A Sparing Restraint of Many Lavish Untruths

Although M. Jewel, when you proclaimed your challenge at the beginning, you promised to yield and subscribe, if any man alive were able to bring any one sentence out of any old Doctor, Council, Scripture, or example of primitive Church, for proof of any one of all your articles: yet verily I am persuaded, no wise man believed, whatsoever, or how much so ever were brought, that you would stand unto your promise. &c. So then the largeness of your promise, to others maketh show of your confidence, and to yourself the regard of it increaseth stubbornness.

W Hen king Alaxander had proclaimed war against Darius, a certain boasting Persiā in steed of more manhood, used much irreverent talk against them of Macedonia: and especially against Alexander himself: But Memnon his Captayne, perceiving this soldiers valiantness to be all in his railing tongue, at the last, strake him with his spear and said, Ego te alo vt pugnes, non vt maledicas, I retain thee to fight, and not to speak evil. The very like of this is happined among us, and this pratyng Soldiour doth play his part again. The Bishop of Sarisburie our Alexander in Christian war and godly courage, hath made proclamacion against the Pope that proud Prince Darius, & Kyng of Babylon. Now least there should want a Soldiour to speak evil of Alexander, Master Harding hath taken upon him that part: and spareth no piece of his cunning by all means possible to debase this good enterprise. God (if it be his will) once make him know him self, or if he shall continue in his evil speaking, send over him some Memnon that may chasten his intemperate tongue.

In this beginning of his Epistle, there is little worthy answering. He pronounceth boldly of M. Jewel's intent: yet no man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is within him. Hys writing is like a Crowe in Peacocks feathers, or an ylfauored Ape in a purple garment. The handling of his matter is very beautiful, and the substance is nothing worth. And yet in his manner of resoning because M. Jewel will not subscribe, he concludeth that he is both confident and stubborn. Hys confidencie I grant. He hath learned the good lesson of his heavenly Father, Confidite, ego vici mundum, be confident, for I have overcome the world. The Lord is his helper, and he shall not be moved forever. He is guilty to him self of no crime herein: he waxeth not pale with the memory of any fault, and therefore in the fear of God he hath said unto his soul, hic murus aheneus esto, stand fast as a brazen wall. Would God M. Harding had had the like confidence, the scornful reproaches of the proud should not have proved him stubborn.

Our Lord yet (if it be his pleasure) once open your eyes, and give you grace to see the danger of the pool you wade in. Beware by time M. Jewel, you fall not into the horrible gulf, that Solomon speaketh off. Impius, cum in profundum malorum venerit, contemnit. When the wicked man cometh into the bottom of evils, he becometh careless, setting all at naught. If once you fall into this bottom, what hope is there of your recovery? For whereas none returneth from evil, but he that repenteth him of evil: How can he repent that hath cast away all care? Yea, how can he step back from evil and be made good, that saith (whose miserable state Isaiah lamenteth) evil is good, and good is evil? How can he see the right way, that maketh darkness light, and light darkness? How can he delight in sweet things, that taketh sour for sweet, and sweet for sour.

From these uncharitable beginnings M. Harding falleth (as it may seem) to a charitable prayer: but were the same acceptable in the sight of God, he himself should return from all his abominations: now it proceedeth from the Minister of iniquity. We are put in mind of the country proverb, that it is ill with the Geese when the Fox preacheth. If the prayers were righteous he pretendeth here, not our blood, but their own tears should have watered their eyes. Now, because their prosperity hath been the slaughter house of Satan, this submission in adversity can be but the Crocodiles tears: If God of his justice should carry us again captives into Babylon, we know the purple whore, and the whyps of hir fornication. But God be praised, the lines are fallen to us in pleasant places: yea we have a fair heritage, for the way that Master Jewel wadeth in, it is not that horrible gulphe, which M. Harding cannot see, wherein the bottom of all evil abideth. The spirit of God is our warrant, that it is the narrow way which leadeth unto everlasting life, there is no cause why M. Jewel should repent him of this journeying, he walketh in the way of health. God of his good will and mercy shall give unto him that his course be finished in the same. He maketh not good evil, nor evil good, he putteth not darkness for light, nor light for darkness, he saith not sweet is sower, and sower is sweet. And for as much as the whole controversy between us, doth rest in this, whether of us is in darkness, it shall not be tedious unto the Christian Reader, if in the word of God we do seek for trial, for that giveth unto the simple sharpness of wit, and to the children knowledge and discretion, neither is it hidden but from the eyes of the scorner, neither yet perverted, but of the wicked. Let us ask of the same word what is good, what is the light, and what is sweet. It is good for thee (saith Peter ) to hearken unto the word. And thy word saith David is a lantern unto our feet, & a light unto our steppes, and the same word is more sweet then honey and the honey comb. Then as this same word is true, so we are assured of all goodness, all light, and pleasure, if we follow it: and therefore bless onesse is pronounced over him that readeth, and them that hear that prophecy. Now do we call the world to witness, whether they or we do set out this word. We have it in our churches and private houses, we expound it to the people: we exhort them to read it: we call the ignorant from their errors with the same voice that S. Augustine was called, tolle lege, tolle lege, Take up and read: and this is as the holy Ghost doth witness, good, light, and sweet. But these men that crake so of their goodness, what have they done? They have pulled this word out of their synagoges: they have not suffered it in the poor man's dwellyngs: they have not expounded it as the whole world can judge: they have not made it the squire of their religion: And if in any place that little book was seen, though in the houses of Bishops and Prelates, yea, in the very palaces of Popes & Cardinals: yet did it sleep in the dust: or if the candle was light, it was set under a bushel. The people did not know the means of their salvation, the merit of Christ's passion was mingled with man's good works, his continual intercession darkened with the mediation of saints, his bloody drops wiped away with the remembering his holy martyrs: his crying out on the cross at the yielding up of his spirit, was not hard thorough the abusing the name of his blessed mother, and in stead of other understanding, wherewith our souls are comforted, we harkened after the strange sounds of unknown trumpets: in gadding on pylgrimage, in paynting of Tabernacles, in sensing of Idols: in setting up of Candels before stocks and stones, in blasphemous Masses: in idolatrous Altars, in halowing of Temples: in christining of Bells: in selling of Merits: in turning of Roodes, in a thousand mo iuglings, invented by Satan and practiced by his ministers: that from the top to the toe, from the hill altars unto the church door, there was nothing whole in that froward generation. Neither they themselves can deny this though they like to dissemble it, cry out how they will, y ^t we make evil good, and good evil. And for the charging us with darkness, the thing so disagreeth, that the ignorant require a further proof, and the learned do see there much wrangling eloquence: do we make darkness light? I say as before, what shadows do we walk in? what darkness do we preach? wherein are we blind leaders of the blind? Accusations may not go for arguments, nor slaunderings for sufficient proof. O Master Harding turn again to your writings, examine your authorities, consider your counsails, apply your examples, look if any line be blamable in our service, & take hold of your advantage. I think Master Jewel 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 service is good and godly, every title grounded on holy scriptures: and with what face do ye cal it darkness? Sure with the same that the prophecies of the holy ghost were sometime called dreams, the doctrine of the Apostles heresies, & our savior Christ a Samaritan. But as for your Portuise which is your light, whether it be darkness or no, I crave no Arbitrer, I require but trial, and as Elias said to the priests of Baal, let us take either our bullock and lay the pieces on our aultars, and on which God sendeth fire, let that be the light. You have halted to long on both sides, it is now time to walk up right. Offer up your Portuise to Master Jewel, if he prove it not a heap of lies, a sink of iniquity, a deep dungion of blasphemous herisies against the eternal son of God & his everlasting priesthood, we will all subscribe. And for the assurance of our meaning, we say with the Apostle, behold before God we lie not: if you dare not do this, the Christian Reader must remember you are worse then Baals prophets. Consider then Master Harding in what waters you wade, and look better what is light & darkness. For the ignorance of gods word the Gentiles were said to sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, the unbelieving Jews to be blind leaders of the blind, and he that knew it not, to go he wist not whether. But the darckning of that word hath been your chiefest light, and ignorance the mother of your devotion: and as in the sacrifices of Isis and Serapis you have made Harpocrates image with his finger on his lyps in token that your mysteries must be kept secrete, and as the Egyptians you have your two diverse caracters, that Robin Hoode and Gui of Warwick and Beuis of Hampton & such like should be had of the people in english letters, But the mysteries of our redemption, & the glorious tidings of the death of Christ were in strange figures, & for the hasarde of devotion 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 Paul, of Peter, James or John▪ besides the bare names, not one among a hundred could tell a line, not withstanding the continual crying of wisdom in the streets, the calling of our Savior for the sielie lyttleones. O M. Harding, this is no light. It was the time of Dioclesian, when the Scriptures were burned, the abominations of Manasseh when they were hyd in the Temple, the kingdom of Antiochus when they were cut in pieces: and to compare like with like, your Antichristian jurisdiction, where they are kept in covert. Wherein you show that great plague to rest vpō you, which who so heareth, either ear shall tingle that you have the famine of the word of God. When the cogitacion of mans heart even from his youth was evil, & the world ouerrun w ^t covetousness, God purged that iniquity with his drowning waters: when the cry of Sodom and Gomor did ascend to heaven, God quenched their filthy lusts with fire and brimstone: the frowardness of his people, the breach of his laws, the blood of his prophets, with pestilence, famine, banishments, & such other sundry and diverse plagues: but the death of his only heir, with the letting out of the Vineyard to others: and the blood of his beloved Son, with the scourge of ignorance: that unto this day they believe not his glorious Gospel. And how must the Popes kingdom needs tremble & fear that acknowledgeth the punishments of Christ's death to maintain their religion? Now for our delivery from the maintenance of darkness, S. Paul biddeth us not believe an Angel of heaven that bringeth another Gospel, therefore we dare not be led with any blind custom to shadow the same light we have received. If you shall otherwise be always minded, I se in an Etnick heart, the effect of that etnicks prayer virtutem vt videant intabes • ant{que} relicta, that you might see virtue and pine away with want of it. After this followeth a sober excuse that Master Harding maketh of him self, that although through infirmity he oftentimes offend yet in matters of faith he hath no perverse judgment: The reason is because he doth submit himself to the church of Rome ▪ Much better this argument would hold the other way: because he is in the church of Rome, he is in all filthiness & superstition of a sinful life and of a corrupt religion, having the heavy hand of God over him, that except he repent: the same woe shall light upon him, which so unwisely he hath derived to other.

This matter is well to be weighed, the case you stand in is deeply to be considered. This much you cannot deny: you have for your parte broken the unity, that is so much commended unto us in the scriptures, and all holy fathers. The Catholic church (saith Saint Cyprian) can be one, it cannot be cut and divided a sunder. The catholic Church alone is the body of Christ, saith S. Augustine, whereof he is the head, the savior of his body. Without his body the holy Ghost giveth life to none. Therefore in another place he saith: whosoever is separate from the catholic church, how laudable so ever he thinketh himself to live, for this only wickedness that he is divided from the unity of Christ, he shall not have life, but the wrath of God remaineth upon him.

Here is a sad admonition, concerning the catholic Church, which we acknowledge to be the body of Christ, and he the only head of it, so that without it there is no salvation. But for the trial of this Church we go to the Scriptures and do examine ech spirit whether he be of God or no: and such as say they be Apostles and be none, we have found them liars: therefore we run out from among them, as out of the midst of Babylon ; out of their wicked assemblies and donne of thieves, from their abominations of Moab and spiritual fornications, and ar come again to our merciful Father that hath prepared his fatlings for us, and put on us our wedding garment, and placed us at his great Supper in the fellowship of his church, where we abide thorough his mercy, and look for our resolucion, that our joy may be full. And for our assurance to be of that number we have the warrant of the Scriptures: first for that we hearken only to Christ, and hear not the voice of any stranger: then for that we confess that they alone can save our souls. And as S. Paul saith, can make the man of God perfect to all good works. And considering that Prophecy came not in the old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by y ^e holy ghost: we dare not admit any private interpretation, but take heed unto the word, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, for that is the day star which is risen in our harts. Therefore we presume not to understand above that which is mere to understand, but that we understand according to sobriety, as God hath dealt to everyone the measure of faith, and we prophesy according to the proportion thereof, since the Scripture may not be interpreted by other spirit, then it hath been delivered. For as no man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man, which is within him, even so the things of God no man knoweth, save only the spirit of God. As for the exposition of the holy Fathers, and Doctors, the same holy Fathers, and Doctors them selves have taught us soberly, and with reverence to leave them, if in any wise they think other then the truth reporteth. Neither yet of counsails have we any fore judged sentence, 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 upon this ground we more esteem one lay man bringing scripture for his defense, than a whole assembly without the like assurance. For were it not extreme madness upon the credit of men to go careless in the mire, we know not whether, since the things are written whereby we may live? Even as our savior Christ gave answer to him, that sought life, referring him to the scriptures, and asking what he read: so we upon those scriptures have builded up our church wherein, we have rather chosen to be door keepers, than to dwell in the proud palaces of ungodly buildings. But here M. Harding crieth out for the Apostles constitutions, and with rumors, and heresies, & deceitful traditions, bringeth battred weapons against our Church walls. But alas infelix pure at{que} impar congressus Achilli, O unhappy child, and unmeet match for Achilles. This ordinance is but quilles, these pellets are but paper, this powder is but wind, and all these engines are but rotten wood. Thanks be to God that hath made us our dwelling places, and endued us with hope, that shall not be confounded. We have left to walk in their slippery ways, we have left of to go after them in their unfruitful iourneis, we have left of our gaping so long after flies: would God Master Harding you would so tourne from your folly, but you are drounken, though not with wine, and you stagger, though not with strong drink: for the Lord hath covered you with a spirit of slumber, and hath shut up your eyes. Concerning traditions, I say briefly, such turning of devises shall be esteemed as the potters claie, yet mean I not this of all, but of popish traditions, of forbidding marriage, commanding to abstain from meats, which S. Paul saith is the doctrine of Devils: of lying Legendes, which are the tokens of Antichrist, of massing garments, which for all new glosses must needs signify the looking 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 service, concluding this place with S. Paul Phil. 4. what so ever things are true, what so ever things are honest, what so ever things are just, what so ever things are pure, what so ever things pertain to love▪ what so ever things are of good report, if there be any virtue, or if there be any praise, think on those things which you both learned, & received, and heard, & seen in me, those things do, and the God of peace shall be with you. Now he that can bring most aūtient proof what these traditions were, it is best reason he should be believed. Speak now for your church Master Harding, and if you win, for my part I will yield. Speak out therefore allowed, and tell us your witness names. Ignatius, Martialis, Abdias, Hippolitus, Amphilochius, Leontius, Dyonitius. Olde witnesses sure even molded with their many years: yet such is your fortune, even these are to young. Call for your Clemens the Apostles fellow, yet he will not serve: Ther is one cometh aganist them longer of continuance, & more travailed in the world, yet not worn with his years, nor w • ried with his labor: he is as good as Moses, his eyes are not dimmed, nor his natural force abated: he is like unto Caleb as strong now as when his Moses first sent him, as strong as he was then, even so strong is he now for war or government: a companion of S. Paul's iourneis: whose praise is in the Gospel throughout all Churches: who saluted the Collossians : who only was with Paul at Rome the .xiii. year of the reign of Nero, (though you say Peter was then Bishop) an excellent Physician, and one that can cure the very hardness of your heart: If you care not for his commendacions, yet regard his name: I do mean S. Luke the holy Evangelist. Let us stand to his judgment, what were these traditions? These traditions, saith he, are the Gospel and the Acts which I wrote to Theophilus. For these are his very words. It seemed good also to me most noble Theophilus, as soon as I had searched out perfitlye all things from the beginning, to write unto you thereof from point to point. All these things thus exactly written, he received only of his Master Paul: And therefore, as it is thought, the same Apostle, speaking of S. Luke's writing, calleth it his own Gospel. So that what so ever Luke reporteth not written by S. Paul, it is Paul's preaching, and that is his tradition, yea even from point to point.

O master Harding, you think not reverently of the spirit of God, if you can imagine that S. Luke, after such a promise unto Theophilus, pretermitted any thing that seemed necessary: there is nothing sufficient, if this be not sufficient. And yet there is another witness, more ancient then Luke, and yet more fresh, then all your withered Doctors, and that is S. Paul him self, who in the .xv. to the Romaines, as may well be gathered, saith, that he wrote unto them that same that he preached. Now since we have so sufficient warrants, call us not into law, for rejecting your dreamings: but acknowledge, we say truly, in denying that Church, whose faith you profess to be the catholic Church.

For a brief answer to your order of Bishops, I say it is a token, that may fail in the Church, 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 word of God. Let Augustine be the Judge, Epist. 166. and Chrysostom upon Matthew, hom. 49. Now for the better discharge of Luther and Zwingli, which in God's cause have been Simeon, and Levi, to revenge the adulteries of Shechem : I will lay forth your argument, and make it no worse then it is. S. Augustine saith, if the order of Bishops may prove the Church, there was never yet Bishop of Rome a Donatist, ergo saith master Harding, there must needs be an open succession of Bishops. Let who will be cheyned in such bands of yarne.

But as it is certain, you will fail in proof of your church of the Calvinists, so I doubt not, but the world ere it be long shall see, how weak are the other partes of your doctrine. A man would think, who hath herd or read your Chalenge, that either you were well furnished with substantial learning, to defend what you took upon you, or that you were a man of passing impudency, or of extreme madness. Your Chalenge was answered, you have replied. What you could do in this Reply, you have done. What help might be had among that whole side, you have not wanted, School masters, Greke readers, Lawyers, Canonistes, Ciuilians, Summystes, Glose searchers, Divines of all your sortes, and all others, that could do ought, have put to their hands. The whole forces of your side into your book, are brought together. God be thanked for it. All shall turn to the joyful victory of truth, and to the glory of God, and to your own confusion at length.

Now M. Harding, as though you had gotten the victory, you do untimely blow up the triumph, hasting, as it seemeth to Paris to sing Te Deum for the battle of Aging • court: with an odious rehearsal in your manner of eloquence, of Schoolemaisters, Greek readers, Lawyers, Canonistes, Ciuilians, Summystes, Glose searchers. &c. with whom as with Master Jewel's helpers, like the lusty green Knight you will needs encounter. But why do you use such untrue demeanour, to judge of any other by your own doing? Touchyng this Reply, against which such a troupe have sent out their papers, I speak as I have sure knowledge, that if all these were helpers, yet doth it not shame the doing. If it be master Jewel's own in good proof, in elequence, in memory, M. Harding is far behind him. And for further declaration of this, they that have seen the former answer, & this Reioynder, do know, that if M. Harding confess it, he hath taken by force, if not, he hath stolen of his cunning.

But, saith M. Harding, this Chalenge was answered. I grant 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 have replied: O master Harding why did you not before consider the fame of the Chalenger? Why saw you not those tokens of victory hanged up in his houses? Though during the silence, your answer did seem so plausible, yet now this reply hath shadowed all your praises, your tents are spoiled, your defences are weakened, your holds are overturned, and your Captains slain. James and Chrysostom do say no moe Masses: Dionysius hath renounced the ordering of Angels: Clement hath no more acquaintance 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 behold women, boys, children, laymen, fables, dreams, and visions, your Church, and Minister for your half Communion, and they are deathbeds, sickfolkes, infants, and madmen: Proofes for your Lattin service, and surmises, guesses, conjectures and likelyhoodes: In your supremacy he hath marked your wanderings, and seldom or never he hath found you in the right way. In the other Articles he hath opened your forgeries, laid abroad your fallacies, untied your cunning knots, loosed every joint: and your answer is fallen. What resteth now, but that you beweepe your fair Turnus, and cry with the pensive Father, gnate vbi forma vitens niuea{que} in front Serenus ill decor, O answer, answer, where is now thine old shining beauty?

Surely M. Harding, the paintings are rubbed away, the goodly feathers are gone, and the Crow appeareth: The Lions skyn is pulled of, and the seely Ass is bewrayed, therefore it is no maruail though you complain of his helpers, as the Cowarde that hath been once beaten in the dark, thinketh every bushe to be a Man, so your answer being shaken with every line of that Reply, made you think every leaf to be a new adversary, notwithstanding yet you have graven a fresh in your buckler 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with good luck at adventure, and in a desperate cause maintain a little hope with a new Reioynder. But alas, Fortune is deaf, and cannot hear, or if she will do anything for you, & make this reioyning labor serve worthy answer, then alas little book, cui te fortuna reseruat exitio, what misery shall come upon thee?

Many thought ye were invincible: By this it is well perceived, ye are easy enough to be conquered. Men supposed some great thing to be in you. Now all is seen what ye have. And when it shall be made manifest that you have nothing in substance, but only certain shows of things: your craking and boasting shall ende in your contempt and shame.

The opinion of Master Jewel's learning hangeth not upon M. Hardings commendation. Men be not now led so far into error, that if M. Harding say any thing, they will straight believe him. As God hath lightened our harts with the knowledge of his heavenly word, so he hath joined understanding unto our senses, least vain talking should deceive us. And therefore it skilleth the less how much M. Harding or his fellows write. Concerning that Challenge, that hath so much enflamed them, I praise not the Challenger, he hath nothing that he hath not received, the glory doth belong unto God, the praise unto God, thanks giving is due unto God: Mayster Jewel hath no more to boast of his ten talents, then he that hath but two: But this much I dare truly affirm, that as by Elias God destroyed the Prophets of Baal, by Micah found the Prophets of Ahab liars, by Elisha killed the railing Children: so by M. Jewel he hath well confirmed us against all idolatrous Priests, all lying Prophets, and all railing Companions.

The event of your vanity putteth me in remembrance of one Megabysus a great Captain under the Kyng of Persie. This Megabysus came on a time unto the shop of Appelles, that most famous Painter at Athens. Beholding the Tables, & giving his verdict of those excellent works, he praised, & dispraised, liked, & found fault, as his fantasie blundered, not as skill directed. Apelles that while standing behind a cloth, and hearing what he said, stepped forth, and spake thus unto him. Hitherto Megabyse thy purple, gold, and precious stones, and the trayne that waiteth on thee, made us believe, thou were a man of great worthiness: now these boys here that grind my colors, hearing thee to speak so foolishly, set naught by thee, and laugh thee to scorn. Verily, though I be not like to Apelles, yet is your case M. Jewel, not much unlike 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 Bishopric of Sarisburie, your sightly state and condition, your Rhetorical persuasions in the pulpit, with a holy holding up of the hands, and casting up of the eyes to heaven, and with your lamentable crying out of your Oos, which you use very commonly, weening thereby to persuade the simple, your stout asseverations, your favor of the common people, and others, that clap you on the shoulder, your vain Pulpet buzzing, your Gloria patri at Paul's cross: all this hath made many a one believe, that M. Jewel was a great Clarcke, a pillar of the Gospel, a peerless fellow. But now that you have said all that you, and your whole side had to say, now that you have discovered that lay hid before, now that your best stoare is laid abroad, now that you have made the world witness of the proofs you have for your doctrine: they that have but mean skill behold a further weakness to be on your side, then before they had conceived. Better it had been for you, ye had maintained your opinion and estimation among your own deceived brotherhed with silence, and with your accustomed craking, without showing forth any proofs.

Now is M. Harding come to his pretye solace with one Megabises, a great man, & of little name, & in his own device liking him self, well forceth much his eloquence, as if the Owl were the fairest bird in the wood. But we should do him much wrong to bar him of his pastime, that hath nothing else to comfort himself withal. His cause is naught, his books are contemned, his credit is lost, and that which grieveth him most of all, he hath made an unequal match. In these extremities, what if he use his tongue at will? Megabises & he both can do but little harm. The one doth but milk an he Goat, while the other doth hold under a syue. It is now no time to spread abroad any cunning, to prove my Lord of Sarisbury is not learned, as long as his Replye liveth, and it shall live till his adversaries be confounded. Neither his square Cap, nor his Rochet, nor his sightly state, nor his Bishopric, shall at all commend him. We have the testimonies of his mind, which God hath made so beautiful, that all his other ornaments are known to be to few: yet concerning his good estate, I do answer with Solomon, God overthroweth the wicked, and they are not, but the houses of the righteous shall stand. For this description of his manner of preaching, first it becometh Diogoras better than a Divine. Then what skilleth it, though Zoilus or Zerophanes do scoff at Homer. Pardon me, M. Harding if I say the truth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , it is easier for you to mock at it, then to do the like. But what mean you thus bitterly to rail at his preaching? Why jest you at his lamētacion for the people's disobedience? Have you lost both your cause and your learning together? Verily whē your Pope was Dean of S. Paul's, there was then neither lifting up of hands, nor bringing down of hearts, neither crying out of Oos, nor inward grief of Iis, neither yet gloria patri, nor mors praedicata filij. You might hear the heavens harmony, for any pulpet noise, yet loftye descant within among 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 man's hap, that seeth not his way, by making haste, goeth over his shoes, ere he be aware, in the mire.

Howe little truth you have for your side, and howe many untruths you have uttered by your reply, partly by this Reioynder, and more largely by the labors of other men, it shall be declared.

Now after this long a do, what proof bringeth Master 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 Harding against this Reply? for sooth he referreth us partly to this Rejoinder, partly to the bird in y ^e bush, that is, to other proofs that shall come hereafter. I know not well in this case what to write. If I should vnrippe this Reioynder, and show all the faults it hath, then os & impudentia a bande of Louanistes, cry out in the air of lyings, corruptions, misconstruings, alterations, and a thousand such other. Some send over their pamfletes, some return their untruths, some whet leaden hatchets, some seek real presence, some make blind discourses, some hunt out their Purgatory, some fight for their images: some stumble on their rock, and such as can do nothing else, cry, beware of M. Jewel. But truth must not be still for fear of the sclaunderer. God give us grace to take heed of this Reioynder, in uttering of an heresy, it is more talking, thā the Turtle, in speaking out the truth, more dumb, than a Fish: in avoiding authorities, more winding than the Serpent: in resisting God's spirit, more hard than iron: in substance, an open market of all manner of evil. We that see it, do give God the praise, that maketh his truth to shine through so many clouds: They that favor their doings, may bewail with Andromache, lifting up Astionax hands, Spes nullas habet Troia si istas habet, Troy hath no hope at all, if it have no hope but this. Concerning those other proofs 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 books are soon answered.

As concerning your answer to my preface, it is like the rest of your book, all together void of truth, and plain dealing. &c. that you have discovered our wants therein, you speak untruly.

Now is M. Harding come to the defense of his Preface, and as his manner is, blaming M. Jewel's whole writing, reioyneth, as he seeth good, where it liketh him best, and first boldlye enough denieth, that M. Jewel could discover any wants on their side. But alas, this is but a brag. Is there no want on their side? Why then doth he handle his friends so vngentlie? Why turneth he them over to their own defense? Why dissent they one from another? If perhaps he say, their Church hath no wants, his own fellows are against him. Scotus saith, the Church hath somewhere the harder part. Their Councils conclude some, one against another, some against the Apostles them selves. Their Popes have extremelye hated one another, in such sort as never Turk or Infidel hath done the like. Yea, such is the impudency of their Church, and so little account they make of disagrement, that they would make Christ's Apostles teache one contrary to other. The .6. Canon, and the .40. Canon, and the .50. Canon of the Apostles, alow the marriage of priests, the .25. Canon forbiddeth them to marry. The .80. Canon of the Apostles doth straightlye charge and command that no Bishop or Priest do debase him self to any worldly labor, and allege for their purpose this scripture: No man can serve two masters. And yet the constitutions of the same Apostles do quite contrary, and command that the Priests do labor, using their own example, of which some were Fishermen, some Tentmakers, some Husbandmen, and such like, this contrariety of Apostles could never be in Christ's Apostles. Then by like M. Hardings Church, that is fain to make them Apostles, hath some wants. And yet because M. Jewel said thus much, he falleth out in a rage, that his Challenge was foolish, his Reply without learning, his arrogancy much, his Gospel false, his weakness discovered, his modesty stained, and I wot not what. A heap of shameless lies in half a side of a lease. The Challenge was foolish: yet Harding, Dorman, Rastell, Marshall, Stapleton, Heskins, Saunders, and Shacklocke, do sweat these .iiii. or .v. years about it, and are never the near. The Reply was unlearned. Yet M. Harding in a year, could rejoin but with a few leaves, and that non absque theseo, Summysts or Glosesearchers, everyone doth help a little. Concerning these other sclaunders, his pride cannot be much, that always commendeth his adversaries cunning. His Gospel is not false, that embraceth nothing but the Gospel of Christ. His weakness is little, that is upholden with so many authorities. His modesty is not stained, whose enemy evil reporteth him. Nor his brags are many, where the victory abideth. Therefore this filthy foam of such uncomely railing, doth rather bewray the sickness of the writers mind, then reprove the person against whom it is uttered.

That you looked fiercely, and shoke your sword terribly, I said it not, as you report me. &c. from thence to digress to the odious upbraiding us with cruelty. &c. it was more spiteful, then pertinent to the matter.

Master Harding much blameth the racking of this example, but he may not now well discemble his meaning. His own writings, and Master Shacklocks old withered tree, do show howe gladly they would bring us into hatred o • bloodiness, and when they secretly insinuate it, is it not wisdom to bring open remedies? They may not well discharge them selves of such secrete doings. Master Harding was but little gone in this Epistle, when he would closely seem to be Appelles. But his painting was not singular, and therefore I passed it over. After that he hath said in this matter what he can, he cometh to his wonted rhetorike of Runnagates, Apostates, Forsakers, and Rebels, as if he were talking of him self or Staphylus and such companions. But Master Hardings mouth is no slander, our constancy is yet unblameable. He blameth much our vncourtesy toward our adversaries, but he showeth not wherein we do so evil entreat them. We neither tie them up in cheines, nor shut them up in cole houses. Perhaps he will say they are in • uraunce. Yet that is but his own false surmise. Their great good liking is a token of little hard handling. As touching these many yffes of the beginning of Master Jewel's profession, they need no answer. What he meant, a godly man may judge, in seeing gods blessing of his proceadinges. He findeth not him self guilty with Core, Dathan, and Abiron, in gods mercies he feareth not the fall of Lucifer. And as you Master Harding, have regard to the salvation of your soul, for Christ's sake, he requireth you, to enter into your own conscience. If promotion made you shrink, remember Jeroboam, that made Israel to sin. If shame make you continue, remember Pharaoh, that would not yield to Moses : What ever keepeth you back from the true joy of God's gospel, remember Julianus. You shall cry in time, vicisti Galilee, O Galilean thou hast the victory.

That you were enforced thereto by our importunity, as you say, who can believe you. For who of us all troubled you? Who provoked you? Who did so much as pull you by the sleue? Had you not before shut us up. &c.

Where he denieth that M. Jewel was provoked by their importunity, and thereto raiseth a heap of his idle questions: what private cause he had, I know not. Of their great importuniti, all the world is witness. What if M. Bonner were in prison, that had tied up so many? What if testie M. Watson held his peace? Or what if M. Harding were quiet? Are there no moe enemies of God's truth, but they? Was all at rest? Was all husht? Was not the world daily seduced by their popery? Was not Christ's merits darkened? Antichrist still fighting for his seat in the temple? And will not this importunitye stir up a good Bishop? I pray you M. Harding (I speak it not to upbraid you, but to admonish God's people) what if your watchmen, were blind and had no knowledge? what if they were domme Dogs, and they would not bark? what if they lay a sleep and delited in sleeping, do you think therefore that the vigilant pastor of Sarisburie could see the wolf come and run away, see the thief, and keep silence? Your great murderer Hosius was buste, your Sorbonists wer occupied, your Louanists at their labor, this might move the bishop, though a few of you foxes did not much trouble y ^• fold, dissemble not your knowledge for shame any longer, confess this was great cause both of grief and vehemency.

You find fault with my want of modesty for showing forth your bosting, for my part I pray God I be never found more faulty for want of modesty.

Master Harding excuseth him self, that he hath not passed modesty, and prayeth God that therein he be never found more faulty: but whosoever readeth over his writing, and raketh up together the scourings of his modesty, shall find such a heap of railings, that if he yet fear, going over them: it is very true that he that is once past shame, is like to prove notoriously impudent. But it skilleth not much, how immodest he be in writing, that defendeth such a shameless cause.

If the truth you mean were manifest and known, why could not Luther see it, by whose spectacles you have espied many pointes of your Gospel, by his mind, the truth of you that be Calvinists, is not manifest.

Now M. Harding falleth into his common place of Luther and Calvin, and those men, the more excellent their virtues were, the more opprobrious • ye he reporteth them. I could have wished in the one less vehemency. But it was a froward world when he first preached, the people could not be won with entreaty. The other may be a spectacle in all posterity, to behold the great mercies of God, that endued his sinful creatures with so rare virtues. He preached so often, and wrote so many books, that if the truth bare not witness, it might seem incredible. He expounded the scriptures in such virtue of the spirit (give me leave to speak as I think, seeing all is to the glory of God) that neither S. Augustine nor S. Jerome the great lights of God's church have ever done the like. But let such men rest in the peace of the Church, Master Hardings revilings cannot blemish their good names.

After this he expoundeth his meaning in calling Master Jewel Goliath, which he saith he did not for his strength, but for his craking. I maruail he hath so sone forgot his Philosophy, Aristotle saith, that craking is to boast of that thing which a man hath not, but Goliath 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 confess his oversight: let it stand in force, and he must acknowledge M. Jewel's strength: which strength, seeing that God doth not overthrow, but increaseth it with his mercy, it is not Goliathes boasting, but it is David's faith, against which, because M. Harding hath so adventured, both his strength is weakened, and his ignorance bewrayed. By David's slyng and his scrip (he saith) he knoweth not what is meant: yet me thyncketh, a man of his years, should not be ignorant, that by denying one man's things, to appertain to another: We say the persons are not like. But M. Harding, because you know not what is meant by this sling and scrip, you must remember David came against this Philistine, in the name of the Lord: but you come girt with Saul's sword, and his Target, that is, with men's devises to countervail God's word. David came to show, that Israel had a God. But you come to declare that there is a Pope in Edom. David confessed that the battle was the Lord's. But you would help win the field with your own merits. So since you neither have David's mind, nor his purpose, Master Jewel said you had nether his scrip nor his sling. And you shall never have them, till you cast away your own armor, and in matters of faith take unto you the furniture of the word of God. Wrest not therefore against the saints of the Lord this saying of our savior, obmutesce, et exi de homine. We can abide your sayings with the comfort, that we have received, blessed are you, when men revile you, and say all manner of evil against you.

For that I, and certain learned men by sundry treatisies have wrought to the confusion of your goliathship, we look not for the praise of ladies. The looking after such reward we leave to you, whom the hope thereof entiseth to sustain this wicked travail. &c. How you have knocked Goliath in the forehed, as you crake, let it be judged by that is of late returned upon you, by him, that wrote a return of untruths upon your Reply.

Master Harding is very good in insinuations, even now by Appelles, & now by learned men. He would have us ween him self is sombody, but what he is God knoweth. Here he doeth grossly imagine of the ladies of Jerusalem. But with better advisement he will forget this fancied pomp, and remember a spiritual triumph. So he shall not be very hasty to sing before the victory. He saith he will dissemble Master Jewel's vain, and ministerlike talk of the Pope. In deed it is his fashion in most partes of this Rejoinder, when he cannot answer the authority, to pass it over with dissimulation. But why doeth he with such disdain name this ministerlike talk? Doeth the name of a Minister so much offend him? God grant he once look better to his feet, and see where he wadeth. Let him remember the Prophets prayer, make the heart of this people fat, make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes, least they understand, and be healed. It is to be feared, God hath given him up to a reprobate sense, he is pleased with the name of a priest, and the thing belongeth not unto him, he misliketh the name of a minister, yet all the Apostles of Christ so named them selves. But neither the Apostles names, nor yet their religion can please a popish prelate.

After this Master Harding cometh to the issue of this controversy, and howe he hath handled his matter, he doeth appeal to the censure of the return of untruths. Why sir is Thomas Stapleton made Pope of late? You told us even now Master Jewel had challenged all the learned men in the world, and shall this young man sit Arbiter in so great a controversy? May he now judge, and be judged of no man? Take heed you make not two heads of your synagoge. Good Lord, to what issue is Master Harding come? Diruta sunt aliis vni tibi pergama restant, though other might well scale the ghostly walls of Jerusalem, yet to you they stand strongly fenced. When he hath given sentence, you may have room for your history of Megabises. Apelles hath set out his tables, and you bring the Shoemaker to be judge, but if he pass the slipper, we may not then forbear him, we will not set to his decree, the note of the tribune, in token that we agree as he decideth in his cheyre. But an evil cause, feareth an indifferent Judge.

But to what purpose is it to stand long in ripping up your answer to my preface? you start from place to place, and seriouslye proving nothing, fill your paper with much matter impertinent. &c.

Master Jewel (saith M. Harding) doth start from place to place. I perceive it is ill halting before a Creeple, who soever starteth aside, he soon espieth him: In holes, creauises, corners, & bywaies, he hath made many a scape in this Reioynder, he is seldom long together in the right way. Whosoever seeth the great skyps in this article, would muse how he came headlong so soon over it: and yet seeing his stays in many places one would think surely he had no further to go, so Tigellius like he walketh in his Reioynder. As touching M. Jewel's manner of confuting his preface, seeing it is no part of their purpose, it skilleth not much whether he confute all in order or no. If M. Harding can say no worse by him, let him have his saying. For the matter, whether it be impertinent or no, the book is his own Judge, and let it rest upon trial.

You make much a do about your negative, and bear the world in hand, you may lawfullye, and reasonablye stand upon the negative in denying many pointes of our faith, and religion, because S. Gregory used a negative proposition against John B. of Constantinople. What though S. Gregory said by way of Negative, no B. of Rome ever took unto him this name singularity? Agayne what though S. Augustine by a negative said, In this order of succession, there is found no B. that was a Donatist, what though I would sai, as I might say truly, if the whole number of them, that have been B. of Sarisburie before this time, there can be none found that was a Caluinist? Likewise, that of all the Bishops, that ever were in England, none was married before Cranmer? Bicause these things are said by way of negative, in defense of the truth, shall it therefore be lawful for you to utter your heresies, and sclaūderous doctrine by a negative, to impugn the truth?

In this long tale of M. Harding, we have to note many things, first how unawares he speaketh, contrary to him self. He confesseth flatly that this negative of S. Gregory, wherein he denieth any ought to be universal Bishop, is in defense of the truth. Yet Master Harding in the fourth article goeth about to prove that the pope is universal B. so by his own confession he goeth about to prove a lie. Secondarely, he confesseth at the last, that Master Cranmar was a Bishop, and Master Jewel with other his fellows are Bishops, yet at other times, he, and his fellows will in no case grant it. Thirdly, he saith, no B. of Sarisburie was a Caluinist, before Master Jewel, and that is a manifest lie. Fourthly, that no Bishop of Canterbury was married, before Cranmar, and that is an otherlie. So in all this former piece, either he speaketh nothing but lies, or if it be true, it is such truth, as by open writing he hath impugned. But Master Harding because he cannot deny this contrariety, he will bid us prove the other, that any B. of Sarisbury hath been of one religion with Calvin, or that any B. of Cant. hath been married. In deed this is the ground of their whole religion, bold asseverations without any manner warrant, and then they bid us prove the contrary. But although this unequal dealing be not good, and he that teacheth any thing, should prove the same to be true: yet I am content for truths sake, to reprove in few words these negatives of Master Hardings.

First, this forbidding marriage, was universally established by Pope Sylvester the seconde, who was made Pope by the means, and working of the devil, as their own writers confess, in the year of our Lord 980. Yet I grant, through the folly of unlearned bishops, about .400. years after Christ, matrimony in the clergy 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 hinderance to the minister for performance of his duty in God's church. But as I have said, the West church in many places forbad it. And S. Jerome, although in many places he speak reverently, and well of it, yet in some places, upon his own private affection, he misliketh it. But as touching this purpose, more then three hundred years after Christ, Priests marriage was thought very lawful. But the English men received the faith of Christ in the latter time of Nero, as Gildas witnesseth, an old writer and a Britain, who lived in the year of our Lord .580. and will Master Harding say, that the thing being lawful, yet in .300. year together, there was never a Bishop married?

And let Mayster Harding here make no exception, either that in those days there was no Bishops of Canterbury, or Sarisbury, or that Gildas authority is not good. Theodoretus saith, that S. Paul him self preached here in his latter time. Nicephorus and other moe, say they received the faith in the yere of our Lord 63. by Joseph of Arimathia. After this superstition began again to breed, then an .179. many preachers were sent, for to call them again to their former profession. Whervpō Tertullian, speaking of this age, saith, Britānorum inaccessa Romanis loca, Christo fuerin • subdita. And Petrus Cluniacensis, speaking of the Scots, calleth them christianos antiquiores, the most ancient Christian men. And the story is known, how Lucius then King of England, was very diligent in setting out the Gospel. Thus it appeareth the true faith hath been in England almost ever since our savior Christ died. Now y ^t in those days there wer bishops in England, it is likewise manifest. When Eleutherius the Pope 177. sent preachers into England, they found here .3. called archiflamines, and .25. called flamines, which he turned in to three archbishops, & .25. bishops. Thus much then is clear, that in England were Christian bishops, and they might mary. Now to prove that they were married, it is plain by Gildas, in the latter ende of his book, where he reproveth the Bishops, their wives, and their children. So this lying negative of M. Harding is reproved, that saith, no Bishop was ever married in England, before Bishop Cranmer. For the other negative, that there was never B. of Sarisburie, of that religion which Calvin taught, it appeareth by M. Jewel's Reply, which showeth, that not only in England, but in all Christendom that religion was in the chiefest articles professed. And yet because it is here brought with the surety of M. Hardings warrant, we will speak a little of this negative. It is boldlye avouched of many popish Priests, that Christianity was placed here by Augustine, which is called the English Bishop. He was sent from Rome, and landed in the I will of Tenet in Kent an. 596. But it is already shown, that we had the faith of Christ long before. Then what did Augustine here? I will tell thee Christian Reader, and I will tell thee that, which M. Harding shall nener be able to confute. He did first persuade the King and Queen, not to enforce his new religion, but to leave it freely to men to follow, if they would. Afterward, being made Bishop of Canterbury, by consent of a Synod, he thrust into that Church altars, vestments, images, Masses, challices, crosses, candlesticks▪ sensers, banners, processions, holy water, holy bread, funerals, tithes, and such other stuff, which before that time was never seen in England. Then he changed their keeping of Easter day, taught them many ceremonies in Baptism, and when he could not bring all men to his diet, he moved great persecution against such as defended the liberty of the Church. Then he received from Rome relics of diverse Saints, built a Monastery to Saint Peter, wrought many feigned miracles, and so at the last he died about the year of our Lord .610. Now for further proof of this, that Augustine marred, and not made our religion, it is very probable, that we never received our faith from Rome, but from the East Church. First, because we (until Augustine came among us) kept our Easter after the manner of the Greek Church. Now it is well known, what mortal hatred there was for that matter, so that he which was enstructed of the one, would in no wise use the order of the other. Agayne when Augustine should be sent unto them, he came back for fear, and the Britain's would not receive him, nor acknowledge any authority of Pope Gregory over them. Which sure they would never have done, if they had received their faith from Rome.

Thus much then followeth, we had the faith of the Greek Church, without all superstitious ceremonies of the Church of Rome, and so it is manifest our bishops were then of Master Calvin's profession, in the whole substance of their religion. And so is this other negative of M. Harding proved a lie. This I have said the more at large, because M. Harding and his fellows, would have us believe, that our faith came from the Pope, and Dan Augustine the Moonke, was the messenger. Now to quit these negatives, with which M. Harding is so well pleased, with like negatives we may well and truly overthrow all popish religion, taking example of our savior Christ's doing. For he never allowed of their ceremonies. He never celebrated his last supper alone. He never ministered in one kind. He never made any universal bishop. He never named Transubstantiacion, Mass, Matins, Evensong, Dirige, nor Trentals. He never went a procession, with cope, cross, or candlestick. He never • ensed Image, nor sang Latin service. He never went to shrift, nor sat in confession. He never preached of Purgatory, nor pardons. He never honored Saints, nor prayed for the dead. He never fasted Friday, Uigil, Lent, nor Advent. He never hallowed Church, nor chalice, ashes, nor palms, candles nor bells. He never made holy water, nor holy bread. He never wore Rochet, nor Tippet. He never had Cross nor Miter, Corporas nor Portas, shepebooke, nor Massebooke, Frankincense nor Peterpence, wax, nor flax, nor any such trumpery. And therefore by these negatives we may well conclude, that M. Hardings religion is not of Christ's institution.

Upon this negative it liketh you well to dally, and because (say you) it offendeth us, you will turn it on our side. &c. And when you have made all your turnings, you do as much for us, as if you gave a Snake for an Adder. &c. What proofs we have, and how justly we confute your Objections, and Replies, let our treatises be examined.

Master Jewel's negative is this, that they cannot prove by Scripture, Doctor, Council, or any example, any one of these articles, which are called into controversy. This negative misliketh them. Therefore saith M. Jewel, we will take the affirmative, and prove their religion not to come from Christ's Apostles. This I trow is not to dally, but plainlye, and unfeignedly to seek 〈◊〉 the truth. Yet, saith Master Harding, this is a Snake in stead of an Adder, & in deed it is true, the calling of these articles into question, hath stoonge that whorish religion even unto death. And that Aesculapius Adder, that hath lurked so long in Rome, for all his quick sight, is by this means discovered, God be praised for it, forever and ever. Wher Master Harding saith further, let this matter be tried by treatisies, I fear not such judges, for sure of all men's doings their own lyinges, dreamings, visions, oracles, coniurings, and such devises, have given their religion the greatest overthrow.

You report my words untruly, as your common manner is, making men believe although, I said all these articles were of light importance. &c. The lightest of them is of weight to draw you down to the rueful state of damned souls, if for maintenance of your private opinion, you fear not to break the unity of the church. Yet, as though I had said, what you faslie report me to say, you proceed, and scoffingly demand whether ye may think that our religion increaseth, and vadeth, waxeth and waneth as doth the moon.

These be Master Hardings words, in his Preface to his answer. Why treat you not of matters of more importance, then these be of, which yet lie in question between the church of Rome, and the Protestants? As the presence of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament, of Justification, of the value of good works, of the Sacrifice of the Mass. &c. Thys obscure manner of speaking may seem to make light of these waightye mattters, and therefore who so ever should say so of them, deserved little blame. But here Master Hardings choler is to much inflamed, because Maiste Jewel noting their inconstancy, asketh whether their Religion increaseth, and vadeth, waxeth and waneth, as doeth the moon. And hath he not, think you, good occasion to ask this question? Doeth not Master Harding say in many of these articles, that they be no keys of their Religion? Yet here he saith, if a man deny them, when they be received, they are of value enough to dampne him. Where is his wit become? What is so contrary to it self, as this? What is waxing, and waning? What is increasing and vading, if this be none? And what Christian ears can abide this saying, that such trifels as they be of them selves, and such filthy whooredomes as they be now made of, should condemn us, if we should speak against them? He paid not the price of souls, that so easily sendeth them away from there master, unto Satan. The casting away such scourings of the Romish uncleanness, shall never do it, nay it is a witness unto our consciences, that we be the children of the highest.

Concerning the rest of your answer, wherein you treat certain common places, & utter much spite against the Pope &c. against transubstanciatiō, against invocation of saints, against aultars. &c. Prayer for the dead you condemn, and show no cause why. &c. I think good to let pass, and contemn it.

Now sure well done master Harding, where you cannot read, skip over, but take good heed least in your l • aping you hurt yourself, and do your cause no good. If men shall understand, that you will not alow the authority of Pope Nicolaus, Pope Leo, Pope Boniface, Pope Sergius, and the common Law, all which Master Jewel alledgeth, you shall make the Pope that now is, beshrew you, and so peradventure you shall get a curse, and you shall make all good Christian people mistrust you. Of transubstantiation, & aultars, we will say more hereafter. Prayer to saints is now nigh forgotten. You ask in the margin, why we do not answer the book of Purgatory. In deed now you come to the point. This article is very ancient about .1900. years a gone. Plato spake of it in his book de animo, where this your cleansing place hath his first ground, & foundation. And therefore for our good, and sufficient discharge in this matter, I answer out of the same book of Plato. We meddle not with your book of purgatory, because we fear not our shadows. You know, that y ^e young novice in Philosophy feared not y ^e three hedded Cerberus, the roaring of Cocytus, the rolling stone of Sisyphus, and how should we fear your painted paper walls of Purgatory? Christ is our Savior. God engraffe in us a desire to be with him, and for my part, since purgatory hath no grant in God's word, I reckon it scarce worthy answer. Yet because you ar importune, somewhat shall be said hereafter.

You have piked out, or set some a work, to pike out for you, all the terms and words used in my book, which a good man may justly bestow in rebuke of vice upon evil men. &c.

Here Master Harding is fallen into a very shameless vein of writing, and thinketh good at large to excuse his own modesty. The words, in which he seeketh after it, are these, Thersites, Goliath, Heathens, Publican's, sacramentaries, Lucians, scoffers, rash, presumptuous, ignorant, peeuishe, and such like these, he goeth about orderlye to apply unto Master Jewel. To answer them all in order, were to enter into needless labor, and to contend in words, with those, which delight in railing. But because Master Harding for some proof of this matter, bringeth this authority of Doctor Luther against us, & so useth our contention against our selves, let us all pray unto the God of peace, and consolation, that he would give unto us to be all like minded, that with one heart, and one voice, we may praise God, even the Father of Jesus Christ. Our agreement shall soon spread abroad God's glorious Gospel, and stop the evil mouth of the sclaunderer. It shall defend the common hold of all good men, and turn over the refuges of the Papists. There is no way so straight to set out God's glory, as where the Preachers go all together. There is no persuasion so effectual, to pull the people from ydolatrie, as the Ministers to love, one another. Happy were those times of the Israelites, when the people were in Jerusalem ▪ as if they had been one man. Happye was the condition of the Apostles, when they were all with one acc • rd in the same place. Then did Israel build an altar unto the Lord. Then did the Apostles receive the holy Ghost, when they were all of one mind in Solomon's porch, many signs and wonders were shown by them. When the Philippians did continue in one spirit, and in one mind, helping forward the laboring faith of the Gospel, they did well become the Gospel of Christ. If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the spirit, if any compassion, and mercy: let us fulfil our joy, that we be like minded. Christ pleased not him self, but even, as it is written, the rebukes of them, that rebuked, they fell on me, and shall we abide strife, and contention? He was wounded for our transgressions, and broken for our iniquity, and shall not we bear the infirmities of our brethren? A bruised reed he did not break, and the smoking flax he did not quench, and shall we tread them down, that we think are a little deceived? Where is that voice of Saint Chrysostom, Charity is more strong, than a wall of Adamant stone? Where is the voice of S. Paul the Apostle, bear one an others burden? Where is the voice of our savior Christ, by this all men shall know, you are my Disciples? Have we forgotten the cōmaudement, that was so lately given us, be you one, as my Father, and I am one? Consider, I beseech you, O my fellow servants, howe dangerous times are come upon us of the Christian common wealth. Consider the great perils, whereinto we are fallen. In the heads of a very few, very many of our weak brethren have great danger. The wicked do triumph, and rejoice, when the bold, and ungodly Louanis • s have nothing to object unto us, they set our own contention in the eyes of all men, w • en they have no testimony of scripture to bring against us, & (such is the mercy of our God) are not upholden with the favor, & authority of our Prince, yet they have a certain confidence in our disagreement. Take from them this hope, which yet they lean on, and it shall come to pass, that either they shall leave their popish thralldom, & with the lost Child return unto the merciful Father: or if they will still abide in those papal tempests, they shall be broken with the rocks of errors, and perish in the shipwrackes of their own devises. God the Father of all mercy, give unto us for his Sons sake, that with one will, and agreeable minds, we may all praise his name. And thus far of this argument.

There was never any Hickescorner, that ieasted more pleasant at any toy in an interlude, then Master Jewel 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 would think by these proceedings, that Master Hardings new Dioclesian, hath enstructed him in old Genesius learning. He would defend his modesty, and yet never was there a more saucy gester, against a Christian bishop. But let him come forth on the stage, and behold his vnnourtered gestures. Master Jewel scoffeth, saith he, at the dreadful mysteries. And how proveth he it? Is his word an oracle? No, no Master Harding, he is no Lucian, that abhorreth your ungodly sacrifice. He is no Scoffer, that speaketh by the spirit of God, against your wicked mysteries. Hezekiah called the brazen serpent nehushton, yet he jested not at God's institution. The scripture calleth mount Olivet, the mount of corruption, yet blameth it not God's creature. S. Paul calleth circumcision overthwart cutting, yet doeth he not scoff at God's sacrament. Christ said, the Temple was a den of thieves, yet he confessed it ought to be a house of prayer. And may not a man call your mysteries by their name, in which is as great abuse, as ever was in the brazen Serpent, in mount Olivet, in Circumcision, in the Temple of God? Yea M. Harding your Mysteries are Idolatrous, though you cry out, that Hezekiah hath taken away the high places of God, and his altars. But who can let Ahab's Prophets to speak ill of Micheah ?

What mad man ever ouershot him self so far, as to make such a hasty Chalenge, specially in matters of religion, by so long practice of the Church determined? Who ever presumed so to make defiance, as it were to all learned men, yea to all men alive? whoever defended a matter so stoutly avouched, with less learning? Who in so weighty pointes made Arguments of less pith, so light, and so childish? And yet this ioly fellow standeth so high in his own conceit, that whiles he layeth about him, flingeth, and stryketh at all men, spareth not the reverence 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 deserved terms.

Now is Master Harding come to his last, and least reason, and with a company of brave Interrogations, of what mad man? and whoever? without any answer made, concludeth at adventure, that these, & many moe modest terms were well applied. But soft syr, a hasty Bitch bringeth forth blind whealpes. If you come to this issue, by my former granting of every question, let the fault be mine, if by your own presuming, you are never the near. You have roled up Sisyphus stone, and it is fallen down again, and therefore you must begin a fresh. What mad man say you ever ouershot him self so far? &c. Master Harding, when he took upon him to answer the Chalenge. Who ever presumed so to make defiance? &c. God, when he said, come now, and blame me, if you can, Isaiah. 1.18. And his son Christ, quis vestrum arguet me de peccato, which of you can convince me of sin? Who ever defended a matter? &c. Your doctors at Oxford against these reverend Fathers D. Cranmer, D. Ridley, and M. Latimer. Who ever in so weighty pointes? &c. You, in your answer, and here in defense of your modesty. And yet this ioly fellow, &c. I will speak nothing of this modesty. For undoubtedly it is far spent. But this is a Popes disputation, to ask us first our minds, and then to conclude whether we will or no. But fare you well Master Harding, now you are off the stage, give us leave a little to speak to the audience. Mark christiā reader this man's intemperancy. He hath purposed to defend his vain, and beastly Religion, and thou shalt sooner overturn the whole estate of his life, then bring him from it. He hath worshipped so long in the church of Rome, that Elisha, 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 self, but he is so far of from having anything for him self, that he thinketh he must not only speak against us, but even against nature, against the warnings of reason, against the opinion of all men, against the scriptures of God. He defēdeath his modesty, with mostim̄odest words. He shameth not to say Master Jewel's Book is foolish, which is a looking glass of learning to all that understand it. He saith his arguments be peevish, which if they be not grounded in God's word, I require thee believe them not. He saith, he spareth not the majesty of the holy ghost, and Christ our Lord, and yet in so great blasphemy, bringeth no one conjecture. And how doeth he handle all this? With so good, and chosen words, so handsome colors, so whole sentences, that although he hath made war against God, and his Church, yet he seemeth to speak deep divinity. God give us grace to beware of him. He is a blind leader of the blind. But he is come again, & let us see what he hath more to say.

You would have men think, this were Vetus Comoedia. No M. Jewel, it is Zelus Dei, it not Vetus Comoedia. The imitation of Vetus Comoedia, hath ever been takē for a badge of men of your profession. &c. You mock, and scoff at our persons, as the naughty boys of Bethel did at Elisha, but at our ancient Religion, & at the church of Christ. Yet we curse you not in the name of our Lord, as he did those evil nourtered children, that ye might be toren of Bears. &c. With your wicked doctrine you have so brought the people from God, as now for a great number, they may seem not to halt on both sides, but to be fallen down right. Yet do we not call for fire to descend from heaven, and burn you up. Neither do we stir the people to take you, and destroy you, as Elias bad the people to destroy the false Prophets.

Have you not left jarring of this vnmodest string? Belike it is very pleasant music in your ears. This manner of behavior, say you, is not Vetus comoedia, no open naming of men upon stages. What is it then? It is Zelus Dei. I may not judge directly what you are within. Paul was a persecutor in defending their traditions, but sure your zeal is not according to knowledge, you love darkness, more thē light, and therefore you dwell in ignorance, you seek not after wisdom, as after silver, and gold, and therefore you find hir not. You say we scoff at you and your Religion, as the. &c. At your persons we scoff not, God is our witness, we weep to see the temple of the holy Ghost to be the temple of an Harlot, it grieveth us, that in the Image of God should appear Satan's vglye visage. And you want not our prayers for your return. But your ancient Religion we hate, and abhor it. It is so old, that it is rotton, and one piece will not hange with another, it is a smoke, that at the flaming out of gods word is vanished, it is a stinking mist, it is ouerblowen with the sweet winds of the holy spirit. And therefore do not blame us, if we cannot abide it. Your Religion is as good, as your vaunt is true, when you commend yourselves for clemency above Elisha, or Elias. You say you pray not, that we may be torn of Bears, nor that fire from heaven may come down to destroy us. What your prayer is inwardely, I say it oft, I know not. But for your good will toward us, if you could command either beasts, or Elements, we should not escape neither Bear, nor fire. The abundance of our blood crieth out to heaven, that you are as merciful as the wolf, or the Tiger. But O passi grauiora, dedit deus his quoque finem, his name be praised for evermore.

