, and not in Latine, that they could be layde vp in secrecie for the space of a thousande fiue hundred yeare, and more, and no man misse them.

The .20. vntruth. They were knowne to the fathers.

It was very wrangling to begin that vntruth, which com­mon sense doth teach vs had no falshoode in it, to persue it, that is great ouersight, but to make two of it, that is extréeme follie. They were kept in secrecie, sayth Maister Iuell, these 1500 yeares, and this is true, they were not openly knowne, as Maister Harding himselfe doth confesse, therefore they [Page 23] were secrete, and how could they haue béene secrete, except some had hid them, but why doth he not tell Maister Iuels tale hole? They were not knowne saith he in these countries. Maister Iuell himselfe, as is aforesaide, doth alleage Leo, and Gelasius, both Bishops of Rome, and Bessarion a cardinall, who all condemne the booke. Reade the Replie good reader, and thou shalt find it true, and how could they haue done it, if they had neuer séene the booke. This wrangling, this lying, thys wicked Reioinder, were it not that some ignorant man might beleue it, it should not haue one worde aunswered. But God deliuer vs from such contagious poison.

Saint Ierom by the report of Eusebius sayth, certaine other bookes are abroade in the name of Clement, as the disputation of Peter, and Appion, which bookes were neuer in vse among the fathers, neyther con­taine they pure, and apostolicall doctrine.

The .21. vntruth. Saint Ierom is falsified.

It is reported of Brutus, that he was woont to say, he had spent his time euill that coulde denie nothing. M Harding perhaps to eschew this blame, hath prepared himself, when it pleaseth him, to denie any thing. The fault that Maister Iuell here findeth with Clement, is, that by the testimonie of Saint Ierom his bookes are not pure, and apostolicall. It is neuer a worde so saith Maister Harding. Saint Ierom is falsified. If Brutus were now aliue, peraduenture M. Harding might be commended. But bicause Saint Iohn hath bid vs not to be­léeue euery spirite, euery bold asseueration must not stand for true. Let vs sée what Ierom himself sayth, and we shall iudge the better, whether Maister Iuels report be true or no. Thus [Page 24] he writeth. The olde writers haue quite reiected these other bookes ascribed to Clement. In ecclesiast. Ser. de Clem. And Eusebius in his third booke of the ecclesiasticall historie, doth reproue them. Now except Maister Harding will say, that the Apostles writing is con­demned of these olde writers, and catholike fathers, or that Eusebius that good bishop of Caesarea reproueth their doctrine: Why will he not haue his Clement to be accounted not apo­stolicall, whom the old fathers reiect, and Eusebius reproueth. The substaunce of such vntruthes doe make the gatherer ap­peare either ignorant, or euill disposed.

The .22. vntruth.

Here Maister Harding maketh one vntruth ioyntly out of Saint Ierom, and Eusebius, where Maister Iuel saith, Saint Ierom by the report of Eusebius saith thus. &c. M. Harding for the better multiplying of vntruthes, saith first, Saint Ierom sayth it not, next, Eusebius sayth it not, thirdly they say it not. Had he dwelt among the Lacedemonians, for this great talke of vntruthes, & little reason in shewing them, he should surely haue bene accounted for a babler. If we graunt that his say­ings are true, yet are these thre but one vntruth, and that not made by M. Iuell, but by S. Ierom. Thus we sée when it plea­seth him, he will not vnderstand, neither the common phrase of speaking, nor what is ment by plaine sayings. Again when it pleaseth him, he will vse more Logicke, then either is true, or honest. Such a Proteus he is in his owne vnderstanding.

Clement is condemned by Gelasius.

The .23. vntruth. It is not condemned by him.

Nowe Maister Harding is come to his olde compasse. He denieth, he careth not what. Nothing shall want a bold asse­ueration, if his simple authoritie may proue any vntruth, but let vs not trust him, before we trie him, so we shall knowe the better what Gelasius sayth. His wordes are thus reported by Gracian. Dist. 15. sanct. romana. We haue thought good to note certain bookes which are come to knowledge, and ought to be auoyded of catholike people. First the councell holden at Ariminum, gathered by Constantine the Emperour, the sonne of Constantinus, by meane of Taurus lieutenant, from thenceforth, and for euer we iudge worthy to be condemned. Likewyse the Iournall of Peter the Apostle, bearing y ^e name of Clement. Eight bookes are secrete, vnlawfull writings. Nowe consider with these wordes of Gelasius, this booke which for his Masse sake M. Harding doth so much defende. It goeth vnder the name of Clement, so doth that, which Gelasius condemneth. It contay­neth .viii. bookes, and so doth that. They are accoūted Apocry­pha, secret writings, and so are the other. Beside this Gela­sius condemneth a booke called the Iournall of Peter, and this Clement himselfe sayth that S Peter willed him to write that booke, but yet vnder this title, Ad Iacob. Epist. 1. that it should be called the Iour­nall of Clement. And to conclude, those bookes condemned by Gelasius teach euill doctrine, and so doth this Clement. And shall Maister Hardings plaine wordes counteruaile so much likelihoode? Well may those erre, that néedes will be decey­ued. But among the louers of truth, such vntruthes will be very odious.

Abdias was conuersant with Christ.

The .24. vntruth. I say not he was conuersant with Christ.

Maister Harding may score vp his vntruthes after what sorte it pleaseth him, but any indifferent man must needes thinke that Maister Iuell doth not falsifie his wordes, when he layth them altogither euen as they are written. If in repe­tition of any part of them he doe mistake the meaning, such error deserueth verye little blame. But bicause M. Harding is so farre driuen, that if he should let slip euen the least ad­uauntage, he shoulde sustaine great losse of his whole cause: let vs examine all that is reproued, and yéelde vnto the vt­most, that may appéere faultie. I say not, saith he, that Abdias was conuersant with Christ. But he sayth he saw Christ in the flesh, and wrote diuers histories of the Apostles doings, at which he himselfe was present: of this to say he was conuer­sant with Christ, is scarce worth the fault finding. Yet maister Harding sayth stifly, he onely sawe Christ in the flesh, he was not conuersaunt with him. By like he looked through the cre­uice with Eubulus, when Christ helped Saint Basil to Masse, and by that meanes Abdias could but sée him.

Lazius sayth that Saint Luke borrowed whole histories worde for worde out of Abdias.

The .25. vntruth. Lazius sayth not so.

Here is first a very graue note in a weighty matter, that M. Iuell nameth him Zazius, in steede of Lazius, as who say that euery man must not néedes knowe Wolfangus Lazius, that hath séene Abdias. In praeface in Abdiam. False printing can not blame the author, where wrangling is not in place. Lazius sayth, eyther Saint [Page 27] Luke borrowed hole stories of Abdias, or Abdias of S. Luke. By this it appeareth Lazius is well content if you thinke S. Luke borrowed his writing of him. Nowe for the more con­tempt of so vaine and fonde a saying, Maister Iuell may well report his wordes absolutelye, and ought not for that to bée blamed with vntruth. Yet let vs admit that Lazius saying were sufferable. I aske of M. Harding, how a disiunctiue pro­position may be improued without affirming, or denying one certaine part. Besides this, it is no newes to Wolfangus La­zius to speake sometime at randome, when he should speake truth. He hath other wheres many absurdities, and some both slaunderous and odious to rehearse, ywis by good account, a man may easily finde more lyes in his bookes, than frier Furi­us can chalenge in Sleydaines commentaries, but let them go. For this present matter, Maister Iuell eyther in contempt of this vaine imagination, or for the more appearaunce of so great an absurdity, without any suspicion of vntrue dealing, may before all good men report these wordes, as he doth.

He maketh many shamelesse lyes, and sayth that he was present with Christ, and at most part of the Apostles doings.

The .26. vntruth. He sayth not so.

If we marke M. Iuels wordes well, we shall sufficientlye be forewarned. As touching these vntruthes, he maketh, saith Maister Iuell, many shamelesse lyes, and sayth he was pre­sent at the Apostles doings. Here maister Harding can chal­lenge no vntruth, concerning Abdias shamelesse lying, but for his presence at the most of the Apostles doing, that saith he is nothing so. Let vs take that which by silence M. Harding [Page 28] confesseth, and then if Abdias haue many shamelesse lyes, how can he further Maister Hardings Masse? or if he haue not, why is it not noted for an vntruth? By like he thought that by speaking nothing of Abdias lies, they might be forgotten, and by calling them to tryall, Abdias should be quite shamed. For my part I meane not to meddle with them, they are mo in number then in short time may be recited. Onely I ad­uertise thée to reade the booke, due tryall shall be surest iudge. As touching this present vntruth, whether he were cōuersant with the Apostles or no, it maketh no great matter, what skil­leth it, what he was, or what time he liued? It is smale credit to Esopes fables, that the author liued in king Croesus dayes. Yet for maister Hardings pleasure, let vs sée this vntruth. He sayth not, sayth maister Harding, that he was present at most of the Apostles doings. I aunswere that it is not necessary to be very scrupulous in reporting of Abdias his wordes, it is more then he deserueth, if we vouchsafe to recite his meaning. Thus much maister Harding and Abdias do say, that he was the Apostles scholer, that he was present at the death of Saint Andrew, and Saint Thomas, & at the doings of Simon, and Iude, which were all Apostles, and of all this is it much, if we say that he was present at the most of the Apostles doinges? Such is this Abdias. He hath deserued yll maister Hardings friendship. His credite is so little, that he can not further hys priuate Masse. His doings are so vnreasonable, that they can not be defended without shame. But the prouerbe is verified, like will to like. An ill cause hath most ground in vnsufficient witnesse, and an ill patrone is best content with vnable au­thoritie.

It may be gathered by Saint Augustine in sundrie places, that some part of this booke was written by certaine heritikes called the Ma­nichees.

The .27. vntruth. Saint Augustine hath no such thing of Abdias.

This vntruth is little worth, and soone aunswered. It may be gathered sayth Maister Iuell. But saint Augustine spea­keth not of Abdias saith M. Harding. It is true in déede saint Augustine doth not name him, for if he did, there neded thē no gathering. The thing were plaine. It is an easie thing to find many vntruthes, if we make our aduersary to say, what wée list. Whether Augustine meane of Abdias or no, that shall bée séene in y ^e next vntruth. Here is nothing affirmed, but that he may séeme to meane him, that this may be gathered M. Har. denieth not. That Abdias is ment, it must appeare by the next vntruth. So either maister Harding maketh two vntruthes of one, as his maner is, or here speaketh nothing to the purpose (as he commonly vseth.)

For he reporteth the fables of Saint Thomas, of Saint Mathew, of Saint Andrew, of the Lyon that slue the man that had striken Saint Thomas, of the dog that brought the same mans hande to the table of Maximilla, wife vnto Egis, and other like tales, euen in such order, as they be set foorth by this Abdias.

The .28. vntruth. Saint Augustine nameth not Mathevve.

The .29. vntruth. He nameth not Andrevv. The .30. vntru.

He speaketh not of Maximilla vvhich Abdias ment.

M. Hardings vntruthes amount not yet to his mind. Ther­fore he thinketh it not amisse to quote them a little faster, vpō [Page 30] which aduice, he maketh thrée in one periode, he might as wel haue sayde, S. Augustine mentioneth not these stories, and so haue made but one, saue that he loueth not such plaine dea­ling. But the matter is not great, as short an aunswere will serue for all, as if they had béene but one. Saint Augustine nameth not Mathevv, nor Andrevv. Marke good reader, this vntruth. Maister Iuell sayth, Saint Augustine telleth the tales of Mathevv, Contra faust. lib. 11. &. 22. cap. 97. Cont ad. le. & christo. ca. 20. co. Ad. ca. 16. and Andrevv, and so he doth, let the booke be the iudge. Maister Harding sayth, S. Augustine nameth them not, neyther doth maister Iuell saye he nameth them, take away this much wrangling, and here is no vntruth at all. But this we haue to note by the way, for the better credite of maister Hardings Abdias, that Saint Augustine condem­neth those tales for lyes, which Abdias telleth for a certaine truth. Concerning y ^e tale of Maximilla, wife to Aeges, which maister Harding saith is not reported in the same sort by Ab­dias, as it is by Saint Augustine, first we must knowe both Augustine and Abdias meane the same woman, as shall ap­peare in y ^e .31. vntruth. Then Augustine speaketh of hir, as of a foolish & vaine tale. Abdias speaketh of hir doings, as of true, and weightie stories. Thus it appeareth though Saint Au­gustine doe not name the parties, yet he agréeth in the tales, and when this shall be knowne, the .27. vntruth shall be iusti­fied. That it may be gathered, Saint Augustine meaneth of Abdias, & these thre latter vntruthes, which are but the proufe of Maister Iuels coniectture, shall appeare so good, that before the true christian reader, the quoting of them shall séeme but wrangling, and this new counterfeit Abdias shall be reiected, as a teller of dreames, and a lying wryter. And for our great comfort, god will bring to passe, that when it shall be knowne to the indifferent reader, that Papistrie can not stand with­out such shamelesse doctors, they shall begin to learne, that it is a shamelesse doctrine.

Beholde what thinges they be, that be written of Maximilla wife to Aegis, that she being once christened, would no more yeelde dutie to hir husbande, but set Euclia hir mayde in hir owne place, and other like fa­bles. All these, and such like tales thus disalowed by S. Augustine, are reported by Maister Hardings Abdias in great sooth.

The .31. vntruth. These tales be not reported by Abdias.

Now is maister Harding come, as he sayth, to a great, and impudent lye, and such a one, as by no meanes can be excused, let the booke, saith he, be iudge. I doe M. Iuell great wrong to write in his cause with so little diligence. But for this cause I doe it, which I trust I shall well performe, that the vnlear­ned should not be deceiued. For the learned, be they not of wil blinded, Maister Hardings bookes can not hurt them, he hath made so vnequal a match. Thou séest good reader for the iustifi­ing of this vntruth, whereat are made so great exclamations, one should read ouer all Abdias, which labor I lothed so, as if Amaras porrecto iugulo. &c. as Horace writeth, I should haue stretched [...]ut my necke, and listened after bitter histories, yet when there was no remedie, I tooke the booke, and in diuerse places read so much I think as amounteth to one whole leafe or more, and of that little reading as I can, I answere. There is named in Augustine one Maximilla, such one is named in Abdias, she was wife to Aegetes or Aegeas, so was Abdias his Maximilla, she had a mayd named Iphidamia or Iphidama, Aug. de fide cont. manich. cap. 38. & Abdias lib. 3. so sayth Abdias of his Maximilla, and hir handmayd Iphidamia sayth Saint Augustine, went to go heare S. Andrevv, and so did the handmayde in Abdias, and of all this I say as M. Harding sayth, let the bookes be iudge. Nowe reader I must [Page 32] craue thine indifferent iudgement, sée whether Augustine, and Abdias meane one Maximilla. If they do, remēber Au­gustine sayth, they be impudent lyes, and Abdias doth tell them in great sooth. But sayth Maister Harding, Abdias and August. do not write a like of Maximilla. Sure it is the more like Abdias is a lier. But what if we say, Abdias did write, whatsoeuer Saint Augustine hath? Barre maister Harding of his gesses, and he can not confute it. Iohn Faber, a great fabler of maister Hardings side sayth, that this Abdias, when he was founde was all reueled, In Praef. in Abdiam: and without any fashion, full of faultes, so that one could neyther read him by vnder­standing, nor vnderstand him by reading. Then no maruaile if some part of it be perished, and the booke be not come wholy vnto our handes, though Abdias say not euery whit that is in Augustine. When maister Harding can bring any péece of likelihoode, how this agréement may be betwéene them, and yet they meane not both one, then let this go for an vntruth. In the meane season consider, whereto this shamelesse, impu­dent, and notorious lye is fallen, whereof he hath made such tragedies, and what the other vntruthes be, when so great ac­count was made of this. This is it, that I saide before, maister Harding was little beholding vnto Abdias. First, he could not pleasure him for his small authoritie, now he hath shamed him with this vnshamefast defence.

Saint Augustine seemeth in diuerse places to haue giuen his iudge­ment of this booke.

The .32. vntruth. Saint Augustine meaneth not of Abdias.

Maister Harding hath good lyking in his owne doing or [Page 33] this vntruth should not haue bene noted twise. For the mat­ter, there is inough saide in the former vntruth, the argument of the thing doth witnesse of Augustines meaning.

The like iudgement hereof is giuen by Gelasius.

The .33. vntruth. Gelasius meaneth not of Abdias.

Maister Harding is so iealous ouer his Abdias, that in no case he will let him be spoken off. The booke be like is so full of lyes, that he is sure no man can speake any good of it. But how so euer he be affectioned, we must thinke of authors no o­therwise, then we finde them. He is not yet Pope, and there­fore may erre, his word is no good witnesse of an other mans meaning. Gelasius whome so euer he meaneth, certaine it is he may meane Abdias for the worthinesse of the booke. And whereas maister Harding for some proufe of his side, sayth that he cōdemneth certain actes of Martyrs which are thought to be written by infidels, Gelasius hath not one such worde. Reioin. fo. 42. But where as maister Harding saith further for the discharge of Abdias, that Gelasius speaketh of one Quiricus, and Iulita his mother, this is a mocking of his reader without all re­gard of honestie. First what kindred was betwéene these two, it skilleth not much, but Iulita may as well be his daughter as his mother, for any thing that Gelasius sayth. But let the kindred go, maister Hardings reason hangeth thus, Gelasius reiecting one hundreth bookes, among other nameth the passiō of Quiricus, ergo he reiecteth not Abdias, and this is all the reason on which he groundeth this vntruth, reade his Reioin­der. Nowe way on the other side, what cause Maister Iuell hath to thinke Gelasius ment Abdias, and vpon conference of [Page 34] eyther reason, this vntruth shall be very soone answered. The second booke that he condemneth is the actes of saint Andrew, Dist. 15 sanct. romana. Abdias doth write the actes of S. Andrew. The third is the actes of Philip, Abdias li. 3. Abdias li. 10. Abdias lib. 1. Abdias. li. 9. Abdias wryteth y ^e actes of Philip. The fourth is the actes of Peter, Abdias wryteth the actes of Peter. The fift is the actes of Thomas, Abdias wryteth the actes of Tho­mas. Beside this, he reiecteth the doings of Maximilla, and Abdias speaketh of Maximilla. Now let the indifferent rea­der iudge, whether Gelasius meaneth of Addias, or whether maister Hardings worde, and misshapen argument may coū ­teruaile all these coniectures.

Thus it may be supposed by Saint Augustine, and Gelasius, that this booke was written by heritikes.

The 34. vntruth. A burthen of vntruthes.

If this be a burthen of vntruthes, no doubt the substaunce of them is very little. For take away the .32. vntruth, that Au­gustine meaneth not Abdias, and the .33. vntruth, that Gela­sius meaneth not Abdias, and except Eubulus come, that saw Christ helpe Basil to Masse, all this burthen of vntruthes is like to be vndone. As touching the vntruthes, there is inough saide already. Whether they ment of Abdias, it appeareth that maister Harding is to blind a iudge to gesse so boldly the con­trary. Here I must put thée once againe in minde of the num­bring of these vntruthes. First Saint Augustine speaketh not of Saint Mathew, the .2. nor of Saint Andrew, the .3. nor of Abdias his Maximilla, the .4. nor of Abdias, the .5. nor Ge­lasius speaketh of Abdias, the .6. nor they two speak of Abdias. Thus the whole being ioyned, is but one true proposition, [Page 35] yet out of it after his maner of cutting maister Harding hath carued .6. lies. And thus much of lying Abdias.

Martial was so defaced in many places, that it could not be reade.

The .35. vntruth. It could be read, else hovv coulde it be printed?

By gesse. Why should not the printer haue as much liberty in printing this little olde booke, as maister Harding vseth for proufe of his whole religion? Morel. in fine libri. The Printer himselfe sayth prae nimia vetustate vix legi potuerunt, for estreame age they could scarce be read. Nowe where as maister Harding doth aske, how then could they be printed. I aske of him, how Ab­dias was printed. For of him his sorbonist Doctor wryteth, he could neyther be read, nor vnderstand. Faber in pre [...]. in Abdiam. An other might much better haue moued this doubt then maister Harding. He is not now to learne what gesses may doe. But howe soeuer he was printed, sure this vntruth was not worth noting.

It is iudged by Iohn Colet, and other graue men, that Dionysius can not be that Areopagita, Saint Paules disciple, which is mencioned in the Actes.

The .36. vntruth. It is not iudged so by Iohn Colet. The .37 vntruth. They are no graue men, that so iudge.

These vntruthes can not be good, that are made so fast, nor [Page 36] yet so many as the maker would haue them, when one is told so many tymes. If this were vntrue that maister Iuell wri­teth, yet were it not two vntruthes, but one. But bicause there is no remedie, we will take them euen as they fall out. As touching the former of these two it néedeth no aunswere, Maister Harding doth not denie it, but that Iohn Colet hath both spoken it, Reioin. fo. 44. and preached it, then what skilleth it whether it be written, his preaching is a witnes of his opinion, though maister Harding say nay. For this other vntruth, that such other, as deny this Dionysius to be the true Areopagita, are no graue men: he is sure no graue man, that hath noted it. I may aunswere this with the wordes of Saint Paule, horum laus non ex hominibus, Rom. 2.29. sed ex deo, these mens prayses are not of men, but of God. Maister Harding should not for his modesty sake haue noted it for an vntruth, to call the godly fathers of our age graue men. His belligods, Popes, Cardnals, Friers, Monkes, Priestes, & others of that ken [...]ll, haue not so much laboured in searching out the truth in fiue hundred yeares, as these other haue done in fiftie. But God hath giuen the in­crease, his name be praysed for euer.

As touching this Dionysius, whether we haue his workes, or no, it is a thing soone iudged. How vnlike is it, that the con­uersion of Dionysius should be mencioned by Saint Luke in the actes of the Apostles, Actes. 17. yet he him selfe would not mencion it once in al his workes? or if this might be, yet what may we thinke of that, that in all his booke he doth neuer so much as once name Paule? May it yet be doubted, whether he be that Dionysius, which Paule conuerted? Besides this, S. Ierom making purposely a rehearsall of all ecclesiasticall wryters, speaketh not one worde of this Dionysius. Other auncient fathers doe neuer alleage him, his owne bookes are so straūge fansies of many secrete misteries, that sure it is, he is not the true Areopagita.

Saint Iames Liturgie hath an especiall prayer for them, that liue in Monasteries, and yet it was [...]erie rare, to haue Monasteries built in all Saint Iames time.

The .38. vntruth. There is no mention of such Monasteries, as we commonly meane, when we speake of Monasteries.

As be for Monasteries, as Monasteries are to speake of the things themselues as they are in déede, so to say of Monaste­ries as they be considered in this meaning of Monasteries, so Monasteries, and so forth, a man should go farre that shoulde follow Maister Hardings wrangling.

Chrysostomes Liturgie prayeth for Pope Nicolas by these wordes. Nicolai & sanctiss. & vniuersalis Papae longa sint tēpora. We pray, God sende Nicolas that most holy, and vniuersall Pope, a long time to liue. But Pope Nicolas the first of that name, was the seconde Pope after dame Ione the woman Pope.

The .39. vntruth. He prayth not for Pope Nicolas of Rome. The .40. vntr. There was no such woman pope.

Nowe Maister Harding after he hath giuen so many of­fers, and maketh neuer a wound: he directeth his engines quite contrarie, and assayeth if that he can giue the Pope a blowe. Pope Nicolas sayth Chrysostome, that most sacred, and vniuersall Pope. That is no good proufe sayth Maister [Page 38] Harding that he meaneth the bishop of Rome. Here is a full subscription to the .4. article. The authorities alleaged for the Popes supremacie are quite ouerthrowne, to be called vni­uersall bishop is no proufe of his supremacie. Had Maister Harding wel considered it, this vntruth had bene quoted some other where, but doubting that this be not aunswere good y­nough, he letteth it go, and graunting it to be sayde of Pope Nicolas, Reioin. fo. 47. therevpon he asketh this question. If Chrysostome might not pray for Pope Nicolas, how is the death of Moyses described in the bookes of the lawe? There is no man, sayth he, so hardie to denie that Moyses wrote these bookes. Be not afrayd, good reader, of these big words, nor of M▪ Har. daring. All this is soone aunswered. Either Eleazar, or Iosue wro [...]e the .34. Chap. of Deuter. And they might well write of Moyses his death. Or if Moyses wrote it, he knew it by reuelation. For so he himselfe wryteth. Deut. 31.2. The lorde hath saide vnto mée, thou shalt not go ouer this Iordane. Sure of a doctor of diuinitie, this was a very simple question. If he can shewe any such re­uelation that Chrysostome ha [...] of Pope Nicolas, then let this be Chrysostomes Masse. The .40. vntruth is concerning pope Ione, who neuer did the sea of Rome more dishonesty, then she hath stoode maister Harding in good stéed. For both she helpeth out his Reioinder with vntruthes, and maketh a great péece of his confutation of the Apologie. But saith maister Harding there was no such woman Pope. What skilleth it to this pre­sent matter, whether there were such a Pope or no. A filthie Strumpet is good ynough for such a whoorish kingdome. If there were such a one, Pope Nicolas was seconde after hir. Whether there were or no, my profes are néedelesse, my lord of Sarisburie hath resolued vs in that behalfe.

Now it were much for me to say that Chrysostome prayed for men by name 700. yeares before they were borne.

The .41. vntruth. I say not so.

This is a proper vntruth. Now by lyke Mayster Harding is non plus.

Thou seest Christian reader, what doctours here be brought, as maister Harding sayth, to ground thy fayth and saluation vpon.

The .42. vntruth. I say not so.

If Maister Iuell shoulde so misreport maister Hardings saying, as he himselfe for his vntruthes sake doth commonly vse, then had he good cause to crie out both of misconstruing, and corruptions, for he will say, and vnsay, and all with one breath, for to séeke aduauntage. Thus he sayth expressely, he hath brought these authorities for y ^e confirmation of thy fayth. And againe he hath brought these authorities for the stay of all christian mens beléefe. Sée his booke, thou shalt sée the words. Diuis. 5. & 6. Thē why saith he not, y ^t he bringeth these authorities to groūd thy saluation on? or how could he without blushing note this vntruth? There is no other difference in the sayings, saue where Maister Iuell reporteth it to ground thy faith, Maister Harding hath to stay, and confirme thy fayth. If here be any difference, alway wrangling excepted, let this be an vntruth. And yet were there any, Maister Harding speaketh plaine y­nough in the confutation of the Apologie. Thus he saith there. Are not these trustie men, Apol. par. 5. cap. 3. diui. 10. to whome you maye commit the charge of your soules for your fayth, and saluation? These [Page 40] wordes I trow are plaine ynough to proue this no vntruth.

It is the very expresse order of the Communion.

The .43. vntruth. It is not so.

This vntruth maister Harding hath not in the text, but hath wrested it out of the margine, and bicause he thinketh that for the base matter it would be little regarded, to make vs the more attentiue, he beginneth with this admiration. But what meaneth Maister Iuell. Reioind. fo. 54. &c. But to quite Maister Hardings wonder, I aske of him againe, what meaneth he thus abruptly to rush into maister Stapletons possessions? He hath taken vpon him to returne those vntruthes, and whye doth maister Harding meddle, Diui. 5. the. 12. vntruth. where he hath no thank? There be already a great many past, which he hath not touched, and why doth he out of season thus meddle with this? If he thinke maister Stapleton hath returned it nothing cunningly, I doe easily graunt, that he is in déede a naughtie workeman, if he thinke by his labour it shall appeare more beautifull, I must néedes graunt his turning is much better, but yet the matter it selfe is neuer a whit the truer. And for as much as the thing must trie it selfe, let vs somewhat better examine it. Maister Harding sayth in the .5. diuision of his first booke, that Ciril hath expounded the Masse vsed in Ierusalem. Maister Iuell noteth this for the .12. vntruth, saying that Ciril expounded the communion, and not the Masse. Maister Harding returneth this vntruth againe, saying it was the Masse, and not the Communion. I might with as great facility denie this again, and say it were the Communion, and not the Masse. But by­cause my testimonie were in this not of weight, I am content [Page 41] to be furthered with the witnesse of maister Stapleton. Hée sayth plainely, that maister Harding brought not this for proufe of the question, In the 15. slaū ­derous vntru. and that it maketh nothing for priuate Masse. But here Maister Harding saith that it was a Masse. Therefore this vntruth gathered by maister Harding, is an­swered thus by maister Stapleton, that it is not so, and tyll they agrée better, a longer discourse of that place of Ciril is neyther profitable nor necessarie.

What if all these doctors testifie against maister Hardings Masse.

The .44. vntruth. They testifie not one vvorde against it.

Maister Iuell alleageth, Iames his Liturgie, Abdias, Iusti­nus, Dionysius, Basil, Chrysostome, and Ignatius, reade the Replie. fol. ii. of all these, saith maister Harding, they be M. Iuels buts, and therefore he will skip them ouer, and not an­swere a worde, neither rime nor reason. What shamelesse de­meanor is this in men, that professe to séeke the truth? if wée would doe the like, howe soone woulde this Reioinder be aun­swered. It is an easie matter if this be ynough, M. Harding must séeke better stuffe, this will not serue. Although in déede it be true, that this Reioinder is all false, and vngodly stuffe, yet séeing christian people are so euill disposed, the falsehoode, of this stuffing must be in some part disclosed. Howe much then should this discredit maister Hardings religion, against so expresse authoritie to make so slender aunswere.

Hippolytus was lately set abroade in print, about seuen yeares past, before neuer acquainted in the worlde.

The .45. vntruth. He was well knowne before.

That man is well knowen, of whom most men haue heard, or with whome many be acquainted. Now howe proueth M. Harding this Hippolytus is well knowne. Saint Ierom saith he named him. Surely this is a very small acquaintaunce to be named but of one man in all the worlde. Yet not thys bastard Hippolytus, but that other bishop, and martyr is na­med of Saint Ierom. Such vntruthes haue great sauor of en­uie, or of folly, or of both. Sith maister Iuell sayth that Hip­polytus was neuer acquainted in the worlde, and Maister Harding doth shew but only that Saint Ierom did name him. This vntruth, if truth were wel regarded, should surely haue bene spared. Howe be it I graunt, not onely Ierom named Hippolitus, Li. 6 cap. 21 In Polim. but other many. Eusebius speaketh of him: so doth Theodoretus, and alleageth diuers sayings out of hys bookes. Gelasius, Epiphanius, and Niciphorus also haue na­med him, and yet all these had but small acquaintance with him. Eusebius, and Ierom, and Theodorete knewe not where he was bishop. Cont. Eut. & Nest. 1. Lib. 4. cap. 3 Gelasius sayth he was a bishop in Arabia, Ni­cephorus saith he was bishop of Ostia a hauen towne in Italy. Ierom sayth Origene was stirred vp by emulation of Hippo­litus, yet it appeareth by sundrie recordes, that Origene was made bishop of Alexandria .x. yeares before Hippolytus did write. By this it appeareth, that y ^e true Hippolytus, was, not long since, well knowne in the world, so that were this booke good, yet maister Iuell sayd true. But how good it is, and how vnworthy the name of Hippolytus, read the Replie, and thou shalt well perceyue. Beside this, the booke by M. Harding alleged, entituled de cōsummatione mundi, is not once men­cioned, neither by Ierome, nor Eusebius, nor Theodorete, [Page 43] where they make especial menciō of Hippolytus bookes, then I trow we may say truely, this is no vntruth.

He beginneth the first sentence of his booke with enim.

The .46. vntruth. He beginneth otherwise.

Here Maister Harding maketh himselfe merie with won­dring at Gréeke readers, and scholemaisters, musing howe they could haue béene so ignorant. But may it please maister Albutius, that so faine would be a Grecian, to remember the Gréeke saying, [...] to laugh out of season is a great miserie. Had this defence of his [...] béene his own, though it be little worth, yet it had bene some­what. Now it is altogither borrowed of Budaeus commenta­ries, the vpbraiding of other is a testimonie of his owne ar­rogancie. A manifest proufe all his Gréeke is not much, and a great coniecture, that much of his diuinitie is out of tables, but him selfe knoweth best what he is for this defence of his [...], it is no doubt folishe, and of so great store, he hath made very yll choyse. For in this sentence by him alleaged [...] may well signifie enim. As touching the worde, I graunt sometime in the course of an oration, it may be placed, onely to adourne the sentence: but this happe­neth very seldome, euen as enim doth in Latine, and this vse was only peculiar vnto such as followed the proper phrase of Athens. In an interrogation it is often put after y ^e same sort, as in this verse, [...] doth God knowe this? or doth he knowe it, and will not re­uenge it? So it is very often found in Plato, [...] an non? and thus ioyned, [...], and such other it is not [Page 44] denied, but it may signifie nothing, but in the beginning of an oration no doubt it is neuer vsed, in the beginning of a booke it is very foolish, and if Hippolytus had not beene, it had neuer béene heard of. As likewise I trowe if maister Harding had not béene, it should neuer haue béene defended. In this doing he could meane nothing but to bleare the peoples eyes. They that list may stil think well of his doing, but Gods chil­dren shall one day forsake his euill doctrine.

He sayth, and soothly auoucheth, that Antichrist shall be the deuill.

The .47. vntruth. He sayth not so.

Here I must aduertise the reader for the better discharge of maister Iuels sayings, that I haue not read all these newe found olde wryters, neyther yet meane I to reade them, if o­ther necessitie shall not enforce me, so that how to verifie this vntruth plentifully out of y ^e Author, neither I know, neither is the labour requisite, onely Maister Harding that maketh this vntruth, giueth testimonye sufficient, that the vntruth is his own. In his Reioinder thus he doth alleage Hippolytus wordes. Reioin. fo. 59. Antichrist shall be a deuill incarnate in the shape of man. What troweth M. Harding is there any difference be­twéene the deuill, and a deuill incarnate, or is it not shame­lesse ignorance to affirme eyther of Antichrist. S. Paule cal­leth him hominem scelerosum, filium perditum, the wicked man, the sonne of perdition. He calleth him a man not as Hippolytus doth a deuill incarnate, 1. Thes. 2.3. he sayth his comming shall be [...] according to the operation and strength of Sathan. Then it shall not be Sathan him­selfe. What may we iudge of this Hippolytus, that is so igno­rant [Page 45] in the scriptures, or what may we iudge of M. Harding, that can abide his Hippolytus, which should teach that Anti­christ should be a deuill incarnate? He hath no true zeale vnto the scriptures.

He sayth that he shall builde vp the temple at Ierusalem.

The .48. vntruth. He sayth not so.

Hippolytus, as maister Harding reporteth, sayth thus. Antichrist shall builde vp a Temple in Ierusalem. Reioind. fo. 58. M. Iuell sayth the Temple. Here be two very ignoraunt vntruthes, both made by turning the, into a, for the, may be expressed in y ^e Gréeke, but a can not. So make the best of it, these vntruthes are but gesses, and so much the more shamelesse, bicause they can haue no assurance. But what if they were true: betwene a deuill, and the deuill, a church and the church, when both are lyes, what skilleth it whether are reported?

If he should builde vpon the worde pontifices Bishops, then all priestes shall stand backe.

The .49. vntruth. It follovveth not.

Thou hast heard before christian reader many vntruthes that were not worth reconing, now here followeth one with­out shew of wit or vnderstanding, and yet it is set out to the vtmost, as if maister Harding had here an especiall aduaun­tage. He solaceth his heauy spirit with many foolish questions, [Page 46] and asketh when Maister Iuell will be ashamed of his foolish conclusions, Reioind. fo. 58. and of his peuish arguments? and in the end he maketh maister Iuel to reason thus. Christ shall call Bishops to his kingdome, ergo he shall call no priestes. If all these mery toyes be applied in season, then let maister Harding haue the victorie. If this be maister Iuels argument, then let this one go for an vntruth. But if this sport be disgraced for want of truth, and these pretie questions nothing worth, bycause they stande vpon a lie, then this vntruth is aunswered, and M. Hardings pleasant writing is proued foolish. Read the Replie, thou shalt sée howe maister Iuell goeth about to enterpret Hippolytus wordes, and sayth, they are not to be vnderstanded directly as they lie. For if maister Harding should builde vpon the verye worde, then bicause the mencion is made of Bishops, all com­mon priestes should be excluded. But this shal not be so. Ther­fore we must not take the wordes as they lie. Nowe iudge whether Maister Iuell do make this foolish argument, or if he doe not, whie is M. Harding so malapert without occasion.

If he make reconing of this worde dayly, where shall the Pope and Cardinals stande, that scarce sacrifice once in the yeare.

The .50. vntruth. These Cardinals say Masse most dayes, and this Pope euery day.

Their kingdome is falling, therefore bylike they vnder­prop it with so many Masses. But if it be so: Lorde how hath that adulterous citie multiplied hir whordomes? Well may the preachers say ouer hir, as the Prophets ouer Ierusalem. Wherfore should you be striken any more? The whole head is sicke, and the whole hart is heauie. There is nothing in hir but [Page 47] woundes, and swelling, and sores full of corruption.

But the meaning of Hippolytus seemeth be these, that all faithfull people in this respect be priests, and bishops, like as Saint Peter also cal­leth them.

The .51. vntruth. It seemeth not so.

Why séemeth it not so? bicause, sayth maister Harding, neyther I take it so, nor any other Catholike. Reioin. fo. 59. But Maister Iuell thinketh so, and so do all good christians, and therefore it séemeth so. This is a proper vntruth.

The .52. vntruth. Saint Peter calleth not the people by that name.

Now sure good reader truth among these men is perished, Ier. 7.28. and gone out of theyr mouthes. Saint Peter sayth maister Harding, nameth not the people bishops, yet he nameth them priestes. Maister Harding graunteth now if it were no other­wise, maister Iuell saide true, bicause he nameth them priests. But Saint Peter nameth them by an higher name, and ther­fore confesse that they may be named bishops. He calleth them [...], a kingly priesthoode. 1. Pet. 2.5. And [...], a holy priesthoode. And it is sayde in the Apocal. Christ hath made vs [...] kings and priests vnto God, Apo. 1.6. euen vnto his father. As for Hip­polytus worde [...], let not maister Harding thinke that Maister Iuell taketh Saint Peter to attribute that name vnto [Page 48] the lay people. Let the word go vnto Hippolytus, from whom it came, it is neyther in Saint Peter, nor in the whole Testa­ment. It is attributed neyther to the priestes, nor to the Bi­shops. This is maister Iuels saying. The priest, and the lay man, concerning the name priest, are one, and no difference of name giuen to eyther [...] in their proper significations, that is priestes I gladly leaue to maister Harding, and his fe­lowes. It is giuen to no mortall men in the newe testament, But to Iupiters priest. Acto. 14. Onely our Sauiour Christ is our high priest, and that for euer after the order of Melchise­dech, and without blasphemie against him, the name can bée no more giuen vnto man, Ebre. 8.3. Ebre. 7. for as much as euery priest is ap­pointed to offer sacrifice. But he alone hath made that one sa­crifice, whereby we are clensed for euer. And this Paule ga­thered well of the offering that Abraham made vnto Melchi­sedech, writing that in Abraham Leui himselfe was giuen vp for tythe, being then in his fathers loynes, when that offering was made. So that in the appointed time, when Christ should be reueled, an euerlasting priest after the order of Melchise­dech, Ebre. 7.10. the Leuiticall priesthoode shoulde be then ended, and no perticular men should be seperated any more to serue in our tabernacle, that is, to be the preachers of Christes gospell, and dispensers of his misteries, but euery one is like accepted be­fore God, all spirituall priestes before him. And as the pub­like minister shall aunswere for the sinnes of the people, if he do not tell them Gods threatnings against all iniquitie: so the father shall answere for the sonne, the maister for the man, the husbande for the wyfe, Apoc. 7.3. Leuit. 19.17. and one christian man for another, if we beare not the name of our father written in our forehead, and openly in all places reforme one anothers offences, and suche as are vnder our rule, if wée doe not bring them vp in the feare of the Lorde. God for his mercie sake giue vs hys grace, that we may consider our calling, which no doubt wée would doe, if we were well instructed, and deliuered from M. [Page 49] Hardings filthie priesthood, which beareth vs in hand, y ^t with Pardons, and Indulgences, and Massing abhominations, they could doe away our sinnes. And further who knoweth not, that the oblations, ceremonies, sacrifices, feastes, priest­hoode, and all other rites, and customes of the olde law, were figures, and are verefied in Christ. 1. Co. 5.8. 1. Co. 6. Rom. 12. So Paule calleth Christ our Passeouer, newnesse, and sinceritie of life, our vnleauened bread, our bodies, our temple, our wickednesse, our leauen, the fruite of our lips, our offering, our selues, our sacrifice. So Saint Peter calleth Christ, our corner stone, his children, the liuing stones, their profession, the holy temple, 1. Pet. 2 and their obedience, a kingly priesthoode.