Certain false preachers, for their great impudency, and for that they barked at the light of the Gospel, as dogs do at the Moon by night, S. Paul called dogs, and bad the Philippians beware of them. &c.

Here Master Harding would cover his ungodly demeanour, with the cloke of godliness, for that S. Paul called certain ungodly teachers, dogs, and evil laborers, and therefore he would gladly say, as much to Master Jewel. But who were they, that thus barked at the Gospel? Verily men of their own Religion. For thus saith S. Paul : Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of concysion. For we are the circumcysion, that worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. But O the wretched Church of that confounded Babylon, what one-piece hath it of this spiritual worship, that is, to rejoice in Christ alone, and have no confidence in the flesh? Do they not make Angels their mediators? Do they not call upon Paul and Peter ? Do they not say, that their whoorish Mass is propitiatory? Do they not bid men go range a pilgrimage for the greater meades? Do they not say, there is a merit of our works? And what say they not, that leaneth to flesh, and blood? This▪ is the barking doctrine, this is the tearing, & renting in pieces of Christ his merits. S. Augustine saith, non gratia ex merito, sed meritum ex gratia. Grace cometh not of desert, but desert cometh of grace. Let them leave off their jesting, at Master Iuells worship, it is no time to speak evil of authority. Even in such language, the heart is sorrowful, and the ende of that mirth is heaviness.

Jeremiah calleth them of Jewry Staliens, for that they neyed eche one at an others wife. Ezekiel calleth the false Prophets of Israel Foxes, so Christ him self named Herod a Fox.

Yet M. Harding proceedeth in the long space of his own modesty, and as he must needs do, alleging truth for falsehood, heapeth up scriptures against himself. Jeremiah calleth the people of Judah Stahens, Ezekiel, the false Prophets, Foxes, and so doth Christ call Herod. But who were these fed horses of Judah ? those, saith God by the Prophet, whose children have forsaken me, and sworn by them that are no God's, that when they were fed full, yet they committed adultery. And who sweareth by them, that are no God's, either we, or they? Have not they taught us, to swear by the saints of God, by his holy Euangelies, and by their wicked Masses? And trow they, this is not swearing by false God's? Of whom speaketh Ezekiel that they ar like Foxes in the wasty places, even those that Prophecied of their own spirit, and lying diuinations, and whether do prophecy of their own spirit, we that search only the word of God, or they that preach forth their own traditions? Who hath seen lying diuinations, we that reject all their dreams, and visions, or they that do stay their whole Religion on them? Though all the revelations, which are written, in manner infinite, did not show it, Master Hardings own answer, would sufficiently prove it. This is a special note, that their Pope is Antichrist, oft spoken of in the scripture, and bewailed of S. Paul to Timothy in his earnest exhortation to continual preaching, where he saith the time will come, when they will not suffer wholesome Doctrine, but having their ears itching, shall hearken after their own lusts, get them a heap of teachers, and shall turn their ears from the truth, and shall be given unto fables. Thus while Master Harding doth maintain his modesty, he hath overthrown his religion, and in heat of spirit as he goeth forth in evil, he doth breath out evil terms in such sort, that chaste ears may not well abide them. He calleth marriage an unchaste life, wives strumpets, and an undefiled bed a lecherous neying. O Lord, are not thy eyes upon the truth? Thou hast stricken thē, but they have not sorrowed, thou hast consumed them, but they have refused to receive correction, they have made their faces harder than a stone, and have refused to return. But they know not the way of the Lord, nor the judgment of their God. I will answer no otherwise but with S. Paul's words, that their doctrine is a doctrine of Devils. He telleth us of spiteful guyles, and wyles, with which we intrappe men, of our lewdness, and our false dealing, that maketh them to smart, and yet he saith, he will not chasten us with reviling words. How full of gall is Master Harding, that these words do not yet seme bitter? What shall we look for, when his spiryt is moved, that thus quyetly breathed out such reproaches? But so his tongue may run, or his pen be walking, it seemeth, he careth not what he write, or speak. Why doth he not tell us what he meaneth? Is it like he knoweth any harm by us, and will not tell it? Such silence would require a mylder stomach. Now after a little talk to no purpose, when he hath sweet long in bringing much for his modesty, yet can prove none, he thinketh good policy, to make other compartners of his impudency, and after mature deliberation, with a few pretty metaphores, thinketh it good to bestow his talk upon Master Jewel, and so with a bold asseveration begins his purpose.

Verily of all the writers that I have read, I never found any, that useth the loathsome manner of scoffing, and mocking so much, as you do. When reason faileth, a scoff is at hand. When an argument presseth, a mock serveth for answer. When the matter goeth plain on the contrary side, then Hickescorner be stirreth him, and with ieasting pulleth away the mind of the reader to another light thought, that so all might be laughed out, and the chief point let pass.

Now verily Master Harding you are in a mad case. You may be Simo for your luck, your harms come so in order, your arguments are so slender, your witnesses so indiscreet, your adversary so strong, that when you have done what you can, at last you keep the shame yourself. You told us before of blasphemies against the dreadful mysteries, of strikinge at all men, not sparing the reverence of his mother, no not the majesty of the holy Ghost, and is this bloody tragidy ended with a poor scoff? Hath Master Jewel so tempered his Reply, that Master Harding can find in it no one reuyling word? Why then M. Harding, call together your friends, and let many hands make the burden lighter. Unless your reuylings be marvelous vncomelye, you shall have them of your own side that will bear them up stoutly, and M. Jewel is content with a little jesting, in time convenient. But that either scoff, or mock, or your Hickescorner, doeth stand in stead of an answer, this is another of your railings, and you must be content to bear it yourself. If you will have us believe it, why show you not the place? Must the enemies words stand for good accusation? But who can bring proof of a shameless lie?

In old time Philosophers had names given them of some special property and disposition of mind. Socrates was named the dissembler, Plato the Divine, Heraclitus the Darke, Carneades the Subtile, Chrysippus the sharp, Theophrasius the sweet, Diogines the Doggish. Certainly, had you been alive at those days, you had been named, Jewel the Scoffer. Yet for your learning, I wene, you had not ben annumbred among Philosophers.

Here to help to discredit his adversary, he uttereth a little cunning in old Philosophers names, and yet in the ende is very loath to account him among them. This is the craking M. Harding told us of, to set out his learning after so unlearned fashion. But this is no fault in the rhetoric of Louain. The Tarentynes, and the Sicilians, to whom he writeth, shall accept it for good eloquence. But let the cunning goo, let us examine the cause, he doth measure his forefathers by his own affection. What if we should deal in like manner with him, and reason thus. Ptoleme for his foolish pyping was called a minstrel, Ochus Artaxerxes for his cruelty Machera, Tarquinius for his uncivil behavior, the proud Deniochares, for his bold prating 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Aristogiton for his impudency a Dog, Antiochus for his great promysing, and little performing, Dosas, Trebonius for speaking ill of his betters, Asper. And had M. Harding of our days, been then living, he should have been called for his little modestye, Harding the railer. Certaynly, though he might be one of those, for his behavior, yet I will not bestow of him, any particular name, I leave him to the judgment of others. Now once again for his full discharge, he showeth out his general acquittance, and saith that in all his answer, he hath used great modesty. Much like to Ptolemy, one of the Kings of Egypt, that when he had killed his Father, and his Moother, and his brother, yet he would needs be called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . So M. Harding will say needs he is modest, but his word is no warrant. Concerning M. Jewel, whether his greatest grace be in scoffing, I marvel that he now doth ask the question. Doth not M. Rastall, his own dearlyng, confess, he hath a rare gift in writing? Though his authority be otherwise very light, yet against M. Harding it is very weighty. And why will not M. Harding confess as much? Is he not as well learned, as M. Rastall? Yes sure, but malitia mutauit intellectum, malice hath changed his understanding.

If ye seek to be revenged on me, for that I have been so bold, as to answer your vain Chalenge, and by this Reioynder, to confute part of your colorable Reply: either hold your peace, or speak so, as you be not found a liar, if you can. For truly, by your evil speaking of me, you shall but increase the heap of my felicity. &c.

Master Harding would have the world to think, we are offended with his writing. And in deed we are so, and take it as a scourge of God, to keep us in humility, and a manacing against our sinful lives, that as oft as we se their books, we should repent us of the idolatries, wherein we have been drowned. But he in his impiety, runneth desperately forward, and appealeth unto God's judgment, with such securitye as appeareth, as Flauinius at Thrasimenus, or Varro at Cannae went to meet with Hannibal. Well may I use this similitude, since all his doings are nothing else but gentillitie. Master Harding doth accuse us of evil speaking, before we offend him. Where he saith, he is sure he standeth upon a sure ground, let him take heed he be not wise in his own conceit. Not everyone that saith, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doth the will of God. They are not all true worshippers that go up to Jerusalem, but such only as worship in spirit, and verity. The Jews with as great a confidence, said they had one Father, which was God, but Christ answered, they were of their father the Devil. Saint Paul speaketh of the wicked, that gloried so of God, but he saith, by such means the true God is dishonored. The Scribes, and the Pharisees bragged much of Moses, but Christ said, the same Moses should be their accuser. All Israel did ever boast, they were the children, but yet only in Isaac shall the seed be called. Even so these braggings of Christ, seeing he followeth not his Testament, shall be his own confusion. But by like he feared this, that here I do answer, and therefore with a vain occupacion he thought best to prevent it, and make a false claim him self, to that saying of Christ. And to prove it, doth allege that weary argument of their Romish church, which because it is so oft alleged, it shall not be amiss to speak somewhat of it, & to way a little the difference [ 1] of the two Churches. The Church of Christ is not bound to any man's traditions, it is not tied to any certain place, the some • hath made us free, and therefore we are free in deed. Neither in Jerusalem, nor in this hill, the true worshippers do worship, but in spirit, and veritye. But the Church of Rome, doeth hang upon old rotten posts, they observe months, and days, that they may be made free, they run into cloisters, and monckery, for to worship, and [ 2] serve God. The Church of Christ is not enclosed in any certain country, the Apostles are gone into all the world to preach the Gospel, who soever doth believe, and is baptized, shall be saved. But the church of Rome doth condemn them that go one foot from hir, she pronounceth them accursed that will not drink of hir adulteries, and without hir she saith, there is no [ 3] health. The Church of Christ will not hear a strangers voice, she will not believe an angel from heaven, that shall preach any other doctrine, then Christ hath delivered, & the scripture is the rule of hir whole religiō. The church of Rome doth hearken after unwritten verities, she giveth credit unto dreams, and visions, she saith the Scriptures may be drawn into diverse senses, and will not allow them, but after hir [ 4] fancied interpretations. The church of Christ is built upon the doctrine of the Apostles, and Prophets, Christ him self being the head corner stone, she doth receive with meekness the word that is engraffed in hir, and doth confess, that it can save our souls. The church of Rome is built upon men's devises, and for insufficiencye of the word, adjoineth pilgrimages, and pardons, sacrifices for quick and dead, Masses, and purgatoryes, Invocation of Saints, worshipping of Images, and a thousand such trumperies, and will not confess that all is written, which is necessary to salvation. The Church of Christ doth acknowledge that by Christ [ 5] alone she is saved, by Christ alone she is delivered from hir vain conversation, and from the bondage of sin, not by the works of righteousness, which she had done, but according to his mercy which hath saved hir. But the church of Rome maketh merits of hir own, hath invented wor • es of supererogation, hath great confidence in Bulls, Relics, Indulgences, and salutations of the Pope. The church of Christ, [ 6] is the communion of Saints, the society, and the fellowship, of these that walk in righteousness. But the church of Rome, is a den of thieves, her hye Priests are sorcerers, conjurers, necromancers, murderers, unchaste adulterers, Sodomites, church robbers, and such like infamous creatures, as is evident by Platina, Be • no, and all other that have written their lives. The church of Christ doth use the keys aright, as she [ 7] hath received them, she pardoneth the penitent, & bindeth up the sins of the disobedient, and as she freely hath received, so freely she bestoweth them. The church of Rome doth bind and lose at adventures, sendeth pardons to persons that she never saw, and because she hath not received freely, she selleth unreasonable dear, and hath made men pay for their sins, an hundred thousand ounces of gold. To conclude, [ 8] the church of Christ, is the members of Christ, the body of one head, of which head she hath received hir saluatiō, because he hath purchased hir with his blood. The church of Rome, is the body of Antichrist, the members of an Idolatrous harlot, that hath gone a whorehunting after diverse lovers. Therefore the church of Rome, is not the church of Christ. And as this church of Rome is in deed the synagogue of the Devil, so she hath not so much as the marks of Christ's congregation. The right use of the sacraments, which is the badge of Christ's church, and the reading of scriptures, whereby hir steppes are lightened, are as far out of Peters church in Rome now, as in the time of paganism there were out of the capitol, as it shall appear upon further discussion. First, if they have the right use of the sacraments, then have they nothing in them but God's own ordinance. For we may not intermeddle our own constitutions w ^t God's commandment, as the prophet doth likewise witness of the sacrifice. For if we do follow our own ways, he that killeth a bullock, is as if he slew a man, he that sacrificeth a sheep, as if he cut a dogs neck, he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swynes blood, he that remembereth incense, as if he did bless an Idol, so much doth God hate to have our devises joined with his wisdom. And who knoweth not how the sonnes of Aaron, for offering strange fire were miraculously consumed from heaven. Se now whether the Romish sacraments are not in like sort defiled. I speak not of the huge multitude, which they have made on their own head. The two sacraments of the body of Christ, and of Baptism, howe do they use them? As Christ did? Woulde God they did so, they would return with the lost son, into the lap of the heavenly father. How then do they use them? The sacraments them selves they have profaned, with giving them to unmeet creatures, the communion bread unto dead men, Baptism unto Bels, and Ships, and restrain them from fit persons, as the sacrament of Christ's blood from the Laity. The manner of Christ's institution they have all together perverted. For where as Matthew, Mark, Luke, Paul, do witness, that Christ only took, blessed, brake, and delivered, they like not this simplicitye, they have invented new guises. Concerning his apparel, first he putteth on much masking attire, as if he should go somewhether a mumming, not as though he should go to serve God. His body sometime must bend forward, sometime be upright, sometime turn round about, sometime but the half turn, sometime bend over the altar, sometime not touch it. His hands sometime he layeth down, sometime he lifteth them up, sometime he joineth them flat together, sometime one finger with another, sometime he rubbeth his hole hands, beyond the chalice, least any crumbs should stick on them, sometime he rubbeth but his fingers, some time he toucheth the bread, sometime the altar, his eyes sometime he lifteth up, sometime he casteth them down, sometime he must look very demurely, sometime after the common manner, sometime he must cross his face, sometime bend down his head, his arms, sometime he must hold them up a cross, sometime with his hands together, he must pray, sometime for himself, sometime for his friends, sometime for his parishoners, sometime for all men, sometime for no mothen are present, his words sometime a loud, sometime secret. Sometime the Clarke alone must answer, sometime the Choir. He speaketh sometime at liberty, sometime certain words with one breath. Sometimes he kisseth the alter on the right hand, sometime in the midst. But with the Cake, and the Chalice, especially, he hath most strange diuises. His Chalice must sometime stand still in the midst of the alter, sometime it is a little lifted up, sometime it is covered with the patin, sometime with a clout, sometime he maketh three crosses on the Cup, and Cake together, sometime severally on eche of them. Sometime he holdeth the Chalice aright, sometime with his sore fingers and thumbs fast joined together. Sometime he maketh .v. crosses together, one quite beyond the Chalice, another before it, on • che side another, and the fifth on the bottom. Sometime he crosseth it thrice within, where the wine is. Sometime the Deacon holds the cover in his hand, and stretcheth his arm out, as far as he can, and upon pain of presumption, the Priest may not touch it, till it be given him. Sometime the Priest taketh it, & doth kiss it. Somtime he toucheth his eyes, sometime he crosseth his head with it, sometime he layeth it down. Likewise the Cake sometime is on the Chalice, sometime before it, sometime he crosseth it, sometime he lifteth it, sometime he taketh two pieces of it, and holdeth them in his left hand, and the third in his right hand. Sometimes he taketh one piece of it, and dippes it in the Chalice, sometime he taketh another piece, and maketh a cross before his mouth, and when his pastime is done, sometime he hangeth it up in a box.

All these, & such other toys they teach in the canon of their Mass, and what Christian heart would not bleed, to see God's mysteries so impurely handled, yet read the book, thou shalt see moe Monsters then these. There are words which thou must not speak, but first the one half, thē make a cross, after speak out the rest. If the word be of moe then two syllables, yet thou art taught how to utter it, in benedixit thou must first say be, then a cross, after that nedixit, in calicem, first ca, then after a cross licem, in immaculatam, first immacu, then a cross, then latam. Divers such words they do crossecut, & what shall we say to it, but as S. Paul saith: Cauete canes, cauete concisionem, cauete malos operarios. Beware of dogs, beware of cutting, beware of evil laborers. I pass over for brevity diverse moe contrarieties, between our savior Christ's institution, and their doing. The godly, and faithful man shall sone perceive them. And thus much of the eucharist. Concerning baptism John did baptize in Jordan, Philip by the way side, no coniurings, or incantacions before used, and our savior saith, ite in vniuersum mundum. &c. Goo in to the whole world, and baptize them in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy ghost. But this plain doing of our Savior Christ, doth not like their satanized imaginations. They must have salt, oil, cream, spittle, breathing, sensing, crossings, candle droppings, hallowings of the Funt, putting their hands in the water, the Infant must hold the taper, and then he that worst may, doth hold the candell, and such other iuglings they have, that I cannot rehearse. Which doings being compared with the institution of the Lord God, they shall appear nothing else but an apish mocking of his eternal wisdom. Which being duelye considered, their church of Rome shall be known, for a dungeon of Iniquity, or as Master Harding termed hir, a sink of Sodom, and a forge of the Devils mysteries. We contemn therefore these vile reproaches against the B. of Sarisbury, Luther, Zwingli, Galuin, Peter Martyr, Beza, and such other, and pray unto the living Lord, if it be his good will, and pleasure, to mollifye the hearts of our enemies.

Now I come unto your other point, wherewith as with a most heinous crime, you charge me, which is my departing from your Cospel, as you say. This you object bitterly unto me, not only in your Aunswere to my Preface, but also in very many places of your Reply, and specially in your Conclusion. ctc.

You guess very oft at Master Iuells meaning, yet hitherto to have you not once gessed charitablye. But the God of love doth not direct your goyngs, and therefore you make such often reaches at hatred. What prejudice should Master Jewel bring unto your cause, which of it self is weak, and of all Godly men forsaken? What harm unto your person, whose return should be his exceeding joy, and whose obstinacy is the increase of his commendations? Bicause, say you, in the person of another, he putteth you in remembrance, from whence you be fallen. Why M. Harding are you offended to hear of your evil doing. Uerilye the wise man saith. He that refuseth instruction, despyseth his own soul. But what speaketh this person, whom you mean, unto M. Harding not long since. &c. O custom of evil speaking, what a pleasure dost thou bring unto the evil disposed person? We have heard often of Master Iuells rai • inges, and scoffings, every leaf of his uncourteous dealing, a long common place of his bitter kind of writing. After so much a do, seeing there will be required some proof, he seeketh busylye, and when he can find none, he maketh the greatest leap, though there be many very wyde, that is in the reioinder, even out of this preface quite over the Reply, in to the conclusion, and there he hath found a poor 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 folly? Bear yet with him good Reader. Barre him of these leapings, and all his pastime is done. But let us hear what Master Harding can answer to this poor man. Thus Master Jewel maketh him speak unto Master Harding. Not long since you taught them of our side the Gospel, even in like sort, and form, as it is tought now. Here Master Harding because he can make no good answer, thinketh it not amiss to stop this pore man's mouth with a little sophestrie. You taught us, saith this poor man, the Gospel. By this, saith Master Harding you do us to weete what your gospel is, and wherein it consisteth. Blame not this poor man, though he can say no more. I have been a scholar almost this twentye years, and yet I cannot see what this answer meaneth. They must be L • nces eyes, and such, as can look through millstones, that can see this conclusion, very deep cogitations must go so far into sentences, and a man had need of a warm nightcap, that should follow them. But seeing we can get no better answer, the poor man's saying shall stand still for true, and Master Hardings obscure gatherings shall verify the common saying, that it is better to say nothing, then to hold ones peace. In the ende Master Harding denieth, that he ever spake these words, whereby he doth empayre his credit in all other matters. Let the Christian reader for his contentation, when time, and occasion may serve, inquire of any, that then lived in Ox • orde. This simple way may not countervail so many witnesses.

To answer 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 days I was brought up in learning, the ernest endeavor of the Governors, then being, to satisfy his desires, the cruelty of the laws, the yielding of all in general, except a very few, 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 truths sake freely to accuse myself. In certain points I was deceived I confess by Calvin Melancthon, and a few others, as you by them, and sundry others are now deceived in many.

Now he cometh to the simple, and true answer for his turning, but he turneth so many members in one sentence, that he turneth all sense quite out of the periode. Perhaps he thinketh he speaks to the poor man again, therefore he speaketh in riddles. Or if it be not so, the truth I trow breaketh out. And again, he accuseth the iniquity of those days, but his dark heart cannot abide the light, straight he starteth back again, and is content to take the fault unto him self, because all other excuses are vain, and ungodly. And as well as he can, in so great a storm, he runneth under the covering of S. Augustine's authority, but it may not help him, sithe their turnings are not like. Saint Augustine turned from traditions unto scripture, but he turneth from the scripture, unto traditions. Again, S. Augustine turned from the vain trust, that he had in man, unto the sure confidence, that is fixed in Christ. But he is slidden away even from Christ, to see how far men have established his authority. This is true, as his own conscience doth judge, and his writings do testify, when under the name of the Church, he g • eth from the word of God. Therefore is his turning neither modesty, nor repentance, but a shameless falling away, and an obstinate forsaking of God. God give him grace herein to judge him self, that in the day of wrath, he be not judged of the Lord.

Now, as to confess this much, truth requireth, so to acknowledge your false reports, wisdom forbiddeth. Them would I have also not let to confess, if I wist God were delited with our lies. Wher then you say I taught your Gospel, even in like sort and form in all respects as it is taught now, that I deny utterly. In deed I hobde and roued sometimes, but your pricks I ever took to be to far for me to shoot at. Neither truly could I see the mark, that you M. Jewel, and such as you are, shot at, it was so far of, and therefore I stood out, and shot smaller game.

Now after this confession made, you go as you say, from the truth to your wisdom, and tell us in what sort you preached the Gospel. You say you hobde, and roued, but you never shot at any certain mark. Why were you one of Baals prophets, that haulted on both sides, that would serve both God, and Mammon too? That eat meat with the Gentiles, and yet dissemble it before the Jews? The waueryng is unconstant in all his ways, and because thou art neither hot, nor cold, I will spew thee out of my mouth, saith the Lord? This hobbing was the cause that you fell again to your vomit. And this roving ever since, made your shooting uncertain. You could not see the mark, that M. Jewel shoots at, the vale of cold devotion was before your eyes. You looked even now like an Eagle, in the poor man's question. But now you have oiled your blere eyes, that you cannot see Christ. God lighten your eyes, that you sleep not still in death. You stood without (you say) and shot smaller game, in deed you shot such game, as was not worth your labor. At the imaginations of man's brain you roued so much uncertainly, that you shoot yet now beating the air. Therefore have you eyes, and see not. &c. There be many such hobbers nowadays. God give us grace to beware by your example, and to take heed of such cold play.

As for your respects, to say truly I never knew. what they were. At the gaming of your Gospel, you shote, to strike down the true, and real body of Christ, on • of the blessed sacrament of the altar, with certain phrases of speech with, telling the people of your tropes, and figures, with comparing the Eucharist to the baptism, with making the presence of Christ, like in both. You bend your force to strike away the eternal, and singular sacrifice of the church, with such a sort, and form, as I hitherto never used, and yet think to be very strange, as for example with teaching as you do, that missa signifieth not the mass, 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 Melchizedek, and Malachias signified the sacrifice of your communion, whereat the people lift up their hands, and hearts, as you say, unto heaven, prayeth, and sacrificeth together, rejoicing in the Lord. That in the sacrament of the alter, there is no virtue, nor grace, but when it is used, no more then in water, after that one is baptized. That there is no difference betwixt the priest, and the people, in the holy ministry of the sacrifice, and that lay folk, mē, and women, do make the sacrifice, and be priests after the order of Melchizedek, that God is the author of evil, and driveth men to sin. Many other such sortes, and forms of shooting, you, and your companions use at this day, with which I was never acquainted, as nether any man living can burden me, and God is witness, which to me is a sufficient discharge. Wherefore you do me the greater wrong, in that you say, I taught your Cospell, even in like sort and form, and in all respects, as it is taught now.

But you proceed at your rouers, and tell an uncertain tale of the respects of your preachings. You say you never preached against transubstanciation. These are vain repetitions, to fill up your paper. How could you preach against such filthiness of the Sea of Rome, that were always hobbing, and never preached out Christ in the simplicitye of his Gospel? I am easily persuaded, that you never did it, seeing, whereunto you are again returned. But whether you did it, or no, one day it shall be revealed. All these pointes here alleged, are fully discussed in Master Iuells Replye. And good reader, leave of hobbers instruction, & with the formest shoot • at the very mark, which is Jesus Christ, and thou shalt soon perceive, what is his truth. Now for thy better instruction, I will speak of those marks, which are laid out, as bre • fly as I can. First this transubstanciation was first mentioned in the council of Lateran .1215. year after Christ. And corpus Christi day instituted in Urbanus time, more then .40. years after that. So thou seest the antiquity is but of late years, it hath no warrant in scriptures, as their own doctors, Fisher, Biell, and Scotus, do witness. How it disagreeth both from scriptures, and Doctors, M. Jewel's Reply hath aboundantlye taught thee. Yet for thy better furtherance, I will lay before thee for thine instruction certain of those places, which overturn this fond Doctrine. Thou must first consider that this sacrament, and Baptism are the two sacraments that Christ hath left unto his church, which two were prefigured in the old law, baptism in circumcision especially, and the Eucharist in the pascall Lamb. Now for the true understanding of these Sacraments, thou must remember that the Scripture useth in them such a phrase of speaking, that the thing signified, is given unto the sign. So of Circumcision, which God had commanded Abraham, the scripture expressly saith, this is my covenant, yet was it the sign of his covenant. Of the pascall Lamb it is said, this is the Lord's passover, yet was it but a token of the passage of the Angel. Likewyse of the rock Paul speaketh. The rock was Christ, which was yet but a figure of Christ, and the sacrifices are said to be the purifiynges, yet were they but a token of there sanctification. And as this was spoken thus in the figure, so it is now in the truth. S. Paul calleth baptism lauacrum regenerationis the washinge of the new birth, yet it is but a sign of the inward renewynge of the holy Ghost. In like sort it is written, baptizare. &c. he baptized, and washed away thy sins. Yet baptism was but a token, that his sins were washed away. So Peter, baptismus nos quoque saluos reddit, yet it is but the seal of our salvation. The holy Ghost must come upon them before they receive grace, In like manner it is said, of the other parte of this Sacrament: This cup, yet the holy Ghost meaneth the wine. It is said further, this cup is the New Testament, yet the wyne is not the same, but a token of it. The new testament is, that God is our God, and we are his people, that he hath forgiven our iniquity, and that he will remember our sins no more. But woe be unto that man, that shall look only to be saved, by that, which is in the Priests Chalice. What madness is it then, seeing this manner of speaking is so usual to the Sacraments, to choose only this sentence of our Savior Christ, this is my body, which thou wilt receive without figure, when neither the scripture it self doth alowe it, nor the phrase of the spirit of God so often uttered unto us, doth enforce it. I need not here to recite the plain sayings themselves, which literally laid together, cannot stand, this is my body, saith Christ, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which now given for you, yet Christ's body was not then betrayed. So saint Peter, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which is broken for you, yet was not his body then crucified, whereby they are enforced, yea even in the same sentence, to forsake the letter. And for the better assurance, that we may do this, upon a good warrant, we have the exposition of our savior Christ, it is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. The words, that I speak unto you, are spirit, and life. And saint Paul doth cal it bread, even when it is ministered. The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? This is sufficient for him, that will understand, how these words are taken, this is my body. He that will yet stick unto the letter, let him further consider the saying of Saint Paul, that the letter killeth, and many other sayings of the scripture, which be in like manner, as this is, spoken of our savior Christ. The word was made flesh, saith S. John, yet the deity of Christ, which is the word, was not turned into man. My Father is greater than I, yet Christ, and his Father in deity were one. In the Gospel some were called the brothers of Christ, yet it is known, they were but his Kynsmen. John was called the son of Mary, and Mary, John's mother, yet it is manifest the meaning is not so. These places are 〈◊〉 sufficient to instruct us, that sometime in the scripture, we must have spiritual understanding. He that requireth further, many places are plain of Christ's corporal departure. It is good for you, that I go hence, saith Christ in the Gospel. And again, but now I go away to him, that sent me. And in the same chapiter twice, I go to my Father. And least of these sayings we make any strange meaning, the Disciples do make answer, loe, now speakest thou plainly, and thou speakest no parable. It is like that other where is spoken, you shall have the poor always with you, but me ye shall not have always. And yet another most undoubted testimony, of his bodilye absence. Now am I no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come unto thee. And in the acts of the Apostles, Stephen did see him standing on the right hand of his Father. And it is written, that in his return, he shall come again, even as he was taken up, which could not be so, if the Priest might fet him again with whisperings, and incantations. This may suffice the Christian Reader, concerning this transubstantiation, which M. Harding so upholdeth. God give his children grace, that such brightness of his holy word, may illumine their dark harts, that they may behold clearly, what is his truth. And thus much of his first mark. Another is, that he never shot at the external sacrifice of the church, meaning hereby, that the priest doth offer up Christ unto his Father, a sacrifice propitiatory for the quick, and the dead. This romish presumption of the child of perdition, though it sufficiently be beaten down by disproof of transubstantion, yet because M. Harding will needs make this another mark, I will speak somewhat of it.

Let us first lay down this strange opinion in plain words, even 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 altar doth offer up Christ unto his father, a sacrifice propiciatorie, and unbloody, both for the quick, and for the dead. Out of this one outrageous sentence all the froth, and filth of the sea of Rome in manner floweth. There are in it well nigh as many lies, as there are words. For as it is here meant, we have now no Priest, no daily Oblation, no Aultare, no offering up of Christ unto his father, no propitiatory Sacrifice, no Mass, no remission of Sins without blood, no Sacrificing for the dead. All these things being proved by testimony of the scriptures, I trust all godly consciences shall be quieted, and all Master Hardings sacrificing imaginations shall be buried again in that pit of iniquity, out of which they are spronge. First then, as touching this name Priest, we have to consider, both what the scriptures do attribute unto our savior Christ, and again what commission he hath givē unto his ministers. Of Christ S. Paul saith, pontifex factus in aeternum, he is made priest forever, even as the prophet saith, thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. And again, because he endureth forever, he hath an everlasting priesthood, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a priesthood that cannot be transferred unto another. Therefore all other are blasphemous y ^t either make thē selves his successors, or pretend any other sacrifice. And yet for an absolute proof, that only Christ is now a priest, and no other, the name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is properly given unto him alone in all the new Testament. Neither Paul, nor Peter, nor any other Apostle, or Evangelist did ever claim it, but called them selves commonly the ministers of Christ, Christ alone being our high priest. Whereby we see these massing sacrifices, first in the name, rob Christ of his honor, and in their further arrogancy contempneth the name of minister, wherein S. Paul did so often glory. And thus much of the priesthood of our savior Jesus Christ. Now it resteth, we should see what authority he hath given to his Apostles, and this we are taught by S. Matthew, where Christ giveth his Apostles their commission altogether indifferently, saying to everyone, goo and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father, the son, & the holy ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And loe, I am with you always unto 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 observe all things which I have commanded you. And in the words following, loe, I am with you always, he confirmeth that authority, which before speaking unto Peter, he had given unto all, that whosoever they bound in earth, should be bound in heaven, and whatsoever they did loose on earth, should be loosed in heaven. This self commission is likewise expressed by S. John, when Christ saith to his Discipels. As my father sent me, so also I send you, where immediately followeth, and when he said it. &c. whose sins ye remit, they are remitted. And in what sort God sent his son, it is likewise expressed by the prophet, saying as S. Luke resiteth it, Spiritus Domini super me. &c. The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me, that I should preach the Gospel to the poor, he hath sent me, that I should heal the broken hearted, that I should preach deliverance to the Captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, that I should set at liberty them, that are bruised, and that I should preach the acceptable year of the Lord. Thus in these three is the whole office of the minister, to preach, to minister the sacraments, to remit sins, no one word concerning sacrificing. And this is the miserable blindness of the whole papacy, to foster up, and norish that incestuous Religion, where everyone committeth whoredom with his own devises, yet the chiefest keys of their religion hath no one word for warrant in the scriptures. What manner of lantern do they make the word of God? What manner of light to guide our steps? What manner of rule to correct our evil ways? and what manner a testament, that is sealed with the blood of Christ, if so many things are necessary, which our only savior, and his eternal word have not commanded? But the Apostle hath spoken, and it must be fulfilled, that the time should come, when men's ears would itch to hearken after lies. But let us see, how do these massing Priests execute that, which Christ hath committed to the Minister of the Gospel. Do they preach? Do they instruct the people? The great ignorance in the time of their rule, is an everlasting witness, that they did not. If thou wilt yet be contentious, examine the thing farther. Did they teache to observe those things, which Christ had commanded? Howe could they then have pulled his commandments, and his whole Bible out of their Churches? Dyd they give sight unto the blind? Who could abide to hear it spoken, they made it their common Prouerb, Ignoraunce is the mother of devotion. Did they preach the acceptable year of the Lord? as the Prophet saith, alluding to the year of Iubyley. Nay, their own conscience doth cry no, & their deeds witness against them. As though man's delivery had not been yet wrought, the Pope hath set up a new year of Iubyley, and in a marvelous sort of innumerable people forgave sins after his own pleasure. O horrible wickedness, and blasphemy against the blood of Christ. But let their preaching go. How are their sacraments administered? Read, that is said before, alleged out of the Canon of their own Mass, and thou shalt think their ministration a Puppet play, rather then God's service. But do they remit sins? Sure as they do the other, they preach in abomination, minister in apish toys, and forgive sins in blasphemy. Christ doth bid, heal the broken hearted, but they will send their pardons, if they be paid thereafter to men, that thei never saw. They hold fast this promise, to thee I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, but they do not consider, that Peter before made his confession. Tu es Christus ill filius dei viuētis, thou art Christ the Son of the living God. They hear, we may bind sins: but they remember not, wh • t Christ bad do before we account our brother, as an Ethnic. It shall not be necessary to tarry longer in this. It is sufficiently proved by this, that Christ only is our everlasting Priest, and we ministers of his Gospel, and that the Popish Prelates are no priests, and therefore have no bodily sacrifice, neither yet are true ministers, and therefore they are not of God. The second lie, that is found in this assertion of M. Harding, is, that there is daily oblation, that is, Christ is now daily offered in their Mass. And for proof of this, S. Paul saith, Christ is entered into the very heaven, to appear in the sight of God for us. Non vt saepius offerat semet ipsum, quemadmodum pontifex, &c. Not that he should offer him self often, as the high priest entered into the holy place. If therefore Christ cannot be offered again, the imagined sacrifice of their daily Mass, is wickedness. Christ is once dead, and he can die no more, than how can the priest sacrifice him? So saith S. Peter, Christ hath once suffered for sins, the just, for the unjust, and again S. Paul, Christ was once offered to take away the sins of many, and unto them, that look for him, shall he appear the seconde time without sin unto salvation. And again, the Apostle comparing the sacrifice of the law, with the sacrifice of Christ, saith: Every Priest appeareth daily ministering, and oft times offereth one manner of offering, which can never take away sin, but this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, sitteth forever at the right hand of God, and after, for with one offering hath he consecrated forever, them that be sanctified. These words are very plain, and the gates of hell cannot obscure their understanding. If the simple Reader do muse, why the Papists do not credit it, let him remember, the Scribes and Pharisees would not credit Christ's miracles, having farther the manifest testimony of the word of God. Such are the plagues that God doth send upon the contemners of his word. The wisdom of their wise men, shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent, shall be hid, and he hath sent in message unto them the plagues, that he hath prepared, commanding his prophet to speak unto the obdurate people. Ye shall hear in deed, but ye shall not understand, ye shall plainly see, and not perceive. God for his mercies sake, when his good will, and pleasure is, lighten their dark heart. I have sufficiently declared, that Christ hath ben offered, and he shall be offered no more. So is there no such daily sacrifice, as Master 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 poor shift in deed, and a common veil, that shadoweth all their eyes, least they should see the truth. But Paul taketh away this stumbling block out of the path of the godly, saying, that by Christ's will, we be sanctified, Per oblationem corporis Jesus Christi semel peractam, even by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once made the sacrifice, is not only one, but it is semet peracta, once made, and no more be repeated, no new sacrifice may be sought for. And thus appeareth we have now neither Priests, nor daily offerings.

The third lie that is found in this assertion, concerning the altar. For it is manifest now we ought to have no such. The altar, as we read in Exodus, was made for the brent offerings, take away brent offerings, and we take away the altar, and if it be lawful to be had, it must be made of Setim wood. We must have the four horns on the corners, and we must corner it with brass. We must have the ashpans, and the besoms, the basons, and the fleshhookes, the censors, and other instruments of brass. God commanded all in the Mount, and we have no commission to retain what we will, and what we will reject. I leave the good proof, that I may have of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as much to say, as a place appointed wherein to make a sacrifice. So take away the sacrifice, and take away the altar, and I think Master Harding will not say that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , this sacrificing is 〈◊〉 yet remaining. For saint Paul saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , he hath offered one sacrifice for our sins. And our savior Christ saith it in the Gospel, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , I will have mercy, and no sacrifice. Teaching us, that in his kingdom, that saying of the prophet Oze should be fulfilled. But what need we seek after many reasons? Saint Paul's words be plain. We have an altar, of which it is not lawful for them to eat, that serve in the Tabernacle. Teaching us, that our conscience is confirmed by no outward thing, but only by grace. For the Tabernacle he meaneth all figures, and ceremonies that are adjoined unto it, so whosoever will retain them, cannot eat of our alter, which is the only food of our soul, even Jesus Christ the righteous. And this was figured in the offering of a red Cow, which God commanded to be given to Eleazar the Priest, and he should burn hir without the host, with hir skyn, and hir flesh, and hir blood, and hir doong. And Eleazar the high priest, and the inferior priest that burned hir, should wash their clothes, and their flesh, and be unclean until Even. Likewise he that gathered the ashes of the Cow, should wash his clothes, and his flesh, and be unclean until Even. No parte of it should be reserved for the Priest, whereby we are taught, that the sacrifice of our savior Christ, whereby his people are sanctified, must be alone made without any thing appertaining either unto the priest, or tabernacle, for which cause as S. Paul saith, he suffered without the gate. Let us go forth therefore out of the camp, bearing his reproach. For we have here no continuing city, but we seek one to come. Let us therefore by him, offer sacrifice of praise always to God, that is the fruit of the lips, which confess his name. Let Massings, and Massing garments go, let the hill altars alone, meddle not with Jereboam's golden calves, to do it now were open blasphemy, which before Christ's coming, God had cōmaunmaunded our savior Christ is the truth it self. He will not be coupled with the Tabernacle, which is blind shadows. Saint Paul maketh a plain separation of the alter, and the Gospel, where he disputeth for the maintenance of the Minister. Do ye not know, saith he, that they which minister about the holy things, eat of the things of the Temple, and they which wait at the alter, are partakers of the alter? So also hath the Lord ordained, that they which preach the Gospel, should live of the Gospel. Which argument of the Apostle had not been well gathered, if the aultars should have been in the Christian congregations.

The fourth heresy, that is found in this popish article, is this, that Christ is offered again unto his father. S. Paul saith, no man taketh this honor unto him, but he that is called of God, even as was Aaron. But no title in the word of God, that giveth unto a mortal man this authority, therefore they may not claim it. And our savior Christ saith to the Samaritan woman: Beleue me, the hour is come, when neither in Jerusalem, neither in this hill you shall worship the father, but the true worshippers shall worship in spirit, and verity. For the father requireth even such to worship him. God is a spirit, and they, that worship him, must worship in spirit, and truth. But if Christ were really offered up to his father, there were a truer worship, than the worship of the spirit. Again, S. Paul saith, let them have mysterium fidei the mystery of faith in a pure conscience. He would • doubtless have said, mysterium sacrificij, the mystery of this sacrifice of Christ should yet oftener have ben offered. And S. James faith pure religion, and undefiled before God, even that father, is this, to visit the fatherless, and widows in their adversity, and to keep him self unspotted of the world. But Master Harding saith thus. Our Religion must have a sacrificing of Christ unto his father, and therefore we are assured that Master Hardinges Religion is not pure, and undefiled. The scriptures are full of such places, which teach us how to please God, and take hold of salvation. But in all those places no such sacrificing of Christ is mentioned, and therefore to fancy any such imaginations is, neither to please God, nor to walk in that way, which leadeth to salvation. If this be not sufficient, which is sufficient to a Christian man, we have besides most certain proof, which by no means can be coloured. S. Paul saith, where there is remission of sins, there is no more offering for sin, but Christ hath already forgiven us all our trespasses, and put out the hand writing of ordinance, which was against us. &c. And as saint Peter saith, we are redeemed with the precious blood of Christ, as of a Lamb undefiled, and without spot. And therefore Christ is not now offered for sin. And here appeareth moreover the fifth heresy in M. Hardings proposition. For if Christ be not offered to his father, neither any oblation for sin is remaining, then is there now no propitiatory sacrifice, but only one, which God hath already made, upon the alter of the cross. And that this should be but once made, it appeareth, for that Aaron might but once in the year go into the holy place, within the veil, before the mercy seat, where he made atonement for him self, and for his house. So speaketh S. John, of the sacrifice once made, meaning it alone to be propitiatory. If any man sin, we have an advocate with God the father, Jesus Christ the just, and he is the propitiation for our sins, he maketh intercession before his father, he is not sacrificed on the altar. Again he saith, herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son, to be a propitiation for our sins. When Christ made this propitiatory sacrifice, he was sent of his father, and he was sent but once, even than as S. Paul saith, when the fullness of time was come. Now is the time of his imbassage done. He hath satisfied the law of God, first toward his father, in that he was obedient unto death, even unto y ^e death of the cross, thā toward his brethren, in that he had that great love, that he gave his life for his friends, from hence forth he ceaseth from that legacy, and sits at the right hand of his father in glory, and maketh continual intercession for us. Therefore now his father doth no more send him, and he will not again be sacrificed. This is enough, if we were not dull of hearing, to take from us these ungodly devises, concerning any other propitiatory sacrifice, than that, which is already made. But M. Harding, and his fellows, that can so well peruerte the scriptures of God, they have many shifts to defend their own fancies. This our sacrifice, say they, is no new sacrifice, but the same which Christ made, yet Saint Paul saith it was one oblation, and semel peracta, but once made. To this again they answer, that it was but once made bloody, but theirs is unbloody. But the Apostle saith, Absque sanguinis effusione non sit remissio, without shedding of blood there is no remission of sins, what than availeth this unbloody sacrifice? But they say further, it is an application of the death of Christ. But the Apostle proveth, that the sacrifices of the law were vnperfite, because in them was a remembrance again of sins, every year, so there is now no such kind of application. They cannot possible so turn their devises, but the Apostle must needs prove their Mass full of Sacrilege. Christ only was meet to offer up himself, but they in their Mass will have a priest to offer him. Christ's sacrifice was but one, and once finished. In their Mass, if their sacrifice were one, yet is it daily iterated. There can be no remission of sins without blood. In their Mass they make it unbloody, yet they have it to cleanse sins. Thus their Mass, and the Apostle cannot be reconciled. God for • is mercy root it out, that we may be made free from that wicked mistery. There resteth yet one piece in this idolatrous assertion, whether there be any sacrifice for y ^e dead. This controversy is very foolish, and full of old wives dreams, neither grounded on the word of God, because it is ungodly, nor requireth much impugning, because it hath no reason. Yet seeing M. Harding could never see the mark to shoot at, I will let it plain before him, if he will shoot at it with the word of God, he shall be sure to overthrow it. King Solomon hath made him fit arrows, even for the nonce, if he will draw truly, he shall hit the mark. What soever saith Solomon, thy hand doth find to do, do it speedily, for there is neither work, nor invention, nor knowledge, nor wisdom in the grave, whether thou goest. If the case stand thus with us when we are gone, concerning our doings, then is there no more purgatory. Again he saith, if the tree do fall toward the South, or toward the North, in the place that the tree falleth, there it shall be, and these words of the holy Ghost are true. Therefore no Pope, no Trentalles, no Indulgences, nor pardons can move the tree out of his place, in which it is once fallen. Again it is written, defraud not thyself of the good day, and let not the portion of good desires over pass thee meaning thereby, we should take the time of our life. For after it will be to late to ask repentance, and in that chap. it followeth. Give, and take, & I sanctify thy soul, work thou righteousness before thy death, for in the hell there is no meat to find, which sayings are likewise confirmed by that which is spoken by S. Paul. Behold now is the acceptable time: behold now is the day of health. To the same sense it is likewise spoken. All corruptible things shall fail, and the worker thereof shall go withal. By which scriptures it appeareth how little holdfast these purgatory patrons have. And here I would have them answer if they can. We have often in the scriptures the death of men described, yet never any word of purgatory mentioned. In the law there were sacrifices, for the prince, for the people, for the priest, for ielosie, for child birth, for the leprosy, for diverse kinds of diseases, for sundry infections, and griefs, pertaining unto men, and yet in the whole law not once sacrifice appointed for them in purgatory, an undoubted token, that purgatory was than unknown. David fasted, and went in, and lays all night upon the earth, while his child was sick, but when he was dead, he arose up, and washed, and anointed himself, and did eat, and answered why he did so, while the child, saith he, was yet alive, I fasted, and wept. &c. but now being dead, wherefore should I now fast? The popish priests might soon have answered, to release him out of Purgatory. But the prophet David did know of no such matter. When we object these, and such other proofs, some stagger, and have not what to say. Some make this answer, that Purgatory was not in the time of the law, but these good patrons do little spare the great mercies of Jesus Christ, if they teache, that he brought his people this place of torment. The testimony, that he giveth of his own good will, cannot bear it, where he prayeth: Father, my will is, that where I am, there they may be with me, whom thou hast given unto me, that they may see my glory. But the glory that his elect shall see, is not (I trow) the pains of Purgatory. If M. Harding will make exception, and say that was spoken only of the Apostles, & such as should be of greater perfitenesse, than other are, that device is confounded even by the testimony of the same Jesus Christ, where he saith in the same chapiter. I do not pray only for them, but for such also as shall believe in me, through their preaching, so that whosoever dieth in the faith of Christ, he shall not know Purgatory, but everyone, which is saved, shall die in the same faith, according to that, which is written, the just man shall live by his faith. And this is again proved by the example of the thief, who in no point was of such perfection, as the Apostles were, yet to him it was said, this day shalt thou be with me in Paradise. And S. Paul him self testifieth the same, where he writeth, that the crown of righteousness was laid up for him, a reward of all his labors. And least we should misconstre his saying, as the Papists do, and say, that for his great perfection, he passed from this life straight, into the kingdom of righteousness, he taketh away that vain gessing, & saith further, that crown is reserved against y ^t day, Non solū mihi. &c. not only to me, but to everyone y ^t loveth the coming of Jesus Christ. They may not well doubt, that Paul meant by that day the day of his death, since he defineth it him self in another place, Cupio dissolui &c. I desire to be dissolved, & be w ^t Christ. Then if all sortes of men, as many, as be believers, bi accepted a like concerning their present happiness, as the scriptures everywhere do testify, then let all these foolish devises pass. Such manner hobbings, and rouings, what have we to do with them? Let us hearken after the word of God, the sovereign, and alone medicine for the wounded soul. Besides all this, that we should not fear any purging fire, S. Paul testifieth of Christ, that he is able perfitely to save all them that come, unto God through him. But whan we go unto God, if Christ from thence send us into purgatory, how doth he than make perfect our salvation, which the soul doth enjoy, till such time, as it be again joined to the body, and than made full? Again in the same Epistle: I will be merciful unto their unrighteousness, and their sin, and will remember their iniquity no more. Much less than will he send us into Purgatory. But what need we seek longe for the overthrow of such buildings? S. Paul in one word derideth y ^t whole controversy. It is appointed saith he, unto all men, that they shall once die, and after that cometh the judgment. If it be so, what then availeth prayer for y ^e dead? What helpeth it to have trentals? Where is purgatory? After death saith the Apostle, cometh judgment. Here is no color of shift, least except they will say after death, that is, when the general day of judgment shall be. And if this might serve, then had they somewhat to say. But S. John hath prevented such wrestinge of scriptures. After death, as he teacheth, is, immediately, as soon as we be with God, for this he writeth. Blessed ar the dead which die in the Lord, from henceforth saith the spirit, they rest from their labor. No labor abideth anymore for them, after death, immediatlye they are received into joy, and their works do follow them. And this present joy of the godly is likewise specified, where the same Apostle writeth, that an hundred, forty, and four thousand did stand with the lamb in y ^e mount Zion, meaning the elect, which wer w ^t Christ in his kingdom. An hundredth such other places there are in the scripture, which testify of our estate after death, and do quite overthrow the Popes purgatory. Now for the better contentation of the Reader, it were worth the labor to answer to all those places of the scripture, in which they make so many blind guesses 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 fear of God, and true desire of knowledge, he can by no imaginations have one guess at purgatory, and yet for the establishing of such a doctrine, it had been requisite they could have shown even the name for the interpretation of other men be they never so old. We may say with the Apostle. Every man aboundeth in his own understanding, but no man knoweth the things that are God's, save God alone, and his word, if we will not be deceived, must be our only guider. But they have one place 2. Mach. 12.44. in plain words, that it is good to pray for the dead, if that book be of able authority. We rede likewise of one Razias, an Elder of Jerusalem, which first ran upon his own sword, and when he missed of his stroke, he ran to the top of the wall, and threw him self down among the multitude, and yet having life in him, went to the top of an high rock, and pulled out his own bowels, and threw them among the enemies, and for this doing he is commended. So by the authority of the same book, a man may kill himself, which Master Harding him self, I trow will not constantly affirm, yet this being scripture it might not be doubted. Again the same author saith: If I have done well, and as the story requireth, it is the thing, that I desired. But if I have spoken slenderly, and basely, it is that I could. 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 Greek in the same place is so corrupt, that scarce any sense could be made of it. And Joseph ben Gorion, out of whom that story seemeth to be gathered, in the same place, doth quite leave out this praying for the dead. But it may be, that in those days some ignorant Jews, upon an unwise devotion, did think it good to pray for the dead, and likewise to pray again unto them, that they would help us. Which if it were so, by such means this place might come into the Machab. And that some did think thus, though they were always otherwise instructed, it appeareth by one manifest place, which is read in Philo Iudeus, where he writeth the death of Deborah, who made a godly exhortatiō to hir people before she died. For afterward they should find no repentance. There some made answer unto hir, Ecce nunc mater moreris, & ora itaque pro nobis, & post recessum tuum, erit anima tua memor nostri in sempiternum. Praye for us after thy departure, and let thy soul be mindful of us forever. To whom Deborah maketh answer. 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 living, he may pray for him self, and for his children, but whan he is dead, he can neither entreat, nor be mindful of any. And it followeth, your similitude then shall be like the stars of heaven, which are now manifest in you. Hereby we see what judgment the common people might have in such matters. And yet howe the godly did otherwise instruct them, read this place, thou shalt find it so plain, that no wrangling may shift it of, but needs we must confess that it teacheth us, that we ought neither to pray unto saints to help us, neither yet again can we help them when they be gone. Whereby it appeareth what manner of archer Master Harding hath ben, that could not shoot at so plain a mark. But he did shoot at his own dreams, and so he lighted on Purgatory.

Yet there follow a great many of marks, at the which M. Harding could never shoot home. The first is, that the mass and our Communion is one, with that mark, saith he, I was never acquainted. Hys loose without doubt is very ill, or he shooteth to low a compass, or else he draweth not close. For M. Stapleton, that shooteth with the same bow and arrows hitteth this mark, even at the first. The Mass and the Communion, saith he, duelye ministered, is all one, and it is folly to think any contradiction between the Communion and the Mass. Thus it appeareth M. Harding is a very wrangler, that will not shoot at that mark, which his own fellows find. An other mark, that M. Harding could never shoot at, is this, that Eucharistia doth signify not the Sacrament, but common bread. I maruail he could never shoot at this mark. For since he began first that babbling answer to M. Jewel's learned Challenge, he hath alway been hobbing among those marks, where this is one, though he never shot at the self same, yet hath he seldom shot, but at such like. For it is a mark of slandering, and a mark of lying, at which mark, as well in this Reioynder, as other where M. Harding most commonly doth shoot very nere. I never said (saith he) that Eucharistia was common bread, but the sacrament. This mark I could never see. In deed no maruail, for who can well see the thing that is not. But you father this saying upon Master Jewel, which report is all together untrue, and slanderous, and in shootinge at this mark, you draw marvelous clean, and have good delivery, be it pricks, or rouers, you have measured the ground so oft, that you know what to shoot. But I pray you M. Harding, where saith M. Jewel thus? What be his words? Wher are they to be found? Think you, notwithstanding your oft untrue demeanour, that you can discredit your adversary, upon your bare word? The place whereunto you direct us, hath no such saying. Thus it hath: In my judgment this word Eucharistia in this place of Irenaeus, signifieth not the sacrament already consecrate, but rather other common bread. After this he alledgeth three sundry aucthorities, that it may be so taken, and in fine, he saith, how be it herein I will not strive. Other words then these Master Jewel hath none, and is this to say Eucharistia, is not the sacrament? Hath he any such absolute saying? Or doth he affirm any whit at all? O that the Reply had been of M. Hardings penning, he would then sure have good matter against it. Now it is the bishops own doing, he can say little, and not corrupt his words. But mark Christian Reader, in this shooting, what ill favored feathers he hath upon his arrows. The vpmost is corruption of M. Jewel's words, the 2. that lie upon the bow, the one is deceit, the other ignorance. The corruption is already manifest, the deceit is, where he would have thee to think, that Eucharistia might not signify bread, but where ever it were found, it should make for his transubstantiation. The ignorance is, in that he maketh it so strange a thing, that Eucharistia might signify bread, not yet consecrate. When in his popish Mass before consecration the bread, and wyne are called sancta, & illibata sacrificia, holy and immaculate sacrifices.

Concerning the word Eucharistia, it is found in the new testament often times, yet always signifying either open thanks giving, or else thankfulness of the mind, so in that the sacrament is called Eucharistia, it is a good argument against transubstanciation. An other mark, that Master Harding could not shoot at, is, concerning the prophesy of Malachi, that it should signify the sacrifice of our Cōmunion. Of this mark read the untruth. An other make is this, that in the sacrament of the altar, there is no virtue, but when it is used. This mark saith he, was out of my reach. But if he say true, he is then but a bragger, either he hath not read so much, as he pretendeth, or else he is a loitering truant, 〈◊〉 that hath forgot so good a lesson. In this one thing he offendeth both ways, the godly, in that he will not shoot at that mark, which the holy Ghost hath set up, the ungodly, and men of his own devotion, in that he denieth any virtue to be in the water of baptism, but when one is christined. For if it be so, why sing they over that water, where none is christined, sis fons viuus, aqua regenerans, vnda purificans. &c. be thou a living spring a water of new birth, a water that doth purify. &c. Master Harding cannot deny how merrily this hath been song in Colleges, yet none have been christined I trow among them. And a Doctor of their own side, saith, si Asinus bibit aquam illam, bibit sacramentum, if an Ass drink that water, he drinketh the sacrament. Whereby it appeareth they repose virtue in the water, though none be baptized. Yet in this opinion they agree not. Scotus saith, it is Asinina quaestio, a question meet for an Ass. But of the water he saith, it is cold, running, clear, necessary, and common, cold to repress concupiscence, running to turn the course of our disobedience, clear to lighten our faith, necessary to bring us into the way of health, common to all men. And in commendation of this judgment, it is written in the margin, doctrina singularissima, a most singular doctrine, fit lattin for such a purpose, to attribute such virtue to the water. But M. Harding will say, these virtues are in the water, as Scotus speaketh, in ipso fieri, but even while the child is a baptising. And of that opinion Thomas Aquinas seemeth to be, where he saith such prayers as are said over the water, are not necessary, but only for the solemnity. But here we may ill believe either Thomas, or Scotus, for Pope Celestine saith otherwise: Siue paruuli, sieve iuuenes, whether they be Infants, or whether they be young men, let them not come to the sacrament of regeneration, which is the well of life, before the unclean spirit be driven away, exorcismis, & exsufflationibus Clericorum, with the cuniurings, and the blowings of the Priests. And of this opinion is the Master of the Sentences. Whereby it appeareth, howe little Master Hardinges Doctors are many times beholding to him, that will so flatlye deny their opinions. For if these things be necessary before the christeninge, then hath the water virtue in it self at other times, then the very time of christening. But thus much he said rather against his Doctors, then against himself, for his words seme in this place to confess a truth. There is no manner virtue in the water, but only in the use of it. But where he saith, it is not so in the sacrament of the altar, but that there is virtue in it, though it be not received, that offendeth the godly, and varieth quite from the word of God, and robbeth us of our great comfort, that we have in God's mysteries. For S. Paul saith: Panis quem frangimus the bread which we break, is it not the communion of Christ's body? For we being many, are one bread, and one body, because we be partakers of one bread. By this opiniō we might be thus persuaded, if virtue be in the sacrament, when it is not received, then we may be incorporate into Christ's body, though we receive it not, contrary to S. Paul's doctrine, that saith, to be of this unity, we must be partakers of one bread. And here I would fain ask Master Harding this question, if by these words hoc est corpus meum, the bread is become no bread, and a new grace is put into it, whether it be received, or no? I demand, what if the bread be kept till it be consumed, concerning the flesh? He answereth, the Lord departeth again, when he is profaned, or when he is denied. What then is done with the grace? Doth it likewise return? How is it then true, that the prophet writeth, verbum meum non reuertetur ad me vacuum, my word shall not return unto me in vain. But how doth it not return in vain, when being employed vpō a dead creature. It returneth unto him again w ^t out farther quickening his lively image, which is mā, or hardening the heart y ^t is already obdurate, to God's further glory. Again, be it thus that a lofe once consecrated be set before a stranger, who feedeth on it as upon common bread, if there be virtue in it, he discerneth not the Lord's body, so should he receive his own damnation. How could it be then true, that our savior saith, that, which goeth into the mouth, defileth not the man, or that which S. Paul saith, all things are clean, to them that are clean, & nothing is to be refused, that is received with thanks giving. And in another place, whatsoever is set before you, eat it, and ask no question for conscience sake. These sayings cannot stand with Master Hardings religion, about such questions, how the word of God might agree with it self. Those busy heads might have ben better occupied, then in moving such doubts, as a Christian heart adhorreth to remember. But if they had ben so occupied in God's most holy euangelies, as they were in Peter Lumberdes fancies, they would soon have turned over these wind shaken opinions. Now while Master Hardings friends shall muse, how these sayings may agree, I will show thee godly reader, how the Eucharist hath no use, except it be received. Consecrate while they will, cross round about the bread, breath over it at their pleasure, look demurely as they can, intend what they list, except the bread be received, no manner conueyaunce can bring Christ's presence. Somewhat for proof of this, may appear by the usage of the pascall Lamb, and of Manna. Of the lamb nothing might be reserved til the morning, what did remain, should be burnt with fire. Therefore we may conjecture it should not be lawful to reserve the sacrament. So likewise of Manna, nothing might be reserved till morning, if ought were had, it was turned into worms, and stank. These being both figures of our sacrament, the conjecture is not evil, to think likewise the Eucharist might not be reserved, then the case were plain, it had no virtue, but being received. Howe be it, I will not force any such comparisons. God doth lighten, whom it pleaseth him. The scriptures do other where testify plentifullye this, that we teache. First the Eucharist is to us, as the peace offerings among the Jews, which was a sacrifice, or thanks giving offered for peace, or prosperity, and as they that made any such offering, must do it before the door of the Tabernacle of the congregation. &c: so Aaron's sons sprinkled the blood about the alter, otherwise it had been no peace offering. So we in the Eucharist, must come to the Congregation, give thanks, and praises unto God, preach out the death of his son Christ, and eat, and drink of that heavenly mysteries, or else it is not the Eucharist. And the church naming this sacrament Eucharistia, hath well declared, that without open thanks-giving, there is no such sacrament. But who can doubt any whyt of this matter, that readeth the words of our savior Christ, reported by S. John, or the other Evangelists, and S. Paul ? Labor for the meat, saith Christ, that the son of man shall give unto you. He saith not, for the meat which is hanged up in the Pixe. And the people make their answer, Lord, give us evermore of this bread. Again Christ saith, The bread which I will give, is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. Ther is then no benefit, where this bread is not given, and in this chapter it is often repeated, that we must eat this flesh, or else we have no life in us. Yet in all this place, nor in any place of scripture, any one word is found y ^• commendeth, either mentioneth this sacrament without the use of it. So if we will apply this .6. chap. of John, to the sacrament, as M. Harding in any wise will do, we see how there is no grace, no virtue in it, if it be not used. Concerning the words of this sacrament, reported by the other Evangelists, and by saint Paul, they are very plain: Take, and eat, this is my body, say they, and of the Cup: Drink ye all of this, this is my blood. &c.

But by M. Hardings doctrine, the holy ghost might have spoken in this sort: Look all upon this, and worship it, this is my body. And of the cup: Drink none of you of this, yet it is my blood. Such is the sacrilege of that wicked mass, in doing, to undo that our Savior hath said. But here I cannot a little wonder at them. In their own inventions they have placed in their Mass these words, accipite, manducate, and some think they are very requisite to transsubstanciation: yet when they utter them, they mean nothing less, than that any other, but them selves, should take part. They prepare but a little cake, and a draught of wyne, to make sport with. They intend not to communicate with other, yet they say always: take, and eat. A lie is very evil in any manner doing, but in the service of God, it is very detestable. God when he will, turn their hearts. Here we se concerning this sacrament, Christ commanded nothing, but that we should in a holy company eat, and drink, in remembraunc • of his death, and passion. But how turneth the Pope, our saviors commandment? He careth neither for eating, nor drinking, but when he goeth forth, he setteth up his sacrament upon a white horse back, and men of eche side with tapers, and little belles, and so teacheth the horse, that he will go to the altar, and there kneel upon his knees, till his Masters god be taken down. Thus will the Pope teach horses to worship God, even as sometime the Levites would carry the Ark in a new carte, when they brought it out of the house of Aminadab. For neither have we any one word, to carry about the sacrament, neither had they of the carte. And this is a great misery, that having no warrant for our Marchandise, our candles, our sensors, our vestments, our oil boxes, our corporasse, our por • uisse, and six hundred thousands such other, yet we make no account of them as though they pleased God. If anything seem somewhat doubtful, then we turn us to Doctors, to councils, to decrees, to scholemen, and to the holy closet of the Popes own breast, as though God's word were not our wisdom, and our understanding in the sight of all people. But God be thanked for his own ordinances, and laws that are so righteous. Now to the next mark that Master Harding could never shoot at, and this mark hath a great many pieces, and such as is not easily discerned, which is the greatest, so I know not certainelye where at to measure. The first piece is this, there is no difference betwixt the Priest, and the people, in the mystery of the sacrifice. But what meaneth Master Harding, to find the mark him self, and then refuse to shoot at it? Would he have us think, this were Master Jewel's mark? He saith no such thing. Sure M. Harding hath very strange artillery. His bow is made of slanders, and it will shoot nothing else but lies. He can get nothing with cunning, therefore he would save him self by facing. This stood them in good stead in the disputations at Oxford, where their friends wer moderators, but in a book that is written to all men, this shift is shameless. Let us see, what saith M. Jewel of this mark? Not one word. Why doth Master Harding report it? He is disposed to lie. But whereupon doth he gather it? Forsoth out of Bernard, for he saith as Master Jewel alledgeth, not only the priest sacrificeth, but also the whole company of the faithful. But what maketh this for Master Harding? The priest, and the people both do sacrifice, therefore is there no difference in the ministry? S. Peter saith, you are a kingly Priesthood, therefore is there no difference in the function between the minister, and the lay man? True it is, that the minister, and the people do offer up a like one sacrifice unto God, but that maketh nothing to Master Hardings saying. Thus we se while he hobbeth, and roueth, and shooteth at every mark a lie, he was an hypocrite, when he was at the best, and now is led forward still to be an open enemy. Read the .222. untruth. An other piece of this mark, is this, that men, and women make the sacrifice of the altar, and be Priests, after the order of Melchizedek. Of this read the .158. untruth. The last piece of this mark is yet worst of all, nothing else but malice, slander, and wickedness, here against M. Jewel, because he writeth not one such word, and commonly against the truth of God, which the wicked do alway pervert. And this is that mark, that God is the author of evil, and driveth men to sin. What should I here answer, but even say with the Prophet: The scornful have said: We have made falsehood our refuge, and under vanity we are hid. If every such evil saying might claim an answer, M. Hardings one Reioynder would require many volumes. But for a sufficient contentation of the Reader, I say in all M. Jewel's book, there is no one such word. I add further, nor in all the books that ever were written by any godly man of M. Jewel's profession. Let M. Harding, or all his companions, in searching over their writings, bring but one letter, whereby we may guess that ever such a saying was meant, and for my part, let his writings be approved. If he cannot do this, consider of his religion. He would not speak wickedly for God's defense, nor talk deceitfully for his cause. If any man require what our opinion is, let him read any learned man, entreating of the predestination of God, or of man's free will, or for a better warrant, let him read the scriptures it self. We say, all that God made, was very good. He created man in honor, and gave him free will, and man of himself gave place to inordinate affections, where he might have obeyed God's word, even as it is written: He hath set water and fire before thee, stretch out thy hand unto which thou wilt. And again, God created man without corruptiō. And concerning sin, we say, through the envy of the Devil, came death into the world. Neither need we make exception against this authority, because it is not in the canō. For the Apostle doth authorize it, where he writeth: He that committeth sin, is of the Devil. For the Devil sinneth even from the beginning. And in another place: Diabolus est mendax, & pater eius, the Devil is a liar, and the father thereof, not as your friend Mayster Dorman doth interpret it, and so was his father before him, for that were in deed to make God the author of evil, which is the mark you talk of. Now even as the Devil is author of evil, so we by his suggestiō have the next cause in our selves, which is an unclean heart, like as our Savior saith: Out of the heart proceed evil cogitations. &c. Of God we say, and we say again, and we preach it, and we write, and believe it, and in it we rejoice, that God is neither the author of evil, neither yet would it should be committed. The sheep go astray, without the shepherds will. The groate is lost, and the poor woman would not so. Christ would gather together Jerusalem, as the Hen doth hir Chickens, but they would not. But this we say, that the ways of God, are not like the ways of men, that he should not know what things were to come. He could not be deceived in his own creature. He did foresee the fall of Adam, and by his omnipotency could have made him stand. For who can resist his will? He could have made him so pure, that he should not have sinned, even as he hath now made his Angels, and will make the whole number of his elect, that no man any more shall take away their joy from them.

And as we are sure this is God's omnipotēcy, so why he did it not, we cā not assign any cause, but because he would not. For we know he hath done all things that he would. Yet a cause there was, and that a most just, and good cause. For their is no iniquity with him. And this cause he did know in his eternal secret counsel before all worlds, for as much as all things are present with him. To enter further into God's council, and ask why he appointed such a course in which the reprobate, both Angels, and men should fall away, this were presumptuous folly. Shall the pot say unto the potter, why hast thou made me so? The Godly will stay here, and in the fear, and love of God will profess, and believe, both that God ruleth all things with his mighty word, and yet willeth he no man to sin. We have so much corruption in our selves, that we need no further provoking unto wickedness. Now to Master Hardings purpose, thus much we say, that God permitteth sin, and with longe patience doth suffer the vessels of wrath prepared to destruction: but yet this permission we say, doth appertain unto the will of God. For he doth not suffer it, either enforced, or against his will: neither yet doth he so suffer it, that he doth nothing him self. For he ruleth, and governeth, even 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 wickedness of strange Princes, or to the trial of his elect, as it is well acknowledged of the prophet David, saying of Shimei : he curseth, even because the Lord hath bid him curse David, yet God made not the malice of Shimei's mind. Likewyse where it is said of the destruction of Jerusalem, that God brought upon them the king of the Chaldeans : God did not engraff in Nabuchadoneyzar his great cruelty, but being bred in his own mind, he brought it upon whom it pleased him. Therefore Christ saith, all the hears of our head are numbered, and without God's appointment, there shall not one of them perish. This therefore is our doctrine, God is no cause of wickedness, but men cannot apply their own wickedness, but where it pleaseth God, neither do they exercise their wickedness, but when, and how far his grace doth leave them. For plainer declaration of this, we may compare the grace of God, and the sun, If the sun be over the earth, there is then light, if it be gone, then is there darkness: yet is not the Sun cause of darkness, but such is the nature of the world, where the Sun is not, there is forthwith darkness: So God is the light, and man is full of darkness, because of corruption which it hath received. When the light of God's grace doth shine in this darkness, then man seeth his goings, and walketh forth in righteousness, but if the darkness do not comprehend the light, then man thorough his own impurity, doth walk in all uncleanness: yet is not God cause of this evil doings, no more then the Sun is cause that the world without it, is darkness. But who so doth receive this light, he is borne, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And as S. Paul saith, it is not in him that willeth, nor in him that runneth, but in God that showeth mercy, for it is he that worketh in us, both the will, and the deed, even of his good pleasure. Therefore the prophet Oze saith, thy destruction O Israel, doth come of thyself, but thy salvation is of me. Thus we se man doth of himself the thing that is evil, God only doth that which is good, yet in such sort y ^t what so ever is done in the world, good or evil, by consent, or unadvisedly, God disposeth all. Chaunce, and fortune hath no place, all manner circumstances are at God's will, to his glory, and the comfort of the elect. And this is plainly taught us in that law of Moses, where he that presumptuously doth kill a man, is commanded to be taken frō the alter, that he may die. For there it is said, if any one do kill another, & have laid no wait for him, thē God hath offered him into his hand. So chance is no chance, fortune is no fortune, but God is all in all, & therefore it is well said of S. Jerome, nihil accidit bonorum, aut malorum temere, et sine prouidentia, sed omnia iudicio dei accidunt. No good nor evil doth happen without a cause, or by fortune, without God's providence, but all things do happen after his judgment. For all creatures are, as it were, God's instruments, to use after his own counsel: yet man doth of him self, that which is wicked. Thus used the Assyrians, the Chaldeans, the Persians, the Grecians, the Romans, they through their own ambition made war upon the Jews, but God appointed the time, when it should be a scourge for his people's disobedience. So in all wickedness God doth also work, but he only that which is good. In the punishment of Job, the Devil worked to satiate his malice against mankind, God to the trial of his servants faith, that he might pour again his mercies more abundantly upon him. Christ was crucified on the Jews behalf, that they might work, as envy moved them, but on God's behalf, that he might pay the ransom for the sins of the world. Now if this be to say, God is the author of evil, then hath Master Harding found out a true mark, if it be not, he then shooteth in a false ground, and his lying arowes are broken upon ungodly stones. Thus it appeareth, what part we give unto God in evil doings. And this the scripture, when so it showeth, how God worketh in the reprobate, as where it is said, ego indurabo cor Pharaonis, I will hard̄ Pharaoh's heart, we must know God is not he, that loveth wickedness. For God hath said of Pharaoh, I know that y ^e king of Egypt will not let you go, but by strong hand. So his wickedness was of his own will, when God did not mollefie his heart with new grace. But God did use this wickedness for his glory, even as he testifieth. For this cause have I appointed thee, to show my power in thee, & to declare my name throughout all the world. Now to ask further why God did not send Pharaoh more grace in mekenesse of spirit: we must answer with S. Paul : O man, who art thou that pleadest with God? He hath mercy on whom he will, & whom he will, he hardeneth. Our wisdom is but foolishness w ^t him, we must seek no further, then God's word hath revealed. Sure we are, he is a righteous God, & showeth mercy unto thousands of them, that love him. So that, if by testimony of our own conscience, we hang upon that mercy, and walk as he hath commanded, the less we see is in our selves, the more sure is our hope. For how often we think on him, so many testimonies we have of his love, and we are sure no man can pul us out of his hands. And thus we do see the marks M. Harding could not shoot at, meet marks for Christian Archers, save those, which he him self hath set up. With which marks, because he was never acquainted, we have to understand, that as he is now a professed enimye, so he was then a dissembler, and a man pleaser. Therefore we yield unto him this conclusion, that he hath not taught the Gospel in such sincerity, as we teach it now. We believe him without his oth, he shall not need to take God to record, that hath brought their imaginations to confusion.

Touching the other pointes of your Gospel, which you speak, how so ever I spake once at Oxford of purgatory, and at another time of the Mass, otherwise then now by God's grace, and study of more mature years, I have ben instructed: yet that any time I told you of the Paper walls, & painted fires of Purgatory, and that the Mass was a heap of Idolatry, and the Mystery of iniquity, it is all together false. Those Ministerlike terms of Paper Walls, and painted Fiers, in good sooth I remember not, that ever I heard before your book came forth.

This that M. Harding graūteth here, maketh great presūpsion y ^t he hath said more. For if he hath spokē against Purgatory, then he hath confessed those fires are but paintings: if he have thought wickedness to be in the Mass, how could he not abhor these former wicked opinions? But we must pardon him in speaking not considerately, & he will provide to speak little truly. Once he spake against purgatory, another time against the Mass, but very modestly. In deed they be such tender chickēs of the Popes brood, that if ye handle them roughly, they will surely die. But if Master Harding do speak now from his heart, when he is so vehement: doubtless if he were then so modest, he was an hypocrite. Now his zeal is so much to his holy father of Rome, that he spareth no reproaches against God's ministers. Then his deuocion was so cold in setting forth God's glory, that he could not spew out his deep dissimulation. But what skilleth it how he preached then, since he is now revoked, and like a dog is returned unto his vomit? Here he showeth us the cause why he was converted, or rather perverted. 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 years did instruct me otherwise. This cause doth sufficiently confute it self. For Master Harding changed his Religion in seven days, in which he had not many years to study▪ nor yet quiet time to deliberate. Here followeth a little jesting at the name of Ministers, and ungodly Metaphores, to the defacing of their preaching, all not worth the answer. And in deed who so would scour away all that froth from his writings, should leave him in most places, nothing but white paper.

What I should have done, and how far I should have gone, in case God's providence had not changed that state: he saw, to whom nothing is unseen. And perhaps in continuance of time, I should have joined further with you, except his special grace had called me back, and severed me from you. What soever in those days I thought or said amiss, our Lord forget, and forgive. Verye like it is, had not the condition of that time been altered, that I should have thought, and said worse then I did, and have been carried away further. But now I see what great cause I have to rejoice and thank God, who used the change of the time as an occasion, and mean, whereby to change me unto the better. For whiles I feared to suffer that I would not, by new condition of the time, I was compelled to seek the truth, which before I knew not, and willingly to hold that, which before I refused.

In this paragraphe before, Master Harding saith, that the grace of God, & more mature years did better instruct him. But he had little hope to find many years in seven days, therefore now he saith, that God's especial grace, & the change of the Prince, did change him also. So y ^t whether of both did help, many years in a week, or the change of a Prince, he hath called God to witness to a lie. But let it be, the change of the time did change Master Harding, yet let him not ascribe it unto God, which is his own evil doing. Surely for the Minister to turn suddenly with the world, it is an vnweented kind of calling, and such as the holy Ghost hath left none in example. But you defend yourself with S. Aug. saying. True it is, a man may be brought unto Christ through fear of punishment, else why serveth 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 earthly punishment, we being made apt for instruction, not in men's wranglinges, and deuyses, but in the heavenly books, we should find the church promised through all the world. This piece Master Harding hath concealed. For in his turn he did not seek for the church in God's Scriptures, but in men's traditions. Therefore he is little helped by S. Augustine. Nay he doth rather show y ^e cause, why Master Harding is now so obdurate, quam multos, saith he, obduratae consuetudinis grave vinculū colligabat, how many hath the heavy yoke of old custom tied together, that it might be fulfilled in them, the froward servant shall not be amended with the word of God: so that he not claiming his turn by the advertisement of the scriptures, but cleauyng fast unto old custom, hath delivered him self from this help of S. Augustine. Here he maketh a long discourse of his private doings, impertinent to his private Mass, which I cannot meddle with, because I know them not.

If I may be believed, telling that of myself, which I myself, & God know best, this is the truth. My error was of ignorance, not of malice. My understanding was obscured, my will was not of self purpose perverted. Wherein 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, maintain what lyked my private choice, but ignorauntly I received, what guilefully the condition of the time obtruded.

Here M. Harding, upon better advise, assigneth yet again the third cause of his turning. He hath now forsaken better instruction, by mature years, he taketh hold no more of the change of the Prince, but for his more commendation saith, he was turned by prayer, I trow, by saying our Ladies Mattines, & this cause, because it is the best cause, he setteth it out with his best manner of writing, and with the dissolute figure, sometime speaking ryme, sometime having no reason, he concludeth this third cause, that is here alleged. But what needeth this any long answer. If his error wer ignorance, how got he so speedy knowledge? If his understanding wer obscured, how was it so quickly lightened? What books red he? who was his teacher? Hath he found so many miracles for his private Mass, that he would have us ween he was turned by a Miracle? Yet he saith it soothly, that his offense was not so much through malice of will, as through want of skyll. Now verily M. Harding, this like falling figure, falleth in this place quite out of order. This other repetition about the sayings of our savior Christ, seek, and you shall find. &c. hath preatie turning in words, but M. Harding in his life hath turned himself quite from them.

That I proceeded no farther in error, it was the goodness of God, who with his merciful hand stayde me back, from running to the extremity, that you be run unto.

Now M. Harding can show no good cause of his falling away in to the power of darkness, it liketh him to guess, what brought him so far into the kingdom of light. For seeing by his hobs and rouers, his heart was not upright toward God, he cannot judge, why he was esteemed such a preacher of his Gospel. But this gessing at his going forward, is as vain, as the causes of his return have been found unconstant. Satan can turn him self in to an Angel of light, to make his Ministers think they do God good service. The idolatrous Israelites would seem to seek God daily, even as a nation that did righteously, and had not forsaken the statutes of their God. So M. Harding would fain have his turning, for his more humility, and his sudden revolting, for his further well doing. But what needeth so busy search, in so plain a matter, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , his own hobbing, and double dealing, made God give him over to his old idolatries, out of which before, of his free mercy, he had drawn him. So let M. Harding seek no farther cause. His iniquities have separated between him, and his God. God for his mercies sake once turn him again. For now he doth nothing, but hatch Cockatrices eggs, and weaueth the Spyders web.

You seme to maruail how I became so perfect a Catholic in so short a time. As you say, I preached the contrary many years, wherein you say untruly. For neither preached I full two years, and that not many Sermons, neither was I priest before Queen Mary's time. So you pretend it to be an impossible thing, that in seven days (for of that time you speak more then once) I should read over all the Scriptures, Counsels, and Doctors. as though a man by God's special grace, could not be turned from error to truth, whose heart was not stubbornlye set to maintain a part, nor yet drowned in many errors, unless he first read over all books of Diuinitye. What mean you M. Jewel. Will you appoint God a tract of time to work in, when he toucheth the heart of mā? S. Ambrose could have taught you to judge otherwise, where he saith, Nescit tarda moliminae sancti spiritus gratia.

Now Master Harding in a long discourse cometh again to his former matter, and as the Poet saith, sopitos suscitat ignes, stirreth a broad again the fire, that was well raked up, and telleth us a new cause of his tourning, and that was God's secrete inspiration, and thereto allegeth the sayings of Ambrose, and Leo, and the exampels of Elisha, Paul, and Matthew. As touching the grace of the holy Ghost, I must needs confess, it needeth no protracte of time. It may make in one moment, of a plough man a Prophet, of a persecutor an Apostle, of a Publican a Disciple. But shall Master Harding therefore think, that by the same spirit he was made of a preacher an apostata? And for further proof of this, he telleth us when he was made priest, as though he had taken the charecter of the beast, and fallen down, and worshipped hir, by the mocion of the holy Ghost? Better had Master Harding stood to his other causes, that longer years gave him more understanding, or the change of the Prince changed him, or else he was converted by prayer, then to make the holy ghost author of his evil doing. But O miserable state of that man, that should be plunged thus in errors, and yet seeth not his sins. Such confidence had the Jews in all their fornications, that being stirred to repentance, would deny their evil doing, and say wherein shall we return?

And why do you charge me with the sudden change of seven days? Was it not one whole year after king Edward's death, before I came in pulpit? And did I not of mine own accord, without all compulsion, or request of others, simply, and fully acknowledge, and confess my former oversight, and error? Was not all the university of Oxford witness hereof? O Master Jewel, I doubt not, but by that my voluntary and humble confession, I have put the Devil to silence, thorough the same. He shall not have power to object unto me mine error before Christ our Judge, in that dreadful day.

Now least for all this trifling, we should accuse M. Harding of rashness, in fine he bringeth a whoole years deliberation. But Lord what manner of defense is this? After so long reasoning, to prove nothing. Was all this defense of a sudden change to excuse the thing, he never 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 again? Cast it away Master Harding, if you be happy, your tourning and all, and yet again turn once for the better, you have not put the Devil to silence with this turning, our Lord deliver you from him. It is he that walketh through dry places, and when he can find no rest, returneth thither again from whence he was driven out, and as though he had found you sweapt, and garnished, so after made his ingredience, in your seven fold wickedness. You say Master Jewel's malice doeth seem to pass the malice of the devil. But it is enough for the Disciple, to be as his Master is, and the servant, as the Lord. If they have called the Master of the house Beelzebub, how much more them of his household? The authority here brought of S. Cyprian, is to little purpose. But had you better considered that Epistle, you would with better advice have spared the reverence of that good Bishop. You know what his name doth signify. And S. Cyprian saith, this always is the work of the devil, that he should be lie the servants of God, and with false opinions, gloriosum nomen infamet, slander their glorious name, that they which are very shining in the testimony of their own conscience, might be defiled with other men's report. Well God grant unto you, according to Master Iuells prayer.

But what meant you Master Jewel of all men, thus vncourteously, and with all very falsely, to deal with me?

After all these devices in defense of his own doing, he fashioneth a new invention against his adversary, and in long examination of his whole life, he hath espied in him once, a little going back, and of that would fain make a cover to hyde his own apostasy. And that this piece of the Epistle may be all like in it self, he maketh the first entry with an open lie, and saith, Master Jewel hath reported falsely of his turning. But the world is witness both of Master Jewel's saying, and Master Hardings doing. But he goeth forward, and asketh Master Jewel this question: Are not you one M. John Jewel, that once subscribed to certain articles? &c. Why bringeth M. Harding this? This is confessed in his answer to Doctor Cole. Therefore I grant Master Harding it is even he, that when the anointed of the Lord was taken in your • ettes, under whose shadow he should have ben preserved among the heathen, he was scattered among the other sheep, till God turned his hand upon his little ones, to carry forth his name among the Gentiles. But mark good Christian reader, what this man hath espied in this Bishops life. He did once subscribe in S. Mary's church in Oxford, & did not all Christ's Disciples once forsake him in Jerusalem ? Did not Peter dissemble at Antioch ? Did not Paul shave his head at Cenchrea ? did he not circumcise Timothy at Lystra ? Have not all the serauntes of God, Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, and martyrs done as much? Is this the greatest fault you can lay to that good bishop, that for fear of your tyranny, he did ones write John Jewel? God be praised, that hath so directed y ^• course of his servant, and God send us all his spirit, that do profess his Gospel, that our lives may so answer our profession. Now touching those disputations at Oxford, where Master Harding saith, the uttermost was heard, that could be brought on our side, that is one among his other untruths. It is known how vncourteously those reverend Fathers were entreated, their sayings could not be heard for the others shameless • issings. This commendation of Master Hardings catholic Doctors is out of season. Their learning, because it is God's gift, I do reverence, their usage I detest, and abhor. The rumors of some of their doings, are yet hot in Cambridge. If I would make base notes in the mergin, as Master Hardings companions do use, where they do speak slanderously, I could say the truth, and make • Christian man's ears to glowe at their filthiness. But God amend them, and let the report of their evil, be buried with their evil.

What if God so dispose, that now also the heart of the Prince, detesting the lewdness of their lives, who profess your Gospel, and seeing the untruth of your doctrine, and lamenting this universal decay of virtue proceeding thereof, and the utter damnation of so many souls, be wholly bent to restore the Catholic Religion of the Church, and abandon all these wicked new devises of Geneva? What will you then do?

Now after that Master Harding hath inquired much after Master Iuells inconstancy, and can espy little worthy reprehension, in an uncharitable imagination, he will needs guess what Master Jewel would do, if he were again put to his trial. And here with a sighing supposition he doeth feed his Popish vein, and asketh. What if God so dispose the heart of the Princes. &c. To this I answer, that if God should so do, his just judgment should be upon the sins, 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 deal with his enheritance? What if he will not show his people such heavy things? What if the king of Ashur shall overcome us no more? What if we shall no more be led captives into Babylon ? What if the teeth of the wicked are broken? What if destructions be come to a perpetual end? Surely if our iniquities do not turn away God's blessings, the hope of the ungodly is like a thin foam, that is carried away with the stream. As touching our Princesse, hir heart is in the hand of the Lord, and though we be no men pleasers, yet this is the contentation of our conscience, that we see in hir the express tokens of the child of God, and we are witnesses unto our selves, how willingly we obey hir. David was a good king, though he would build God an house, though it liked him not, that the tabernacle should be covered with Goats hear. Ionathas was a good king, & very zealous, though the high places were not taken away. Hezekiah was a very godly king, though when God left him, to try him, & to know all that was in his heart, he found him faulty. Josiah was a virtuous young Prince, as ever was in Jerusalem, yet he was a feared of Necho king of Egypt. Deborah was a good Queen, and is not blamed in the scriptures, yet no doubt she was not without fault, and what if our Queen, that hath restored God's religion should do something, that liked Master Harding? Doth he therefore think, she will pervert the ways of the Lord, and set up again his Romish Idolatries? Their prophecies are now expired, and that old rotten Epistle before the confutation of the Apology, is now forgotten. From what stomaks such flatteries proceeded, it is not hard to judge. But peace be upon Queen Elizabeth, and upon the Israel of the Lord. For this great decay of virtue, whereof Master Harding complaineth, it is not in the word of God, it is our corrupt manners. This is an old objection made against true Religion. S. Paul doth complain of it, that for this cause God's name was evil spoken of among the gentiles. So y ^e wicked Jews would complain: Since we left to burn incense to the Queen of heaven, we have ben consumed with the sword, and with famine. Yet the leaving off of their Idolatry was no cause of their evils.

You did once confess to me plainly in Sarisbury, when ye came thither in visitation, that you never lyked the Supremacy of the temporal Princes over the Church of England. Did you not tell me, that it stood neither with Scripture, nor with Doctors, nor with the judgment of the learned men of Germany, Geneva, and the parties where you had ben? And why then preach you not this Doctrine abroad?

As touching this private talk of Master Jewel, had with Master Harding at Sarisbury, concerning the Queens supremacy, it is a malicious lie of Master Hardings uncharitable heart. If it were true: yet I might well answer with the Philosophers, that there are .iiii. sorts, in whom is singular impudence, in a woman, that putteth on a man's garment, in a gheast, that thinketh him self as good, as his host, in him that will be talking of Princes, where he hath no occasion 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , & in him that when a thing is told him in secrete, doth tell it abroad openly. Now if this accusation were true, yet what witness hath Master Harding to cry out of his impudency. But what if it be false? What if it be a shameless lie? A Christian man will say with weeping eyes: God amende the evil speakers. But Demosthenes said to the people of Athens : If you see a Uiper, or a biting Spider, though they did never sting you, yet you will kill them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Lyke wise O ye men of Athens, when you see a slanderer, having this vipers nature, tarry 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 think M. Harding not worthy life. And that it is false, his own words are a sufficient witness, which say, he spake after the opinion of the learned men in Germany, and other where, who do all grant that their is no authority in the earth next under God above the authority of a Prince, and that in all causes, and estates ecclesiastical, and temporal, even as S. Peter saith: Submit yourselves unto all ordinance of man, whether it be unto the King, as unto the chief, or unto governors, as unto them that he sendeth. This supremacy which S. Peter graūteth unto the king, the papist will in no wise acknowledge, but will have the proud Pope to tread upon the Emperors neck, and Princes to hold his stirrup while he goeth to horsbacke, and wait bare foot at his gates, to abide his papal pleasure. Good Lord how was that world droonken with superstition? We give our Princesse hir authority, we submit our selves to hir government, she is the anointed of the Lord, and chosen chief ruler of his church of England, and God grant hir many years to reign, till the fretting envy be confounded in all flattering stomachs. That ever Master Jewel denied hir supremacy, it is doubtless an abhominable lie, foreged out of secrecy, because it should not be convinced by witness. But it shall not be a miss, because this thing cometh to question, to note what M. Jewel might say, and what the Prince must do. It is not unknown, what authority hath been given unto the Pope, that he hath rule both of heaven and earth, and he that taketh one jot of this authority from that church, is an heretic. And that he may not be judged, as Pope Boniface hath decreed, though he draw innumerable souls headlong into hell, and that he hath all knowledge in the closet of his breast, that he can dispence against the Apostles, and against the old testament, and that we must abide the yoke that the Pope layeth upon us, though it be intolerable, and that seat is apostolica sublimitas, even as high as the Apostles, and that quicquid statuit, quicquid ordinat, whatsoever the Pope appointeth, whatsoever he ordeineth, perpetuo, & irrefragabiliter obseruandum est, it must be observed forever, without any contradiction. Suche blasphemous authority given unto the Pope, made, that in the time of restoring the Gospel, even good men attributed more unto the Prince, then was convenient, and flatterers more then was to be borne with all, as in the time of the six articles Bishop Gardener, and his fellows, did unto King Henry the eight, when they gave him authority, in the church of God to institute or disannul Laws, as it lyked him best, to forbid the marriage of ministers, to deny the people the cup in the Lord's supper. The granting of such authority is flattery in the subject, & the receiving it, presumption in the Prince. The church is y ^e spouse of Christ, purchased with his precious blood, and joined unto him, even as a woman unto hir husband. The Prince is here a subject, and may set the church no Laws, but as hir head appointed. Christ doth sanctifye his church with the washing of water through the word, that is, with baptism, and the preaching out our justification in his free mercy, if the Prince say it shall be sanctified, with crossing, and creeping, with diredges, and Trentalls, with holy Bread, and holy Water, with Pilgrimage, and Bonfiers, the Prince is rebellious, and the Subject must yield his life. Then for a brief conclusion, if the Prince will make any new holiness, or forbid the minister to preach y ^e word, that is written, or if he will say we shall Prophecy no more at Bethel, because it is the Kings chapple, and because it is the kings Courte, it lieth not in his authority. Woe be unto the Prince, that shall be so led with error. But if the Princes will do nothing, but she will ask council at the mouth of God, if she will humble hir self under him as low as the poorest creature in the world, if she will set out his glory, and •• press the wicked blasphemies of the honorable, if Christ crucified for hir sins, be always pictured before the eyes of hir soul: then shall she run a happy course, and in the end have a happier garlande. If she should here of enemies, hir own conscience should make hir without fear, if all iniquity should stir us to rebellion, she should sit unmovable. The Lord hath placed hir, and who is he shall put hir down? She is a good nourse of Christ's mystical body, and no authority is alone hereof, yet in all this supremacy we tie hir unto the word of God, and as she hath regard unto hir own soul in the name of hir God, we charge hir not to go beyond it, In this is hir prerogative, that she can enforce other to this obedience, and no man can enforce hir. This supremacye Master Jewel did never deny, the popish supremacy no good man will grant. Let it then be contemned, wherewith Master Harding maketh up this tragedy, that we teach one thing at home, another thing abroad. After this usual invention he frameth a little Philosophy of his own, and then furthereth it on Epicure, wherewith he feigneth his comparison. Now let the indifferent reader judge, which of these is the wavering man, Master Jewel, that in his life hath gone not one hour back, or Master Harding, that many years hath preached contrary doctrine. Doutlesse had he lived in Seuerus time, notwithstanding this long apology, his armor should have ben pulled off, and he left naked in token of an apostata, and his adversary commended, that in all his life hath ben found so constant.

What fault so ever you find with my change, certain it is, all chaungs be not reproueable. He chaūgeth well, that changeth from evil to good. It is a happy change, that is made from error to truth, from schism to unity, from heresy to right faith, from contempt of Religion, to the love of Religion, from darkness to light, from pride to humility, from pleasing men, to study how to please God. Who so ever maketh this change, he is not to be accounted mutable, nor inconstant.

Hitherto Master Harding cannot deny his turning, now least it should prejudice his estimation, he thinketh good to commend it, true it is, he turneth well, that turneth for the best, it is better to return, then to run always evil, but whether you have made this turn, or no, it must be tried not by your word, but by the truth of God. The Prophet David doeth ask the question how one should turn aright, and doth answer him self, by taking heed unto God's word. Now I appeal to Master Hardings conscience, what part the word of God did work in his turning, he maketh continual crying out of the church, the church, but very deep silence of the word of God. Yet Christ saith, heaven and earth shall pass, before his word do pass. S. Paul saith: We may not believe an Angel, that preacheth any other doctrine. S. James saith: It is the word, that can save our souls. S. Peter saith: It is as sure, as the voice of God him self, that was herd from heaven, and what mean these men under a vain title of the church, so to neglect it? Christ promised to be with his church until the latter end of the world, but his word is his presence, not man's inventions, his Euangelies are our learning, not superstitious ceremonies. The days are now come, that we shall say no more, the ark of the covenant of the Lord, but by Christ alone we must make our prayers, and by him alone offer up the sacrifice of praise unto God, that is the fruit of our lips which confess his name. Therefore if you will make a good turn, you must turn to that church which turneth only unto him, and to the simplicity of his Gospel. But you have put on the adulterous attire of strange intercession, and clothed hir self with altares, and altare clothes, with Copes, vestimentes, Awbes, Tunicles, Curtaines, Sensors, Candlesticks, Crosses, and such other. You are not turned from error to faith, but from the church of God, to the synagoge of the devil. And for our own defense with the prophet David we make answer unto the blasphemers: Our trust is in the word of God. After this Master Harding findeth fault with to much constancye, and considering his own changes, would have it seme some commendation to turn up, and down a little. Then he bringeth in the examples of Arius, and certain heretics, which in their own opinion were found to obstinate, and compareth Master Jewel with them in willfulness, and otherwise speaketh contumeously against him, and for all this, will be judged by his Rejoinder. Now consider good Reader what manner of writing this is. In long talk before he required that his doings might be weighed, and doubted not, but Master Jewel should be found the more unconstant. Then fearing that he could not color the great difference between them, excuseth his own turning, as though he had done well. Now that his writings might be as unconstant, as his life hath ben, he overthroweth quite his first accusation, and confesseth that Master Jewel hath ben as obstinate, as ever was Arius, or any heretic, which had rather die, then in any point to seme to relent. If this be true, where is all that a do which was made about the six articles, and I know not about what subscription? O M. Harding, oportet mendacem esse memorem, it behooveth a liar to be mindful. Give Lord understanding, and M. Hardings writings shall need no answer, one leaf doth confute another. Concerning these examples, which he useth, it appeareth, that as in these tragedies he hath set apart all honesty, so in mani places he hath more show, than learning. How can this saying agree with it self, some had leuer suffer death, then to seem at any time to have ben out of the way, they use examples of Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius, Eutyches. Did not diverse Arians subscribe in the Council of Nice, and made open protestation, that Arius held the same faith, which the Council set out? And did not Arius himself make the same profession, both in word, and writing unto Constantine the Emperor, after his return unto Constantinople ? Did not Macedonius so use the matter, with Alexander B. of Constantinople, that when he died, he commended him to be his successor, and after set up by the Arians, and deposed by the Emperor, did he not quite forsake his Arian heresy? Did not Eutyches, cited to the Council of Constantinople, send one in his room to subscribe to the faith of the Ephesine, and Nicene Councils? Did not Nestorius cry in the open council at Ephesus, Dicatur Maria Deipara, & cesset haec molestia, let Mary be called the Mother of God, and let this trouble cease? Thys I have shown, that it might appear, howe fitly M. Harding doth apply his examples. Now his writings standing thus, sometime without learning, often ill agreeing, and most commonly without honesty, what skilleth it in this behalf, if the Reioynder sit in judgment? They say, a scabbie horse is good enough for a scaule Squire.

I say not only as you do in your preface, but in this Reioynder I do manifestly prove in due place, some Doctors by you to be untruly alleged, some corruptly translated, some perversely expounded, some guilefullye applied, their woo • des sometimes abbridged, sometimes enlarged, sometimes altered, sometimes dissembled. With these false sleights you burden me in word, & with the same here I have charged you in deed. Sundry ancient fathers, which you deny, by good authority I have avouched. Your own childish arguments, falsely, and fondly by yourself devised, and fathered upon me, I have wholly contemned, and so returned them unto you again. For the .45. Vntruthes, which you pretend to have noted in my answer touching your first Article, I have returned upon you .225. noted in your Reply of the same Article. Those which you impute unto me, be now already partly, and may shortly be justified. And therefore proved not to be untruths at all. Yours you shall never justify. When you attempt it, you shall do it, but with a multiplication of infinite other untruths.

Now M. Harding, as he is witty, seeing it is not all gold which he hath made to glister, and fearing least his colors might be rubbed away from his writing, upon good courage saith boldly, he hath spoken nothing, which he will not prove in his Reioynder. Much after such a sort began Cyclicus the Poet, fortunam priami ca •• abo, & noble bellum, and when Cyclicus hath made an ende of his Iliades, M. Harding shall be as good as his word. He chargeth M. Jewel with corrupting the fathers, yet in all this Reioynder, as appeareth by his untruths, he is not able to convince one authority of falsehood. He saith, there is no proof in M. Jewel's Preface, yet in his own Epistle, here is neither truth, nor honesty. The childish arguments he will pass over with silence. So he doth in deed many of them, and a great piece of this first article beside. Where no show of answer may be had, silence can do least harm. But Master Harding, though he say it, yet perhaps will not stick much in this. Upon entreaty he will yield unto us true allegations of the Doctors, and will stick to take unto him his Arguments again, but touching the .44. untruths, in that he will never yield. They are all justified, and shall be justified, and .225. returned upon Master Jewel, which shall never be answered, and if we but attempt it, we shall but multeply moe Untruthes. But soft, good Reader, be not a fearde of vanity. I remember a certain Lacedaemonian, that when he saw one tying together longe circumstances of speech: Now I make God a vow said 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 own Untruthes, he saith are all justified. Yet Master Stapleton confesseth that in one place Master Harding was overseen. I have returned saith he 225. untruths, yet he hath turned someone of thē .7. times. If he had served them so all, he had returned above fiftene hundred, and these, as he saith, cannot be answered without multiplying of mo untruths. How true this is let the reader judge. Sure for my part, if it be so, I will revoke that I have written. But this I must forewarn them, I do not take it for untrue, to say their Pope is Antichrist, and their Mass Idolatrous, and their church a synagogue of iniquity. If otherwise I make any untruth▪ either in misconstring the word of God, or falsifying other men's authority, by God's grace, when I shall understand it, I will revoke it, but my conscience is yet clear, I have written nothing deceitfully.

Since it is thus, the best advise I can give you, is first, to consider better of these matters, and to call to your mind, what hath moved you to enter so far. Next, how faithfully you have dealt in the same. Then what reward you may look 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 manner of old buyldinges is to have wide ruinous kitchins: yet thou shalt do well to read it, to learn to take heed of such manner doing, and although the filthy synckes be somewhat loathsome at the first, yet by the grace of God the savor shall not infect thee. First saith he, what moved you to enter so far. Doublesse Master Harding the free mercy of God the father, poured upon him through Jesus Christ, & this was the efficient cause. His ende was to glorify God, that God might glorify him again, for his faithful dealing. It hath ben such as flesh, and blood could suffer. That which is wanting shall be accounted unto him by the merit of his savior Jesus Christ. The reward that he looketh for, is not of merit, but of grace, and it is the inheritance of that kingdom which was the portion of God's chosen, ordained from y ^e beginning. Now these beginnings being thus, Master Hardings further running can be but hastening to new lies, what so ever he shall further say of Master Iuells profession. These other ungodly words, y ^t came after, full of much bitterness, are not worthy answer. Everyone may invent them, that delighteth in evil speaking, and they cannot carry any good man to mistrust.

If this council cannot sink into you, if neither this, nor any other the like advise shall take place with you: what is my parte to do, but to leave you to yourself, and to the will of God?

After sundry ways atempted, how Master Harding might bring our doings into suspicion, at the last very modestlye he doth leave us unto God, but by and by he breaketh out again, he cannot suppress his coler, and for a full proof that all his fayer speaking is hipocrisy, he raueth straight so out of measure, that he doth exceed him self, not proving any thing, but as if his word were Apollos oracle, he presumeth without controlle to speak what he listeth, and goeth away so fast in his frothy matter, that contrary to his wonted cunning he forgetteth how to speak, for after a great heap of words, of which everyone according to his number doth specify a new untruth, he writeth thus. Leave to do as not only through your whole Replye, but also through your first article you have done. Who ever spake after this manner? what writer? what scholar? what child? when 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 after 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth signify nothing. This phrase of Master Hardings shall be allowable, but that surely he shall not only never prove, but also not before he set out his next book. After this vncomelye speaking he bringeth in very absurd matter, and chargeth Master Jewel, because he bolstreth up his Religion with the authorities of late writers. Yet where Master Harding bringeth one sentence out of the old fathers, give me leave in a doutfull matter to use one of Master Hardings guesses, Master Jewel, I think bringeth twenty. But what forceth he to speak, 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 heap, as your manner is, leaving what toueheth the point in controversy, and taking parte that being put alone and besides the rest, seemeth to have less force.

It were hard to find such another Caligula, that so approveth this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a shamlesse behavior in him self. He chargeth Master Jewel with culling out of sentences who layeth forth his whole answer word for word, and findeth no fault with him self, that skippeth at adventures, sometime two leaves at once, and answereth not a word. Again, about this he useth a heap of vain words, as though in much bibble babble all controversy were decyded. This manner of writing doeth make me remember a certain Lacedomian, which took a nightingale, and pulling of hir feathers, when he saw hir little body, thou art even a voice said he, and nothing else, and surely Master Harding is but a nightingale take away his feathers, that is his gaye words, and there is nothing but a little withered carcase vnderneth. He accuseth Master Jewel of a childish wit, but with how childish a judgment, who seeth not? I will make no comparison of the man, he hath nothing, which he hath not received, if any man do not think him as well learned as any English Louanist, if Apollo might awarde him his hire, he should have Midas ears. It forceth not what correction Master Harding useth to discredit his Reply. All the learned men in England will seal it with their judgment, y ^t it showeth a rare replier. He talketh of burning it, and no doubt him self would carry a fagot to help make the fire, but it is cast in a good moulde and shall keep his fashion, notwithstanding this rabble of new carpenters that would disfigure it.

Remember Master Jewel, it is the cause of God, you would seme to treat. God hath no need of your Lyes. Leave wrangling, ieasting, scorning, mocking, scoffing. Contend not about words, and syllables, forsaking the matter. Obscure not the truth with vain Rethorique, overwhelm it not with your abundance of words. Bring not confusion to the matter, when it is clear of it self, make not show of victory, where you are least able to answer. Make not your reader to laugh, where he would be taught. Affect not so much to be pleasant, seek rather to be a true handler of God's causes. Put not the hope of your victory in the coldenesse of your Adversary, but in the truth of the matter. Refuse not to stand to their judgment alleged against you, whose witness you bring for you. Allow not a writer in one place, condemning him in another place.

Now sure if Mayster Harding were a boy in the Grammar school for this pretty tale he deserved to go to play. I have not seen one in copia verborum vary a sentence more handsomely. And how shall all this be answered? Even as Cleomenes answered the Ambassadors from Samos, to such a long oration of so little purpose, the whole hangeth so loosely, that the beginning I cannot remember, and therefore I understand not the midst, but such things as are in the end are altogether disallowed. For Mayster harding saith in the ende, he is a cold adversary, if he mean cold in religion, it may be well granted, if otherwise cold, it may not be allowed, look what heat of words either will, or ability can utter, in his Epistle, and Reioynder, there is nothing wanting.

If you will use the testimony of the Schoolmen, and Canonists, consider it to be reason, that you subscribe to their faith. It is well known unto you, they be catholic in doctrine, as whom therefore you account for Papists. Yet whoever alleged them so thick as you have done, though to no purpose, in your Reply? It seemeth you were desirous to show all your wares at one market. Use their testimonies, and believe them. If you believe them not, what mean you to use them?

Now Master Hard. hath gone well forward in untruths, as the violence of his nature draweth him, he falleth into a paradox. If you use a man's authority (saith he) it is reason you subscribe unto his religion. What reason is there in these words? or who would speak thus, that knew what to speak well? Doth not Mayster Harding mean to blind the eyes of the simple, when he will adventure to speak such monsters? or hath he not little to say, where he taketh hold of this? Christ used the testimony of the Scribes, and Pharisees, of Pindarus an Ethnike Poet. S. Paul of Epimenides. Yet it is no reason Christ should subscribe to y ^e Jewish religion, Paul should become an Ethnike, I need not make this long by examples, they are in manner infinite everywhere to be found. But because Mayster Harding maketh this so strange, I must put him in mind of a saying that Tully useth against Verres: Tuum testimonium, quod in aliena releue esset, id in tua, quoniam contra te est, grauissimū debet esse. The witness which in another man's matter were little worth, yet in thine own, because it is against thyself, it must be of great authority. Now surely this saying of Mayster Harding is very gross. But yet ludus, & iocus, prae vt huius rabies quae dabit. It is nothing, if you compare it with that which followeth. He biddeth Mayster Jewel leave off to fill his readers ears with vain, & false fables. Now Lucullus may have leave to speak like Cato. & Antony to accuse Tully, for placing shakebucklers in the Capitol. Gracchus may speak of sedition, and Verres may reprove men of theft. Master Harding doth find fault with fables. I must answer as Tully doth: O miserū sieve 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 shamelessly unto his readers. Mayster Jewel hath not one tale to prove any article. Master Harding and his companions have above one hundred thousand to prove their religion, and howe could it be otherwise, when the Legend it self, whence they fet their divinity is nothing but lies. After this, because Mayster Harding can espy never a fable avouched by Mayster Jewel, he thinketh good to charge him with that, he saith not, whereby such as will believe him on his word, may think at the least he hath brought somewhat for himself, and upon some such consideration this he telleth forth his tale.

Whereas you make so much ado with me for one vision of S. Basil, which nevertheless is reported by men of good credit, remember your own self are not able so well to justify youre own fables, which you tell at the beginning, as that Pope Gregory, whom you had rather call Hildebrand, was a Necromancer, and a Sorcerer. that Emperor Henry was poisoned in the Communion bread, that Pope Victor was poisoned in the Chalice.

Here, Christian reader, thou hast four lies in four lines. First saith he, Mayster Jewel findeth much fault with me for one fable, that is one lie, for Mayster Harding hath many fables, one out of Abdias. diuis. 5. another out of Leontius. diuis. 32. the third out of Amphilochius, diui. 33. beside all the allegations out of other petty Doctors. This is then one untruth, forasmuch as M. Hardings words seme to acknowledge but one fable. The second lie is, that it is reported by men of good creedite, and that is not so. Vincentius, and Antonius are of little better credit in their histories, then Arthur of little Britain. I have not numbered their lies, but sure it is, neither of them have so few as a thousand. For trial, read the books, and if thou go ten lines without a lie in Antonius, thou must light upon the cover, and in Vincentius thou shalt not seek much further. These Authors then are not of good credit. The third lie is, that master Jewel is not so well able to justify the histories of Victor, Henry, and Hildibrand. For he can hardly allege any of less credit then Vencentius & Antonius. But let the defense of the Apology be a trial of this matter. The fourth lie is, that these fables are Mayster Jewel's own. For he doth not so much as once say they be true, but only writeth that this it is reported, and he allegeth Hermannus contractus, neither in that place doth Mayster Jewel care whether they be true, or no. But Mayster Hardings tale of Amphilochus is soothly avouched, set out with many circumstances, and made a solemn proof of his private Mass. Yet I have heard many better tales told by old women of Robin goodfellow. Then the warest council that I can give him, is, if he will further his Mass, let him speak no more of fables. The residue of this Epistle, which is very little, is concerning certain untruths, which are answered in their places, the manner and form of writing is still like it self, full of uncomely words against the Reply. At the last he concludeth thus.

If men be not utterly blind, and as I may say, so bewitched with the spirit of error, and lying, as to believe whatsoever you say, be it true, be it false: I doubt not but after they shall have read my Reioynder, and what is written by others here of late, in their judgment your Reply shall find small credit. Now to ende. If you fear not God, to whom of so many untruths you shall give account, yet reverence man, of whose worldly estimation you depend. For my parte, I shall pray, that either God move your heart to repent, and amend, or that he give the people grace not to believe you.

It is true which our Savior Christ hath said, the time should come, when if it were possible, the very elect should be deceived. For who can see these bold asseverations, which M. Harding useth, and the great assurance he pretendeth for his Religion, and would not think, that the word of God were his warrant. But be not deceived. Such confidence is not strange, neither toward God, nor man. Cossutian in no wise would fear Caesar. And Rabsaketh the Capitaine of proud Sennacherib, said the Lord • ad him come to destroy Jerusalem, the Grecians have a proverb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , some man's mind may as hardly be pierced as A • ax Buckler, and the Scribes said, we know that God spake with Moses, but this man, we know not, what he is. But Theog •• s saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by foolysh persuasion I am undone. And our Savior Christ. Even Moses, in whom you trust, he shall accuse you. So that if Mayster Harding had this confidence, he would seem to have, yet had he not the truth. But even as the Prophet said, we might say of him, posuit vt Adamantem cor suum, he hath made his heart even as the Adamant stone. But his vain assurance shall be as the dust, that is blown away with the wind. Thoughe he say, peace, peace, yet there shall be no peace. Though he cry, the Church, the Church, yet their wicked Sinagog is not the Church. The proud City did say, I am, and none else. Yet was she sin, & iniquity, and nothing else. The Prophets said sword, and famine shall not be in this land. Yet by sword, and famine those Prophets were consumed. Since then it is so, that the wicked may have this vain trust, let us not be deceived with either bold, or entysing words. Let us not be wise in our own conceit, let us lay no foundation of our faith, other then is already laid, but let us look after Christ Jesus, and learn what is his will, let us search in his holy word, and seek what is our wisdom. So shall neither the spirit of error violently draw us captives, nor vain imaginations lead us away. We shall be followers of Jesus Christ the righteous, and we shall walk as they do, that have him for their example, we shall care for those things, that are above, and we shall have our conversation in heaven, from whence also we look for a Savior, even the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall make our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, which time for his mercy sake he vouchsafe to hasten, who of his mercy hath ordained us unto that kingdom, where he liveth one God, and three persons, the father, the son, and the holy ghost, to whom be all honor, and glory, world without ende. Amen.

Mayster Harding maketh his first entrye with a Cauill.

The .1. untruth. It is no Cauill.

N OW MAISTER HARDING hath so diligently examined this first article, & searched out, as he saith, many, and great untruths, I must crave of thee which art the indifferent reader, to yield unto those things, which he cannot blame: and to acknowledge it for true, which he cannot control. Of this shalt thou have this great benefit, that when thou hast duly tried all that is written, thou shalt cleave in the ende to the truer part, and find the salvation of thine own soul. Read them with an indifferent, judgment, and believe as the spirit of God shall move thee. If Mayster Harding say true, that in this first article there be .225. untruths, for my part I crave no parcialitie, say boldly Mayster Jewel is not, as he pretendeth. But if this be false, and Mayster Hardings report be altogether slanderous: then pray that he may soon repent, and confess that godly, and learned Bishop, to be a faithful laborer in the harvest of the Lord.

This first untruth is that Mayster Harding in his answer beginneth not with a Cauill. The question is moved, whether within the space of .600. years after Christ, there were any private Mass. Mayster Harding maketh answer, that every Mass, concerning the oblation, and Communion is common, as likewise it is concerning the first institution, and will of the Priest, But in consideration of place, time, audience, purpose, rites, and other circumstances, it may be private. The untruth lieth, whether this answer be a cavil. Here we may answer two ways. One after the common use of speaking, another after the nature of the word. For our common speech it is certain, we call that a cavil which is a drawing of any word known well enough, into a strange signification, as Mayster Harding useth here his Mass. For who knoweth not that by private Mass, we do mean that, which the priest practiseth alone at the altare? Now here to come in with this distinction, which (I ween) never before was heard of, what is it else but to Cauill? Thus if we follow the common speech of men, this is no untruth. If it like M. Harding to stick unto the nature of the word, let us examine it, and so see whether this distinction, be a Cauill. Cauillatio, saith the Lawyer, est subdola ratio, quam conscij nobis mendacii proferimus, a Cauill is a subtle reasoning, which we our selves know is false, but yet we use it. Now if this distinction be false, and that Mayster Harding know well enough, then is it manifestly a cavil. The distinction is this. Every Mass by institution, will of the priest, oblation, & communion, is common, as touching persons, place, time, &c. it may be private. Now first whether the Mass by institution be common. Gabriel Biel saith, as touching the substance, and first institution of the Mass, there is nothing necessary, 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 times, whether any be present or no, Missa rite celebratur, verum est sacrificium. The Mass is truly celebrate, there is a true sacrifice, therefore Mass by institution is not common. If Mayster Harding will reply, and say, that even in such Masses, the sacrifice is effectual to the whole Church, and so the Mass is common, that answer were very childish, and would breed dissention in their own church. For both G. Biel denieth it in plain words, and the thing it self altogether disagreeth. Biel saith, impeditur tamen fructus, eo quod inordinate, & indign consecratur, & sumitur, though the Mass be a true Mass, yet there is no fruit of it, for as much as consecration, and communion are unorderly, and unworthily ministered. And for the thing it self, M. Harding knoweth the benefit of his Mass is so applied, if their be one to answer in the name of the people, but in these Masses it is not required, that any one be present to make answer. It followeth then, that some Mass by no means is common, and so Ma. Hardings distinction is a cavil. I pass over for brevity the beginning of this Mass, how it hath nothing of the Apostles. And before the sixth Synod of Constantinople no part of it was ever song in Latin, but this spoken of Biels authority, is proof sufficient for this present purpose.