Some of them haue saide, the people are doggs, and swine.

The .53. vntruth. I say not so.

Maister Harding calleth them swine in plaine wordes, he sayth further, they are vnreuerent, & of an impure life. Art. 15. fo. 155 Againe he sayth, they are curious, rashe, vnreuerent, contemptuous in all holy things. Now to ioyne all these, Confu. Ap [...]l. par. 5. cap. 3 Diui. 4. that the people are vnreuerent, impure, curious, rashe, & contemptuous swine, it is as much I thinke, as if he called them doggs, and swine. How be it, whether tearmes soeuer he vsed, they are vnreue­rent, impure, rashe, contemptuous, and swinish sayings, and if he had bene ashamed of them, he would not for so slender an vntruth, haue called those wordes againe to memorie. But the common saying is, past shame, and past grace.

The .7. deuis. Yet now must their negligence be the rule of Christs religion.

The .54. vntruth. I say not so.

Looke well on maister Iuels wordes, thou shalt sée maister Harding is not named. Againe consider this maner of spea­king, thou shalt sée this vntruth hath no groūd but ignorance. Maister Harding doth confesse, that his priuate Masse were not good, in case the people were more diligent to receyue, but considering their vndeuocion, it is not méete, that the dayly sacrifice should cease. This maister Iuell reporteth as a thing very absurd, that the negligence of the people shoulde be the rule of Christes religion. And what is here vntrue? who is so ignorant, that knoweth not, to make any such vain saying by repetition the more contemtuous, that it is vsuall to chaunge the wordes? Well knew M. Harding, that the learned here would soone espie his doing, but he accounteth it a small mat­ter to deceiue those, whom he taketh as vnreuerent swine. &c.

But now the priest may say two, three, or mo Masses in a day, yea al­though he haue none to receyue with him.

The .55. vntruth. Priestes say not many Masses in one day.

Surely good reader lies are good cheape, & soone made, where this is one. The Decretals were wont to be a sufficient war­rant, for the vsage in the Popes ministerie. Wil now maister Harding be so sawcy to controll the Pope? Doth he not know that this saith Pope Gregorie, Decret. de mis. celebr. cap. 3. & tetesphorus Papa. excepto die natiuitatis, & cau­sa necessitatis, sufficit sacerdoti semel in die celebrare, except [Page 51] on Christmasse day, and the cause of necessitie, it is sufficient to say one Masse a day. Here we sée some dayes mo Masses than one were occupied, and sure though one Masse be one to many. Yet considering that thrée do signifie the thrée tymes, before the lawe, vnder the lawe, and the tyme of grace, De Miss. cele. ca. 3. in glossa. where Masses go for good, me thinketh thrée euery day would do wel. And again bicause the Pope saith, y ^t if néede be we may say mo Masses in one day, Decret. & glo. vt supra. and the gl [...]se doth enterpret néede to be ey­ther for honestie sake, or for profit, sure such Masses as be ey­ther honest, or profitable, should euer for charitie sake be thrise iterate. Yet I confesse that Pope Alexander, and this gloser do not well agrée in profite. For he sayth, De conse. dist. 1. sufficit. qui vero pro pecu­nia presumunt vno die facere plures Missas non estimo eua­dere damnationem, but he that for mony shall presume in one day to make many Masses, I thinke he can not escape dam­nation. And yet notwithstanding this Popes censure, the glo­ser will not relent, In gloss. vt su. but without addicion of necessitie he sayth flatly. They may say one Masse for the dead, an other for the day. Mary for cause of controuersie in this matter, Pope Gre­gorie make [...] this prouiso. So he poure no wine on his fin­gars after he hath receyued at the first Masse, Decre. de miss. celeb. ex parte. least in licking them againe, some drop should go downe his throte, and so he should breake his fast. But I will let passe these high points disputed in their Canon law, and greatest doctors, and of this, that is sayd, I desire the christian reader to iudge, whether these wordes are vntrue, that a priest may saye two or thrée Masses in one day.

Concerning consecration he doth great wrong to charge vs with the breach of it, before hee him selfe, and other of his side are better resolued, wherein consecration standeth. For Scotus, and Innocentius the .3. say that this word, benedixit, worketh consecration.

The .56. vntruth. VVe are resolued herein.

The .57. vntruth. Scotus and Innocentius say it not.

Maister Harding to make his vntruthes very common, v­seth such Logick as is very rare. Where the antecedent & ar­gument do hang togither, he maketh them both vntrue. Wel may this doing haue credite among the simple: but when the learned doe sée it, they do easily say, that these vntruthes haue more consideration of number, than regarde of good matter, and substance. But let vs take them, as they be, the folly of the vntruthmaker shall the more appeare. We are sayth maister Harding fully resolued herein, that is, wherein consecration standeth. It is pitie that his worde hath not the Popes priui­ledge, that it might not erre. He neuer wanteth audacitie to denie at aduentures, whatsoeuer mislyketh him. He sayth in consecration we are all agréed, In 4. sent. q. 6. art. 1. but Marcilius one of his owne doctors saith, it is not so. Whether of these say true, it shal ap­peare hereafter. We agrée, sayth maister Harding, that con­secration of the bread, and wine, is wrought by these wordes, hoc est corpus meū, this is my body, and hic est sanguis meus, this is my bloud. And of this iudgement is their Pope holye patriarche, Sess. vlt. in fine concil. in antididag. in Io [...]. tr. 80. de sacra li. 1. cap. 5. Saint Peter Lumbarde: yet the whole counsell of of Florence say, consecration is wrought with all the wordes togither, as they lye. The chapter of Coleine say, these words are not sufficient without the Canon of the Masse. Saint Au­gustine sayth, it is wrought with the word of fayth, which we preach. Saint Ambrose saith, these wordes, accipite, come­dite, take, and eate, are part of consecration. So haue these men, the councell of Florence, the chapter of Coleine, Saint Augustine, and Saint Ambrose against them. Now let vs sée how they agrée among themselues. Scotus sayth in finall reso­lution. [Page 53] Dico breuiter, ꝙ non est nobis traditum certitudina­liter, an ad formam cōsecra [...]ionis sanguinis partineant aliqua verba post illud, sanguis meus, In. 4. sen. dist. 8. qu. 2. vel an aliquot illorū sequen­tiū vl (que) illuc, hoc facite▪ &c. Ideo periculosum est hoc asserere, de quo sufficiens authoritas non habetur. I say briefly that we haue no assurance at all, whether any other wordes ap­pertaine vnto consecration of the bloud, after this is once said, this is the cup of my bodie, or whether the residue wordes fol­lowing be part of consecration, or no, vntill it is sayd, take and drinke. &c. Therefore it is daungerous [...] affirme anye thing, where you haue no sufficient authoritie. And it follo­weth in Scotus, and by this it is manifest, Quae verba sunt deforma. they speake vndo­scretly, which say it is necessary to know in euery sacrament, what are the precise, and very words of consecration. He saith further. Let no man say, I will vse these precise wordes, sim­plicitie is much surer. And vpon this he remoueth a doubt, that if the priest should say this is my body, and say nothing of that which gooth before, we ought not to worship it, but on this condicion, if it be consecrate. Cont. Ga. Biel in expos. can. Missae. And these are Scotus verye wordes, iudge now whether he agrée with Peter Lumbarde, or whether he be resolued, what to say, or whether Maister Harding be not past shame, that so boldely writeth of all the men that euer wrote, maister Iuel might worst haue alleaged Scotus. And that all Catholike be fully resolued in this. Reioi. fo. 70. b For a larger proufe, let vs yet examine it a little further. Gabriel Biel expounding the Canon of the Masse, fol. 71. a part. 4 ouer these wordes benedixit, fregit, he writeth: ouer benedixit, consecrando: ouer fregit, non panem, sed panis speciem, In vita chr. par. 2. ca. 76 In officio miss. li. 8. cap. [...]. so by Biels opini­on, Christ did consecrate with benedixit, he blessed. Ludulp de Saxonia, and Ihnocentius 3. agréeth with Gabriel Biel. Thomas, and Bonauentura say, that Christ spake these words twise, hoc est corpus meum, and so consecrated by them when he pronounced them first secretly. Then thus farre M. Har­dings doctors doe not well agrée. Alexander de ales knoweth [Page 54] not well what to say, he sayth in one place Christus dixit bis. Christ spake the wordes of consecration twise. Afterward he sayth, consecrauit, nos quo modo nescimus, he did consecrate, we know not howe. Parte. 4.9.33. mem. 2. & deinceps. Lastly he sayth, virtus erat in manibus, there was a secrete power in his handes. This Doctor is much like Scotus, he knoweth not what to say. Marciliꝰ saith, how Christ did cōsecrate, doctores diuersimode dicunt doctors are of diuers minds. Some sayd he consecrated without pro­nouncing any wordes. Thus euery man speaking his fansie, not guided by the worde of God, they walke in darknesse, and can not tell whither they go. But Maister Harding will say, though they can not agrée, how Christ did consecrate, yet they are fully agréed, how themselues doe consecrate. This as is before aleaged out of Scotus, is not true. But before I shew their diners opinions, I would demaund of some of maister Hardings friendes, howe a good conscience may be satisfied, concerning this matter. How Christ did consecrate, as appea­reth, they do not agrée, and so much maister Harding graun­teth, In. 4. sent. disl. 8. vt supra. and vpon this Scotus sayth. Intendebant narrare rem gestam, non tradere formam consecrationis. The Euangelists intended to set forth the storie, not to leaue vnto vs any forme of consecration. And Marcilius sayth, nullus Euangelistarum nèc etiàm Apostolus videtur hanc formam vidisse. In. 4. sent. q. 6 art. 1. None of the Euangelists, neyther yet the Apostles séeme to haue gy­uen our forme of consecration. Here I make this reason. The Scriptures beare witnesse of Christ, and how his body was made, but the scriptures beare no witnesse of consecration, therefore by their consecration his body is not made. Againe, consecration being of such force, that they themselues confesse their host should no time be worshipped, but with condicion, if it be wel consecrate, and yet this consecration is not taught vs by the scriptures: howe is the saying of our sauiour Christ true, that the holy ghost should teach vs all truth, or how hath Saint Luke fulfilled his promise, that sayd he would write of [Page 55] all things euen from poynt to poynt. Againe, Luke. 1.2. where maister Harding sayth, and commonly his other doctors holde, that Christ did consecrate by these wordes, this is my body, if they wil stand to that, for ought y ^t I sée, they ouerthrow their owne Masse. Christ did breake y ^e breade before he spake those words, as appeareth by all the Euangelists, and by Saint Paule, but they holde it vp whole, and bid vs worship, and after at more leysure, they breake it in péeces. But to what purpose should I examine their doings. God deliuer vs from that crooked and froward generation. Now for tryall of maister Harding his vaunts, I will alleage some of his doctors, that thou mayst know, whether they are agréed about their own consecration. The common opinion is, consecration is wrought by these wordes, this is my body. In 4. sent. q. 6. art. 1. But Mercillius sayth that enim is part of consecration, and that the Church was so taught by Saint Peter. Gabriel Biel and his companions say, that enim is not necessarye for the consecration, in a [...]sent. dist. 8: q. 3 but for him that doth consecrate, and he that leaueth it out, should sinne deadly, and yet Mathew, Marke, Luke, and Paule, all foure did leaue it out, I trow without deadly sinne. The Decretals teach vs, De cele. Miss. quae sinisti. that all, which is in the canon of the Masse, though it be not in the scripture, yet we must take it as receyued from the Apo­stles. And so the matter shall be fully discussed. That is of con­secration which the Canon appointeth. De cons. dist. 2. panis est & quia corpus. Gracian alleaging S. Ambros, maketh the priest to say in the person of Christ, all these wordes, accipite, comedite. &c. so alleaging, that for the consecration, he maketh these sixe wordes of consecration, take, eate, this is my body. He sayth likewise alleaging Euse­bius. Nowe for the consecration of the cup, M. Harding sayth these are the wordes, this is my bloud. Nay sayth Gabr. Biel, In can. Miss. forma indubitata, the vndoubtfull forme is this, this is the cup of my bloud, and sayth boldly, sufficienter & plene signi­ficant conuersionem, fully and sufficienly they work consecra­tion. Yet vpon better aduice, writing vpon the maister of the [Page 56] sentences, he sayth, forma consecrationis specierum vini ne­cessaria, In 4. sent. & precisa, ex scriptura canonica non est sufficienter determinata. The forme of consecration of the wine, what is precise and necessarie, the canonicall scriptures haue not suf­ficiently determined it. By this it is plaine that M. Hardings doctors will not all agrée, except you take them in their good moode. Biel sometime will not sticke in it, you shall haue con­secration wherein you will, another tyme he is flatly resolued and sayth out of doubt thus it is. And least maister Harding should wrangle with his wordes, himselfe maketh full resolu­tion of his meaning and sayth further, dubium est an aliqua verba preter illa, hic est calix sanguinis mei, sint de necessitate consecrationis, there is a doubt whether any wordes beside these, this is the cup of my bloud, be of necessitie of consecra­tion. And being not able to determin such a learned question, he sayth this is certaine, say all the words in the Canon of the Masse, and consecration is among them. Here thou séest, good reader, this man, that is one place maketh no bones at it, but sayth out of question it is thus, in another place he cryeth peccaui, and for his lyfe dareth not affirme one word, and yet did Gabriel knowe as much of consecration as M. Harding doth. In 4. sent. dis. 8. q. 2. But let vs heare other. Scotꝰ as is already said, knoweth not what is the exact forme, and saith that the Grekes vse an other forme, than we do. And here by the way, note that M. Harding findeth great fault with Maister Iuel, for alleaging the Gréeke Church, and sayth they were but certaine Scis­matikes, yet Scotus alleageth the same, and accounteth them as Catholikes, but so is maister Harding prepared in a bur­ning desire to gainsay M. Iuell, that he often falleth out with his owne friend. But let this passe. Thus Scotus concludeth, that if the priest entend to doe, as the Church doth, and reade all the wordes distinctly, he doth consecrate, though he know not how. In 4. sent. dis. 8. q. vnic. art. 4 Frauncis de Mairon an other of maister Hardings doctors, sayth that these fiue wordes, hic est calix sanguinis [Page 57] mei, this is the cup of my bloud, work consecration, yet again in the same article, mouing a doubt of the same matter, he an­swereth thus, some say it is so, but Scotus sayth nay. Marcilius sayth, it is probable, these are the wordes of consecration. In 4. sent. q. 6. art. 1. part. 2. Hic est calix sanguinis mei. But I will determine nothing in so high a matter. And after for a ful declaratiō that they can not agrée among themselues, he sayth. Hoc nō est expressum per canonē, aut sedem Apostolicam, it is not determined, neither by the Canon, nor by the Apostolicall seate. Thomas Aqui­nas sayth, all these are the words of consecration. 3 par. summae q. 78. art. 3. Hic est calix sanguinis mei veteris, & noui testamenti, misterium fidei, qui pro vobis, & pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccato­rum, this is the cup of my bloud of the new, and old testamēt, the misterie of fayth, which shall be shed for you, & for many. Bonauenture sayth, In 4. sen. dist. 8. q. 3 art. 2. these latter wordes are not of consecra­tion, but they doe expresse the qualitie of the thing turned. Clingius, a late wryter, and a chiefe doctor of M. Hardings side, sayth the wordes of consecration be these, this is my bo­dye, and hic est sanguis meus. &c. this is my bloud. &c. Sin. doct. chr. cath. tit. 103. When he hath not what to say, he turnes it ouer with. &c. After in the same title he sayth absolutely, these are the wordes, this is my body, and bloud, and in them is all the substance of the Masse. But againe he sayth in an another place, De Miss. prec. &. c. lib. 4. ca. 28. hic est sanguis meus noui testimenti &c. this is my bloud of the new testa­ment, and so forth, and there he sayth all that followeth is the chiefe substaunce of the Masse, and that all those wordes are spoken in the person of Christ, and so consequently be part of consecration. He sayth further, that the words of consecratiō, An ab haeret. &. c. li: 3. ca. 35 de Miss. prec. &. c. lib. 4. ca. 28. being pronounced by any vnméete person, do worke nothing, and that it was neuer shewed by any signe, or miracle, that a lay man might consecrate. Yet maister Harding sayth, that God shewed a miracle vpon certaine shepheards, which sang these wordes, and knew not what they ment, Ar. 16. diui. 6 and they conse­crated vnwares. Thus maister Harding passeth not, so hée [Page 58] may saye somewhat to be at some dissention, euen with hys friendes, and thus much of this. Let the reader examine these places, and he shall sée whether maister Hardings worde be a good warrant, that in consecration they all be full agréed. And sure this great disagréement is so much the more blameable, for as much as if they woulde haue followed their supreme head the Pope: there had bene no controuersie in this matter. For by his censure, the very words of the canon in the Masse, are the wordes of consecration, vsed both by Christ, and hys Apostles, although none of the Euangelists haue expressed them. Decre. de cele. Miss. quae sinisti. cap. 6. These are the popes wordes. Credimus ergo quod for­mam verborum, sicut in canone reperitur, & a christo aposto­li, & ab ipsis eorū acciperint successores. We do surely beleue that that forme of wordes which are in our Canon, the Apo­stles receyued of Christ, and there successors of them. If this sentence might preuaile, then the case of consecration had ben cléere. But it is well, if the Popes friendes will not beleue him. For my part I meane not to purchase him any credit.

57Now resteth the .57. vntruth to examine, whether Scotus, and Innocentius doe say that benedixit, he blessed, worketh consecration. Maister Harding standeth stiffely in it, and doth aduenture his credite, that they say it not, and being to much inflamed against Maister Iuell, he writeth with a good coun­tenance, that of al the men, that euer wrote, he had least cause to bring Scotus for his purpose, and that he is very rashe in so doing. And if thou wilt beleue him, for a cleare iustifying of this vntruth, he sayth, that Scotus, and Innocentius neuer said that benedixit worketh consecration. Surely good Reader these desperate assertions might well make thée thinke, that thy bishop had deceyued thée. But be not yet to hastie of be­liefe, be simple as the done, but be wise as the serpent, yea, euē as the Romish serpent, that hath so well prouided for his yong ones. His Prelates may not be accused without .72. witnesses. Let not thou a good bishop be discredited with one slaūderous [Page 59] tongue. His priestes may not be controlled of any lay man, be he neuer so religious. Decre. tit. 2. de const. ca. 10. Let not thou Gods minister be bla­med of an Apostata, yea, and as though they were not yet prouided for well ynough, Nancl. vol. 2 chr. onol gen. 4 Con. Lat. ca. 42. sic epistu­lus anteri, a­nacleti Zephe­rini, fabiani, Euar. fas. temp. &c. Pope Euaristus ordeyned that the people should not accuse them at all. Yea, and that whole La­terane councell vpon good warrant of that saying of S. Paule, the seruant standeth, or falleth vnto his lord, by authoritie of that sacred assemblie, they exempt them from such temporall iurisdiction. Then let vs be somewhat ware in defence of a Godly Bishop, that maister Hardings bolde reprehensions may not proue him faultie.

Scotus, and Innocentius, saith Maister Iuell, doe say that benedixit worketh consecration. That is a false lye sayth M. Harding. Then vppon good tryall let the truth appeare, and let vs here what the Authors themselues say. Scotus in déede sayth thus, verba consecrationis sunt quatuor, hoc est corpus meum. There are 4. wordes of consecration, this is my bo­dye. If Scotus had said no more, then maister Harding had al­leaged all. But it followeth a little after, sed haec verba, hoc est corpus meum prolata sine praecedentibus, non significant hoc absolute. But these words pronounced without the other wordes going before, do not absolutely signifie this, that con­secration is done. Loe Scotus sayth not as maister Harding reporteth him, that consecration is wrought by these foure, but saith he there is no consecration if the wordes afore which are the blessing, be left out. And now to auoyde all vaine ca­uilling about these words. G. Biel sayth, speaking of the same matter. Quid si verba praecedentia omitterentur. Respōdetur, licet hic Scotus sit alterius opinionis tamen hoc communiter tenent doctores, quòd haec quatuor sola sufficiunt ad effectum cōsecrationis. What if the words going afore be omitted, it is aunswered though Scotus be here of an other opinion, yet the common sentence of doctors is, these foure are sufficient. Here besides the manifest words of Scotus, G. Biel is also a witnesse [Page 60] that as maister Iuell sayth, this is the common opinion, but Scotus thinketh, that the wordes going before are necessarye. If then Scotus owne wordes, and G. Biel witnesse are better proufe of Scotus meaning, than Maister Hardings imagina­tion: it is true that the consecration is wrought by the whole blessing. And this other saying before alleaged by M. Harding must be thus qualified, that in that place, he saith those are the especiall words. Thus is Scotus saying auouched, by maister Harding disalowed, by his owne plaine words, and by the te­stimonie of Biel.

Concerning Innocentius, whether he thought consecration was wrought by benedixit, he blessed: if Maister Harding had regarded his owne credite, he would not haue denied it. The whole troupe of his doctours doe so alleage his opinion. First Scotus saith. In. 4. sent. d. 8. q. 3. art. 3. Sacerdos profert illa verba, quasi materi­aliter, quia recitat ea, sicut a Christo dicta, vt patet per ratio­nem praecedentē in Canone. Christus autem, quādo illa dixit, non transubstantiauit panem in corpus, quod probatur ex verbis illius Canonis, quia ibi praemittitur benedixit. Vnde dicetur, quòd per illam benedictionem praecedentem conse­crauit, non per ista verba, hoc est corpus meum. Cui concor­dat Innocentius. Deoff. Miss. par. 3. ca. 6 &. 14. Concerning the thirde article, it is saide; that the priest speaketh those wordes as the matter of conse­cration, bicause he recyteth them euen as they were spoken of Christ, as it appeareth by that, which goeth before in the Ca­non. But Christ, when he saide those wordes, did not tran­substantiate the breade into his body, as lykewise is proued by the Canon. For there it is sayde before, he blessed, whereof it is sayde, that by that blessing he did consecrate, not by those other words, this is my body, and of this opinion is Innocen­tius in his booke of the office of the Masse .3. part. the .6. Chapt. and the .14. Here hast thou Innocentius auouched, and his o­pinion confirmed by Scotus. Now for the thirde point of this vntruth. Where Maister Harding saith if Maister Iuell had [Page 61] any mo, he would haue named them. May it please him to reade par. 4. q. 33. Alexander de Ales, quol. 2. fin. Okam, 4. pa. sū. d. 8. Gotfrey, in 22. luc. Albertus Biel, in 4. sen. di. 8 Marcilius, & diuers other of his owne doctors. Either he must accuse them all as lyers, or there are other of this o­pinion. Thus we sée these great exclamations whereto they fall, that in one title he cannot iustifie one vntruth. But whe­ther maister Iuell had mo to alleage, or no, reade his defence of the Apologie, thou shalt sée. fo. 208.

Cardinall Bessarion Bishop of Tusculum, writeth thus.

The .58. vntruth. He vvriteth not so.

If shamelesse lying were punished in Loueine, then no doubt maister Harding would be more ware what he wrote. Now as may be thought, impunity haue made him confident. Let the booke be iudge of this vntruth.

How be it, by what soeuer wordes consecration is made, it standeth no [...] in abolishing of natures, as maister Harding teacheth.

The .59. vntruth. I teach not so.

Certainly good reader this vntruth is very straunge. M. Harding is a great mainteiner of transubstantiation in al his doing, yet here to get one vntruth, he is content to forsake it. I doe not teach sayth he, that consecration consisteth in the chaunging of natures. If it be so, then by consecration the na­ture [Page 62] of bread doth not chaunge into the nature of christs flesh, to this I gladly yéelde. Would God maister Iuell said here vntruely.

Consecration is in conuerting the Elements to a godly vse, as we see in the water of Baptisme.

The .60. vntruth. The consecration of the water in bap­tisme is farre different from the consecration of the Eu­charist.

Accedat verbum ad elementum sayth Saint Augustine, & fit sacramentum. Let the worde come vnto the element, and it is a sacrament. Saint Augustine here maketh no dif­ference at all, he biddeth not consecrate the one with whispe­rings, the other with open voice, as maister Harding biddeth, he teacheth no difference of grace in them both, as Maister Harding teacheth. Likewise Saint Ambrose sayth. non aqua omnis sanat, Li. 1. de sacra. cap. 5. sed quae habet gratiam Christi, not all water healeth, but that which hath the grace of Christ. And againe, water healeth, if the holy ghost doe come downe, and sanctifie it. And againe, water healeth, if the voyce of the father be heard from heauen. So this operation of the trinity is the ver­tue, and the consecration of the water. This like operation doth make the bread, and wine, to be our heauenly food, as M. Harding must néedes graūt, so the consecration of either both is one. If he say the wordes of consecration must be pronoun­ced by the minister, whereby, as by a meane, God doth poure his grace vpō vs, and ioyneth vs vnto him: I confesse it is so, and those wordes are these, take, eate, this is my body. So in baptisme after our prayers made vnto god, we pronounce the words of cōsecration, wherby we know that gods mercy doth [Page 63] sanctifie vs, and the bloud of his sonne doth washe away oure sinnes, and those wordes are these. I baptise thée in the name of the father, of the sonne, and of the holy ghost. So we sée thus farre the consecration in either sacrament is one. If he make any difference in the wordes, for the maner of speaking, in that it is sayd, this is my body. Saint Paule speaketh like­wise of baptisme that it is lauacrum regenerationis, Tit. 3.5. the wa­shing of our new birth, now lay these all togither. By the Eu­charist we be ioyned vnto Christ, 1. Cor. 5.8. kéeping the feast of our pas­ouer with the vnleauened bread of sinceritie, and truth. By baptisme we be sanctified and clensed, Ephe. 26. by the washing of wa­ter through the worde. The Eucharist is sanctified by the hea­uenly wordes spoken of the minister in the person of our saui­our Christ: so the water doth washe away our vncleannesse by being baptised in the name of the father, of the sonne, and of the holy ghost. The Eucharist for the high, and dreadfull misterie of the body of Christ, by sayth féeding our soules, is called the body, the water for the heauenlye operation which God worketh in washing away the naturall vncleannesse in which we are borne, is called the regeneration. And therefore the consecration of them both can not be diuers. M. Harding after his maner may a little dasell simple eyes, but his consci­ence doth beare him witnesse, that this doctrine is true. But here I must confesse, that the popish consecrations, if maister Harding doe meane of them, do differ much the one from the other, and both from Christes institution, as I haue shewed in the epistle. So Maister Iuell speaking of the sacraments of christs Church, and saying consecration is lyke in both, sayth not vntrue, though the iuglings of the antichristian Sina­gogue are neuer so diuers.

This is well noted, and opened by Saint Augustine. Tract: in Ioh: 80.

The .61. vntruth. This is not opened by Saint Augustine:

Maister Harding by like thinketh, he is disputing with one of his popish doctors, what hoc signifieth, in hoc est corpus meum, and therefore he asketh, what it is Saint Augustine hath opened. Sure not this popish consecration. For he neuer heard of it, but this spirituall chaunge of the elements to be come of creatures ordeyned for the body, salues whereby our mindes are healed. And thus is your vntruth aunswered.

The worde of fayth which we preach, saith Augustine, not the worde which we whisper.

The .62. vntruth. Saint Augustine sayth not so.

Well sayd Anaxagoras. Stande-stiffely to this opinion. Sure snow is not white. What though it séeme so? S. August. saith it not. What if the word be there thrée, or foure tymes for fayling? Say on still, saint Augustine sayth it not. Some of your friendes perhaps wil beleue you. But my God I thank, I am none of those. And you that will not be deceyued good christian people hearken, Saint Augustine sayth not, sayth M. Harding, the worde which we preach. And to proue this true he alleageth many lines out of the same place, in which lines it is not. But, ò singularem impudentiam. Antonie out of doubt was neuer so past shame. He sayth, Saint Augustine hath not, which we preach, and thus he alleageth Augustines wordes, verbo dei sine dubio, vt mundare possit, consecratur, [Page 65] & baptismus, if it were no otherwise, yet this worde of God must be preached, for how else shoulde it be heard, Ro. 10. and so en­graffe fayth. But now Saint Augustines wordes are other­wise, hoc est verbum fidei, quod praedicamus, saith he, thys is the word of fayth, which we do preach, with which word doubt­lesse baptisme is cōsecrated, that it may purifie vs. That which Saint Augustine saith hoc est &c. this is the worde of fayth, which we preach, Maister Harding turneth thus verbo fidei, by the worde of fayth. What clipping, what nipping, what al­tering is this? O if maister Harding had such a vauntage, how would he turne his phrases? How would he sport himself, with reperitions of corrupting the fathers? Well thou séest this is no vntruth. Reade his Reioinder, and conferre it with Saint Augustine, thou shalt soone discrie his behauiour. Here hast thou christian reader to note, that Saint Augustine saith the worde doth consecrate, non quia dicitur, sed quia credi­tur, not bycause it is spoken, but bycause it is beleued. There­fore according to Saint Augustine, this popish consecration is gone, they néede not feare that by common vse the wordes should be contemned, or vnwares they should work straunge miracles. Without fayth they haue no vertue. What these wordes be, I tolde thée in the .60. vntruth, out of S. Ambrose, in the Eucharist, accipite, comedite, hoc est corpus meū, take, eate, this is my body. In baptisme, baptize them in the name of the father, and of the sonne, and of the holy ghost.

And whereas he sayth further, that we haue no maner oblation in our communion, he should not himselfe speake manifest vntruth, hauing taken vpon him, as he sayth, to reforme falsched.

The .63. vnt. I say not that you haue no maner of oblation.

The .64. vnt. I say not I haue takē vpō me to reform falshed.

Here are two vntruthes, the one shamelesse, the other wit­lesse. First saith he, I say not, you haue no maner of oblation, yet these are his owne very wordes. Where as in Christes institution concerning this sacrament, thrée things are con­teyned, Art. 1. diui: 8 the sacrament, the oblation, and the participation, wherin consisteth the substance of the Masse, they haue quite abrogate the other two, and left a bare communion. Nowe these being his wordes, sure this vntruth is shamelesse. The second vntruth is, in denying, that he sayth, he doth reforme falshed, and this is it, which I sayd is witlesse.

We offer vp vnto God our selues, our soules, our bodyes, and almes for the poore, prayses, and thankes giuing▪ &c. which the olde fathers say, is the sacrifice of the new testament. We offer vp as much, as Christ commaun­ded vs to offer.

The .65. vntruth. They say not so. The .66. vntruth. You offer not vp the bodie, and bloud of Christ.

Were not maister Hardings behauiour alwayes notable: in these vntruthes he might else séeme to passe himselfe. For proufe that the olde fathers sayde this spirituall sacrifice was the sacrifice of the new testament, Maister Iuell alleageth Tertullian thus. Cont. Iudeos. The pure sacrifice that Malachie speaketh of, that should be offered vp in euery place, est predicatio Euāgelii vs (que) ad finem mundi, is the preaching of the Gospel, vntil the ende of the worlde. Contra Mar. lib. 4. Againe, that sacrifice is simplex oratio de conscientia pura, and a deuout prayer of a pure conscience, Then he alleageth Eusebius, De demōst. li. that y ^e same sacrifice is [...], the sacrifice and incence of prayer. Last of all he [Page 67] alleageth Ierom, expounding the same place, dicit orationes sanctorum domino offerendas esse in omni loco. The prophet meaneth hereby, that the prayers of holye people should be of­fered vnto God in all places, to these places Maister Harding bringeth but his bare nay, and aunswereth not one worde, but for proufe of his vntruth concludeth thus, you should haue done well to haue named these olde fathers, Reioin. fo. 83. and to haue al­leaged their owne words for your credit sake, who could speak thus shamelessely that had any shame in him. Maister Iuell here nameth both Tertullian, and Eusebius, and quoteth the places where these sayings are to be founde. And in the 559. leafe of his Replie, reciteth their very wordes. Yet sayth M. Harding this is false, he should haue alleaged some doctors, by like his heade was so full with the number of these vntruthes, that he could not sée their names. If these thrée doctors séeme to maister Harding to be but fewe, or if therefore he could not sée them: a little to helpe his eye sight, it shall not be tedious to alleage mo. Iustinus Martyr sayth, Ad tripbonē. these sacrifices of chri­stians are onely perfite, and acceptable vnto God, preces, & gratiarum actiones, prayers, and thankesgiuing. And againe, the prophets do not promise that the bloudie sacrifices shal be renewed, but they promise vs, veras ac spirituales oblationes, laudis, at (que) gratiarum actionis, true, and spirituall sacrifices of prayse and thankesgiuing. Clemens Alexandrinus sayth, Strom. li. 7. speaking of prayer, that, that is optimum, & sanctiss. sacrifi­cium, the best and most holy sacrifice. Againe, Strom. li. 5. Sacrificium Deo acceptum est, corporis, eius (que) vitiorū seperatio. Is est ve­rus re vera dei cultus, the sacrifice that God accepteth is to set a part all vice from our bodie, that is in déede, the verye true worshipping of God. Tertullian sayth, we doe sacrifice: but so as God hath commaunded, that is, pura prece, In apologetico. with a pure prayer. Athenagoras an olde writer sayth thus, In Apolog. pro christia. quid ego sa­crificia, & holocausta curem. &c. what should I care for sacri­fice, or burnt offerings, of which God hath no néede, he requi­reth [Page 68] for him an vnbloudie sacrifice, that is, that we offer, and giue a reasonable soule vnto him. These are ynowe for M. Harding to sée, or he will sée none, be they neuer so many. It all shoulde be alleaged, that witnesse this onelye to be sacry­fice of christian men, it would fill a whole volume, but if M. Harding can shew but one to proue, that the priest offereth vp Christ vnto his father, this shall not onely goe for vntrue, but we wil all subscribe vnto his religion. For this other vntruth, that we offer not vp the bodie, and bloud of Christ, when M. Harding can proue that Christ hath so commaunded vs, this shall be vntrue. Here marke maister Harding for all his nar­row search for vntruthes, yet ouerskippeth a couple, that M. Stapleton hath espied one of Saint Basil, an other of Saint Cyril. Beleue them both if thou wilt swim in errors.

But sayth maister Harding, we make no mention of the sacrifice [...]

The .67. vntruth. I say not so.

What meaneth maister Harding by this vntruth? Is there any distinction to be brought betwéene oblation, Art. 1. diui. 8. and sacrifice? He sayth expressely we do not so much as once name the obla­tion, & oblation, & sacrifice differ no more, then ensis, & gladius, then a brake, and a fearne bush, or any two wordes, which ex­presse one thing. Then if M. Hard. say we name not the obla­tion, he sayth we name not the sacrifice, & this he must néedes confesse, except he will wrangle about the worde. Sure as the common saying is, in this vntruth, is neither rime, nor reason.

He calleth Christes ordinance a bare communion.

The .68. vntruth. Your Communion is not Christes or­dinance.

Before Maister Harding note this vntruth any more, I would wish after so many Maister Iuels requestes he should at last bring some scripture, or doctor, or generall counsell, or some example of the primitiue Church to proue it. His worde weyeth ouer light, in so great a matter. For our discharge we doe, and say euen as Christ did, and sayde, and more we dare not, bicause that is perfite. They make many apishe toyes of their owne, neyther can the reuerence of that high mysterie bring them to any obedience.

Euen now maister Harding sayd, there were three things in Christes institution, consecration, oblation, participation, nowe he sayth, the number of communicants is no part of Christes institution, thus he falleth out with himselfe.

The .69. vntruth. I fall not out with my selfe.

What can be more contrarie, than to say participation is of Christes institution, and againe, partakers, that is number of communicants, are not of Christs institution? In the lords cause, we will speake as the lord speaketh, heauen, and earth we call to witnesse, whether this be not contrarietie. Yet M. Harding, and I trow euen onely maister Harding, is so bolde to note this for an vntruth. But the vntruth is sufficientlye aunswered in that the indifferent reader may sée the wordes.

I may not nowe dissemble the value of maister Hardings argument. Christ, sayth he, ordeyned the sacrament after consecration, and oblation done, to be receyued, and eaten, ergo the number of communicants in one place, is no part of Christes institution.

The .70. vntruth. This is not my argument.

Here Maister Harding and his friend Stapleton doe not well accorde. For Maister Harding skippeth one vntruth con­cerning the number of communicants, Replie. fo. 20. diuis. 3. which maister Stapleton maketh the .22. vntruth. And least we should thinke it little worth, he maketh the same againe the .23 vntruth, and for a full conclusion shutteth also the .24. vntruth in it. Yea, and though it stand here for .3. vntruthes, yet as if al they were not sufficient, he made it once afore the .19. vntruth. So much maister Stapleton maketh of one vntruth, which maister Harding accounteth not worth numbring. But the matter is not great, he loseth nothing here, that he will not finde in an other place. As touching this vntruth, these are M. Hardings verie wordes. Concerning the number of commu­nicants in one place, Diuis 8. that they iangle so much of, it is no part of Christes institution. For Christ ordeined the sacrament af­ter consecration. &c. Nowe turne these wordes in forme of ar­gument, and they stand euen as maister Iuel placeth them, Christ did ordeine the sacrament after consecration. &c. ergo the number of communicants is no part of Christes institu­tion. If these be Maister Hardings owne wordes, as sée the booke, and thou thy selfe shalt iudge, thou canst not be so simple, but thou must néedes sée this argument is no worse than himselfe hath made it. But bicause in this place he also [Page 71] fashioneth one: and in great confidence of his owne cunning, writeth in the Margent of his booke (an argument proponed to M. Iuell to be considered,) I will doe him no wrong in chaunging his woords, but for that loue which I haue to M. Iuels profession, in his behalfe I will as I can consider of it after his owne making. But first I must aduertise thée be­fore he setteth vp his mishapen building, he layeth the foun­dation of an ill fauored stomacke: and saith by M. Iuel, that it is easie for a scoffer, to scoffe at arguments framed of his owne scoffing head. And so it is easie for an euill speaker in defence of his wicked Doctrine, to reporte vnchristianly of Gods minister, where suche vnquiet passions do leade away vnderstanding. It may be, he may finde fauorers: but where the God of peace hath engraffed more moderation, truthe shall not be preiudiced with suche vntrue behauior. Muche other frothe ensueth in great plentie, before we come to the proposed reason, euen as a rotten wound defileth many clo­thes that are about it, but let it be troden out with silence, that cannot be remembred without muche loth somnesse. At the last he commeth to his argument, & after his owne graue considerations, thus it is fourmed. ‘What so euer is beside Consecration, Oblation, Reioinder. Fol. 96. and Participation, is beside Christes institution. The num­ber of Communicants in one place, is beside these thrée. Ergo, the number in one place is no parte of Christes institution.’