The seconde thing that we have to consider, is whether the Mass be common by will of the priest, or no. And this question though it be hard to decyde, yet we may have some probable conjecture, why the priest doth not always mean to bestow his deuocion upon every man. We have had a common proverb, rising upon the disagreement of the priest, and the lay man, that upon the displeasure conceived, we would say one to another. Let him never be in thy Memento. If as the Philosopher saith, the voice of the people be the voice of nature, then it is certain, that sometime the priests will was, to abridge the commodity of this common Mass, and in his Memento to seclude some from this common benefit, so that even in this point Mayster Hardings distinction is a mere cavil. Again concerning this will of the priest, I might ask of Mayster Harding, what manner of Masses Pope Gregory the .vii. said, y ^t minded nothing more than sorcery, or the priest, that poisoned Pope Victor the third in the Chalice, or such priests as I have known some in Cambridge, that when they have played all night at dice, in the morning being called away to Mass, have sworn a great oath, that they would make hast, and come again. A man had need to know his conditions well, that would ground his Religion upon the priests intent. Thus it appeareth, that neither by institution, nor will of the priest, every Mass is common. Concerning the oblation, and communion, how can they be commō, when in some of their Masses they have none at all. First, their is no oblation without bread, and wine, as the cannon of their own Mass doth command, and as Biel doth witness. But in some of their Masses y ^e use of wine is forbidden, as appeareth by pope Gregory, therefore in some of their Masses there is no oblation, or sacrifice. Then how can that be common, which is not? Likewise it is manifest in the communion, how can that be made of the priest, without bread, and wine? Now is there no excuse remaining, why this distinction being false should not be a cavil, except Mayster Harding will say, him self did not know so much. Yet if he do, that will not serve. For the very nature of a cavil is only this, vt ab euidenter veris res perducatur, that the matter may be brought to open falsehood. And thus much is said, for the exact discussing of the word, so that it is plain, both by the common speech, and by due trial of the very word, that Mayster Harding maketh his first entrye with a cavil.

For where the matter is agreed upon, it is folly to pick a quarrel upon the word.

The 2. untruth. It is not agreed upon.

Mayster Harding hath purposed to espy a great many of untruths, and fearing least they should not amount to their just number, he thinketh good where opportunity serveth, to make of one, either two, or mo. For where Mayster Jewel saith, this distinction of Mass, is but a cavil, because the signification of Mass is known: Mayster Harding here noteth two untruths, one, it is no cavil, another, it is not known. And what needeth this doubling, if through vain babbling he did not think to blind the eyes of the simple? Who ever would deny, both antecedent, and argument, both where they hang one of another. The noting of this untruth, is a good proof, that y ^e other was a cavil. Whether the signification of Mass be known or no, small proof will serve, let the world be judge. But why is Mayster Harding so pleased with his own distinction, that upon it, he will fownd mo untruths? Forsooth he is a defender of antiquity, and such distinctions are very ancient, more than 2000. year agone, Anaxagoras made such another, and stood stiffly in it, that snow was not white, because it was understand two ways. One as it was water in substance, & so it was black, another as it was congealed, & so it was white, but such deep fetches do not sink in shallow wits. Let us be content with plain understanding, & so it shall be known, that private mass is w ^t the priest alone, no man communicating with him, & snow shall be white still.

Every Mass saith he, is common, and none private. If it be so, then hath he already concluded fully on our side.

The .3. untruth. I say not so, but with addicion.

What addicions you make, only wrangling excepted, I see not. If there be any untruth in these words, the fault is your own, take it unto yourself. Mayster Jewel affirmeth nothing, but vpō your saying, that every Mass is public. He inferreth if it be so, then you have concluded on his side, you are not zealous for the truth, that would thus carry away your reader with trifling. Were your addicions never so good, and godly, yet Mayster Jewel's words might stand without misreport of your saying. But because we be fallen into these addicions, mark good reader, what manner ones they be. Euerye Mass, saith he, is common concerning both oblation, & communion. If it be so, then his Mass it self must needs be somewhat else, which Mayster Harding I am sure will not grant, and so unawares for greediness of an untruth out of time, he quite overturneth his untrue religion. For the whole substance of his Mass is nothing else but this oblation, and communion, these be the additions of his Mass, oblation, & communion, and all the other usages are referred unto it, without all which these four words hoc est corpus meum are a perfect Mass, as Mayster Harding himself, and also his own doctors do confess. In steed of many, it shall be sufficient to allege one. Clingius a great doctor 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 substance of the Mass are these words of Christ, this is my body, this is my blood. &c. all other things about the Mass, as prayers, ceremonies, vestments, gestures, crosses, and such other are not the Mass, but are ordained for the majesty and ornaments of the sacrament that the Mass might be said with all gloriositie. Now this being true, as most of their doctors confess it is true, what a monster will Mayster Harding make of his Mass, that teacheth the whole substance of it to be but accidēts, or as he calleth them addicions. And thus much, if it were true, that M. Harding spake not but with addicion. But now, what if he make no such addicion? what if he belie him self? what if his plain words be these, every Mass is common? is it not then a shame for him to say the words, and then to get an untruth▪ or to mock his reader. Denie them again? read the .112. untruth, thou shalt see these are his very words: I say not that every private Mass is common, but that every Mass is common. If these be his plain and express words without all addition, every Mass is common, what meaneth he here to deny them? if they be false, well may he prove himself a liar, he can make no untruth in Master Jewel's words.

If there be no private Mass at all, then was there no Private Mass in the primitive Church, which was my first assertion.

The 4. untruth. I say not there is none at all. For there is private Mass, as private is taken in another sense.

This untruth standeth upon a distinction of private, and yet he telleth not how private is taken diverse ways. He hath forgotten his Logic, and therefore gesseth out blind distinctions at adventures. We talk of his mass, and how can that be private mo ways than one. If none receive but the priest, then that which should be the communion, is private to the priest alone. If he have other company, then is there no private Mass, that his Mass standeth in the oblation, and communion. What this distinction hath other but deceit of the people, a clowdie show of a little mystery, and in deed a blind imagination, no man, I trow, but Master Harding can see. But a short answer will serve this untruth, his own Rejoinder doth sufficiently confute it. He saith plain no Mass is private, & that saying he yet avoucheth. But he denieth that he saith none is private at all, and what a childish asseveration is this in a doctor of divinity. I speak not this in debasing of M. Hardings learning, which I confess is good, but so are God's judgments, where is the wise man, where is the scribe, when God doth confound their understanding. If these propositions are one, there is no private Mass, and, there is no private Mass at all: whereto is this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 this vain repetition to make one untruth both the third, and fourth, and yet the same without any reason? If he think that in these propositions, those words, at all, do make any difference, to much malice hath changed his understanding. Well knoweth he, that in a negative proposition, the latter word is always universal. 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 Logic: in omni negante enunciatione attributum universe capitur. Many such untruths would soon shame the fault finder.

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

The .5. untruth. In that place I speak not hereof.

This untruth is soon decyded. Read the place, if Master Harding say true, then is this an untruth. If he say otherwise, such impudency will wound his credit, even among his friends. Read. Art. 22. diuis • . 3.

He saith these matters were never taught in open audience, but privately disputed in the schools, and set abroad by learned men in their private writing.

The .6. untruth. I say not so, but otherwise.

There is nothing so plain that impudency and boldness will not affirm. But it is well, that the book may be the judge. Read. Art. 22. diuisi. 2.

As touching Mass, sometime he maketh it the sacrifice, sometime the Communion.

The .7. untruth. I never said the Communion to be the Mass.

Yet well worth Master Stapleton, that thus beginneth his .7. slanderous untruth, the Mass & the Communion is all one. Alow this doctors judgment, and I will soon prove Master Harding a fond man. For this Master Stapleton writeth against master Jewel, you do fondly to make any contradiction between them. Here master Harding saith you say untruly, that you do not make a difference between them. Belike whatsoever master Jewel say, they are at a point it shall be controlled. Yet more warenesse in such unequal doing, would not be amiss. This great disagreement between D. Harding, and master Stapleton, is a discharge for the B. of Sarisburie, that this is no untruth. It is not good for them to meddle anymore with this. They must take heed how they endaunger one another's credit. If one of them upon good advice, would forsake the others evil company, he would disclose so much conference, that not so much as M. Shacklocke could be blamed. But M. Saunders, & Harding should have rebuke.

But if his Sacrifice be common, why doth he give it these private titles, this for the living, this for the dead.

The .8. untruth. I give it not these titles.

If Master Harding doth not give it these titles, then can it not be denied, this is an untruth. Yet what occasion master Jewel had to report them, for his better discharge, I think it good to admonish thee. In the Canon of master Hardings Mass, when Jack an apes is at all his gestures, the rubrick, that maketh all the sport, doth bid the priest, sometime to bestow his deuocion upon himself, sometime upon his parishioners, sometime upon his father, and mother, sometime upon those that are by, sometime upon all men, and at the elevation of the Chalice, the priest saith. Offero pro peccatis meis, pro salute viuorum, requie defunctorū. I offer this for mine own sins, for the health of the living, for the rest of the dead, and for whom soever it liketh the priest. This being commanded to all Massing priests, who would not think, that master Harding did observe the same. But perhaps his great acquaintance with Amphilochius his Basel, he would fain say Mass after his own fashion. Let him yet remember, nisi quid rubrica vetarit, he hassards his whole consecration, if he go any whit beyond his commission. And here I trust master Harding will make no difference between M. Jewel's saying, and the commandment of his Rubric. If he think these words are not plain enough, Gabrel Biel will help out even to the utmost. For thus he writeth. Whatsoever our savior did merit upon the cross, generally for all men. &c. Hoc sacrificio applicatur particulariter singulis ▪ by this sacrifice it is applied particularly to everyone. And in another place, defining more exactly of this matter, he saith, Non potest ex aequo, & aliis, & primo, in eodē applicare gradu, he cannot equally apply his deuocion upon him, for whom he especially saith Mass, and upon other. Lo, here we are expressly taught, that the sacrifice hath these private names, this for one, this for another. Yea, and here they move a learned doubt. What if he that have hired the Mass, will not have others partakers of it. Biel answereth, recurrendum est in hiis casibus ad iudiciū viri sapientis, in such cases we must have recourse to some wise man. But what need so deep philosophy, to search out so plain a matter? It is the usage of their whole Church, and the doctrine of all their preachers, that the sacrifice may be applied to one or other, even as the priest will. And where their Mass book biddeth that the priest break the host in three pieces, and hold two pieces in his left hand, and one in his right, the mystery of that device is this, that one piece, I trow that in the right hand, be for them in heaven, another for the living, the third for them in purgatory. I grant this is but a foolish device to fancy any sacrifice for those in heaven, yet so it is, & so they teach. Whether master Harding say Mass as he is commanded, or no, that no man, I trow knoweth but himself, his breach of order may be no good proof of an untruth.

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

The .9. untruth. It is no error to say it is a feast.

Master Hardings word, is no very good warrant, therefore it shall not be amiss to see his reason. As a dinner may be a good dinner, saith the Rejoinder, though the gestes do not come: 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, Master Harding hath caused it to be printed in the margin. This argument by like is very plausible among them. With such another did master. Bonner once prove transubstanciation, but because whatsoever that wise man speaketh, is not straight way reason, I would gladly know of master Harding this one thing, whether that be a good dinner, when neither the gestes come, nor yet any good meat is prepared? All men know that such a banket they make of their Mass. There is nothing at all prepa • ed but for the priest alone. These weak untruths would have well borne some stronger reason.

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

The .10. untruth. This is reported by no true writer.

Or what if his will be to poison somebody, as Henry the Emperor was poisoned in the Communion bread, Pope Victor in the Chalice.

The .11. and .12. untruth. They died otherwise.

Well may this Rejoinder of M. Hardings be called a book of distinctions, & this great number of untruths .225. wranglings. For neither without a distinction can he defend one jot of his double Religion, nor without wrangling argue one untruth. It is reported, saith master Jewel, of Pope Hildibrand, that he was a sorcerer, of Henry the Emperor, and Pope Victor, • hat they were poisoned in the Cōmunion. Here cometh our late untruth maker of Louein M. D. Har. & where as nothing is affirmed, in his manner of multiplicatiō, he saith there are three untruths. The first of Hildibrand, the seconde of Henry, the third of Victor. Concerning the truth of these histories, pardon me good reader, though I dare say nothing. I cannot mend that which M. Jewel hath written, Read the defense of the Apology. God for his mercy sake preserve that good Bishop, to the accomplishing of many other such labors. As touching our present purpose. No man I trow, but Master Harding would have noted any untruth. Master Jewel doth only say, these histories are reported, and so they be, as thou thyself must needs confess. What if they be false? yet it is the error of the history, no untruth in master Jewel. What if no man defendeth Papistry, but enemies of God's word, and true religion, yet we may say, that Papistry is defended? We may say of Gargantua, that it is reported. Of the Legend of lies that they are written. Of Basils private Mass, that Amphilochius telleth it, and yet is there no controversy, but these are all lies. Then what if it were not, y ^e Pope Gregory were a conjurer, yet it is reported, yea, and thou thyself, good Christian reader, upon the sight of master Jewel's book, shall confess it was so. But here I must require of thee a little to consider, the vnegall dealing of these english Louanists. Master Harding in his answer speaking of Abdias, saith that he saw Christ in the flesh, that because it is altogether false, master Jewel noteth it for one untruth. Now cometh master Stapleton, and for the return of this untruth, he saith. If it be untrue the fault is in the author that so affirmeth, and not in master Harding. And yet master Harding speaketh this affirmatively, as though he would avouch it. And shall lying Abdias be a sufficient ground for master Harding, to say, this is true. And shall not so many good writers, be a warrant for master Jewel to say this is reported? Sure master Hardings own friends must needs wish, that either this had been vnquoted by himself, or that other vndefended by master Stapleton.

Or what if his will be to work feigned miracles, as Lira saith many are wrought in the open Church, to mock the people.

The .13. untruth: Lira saith it not. The .14. untruth. He saith not to mock the people.

We had even now three untruths in one sentence, if these were to many, in token of some moderation, here is one abated, and yet such success hath this untruthmaker in his collections, that even these two cannot stand with his honesty. This is master Jewel's allegation. Lira saith, many miracles are wrought in the open Church, to mock the people. Of these words thus doeth Master Harding gather two untruths. The first, Lira saith it not. The second, he saith not to mock the people. Here would I fain learn of Master Harding in the first untruth, Lira saith it not, what he meaneth by the word▪ it, if he do mean the whole sentence, why doth he repeat this piece, to mock the people, and so maketh another untruth, if he mean Lira hath all but this, why doth he note the residue for an untruth. If he mean that Lira never saith this, nor the other part, why doth he not mark mo untruths. The first, as it is one general, Lira saith it not. The other deducted particularly out of every word, as, he saith not there are many. He saith not there are many miracles, he saith not, they are wrought, he saith not in the open church. He saith not to mock, & so this last he saith not to mock the people. This would well have furthered M. H. number, to have had .vii. in steed of two, & sure the sentence hath no privilege, but that in every part, it may as well be broken off, as in this one. But since it is so, M. H. durst not note to many, let us examine these two, how good ground they stand on▪ Lira, saith Master Harding, saith it not. He saith not to mock the people. In these untruths my labor shall not be necessary. Lira himself must be master Jewel's discharge. Read then the place, thus he writeth. Similiter sit in ecclesia maxima deceptio populi in miraculis, fictis a sacerdotibus, & eorū ad haerentibus propter lucrum temporale, likewise it happeneth in the church, that the people are very much deceived through feigned miracles wrought by the priests, and their adherents for temporal gain. Let Mayster Harding deny it, and deny it, and deny it again, these are Liraes very words, let the book be judge. And what fault is there in master Jewel, who reporteth of Lira, that many feigned miracles are wrought in the open church, to deceive the people? Forsooth, saith M. Harding, Lira saith not that miracles are wrought. Yet Lira saith, similiter fit, in like manner it is done. Further, saith M. Harding, he saith not in the open Church, yet these are his words, in ecclesia, in the open Church, for what mean Gretian would deny, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the open congregation, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to call assemblies. Last of all, master Harding denieth that Lira saith to mock the people. Yet thus Lira writeth, maxima deceptio populi fit in miraculis. The people are very much deceived with feigned miracles. But it followeth in Lira, propter lucrum temporale, for temporal gain, and therefore, saith master Harding, it was not to mock the people. Now sure this is a very ill defense of his friends. Turpe lucrum res pessima, filthy gain is the worst of all thing. That it is, which hath laid to sale Masses, Dirges, Trentals, Dispensatiōs, Iubileis, Pardons, Indulgences, Purgatory, and all the Popes pedlarie. This defense the truer it is, the more it verifieth Mayster Jewel's saying. For he that hath pleasure in such gain, would have some pastime in the people's error. But I pray master Harding was all your miracles for gain? When S. Andrew saw dogs running after a hare, and suddenly made the dogs feet all cleave to the ground, what gain had he by it? When our lady came down from heaven and sowed Thomas Beckets hearne breaches, that hir priest might have leave to say Mass again, 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, who gave Thomas ever a grote for his labor? And that we may use your own example. What helped it Christ, or all his Apostles to come down from heaven and help Saint Basil to Mass, what was he the ritcher? or when all the Apostles came, some a thousand, some two thousand mile in less than a quarter of an hour, to see our ladies assumption, what got they by their hasty journey? And to come nearer home, among us, when Roodes were made sweat, or roll their eyes, or nod their heads, what gain was their in it? When Christ and our lady came down to walk upon the altar, when four angels came down to minister the Chalice unto the Abbot, when the Crucifix did walk from the sepulcher to the altar on Easter day in the morning. When twenty such other miracles were made, was it all for gain? Ten thousand have seen it, and never cost them penny. Then we our selves are witnesses, that sometime blind miracles were wrought only to deceive the people. Why therefore doth Mayster Harding note this for untrue, if the estimation of his honesty, the regard of his reader, the love of truth, or the fear of god, do move him, why doth he blame this allegation of Lira ? except as Thraso saith, he was never anywhere, where all men did not love him, to M. Harding thinketh no man will read his Rejoinder, that will not believe him. But what he thinketh, only God knoweth. Sure his doing hath very great suspicion of evil meaning.

Pighius acknowledgeth errors in the private Mass.

The .16. untruth. He acknowledgeth no errors in the private Mass.

Now master Harding beginneth to hew and mangle Mayster Jewel's words, and will not, as he is requested, lays them out plainly and so say against them what he can. But we must bear with greater faults then this, or else burn the Rejoinder. Therefore I will let his skipping alone, it is a good proof, he could not confute it. Let us see what is this untruth. Pighius, saith he, acknowledgeth no errors in the private Mass. Why then doth he not show us Pighius his words. He would, no doubt, if they had furthered his purpose, but it was good to conceal them. Some man will perhaps believe him on his word. In deed Pighius doth not say, there be errors, using this word, in the private Mass, but he speaketh plainly, that there are well nigh all manner abuses in it. These are his words, Quod si qui abusus in rem sacratissimā, & saluberrimam irrepserunt, velut irrepsisse plerosque non diffitemur▪ &c. What will Mayster Harding have us think that plerique is a few, or certain, or is this word so taken in Louaine. Sure I am that in the Romaines time, it signified a great sort, very many, the most part. I need not to use example. Every child of the Grammar school doth know it. But I think master Harding will not stand in this. He will deny that an abuse is an error, that is a simple shift in deed, and the saluing of one error with another. Erro, is unwittingly to be deceived, to fail, to go amiss, and error, or erratum, a fault coming of ignorance, and therefore it is called quasi deceptio, in manner a deceyuing. And Tully saith, Etsi aliqua culpa tenemur erroris humani, a scelere tamen liberati sumus. Although in some part as men we are deceived, yet we were free from any great offense, & in another place. Errauit, an potiùs insaniuit Apronius? Was Apronius deceived? nay he was rather mad. Hereby it appeareth that an error is but a small offense. Now if Pighius had said, there had been errors in the private Mass, he had said but little to the disproufe of it. But he saith there are almost all abuses in it, as no doubt it is a sink of all abominations. Abusus saith he, that is evil, dishonest, uncomely, wicked usage, not of ignorance, but of purpose, and malice. So Donatus saith, we use by right, and duty, we abuse with injury, which is a rooted vice. Vtimur cùm honor, abutimur cum iniuria. So Pighius granting Plerosque abusus in his private Mass, mean what he will thus he saith, that in his Mass of malice, of set purpose, of a wicked desire, God's people are injuriously abused. This do the very words enforce. Yet I do not think that Albertus Pighius did so mean it, though his tongue would not let his heart to lie, but as it were some injury to rack the word so far, so is it great folly to deny that it may well be englished errors. Yet about this untruth Mayster Harding maketh so great exclamations, as if he should declaim for the victory. Such Hercules buskins, he can apply to little legs, and make so great vaunts, where himself is furthest deceived.

The name of Mass is seldom, or never found among the Catholyke fathers.

The .17. untruth. It is often found among the old writers.

Note good Reader how this man feareth not to note untruths so his number may grow. This word is seldom found • aith, Master Jewel in the catholic fathers, it is found often, saith he in old writers, as though who soever were ancient, he were strait way Catholyke. Himself hath removed in the 21. untruth, certain commentaries of Jerome. And I must certify thee, there be other which notwithstanding their age, yet have no more authority than old Aesopes fables. Then notwithstanding Master Hardings note of old writers, yet M. Jewel's saying of the catholic fathers may be true. But I will not urge Master Hardings words, admit he meant no guile in the naming of old writers. How proveth he this untruth. He bringeth in .ix. fathers and counsels in which this word Mass is found, he saith he could bring three mo, that is .xii. in all. The old books which are written are almost infinite, so in .12000. books he can find that he seeketh for, but .12. times, yet saith he it is found often. Master Jewel granteth, it is found sometimes. Such untruths will soon shame the controller. Now this word Mass, or Missa, least it should beguile thee, for that it is sometime in catholic fathers, I will brieflye declare unto thee what it is, and in what sense it is found. That which master Harding calleth so often the Mass, as Basils Mass, Chrisostomes Mass, and James his Mass: in Greek it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which signifieth an open, or common function, and this signification it hath, as well in profane writers, as in the scriptures 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 saith Aristotle, he is occupied in the administration of the commō wealth, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to execute common offices. So 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the open worshippings, and service of their God's. In like sort it is used in the scriptures, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as they were openly preaching, and Saint Paul saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that I might be an open minister among the Gentiles, and this is proved by the Etimologie, or true explication of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quasi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , he that hath common business in hand. Hereby it appeareth that either M. Hardings Mass is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and so neither Chrysostom, nor James, nor Basil, nor the other Greek authors ever said, or named Mass, or if they did, the very word doth quite overthrow the private Mass. As touching the Latin word, Missa, we have to learn it, as the fathers said, remissa, for remissio, so also they said, missa for missio, that is a sending away, when in the primative Church such as were Novices in Christian faith, were sent away from the true believers, which was before the communion. And this appeareth by Saint Augustine, where he saith. Ecce post sermonem fit missa cathecumenis, manebunt fideles, venietur ad locum orationis. Behold after the sermon, the Novices are dimissed, the faithful shall abide, and shall go unto the communion. For so master Harding doth witness, that orationis in Saint Augustine doth signify, and in deed in this place it is true. Here have we three especial things to note, the craft, and subtilitie of Master Harding, and his friend Stapleton, who both, as it may be well thought, upon conference have aledged the same places out of doctors, and councils, where this word (Mis • a) is found, and yet neither have mentioned this place of Augustine. If they knew 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 Mass, was not then in use. Thirdly they did all communicate, and then where was private Mass? So this gorgeous show to blear the simple people's eyes, with the antiquity of this word Mass, is an invincible argument, whereby private Mass doth fall. Examine the places, that they themselves bring, thou canst not wreast any likelihood of private Mass out of them. Yet this is moreover to be noted that within .380. years after Christ, the word was never named in any probable author, whereby it sufficiently appeareth, that it was never known in Christ's time, nor in his Apostles after him. And thus much of this word Mass.

Clement was very lately found in the yle of Candie, by one Carolus Capellius a Venetian, written in Greek, and in these Countreis never heard of, nor seen before.

The .19. untruth. It hath been seen before.

Here Master Harding committeth three great faults, the one to charge master Jewel with an untruth, when he allegeth Peter Crabs authority, another for misconstruing those words which are plain, and common, the third for clipping of Master Jewel's words. For where he writeth it was never seen in these coūtreis, Master Harding quoteth his untruth, it hath been seen. But considering these poor shifts whereunto master Harding is driven, I will grant these words to be master Jewel's, that it was never seen. Who knoweth not that never here signifieth of long time or seldom, if it had been never seen, howe could it have been written? These gross gatherings in so fine a wit, needs must savor of malice. It is the phrase of all lāguages, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Saith Achilles, they did never wast my fertile fields in Pthia, & yet not many years before were great injuries done by the Troians, evē in Achilles country. So Agamemnon, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , O prophet of harms, thou never yet toldest me pleasant things. Yet it were much for M. Harding to say Calchas pleased not Agamemnon, when he foretold what time Troie should be destroyed. In like manner saith Euripides, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . There was never good son of an evil father, yet was Hezekiah good of wicked Ahaz. So in the common proverb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , more ancient than the world, we mean great continuance. We say the same in Latin. Nunquā tam palestricus praetor. There was never such a wrestling chief Justice, meaning very seldom. And in our english, I never saw such another. But what we mean by it, that in deed was never doubted of, neither is Master Harding so simple, that he knoweth it not, but he had rather speak against his own knowledge, then say nothing against Master Jewel. This is enough to any indifferent reader, to show that these untruths are but wranglings. But read the reply, and thou must needs confess it, were thou never so parciall. For Master Jewel himself allegeth Leo, Gelasius, & Bessarion, which disallow this book, and how could that be, if it had never been seen. These hasty untruths have yet little speedy success. Let us se the residue.

That they were written in Greek, and not in Latin, that they could be laid up in secrecy for the space of a thousand five hundred year, and more, and no man miss them.

The .20. untruth. They were known to the fathers.

It was very wrangling to begin that untruth, which common sense doth teach us had no falsehood in it, to persue it, that is great oversight, but to make two of it, that is extreme folly. They were kept in secrecy, saith Master Jewel, these 1500 years, and this is true, they were not openly known, as Master Harding himself doth confess, therefore they were secrete, and how could they have been secrete, except some had hid them, but why doth he not tell Master Jewel's tale hole? They were not known saith he in these countries. Master Jewel himself, as is aforesaid, doth allege Leo, and Gelasius, both Bishops of Rome, and Bessarion a cardinal, who all condemn the book. Read the Reply good reader, and thou shalt find it true, and how could they have done it, if they had never seen the book. This wrangling, this lying, this wicked Rejoinder, were it not that some ignorant man might believe it, it should not have one word answered. But God deliver us from such contagious poison.

Saint Jerome by the report of Eusebius saith, certain other books are abroad in the name of Clement, as the disputation of Peter, and Appion, which books were never in use among the fathers, neither contain they pure, and apostolical doctrine.

The .21. untruth. Saint Jerome is falsified.

It is reported of Brutus, that he was wont to say, he had spent his time evil that could deny nothing. M Harding perhaps to eschew this blame, hath prepared himself, when it pleaseth him, to deny anything. The fault that Master Jewel here findeth with Clement, is, that by the testimony of Saint Jerome his books are not pure, and apostolical. It is never a word so saith Master Harding. Saint Jerome is falsified. If Brutus were now alive, peradventure M. Harding might be commended. But because Saint John hath bid us not to believe every spirit, every bold asseveration must not stand for true. Let us see what Jerome himself saith, and we shall judge the better, whether Master Jewel's report be true or no. Thus he writeth. The old writers have quite rejected these other books ascribed to Clement. And Eusebius in his third book of the ecclesiastical history, doth reprove them. Now except Master Harding will say, that the Apostles writing is condemned of these old writers, and catholic fathers, or that Eusebius that good bishop of Cesarea reproveth their doctrine: Why will he not have his Clement to be accounted not apostolical, whom the old fathers reject, and Eusebius reproveth. The substance of such untruths do make the gatherer appear either ignorant, or evil disposed.

The .22. untruth.

Here Master Harding maketh one untruth jointly out of Saint Jerome, and Eusebius, where Master Jewel saith, Saint Jerome by the report of Eusebius saith thus. &c. M. Harding for the better multiplying of untruths, saith first, Saint Jerome saith it not, next, Eusebius saith it not, thirdly they say it not. Had he dwelt among the Lacedemonians, for this great talk of untruths, & little reason in showing them, he should surely have been accounted for a babbler. If we grant that his sayings are true, yet are these three but one untruth, and that not made by M. Jewel, but by S. Jerome. Thus we see when it pleaseth him, he will not understand, neither the common phrase of speaking, nor what is meant by plain sayings. Again when it pleaseth him, he will use more Logic, then either is true, or honest. Such a Proteus he is in his own understanding.

Clement is condemned by Gelasius.

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

Now Master Harding is come to his old compass. He denieth, he careth not what. Nothing shall want a bold asseveration, if his simple authority may prove any untruth, but let us not trust him, before we try him, so we shall know the better what Gelasius saith. His words are thus reported by Gracian. We have thought good to note certain books which are come to knowledge, and ought to be avoided of catholic people. First the council holden at Ariminum, gathered by Constantine the Emperor, the son of Constantine, by mean of Taurus lieutenant, from thenceforth, and forever we judge worthy to be condemned. Likewyse the Iournall of Peter the Apostle, bearing y ^e name of Clement. Eight books are secrete, unlawful writings. Now consider with these words of Gelasius, this book which for his Mass sake M. Harding doth so much defend. It goeth under the name of Clement, so doth that, which Gelasius condemneth. It containeth .viii. books, and so doth that. They are accounted Apocrypha, secret writings, and so are the other. Beside this Gelasius condemneth a book called the Iournall of Peter, and this Clement himself saith that S Peter willed him to write that book, but yet under this title, that it should be called the Iournall of Clement. And to conclude, those books condemned by Gelasius teach evil doctrine, and so doth this Clement. And shall Master Hardings plain words countervail so much likelihood? Well may those err, that needs will be deceived. But among the lovers of truth, such untruths will be very odious.

Abdias was conversant with Christ.

The .24. untruth. I say not he was conversant with Christ.

Master Harding may score up his untruths after what sort it pleaseth him, but any indifferent man must needs think that Master Jewel doth not falsify his words, when he layth them altogether even as they are written. If in repetition of any part of them he do mistake the meaning, such error deserveth very little blame. But because M. Harding is so far driven, that if he should let slip even the least advantage, he should sustain great loss of his whole cause: let us examine all that is reproved, and yield unto the utmost, that may appear faulty. I say not, saith he, that Abdias was conversant with Christ. But he saith he saw Christ in the flesh, and wrote diverse histories of the Apostles doings, at which he himself was present: of this to say he was conversant with Christ, is scarce worth the fault finding. Yet master Harding saith stiffly, he only saw Christ in the flesh, he was not conversant with him. By like he looked through the creuice with Eubulus, when Christ helped Saint Basil to Mass, and by that means Abdias could but see him.

Lazius saith that Saint Luke borrowed whole histories word for word out of Abdias.

The .25. untruth. Lazius saith not so.

Here is first a very grave note in a weighty matter, that M. Jewel nameth him Zazius, in steed of Lazius, as who say that every man must not needs know Wolfangus Lazius, that hath seen Abdias. False printing cannot blame the author, where wrangling is not in place. Lazius saith, either Saint Luke borrowed hole stories of Abdias, or Abdias of S. Luke. By this it appeareth Lazius is well content if you think S. Luke borrowed his writing of him. Now for the more contempt of so vain and fond a saying, Master Jewel may well report his words absolutelye, and ought not for that to be blamed with untruth. Yet let us admit that Lazius saying were sufferable. I ask of M. Harding, how a disiunctiue proposition may be improved without affirming, or denying one certain part. Besides this, it is no news to Wolfangus Lazius to speak sometime at random, when he should speak truth. He hath other wheres many absurdities, and some both slanderous and odious to rehearse, ywis by good account, a man may easily find more lies in his books, than frier Furius can challenge in Sleydaines commentaries, but let them go. For this present matter, Master Jewel either in contempt of this vain imagination, or for the more appearance of so great an absurdity, without any suspicion of untrue dealing, may before all good men report these words, as he doth.

He maketh many shameless lies, and saith that he was present with Christ, and at most part of the Apostles doings.

The .26. untruth. He saith not so.

If we mark M. Jewel's words well, we shall sufficiently be forewarned. As touching these untruths, he maketh, saith Master Jewel, many shameless lies, and saith he was present at the Apostles doings. Here master Harding can challenge no untruth, concerning Abdias shameless lying, but for his presence at the most of the Apostles doing, that saith he is nothing so. Let us take that which by silence M. Harding confesseth, and then if Abdias have many shameless lies, how can he further Master Hardings Mass? or if he have not, why is it not noted for an untruth? By like he thought that by speaking nothing of Abdias lies, they might be forgotten, and by calling them to trial, Abdias should be quite shamed. For my part I mean not to meddle with them, they are mo in number then in short time may be recited. Only I advertise thee to read the book, due trial shall be surest judge. As touching this present untruth, whether he were cōuersant with the Apostles or no, it maketh no great matter, what skilleth it, what he was, or what time he lived? It is small credit to Esopes fables, that the author lived in king Croesus days. Yet for master Hardings pleasure, let us see this untruth. He saith not, saith master Harding, that he was present at most of the Apostles doings. I answer that it is not necessary to be very scrupulous in reporting of Abdias his words, it is more then he deserveth, if we vouchsafe to recite his meaning. Thus much master Harding and Abdias do say, that he was the Apostles scholar, that he was present at the death of Saint Andrew, and Saint Thomas, & at the doings of Simon, and Jude, which were all Apostles, and of all this is it much, if we say that he was present at the most of the Apostles doings? Such is this Abdias. He hath deserved ill master Hardings friendship. His credit is so little, that he cannot further his private Mass. His doings are so unreasonable, that they cannot be defended without shame. But the proverb is verified, like will to like. An ill cause hath most ground in insufficient witness, and an ill patron is best content with unable authority.

It may be gathered by Saint Augustine in sundry places, that some part of this book was written by certain heritikes called the Manichees.

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

This untruth is little worth, and soon answered. It may be gathered saith Master Jewel. But saint Augustine speaketh not of Abdias saith M. Harding. It is true in deed saint Augustine doth not name him, for if he did, there needed thē no gathering. The thing were plain. It is an easy thing to find many untruths, if we make our adversary to say, what we list. Whether Augustine mean of Abdias or no, that shall be seen in y ^e next untruth. Here is nothing affirmed, but that he may seem to mean him, that this may be gathered M. Har. denieth not. That Abdias is meant, it must appear by the next untruth. So either master Harding maketh two untruths of one, as his manner is, or here speaketh nothing to the purpose (as he commonly useth.)

For he reporteth the fables of Saint Thomas, of Saint Matthew, of Saint Andrew, of the Lyon that slue the man that had stricken Saint Thomas, of the dog that brought the same man's hand to the table of Maximilla, wife unto Egis, and other like tales, even in such order, as they be set forth by this Abdias.

The .28. untruth. Saint Augustine nameth not Matthew.

The .29. untruth. He nameth not Andrew. The .30. untrue.

He speaketh not of Maximilla which Abdias meant.

M. Hardings untruths amount not yet to his mind. Therefore he thinketh it not amiss to quote them a little faster, vpō which advice, he maketh three in one periode, he might as well have said, S. Augustine mentioneth not these stories, and so have made but one, save that he loveth not such plain dealing. But the matter is not great, as short an answer will serve for all, as if they had been but one. Saint Augustine nameth not Matthew, nor Andrew. Mark good reader, this untruth. Master Jewel saith, Saint Augustine telleth the tales of Matthew, and Andrew, and so he doth, let the book be the judge. Master Harding saith, S. Augustine nameth them not, neither doth master Jewel say he nameth them, take away this much wrangling, and here is no untruth at all. But this we have to note by the way, for the better credit of master Hardings Abdias, that Saint Augustine condemneth those tales for lies, which Abdias telleth for a certain truth. Concerning y ^e tale of Maximilla, wife to Aeges, which master Harding saith is not reported in the same sort by Abdias, as it is by Saint Augustine, first we must know both Augustine and Abdias mean the same woman, as shall appear in y ^e .31. untruth. Then Augustine speaketh of hir, as of a foolish & vain tale. Abdias speaketh of hir doings, as of true, and weighty stories. Thus it appeareth though Saint Augustine do not name the parties, yet he agreeth in the tales, and when this shall be known, the .27. untruth shall be justified. That it may be gathered, Saint Augustine meaneth of Abdias, & these three latter untruths, which are but the proof of Master Jewel's coniectture, shall appear so good, that before the true Christian reader, the quoting of them shall seem but wrangling, and this new counterfeit Abdias shall be rejected, as a teller of dreams, and a lying writer. And for our great comfort, god will bring to pass, that when it shall be known to the indifferent reader, that Papistry cannot stand without such shameless doctors, they shall begin to learn, that it is a shameless doctrine.

Behold what things they be, that be written of Maximilla wife to Aegis, that she being once christened, would no more yield duty to hir husband, but set Euclia hir maid in hir own place, and other like fables. All these, and such like tales thus disallowed by S. Augustine, are reported by Master Hardings Abdias in great sooth.

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

Now is master Harding come, as he saith, to a great, and impudent lie, and such a one, as by no means can be excused, let the book, saith he, be judge. I do M. Jewel great wrong to write in his cause with so little diligence. But for this cause I do it, which I trust I shall well perform, that the unlearned should not be deceived. For the learned, be they not of will blinded, Master Hardings books cannot hurt them, he hath made so unequal a match. Thou seest good reader for the iustifiing of this untruth, whereat are made so great exclamations, one should read over all Abdias, which labor I lothed so, as if Amaras porrecto iugulo. &c. as Horace writeth, I should have stretched • ut my neck, and listened after bitter histories, yet when there was no remedy, I took the book, and in diverse places read so much I think as amounteth to one whole leaf or more, and of that little reading as I can, I answer. 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 maid named Iphidamia or Iphidama, so saith Abdias of his Maximilla, and hir handmayd Iphidamia saith Saint Augustine, went to go hear S. Andrew, and so did the handmayde in Abdias, and of all this I say as M. Harding saith, let the books be judge. Now reader I must crave thine indifferent judgment, see whether Augustine, and Abdias mean one Maximilla. If they do, remember Augustine saith, they be impudent lies, and Abdias doth tell them in great sooth. But saith Master Harding, Abdias and August. do not write a like of Maximilla. Sure it is the more like Abdias is a liar. But what if we say, Abdias did write, whatsoever Saint Augustine hath? Barre master Harding of his guesses, and he cannot confute it. John Faber, a great fabler of master Hardings side saith, that this Abdias, when he was found was all revealed, and without any fashion, full of faults, so that one could neither read him by understanding, nor understand him by reading. Then no marvel if some part of it be perished, and the book be not come wholly unto our hands, though Abdias say not every whit that is in Augustine. When master Harding can bring any piece of likelihood, how this agreement may be between them, and yet they mean not both one, then let this go for an untruth. In the mean season consider, whereto this shameless, impudent, and notorious lie is fallen, whereof he hath made such tragedies, and what the other untruths be, when so great account was made of this. This is it, that I said before, master Harding was little beholding unto Abdias. First, he could not pleasure him for his small authority, now he hath shamed him with this unshamefast defense.

Saint Augustine seemeth in diverse places to have given his judgment of this book.

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

Master Harding hath good liking in his own doing or this untruth should not have been noted twice. For the matter, there is enough said in the former untruth, the argument of the thing doth witness of Augustine's meaning.

The like judgment hereof is given by Gelasius.

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

Master Harding is so jealous over his Abdias, that in no case he will let him be spoken off. The book be like is so full of lies, that he is sure no man can speak any good of it. But how so ever he be affectioned, we must think of authors no otherwise, then we find them. He is not yet Pope, and therefore may err, his word is no good witness of another man's meaning. Gelasius whom so ever he meaneth, certain it is he may mean Abdias for the worthiness of the book. And whereas master Harding for some proof of his side, saith that he condemneth certain acts of Martyrs which are thought to be written by infidels, Gelasius hath not one such word. But where as master 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 honesty. First what kindred was between these two, it skilleth not much, but Iulita may as well be his daughter as his mother, for anything that Gelasius saith. But let the kindred go, master Hardings reason hangeth thus, Gelasius rejecting one hundredth books, among other nameth the passiō of Quiricus, ergo he rejecteth not Abdias, and this is all the reason on which he groundeth this untruth, read his Rejoinder. Now way on the other side, what cause Master Jewel hath to think Gelasius meant Abdias, and upon conference of either reason, this untruth shall be very soon answered. The second book that he condemneth is the acts of saint Andrew, Abdias doth write the acts of S. Andrew. The third is the acts of Philip, Abdias writeth y ^e acts of Philip. The fourth is the acts of Peter, Abdias writeth the acts of Peter. The fifth is the acts of Thomas, Abdias writeth the acts of Thomas. Beside this, he rejecteth the doings of Maximilla, and Abdias speaketh of Maximilla. Now let the indifferent reader judge, whether Gelasius meaneth of Addias, or whether master Hardings word, and misshapen argument may coūteruaile all these conjectures.

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

The 34. untruth. A burden of untruths.

If this be a burden of untruths, no doubt the substance of them is very little. For take away the .32. untruth, that Augustine meaneth not Abdias, and the .33. untruth, that Gelasius meaneth not Abdias, and except Eubulus come, that saw Christ help Basil to Mass, all this burden of untruths is like to be undone. As touching the untruths, there is enough said already. Whether they meant of Abdias, it appeareth that master Harding is to blind a judge to guess so boldly the contrary. Here I must put thee once again in mind of the numbering of these untruths. First Saint Augustine speaketh not of Saint Matthew, 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 joined, is but one true proposition, yet out of it after his manner of cutting master Harding hath carved .6. lies. And thus much of lying Abdias.

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

The .35. untruth. It could be read, else how could it be printed?

By guess. Why should not the printer have as much liberty in printing this little old book, as master Harding useth for proof of his whole religion? The Printer himself saith prae nimia vetustate vix legi potuerunt, for estreame age they could scarce be read. Now where as master Harding doth ask, how then could they be printed. I ask of him, how Abdias was printed. For of him his sorbonist Doctor writeth, he could neither be read, nor understand. An other might much better have moved this doubt then master Harding. He is not now to learn what guesses may do. But howe soever he was printed, sure this untruth was not worth noting.

It is judged by John Colet, and other grave men, that Dionysius cannot be that Areopagita, Saint Paul's disciple, which is mentioned in the Acts.

The .36. untruth. It is not judged so by John Colet. The .37 untruth. They are no grave men, that so judge.

These untruths cannot be good, that are made so fast, nor yet so many as the maker would have them, when one is told so many times. If this were untrue that master Jewel writeth, yet were it not two untruths, but one. But because there is no remedy, we will take them even as they fall out. As touching the former of these two it needeth no answer, Master Harding doth not deny it, but that John Colet hath both spoken it, and preached it, then what skilleth it whether it be written, his preaching is a witness of his opinion, though master Harding say nay. For this other untruth, that such other, as deny this Dionysius to be the true Areopagita, are no grave men: he is sure no grave man, that hath noted it. I may answer this with the words of Saint Paul, horum laus non ex hominibus, sed ex deo, these men's praises are not of men, but of God. Master Harding should not for his modesty sake have noted it for an untruth, to call the godly fathers of our age grave men. His belligods, Popes, Cardnals, Friers, Monks, Priests, & others of that ken • ll, have not so much labored in searching out the truth in five hundred years, as these other have done in fifty. But God hath given the increase, his name be praised forever.

As touching this Dionysius, whether we have his works, or no, it is a thing soon judged. How unlike is it, that the conversion of Dionysius should be mentioned by Saint Luke in the acts of the Apostles, yet he him self would not mention it once in all his works? or if this might be, yet what may we think of that, that in all his book he doth never so much as once name Paul ? May it yet be doubted, whether he be that Dionysius, which Paul converted? Besides this, S. Jerome making purposely a rehearsal of all ecclesiastical writers, speaketh not one word of this Dionysius. Other ancient fathers do never allege him, his own books are so strange fancies of many secrete mysteries, that sure it is, he is not the true Areopagita.

Saint James Liturgy hath an especial prayer for them, that live in Monasteries, and yet it was • erie rare, to have Monasteries built in all Saint James time.

The .38. untruth. There is no mention of such Monasteries, as we commonly mean, when we speak of Monasteries.

As be for Monasteries, as Monasteries are to speak of the things themselves as they are in deed, so to say of Monasteries as they be considered in this meaning of Monasteries, so Monasteries, and so forth, a man should go far that should follow Master Hardings wrangling.

Chrysostom's Liturgy prayeth for Pope Nicolas by these words. Nicolai & sanctiss. & vniuersalis Papae longa sint tēpora. We pray, God send Nicolas that most holy, and universal Pope, a long time to live. But Pope Nicolas the first of that name, was the seconde Pope after dame Ione the woman Pope.

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

Now Master Harding after he hath given so many offers, and maketh never a wound: he directeth his engines quite contrary, and assayeth if that he can give the Pope a blow. Pope Nicolas saith Chrysostom, that most sacred, and universal Pope. That is no good proof saith Master Harding that he meaneth the bishop of Rome. Here is a full subscription to the .4. article. The authorities alleged for the Popes supremacy are quite overthrown, to be called universal bishop is no proof of his supremacy. Had Master Harding well considered it, this untruth had been quoted some other where, but doubting that this be not answer good enough, he letteth it go, and granting it to be said of Pope Nicolas, thereupon he asketh this question. If Chrysostom might not pray for Pope Nicolas, how is the death of Moses described in the books of the law? There is no man, saith he, so hardie to deny that Moses wrote these books. Be not afraid, good reader, of these big words, nor of M▪ Har. daring. All this is soon answered. Either Eleazar, or Joshua wro • e the .34. Chap. of Deuter. And they might well write of Moses his death. Or if Moses wrote it, he knew it by revelation. For so he himself writeth. The lord hath said unto me, thou shalt not go over this Jordan. Sure of a doctor of divinity, this was a very simple question. If he can show any such revelation that Chrysostom ha • of Pope Nicolas, then let this be Chrysostom's Mass. The .40. untruth is concerning pope Ione, who never did the sea of Rome more dishonesty, then she hath stood master Harding in good steed. For both she helpeth out his Rejoinder with untruths, and maketh a great piece of his confutation of the Apology. But saith master Harding there was no such woman Pope. What skilleth it to this present matter, whether there were such a Pope or no. A filthy Strumpet is good enough for such a whoorish kingdom. If there were such a one, Pope Nicolas was seconde after hir. Whether there were or no, my profess are needless, my lord of Sarisburie hath resolved us in that behalf.

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

The .41. untruth. I say not so.

This is a proper untruth. Now by like Mayster Harding is non plus.

Thou seest Christian reader, what doctors here be brought, as master Harding saith, to ground thy faith and salvation upon.

The .42. untruth. I say not so.

If Master Jewel should so misreport master Hardings saying, as he himself for his untruths sake doth commonly use, then had he good cause to cry out both of misconstruing, and corruptions, for he will say, and unsay, and all with one breath, for to seek advantage. Thus he saith expressly, he hath brought these authorities for y ^e confirmation of thy faith. And again he hath brought these authorities for the stay of all Christian men's belief. See his book, thou shalt see the words. Thē why saith he not, y ^t he bringeth these authorities to ground thy salvation on? or how could he without blushing note this untruth? There is no other difference in the sayings, save where Master Jewel reporteth it to ground thy faith, Master Harding hath to stay, and confirm thy faith. If here be any difference, always wrangling excepted, let this be an untruth. And yet were there any, Master Harding speaketh plain enough in the confutation of the Apology. Thus he saith there. Are not these trusty men, to whom you may commit the charge of your souls for your faith, and salvation? These words I trow are plain enough to prove this no untruth.

It is the very express order of the Communion.

The .43. untruth. It is not so.

This untruth master Harding hath not in the text, but hath wrested it out of the margin, and because he thinketh that for the base matter it would be little regarded, to make us the more attentive, he beginneth with this admiration. But what meaneth Master Jewel. &c. But to quite Master Hardings wonder, I ask of him again, what meaneth he thus abruptly to rush into master Stapletons possessions? He hath taken upon him to return those untruths, and why doth master Harding meddle, 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 think master Stapleton hath returned it nothing cunningly, I do easily grant, that he is in deed a naughty workman, if he think by his labor it shall appear more beautiful, I must needs grant his turning is much better, but yet the matter it self is never a whit the truer. And for as much as the thing must try it self, let us somewhat better examine it. Master Harding saith in the .5. division of his first book, that Ciril hath expounded the Mass used in Jerusalem. Master Jewel noteth this for the .12. untruth, saying that Ciril expounded the communion, and not the Mass. Master Harding returneth this untruth again, saying it was the Mass, and not the Communion. I might with as great facility deny this again, and say it were the Communion, and not the Mass. But because my testimony were in this not of weight, I am content to be furthered with the witness of master Stapleton. He saith plainly, that master Harding brought not this for proof of the question, and that it maketh nothing for private Mass. But here Master Harding saith that it was a Mass. Therefore this untruth gathered by master Harding, is answered thus by master Stapleton, that it is not so, and till they agree better, a longer discourse of that place of Ciril is neither profitable nor necessary.

What if all these doctors testify against master Hardings Mass.

The .44. untruth. They testify not one word against it.

Master Jewel allegeth, James his Liturgy, Abdias, Justinus, Dionysius, Basil, Chrysostom, and Ignatius, read the Reply. fol. ii. of all these, saith master Harding, they be M. Jewel's buts, and therefore he will skip them over, and not answer a word, neither rime nor reason. What shameless demeanor is this in men, that profess to seek the truth? if we would do the like, howe soon would this Rejoinder be answered. It is an easy matter if this be enough, M. Harding must seek better stuff, this will not serve. Although in deed it be true, that this Rejoinder is all false, and ungodly stuff, yet seeing Christian people are so evil disposed, the falsehood, of this stuffing must be in some part disclosed. Howe much then should this discredit master Hardings religion, against so express authority to make so slender answer.

Hippolytus was lately set abroad in print, about seven years past, before never acquainted in the world.

The .45. untruth. He was well known before.

That man is well known, of whom most men have heard, or with whom many be acquainted. Now howe proveth M. Harding this Hippolytus is well known. Saint Jerome saith he named him. Surely this is a very small acquaintance to be named but of one man in all the world. Yet not this bastard Hippolytus, but that other bishop, and martyr is named of Saint Jerome. Such untruths have great savor of envy, or of folly, or of both. Since master Jewel saith that Hippolytus was never acquainted in the world, and Master Harding doth show but only that Saint Jerome did name him. This untruth, if truth were well regarded, should surely have been spared. Howe be it I grant, not only Jerome named Hippolitus, but other many. Eusebius speaketh of him: so doth Theodoretus, and allegeth diverse sayings out of his books. Gelasius, Epiphanius, and Niciphorus also have named him, and yet all these had but small acquaintance with him. Eusebius, and Jerome, and Theodorete knew not where he was bishop. Gelasius saith he was a bishop in Arabia, Nicephorus saith he was bishop of Ostia a haven town in Italy. Jerome saith Origen was stirred up by emulation of Hippolitus, yet it appeareth by sundry records, that Origen was made bishop of Alexandria .x. years before Hippolytus did write. By this it appeareth, that y ^e true Hippolytus, was, not long since, well known in the world, so that were this book good, yet master Jewel said true. But how good it is, and how unworthy the name of Hippolytus, read the Reply, and thou shalt well perceive. Beside this, the book by M. Harding alleged, entitled de cōsummatione mundi, is not once mentioned, neither by Jerome, nor Eusebius, nor Theodorete, where they make especial menciō of Hippolytus books, then I trow we may say truly, this is no untruth.

He beginneth the first sentence of his book with enim.

The .46. untruth. He beginneth otherwise.

Here Master Harding maketh himself merry with wondering at Greek readers, and scholemaisters, musing howe they could have been so ignorant. But may it please master Albutius, that so fain would be a Grecian, to remember the Greek saying, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to laugh out of season is a great misery. Had this defense of his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 been his own, though it be little worth, yet it had been somewhat. Now it is altogether borrowed of Budaeus commentaries, the upbraiding of other is a testimony of his own arrogancy. A manifest proof all his Greek is not much, and a great conjecture, that much of his divinity is out of tables, but him self knoweth best what he is for this defense of his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , it is no doubt foolish, and of so great store, he hath made very ill choice. For in this sentence by him alleged 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may well signify enim. As touching the word, I grant sometime in the course of an oration, it may be placed, only to adorn the sentence: but this happeneth very seldom, even as enim doth in Latin, and this use was only peculiar unto such as followed the proper phrase of Athens. In an interrogation it is often put after y ^e same sort, as in this verse, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth God know this? or doth he know it, and will not revenge it? So it is very often found in Plato, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an non ? and thus joined, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and such other it is not denied, but it may signify nothing, but in the beginning of an oration no doubt it is never used, in the beginning of a book it is very foolish, and if Hippolytus had not been, it had never been heard of. As likewise I trow if master Harding had not been, it should never have been defended. In this doing he could mean nothing but to blear the people's eyes. They that list may still think well of his doing, but God's children shall one day forsake his evil doctrine.

He saith, and soothly avoucheth, that Antichrist shall be the devil.

The .47. untruth. He saith not so.

Here I must advertise the reader for the better discharge of master Jewel's sayings, that I have not read all these new found old writers, neither yet mean I to read them, if other necessity shall not enforce me, so that how to verify this untruth plentifully out of y ^e Author, neither I know, neither is the labor requisite, only Master Harding that maketh this untruth, giveth testimony sufficient, that the untruth is his own. In his Rejoinder thus he doth allege Hippolytus words. Antichrist shall be a devil incarnate in the shape of man. What troweth M. Harding is there any difference between the devil, and a devil incarnate, or is it not shameless ignorance to affirm either of Antichrist. S. Paul calleth him hominem scelerosum, filium perditum, the wicked man, the son of perdition. He calleth him a man not as Hippolytus doth a devil incarnate, he saith his coming shall be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 according to the operation and strength of Satan. Then it shall not be Satan himself. What may we judge of this Hippolytus, that is so ignorant in the scriptures, or what may we judge of M. Harding, that can abide his Hippolytus, which should teach that Antichrist should be a devil incarnate? He hath no true zeal unto the scriptures.

He saith that he shall build up the temple at Jerusalem.

The .48. untruth. He saith not so.

Hippolytus, as master Harding reporteth, saith thus. Antichrist shall build up a Temple in Jerusalem. M. Jewel saith the Temple. Here be two very ignorant untruths, both made by turning the, into a, for the, may be expressed in y ^e Greek, but a cannot. So make the best of it, these untruths are but guesses, and so much the more shameless, because they can have no assurance. But what if they were true: between a devil, and the devil, a church and the church, when both are lies, what skilleth it whether are reported?

If he should build upon the word pontifices Bishops, then all priests shall stand back.

The .49. untruth. It followeth not.

Thou hast heard before Christian reader many untruths that were not worth reconing, now here followeth one without show of wit or understanding, and yet it is set out to the utmost, as if master Harding had here an especial advantage. He solaceth his heavy spirit with many foolish questions, and asketh when Master Jewel will be ashamed of his foolish conclusions, and of his peuish arguments? and in the end he maketh master Jewel to reason thus. Christ shall call Bishops to his kingdom, ergo he shall call no priests. If all these merry toys be applied in season, then let master Harding have the victory. If this be master Jewel's argument, then let this one go for an untruth. But if this sport be disgraced for want of truth, and these pretty questions nothing worth, because they stand upon a lie, then this untruth is answered, and M. Hardings pleasant writing is proved foolish. Read the Reply, thou shalt see howe master Jewel goeth about to enterpret Hippolytus words, and saith, they are not to be understanded directly as they lie. For if master Harding should build upon the very word, then because the mention is made of Bishops, all common priests should be excluded. But this shall not be so. Therefore we must not take the words as they lie. Now judge whether Master Jewel do make this foolish argument, or if he do not, why is M. Harding so malapert without occasion.

If he make reconing of this word daily, where shall the Pope and Cardinals stand, that scarce sacrifice once in the year.

The .50. untruth. These Cardinals say Mass most days, and this Pope every day.

Their kingdom is falling, therefore bylike they underprop it with so many Masses. But if it be so: Lord how hath that adulterous city multiplied hir whoredoms? Well may the preachers say over hir, as the Prophets over Jerusalem. Wherefore should you be stricken anymore? The whole head is sick, and the whole heart is heavy. There is nothing in hir but wounds, and swelling, and sores full of corruption.

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

The .51. untruth. It seemeth not so.

Why seemeth it not so? because, saith master Harding, neither I take it so, nor any other Catholic. But Master Jewel thinketh so, and so do all good Christians, and therefore it seemeth so. This is a proper untruth.

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

Now sure good reader truth among these men is perished, and gone out of their mouths. Saint Peter saith master Harding, nameth not the people bishops, yet he nameth them priests. Master Harding granteth now if it were no otherwise, master Jewel said true, because he nameth them priests. But Saint Peter nameth them by an higher name, and therefore confess that they may be named bishops. He calleth them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a kingly priesthood. And 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a holy priesthood. And it is said in the Apocal. Christ hath made us 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 kings and priests unto God, even unto his father. As for Hippolytus word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , let not master Harding think that Master Jewel taketh Saint Peter to attribute that name unto the lay people. Let the word go unto Hippolytus, from whom it came, it is neither in Saint Peter, nor in the whole Testament. It is attributed neither to the priests, nor to the Bishops. This is master Jewel's saying. The priest, and the lay man, concerning the name priest, are one, and no difference of name given to either 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in their proper significations, that is priests I gladly leave to master Harding, and his fellows. It is given to no mortal men in the new testament, But to Jupiter's priest. Acto. 14. Only our Savior Christ is our high priest, and that forever after the order of Melchizedek, and without blasphemy against him, the name can be no more given unto man, for as much as every priest is appointed to offer sacrifice. But he alone hath made that one sacrifice, whereby we are cleansed forever. And this Paul gathered well of the offering that Abraham made unto Melchizedek, writing that in Abraham Levi himself was given up for tythe, being then in his fathers loins, when that offering was made. So that in the appointed time, when Christ should be revealed, an everlasting priest after the order of Melchizedek, the Levitical priesthood should be then ended, and no particular men should be separated anymore to serve in our tabernacle, that is, to be the preachers of Christ's gospel, and dispensers of his mysteries, but everyone is like accepted before God, all spiritual priests before him. And as the public minister shall answer for the sins of the people, if he do not tell them God's threatenings against all iniquity: so the father shall answer for the son, the master for the man, the husband for the wife, and one Christian man for another, if we bear not the name of our father written in our forehead, and openly in all places reform one another's offenses, and such as are under our rule, if we do not bring them up in the fear of the Lord. God for his mercy sake give us his grace, that we may consider our calling, which no doubt we would do, if we were well instructed, and delivered from M. Hardings filthy priesthood, which beareth us in hand, y ^t with Pardons, and Indulgences, and Massing abominations, they could do away our sins. And further who knoweth not, that the oblations, ceremonies, sacrifices, feasts, priesthood, and all other rites, and customs of the old law, were figures, and are verified in Christ. So Paul calleth Christ our Passover, newness, and sincerity of life, our unleavened bread, our bodies, our temple, our wickedness, our leaven, the fruit of our lips, our offering, our selves, our sacrifice. So Saint Peter calleth Christ, our corner stone, his children, the living stones, their profession, the holy temple, and their obedience, a kingly priesthood.

Some of them have said, the people are dogs, and swine.

The .53. untruth. I say not so.

Master Harding calleth them swine in plain words, he saith further, they are irreverent, & of an impure life. Again he saith, they are curious, rash, irreverent, contemptuous in all holy things. Now to join all these, that the people are irreverent, impure, curious, rash, & contemptuous swine, it is as much I think, as if he called them dogs, and swine. How be it, whether terms soever he used, they are irreverent, impure, rash, contemptuous, and swinish sayings, and if he had been ashamed of them, he would not for so slender an untruth, have called those words again to memory. But the common saying is, past shame, and past grace.

The .7. deuis. Yet now must their negligence be the rule of Christ's religion.

The .54. untruth. I say not so.

Look well on master Jewel's words, thou shalt see master Harding is not named. Again consider this manner of speaking, thou shalt see this untruth hath no ground but ignorance. Master Harding doth confess, that his private Mass were not good, in case the people were more diligent to receive, but considering their vndeuocion, it is not meet, that the daily sacrifice should cease. This master Jewel reporteth as a thing very absurd, that the negligence of the people should be the rule of Christ's religion. And what is here untrue? who is so ignorant, that knoweth not, to make any such vain saying by repetition the more contemtuous, that it is usual to change the words? Well knew M. Harding, that the learned here would soon espy his doing, but he accounteth it a small matter to deceive those, whom he taketh as irreverent swine. &c.

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

The .55. untruth. Priests say not many Masses in one day.

Surely good reader lies are good cheap, & soon made, where this is one. The Decretals were wont to be a sufficient warrant, for the usage in the Popes ministry. Will now master Harding be so saucy to control the Pope? Doth he not know that this saith Pope Gregory, excepto die natiuitatis, & causa necessitatis, sufficit sacerdoti semel in die celebrare, except on Christmas day, and the cause of necessity, it is sufficient to say one Mass a day. Here we see some days mo Masses than one were occupied, and sure though one Mass be one to many. Yet considering that three do signify the three times, before the law, under the law, and the time of grace, where Masses go for good, me thinketh three every day would do well. And again because the Pope saith, y ^t if need be we may say mo Masses in one day, and the gl • se doth enterpret need to be either for honesty sake, or for profit, sure such Masses as be either honest, or profitable, should ever for charity sake be thrice iterate. Yet I confess that Pope Alexander, and this gloser do not well agree in profit. For he saith, qui vero pro pecunia presumunt vno die facere plures Missas non estimo euadere damnationem, but he that for money shall presume in one day to make many Masses, I think he cannot escape damnation. And yet notwithstanding this Popes censure, the gloser will not relent, but without addicion of necessity he saith flatly. They may say one Mass for the dead, another for the day. Mary for cause of controversy in this matter, Pope Gregory make • this proviso. So he pour no wine on his fingars after he hath received at the first Mass, least in licking them again, some drop should go down his throat, and so he should break his fast. But I will let pass these high points disputed in their Canon law, and greatest doctors, and of this, that is said, I desire the Christian reader to judge, whether these words are untrue, that a priest may say two or three Masses in one day.

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

The .56. untruth. We are resolved herein.

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

Master Harding to make his untruths very common, useth such Logic as is very rare. Where the antecedent & argument do hang together, he maketh them both untrue. Well may this doing have credit among the simple: but when the learned do see it, they do easily say, that these untruths have more consideration of number, than regard of good matter, and substance. But let us take them, as they be, the folly of the untruthmaker shall the more appear. We are saith master Harding fully resolved herein, that is, wherein consecration standeth. It is pity that his word hath not the Popes privilege, that it might not err. He never wanteth audacity to deny at adventures, whatsoever mislyketh him. He saith in consecration we are all agreed, but Marcilius one of his own doctors saith, it is not so. Whether of these say true, it shall appear hereafter. We agree, saith master Harding, that consecration of the bread, and wine, is wrought by these words, hoc est corpus meū, this is my body, and hic est sanguis meus, this is my blood. And of this judgment is their Pope holy patriarche, Saint Peter Lumbarde : yet the whole counsel of of Florence say, consecration is wrought with all the words together, as they lie. The chapter of Coleine say, these words are not sufficient without the Canon of the Mass. Saint Augustine saith, it is wrought with the word of faith, which we preach. Saint Ambrose saith, these words, accipite, comedite, take, and eat, are part of consecration. So have these men, the council of Florence, the chapter of Coleine, Saint Augustine, and Saint Ambrose against them. Now let us see how they agree among themselves. Scotus saith in final resolution. Dico breuiter, {quod} non est nobis traditum certitudinaliter, an ad formam cōsecra • ionis sanguinis partineant aliqua verba post illud, sanguis meus, 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 have no assurance at all, whether any other words appertain unto consecration of the blood, after this is once said, this is the cup of my body, or whether the residue words following be part of consecration, or no, until it is said, take and drink. &c. Therefore it is dangerous 〈◊〉 affirm any thing, where you have no sufficient authority. And it followeth in Scotus, and by this it is manifest, they speak vndoscretly, which say it is necessary to know in every sacrament, what are the precise, and very words of consecration. He saith further. Let no man say, I will use these precise words, simplicity is much surer. And upon this he removeth 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 condition, if it be consecrate. And these are Scotus very words, judge now whether he agree with Peter Lumbarde, or whether he be resolved, what to say, or whether Master Harding be not past shame, that so boldly writeth of all the men that ever wrote, master Jewel might worst have alleged Scotus. And that all Catholic be fully resolved in this. For a larger proof, let us yet examine it a little further. Gabriel Biel expounding the Canon of the Mass, over these words benedixit, fregit, he writeth: over benedixit, consecrando : over fregit, non panem, sed panis speciem, so by Biels opinion, Christ did consecrate with benedixit, he blessed. Ludulp de Saxonia, and Ihnocentius 3. agreeth with Gabriel Biel. Thomas, and Bonauentura say, that Christ spake these words twice, hoc est corpus meum, and so consecrated by them when he pronounced them first secretly. Then thus far M. Hardings doctors do not well agree. Alexander de ales knoweth not well what to say, he saith in one place Christus dixit bis. Christ spake the words of consecration twice. Afterward he saith, consecrauit, nos quo modo nescimus, he did consecrate, we know not howe. Lastly he saith, virtus erat in manibus, there was a secrete power in his hands. This Doctor is much like Scotus, he knoweth not what to say. Marcili{us} saith, how Christ did consecrate, doctores diuersimode dicunt doctors are of diverse minds. Some said he consecrated without pronouncing any words. Thus every man speaking his fancy, not guided by the word of God, they walk in darkness, and cannot tell whither they go. But Master Harding will say, though they cannot agree, how Christ did consecrate, yet they are fully agreed, how themselves do consecrate. This as is before alleged out of Scotus, is not true. But before I show their diners opinions, I would demand of some of master Hardings friends, howe a good conscience may be satisfied, concerning this matter. How Christ did consecrate, as appeareth, they do not agree, and so much master Harding granteth, and upon this Scotus saith. Intendebant narrare rem gestam, non tradere formam consecrationis. The Evangelists intended to set forth the story, not to leave unto us any form of consecration. And Marcilius saith, nullus Euangelistarum nec etiàm Apostolus videtur hanc formam vidisse. None of the Evangelists, neither yet the Apostles seem to have given our form of consecration. Here I make this reason. The Scriptures bear witness of Christ, and how his body was made, but the scriptures bear no witness of consecration, therefore by their consecration his body is not made. Again, consecration being of such force, that they themselves confess their host should no time be worshipped, but with condition, if it be well consecrate, and yet this consecration is not taught us by the scriptures: howe is the saying of our savior Christ true, that the holy ghost should teach us all truth, or how hath Saint Luke fulfilled his promise, that said he would write of all things even from point to point. Again, where master Harding saith, and commonly his other doctors hold, that Christ did consecrate by these words, this is my body, if they will stand to that, for ought y ^t I see, they overthrow their own Mass. Christ did break y ^e bread before he spake those words, as appeareth by all the Evangelists, and by Saint Paul, but they hold it up whole, and bid us worship, and after at more leisure, they break it in pieces. But to what purpose should I examine their doings. God deliver us from that crooked and froward generation. Now for trial of master Harding his vaunts, I will allege some of his doctors, that thou mayst know, whether they are agreed about their own consecration. The common opinion is, consecration is wrought by these words, this is my body. But Mercillius saith 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 necessary for the consecration, but for him that doth consecrate, and he that leaveth it out, should sin deadly, and yet Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul, all four did leave it out, I trow without deadly sin. The Decretals teach us, that all, which is in the canon of the Mass, though it be not in the scripture, yet we must take it as received from the Apostles. And so the matter shall be fully discussed. That is of consecration which the Canon appointeth. Gracian alleging S. Ambrose, maketh the priest to say in the person of Christ, all these words, accipite, comedite. &c. so alleging, that for the consecration, he maketh these six words of consecration, take, eat, this is my body. He saith likewise alleging Eusebius. Now for the consecration of the cup, M. Harding saith these are the words, this is my blood. Nay saith Gabr. Biel, forma indubitata, the vndoubtfull form is this, this is the cup of my blood, and saith boldly, sufficienter & plene significant conuersionem, fully and sufficienly they work consecration. Yet upon better advice, writing upon the master of the sentences, he saith, forma consecrationis specierum vini necessaria, & precisa, ex scriptura canonica non est sufficienter determinata. The form of consecration of the wine, what is precise and necessary, the canonical scriptures have not sufficiently determined it. By this it is plain that M. Hardings doctors will not all agree, except you take them in their good mood. Biel sometime will not stick in it, you shall have consecration wherein you will, another time he is flatly resolved and saith out of doubt thus it is. And least master Harding should wrangle with his words, himself maketh full resolution of his meaning and saith further, dubium est an aliqua verba preter illa, hic est calix sanguinis mei, sint de necessitate consecrationis, there is a doubt whether any words beside these, this is the cup of my blood, be of necessity of consecration. And being not able to determine such a learned question, he saith this is certain, say all the words in the Canon of the Mass, and consecration is among them. Here thou seest, good reader, this man, that is one place maketh no bones at it, but saith out of question it is thus, in another place he crieth peccaui, and for his life dareth not affirm one word, and yet did Gabriel know as much of consecration as M. Harding doth. But let us hear other. Scot{us} as is already said, knoweth not what is the exact form, and saith that the Greeks use another form, than we do. And here by the way, note that M. Harding findeth great fault with Master Jewel, for alleging the Greek Church, and saith they were but certain Scismatikes, yet Scotus allegeth the same, and accounteth them as Catholics, but so is master Harding prepared in a burning desire to gainsay M. Jewel, that he often falleth out with his own friend. But let this pass. Thus Scotus concludeth, that if the priest intend to do, as the Church doth, and read all the words distinctly, he doth consecrate, though he know not how. Francis de Mairon another of master Hardings doctors, saith that these five words, hic est calix sanguinis mei, this is the cup of my blood, work consecration, yet again in the same article, moving a doubt of the same matter, he answereth thus, some say it is so, but Scotus saith nay. Marcilius saith, it is probable, these are the words of consecration. Hic est calix sanguinis mei. But I will determine nothing in so high a matter. And after for a full declaratiō that they cannot agree among themselves, he saith. Hoc nō est expressum per canonē, aut sedem Apostolicam, it is not determined, neither by the Canon, nor by the Apostolical seat. Thomas Aquinas saith, all these are the words of consecration. 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 blood of the new, and old testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you, & for many. Bonaventure saith, these latter words are not of consecration, but they do express the quality of the thing turned. Clingius, a late writer, and a chief doctor of M. Hardings side, saith the words of consecration be these, this is my body, and hic est sanguis meus. &c. this is my blood. &c. When he hath not what to say, he turns it over with. &c. After in the same title he saith absolutely, these are the words, this is my body, and blood, and in them is all the substance of the Mass. But again he saith in an another place, hic est sanguis meus noui testimenti &c. this is my blood of the new testament, and so forth, and there he saith all that followeth is the chief substance of the Mass, and that all those words are spoken in the person of Christ, and so consequently be part of consecration. He saith further, that the words of consecratiō, being pronounced by any unmeet person, do work nothing, and that it was never shown by any sign, or miracle, that a lay man might consecrate. Yet master Harding saith, that God shown a miracle upon certain shepherds, which sang these words, and knew not what they meant, and they consecrated unawares. Thus master Harding passeth not, so he may say somewhat to be at some dissention, even with his friends, and thus much of this. Let the reader examine these places, and he shall see whether master Hardings word be a good warrant, that in consecration they all be full agreed. And sure this great disagreement is so much the more blameable, for as much as if they would have followed their supreme head the Pope: there had been no controversy in this matter. For by his censure, the very words of the canon in the Mass, are the words of consecration, used both by Christ, and his Apostles, although none of the Evangelists have expressed them. These are the popes words. Credimus ergo quod formam verborum, sicut in canone reperitur, & a christo apostoli, & ab ipsis eorū acciperint successores. We do surely believe that that form of words which are in our Canon, the Apostles received of Christ, and there successors of them. If this sentence might prevail, then the case of consecration had ben clear. But it is well, if the Popes friends will not believe him. For my part I mean not to purchase him any credit.

Now resteth the .57. untruth to examine, whether Scotus, and Innocentius do say that benedixit, he blessed, worketh consecration. Master Harding standeth stiffly in it, and doth adventure his credit, that they say it not, and being to much inflamed against Master Jewel, he writeth with a good countenance, that of all the men, that ever wrote, he had least cause to bring Scotus for his purpose, and that he is very rash in so doing. And if thou wilt believe him, for a clear justifying of this untruth, he saith, that Scotus, and Innocentius never said that benedixit worketh consecration. Surely good Reader these desperate assertions might well make thee think, that thy bishop had deceived thee. But be not yet to hasty of belief, be simple as the done, but be wise as the serpent, yea, evē as the Romish serpent, that hath so well provided for his young ones. His Prelates may not be accused without .72. witnesses. Let not thou a good bishop be discredited with one slaūderous tongue. His priests may not be controlled of any lay man, be he never so religious. Let not thou God's minister be blamed of an Apostate, yea, and as though they were not yet provided for well enough, Pope Euaristus ordained that the people should not accuse them at all. Yea, and that whole Lateran council upon good warrant of that saying of S. Paul, the servant standeth, or falleth unto his lord, by authority of that sacred assembly, they exempt them from such temporal jurisdiction. Then let us be somewhat ware in defense of a Godly Bishop, that master Hardings bold reprehensions may not prove him faulty.

Scotus, and Innocentius, saith Master Jewel, do say that benedixit worketh consecration. That is a false lie saith M. Harding. Then upon good trial let the truth appear, and let us here what the Authors themselves say. Scotus in deed saith thus, verba consecrationis sunt quatuor, hoc est corpus meum. There are 4. words of consecration, this is my body. If Scotus had said no more, then master Harding had alleged 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 words going before, do not absolutely signify this, that consecration is done. Loe Scotus saith not as master Harding reporteth him, that consecration is wrought by these four, but saith he there is no consecration if the words afore which are the blessing, be left out. And now to avoid all vain cavilling about these words. G. Biel saith, speaking of the same matter. Quid si verba praecedentia omitterentur. Respōdetur, licet hic Scotus sit alterius opinionis tamen hoc communiter tenent doctores, quod haec quatuor sola sufficiunt ad effectum cōsecrationis. What if the words going afore be omitted, it is answered though Scotus be here of another opinion, yet the common sentence of doctors is, these four are sufficient. Here besides the manifest words of Scotus, G. Biel is also a witness that as master Jewel saith, this is the common opinion, but Scotus thinketh, that the words going before are necessary. If then Scotus own words, and G. Biel witness are better proof of Scotus meaning, than Master Hardings imagination: it is true that the consecration is wrought by the whole blessing. And this other saying before alleged by M. Harding must be thus qualified, that in that place, he saith those are the especial words. Thus is Scotus saying avouched, by master Harding disallowed, by his own plain words, and by the testimony of Biel.

Concerning Innocentius, whether he thought consecration was wrought by benedixit, he blessed: if Master Harding had regarded his own credit, he would not have denied it. The whole troupe of his doctors do so allege his opinion. First Scotus saith. 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, quod per illam benedictionem praecedentem consecrauit, non per ista verba, hoc est corpus meum. Cui concordat Innocentius. Concerning the third article, it is said; that the priest speaketh those words as the matter of consecration, because he recyteth them even as they were spoken of Christ, as it appeareth by that, which goeth before in the Canon. But Christ, when he said those words, did not transubstantiate the bread into his body, as likewise is proved by the Canon. For there it is said before, he blessed, whereof it is said, that by that blessing he did consecrate, not by those other words, this is my body, and of this opinion is Innocentius in his book of the office of the Mass .3. part. the .6. Chapt. and the .14. Here hast thou Innocentius avouched, and his opinion confirmed by Scotus. Now for the third point of this untruth. Where Master Harding saith if Master Jewel had any mo, he would have named them. May it please him to read Alexander de Ales, Okam, Gotfrey, Albertus Biel, Marcilius, & diverse other of his own doctors. Either he must accuse them all as liars, or there are other of this opinion. Thus we see these great exclamations whereto they fall, that in one title he cannot justify one untruth. But whether master Jewel had mo to allege, or no, read his defense of the Apology, thou shalt see. fo. 208.

Cardinal Bessarion Bishop of Tusculum, writeth thus.

The .58. untruth. He writeth not so.

If shameless lying were punished in Loueine, then no doubt master Harding would be more ware what he wrote. Now as may be thought, impunity have made him confident. Let the book be judge of this untruth.

How be it, by whatsoever words consecration is made, it standeth no • in abolishing of natures, as master Harding teacheth.

The .59. untruth. I teach not so.

Certainly good reader this untruth is very strange. M. Harding is a great mainteiner of transubstantiation in all his doing, yet here to get one untruth, he is content to forsake it. I do not teach saith he, that consecration consisteth in the changing of natures. If it be so, then by consecration the nature of bread doth not change into the nature of christs flesh, to this I gladly yield. Would God master Jewel said here untruly.

Consecration is in converting the Elements to a godly use, as we see in the water of Baptism.

The .60. untruth. The consecration of the water in baptism is far different from the consecration of the Eucharist.

Accedat verbum ad elementum saith Saint Augustine, & fit sacramentum. Let the word come unto 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 master Harding biddeth, he teacheth no difference of grace in them both, as Master Harding teacheth. Likewise Saint Ambrose saith. non aqua omnis sanat, sed quae habet gratiam Christi, not all water healeth, but that which hath the grace of Christ. And again, water healeth, if the holy ghost do come down, and sanctify it. And again, water healeth, if the voice of the father be heard from heaven. So this operation of the trinity is the virtue, and the consecration of the water. This like operation doth make the bread, and wine, to be our heavenly food, as M. Harding must needs grant, so the consecration of either both is one. If he say the words of consecration must be pronounced by the minister, whereby, as by a mean, God doth pour his grace vpō us, and joineth us unto him: I confess it is so, and those words are these, take, eat, this is my body. So in baptism after our prayers made unto god, we pronounce the words of consecration, whereby we know that gods mercy doth sanctify us, and the blood of his son doth wash away our sins, and those words are these. I baptize thee in the name of the father, of the son, and of the holy ghost. So we see thus far the consecration in either sacrament is one. If he make any difference in the words, for the manner of speaking, in that it is said, this is my body. Saint Paul speaketh likewise of baptism that it is lauacrum regenerationis, the washing of our new birth, now lay these all together. By the Eucharist we be joined unto Christ, keeping the feast of our pasouer with the unleavened bread of sincerity, and truth. By baptism we be sanctified and cleansed, by the washing of water through the word. The Eucharist is sanctified by the heavenly words spoken of the minister in the person of our savior Christ: so the water doth wash away our uncleanness by being baptized in the name of the father, of the son, and of the holy ghost. The Eucharist for the high, and dreadful mystery of the body of Christ, by saith feeding our souls, is called the body, the water for the heavenly operation which God worketh in washing away the natural uncleanness in which we are borne, is called the regeneration. And therefore the consecration of them both cannot be diverse. M. Harding after his manner may a little dasell simple eyes, but his conscience doth bear him witness, that this doctrine is true. But here I must confess, that the popish consecrations, if master Harding do mean of them, do differ much the one from the other, and both from Christ's institution, as I have shown in the epistle. So Master Jewel speaking of the sacraments of christs Church, and saying consecration is like in both, saith not untrue, though the iuglings of the antichristian Synagogue are never so diverse.

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

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

Master 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 never heard of it, but this spiritual change of the elements to be come of creatures ordained for the body, salves whereby our minds are healed. And thus is your untruth answered.

The word of faith which we preach, saith Augustine, not the word which we whisper.

The .62. untruth. Saint Augustine saith not so.

Well said Anaxagoras. Stande-stiffly to this opinion. Sure snow is not white. What though it seem so? S. August. saith it not. What if the word be there three, or four times for failing? Say on still, saint Augustine saith it not. Some of your friends perhaps will believe you. But my God I thank, I am none of those. And you that will not be deceived good Christian people hearken, Saint Augustine saith not, saith M. Harding, the word which we preach. And to prove this true he allegeth many lines out of the same place, in which lines it is not. But, o singularem impudentiam. Antony out of doubt was never so past shame. He saith, Saint Augustine hath not, which we preach, and thus he allegeth Augustine's words, verbo dei sine dubio, vt mundare possit, consecratur, & baptismus, if it were no otherwise, yet this word of God must be preached, for how else should it be heard, and so engraffe faith. But now Saint Augustine's words are otherwise, hoc est verbum fidei, quod praedicamus, saith he, this is the word of faith, which we do preach, with which word doubtless baptism is consecrated, that it may purify us. That which Saint Augustine saith hoc est &c. this is the word of faith, which we preach, Master Harding turneth thus verbo fidei, by the word of faith. What clipping, what nipping, what altering is this? O if master Harding had such a vauntage, how would he turn his phrases? How would he sport himself, with reperitions of corrupting the fathers? Well thou seest this is no untruth. Read his Rejoinder, and confer it with Saint Augustine, thou shalt soon discrie his behavior. Here hast thou Christian reader to note, that Saint Augustine saith the word doth consecrate, non quia dicitur, sed quia creditor, not because it is spoken, but because it is believed. Therefore according to Saint Augustine, this popish consecration is gone, they need not fear that by common use the words should be contemned, or unawares they should work strange miracles. Without faith they have no virtue. What these words be, I told thee in the .60. untruth, out of S. Ambrose, in the Eucharist, accipite, comedite, hoc est corpus meū, take, eat, this is my body. In baptism, baptize them in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy ghost.

And whereas he saith further, that we have no manner oblation in our communion, he should not himself speak manifest untruth, having taken upon him, as he saith, to reform falsched.

The .63. vnt. I say not that you have no manner of oblation.

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

Here are two untruths, the one shameless, the other witless. First saith he, I say not, you have no manner of oblation, yet these are his own very words. Whereas in Christ's institution concerning this sacrament, three things are contained, the sacrament, the oblation, and the participation, wherein consisteth the substance of the Mass, they have quite abrogate the other two, and left a bare communion. Now these being his words, sure this untruth is shameless. The second untruth is, in denying, that he saith, he doth reform falshed, and this is it, which I said is witless.

We offer up unto God our selves, our souls, our bodies, and alms for the poor, praises, and thanks giving▪ &c. which the old fathers say, is the sacrifice of the new testament. We offer up as much, as Christ commanded us to offer.

The .65. untruth. They say not so. The .66. untruth. You offer not up the body, and blood of Christ.

Were not master Hardings behavior always notable: in these untruths he might else seem to pass himself. For proof that the old fathers said this spiritual sacrifice was the sacrifice of the new testament, Master Jewel allegeth Tertullian thus. The pure sacrifice that Malachi speaketh of, that should be offered up in every place, est predicatio Evēgelii us{que} ad finem mundi, is the preaching of the Gospel, until the ende of the world. Again, that sacrifice is simplex oratio de conscientia pura, and a devout prayer of a pure conscience, Then he allegeth Eusebius, that y ^e same sacrifice is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the sacrifice and incense of prayer. Last of all he allegeth Jerome, expounding the same place, dicit orationes sanctorum domino offerendas esse in omni loco. The prophet meaneth hereby, that the prayers of holy people should be offered unto God in all places, to these places Master Harding bringeth but his bare nay, and answereth not one word, but for proof of his untruth concludeth thus, you should have done well to have named these old fathers, and to have alleged their own words for your credit sake, who could speak thus shamelessely that had any shame in him. Master Jewel here nameth both Tertullian, and Eusebius, and quoteth the places where these sayings are to be found. And in the 559. leaf of his Reply, reciteth their very words. Yet saith M. Harding this is false, he should have alleged some doctors, by like his head was so full with the number of these untruths, that he could not see their names. If these three doctors seem to master Harding to be but few, or if therefore he could not see them: a little to help his eye sight, it shall not be tedious to allege mo. Justinus Martyr saith, these sacrifices of Christians are only perfect, and acceptable unto God, preces, & gratiarum actiones, prayers, and thanksgiving. And again, the prophets do not promise that the bloody sacrifices shall be renewed, but they promise us, veras ac spirituales oblationes, laudis, at{que} gratiarum actionis, true, and spiritual sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving. Clemens Alexandrinus saith, speaking of prayer, that, that is optimum, & sanctiss. sacrificium, the best and most holy sacrifice. Again, 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 body, that is in deed, the very true worshipping of God. Tertullian saith, we do sacrifice: but so as God hath commanded, that is, pura prece, with a pure prayer. Athenagoras an old writer saith thus, quid ego sacrificia, & holocausta curem. &c. what should I care for sacrifice, or burnt offerings, of which God hath no need, he requireth for him an unbloody sacrifice, that is, that we offer, and give a reasonable soul unto him. These are ynowe for M. Harding to see, or he will see none, be they never so many. It all should be alleged, that witness this only to be sacryfice of Christian men, it would fill a whole volume, but if M. Harding can show but one to prove, that the priest offereth up Christ unto his father, this shall not only go for untrue, but we will all subscribe unto his religion. For this other untruth, that we offer not up the body, and blood of Christ, when M. Harding can prove that Christ hath so commanded us, this shall be untrue. Here mark master Harding for all his narrow search for untruths, yet ouerskippeth a couple, that M. Stapleton hath espied one of Saint Basil, another of Saint Cyril. Beleue them both if thou wilt swim in errors.

But saith master Harding, we make no mention of the sacrifice •

The .67. untruth. I say not so.

What meaneth master Harding by this untruth? Is there any distinction to be brought between oblation, and sacrifice? He saith expressly 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 words, which express one thing. Then if M. Hard. say we name not the oblation, he saith we name not the sacrifice, & this he must needs confess, except he will wrangle about the word. Sure as the common saying is, in this untruth, is neither rime, nor reason.

He calleth Christ's ordinance a bare communion.

The .68. untruth. Your Communion is not Christ's ordinance.

Before Master Harding note this untruth anymore, I would wish after so many Master Jewel's requests he should at last bring some scripture, or doctor, or general counsel, or some example of the primitive Church to prove it. His word weyeth over light, in so great a matter. For our discharge we do, and say even as Christ did, and said, and more we dare not, because that is perfect. They make many apishe toys of their own, neither can the reverence of that high mystery bring them to any obedience.

Even now master Harding said, there were three things in Christ's institution, consecration, oblation, participation, now he saith, the number of communicants is no part of Christ's institution, thus he falleth out with himself.

The .69. untruth. I fall not out with myself.

What can be more contrary, than to say participation is of Christ's institution, and again, partakers, that is number of communicants, are not of Christ's institution? In the lords cause, we will speak as the lord speaketh, heaven, and earth we call to witness, whether this be not contrariety. Yet M. Harding, and I trow even only master Harding, is so bold to note this for an untruth. But the untruth is sufficiently answered in that the indifferent reader may see the words.

I may not now dissemble the value of master Hardings argument. Christ, saith he, ordained the sacrament after consecration, and oblation done, to be received, and eaten, ergo the number of communicants in one place, is no part of Christ's institution.

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

Here Master Harding and his friend Stapleton do not well accord. For Master Harding skippeth one untruth concerning the number of communicants, Reply. fo. 20. diuis. 3. which master Stapleton maketh the .22. untruth. And least we should think it little worth, he maketh the same again the .23 untruth, and for a full conclusion shutteth also the .24. untruth in it. Yea, and though it stand here for .3. untruths, yet as if all they were not sufficient, he made it once afore the .19. untruth. So much master Stapleton maketh of one untruth, which master Harding accounteth not worth numbering. But the matter is not great, he loseth nothing here, that he will not find in another place. As touching this untruth, these are M. Hardings very words. Concerning the number of communicants in one place, that they iangle so much of, it is no part of Christ's institution. For Christ ordained the sacrament after consecration. &c. Now turn these words in form of argument, and they stand even as master Jewel placeth them, Christ did ordain the sacrament after consecration. &c. ergo the number of communicants is no part of Christ's institution. If these be Master Hardings own words, as see the book, and thou thyself shalt judge, thou canst not be so simple, but thou must needs see this argument is no worse than himself hath made it. But because in this place he also fashioneth one: and in great confidence of his own cunning, writeth in the Margent of his book (an argument proponed to M. Jewel to be considered,) I will do him no wrong in changing his words, but for that love which I have to M. Jewel's profession, in his behalf I will as I can consider of it after his own making. But first I must advertise thee before he setteth up his misshapen building, he layeth the foundation of an ill favored stomach: and saith by M. Jewel, that it is easy for a scoffer, to scoff at arguments framed of his own scoffing head. And so it is easy for an evil speaker in defense of his wicked Doctrine, to report unchristianly of God's minister, where such unquiet passions do lead away understanding. It may be, he may find favorers: but where the God of peace hath engraffed more moderation, truth shall not be prejudiced with such untrue behavior. Muche other frothe ensueth in great plenty, before we come to the proposed reason, even as a rotten wound defileth many clothes that are about it, but let it be trodden out with silence, that cannot be remembered without much loath somnesse. At the last he cometh to his argument, & after his own grave considerations, thus it is fourmed.

Of this argument M. Harding boasteth much, and in any case will have M. Jewel yield unto the Conclusion. But soft M. Harding, extorcion is no conclusion. If you will enforce a grant, whether it be made or no, you can by that be never the near your purpose. Therefore for as much as you have set forth your argument, (as you say) to be considered, you seem very unconstant, so soon again to claim the conc • usion. But you s • y, if we will not yield unto the reason, we must deny the Minor or second proposition. True it is the Minor is false, but we are not yet come at it. The Major that you think so sure, is made of false and unlawful stuffing, as by this consideration, that you require, shall well appear. The proposition is this. What so ever is beside Consecration, Oblation, and Participation, is beside Christ's institution, first this is false, and teacheth wicked doctrine. For preaching out of the Lord's death until he come, is a parte of Christ's institution. And our savior biddeth, do this in the remembrance of me, that is with due celebration of all my benefits bestowed upon mankind, which must then be preached unto the people. And if it be not so done, then Christ's institution, notw ^t standing M. Hardings argument, is flatly broken. Now as this preaching out the Lord's death, is of Christ's institution, and yet not rehearsed in this first proposition, whereby this prosition is shown false: so those other things, which are rehearsed in it, as M. Harding meaneth them, are none of them of Christ's institution. By consecration he meaneth the pronoūcing of these words, this is my body, which must be done as y ^e Mass boke straightly chargeth, both secretly, and with one breath. By oblation he meaneth Christ's real body to be offered up unto the father. By Participation, he meaneth that the priest alone may take it at the Altare, and no one of these is of Christ's institution. Nay they all are contrary unto it. So that this proposition whereon he groundeth his argument, wanteth somewhat, and therefore is not true, that which it hath is altogether corrupt, and therefore it containeth much pernicious doctrine. First as touching Consecration, S. Augustine saith, as is alleged in the .56. untruth, y ^• it is wrought verbo fidei, by the word of faith, which we preach. So saithe Justinus martir, that it is sanctified, per verbum precationis, & gratiarum actionis, by the word of prayer, and thanks giving. Irenaeus saith, quando mixtus calix, & fractus panis percipit verbum Dei, fit Eucharistia corporis, & sanguinis Christi, when the cup mingled with wine and water, and the bread being broken, hath the preaching of the word of God joined unto it, then it is the Eucharist, and this was the only Consecration .200. years after Christ, neither anywhere any other mentioned: except in M. Hardings Decretal Epistles, which neither are of credit, nor yet teach good religion. This same manner of Consecration is taught us by Cyprian, Dyonisius, Alexandrinus, Ambrose, Augustine, and such other, as lived within the first .600. years after Christ. Although I grant (as appeareth by diverse records) many solemnities of the Mass were far spread through superstition, yet this exacte kind of close Consecration is much younger. This Oblation likewise, as it was then unknown, so now it is of all Christians to be detested, that a mortal man should offer up the immortal God, as I have already shown in the Epistle. For Participation because master Harding cannot prove his Private Mass, within the six hundredth years, and the word doeth enforce, that it is no Participation, except there be a number to take their partes, I think it appeareth sufficiently, that in a Popish Mass they have no manner Participation, or Communion, so we see this Major is all together false, before we come at the Minor. Now if we will further examine the Minor, we shall find it false also, altogether without salt or savor, for thus it is in effect. The number of Communicantes is no parte of the Communion, which is both a very childish, and gross absurdity. For how is there a Communion, where is no Communicantes? Thus thou seest good Reader, this argument is not yet good. But the better to consider of it, because master Harding will needs have it considered: let us take the view of it once again. This is the argument.

What may be said of this whole argument, I have already forewarned thee. Now let us hear what M. Harding saith to it him self. There is nothing here saith he to be denied, but the Minor, what, if it were so? What is now the Minor ? Read the Rejoinder, thus he saith. It is denied in the Minor, that the number of Communicantes together in one place is of Christ's institution. Why? how now M. Harding? is this the best argument you can make? Mark good Reader, this must be the Minor. The number of Communicants together is no parte of Christ's institution. Lay now the Major to it, and the argument ariseth thus.

Did ever M. Jewel father upon M. Harding such a misshapen argument? This is his own, or else he belieth him self, when he saith that this is his Minor. But such sleights he can use to vnwinde him self out of danger. A pretty conueyaunce of a little forgery among the ignorant, might have escaped blame. But I will not judge M. Harding, God knoweth whether he did it of purpose or no. This in deed should have ben his Minor. But the Communion of many together, is beside these three, so the Communion might have been without Communicants, which is a great absurdity, and so consequently M. Hardings argument very evil. As touching further trial of this untruth, his wrangling is not worth the consideration. Only as he hath set forth his argument, to prove a number of Communicants no part of Christ's institution, so he shall give me leave to propone likewise some arguments, for proof that the Lord's supper may not be celebrate by one alone. First thus we argue.

To this argument M. Harding maketh this answer. You must get you better proof, or else admit the Conclusion of my argument. A man would think he were a craking soldier, that is thus well pleased with his own doing, but if with this craking custom, he have not gotten the craking qualities, he shall hear other arguments, though there can be none better.

Likewise it may be said of the gathering of Manna in the morning, and of the drinking of the rock. I doubt not, but here M. Harding can make a spedy answer, with many comparisons between the figure, and the truth, but the good conscience may easily judge. Beside this S. Paul him self doth give us in this case a very good argument, he saith.

And for a full proof of this matter, Christ saith.

Thus we see what we are taught by the scriptures concerning the number of Communicants, and of what value M. Hardings argument is, which he himself hath made after his own fashion. Whereby thou mayest the better judge, what is to be thought of all those other which M. Jewel ascribeth unto him.

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

The .71. untruth. Some part of it is proved to be true.

The argument which M. Jewel saithe, hath no piece either true, or hanging of another. Is thus before alleged.

Here saith M. Harding. This is true y ^• the sacrament must be received after Consecration. But how doeth he prove it. Sure with no reason, but a great deal of railing, saying that M. Jewel is led with the sprite of malice, & that he will revoke this, when he is in his right mind. Or if he will not, let him take manducate & bibite, eat ye & drink ye, out of the gospel. As touching M. Hardings railing, because his mouth is no slāder, I will let it pass. His reasō is this, if consecration 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 have taken heed how he had made one so ill. This will in no wise hold, except you turn him contrary and so overturn M. Hardings cause with his own proof. For before y ^e Evangelists speak the words of Consecration, this is my body, they say all take and eat, so that this followeth very well, if Consecration must be before receiving: then take manducate and bibite out of the Gospel. For in the Gospel they are placed before. How M. Hardings argument hangeth, if Consecration be not before the Communion, then take manducate & bibite out of the Gospel, neither M. Harding himself, nor all his Doctors are able to tell us. And this did Gabriel Biel see well enough, who considering this place of the Evangelists, that they were bid take and eat before the words of Consecration pronounced, he doeth not as M. Harding doeth, speak neither rime, nor reason, only to mock the people. But he saith plainly that the common opinion is, Christ spake not as the Evangelists report, take, eat, this is my body, but quite contrary, this is my body, take eat, thus hath Biel found a figure 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to set the cart before the horse, and so maketh his religion to agree with the gospel. Now as touching this untruth, where M. Harding saith so boldly, that the bread must have these words, this is my body, pronounced over it before it be received, first he hath Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul against him, who all bid first eat and then pronounce these words. Again it is confessed by Gabriel Biel, that we must think Christ spake otherwise than the Evangelists report his words, or else they could not agree with their Mass, this is a sufficient discharge of this untruth. A good Christian before he see better authority, will believe as the Gospel teacheth, that we must first take it and eat it, before it be Christ's body, so shall he sone see the Idolatry of a Popish Mass.

If Christ instituted the Sacrament, to the intent it should be first consecrate, and then received of a company. &c.

The .72. untruth. This is a very gross falsifying of my words.

These are M. Hardings own words in this Division. Christ ordained y ^e Sacrament after Consecration done, to be received & eaten. Of these words saith M. Jewel, as is before alleged, if Christ. &c. if I should here ask of the indifferent Reader, wherein is this gross falsifying, sure he could easily espy it. But somewhat to help the Readers understanding, this it is, where M. Harding hath to be received and eaten, M. Jewel saith to be received of a company, if this be as it is in deed, no fault, whereto is this unseasonable crying out of falsifying? But if it shall seem to be a fault, then know, that where M. Jewel allegeth M. Hardings own words, he printeth them in a distinct letter: but this saying which so grieveth M. Harding, is in the common letter of M. Jewel's words, whereby master Harding might have well understand, had he not been disposed to wrangle, that master Jewel alleged them not as his express words, but rather showeth how he should have made his saying plain, and this he proveth by authority of Bessarion and Gabriel Biel, that after Consecration the sacrament be not received only, as master Harding saith, but received of a company, which word, as it must, so being expressly written, master Harding did directly reason against himself.

The .9. division. Here unawares he seemed to confess that his Mass, whatsoever substance it bear, it is void both of good order, and also of congruence.

The .73. untruth. I confess no such thing.

You seem to confess it▪ saith M. Jewel. Whether you do or no, let your words witness. You say you are not bound to follow Christ's example in order and congruence. Now we may infer Christ's order is only good, therefore you follow no good order, or congruence. This is but a single untruth.

The matter being so weighty, and not yet thoroughly believed. &c.

The .74. untruth. It hath been believed.

When you prove this, sure M. Jewel will subscribe, you may make every word in his book as untrue as this. For he hath not one word, that soundeth toward your religion, if this may be noted for untrue, to say your Massing worshippings have never been thoroughly believed, you may note many moe untruths in this Reply. For there is not one line that alloweth the Mass. Read the next untruth.

The old fathers call that the daily Sacrifice, that Christ made once for all upon the Cross.

The .75. untruth. The old fathers call not the Sacrifice of the Cross the daily Sacrifice.

M. Jewel doth allege Aug. secund. Luc. serm. 28. Jerome. 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 see M. Hardings answer, so thou shalt best judge. If I should enter into it, it would require a long answer, and nothing necessary. What the Doctors write, M. Jewel is thought to know, as well as M. Harding. First read and then judge. This is again the .132. untruth. And because we are again fallen into mention of this Sacrifice, which M. Harding said even now, hath been thoroughly believed, let us examine that untruth, and try if M. Harding be found true in his workmanship. It hath been thoroughly believed saith he, that the Priest doth offer up to God the body and blood of Christ vnbloudely, in the remembrance of that one bloody Sacrifice of Christ. Read of this in the Epistle the .31. leaf, thou shalt have it fully discussed: only in this untruth, because the question lieth rather, whether it hath been believed, than whether the saying be true, let us a little consider of Christ him self, & his Apostles, whether they have believed it. First Christ in no one word did give unto his Church any commission of such manner sacrificing. Christ saith often, I give up my soul, I Sa • rifice myself, no man doth it but I: but unto his Disciples he saith, quo ego vado, vos non potestis venire. Whither I go, ye cannot come. By which words he taketh from them all power to Sacrifice him, even as it was afore told by Daniel, that after Christ was once offered, the Sacrifice and the Oblation should cease. Not a word written whereby it may be gathered that we may offer up Christ. And doth M. Harding think, that in so weighty a matter as the remission of our sins, that anything is required of us, which is not commanded us? It appeareth then in the time of Christ this was not believed. Did the Apostles believe it after Christ? S. Paul saith: in that he died unto sin, he died but once: again: by one Oblation he made his perfect forever: and again, where is remission of sin, there is no more sacrifice for sin. Then by S. Paul there is now no daily sacrifice for sin, except by Christ's death we will that our sins be not forgiven. Again, S. Paul will have us follow Christ's example in the administration of Christ's supper, who teacheth us of no Oblation for quick and dead. Again, the sacrifice cannot be made without a special priesthood, but the Apostles do teache us that all such Priesthode is abrogate. If at any time the name of Oblation be mentioned in this age, it is ever meant spiritually. As is plain Ro. 12. & .16. Phil. 2. 1. Peter .2. for the real Sacrifice S. Peter is plain. Christ hath carried our sins in his body upon the wood, and by his stripes we be healed, and the effects of that one Sacrifice once made, are purging of the sins of the whole world. 1. Pe. 2. & .3 1. John. 2. &. 3. Ro. 4. Ephe. 1. eternal redemption. Gal. 2. Ephe. 1. Rightuousnesse. Ro. 3.4.8. 2. Cor. 5. Samctificatiō. Eb. 10. Peace. Ro. 5. Joy of the spirit. Ro. 4. Gal. 5. Newnesse of life. Rom. 6. 1. Co 5. Love of our neighboure. 1. John. 3. Eternal life. 1. John. 5. Ro. 6. then neither Christ nor his Apostles ever believed it: for the estate of the primative Church how it believed, M. Harding hath nothing to say, but referreth us to the .xvij. Article of his former book, here good Reader my labor is well eased: for seeing my Lord of Sarisburie hath answered all that matter, who so will be confirmed in that truth, he can go I think, to no mortal man to be more strengthened.

It pleaseth M. Hard. to allege the one end, and conceal the other.

The .76. untruth. The .10. diuis. I conceal not the other.

If M. Harding do allege both these ends of the Sacraments, that is. To join us unto God, & to join us one with another, then let this be untrue, 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. untruth. I say not so.

Here M. Harding and M. Stapleton do agree so jump in one untruth, that it appeareth evidently their religion is either very uniform, or at least they have been both instructed in one school. Thus saith M. Harding. The Cōmunion is not so called, because many, or as M. Jewel teacheth, the whole congregatiō received together in one place. These words M. Jewel reporteth thus. He saith, the Cōmunion is not so called of the Communicating of many together. This is untrue saith M. Har. I say not so: this is untruth saith M. Sta. he saith not so. I require here of thee, good Christian Reader, to view the words well, and find out any fault if thou canst. Surely I think, thou canst find none, like as sure it is M. Jewel did think of none. But these two pair of Egles eyes, what have they espied? Forsothe where M. Harding saith, it is not called the Communion of Communicating together in one place, M. Jewel thus reporteth it, it is not called the Communion of Communicating together, and leaveth quite out in one place which maketh all the matter, this distinction of Communicating together, and Communicating together in one place, because it is somewhat strange, these men should have done well to have proved it by some Doctor. Sure M. Harding if he may go for a Doctor, he teacheth us plainly in another place, that to Communicate together, is to Communicate in one place. For thus he writeth, but that they should Communicate together, 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 untruth.

How be it in plain speech, it is not the receiving of the Sacrament, that worketh our joining with God.

The .78. untruth. The worthy receiving worketh this effect.

Doth it so? Are we not joined to God before we eat the Sacrament? S. Paul saith, Elegit nos in ipso. He hath chosen us in Christ, before the foundations of the world were laid, much more are we his before we receive the sacrament. Concerning sacraments, the same Apostle saith of Abraham. Signum accepit circumcisionis. &c. After he received the sign of Circumcision, as the seal of the righteousness of y ^e faith, which he had when he was uncircumcised. And shall we be taught now, that they be no more seals, and witnesses, but causes of our justification? God keep us from such spiders, that gather poison of so sweet flowers. And that thou mayest take the more heed of this man's doctrine, I must first tell thee, that for proof of it, he bringeth not one word of Scripture, but pretendeth the authority of Chrysostom and Cyril. I would answer the authority for such Doctors, save that the labor were long, and not necessary. For I will declare out of the Scripture, that the doctrine is heretical, and thereby thou shalt be satisfied, and mayest further imagine that these holy Fathers names are too much abused. In this untruth of M. Hardings, he teacheth two points of Doctrine, the one, that by, and thorough the worthy receiving of the Sacrament, we be joined unto God, the other, that the Sacraments are not only seals and pledges, but also they contain grace. Now let us see how these two Articles agree with the word of God. And first, whither the receiving of the Sacrament do join us unto God, and as M, Harding saith, putteth also into us life immortal. Our Savior Christ in the Gospel after S. John, doth often tell his Disciples, how they are made one with God, yet in that holy Gospel, as in all other scriptures, there is not one word that telleth us we be made one with him by receiving the Sacrament. But contrarily by plain words we be taught, what virtue this Sacrament hath, that it is only a sign of that grace, which we have received, as shall appear hereafter. In the sixthe chapter of John, where Christ reproveth the fleshly hearers of his word, and calleth them to a true belief in him, the Jews make this answer. What sign showest thou then, that we may see it? Our Fathers did eat Manna. &c. Here is first shown what the Jews thought of Manna, not that by it they were joined to God, or received grace, but that it was a sign, a token, and a pledge of their free election, how they were a peculiar people unto God. This Manna being a figure of this Sacrament of the body, and blood of Christ, now lest unto the Church. Christ maketh this answer, I am the bread of life, he that cometh to me shall not hunger, and he that believeth in me, shall not thirst forever. By this we learn, that to believe in Christ is to have everlasting life, and as Manna was a sign to the Israelites, so the Communion of the body and blood of Christ is a sign to us, that this promise shall be made sure. It is written in the Prophet: and all thy children shall be taught of the Lord: of this saying our savior Christ teacheth us how we be joined unto him, and saith. No man can come to me, except the father which sent me draw him. And to this ende it is written by the Prophet Jeremiah. After those days saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Of this we learn, that if we come unto Christ, the Father must draw us: if we be his people, he must be our inward teacher: if we be united unto him, he must first come and dwell in our hearts: whereby it is plain, that we must be first engrafted in Christ, before we can worthily receive his holy Sacraments. Furthermore it followeth in S. John, he that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. Therefore we must dwell in him, and he in us, or we cannot eat his body, and drink his blood. And the wicked which dwell not in him, cannot receive him. Again, where our Savior Christ doeth teache very largely how we be joined unto him, and become one with him, even as his Father and he is one, he showeth that this society doeth come upon us of his Fathers free mercy apprehended by Faithe of his word. And for declaration of this free mercy, he reporteth it oftentimes, that we are given unto him of his Father, as: manifestaui nomen tuum ijs quos dedisti mihi, I have made known thy name unto those which thou hast given me, 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 given me, are from thee. Keep them that thou hast given me. They were thine, and thou hast given them me. And that we should know that to be given to Christ, is to be joined unto him, he addeth vt sint vnum sicut nos, that they may be one as we are one. This is also proved by all such places of Scripture, as show that we be saved by grace. Thus we see our joining unto God, is first to be given unto Jesus Christ of his Fathers own good will. And this is on God's behalf, the eternal secrete purpose whereby we be made his. The other way whereby we be made his, is Faithe of his word, when by inspiration of the holy Ghost, we apprehend in Christ the free love of his Father, and that hereby we be joined unto God: it is in like manner often declared by the Scripture. Now are you clean (saith Christ) through the word which I have spoken unto you. And in another place I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me, and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and have believed that thou hast sent me. Likewise John. 16.27. & John. 17.14. I have given them thy word. Again sanctify them with thy truth, thy word is the truth. And to the ende we should all know this instruction were ours, our Savior saith further, I pray not for these alone, but for them also which shall believe in me through their word. And now for proof that this is our joining unto God, it followeth that they all may be one, as thou, O Father, art in me, and I in thee, even that they may be also one in us. This manner of joining us unto God, was shown unto Jacob in that vision where he saw a ladder reaching from the earth to heaven, and Angels going up and down, teaching us that Christ was likewise the ladder by whom we climbed up, and were joined to his Father. This was likewise shown in the third of Matthew, where the Heavens are opened, and the holy Ghost descended upon Christ, signifying that he hath reconciled heaven and earth, and joined us again unto God, and we by faith made partakers of that benefit. Thus we see the manner of our joining unto God, first in his eternal secrete purpose, after apprehended of us by faith. Now this standing thus, that the promise might be certain unto all the seed, God hath sealed this hope with the body & blood of Christ, that we being partakers of those heavenly mysteries, might assure our conscience of his eternal mercy, that the gates of Hell should no more prevail against us. Thus are our Sacraments, signs, tokens, warrantes, gages, pledges of our salvation, and do not, as M. Harding teacheth, join us unto God, but he saith further, they pour into us life immortal, and doth boldly affirm it, yet we may not believe him, without great prejudice to Christ himself. I tell you plain saithe M. Harding, they put into us eternal life, but Christ saith, I know that God's commandment is everlasting life, and to put it out of doubt what commandment he meaneth, he saith in another place, this is eternal life, that they know thee to be the only very God, and whom thou hast sent Jesus Christ. Then faith joineth us unto God, faith putteth in to us life. Not in all God's word there is one line, whereby it may appear this is wrought by the Sacrament. Now resteth the second point to be considered, whether the Sacraments contain grace, and in deed, hinc illae lachrymae. Hereof master Harding complaining, came as the common Proverb is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Whē he heard y ^e name of Sacraments, he could not but gape after this Popish heresy. This is a religious article in the Popes kingdom, that Sacraments do give grace, but what they do, it is sufficiently already declared, beside that their names do sufficiently bear witness of their efficacy. They be called Testaments, or couenaunts, which cannot be the thing it self, but the pledge of our justification. In Baptism, if Christ do not baptize with fire, and with the holy Ghost, the water of regeneration doth not avail. Therefore S. Paul saith: ye that are baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. By which one sentence all M. Hardings doctrine is overthrown. For neither the water joineth us unto God, neither yet giveth us grace, but that is wrought only by our faith in Christ. And therefore S. Paul writeth of Circumcision, that Abraham was first justified, and after received the sign of Circumcision, as this seal of the righteousness of faith, which he had whē he was uncircumcised. By all this it is manifest, that grace is first given us freely from above, and then the Sacrament is left unto us as a warrant that God's promise shall be fulfilled. Thus we see, that touching the Sacraments M. Jewel saithe nothing otherwise than the Scripture teacheth, and the untruth that M. Harding would so fain note, is nothing else but his own heresy. And now, for as much as M. Harding hath called us into so long a discourse of God's Sacraments, I desire of thee good Christian reader, to mark indifferently the great difference in this behalf, between the Christian and the papal Religion, & thou wilt soon, as I doubt not, abhor their great depraving of Christ's 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. They appoint their Masses, that they may receive alone. Christ in [ 2] his supper was the only offerer, they in their Masses will offer as well as he. Christ blessed with giving thanks, they bless [ 3] with making Crosses. Christ did Consecrate with the preaching [ 4] of the word of faith, they do Consecrate with whisperings and breathings. Christ said, take and eat, this is my [ 5] body, they say neither take nor eat, yet it is his body. Christ's [ 6] Disciples sat down and eat it, they bid us fall down and worship it. Christ said, he would drink no more of the fruit [ 7] of the vine, they say there is no fruit of the vine at all. Christ [ 8] saithe drink ye all of this, they say drink no man but the Priest alone. Christ saith, do this in my remembrance, that [ 9] is, show forth my death until I come, they of Christ's death and passion do not preach a word. I will prosecute this repugnancy no further. It greueth me to remember their opē sacrilege. God turn their hearts, and give them understanding, that they may once know, and confess that his Religion may not thus be framed to man's fancy, so in the latter day when they shall be accountable for their doings, they may be unblameable in the sight of the highest.

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

The .79. untruth. He saith not together.

It is a very strange property, not to be ashamed to speak manifestly against the known signification of any word, it is much more strange to speak against it, placed in such a sentence where of force the signification must be granted, but it is moste strange of all, and in manner a singular impudency to note it for any untruth in one, that will not so shamelessly speak without reason as another doth. Such an untruth as this, is it which now we have in hand: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is well known to signify to Communicate together in the same time and place. And in this sentence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Here to say it can signify any other thing, it is very ignorant boldness. But to note it for an untruth as master Harding doth, it is both to be past shame and past grace. The word is well known, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 do signify a community of anything together, and therefore they be called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which may have fellowship with the Congregation and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be in fellowship with any man. And because that Mercury is said to be the messenger of the Pagan gods to tell their errandes from them to any man, therefore he is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 having a proper name of his proper office, in that by him the Ethnikes did think they were made partakers of their gods counsel, by which the property of this word appeareth. And consider good Reader what manner of Communion it is that M. Harding would make when the Priest saith Mass in the Church, and calleth nobody unto him, yet he saith that all the Priests in the world which say Mass at the same time do Communicate with him, and be made one body of Christ together. Here I ask of M. Harding how he agreeth with S. Paul y ^t saith we are one bread & one body, because we all are partakers of one bread. Mark reader because we eat of one bread, we become one body saith S. Paul. Bicause we say Mass at one time, we become one body saith M. Harding, though we eat not at all of the same bread. Sure these two Doctoures do not agree. S. Paul saith moreover the bread which we break, is it not the Cōmunion of the body of Christ, M. Harding saith, though we break not the same bread, but be eche one of us by our selves at our altares, yet it is the Communion of the body of Christ. Thus we see S. Paul and M. Harding teache not both one Doctrine. But it is no marvel they are not guided both with one spirit. S. Paul speaketh truth, and M. Harding falshead, S. Paul the word of God, and master Harding his own fancies, as for this Communion of M. Hardings, it was never known in the Church of God. I remember there is a great bragger in Martial, maketh even such another, he had ever in his mouth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . All things are common among friends: but saying thus so often when he would never bestow anything among his neighbors, the Poet saith this is a very strange Communion. Das nihil & dicis Candide, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . So it goeth with M. Harding, he ever saith of his Mass it is common, it is common, but he saith it only, he calleth no man unto him. Sure say what he will, this is but craking Candidus his Communion, God be praised that we are delivered from it. And thus it appeareth it is no untruth, to say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is to Communicate together▪ as well because the word it self is plain, as for that the scripture teacheth that the Communion must be so administered.