Of this argument M. Harding boasteth much, and in any case will haue M. Iuel yelde vnto the Conclusion. But softe M. Harding, extorcion is no conclusion. If you will enforce a graunt, whether it be made or no, you can by that be neuer the neare your purpose. Therefore for as muche as you haue set forthe your argument, (as you say) to be considered, you séeme very vnconstant, so soone againe to claime the conc [...]usi­on. But you s [...]y, if we wil not yelde vnto the reason, we must denie the Minor or second proposition. True it is the Minor [Page 72] is false, but we are not yet come at it. The Maior that you thinke so sure, is made of false and vnlawfull stuffing, as by this consideration, that you require, shall well appeare. The proposition is this. What so euer is beside Consecration, Ob­lation, and Participation, is beside Christes institution, first this is false, and teacheth wicked doctrine. For preaching out of the Lords death vntill he come, 1. Co. 11.26. Luc. 22. is a parte of Christes insti­tution. And our sauiour biddeth, do this in the remembraunce of me, that is with due celebration of all my benefits bestow­ed vpon mankind, which must then be preached vnto the peo­ple. And if it be not so done, then Christes institution, notw ^t ­standing M. Hardings argument, is flatly broken. Nowe as this preaching out the Lords death, is of Christes institution, and yet not rehersed in this first proposition, wherby this pro­sition is shewed false: so those other things, which are reher­sed in it, as M. Harding meaneth them, are none of them of Christes institution. By cōsecration he meaneth the pronoū ­cing of these words, this is my body, which must be done as y ^e Masse boke straightly chargeth, Rubrica. in can. miss. bothe secretely, and with one breath. By oblation he meaneth Christes reall body to be of­fred vp vnto the father. By Participation, he meaneth that the priest alone may take it at the Altare, and no one of these is of Christes institution. Nay they all are contrary vnto it. So that this proposition wheron he groundeth his argumēt, wanteth somewhat, and therefore is not true, that which it hath is altogether corrupt, and therefore it containeth muche pernicious doctrine. First as touching Consecration, S. Au­gustine saith, as is alleaged in the .56. vntruth, y ^• it is wrought verbo fidei, by the worde of faith, which we preache. So saithe Iustinus martir, Iust. mar. Apol. 2. Ire. lib. 5. that it is sanctified, per verbum precationis, & gratiarum actionis, by the word of prayer, and thankes giuing. Irenaeus saith, quando mixtus calix, & fractus panis percipit verbum Dei, fit Eucharistia corporis, & sanguinis Christi, when the cuppe mingled with wine and water, and the bread being broken, hath the preaching of the woord of God ioyned vnto [Page 73] it, then it is the Eucharist, and this was the only Consecrati­on .200. yeres after Christ, neither any where any other men­tioned: except in M. Hardings Decretal Epistles, which nei­ther are of credite, nor yet teach good religion. This same ma­ner of Consecration is taught vs by Cyprian, Dyonisius, A­lexandrinus, Ambrose, Augustine, and suche other, Cyp. li. 3. ep. 1 Dyon. ep. ad. ixistum. Amb. de sa­cra. lib. 4. cap. 5. as liued within the first .600. yeares after Christ. Although I graunt (as appeareth by diuers recordes) many solemnities of the Masse were farre spread through superstition, yet this exacte kinde of close Consecration is muche yonger. This Oblati­on likewise, as it was then vnknowne, so now it is of all Christians to be detested, that a mortall man should offer vp the immortall God, as I haue already shewed in the E­pistle. For Participation bicause maister Harding can not proue his Priuate Masse, within the sixe hundreth yeares, and the woord doeth enforce, that it is no Participation, ex­cept there be a number to take their partes, I thinke it ap­peareth sufficiently, that in a Popishe Masse they haue no manner Participation, or Communion, so we sée this Maior is all together false, before we come at the Minor. Now if we will further examine the Minor, we shall finde it false al­so, altogither without salte or sauor, for thus it is in effecte. The number of Communicantes is no parte of the Commu­nion, which is bothe a very childishe, and grosse absurditie. For how is there a Communion, where is no Communi­cantes? Thus thou séest good Reader, this argument is not yet good. But the better to consider of it, bicause maister Harding will néedes haue it considered: let vs take the view of it once againe. This is the argument. ‘What so euer is beside Oblation, Consecration, and Participation, is no parte of Christes institution. But the number of Communicantes in one place, is beside these thrée. Ergo, the number is not of Christes insti­tion.’

[Page 74]What may be said of this whole argument, I haue alrea­dy forewarned thée. Now let vs hear what M. Harding saith to it him selfe. There is nothing héere saith he to be denyed, but the Minor, what, if it were so? What is now the Minor? Read the Reioinder, thus he saith. It is denyed in the Minor, that the number of Communicantes together in one place is of Christes institution. Reioinder. Fol. 97. Why? how now M. Harding? is this the best argument you can make? Marke good Reader, this must be the Minor. The number of Communicants together is no parte of Christes institution. Lay now the Maior to it, and the argument ariseth thus. ‘What so euer is beside Consecration, Oblation, and Participation, is no part of Christes Institution. The number of Communicants is no part of Christes insti­tution. The Conclusion is as before. Ergo, the num­ber of Cōmunicants is no part of Christes institution.’

Did euer M. Iewel father vpon M. Harding suche a mis­shapen argument? This is his owne, or else he belieth him selfe, when he saith that this is his Minor. But suche sleights he can vse to vnwinde him selfe out of danger. A pretie con­ueyaunce of a litle forgerie among the ignorant, might haue escaped blame. But I wil not iudge M. Harding, God know­eth whether he did it of purpose or no. This in déede should haue ben his Minor. But the Communion of many togither, is beside these thrée, so the Communion might haue bene without Communicants, which is a great absurditie, and so consequently M. Hardings argument very euil. As touching further triall of this vntruth, his wrangling is not worth the consideration. Only as he hath set forthe his argument, to proue a number of Communicants no part of Christes insti­tution, so he shall giue me leaue to propone likewise some ar­guments, for proofe that the Lordes supper may not be cele­brate by one alone. First thus we argue. ‘ Math. 26.Christ said, take ye, eate ye, drink ye all, do ye this. But this is spoken to many. Ergo, there must be a number.’

[Page 75]To this argument M. Harding maketh this answer. You must get you better proofe, Reioinder. Fol. 97. or else admit the Conclusion of my argument. A man would thinke he were a craking souldier, that is thus well pleased with his owne doing, but if with this craking custome, Ter. in Eu­nuch. Act. 5. scae. vlt. Exod. 12 4. 1. Co. 5.7. he haue not gotten the craking quali­ties, he shall heare other argumentes, though there can be none better. ‘It was not among the Iewes, lawfull to eate the Pas­call Lambe without a sufficient number. Ergo, the flesh of our sauiour Christ, who is our Passeouer, must not be eaten by the Priest alone.’

Likewise it may be said of the gathering of Manna in the morning, and of the drinking of the rocke. I doubt not, Exod. 16 21. but here M. Harding can make a spedy answer, with many com­parisons betwene the figure, and the truthe, but the good con­science may easily iudge. Beside this S. Paule him selfe dothe giue vs in this case a very good argumēt, he saith.

And for a full proofe of this matter, Christ sayth. ‘I haue earnestly desired to eate this Passeouer with you before I suffer. Ergo, Luk. 22.15. the Priest must not eate it alone.’

Thus we sée what we are taught by the scriptures cōcer­ning the number of Communicants, and of what value M. Hardings argument is, which he himself hath made after his owne fashion. Whereby thou maist the better iudge, what is to be thought of all those other which M. Iewel ascribeth vn­to him.

There is not one peece hereof, that either is true in it selfe, or agreeth with other.

The .71. vntruth. Some part of it is proued to be true.

The argument which M. Iuel saithe, hath no piece either true, or hanging of an other. Is thus before alleaged. ‘The Sacrament must be receiued after Consecration. Ergo, a number is not necessary.’

Héere saith M. Harding. This is true y ^• the sacrament must be receiued after Consecration. But how doeth he proue it. Sure with no reason, but a great deale of railing, saying that M. Iuel is led with the sprite of malice, & that he will reuoke this, Reioinder. Fol. 96. when he is in his right minde. Or if he will not, let him take manducate & bibite, eate ye & drink ye, out of the gospel. As touching M. Hardings railing, bicause his mouth is no slā ­der, I wil let it passe. His reasō is this, if cōsecration must not be before y ^e Communion, then let manducate & bibite, be takē out of the gospel. One that had so long disputed of good argu­ments should now haue taken héede how he had made one so ill. This will in no wise holde, except you turne him contrary and so ouerturne M. Hardings cause with his owne proofe. For before y ^e Euangelists speake the words of Consecration, this is my body, they say all take and eate, so that this folow­eth very well, if Consecration must be before receiuing: then take manducate and bibite out of the Gospel. For in the Gos­pell they are placed before. How M. Hardings argument hangeth, if Consecration be not before the Communion, then take manducate & bibite out of the Gospell, neither M. Harding him self, nor all his Doctors are able to tell vs. And this did Gabriel Biel sée well inoughe, who considering this place of the Euangelists, that they were bid take and eate be­fore the woords of Consecration pronounced, he doeth not as M. Harding doeth, Biel in can. mis. lec. 36. speake neither rime, nor reason, only to mocke the people. But he saith plainly that the common opi­nion [Page 77] is, Christ spake not as the Euangelists report, take, eat, this is my body, but quite contrary, this is my body, take eate, thus hath Biel found a figure [...] to set the cart before the horse, and so maketh his religion to agrée with the gospell. Now as touching this vntruthe, where M. Har­ding saith so boldly, that the bread must haue these wordes, this is my body, pronounced ouer it before it be receiued, first he hath Mathew, Marke, Luke and Paule against him, who all bid first eate and then pronounce these wordes. Againe it is confessed by Gabriel Biel, that we must thinke Christe spake otherwise than the Euangelists reporte his words, or else they could not agrée with their Masse, this is a sufficient dis­charge of this vntruthe. A good Christian before he sée better aucthoritie, will beleue as the Gospell teacheth, that we must first take it and eate it, before it be Christes body, so shall he sone sée the Idolatrie of a Popishe Masse.

If Christe instituted the Sacrament, to the intent it should be first consecrate, and then receiued of a companie. &c.

The .72. vntruthe. This is a very grosse falsifying of my words.

These are M. Hardings owne wordes in this Diuision. Christ ordained y ^e Sacrament after Consecration done, to be receiued & eaten. Of these words saith M. Iuel, as is before alleaged, if Christ. &c. if I should héere aske of the indifferent Reader, wherin is this grosse falsifying, sure he could easily espie it. But somewhat to helpe the Readers vnderstanding, this it is, where M. Harding hath to be receiued and eaten, M. Iuell saith to be receiued of a companie, if this be as it is in déede, no fault, whereto is this vnseasonable crying out of falsifying? But if it shall séeme to be a fault, then know, [Page 78] that where M. Iuel alleageth M. Hardings owne wordes, he printeth them in a distinct letter: but this saying which so grieueth M. Harding, is in the common letter of M. Iuels words, wherby master Harding might haue wel vnderstand, had he not bene disposed to wrangle, that master Iuel allea­ged them not as his expresse words, but rather sheweth how he should haue made his saying plaine, and this he proueth by authoritie of Bessarion and Gabriel Biel, that after Conse­cration the sacrament be not receiued onely, as maister Har­ding sayth, but receiued of a company, which word, as it must, so being expressely written, master Harding did directly rea­son against himselfe.

The .9. diuision. Here vnawares he seemed to confesse that his Masse, whatsoeuer substance it bear, it is void both of good order, and also of congruence.

The .73. vntruth. I confesse no such thing.

You séeme to confesse it▪ sayth M. Iuel. Whether you doe or no, let your words witnesse. You say you are not bound to folow Christes example in order and congruence. Nowe we may infer Christes order is only good, therefore you folow no good order, or congruence. This is but a single vntruth.

The matter being so weightie, and not yet throughly beleued. &c.

The .74. vntruth. It hath bene beleued.

When you proue this, sure M. Iuel will subscribe, you [Page 79] may make euery word in his booke as vntrue as this. For he hath not one worde, that soundeth towarde your religion, if this may be noted for vntrue, to say your Massing worship­pings haue neuer bene throughly beleued, you may note many moe vntruthes in this Replie. For there is not one line that alloweth the Masse. Read the next vntruthe.

The olde fathers call that the daily Sacrifice, that Christ made once for all vpon the Crosse.

The .75. vntruthe. The olde fathers call not the Sacrifice of the Crosse the daily Sacrifice.

M. Iuel doth alleage Aug. secund. Luc. serm. 28. Ierom. in. 1. Co. ca. 5. Germanus in Eccle. rerum theoria. Irenae. lib. 4. cap. 34. Tertul. aduer. Iudaeos. Amb. in. 1. ad Tim. cap. 2. Examine the aucthorities, and sée M. Hardings answere, so thou shalt best iudge. If I should enter into it, it would require a long aun­swere, and nothing necessary. What the Doctors wryte, M. Iuel is thought to know, as wel as M. Harding. First reade and then iudge. This is againe the .132. vntruthe. And bicause we are againe fallen into mention of this Sacrifice, which M. Harding said euen now, hath bene throughly beleued, let vs examine that vntruthe, and trie if M. Harding be found true in his workmanship. It hath bene throughly beleued saith he, that the Priest doth offer vp to God the body and bloud of Christ vnbloudely, in the remembraunce of that one bloudy Sacrifice of Christ. Reade of this in the Epistle the .31. leafe, thou shalt haue it fully discussed: only in this vntruth, bicause the question lieth rather, whether it hath bene beleued, than whether the saying be true, let vs a little consider of Christ him selfe, & his Apostles, whether they haue beleued it. First [Page 80] Christ in no one worde did giue vnto his Churche any com­mission of suche maner sacrifycing. Christ saith often, I giue vp my soule, I Sa [...]rifice my selfe, no man doth it but I: but vnto his Disciples he saith, Joh. 10. Ioh. 7. Ioh. 13. quo ego vado, vos non potestis venire. Whither I goe, ye can not come. By which wordes he taketh from them all power to Sacrifice him, euen as it was afore tolde by Daniel, that after Christ was once offred, the Sacrifice and the Oblation should cease. Dan. 9.27. Not a word written wherby it may be gathered that we may offer vp Christ. And doth M. Harding thinke, that in so weightie a matter as the remission of our sinnes, that any thing is required of vs, which is not commaunded vs? It appeareth then in the time of Christ this was not beleued. Did the Apostles beleue it af­ter Christ? S. Paule saith: in that he died vnto sinne, he died but once: Ro. 6. Heb. 10. againe: by one Oblation he made his perfite for euer: and againe, wher is remission of sinne, there is no more sacrifice for sinne. Then by S. Paule there is nowe no daily sacrifice for sinne, except by Christes deathe we will that our sinnes be not forgiuen. 1. Co. 11. Againe, S. Paule will haue vs folowe Christes example in the administration of Christes supper, who teacheth vs of no Oblation for quicke and dead. Againe, the sacrifice cannot be made without a speciall priesthode, but the Apostles doe teache vs that all suche Priesthode is abro­gate. Heb. 1. Peter. 2. Apo. 1.5. If at any time the name of Oblation be mentioned in this age, it is euer meant spiritually. As is plaine Ro. 12. & .16. Phil. 2. 1. Peter .2. for the real Sacrifice S. Peter is plain. Christ hath caried our sinnes in his body vpon the woode, 1. Peter .2. and by his stripes we be healed, and the effects of that one Sacrifice once made, are purging of the sinnes of the whole world. 1. Pe. 2. & .3 1. Ioh. 2. &. 3. Ro. 4. Ephe. 1. eternall redemption. Gal. 2. Ephe. 1. Rightuousnesse. Ro. 3.4.8. 2. Cor. 5. Sāctificatiō. Eb. 10. Peace. Ro. 5. Ioy of the spirite. Ro. 4. Gal. 5. Newnesse of life. Rom. 6. 1. Co 5. Loue of our neighboure. 1. Ioh. 3. Eternall life. 1. Ioh. 5. Ro. 6. then neither Christ nor his Apostles euer beleued it: for the estate of the primatiue Churche how it beleued, M. Har­ding [Page 81] hath nothing to say, but referreth vs to the .xvij. Article of his former booke, héere good Reader my labor is wel eased: for séeing my Lord of Sarisburie hath answered al that mat­ter, who so wil be confirmed in that truthe, he can go I think, to no mortall man to be more strengthned.

It pleaseth M. Hard. to alledge the one end, and conceale the other.

The .76. vntruthe. The .10. diuis. I conceale not the other.

If M. Harding doe alleage bothe these ends of the Sacra­ments, that is. To ioyne vs vnto God, & to ioyne vs one with an other, then let this be vntrue, if he do not, then for my pore skil me thinketh he concealeth it.

M. Harding saith the Communion signifieth not the Communi­cating of many together.

The .77. vntruthe. I say not so.

Héere M. Harding and M. Stapleton do agrée so iumpe in one vntruthe, that it appeareth euidently their religion is ei­ther very vniforme, or at least they haue bene both instructed in one schole. Thus saith M. Harding. Diuis. 10. The Cōmunion is not so called, bicause many, or as M. Iuel teacheth, the whole con­gregatiō receiued together in one place. These words M. Iuel reporteth thus. He saith, the Cōmunion is not so called of the Communicating of many together. This is vntrue saith M. Har. I say not so: this is vntruth saith M. Sta. he saith not so. Stap. the .27. vntruthe. [Page 82] I require héere of thée, good Christian Reader, to viewe the woords well, and finde out any fault if thou canst. Surely I thinke, thou canst finde none, like as sure it is M. Iuel did thinke of none. But these two pair of Egles eyes, what haue they espied? Forsothe wher M. Harding saith, it is not called the Communion of Communicating togither in one place, M. Iuel thus reporteth it, it is not called the Communion of Communicating togither, and leaueth quite out in one place which maketh all the matter, this distinction of Communi­cating together, and Communicating together in one place, bicause it is somewhat straunge, these men should haue done well to haue proued it by some Doctor. Sure M. Harding if he may goe for a Doctor, he teacheth vs plainely in an other place, that to Communicate together, is to Communicate in one place. For thus he writeth, but that they should Commu­nicate together, Reioinder. Fol. 97. that is to say, in one place, that we deny. By this Doctor it appeareth, that together, and in one place is all one, and then this can be no vntruth.

How be it in plaine speche, it is not the receiuing of the Sacra­ment, that worketh our ioyning with God.

The .78. vntruthe. The worthy receiuing worketh this effect.

Doth it so? Are we not ioyned to God before we eate the Sacrament? Ephe. [...]. S. Paule saith, Elegit nos in ipso. He hath cho­sen vs in Christ, before the foundations of the worlde were laid, muche more are we his before we receiue the sacrament. Concerning sacraments, the same Apostle sayth of Abraham. Signum accepit circumcisionis. &c. After he receiued the signe of Circumcision, Rom. 2.4. as the seale of the righteousnesse of y ^e faith, which he had when he was vncircumcised. And shall we be [Page 83] taught now, that they be no more seales, and witnesses, but causes of our iustification? God kéepe vs from suche spiders, that gather poison of so swéete floures. And that thou maist take the more héede of this mannes doctrine, I must first tell thee, that for proofe of it, he bringeth not one worde of Scrip­ture, but pretendeth the aucthority of Chrysostome and Cyril. I would answere the aucthoritie for suche Doctors, saue that the labor were long, and not necessary. For I will declare out of the Scripture, that the doctrine is hereticall, and thereby thou shalt be satisfied, and maist further imagine that these holy Fathers names are too muche abused. In this vntruthe of M. Hardings, he teacheth two points of Doctrine, the one, that by, and thorow the worthy receiuing of the Sacrament, we be ioyned vnto God, the other, that the Sacraments are not only seales and pledges, but also they containe grace. Now let vs sée how these two Articles agrée with the worde of God. And first, whither the receiuing of the Sacrament do ioyne vs vnto God, and as M, Harding saith, putteth also in­to vs life immortall. Our Sauior Christ in the Gospell after S. Iohn, doth often tel his Disciples, how they are made one with God, yet in that holy Gospel, as in all other scriptures, there is not one worde that telleth vs we be made one with him by receiuing the Sacrament. But contrarily by plaine words we be taught, what vertue this Sacrament hath, that it is onely a signe of that grace, which we haue receiued, as shall appeare héereafter. In the sixthe chapter of Iohn, where Christ reproueth the fleshly hearers of his worde, and calleth them to a true beliefe in him, the Iewes make this answere. What signe shewest thou then, that we may sée it? Our Fa­thers did eat Manna. &c. Héere is first shewed what the Iewes thought of Manna, not that by it they were ioyned to God, or receiued grace, but that it was a signe, a token, and a pledge of their frée election, how they were a peculiar people vnto God. This Manna being a figure of this Sacrament of the body, and bloud of Christ, now lest vnto the Churche. Christ [Page 84] maketh this aunswere, I am the bread of life, he that com­meth to me shall not hunger, Ioh. 6.35. and he that beleueth in me, shall not thirst for euer. By this we learne, that to beleue in Christ is to haue euerlasting life, and as Manna was a signe to the Israelites, so the Communion of the body and blood of Christ is a signe to vs, that this promisse shall be made sure. It is written in the Prophet: Esay. 54.13. and all thy children shall be taught of the Lord: of this saying our sauior Christ teacheth vs how we be ioyned vnto him, and sayth. No man can come to me, except the father which sent me draw him. Ioh. 6.44. And to this ende it is written by the Prophet Ieremie. After those dayes sayeth the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, Ier. 31.33. and I will be their God, and they shalbe my people. Of this we learne, that if we come vnto Christ, the Father must draw vs: if we be his people, he must be our in­ward teacher: if we be vnited vnto him, he must first come and dwell in our hearts: whereby it is plaine, that we must be first engrafted in Christ, before we can worthely receiue his holy Sacramentes. Furthermore it foloweth in S. Iohn, he that eateth my fleshe, Ioh. 6.36. and drinketh my bloud, dwelleth in me, and I in him. Therefore we must dwell in him, and he in vs, or we can not eate his body, and drink his bloud. And the wic­ked which dwel not in him, can not receiue him. Again, where our Sauior Christ doeth teache very largely how we be ioy­ned vnto him, and become one with him, euen as his Father and he is one, he sheweth that this societie doeth come vpon vs of his Fathers frée mercy apprehended by Faithe of his woorde. And for declaration of this frée mercy, he reporteth it oftentimes, that we are giuen vnto him of his Father, as: manifestaui nomen tuum ijs quos dedisti mihi, I haue made knowne thy name vnto those which thou hast giuen me, Ioh. 17.6. and: tui erant & mihi dedisti eos, and: omnia quae dedisti mihi a te sunt, and: serua eos quos dedisti mihi. All things that thou hast giuen me, are from thée. Kéepe them that thou hast giuen me. They were thine, and thou hast giuen them me. And that we [Page 85] should know that to be giuen to Christ, is to be ioyned vnto him, he addeth vt sint vnum sicut nos, that they may be one as we are one. This is also proued by all suche places of Scrip­ture, as shew that we be saued by grace. Thus we sée our ioyning vnto God, is first to be giuen vnto Iesus Christe of his Fathers owne good will. And this is on Gods behalfe, the eternall secrete purpose whereby we be made his. The other way whereby we be made his, is Faithe of his worde, when by inspiration of the holy Ghost, we apprehend in Christ the frée loue of his Father, and that héereby we be ioyned vnto God: it is in like manner often declared by the Scripture. Now are you cleane (saith Christ) through the word which I haue spoken vnto you. Ioh. 15.3. Ioh. 17.8. And in an other place I haue giuen vnto them the woords which thou gauest me, and they haue receiued them, and haue knowne surely that I came out from thée, and haue beléeued that thou hast sent me. Likewise Ioh. 16.27. & Ioh. 17.14. I haue giuen them thy worde. Againe sanctifie them with thy truthe, thy worde is the truthe. And to the ende we should all know this instruction were oures, our Sauior saith further, I pray not for these alone, but for them also which shall beleue in me through their worde. And now for proofe that this is our ioyning vnto God, it foloweth that they all may be one, as thou, O Father, art in me, and I in thée, euen that they may be also one in vs. This manner of ioyning vs vnto God, was shewed vnto Iacob in that visi­on where he saw a ladder reaching from the earthe to hea­uen, and Angels going vp and downe, Gen. 28.12. teaching vs that Christ was likewise the ladder by whome we climed vp, and were ioyned to his Father. This was likewise shewed in the thirde of Mathevve, where the Heauens are opened, Math. 3. and the holy Ghost descended vpon Christ, signifying that he hath reconciled heauen and earth, and ioyned vs againe vnto God, and we by faith made partakers of that benefite. Thus we sée the manner of our ioyning vnto God, first in his eter­nal secrete purpose, after apprehended of vs by faithe. Now [Page 68] this standing thus, that the promise might be certaine vnto all the séede, God hath sealed this hope with the body & bloud of Christ, that we being partakers of those heauenly myste­ries, might assure our conscience of his eternall mercy, that the gates of Hell should no more preuaile against vs. Thus are our Sacraments, signes, tokens, warrantes, gages, pled­ges of our saluation, and doe not, as M. Harding teacheth, ioyne vs vnto God, but he sayth further, they poure into vs life immortall, and dothe boldly affirme it, yet we may not be­leue him, without great preiudice to Christ himselfe. I tel you plaine saithe M. Harding, they put into vs eternall life, but Christ saith, I know that Gods commaundement is euerla­sting life, and to put it out of doubt what commaundement he meaneth, he saith in an other place, this is eternall life, that they know thée to be the only very God, Iohn. 12.50. and whom thou hast sent Iesus Christ. Then faith ioineth vs vnto God, faithe putteth in to vs life. Iohn. 17.3. Not in all Gods word there is one line, whereby it may appeare this is wrought by the Sacrament. Now resteth the second point to be considered, whether the Sacraments containe grace, and in déede, hinc illae lachrymae. Hereof maister Harding complaining, came as the common Prouerbe is, [...]. Whē he heard y ^e name of Sacraments, he could not but gape after this Popish heresie. This is a religious article in the Popes kingdome, that Sacraments doe giue grace, but what they doe, it is suf­ficiently already declared, beside that their names doe suffici­ently beare witnesse of their efficacie. They be called Testa­ments, or couenaunts, which cannot be the thing it selfe, but the pledge of our iustification. In Baptisme, if Christ doe not baptise with fire, and with the holy Ghost, the water of rege­neration doth not auaile. Therfore S. Paule saith: ye that are baptised into Christ, Math. 3.11. haue put on Christ. By which one sen­tence all M. Hardings doctrine is ouerthrowne. For neither the water ioyneth vs vnto God, Gal. 3.27. neither yet giueth vs grace, but that is wrought only by our faith in Christ. And therfore [Page 87] S. Paule writeth of Circumcision, that Abraham was first iu­stified, and after receiued the signe of Circumcision, Rom. 2.4. as this seale of the rightuousnesse of faith, which he had whē he was vncircumcised. By all this it is manifest, that grace is first giuen vs fréely from aboue, and then the Sacrament is lefte vnto vs as a warrant that Gods promisse shall be fulfilled. Thus we sée, that touching the Sacramentes M. Iuel saithe nothing otherwise than the Scripture teacheth, and the vn­truthe that M. Harding would so faine note, is nothing else but his owne heresie. And now, for as muche as M. Harding hath called vs into so long a discourse of Gods Sacraments, I desire of thée good Christian reader, to marke indifferently the great difference in this behalf, betwene the Christian and the papall Religion, & thou wilt soone, as I doubt not, abhorre their great deprauing of Christes institution, which in that sinagoge is so miserably rent in pieces, that scarce any parte of it is kept inuiolate. Christ did institute his supper for this 1 purpose, that he might Communicate with his disciples. Luc. 22.15. They appoint their Masses, that they may receiue alone. Christ in 2 his supper was the only offerer, they in their Masses will of­fer as wel as he. Christ blessed with giuing thanks, they blesse 3 with making Crosses. Christ did Consecrate with the prea­ching 4 of the word of faithe, they doo Consecrate with whispe­rings and breathings. Christ said, take and eate, this is my 5 body, they say neither take nor eate, yet it is his body. Christs 6 Disciples sate downe and eate it, they bid vs fall downe and worship it. Christ said, he would drinke no more of the fruite 7 of the vine, they say there is no fruit of the vine at all. Christ 8 saithe drinke ye all of this, they say drinke no man but the Priest alone. Christ saith, doe this in my remembraunce, that 9 is, shew forthe my death vntill I come, they of Christes death and passion doe not preache a worde. I will prosecute this repugnancie no further. It greueth me to remember their opē sacriledge. God turne their hearts, and giue them vnderstan­ding, that they may once know, and confesse that his Religion [Page 88] may not thus be framed to mannes fansie, so in the latter day when they shall be accomptable for their doings, they may be vnblameable in the sight of the highest.

He saith Communion is so called, of that we Communicate to­gither.

The .79. vntruthe. He saith not together.

It is a very strange propertie, not to be ashamed to speake manifestly against the knowne signification of any worde, it is muche more straunge to speake against it, placed in suche a sentence where of force the signification must be graunted, but it is moste straunge of all, and in manner a singulare im­pudencie to note it for any vntruthe in one, that will not so shamelesly speake without reason as an other dothe. Such an vntruthe as this, is it which now we haue in hand: [...] is well knowne to signifie to Communicate together in the same time and place. And in this sentence [...]. Héere to say it can signifie any other thing, it is very ignorant boldenesse. But to note it for an vntruthe as maister Harding dothe, it is bothe to be past shame and past grace. The worde is well knowne, that [...] and [...] do signifie a cōmunitie of any thing together, and therefore they be called [...], which may haue felowship with the Congregation and [...] to be in felowship with any man. And bicause that Mercurie is sayd to be the messenger of the Pagane goddes to tell their errandes from them to any man, therefore he is called [...] ha­uing a proper name of his proper office, in that by him the Ethnikes did thinke they were made partakers of their gods counsell, by which the propertie of this worde appeareth. And [Page 89] consider good Reader what manner of Communion it is that M. Harding would make when the Priest saith Masse in the Church, and calleth no body vnto him, yet he sayth that al the Priestes in the world which say Masse at the same time doe Communicate with him, and be made one body of Christe to­gither. Héere I aske of M. Harding how he agréeth with S. Paule y ^t saith we are one bread & one body, 1. Cor. 10. bicause we all are partakers of one bread. Marke reader because we eate of one bread, we become one body saith S. Paule. Bicause we say Masse at one time, we become one body saith M. Harding, though we eate not at all of the same breade. Sure these two Doctoures doe not agrée. S. Paule saith moreouer the bread which we break, is it not the Cōmunion of the body of Christ, M. Harding saith, though we breake not the same bread, but be eche one of vs by our selues at our altares, yet it is the Communion of the body of Christ. Thus we sée S. Paule and M. Harding teache not bothe one Doctrine. But it is no mer­uaile they are not guided bothe with one spirit. S. Paule spea­keth truthe, and M. Harding falshead, S. Paule the worde of God, and master Harding his owne fansies, as for this Com­munion of M. Hardings, it was neuer knowne in the Church of God. I remember there is a great bragger in Martial, ma­keth euen suche an other, he had euer in his mouth [...]. All things are common among frendes: but saying thus so often when he would neuer bestow any thing among his neighbors, the Poet saith this is a very straunge Communion. Das nihil & dicis Candide, [...]. So it go­eth with M. Harding, he euer saith of his Masse it is com­mon, it is common, but he saith it only, he calleth no man vn­to him. Sure say what he will, this is but craking Candidus his Communion, God be praised that we are deliuered from it. And thus it appeareth it is no vntruthe, to say [...], is to Communicate together▪ as well bicause the worde it selfe is plaine, as for that the scripture teacheth that the Commu­nion must be so administred.

Basil reporteth an Ecclesiasticall Decree or Canon, that at the receiuing of the holy Communion, which he called mysticum Pascha, there ought to be .xij. persones at the least, and neuer vnder.

The .80. vntruthe. It is no Ecclesiasticall decree.

M. Harding in this place is farre gone. He is wont to con­troll very curiously false quotation in this place onlesse my boke deceiue me he is much ouerséene. For I think it is in as­ceticis sermone primo. Whether it bewell quoted or no, it is truely reported. S. Basils words are these. Quemadmodum spiritualis lex non vult eos esse infra numerum duodenarium qui mysticum pascha edere debeant. &c. Euen as the spirituall or Ecclesiasticall decrée will not haue vnder twelue that shuld eate the mysticall passeouer. &c. Loe. S. Basil sayth it is an Ecclesiasticall Decrée. Yet M. Harding saith it is no Decrée. Beleue him not henceforth before thou trie him. And the Do­ctors words wer as sone changed, as he is redy to deny, or af­firme at aduentures, thou couldest be sure of nothing, but it is well, the truthe doth not hang vpon his report. Let him say while he will, it is no decrée, S. Basils wordes are plaine, it is spiritualis lex. If M. Harding had not made wrangling, his hope in these vntruthes, this had not bene numbred. He may as well blame the Euangelistes, for alleaging the Prophets. And no doubt if M. Iuell should follow the faithfull sense as the Euangelists doe and let passe words, Maister Harding would finde fiue lies in one line. Such truthe he vseth in these vntruthes.

It appeareth by S. Augustine, and certaine olde Canons, that in [Page 91] the Primatiue church the Priest, and people sometime did Com­municate after supper.

The .81. vntruthe. The .11. diuision. It appeareth not.

This vntruthe is sone answered. For M. Harding graun­teth that it appeareth by s. Augustine, some receiued on Maū ­die thursday after supper, but saith he, that is not sometime. For saith he, he that saith somtime, Reioinder. Fol. 125. meaneth oftner than once a yeare. Now if it were possible that once a yeare might be sometime, then were it necessary that M. Harding did wran­gle. But bicause once a yeare is no time, let vs sée if it may be proued, that it was done oftner. First, whether it be or no, S. Augustine is at a point, and saith, Ad Ianua. Ep. 118. faciat quisque quod in ea Ecclesia in quam venerit, inuenit. Let euery one doe after the custome of that Church, in which he cōmeth, it appertaineth neither vnto faith, nor vnto good maners, therefore whether a man receiue the Cōmunion, fasting or no, so he receiue in the Lord, it skilleth not muche. Now what they haue done in the primatiue Church, let vs, as I haue said, enquire. Act. 20.7. It appe­reth in the scripture, that on a day when the Disciples came together to break bread, Paule disputed among them, and pro­longed his talke vntil midnight. Of this if I shold conclude, that they came in the after none. M. Harding perhaps would say it were but a gesse, therefore I leaue it. 1. Co. 11. S. Paule writeth to the Corinthians, if any man be hungry, let him eat at home. Therfore it foloweth necessarily, that they may receiue after other meate, and if it be so, M. Harding him selfe will graunt they might receiue at night, vnlesse as he doth in the .8. diuisiō so here he will deny that this place is meant of the Commu­nion, and if he doe, the Doctors are then against him. S. Au­gustine shall stand in stead of many, who saith plainly, Ad Ianua. Ep. 118. de hoc ipso sacramento loquitur. He speaketh of this very sacrament. [Page 92] Now this being lawfull to be done, and the Churche of God being so oppressed, could not méete when they wold, no doubt sometime they met at night. And further that this may be no bare gesse, that some receiued at night. It appeareth by S. Luke, Act. 2. where he writeth that they did continue in the Doctrine of the Apostles, and in breaking bread, and that continuaunce in the same Chapter, he mentioneth againe by these wordes, [...], which words signify a continuāce from morning till night, and by this aboue all coniecture, it is manifest they receiued sometimes at night. Act. 5. Then except M. Harding wil vse héere his former distinction of the Thursday before Easter, and say that quotidie is euery Maundie thurs­day, it is true that M. Iuel saithe that sometime they receiued at night. Now that some parte of the vse of the primatiue church may appeare to agrée with this doing of the Apostles, we will a little examine their doings. Bas. in Psal. 114. S. Basil writeth that they were accustomed at the dedication of Temples to méete at midnight, but at the same assemblies they may well séeme to haue ministred the Communion, and therfore at after sup­per. Theod. lib. 2 cap. 13. We reade the same of Athanasius, that he did vsually ga­ther together the Christian congregation at Alexandria in the night time. And of this night méeting in all the congrega­tions that were in Europe, Lactantius maketh expresse men­tion. Lib. 7. ca. 19 de diuino primo. Ierom maketh mention of the same in his Epistle to Sa­binjanus, and against Vigilantius. And that these meetings were in the foreparte of the night, it may appeare, for that they had commonly other méetings in the morning, which they called Antelucanos coetus, the morning assemblies. And yet if M. Harding wold sticke in it, I may refuse all these and many suche aucthorities. And for the iustifying of these vn­truthes, stand to the plaine wordes of Sozomene, who writeth that in many Cities and Townes among the Egiptians, Sozo. lib. 7. cap. 19. they had their méetings on Saterday at night, and in like plaine woords Primasius saith, that in certaine places of Syria and E­gipt, 1. Cor. 11. men came together on Saterday night, and that after. [Page 93] Now I trust though the Thursday before Easter with mai­ster Harding be no time, yet all these saterdayes ioyned with it, I trust do make sometimes. Here is nothing can be replied but if M. Harding wil say, that in suche méetings they did not minister the sacrament. And if he wil say so, may it please him then to héere what Eusebius saith, that in suche méetings they had Orationes, Psalmodiam, participationem de mysterijs. &c. Lib. 10. ca. 2 They had prayers, singing psalmes, the Communion. &c. And S. Augustine saith, they did celebrate Dominicam coenam, De ciuit. dei lib. 22. ca. 8. the Lords supper, but except M. Harding haue some distinction in store, which yet now he hath not told vs of, we shall not néede greatly to proue this matter, in the .182. vntruthe, where M. Iuel alleageth the coūcel of Cabilon, De consecr. dis. 1. solent. plures. to proue that Masse doth sometime signifie common prayer, bicause there it is recorded that they had Masse at euening, circa noctis initium, about the beginning of night, there M. Harding maketh this answere, why sir thinke you that Missa is taken for any kinde of pray­er, bicause in that place it is required to be done in y ^e euening? As though the Masse might not at any time be celebrate, Reioinder. Fol. 255. but only before noone? if you so thinke you are deceiued. &c. and there fully he concludeth that sometime it was said at night, naming both maundy thursday and other times also. Then I trust this vntruth is iustified expresly by sundry other auctho­rities, and probably by M. Hardings owne. He telleth vs in déede, that though it were at night, yet it was not after supper nor yet dinner, but that saying resteth vpon M. Hardings cre­dit, which to proue an vntruthe, wayeth ouer light.

In the primatiue Church this order was thought expedient, not for the sicke, for they in their health receiued daily.

The .82. vntruthe. It was for the sicke.

The .83. vntruthe. They receiued not daily.

If I went about to aunswere M. Hardings Reioinder in this one Paragraph, through lying, and fonde speaking, he hath ministred sufficient matter to fill many leaues. But I leaue that to the godly Reader to consider. For this present purpose, thus saith master Iuel, the receit of the Cōmunion, when men lay on their death bed, was instituted in the pri­matiue Churche, especially not for the sicke, but for them that were excommunicate. This saying M. Harding dothe turne, as if M. Iuel said, Reioinder. Fol. 127. that it was not expedient for the sick to re­ceiue, and so maketh that vntrue, which in déede is vntrue, and neuer spoken by M. Iuel. But without such shifts, master Hardings number of vntruthes could not grow. For maister Iuels saying, that this receiuing was especially for the ex­communicate, it may be sufficiently proued. And M. Harding in his Reioinder saith nothing to the contrary, for this vn­truthe, bicause M. Iuel saith no such thing. Let it stande as a slaunder not worthy aunswere. An other vntruthe héere is brought, that the people receiued not daily, and M. Harding hath such a confidence in this vntruthe, that he is not conten­ted with once noting it, but as his manner is, in many other vntruthes, when his number commeth slowly forward, he re­coneth up one .4. or .5. times. so he vseth this, and maketh it the 83.133.145.156.213. vntruthe. Now bicause it is so often recke­ned, by like it standeth vpon some good ground. Reade the .133. vntruthe, and thou séest what it is.

At last it grew to suche superstition, that it was thruste into mennes mouthes after they were deade, as we may see by the coun­cell of Carthage, forbidding the same.

The .84. vntruthe. It was not thrust in their mouthes.

The .85. vntruthe. It is not to be seene.

What meaneth M. Harding? would he haue children wit­nesses of his foly. The wordes of the Councel are these, Item placuit vt mortuis [...] non detur. It hath likewise plea­sed vs that the Sacrament be not giuen vnto deade men, héereby saith he it appeareth it was giuen to deade men, not that it was thrust in their mouthes. But I pray M. Harding, can a thing be giuen to a dead man to eate, and not thrust in­to his mouthe? This vaine contention about words proueth M. Harding to be a very wrangler. This appeareth to be true by the Canon M. Iuel recites, and further we reade that it was commaunded if the persone were dying, infundatur ori eius Eucharistia, that the Sacrament should be poured into his mouthe. Héere by the way note, that in that time the people receiued the cuppe. As touching the .85. vntruth, M. Hardings Reioinder doth confute it selfe in the next vntruthe, before he said the Councel did forbid it, now he sayth it did not so, whe­ther it did or no, M. Harding hath made a lie, and except the distruction of thrusting it in their mouthes, and putting it in, there is no coloure to shadow the lie.

The members of these argumentes hang together like a sicke mannes dreame.

The .86. vntruthe. I make no arguments in this place.