Basil reporteth an Ecclesiastical Decree or Canon, that at the receiving of the holy Communion, which he called mysticum Pascha, there ought to be .xii. persons at the least, and never under.

The .80. untruth. It is no Ecclesiastical decree.

M. Harding in this place is far gone. He is wont to control very curiously false quotation in this place unless my boke deceive me he is much overseen. For I think it is in asceticis sermon primo. Whether it bewell quoted or no, it is truly reported. S. Basils words are these. Quemadmodum spiritualis lex non vult eos esse infra numerum duodenarium qui mysticum pascha edere debeant. &c. Even as the spiritual or Ecclesiastical decree will not have under twelve that should eat the mystical passover. &c. Loe. S. Basil saith it is an Ecclesiastical Decree. Yet M. Harding saith it is no Decree. Beleue him not henceforth before thou try him. And the Doctors words wer as sone changed, as he is ready to deny, or affirm at adventures, thou couldest be sure of nothing, but it is well, the truth doth not hang upon his report. Let him say while he will, it is no decree, S. Basils words are plain, it is spiritualis lex. If M. Harding had not made wrangling, his hope in these untruths, this had not been numbered. He may as well blame the Evangelists, for alleging the Prophets. And no doubt if M. Jewel should follow the faithful sense as the Evangelists do and let pass words, Master Harding would find five lies in one line. Such truth he useth in these untruths.

It appeareth by S. Augustine, and certain old Canons, that in the Primatiue church the Priest, and people sometime did Communicate after supper.

The .81. untruth. The .11. division. It appeareth not.

This untruth is sone answered. For M. Harding granteth that it appeareth by s. Augustine, some received on Maūdie thursday after supper, but saith he, that is not sometime. For saith he, he that saith sometime, meaneth oftener than once a year. Now if it were possible that once a year might be sometime, then were it necessary that M. Harding did wrangle. But because once a year is no time, let us see if it may be proved, that it was done oftener. First, whether it be or no, S. Augustine is at a point, and saith, faciat quisque quod in ea Ecclesia in quam venerit, inuenit. Let everyone do after the custom of that Church, in which he cometh, it appertaineth neither unto faith, nor unto good manners, therefore whether a man receive the Cōmunion, fasting or no, so he receive in the Lord, it skilleth not much. Now what they have done in the primative Church, let us, as I have said, inquire. It appeareth in the scripture, that on a day when the Disciples came together to break bread, Paul disputed among them, and prolonged his talk until midnight. Of this if I should conclude, that they came in the after none. M. Harding perhaps would say it were but a guess, therefore I leave it. S. Paul writeth to the Corinthians, if any man be hungry, let him eat at home. Therefore it followeth necessarily, that they may receive after other meat, and if it be so, M. Harding him self will grant they might receive at night, unless as he doth in the .8. diuisiō so here he will deny that this place is meant of the Communion, and if he do, the Doctors are then against him. S. Augustine shall stand instead of many, who saith plainly, de hoc ipso sacramento loquitur. He speaketh of this very sacrament. Now this being lawful to be done, and the Church of God being so oppressed, could not meet when they would, no doubt sometime they met at night. And further that this may be no bare guess, that some received at night. It appeareth by S. Luke, where he writeth that they did continue in the Doctrine of the Apostles, and in breaking bread, and that continuance in the same Chapter, he mentioneth again by these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which words signify a continuance from morning till night, and by this above all conjecture, it is manifest they received sometimes at night. Then except M. Harding will use here his former distinction of the Thursday before Easter, and say that quotidie is every Maundie thursday, it is true that M. Jewel saithe that sometime they received at night. Now that some parte of the use of the primative church may appear to agree with this doing of the Apostles, we will a little examine their doings. S. Basil writeth that they were accustomed at the dedication of Temples to meet at midnight, but at the same assemblies they may well seem to have ministered the Communion, and therefore at after supper. We read the same of Athanasius, that he did usually gather together the Christian congregation at Alexandria in the night time. And of this night meeting in all the congregations that were in Europe, Lactantius maketh express mention. Jerome 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 appear, for that they had commonly other meetings in the morning, which they called Antelucanos coetus, the morning assemblies. And yet if M. Harding would stick in it, I may refuse all these and many such aucthorities. And for the justifying of these untruths, stand to the plain words of Sozomene, who writeth that in many Cities and Towns among the Egyptians, they had their meetings on Saturday at night, and in like plain words Primasius saith, that in certain places of Syria and Egypt, men came together on Saturday night, and that after. Now I trust though the Thursday before Easter with master Harding be no time, yet all these saterdayes joined with it, I trust do make sometimes. Here is nothing can be replied but if M. Harding will say, that in such meetings they did not minister the sacrament. And if he will say so, may it please him then to here what Eusebius saith, that in such meetings they had Orationes, Psalmodiam, participationem de mysterijs. &c. They had prayers, singing psalms, the Communion. &c. And S. Augustine saith, they did celebrate Dominicam coenam, the Lord's supper, but except M. Harding have some distinction in store, which yet now he hath not told us of, we shall not need greatly to prove this matter, in the .182. untruth, where M. Jewel allegeth the council of Cabilon, to prove that Mass doth sometime signify common prayer, because there it is recorded that they had Mass at evening, circa noctis initium, about the beginning of night, there M. Harding maketh this answer, why sir think you that Missa is taken for any kind of prayer, because in that place it is required to be done in y ^e evening? As though the Mass might not at any time be celebrate, but only before noon? if you so think you are deceived. &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 untruth is justified expressly by sundry other aucthorities, and probably by M. Hardings own. He telleth us in deed, that though it were at night, yet it was not after supper nor yet dinner, but that saying resteth upon M. Hardings credit, which to prove an untruth, weigheth over light.

In the primative Church this order was thought expedient, not for the sick, for they in their health received daily.

The .82. untruth. It was for the sick.

The .83. untruth. They received not daily.

If I went about to answer M. Hardings Rejoinder in this one Paragraph, through lying, and fond speaking, he hath ministered sufficient matter to fill many leaves. But I leave that to the godly Reader to consider. For this present purpose, thus saith master Jewel, the receipt of the Cōmunion, when men lay on their death bed, was instituted in the primative Church, especially not for the sick, but for them that were excommunicate. This saying M. Harding doth turn, as if M. Jewel said, that it was not expedient for the sick to receive, and so maketh that untrue, which in deed is untrue, and never spoken by M. Jewel. But without such shifts, master Hardings number of untruths could not grow. For master Jewel's saying, that this receiving was especially for the excommunicate, it may be sufficiently proved. And M. Harding in his Rejoinder saith nothing to the contrary, for this untruth, because M. Jewel saith no such thing. Let it stand as a slander not worthy answer. An other untruth here is brought, that the people received not daily, and M. Harding hath such a confidence in this untruth, that he is not contented with once noting it, but as his manner is, in many other untruths, when his number cometh slowly forward, he reconeth up one .4. or .5. times. so he useth this, and maketh it the 83.133.145.156.213. untruth. Now because it is so often reckoned, by like it standeth upon some good ground. Read the .133. untruth, and thou seest what it is.

At last it grew to such superstition, that it was thrust into men's mouths after they were dead, as we may see by the council of Carthage, forbidding the same.

The .84. untruth. It was not thrust in their mouths.

The .85. untruth. It is not to be seen.

What meaneth M. Harding? would he have children witnesses of his folly. The words of the Council are these, Item placuit vt mortuis 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 non detur. It hath likewise pleased us that the Sacrament be not given unto dead men, hereby saith he it appeareth it was given to dead men, not that it was thrust in their mouths. But I pray M. Harding, can a thing be given to a dead man to eat, and not thrust into his mouthe? This vain contention about words proveth M. Harding to be a very wrangler. This appeareth to be true by the Canon M. Jewel recites, and further we read that it was commanded if the person were dying, infundatur ori eius Eucharistia, that the Sacrament should be poured into his mouthe. Here by the way note, that in that time the people received the cup. As touching the .85. untruth, M. Hardings Rejoinder doth confute it self in the next untruth, before he said the Council did forbid it, now he saith it did not so, whether it did or no, M. Harding hath made a lie, and except the destruction of thrusting it in their mouths, and putting it in, there is no color to shadow the lie.

The members of these arguments hang together like a sick man's dream.

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

No good arguments in deed I grant, but yet such as they are, you encombre us with them.

Here would M. Harding fain find a Mass. &c.

The .87. untruth. Here I seek not for the Mass.

But to seek after your Mass, is your only purpose. Therefore here you speak nothing to the purpose, and consequently as it was said afore, your writings hang together like a sick man's dream.

Here these words, every other Christian man, or woman, that he hath in by the way, are an overplus, and quite from the purpose.

The .88. untruth. The .12. Division. These words are quite from the purpose.

The question is, whether there were private Mass within .600. year after Christ, that is, whether the Priests received alone in the congregation: Master Harding answereth, sick men, and women received at home. The controversy lieth whether this be from the purpose.

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

The .89. untruth.

Before there was an untruth quoted, & not numbered, here is one numbered, and not quoted. When M. Harding telleth what this untruth is, we will answer it, in the mean season we may mark the value of these untruths. Some not worth numbering, some not worth naming, but all is good enough for this Rejoinder.

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

The .90. untruth. S. Jerome calleth not Moses law so.

Here M. Harding maketh two guesses. One at S. Jerome's meaning, another at master Jewel's, if either fail, this untruth, that is risen by chance must sal of necessity. But M. Harding here, as his whole religion is, maketh very much of outward shows. For except a little carnal pleasure of the outward sense, there is nothing in their synagogue, but mourning, and lamentation of the spirit. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in no wise he will have beggarly Ceremonies. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 saithe he, is poor or needy, not beggarly. What great ignorance in singular impudency? This exacte defining of Greek words may breed some where some opinion of learning. But alas here is nothing but in deed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 beggarly wrangling without other learning, or good religion, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 saith master Harding is not beggarly but poor. Yet Aristophanes saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not pore but beggarly. Now whether were better Grecian master Harding or Aristophanes, I think it may be sone judged, Aristophanes words are these, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , he is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is a beggar and hath nothing, he is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that lives by his labor. Thē by this it seemeth that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is beggarly. And Master Harding, that sacred interpretation, that trident convent, doth so much enforce, doeth it not call them egena elementa ? And I pray you M. Harding, whether is egena poor or beggarly? Surely Ovid saith, ( de rem. amor. lib. 2.) of Hecate and Irus, why they are not beloved. Nempe quod alter egēs, altera pauper erat. because Hecate was but poor, & Irus was a very beggar, but thus it is: Master Harding careth neither for Aristophanes, nor yet for Ovid, neither yet for Greek, nor yet for Latin. He is so jealous over his untruths, that some time he speaketh he knoweth not what. Again 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , saithe master Harding is rather Elements, than Ceremonies. In deed I grant the word signifieth the four elements, but I trow he will not have S. Paul speak thus: now you know God, why turn you again to the fire, air, water, and earth, that were a beggarly sense made of the holy Ghosts words. Then why doeth he not confess that S. Paul meaneth the Ceremonies of the law? and thus much as concerning master Hardings Greek. 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 beggarly. But it is no marvel though this interpretation offend them, for what is it that Paul calleth beggarly Ceremonies? It followeth. You observe days and months, times, and years. Hinc illae lachrimae, for this cause M. Harding is so much offended, such observations are great principles in Papistry, and to call them beggarly, is to make all that Religion nothing worth. But we see such a one is Paul, he was chosen to preach among the gentiles, and God have the glory, he hath converted us from all popish Idolatry. For this authority of Jerome, which M. Harding blameth, & in which he seeketh for his untruth, read the place thou shalt find the words: or else let this be untrue.

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

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

If M. Harding will press upon these words, no man maketh any great accompt, then he might have said, I and my fellows make great accompt of it, therefore somebody doth it, and by this means he might have had many witnesses of his saying, and so his untruth had been the surer. If he will not so force the words, why doth he apply them unto the old fathers? By this it appeareth he writeth, not always with the best advisement. But now he doth M. Jewel great wrong, and racketh his words to that, he never meant. He speaketh of himself, and other, that at this day profess God's religion, & saith that were it not for fear of superstition, we would not greatly stick to mingle water with the wine, and for proof that M. Jewel meant thus, let his boke be judge. He allegeth Cyprian, and Justin, and farther saith that certain old Fathers force it much, which words follow immediately. Read his Reply. Then what shame is it to ascribe that to M. Jewel for an untruth, which him self did never speak nor mean. Belike these untruths go slowly forward, when M. Harding is enforced to challenge that, which was never said.

Neither Christ nor any of his Disciples ever gave commandment of it, neither was it at any time universally received.

The .92. untruth. Christ commanded it.

The .93. untruth. It hath been universally received.

Note good reader this hasty quoting of untruths, and the slender proof, and, thou shalt soon espy, that M. Harding hath more desire of his number, than regard of any substance. Here are two untruths in a line. The first: Christ, saith he, commanded that water should be mingled with the wine. This bold asseveration concerning Christ's doing, doth ask a sure proof. For both we were unthankful, if we would not follow his doing, and the danger were great, in leaving his example. But in all the Evangelists it is plain, that our Savior Christ commanded no such thing. Then how doeth M. Harding prove this? Forsoth saithe he, Cyprian and the sixth general council seem to say it came from the Apostles. But because this is but a guess, and little worth, he allegeth Clement, who saithe plainly Christ did it, and this beginneth to describe his ministration of the cup. Likewise mingling the cup of wine, and water, and Consecrating it, he gave it unto them. &c. Now if this Clement be of good authority, the matter is clear. But M. Jewel hath already shown that his authority is no more worth than Abdias, Hippolytus, Amphilochius and his other fellows, and here himself doth quite confound himself, in that otherwise then all the Evangelists, and S. Paul do, he describeth a new fashion of the Lord's supper. S. Paul saithe, he that preacheth any other Gospel than this, let him be accursed. This of Clements is another Gospel thā Paul preached, and therefore in this great light of the true Gospel that now shineth) accursed be he, that will follow all Clements doctrine. Since therefore this is the proof of this untruth, Clement saith it, this shall be our answer for the discharge of it. Master Jewel saith nay a man of more learning, better religion, godlier life, and greater credit, than ever y ^e bastard Clement was. The second untruth here noted is, that it hath been generally received to pour water in the wine. Yet Scotus saith it is not necessary, as M. Jewel hath shown. And likewise so saith Thomas & certain other. Also Mary coūter • et Pope Alexander in his first Decretal Epistle, saith it must be done, because both came out of Christ's side. But let these doctors go. This I grant that Justinus Martyr, Iraeneus, and Cyprian, who above other in this are most earnest, do all seem to enforce it, but because the scripture hath not expressed it, we must beware how we make it necessary, and for that occasion, though in the Latin church it be very ancient, yet in our Church we do not use it. But for this untruth where M. Harding saithe it hath been generally received, that is more rashly affirmed, than sufficiently proved. Scotus saith, that in his time the Greeks used it not, long before him the people of Armenia used it not, as appeareth in this sixth general council alleged by M. Harding, and by sundry other records, and further many years before that time, Chrysostom said of those words of our savior Christ, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine. &c. that he would with those words, take away the pernicious heresy of such as used water in the mysteries. Yet saith M. Harding it hath been generally received. With as good a • orage, and as much truth as Pope Eugenius saith the same, but he must pardon us, he may not score up untruths upon his own credit, we will neither believe the Pope, nor him neither, except they bring their proofs. And thus much of this untruth.

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

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

Even now he said it was commanded by Christ, now he saith it is not necessary. Mark well his sayings and lay them together, and thou shalt easily consider of these untruths, if we likewise thought Christ's commandment not necessary to be observed, when he saith, accipite, edite. We might aforde M. Harding his private Mass.

Scotus saith it is not necessary.

The .95. untruth. Scotus saith not so.

Well said yet Anaxagoras, snow is not white. Scotus hath the very words, see the place in. 4. sent. dist. 11. q. 6. Now concerning this mingling of wine & water, because so many untruths are made about it, it shall not be amiss to speak somewhat of it. First as touching these mē thenselves, how they are affected, we may partly gather by these untruths in the .94. untruth, M. Jewel saith, that M. Harding maketh this mixture necessary. It is not so saith M. Harding. I say not it is necessary. In this untruth M. Jewel saith, y ^t Scotus maketh this mixture not necessary. It is not so saith M. Hard, he maketh it necessary. By this it is plain, y ^t Scotus & M. Harding do not agree. But it may be that these hasty untruths want some consideration. Let that advantage go, and let us consider the thing. We have no express commandment for it. That Christ gave only wine, it may well appear by that is written. I will drink no more of this fruit of the vine. &c. for the usage of it, if it were left free, it might be had, but when they made it a matter of such weight, it was necessary to stop y ^e great outrage. But let us see how they prove that this mixture should be made of wine and water, Quia vtrumque ex Christi latere profluxisse dicitur, because both issued out of Christ's side. True it is water and blood issued out of Christ side, but this is a poor reason to mingle water and wine in this Sacrament, when Christ did celebrate his supper, before his precious side was pierced. That which S. John testifieth here, that water and blood issued out of his side, the same he writeth in his Epistle, that Christ came with water and blood. Teaching us hereby that Christ is the true satisfaction for our sins, and the true water of regeneration to make us clean, and without spot before his father. For the forgiveness of our sins, and the purifying of our souls were figured in the law by sacrifices, and by washings. In y ^e sacrifices the blood did purge sins, and was the atonement appointed to pacify God's wrath. The washings were testimonies of the true cleanness of the mind, and remedies to do away the filthiness of our flesh. Now least our faith should abide still in those Elements. S. John doth witness, that in Christ it is accomplished, what so ever was wanting in those outward Ceremonies. And for a token of that fullness of grace in Christ, that in him is found, all that reconciliation figured in the law, either by blood or water, he writeth that out of his side issued both blood and water. By the blood he hath purged us from our sins, and done out the handwriting of ordinance, that was against us, and fastened it upon the Cross. And that as Paul saith, not by the blood of Goats, and calves, but by his own precious blood gushing out of his side, by which he is entered into the holy place, which is heaven, and is become the tabernacle, the sacrifice, and the priest, and hath obtained eternal redemption for us. By the water we are assured that this benefit doth come unto us, both because by water we be regenerate, and also because it signifieth the people, so that this miracle of blood, and water in the death of our savior Christ, is the performance of that, which God had promised by his Prophet, saying. In that day shall be a fountain opened to the house of David, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin, and for uncleanness. And thus by this water, and blood gushing out of the side of our Savior, we are taught two especial pointes of the Christian faith, the one, that by Christ alone all sins are purged, the other, that in the New Testament we have but two Sacraments, the one of the Lord's death, the other of Baptism, which two resembled in this blood, and water, have in them the whole mystery of our full redemption. And thus the remembrance of this same place is the greatest comfort, that a Christian soul can have in the world. But Lord those Papists, which pervert God's scriptures, what Doctrine have they gathered of this comfortable saying? First that we must have water mingled with y ^e wine in the Chalice, which in this place, be it never so ancient, yet it hath no ground at all. But they go farther than this, they say that the soldiers name was Lungis, because it is written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And least there should want anything to make up the tale, they say, that he was strokē blind, and then by this blood and water he received his sight again, and so was converted, whereupon they have made him a Saint, and so now we may keep the feast of S. Lungis the blind Knight. Yet sure such canonising is worth as little money, as these untruths had much idle labor.

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

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

When M. Harding cannot defend their too beastly usage of God's holy sacraments: he thinketh he can salve the whole matter with Hick scorner, and saying that we belie their mysteries, and I pray M. Hue railer, that please yourself so well 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 mystery of iniquity, that so long hath wrought in your sinagoge, hath brought many moe abominations into the Church of God, all which the Lord shall abolish with the brightness of his word. Whether you make great a do about these things here alleged, let your Doctors be the judges. Read Scotus in sent. 4. dist. 11. 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 down or no, I confess I do not know. But why do you stand so in this point? It is a very learned doubt in respect of their other foolish questions. Biel disputeth whether the Priest at Mass do consecrate all the bread in the market, and all the wine in the sellers, and concludeth, that if he stand so as he may see it, and meaneth to do it, he doth no doubt consecrate every whit. But now ask Gabriel Biel another question, how shall the Priest do to take all the bread in the market in his hand, as the Mass book requireth of that, which shall be consecrate. This is another doubt, which M. Hardings Doctors would surely have discussed, if they had heard it. Scotus asketh what if the priest die before he speak all the words, how shall then consecration go forewarde? Other ask what if a drop of wine hang on the outside of the Chalice, whether is that consecrate? and what if the wine do freeze in the Chalice, and what if the Priest at Mass do remember, that when he washed his mouth in the morning, a drop of water went down his throat, whether should he receive none, since he had broken his fast, or whether should he let all alone. Other ask whether Christ be in the Pix, even as he was on the Cross, with his clothes and crown of thorns about his head. And what should I recite all, which are almost infinite. A thousand such irreverent questions, they have disputed in whole volumes. Yet now saith 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 vain questions, so he would renounce that whole adulterous religion.

Now it appeareth, that the Church is not yet resolved upon one intention. For the intention of the Church of Rome, is to work transubstantiation of bread, and wine: the Greek Church had never that intention, as is plain by the Council of Florence. The intention of the Church of Rome is to Consecrate with Christ's words. The intention of the Greek Church, is to Consecrate with prayers.

The .97. untruth. The Church is resolved upon one intention.

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

The .99. untruth. This is not plain by the Council of Florence.

The .100. untruth. The Greek church doth not consecrate with prayers.

Now M. Hardings untruths go roundly forward. If this haste may have good speed, I warrant him his number. But if this haste do make waste, he is never a whit the near. Let us see then how these untruths are gathered. The first is this. The Church is agreed upon the Priests intent. But this cannot be so, if the Greek Church, and the Church of Rome do not agree, which is the .2. untruth. And they cannot agree, if the one will have transubstantiation, the other will not have it, which is the third untruth. And they will have the one Transubstantiation, the other not, if the one do consecrate with these words, this is my body, the other with prayers, which is the .4. untruth. Then thus hang these untruths. If this last be true, that the Greek Church doth consecrate with prayers, the third is true, that it intendeth not Transubstantiation. And the second is true, that it hath no such intent, as the Church of Rome hath, and the first is true, that these churches are not resolved in this intent. Now consider I beseech thee, good Reader, what manner of untruths these are, that notwithstanding their great number, are yet so small in value, that if but one be proved true, all .iv. must be granted. Sure thou must needs confess that M. Harding, who in his Epistle would so fain shoot at hobs, and rouers, yet at this mark he hath had so good delivery, that he hath far ouershot him self, and his whole commendation is no more worth, than that praise in Horace of a babbling Poete, qui variare potest rem prodigialiter vnam, which cā turn a true sentence into a great many lies. For proof of this last untruth, on which the other hang, we have the plain words of the Council of Florence alleged by M. Jewel, where it is shown, that in the Greeks ministry after the words of Christ pronounced, this is my body, they make this prayer, fac panem hunc honorabile corpus Christi tui. &c. make this bread the honorable body of thy Christ. By this prayer it is manifest, that these words, this is my body, being pronounced before, did not work Transubstantiation. But because it hath pleased M. Harding in to great a zeal of his number, to score up untruths thus unwisely, least his friends should think the matter insufficiently answered, we will say somewhat of them in order, even as M. Harding noteth them, and I doubt not but to the indifferent reader, they shall one of them sufficiently confute another. First saith M. Harding, the Church is resolved on the Priests intent. But that is very false. For the Greek Church, and the Church of Rome have not one intent. The Greke Church, as is said, doth consecrate with prayers. The Church of Rome with hoc est enim corpus meum. The Greek Church maketh more account of the worthy receiving, than of Consecration. The Church of Rome thinketh we ought to have more regard of Consecration, than of the worthy receiving. I leave out other differences which are almost infinite. This is enough to prove our purpose. Secondarily saithe M. Harding, the Church of Rome intendeth not Transubstantiation. What he intended in this untruth, I know not. For my parte would God M. Jewel said here untrue and that that Romish Church would leave of that presumptuous intent. Thirdly saith M. Harding, the Greek Church meaneth transubstantiation. And this is very strange for a learned man to speak such repugnances. First y ^t the church of Rome intendeth not transubstantiation. Again, that the Greek Church doth intend transubstantiation. And thirdly, y ^t they two intend one thing, when M. Harding with all his wrangling, can make these untruths agree, sure we will subscribe. Now resteth a little to be considered of the Council of Florence, whether it may appear by it, that the Church of the Grecians acknowledge no transubstantiation. Thus it stood. When the Latins in that assembly, required that they might entreat of transubstantiation. The Greeks made answer, 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. Here be the Reader never so simple, he must think thus much. If this article of transubstantiation were so Catholic, as they will make us believe, how cometh it to be called so often in controversy in general Council. And again, if the Grecians did account it as Catholic, and were resolved in it, what meant they, that they would not subscribe to so high a point of Christian religion, sure this was their meaning, they knew this transubstantiation was but a Romish devise, and therefore they would▪ not yield unto it. And thus much of these hasty untruths.

The .13. Division. But if Cyril never spake word of the Mass, how is he here brought in to prove the Mass?

The .101. untruth. Cyril is not brought to prove the Mass.

But he should prove private Mass, or else what maketh he here. For of that the question is moved. And this is a very hard case, that M. Harding must lose his untruth, or else confess he speaketh not to the purpose.

Neither may we think that Christ's body, must grossly, and bodily be received into our bodies.

The .102. untruth. We must believe it.

As master Harding hath forsaken God's Religion, and is fallen again to Popery, so it seemeth also he hath forsaken his learning, and beginneth to make untruths with his folly. This is one of the chiefest articles, for which we have forsaken their unfaithful Church. As often as we repeat this, we conclude the thing, which lieth in controversy between us. This is our professed opinion, and upon the trial of it by good and sufficient authority, if it be proved against us, Master Jewel is ready to subscribe. Then what meaneth master Harding? Or what manner of untruth is this? Or who can account it for true, and plain dealing, when upon good ground we show forth our opinion, and he scoreth up the question for an untruth? He shall do well to reprove it, before he make anymoe untruths of this. Read the .104. untruth.

S. Cyprian saith, it is meat not for the belly, but for the mind.

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

If M. Harding and his Popish fellows had falsified the Doctors, no otherwise than M. Jewel here falsifieth S. Cyprian, then in a little change of words, we should have had their meaning faithfully delivered unto us, and bastard books such as they knew not, had never been ascribed unto them. But thanks be to God, who hath now lightened us, least such ungodly writings under godly names should deceive us, as touching this untruth, I grant the words are not in that treatise entitled de coena domini. But whether the author say the same thing in sense, let him self witness. M. Jewel alleging no Latin words, but following the sense, saith thus, it is meat not for the belly, but for the mind. The words in Cyprian are these. Sicut panis communis, quem quotidie edimus, vita est corporis: ita panis iste supersubstantialis, vita est animae, & sanitas mentis. As the common bread, which we eat daily, is the life of the body: so this bread supersubstantiall is the life of the soul, and the health of the mind, and what is here falsified by M. Jewel? Or what is worthy blame in this allegation? Yet M. Harding taketh this small occasion to find fault with his printed sermon, with his reply, and with them, that, as he saith, patched together the Apology. For the printed sermon, it is well confirmed by the Reply, and the Reply is not yet found blameable, notwithstanding this Rejoinder, the Apology, that he liketh to term patched, now after the time, that God had appointed, it doeth not want my defense, the book is precious, and is defended by such a Jewel, that all the treasuries in the world, God make him thankful, will not buy his gifts, & therefore M. Hardings words cā not hurt him.

Christ is set forth, not to be received with the mouth, for that as Cyril saith, were a gross imagination.

The .104. untruth. Christ must be received with the mouth.

The .105. untruth. Cyril saith not so.

This is one with the .102. untruth. Master Hardings transubstantiation standeth him in very good stead to multiply his untruths. And yet if he had well considered it, it had not been worth his doubling. I have spoken somewhat hereof in the Epistle. Concerning this other untruth, M. Harding, saith he knoweth not what he granteth. These are Cyrillus words, but he gesseth at another sense, and upon that surmise quoteth a new untruth. Dothe he claim so much to his own understanding, that if he say it, it must be so, though y ^e words be contrary? Before we build of his saying, it shall be needful for him to win some better credit. See the place & thou wilt bear witness, that it is truly alleged.

The .14. Division. For the party excommunicate being a priest, might say he would say Mass, and so receive the Communion, even with the bishop, of whom he were excommunicate.

The .106. untruth. The Priest excommunicate, might not say Mass lawfully.

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

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

The .107. untruth. I say not he may receive with others.

M. Harding is past shame, would God, as I have said often, he were not past grace, if these be not his words. Therefore that one may Communicate with another, though they be not together in one place, it may be proved by good authority, then will I subscribe, if they be his words, then judge thou of his doing.

Here mark good Christian reader, then they Communicated, saith Irenaeus, when they met in the Church.

The .108. untruth. Irenaeus saith not so, read it again, and mark it better.

These are Irenaeus words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . These words, if as M. Harding requesteth, we read them again, and mark them better, then no doubt they are thus in English. These things being thus, they Communicated together, and in the Church Anicetus gave to Polycarpus the Eucharist. Here saith M. Jewel, by this it appeareth, they communicated, when they met in y ^e church. That is not so saithe M. Hard. Read it once again, & mark it better. If often reading, and better marking may serve the turn, then gentle reader I crave also thy labor, read it yet once again and mark it better. Yea read it while thou wilt, and mark it how thou canst, if this fancy of M. Hardings do but once come in thy mind, I may boldly make thee this large offer, let these all be untruths. His fancy is so full of folly, his imagination so vain, his interpretation so childish, that if thou of thyself canst find it out, I say, as I said before, let all these untruths stand. Read it I beseech thee once again, and mark it better. Is not this a strange untruth, that no mā can espy it but M. Harding? But since it is so, that here can be no untruth without M. Hardings good instruction, let us ask of him, how it may be falsified. He telleth us of two faults, the first in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they communicated, the seconde in Englishing Eucharistia the sacrament. Mary saith he, yet I will define nothing, that is, I will stand to neither of them. Is not this a strange dealing, that he will first find fault, then will not bide by it, and yet notwithstanding will score up his untruth. If this untruth be untruth, why will he not abide by it? Or if he will not abide by it, why doth he say it is untrue? must his private Mass, his half communion, his outlandishe prayers, his Popes supremacy, yea his untruths, and all be proved by peradventure? But let it be so, what is it at the last, that here may chance be false? this it is in the first fault about communion: peradventure forsooth they communicated before they met. This blind peradventure, wer it in Cambridge or Oxford, no doubt it would be hissed out of the schools. The second fault found in translating, Eucharistia, y ^e sacrament is this: peradventure Eucharistia here doth signify sacerdotale mynisterium, the priestly office. Now sure good reader this is a strange adventure. Eucharistia, the priests office? Fie on such a chance, except a man had a privilege, to make words sound, what him listed. No mā, I trow, would have made this adventure. But here 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 himself with his good artillery, he saith, he could never shote at this mark, that Eucharistia might be taken, not for the Sacrament, but for common bread. Now either by means of lighter arowes, or a better loose, he shoots a great way beyond it, & saith with a good countenance, y ^• Eucharistia is no bread at all, but y ^e priests office. Sure this is very uncertain shooting, and can never stand with a good archer. A man may shoot long at the Etymology of y ^e word, ere he bring it to this significatiō, Though he have determined to say little truly: yet he should have taken heed, how he had spoken so unwisely. That other tragical exclamation, that Eucharistia must be taken simply for bread consecrate, bewrayeth this close dealing, that it may be taken for the Priests office. And here again for a good note of M. Hardings falls dealing, we have to mark, that in this place, where M. Jewel saith Eucharistia may be taken for common bread, but yet appointed for the Communion, M. Harding doeth not quote it for an untruth, yet in the Epistle he noted it for a great heresy. And why doeth he thus? As it may be thought, because he foresaw, that to deny the Eucharist at any time to note bread, not yet consecrate, were a great prejudice to his gross distinction, that it might signify the Priests office, and therefore for the better conueyaunce of this absurdity, he would not quote that an untruth, which he had so greatly impugned before. More true dealing, and less vain speaking, would better beseem a Doctor of Divinity.

Anicetus as Irenaeus saith, received the sacrament with Polycarpus in the Church, and not, as M. Harding seemeth to say in his Inn, or hosterie.

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

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 saith Orestes, forgetfulness of infortunate things is to be reverenced. But M. Harding for all his wonted hobbing, hath here far ouershot him self, to note two untruths together, that are both one, if there be any distinction that may salve this matter, it were good we were informed. I think simple wits, without long instruction, will not find it.

The .110. untruth. I seem not to say it.

M. Harding granteth, that he may say they Communicated together before they met, but not that they received the Sacrament, and herein saith he, M. Jewel deceiveth his reader. This distinction, as it is somewhat strange, so no doubt it hath some hid understanding, one had need of Apollo, that should well interpret it. For my parte except M. Harding expound it, I know not what he meaneth. For M. Jewel saith, it seemeth to me very probable. For if M. Harding do deny that they received in the Church, or in Anicetus house, or in the streat, then if they did receive, it is most like he saith they received in their Inn, if they received not, what is master Harding the nearer to his Private Mass.

The .16. Division. The Priest prayeth, and giveth thanks in the vulgare tongue.

The .111. untruth. He prayeth not in the vulgare tongue of the Country.

The Canon law doeth give license to answer one cavil with another. If either that law wer worth following, or we would use that liberty, is given us, we would appoint some play maker to answer this Rejoinder, for such men with their great leisure, and selfpleasing wit, would find M. Harding wrangling work enough. Justin in describing the order of their service, among other things, he telleth how the people give thanks, and say Amen to the ministers prayer, & so them selves 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 speech of the country. But if he mean the one of the three learned tongues, Latin, Greek, or Hebrew, then M. Harding granteth they had service in the vulgar tongue. Here I crave of the reader but indifferent judgment, to think of this untruth, as occasion is ministered. For proof that it is untrue, here is nothing brought but this distinction, that the vulgare tongue signifieth either that, which every Country speaketh, or else the Greke, Latin, or Hebrew tongue. And what a miserable distinction is this? whoever hard that the vulgar tongue did signify any other than the mother tongue of every country? Sure this boke is a boke of distinctions, it is no reioinder. Let him show in any book in the world, where vulgare hath this signification, that he dreameth of, and let him have all his untruths.

He said before, that every private Mass was common.

The .112. untruth. I say nowhere, that every private Mass is common, but that every Mass is common.

This is one of those untruths, which M. Hard. saithe is very manifest, & can by no means be colored. But good reader be not dismayed, it is soon justified how so ever M. Harding misliketh of it. Mark but only this grant, which he maketh, and to quite that reason, which in the .70. untruth, he would have considered, I will make another here for him to consider: y ^e proposition shall be his own: the assumpsion shall be confessed of all men. The conclusion shall follow in good mood, & figure.

I do think M. Harding did not orderly consider of this untruth, when he made it. Sure I am, this argument is good, and by no distinction cā be answered. Therefore this untruth, saving only the necessity of his number, might well have been spared. Read more of this untruth in the third untruth.

I alleged all these in my sermon.

The .113. untruth. He alleged not all.

In very many places to make up these untruths, M. Harding saith of sundry aucthorities, he alleged them not for his Mass. Now he will needs take in all for his purpose, when I shall better understand which places be brought for his Mass, and which in vain, then I will examine the sermon. In the mean season understand thus much. M. Jewel saith, I alleged all these witnesses for private Mass. That is an impudent untruth saith M. Harding, he allegeth not all, that I allege for sole receiving. M. Hardings privilege serveth both ways, either to make one word to signify diverse things, or diverse words to signify but one thing. We have heard before of his distinctions, now he cometh in with his coniunctions, private Mass, and sole receiving, by this untruth are both one. But as M. Hardings distinctions, are in deed distinctions, that is, as I interpreate it lies, so these coniunctions are his own coniunctions, that is, a coupling of lies together.

This manner of Private receiving at home, was not lawful for the lay men. For it was abolished by godly Bishops in general Council.

The .114. untruth. The .17. Division. It was not abolished.

The .115. untruth. That council was not general, but provincial.

These untruths come more fast, than truly forward. It was not, saith M. Harding, abolished. Lay men might receive at home. The council of Caesar Augusta, which M. Jewel saith thus. He that receiveth the Sacrament, and doth not eat it in the Church, let him be accursed forever. The like Canon is also decreed in the first council of Toledo, if any man having received the Sacrament, do not presently eat it, velut sacrilegus propellatur, let him be driven away as a most wicked person. Of this M. Jewel saith, the lay man might not receive it at home. And shall we think, because M. Harding saith nay, that notwithstanding these cursings, yet the lay man might carry it home to receive it? Master Hardings wrangling here about sick men, is not worth the answer. M. Jewel speaketh of those, that may go to Church. It was an idle matter here to talk of sick folks. If M. Harding for these untruths, be fain to wrest plain words into a violent sense, then the untruths are his own. For this second untruth, me thinketh M. Harding is a very partial man. In the .108. untruth he will have Eucharistia so large in signification, as no man, I trow, but him self could imagine. In this he so presseth the word general, that he alloweth not that which common sense teacheth. He denieth that council to be general, because there was not gathered together, I know not how many Bishops out of Christendom. But if M. Harding had marked it better, he should have known it well enough, that general might be applied only to those twelve, which he saithe were there gathered together. If they did all well agree, sure that council was more general, than their Chapter of Trident. If he will force the word Ecumenical, there is no Counsel that ever was so general. If he will anything restrain it, why may he not bring it down, yea even to twelve. This untruth is but a cavil, and if it were granted, yet were M. Harding never the near his private Mass. But because he saith so constantly, that that Counsel was but of .xii. Bishops in Spain, as Peter Crab also noteth out of Isidorus, it is more, I think, than he is able to prove, for it is known that the Church of Caesar Augusta, & Asturica Augusta, another City in Spain, and Emerica Augusta a City in Portingall, joined in all matters, and were of one fellowship, so that counsel of the other xii. Bishops, had more over the consent of their great Cities. This Caesar Augusta itself, otherwise called Numantia, was so populous a City, that it kept war .xiv. year with the Empire of Rome. It was a City of so much worthiness for religion, that what so ever had been determined, there the consent might well have been called general. Prudentius doth seem to glory, that it was his Country. 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 foreign Bishops met in such a City, to deny their Decrees to be agreed on in general Counsel.

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

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

The .117. untruth. These are not Tertullian's words.

If looking better on M. Hardings words will help the mater, we will not let for that. Mark good Reader, and loke diligently, these are his words. The thing reverently, and devoutly received, before other meats, is not bread as the infidels then, and the Sacramentaries now believe. Look well good reader, and for M. Hardings pleasure look again, doeth he not say it is not bread. How is this then untrue? Now must I desire thee again, to loke diligently, and if thou mark well, thou shalt now hear of such a distinction, as in all this book of distinctions there is none such. I say saithe master Harding, it is not bread, I say not it is no bread: there is great difference between not bread, and no bread. Sure if thou look not marvelous narrowly, thou wilt never understand this distinction. For my parte I would surely have said it, that which was not bread, had been no bread, and that which was no bread, had sure been 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 anything, and not anything be something. As touching master Jewel that good simple Bishop, I dare swear for him he never knew of this distinction, and so he is wrongfully charged with this untruth. Yet least master Harding should please him self too well, I must forwarne him that I cannot alow well of this distinction. If he be well advised this is a Logike rule. Aientia & negantia acerrime inter se pugnant. No things are so contrary as the affirming and denial of the same thing. But panis non panis, bread not bread, are contradictory, not panis, nullus panis, bread no bread. Therefore master Hardings saying, that no bread doth signify more than not bread, may seem to have no Logike, and to speak not very wisely. And sure I muse how he could be overseen in this, considering the substance of it, is in supposition, about which his friends have wasted many good hours. If he have forgotten their Doctrine, let him remember the verse. Particulare prius facit o generale secundum. But it may be that master Harding, and his friends, as they have strange devises, so they go about to make new Logike, no doubt they are at some conspiracy. For master Nicholas Saunders, whom his friends think somebody, maketh this very distinction in his fourth book, of the Sacrament, and with this common conceit of not bread, and no bread, would fain have an untruth against master Jewel. And is it possible that these men should agree in so great a folye, if they laid not their heads together? Well God be thanked their general councils conclude very unwisely.

Now resteth this other untruth, about Tertullian's words, which as master Harding saith, are falsified, because bread is not in the latter ende of the sentence, as master Jewel doeth allege them. Tertullian's words are these. Non sciet maritus quid secreto ante omnes cibum gustes, & si scierit, panem, non illum credet esse qui dicitur. Here saithe master Harding, illum must not be referred to panem, and thereupon he quoteth his untruth. Even as he did before for want of Logike, so it may be thought he doeth here, through want of Latin. Illum saith he, is not referred to panem, and yet the Grammarian saith the adjective must be always referred to a substantive, except it be put substantiuely in the Neutre gender. Now if master Harding cannot make illum, the Neuter gender, nor yet find any other substantive in the sentence, than panem, then his Grammar hath as evil hap as his Logike, and this is no untruth.

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

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

What meaneth M. Harding to wrangle? When M. Jewel saithe, he meaneth the person of a man to be in the form of bread, can M. Harding understand it of a mortal man? Or is the controversy between us, whether in the sacrament be any earthly man's body? If M. Harding would have let scape this untruth, no man would have gathered this absurd sense of M. Jewel's saying. And yet if we would examine it, what manner of untruth is this, where it is said, it is a man's body, to note it as untrue, and say it is Christ's body both God, and man. If it be so, yet is it a man's body, unless we deny our savior Christ to be perfect man, such untruths are sone answered.

The story that S. Cyprian reporteth, as it showeth the manner of keeping the Sacrament, so it seemeth also to show, that God was offended with the same.

The .119. untruth. God was not offended with keeping the sacrament, but with the presumption of the woman, which opened the cheast with unworthy hands.

M. Jewel showeth out of Nicephorus, that by like examples it may appear, God was offended with that reserving of the Sacrament. M. Harding without reason, without authority, without example of God's word, doth boldly pronounce upon God's meaning, and saith, the example was shown, because she opened hir cheast with unworthy hands. Suche pronouncing of God's doing should be grounded in God's scriptures, or else such noting of untruths are rash, and wicked. I grant it is in S. Cyprian, cum manibus indignis tentasset aperire, when she assayed to open it with unworthy hands. But whether for hir unworthiness God showeth y ^e miracle, that M. Harding addeth of his own. But what if Cyprian had said this, we must not therefore have believed it. He was a good member of the Church of God, but yet he was a man, & sometime deceived. He taught that Christ made satisfaction for original sin only, yet we know, that was a wicked opinion. He writeth that it was in his time .6000. years since the Devil did assault man, which is a gross error. And in some places he thought not reverently of the Majesty of the holy Ghost. God forbid we should yield to anything, what so ever a good man doeth write. But it is well in this place, Cyprian saith no such thing, as M. Harding would have him, and therefore his rash untruth, is not yet proved. But to prove the contrary, and that M. Jewel saith true: we have the authority of many. Our savior Christ bad do that, which he did, in his remembrance. But he said unto his disciples, take, and eat, he said not lay up in your chests. And so Cyprian him self, if it be Cyprian, saith likewise, recipitur, non includitur, the Sacrament is received, it is not shut up. So likewise saith Origen, panis, quem dominus dedit discipulis suis, iussit accipi, & manducari, non differri, aut seruari in crastinum. The bread, which the Lord God gave to his Disciples, he bad them take it, and eat it. He bad them not defer it, and keep it till tomorrow. Thus we see M. Jewel's saying may be sufficiently proved, and master Hardings bold untruth is without any reason.

The thing which our bodily mouthe receiveth, is very bread. Both the scriptures, and also the old Catholic fathers put it out of doubt.

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

The .121. untruth. The holy fathers say not that the substance of bread remaineth.

This first untruth is all one with the .74. the .102. the 104. But such must be had, or how shall untruths rise. Yet reason would, as I have said, that he should prove his transubstanciation, before he quote so fast these untruths. Concerning this other untruth, though it be one with this former, and is now .v. times repeated, that no wise man would think well of master Hardings doing, yet because he is so well pleased with it, through his importunity, I must needs say somewhat, both for trial of his truth, and satisfying the Christian reader. First our savior Christ, after consecration calleth it the fruit of the vine, and a testament, S. Paul v. times bread, and the table of the Lord, S. Luke calleth the whole Communion the breaking of bread. Theodoretus an ancient father saithe. Qui se ipsum appellauit vitem, illa Symbola & signa quae videntur appellatione corporis & sanguinis honorauit, naturam non mutans, sed naturae adijcit gratiam. He that called himself a vine, did vouchsafe to honor those tokens and signs, which are seen, with the name of his own body, not changing their natures, but joining grace unto it. And again he saith, signa mystica post sanctificationem non recedunt a natura sua, sed manent in priori substātia. The mystical signs after sanctification, do not go from their own nature, but keep the same substance that they had before, that denieth transubstantiation. Gelasius saithe, non desinit esse substantia vel natura panis & vini, the substance or nature of bread and wine ceaseth not. Vigilius saithe of Christ's humanity, quando in terra fuit non erat vtique in caelo, nunc quia in caelo est non est vtique in terra, when he was on earth, he was not in heaven, now he is in heaven, he is not therefore in earth: and in his first boke against Eutiches, he likewise saith, abstulit de hoc mundo naturam quam susceperat a nobis, he hath taken from the world, that nature which he received of us. Chrysostom saithe, natura panis in sacramento remanet. The nature of bread abideth in the Sacrament. Augustine saith, quod videtis panis est, that which you see is bread. Origen saith, Non materia panis sed super illum dictus sermo est qui prodest. Not the matter of bread, but the word which is spoken over it, doth help. Cyril saith, Christus credentibus discipulis fragmenta panis dedit. Christ gave unto his believing 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 bread, the other heavenly, which is by faith the feeding of our souls with the body of Christ. Read master Jewel's books, thou shalt see such other aucthorities in great number. Thus thou seest Christian reader, that the Doctors bear witness 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 untruth stand.

The .18. Division. This sole receiving was an abuse, and therefore abolished.

The .122. untruth. Sole receiving in the time of persecution, was no abuse.

Here M. Harding doeth freely grant, that sole receiving is an abuse, whē the people may freely resort unto the church. Where is then the private Mass of our time? This untruth though it be worth no answer, yet for want of better, it was once noted afore.

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

The .123. untruth. They eat not by the mouthe of the priest, as M. Jewel meaneth.

M. Harding is driven to narowe straightes, that maketh such raw untruths, with so many unripe distinctions. In the former untruth he putteth in, in the time of persecution. In this untruth as M. Jewel meaneth. His helping hand must come to, or there is no untruth to be found. This is M. Hard. plain doctrine, the people do receive by the mouthe of the priest. If he can make two senses of these words, his doubtful speaking is full of deceitful meaning. But this is too shameless wrangling. No man in the world doth think the people stand in the priests mouth. We know he meaneth some spiritual manner of communicating. Be his doctrine never so wicked, yet we do see what is his ungodly meaning, & every child seeth this can be no untruth, there can be but one meaning of these words.

The .19. Division. Here M. Harding interlaceth other mater, of the office of wedlock.

The .124. untruth. It is S. Jerome that interlaceth it, it is not I.

Mark gentle reader this untruth, M. Jewel saith M. Harding interlaceth it. M. Harding saith no, they are S. Jerome's words. He is so far gone in strange distinctions, he hath forgotten plain English, what though the words be S. Jerome's, yet this interlacing of them in his treatise, is either his own, or else some of his friends, that might help out with his book.

Thus saith M. Harding, Erasmus gathereth private Mass out of the scriptures.

The .125. untruth. I say it not.

M. Harding can quote no untruth, but if he either wrangle, or make a lie, and in this place he doth both. His words are these, read them who will. Thus doth Erasmus gather private, or as M. Jewel iesteth, single Communion out of the Scriptures. If M. Harding deny this, he lieth. If he say he meaneth not by the Communion the Mass, he wrāgleth, and reproveth his own doing of folly. For why maketh he this conclusion, if it prove not his Mass. So what ever he meaneth, this untruth is a wrangling lie.

The .22. Division. Master Harding useth a strange kind of Logic, he pretendeth private Mass, and concludeth single Communion.

The .126. untruth. I pretend not to prove private Mass, here principally.

Here principally must help one untruth, but because M. Jewel doeth not say principally, let master Harding put it in his bosom, and then it is no untruth. He saith nothing else for proof of this untruth, but falleth out with master Jewel, for rebuking the slothful Cardinals, and Priests of Rome. How be it he need not greatly be offended. For the Pope hath provided well for them, as is already shown. Say what we will, an accusation may hardly pass against a Cardinal without three score and four witnesses, nor against a Deacon without seven and twenty, if they will keep any modesty, or come not on the market hill, I warrant them for other places, they be safe enough.

The .24. Division. Master Harding gathereth this conclusion.

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

Master Harding would fain shift off this argument, and his poor friend master Rastell hath done for him in this behalf, what he can, but it will not be. For answer to this untruth, a long discourse is needless. For the simple cannot conceive it, and the learned do see it well enough. All manner of arguments what so ever the propositions be, they may be reduced to the first figure. But this can be none otherwise reduced. Therefore this is master Hardings argument, and let him never deny it. For being in the Hypothetical form of propositions, it may argue a will to deceive, but it cannot impair the credit of his learning. This is sooner diminished by denying this argument, than by making it. What the argument is, read the Reply. Fol. 58.

These examples master Harding hath brought, to prove his Mass.

The .128. untruth. I brought them not to prove the Mass directly.

In the .126. untruth, he said he brought not these aucthorities to prove the Mass principally: now he saithe they prove it not directly. Hadde it been for espying, he might have made many untruths of this, he might have said, they prove not the Mass immediately, orderly, especially, chiefly, only, effectually, purposedly, and so made many lies, as well as principally, and directly, and so make of none a double lie. But here by the way we may note, that master Hardings reasons are little better than master Jewel maketh them, when he himself doth so oft say they prove not his purpose.

That it might seem lawful for a priest to say private Mass, he hath brought in example of lay men, women, sick folk, and boys.

The .129. untruth. It is not so, I brought them not to prove the Mass.

Now good reader mark these three untruths, and see how thou likest them, the .126. they prove not the Mass principally, the .128. they prove it not directly, and this untruth they prove it not at all. Now to give him one untruth more, and make up a mess, sure what so ever M. Jewel say, they prove it but a little, and therefore M. Hardings answer, is worthy little commendations.

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

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

M. Harding hath now gotten the habit, he can say nothing without a distinction. But all availeth not, God have the praise. Master Jewel meaneth that Communion, which is ministered as well at Geneva, as in other godly places, where the adulterous and Romish sacraments are banished. Therefore this is no untruth, it is our open professiō. That Communion which M. Harding blameth, is the holy Communion of the Lord's body and blood, and the effectual representation of his death.

Christ's example in doing, and commanndement to do the same, may not be taken for a show, or accident, but for the effect, and substance of his supper.

The .131. untruth. Christ's whole example is not of the substance of the Sacrament.

Mark well M. Jewel's words, and M. Hardings untruths, and thou wilt think the Cocatrice, doth no more infecte eche thing that she breatheth on, than master Harding doth those words, which he would confute. Master Jewel saith, Christ's example in doing, and commandment to do the same, is of the substance of the supper. And who will not say, that that is necessary, which Christ hath both done, and commanded to be done. Then how is this untrue? Master Harding putteth in (whole,) and taketh out (commandment to do the same) and maketh master Jewel say thus: Christ's whole example is of the substance of the supper, and in deed this is false. For Christ ministered after supper, and sitting, and with common bread, and in an usual drinking cup, and in an house, which is neither necessary, nor all convenient for our time. Thus we see what these untruths are, altogether forced with master Hardings lies, sometime he addeth, sometime he detracteth, that of all these untruths we may well say it still, the number is so great, the substance cannot be good.

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

The .132. untruth. It is not called so, as you mean.

This untruth is all one with the .75. and there master Harding saith simply, that the fathers call not the sacrifice of the cross, the daily sacrifice. Here upon better advise, he reuoketh his absolute assertion, and doeth qualify it with master Jewel's meaning. So if master Harding do not truly gather master Jewel's meaning upon a false surmise, he hath made two untruths. But because we are come again, to mention of this Sacrifice, I will show thee, what is our Sacrifice for the purging of our sins. First, for thy better instruction, thou must learn wherein standeth the controversy betwixt the Papists, and us. They say, they do daily in their Mass offer up Christ unto his father, a propitiation for our sins. We say, that Christ hath purged us from our sins, and that with the Sacrifice of his own precious body, and blood, but that sacrifice Christ himself did once make upon the Cross, neither can any mortal man, offer him anymore. Now if we can show, that Christ's real body is no more offered unto his father, then is not only this no untruth, but all master Hardings religion is deuelishe, and wicked. Let us see then, what the scriptures do teache us, until the time that our savior Christ did die. This Sacrifice is often mentioned, that it should be made when he had once died, it is never mentioned, but as already done. Before he was conceived in his mothers womb, the angel said his name should be Jesus. For he should save his people from their sins. When he was born, he was called the salvation, which God had prepared before the face of all people. When he was Christened, John said of him, behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world. The Lamb in this place, after the Hebrew phrase, doth signify the sacrifice, or the offering. And Christ him self: When I shall be exalted, I will draw all unto myself. 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 upon the cross, consummatum est, all was finished, and in token, that there was no more sacrifice to be made for sin, the baile of the temple did rend from the top to the foot. Now after this sacrifice once finished, not one title in the whole scriptures of any propiciatorie sacrifice to come, but upon this one, and once made repentance, must be preached to all the world, and forgiveness of sin, with this promise annexed, that whosoever doeth believe, and is Baptized, shall be saved. Thus we see from the beginning of our journey, until we come to the place, which our savior hath prepared for us in heaven, we have no sacrifice to pass by, but that alone, which Christ made upon the Cross, that alone is called daily, because it is an everlasting intercession for us unto his father. What soever Sacrifices the papacy hath invented, they are beside this, and they are nothing else but snares, which the Devil hath laid to entrappe our souls, and call us from the only trust in Christ's merits. An other proof that the sacrifice of the Cross may only be called daily, is well declared in all the writings of the Apostles, where no one time either priest, or altare, or sacrifice, or oblation is mentioned, but only in a spiritual understanding. You be made a spiritual house, a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifice unto God, saith S. Peter. He hath made us kings and priests unto God, even his Father, saith S. John, and S. Paul doeth call our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, and acceptable unto God. And again, Christ our passover is Sacrificed for us, therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither in the leaven of maliciousness, or wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity, and truth. And to the Hebrews we have an altare, of which it is not lawful for them to eat that serve in the tabernacle. And again, let us offer the sacrifice of praise always unto God, that is the fruit of our lips, which confess his name. In diverse other places both by the prophets and apostles, we be taught that these are the only Sacrifices left unto us in the Newe Testament. Then what desperate boldness is it, for us to make our selves new sacrifices without the word of God, the instruction of the holy Ghost, or any color of sufficient authority. I need not add how it fighteth directly with the Scriptures. They say the priest doeth offer up Christ. But Christ never saith, he is offered up by any other, but by himself. I do sanctify myself for them, and I do give my life for my sheep. And again. I do give my life, and again, I will take it, no man doth take it from me, but I will give it of mine own will. And Paul saith, he that loved me, and gave himself for me. And to the Hebrews in the beginning of this book, it is written of me that I should do thy will O God, this same is often shown in the .5.9. and .10. Chapters to the Hebrews, but in all the scripture not one word, that ever Christ is offered by other. They say he is offered daily, but in all the scriptures he is said to be offered but once. In that he died saith Paul, he died once, and to the Hebrews with one oblation he made them perfect forever. And in the same Epistle the vii. Chapter, Christ is said to be such a priest, as needed not to make moe sacrifices for sins, or offer himself daily. For he did once sanctify us. And again, by his own blood, he entered once into the holy place. And again, in the ende of the world, he appeared once to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And again, Christ hath once suffered to take away sins. And again, having made one Sacrifice for sin, he sits forever at the right hand of his father. And in conclusion, the scripture taketh away all other sacrifice, and saithe, where remission of sin is, there is no more Oblation for sin. Yet will they needs have a daily sacrifice. What a miserable religion is that, which in matters of the greatest weight, hath not one word to uphold it in the scriptures. But as the thing it self is the sink of Idolatry, so mark it well, and thou shalt see how wickedly they use it. Our sacrifice say they, is the applying of that sacrifice which Christ made upon the cross. And hereupon M. Harding doth often say, that no Mass is private, because it is made for all the people, but examine this by the word of God, and see how it agreeth. The scripture saith, the benefits purchased by Christ's sacrifice, is offered unto us by the word, not by the Mass. You are borne a new by the word of God, who liveth, and endureth forever. And we have fellowship with God, & with his son Jesus Christ, by the word, which is declared unto us. And he that knoweth God, heareth us, and the word, whereby the righteousness of God is known, is the word of faith, which we preach. And plainly S. Paul calleth it the word of reconciliation. And the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to all them, that believe. And Peter witnesseth that the Gospel is preached, to the ende men might live unto God, and Christ sanctified his Church, by the washing of water through the word. Not one place in the scripture, that we be sanctified by private Mass, or daily sacrifice. But let us let these sacrificers alone. They be blind leaders of the blind. Read more of this in the epistle, and in the .75. untruth.