No good arguments in déede I graunt, but yet suche as they are, you encombre vs with them.

Heere would M. Harding faine finde a Masse. &c.

The .87. vntruthe. Heere I seke not for the Masse.

But to séeke after your Masse, is your only purpose. Ther­fore here you speake nothing to the purpose, and consequent­ly as it was said afore, your writings hang together like a sicke mannes dreame.

Here these words, euery other christian man, or woman, that he hath in by the way, are an ouerplus, and quite from the purpose.

The .88. vntruthe. The .12. Diuision. These vvordes are quite from the purpose.

The question is, whether there were priuate Masse with­in .600. yeare after Christ, that is, whether the Priests recei­ued alone in the congregation: Maister Harding answereth, sicke men, and women receiued at home. The controuersie li­eth whether this be from the purpose.

For the question is moued not of any other man, or woman, but of the Masse, and only of the Priest, that saith the Masse.

The .89. vntruthe.

Before there was an vntruth quoted, & not numbred, here is one numbred, and not quoted. When M. Harding telleth what this vntruthe is, we will answere it, in the meane sea­son we may marke the value of these vntruthes. Some not [Page 96] worth numbring, some not worthe naming, but all is good i­nough for this Reioinder.

S. Ierome in his exposition is as homely, calling it vilem intelli­gentiam traditionum.

The .90. vntruth. S. Ierome calleth not Moses lavv so.

Héere M. Harding maketh two gesses. One at S. Ieroms meaning, an other at maister Iuels, if either faile, this vn­truthe, that is risen by chaunce must sal of necessitie. But M. Harding héere, as his whole religion is, maketh very muche of outwarde shewes. For except a little carnal pleasure of the outward sense, there is nothing in their sinagogue, but mour­ning, and lamentation of the spirit. [...] in no wise he will haue beggerly Ceremonies. [...] saithe he, is poore or nedy, not beggerly. What great ignorance in singular im­pudencie? This exacte defining of Gréeke words may bréede some where some opinion of learning. But alas héere is no­thing but in déede [...] beggerly wrangling without other learning, or good religion, [...] saith maister Harding is not beggerly but poore. Yet Aristophanes saith, [...] is not pore but beggerly. Nowe whether were better Grecian master Harding or Aristophanes, Aristop. in Pluto. I thinke it may be sone iudged, Aristophanes wordes are these, [...], he is [...], that is a begger and hath nothing, he is [...] that liues by his labor. Thē by this it séemeth that [...] is beggerly. And Maister Har­ding, that sacred interpretation, that trident couent, doth so muche enforce, doeth it not call them egena elementa? And I pray you M. Harding, whether is egena poore or beggerly? [Page 98] Surely Ouid saith, ( de rem. amor. lib. 2.) of Hecate and Irus, why they are not beloued. Nempe quod alter egēs, altera pau­per erat. bicause Hecate was but poore, & Irus was a very beg­ger, but thus it is: Maister Harding careth neither for Ari­stophanes, nor yet for Ouid, neither yet for Gréeke, nor yet for Latine. He is so ielous ouer his vntruthes, that some time he speaketh he knoweth not what. Againe [...], saithe maister Harding is rather Elements, than Ceremonies. In déede I graunt the word signifieth the foure elements, but I trow he wil not haue S. Paule speake thus: now you know God, why turne you againe to the fire, aire, water, and earth, that were a beggerly sense made of the holy Ghosts wordes. Then why doeth he not confesse that S. Paule meaneth the Ceremonies of the law? and thus much as concerning master Hardings Gréeke. As touching his religion it is very choler, if in respect of Christ, he may not suffer the ceremonies of the law to be called beggerly. But it is no maruell though this interpretation offend them, Gal. 4.10. for what is it that Paule calleth beggerly Ceremonies? It foloweth. You obserue dayes and monthes, times, and yeares. Hinc illae lachrimae, for this cause M. Harding is so much offended, such obseruations are great principles in Papistrie, and to call them beggerly, is to make all that Religion nothing worthe. But we sée suche a one is Paule, he was chosen to preache among the gentiles, and God haue the glory, Gal. 1.6. he hath conuerted vs from al popish Idolatry. For this aucthoritie of Ierom, which M. Harding blameth, & in which he séeketh for his vntruthe, Lib. 2. cōm. ad Gal. ca. 4 read the place thou shalt finde the words: or else let this be vntrue.

Of mingling water with wine, superstition only except, no man maketh any great accompt.

The .91. vntruth. The old fathers make great accompt of it.

If M. Harding will presse vpon these wordes, no man ma­keth any great accompt, then he might haue said, I and my fe­lowes make great accompt of it, therfore some body dothe it, and by this meanes he might haue had many witnesses of his saying, and so his vntruthe had bene the surer. If he will not so force the words, why doth he apply them vnto the olde fa­thers? By this it appeareth he writeth, not alwayes with the best aduisement. But now he doth M. Iuel great wrong, and racketh his words to that, he neuer ment. He speaketh of him self, and other, that at this day professe Gods religion, & saith that were it not for feare of superstition, we would not great­ly stick to mingle water with the wine, and for proofe that M. Iuel ment thus, let his boke be iudge. He alleageth Cyprian, and Iustine, and farther saith that certaine olde Fathers force it muche, which words folow immediatly. Reade his Replie. Reply. Fo. 34. Then what shame is it to ascribe that to M. Iuel for an vn­truthe, which him selfe did neuer speake nor meane. Belike these vntruthes goe slowly forward, when M. Harding is en­forced to chalenge that, which was neuer sayd.

Neither Christ nor any of his Disciples euer gaue commaun­dement of it, neither was it at any time vniuersally receiued.

The .92. vntruthe. Christ commaunded it.

The .93. vntruthe. It hath bene vniuersally receiued.

Note good reader this hasty quoting of vntruthes, and the slender profe, and, thou shalt soone espie, that M. Harding hath more desire of his number, than regarde of any substaunce. Héere are two vntruthes in a line. The first: Christ, saith he, [Page 101] commaunded that water should be mingled with the wine. This bolde asseueration concerning Christes doing, doth ask a sure proofe. For bothe we were vnthankful, if we would not folow his doing, and the daunger were great, in leauing his example. But in all the Euangelists it is plaine, that our Sa­uior Christ commaunded no such thing. Then how doeth M. Harding proue this? Forsoth saithe he, Cyprian and the sixth generall councell séeme to say it came from the Apostles. But bicause this is but a gesse, and little worth, he alleageth Cle­ment, who saithe plainely Christ did it, and this beginneth to describe his ministration of the cup. Constit. apo. lib. 8. ca. 17. Likewise mingling the cup of wine, and water, and Consecrating it, he gaue it vnto them. &c. Now if this Clement be of good aucthoritie, the mat­ter is cleare. But M. Iuel hath already shewed that his autho­ritie is no more worthe than Abdias, Hippolytus, Amphilo­chius and his other felowes, and héere himself doth quite con­found himself, in that otherwise then all the Euangelists, and S. Paule doe, he describeth a new fashion of the Lords supper. S. Paule saithe, Gal. 1. he that preacheth any other Gospel than this, let him be accursed. This of Clements is an other Gospel thā Paule preached, and therefore in this great light of the true Gospel that now shineth) accursed be he, that will folowe all Clements doctrine. Sith therfore this is the proofe of this vn­truthe, Clement saith it, this shalbe our aunswere for the dis­charge of it. Master Iuel saith nay a man of more learning, better religion, godlier life, and greater credite, than euer y ^e bastard Clement was. The second vntruth héere noted is, that it hath bene generally receiued to poure water in the wine. Yet Scotus saith it is not necessary, 3. Par. Init. q. 74. as M. Iuel hath shewed. And likewise so saith Thomas & certain other. Also Mary coū ­ter [...]et Pope Alexander in his first Decretall Epistle, saith it must be done, Ius. Ap. 2. ad Ant. Ire. lib. 5. Cypri. ad Cornel. bicause bothe came out of Christes side. But let these doctors go. This I graūt that Iustinus Martyr, Iraeneus, and Cyprian, who aboue other in this are most earnest, do all séeme to enforce it, but bicause the scripture hathe not expres­sed [Page 100] it, we must beware how we make it necessary, and for that occasion, though in the Latine church it be very auncient, yet in our Church we doe not vse it. But for this vntruth where M. Harding saithe it hathe bene generally receiued, that is more rashly affirmed, than sufficiently proued. Scotus saythe, that in his time the Gréekes vsed it not, In. 4. sent. dis. 11. q. 6. Can. 33. long before him the people of Armenia vsed it not, as appeareth in this sixth gene­rall councell alleaged by M. Harding, and by sundry other re­cordes, and further many yeares before that time, Chryso­stome said of those words of our sauior Christ, I will drinke no more of the fruit of the vine. Math 26. &c. that he would with those words, take away the pernitious heresie of suche as vsed wa­ter in the mysteries. Yet saith M. Harding it hath bene gene­rally receiued. With as good a [...]orage, and as muche truthe as Pope Eugenius saith the same, but he must pardon vs, In decretis Eugen. papae. he may not score vp vntruthes vpon his owne credite, we wil neither beleue the Pope, nor him neither, except they bring their proo­fes. And thus muche of this vntruthe.

M. Harding saith this mixture is necessary to the sacrament.

The .94. vntruthe. I say not it is necessary.

Euen now he said it was commaunded by Christ, nowe he saith it is not necessary. Marke well his sayings and lay them together, and thou shalt easily consider of these vntruthes, if we likewise thought Christes commaundement not necessa­ry to be obserued, when he saith, accipite, edite. We might a­forde M. Harding his priuate Masse.

Scotus saith it is not necessary.

The .95. vntruthe. Scotus saith not so.

Wel said yet Anaxagoras, snow is not white. Scotus hath the very words, sée the place in. 4. sent. dist. 11. q. 6. Now cōcerning this mingling of wine & water, bicause so many vntruthes are made about it, it shall not be amisse to speake somwhat of it. First as touching these mē thēselues, how they are affected, we may partly gather by these vntruthes in the .94. vntruth, M. Iuel saith, that M. Harding maketh this mixture necessa­ry. It is not so saith M. Harding. I say not it is necessary. In this vntruth M. Iuel saith, y ^t Scotus maketh this mixture not necessary. It is not so saith M. Hard, he maketh it necessary. By this it is plaine, y ^t Scotus & M. Harding do not agrée. But it may be that these hasty vntruthes want some cōsideration. Let that aduauntage goe, and let vs consider the thing. We haue no expresse commaundement for it. That Christe gaue only wine, it may wel appeare by that is written. I wil drink no more of this fruit of the vine. Math. 26. &c. for the vsage of it, if it were left frée, it might be had, but when they made it a mat­ter of such waight, it was necessary to stop y ^e great outrage. But let vs sée how they proue that this mixture shold be made of wine and water, Quia vtrumque ex Christi latere proflux­isse dicitur, De conse. dist. 2. can. Alexand. pap. Epist. 1. bicause bothe issued out of Christes side. True it is water and bloud issued out of Christ side, but this is a poore reason to mingle water and wine in this Sacrament, when Christ did celebrate his supper, before his precious side was pearced. That which S. Iohn testifieth héere, that water and bloud issued out of his side, Iohn. 19.34. Iohn. 15. the same he writeth in his Epi­stle, that Christ came with water and bloud. Teaching vs héereby that Christ is the true satisfaction for our sinnes, and the true water of regeneration to make vs cleane, and with­out spot before his father. For the forgiuenesse of our sinnes, [Page 103] and the purifying of our soules were figured in the lawe by sacrifices, and by washings. In y ^e sacrifices the bloud did purge sinnes, and was the attonement appointed to pacifie Goddes wrathe. The washings were testimonies of the true cleane­nesse of the minde, and remedies to doe away the filthinesse of our fleshe. Now least our faith should abide still in those Ele­ments. S. Iohn dothe witnesse, that in Christ it is accompli­shed, what so euer was wanting in those outwarde Ceremo­nies. And for a token of that fulnesse of grace in Christ, that in him is found, all that reconciliation figured in the law, ei­ther by bloud or water, he writeth that out of his side issued both bloud and water. By the bloud he hath purged vs from our sinnes, and done out the handwriting of ordinaunce, Col 2.14. Ebr. 9.13. that was against vs, and fastened it vpon the Crosse. And that as Paule saith, not by the bloud of Goates, and calues, but by his owne pretious bloud gushing out of his side, by which he is entred into the holy place, which is heauen, and is become the tabernacle, the sacrifice, and the priest, and hath obtained eter­nall redemption for vs. By the water we are assured that this benefite doth come vnto vs, bothe bicause by water we be re­generate, and also bicause it signifieth the people, Apoc. 17.13. so that this miracle of bloud, and water in the death of our sauior Christ, is the performance of that, which God had promised by his Prophet, saying. In that day shalbe a fountaine opened to the house of Dauid, and to the inhabitants of Ierusalem for sinne, and for vncleanesse. And thus by this water, Zach. 15.1. and bloude gu­shing out of the side of our Sauior, we are taught two especi­all pointes of the Christian faithe, the one, that by Christ a­lone all sinnes are purged, the other, that in the new Testa­ment we haue but two Sacraments, the one of the Lordes death, the other of Baptisme, which two resembled in this bloud, and water, haue in them the whole mysterie of our full redemption. And thus the remembrance of this same place is the greatest comfort, that a Christian soule can haue in the world. But Lord those Papists, which peruert Gods scrip­tures, [Page 104] what Doctrine haue they gathered of this comfortable saying? First that we must haue water mingled with y ^e wine in the Chalice, which in this place, be it neuer so ancient, yet it hath no ground at all. But they goe farther than this, they say that the soldiers name was Lungis, bicause it is written [...]. And least there should want any thing to make vp the tale, they say, that he was strokē blind, and then by this bloud and water he receiued his sight a­gaine, Lege vincēt. lib. 7. cap. 47 and so was conuerted, wherupon they haue made him a Saint, and so now we may kepe the feast of S. Lungis the blinde Knight. Yet sure suche canonising is worthe as little mony, as these vntruthes had muche idle labor.

Now to reueale the secretes of M. Hardings mysteries, touching the same, that one drop, or two must be poured on the ground.

The .96. vntruthe. The pouring of the water on the ground, is no parte of our mysteries.

When M. Harding cannot defende their too beastly vsage of Gods holy sacraments: he thinketh he can salue the whole matter with Hick scorner, and saying that we belie their my­steries, and I pray M. Hue railer, that please your self so wel with Hicke scorner, is this no parte of your mysteries? Can you now deny them? Be ye ashamed of them? It skilleth not greatly what you think of this. The misterie of iniquitie, that so long hath wrought in your sinagoge, hath brought many moe abhominations into the Churche of God, all which the Lord shall abolishe with the brightnesse of his worde. Whe­ther you make great a doe about these things héere alleaged, let your Doctors be the iudges. Read Scotus in sent. 4. dist. 11. [Page 105] qu. 6. Biel in. 4. sent. dist. 11. qu. 2. & in can. miss. lect. 35. & all your other Doctors entreating the same matter. Yet whether one, or two drops, and no moe, must be poured downe or no, I cō ­fesse I do not know. But why do you stand so in this point? It is a very learned doubt in respect of their other folish que­stions. Biel disputeth whether the Priest at Masse doe conse­crate all the bread in the market, In Can. lec. 35. and all the wine in the sel­lers, and concludeth, that if he stande so as he may sée it, and meaneth to doe it, he dothe no doubt consecrate euery whit. But now aske Gabriel Biel an other question, how shall the Priest doe to take all the bread in the market in his hand, as the Masse booke requireth of that, which shall be consecrate. This is an other doubt, which M. Hardings Doctors would surely haue discussed, if they had heard it. In. 4. sent. dis 8. q. 2. Scotus asketh what if the priest die before he speake all the words, how shall then consecration goe forewarde? Other aske what if a droppe of wine hang on the outside of the Chalice, whether is that consecrate? and what if the wine doe fréese in the Chalice, and what if the Priest at Masse do remember, that when he washt his mouth in the morning, a drop of water wēt downe his throte, whether should he receiue none, sith he had broken his fast, or whether should he let all alone. Other aske whe­ther Christ be in the Pix, euen as he was on the Crosse, with his clothes and crowne of thornes about his head. And what should I recite all, which are almost infinite. A thousand such vnreuerent questions, they haue disputed in whole volumes. Yet now sayth M. Harding, they be none of our mysteries. Belike he doth yet but hobbe, & roue, he will not go roundly with his Lord God the Pope. But happy were he, if as he re­fuseth these vaine questions, so he wold renounce that whole adulterous religion.

Nowe it appeareth, that the Churche is not yet resolued vpon one intention. For the intention of the Churche of Rome, [Page 106] is to worke transubstantiation of breade, and wine: the Greeke Church had neuer that intention, as is plaine by the Councell of Florence. The intention of the Church of Rome is to Consecrate with Christes words. The intention of the Greeke Churche, is to Consecrate with prayers.

The .97. vntruth. The Church is resolued vpon one intention.

The .98. vntruthe. The church of Rome intendeth not Tran­substantiation.

The .99. vntruth. This is not plaine by the Councel of Florēce.

The .100. vntruthe. The Greeke church dothe not consecrate vvith prayers.

Now M. Hardings vntruthes go roundly forward. If this haste may haue good spéede, I warrant him his number. But if this haste doe make waste, he is neuer a whit the neare. Let vs sée then how these vntruths are gathered. The first is this. The Church is agréed vpon the Priests intent. But this can not be so, if the Gréeke Church, and the Church of Rome doe not agrée, which is the .2. vntruthe. And they can not agrée, if the one will haue transubstantiation, the other will not haue it, which is the third vntruthe. And they will haue the one Transubstantiation, the other not, if the one doe consecrate with these wordes, this is my body, the other with prayers, which is the .4. vntruthe. Then thus hang these vntruthes. If this last be true, that the Gréeke Church dothe consecrate with prayers, the thirde is true, that it intendeth not Tran­substantiation. And the second is true, that it hath no suche intent, as the Church of Rome hath, and the first is true, that these churches are not resolued in this intent. Now consider I beséeche thée, good Reader, what manner of vntruthes these are, that notwithstanding their great number, are yet so smal in value, that if but one be proued true, all .iiij. must be graū ­ted. [Page 107] Sure thou must néedes confesse that M. Harding, who in his Epistle would so faine shoote at hobs, and rouers, yet at this marke he hath had so good deliuery, that he hathe farre ouershot him selfe, and his whole commendation is no more worthe, than that praise in Horace of a babling Poete, Hor. in art. Poet. qui va­riare potest rem prodigialiter vnam, which cā turne a true sen­tence into a great many lies. For proofe of this last vntruthe, on which the other hang, we haue the plaine wordes of the Councel of Florence alleaged by M. Iuel, where it is shewed, that in the Gréekes mynisterie after the words of Christ pro­nounced, this is my body, they make this prayer, Conc. Florēt. sess. vlt. fac panem hunc honorabile corpus Christi tui. &c. make this breade the honourable body of thy Christ. By this prayer it is manifest, that these wordes, this is my body, being pronounced before, did not worke Transubstantiation. But bicause it hath plea­sed M. Harding in to great a zeale of his number, to score vp vntruthes thus vnwisely, least his friends should thinke the matter vnsufficiently answered, we wil say somwhat of them in order, euen as M. Harding noteth them, and I doubt not but to the indifferent reader, they shall one of them sufficient­ly confute an other. First saith M. Harding, the Church is re­solued on the Priests entent. But that is very false. For the Gréeke Church, and the Church of Rome haue not one intēt. The Greke Church, as is said, doth consecrate with prayers. The Church of Rome with hoc est enim corpus meum. The Gréeke Church maketh more accompte of the worthy recei­uing, than of Consecration. Conc. Flo. sess. vlt. De consec. dist. 2. quiae corpus. Chrysost. in. 6. Ioh. Biel in. 4. sent. dist. 9. q. 2. d. The Churche of Rome thinketh we ought to haue more regarde of Consecration, than of the worthy receiuing. I leaue out other differences which are al­most infinite. This is inough to proue our purpose. Seconda­rily saithe M. Harding, the Church of Rome entendeth not Transubstantiation. What he entended in this vntruthe, I know not. For my parte wold God M. Iuel said héere vntrue and that that Romish Church would leaue of that presump­tuous entent. Thirdly saith M. Harding, the Gréeke Church [Page 108] meaneth transubstantiation. And this is very straunge for a learned man to speake suche repugnances. First y ^t the church of Rome intendeth not transubstantiation. Againe, that the Gréeke Church doth intend transubstantiation. And thirdly, y ^t they two intende one thing, when M. Harding with all his wrangling, can make these vntruthes agrée, sure we wil sub­scribe. Now resteth a little to be considered of the Councel of Florence, whether it may appeare by it, that the Churche of the Grecians acknowledge no transubstantiation. Thus it stoode. When the Latines in that assembly, required that they might entreate of transubstantiation. Conc. Florēt. Ann. 1439. The Grekes made an­swere, sine totius orientalis ecclesiae authoritate quaestionem a­liam tractare non possimus, without the consent of all the East Church, we can meddle with no other question. &c. Héere be the Reader neuer so simple, he must thinke thus muche. If this article of transubstantiation were so Catholike, as they will make vs beleue, how commeth it to be called so ofte in controuersie in generall Councell. And againe, if the Greci­ans did accompte it as Catholike, and were resolued in it, what meant they, that they would not subscribe to so highe a point of Christian religion, sure this was their meaning, they knew this transubstantiation was but a Romish deuise, and therefore they would▪ not yelde vnto it. And thus muche of these hasty vntruthes.

The .13. Diuision. But if Cyril neuer spake word of the Masse, how is he heere brought in to proue the Masse?

The .101. vntruthe. Cyril is not brought to proue the Masse.

But he should proue priuate Masse, or else what maketh he héere. For of that the question is moued. And this is a very [Page 109] hard case, that M. Harding must lose his vntruthe, or else con­fesse he speaketh not to the purpose.

Neither may we thinke that Christes body, must grossely, and bodily be receiued into our bodies.

The .102. vntruthe. We must beleue it.

As maister Harding hath forsaken Gods Religion, and is fallen againe to Poperie, so it séemeth also he hath forsaken his learning, and beginneth to make vntruthes with his fol­lie. This is one of the chiefest articles, for which we haue forsaken their vnfaithfull Churche. As ofte as we repeate this, we conclude the thing, which lieth in controuersie be­twene vs. This is our professed opinion, and vpon the trial of it by good and sufficient aucthoritie, if it be proued against vs, Maister Iuel is ready to subscribe. Then what meaneth mai­ster Harding? Or what maner of vntruthe is this? Or who can accompte it for true, and plaine dealing, when vpon good ground we shewe forthe our opinion, and he scoreth vp the question for an vntruthe? He shal doe well to reproue it, before he make anymoe vntruthes of this. Reade the .104. vntruthe.

S. Cyprian saith, it is meate not for the belly, but for the minde.

The .103. vntruthe. S. Cyprian saith not so.

If M. Harding and his Popishe felowes had falsified the [Page 110] Doctors, no otherwise than M. Iuel héere falsifieth S. Cypri­an, then in a little chaunge of words, we should haue had their meaning faithfully deliuered vnto vs, and bastard bokes such as they knew not, had neuer bene ascribed vnto them. But thanks be to God, who hath now lightned vs, least suche vn­godly writings vnder godly names should deceiue vs, as tou­ching this vntruthe, I graunt the words are not in that trea­tise entituled de coena domini. But whether the author say the same thing in sense, let him selfe witnesse. M. Iuel allea­ging no Latine words, but folowing the sense, saith thus, it is meat not for the belly, but for the minde. The wordes in Cyprian are these. Sicut panis communis, quem quotidie edi­mus, De coena domini. vita est corporis: ita panis iste supersubstantialis, vita est animae, & sanitas mentis. As the common bread, which we eate daily, is the life of the body: so this bread supersubstantiall is the life of the soule, and the health of the minde, and what is héere falsified by M. Iuel? Or what is worthy blame in this allegation? Yet M. Harding taketh this smal occasion to finde fault with his printed sermon, with his replie, and with them, that, as he saith, patched togither the Apologie. For the prin­ted sermon, it is well confirmed by the Replie, and the Replie is not yet found blameable, notwithstanding this Reioinder, the Apologie, that he liketh to terme patched, now after the time, that God had apointed, it doeth not want my defence, the booke is pretious, and is defended by suche a Iuell, that all the treasuries in the world, God make him thankful, wil not buy his gifts, & therfore M. Hardings words cā not hurt him.

Christ is set forth, not to be receiued with the mouth, for that as Cyrill saith, were a grosse imagination.

The .104. vntruthe. Christ must be receiued with the mouth.

The .105. vntruthe. Cyrill saith not so.

This is one with the .102. vntruthe. Master Hardings tran­substantiation standeth him in very good stead to multiply his vntruthes. And yet if he had well considered it, it had not bene worth his doubling. I haue spoken somewhat héereof in the Epistle. Concerning this other vntruth, M. Harding, saith he knoweth not what he graunteth. These are Cyrillus wordes, but he gesseth at an other sense, and vpon that surmise quo­teth a new vntruthe. Dothe he claime so muche to his owne vnderstanding, that if he say it, it must be so, though y ^e words be contrary? Before we build of his saying, it shalbe néedeful for him to win some better credite. Sée the place & thou wilt beare witnesse, that it is truely alleaged.

The .14. Diuision. For the partie excommunicate being a priest, might say he wold say Masse, and so receiue the Communion, euen with the bishop, of whome he were excommunicate.

The .106. vntruthe. The Priest excommunicate, might not say Masse lawfully.

No sure, whether he were excommunicate, or no, he might not say it lawfully, neither by Gods law, nor his holy Euan­gelies, when M. Iuel saith this, I will subscribe.

Now if M. Hardings principle stand for good, that the priest, saying his priuate Masse, may receiue the Communion with all others in other places. &c.

The .107. vntruthe. I say not he may receiue with others.

M. Harding is past shame, wold God, as I haue said often, he were not past grace, if these be not his words. Therefore that one may Communicate with an other, Hard. diuis. 14 though they be not togither in one place, it may be proued by good authoritie, then will I subscribe, if they be his words, then iudge thou of his doing.

Heere marke good Christian reader, then they Communicated, saith Irenaeus, when they met in the Church.

The .108. vntruthe. Irenaeus saith not so, reade it againe, and marke it better.

These are Irenaeus words, [...]. These words, if as M. Harding re­questeth, we reade them againe, and marke them better, then no doubt they are thus in English. These things being thus, they Communicated together, and in the Churche Anicetus gaue to Polycarpus the Eucharist. Héere saith M. Iuel, by this it appeareth, they communicated, when they met in y ^e church. That is not so saithe M. Hard. Read it once again, & marke it better. If often reading, and better marking may serue the turne, then gentle reader I craue also thy labour, read it yet once againe and marke it better. Yea read it while thou wilt, and marke it how thou canst, if this fansie of M. Hardings do but once come in thy minde, I may boldely make thée this large offer, let these all be vntruthes. His fansie is so full of foly, his imagination so vaine, his interpretation so childish, that if thou of thy self cāst finde it out, I say, as I said before, let all these vntruthes stande. Reade it I beséeche thée once a­gaine, [Page 113] and marke it better. Is not this a straunge vntruthe, that no mā can espie it but M. Harding? But sith it is so, that héere can be no vntruthe without M. Hardings good instructi­on, let vs aske of him, how it may be falsified. He telleth vs of two faults, the first in the word [...] they communica­ted, the seconde in Englishing Eucharistia the sacrament. Ma­ry saith he, yet I will define nothing, that is, Reioinder. Fol. 157. I will stande to neither of them. Is not this a straunge dealing, that he wil first finde fault, then will not bide by it, and yet notwithstan­ding wil score vp his vntruthe. If this vntruthe be vntruthe, why will he not abide by it? Or if he will not abide by it, why doth he say it is vntrue? must his priuate Masse, his halfe com­munion, his outlandishe prayers, his Popes supremacie, yea his vntruthes, and all be proued by paraduenture? But let it be so, what is it at the last, that héere may chance be false? this it is in the first fault about communion: peraduenture forsoth they communicated before they met. This blinde peraduen­ture, wer it in Cambridge or Oxford, no doubt it wold be his­sed out of the scholes. The second fault found in translating, Eucharistia, y ^e sacrament is this: peraduenture Eucharistia here doth signifie sacerdotale mynisterium, the priestly office. Now sure good reader this is a straunge aduenture. Eucharistia, Reioinder. Fol. 157. the priests office? Fie on such a chance, except a man had a priui­ledge, to make words sound, what him listed. No mā, I trow, wold haue made this aduenture. But héere I must desire the reader to loke a little back, to take the better view of M. Har­dings dealing, in the Epistle, where M. Harding sporteth him self with his good artillerie, he saith, he could neuer shote at this mark, that Eucharistia might be taken, not for the Sa­crament, but for cōmon bread. Now either by meanes of ligh­ter arowes, or a better loose, he shootes a great way beyōd it, & saith with a good countenance, y ^• Eucharistia is no bread at al, but y ^e priests office. Sure this is very vncertain shooting, and can neuer stand with a good archer. A man may shoote long at the Etymologie of y ^e word, ere he bring it to this significatiō, [Page 114] Though he haue determined to say little truely: yet he shold haue taken héede, how he had spoken so vnwisely. That other tragicall exclamation, that Eucharistia must be taken simply for bread consecrate, bewrayeth this close dealing, that it may be taken for the Priestes office. And héere againe for a good note of M. Hardings fals dealing, we haue to mark, that in this place, where M. Iuell sayth Eucharistia may be taken for common bread, but yet apointed for the Communion, M. Harding doeth not quote it for an vntruthe, yet in the Epi­stle he noted it for a great heresie. And why doeth he thus? As it may be thought, bicause he foresawe, that to deny the Eu­charist at any time to note bread, not yet consecrate, were a great preiudice to his grosse distinction, that it might signifie the Priests office, and therefore for the better conueyaunce of this absurditie, he wold not quote that an vntruth, which he had so greatly impugned before. More true dealing, and lesse vaine speaking, would better beséeme a Doctor of Diuinitie.

Anicetus as Irenaeus saith, receiued the sacrament with Po­licarpus in the Church, and not, as M. Harding seemeth to say in his Inne, or hosterie.

The .109. vntruthe. Irenaeus saith not that Polycarpus, and A­nicetus communicated in the Church.

[...] saith Orestes, forgetfulnesse of in­fortunate things is to be reuerenced. But M. Harding for all his wonted hobbing, hath héere farre ouershot him selfe, to note two vntruthes together, that are bothe one, if there be any distinction that may salue this matter, it were good we were informed. I think simple wittes, without long instructi­on, will not finde it.

The .110. vntruthe. I seeme not to say it.

M. Harding graunteth, that he may say they Communica­ted togither before they met, but not that they receiued the Sacrament, and héerein saith he, Reioinder. Fol. 158. M. Iuel deceiueth his rea­der. This distinction, as it is somewhat straunge, so no doubt it hath some hid vnderstanding, one had néede of Apollo, that should well interprete it. For my parte except M. Harding ex­poūd it, I know not what he meaneth. For M. Iuel sayeth, it séemeth to me very probable. For if M. Harding do denye that they receiued in the Churche, or in Anicetus house, or in the streat, then if they did receiue, it is most like he saythe they receiued in their Inne, if they receiued not, what is maister Harding the nearer to his Priuate Masse.

The .16. Diuision. The Priest prayeth, and giueth thankes in the vulgare tongue.

The .111. vntruthe. He prayeth not in the vulgare tongue of the Countrey.

The Canon law doeth giue licence to answere one cauill with an other. If either that law wer worth folowing, or we would vse that libertie, is giuen vs, Sexti. tit. 6. cupientes in glossa. we would appoint some play maker to answer this Reioinder, for such men with their great leasure, and selfpleasing wit, would finde M. Harding wrangling worke inough. Iustine in describing the order of their seruice, among other things, In Apol. 2. he telleth how the people giue thanks, and say Amen to the ministers prayer, & so them [Page 116] selues must make their prayers in their vulgare tongue. This saith M. Harding is not true, if he mean by y ^e vulgar tongue, the common speache of the countrey. But if he meane the one of the thrée learned tongues, Latine, Greeke, or Hebrue, then M. Harding graunteth they had seruice in the vulgar tongue. Héere I craue of the reader but indifferent iudgemēt, to think of this vntruthe, as occasion is ministred. For proofe that it is vntrue, héere is nothing brought but this distinction, that the vulgare tongue signifieth either that, which euery Countrey speaketh, or else the Greke, Latine, or Hebrue tōgue. And what a miserable distinction is this? who euer hard that the vulgar tongue did signifie any other than the mother tongue of eue­ry countrey? Sure this boke is a boke of distinctions, it is no reioinder. Let him shew in any booke in the world, wher vul­gare hath this signification, that he dreameth of, and let him haue all his vntruthes.

He said before, that euery priuate Masse was common.

The .112. vntruthe. I say no where, that euery priuate Masse is common, but that euery Masse is common.

This is one of those vntruthes, which M. Hard. saithe is very manifest, & can by no meanes be colored. But good reader be not dismaide, it is soone iustified how so euer M. Harding misliketh of it. Mark but only this graunt, which he maketh, and to quite that reason, which in the .70. vntruthe, he would haue considered, I will make an other héere for him to consi­der: y ^e proposition shalbe his own: the assumpsion shalbe cōfes­sed of al men. The cōclusion shal folow in good moode, & figure. ‘M. Harding saith euery Masse is common. But euery priuate Masse is a Masse. Ergo, he sayth euery Priuate Masse is common.’

[Page 117]I doe thinke M. Harding did not orderly consider of this vntruth, when he made it. Sure I am, this argument is good, and by no distinction cā be answered. Therfore this vntruth, sauing only the necessity of his number, might wel haue bene spared. Read more of this vntruthe in the third vntruthe.

I alleaged all these in my sermon.

The .113. vntruthe. He alleaged not all.

In very many places to make vp these vntruthes, M. Har­ding saith of sundry aucthorities, he alleaged them not for his Masse. Now he wil néedes take in all for his purpose, when I shall better vnderstād which places be brought for his Masse, and which in vaine, then I will examine the sermon. In the meane season vnderstande thus muche. M. Iuel saith, I al­leaged al these witnesses for priuate Masse. That is an impu­dent vntruthe saith M. Harding, he alleageth not all, that I alleage for sole receiuing. M. Hardings priuiledge serueth both wayes, either to make one word to signify diuers things, or diuers words to signifie but one thing. We haue heard be­fore of his distinctions, nowe he cometh in with his coniuncti­ons, priuate Masse, and sole receiuing, by this vntruthe are bothe one. But as M. Hardings distinctions, are in déede di­stinctions, that is, as I interpreate it lies, so these coniuncti­ons are his owne coniunctions, that is, a coupling of lies to­gether.

This manner of Priuate receiuing at home, was not lawfull for the lay men. For it was abolished by godly Bishoppes in generall Councell.

The .114. vntruth. The .17. Diuision. It was not abolished.

The .115. vntruthe. That councell was not generall, but pro­uinciall.

These vntruthes come more fast, than truely forwarde. It was not, saith M. Harding, abolished. Lay men might receiue at home. The councel of Caesar Augusta, which M. Iuel saith thus. Ca. 3. He that receiueth the Sacrament, and doth not eat it in the Churche, let him be accursed for euer. The like Canon is also decréed in the first councel of Toledo, if any man hauing receiued the Sacrament, doe not presently eate it, velut sacri­legus propellatur, let him be driuen away as a most wicked persone. Can. 14. & Conc. tol. 11. cap. 11. Of this M. Iuel saith, the lay man might not receiue it at home. And shal we think, bicause M. Harding saith nay, that notwithstanding these cursings, yet the lay man might cary it home to receiue it? Master Hardings wrangling héere about sicke men, is not worth the answere. M. Iuel speaketh of those, that may goe to Church. It was an idle matter héere to talke of sick folkes. If M. Harding for these vntruthes, be faine to wrest plaine words into a violent sense, then the vn­truthes are his owne. For this second vntruthe, me thinketh M. Harding is a very partiall man. In the .108. vntruthe he will haue Eucharistia so large in signification, as no man, I trow, but him selfe could imagine. In this he so presseth the word generall, that he aloweth not that which common sense teacheth. He denieth that councell to be general, bicause there was not gathered together, I know not how many Bishops out of christendome. But if M. Harding had marked it better, he should haue knowne it well inough, that general might be applied onely to those twelue, which he saithe were there ga­thered together. If they did all well agrée, sure that councell was more generall, than their Chapter of Trident. If he will [Page 119] force the worde Oecumenicall, there is no Counsell that euer was so generall. If he will any thing restraine it, why may he not bring it downe, yea euen to twelue. This vntruthe is but a cauil, and if it were graunted, yet were M. Harding ne­uer the neare his priuate Masse. But bicause he saith so con­stantly, that that Counsell was but of .xij. Bishops in Spaine, as Peter Crab also noteth out of Isidorus, it is more, I thinke, than he is able to proue, for it is knowne that the Churche of Caesar Augusta, & Asturica Augusta, an other Citie in Spaine, and Emerica Augusta a Citie in Portingall, ioyned in al mat­ters, and were of one felowship, so that counsaile of the other xij. Bishops, had more ouer the consent of their great Cities. This Caesar Augusta it self, otherwise called Numantia, Volat. geogr. lib. 2. was so populous a Citie, that it kept war .xiiij. yeare with the Em­pire of Rome. It was a Citie of so muche worthinesse for re­ligion, that what so euer had bene determined, there the con­sent might well haue bene called generall. Prudentius dothe séeme to glory, that it was his Countrey. In Hymno 18. mart. Vinc. lib. 12. cap. 123. & alibi. In the time of Dio­clesian, and Valerian, a great many of Martyrs were there put to death. This is a very pore wrangling, when sundry forain Bishops met in suche a Citie, to denie their Decrées to be a­gréed on in generall Counsell.

He saith, the thing, that we receiue, is no bread, but so Tertulli­an saith not. His words be these, thy husbande will thinke it only bread, and not that bread, that it is called.

The .116. vntruthe. I say it not, loke better on my words.

The .117. vntruthe. These are not Tertullians words.

If looking better on M. Hardings words wil helpe the ma­ter, we will not let for that. Marke good Reader, and loke dili­gently, [Page 120] these are his wordes. The thing reuerently, and de­uoutly receiued, Hard. diuis. 17 before other meates, is not bread as the infi­dels then, and the Sacramentaries now beléeue. Looke well good reader, and for M. Hardings pleasure looke againe, doeth he not say it is not bread. How is this then vntrue? Nowe must I desire thée againe, to loke diligently, and if thou mark well, thou shalt now heare of suche a distinction, as in all this booke of distinctions there is none suche. I say saithe maister Harding, Reioinder. Fol. 163. it is not bread, I say not it is no bread: there is great difference betwéene not bread, and no bread. Sure if thou looke not maruellous narowly, thou wilt neuer vnder­stand this distinction. For my parte I would surely haue said it, that which was not bread, had bene no bread, and that which was no bread, had sure bene not bread, and if it were not bread, it could not be any bread, and if it wer some bread, then were it not no bread. But let not bread be some bread, and no bread be not bread, and nothing be not any thing, and not any thing be some thing. As touching maister Iuell that good simple Bishop, I dare sweare for him he neuer knewe of this distinction, and so he is wrongfully charged with this vntruthe. Yet least maister Harding shoulde please him selfe too well, I must forwarne him that I can not alow well of this distinction. If he be well aduised this is a Lo­gike rule. Aientia & negantia acerrime inter se pugnant. No things are so contrary as the affirming and denyall of the same thing. But panis non panis, bread not bread, are contradictorie, not panis, nullus panis, bread no bread. There­fore maister Hardings saying, that no bread dothe signifie more than not bread, may séeme to haue no Logike, and to speake not very wisely. And sure I muse how he could be ouerséene in this, considering the substaunce of it, is in supposition, about which his friendes haue wasted many good houres. If he haue forgotten their Doctrine, let him re­member the verse. Particulare prius facit o generale se­cundum. [Page 121] But it may be that maister Harding, and his friendes, as they haue straunge deuises, so they goe about to make newe Logike, no doubt they are at some conspi­racie. For maister Nicholas Saunders, whome his friendes thinke some body, maketh this very distinction in his fourth booke, of the Sacrament, and with this common conceite of not bread, and no bread, would faine haue an vntruthe a­gainst maister Iuell. And is it possible that these men should agrée in so great a folye, if they laid not their heades to­gether? Well God be thanked their generall councels con­clude very vnwisely.

Now resteth this other vntruthe, about Tertullians wor­des, which as maister Harding saith, are falsified, bicause breade is not in the latter ende of the sentence, as master Iu­ell doeth alleage them. Tertullians wordes are these. Lib. 2. ad vxor. Non sciet maritus quid secreto ante omnes cibum gustes, & si scie­rit, panem, non illum credet esse qui dicitur. Héere saithe mai­ster Harding, illum must not be referred to panem, and thereupon he quoteth his vntruthe. Euen as he did before for want of Logike, so it may be thought he doeth héere, through want of Latine. Illum saith he, is not referred to panem, and yet the Grammarian saith the adiectiue must be alway referred to a substantiue, except it be put substantiuely in the Neutre gender. Now if master Harding can not make illum, the Neuter gender, nor yet finde any other substantiue in the sentence, than panem, then his Grammer hath as euill hap as his Logike, and this is no vntruthe.

The translating illum, him, meaneth that it was the very per­son of a man, which the woman had in hir hand.

The .118. vntruthe. It was the person of Christ, God, and man.

What meaneth M. Harding to wrangle? When M. Iuel saithe, he meaneth the persone of a man to be in the fourme of bread, can M. Harding vnderstand it of a mortall man? Or is the controuersie betwene vs, whether in the sacrament be any earthly mannes body? If M. Harding would haue let scape this vntruthe, no man would haue gathered this absurd sense of M. Iuels saying. And yet if we would examine it, what manner of vntruth is this, where it is said, it is a mans body, to note it as vntrue, and say it is Christes body bothe God, and man. If it be so, yet is it a mannes body, vnlesse we deny our sauior Christ to be perfect man, suche vntruthes are sone answered.

The story that S. Cyprian reporteth, as it sheweth the maner of keping the Sacrament, so it seemeth also to shew, that God was offended with the same.

The .119. vntruthe. God was not offended with keping the sa­crament, but with the presumption of the woman, which ope­ned the cheast with vnworthy handes.

Niceph. lib. 14. cap. 17.M. Iuel sheweth out of Nicephorus, that by like examples it may appeare, God was offended with that reseruing of the Sacrament. M. Harding without reason, without aucthori­tie, without example of Gods word, dothe boldely pronounce vpon Gods meaning, and saith, the example was shewed, bi­cause she opened hir cheast with vnworthy hands. Suche pro­nouncing [Page 123] of Gods doing should be grounded in Gods scrip­tures, or else suche noting of vntruthes are rash, and wicked. I graunt it is in S. Cyprian, cum manibus indignis tentasset aperire, when she assayed to open it with vnworthy handes. But whether for hir vnworthinesse God sheweth y ^e miracle, that M. Harding addeth of his owne. But what if Cyprian had said this, we must not therfore haue beleued it. He was a good member of the Churche of God, but yet he was a man, & sometime deceiued. In serm. de elemosyna. De duplici. martyris. Lib. 1. Ep. 12 He taught that Christ made satisfaction for original sinne only, yet we know, that was a wicked opi­nion. He wryteth that it was in his time .6000. yeares sith the Deuill did assault man, which is a grose error. And in some places he thought not reuerently of the Maiestie of the holy Ghost. God forbid we should yelde to any thing, what so euer a good man doeth write. But it is well in this place, Cyprian saith no suche thing, as M. Harding wold haue him, and ther­fore his rashe vntruthe, is not yet proued. But to proue the contrary, and that M. Iuel saith true: we haue the aucthoritie of many. Our sauior Christ bad doe that, which he did, in his remembraunce. But he said vnto his disciples, take, and eate, he said not lay vp in your chests. And so Cyprian him selfe, De coena domini. Orig. in leui. if it be Cyprian, saith likewise, recipitur, non includitur, the Sa­crament is receiued, it is not shut vp. So likewise sayth Ori­gen, panis, quem dominus dedit discipulis suis, iussit accipi, & manducari, non differri, aut seruari in crastinum. The bread, which the Lord God gaue to his Disciples, he bad them take it, and eate it. He bad them not defer it, and kepe it till to mo­row. Thus we sée M. Iuels saying may be sufficiently pro­ued, and maister Hardings bolde vntruthe is without any reason.

The thing which our bodily mouthe receiueth, is very breade. Both the scriptures, and also the olde Catholike fathers put it out of doubt.

The .120. vntruthe. It is the very body of Christ.

The .121. vntruthe. The holy fathers say not that the substāce of bread remaineth.

This first vntruthe is all one with the .74. the .102. the 104. But suche must be had, or how shal vntruthes rise. Yet reason wold, as I haue said, that he shold proue his transub­stanciation, before he quote so fast these vntruthes. Concer­ning this other vntruthe, though it be one with this former, and is now .v. times repeated, that no wise man would thinke well of maister Hardings doing, yet bicause he is so well pleased with it, through his importunitie, I must néedes say somewhat, bothe for trial of his truthe, and satisfying the chri­stian reader. First our sauiour Christ, after consecration cal­leth it the fruit of the vine, Math. 26.28. 1. Co. 11. Act. 2.20. and a testament, S. Paule v. times breade, and the table of the Lord, S. Luke calleth the whole Communion the breaking of bread. Theodoretus an aun­cient father saithe. Theod. dia. 1 Qui se ipsum appellauit vitem, illa Sym­bola & signa quae videntur appellatione corporis & sanguinis honorauit, naturam non mutans, sed naturae adijcit gratiam. He that called himselfe a vine, did vouchsafe to honor those tokens and signes, which are séene, with the name of his owne body, not chaunging their natures, but ioyning grace vnto it. And againe he saythe, signa mystica post sanctifica­tionem non recedunt a natura sua, Theod. dia. 2 sed manent in priori substā ­tia. The mysticall signes after sanctification, doe not goe from their owne nature, but kepe the same substance that they had before, that denyeth transubstantiation. Gelasius saithe, non desinit esse substantia vel natura panis & vini, Contra Eu­tichen. the sub­staunce [Page 125] or nature of bread and wine ceaseth not. Vigilius saithe of Christes humanitie, Lib. 4. cont. Eutich. quando in terra fuit non erat vtique in caelo, nunc quia in caelo est non est vtique in terra, when he was on earthe, he was not in heauen, now he is in heauen, he is not therefore in earthe: and in his first boke a­gainst Eutiches, he likewise saith, abstulit de hoc mundo naturam quam susceperat a nobis, he hath taken from the worlde, that nature which he receiued of vs. Chrysostome saithe, natura panis in sacramento remanet. Ad Caesar. Mon. Aug. serm. ad infantes. Ori. in Mat. cap. 15. Cyr. in Ioh. lib. 4. cap. 14 Iraen. lib. 4. cap. 34. The nature of breade abideth in the Sacrament. Augustine saythe, quod videtis panis est, that which you sée is breade. Origen saith, Non materia panis sed super illum dictus sermo est qui pro­dest. Not the matter of bread, but the worde which is spo­ken ouer it, dothe helpe. Cyril sayth, Christus credentibus discipulis fragmenta panis dedit. Christ gaue vnto his bele­uing disciples, the breakings of bread. Irenaeus saith, Eucha­ristia ex duabus naturis constat, terrena & caelesti, the Eucha­rist consisteth of two natures, the one earthly, which is breade, the other heauenly, which is by faith the féeding of our soules with the body of Christ. Reade maister Iuels bookes, thou shalt sée suche other aucthorities in great num­ber. Thus thou séest Christian reader, that the Doctors beare witnesse there is the nature of bread in the sacrament: when M. Harding is able to answer these, or bring any for himself, then let the vntruthe stand.

The .18. Diuision. This sole receiuing was an abuse, and ther­fore abolished.

The .122. vntruthe. Sole receiuing in the time of persecution, was no abuse.

Héere M. Harding doeth fréely graunt, that sole receiuing is an abuse, whē the people may freely resort vnto the church. Where is then the priuate Masse of our time? This vntruth though it be worthe no answere, yet for want of better, it was once noted afore.

In M. Hardings Masse, the whole people eateth by the mouthe of the priest.

The .123. vntruthe. They eate not by the mouthe of the priest, as M. Iuel meaneth.

M. Harding is driuen to narowe straightes, that maketh suche raw vntruths, with so many vnripe distinctions. In the former vntruthe he putteth in, in the time of persecution. In this vntruthe as M. Iuel meaneth. His helping hande must come to, or there is no vntruth to be found. This is M. Hard. plaine doctrine, the people doe receiue by the mouthe of the priest. If he can make two senses of these words, his doubtful speaking is full of deceitfull meaning. But this is too shame­lesse wrangling. No man in the world doth think the people stād in the priests mouth. We know he meaneth some spiri­tual maner of cōmunicating. Be his doctrin neuer so wicked, yet we do sée what is his vngodly meaning, & euery childe se­eth this can be no vntruthe, there can be but one meaning of these woords.

The .19. Diuision. Here M. Harding interlaceth other ma­ter, of the office of wedlocke.

The .124. vntruthe. It is S. Ierome that interlaceth it, it is not I.

Marke gentle reader this vntruthe, M. Iuel saith M. Har­ding interlaceth it. M. Harding saith no, they are S. Ieromes woords. He is so farre gone in straunge distinctions, he hathe forgotten plaine Englishe, what though the woords be S. Ieromes, yet this interlacing of them in his treatise, is either his owne, or else some of his friendes, that might helpe out with his booke.

Thus saith M. Harding, Erasmus gathereth priuate Masse out of the scriptures.

The .125. vntruthe. I say it not.

M. Harding can quote no vntruthe, but if he either wran­gle, or make a lie, and in this place he dothe bothe. His words are these, read them who will. Thus dothe Erasmus gather priuate, or as M. Iuel iesteth, Hard. diuis. 16 single Communion out of the Scriptures. If M. Harding denye this, he lieth. If he say he meaneth not by the Communion the Masse, he wrāgleth, and reproueth his owne doing of foly. For why maketh he this conclusion, if it proue not his Masse. So what euer he mea­neth, this vntruthe is a wrangling lie.

The .22. Diuision. Maister Harding vseth a straunge kinde of Logicke, he pretendeth priuate Masse, and concludeth single Communion.

The .126. vntruthe. I pretende not to proue priuate Masse, heere principally.

Héere principally must helpe one vntruthe, but bicause M. Iuel doeth not say principally, let maister Harding put it in his bosome, and then it is no vntruthe. He saith nothing else for proofe of this vntruthe, but falleth out with maister Iuel, for rebuking the slouthfull Cardinals, and Priests of Rome. How be it he néede not greatly be offended. For the Pope hathe prouided well for them, as is already shewed. Say what we will, an accusation may hardly passe against a Cardinall without thrée score and foure witnesses, nor against a Dea­con without seuen and twenty, if they wil kéepe any modesty, or come not on the market hill, I warrant them for other pla­ces, they be safe inough.

The .24. Diuision. Maister Harding gathereth this conclusion.

The .127. vntruthe. I gather not this conclusion.

Maister Harding would faine shift off this argument, and his poore friend maister Rastell hathe done for him in this behalfe, what he can, but it will not be. For aunswere to this vntruth, a long discourse is néedelesse. For the simple can not conceiue it, and the learned doe sée it well inough. All maner of argumentes what so euer the propositions be, they may be reduced to the first figure. But this can be none otherwise reduced. Therefore this is maister Hardings argument, and [Page 123] let him neuer deny it. For being in the Hypothetical fourme of propositions, it may argue a will to deceiue, but it can not empaire the credite of his learning. This is sooner diminished by denying this argument, than by making it. What the ar­gument is, reade the Replie. Fol. 58.

These examples maister Harding hath brought, to proue his Masse.

The .128. vntruthe. I brought them not to proue the Masse directly.

In the .126. vntruthe, he saide he brought not these auctho­rities to proue the Masse principally: nowe he saithe they proue it not directly. Hadde it bene for espying, he might haue made many vntruthes of this, he might haue sayde, they proue not the Masse immediatly, orderly, especially, chief­ly, onely, effectually, purposedly, and so made many lyes, as well as principally, and directly, and so make of none a double lie. But héere by the way we may note, that maister Har­dings reasons are little better than maister Iuel maketh them, when he himselfe dothe so oft say they proue not his purpose.

That it might seeme lawfull for a priest to say priuate Masse, he hath brought in example of lay men, wemen, sicke folke, and boyes.

The .129. vntruthe. It is not so, I brought them not to proue the Masse.

Now good reader marke these thrée vntruthes, and sée how thou likest them, the .126. they proue not the Masse principal­ly, the .128. they proue it not directly, and this vntruthe they proue it not at all. Now to giue him one vntruthe more, and make vp a messe, sure what so euer M. Iuel say, they proue it but a little, and therfore M. Hardings answere, is worthy lit­tle commendations.

The .25. Diuision. He defaceth the holy Communion.

The .130. vntruthe. I deface not the Communion, but the Ge­neuian Communion.

M. Harding hath nowe gotten the habite, he can say no­thing without a distinction. But all auaileth not, God haue the praise. Maister Iuel meaneth that Communion, which is ministred as well at Geneua, as in other godly places, where the adulterous and Romish sacraments are banished. There­fore this is no vntruth, it is our open professiō. That Commu­nion which M. Harding blameth, is the holy Communion of the Lords body and bloud, and the effectuall representation of his deathe.

Christes example in doing, and commanndement to doe the same, may not be taken for a shew, or accident, but for the effecte, and substaunce of his supper.

The .131. vntruthe. Christes whole example is not of the sub­staunce of the Sacrament.

Marke wel M. Iuels words, and M. Hardings vntruthes, and thou wilt thinke the Cocatrice, doth no more infecte eche thing that she breatheth on, than maister Harding dothe those words, which he would confute. Maister Iuel saith, Christes example in doing, and commaundement to do the same, is of the substaunce of the supper. And who wil not say, that that is necessary, which Christ hath bothe done, and commaunded to be done. Then how is this vntrue? Maister Harding putteth in (whole,) and taketh out (commandement to doe the same) and maketh maister Iuel say thus: Christes whole example is of the substance of the supper, and in déede this is false. For Christ ministred after supper, and sitting, and with common bread, and in an vsual drinking cuppe, and in an house, which is neither necessary, nor al conuenient for our time. Thus we sée what these vntruthes are, altogether forced with maister Hardings lies, sometime he addeth, sometime he detracteth, that of all these vntruthes we may wel say it stil, the number is so great, the substaunce cannot be good.

The sacrifice of the crosse, is called the daily sacrifice.

The .132. vntruthe. It is not called so, as you meane.

This vntruthe is all one with the .75. and there maister Harding saith simply, that the fathers call not the sacrifice of the crosse, the daily sacrifice. Here vpon better aduise, he re­uoketh his absolute assertion, and doeth qualifie it with mai­ster Iuels meaning. So if maister Harding doe not truely ga­ther maister Iuels meaning vpon a false surmise, he hathe made two vntruthes. But bicause we are come againe, to [Page 126] mention of this Sacrifice, I will shew thée, what is our Sa­crifice for the purging of our sinnes. First, for thy better in­struction, thou must learne wherein standeth the controuer­sie betwixt the Papists, and vs. They say, they doe daily in their Masse offer vp Christ vnto his father, a propitiation for our sinnes. We say, that Christ hath purged vs from our sinnes, and that with the Sacrifice of his owne precious bo­die, and bloud, but that sacrifice Christ himself did once make vpon the Crosse, neither can any mortall man, offer him a­ny more. Now if we can shewe, that Christes reall body is no more offered vnto his father, then is not only this no vn­truthe, but all maister Hardings religion is deuelishe, and wicked. Let vs sée then, what the scriptures doe teache vs, vn­till the time that our sauior Christ did die. This Sacrifice is often mentioned, that it should be made when he had once died, it is neuer mentioned, but as already done. Before he was conceiued in his mothers wombe, the angell said his name should be Iesus. Math. 1.21. For he should saue his people from their sinnes. When he was born, he was called the saluation, which God had prepared before the face of all people. Luk. 2.32. When he was Christened, Iohn said of him, beholde the Lambe of God, Ioh. 1.29. which taketh away the sinnes of the worlde. The Lambe in this place, after the Hebrue phrase, dothe signifie the sacrifice, or the offering. And Christ him selfe: When I shall be exalted, I will draw all vnto my selfe. By these and all those other places, which are of the Passion of Christ, it is manifest, that the time was appointed, when this sacrifice should be once made. But when this sacrifice was done: Christ said vpon the crosse, consummatum est, all was fini­shed, and in token, that there was no more sacrifice to be made for sinne, the baile of the temple did rende from the toppe to the foote. Nowe after this sacrifice once finished, not one title in the whole scriptures of any propiciatorie sacrifice to come, but vpon this one, and once made repen­taunce, [Page 127] must be preached to all the world, Luke. 24. Mat. 16. and forgiuenesse of sinne, with this promise annexed, that whosoeuer doeth beleue, and is Baptised, shall be saued. Thus we sée from the beginning of our iourney, vntill we come to the place, which our sauior hath prepared for vs in heauen, we haue no sacrifice to passe by, but that alone, which Christ made vp­on the Crosse, that alone is called daily, bicause it is an euer­lasting intercession for vs vnto his father. What soeuer Sa­crifices the papacie hath inuented, they are beside this, and they are nothing else but snares, which the Deuill hathe laid to entrappe our soules, and call vs from the only trust in Christes merites. An other proofe that the sacrifice of the Crosse may onely be called daily, is well declared in all the wrytings of the Apostles, where no one time either priest, or altare, or sacrifice, or oblation is mentioned, but onely in a spirituall vnderstanding. You be made a spiritual house, 1. Pet. [...].5. a holy priesthode to offer vp spirituall sacrifice vnto God, saith S. Peter. Apo. 1.6.5.10 Rom. 12.1. He hathe made vs kings and priestes vnto God, euen his Father, saith S. Ihon, and S. Paule doeth call our bodies a liuing sacrifice, holy, and acceptable vnto God. And againe, Christ our passeouer is Sacrificed for vs, 1. Cor. 5.8 there­fore let vs kéepe the feast, not with olde leauen, neither in the leauen of malitiousnesse, or wickednesse, but with the vn­leauened bread of sinceritie, and truthe. And to the Hebrues we haue an altare, Hebr. 13.20. Ibidem. 15. of which it is not lawfull for them to eate that serue in the tabernacle. And againe, let vs offer the sa­crifice of praise alwayes vnto God, that is the fruite of our lippes, which confesse his name. In diuers other places bothe by the prophets and apostles, we be taught that these are the onely Sacrifices left vnto vs in the Newe Testament. Then what desperate boldnesse is it, for vs to make our selues new sacrifices without the worde of God, the instru­ction of the holy Ghost, or any coloure of sufficient auc­thoritie. I néede not adde how it fighteth directly with the Scriptures. They say the priest doeth offer vppe Christ. [Page 124] But Christ neuer saith, he is offred vp by any other, but by himselfe. I doe sanctifie my selfe for them, and I doe giue my life for my shéepe. Ioh. 17. Ioh. 10. And againe. I doe giue my life, and againe, I will take it, no man dothe take it from me, but I will giue it of mine owne will. And Paule saith, he that loued me, and gaue himselfe for me. Galat. 2. Hebru. 10. And to the Hebrues in the beginning of this booke, it is written of me that I shold do thy wil O God, this same is often shewed in the .5.9. and .10. Chapters to the Hebrues, but in al the scripture not one word, that euer Christ is offred by other. They say he is offred daily, but in all the scriptures he is said to be offred but once. In that he died saith Paule, Rom. 6.10. Hebr. 10. he died once, and to the Hebrues with one oblati­on he made them perfect for euer. And in the same Epistle the vij. Chapter, Christ is said to be suche a priest, as néeded not to make moe sacrifices for sinnes, or offer himselfe daily. For he did once sanctifie vs. And againe, by his owne bloud, he en­tred once into the holy place. Hebr. 9.12. And againe, in the ende of the world, he appeared once to put away sinne by the sacrifice of himselfe. And againe, Christ hath once suffred to take away sinnes. Hebr. 10. And againe, hauing made one Sacrifice for sinne, he sittes for euer at the right hand of his father. And in conclu­sion, the scripture taketh away all other sacrifice, and saithe, where remission of sinne is, there is no more Oblation for sinne. Yet wil they néedes haue a daily sacrifice. What a mi­serable religion is that, which in matters of the greatest waight, hath not one word to vphold it in the scriptures. But as the thing it selfe is the sinke of Idolatrie, so marke it wel, and thou shalt sée how wickedly they vse it. Our sacrifice say they, is the applying of that sacrifice which Christ made vpon the crosse. And hereupon M. Harding doth often say, that no Masse is priuate, bicause it is made for all the people, but exa­mine this by the worde of God, and sée how it agreeth. The scripture saith, the benefites purchased by Christes sacrifice, is offred vnto vs by the worde, 1, Pet. 1.23. not by the Masse. You are borne a newe by the worde of God, 1. Ioh. 1.3. who liueth, and indureth [Page 129] for euer. And we haue felowship with God, & with his sonne Iesus Christ, by the worde, which is declared vnto vs. And he that knoweth God, heareth vs, and the worde, whereby the righteousnesse of God is knowne, is the word of faith, Rom. 10.8. 2. Cor. 5.19. which we preache. And plainly S. Paule calleth it the word of reconci­liation. And the Gospell is the power of God vnto saluation to al them, that beleue. 1. Pet. 4.6. And Peter witnesseth that the Gospell is preached, to the ende men might liue vnto God, and Christ sanctified his Churche, by the washing of water throughe the worde. Not one place in the scripture, Eph. 5 26. that we be sanctified by priuate Masse, or daily sacrifice. But let vs let these sacrificers alone. They be blinde leaders of the blinde. Read more of this in the epistle, and in the .75. vntruthe.

The .26. Diuision. S. Augustine saith, the people receiued e­uery day.

The .133. vntruthe. He saith not so.

Note this is all one vntruthe with the .83. and .145. These are S. Augustines words: De sermone. in mōte. lib. 2 cap. 12. the daily bread may be taken for the sacrifice of Christes body, which we receiue euery day. Mai­ster Harding saith, he ment this of himselfe only, and of other priests, and he saith it only, and doeth not proue it, and vpon credite of his owne words, doth quote an vntruthe. With like facilitie I could make answer it were not vntrue, but words without reason I will leaue vnto maister Harding, to proue that S. Augustine ment the daily vse of their open Churche, and that some did euermore receiue, it may appeare, as we reade in the Acts, that those, which came vnto the Church of Christ, continued daily in breaking of bread, and prayers, Act. 2.42. by breaking of bread, meaning the Communion. And in an other [Page 130] place, when the Disciples came together, they brake breade, and Paule preached. Act. 20.7. And we reade in the .1. to the Corinthi­ans the .11. Chapter. When they came together, they did eate the Lords supper. Héereby it appeareth, that in the Apostles time, this daily receiuing was in vse, though of Massing for the quicke, and deade, of shutting the bread in a boxe, of wor­shipping it, of carying about, there be not one worde immedi­atly after. &c. De cor. mili. About .200. yeares after this, Tertullian wryteth Eucharistia sacramētum. &c. & iam antelucanis sumimus tem­poribus. Lib. 1. ad vxorē. & Basil. ep. adcler. noe o coes. & ephrē in ser. ad monach, Cyp. 1. ep. 2. We receiue the Eucharist euer before day. And in an other place, thy husband shall not know, what thou tastest secretely before other meates. By this it appeareth, the Chri­stians did vsually receiue euery morning. S. Cyprian about 50. yeares after, wryteth. How shall we make them méete for the cuppe of martyrdom, if first, we do not giue vnto them the cup of the Lords bloud, noting, that in that great persecution, they receiued daily in the morning. Againe, he wryteth. Gra­uior nūc, & ferocior pugna imminet, ad quam fide incorrupta, & virtute robusta, Lib. 4. ep. 6. parare se debent milites Christi. And it folo­weth. Considering therefore they daily receiue the cup of the bloud of Christ, they also for Christ may shed their bloud. He saith further: we require that this bread may be giuen vs dai­ly, least we, that are in Christ, & Eucharistiam quotidie ad ci­bum salutis accipimus, Serm. 6. de orat. domini. and daily receiue the Eucharist, which is the meate of our saluation, should be by any great offence, seperated from Christ. Thus it appeareth in plaine wordes, that in Cyprians time, they receiued daily. The like appea­reth by Eusebius lib. 1. de demonst. Euangelica, cap. 10. Diuers other places may be brought, which all proue M. Hardings aunswer to be vaine, and doe wel expound the meaning of S. Augustine. Lib. 26. in. 8 cap. Math. Chrysost. ad heb. ho. 17. Aug Ep. 23. Chrysostome saith, semper communicabant, they did alwayes Communicate. And maister Harding doeth al­leage bothe him and Augustine himselfe for proofe of the daily sacrifice. Now wher they say, that we offer daily, and yet con­fute sufficiently this newe fansied transubstantiation, it is [Page 131] plaine they ment of this daily Communion, and of the often vse of it, maister Hardings Ignatius in like manner wryteth, when this is done continually, Ad ephesios. the powers of Sathan are dri­uen away. These, and diuers suche proofes may be had out of Ierome, Ambrose, Iustine, Irenaeus, and other many, for this daily receiuing, and therfore these vntruthes must néedes be little worthe, that are so plentifully challenged, and may so easily be answeared. But whose aucthoritie should I rather vse in this case, than maister Hardings owne Doctors, they wryte it often, and teache very plainly, that in the primatiue Church, they receiued daily. Thomas Aquinas writeth thus: In the primatiue church, when the people were very deuout in the Christian faith, it was decréed, vt fideles quotidie com­municarent, that the faithfull people should receiue daily. Du­randus saith in the primatiue Church, omnes fideles quotidie communicabant, all the faithfull receiued daily. Lib. 4. ca. 55 Loe héere are maister Hardings owne Doctors, which doe sufficiently an­swere his vntruth. Here by the way of this one thing, I must moreouer warne the good Christian reader, that M. Harding is not able to shewe any one sufficient proofe, whereby it may appeare, that the Churche in any place within .CCC. yeares after Christ, did appoint any one day, especially for that pur­pose, as their confederacie at Trident, haue of late straightly charged. It appeareth by S. Luke, they met daily, Act. 2.5. and it appea­reth by Paule to the Ephesians, y ^t they had their méetings both day, and night, & in this vse they cōfirmed their doctrine, which Paule teacheth the Colossians. Let no man condemne you in meat, and drinke, nor in respect of an holy day, Col. 2.16. or of the newe Moone, or of the Sabbothe dayes. And no doubt to take away this popish superstitiō of dayes, & times, it was gods good wil, and pleasure then so to ordaine it. And for a ful proofe that the Churches vsed some saturday, some sunday, it is well shewed by that hot contention, that was raised by Victor, & Anicetus, against y ^e gréeke church. After y ^e Apostles time about the yeare of our Lord .115. vnder y ^e Emperor Traiane, it appeareth that [Page 132] the Christians vsuall méeting, was in the mornings, as is shewed by Plinie, in an epistle written to the Emperoure of the same matter. After this .30. or .40. yeare, Iustinus doeth re­corde, that in his time they vsed the sonday, and any other day when there was baptizing of children. After this it is de­clared by Origen, that the Christians of his time did not méete only on sundayes, In gen. ho. 10 In num. ho. 2 and holidayes, but on other dayes also. And Sozomene séemeth to deny of the Romaine Church, that they had any meetings on the Saboth day, as all other Churches had. Lib. 7. ca. 19 De prepar. Euang. lib. 1. cap, 3. Ath. lib. de interp. Psal. Eusebius saith, quotidie ferme, ad percipiendam discipli­nam christi constuunt, almost euery day they came to hear the doctrine of Christ. Athanasius nameth expresly these dayes, sabbatum, diem dominicum, secundum sabbati, parasceuen, & quartum sabbati. Now if it can not be proued, that any one Church made a special obseruation of the sunday, but that on other dayes also, they vsed like seruice vnto god, on the other parte séeing the testimonies are so plaine, and many: what meaneth maister Harding to make this any vntruthe? But what dareth he not doe, to make vp his number, that affir­meth this one vntruthe fiue times? Now by the way, least I shold séeme to speake against the vse of the sunday, I say and professe, that we cā not vse it too reuerently. Anathasius saith, that the sabboth of the Iewes, Hom. de se­mente. was by Christ turned into our sunday, but whether that were so, or no, it resteth vpon Atha­sius aucthoritie, it may be well thought that it is true, Christ will haue vs gather together in his name. And S. Iohn calleth it the Lords day, Apo. 1.10. Act. 20.7. 1. Cor. 16.1. S. Luke and S Paule the first day of the weke, in which the Apostles assembled the people, therfore thou art bound to giue all obedience and holinesse vnto the Lorde on that day. But take héede now thou deceiue not thy self. Looke not after any licentiousnesse on the munday, thinke not that God more accompteth of one day, than other. As on sunday thou commest into the congregation, and shewest thy selfe thankfull vnto the Lord for his benefites, so on euery day thou must shew thy selfe thankfull, and shew the same obedi­ence [Page 133] in testimony of thy conscience, which on the sunday thou shewest in open vsage, and thus thou shalt kéepe holy the sab­both day.

S. Ambrose saith euery weeke, we must celebrate the oblation, althoughe not euery day vnto straungers, yet vnto the inhabitants at least twise a weeke.

The .134. vntruthe. This place is altogether falsified.

This vntruthe may be hardly verified, if the place be alto­gether falsified. But maister Harding dothe so often speake vntruely, that now we may not beleue him w ^tout good proofe. Let vs sée then what he saith. S. Ambrose: In. 1. ad Tim. cap. 3. Omni hebdomada offerendum est, etiam si non quotidie peregrinis, incolis tamen vel bis in hebdomada. These words M. Iuel dothe Englishe, as before appeareth. This translation saith maister Harding, is altogether false. But why saith he so? Let him bar distincti­ons, and proue it if he can. Undoubtedly if snow be not black, this interpretation is true, but why dothe maister Harding finde fault wiih it? Thus he saith, offerre peregrinis is to of­fer for straungers, not to straungers, and why is it so? for­soothe by this rule, all manner of verbes put acquisitiuely, that is to say, with this signe for after them, wil haue a datiue case, Reioinder. Fol. 201. it might haue pleased him to haue alleaged his rule truely, then it should haue bene thus, hauing this signe to or for, af­ter them, so notwithstanding this rule, yet the interpretation had bene good, but graunt the rule, what a reason is this, all verbes that haue this signe, for, after them, require a datiue case, Ergo, offerre peregrinis, is to offer for straungers. He might as well conclude, Ergo, loquor tibi, is to speake for thée, or dare tibi to giue it for thée. But M. Harding, why would [Page 234] not this rule haue serued héere, verbes compounded with these propositions, prae, con, sub, ob, in and inter, will haue a da­tiue case. Well may we haue some opinion of our Louanists English, but sure their Logicke, and their Latine is but very base. M. Dorman alleaging in his boke, this text of S. Iohn. Diabolus est mendax, & pater eius, doth English it thus, the di­uel is a lier, and so was his father before him. Was he wel in his wit? or was he yet a dreaming? or is his Diuinitie so slen­der, that he knoweth not, who is the Deuils father? Sure ig­norance may not excuse a man, that speaketh blasphemie, the Deuil hath no father, only God created him an Angell. Eras­mus fearing such sléeping Diuines, doth turne it thus, & eius rei pater, and father of that thing. If M. Dorman had consul­ted with him, and not so sodenly become of a iangling law­yer, an vngodly Diuine, he wold haue written more aduised­ly, but (as hath bene héeretofore aptly obiected to him) he gate vpon the bridge, and was made a bacheler, and so by muche haste ouershot himselfe, muche like as maister Harding doth héere, who Englisheth offerre peregrinis, to offer for straun­gers. Alowe this for good Latine, and his distinctions for good reason, and then goe yoke Foxes, and milke hée Goates, his vntruthe shall rise at his owne pleasure.

The .28. Diuision. Here Master Harding notably, betrayeth him selfe, laying forth for a countenaunce, a fiue of Chrysostoms words, and the same nothing to the matter, hewing and mangling them, as he listeth best.

The .135. vntruthe. Those words be to the matter.

The .136. vntruthe. I mangle them not.

What M. Harding meaneth by this vntruth, I know not, vnlesse it be, as M. Iuel saith, notably to betray himselfe. His [Page 135] purpose is to proue priuate Masse, as all men doe know, but these words do not proue it, as he himself confesseth, Reioind. fol. 206. the conclusion of these is plaine, therfore these words are not to the purpose. Neither shal this other vntruth, néede any long answer. He can do little y ^t cannot say nay. M. Iuels Replie doth wel, & sufficiently proue it. M. Hardings gainsay­ing is not sufficient for an vntruthe. Read the Replie. Fo. 65.

Chrysostome saith this sacrifice is but one, bicause it hath rela­tion vnto that one sacrifice of Christ.

The .137. vntruthe. He rendreth no suche cause.

Bicause M. Hard. cā not blame the allegation, he findeth fault w ^t M. Iuels meaning, and saith S. Chrysostom giueth no such cause. But whether he giueth any such or no, not M. Hardīgs vnderstāding, but Chrysostoms words, must be the iudge: Ad heb. ho. 17. thus he writeth: Quo modo vna est hostia & non multae? Quia semel oblata est, oblata est in sancta sāctorū. Hoc autē sacrificiū exem­plar est illius. How is it one oblation & not many? He answe­reth, bicause it was once offred, it was offred into y ^e holy place but this sacrifice is an example of that. These are his very words, & héere he speaketh plain, the cause why we sacrificing, or cōmunicating in sundry places, haue but one sacrifice, or cō ­munion, is bicause our sacrifice is an exāple of y ^e one sacrifice of Christ. If M. Harding can find any other vnderstanding of these words, then sure his maner of vnderstāding, is to make words sound, what him list. But vnderstād he how, and what he wil, Chrysostoms words are plaine. Ther are many places in the olde doctors, which teach the very same, but it is néede­lesse to reherse them, when our sauior Christ saith: Do this in my remembrāce. Except M. Harding wil haue no relation be­twene the thing, and the remembrāce of the thing, what mea­neth he to make this vntruthe?

Chrisostome saith, this sacrifice is an example of that.

The .138. vntruthe. Chrysostome saith not so, that this is an ex­ample of that, this place is fowly corrupt.

In the 134. vntruth master Harding saide this is all to ge­ther falsified, in this he saith, it is fowly corrupt. But y ^e falshod of that hath appeared to be so little, that this false reporte of corruption can haue no great credit, and no dout this vntruth vppon sufficient triall shall apeare a verie wrangling. Ad Heb. ho. 17. Chriso­stomes own words are these, hoc autem sacrificium examplar est illius. Reade the place. These wordes as I think are thus muche in Englishe. But this sacrifice is an example of that. Not so saith master Harding, this place is fouly corrupt. Per­aduenture héere is some verbe put acquisitiuely, as in the .134. vntruthe. If it be so, héere may be straunge Latine, but whe­ther there be, or no, gessing is not necessary where there may be had other good proofe. Let vs heare why this place is corrupt? Reioinder. Fol. 207. What saith M. Harding? Thus he saith. It is ex­emplar, a samplar or patern, of that, I graunt. Mark good rea­der, what maister Harding graunteth. And sée whether mai­ster Iuel doe say any more. If he doe not, how are the same words true, when maister Harding speaketh them, and not true, when maister Iuel speaketh them? vnlesse as we had of late a distinction of not bread, and no bread, so nowe we haue an other betwéene an example, & a sampler? But how so euer it is without example or, sampler, he maketh mo distinctions, and giueth suche a sampler of singular impudence, that no mā that feareth God, wil take example by him.

Gracian sheweth that the decretall epistles haue bene doubted [Page 137] of among the learned.

The .139. vntruthe. Gracian shevveth no such thing.

Gracians wordes are these. De Epistolis decretalibus quae­ritur, an vim authoritatis habeant, of the decretall Epistles, there is doubt, whether they haue authoritie. How then is this an vntruth? The word saith M. Harding, that Gracian doth vse, is quaeritur, not dubitatur. The question is moued, not it is doubted, Offerre peregrinis, to offer for straungers is very good latine, where this is any reason. What mea­neth this man, doeth he so fede his affectioned vaine, that he spareth not to discredit his owne learning? that he feareth not to blot his owne honestie? Fye vpon such fāsies. Quae­ritur is a latine word, dubitatur is very barbarous. But such as vse them both, who knoweth not, y ^t it is cōmon to them all, to say sometime quaeritur, sometime dubitatur, meaning by either word, there is doubt moued, & the Gréeke phrase [...] is cōmonly translated. Sed quaerat aliquis. But one wil aske, or dout. The latines do al vse it. Si quaeris if you doubt. In his primis naturalibus voluptas insit, nec ne, magna quaestio est. In these first naturall abilities, whether there be any pleasure, or no, there is no great doubt. Ro­mani augures in magna quaestione habent, The Romain Au­gurs do much dout, what the bird Sanqualis is. So immensa quaestio, an infinite doubt, perdifficilis, et perobscura quaestio, a verie difficult, and obscure doubt, and such one as this of M. Hardings is, redicula quaestio a folish doubt. The barba­rous writers, such as Gracian is, and the other rable of M. Hardings friends, they want cōmonly both good words, and godly matter, and they say sometime dubitatur, but to be short, there is neither question, nor doubt, but this vn­truthe is very childish. But what meaneth M. Harding to [Page 138] stand thus in defence of these decretall epistles? He one­ly can bring for them a litle testimonie of Leo, and Ge­lasius. The epistles by no meanes can commende them selues. Reade the Replie, thou shalt sée them sufficientlie reproued. But reade the Epistles, and thou shalt see them more reproued. The latine is so barbarous, that ney­ther gentile, nor Christian of that age, did euer wryte the like. The stile is so childish, it is farre vnméete, for the grauitie of those learned Bishoppes, whose names they beare, the metaphors are so grosse, as no coun­tryman would vse the like. Among all other, this is one. Ostium circumstantiae eorum oribus imponere, Ephe. epi. 2. To put the dore of circumstaunce vpon theyr mouthes. And what scholer would write this latine, In epist. Vrb. Eas inde abstrahere vbi traditae sunt, to take them thence, where they were layde. Promere vltionem, to reuenge, Exilium deportationis, for banishment, Pontia. epi. 1. pleniter, fully, Haec nobis bona operanda sunt, We must doe these good things, Inthronizare, to enstall, and porto, Luc. epist. 1. standeth them in verie good stead. Portare cau­sas sacerdotum▪ Subleuare, et portare cadentes, portare perse­cutiones, euerie one a porter like phrase, and moderna tempora, and charitatiue, and abbatissa, and sanctae mo­niales. And I wote not what. There is nothing in them, doeth so excede, as ignoraunce. And where is the like ti­tle euer founde, Zeph. 1. et. 2. Calixt. 1. Steph 2. Dion. 1. Archiepisc. rom. vrbis, and Archiepisc. cath. ecclesiae Romanae vrbis. And primates metropolitani, and fideles sancti Petri. Beside this, that poore stuffe, that they haue, doeth hang so yllfauouredly together, that Mai­ster Harding him selfe, can make of it no sense. They alleage the scriptures without order, or fashion, and sometime they depraue them, the Sodomites say vnto Lot, Gen. 19. Ana. epist. 1. thou camest into vs, as a straunger. Anterus sayth, that God spake it. In the first to Timothe the fift Chap­ter, where Paule hath vidua, Vrbanus hath anima: Christe saith, Ioh. 1. epist. 3. Cephas, is a stone, Anacletus sayth, it is caput, or prin­cipium, [Page 139] the head, or fountaine. And besides this, sundrie of those Epistles, haue worde for worde, the one, which an other hath. As Steph. 1. et. 2. And Fab. 2. Luc. 1. And Fae­lix .3. the Epistle of Gaius, & Leon .1. And how coulde this haue happened, if diuers men did write them. But what nede we seke arguments against them, looke vpon theyr doctrine. Lucius forbiddeth mariage of Priestes, Dist. 18. mi­nistri. and if a Priest go in vnto his owne wife, he muste not communicate, he must not so much as bring the cup to the alter, they may not come within the church dores, not withstanding, Saint Paule sayth, to forbid mariage is the doctrine of diuells. Calixtus doeth forbid meates, Calix. epi. 1. and sayth, he that obserueth not the faste, foure times in a yeare, the same is a scismatike. Anterus and Zepherius teacheth, that we may not reprehende, accuse, iudge, or condemne a Bishoppe of Rome. Yet Saint Paule sayth: Let a Bishoppe be vnblamable, whereby it appeareth, he may be blamed, and againe he writeth: Receiue not an accusation against an elder vnder two▪ or three witnes­ses. Then by like, he will haue their faultes accused. They iangle much of the supremacie of the Bishoppe of Rome, Calixtus, and Lucius, doe seeme to say, that he can not erre. Yet Dauid saith, euerie man is a lier. Stephan saith, Steph. epi. 1. he de­serueth great vengeance, that presumeth to touch the holy vestures. Yet Christ saith, that which is without a man defileth him not. Pontianus, doeth ende his first Epistle, with a clause of idolatrie, ascribing vnto Peter, the opening of heauen gate. Vrbanus saith, that the sentence of a Bi­shop, is greatly to be feared, yea, though he [...] wrong­fully, and so consequently, would mak [...] God, an vnrighte­ous Iudge, that should ratifie an vniust sentence. Such wicked doctrine these epistles doe conteine, so vnlearnedly they be written, so vnwisely the same words are fathered vpon diuerse men, and, which is a sure token that they be coūterfet, they are not mencioned by any aūcient writers: [Page 140] Yet saith Maister Harding, these Epistles are authentical. But let him say so still. Dist. 19. Si Rom. As that saying is vntrue, so this vntruthe is impudent, where he saith that Gracian doeth not witnesse, that these Epistles haue ben doubted on.