The .26. Division. S. Augustine saith, the people received every day.

The .133. untruth. He saith not so.

Note this is all one untruth with the .83. and .145. These are S. Augustine's words: the daily bread may be taken for the sacrifice of Christ's body, which we receive every day. Master Harding saith, he meant this of himself only, and of other priests, and he saith it only, and doeth not prove it, and upon credit of his own words, doth quote an untruth. With like facility I could make answer it were not untrue, but words without reason I will leave unto master Harding, to prove that S. Augustine meant the daily use of their open Church, and that some did evermore receive, it may appear, as we read in the Acts, that those, which came unto the Church of Christ, continued daily in breaking of bread, and prayers, by breaking of bread, meaning the Communion. And in another place, when the Disciples came together, they brake bread, and Paul preached. And we read in the .1. to the Corinthians the .11. Chapter. When they came together, they did eat the Lord's supper. Heereby it appeareth, that in the Apostles time, this daily receiving was in use, though of Massing for the quick, and dead, of shutting the bread in a box, of worshipping it, of carrying about, there be not one word immediately after. &c. About .200. years after this, Tertullian writeth Eucharistia sacramētum. &c. & iam antelucanis sumimus temporibus. We receive the Eucharist ever before day. And in another place, thy husband shall not know, what thou tastest secretly before other meats. By this it appeareth, the Christians did usually receive every morning. S. Cyprian about 50. years after, writeth. How shall we make them meet for the cup of martyrdom, if first, we do not give unto them the cup of the Lord's blood, noting, that in that great persecution, they received daily in the morning. Again, he writeth. Grauior nūc, & ferocior pugna imminet, ad quam fide incorrupta, & virtute robusta, parare se debent milites Christi. And it followeth. Considering therefore they daily receive the cup of the blood of Christ, they also for Christ may shed their blood. He saith further: we require that this bread may be given us daily, least we, that are in Christ, & Eucharistiam quotidie ad cibum salutis accipimus, and daily receive the Eucharist, which is the meat of our salvation, should be by any great offense, separated from Christ. Thus it appeareth in plain words, that in Cyprians time, they received daily. The like appeareth by Eusebius lib. 1. de demonst. Euangelica, cap. 10. Divers other places may be brought, which all prove M. Hardings answer to be vain, and do well expound the meaning of S. Augustine. Chrysostom saith, semper communicabant, they did always Communicate. And master Harding doeth allege both him and Augustine himself for proof of the daily sacrifice. Now where they say, that we offer daily, and yet confute sufficiently this new fancied transubstantiation, it is plain they meant of this daily Communion, and of the often use of it, master Hardings Ignatius in like manner writeth, when this is done continually, the powers of Satan are driven away. These, and diverse such proofs may be had out of Jerome, Ambrose, Justin, Irenaeus, and other many, for this daily receiving, and therefore these untruths must needs be little worth, that are so plentifully challenged, and may so easily be answered. But whose authority should I rather use in this case, than master Hardings own Doctors, they write it often, and teache very plainly, that in the primative Church, they received daily. Thomas Aquinas writeth thus: In the primative church, when the people were very devout in the Christian faith, it was decreed, vt fideles quotidie communicarent, that the faithful people should receive daily. Durand saith in the primative Church, omnes fideles quotidie communicabant, all the faithful received daily. Loe here are master Hardings own Doctors, which do sufficiently answer his untruth. Here by the way of this one thing, I must moreover warn the good Christian reader, that M. Harding is not able to show any one sufficient proof, whereby it may appear, that the Church in any place within .CCC. years after Christ, did appoint any one day, especially for that purpose, as their confederacy at Trident, have of late straightly charged. It appeareth by S. Luke, they met daily, and it appeareth by Paul to the Ephesians, y ^t they had their meetings both day, and night, & in this use they confirmed their doctrine, which Paul teacheth the Colossians. Let no man condemn you in meat, and drink, nor in respect of an holy day, or of the new Moon, or of the Sabbothe days. And no doubt to take away this popish superstitiō of days, & times, it was gods good will, and pleasure then so to ordain it. And for a full proof that the Churches used some saturday, some sunday, it is well shown by that hot contention, that was raised by Victor, & Anicetus, against y ^e Greek church. After y ^e Apostles time about the year of our Lord .115. under y ^e Emperor Traiane, it appeareth that the Christians usual meeting, was in the mornings, as is shown by Pliny, in an epistle written to the Emperor of the same matter. After this .30. or .40. year, Justinus doeth record, that in his time they used the Sunday, 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 meet only on sundayes, and holidays, but on other days also. And Sozomene seemeth to deny of the Romaine Church, that they had any meetings on the Saboth day, as all other Churches had. Eusebius saith, quotidie ferme, ad percipiendam disciplinam christi constuunt, almost every day they came to hear the doctrine of Christ. Athanasius nameth expressly these days, sabbatum, diem dominicum, secundum sabbati, parasceuen, & quartum sabbati. Now if it cannot be proved, that any one Church made a special observation of the sunday, but that on other days also, they used like service unto god, on the other parte seeing the testimonies are so plain, and many: what meaneth master Harding to make this any untruth? But what dareth he not do, to make up his number, that affirmeth this one untruth five times? Now by the way, least I should seem to speak against the use of the sunday, I say and profess, that we cā not use it too reverently. Anathasius saith, that the sabbath of the Jews, was by Christ turned into our sunday, but whether that were so, or no, it resteth upon Athasius authority, it may be well thought that it is true, Christ will have us gather together in his name. And S. John calleth it the Lord's day, S. Luke and S Paul the first day of the week, in which the Apostles assembled the people, therefore thou art bound to give all obedience and holiness unto the Lord on that day. But take heed now thou deceive not thyself. Look not after any licentiousness on the Monday, think not that God more accounteth of one day, than other. As on sunday thou comest into the congregation, and showest thyself thankful unto the Lord for his benefits, so on every day thou must show thyself thankful, and show the same obedience in testimony of thy conscience, which on the sunday thou showest in open usage, and thus thou shalt keep holy the sabbath day.

S. Ambrose saith every week, we must celebrate the oblation, although not every day unto strangers, yet unto the inhabitants at least twice a week.

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

This untruth may be hardly verified, if the place be altogether falsified. But master Harding doth so often speak untruly, that now we may not believe him w ^t out good proof. Let us see then what he saith. S. Ambrose: Omni hebdomada offerendum est, etiam si non quotidie peregrinis, incolis tamen vel bis in hebdomada. These words M. Jewel doth English, as before appeareth. This translation saith master Harding, is altogether false. But why saith he so? Let him bar distinctions, and prove it if he can. Undoubtedly if snow be not black, this interpretation is true, but why doth master Harding find fault wiih it? Thus he saith, offerre peregrinis is to offer for strangers, not to strangers, and why is it so? forsoothe by this rule, all manner of verbs put acquisitiuely, that is to say, with this sign for after them, will have a dative case, it might have pleased him to have alleged his rule truly, then it should have been thus, having this sign to or for, after them, so notwithstanding this rule, yet the interpretation had been good, but grant the rule, what a reason is this, all verbs that have this sign, for, after them, require a dative case, Ergo, offerre peregrinis, is to offer for strangers. He might as well conclude, Ergo, loquor tibi, is to speak for thee, or dare tibi to give it for thee. But M. Harding, why would not this rule have served here, verbs compounded with these propositions, prae, con, sub, ob, in and inter, will have a dative case. Well may we have some opinion of our Louanists English, but sure their Logic, and their Latin is but very base. M. Dorman alleging in his boke, this text of S. John. Diabolus est mendax, & pater eius, doth English it thus, the devil is a liar, and so was his father before him. Was he well in his wit? or was he yet a dreaming? or is his Divinity so slender, that he knoweth not, who is the Devils father? Sure ignorance may not excuse a man, that speaketh blasphemy, the Devil hath no father, only God created him an Angel. Erasmus fearing such sleeping Divines, doth turn it thus, & eius rei pater, and father of that thing. If M. Dorman had consulted with him, and not so suddenly become of a jangling lawyer, an ungodly Divine, he would have written more advisedly, but (as hath been heretofore aptly objected to him) he gate upon the bridge, and was made a bacheler, and so by much haste ouershot himself, much like as master Harding doth here, who Englisheth offerre peregrinis, to offer for strangers. Alowe this for good Latin, and his distinctions for good reason, and then go yoke Foxes, and milk he Goats, his untruth shall rise at his own pleasure.

The .28. Division. Here Master Harding notably, betrayeth him self, laying forth for a countenance, a five of Chrysostom's words, and the same nothing to the matter, hewing and mangling them, as he listeth best.

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

The .136. untruth. I mangle them not.

What M. Harding meaneth by this untruth, I know not, unless it be, as M. Jewel saith, notably to betray himself. His purpose is to prove private Mass, as all men do know, but these words do not prove it, as he himself confesseth, Reioind. fol. 206. the conclusion of these is plain, therefore these words are not to the purpose. Neither shall this other untruth, need any long answer. He can do little y ^t cannot say nay. M. Jewel's Reply doth well, & sufficiently prove it. M. Hardings gainsaying is not sufficient for an untruth. Read the Reply. Fo. 65.

Chrysostom saith this sacrifice is but one, because it hath relation unto that one sacrifice of Christ.

The .137. untruth. He rendereth no such cause.

Bicause M. Hard. cā not blame the allegation, he findeth fault w ^t M. Jewel's meaning, and saith S. Chrysostom giveth no such cause. But whether he giveth any such or no, not M. Hardīgs understanding, but Chrysostom's words, must be the judge: 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, because it was once offered, it was offered into y ^e holy place but this sacrifice is an example of that. These are his very words, & here he speaketh plain, the cause why we sacrificing, or communicating in sundry places, have but one sacrifice, or communion, is because our sacrifice is an example of y ^e one sacrifice of Christ. If M. Harding can find any other understanding of these words, then sure his manner of understanding, is to make words sound, what him list. But understand he how, and what he will, Chrysostom's words are plain. Ther are many places in the old doctors, which teach the very same, but it is needless to rehearse them, when our savior Christ saith: Do this in my remembrance. Except M. Harding will have no relation between the thing, and the remembrance of the thing, what meaneth he to make this untruth?

Chrysostom saith, this sacrifice is an example of that.

The .138. untruth. Chrysostom saith not so, that this is an example of that, this place is foully corrupt.

In the 134. untruth master Harding said this is all to gether falsified, in this he saith, it is foully corrupt. But y ^e falsehood of that hath appeared to be so little, that this false report of corruption can have no great credit, and no dout this untruth upon sufficient trial shall appear a very wrangling. Chrisostomes own words are these, hoc autem sacrificium examplar est illius. Read the place. These words as I think are thus much in English. But this sacrifice is an example of that. Not so saith master Harding, this place is foully corrupt. Peradventure here is some verb put acquisitiuely, as in the .134. untruth. If it be so, here may be strange Latin, but whether there be, or no, gessing is not necessary where there may be had other good proof. Let us hear why this place is corrupt? What saith M. Harding? Thus he saith. It is exemplar, a samplar or pattern, of that, I grant. Mark good reader, what master Harding granteth. And see whether master Jewel do say anymore. If he do not, how are the same words true, when master Harding speaketh them, and not true, when master Jewel speaketh them? unless as we had of late a distinction of not bread, and no bread, so now we have another between an example, & a sampler? But how so ever it is without example or, sampler, he maketh mo distinctions, and giveth such a sampler of singular impudence, that no mā that feareth God, will take example by him.

Gracian showeth that the decretal epistles have been doubted of among the learned.

The .139. untruth. Gracian showeth no such thing.

Gracians words are these. De Epistolis decretalibus quaeritur, an vim authoritatis habeant, of the decretal Epistles, there is doubt, whether they have authority. How then is this an untruth? The word saith M. Harding, that Gracian doth use, is quaeritur, not dubitatur. The question is moved, not it is doubted, Offerre peregrinis, to offer for strangers is very good latin, where this is any reason. What meaneth this man, doeth he so feed his affectioned vain, that he spareth not to discredit his own learning? that he feareth not to blot his own honesty? Fye upon such fāsies. Quaeritur is a latin word, dubitatur is very barbarous. But such as use them both, who knoweth not, y ^t it is common to them all, to say sometime quaeritur, sometime dubitatur, meaning by either word, there is doubt moved, & the Greek phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is commonly translated. Sed quaerat aliquis. But one will ask, or dout. The latines do all use it. Si quaeris if you doubt. In his primis naturalibus voluptas insit, nec ne, magna quaestio est. In these first natural 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 very difficult, and obscure doubt, and such one as this of M. Hardings is, redicula quaestio a foolish doubt. The barbarous writers, such as Gracian is, and the other rabble of M. Hardings friends, they want commonly both good words, and godly matter, and they say sometime dubitatur, but to be short, there is neither question, nor doubt, but this untruth is very childish. But what meaneth M. Harding to stand thus in defense of these decretal epistles? He only can bring for them a little testimony of Leo, and Gelasius. The epistles by no means can commend them selves. Read the Reply, thou shalt see them sufficiently reproved. But read the Epistles, and thou shalt see them more reproved. The latin is so barbarous, that neither gentile, nor Christian of that age, did ever write the like. The style is so childish, it is far unmeet, for the gravity of those learned Bishops, whose names they bear, the metaphors are so gross, as no countryman would use the like. Among all other, this is one. Ostium circumstantiae eorum oribus imponere, To put the door of circumstance upon their mouths. And what scholar would write this latin, Eas inde abstrahere vbi traditae sunt, to take them thence, where they were laid. Promere vltionem, to revenge, Exilium deportationis, for banishment, pleniter, fully, Haec nobis bona operanda sunt, We must do these good things, Inthronizare, to enstall, and porto, standeth them in very good stead. Portare causas sacerdotum▪ Subleuare, et portare cadentes, portare persecutiones, everyone 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 exceed, as ignorance. And where is the like title ever found, Archiepisc. rom. vrbis, and Archiepisc. cath. ecclesiae Romanae vrbis. And primates metropolitani, and fideles sancti Petri. Beside this, that poor stuff, that they have, doeth hang so yllfauouredly together, that Master Harding him self, can make of it no sense. They allege the scriptures without order, or fashion, and sometime they deprave them, the Sodomites say unto Lot, thou camest into us, as a stranger. Anterus saith, that God spake it. In the first to Timothy the fifth Chapter, where Paul hath vidua, Urbanus hath anima: Christ saith, Cephas, is a stone, Anacletus saith, it is caput, or principium, the head, or fountain. And besides this, sundry of those Epistles, have word for word, the one, which another hath. As Steph. 1. et. 2. And Fab. 2. Luc. 1. And Felix .3. the Epistle of Gaius, & Leon .1. And how could this have happened, if diverse men did write them. But what need we seek arguments against them, look upon their doctrine. Lucius forbiddeth marriage of Priests, and if a Priest go in unto his own wife, he must not communicate, he must not so much as bring the cup to the alter, they may not come within the church doors, not withstanding, Saint Paul saith, to forbid marriage is the doctrine of devils. Calixtus doeth forbid meats, and saith, he that observeth not the fast, four times in a year, the same is a scismatike. Anterus and Zepherius teacheth, that we may not reprehende, accuse, judge, or condemn a Bishoppe of Rome. Yet Saint Paul saith: Let a Bishoppe be unblameable, whereby it appeareth, he may be blamed, and again he writeth: Receive not an accusation against an elder under two▪ or three witnesses. Then by like, he will have their faults accused. They iangle much of the supremacy of the Bishoppe of Rome, Calixtus, and Lucius, do seem to say, that he cannot err. Yet David saith, every man is a liar. Stephan saith, he deserveth 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 idolatry, ascribing unto Peter, the opening of heaven gate. Urbanus saith, that the sentence of a Bishop, is greatly to be feared, yea, though he 〈◊〉 wrongfully, and so consequently, would mak • God, an unrighteous Judge, that should ratify an unjust sentence. Such wicked doctrine these epistles do contain, so unlearnedly they be written, so unwisely the same words are fathered upon diverse men, and, which is a sure token that they be coūterfet, they are not mentioned by any ancient writers: Yet saith Master Harding, these Epistles are authentical. But let him say so still. As that saying is untrue, so this untruth is impudent, where he saith that Gracian doeth not witness, that these Epistles have ben doubted on.

The decretal epistles manifestly deprave, and abuse the scriptures.

The .140. untruth. They do not so.

Now M. Harding is in his biasse. He makes untruths at auenture, and for want of good proof he falls to railing. This pelf, saith he, may serve for your pulpit, when you want better stuff. This to disprove y ^e decretal epistles is to minister like. But thus to stand railing, when one hath no reason, is to like a Louanist. More modest behavior in so mean learning would better stand with honesty. This untruth is sufficiently proved before.

Anacletus commandeth that all bishops once in the year, do visit the entry of S. Peters church in Rome, which they call limina Petri.

The .141. untruth. He commandeth no such thing, concerning Peters Church.

This untruth doeth rise upon these words, limina Petri whether they signified Peters church. For Master Harding granteth, that now they signify the Church, but then they signified his grave. Here it were reason before we believe him, he should tell us how long limina Petri did signify the burial place, and when it left his grave, and became the name of his church, who gave it to the grave, and who toke it from it. Undouted proves must be had for so incredible a matter. It is a strange case for things to lose their names, and if it be done, as sometime it chanceth, it is by the consent of whole countries, regestred by diverse authors. If in this case we see like authority, we will alow the better of M. Hardings saying. Graues as it may be thought, were never called so, churches had that name long before Peters time. Religiosa deorum limina, saith Virgil, the holy temples of the God's, & Calixtus the Pope saith, Ecclesiastica limina, meaning the church. Hereby it appeareth that limina Petri was Peters Church. And Nauclerus writing of Totilas more than a thousand year agon saith, Cum ad beati Petri limina peruenisset, meaning when he came to Peters Church. Now let Master Harding show that it signified the grave, ere he require credit. Yet what if it did so? Is it not all one superstition to visit y ^e graves of godly men, & to visit their temples? Is either of both commanded by the Lord God? In this untruth Master Harding showeth little matter against Master Jewel, and less good divinity in him self.

Fabianus writeth of the coming of Novatus into Italy. And it is clear by S. Cyprian, and by Eusebius, that Novatus came first into Italy in the time of Cornelius, which was next after him.

The .142. untruth. It is not clear.

To an Owls eyes the clear Sun bringeth darkness, to one that will not understand, there is no sentence plain. When God shall open Master Hardings eyes, he will then see better. These are Cyprians words, unto Cornelius speaking of Novatus. A te illinc prohibitū ab ecclesia, cum venisset &c. Of thee he was forbidden the Church, when he came &c. And it followeth, with such spirit, as became a Bishoppe, whereby it appeareth, he was then also Bishop. What can be said more plain? It followeth further. Cum animaduertis • em te minis, atque terroribus eorum, qui venerant, esse commotum &c. Whē I perceived, that thou weart moved with the fears, and threatenings, of those that came with him. Then belike Cornelius was there before. And Eusebius speaketh at the same time, of Cornelius, and calleth him, Vrbis Romae Episcopus, the Bishop of the city of Rome, and this also appeareth by Sozomenus, that the first conflict of Novatus, was with Cornelius. Therefore Master Harding might easily have seen this, had not either his eyes ben anointed, or he disposed to wrangle.

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

The .143. untruth. Damasus maketh express mention of such decrees.

This is an express untruth, as many other are, which Master Harding frameth. Damasus doeth speak of certain decrees, which were made by these Popes, and that we may easily grant, but that he mentioneth these epistles, or reciteth the decrees in those words, that is not shown. And it may easily be, that he, who made these epistles, would gather some decrees, found in other books. This is a small proof, against so many manifest arguments.

By Soters decree, it is lawful to say Mass, having only two in his company.

The .144. untruth. This decree, speaketh not of company present, but of two to make answer.

There is belike some subtle distinction in this untruth. For as the words lie, they are somewhat obscure. Of this I am sure, seeing Master Jewel saith, that Soters decree requireth only the company of two, and Master Harding saith, it requireth two to make answer: if it may any way be proved, that they that answer the Priest, be in his company, then this untruth is sone discharged. As touching Soters own decree, the words are plain, that no man shall say Mass without two persons, and to take away this cavil about two to answer, and to verify Master Jewel's words, the title of the decree is this. Except he have two present, let no Priest presume to say Mass. Now what needeth this wrangling about the answering, if there be two present, they must needs answer.

S. Augustine, and S. Jerome, have recovered that, that the people of Rome even in their time, used to receive the Communion together, every day.

The .145. untruth. Saint Augustine, and Saint Jerome do not report so.

This untruth hath ben made now three times by Master Harding. It is the .83. the .133. & this the third. Augustine saith, some receive every day, some certain days. Jerome saith the like. Read the place thou shalt not be deceived. Read more of this untruth in the places alleged. The 83. & .133. untruths. & .155. untruth.

This word, solennia, which is here used, seemeth to import a solemn company, or resort of the people. And yet this Soter requiring to this action only the company of three persons, nevertheless calleth it Missarum solennia.

The .146. untruth. Solennia doeth not import a solemn company.

Yet it seemeth so Master Harding to as well learned, as you are. But this is your common fashion to belie Master Jewel's words, and then to say they be untrue. Yt seemeth, saith he, to import a solemn company. What if it be not so? yet it seemeth so. But what if it do import a great company? What if it cannot stand with your private Mass? Sure then is Soters decree not worth alleging, as your untruth is not worth the quoting. The reason, that you bring out of Tully, were it not in your book, yet by the value I would guess it yours. Solemn, say you, doeth signify sometime a custom, Ergo when it is attributed to an action, it doeth not import a company. This is very like one of your own arguments, it hangeth so losely. For the antecedent is false, and the argument doth not follow. But why speaketh Master Harding against his own knowledge, he is assured it is not named in matters of religion, but it signifieth a great company of persons, and much sumptuousness of the things so ill, may his private Mass 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 solemn order, vota solennia, vows made solemnly in the company of many, and Tully, Solenne & statutum sacrificium, a sacrifice done sumptuously, and appointed times, and in M. Hardings Portuise, sacris solennijs iuncta sunt gaudia, to solemn service there is annexed joys. This authority is sufficient against master Harding. He will say nothing I trow against his Portuise. If he will, we will then charge him with the Popes own authority. Innocentius tertius showing the cause, why in their single holy-days they say not the Creed, nor Gloria in excelsis, as well as they do on their double feasts, writeth thus, vt inter commemorationem & solennitatem differentiam ostendatur, that there may be a difference between a commemoration, and a solemnity. Loe here is Pope Innocent, flat against master Harding, concerning the nature of the word, and yet he is content to speak, even as Soter doth, and say of the other Masses, missarum solennia. Thus we see these untruths sometime cannot agree, nether with their holy father the Pope, neither yet with the Portuise.

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

The .147. untruth. He requireth not .iii. but .ii. at the least.

Note good reader, this untruth is now twice made in the 144. untruth, and again here. Yet if thou way it well, thou shalt see, it was not worth repetition. In the other place, the sense was very obscure, and here the words are very strange. To make this solemn Mass saith M. Jewel, iii. are required. Not so saith M. Harding, the priest requireth but two to make answer. But what if it happen that these two have a third priest to say the Mass, Soter seemeth to mean so when he saith, vt sit ipse tertius, that the priest may be the third. I cannot tell all their mysteries. It may be they have a custom, that two may make answer, when no man saith the Mass. Or if they have not, then this is not untrue.

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

The .148. untruth. This cannot be well, and reasonably doubted.

If well, and reasonably, do not help out this untruth, it hath then neither goodness, nor show of probability. Now what well, and reasonably, may do in this matter, it shall well, and reasonably appear, if you mark Damasus words, he saith there was nothing red in the Church on sundayes, saving some Epistle of the Apostle, and some chapter of the Gospel. If Damasus say true, then it may be doubted both well, and reasonably, whether Dominus vobiscum were red or no. This saying of Damasus master Jewel doth allege, and upon little search, it will easily appear by all Ecclesiastical records, that in Soters time, and many years after, there was no other solemnity in their ministration, saving reading, or expounding the scriptures, and some prayers, which the whole congregation did make together: some say that Peter used to celebrate with the Lord's prayer only. Paul did preach unto them, as appeareth in the Acts. Justin 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 another with a kiss, then the bread is brought to the chiefest brother, and the cup of wine, and water. Then the minister giveth thanks unto God, in the name of the Son, and of the holy ghost, and the whole people do answer Amen. And if these words are not yet plain enough, by which we may doubt whether Dominus vobiscum were then in the Liturgy, Justin saith again. Die solis vrbanorum, & rusticorum coetus fiunt, vbi apostolorum, prophetarumque litera quoad fieri potest preleguntur. &c. On sunday we have our metings both of the town and the country, where the Apost • es and prophets writings are red unto us, so long as time will serve: then our minister doth make an ex • ortation, willing us to follow the virtue and goodness whereof we read. Then we rise altogether, and make our prayers. L • e here is a full description of the Communion, in Justinus Martyr, who lived in Soters time. And yet in all this, not one word making mention of Dominus vobiscum, yet is master Harding so importune in his untruths, that he dareth boldly affirm, and yet hath no ground, that Dominus vobiscum was then parte of their service. Let him show but one sufficient record for proof of that, he writeth, and let him have his untruth. I know our decretal Epistles would be of this age, and they defile God's sacraments, as becometh that adulterous generation. But those epistles, as I have sufficiently already shown, are far unworthy those godly fathers, whose names they bear.

Further this same Soter requireth, that both these two and as many others, as be present, make answer unto the priest.

The .149. untruth. He requireth it not, this is utterly false.

Note good reader, master Hardings impudency, and take heed of his lying spirit, he saith very censoure like this is utterly false, and in his Rejoinder raileth much at M. Jewel, for falsifying the Doctors, and yet most impudently he doth utterly belie him. Read his book, he doth not bring one letter to prove that he saith. Belike he is well persuaded: his friends will believe him, if he do but say the word: but to bring some proof against master Hardings bare word, upon these words of Soter, let him have two at the least to answer, if they be moe, saith master Jewel, then by Soters will they must all answer. Upon this, master Harding falleth in his railing vain, and saith it is utterly false. But let him say so, his mouthe is no slander. The gloser on this Decree, moveth a doubt, whether these two should be ministers or lay men, or of what sort else. And he answereth, that it is plain enough, they should be ministers. Yet saith he again, that is not certain quia & populus respondent Amen. For all the people, must, likewise answer Amen. Loe he • re y ^e gloss doth flatly verify this untruth. And in another place, Gracian speaking of the people, which hear their common prayer, saith thus: populus ad • d quod plane intelligit respondeat Amen, let the people say Amen to that they do plainly understand. Here beside, that the service must be in a known tongue. Gracian saith plainly, all the people must say Amen. In this next untruth before, the like is shown out of Justinus, that all the people must say Amen, the same may be proved by all the writers of that age: notwithstanding M. Harding to keep tale of his untrue • hes against Gracian, against the gloss, against Justinus M • rtyr, against all records, saith it is utterly false. But examine the places, and so try his credit.

By M. Hardings mind, the Priests devotion ought not to stay for lack of company.

The .150. untruth. There can no such meaning be gathered of my words.

This, as it may be thought, is a very plain untruth, master Jewel reporting that of master Harding, which him self saith, cannot be gathered of his words. But because he hath been often found faulty, in as bold asseverations as this is, it shall not be amiss to see his words. Thus he saith: Well, none cometh: this is not a sufficient cause, why the godly priest, enflamed with the love of God, feeling himself hungry and thirsty, after the heavenly food, and drink, should be kept from it. And have not these words a good plain meaning? May not one report of these words, that a priest may say Mass alone? Why then doth he score up this untruth? Forsoothe here is a distinction of no bodies coming: either nobody may come to answer, or nobody may come to receive, and M. Harding meaneth, y ^t the priest may go forward, though nobody come to receive. After this sort I think, spake Heraclitus, when he would have nobody to understand him. But this is no plain dealing, to speak first so doubtfully, and then score up an untruth if one understand it not. And thus much graūting this distinction of nobody. If thou require further discharge of this untruth, I will show thee good proof why M. Jewel's saying, ought not to be blamed, notwithstanding this distinction. L • ke on Soters decree, & thou shalt see the gloss allegeth his Canon law, to prove that the priest may sometime celebrate, if he have but one present, sometime, if there be no m • but him self. This then being established by their law, that the Priest may say Mass alone, master Hardings untruth may control the Pope, it maketh little against master Jewel.

By this decree, these two were bound to receive, or to depart.

The .151. untruth. That decree, bindeth only the clergy.

Before we had a distinction of nobody, now to quite that barren matter, here is a distinction of all men. Let all men receive, saith Calixtus, or go out of the Church, that is, saith master Harding, all men of the clergy, not all men of the laity. Thus neither all thing, nor nothing, nor something, nor anything shall want a distinction, if by plain dealing the matter be not good. But O master Harding, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , true speech is plain. Now for the Christian Reader, least these distinctions should deceive thee, I must now, and then admonish, •• ee, that they be but false stuff, and this shall well appear in this present matter, if I teache thee, that in the primative Church, 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 gave commandment, that it should be so used, and said. Drink ye all of this. And that the Apostles, and those other, who bebeloued, did th • s, it appeareth in the Acts, where without excepti • n, S. Luke saith, they continued daily in breaking of bread. And again, they met together to break bread. This was after observed among the Corinthians, as appeareth by S. Paul, who plainly teacheth, that they come together to eat the Lord's supper, and least we should think any excepted, in the verses following, he addeth everyone. And for a further proof of his meaning, he biddeth them one tarry for another. By all this it is certain, that all that were present, received. Upon this, saith Calixtus, let all receive that will not depart out of the Church. And he bringeth a reason to this Decree. Sic enim apostoli statuerunt. For so the Apostles have appointed from the Apostles time through all ages, till iniquity began to have the upper hand it was always an holy law. For all that were present, to Communicate. And it is condemned of the fathers, as great presumption, and impudency, to look on, and be no partaker, as it is other where sufficiently declared. And were not master Harding set on evil understanding, he would learn by that use of the primative Church, when they sent away Catechumen, those that were beginners in Christianity, that it was not lawful for any to be an idle looker on. Sure in his private Mass, they may loke on that list. For this untruth, because Calixtus him self doth refer us to the Apostles example, when master Harding can prove by the Apostles, that those, whom S. Luke mentioneth to have daily met, and the Corinthians, to whom S. Paul writeth, to have been all ministers, then these distinctions of all men, and nobody, shall go for good. Read the .221. untruth.

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

The .152. untruth. It is not assuredly determined by the gloss.

The .153. untruth. It agreeth not.

If this assuredly, do not help out with an untruth, then assuredly this is no untruth: but for as much, as assuredly is put in by master Harding, assuredly this is no plain dealing: and sure it is, if such unsure demeanor wer taken from master Hardings assured untruths, the surety of good religion should in deed appear, and this unsavory wrangling should be contemned, for this untruth it is altogether shameless. The gloss moveth this question: whether these two should be of the clergy, or of the laity, or of either one, and it maketh this answer, satis videtur quod debent esse duo clerici, it is plain enough, they should be two of the clergy. Now judge whether master Jewel may say thus, the gloss hath determined it. As touching the allegation of these aucthorities out of master Hardings Doctors, seeing he doth so unwisely reprehend it, because master Jewel allegeth their sayings, yet alloweth not their religion. May it please him to be answered, as Tully said to Antony, testimonium tuum quod in aliena re leave debet esse, in tua tamen quia contra te est, debet esse grauissimum, this their witness, which in another matter were of no value, yet in their own, because it is against thē selves, it must needs be very weighty. This other untruth, as touching Anacletus, is like the residue: upon examination of the words, let the reader judge. 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 shown, that at every ministration he should have some of the clergy. Now the gloss of that other Decree, determining that those two should be of the clergy, let the indifferent reader judge whether it doeth agree with this decree of Anacletus, and so he shall see the better, what manner of untruths these are.

M. Harding knoweth well, that these decrees, which are here rehearsed, could never be found written.

The .154. untruth. I know it not.

The councils are extant, and the thing is plain, these decrees are not in them. But saith Master Harding, peradventure three hundred year a gone, Gratian did see them, though they never came to our hands: Now sure this is a strange peradventure. Gratian lived 800. years after the council was holden at Agatha, and if those decrees had remained so long, peradventure they might have bidden .300. years mo, and so we should have known of them. But seeing the matter is but at peradventure, at all adventures let us grant it. What, troweth Master Harding, because that by guess he proveth his private Mass, therefore shall guesses be of value to make untruths? He had need show better evidence, that would take away Master Jewel's good name.

It is decreed, that they, which receive not at Christmas, Easter, & Whitsuntide, be accounted as no catholics. Then except a few massing priests, there is not one catholic in the church of Rome.

The .155. untruth. This is a slanderous lie.

The council holden at Agatha, hath decreed thus, the secular men, that receive not the Communion at Christmas, Easter, and Whitsuntide, let them not be taken, or reckoned for catholic people. Herevpon Master Jewel saith, if it be so in the holy church of Rome, saving a few Massing Priests, there is not one catholic. The reason is. For they receive but every Easter, and whether they have used it, or no, let all the world witness. I do appeal herein, to the conscience of the rankest papists, whosoever they be, let the usage of that time be a trial, whether they used then only to receive, or no. What holy fashions were then used, above other times? What shriuing? What dispeling? What curteine drawing? What primerose gathering? What cleckclacking? What rood sweating? What crossecreping? What Jack an apes walking from the altar to the idol house? What wickedness was there used against that one time of their sinful receiving? Who knoweth it not, that this is true? Yet saith Master Harding, it is a slanderous lie, it is an impudent tale, a false slander, an impudent surmise, a manifest untruth, such one, as may be seen, the novice of him, that is the father of lies. If this may be believed, we see how against all certain truth, he will spew out his venom. But God have the glory, that hath given his children virtue, against such poison, For the untruth, I say, as before, let the world judge.

I have already proved, by Saint Augustine, and Saint Jerome, that Communion was ministered in Rome every day.

The .155. untruth. This is proved by neither of them.

Double on Master Harding. Your number shall grow the better. This is now the fourth time, that this untruth is reconed: that the thing is true, I have sufficiently declared before. Now because the matter so falleth out, that M. Jewel alleging four times these things of Augustine, and Jerome, M. Harding noteth them for four untruths, I must crave of thee a little to consider them. Jerome's words are these, I know this custom is at Rome, that Christian folk receive the body of Christ daily, which I do neither reprove, nor alow. These words, it seemeth, are meetely plain. Master Harding answereth thus. Here mention is made only of daily receiving, but that they received together in one place, that is not avouched. If any man can see any reason in this aūswear, let the untruth go. Now as touching Augustine, he saith thus. Christ, by way of sacrament is offered every day unto the people, not at Easter only, but every day. This authority, because it is somewhat plain, Master Harding skippeth it over, and answereth not at all. Augustine saith again, the daily bread may be takē pro sacramento corporis christi, quod quotidie accipimus, for the sacrament of Christ's body, wich we receive daily. To this authority Master Harding doth answer thus. Saint Augustine might mean that of him self, and other Priests, or which is more likely he spake indefinitely, of all believers. Thus with might mean, and more likely, M. Harding would warrant this one untruth to be .v. But he him self might mean more simply, & then it were more likely, these untruths had ben fewer, but let us see more. S. Augustine saith again, many in the Easte do not daily communicate. Of this M. Jewel inferreth. Therefore some in the Easte did communicate daily. To this, M. Harding answereth somewhat shamefully: Of y ^e thing I contend not, but yet M. Jewel's argument is not good. Mark good Reader, M. Hard▪ saith, of y ^e thing he will not contend, & yet he maketh v. untruths of it. But let this go. S. Augustine saith again, the sacrament of this thing is prepared, or consecrate in the church, Alicubi quotidie, alicubi certis interuallis dierum, somewhere every day, and somewhere but on certain days. To this Master Harding answereth thus, the sacrament in some places is prepared every day by priests, and by the same priests is every day received, these are the proofs which Master Jewel saith here, that he hath brought. Master Harding noteth his untruth, and saith, they prove it not, whether they do, or no. Now let the Reader judge. Except Master Hardings answers had ben better, this untruth needeth no longer justifying.

Fabian saith, we decree that every sondaie the oblation of the altar be made both of bread, and wine, as well by men, as women: Here besides that in these words is included, the receiving of the Communion every Sunday, may be noted also by the way, that by this authority of Fabian, men, and women made the sacrifice of the alter, even as S. Barnard saith: Not only the priest, but also all the faithful sacrifice do.

The .157. untruth. It is not included, that they receive every sunday.

The .158. untruth. Fabian doeth not attribute the making of the sacrifice to men, and women.

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

This first untruth is, that though they offered every sunday bread, and wine, yet it followeth not, that they received. But this Master Harding saith, only, and beside guesses, hath no sufficient proof for it. In fine, thus he resolveth the matter. This bread, and wine was partly for the priest alone to receive, partly for the clergy, partly for the poor, and partly to make holy bread of, so this is become a very beneficial untruth unto Master Harding, it hath not only increased his number, but it hath brought in another article of his religion, and that is, at all a very venture, holy bread. Here were good room for one of Master Hardings answers, this pelf will not serve, you must go seek better stuff. The second untruth, here brought, is this, that men, and women do 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 plain, but Master Harding answereth thus. There is difference between an oblation, and a sacrifice, oblation is it, when anything is offered unto the Lord, & nothing done unto it, or in it. A sacrifice is, when a thing offered unto God, is by the priest altered, by something don in it, or unto 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 have less wrangling, and fewer untruths. But, they say, all is well, that ends well, if by examination this distinction be found good, why should not Master Harding use it? Theophilacte, saith he, Chrysostom and Paul him self, have so distinguished these words. First though they had done so, yet this were but a mean reason, to prove they were in like sort used in Fabian. The proof of Fabians meaning, may not well be shown but by Fabian him self. But let us see what these Doctors say, on whom Master Harding will▪ ground this distinction. Theophilactus words are these, Inter donum, sieve munus, et hostiam, sieve victimam, si exactam spectes rationem, aliquid est discriminis, quia victimae, vel hostiae, sunt per sanguinē, et carnem oblationes, vel quae per ignem sacrificantur, dona sunt quaecun{que} alia incruenta, et igni carentia. Betwene 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is gifts and sacrifices, this is the difference, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a sacrifice, is an oblation made with flesh and blood, or by fire, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a gift, is that which is offered unbloody, and without fire. Of this place M. Harding doeth conclude, that an oblation is a thing offered unto God without anything done unto it, but this argument hangeth as losely, as any other commonly in M. Hardings book. A gift whereof Theophilacte speaketh, is is in Greke, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , an oblation, whereof M. Harding speaketh, is in Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . So his reasō hangeth thus. A gift is that, which without fire, or blood, is offered unto God, as an oblation is that, which hath nothing done unto it. This argument, Christian Reader, this is his own reason, neither better, nor worse, than he hath made it. His second authority, is out of Chrysostom, his words likewise are these, Oblatio erat quicquid extra sacrificium erat, that was the oblation, what so ever was beside the sacrifice, and more than this, he saith not now of these words how M. Hard. can frame his aūswear to this authority of Fabian, doutlesse no man that meaneth plainly, can espy. This is Chrisostomes meaning, y ^• dona were all those sacrifices, or offerings prescribed, save only, such as were sin offerings. But M. Harding goeth further, & for • eth S. Paul, as if of him he had learned his distinction, how be it, he never spake one word of it. Yea the places by M. Hard▪ alleged, do not so much as once name oblation, then how doth he make this exacte difference of oblations? Surely no authority had ben much better, than these three, nothing to the purpose. In the mean season by M. Hardings good skil, we may change our common use of speaking, & say no more burnt offering, meat offering, peace offering, sin offering, &c. but rather thus, burnt sacrifice, meat sacrifice, peace sacrifice, sin sacrifice, & so forth. A proper distinction, & meet to interpret Fabian, that cōtrolleth thus the phrase of the scripture. Here followeth yet another untruth, & that is about these words, Non solus sacerdos sacrificat, sed etiam totus conuentus fidelium. Not only the priest sacrificeth, but also all the company of the faithful. This saith M. Harding, is not true in M. Jewel's sense. For, saith he, that everyone of the people, both men, & women in their own person do outwardly, & ministerially consecrate y ^e body & blood of Christ, & so offer, & make the sacrifice of the alter, after the order of Melchizedek, neither is it signified by the blessed martir S. Fabian, neither was it ever before M. Jewel's Reply came forth, with such impudency reported. Better had it ben for M. Harding, & more credit for his untruth, if he had rested here, y ^t M.I. named Bernard, instead of Guerricus. For this report of M. Jewel's meaning is nothing else, but impudent folie. For who would ever say, that M. Jewel's meaning is, y ^e men, and women said Mass, such untruth can be no better reproved, than by showing Master Hardings proves.

But what if the very words of these councils, where upon M. Harding hath found the Mass, make manifest proof against his Mass? The words be these; All secular Christian folk be bound to receive the communion at the least, thrice in the year. This relaxation, or privilege is granted only to the secular Christians. whereof it followeth necessarily, that all ecclesiastical persons, as Priests, Deacons, Clerks, and others, whatsoever of that sort, were not excepted, but stood still bound to receive orderly, as they had done before, and that was at all times, whensoever there was any ministration.

The .160. untruth. These be not the words of the council.

The .161. untruth. This is no relaxation, or privilege.

The .162. untruth. The ecclesiastical persons were not bound to receive, whensoever there was any ministration.

This sentence of M. Jewel, no doubt, pleaseth M. Harding well. For considering y ^e mumber of untruths, y ^t he must find, he seeth some way must be found to bring his purpose to effect, upon this occasiō, here he hath noted .iii. untruths together. But it is welū. Nber may be no prejudice to y ^e truth, let us examine the sayings. First saith Master Jewel, the councils words are these. All secular folk are bound to receive the Communion, at the least, thrice a year. These are not the words, saith Master Harding, and it is true. These are not the words in deed. But way yet well the whole matter, & thou shalt see Master Harding a very wrangler. Master Jewel a little before doeth recite the latin, even as it is red in Gracian, and doeth english it word for word, having occasion again here to repeat the decree, he allegeth the true meaning, and maketh only this change, instead of Christmas, Easter, and whitsontide, he saith, thrice in the year, and in doing so, what blame deserveth he? Look in this same division, Master Jewel allegeth the words thus. Qui in natali domini, Pascate, et Pentecoste non communicant, catholici non credantur, nec inter catholicos habeantur. These very words are found in Gracian, they, that receive not the Communion at Christmas, Easter, and Whitsuntide, let them not be taken nor reconed for catholic people. Here is the place truly alleged, and word for word interpreted, then how can he be blamed for falsifying the councils words? In this place which followeth, within one leaf, he allegeth the sense of this decree thus. All secular Christian folk be bound to receive the Communion, at the least, thrice in the year. There he nameth y ^e times, Christmas, Easter, Whitsuntide, here he saith, thrice in the year, and is this any untrue dealing? This it is, that I said, mark well Master Harding, and thou shalt find him a very wrangler. For this other untruth, about a relaxation, and privilege, except Master Harding think he have a privilege to wrangle, what doeth it here? It is a relaxation to those that received, either every day, or every sunday, it was a restrainte of those that would receive but once a year. Now this third untruth, whether the ecclesiastical persons were bound to receive, whensoever there was any ministration, or no, in that master Harding may well disclose his own untruth. He cannot blame master Jewel. I require of the Christian reader, to mark diligently what is spoken, and then judge as God shall move thee. Ecclesiastical persons were bound daily to receive saith M. Jewel. They were not saith M. Harding, and for proof of that, he saith only thus much, that master Jewel hath not proved the contrary. Now whether he hath, or not, let his Replye be judge. He allegeth in the .29. Division, 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, do not Communicate, either let him show 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 enforced under the pain of excommunication. They were bound so sure, that they might not be loosed, but upon just occasion, and necessity, hath no law. Yet saith master Harding, it is not proved. Now thou seest he will not say always true. And to prove that this proof was good, it is decreed by the council holden at Eliberis in Spain, in sundry Canons, that upon diverse faults, the priests, deacons, and clerks, should not in the end of service receive the Communion, whereby it appeareth, that it was their duty to receive at every ministration. And this may well appear, if we be not obstinate by the council of Carthage, saying. 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 appear, that in their service the clergy had their Communion, so in the .73. canon of the same council, it is said: qui communicauerit .l. orauerit, where by that joining, it may appear that in their common prayers, they had also a Communion, and it was then especially provided that no spiritual man should be present, and not Communicate. And surely, who so shall well consider the diligence of the ministers in the primative Church, shall not, nor cannot doubt, except private Mass have blinded him, but that themselves receiceiued at every assembly, and exhorted other to do the like. Then this is no untruth.

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

The .163. untruth. The greatest part used not to Communicate in all their assemblies at that time.

The .164. untruth. The Ecclesiastical records of that time show the contrary.

These untruths stand upon master Hardings computation of times. And if you will not alow his own reckoning, neither are all the other untruths of any value, nor this worth the numbering. At this time, saith master Harding, that is, when the council of Agatha was holden, the greatest parte did not Communicate in all their assemblies, and this he proveth by the testimonies of Ambrose, Augustine, and Chrysostom. To those fathers I answer, that they spake only unto some, that were very negligent, and would but seldom receive. Master Hardings surmise, that thereof gesseth at a private Mass, is very slender. What if one hundred, or two? or what if the greater parte came seldom to the congregation, and therefore these good pastors did so often rebuke them? Yet most of them, that came, did Communicate, and master Harding shall never show the contrary. These self same Doctors are very plain, that usually, many of them did receive, and if it were so, where is the private Mass? Chrysostom speaketh plainly, contremiscite, contremiscite ad mensam hanc, de qua communicamus simul omnes, tremble, tremble at this table, at which we do all Communicate together. And that we may know how often this was done, he writeth in another place, prece • illic perpetuae propter te, synaxis propter te, oblatio per singulos dies dominicos, there are, meaning of the Church, continual prayers for thee, assemblies for thee, and the Communion every sunday. And if master Harding will except again, that Oblatio is not the Communion, let him remember here is also Synaxis, by which word is also meant the Communion, so whether word he will have to signify this Sacrament, he must confess, that it was used at the least every sunday, and that of the people. And in another place, Chrysostom saith: Omnis qui astat & ministeriorū participio non fruitur, impudens est, & procax. Whosoever is present, and doth not Communicate, he is shameless and malapert. And in diverse places he warneth them to cease their evil doing, with oft repetition of the dreadful mysteries. And to what purpose were that, if they received not commonly. The authority that is alleged out of Augustine, is taken out of Ambrose, and it may well be answered with the authority again of Augustine, taken out of Cyprian. Hunc panem dari nobis quotidie postulamus. &c. This bread saith he, we desire that it may be daily given unto us. &c. Least while we be denied that heavenly bread, we be separate from the body of Christ. Heereby it appeareth, in their assemblies, the most of them received, and to this effect master Jewel doth allege, Conc. Matisc. 2 cap. 40. Council. Antisiodor. Can. 42. Car. mag. lib. 6. cap. 162. Now how so ever it liketh master Harding to accept it, all this must needs stand for sufficient proof. For this seconde untruth here brought, that the contrary is shown by sundry records of this, that we have said, it appeareth that this show, as it is again shown, is nothing worth. Therefore the use of receiving in those days was, as it is recorded, every sunday at the least, but the receiving in the Popes days, is every Easter, and so both these untruths are become none.

It was decreed by a council holden at Gerunda in Spain, that all little Churches in the country, should confourme them selves unto the great cathedral churches, that were in cities, and towns, as well for order of the Communion, as also for singing, and other ministration. But by M. Hardings own grant, there was no private Mass in the cathedral Churches.

The .165. untruth. That council speaketh never a word, in that canon of the Communion.

The .166. untruth. I never made any such grant.

Beleue not this man's saying, gentle reader, if thou love thine own soul. Mark first the aucthorities ere thou credit his report. The words of the council, 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, even as it is done in the Metropolitan Churches, so in the name of God we will, that in all the province of Terraconia, the same custom be kept, in order, in singing, and in mynistration. This canon is reported by Gracian, who instead of Terraconia, putteth in all provinces, least master Harding should make exception of any one country. But saith he, this decree speaketh never a word of the Communion. Yet this decree hath these express words. The institution of the Mass, the order, the manner of singing, and the mynistration. And the title of this decree in Gracian, is this: as in the cathedral Churches, sic vbique missarum solennia celebrentur, so everywhere let the solemnity of the Mass be kept: and the gloss saith, Ostendit quod missa non debet aliter celebrari, quam in Metropolitana ecclesia, he showeth that the Mass must be celebrated no otherwise, than in the cathedral Churches. If the Communion in the Mass, be no part of the institution, nor order, nor ministration, it is a strange Communion, and it is a strange Mass, that may be instituted, and ministered without it. But be it, that this were so, is master Harding so uncourteous to his close Communion, that he will have it no part of the solemnity of his Mass? He doth thē deserve very ill of it. For it hath more pretty gestures, than all the Mass beside. But what if master Harding will deny all this? What if he care neither for council, nor yet for Gracian? What if he say it is no part of the institution, order, ministration, nor yet of the solemnity? yet he cannot avoid y ^e gloss, that speaketh expressly, without naming any circumstance, that the Mass must be celebrate no otherwise in small Churches, than it is in the Metropolitan church. Now except M. Harding do mean to teache us, by these distinctions, that the Communion is no parte of the Mass, it must be ministered in all Churches alike. This is a miserable cause that M. Harding hath, that to defend it, must either fall into this absurdity, that the Communion is no part, neither of the institution of the Mass, nor of the manner of singing, nor of the order, nor of the ministration, nor of the solemnity, nor of the Mass itself, or else he must confess, this is no untruth. Now where he saith further, for this other untruth, that he made no such grant, that in cathedral Churches there was no private Mass, if it be true, what a vain argument made he, when he gessed at private Mass in little villages, by the use of Cathedral churches. Reasoning after this sort, that seeing there were so few Communicants in the great city of Antioch, what was to be thought of small parishes? Here may well appear a secrete grant, that private Masses must be had in small towns in the country, or else nowhere.

It appeareth by most certain, and undoubted proofs, that the people did receive then every sunday.

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

In the .157. untruth, master Harding said, this was a foul untruth. Here he saith, it is untrue, for ought that here is brought, so he somewhat qualifieth his former saying. But yet this doing is strange, because the thing is certain, to make exception against the proof, more modesty might well have yielded unto the truth. How be it, considering it is M. Hardings doing, it is y ^e more sufferable. Poets, and painters may not be limited in their inventions. But least the Christian reader should be deceived, and have some confidence of this untruth, because it is twice reckoned: let us see these proofs, which master Harding saith are so insufficient. The one is, Decernimus, vt omnibus dominicis diebus. &c. We decree that every sunday the oblation of the alter, be made of every mā, and woman. This authority seemeth very sufficient, if y ^e time do prejudice it, in that thi • council was holden more than & C. years after the council of Agatha, master Harding must understand it is an argument, Minorae. They received every sunday in the time of the council holden at Matiscona. Ergo, much rather when the council was at Agatha. And in deed, from that time our savior Christ ascended, until the Pope sat aloft in the Church of God, every age, as it was nearer unto Christ's time, so they had more commonly their Communions. The second proof y ^t M. Jewel bringeth, is this, vnaquaeque mulier. &c. Every womā when she doth communicate, let hir have hir Dominical. If she have it not, let hir not Communicate, vsque in alium diem dominicum, until the next sunday. Then of like they received every sunday. This argument saith M. Harding, is slender, & a learned man will be ashamed of it. And he answereth it with another argument, & if thou wilt have a pattern of a good one, mark it well. The words are saith he, quando communicate, when she doth communicate. Ergo, she did not communicate every sunday. He that will reprehend M. Jewel's argument, it is reason himself should have made a better. By such reasons we may conclude what we will. When she did communicate, therefore she did it not every sunday. Then when we go to dinner, we sit down. Therefore we go not to dinner every day. Suche proves may be soon made. Biside this, M. Harding challengeth the translation, but that is not worth answering. Alias is commonly used 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 English, we must tarry for another term, every wise man doth understand it, we must tarry til the next term. Thus hear appeareth no insufficiency in M. Jewel's proof, but much following M. Hardings untruth.

Likewise Socrates writeth thus in Greke, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is to say, to have a congregation, or assembly by thenselves.

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

False quotation needeth no great excuse.

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

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

Between M. Stapleton, and M. Harding, master Jewel can say nothing without blame. The sixth untruth noted by master Jewel out of master Hardings answer, is this. S. Andrew said the Communion, and not the Mass. In the return of this untruth, saith master Stapleton: you speak fondly, the Mass, and the Communion is all one. Here saith master Jewel, let the Mass be taken for the Communion. That is an untruth saith master Harding, it cannot be so taken. Thus we see these men are at a point, speak master Jewel, what he will, so long as he speaketh truth, he shall not escape blame. Whether Missa may signify the Communion, or no. Read more in the .17. untruth.

Verily it is provided by the decree it self, that in private Chapels, there should be a lawful, and an ordnarie company.

The .170. untruth. It was not provided.

To make this untruth perfect, M. Harding hath bound it with a double asseveration, verily, verily, this is a false lie. But surely, surely, there is little honesty, to use so much wrangling, where the matter it self is plain. The words of the decree are these, vt ibi missas teneat propter fatigationem familiae, iusta ordination permittimus, we permit that in due order for the weariness of his household, he may have Mass in his private Oratory. Now though master Harding go not the right way to prove his private Mass, that goeth to seek it out in private chapels, yet let us way well what this permission is. The decree saith, iusta ordination, or iusto ordine, so without due order it might not be, not in private Oratories, and to have it with order, was to have a number of Communicantes. So this permission yet makes no private Mass. Again the decree saith, propter fatigatiouem familiae, for the weariness of the household, whereby it appeareth the household must communicate. For if they should not have gone to church, how should they have ben werie of going? & thē was there not yet private Mass. Thirdly it was gra •• ted in those parishes, in which, beside that household, there was legittimus, ordinarius{que} conuentus, in which there was beside a sufficient company. What needed this exception, if the Priest might have said Mass, & received a • one? Little company will serve to make one communicate. Thus we see Master Harding, doeth nowhere speak more advisedly, than where he maketh most constant asseveration.

Vincentius writeth, after Gregorius was dead, Boniface ruled the church of Rome. This Boniface obtained of the Emperor, Phocas, that the church of Rome should be the head of all churches, and that because the church of Constantinople wrote it self by that title. The next year after that, Augustine, that was called the English men's bishop, died. The year following, John the Almonar, was in great fame, at which time also Mahomet first spread his religion in Arabia.

The .171. untruth. Vincentius writeth not so.

If thou knowest not what wrangling is, now learn. Master Harding findeth here diverse faults. The first, that Boniface was not next Gregory, and true I think it be. Sauinianus was one yere between, and what skilleth that to private Mass? Or why should Master Jewel of purpose, speak here untruly? It is very probable he might forget the order of the Popes, that was so occupied to set out God's religion. This was not worth the noting. Another fault is, where Vincentius saith, Augustine the first • English Bishop. Master Jewel saith thus, Augustine that was called the English bishop. What contention about words is this▪ Another fault is, bi cause he allegeth not one sent • nce, where Vincentius doeth commend the Almonars lib • ralitie Except Master Jewel would have filled his book with idle words, this was nothing necessary. He searcheth 〈…〉 what I killeth it then, to allege hi • co •••• dations. We read in Plato, that a 〈…〉 was ever won • to make such a • nswer • s▪ when Cherephon asketh Polus, what science Gorgias professeth, Polus always is up with a special commendation of it, and never tells what it is. But Socrates said, that was nothing to the purpose, there was no man dispraised it, so what helpeth it, when we ask of the Almonars age, to allege Vincentius commendation, of him. No man disprayseth him, we seek for his age, we inquire not of his qualities, let the man alone. The fourth fault is, that he parteth this saying: What time Mahomet spread his religion in Arabia, in the distinct letter of the Doctors allegations. This doing helpeth Master Jewel never a whit. For if it be true, what skilleth it, who saith it? Again, if the Printer make not his letters well, Master Jewel is not to blame. Here are four fault • found without salt or • auoure, yet there is another, and that is, that about this time, Mahomet spread not his religion. For he began, saith Master Harding, in the latter time of Heraclitus the Emperor. Master Harding is very superstitious in computation of times, or this would seem to be a very • ender 〈◊〉 . Phocas began his reign, in the year of our Lord .604. three years after that Boniface was made Pope▪ 607. it was four years after, that John the Almonar, should say this Mass. Anno .610. within .xix. year • after, in the ninetene year of Heraclitus, Mahomet did sprede his heresy. And may we not say of things done nigh a thousand years paste, tha • th • y were done about one time, if the • were done within nintene years compass? But what meaneth Master Harding, to cavil about times? The writers them selves do not agree▪ by some computation, they 〈◊〉 very little. Mahomet is said to have begun, Anno Domini ▪621. so there was but nine years difference▪ and may not then Master Jewel say, they were done about the same time. Master Harding hath little to • aye, when he stayeth at such trifles. But because Master Harding taketh it in by the way, that Augustine was our first Bishoppe, read more of that in the Epistle.