The decretall epistles manifestly depraue, and abuse the scrip­tures.

The .140. vntruthe. They doe not so.

Now M. Harding is in his biasse. He makes vntruthes at auenture, and for want of good proofe he falls to railing. This pelfe, saith he, may serue for your pulpit, when you want better stuffe. This to disproue y ^e decretall epistles is to minister like. But thus to stand rayling, when one hath no reason, is to like a Louanist. More modest behauiour in so meane learning would better stand with honestie. This vntruth is sufficiently proued before.

Anacletus commaundeth that all bishops once in the yeare, do visit the entrie of S. Peters church in Rome, which they call limina Petri.

The .141. vntruth. He commaundeth no such thing, con­cerning Peters Church.

This vntruth doeth rise vpon these wordes, limina Petri whether they signified Peters church. For Maister Harding graunteth, that now they signifie the Church, but then [Page 141] they signified his graue. Here it were reason before we be­leue him, he should tell vs how long limina Petri did signi­fie the buriall place, and when it left his graue, and became the name of his church, who gaue it to the graue, and who toke it from it. Undouted proues must be had for so incre­dible a matter. It is a straunge case for things to lose their names, and if it be done, as sometime it chaunceth, it is by the cōsent of whole coūtries, regestred by diuers authors. If in this case we sée like authoritie, we will alow the bet­ter of M. Hardings saying. Graues as it may be thought, were neuer called so, churches had that name long before Peters time. Religiosa deorum limina, saith Virgill, the holy temples of the Gods, & Calixtus the Pope saith, Ecclesiastica limina, meaning the church. Hereby it appeareth that li­mina Petri was Peters Church. Chronol. V [...]. 2. Gen. 19. And Nauclerus writing of Totilas more than a thousand yeare agon saith, Cum ad be­ati Petri limina peruenisset, meaning when he came to Pe­ters Church. Now let Maister Harding shew that it signifi­ed the graue, ere he require credit. Yet what if it did so? Is it not al one superstition to visit y ^e graues of godly men, & to visit their temples? Is either of both commaunded by the Lord God? In this vntruth Maister Harding sheweth little matter against Maister Iuel, and lesse good diuinitie in him selfe.

Fabianus writeth of the comming of Nouatus into Italie. And it is clere by S. Cyprian, and by Eusebius, that Nouatus came first into Italie in the time of Cornelius, which was next after him.

The .142. vntruth. It is not cleare.

To an Owles eyes the clere Sunne bringeth darke­nesse, [Page 142] to one that will not vnderstand, there is no sentence plain. When God shal open Maister Hardings eies, he wil then sée better. Lib. 1. epi. 1. These are Cyprians wordes, vnto Corneli­us speaking of Nouatus. A te illinc prohibitū ab ecclesia, cum venisset &c. Of thee he was forbidden the Church, when he came &c. And it foloweth, with such spirite, as became a Bishoppe, whereby it appeareth, he was then also Bishop. What can be sayd more plaine? It foloweth further. Cum animaduertis [...]em te minis, atque terroribus eorum, qui vene­rant, esse commotum &c. Whē I perceiued, that thou weart moued with the feares, and threatnings, of those that came with him. Then belike Cornelius was there before. And Eusebius speaketh at the same time, Lib. 6. ca. 33. of Cornelius, and cal­leth him, Vrbis Romae Episcopus, the Bishop of the citie of Rome, and this also appeareth by Sozomenus, that the first conflict of Nouatus, Lib. 1. ca. 22 et. 23. was with Cornelius. Therefore Maister Harding might easely haue séene this, had not eyther his eies ben anointed, or he disposed to wrangle.

Neither S. Ierome, nor Gennadius, nor Damasus euer made any mention, either of such epistles, or of any such decrees.

The .143. vntruth. Damasus maketh expresse mention of such decrees.

This is an expresse vntruth, as many other are, which Maister Harding frameth. Damasus doeth speake of cer­taine decrées, which were made by these Popes, and that we may easely graunt, but that he mencioneth these epi­stles, or reciteth the decrées in those wordes, that is not shewed. And it may easely be, that he, who made these epi­stles, [Page 143] would gather some decrées, founde in other bookes. This is a small proufe, againste so many manifest argu­ments.

By Soters decree, it is lawfull to say Masse, hauing onely two in his companie.

The .144. vntruth. This decree, speaketh not of companie present, but of two to make aunsvvere.

There is belike some subtile distinction in this vn­truth. For as the wordes lye, they are somewhat obscure. Of this I am sure, seing Maister Iuel saith, that Soters de­crée requireth only the companie of two, and Maister Har­ding sayth, it requireth two to make aunswere: if it may any way be proued, that they that aunswere the Priest, be in his companie, then this vntruth is sone discharged. As touching Soters owne decrée, the words are plaine, that no man shall say Masse without two persōs, and to take away this cauill about two to aunswere, and to verifie Maister Iuels wordes, the title of the decrée is this. De cōsecra­tione dist. 1. hoc &c. Except he haue two presēt, let no Priest presume to say Masse. Now what néedeth this wrangling about the aunswering, if there be two present, they must nedes aunswere.

S. Augustine, and S. Ierome, haue recouered that, that the peo­ple of Rome euen in their time, vsed to receiue the Communion together, euery day.

The .145. vntruth. Saint Augustine, and Saint Ierome doe not report so.

Epist. 118. et 23. tract. in Ioh. 26. Ier. in apol. aduersus lo­ [...]ini.This vntruth hath ben made now thrée times by Mai­ster Harding. It is the .83. the .133. & this the third. Augustine saith, some receiue euery day, some certaine dayes. Ierome saith the like. Reade the place thou shalt not be deceiued. Read more of this vntruth in the places alleaged. The 83. & .133. vntruthes. & .155. vntruth.

This word, solennia, which is here vsed, semeth to import a so­lemne companie, or resort of the people. And yet this Soter requi­ring to this action onely the companie of thre persons, neuerthelesse calleth it Missarum solennia.

The .146. vntruth. Solennia doeth not import a solemne companie.

Yet it séemeth so Maister Harding to as wel learned, as you are. But this is your common fashion to belie Maister Iuels words, and then to say they be vntrue. Yt séemeth, saith he, to import a solemne cōpanie. What if it be not so? yet it séemeth so. But what if it doe import a great compa­nie? What if it can not stande with your priuate Masse? Sure then is Soters decrée not worth alleaging, as your vntruthe is not worth the quoting. The reason, that you bring out of Tullie, were it not in your booke, yet by the va­lue I would gesse it yours. Solemne, say you, doeth signi­fie sometime a custome, Ergo when it is attributed to an action, it doeth not import a companie. This is verie like one of your owne arguments, it hangeth so losely. For the antecedent is false, and the argument doth not follow. But why speaketh Maister Harding against his owne know­ledge, [Page 145] he is assured it is not named in matters of religion, but it signifieth a great company of persons, and muche sumptu­ousnesse of the things so ill, may his priuate Masse be solen­nis. Mos solennis sacrarum saith Lucretius, the solempne, and sumptuous manner of the sacrifices. And Virgil calleth them arae solennes, many and costly altares, so pompae solennes, bu­rials in solemne order, vota solennia, vowes made solemnly in the company of many, and Tullie, Solenne & statutum sacrifi­cium, a sacrifice done sumptuously, and appointed times, and in M. Hardings Portuise, sacris solennijs iuncta sunt gaudia, to solemne seruice there is annexed ioyes. This aucthoritie is sufficient against master Harding. He wil say nothing I trow against his Portuise. If he wil, we will then charge him with the Popes owne aucthoritie. Innocentius tertius shewing the cause, why in their single holydayes they say not the Créede, Profestis. idē procul a fest. glossa. ib. Decret. de miss. celeb. consilium. nor Gloria in excelsis, as wel as they do on their double feasts, wryteth thus, vt inter commemorationem & solennitatem dif­ferentiam ostendatur, that there may be a difference betwéene a commemoration, and a solemnitie. Loe héere is Pope Inno­cent, flat against maister Harding, concerning the nature of the word, and yet he is content to speake, euen as Soter doth, and say of the other Masses, missarum solennia. Thus we sée these vntruthes sometime can not agrée, nether with their ho­ly father the Pope, neither yet with the Portuise.

Soter requireth to this action, only the company of three.

The .147. vntruthe. He requireth not .iij. but .ij. at the least.

Note good reader, this vntruthe is now twise made in the 144. vntruthe, and againe here. Yet if thou way it well, thou shalt sée, it was not worth repetition. In the other place, the [Page 146] sense was very obscure, and here the words are very straūge. To make this solemne Masse saith M. Iuel, iii. are required. Not so saith M. Harding, the priest requireth but two to make answere. But what if it happen that these two haue a thirde priest to say the Masse, Soter séemeth to meane so when he saith, vt sit ipse tertius, that the priest may be the thirde. I can not tel all their misteries. It may be they haue a custome, that two may make answere, when no man sayth the Masse. Or if they haue not, then this is not vntrue.

It may be doubted whether dominus vobiscum were parte of the Liturgie in Soters time.

The .148. vntruthe. This cannot be wel, and reasonably doub­ted.

If well, and reasonably, doe not helpe out this vntruthe, it hathe then neither goodnesse, nor shew of probabilitie. Now what well, and reasonably, may doe in this matter, it shall well, In Epist. ad Hiero. and reasonably appeare, if you marke Damasus woords, he saith there was nothing red in the Churche on sundayes, sauing some Epistle of the Apostle, and some chapter of the Gospell. If Damasus say true, then it may be doubted bothe well, and reasonably, whether Dominus vobiscum were red or noe. This saying of Damasus maister Iuel dothe alledge, and vpon little searche, it will easily appeare by all Ecclesiasti­call recordes, that in Soters time, and many yeares after, there was no other solemnitie in their ministration, sauing rea­ding, or expounding the scriptures, and some prayers, which the whole congregation did make together: some say that Pe­ter vsed to celebrate with the Lordes prayer only. Paule did [Page 147] preache vnto them, as appeareth in the Actes. Act 20. Mart. in chron. de Petro. Iustin. apol. 2 Iustine spea­king of the Communion in his time▪ saith: Post precationem, nos salutamus osculo mutuo, deinde affertur precipuo fratri pa­nis, & ca [...]ix aqua dilutus &c. After our prayers, we salute one an other with a kisse, then the bread is brought to the chiefest brother, and the cuppe of wine, and water. Then the mynister giueth thanks vnto God, in the name of the Sonne, and of the holy ghost, and the whole people doe answere Amen. And if these words are not yet plaine inough, by which we may doubt whether Dominus vobiscum were then in the Litur­gie, Iustine saith againe. Die solis vrbanorum, & rusticorum coetus fiunt, vbi apostolorum, Iustin. apol. 2 prophetarumque litera quoad fieri potest preleguntur. &c. On sunday we haue our metings bothe of the towne and the countrey, where the Apost [...]es and prophets wrytings are red vnto vs, so long as time wil serue: then our mynister dothe make an ex [...]ortation, willing vs to folow the vertue and goodnesse whereof we reade. Then we rise altogether, and make our prayers. L [...]e héere is a full de­scription of the Communion, in Iustinus Martyr, who liued in Soters time. And yet in all this, not one word making menti­on of Dominus vobiscum, yet is maister Harding so impor­tune in his vntruthes, that he dareth boldly affirme, and yet hath no grounde, that Dominus vobiscum was then parte of their seruice. Let him shewe but one sufficient recorde for proofe of that, he wryteth, and let him haue his vntruthe. I know our decretall Epistles would be of this age, and they defile Gods sacraments, as becommeth that adulterous ge­neration. But those epistles, as I haue sufficiently already shewed, are far vnworthy those godly fathers, whose names they beare.

Further this same Soter requireth, that bothe these two and as many others, as be present, make answere vnto the priest.

The .149. vntruthe. He requireth it not, this is vtterly false.

Note good reader, maister Hardings impudencie, and take héede of his lying spirite, he saith very censoure like this is vtterly false, and in his Reioinder raileth much at M. Iuel, for falsifying the Doctours, and yet most impudently he dothe vtterly belie him. Read his booke, he doth not bring one letter to proue that he saith. Belike he is wel persuaded: his friends wil beleue him, if he doe but say the worde: but to bring some proofe against maister Hardings bare word, vpon these words of Soter, let him haue two at the least to aunswere, if they be moe, saith maister Iuel, then by Soters will they must all an­swer. Upon this, master Harding falleth in his railing vaine, and saith it is vtterly false. But let him say so, his mouthe is no slaunder. The gloser on this Decrée, moueth a doubt, whe­ther these two should be ministers or lay men, or of what sort else. And he answereth, that it is plaine inough, they shold be mynisters. Yet saith he again, that is not certaine quia & po­pulus respondent Amen. De cōs. dist. 1 hoc quo (que) in glossa. For all the people, must, likewise an­swer Amen. Loe he [...]re y ^e glose doth flatly verifie this vntruth. And in an other place, Gracian speaking of the people, which heare their common prayer, saith thus: populus ad [...]d quod planè intelligit respondeat Amen, let the people say Amen to that they do plainly vnderstand. Dist. 38. sed. Héere beside, that the seruice must be in a knowne tong. Gracian saith plainly, al the peo­ple must say Amen. In this next vntruthe before, the like is shewed out of Iustinus, that all the people must say Amen, the same may be proued by all the wryters of that age: notwith­standing M. Harding to kéepe tale of his vntru [...]hes against Gracian, against the glose, against Iustinus M [...]rtyr, against al recordes, saith it is vtterly false. But examine the places, and so trie his credite.

By M. Hardings minde, the Priests deuotion ought not to stay for lacke of companie.

The .150. vntruthe. There can no suche meaning be gathered of my words.

This, as it may be thought, is a very plaine vntruthe, mai­ster Iuel reporting that of maister Harding, which him selfe saith, can not be gathered of his words. But bicause he hathe bene often found faultie, in as bolde asseuerations as this is, it shall not be amisse to sée his woords. Thus he saith: Well, none commeth: this is not a sufficient cause, why the godly priest, enflamed with the loue of God, féeling him self hungry and thirsty, after the heauenly foode, and drinke, shold be kept from it. And haue not these words a good plain meaning? May not one reporte of these words, that a priest may say Masse a­lone? Why then dothe he score vp this vntruthe? Forsoothe héere is a distinction of no bodies comming: either no body may come to answer, or no body may come to receiue, and M. Harding meaneth, y ^t the priest may goe forwarde, though no body come to receiue. After this sort I thinke, spake Heracli­tus, when he would haue no body to vnderstand him. But this is no plain dealing, to speake first so doubtfully, and then score vp an vntruth if one vnderstand it not. And thus much graū ­ting this distinction of no body. If thou require further dis­charge of this vntruthe, I will shewe thee good proofe why M. Iuels saying, ought not to be blamed, notwithstanding this distinction. L [...]ke on Soters decrée, & thou shalt sée the glose al­leageth his Canon law, De cōs. dis. 1. hoc quo (que) in glossa. to proue that the priest may sometime celebrate, if he haue but one present, sometime, if there be no m [...] but him selfe. This then being established by their lawe, [Page 150] that the Priest may say Masse alone, maister Hardings vntruthe may controll the Pope, it maketh little against maister Iuel.

By this decree, these two were bound to receiue, or to departe.

The .151. vntruthe. That decree, bindeth only the clergie.

Before we had a distinction of no body, now to quite that barren matter, héere is a distinction of all men. Let all men receiue, De cōs. dist. 1 Peracta. saith Calixtus, or goe out of the Church, that is, saith maister Harding, all men of the clergie, not all men of the laitie. Thus neither all thing, nor nothing, nor something, nor any thing shall want a distinction, if by plaine dealing the matter be not good. But O maister Har­ding, Eurip. [...], true speache is playne. Nowe for the Christian Reader, least these distinctions should deceiue thee, I must now, and then admonishe, [...]ée, that they be but false stuffe, and this shall well appeare in this present matter, if I teache thée, that in the prima­tiue Churche, there did none abide, that did not Commu­nicate.

When Christ did first institute his supper, it was so, all that were present, did Communicate. He gaue commaun­dement, Math. 26.27. that it should be so vsed, and said. Drinke ye all of this. And that the Apostles, and those other, who be­beloued, did th [...]s, it appeareth in the Actes, where without excepti [...]n, Act. 2.42. S. Luke saith, they continued daily in breaking [Page 151] of breade. And againe, they met together to breake bread. This was after obserued among the Corinthians, as ap­peareth by S. Paule, who plainely teacheth, Act. 20.7. that they come together to eate the Lordes supper, and least we shoulde thinke any excepted, in the verses folowing, he addeth eue­ry one. And for a further proofe of his meaning, he bid­deth them one tary for an other. By all this it is certaine, that all that were present, receiued. Upon this, 1. Cor 11.33. saith Ca­lixtus, let all receiue that will not depart out of the Church. And he bringeth a reason to this Decrée. Sic enim aposto­li statuerunt. For so the Apostles haue appoynted from the Apostles time through all ages, till iniquitie beganne to haue the vpper hande it was alwayes an holy lawe. For all that were present, to Communicate. And it is condem­ned of the fathers, as great presumption, and impudencie, to looke on, and be no partaker, as it is other where suffici­ently declared. And were not maister Harding set on euill vnderstanding, he would learne by that vse of the prima­tiue Churche, when they sent away Catechumeni, those that were beginners in Christianitie, that it was not law­full for any to be an idle looker on. Sure in his priuate Masse, they may loke on that list. For this vntruthe, bicause Calixtus him selfe dothe referre vs to the Apostles example, when maister Harding can proue by the Apostles, that those, whome S. Luke mentioneth to haue daily mette, and the Corinthians, to whome S. Paule wryteth, to haue bene all ministers, then these distinctions of all men, and no body, shal goe for good. Read the .221. vntruthe.

It is determined by the glose, that these two were Priests, or Deacons, and so this decree of Soter, agreeth with an other of A­nacletus.

The .152. vntruth. It is not assuredly determined by the glose.

The .153. vntruthe. It agreeth not.

If this assuredly, doe not helpe out with an vntruthe, then assuredly this is no vntruthe: but for as muche, as assuredly is put in by maister Harding, assuredly this is no plaine dea­ling: and sure it is, if suche vnsure demeanor wer taken from maister Hardings assured vntruthes, the surety of good religi­on shold in déede appeare, and this vnsauery wrangling shold be contemned, for this vntruthe it is altogether shamelesse. The glose moueth this question: whether these two should be of the clergie, or of the laitie, or of either one, and it ma­keth this answere, satis videtur quod debent esse duo clerici, it is plaine inough, De cōs. dis. 2. paracta in glossa. they shold be two of the clergie. Now iudge whether maister Iuel may say thus, the glose hath determi­ned it. As touching the allegation of these aucthorities out of maister Hardings Doctors, séeing he dothe so vnwisely repre­hend it, bicause master Iuel alleageth their sayings, yet alow­eth not their religion. May it please him to be answered, as Tullie said to Antonie, testimonium tuum quod in aliena re leue debet esse, in tua tamen quia contra te est, debet esse gra­uissimum, this their witnesse, which in an other matter were of no value, yet in their owne, bicause it is against thē selues, it must néedes be very waightie. This other vntruthe, as tou­ching Anacletus, is like the residue: vpon examination of the woords, De cōs. dis. 1. vt illud. let the reader iudge. Thus saith Anacletus, Episcopus deo sacrificans, testes secum habeat, in solennioribus quippe die­bus, aut. 7. aut. 5. aut. 3. diaconos. &c. By this it is shewed, that at euery ministration he shold haue some of the clergie. Now the glose of that other Decrée, determining that those two should be of the clergie, let the indifferent reader iudge whe­ther [Page 153] it doeth agrée with this decrée of Anacletus, and so he shall sée the better, what maner of vntruthes these are.

M. Harding knoweth well, that these decrees, which are here rehersed, could neuer be found written.

The .154. vntruth. I knovv it not.

The councels are extant, and the thing is plaine, these decrées are not in them. But saith Maister Harding, perad­uenture thrée hundred yeare a gone, Gratian did sée them, though they neuer came to our hands: Now sure this is a straunge paraduenture. Gratian liued 800. yeares after the councell was holden at Agatha, and if those decrées had re­mained so long, peraduenture they might haue bidden .300. yeares mo, and so we should haue knowne of them. But seing the matter is but at peraduenture, at all aduentures let vs graunt it. What, troweth Maister Harding, bicause that by gesse he proueth his priuate Masse, therfore shall gesses be of value to make vntruthes? He had néede shew better euidence, that would take away Maister Iuels good name.

It is decreed, that they, which receiue not at Christmas, Easter, & Whitsontide, be accompted as no catholikes. Then except a few massing priestes, there is not one catholike in the church of Rome.

The .155. vntruth. This is a slaunderous lye.

The councell holden at Agatha, hath decréed thus, the seculer men, De cōs. dist. 2. seculares. that receiue not the Communion at Christ­masse, Easter, and Whitsuntide, let them not be taken, or reckned for catholike people. Herevpon Maister Iuel saith, if it be so in the holy church of Rome, sauing a fewe Massing Priestes, there is not one catholike. The reason is. For they receiue but euerie Easter, and whether they haue vsed it, or no, let all the world witnesse. I doe appeale herein, to the conscience of the rankest papists, whosoeuer they be, let the vsage of that time be a triall, whether they vsed then only to receiue, or no. What holy fashions were then vsed, aboue other times? What shriuing? What dispe­ling? What curteine drawing? What primerose gathe­ring? What cleckclacking? What roode sweating? What crossecreping? What Iacke an apes walking from the al­tar to the idol house? What wickednesse was there vsed a­gainste that one time of their sinfull receiuing? Who kno­weth it not, that this is true? Yet saith Maister Harding, it is a slanderous lye, it is an impudent tale, a false slaun­der, Reioind. fo. 223. an impudent surmise, a manifest vntruth, such one, as may be sene, the nouice of him, that is the father of lies. If this may be beleued, we sée how against all certain trueth, he will spew out his venome. But God haue the glory, that hath giuen his children vertue, against such poison, For the vntruth, I say, as before, let the world iudge.

I haue alreadie proued, by Saint Augustine, and Saint Ie­rome, that Communion was ministred in Rome euerie day.

The .155. vntruth. This is proued by neither of them.

Double on Maister Harding. Your number shall grow [Page 155] the better. This is now the fourth time, that this vntruth is reconed: that the thing is true, I haue sufficiently decla­red before. Now bicause the matter so falleth out, that M. Iuel alleaging foure times these things of Augustine, and Ierome, M. Harding noteth them for foure vntruths, I must craue of thée a litle to consider them. Ieromes wordes are these, I know this custome is at Rome, In Apolog. cont. Iouinia Reioind fol. 216. that christian folke receiue the bodie of Christ dayly, which I doe neither re­proue, nor alow. These wordes, it séemeth, are méetely plaine. Maister Harding aunswereth thus. Héere mencion is made only of dayly receiuing, but that they receiued to­gether in one place, that is not auouched. If any man can sée any reason in this aūswere, let the vntruth go. Now as touching Augustine, he sayth thus. Christ, Epist. 23. Reioinder. fol. 197. by way of sacra­ment is offered euerie day vnto the people, not at Easter only, but euery day. This authority, bicause it is somewhat plaine, Maister Harding skippeth it ouer, and aunswereth not at all. Augustine sayth againe, the dayly bread may be takē pro sacramento corporis christi, quod quotidie accipimus, for the sacramēt of Christes bodie, wich we receiue dayly. De serm. do­mini in mōt. li. 2. Reioinder. fol. 199. To this authoritie Maister Harding doth aunswere thus. Saint Augustine might meane that of him selfe, and other Priestes, or which is more likely he spake indefinitely, of all beleuers. Thus with might meane, and more likely, M. Harding would warrant this one vntruth to be .v. But he him selfe might meane more simply, & then it were more likely, these vntruthes had ben fewer, but let vs sée more. S. Augustine saith againe, De serm. do­mini in mōt. li. 2. ca. 12. many in the Easte doe not dayly cōmunicate. Of this M. Iuel inferreth. Therefore some in the Easte did cōmunicate dayly. To this, M. Harding aun­swereth somewhat shamefully: Of y ^e thing I contend not, Reioinder. fo. 200. but yet M. Iuels argumēt is not good. Marke good Reader, M. Hard▪ saith, of y ^e thing he wil not cōtend, & yet he maketh v. vntruths of it. But let this go. S. Augustine saith againe, the sacramēt of this thing is prepared, or consecrate in the [Page 156] church, In Iohan. tract. 26. Alicubi quotidie, alicubi certis interuallis dierum, some­where euerie daye, and somewhere but on certaine dayes. To this Maister Harding aunswereth thus, the sacrament in some places is prepared euerie daye by priestes, Reioind. fol. [...]01. and by the same priests is euery day receiued, these are the proofes which Maister Iuel saith here, that he hath brought. Mai­ster Harding noteth his vntruthe, and sayth, they proue it not, whether they do, or no. Now let the Reader iudge. Except Maister Hardings aunsweres had ben better, this vntruth needeth no longer iustifying.

Fabian saith, we decree that euerie sondaie the oblation of the altar be made both of bread, and wine, as well by men, as women: Here besides that in these wordes is included, the receiuing of the Communion euerie sonday, may be noted also by the way, that by this authoritie of Fabian, men, and women made the sacrifice of the alter, euen as S. Barnard saith: Not onely the priest, but also all the faithfull sacrifice do.

The .157. vntruthe. It is not included, that they receiue euerie sunday.

The .158. vntruth. Fabian doeth not attribute the making of the sacrifice to men, and vvomen.

The .159. vntruth. S. Barnard saith it not.

This first vntruthe is, that though they offred euerie sunday bread, and wine, yet it foloweth not, that they re­ceiued. But this Maister Harding sayth, onely, and besyde gesses, hath no sufficient proufe for it. In fine, thus he re­solueth the matter. This bread, and wine was partly for the priest alone to receiue, Reioind. fol. 127. partly for the cleargie, partly for the poore, and partely to make holy bread of, so this is become a verie beneficiall vntruth vnto Maister Har­ding, it hath not onely encreased his number, but it hath [Page 157] brought in an other article of his religion, and that is, at all a verie venture, holy bread. Here were good roome for one of Maister Hardings aunsweres, this pelfe will not serue, you must go séeke better stuffe. The second vntruth, here brought, is this, that men, and women doe not make this sacrifice. Fabians words are these: Haec altaris oblatio ab omnibus viris, et mu [...]eribus fiat, let this sacrifice of the alter be made of all, men and women. These words I trow, are meetely plaine, but Maister Harding aunswereth thus. There is difference betwene an oblation, and a sacrifice, oblation is it, when any thing is offered vnto the Lorde, & nothing done vnto it, or in it. A sacrifice is, Reioind. fo. 225. when a thing offred vnto God, is by the priest altered, by some thing don in it, or vnto it, for religion sake: so the common people made the oblation of the alter, but they made not the sacri­fice of the alter. It were to be wished, good christian Rea­der, that these distinctions, were barred, then we should haue lesse wrangling, and fewer vntruths. But, they say, all is well, that endes well, if by examination this distinc­tion be founde good, why should not Maister Harding vse it? Theophilacte, saith he, Chrisostome and Paule him selfe, haue so distinguished these words. First though they hadde done so, yet this were but a meane reason, to proue they were in like sort vsed in Fabian. The profe of Fabians mea­ning, may not well be shewed but by Fabian him selfe. But let vs sée what these Doctours saye, on whome Maister Harding will▪ grounde this distinction. Theophilactus wordes are these, Inter donum, siue munus, et hostiam, siue victimam, si exactam spectes rationem, aliquid est discriminis, quia victimae, vel hostiae, sunt per sanguinē, In. 8. ca. ad Hebr. et carnem oblatio­nes, vel quae per ignem sacrificantur, dona sunt quaecun (que) alia incruenta, et igni carentia. Betwene [...] and [...] that is gifts and sacrifices, this is the difference, that [...], a sacri­fice, is an oblation made with fleshe and bloud, or by fire, [...] a gift, is that which is offred vnbloudie, and without [Page 158] fire. Of this place M. Harding doeth conclude, that an obla­tion is a thing offered vnto God without any thing done vnto it, but this argument hangeth as losely, as any other commonly in M. Hardings booke. A gift whereof Theophi­lacte speaketh, is is in Greke, [...], an oblation, whereof M. Harding speaketh, is in Gréeke [...]. So his reasō hangeth thus. A gift is that, which without fire, or bloud, is offred vnto God, as an oblation is that, which hath nothing done vnto it. This argument, Christian Reader, this is his owne reason, neither better, nor worse, than he hath made it. His second authoritie, is out of Chrisostome, his wordes likewise are these, Ad hebr. ho. 18. Oblatio erat quicquid extra sacrificium erat, that was the oblation, what so euer was beside the sacrifice, and more than this, he saith not now of these words how M. Hard. can frame his aūswere to this autho­ritie of Fabian, doutlesse no man that meaneth plainly, can espie. This is Chrisostomes meaning, y ^• dona were all those sacrifices, or offerings prescribed, saue onely, such as were sinne offrings. But M. Harding goeth further, & for [...]eth S. Paule, as if of him he had learned his distinction, how be it, he neuer spake one word of it. Yea the places by M. Hard▪ alleaged, do not so much as once name oblation, then how doth he make this exacte difference of oblations? Surely no authoritie had ben much better, than these thrée, nothing to the purpose. In the meane season by M. Hardings good skil, we may chaunge our cōmon vse of speaking, & say no more burnt offring, meate offring, peace offring, sin offering, &c. but rather thus, burnt sacrifice, meate sacrifice, peace sacri­fice, sinne sacrifice, & so forth. A proper distinction, & méete to interprete Fabian, that cōtrolleth thus the phrase of the scripture. Here foloweth yet an other vntruth, & that is a­bout these words, Non solus sacerdos sacrificat, sed etiam totus conuentus fidelium. Not only the priest sacrificeth, but also all the companie of the faithfull. This saith M. Harding, is not true in M. Iuels sense. For, saith he, that euery one of [Page 159] the people, both men, & women in their own person do out­wardly, & ministerially cōsecrate y ^e bodie & bloud of Christ, & so offer, & make the sacrifice of the alter, after the order of Melchisedech, Reioind. fol. 227. neither is it signified by the blessed martir S. Fabian, neither was it euer before M. Iuels Replie came forth, with such impudencie reported. Better had it ben for M. Harding, & more credit for his vntruth, if he had rested here, y ^t M.I. named Bernard, in stead of Guerricus. For this report of M. Iuels meaning is nothing else, but impudent folie. For who would euer say, that M. Iuels meaning is, y ^e men, and women sayd Masse, such vntruth can be no better reproued, than by shewing Maister Hardings proues.

But what if the verie words of these councels, where vpon M. Harding hath found the Masse, make manifest proofe against his Masse? The words be these; All secular christian folke be bound to receiue the communion at the least, thrice in the yeare. This re­laxation, or priuiledge is graunted onely to the secular christians. whereof it foloweth necessarily, that all ecclesiasticall persons, as Priests, Deacons, Clerkes, and others, whatsoeuer of that sort, were not excepted, but stode still bounde to receiue orderly, as they had done before, and that was at all times, whensoeuer there was any ministration.

The .160. vntruth. These be not the words of the councel.

The .161. vntruth. This is no relaxation, or priuiledge.

The .162. vntruth. The ecclesiastical persons were not bound to receiue, whensoeuer there was any ministration.

This sentence of M. Iuel, no doubt, pleaseth M. Harding well. For cōsidering y ^e nūber of vntruths, y ^t he must find, he séeth some way must be foūd to bring his purpose to effect, vpon this occasiō, here he hath noted .iij. vntruths together. But it is welū. Nber may be no preiudice to y ^e truth, let vs [Page 160] examine the sayings. First saith Maister Iuel, the councels words are these. All secular folke are bound to receiue the Communion, at the least, thrise a yeare. These are not the words, saith Maister Harding, and it is true. These are not the words in déede. But way yet well the whole matter, & thou shalt sée Maister Harding a verie wrangler. Maister Iuel a litle before doeth recite the latine, euen as it is red in Gracian, and doeth english it word for word, hauing occa­sion againe here to repeate the decrée, he alleageth the true meaning, and maketh onely this change, in stead of Christ­masse, Easter, and whitsontide, he saith, thrise in the yeare, and in doing so, what blame deserueth he? Looke in this same diuision, Maister Iuel alleageth the words thus. Qui in natali domini, De cōs. disc. 2. seculares. Pascate, et Pentecoste non communicant, ca­tholici non credantur, nec inter catholicos habeantur. These verie words are found in Gracian, they, that receiue not the Communion at Christmasse, Easter, and Whitsontide, let them not be taken nor reconed for catholike people. Here is the place truely alleaged, and worde for worde in­terpreted, then how can he be blamed for falsifying the councels wordes? In this place which followeth, within one leafe, he alleageth the sense of this decrée thus. All se­cular christian folke be bound to receiue the Communion, at the least, thrise in the yeare. There he nameth y ^e times, Christmasse, Easter, Whitsontide, here he saith, thrise in the yeare, and is this any vntrue dealing? This it is, that I sayd, marke well Maister Harding, and thou shalt finde him a verie wrangler. For this other vntruth, about a re­laxation, and priuiledge, except Maister Harding thinke he haue a priuiledge to wrangle, what doeth it here? It is a relaxation to those that receiued, either euerie day, or eue­rie sunday, it was a restrainte of those that would receiue but once a yeare. Now this third vntruth, whether the ec­clesiasticall persons were bounde to receiue, when soeuer there was any ministration, or no, in that maister Harding [Page 161] may well disclose his owne vntruthe. He can not blame mai­ster Iuel. I require of the Christian reader, to mark diligent­ly what is spoken, and then iudge as God shall moue thée. Ecclesiasticall persones were bound daily to receiue saith M. Iuel. They were not saith M. Harding, and for proofe of that, he saith only thus muche, that maister Iuel hath not proued the contrary. Now whether he hath, or not, let his Replye be iudge. He alleageth in the .29. Diuision, Cano. apost. Canon. 9. a Canon of the Apo­stles, which is this, if any Bishop or priest, or Deacon, or any other of the clerks after the Oblation is made, doe not Com­municate, either let him shew cause thereof, that if it be found reasonable, he may be excused, or let him be excommunicate. I trow this be a law, & a straight law that is inforced vnder the paine of excommunication. They were bounde so sure, that they might not be losed, but vpon iust occasion, and necessitie, hath no law. Yet saith master Harding, it is not proued. Now thou séest he will not say alwayes true. And to proue that this proofe was good, Concil. Elib. Cap. 180. it is decréed by the councell holden at Eliberis in Spaine, in sundry Canons, that vpon diuers faultes, the priests, deacons, and clerks, should not in the end of seruice re­ceiue the Communion, wherby it appeareth, that it was their duety to receiue at euery ministration. And this may well ap­pear, if we be not obstinate by the councel of Carthage, saying. Cōc. Carth. 4. ca. 41. Diaconus tempore oblationis tantum, vel lectionis, alba indua­tur, let the Deacon wear on his albe, only in the time that the scripture is a reading, or else in the time of the Communion. By this it may appeare, that in their seruice the cleargie had their Communion, so in the .73. canon of the same councell, it is said: qui communicauerit .l. orauerit, where by that ioyning, it may appeare that in their common prayers, they had also a Communion, and it was then especially prouided that no spi­rituall man shold be present, and not Communicate. And sure­ly, who so shall well consider the diligence of the mynisters in the primatiue Churche, shall not, nor can not doubt, except priuate Masse haue blinded him, but that themselues recei­ceiued [Page 162] at euery assembly, and exhorted other to doe the like. Then this is no vntruthe.

Those decrees were not made for the greatest parte of the peo­ple, which in their dayes vsed to communicate in all their assem­blies. &c. as appeareth by the Ecclesiasticall records of that time.

The .163. vntruth. The greatest part vsed not to Communicate in all their assemblies at that time.

The .164. vntruthe. The Ecclesiasticall recordes of that time shew the contrary.

These vntruthes stande vpon maister Hardings computa­tion of times. And if you will not alow his owne reckening, neither are all the other vntruthes of any value, nor this worthe the numbring. At this time, saith maister Harding, that is, when the councell of Agatha was holden, the greatest parte did not Communicate in all their assemblies, and this he proueth by the testimonies of Ambrose, Augustine, and Chrysostome. Lib. 5. de sa. ca. 4. de ser. domini in mo .l. 2. cap. 120. Ad po. A. ho. 61. To those fathers I answer, that they spake on­ly vnto some, that were very negligent, and would but sel­dome receiue. Maister Hardings surmise, that therof gesseth at a priuate Masse, is very slender. What if one hundred, or two? or what if the greater parte came seldome to the con­gregation, and therfore these good pastors did so often rebuke them? Yet most of them, that came, did Communicate, and maister Harding shall neuer shew the contrary. These selfe same Doctors are very plaine, that vsually, many of them did receiue, and if it were so, where is the priuate Masse? Chrysostome speaketh plainly, In. 4. ad ro. ser. 8. contremiscite, contremiscite ad mensam hanc, de qua communicamus simul omnes, tremble, tremble at this table, at which we doe all Communicate to­gither. [Page 163] And that we may know how often this was done, he wryteth in an other place, prece [...] illic perpetuae propter te, sy­naxis propter te, oblatio per singulos dies dominicos, there are, In acta. ca. [...] hom 18. meaning of the Church, continual prayers for thée, assemblies for thée, and the Communion euery sunday. And if maister Harding wil except again, that Oblatio is not the Communi­on, let him remember héere is also Synaxis, by which worde is also ment the Communion, so whether worde he will haue to signifie this Sacrament, he must confesse, that it was vsed at the least euery sunday, and that of the people. And in an other place, Chrysostome saith: Ad pop. Ant. hom. 61. Omnis qui astat & ministeriorū par­ticipio non fruitur, impudens est, & procax. Whosoeuer is pre­sent, and dothe not Communicate, he is shamelesse and mala­pert. And in diuers places he warneth them to cease their euil doing, with oft repetition of the dreadfull mysteries. And to what purpose were that, if they receiued not commonly. The aucthoritie that is alleaged out of Augustine, is taken out of Ambrose, and it may wel be answered with the aucthoritie a­gaine of Augustine, taken out of Cyprian. Hunc panem dari nobis quotidie postulamus. &c. This bread saith he, we desire that it may be daily giuen vnto vs. &c. Least while we be de­nied that heauenly breade, we be seperate from the bodye of Christ. Héereby it appeareth, in their assemblies, the most of them receiued, and to this effecte maister Iuel dothe alleage, Conc. Matisc. 2 cap. 40. Concil. Antisiodor. Can. 42. Car. mag. lib. 6. cap. 162. Now how so euer it liketh maister Harding to accept it, all this must néedes stande for sufficient proofe. For this seconde vntruthe héere brought, that the contrarye is shewed by sundry recordes of this, that we haue said, it ap­peareth that this shewe, as it is againe shewed, is nothing worth. Therefore the vse of receiuing in those dayes was, as it is recorded, euery sunday at the least, but the receiuing in the Popes dayes, is euery Easter, and so both these vntruths are become none.

It was decreed by a councell holden at Gerunda in Spaine, that all litle Churches in the countrey, shold confourme them selues vn­to the great cathedrall churches, that were in cities, and townes, as well for order of the Communion, as also for singing, and other mi­nistration. But by M. Hardings owne graunt, there was no pri­uate Masse in the cathedrall Churches.

The .165. vntruth. That councell speaketh neuer a vvorde, in that canon of the Communion.

The .166. vntruthe. I neuer made any suche graunt.

Beleue not this mannes saying, gentle reader, if thou loue thine owne soule. Marke first the aucthorities ere thou credite his reporte. The words of the councel, are these, vt institutio missarum, sicut in Metropolitana ecclesia agitur, ita in dei no­mine in omni Terraconensi prouincia, tam ipsius missae ordo quam psallendo, vel ministrando consuetudo seruetur. That the institution of Masses, euen as it is done in the Metropo­litane Churches, so in the name of God we wil, that in al the prouince of Terraconia, the same custome be kept, in order, in singing, and in mynistration. This canon is reported by Gra­cian, who in stead of Terraconia, putteth in all prouinces, least maister Harding should make exception of any one countrey. De consec. dist. 2. instit. But saith he, this decrée speaketh neuer a worde of the Com­munion. Yet this decrée hath these expresse woords. The insti­tution of the Masse, the order, the maner of singing, and the mynistration. And the title of this decrée in Gracian, is this: as in the cathedrall Churches, sic vbique missarum solennia cele­brentur, so euery where let the solemnitie of the Masse be kept: and the glose saith, Ostendit quod missa non debet aliter celebrari, Ibi. in glossa. quam in Metropolitana ecclesia, he sheweth that the [Page 165] Masse must be celebrated no otherwise, than in the cathedrall Churches. If the Communion in the Masse, be no part of the institution, nor order, nor ministration, it is a strange Com­munion, and it is a straunge Masse, that may be instituted, and ministred without it. But be it, that this were so, is mai­ster Harding so vncourteous to his close Communion, that he wil haue it no part of the solemnitie of his Masse? He doth thē deserue very ill of it. For it hath more prety gestures, than all the Masse beside. But what if maister Harding will denye all this? What if he care neither for councel, nor yet for Graci­an? What if he say it is no part of the institution, order, mini­stration, nor yet of the solemnitie? yet he cannot auoid y ^e glose, that speaketh expresly, without naming any circumstaunce, that the Masse must be celebrate no otherwise in small Chur­ches, than it is in the Metropolitane churche. Now except M. Harding do meane to teache vs, by these distinctions, that the Communion is no parte of the Masse, it must be ministred in all Churches alike. This is a miserable cause that M. Har­ding hath, that to defend it, must either fall into this absurdi­tie, that the Communion is no part, neither of the institution of the Masse, nor of the manner of singing, nor of the order, nor of the ministration, nor of the solemnity, nor of the Masse it self, or else he must confesse, this is no vntruth. Now where he saith further, for this other vntruth, that he made no suche graunt, that in cathedrall Churches there was no priuate Masse, if it be true, what a vain argument made he, when he gessed at priuate Masse in little villages, by the vse of Cathe­dral churches. Reasoning after this sort, that séeing ther were so few Communicants in the great citie of Antioche, what was to be thought of small parishes? Hard. diuis. 30 Héere may wel appeare a secrete graunt, that priuate Masses must be had in small townes in the countrey, or else no where.

It appeareth by most certaine, and vndoubted proofes, that the people did receiue then euery sunday.

The .167. vnt. It appeareth not, by ought that here is brought.

In the .157. vntruthe, master Harding said, this was a foule vntruthe. Héere he saith, it is vntrue, for ought that héere is brought, so he somwhat qualifieth his former saying. But yet this doing is straunge, bicause the thing is certaine, to make exception against the proofe, more modestie might well haue yelded vnto the truthe. How be it, considering it is M. Har­dings doing, it is y ^e more sufferable. Poets, and painters may not be limitted in their inuentiōs. But least the christian rea­der should be deceiued, and haue some confidence of this vn­truthe, bicause it is twise reckened: let vs sée these proofes, which maister Harding saith are so vnsufficient. The one is, Decernimus, vt omnibus dominicis diebus. &c. We decrée that euery sunday the oblation of the aultar, Cōc. matisc. cap. 4. be made of euery mā, and woman. This aucthority séemeth very sufficient, if y ^e time do preiudice it, in that thi [...] councell was holden more than & C. yeares after the councell of Agatha, maister Harding must vnderstand it is an argument, Minorae. They receiued euery sunday in the time of the councel holden at Matiscona. Ergo, muche rather when the councel was at Agatha. And in déede, from that time our sauior Christ ascēded, vntill the Pope sate aloft in the Church of God, euery age, as it was nearer vnto Christes time, so they had more commonly their Communi­ons. The second profe y ^t M. Iuel bringeth, is this, vnaquaeque mulier. Cōc. antis. Cap. 42. &c. Euery womā when she doth communicate, let hir haue hir Dominical. If she haue it not, let hir not Communi­cate, vsque in alium diem dominicum, vntill the next sunday. Then of like they receiued euery sunday. This argumēt saith M. Harding, is slender, & a learned man will be ashamed of it. And he answereth it with an other argument, & if thou wilt haue a paterne of a good one, marke it well. The wordes are [Page 167] saith he, quando communicat, when she dothe communicate. Ergo, she did not communicate euery sunday. Reioinder. fol. 231. He that will re­prehend M. Iuels argument, it is reason himself should haue made a better. By suche reasons we may conclude what we wil. When she did communicate, therfore she did it not euery sunday. Then when we go to dinner, we sit downe. Therfore we goe not to dinner euery day. Suche prooues may be soone made. Biside this, M. Harding chalengeth the translation, but that is not worthe answering. Alias is commonly vsed for the next, fallacia alia aliam trudit. Nos alia ex alijs in fata voca­mur. Aliud ex alio malum. Ex alio in aliud vicissitudo. And if we say in Englishe, we must tary for another terme, euery wise man doth vnderstand it, we must tary til the next terme. Thus hear appeareth no insufficiencie in M. Iuels proofe, but muche folowing M. Hardings vntruthe.

Likewise Socrates writeth thus in Greke, [...], that is to say, to haue a congregation, or assembly by thēselues.

The .168. There are no suche words in that place in Socrates.

False quotation needeth no great excuse.

Let Missa be taken for the Masse, that is, for the ministration of the Sacraments.

The .169. It doth not signify the ministration of the sacramēts.

Betwéene M. Stapleton, and M. Harding, maister Iuel can say nothing without blame. The sixth vntruthe noted by [Page 168] maister Iuel out of maister Hardings answer, is this. S. An­drew said the Communion, and not the Masse. In the returne of this vntruth, saith maister Stapleton: you speake fondly, the Masse, and the Communion is al one. Héere saith maister Iuel, let the Masse be taken for the Communion. That is an vntruthe saith maister Harding, it can not be so taken. Thus we sée these men are at a point, speake maister Iuel, what he wil, so long as he speaketh truthe, he shall not escape blame. Whether Missa may signifie the Communion, or no. Reade more in the .17. vntruthe.

Verily it is prouided by the decree it selfe, that in priuate Chap­pels, there should be a lawfull, and an ordnarie company.

The .170. vntruthe. It was not prouided.

To make this vntruthe perfect, M. Harding hath bound it with a double asseueration, verily, verily, this is a false lie. But surely, surely, there is little honesty, to vse so muche wrangling, where the matter it selfe is plaine. The words of the decrée are these, vt ibi missas teneat propter fatigationem familiae, Conc. Agat. cap. 21. iusta ordinatione permittimus, we permit that in due order for the wearinesse of his housholde, he may haue Masse in his priuate Oratorie. Now though maister Harding goe not the right way to proue his priuate Masse, that goeth to séeke it out in priuate chappels, yet let vs way well what this permission is. The decrée saith, iusta ordinatione, or iusto ordi­ne, De consecr. dist. 1. si quis. so without due order it might not be, not in priuate Ora­tories, and to haue it with order, was to haue a number of Communicantes. So this permission yet makes no priuate Masse. Againe the decrée saith, propter fatigatiouem familiae, for the wearinesse of the housholde, whereby it appeareth the [Page 169] householde must communicate. For if they should not haue gon to church, how should they haue ben werie of going? & thē was there not yet priuate Masse. Thirdly it was gra [...] ­ted in those parishes, in which, beside that householde, there was legittimus, ordinarius (que) conuentus, in which there was beside a sufficient companie. What neded this exception, if the Priest might haue sayd Masse, & receiued a [...]one? Litle companie will serue to make one communicate. Thus we sée Maister Harding, doeth no where speake more aduised­ly, than where he maketh most constant asseueration.

Vincentius writeth, after Gregorius was dead, Bonifacius ruled the church of Rome. This Boniface obtained of the Emperour, Phocas, that the church of Rome should be the head of all chur­ches, and that bicause the church of Constantinople wrote it selfe by that title. The next yeare after that, Augustine, that was cal­led the English mens bishop, died. The yeare folowing, Iohn the Al­monar, was in great fame, at which time also Mahomet first spred his religion in Arabia.

The .171. vntruth. Vincentius vvriteth not so.

If thou knowest not what wrangling is, now learne. Maister Harding findeth here diuerse faults. The first, that Bonifacius was not next Gregorie, and true I think it be. Sa­uinianus was one yere betwene, and what skilleth that to priuate Masse? Or why should Maister Iuel of purpose, speake here vntruly? It is very probable he might forget the order of the Popes, that was so occupied to set out Gods religion. This was not worth the noting. Another fault is, where Vincentius saith, Augustine the first [...] En­glish Bishop. Maister Iuel saith thus, Augustine that was [Page 170] called the English bishop. What contention aboute words is this▪ Another fault is, bi cause he alleageth not one sen­t [...]nce, where Vincentius doeth commend the Almonars li­b [...]ralitie Except Maister Iuell would haue filled his booke with idle words, this was nothing necessarie. He searcheth [...] what I killeth it then, to alleage hi [...] co [...]dations. We reade in Plato, that a [...] was euer won [...] to make suche a [...]nswer [...]s▪ when Cherephon asketh Polus, what science Gorgias professeth, Polus always is vp with a speciall com­mendation of it, Plato in Gorgia. and neuer tels what it is. But Socrates sayd, that was nothing to the purpose, there was no man dispraised it, so what helpeth it, when we aske of the Almonars age, to alleage Vincentius commendation, of him. No man disprayseth him, we séeke for his age, we enquire not of his qualities, lette the man alone. The fourthe faulte is, that he parteth this saying: What tyme Mahomet spred his religion in Arabia, in the dis­tincte letter of the Doctours allegations. This doyng helpeth Maister Iuell neuer a whit. For if it be true, what skilleth it, who sayth it? Againe, if the Printer make not his letters well, Maister Iuell is not to blame. Here are foure faulte [...] founde without salte or [...]auoure, yet there is an other, and that is, that aboute this time, Mahomet spred not his religion. For he beganne, sayth Maister Harding, in the latter time of Heraclitus the Em­perour. Maister Harding is verie supersticious in com­putation of times, or this would séeme to bée a verie [...]ender [...]. Phocas began his raigne, in the yeare of our Lord .604. three yeares after that Bonifacius was made Pope▪ 607. it was foure yeares after, Nauclerus in chron. gen. 21. et. [...]2. that Iohn the Almonar, shoulde saye this Masse. Anno .610. with­in .xix. yeare [...] after, in the ninetene yeare of Heraclitus, Mahomet did sprede his heresie. And may we not saye of [Page 171] things done nighe a thousande yeares paste, tha [...] th [...]y were done about one tyme, if the [...] were done within nintene yeares compasse? But what meaneth Maister Harding, to cauill aboute times? The wryters them selues doe not agrée▪ by some computation, they [...] verie lytle. Mahomet is sayde to haue begonne, Anno Domini ▪621. so there was but nine yeares difference▪ [...]. temp. Fo. 41. pa. 2. and may not then Maister Iuell saye, they were done aboute the same tyme. Maister Harding hath little to [...]aye, when he stayeth at suche trifles. But bicause Maister Harding taketh it in by the waye, that Augustine was our firste Bishoppe, reade more of that in the Epistle.

To breake the holie Canons, Damasus sayth, i [...] blasphemie a­gainst the holie goste.

The .72. vntruth. Damasus saith not so.

This is one of Maister Hardings poore vntruthes, which, beside the assertion, hath neither colour, nor show. Damasus wordes are these. Tali [...] praesumptio manifeste vnum genus est blasphem [...]tis in spiritual factum. 25. q. 1. viola tores. Such pre­sumpsion is manifestly one kinde of blasphemie, againste the holie goste. Yf these be not the wordes, then I lie. If these be the wordes, then Maister Harding maketh shamelesse vntruthes. And if those wordes of the decree are [Page 172] not plaine enough, then Gracian speaketh more plainely in the title, he speaketh, euen as Maister Iuell doeth, In spiri­tum sanctum blasphemant, qui sacros canones violant, it is blasphemie against the holy gost, to breake the sacred ca­nons. Yea and the glose saith further, Eo ipso videtur ex­communicatus, et hereticus, euen by the verie face, he is ex­communicate, Ibid. in glosa and he is an heretike. And Gregorie saith, ex­ors esto a nostro ministerio. Let him haue no part of our mi­nistratiō. Dist. 19. nulli. Reade these places, & examine M. I. saying, thou canst not but maruell, at Maister Hardings impudencie.

Soters decree commaundeth, that no Priest dare minister with­out the companie of some other Priest.

The .173. vntruth. Soters decree is not so generall, it is li­mitted.

How so euer Soters decrée be limitted, he were a wise man could limit al M. Hardinges wrangling. The canon is plaine, Summopere cauendum est▪ And necessarium duxi­mus, we must especially prouide, and we haue thought it necessarie, to haue an other Priest in companie, and for the better credit of this decrée, Soter bringeth forth this scrip­ture, Ve soli, wo be to him that is alone. But saith Maister Harding, this decrée was not generall, and it was growne out of vse: and how proueth he, that it was not generall. Forsoth Gregorie saith so, he might as well haue sayde, I say so, for if Gregorie might gesse at Soters meaning .400. yeares after Soter was dead, why may not M. Hard. gesse too. I am sure he is as good at a gesse as euer Gregorie was, and hath as good practise in them. But this is straunge dea­ling which Maister Harding vseth to gesse so at vntruths, [Page 173] then to aduouch them so boldly. But bicause the matter shall not go all by aime, here is another shift for Iohn Al­monars Masse. This canon, saith Maister Harding, was growne out of vse. But this aunswere was scarce worth bringing. For if the breach of those canons were blas­phemie against the holy gost, as Pope Damasus saith, what mēt Maister Hardings church to let them grow out of vse. But I thinke, the church was not so ouerseene, peraduen­ture Maister Hardings saying is false, peraduenture the decrée, neither had any limitation, nor yet was out of vse. Uerely the Pope him self, straightly commaundeth them, De cōs. dist. 1. apostolica. 25. q. 1. viola toris in glosa. with apostolicall authoritie, and in no case will haue them broken vnder paine of excōmunication. Then sith it is so, this vntruth was neither wisely numbred, nor yet well prouid.

The councell of Laudicea saith, it is not lawfull for bishops, or priestes, to minister the communion at home.

The .174. vntruth. The Councell saith not at home, but in their houses.

We haue heard before many new distinctions, héere is yet an other, as new as the best. There is, saith M. Har­ding, a differēce betwene at home, and in their houses, and vpon this distinction, it liketh him so well, he aduentu­reth this vntruth, and the two next, ensuing also. But I thinke, it will be long eare this distinction get any credit. Sure I am, in my countrey, to say he is at home, or he is at his house, is all a matter, and I dare say, M. Iuel thought of no difference betwene them. Seing then Maister Har­ding doeth see so cleare, too espie ambiguities, where none [Page 174] are. Let vs sée how that decrée, and this distinction may stande. Conc. laodic. can. 58. Let no Bishop, or Priest, sayth the councell, mini­ster the Communion in their houses. Yet saith Maister Harding, they may minister it at home. So this decrée standeth thus. Let no Bishop, or Priest minister the Com­munion to any man in his house, except he be at home. Yf so many Bishops made so senselesse a decrée, they had smal matters to think on.

The same order was taken at the Councell of Acon.

The .176. vntruth. It vvas not taken.

The same order, saith Maister Harding, was not taken by them. Yet the .58. canon of the councell of Laodicea, and 80. canon of the councell of Acon, are the same words, and how should the same wordes not haue the same meaning? No distinctiō can make this matter whole, but M. Harding must néedes here say, he can not tell what he sayd.

Likewise, Pope Foelix: It is not lawfull to minister the commu­nion at home, but vpon exceding great necessitie.

The .175. vntruth. Foelix, speaketh neither of the Com­munion, nor of home.

If M. Harding did either feare God, or reuerence the truth, he wold not deale thus vnfaithfully. Thou séest, good Reader, how boldly he saith, Foelix nameth neither y ^e Com­munion, [Page 175] nor home, and who would not thinke, that such assertions should haue some coloure, or shew of truth? yet sure in this there is none. But marke his vntrue behaui­our, he alleageth for his proofe, certaine wordes of Foelix, in which in deede these termes are not expressed, but how wickedly he doeth it, let the booke be iudge. It foloweth in the same decrée, within lesse than fiue lines. De consec. dist. 1. sicut non alij. In domibus ab episcopis, siue presbyteris oblationes celebrari nullatenus licet, yet in houses, either by Bishoppes, or Priestes, it is by no meanes lawefull, that the Communion be celebrate. Lo here is mention bothe of house, and Communion, yet saith Maister Harding, there is mention of neither. The best excuse that in this place may be hadde, is to saye, he was deceiued: there is no exception against the words, for they are plaine. No distinction of oblation. For the glose hath interpreted it. Oblationes. s. eucharistiae. The sacrifice, Ibid. in glosa to wit, of the Lordes supper. Now a little further, to view these vntruthes, M. Harding to proue his priuate Masse, hath sought for Iohn Almonar in a priuate Chapple, but the question is moued of the open church. This Iohn Almonar, liued at the least .610. yeares after Christ. The question is of .600. yeares onely. So this fable may be well reiected, both for that it is nothing to the purpose, and if it were, yet it is without the compasse of .600. yeares. Yet Maister Iuel admitting the proofe, doeth proue that it is a verie fa­ble. His reason is, bicause no man might saye Masse at home. Here let vs make the best of Maister Hardings aun­swere, and it is thus. They might not say Masse in theyr houses, but they might say them in their Chappels. This aunswere is very absurde. For who would say masse in his parlour, or hall, or kitchin, hauing a Chapple? And it is knowne to be false, and taken away by Gracian, saying. Vnicui (que) fidelium in domo sua oratorium habere licet, et ibi orare, missas autem ibi concelebrare non licet, De cōs. dist. 1. vnicui (que). euery man may [Page 176] haue a Chapple in his house, & pray there, but he may not haue Masse in it. Thus appeareth, how vaine Maister Har­dings exception is, against these former authorities, for that they haue in Domibus in their houses, when Gracian alleaging the councell of Auleria vseth this word, oratori­um, a Chaple, notwithstanding, Maister Harding conclu­deth thus, we must seeke for better stuffe, this is nothing worth, so much securitie haue these men promised them selues, that whatsoeuer they speake, they think it shalbe beleued.

Maister Harding translateth fals [...]ly, cum benedixisset sancta▪ when he had consecrate the Sacrament. Likewise, post finem ora­tionum, after the prayer of consecration.

The .177. vntruthe. That translation is true.

The .178. vntruthe. That translation is true.

Now that this Apostata, hath vomited vp a litle poiso­ned affection, against the blessed bishop of Sarisburie, he is laide downe againe, like a swine, to wallow in his former mire, and as blinde bayard, running forth he knoweth not whether, quoteth mo vntruthes of his owne making. My translation, Ambros. de ijs qui &c. cap. 9. Thom. in. 1. cor. cap. 10. lec. 4. saith he, is true. His reasō is this, some doctors doe expounde benedicere, for consecrare, therefore that is so. And the Grecians said, [...], sancta sanctis, ther­fore sancta is the Sacrament. If Maister Harding, that in his long epistle would so faine haue ben Appelles, could with all his cunning picture out these argumentes, we should haue the right shape of a fooles bable. Benedicere, saith he, is construed of S. Ambrose by consecrare, ergo, it is so. But it is construed otherwise, by the Euangelists, [Page 177] therefore it is not so. Where S. Mathew, and S. Marke say, Math. 26. Mar. 14. Luc. 22. 1. Co. 11. [...], when he had blessed, he brake, S. Luke and S. Paule say, [...], when he had giuen thankes, he brake. Yea bothe Mathewe, and Marke them selues say of the cuppe [...], when he had giuen thanks, he gaue it. Then if Benedixit be, he did consecrate, then Gratias egit is also, he did consecrate, and so the .180. vntruthe is ve­rified, that master Harding calleth some things, that are not as if they were. And I would faine know why maister Har­ding cleaueth so to this worde [...], it maketh nothing for his transubstantiation. It is written in the Scripture, [...], God blessed the se­uenth day, yet he turned not the nature of it. So God spea­keth vnto Abraham, [...]. Surely, in blessing I will blesse thée, yet God vsed no manner of conse­cration: so saith S. Paule, [...]. Ephe. 1. Who hath blessed vs in all manner of spirituall blessing. In diuers other places of holy scripture, thisword is vsed, yet no where for this straunge manner of transubstan­tiation, or other consecration, than which we say in Latine consecrare, which is, to giue vp, to ordaine, to appoynt to an holy vse, though it may be well said of the sacrament, yet it is not in Gréeke [...], but rather [...] or [...] or [...], so that why he should translate [...], to conse­crate, there is no cause, except suche cause as will haue [...] after [...], signifie nothing. But saithe maister Harding, some Doctors haue translated Benedicere by Consecrare. Let vs graunt it, suche is the libertie of speache, that some worde is vsed in an impropre signification. Dothe it folow, bicause Benedicere may be to consecrate, therfore Benedicere sancta, is to consecrate the sacrament? This gathering is very chil­dishe. Extruo is to builde vp. Therfore is extruere mensam, to build or make a table? Interpello, is to disturbe, or interrupt, therefore is interpellare debitorē to interrupt or disturbe your [Page 178] debtour? Expendere, is to consider, therfore is expendere poe­nas, to consider punishment? Sure this is a very idle proofe, though Benedicere were to consecrate, and sancta were the sa­crament. But now it is shewed, that Benedicere is not to con­secrate, and [...] is not the sacrament, as Maister Iuel she­weth out of Chrysostome. And in da de what reason is it, that [...], sancta sanctis, should be the sacrament, & not [...], sancta sanctorum, should be likewise the sa­crament? Now for as muche as maister Harding cleaueth so vnto the Doctors, that what so euer they say, he straight ta­keth it for an Oracle: we may say vnto him, as our Sauior said vnto the Iewes: Euen Moses, in whome you trust, shall be a witnesse against you, so the Doctors shall be witnesses a­gainst master Harding, and his felowes, that when the Doc­tors do require to be iudged by the scriptures, yet they with­out scriptures will ground their faith vpon them. Cursed be he, saith the Prophet, that trusteth in man, and maketh fleshe to be his arme. For my parte I reuerence the Doctors, and praise God for them, they were good stewards, and dispensed faithfully the goodes, that were committed vnto them, they were men of excellent learning, great diligence, and godly life, and haue sufficiently confuted maister Hardings religi­on, Aduersus praxeā. De gene. ad litter. lib. 10. but yet they were men, and had all their erroures. Ter­tullian sayd God had a body, and therefore he was reprehen­ded of Augustine. He thought not well in all poyntes of our sauioure Christe, as appeareth in his bookes de Trinitate, and aduersus Hermogenem, & Praxeam, where he teacheth that Christe is a portion of his father. Origen in diuers places wryteth very wickedly, as appeareth by Epiphanius, annum­bring him among heretikes, Lib. 2. Co. 1. haer. 64 In serm. de Elemos. In serm. de resurrect. Cyprian sayde, that Christe did satisfie onely for Originall sinne. Methodius sayd, we are iu­stified by fulfilling the lawe of nature, as Epiphanius repor­teth. These were wicked heresies. The doctors that folowed after, had also many, and great faultes. I néede not recken maister Hardings Doctors, Clemens, Abdias, Martialis, Dyo­nisius, [Page 179] Hyppolitus, and suche other, they confute themselues: these others are the most auntient of any credite. And as they haue these, and sundry other erroures, so from age to age in all writers erroures did still growe, great controuer­sies were betwene the Gréekes and Latine church. The mat­ter is too plaine, it néedeth no further proofe, and no doubt the spirite of God foreséeing these daungerous times, that shold ensue, when men should make Gods of those holy Fathers, grounding their faithe on them, as on the true foundation, the holy Ghost I say, did leaue them to their owne fansies, and suffred them to erre, to declare that they were but men, and that we should builde no further on them, than they did builde vpon Christ, but examine all sayings, bothe theirs, and oures by the euerlasting woord of God, the only lan­terne vnto our fée [...]e, and the onely light vnto our steppes, which thing God for his Christes sake graunte vs euer­more to doe, Amen. For this other translation, post finem orationum, after the prayer of consecration, which is the 178. vntruthe, it is as soone proued to be yll, as maister Har­ding hath aduenturously sayde, it is good. He saith, they are Orationes, that are after Consecration, and precationes, which are before, and for this distinction he alleageth S. Au­gustine. Héere, christian reader, thou hast to note two things. First the distinction, then maister Hardings argument. As touching the distinction, that there are no Orationes till con­secration is past, that is very false, the Masse booke it selfe hath Oremus, I wote not howe many times before they are at their saccaring, and I trow he that made the Masse booke, knewe what was in the Masse. Nowe for the argument, sée how it hangeth.

This it is, Prayers after consecration, are called Oratio­nes, Ergo, Post finem orationum, is when consecration is done, I may with as good a reason as that, argue thus. Pomeridianum tempus, is the after noone: Ergo, Peracto [Page 180] pomeridiano tempore, is immediatly after .xij. of the clocke. This is euen such an other argument, and master Hardings hangeth as losely, as it. Thus if we will graunt M. Harding all his proofes, he will bothe make his Massebooke a lier, and frame againe as euil argumēts, as he maketh in his answer.

In these words, cum benedixisset sancta, there is no mention of any sacrament.

The .179. vntruthe. It is necessarily implied, though not in pre­cise words.

Is not this a straunge kinde of dealing? The word is not there saith M. Iuel, that is vntrue saith maister Harding, the meaning is necessarily implied. What néede any answer, to such vntruthes, as haue nether shame, nor vnderstanding? Likewise the next vntruthe, which is the .180. whether mai­ster Harding call things, that are not, as though they are, bi­cause it is once mentioned in the .177. vntruthe, I recken it not here worth the touching.

I haue already proued by sundry aucthorities, that Missa is of­ten times vsed for any kinde of prayer. &c. and it further appea­reth also by the councell of Cabilon.

The .181. vntruthe. It is not yet proued.

The .182. vntruthe. It appeareth not by the councel of Cabilon.

Maister Harding shall doe well, to deny M. Iuels proofe [...], [Page 181] when he hath reproued them, and till that be done, he were best say nothing. Men may not now be ledde with his bare woord. What master Iuels proofes are, let the Reply be iudge. For the other vntruth about the councell of Cabilon, maister Harding vseth a great deale of wrāgling, and litle learning. For maister Iuel dothe alleage Gratians owne woords, as he reporteth it out of the councell. O saith maister Harding, the councel hath it not. If it be so, then the vntruthe is Gratians, and not master Iuels, and so M. Harding falleth out with his friends. But to cloke the matter againe, where the words as Gratian reporteth them, are, & auditis missarum solennibus, & vespertinis officijs. De consec. dist. 1. solent plures. He saith it is ment of the feast of the foure times, whē it was lawful to say Masse at night. Those times were, as I suppose, the first wéeke of Marche, the seconde of Iune, the thirde of September, and the fourth wéeke of De­cember, but these first times liked not Vrbanus, Dist. 76. cō ­stituimus. Dist. vt sup. statuimus. Capdines mundi. Dist. 76. huius. therefore he turned them into the first wéeke of Lent, and into Whitsun­tide, and so we had the spring fast, the summer fast, the har­uest fast, and the winter fast, that by these .iiij. bookes, or hin­gels of the world, we might be taught, euen as with the foure Euangelies, bothe what to preache, and what to doe. Thus haue maister Hardings holy Popes pulled out of Goddes Churche, Gods eternall gospels, and made vs newe gospels of their owne, and of those times saith maister Harding, that decrée is ment, at which times Masse might be sayde at night. But yet, as I remember, in Lent we had not many Masses at night, but in the forenoone we had Euensong, and all least the Euening prayer should be to long. Then if it be so, what doe these fasts héere to make answer, for their Masse, notwithstanding suche obseruation of dayes and monthes, and times, yet Masse in this place must signifie common prayer, and so this is no vntruthe. Or Masse was celebrate at night, and then what meaneth the .81. vntruthe? Read it.

M. Harding seeketh for his Masse at Alexandria, a thousand miles out of Christendome.

The .183. vntruthe. Alexandria is not a thousand miles out of Christendome.

In the .171. vntruthe, where maister Iuel saith, about which time Mahomet spreade his religion in Arabia, maister Har­ding quoteth his vntruthe, and saith, Mahomet was not a­bout that time, and yet he was at the vtmost within .xix. yeres of that time, now almost .1000. yeres past. And this is strange dealing, that of things done .1000. yeares past, within. xix. yeares compasse, we may not say, they were done about one time. Yet as though maister Harding there had done very well, he doeth againe the like in this place, sayth he, Alexan­dria is not a thousand mile out of Christendome, and bicause he will appeare constant, he maketh this againe, the .218. vntruthe, so little is he ashamed of his owne folly. And nowe what skilleth it whether it be iust a thousande mile off, or else want a mile or two of it? Is maister Harding euer the neare his priuate Masse? Yet take away two poore Ilands, Cyprus and Creta, a .1000. mile a sunder, and either of them .500. miles from christendome. And M. Harding cannot proue y ^t any part of Alexandria is not a .1000. mile from christendome, then this exact computation of miles in so néedelesse a matter, may ra­ther argue wranglyng, than proue an vntruthe.

In the Tripartite historie, it is written thus, Gregorie Nazian­zene in a little Oratorie at Constantinople [...] made assemblies of people.

The .184. vntruthe. It is not written so.

This curious inquisition about words, which preiudice no partie, which way so euer you interprete them, declareth a great want of good matter to proue the thing it selfe, which lieth in controuersie. If these woords be not in the same place, yet the very allegation of the gréeke text is a sufficiēt proofe, they are found in the author. And therefore if false quoting the place, be the greatest fault, let it go for me, it is not wor­thy no answere.

It was forbidden by many decrees, to mynister the sacrament in priuate houses.

The .185. vntruthe. It was not forbidden.

Untruthes may wel grow in number, where one may be reckened so many times. Read the .176. vntruthe.

M. Harding hath violently, and of purpose falsified the trāslation.

The .186. vntruthe. My translation is true.

Tell on in a circle M. Harding, and then your vntruthes shall neuer haue end. Read the .177. vntruthe.

The life of S. Basil hath bene set for the fully, and faithfully, [Page 184] by Gregorie Nissene, Gregorie Nazianzene, Gregorie Presbyter, Socrates, Theodoretus, Sozomenus, and Nicephorus.

The .187. vntruthe. His life is not set out fully by them.

God be mercifull vnto vs, and when his good will, and pleasure is, deliuer vs from such wranglers. Is not a mannes life set out fully, when it is shewed what he hath done openly in the congregation? How he hath remoued from place to place? What doctrine he hath taught? What diligence he hathe vsed? What trouble he hathe suffred? What enimies he hath had? Whose companie he hath frequented? What learning he hath studied? What promotion he hath gotten? How many yeares he hath liued? And what euer else he hathe from time to time openly done, or suffred? All this is declared onely by Gregorie Nazianzene in his Monodia, in his Oration De laudibus Basilij, and in sundry his Epistles, so that what soeuer maister Iuel saith, he alone hath done it, and that he ment so to doe, it is plaine inough, for as much as he entituleth his booke De vita Basilij, and yet though Na­zianzene had not done so muche, but all these among them, had written this so fully, maister Iuels woords had bene true. So there is nothing héere to be said for maister Harding, but either he wrangleth, or misse vnderstandeth.

None of them was so impudent, once to make any mention of this pieuishe tale of M. Hardings Masse.

The .188. vntruthe. Vincentius maketh mention of it.

Reade this tale of Amphilochius & Vincentius his words, and thou maist hardly think, that Vincentius, being so full of olde wiues fables, as he is, would so lightly haue passed ouer this wonderous matter of S. Basill. Maister Harding him selfe, who is much more temperate in such maner of miracles, than Vincentius is, by no meanes could let it passe without much practise of his eloquēce. By this it may be thought, that Vincentius neuer knew it, or if he knew it, he was ashamed to write it, being so manifest a lie, least he should haue discredited his whole fardle of newes. Thus much yet he saith, that may sound toward it, that God did teach Basil in a vision, Vinc. in spe­culo. Lib. 16. cap. 94. to offer vp sacrifice with his owne words. And vpon this saying, Maister Harding aduentu­reth the quoting of his vntruth. To discharge this, it were vnnecessarie labour, considering the tale is so foolish, yet for Amphilochius and Vincentius sakes, that one of them may be founde a lier, I will a little lay these authors togither. Amphilochius saith, the next daye after this Masse was done, Basil made a golden doue to hang ouer the altar, and he put the third part of the host into it: Vincentius sayth, Basil being at that miraculous Masse, Columba aurea, In speculo. li. 14. ca. 44. quae cum sacramento domini super altare pendebat &c. the golden pigeon, which did hang ouer the altar with the sacrament of the Lord, did not moue thrée times, as it was wont to doe. &c. Bicause a certaine deacon was talking with a wo­mā. Héere we sée Amphilochius saith, the pigeon was made the next day, Vincentius saith, if hong long before, ouer the altar. And that the tale may haue one [...] of Vincentius of­fice, he saith, at euerie sataring, the pigeon was wont to moue thrice. Againe Amphilochius saith, there was no bo­die but Eubulus, that looked in at a creuise. Vincentius saith, there was a deacon talking with a woman, and therefore the pigeon could not moue: and so either one of these two [Page 186] Doctours make a lie, and then Maister Harding proueth his priuate Masse, with a lie, or else Basil said Masse twice after his owne fashion, and then this is no vntruth. But saith Maister Harding, Antonius doeth also report this Masse, Par. 2. tit. 1. ca. 4. saying. I graunt he doeth so. And so doth Aesope, that apes, and asses spake. But I trow Maister Harding doeth not beleue him, no more doth any wise man his Antonius. He y ^t list to haue y ^e fabler reproued, let him reade the booke.

Maister Hardings Amphilochius saith, that after Basils retourne from Pontus, Ensebius knew him not.

The .189. vntruth. I assure you, my booke hath it not.

Belike Maister Hardings Amphilochius, is but a pat­ched boke. But if he wil go to that other at Verona in Italie, which is faire written in velem, there sure he shal finde it.

Nazianzen saith, that Basil was not Bishop of Caesarea in Iu­lianus time.

The .190. vntruth. Nazianzen saith not so.

Maister Harding in his Reioinder, saith thus. Perhaps it is true, that Nazianzen was not then Bishop of Caesarea, but yet Nazianzen [...]aith it not. Now sure, good Reader, without all perhappes Maister Harding is a verie wrang­ler, that when he can not denie the thing, yet will stick so dainely vpon the words. But say M. Har. what he say wil, [Page 187] both Nazianzen, & al other writers, which do speke of Basils doing, doe beare witnesse of this matter. Nazianz. in oratione de vita. Bae­silij. Nazianzen repor­teth, how vpon dissention betwene him, & Eusebius, he went into Pontus. And when Valens for y ^e furtherāce of Arrian heresie, came to Caesarea, and vexed much the faithfull; Nazi­anzen was sent to Basil, to call him home, for the aide of the church, vpon which returne, he was reconciled to Eusebius, & in like authoritie gouerned the church. Now this being done, in the time of Valens, who was after Iouinian, and Basil, yet no Bishop, is it not then plaine, that Amphilochi­us is a lier, which sayth, Basill was Bishoppe in Iulians time, which was Emperour next before Iouinian? Yf there were no more to say, but this, yet this would proue Mai­ster Harding were impudent in this vntruth. But Nazian­zen speaketh yet more plaine, he saith, Basil was made bi­shop in Eusebius roome, after the death of Valens, In Monodia about the yeare of our Lorde .380. And for an vndoubted proofe, that he was no Bishoppe in Iulianus time, Basill him selfe wri­teth, that he was made chiefe of the church of Caesarea, when the Arrian heresie was in the greatest rage, Bas. ep. 61. et 69. which was af­ter that Valens hadde raised the great persecution, for it. And this also thou shalt finde written in Socrates. Li. 4. ca.. 26. Now these authorities standing thus, as thou shalt finde them by examination, what will Maister Hardings perhaps, excuse him? Sure, that these manie vntruthes stande vpon no grounde, but his impudent facings.

Maister Hardings Amphilochius saith, that Basil foretolde the death of Iulian, Theodoretus saith, it was one Iulianus Sabba, and not S. Basil.

The .190. vn. Theodoretus saith not that Sabba foretold it.

The .192. vn▪ He saith not that Basil did not tell it.

Maister Harding hath but a little way to go, and hath yet a great manie vntruths to make. Therfore taking good holde in time, in these words Sabba foretold it, and not Ba­sil, he picketh it two vntruths. One that Sabba tolde it not, the other, that Basil tolde it. He might with as much facili­tie haue made the thirde that and is a coniunction, & should couple two wordes and sentences together. But here by the way note, that Amphilochius telleth a fowle popish tale & an ilfauored vntruth, which Maister Harding thin­keth good to skip ouer for shame, and with a good courage, goeth forward, making the reader beleue, al is wel. Reade the Replie. Fol. 83. Now to these vntruthes. If Sabba dyd foretell the death of Iulian: then notwithstanding Maister Hardings numbring, yet Basil foretolde it not. Then héere is the controuersie, whether Theodorete saith, that Iulianus Sabba, did tell it first. Then reade the place, and thou shalt finde it thus. When Libanius doeth aske of Sabba what the Carpenters sonne was now a doing, Theodoretus li. 3. ca. 24. Sabba aunswereth, that the maker of the worlde, whome he in mockage dyd call the Carpenters sonne, was making sandapilam, a héere to carie dead bodies, and sone after the Emperour dyed. Then it foloweth in y ^e next chapter, that the same day that Iulian died, Resciuit cecidisse, Sabba knew he was dead, and tolde it vnto his felowes. Now iudge who was the first teller of these newes, before the Emperour was dead, Sab­ba tolde Libanius his beare was a making, & the same daye that he died, he tolde it abrode. Now Basil being then not present with the Emperour, as likewise Sabba was not, but did know it miraculouslie, how could S. Basil tell it be­fore him. No doubt, good Reader, when Maister Harding made two vntruthes of this, he had either slender iudge­ment or verie yll choise.

Maister Hardings Amphilochius saith, Nazianzen was present at Basils death. Nazianzen him selfe saith, he came after­warde.

The .193. vntruth. Nazianzen saith not so in his Monodia.

Maister Harding saith in his reioinder, he will not de­nie, that this is true. Reade his booke, & is not this a strange matter, y ^t he noteth that for an vntruth, which he will not denie, but it is a truth. Yf he haue no thing to say, but that it is not in his Monodia, what skilleth it, so the thing be truely reported, whether the place be noted at all or no? I doe easely graunt, that Maister Iuel may be well deceiued in keping iust reconing of bookes, and chapters, but that is a slender fault, when he reporteth all, that is written, true­ly: Now to proue that this is true, and that Nazianzen was not at Basils death, it is manifest that he was at Arianzum, his owne patrimonie, and made his Epitaphe, and oration vpon Basil, one whole yeare after Basil was dead. And whē he hadde done, he went home againe, as it is sufficiently proued by Grigorie Nissene. And Gregorius Presbiter doeth witnesse the same, Grego. presb. in vita Na­zianzen. that Nazianzen came long after that Basil was dead, thus graunting that it be not founde in Na­zianzens Monodia, yet by other good witnesse, Amphilochi­us is proued a lier. Now for misnaming the place, allea­ging the authoritie truely, I shall néede to make no longe aunswere. The fault is so small, that it doth excuse it selfe.