To break the holy Canons, Damasus saith, i • blasphemy against the holy ghost.

The .72. untruth. Damasus saith not so.

This is one of Master Hardings poor untruths, which, beside the assertion, hath neither color, nor show. Damasus words are these. Tali • praesumptio manifest vnum genus est blaspheme •• tis in spiritual factum. Such presumpsion is manifestly one kind of blasphemy, against the holy ghost. If these be not the words, then I lie. If these be the words, then Master Harding maketh shameless untruths. And if those words of the decree are not plain enough, then Gracian speaketh more plainly in the title, he speaketh, even as Master Jewel doeth, In spiritum sanctum blasphemant, qui sacros canones violant, it is blasphemy against the holy ghost, to break the sacred canons. Yea and the gloss saith further, Eo ipso videtur excommunicatus, et hereticus, even by the very face, he is excommunicate, and he is an heretic. And Gregory saith, exors esto a nostro ministerio. Let him have no part of our ministratiō. Read these places, & examine M. I. saying, thou canst not but marvel, at Master Hardings impudency.

Soters decree commandeth, that no Priest dare minister without the company of some other Priest.

The .173. untruth. Soters decree is not so general, it is limited.

How so ever Soters decree be limited, he were a wise man could limit all M. Hardinges wrangling. The canon is plain, Summopere cauendum est▪ And necessarium duximus, we must especially provide, and we have thought it necessary, to have another Priest in company, and for the better credit of this decree, Soter bringeth forth this scripture, Ve soli, woe be to him that is alone. But saith Master Harding, this decree was not general, and it was grown out of use: and how proveth he, that it was not general. Forsoth Gregory saith so, he might as well have said, I say so, for if Gregory might guess at Soters meaning .400. years after Soter was dead, why may not M. Hard. guess too. I am sure he is as good at a guess as ever Gregory was, and hath as good practice in them. But this is strange dealing which Master Harding useth to guess so at untruths, then to avouch them so boldly. But because the matter shall not go all by aim, here is another shift for John Almonars Mass. This canon, saith Master Harding, was grown out of use. But this answer was scarce worth bringing. For if the breach of those canons were blasphemy against the holy ghost, as Pope Damasus saith, what ment Master Hardings church to let them grow out of use. But I think, the church was not so overseen, peradventure Master Hardings saying is false, peradventure the decree, neither had any limitation, nor yet was out of use. Verily the Pope himself, straightly commandeth them, with apostolical authority, and in no case will have them broken under pain of excommunication. Then since it is so, this untruth was neither wisely numbered, nor yet well prouid.

The council of Laudicea saith, it is not lawful for bishops, or priests, to minister the communion at home.

The .174. untruth. The Council saith not at home, but in their houses.

We have heard before many new distinctions, here is yet another, as new as the best. There is, saith M. Harding, a difference between at home, and in their houses, and upon this distinction, it liketh him so well, he aduentureth this untruth, and the two next, ensuing also. But I think, it will be long ear this distinction get any credit. Sure I am, in my country, to say he is at home, or he is at his house, is all a matter, and I dare say, M. Jewel thought of no difference between them. Seeing then Master Harding doeth see so clear, too espy ambiguities, where none are. Let us see how that decree, and this distinction may stand. Let no Bishop, or Priest, saith the council, minister the Communion in their houses. Yet saith Master Harding, they may minister it at home. So this decree standeth thus. Let no Bishop, or Priest minister the Communion to any man in his house, except he be at home. If so many Bishops made so senseless a decree, they had small matters to think on.

The same order was taken at the Council of Acon.

The .176. untruth. It was not taken.

The same order, saith Master Harding, was not taken by them. Yet the .58. canon of the council of Laodicea, and 80. canon of the council of Acon, are the same words, and how should the same words not have the same meaning? No distinctiō can make this matter whole, but M. Harding must needs here say, he cannot tell what he said.

Likewise, Pope Felix: It is not lawful to minister the communion at home, but upon exceeding great necessity.

The .175. untruth. Felix, speaketh neither of the Communion, nor of home.

If M. Harding did either fear God, or reverence the truth, he would not deal thus unfaithfully. Thou seest, good Reader, how boldly he saith, Felix nameth neither y ^e Communion, nor home, and who would not think, that such assertions should have some color, or show of truth? yet sure in this there is none. But mark his untrue behavior, he allegeth for his proof, certain words of Felix, in which in deed these terms are not expressed, but how wickedly he doeth it, let the book be judge. It followeth in the same decree, within less than five lines. In domibus ab episcopis, sieve presbyteris oblationes celebrari nullatenus licet, yet in houses, either by Bishops, or Priests, it is by no means lawful, that the Communion be celebrate. Lo here is mention both of house, and Communion, yet saith Master Harding, there is mention of neither. The best excuse that in this place may be had, is to say, he was deceived: there is no exception against the words, for they are plain. No distinction of oblation. For the gloss hath interpreted it. Oblationes. s. eucharistiae. The sacrifice, to wit, of the Lord's supper. Now a little further, to view these untruths, M. Harding to prove his private Mass, hath sought for John Almonar in a private Chapel, but the question is moved of the open church. This John Almonar, lived at the least .610. years after Christ. The question is of .600. years only. So this fable may be well rejected, both for that it is nothing to the purpose, and if it were, yet it is without the compass of .600. years. Yet Master Jewel admitting the proof, doeth prove that it is a very fable. His reason is, because no man might say Mass at home. Here let us make the best of Master Hardings answer, and it is thus. They might not say Mass in their houses, but they might say them in their Chapels. This answer is very absurd. For who would say mass in his parlor, or hall, or kitchen, having a Chapel? And it is known 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, every man may have a Chapel in his house, & pray there, but he may not have Mass in it. Thus appeareth, how vain Master Hardings exception is, against these former authorities, for that they have in Domibus in their houses, when Gracian alleging the council of Auleria useth this word, oratorium, a Chaple, notwithstanding, Master Harding concludeth thus, we must seek for better stuff, this is nothing worth, so much security have these men promised them selves, that whatsoever they speak, they think it shall be believed.

Master Harding translateth falls • lie, cum benedixisset sancta▪ when he had consecrate the Sacrament. Likewise, post finem orationum, after the prayer of consecration.

The .177. untruth. That translation is true.

The .178. untruth. That translation is true.

Now that this Apostate, hath vomited up a little poisoned affection, against the blessed bishop of Sarisburie, he is laid down again, like a swine, to wallow in his former mire, and as blind bayard, running forth he knoweth not whether, quoteth mo untruths of his own making. My translation, saith he, is true. His reasō is this, some doctors do expound benedicere, for consecrare, therefore that is so. And the Grecians said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , sancta sanctis, therefore sancta is the Sacrament. If Master Harding, that in his long epistle would so fain have ben Appelles, could with all his cunning picture out these arguments, we should have the right shape of a fools bable. Benedicere, saith he, is construed of S. Ambrose by consecrare, ergo, it is so. But it is construed otherwise, by the Evangelists, therefore it is not so. Where S. Matthew, and S. Mark say, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , when he had blessed, he brake, S. Luke and S. Paul say, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , when he had given thanks, he brake. Yea both Matthew, and Mark them selves say of the cup 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , when he had given thanks, he gave it. Then if Benedixit be, he did consecrate, then Gratias egit is also, he did consecrate, and so the .180. untruth is verified, that master Harding calleth some things, that are not as if they were. And I would fain know why master Harding cleaveth so to this word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , it maketh nothing for his transubstantiation. It is written in the Scripture, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , God blessed the seventh day, yet he turned not the nature of it. So God speaketh unto Abraham, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Surely, in blessing I will bless thee, yet God used no manner of consecration: so saith S. Paul, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Who hath blessed us in all manner of spiritual blessing. In diverse other places of holy scripture, thisword is used, yet nowhere for this strange manner of transubstantiation, or other consecration, than which we say in Latin consecrare, which is, to give up, to ordain, to appoint to an holy use, though it may be well said of the sacrament, yet it is not in Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but rather 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , so that why he should translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to consecrate, there is no cause, except such cause as will have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 after 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , signify nothing. But saithe master Harding, some Doctors have translated Benedicere by Consecrare. Let us grant it, such is the liberty of speech, that some word is used in an impropre signification. Dothe it follow, because Benedicere may be to consecrate, therefore Benedicere sancta, is to consecrate the sacrament? This gathering is very childish. Extruo is to build up. Therefore is extruere mensam, to build or make a table? Interpello, is to disturb, or interrupt, therefore is interpellare debitorē to interrupt or disturb your debtor? Expendere, is to consider, therefore is expendere poenas, to consider punishment? Sure this is a very idle proof, though Benedicere were to consecrate, and sancta were the sacrament. But now it is shown, that Benedicere is not to consecrate, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not the sacrament, as Master Jewel showeth out of Chrysostom. And in da de what reason is it, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , sancta sanctis, should be the sacrament, & not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , sancta sanctorum, should be likewise the sacrament? Now for as much as master Harding cleaveth so unto the Doctors, that what so ever they say, he straight taketh it for an Oracle: we may say unto him, as our Savior said unto the Jews: Even Moses, in whom you trust, shall be a witness against you, so the Doctors shall be witnesses against master Harding, and his fellows, that when the Doctors do require to be judged by the scriptures, yet they without scriptures will ground their faith upon them. Cursed be he, saith the Prophet, that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh to be his arm. For my parte I reverence the Doctors, and praise God for them, they were good stewards, and dispensed faithfully the goods, that were committed unto them, they were men of excellent learning, great diligence, and godly life, and have sufficiently confuted master Hardings religion, but yet they were men, and had all their errors. Tertullian said God had a body, and therefore he was reprehended of Augustine. He thought not well in all points of our savior Christ, as appeareth in his books de Trinitate, and aduersus Hermogenem, & Praxeam, where he teacheth that Christ is a portion of his father. Origen in diverse places writeth very wickedly, as appeareth by Epiphanius, annumbring him among heretics, Cyprian said, that Christ did satisfy only for Original sin. Methodius said, we are justified by fulfilling the law of nature, as Epiphanius reporteth. These were wicked heresies. The doctors that followed after, had also many, and great faults. I need not reckon master Hardings Doctors, Clemens, Abdias, Martialis, Dyonisius, Hyppolitus, and such other, they confute themselves: these others are the most ancient of any credit. And as they have these, and sundry other errors, so from age to age in all writers errors did still grow, great controversies were between the Greeks and Latin church. The matter is too plain, it needeth no further proof, and no doubt the spirit of God foreseeing these dangerous times, that should ensue, when men should make God's of those holy Fathers, grounding their faith on them, as on the true foundation, the holy Ghost I say, did leave them to their own fancies, and suffered them to err, to declare that they were but men, and that we should build no further on them, than they did build upon Christ, but examine all sayings, both theirs, and ours by the everlasting word of God, the only lantern unto our fee • e, and the only light unto our steppes, which thing God for his Christ's sake grant us evermore to do, Amen. For this other translation, post finem orationum, after the prayer of consecration, which is the 178. untruth, it is as soon proved to be ill, as master Harding hath aduenturously said, it is good. He saith, they are Orationes, that are after Consecration, and precationes, which are before, and for this distinction he allegeth S. Augustine. Here, Christian reader, thou hast to note two things. First the distinction, then master Hardings argument. As touching the distinction, that there are no Orationes till consecration is past, that is very false, the Mass book it self hath Oremus, I wote not howe many times before they are at their saccaring, and I trow he that made the Mass book, knew what was in the Mass. Now for the argument, see 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 noon: Ergo, Peracto pomeridiano tempore, is immediately after .xii. of the clock. This is even such another argument, and master Hardings hangeth as losely, as it. Thus if we will grant M. Harding all his proofs, he will both make his Massebooke a liar, and frame again as evil arguments, as he maketh in his answer.

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

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

Is not this a strange kind of dealing? The word is not there saith M. Jewel, that is untrue saith master Harding, the meaning is necessarily implied. What need any answer, to such untruths, as have nether shame, nor understanding? Likewise the next untruth, which is the .180. whether master Harding call things, that are not, as though they are, because it is once mentioned in the .177. untruth, I reckon it not here worth the touching.

I have already proved by sundry aucthorities, that Missa is often times used for any kind of prayer. &c. and it further appeareth also by the council of Cabilon.

The .181. untruth. It is not yet proved.

The .182. untruth. It appeareth not by the council of Cabilon.

Master Harding shall do well, to deny M. Jewel's proof • , when he hath reproved them, and till that be done, he were best say nothing. Men may not now be led with his bare word. What master Jewel's proofs are, let the Reply be judge. For the other untruth about the council of Cabilon, master Harding useth a great deal of wrāgling, and little learning. For master Jewel doth allege Gratians own words, as he reporteth it out of the council. O saith master Harding, the council hath it not. If it be so, then the untruth is Gratians, and not master Jewel's, and so M. Harding falleth out with his friends. But to cloke the matter again, where the words as Gratian reporteth them, are, & auditis missarum solennibus, & vespertinis officijs. He saith it is meant of the feast of the four times, whē it was lawful to say Mass at night. Those times were, as I suppose, the first week of Marche, the seconde of June, the third of September, and the fourth week of December, but these first times liked not Urbanus, therefore he turned them into the first week of Lent, and into Whitsuntide, and so we had the spring fast, the summer fast, the harvest fast, and the winter fast, that by these .iv. books, or hingels of the world, we might be taught, even as with the four Euangelies, both what to preach, and what to do. Thus have master Hardings holy Popes pulled out of God's Church, God's eternal gospels, and made us new gospels of their own, and of those times saith master Harding, that decree is meant, at which times Mass might be said at night. But yet, as I remember, in Lent we had not many Masses at night, but in the forenoon we had Evensong, and all least the Euening prayer should be to long. Then if it be so, what do these fasts here to make answer, for their Mass, notwithstanding such observation of days and months, and times, yet Mass in this place must signify common prayer, and so this is no untruth. Or Mass was celebrate at night, and then what meaneth the .81. untruth? Read it.

M. Harding seeketh for his Mass at Alexandria, a thousand miles out of Christendom.

The .183. untruth. Alexandria is not a thousand miles out of Christendom.

In the .171. untruth, where master Jewel saith, about which time Mahomet spread his religion in Arabia, master Harding quoteth his untruth, and saith, Mahomet was not about that time, and yet he was at the utmost within .xix. years of that time, now almost .1000. years past. And this is strange dealing, that of things done .1000. years past, within. xix. years compass, we may not say, they were done about one time. Yet as though master Harding there had done very well, he doeth again the like in this place, saith he, Alexandria is not a thousand mile out of Christendom, and because he will appear constant, he maketh this again, the .218. untruth, so little is he ashamed of his own folly. And now what skilleth it whether it be just a thousand mile off, or else want a mile or two of it? Is master Harding ever the near his private Mass? Yet take away two poor Islands, Cyprus and Creta, a .1000. mile a sunder, and either of them .500. miles from Christendom. And M. Harding cannot prove y ^t any part of Alexandria is not a .1000. mile from Christendom, then this exact computation of miles in so needless a matter, may rather argue wranglyng, than prove an untruth.

In the Tripartite history, it is written thus, Gregory Nazianzen in a little Oratory at Constantinople 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 made assemblies of people.

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

This curious inquisition about words, which prejudice no party, which way so ever you interpret them, declareth a great want of good matter to prove the thing it self, which lieth in controversy. If these words be not in the same place, yet the very allegation of the Greek text is a sufficient proof, 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 answer.

It was forbidden by many decrees, to minister the sacrament in private houses.

The .185. untruth. It was not forbidden.

Untruthes may well grow in number, where one may be reckoned so many times. Read the .176. untruth.

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

The .186. untruth. My translation is true.

Tell on in a circle M. Harding, and then your untruths shall never have end. Read the .177. untruth.

The life of S. Basil hath been set for the fully, and faithfully, by Gregory Nissene, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory Presbyter, Socrates, Theodoretus, Sozomenus, and Nicephorus.

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

God be merciful unto us, and when his good will, and pleasure is, deliver us from such wranglers. Is not a man's life set out fully, when it is shown what he hath done openly in the congregation? How he hath removed from place to place? What doctrine he hath taught? What diligence he hath used? What trouble he hath suffered? What enemies he hath had? Whose company he hath frequented? What learning he hath studied? What promotion he hath gotten? How many years he hath lived? And what ever else he hath from time to time openly done, or suffered? All this is declared only by Gregory Nazianzen in his Monodia, in his Oration De laudibus Basilij, and in sundry his Epistles, so that whatsoever master Jewel saith, he alone hath done it, and that he meant so to do, it is plain enough, for as much as he entituleth his book De vita Basilij, and yet though Nazianzen had not done so much, but all these among them, had written this so fully, master Jewel's words had been true. So there is nothing here to be said for master Harding, but either he wrangleth, or miss understandeth.

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

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

Read this tale of Amphilochius & Vincentius his words, and thou mayest hardly think, that Vincentius, being so full of old wives fables, as he is, would so lightly have passed over this wondrous matter of S. Basel. Master Harding him self, who is much more temperate in such manner of miracles, than Vincentius is, by no means could let it pass without much practice of his eloquence. By this it may be thought, that Vincentius never knew it, or if he knew it, he was ashamed to write it, being so manifest a lie, least he should have discredited his whole fardle of news. Thus much yet he saith, that may sound toward it, that God did teach Basil in a vision, to offer up sacrifice with his own words. And upon this saying, Master Harding aduentureth the quoting of his untruth. To discharge this, it were unnecessary labor, considering the tale is so foolish, yet for Amphilochius and Vincentius sakes, that one of them may be found a liar, I will a little lay these authors together. Amphilochius saith, the next day after this Mass was done, Basil made a golden dove to hang over the altar, and he put the third part of the host into it: Vincentius saith, Basil being at that miraculous Mass, Columba aurea, quae cum sacramento domini super altare pendebat &c. the golden pigeon, which did hang over the altar with the sacrament of the Lord, did not move three times, as it was wont to do. &c. Bicause a certain deacon was talking with a womā. Here we see Amphilochius saith, the pigeon was made the next day, Vincentius saith, if hong long before, over the altar. And that the tale may have one 〈◊〉 of Vincentius office, he saith, at every sataring, the pigeon was wont to move thrice. Again Amphilochius saith, there was nobody but Eubulus, that looked in at a creuise. Vincentius saith, there was a deacon talking with a woman, and therefore the pigeon could not move: and so either one of these two Doctors make a lie, and then Master Harding proveth his private Mass, with a lie, or else Basil said Mass twice after his own fashion, and then this is no untruth. But saith Master Harding, Antonius doeth also report this Mass, saying. I grant he doeth so. And so doth Aesope, that apes, and asses spake. But I trow Master Harding doeth not believe him, no more doth any wise man his Antonius. He y ^t list to have y ^e fabler reproved, let him read the book.

Master Hardings Amphilochius saith, that after Basils return from Pontus, Ensebius knew him not.

The .189. untruth. I assure you, my book hath it not.

Belike Master Hardings Amphilochius, is but a patched boke. But if he will go to that other at Verona in Italy, which is fair written in velem, there sure he shall find it.

Nazianzen saith, that Basil was not Bishop of Cesarea in Julianus time.

The .190. untruth. Nazianzen saith not so.

Master Harding in his Rejoinder, saith thus. Perhaps it is true, that Nazianzen was not then Bishop of Cesarea, but yet Nazianzen • aith it not. Now sure, good Reader, without all perhaps Master Harding is a very wrangler, that when he cannot deny the thing, yet will stick so dainely upon the words. But say M. Har. what he say will, both Nazianzen, & all other writers, which do speak of Basils doing, do bear witness of this matter. Nazianzen reporteth, how upon dissention between him, & Eusebius, he went into Pontus. And when Valens for y ^e furtherance of Arian heresy, came to Cesarea, and vexed much the faithful; Nazianzen was sent to Basil, to call him home, for the aide of the church, upon which return, he was reconciled to Eusebius, & in like authority governed the church. Now this being done, in the time of Valens, who was after Jovinian, and Basil, yet no Bishop, is it not then plain, that Amphilochius is a liar, which saith, Basel was Bishoppe in Julian's time, which was Emperor next before Jovinian? If there were no more to say, but this, yet this would prove Master Harding were impudent in this untruth. But Nazianzen speaketh yet more plain, he saith, Basil was made bishop in Eusebius room, after the death of Valens, about the year of our Lord .380. And for an undoubted proof, that he was no Bishoppe in Julianus time, Basel him self writeth, that he was made chief of the church of Cesarea, when the Arian heresy was in the greatest rage, which was after that Valens had raised the great persecution, for it. And this also thou shalt find written in Socrates. Now these authorities standing thus, as thou shalt find them by examination, what will Master Hardings perhaps, excuse him? Sure, that these many untruths stand upon no ground, but his impudent facings.

Master Hardings Amphilochius saith, that Basil foretold the death of Julian, Theodoretus saith, it was one Julianus 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.

Master Harding hath but a little way to go, and hath yet a great many untruths to make. Therefore taking good hold in time, in these words Sabba foretold it, and not Basil, he picketh it two untruths. One that Sabba told it not, the other, that Basil told it. He might with as much facility have made the third that and is a conjunction, & should couple two words and sentences together. But here by the way note, that Amphilochius telleth a fowl popish tale & an ilfauored untruth, which Master Harding thinketh good to skip over for shame, and with a good courage, goeth forward, making the reader believe, all is well. Read the Reply. Fol. 83. Now to these untruths. If Sabba did foretell the death of Julian : then notwithstanding Master Hardings numbering, yet Basil foretold it not. Then here is the controversy, whether Theodorete saith, that Julianus Sabba, did tell it first. Then read the place, and thou shalt find it thus. When Libanius doeth ask of Sabba what the Carpenters son was now a doing, Sabba answereth, that the maker of the world, whom he in mockage did call the Carpenters son, was making sandapilam, a here to carry dead bodies, and sone after the Emperor died. Then it followeth in y ^e next chapter, that the same day that Julian died, Resciuit cecidisse, Sabba knew he was dead, and told it unto his fellows. Now judge who was the first teller of these news, before the Emperor was dead, Sabba told Libanius his bear was a making, & the same day that he died, he told it abroad. Now Basil being then not present with the Emperor, as likewise Sabba was not, but did know it miraculouslie, how could S. Basil tell it before him. No doubt, good Reader, when Master Harding made two untruths of this, he had either slender judgment or very ill choice.

Master Hardings Amphilochius saith, Nazianzen was present at Basils death. Nazianzen him self saith, he came afterward.

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

Master Harding saith in his reioinder, he will not deny, that this is true. Read his book, & is not this a strange matter, y ^t he noteth that for an untruth, which he will not deny, but it is a truth. If he have nothing to say, but that it is not in his Monodia, what skilleth it, so the thing be truly reported, whether the place be noted at all or no? I do easily grant, that Master Jewel may be well deceived in keeping just reconing of books, and chapters, but that is a slender fault, when he reporteth all, that is written, truly: Now to prove that this is true, and that Nazianzen was not at Basils death, it is manifest that he was at Arianzum, his own patrimony, and made his Epitaphe, and oration upon Basil, one whole year after Basil was dead. And whē he had done, he went home again, as it is sufficiently proved by Grigorie Nissene. And Gregorius Presbiter doeth witness the same, that Nazianzen came long after that Basil was dead, thus granting that it be not found in Nazianzens Monodia, yet by other good witness, Amphilochius is proved a liar. Now for misnaming the place, alleging the authority truly, I shall need to make no longe answer. The fault is so small, that it doth excuse it self.

Master Hardings, Amphilochius is so impudent, to say Nazianzen came in all hast, and saw the blessed body, and fell upon it, when it was buried.

The .194. untruth. Amphilochius saith not, he fell upon him when he was buried.

In this untruth is nothing but a little wrangling, about this saying, when he was buried. Which words whether they be in Amphilochius or no, I mean not yet to go to Verona and look. Sure it is, he could not fall on him, when he was covered with moulde, and since the matter is no weightier, let it rest for me. Now Master Harding skippeth over one other lie, and maketh no defense of Amphilochius writing it, but leaves that altogether untouched, for a testimony, what him self thinketh of Amphilochius. After all this a do about him, he giveth him over, with this round conclusion, be he as he is, I neither defend him, nor condemn him, he is ashamed any further to defend him, because he is a shameless liar, and yet he will not condemn him, because he maketh a tale for Master Hardings Mass. In the mean season, we have some guess what the author is, when his great friends dare not defend him. Now Master Harding skippeth over two leaves at once, and so draweth to an ende.

Chrysostom saith, some are called, and some are brought to receive with the Priest. diuis. 34.

The .195. untruth. Chrysostom saith not so.

If M. Harding did now begin his wrangling, it were peradventure requisite more at large to blame it, but because it is common, y ^e reader I trust, is already forewarned to believe nothing that he saith, without some other witness. Therefore his credit being thus broken, & the proof of this untruth being so slender, there is no great danger least any man should take hurt by it. I will omit therefore further proof of Master Jewel's saying, and I only require to consider this manner of untruth. Thus Master Jewel allegeth Chrisostoms words. Some are called, some brought to receive with y ^e priest. That is not so, saith Master Harding, they are not called to receive with the Priest. This then must be judged by Chrysostom, he writeth thus. The Deacon standing upright in the sight of all the people. &c. Some he calleth, to communicate, and some he putteth off. Now how can any indifferent man say▪ that Master Jewel misreporteth these words? But so it is, Master Harding hath shut from him all indifferency, and doeth let affection miserably blind his understanding, and by that means, hath espied this untruth, and the untruth is, that Chrysostom hath not these words, with the Priest, but they are Master Jewel's own addition. But what meaneth he? Doth he think the people did receive without y ^e priest? or if they did not, when Chrysostom saith, they were called to receive, how is it untrue to report his saying, they were called to receive with the priest? Do these untruths need many words to justify them? or were not silence the best answer to so great folies? Let the Reader judge.

If nobody received, then is it not true, that some received.

The .196. untruth. Chrysostom saith not that, some received.

If the last untruth, were not worth the noting, then what store hath he, that is fain to number it twice? Yet so it is, this purposed number hath driven M. Harding to such inconvenience. The former untruth was, Chrysostom said not, some received with the priest, this is, he saith not some receive, if he would make the third, that some receive not with, it had even as good reason as either of these. But let these untruths alone, they cannot do much harm. Only I must admonish thee, that after this long ado with Master Jewel, Master Harding for his exercise, will fights little with him self. Here he saith, that Chrysostom saith not, that some receive, yet out of this same place of Chrysostom alleging these words, Cum timore dei, et fide, et dilection accedite, he doeth english them thus, come you up to receive, with the fear of God &c. These contrary sayings without one untruth, cannot be reconciled. If there he well translated it, come up to receive, then this is no untruth. If this be untrue, then that was a false translation. One of these cannot be denied.

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

The .197. untruth. I say not so, let my book be judge.

Master Harding by like, doth say, and unsay, and careth not, what he say. These are his very words. Now if Chrysostom had cause to complain of the people's slackness in that great, and populous city of Antioch, where the scriptures were daily expounded, and preached. &c. And here I say as Master Harding saith, let his book be judge. And why then is this untruth scored up with other? Would he have us think, that this preaching were only in Antioch, and nowhere else? This might well be, if papistry had ben then in ure, and preaching not regarded. But to think it of that world, in which good religion flourished, and God's word was plentiful, it is an uncharitable gessing. Thus much I speak, granting Master Hardings words, that in Antioch, the people were daily taught. And then if it were so, the same use had ben likewise kept in other cities, so Master Hardings own words going for true, this can be no untruth, but how true those words are, Master Jewel doeth sufficiently prove, read his Reply, he doeth allege Chrysostom's own words, to prove, that in Antioch they had sermons but once a week, and thereupon he saith further, thus.

I note this, not for that I mislike of daily preaching, but for that untruth so boldelie presumed, should not pass untouched.

The .198. untruth. It is no untruth.

I am sorry to trouble the reader, with answering to so vain untruths, but so it is, if nothing should be said, they would be thought of some force. Master Harding useth this reason, to prove his private Mass. In Antiochie there was but a very few to communicate sometime. Therefore in the country belike there was private Mass. Of this argument, Master Jewel saith thus, to advance the city, & to abase the country, he saith, in cities they had daily sermons, but this is untrue. For in Antioch, they had not so. Now rise M. Hardings two untruths. 1. I say not they were taught so in cities. 2. They were taught so in Antioch. Who could have scraped out these untruths, but he? Or what force is there in them? For this second untruth, where he still affirmeth, they had daily preaching in Antioch, that is a very false lie, and yet how impudently doth be persist in it.

Yet saith Master Harding, in small country churches, either the Priest let cease the daily sacrifice, or else he received alone.

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

I pray God, Master Harding be not altogether without grace. He so unreverantly speaketh evil of authority, so boldly denieth his own sayings, that his cause is much to be feared. Mark here Master Jewel's words, I will lay M. Hardings words with them, then judge whether here be any untruth. Thus he writeth, of such country churches, it must be said, that either the sacrifice ceased. &c. Or that the memory of our Lord's death was oftentimes celebrated of the Priests in the daily oblation, without tarrying for others to communicate with them. Mark now how Master Jewel changeth these words, either the daily sacrifice ceased, saith Master Harding, either the priest let cease the daily sacrifice, saith Master Jewel. What is here falsified? If it did cease, the Priest ceased it. For, I trow, the lay man might not say Mass, if he would. The other piece of Master Hardings saying is this, or else the memory of our Lord's death was often times celebrated of the priests, in the daily oblation without tarrying for other to communicate with them. These many words, because oftedious writing, Master Jewel reporteth this, or the priest received alone. Now judge of this place, which Master Harding saith is altogether falsified, and pray that Master Harding may once have eyes to see. The .200. untruth. Here Master Harding noteth an untruth in the margin, that is not in the text. When he telleth us what it is, we will better examine it.

The Mass, that is so glorious, can neither be found in churches, nor chapels.

It is found both in churches, and chapels.

It is not yet found, neither in church, nor chapel, within .600. years of Christ.

Thus saith Chrysostom, if thou stand by, and not receive, thou art malapert, thou art shameless, thou art impudent. 2. thine eyes be unworthy the sight hereof, unworthy be thine ears. 3. O thou wilt say, I am unworthy to be partaker of the holy mysteries: then art thou unworthy to be partaker of the prayers. 4. Thou mayest no more stay here, than an heathen, that ueuer was christened.

The .202. untruth. Chysostome doeth not say these words.

The .203. untruth. Chrysostom saith not then an heathen unchristened.

Sure good Reader, the numbering of these untruths, is very strange, here is one. Chrysostom saith not these words, another he saith not, then an heathen. &c. I would fain know here in the first untruth, what Master Harding meaneth by these words. If he mean the whole sentence, why maketh he another truth? If he mean all the sentence going before this latter untruth, why doeth he not make of it three several untruths. For it is distinguished into three several sentences, or if he think, but one of those sentences is false, why doeth he not tell us which it is? Certain it is, Master Harding did know, that these former partes of this allegation, were all true. Yet because they had so many members, he thought he might convey one untruth very well amongst them. For the truth of this allegation, read S. Chrysostom. hom. 3. ad Ephe. and thou shalt believe thine own senses. I will allege for thee certain words. Read y ^e place, thou shalt find moe. Thus be saith of those, that are by, and will not receive. 1. Tu vero impudenter astas, thou standest by very 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 eyes are not worthy to see it, thine ears are not worthy to hear it. 4. Nihil hic tibi qùā, cathecumeno, plus licet. Thou hast no more to do here, thē cathecumeni, they that are unchristened, and not yet brought to the perfect faith of Christ, & here is this second untruth also proved. Mark now these words, and see whether Master Jewel report anything that Chrysostom saith not. Thē Master Harding with shame enough, hath noted these untruths, and, for his these words, except he mean his own words, here can be none found that are not in the author. Ad. Eph. hom. 3. and make but little for his Mass.

Chrysostom saith, in vain do we come to offer the daily sacrifice, in vain do we stand at the alter, meaning thereby as may appear, that if he said private Mass for lack of company, it was in vain.

The .140. untruth. These are not Chrysostom's words, nor this his meaning.

Here M. Hard. seemeth to be somewhat more liberal in numbering his untruths, he might well have made two untruths of this, one, these are not Chrysostom's words, another, this is not his mening. Sure he is not wont to let go such advantage, but peradventure he saw here so little hope, that he would be content with one untruth, quietlie. Yet because we defend the truth, we may not alow him that. First, for Chrysostom's words, thus they are, Frustra habetur quotidiana oblatio, frustra stamus ad altare. In vain do we offer the daily sacrifice, in vain do we stand at the altar? Here is this untruth verified concerning the words, say Master Harding what he say will. If these be not the words, then accompt me for a liar. If they be the words, then judge of the untruth, as touching y ^e meaning of these words, were it not for Master Hardings faultfinding, it should sure have escaped without blame, he saith, y ^e meaning is this, it is in vain, as touching the people, not as touching the Priest, this meaning is untrue, for Chrysostom saith, Frustra stamus, we that be the ministers stand there in vain. But for my parte, I would this distinction were good, then we should know thoroughly, what merchandise these Masses were. Saith M. Haridng they are in vain for the people except they come and receive. Good Lord, how do they then mock the people that teach them to come daily, and gase upon their Masses, blessed be truth, that breaketh out. All private Mass is ill, and all Mass gasers do wickedly, the fruit of God's sacraments are not applied, to those, that will not come, and be partakers of them. If Master Harding have lost so much of his cause by noting one untruth in this place, what would he have done, if he had noted a couple?

Here Master Harding seeing that his Mass, even by his own testimony, is shreudly cracked, assayeth to salve it as well, as he may.

The .205. untruth. I see not, that the Mass is cracked.

In this untruth, we have two things to note, Master Hardings sight, and the cracking of his Mass. As touching his sight, I can say little. But I do easily believe it is not very good. There are a great many authorities in this first article, which he cannot see to answer one whit, sometime two, or three leaves together, in which he cannot see to confute one word. His own writings are so full of darkness, and clouds of errors, that he cannot see to come nigh the truth, and yet in this great shadow of his eyes, he proveth effectually the common proverb, who is so bold as blind bayard? For the cracking of his Mass, he can say but little, only in defense of that misshapen strumpet, he useth vncomly language against the Bishop of Sarisburie. But how can a wicked cause be better defended, than with evil speaking. For his Lady Missa, she is as she is. Thanks be to God for the victory, she is well cracked of late, she hath glorified hir self, and lived in pleasure, she hath ben full of triūphes, & signs of victory, she hath dwelt careless in hir fenced cities, she hath said in hir heart, I am, & none else, I am no widow, & I shall see no morning. Now whether this glory be yet cracked, or no, and these proud pecocks feathers fallen down, hir own heavy looks do sufficiently witness. Hir widowhed cometh fast upon hir, and many of hir lovers are run away, hir own barrenness increaseth daily, and hir children wax few in number, the multitude of hir diuinations have brought evil upon hir, hir fornications, and idolatries have separated between God, and hir. And can Master Harding yet think, that his Mass is still vncracked, hir dominions were very large, & wide, and hir kingdoms plentiful, hir buildings were costly, & very sumptuous, and hir cofers rich, hir apparel was gorgeous, & of nedel work, set out in most pleasant colors, hir ornaments of inameled gold, beautiful with many iewlls, and precious stones, and for the full measure of hir accomplished glory, she had the Princes of the earth to minister hir cups unto hir, Kings to be hir waiting servants, and Emperors to hold hir fotestoole. If this estate were yet in hir woūted royalty, then might Master Harding well say, that his Mass were not cracked. Now seeing all is lost, hir buildings are pulled down, hir fortresses batered, hir treasuries spoiled, her estimation lost, and she hir self set without the quire, we give thanks unto God, that hath given this victory, and we are sorry for Master Hardings blindness, that cannot yet see how his Mass is cracked.

If none communicate, yet saith he, the Mass is not vain in it self, but only as touching the people, that will not come.

The .206. untruth. I say not so.

Here M. Hard. willing to stop that great inconvenience, that riseth of his .204. untruth, maketh a flat denial of his own words, and lest this contrariety should breed any piece of discredit, he goeth about with a distinction to salve the whole matter, whereby he hath got this double commodity, a plaster for his Mass, which before he had wounded, & an untruth to make up his proposed number. And his distinction is this. I say not y ^t the Mass is in vain, but that the oblation is in vain, making a great difference between his Mass and oblation. But this matter doth not so well thrive, as Master Harding weeneth his Mass and oblation must needs be both one, else how could his Mass be said to be a sacrifice propitiatory for quick, and dead, since the sacrifice can only be meant by the oblation. But let us take Master Hardings words, as they are. The oblatiō, saith he, is in vain to the people, that will not come. Here he speaketh not only against his companions, but against the Pope, and against his Mass book. The decree saith the oblation is good, that is offered for Judah and Jerusalem, that is for them that confess the Lord. And the mass book saith, Hanc oblationem offerimus pro ecclesia tua sancta catholica. We offer this oblation for the whole catholic church. Yet saith Master Harding, this oblation is in vain. If he him self will thus speak against Pope, and portus, he may peradventure, crack his Mass, ere he be ware. But it is well. We take that Master Harding granteth, except the people receive, the celebration, or sacrifice made by y ^e priest is in vain, so his private Mass is quit • condemned.

If Master Harding will stand unto the authority of Chrysostom, let him not dissemble, but speak plain unto the people, as Chrysostom spake. Let him say to thē that come to hear his mass, if ye receive not, ye are shameless, ye are impudent, you are not worthy to be partakers of the common prayers. Depart you from the Church: ye have no more place here than Turks and heathens: your eyes be unworthy to see these things, unworthy be your ears, our Masses cannot profit you, they are not meritorious for you, they please not God: they provoke his anger, they are all in vain, This is Chrysostom's sense, and plain meaning.

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

The .208. untruth. Nor his meaning.

Here I must crave of the indifferent Reader, to note this manner of quoting untruths. Of these very words of Chrysostom, before he made two untruths the .202. and .203. Here of them all he maketh but one. Yet if there be but one, now there was but one afore, and so one untruth is made three. Again, before he made no untruth as touching the meaning: now he maketh one. Yet if there be one now, there was one afore, & so of two untruths, which is very unlike, he will mumber but one, again in the .204. untruth, he maketh but one untruth both of the words, and meaning, here severally he maketh one of either: this diversity of gathering must needs show a matter of little weight. Now as touching these two untruths, and the words here said of master Jewel, he neither saith, nor meaneth that they are all in Chrysostom. But alleging certain, as is shown in the .202. untruth, he here addeth more. For example to show the Massing priests how they should speak unto the people? What, troweth master Harding to persuade the people, that master Jewel maketh Chrysostom to speak of their Masses? Here in these words the Mass is plainly named, yet y ^e good father did never know what such spiritual whoredoms did mean. And yet here M. Harding to carry away the readers understanding, in his railing spirit he speaketh great blasphemies against God's elect, and calleth him the forerunner of Antichrist, whom God hath appointed one to be an over runner of the Romish Idolatries. But God be praised in all his saints.

Now let us examine this invincible argument, wherewith every child, as Master Harding saith, is able to prove the private Mass.

The .209. untruth. I say not so, let my book be judge.

These are his words of this most evident place of Chrysostom: every child is able to make an invincible argument against master Jewel for the private Mass: these are his very w • ords, I say, as he saith, let the book be judge, and he that is found a liar, let him have the blame.

This is M. Hardings argument. The sacrifice in Chrysostom's time, was daily offered. But many times none came to Communicate. Ergo, there was private Mass. Here the Major is apparent false, the Minor is proved at adventure.

The .210. untruth The Major is true.

The .211. untruth. The Minor is well proved.

In the .133. untruth master Jewel proved by S. Augustine ▪ that in some place the people received every day, there master Harding doth note that for untrue, here master Jewel proveth by S. Augustine, that in some place they received not every day. H • ere likewise master Harding noteth this for untrue. And yet howe can both these be untrue? More circumspect behauioure in so false dealing had been necessary. Now as touching both these sayings of master Jewel, that somewhere the people did receive every day, somewhere only on certain days, let S. Augustine's words be witnesses. Thus he writeth. The Sacrament of the body of Christ, is received somewhere every day, alicubi certis inter • allis dierum, somewhere on certain days only. As long as this authority may stand for good, master Jewel's saying hath a good warrant. And though it were not good, yet master Hardings two untruths must needs one overthrow another. As touching this other untruth, that none came to receive with the priest, see whether it be proved at adventure or no. Thus master Harding saith, if there were but few to Communicate in that great, and famous Church of Antioch, what may be thought of a thousand lesser churches. &c. Now whether this proof be at all adventures, and a bare guess, it is soon judged. Concerning Chrysostom's authority here, read the Reply.

As for the Major it is plain by the .6. council of Constantinople, by S. Augustine upon S. John, by S. Basil, ad Caesariam patritiam, by the Epistle of the council of Alexandria in defense of Macarius, and by the council of Laodicea, and by sundry other aucthorities to that purpose before all • eaged, that the sacrifice was not daily offered.

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

If S. August. speak contraries, he is sure the more to blame, but who seeth not by S. Augustine's plain words in this former untruth alleged, that where he saith the sacrifice is daily offered, it is to be meant of certain places, not of all. This untruth is directly contrary to the .83.133.14-5.156. untruths. But what skilleth that, where M. Harding may be believed? Here note that all these other aucthorities are cōtrolled, and yet notwithstanding M. Harding presumeth vpō his untruths. Sure the number was appointed too large, that could not be made up, without such foul shifts.

Master Harding saw that this is but a slender proof: Chrysostom ministered every day, therefore he received alone.

The .213. untruth. Master Harding could not see that in Chrysostom, which Chrysostom hath not.

What M. Harding seeth only, M. Harding knoweth. But what a fond untruth here is quoted, that I trow every mā may witness. Thus saith M. Jewel, M. Harding seeth this is but a slender proof, master Harding saith, he cannot see it in Chrysostom. In deed that is true, who saith it is in Chrysostom? He was too well learned to make such lose arguments. I would fain hear of some of M. Hardings friends, how he could excuse this untruth, and what it meaneth.

M. Harding hath devised a way how two priests, saying their Masses in diverse countries, may yet Communicate together in breaking bread.

The .214 untruth. I do not say they can communicate in breaking bread.

This untruth was numbered once before. Read the .107. untruth. There are M. Hardings plain words. What he meaneth here again to reckon this untruth, save only for numbers sake, no man I trow knoweth. And yet how fondly, and with what a blind distinction he doth it, it shall not be a miss to tell thee. He saith here, they do not break bread together. But saith he, they participate of one bread, and communicate together, be the distance between them never so great. This plain saying he hath in his Rejoinder, intermingled with a few other words. Read the place. Now if master Harding do thus understand M. Jewel, as if he meant that two priests many miles a sunder might break the same loaf: that imagination is too gross, and no wise man will alow it. If he mean any spiritual breaking, then his own words alowe the saying for good, then this untruth proveth nothing against M. Jewel, but reproveth M. Harding either of folly, or else of falsehood.

Lay people, women, sick folks, and boys, are brought in to prove his Mass.

The .215. untruth. They are not brought to prove the Mass.

Master Harding is very nigh at an ende, & his number is not yet full. Therefore being enforced to take untruths as he may, he is lighted on such a place, as he could not light on a worse. This untruth is reckoned .v. times before, the .87.101.126.128.129. and now the .215. It had been requisite to have ben better, that should serve so many turns.

Here be brought in a company of petty Doctors, all of doubtful credit.

The .216. untruth. They be not of doubtful credit.

Now we be at the bottom of these untruths, M. Harding is fain to draw out dregs, and all. There was enough said before of Amphilochius, and his fellows, and some of them M. Harding had quite turned, and that he would neither defend them, nor condemn them. But now necessity doth make him break his promise, rather than he should lose an untruth, they must be all of good credit again. They that list, let them so accompt them.

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

The .217. untruth. I prove it not by dreams.

Here saith M. Harding this tale of Amphilochius is neither dream, nor fable, but it appeared unto him good authority. Yet he saith before, that whether it be a vain fable, or a true story, he will not determine well, let this contrariety go. Whether it be a fable or no, judge thou. Here further as touching master Hardings Philosophy in so exacte defining of dreams and visions, because he taketh upon him to control a better Philosopher than himself. And in this word, dream, will have the force of his untruth, saying it was a vision, and no dream which S. Basil saw, that distinction is more curious than learned, for the two Greek words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is a dream, and a vision, do both signify those things which be true, unless he will say, that a dream doth signify more largely, then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or somnium, and yet if it do, a vision must needs be a dream, though every dream be not a vision, so this untruth by no means can be justified.

He hath made search for his Mass at Alexandria in Egypt, at Antioch in Syria, at Cesarea in Cappadocia, a thousand miles beyond Chrystendome.

The .218. untruth. These cities are not a thousand miles beyond Christendom.

This untruth was not worth twice numbering. Read the 183. untruth.

Bicause he had no hope to speed in towns, he hath sought out little churches in the country.

The .219. untruth. I have proved that the Mass was celebrated in towns.

This untruth is soon gathered, but when M. Harding doth prove it, not only master Jewel, but all other, that impugn their superstitious vanities, will soon subscribe. In the mean season he must not build up his untruths with such sayings, as we openly maintain both in word, and writing.

Likewise S. Paul willed one to wait for another in the holy ministration.

The .220. untruth. These words are not meant of the ministration of the Sacrament.

These words of S. Paul go very nigh M. Hardings private Mass, and therefore it behooveth him for his Masses sake, to stand stiffly in it, that they belong not unto the ministration of the Lord's supper. For if they do belong unto it, then no doubt M. Hardings Mass is a sink of iniquity, that is so contrary unto S. Paul's words. Now for better discussing of this, because in trying it this private Mass shall be better known, let us examine. S. Paul's words. Thus he saithe. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. This saith M. Harding, is to be understand of certain Church feasts, which they had, called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and not of the Communion, and as though this were not said with shame enough, he saith in another place, that in that chapter, S. Paul doth not rebuke them for the manner of ministering this Sacrament, but for their abusing of their church feasts. Now for proof of this interpretation, he only allegeth the bare names of Chrysostom and Theodoretus, and this is all he can bring. Read Rejoinder. fol. 306. Now let us see again what on the other side may be said to prove that S. Paul meaneth of the ministration of the Sacrament. And this we may see both by the testimony of all the old Doctors, and most undoubtedly by examination of the place it self. Athanasius applieth all that place to the Communion in plain words, Occumenius saith only the Lord's supper is there spoken of, and upon this place inuicem expectate, tarry one for an other. Thus he writeth. Itaque: Quamobrem. Ne indign corpus domini, & sanguinem participare probemini. Therefore saith the Apostle. Wherefore: Least you should be proved to participate the Lord's body, and blood unworthily. By this Doctor he receiveth unworthily, that in the congregation receiveth alone. Theophylacte a later writer upon the same place, saith: Why should we pray our selves? Quia haudquaquam merito id mysterium sumunt multi, because many do receive that mystery nothing worthily. By all these Doctors this place is meant of the Communion. S. Ambrose saith: It any man be impacient, domi terreno pane pascatur, Let him eat earthly bread at home. And again, we come to gether, vt multorum oblatio simul celebretur, that the Oblation of many might be made together. But S. Ambrose calleth not profane meats, such as their common feasts were, either heavenly bread, or our oblation. S. Chrysostom saith, qui hoc non faciunt, indign communicant, they that tarry not one for another, do communicate unworthily. And here again, we see this Doctors mind of private Mass, or as M. Harding will have it, of the priests sole receiving. Beda saith likewise, alleging S. Augustine. Ad Ianuar. Epist. 1. that this, which the Apostle writeth in this place, is meant of the Communion. S. Jerome also doth so enterprete it. Read all these upon the xi. chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians. Of the same mind are also Augustine, Basil, Gregorius Romanus. And if thou rest upon the authority of men, examine all the old Doctors, that have written upon the same place, & not them only, but such as are of younger age, as Thomas, Scotus, Lyra, Hugo, gloss. ordinaria, and such other. They all agree: this saying of S. Paul, tarry one for another, is meant of the Communion, Dionysius Carthusianus on the same place speaketh very plain, when ye come together to eat, saith S. Paul. Panem coelestem, saith Dionysius the heavenly bread, videlicet corpus Domini, that is to say, the body of the Lord. And Nicholas of Gorram upon these words, tarry one for another, writeth thus. Docet modum in hora communionis ordinate accedendo, he teacheth howe to come orderly in the time of Communion. What plainer authority can there be, than these? Who seeth not that all antiquity have understand S. Paul's words of the Communion? If thou search them, thine eyes shall be thy witness. Yet saithe master Harding, (as he were privileged, without blame or discredit to speak what he would,) that Martyr, Calvin, Cranmer, and such other, have deceived master Jewel: but it is wonderful to see howe he speaketh against the truth, the Lord knoweth whether against his own conscience. Read the Reply. Fol. 94. thou shalt further see▪ how in the Communion, the people came together. But as touching this place, because the spirit of God is not tied to any man, or age, we will leave our witnesses, and examine the place. First, S. Paul blameth them, because they come together, not with profit, but with hurt. And then teaching how they ought to come together, and in what sort to have their meetings, he teacheth them by the example of our savior Christ, and his doctrine: saying▪ that which I have received of the Lord, that I have delivered unto you, that Jesus Christ in y ^e same night y ^t he was betrayed, took bread. &c. making a full description of the Lord's supper: whereunto be adjoineth for this cause, many of you are weak. &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 For this cause, which is the unorderly receiving the communion. Yet saith M. Harding, it is meant of their feasts. After this it doth follow in Paul: Wherefore my brethren, when you come together to eat, tarry one for another. Now if this be not yet plain enough, that he meaneth of the Sacrament, then look what followeth, an undoubted proof of the whole matter. Least saith S. Paul, you come together to your condemnation. Is this at any time pronounced of any manner eating, but of the unworthy eating of that blessed sacrament? Yet for the private Mass sake, this plain scripture must be denied, and impudently wrested into a strange sense. And mark here how master Harding would have S. Paul reason, the words before are plain of the Lord's supper. Of those words S. Paul concludeth: wherefore my brethren. &c. Then by master Hardings meaning, S. Paul should reason thus: A man must prepare him self to receive the Communion, Ergo, they must tarry one for another, at their common feasts: such lose arguments, the spirit of truth doth not utter. But such is M. Hardings fashion, he doth not consider how he wresteth God's scripture, while he thus defendeth his ungodly Mass.

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

The .221. untruth. It is not certain by those decrees.

See the .151. untruth. It is the same in effect, that this is. But let us see here also, how truly M. Harding speaketh. It doeth not appear by these decrees, saith he, that all received together: this shall be best tried by the words of the Decrees. Calixtus saith thus. When consecration is done, let all communicate, which will not be excluded out of the Church. Anacletus hath the very self same words, but how it cometh to pass, let the Decretal epistles see, that have this agreement very often, and yet it is very strange, that diverse men should speak the same words. Hylarius saith, if thy sins be not so great, that thou must be excommunicate, thou must not separate thyself, from the body and blood of the Lord. Martinus saith. If any man hear the scriptures readen, and of a superstitious mind, do think he should not Communicate, set him be excommunicate: now judge whether these decrees teach, that the whole church should receive together. M. Harding can answer nothing, but bringeth two distinctions, one old, one, which we had before in the .151. untruth, another he maketh more to answer Pope Hilary, and that is this, where Hilary saith: If he be not excommunicate, let him not abstain from the sacrament. We may abstain, saith M. Harding, sacramentally, though not spiritually. If these distinctions may be allowed, there is no authority so good, but let M. Harding slip, and he will answer it. But S. Paul saith, take heed y ^t no man spoil you through Philosophy, and vain deceit.

Chrysostom saith, we are all of one worthiness to receive the mysteries.

The .222. untruth. He saith not so.

These are Chrysostom's words. Est autem vbi, nihil differt sacerdos a subdito, vt quādo fruendum est horrendis mysterijs. Similiter enim omnes, vt illa percipiam{us}, digni habemur, there is a time saith he, when the priest doth differ nothing from the lay man, as when they must enjoy the dreadful mysteries. For we are all accounted of like worthiness to receive them. And that we should not doubt of his meaning, he maketh afterward along discourse to prove this same. Yet saith master Harding, it is false, it is untrue, Chrysostom saith not, we are all of like worthiness to receive the mysteries. And what saith he else? How doeth M. Harding otherwise interpret him? Forsoth saith he, these words, similiter omnes, vt illa percipiamus, digni habemur, must be thus Englished: We are accounted worthy of the self same things in like sort, not we are all of one worthiness to receive them. Who hath heard one in so grave a matter, speak so childishly, the very words of Chrysostom, vt percipiamus, he will not have Englished as they lie. And because M. Jewel doth so English them, (such is his impudency) he notes it for an untruth. But such to whom God hath given the spirit of knowledge, and truth, they will confess how he doeth wrangle: and if he have any grace himself, as oft as he remembereth these untruths, he wisheth they were again under his file.

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

The .223. untruth. It is not so, as you mean.

M. Hard. harpeth much on M. Jewel's meaning. But untruths must not be built upon guesses. Read the .169. untruth.

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

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

I grant it, wrangle on: M. Jewel confesseth when the Gospel was done, they were bid depart, what a single untruth is this? What troweth M. Harding we do not know, that that part of service, which they heard, was called Missa cathechumenorum? Or doeth he think that the gospel was not red in that service? This untruth ariseth, because he will not understand, not because he doeth not. M. Jewel calleth that the Communion, which was the whole service appointed for the celebration of the Lord's supper. At the beginning whereof, the Novices in the faith of Christ, might be present, till the deacon cried, Exeunto catechumeni, which was after the gospel was red.

We pray not aide of sick folks for the proof of our holy Communion, as M. Harding is driven to do for his Mass.

The .225. untruth. I prove not the Mass by them.

This untruth is before six times, Read the .215. untruth. Thus are we come to an ende of this weary Rejoinder, wherein we see to what issue M. Hardings great vaunts are come: his tragical exclamations in how small matters there be ended: and his multitude of untruths, how without truth they be gathered. He told us that this Reply was altogether corrupt and false, yet are there a great many leaves in this first article, of which he hath not confuted one word: what he would have done in case it had been blameable, this Rejoinder doth sufficiently witness. He cried out of corruptions, alterations, manglings, and I wote not what of the old fathers, but quid dignum tulit hic tanto promissor hiatu, what hath he brought forth, worthy of so wide gaping? These untruths that were so many in number, are now proved none. The controlling of so many aucthorities, is found nothing but wrangling. The often blaming of diverse interpretations is tried either childish or willful ignorance. And some of his own Doctors, on whom with much boasting, he had grounded his private Mass, in the ende he hath turned to their own defense. With so ill success he hath impugned truth: And with so slender proof, he hath defended falsehood. Of these 225. untruths which he hath brought, some he saithe may be coloured, some be shameless lies. And in deed his testimony well applied, is true. For most of them, without shame, are impudently gathered. Some as he hath used them, may bring suspicion of oversight. But what they are, and howe void of deserved blame, it shall appear if thou read this Confutation, in the which for thy contentation, good Christian Reader, I must assure thee, that I have not alleged one authority, wherein I either abridge the authors words, or enterlace any other of mine own, either else misconstrue his meaning. Only sometime, because the writing is tedious, I allege the sense, and refer thee unto the place, where thou mayest examine the words. If any one of all the lande of Louanists be able to reprove me, I will not let openly to preach it that I have offended. God give them and us both grace to consider, that it is now no time to dally. The matter is not such, that it may abide any wrangling. The cause is God's, and he needeth not to be defended with lies. If in his cause we go about deceit, by uttering falsehood, or by concealing truth: by making moe distinctions, or by framing Latin as we list, God is not mocked.

How so ever we will paint our doings, or what clokes of shame so ever we will use, it is true that the Poete saith: Ille dolum ridens, quo vincula nectitis inquit? He laughing at our deceitfulness, shall ask to what purpose we have tied such devises? He is truth, and he will be defended by truth, and he hateth all those, that do speak lies. Therefore good Christian Reader persuade thyself, that as we have our accounts to make unto him, that judgeth truly, so wittingly, and willingly, we will speak nothing that shall burden our own Consciences before his judgment seat. True it is we be men: and as men we may be deceived. The Prophet hath pronounced the universal sentence, and we be all borne under the law of it, that every man is a liar, therefore, to challenge unto my doing any such absolute verity, as though no piece of it might be blamed, it wer great arrogācie, and extreme folly: this is sufficient to the indifferent mā, and a full contentation unto mine own conscience, that the Lord is witness, I know not of any one untruth, I have uttered. And for this great number wherewith M. Jewel is charged, better it had been for M. Harding to have made them fewer, & more it might have hindered M. Jewel's cause. To deny, that any where he might be deceived, were to exempt him out of the condition of man. But these .225. untruths in one article, while they must be multiplied, M. Harding telleth one many times, maketh strange interpretations, diuiseth new distinctions, in such sort, that every man may espy his folly. God for his mercies sake lighten once his heart, y ^t yet again he may see, whether he goeth, and lead them the way back • again unto righteousness, before whom he hath run so long toward the kingdom of iniquity, that in the day of anger, when everyone shall give accompt of his doings, we may be all found together in the way of obedience, and by grace receive that eternal kingdom, which is not due unto our works. Which kingdom God grant us, through the death and passion of his son, our savior Jesus Christ, to whom with the father, & the holy ghost, be all honor and glory, world without ende. Amen.