Maister Hardings, Amphilochius is so impudent, to say Na­zianzen came in all hast, and saw the blessed bodie, and fell vpon it, when it was buried.

The .194. vntruthe. Amphilochius saith not, he fell vpon him vvhen he vvas buried.

In this vntruth is nothing but a little wrangling, about this saying, when he was buried. Which wordes whether they be in Amphilochius or no, I meane not yet to go to Verona and looke. Sure it is, he could not fall on him, when he was couered with moulde, and sith the matter is no weightier, let it rest for me. Now Maister Harding skip­peth ouer one other lie, and maketh no defence of Amphi­lochius writing it, but leaues that altogither vntouched, for a testimonie, what him selfe thinketh of Amphilo­chius. After all this a doe about him, he giueth him ouer, with this round conclusion, Reioind. fol. 267. be he as he is, I neither defend him, nor condemne him, he is ashamed any further to de­fende him, bicause he is a shamelesse lier, and yet he wil not condemne him, bicause he maketh a tale for Maister Har­dings Masse. In the meane season, we haue some gesse what the author is, when his great friendes dare not de­fend him. Now Maister Harding skippeth ouer two leaues at once, and so draweth to an ende.

Chrysostome saith, some are called, and some are brought to re­ceiue with the Priest. diuis. 34.

The .195. vntruth. Chrisostome saith not so.

If M. Harding did now begin his wrangling, it were peraduenture requisite more at large to blame it, but bi­cause [Page 191] it is common, y ^e reader I trust, is alredie forewarned to beleue nothing that he saith, without some other wit­nesse. Therefore his credit being thus broken, & the proofe of this vntruth being so slender, there is no great daunger least any man should take hurt by it. I will omit therefore further proofe of Maister Iuels saying, and I onely require to consider this maner of vntruth. Thus Maister Iuel al­leageth Chrisostoms words. Some are called, some brought to receiue with y ^e priest. That is not so, saith Maister Har­ding, they are not called to receiue with the Priest. This then must be iudged by Chrisostome, he writeth thus. The Deacon standing vpright in the sight of all the people. Ad pop. Ant. hom. 61. &c. Some he calleth, to communicate, and some he putteth off. Now how can any indifferent man say▪ that Maister Iuell misreporteth these wordes? But so it is, Maister Harding hath shut from him all indifferencie, and doeth let affection miserably blinde his vnderstanding, and by that meanes, hath espied this vntruth, and the vntruth is, that Chrisostome hath not these wordes, with the Priest, Reioind. [...]o. 281. but they are Maister Iuels owne addition. But what meaneth he? Doth he think the people did receiue without y ^e priest? or if they did not, when Chrisostome saith, they were called to receiue, how is it vntrue to report his saying, they were called to receiue with the priest? Doe these vntruths néede many words to iustifie them? or were not silence the best aunswere to so great folies? Let the Reader iudge.

If no bodie receiued, then is it not true, that some receiued.

The .196. vntruth. Chrisostome saith not that, some recei­ued.

If the last vntruthe, were not worth the noting, then what store hath he, that is faine to number it twice? Yet so it is, this purposed number hath driuen M. Harding to such inconuenience. The former vntruthe was, Chrisostome said not, some receiued with the priest, this is, he saith not some receiue, if he would make the third, that some receiue not with, it had euen as good reason as either of these. But let these vntruthes alone, they cannot doe much harme. Onely I must admonish thée, that after this long ado with Maister Iuel, Maister Harding for his exercise, will fights little with him selfe. Here he saith, that Chrisostome saith not, that some receiue, yet out of this same place of Chri­sostome alleaging these wordes, Hard. diuis. 34 et reioind. fol. 290. Cum timore dei, et fide, et dilectione accedite, he doeth english them thus, come you vp to receiue, with the feare of God &c. These cōtrary sayings without one vntruth, cannot be reconciled. If there he wel translated it, come vp to receiue, then this is no vntruth. If this be vntrue, then that was a false translation. One of these can not be denied.

He saith, the people in the Cities were daylie taught by ser­mons.

The .197. vntruthe. I say not so, let my booke be iudge.

Maister Harding by like, doth say, and vnsay, and careth not, what he say. These are his verie wordes. Now if Chri­sostome had cause to complaine of the peoples slacknesse in that great, and populous citie of Antioche, where the scrip­tures were daily expounded, Diuis 34. and preached. &c. And here I [Page 193] say as Maister Harding saith, let his booke be iudge. And why then is this vntruth scored vp with other? Would he haue vs think, that this preaching were onely in Antioche, and no where else? This might well be, if papistrie hadde ben then in vre, and preaching not regarded. But to think it of that world, in which good religion florished, and Gods word was plentifull, it is an vncharitable gessing. Thus much I speake, graunting Maister Hardings wordes, that in Antioche, the people were daily taught. And then if it were so, the same vse had ben likewise kept in other cities, so Maister Hardings owne wordes going for true, this can be no vntruth, but how true those wordes are, Maister Iu­el doeth sufficiently proue, reade his Replie, he doeth al­leage Chrysostomes owne wordes, to proue, that in Antio­che they had sermons but once a wéeke, and therevpon he saith further, thus.

I note this, not for that I mislike of daily preaching, but for that vntruth so boldelie presumed, should not passe vntouched.

The .198. vntruth. It is no vntruth.

I am sorie to trouble the reader, with aunswering to so vaine vntruthes, but so it is, if nothing should be said, they would be thought of some force. Maister Harding vseth this reason, to proue his priuate Masse. In Antiochie there was but a verie few to communicate sometime. Therfore in the countrey belike there was priuate Masse. Of this argument, Maister Iuel saith thus, to aduaunce the citie, & to abase the countrey, he saith, in cities they had dayly ser­mons, but this is vntrue. For in Antioche, they had not so. Now rise M. Hardings two vntruthes. 1. I say not they [Page 194] were taught so in cities. 2. They were taught so in Anti­oche. Who could haue scraped out these vntruthes, but he? Or what force is there in them? For this second vntruth, where he still affirmeth, they had dayly preaching in An­tioche, that is a very false lie, and yet how impudently doth be persist in it.

Yet saith Maister Harding, in small countrey churches, either the Priest let cease the dayly sacrifice, or else he receiued alone.

The .199. vntruth. I say not so. This is altogether falsified.

I pray God, Maister Harding be not altogether without grace. He so vnreuerently speaketh euill of authoritie, so boldely denieth his owne sayings, that his cause is much to be feared. Marke here Maister Iuels wordes, I will lay M. Hardings wordes with them, then iudge whether here be any vntruth. Thus he writeth, of such countrey chur­ches, Diuis. 34. it must be sayd, that either the sacrifice ceased. &c. Or that the memorie of our Lords death was oftentimes ce­lebrated of the Priestes in the daily oblation, without ta­rying for others to communicate with them. Marke now how Maister Iuel chaungeth these wordes, either the daily sacrifice ceased, saith Maister Harding, either the priest let cease the daily sacrifice, saith Maister Iuell. What is here falsified? If it dyd cease, the Priest ceased it. For, I trow, the lay man might not say Masse, if he would. The other péece of Maister Hardings saying is this, or else the memorie of our Lords death was often times celebrated of the priestes, in the daily oblation without tarying for other to communicate with them. These many words, bi­cause oftedious writing, Maister Iuell reporteth this, or [Page 195] the priest receiued alone. Now iudge of this place, which Maister Harding saith is altogether falsified, and praye that Maister Harding may once haue eies to sée. The .200. vntruth. Here Maister Harding noteth an vntruth in the margin, that is not in the text. When he telleth vs what it is, we will better examine it.

The Masse, that is so glorious, can neither be founde in chur­ches, nor chappels.

It is found both in churches, and chappels.

It is not yet found, neither in church, nor chappell, with­in .600. yeares of Christ.

Thus saith Chrysostome, if thou stand by, and not receiue, thou art malapert, thou art shamelesse, thou art impudēt. 2. thine eies be vnworthie the sight herof, vnworthie be thine eares. 3. O thou wilt say, I am vnworthie to be partaker of the holie mysteries: then art thou vnworthie to be partaker of the praiers. 4. Thou maist no more stay here, than an heathen, that ueuer was christened.

The .202. vntruthe. Chysostome doeth not say these vvordes.

The .203. vntruthe. Chrysostome saith not then an hea­then vnchristened.

Sure good Reader, the numbring of these vntruthes, [Page 196] is verie straunge, here is one. Chrysostome saith not these wordes, an other he saith not, then an heathen. &c. I would faine know here in the first vntruth, what Maister Harding meaneth by these words. If he meane the whole sentence, why maketh he an other truth? If he meane all the sentence going before this latter vntruth, why doeth he not make of it thrée seuerall vntruthes. For it is distin­guished into thrée seuerall sentences, or if he think, but one of those sentences is false, why doeth he not tell vs which it is? Certaine it is, Maister Harding did know, that these former partes of this allegation, were all true. Yet bicause they had so many members, he thought he might conuey one vntruth verie well amongst them. For the truth of this allegation, reade S. Chrysostome. hom. 3. ad Ephe. and thou shalt beleue thine owne sences. I will alleage for thée certaine words. Reade y ^e place, thou shalt finde moe. Thus be saith of those, that are by, and will not receiue. 1. Tu vero impudenter astas, thou standest by verie impudently. 2. quis­quis mysteriorum particeps non est, impudens est, et improbus si adstat, he that is present, and will not communicate, he is impudent, and wicked. 3. Indigni sunt videntium oculi, indignae aures, thine eies are not worthy to see it, thine eares are not worthie to heare it. 4. Nihil hic tibi qùā, cathecume­no, plus licet. Thou hast no more to do here, thē cathecumeni, they that are vnchristened, and not yet brought to the per­fect faith of Christ, & here is this second vntruth also pro­ued. Marke now these wordes, and sée whether Maister Iuel report any thing that Chrysostom saith not. Thē Mai­ster Harding with shame enough, hath noted these vn­truths, and, for his these words, except he meane his owne wordes, here can be none found that are not in the author. Ad. Eph. hom. 3. and make but little for his Masse.

Chrysostome saith, in vaine doe we come to offer the daylie sa­crifice, in vaine doe we stand at the alter, meaning thereby as may [Page 197] appeare, that if he saide priuate Masse for lacke of companie, it was in vaine.

The .140. vntruth. These are not Chrysostomes vvordes, nor this his meaning.

Here M. Hard. séemeth to be somewhat more liberall in numbring his vntruths, he might well haue made two vn­truthes of this, one, these are not Chrysostomes wordes, an other, this is not his mening. Sure he is not wont to let go such aduantage, but peraduēture he saw here so little hope, that he would be content with one vntruthe, quietlie. Yet bicause we defende the truth, we may not alow him that. First, for Chrysostomes wordes, thus they are, Frustra habe­tur quotidiana oblatio, frustra stamus ad altare. Hom. [...]. ad. Eph. In vaine doe we offer the daylie sacrifice, in vaine doe we stande at the altar? Here is this vntruth verified concerning the words, say Maister Harding what he say will. If these be not the wordes, then accompt me for a lier. If they be the wordes, then iudge of the vntruth, as touching y ^e meaning of these wordes, were it not for Maister Hardings faultfinding, it shold sure haue escaped without blame, he saith, Reioind. fo. 289. y ^e meaning is this, it is in vaine, as touching the people, not as tou­ching the Priest, this meaning is vntrue, for Chrysostome saith, Frustra stamus, we that be the ministers stande there in vaine. But for my parte, I would this distinction were good, then we should know throughly, what marchandise these Masses were. Saith M. Haridng they are in vaine for the people except they come and receiue. Good Lorde, how do they then mock the people that teach them to come day­ly, and gase vpon their Masses, blessed be truth, that brea­keth out. All priuate Masse is ill, and all Masse gasers doe wickedlie, the frute of Gods sacraments are not applied, [Page 298] to those, that will not come, and be partakers of them. If Maister Harding haue lost so much of his cause by noting one vntruth in this place, what would he haue done, if he had noted a couple?

Here Maister Hardyng seing that his Masse, euen by his owne testimonie, is shreudly crackt, assayeth to salue it as well, as he may.

The .205. vntruth. I see not, that the Masse is crackt.

In this vntruth, we haue two things to note, Maister Hardings sight, and the cracking of his Masse. As touching his sight, I can say little. But I doe easely beleue it is not verie good. There are a great many authorities in this first article, which he can not sée to aunswere one whit, some­time two, or thrée leaues together, in which he can not sée to cōfute one word. His owne writings are so ful of dark­nesse, and cloudes of errours, that he can not sée to come nigh the truth, and yet in this great shadowe of his eies, he proueth effectually the common prouerbe, who is so bold as blinde bayard? For the cracking of his Masse, he can say but little, onely in defence of that mishapen strumpet, he vseth vncomly language against the Bishop of Sarisburie. But how can a wicked cause be better defended, than with euill speaking. For his Lady Missa, she is as she is. Thanks be to God for the victorie, she is well crackt of late, she hath glo­rified hir selfe, and liued in pleasure, she hath ben full of triūphes, & signes of victorie, she hath dwelt carelesse in hir fensed cities, she hath said in hir heart, I am, & none else, I am no widow, & I shall sée no morning. Now whether this glorie be yet crackt, or no, and these proude pecocks fea­thers falne downe, hir owne heauie lookes doe sufficiently [Page 199] witnesse. Hir widowhed commeth fast vpon hir, and manie of hir louers are run away, hir owne barrennesse increa­seth daily, and hir children wax few in number, the multi­tude of hir diuinations haue brought euill vpon hir, hir fornications, and idolatries haue seperated betwene God, and hir. And can Maister Harding yet think, that his Masse is still vncracked, hir dominions were verie large, & wide, and hir kingdomes plentifull, hir buildings were costly, & verie sumptuous, and hir cofers rich, hir apparell was gor­gious, & of nedel worke, set out in most pleasant colours, hir ornaments of inameled golde, bewtifull with manie iewlls, and precious stones, and for the full measure of hir accomplished glorie, she had the Princes of the earth to minister hir cuppes vnto hir, Kings to be hir waiting ser­uants, and Emperours to hold hir fotestoole. If this estate were yet in hir woūted royaltie, then might Maister Har­ding well say, that his Masse were not cracked. Now seing all is lost, hir buildings are pulled downe, hir fortresses ba­tered, hir treasuries spoiled, her estimation lost, and she hir selfe set without the quire, we giue thankes vnto God, that hath giuen this victorie, and we are sorie for Maister Hardings blindnesse, that can not yet sée how his Masse is crackt.

If none communicate, yet saith he, the Masse is not vaine in it selfe, but onely as touching the people, that will not come.

The .206. vntruth. I say not so.

Here M. Hard. willing to stop that great inconuenience, [Page 200] that riseth of his .204. vntruth, maketh a flat deniall of his owne wordes, and lest this contrarietie should bréed any péece of discredit, he goeth about with a distinction to salue the whole matter, whereby he hath got this double com­moditie, a plaister for his Masse, which before he hadde wounded, & an vntruthe to make vp his proposed number. And his distinction is this. I say not y ^t the Masse is in vaine, but that the oblation is in vaine, Reioind. fol. 260. making a great difference betwene his Masse and oblation. But this matter doth not so well thriue, as Maister Harding wéeneth his Masse and oblation must néedes be both one, else how could his Masse be saide to be a sacrifice propitiatorie for quick, and dead, sith the sacrifice can onely be ment by the oblation. But let vs take Maister Hardings words, as they are. The oblatiō, saith he, is in vaine to the people, that will not come. Here he speaketh not onely against his companions, but against the Pope, and against his Masse booke. The decrée saith the oblation is good, that is offred for Iudah and Ierusalem, that is for them that cōfesse the Lord. Dist. 50. et purgabit. And the masse booke saith, Hanc oblationem offerimus pro ecclesia tua sancta catholica. We offer this oblation for the whole catholike church. Yet saith Maister Harding, In canone. this oblation is in vaine. If he him selfe will thus speake against Pope, and portus, he may peraduenture, crack his Masse, ere he be ware. But it is well. We take that Maister Harding graunteth, except the people receiue, the celebration, or sacrifice made by y ^e priest is in vaine, so his priuate Masse is quit [...] condemned.

If Maister Harding will stand vnto the authoritie of Chry­sostome, let him not dissemble, but speake plaine vnto the people, as Chrysostom spake. Let him say to thē that come to heare his masse, if ye receiue not, ye are shamelesse, ye are impudent, you are not worthie to be partakers of the common prayers. Depart you from [Page 201] the Church: ye haue no more place here than Turks and heathens: your eyes be vnworthy to see these things, vnworthy be your eares, our Masses can not profite you, they are not meritorious for you, they please not God: they prouoke his anger, they are all in vaine, This is Chrysostomes sense, and plaine meaning.

The .207. vntruthe. These are not his words.

The .208. vntruthe. Nor his meaning.

Héere I must craue of the indifferent Reader, to note this manner of quoting vntruthes. Of these very words of Chry­sostome, before he made two vntruthes the .202. and .203. Here of them all he maketh but one. Yet if there be but one, nowe there was but one afore, and so one vntruthe is made thrée. Againe, before he made no vntruth as touching the meaning: now he maketh one. Yet if there be one now, there was one afore, & so of two vntruthes, which is very vnlike, he will nū ­ber but one, againe in the .204. vntruthe, he maketh but one vntruthe bothe of the words, and meaning, héere seuerally he maketh one of either: this diuersitie of gathering must néedes shewe a matter of little waight. Now as touching these two vntruthes, and the wordes héere saide of maister Iuel, he nei­ther saith, nor meaneth that they are al in Chrysostome. But alleaging certaine, as is shewed in the .202. vntruth, he héere addeth more. For example to shew the Massing priestes how they should speake vnto the people? What, troweth maister Harding to persuade the people, that maister Iuel maketh Chrysostome to speake of their Masses? Héere in these words the Masse is plainely named, yet y ^e good father did neuer know what suche spirituall whoredomes did meane. And yet héere M. Harding to cary away the readers vnderstanding, in his railing spirite he speaketh great blasphemies against Gods electe, and calleth him the forerunner of Antichrist, whome [Page 202] God hath appointed one to be an ouer runner of the Romish Idolatries. But God be praised in all his saints.

Now let vs examine this inuincible argument, wherwith eue­ry childe, as Maister Harding saith, is able to proue the priuate Masse.

The .209. vntruthe. I say not so, let my booke be iudge.

These are his woords of this most euident place of Chry­sostome: Diuis 34. euery childe is able to make an inuincible argument against master Iuel for the priuate Masse: these are his very w [...]ords, I say, as he saith, let the booke be iudge, and he that is found a lier, let him haue the blame.

This is M. Hardings argument. The sacrifice in Chrysostomes time, was daily offred. But many times none came to Communi­cate. Ergo, there was priuate Masse. Heere the Maior is apparant false, the Minor is proued at aduenture.

The .210. vntruthe The Maior is true.

The .211. vntruthe. The Minor is well proued.

In the .133. vntruthe maister Iuel proued by S. Augustine ▪ that in some place the people receiued euery day, there mai­ster Harding dothe note that for vntrue, héere maister Iu­el proueth by S. Augustine, that in some place they receiued not euerye day. H [...]ere likewise maister Harding noteth [Page 203] this for vntrue. And yet howe can bothe these be vntrue? More circumspect behauioure in so false dealing hadde bene necessary. Now as touching bothe these sayings of maister Iuel, that somewhere the people did receiue euery day, some­where only on certaine dayes, let S. Augustines woordes be witnesses. Thus he wryteth. The Sacrament of the body of Christ, is receiued somewhere euery day, Aug. in Ioh. tract. [...] alicubi certis inter­ [...]allis dierum, somewhere on certaine dayes only. As long as this aucthoritie may stande for good, maister Iuels saying hath a good warrant. And though it were not good, yet mai­ster Hardings two vntruthes must néedes one ouerthrow an other. As touching this other vntruthe, that none came to receiue with the priest, sée whether it be proued at aduenture or no. Thus maister Harding saith, if there were but fewe to Communicate in that great, and famous Churche of An­tioche, what may be thought of a thousand lesser churches. Diuis. 34. &c. Nowe whether this proofe be at all aduentures, and a bare gesse, it is soone iudged. Concerning Chrysostomes aucthority here, read the Replie. Fol. [...].

As for the Maior it is plaine by the .6. councell of Constanti­nople, by S. Augustine vpon S. Iohn, by S. Basil, ad Caesariam pa­tritiam, by the Epistle of the councel of Alexandria in defence of Macarius, and by the councell of Laodicea, and by sundry other aucthorities to that purpose before al [...]eaged, that the sacrifice was not daily offred.

The .212. vntruthe. S. Augustine hath the contrary.

If S. August. speake contraries, he is sure the more to blame, [Page 204] but who séeth not by S. Augustines plaine woordes in this for­mer vntruthe alleaged, that where he saith the sacrifice is dai­ly offred, it is to be ment of certaine places, not of all. This vntruthe is directly contrary to the .83.133.14-5.156. vntruthes. But what skilleth that, where M. Harding may be beleued? Héere note that all these other aucthorities are cōtrolled, and yet notwithstāding M. Harding presumeth vpō his vntruths. Sure the number was appointed too large, that coulde not be made vp, without suche foule shifts.

Maister Harding saw that this is but a slender proofe: Chryso­stome ministred euery day, therfore he receiued alone.

The .213. vntruth. Maister Harding could not see that in Chry­sostome, vvhich Chrysostome hath not.

What M. Harding séeth only, M. Harding knoweth. But what a fonde vntruthe héere is quoted, that I trow euery mā may witnesse. Thus saith M. Iuel, M. Harding séeth this is but a slender proofe, master Harding saith, he can not sée it in Chrysostome. In déede that is true, who saith it is in Chryso­stome? He was too well learned to make such lose argumēts. I would faine heare of some of M. Hardings friends, how he could excuse this vntruthe, and what it meaneth.

M. Harding hath deuised a way how two priests, saying their Masses in diuers countreis, may yet Communicate together in breaking bread.

The .214 vntruthe. I doe not say they can communicate in breaking bread.

This vntruthe was numbred once before. Reade the .107. vntruthe. There are M. Hardings plaine woords. What he meaneth héere againe to recken this vntruthe, saue onely for numbers sake, no man I trow knoweth. And yet how fondly, and with what a blinde distinction he dothe it, it shall not be a misse to tell thée. He saith héere, they doe not breake bread to­gether. But saith he, they participate of one bread, Reioinder. fo. 300. and com­municate together, be the distaunce betwéene them neuer so great. This plain saying he hath in his Reioinder, intermin­gled with a few other woords. Read the place. Now if maister Harding do thus vnderstand M. Iuel, as if he ment that two priestes many miles a sunder might breake the same loafe: that imagination is too grose, and no wise man wil alow it. If he meane any spirituall breaking, then his owne words a­lowe the saying for good, then this vntruthe proueth nothing against M. Iuel, but reproueth M. Harding either of foly, or else of falshoode.

Lay people, wemen, sicke folkes, and boyes, are brought in to proue his Masse.

The .215. vntruthe. They are not brought to proue the Masse.

Maister Harding is very nigh at an ende, & his number is not yet ful. Therfore being enforced to take vntruthes as he may, he is lighted on suche a place, as he could not light on a worse. This vntruthe is reckened .v. times before, the .87.101.126.128.129. and now the .215. It had bene requisite to haue ben better, that should serue so many turnes.

Heere be brought in a company of petie Doctors, all of doubt­full credite.

The .216. vntruthe. They be not of doubtfull credite.

Now we be at the bottome of these vntruths, M. Harding is faine to draw out dregges, and all. There was inough said before of Amphilochius, and his fellowes, and some of them M. Harding had quite turned, and that he would neither de­fend them, Reioinder. Fol. 267. The .194. vntruth. nor condemne them. But now necessity doth make him breake his promise, rather than he shold lose an vntruth, they must be all of good credite againe. They that list, let them so accompt them.

This matter is made good by visions, dreames, and fables.

The .217. vntruthe. I proue it not by dreames.

Héere saith M. Harding this tale of Amphilochius is nei­ther dreame, Reioinder. Fol. 300. Reioinder. Fol. 262. nor fable, but it appeared vnto him good auctho­ritie. Yet he saith before, that whether it be a vaine fable, or a true story, he wil not determine wel, let this contrarietie goe. Whether it be a fable or no, iudge thou. Here further as touching maister Hardings Philosophy in so exacte defining of dreames and visions, bicause he taketh vpon him to control a better Philosopher than him self. And in this word, dreame, wil haue the force of his vntruthe, saying it was a vision, and no dreame which S. Basil saw, that distinction is more curious [Page 207] than learned, for the two Gréeke woords [...] and [...], that is a dreame, and a vision, doe bothe signifie those things which be true, vnlesse he wil say, that a dreame dothe signifie more largely, then [...] or somnium, and yet if it doe, a vi­sion must néedes be a dreame, though euery dreame be not a vision, so this vntruthe by no meanes can be iustified.

He hath made searche for his Masse at Alexandria in Ae­gipt, at Antioche in Syria, at Caesarea in Cappadocia, a thousande miles beyonde Chrystendome.

The .218. vntruthe. These cities are not a thousande miles be­yond Christendome.

This vntruthe was not worthe twise numbring. Read the 183. vntruthe.

Bicause he had no hope to spede in townes, he hathe sought out little churches in the countrey.

The .219. vntruthe. I haue proued that the Masse was celebra­ted in townes.

This vntruthe is soone gathered, but when M. Harding dothe proue it, not only maister Iuel, but all other, that im­pugne their superstitious vanities, will soone subscribe. In the meane season he must not builde vp his vntruthes with suche sayings, as we openly maintaine bothe in worde, and wryting.

Likewise S. Paule willed one to waite for an other in the holy ministration.

The .220. vntruthe. These words are not ment of the ministra­tion of the Sacrament.

These words of S. Paule goe very nighe M. Hardings pri­uate Masse, and therfore it behoueth him for his Masses sake, to stande stiffely in it, that they belong not vnto the ministra­tion of the Lords supper. For if they doe belong vnto it, then no doubt M. Hardings Masse is a sinke of iniquitie, that is so contrary vnto S. Paules woords. 1. Co. 11.33. Now for better discussing of this, bicause in trying it this priuate Masse shall be better knowne, let vs examine. S. Paules woordes. Thus he saithe. Wherfore, my brethren, when ye come together to eate, tary one for an other. This saith M. Harding, is to be vnderstand of certaine Churche feastes, which they had, called [...], and not of the Communion, and as though this were not said with shame inoughe, he saith in an other place, that in that chapter, S. Paule dothe not rebuke them for the manner of ministring this Sacrament, but for their abusing of their church feasts. Reioinder. fol. 99. Now for proofe of this interpretation, he onely alleageth the bare names of Chrysostome and Theodoretus, and this is al he can bring. Read Reioinder. fol. 306. Now let vs sée againe what on the other side may be said to proue that S. Paule meaneth of the ministration of the Sacrament. And this we may sée bothe by the testimonie of all the old Doctors, and most vndoubtedly by examination of the place it selfe. A­thanasius applieth all that place to the Communion in plaine woords, Occumenius saith only the Lords supper is there spo­ken of, and vpon this place inuicem expectate, tary one for an [Page 209] other. Thus he writeth. Itaque: Quamobrem. Ne indigne cor­pus domini, & sanguinem participare probemini. Therefore saith the Apostle. Wherefore: Least you should be proued to participate the Lordes body, and bloud vnworthely. By this Doctor he receiueth vnworthily, that in the congregation re­ceiueth alone. Theophylacte a later wryter vpon the same place, saith: Why should we pray our selues? Quia haudqua­quam meritò id mysterium sumunt multi, bicause many do re­ceiue that mysterie nothing worthely. By all these Doctors this place is ment of the Communion. S. Ambrose saith: It any man be impacient, domi terreno pane pascatur, Let him eate earthly bread at home. And againe, we come to gether, vt multorum oblatio simul celebretur, that the Oblation of ma­ny might be made together. But S. Ambrose calleth not pro­phane meats, suche as their common feasts were, either hea­uenly bread, or our oblation. S. Chrysostome saith, qui hoc non faciunt, indigne communicant, they that tary not one for an other, doe communicate vnworthily. And héere againe, we sée this Doctors minde of priuate Masse, or as M. Harding wil haue it, of the priestes sole receiuing. Beda saith likewise, alleaging S. Augustine. Ad Ianuar. Epist. 1. that this, Aug. de sal. docu. cap. 33. Bas in reg. cōt. q. 310. Greg. exposi. in. 1. Sacu. lib. 2. ca. 10. which the Apostle writeth in this place, is ment of the Communion. S. Ierome also dothe so enterprete it. Read all these vpon the xj. chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians. Of the same minde are also Augustine, Basil, Gregorius Romanus. And if thou rest vpon the aucthoritie of men, examine all the olde Doctors, that haue written vpon the same place, & not them only, but suche as are of yonger age, as Thomas, Scotus, Ly­ra, Hugo, gloss. ordinaria, and suche other. They all agrée: this saying of S. Paule, tary one for an other, is ment of the Com­munion, Dionysius Carthusianus on the same place speaketh very plaine, when ye come together to eate, saith S. Paule. Panem coelestem, saith Dionysius the heauēly bread, videlicet corpus Domini, that is to say, the body of the Lord. And Ni­cholas of Gorram vpon these woordes, tary one for an other, [Page 210] wryteth thus. Docet modum in hora communionis ordinate accedendo, he teacheth howe to come orderly in the time of Communion. What plainer aucthoritie can there be, than these? Who séeth not that all antiquitie haue vnderstande S. Paules words of the Communion? If thou search them, thine eyes shall be thy witnesse. Yet saithe maister Harding, (as he were priuiledged, without blame or discredite to speake what he would,) that Martyr, Caluine, Cranmer, and suche other, haue deceiued maister Iuel: Reioinder. Fol. 92. but it is wonderfull to sée howe he speaketh against the truthe, the Lord knoweth whether against his owne conscience. Read the Replie. Fol. 94. thou shalt further sée▪ how in the Communion, the people came to­gither. But as touching this place, bicause the spirite of God is not tied to any man, or age, we will leaue our witnesses, and examine the place. First, S. Paule blameth them, bicause they come togither, not with profite, but with hurt. And then teaching how they ought to come togither, and in what sorte to haue their méetings, he teacheth them by the example of our sauior Christ, and his doctrine: saying▪ that which I haue receiued of the Lord, [...]. Cor. 11.18. that I haue deliuered vnto you, that Ie­sus Christ in y ^e same night y ^t he was betrayed, tooke bread. &c. making a full description of the Lords supper: whereunto be adioyneth for this cause, many of you are weak. &c. [...] For this cause, which is the vnorderly receiuing the commu­nion. Yet saith M. Harding, it is ment of their feastes. After this it dothe folow in Paule: Wherfore my brethren, when you come togither to eate, tary one for an other. Now if this be not yet plaine inough, that he meaneth of the Sacrament, then looke what foloweth, an vndoubted proofe of the whole matter. Least saith S. Paule, you come togither to your con­demnation. Is this at any time pronounced of any manner eating, but of the vnworthy eating of that blessed sacrament? Yet for the priuate Masse sake, this plaine scripture must be denyed, and impudently wrested into a straunge sense. And marke héere how maister Harding would haue S. Paule rea­son, [Page 211] the woordes before are plaine of the Lordes supper. Of those words S. Paule concludeth: wherefore my brethren. &c. Then by maister Hardings meaning, S. Paule should reason thus: A man must prepare him selfe to receiue the Commu­nion, Ergo, they must tary one for an other, at their common feastes: such lose arguments, the spirite of truth doth not vt­ter. But suche is M. Hardings fashion, he dothe not consider how he wresteth Gods scripture, while he thus defendeth his vngodly Masse.

The like decrees are found vnder the names of Calixtus, Ana­cletus, Martinus, Hyllarius, and others: by which it is certain that the whole church then receiued togither.

The .221. vntruthe. It is not certaine by those decrees.

Sée the .151. vntruthe. It is the same in effecte, that this is. But let vs sée héere also, how truely M. Harding speaketh. It doeth not appeare by these decrées, saith he, that all receiued togither: this shall be best tried by the words of the Decrées. Calixtus saith thus. When consecration is done, De cōs. dis 2. peracta. De cōs. dis. 1. Episcopus. De cōs. dis. 2. Si non. De cōs. dis 2. Si quis. Lu [...]uria, vi­de glossam. let all com­municate, which will not be excluded out of the Churche. A­nacletus hath the very selfe same woords, but how it cometh to passe, let the Decretal epistles sée, that haue this agréement very often, and yet it is very straunge, that diuers menne should speake the same woordes. Hylarius saythe, if thy sinnes be not so great, that thou must be excommunicate, thou must not seperate thy selfe, from the body and bloude of the Lorde. Martinus sayth. If any man heare the scrip­tures readen, and of a superstitious minde, doe thinke he should not Communicate, sette him be excommunicate: [Page 212] now iudge whether these decrées teach, that the whole church should receiue together. M. Harding can answere nothing, but bringeth two distinctions, one olde, one, which we had be­fore in the .151. vntruthe, an other he maketh more to answere Pope Hilarie, and that is this, where Hilarie saith: If he be not excommunicate, let him not abstaine from the sacrament. We may abstaine, saith M. Harding, sacramentally, though not spiritually. If these distinctions may be alowed, ther is no aucthoritie so good, but let M. Harding slip, and he wil answer it. But S. Paule saith, take héede y ^t no man spoile you through Philosophy, and vaine deceit.

Chrysostome saith, we are all of one worthinesse to receiue the mysteries.

The .222. vntruthe. He saith not so.

These are Chrysostomes words. Est autem vbi, nihil differt sacerdos a subdito, vt quādo fruendum est horrendis mysterijs. Similiter enim omnes, vt illa percipiamꝰ, digni habemur, there is a time saith he, when the priest dothe differ nothing from the lay man, as when they must enioy the dreadful mysteries. For we are al accompted of like worthinesse to receiue them. And that we should not doubt of his meaning, he maketh af­terward along discourse to proue this same. Yet saith master Harding, it is false, it is vntrue, Chrysostome saith not, we are all of like worthinesse to receiue the mysteries. And what saith he else? How doeth M. Harding otherwise interprete him? Forsoth saith he, these woords, similiter omnes, vt illa per­cipiamus, digni habemur, must be thus Englished: We are ac­compted worthy of the selfe same things in like sort, not we are all of one worthinesse to receiue them. Who hath hearde [Page 213] one in so graue a matter, speake so childishly, the very woords of Chrysostome, vt percipiamus, he wil not haue Englished as they lie. And bicause M. Iuel doth so English them, (suche is his impudencie) he notes it for an vntruthe. But suche to whome God hath giuen the spirite of knowledge, and truth, they will confesse how he doeth wrangle: and if he haue any grace himselfe, as oft as he remembreth these vntruthes, he wisheth they were againe vnder his file.

Missa in the time of Tertullian, and Cyprian, was especially applied vnto the Communion.

The .223. vntruthe. It is not so, as you meane.

M. Hard. harpeth much on M. Iuels meaning. But vntruths must not be built vpon gesses. Read the .169. vntruthe.

Cataechumeni were present at the Communion, till the Gospell was done.

The .224. It was not the Communion, they were present at.

I graunt it, wrangle on: M. Iuel confesseth when the Gos­pel was done, they were bid depart, what a single vntruthe is this? What troweth M. Harding we doe not know, that that part of seruice, which they heard, was called Missa cathechu­menorum? Or doeth he thinke that the gospel was not red in that seruice? This vntruthe ariseth, bicause he wil not vnder­stand, not bicause he doeth not. M. Iuel calleth that the Com­munion, [Page 214] which was the whole seruice appointed for the ce­lebration of the Lordes supper. At the beginning whereof, the Nouices in the faithe of Christ, might be present, till the deacon cried, Exeunto catechumeni, which was after the gos­pell was red.

We pray not aide of sicke folkes for the proofe of our holy Com­munion, as M. Harding is driuen to doe for his Masse.

The .225. vntruthe. I proue not the Masse by them.

This vntruthe is before sixe times, Read the .215. vntruthe. ¶Thus are we come to an ende of this weary Reioinder, wherein we sée to what issue M. Hardings great vaunts are come: his tragicall exclamations in how small matters there be ended: and his multitude of vntruthes, how without truth they be gathered. He tolde vs that this Replie was altogither corrupt and false, yet are there a great many leaues in this first article, of which he hath not confuted one word: what he would haue done in case it had bene blameable, this Reioin­der dothe sufficiently witnesse. He cried out of corruptions, alterations, manglings, and I wote not what of the olde fa­thers, but quid dignum tulit hic tanto promissor hiatu, what hath he brought forthe, worthy of so wide gaping? These vn­truthes that were so many in number, are now proued none. The controlling of so many aucthorities, is found nothing but wrangling. The often blaming of diuers interpretations is tried either childishe or wilful ignoraunce. And some of his owne Doctors, on whome with much boasting, he had groun­ded his priuate Masse, in the ende he hathe turned to their owne defence. With so ill successe he hath impugned truthe: And with so slender proofe, he hath defended falshood. Of these [Page 215] 225. vntruthes which he hath brought, some he saithe may be coloured, some be shamelesse lies. And in déede his testimonie well applied, is true. For most of them, without shame, are impudently gathered. Some as he hathe vsed them, may bring suspition of ouersight. But what they are, and howe voide of deserued blame, it shall appeare if thou reade this Confutation, in the which for thy contentation, good Chri­stian Reader, I must assure thée, that I haue not alleaged one aucthoritie, wherein I either abridge the authors wordes, or enterlace any other of mine owne, either else misconstrue his meaning. Only sometime, bicause the wryting is tedious, I alleage the sense, and referre thée vnto the place, where thou maist examine the wordes. If any one of all the lande of Lo­uanists be able to reproue me, I wil not let openly to preache it that I haue offended. God giue them and vs bothe grace to consider, that it is now no time to dally. The matter is not suche, that it may abide any wrangling. The cause is Gods, and he néedeth not to be defended with lies. If in his cause we goe about deceite, by vttering falshoode, or by concealing truthe: by making moe distinctions, or by framing Latine as we liste, God is not mocked.

How so euer we will paint our doings, or what clokes of shame so euer we will vse, it is true that the Poete saythe: Ille dolum ridens, quo vincula nectitis inquit? He laughing at oure deceitfulnesse, shall aske to what purpose we haue tied suche deuises? He is truth, and he will be defended by truthe, and he hateth all those, that doe speake lies. Therefore good Christian Reader persuade thy selfe, that as we haue our ac­comptes to make vnto him, that iudgeth truely, so witting­ly, and willingly, we will speake nothing that shall burden oure owne Consciences before his iudgement seate. True it is we be menne: and as menne we may be deceiued. The Prophet hath pronounced the vniuersall sentence, and we be all borne vnder the lawe of it, that euery manne is a lier, [Page 216] therfore, to chalēge vnto my doing any such absolute veritie, as though no piece of it might be blamed, it wer great arrogā ­cie, and extreme folly: this is sufficient to the indifferent mā, and a full contentation vnto mine owne conscience, that the Lord is witnesse, I know not of any one vntruth, I haue vt­tred. And for this great number wherewith M. Iuel is char­ged, better it had bene for M. Harding to haue made them fewer, & more it might haue hindred M. Iuels cause. To de­ny, that any wher he might be deceiued, were to exempt him out of the condition of man. But these .225. vntruthes in one article, while they must be multiplied, M. Harding telleth one many times, maketh straunge interpretations, diuiseth new distinctions, in suche sort, that euery man may espie his folly. God for his mercyes sake lighten once his heart, y ^t yet again he may sée, whether he goeth, and leade them the way back [...] againe vnto rightuousnesse, before whome he hath runne so long towarde the kingdome of iniquitie, that in the day of anger, when euery one shall giue accompt of his doings, we may be all founde together in the way of obedience, and by grace receiue that eternal kingdome, which is not due vnto our workes. Which kingdome God graunt vs, through the death and passion of his sonne, our sauioure Iesus Christ, to whome with the father, & the holy ghost, be al honor and glo­ry, world with­out ende. Amen.