then their vulgar tongue And of the better sort how many there are which so know an other tounge beside their owne that they are not much the wiser for it You may see then how daungerous and sore a felow M. Iewel is Now concerning other two propositioÌ„s which M. Iewel hath with like Arte gathered out of D. Hardinges words about the Latine tounge as he hath done about the Greeke to make his craft more sensyble let D. Hardings own words be plainly set forthe After that theese Countreys Harding Fol. 59. saith D. Harding speking of y e west church had bene instructed in the Faithe as thinges grewe to perfection they had their Seruice accordingly No doubte such as was vsed in the Churches from whence their first Apostles and Preachers were sent And because the first Preachers of the Faithe came to these weast partes from Rome directed some from S. Peter some from S. Clement some others afterwarde from other Bishoppes of that sea Apostolike they planted and set vp in the Countries by them conuerted the Seruice of the Church of Rome or some other verye like and that in the Latine Tounge onlye for ought that can be shewed to the contrary Hereof may be gathered two Propositions The first PropositioÌ„s seruing to the question of Publike Seruice the weast Churches had suche Seruice as was vsed in the Churches from whence their first Apostles and Preachers came The seconde the firste planters of the Faithe came to these weast partes from Rome But how doth M. Iewel conceiue these matters His proufe sayeth he for the Latine Seruice hangeth vpon two poyntes The fyrste is that all the Faithe of the weast parte of the worlde came onlye from the Byshoppes of Rome First you be deceiued in your numbring because this is not the first Iew. 167 M. Iew. busy in changing shâ—fting and altering and adding but the seconde Proposition by D. Hardinges accompte Then in that second of D. Hardinges ye finde not these wordes AL THE FAITH OF THE WEST or these CAME ONLY FROM ROME For that had bene nothing else but to geue you an occasion to slip away from the Principall question and to enter into an endlesse nedelesse talke about AL THE FAITH to come from and to come ONLY from Rome Which because it was not geuen therefore you make it to your self of your owne wit And reason strongly in y e matter y t the faith came not into these quarters ONLY from because S. Paule planted the faith in England Nedelesse proues of M. Iew. and full of â—heasses and also Ioseph of Aramathea as is surmised by the Brittishe Chronicles And because we the Welshmen you meane being your selfe borne in Deuonsheere folowed the Church of Grecia in keping of Easter with such other mighty Argumentes TheÌ„ for the other part that AL FAITH came not from Rome ye presse vs sore with Tertullians authority that Hierusalem was the mother and the Springe of Religion as who should thinke that Iacob was not father of Ioseph because Iacob himself was begoten of Isaac and that Rome could not be mother of the Weast Churches because she her self had her Parents out of Hierusalem Or as though D. Harding had stayed vpon the question of AL FAITH and that ONLY from Rome which at all maketh no mention of AL or ONLyE So loosely you haue behaued your self in your first poynt let vs now consider your secoÌ„d The seconde is Iew. 167 that the Planters of the same faith ministred the Common Seruyce EVERY WHERE IN THE LATINE TOVNGE This is the first of D. Hardinges Propositions though M. Iewell make it the second poynt and in D. Hardinges words there is speciall mention neither of LATIN TOVNGE More chaÌ„ging and altering of M. Iew. neither of EVERY WHERE But generally he sayed it that suche Seruice was in these west partes as was vsed in the Churches from whence their first Apostles and preachers were sent And this might stand whether they came from Hierusalem Greece or Rome Wherfore he specified nothing vntill his seconde Proposition where out of this Principle he gathereth that because the faith came in to the Weast from Rome and they had the Latine Seruice therefore it should folowe by good reason that it was also deliuered in Latine where they planted the Christian Religion Consider now indifferent Reader how shamefully M. Iewel had disordered these matters Of fower plaine and credible propositions he hath made such a conueyaunce by Adding by Taking away by making of Particulars General by Drawing the Generall to special poynts by Making that first which is second by Promoting y e inferior vnto y e Superiors place y t he hath left nothing as he found it but as it wer of set purpose labored to make confusion The suÌ„me of M. Iewels conueiaunce in â—oure Propositions onlye Al y e people of some countries had their seruice in Greke saith D. Harding He wil proue saithe M. Iewel that ALL the Greke Church had it WHOLY THROVGHLY in the Greeke tounge Some whole Countries for y e more part vnderstode not Greke quod D. Hard. Some whole Countries vnderstoode not Greeke quod M. Iewel by his gathering The faith came into the west from Rome quod D. Harding Al the faith came only from Rome sayeth M. Iewel vpon it The plaÌ„ters of y e faith set vp in the CouÌ„tries by theÌ„ coÌ„uerted such Seruice as theÌ„ selues vsed quod D. Harding The planters of the same faith quod M. Iewel vpon it ministred the Common seruice EVERY WHER in the LATIN toÌ„ge What miserable shifting and changing is this What boldnesse in ventering What Ordinary course in deceiuing Yet this in dede is y e way to saue himself froÌ„ taking if he caÌ„ bring the questioÌ„ to such a Generality y t if he be driuen froÌ„ one place he mai flee to an other to make y â— aduersary weri of folowing the Reader weary of loking For suppose y e Latine Seruice were vsed in Aphrica y e vulgar people not vnderstanding it yet that is not EVERy WHER Suppose it were vsed in Fraunce yet neither y e proueth EVERy WHER Come nearer home to England and proue it to haue ben vsed there yet very much lacketh of EVERy WHER And so may M. Iewel like a bishop in deede not of Sarum but of the West Church go froÌ„ Country to Country in a straunge Visitation neuer make an end of Interrogatories InquisitioÌ„s vntil D. Harding shal satisfy his Lordship in al poynts and proue y â— EVERy WHERE IN THE WEST the Seruice was ministred in y e Latine tounge Which thing I do not say y t the Catholikes are not able to declare but be y t as it may be I note y e craft cuÌ„ning of M. Iew. which wold draw all things to such a generality or precisenesse of termes ALL FAITH ONLy FROM ROME EVERy WHER c. and in any part alter
of speach to a far other purpose What is y t He allegeth the wordes and then inferreth It maie appeare that Chrysostome by these wordes meant a solemne praier to cōclude y e whole But how applie you now these thinges to yonr purpose because S. Chrysos meaneth by Benedicere Sancta a praier to conclude his liturgie doth Leontius vnderstād iust y e same by those wordes In what Logik fynde you that Consequence Or by what maner of likelihoode make you it probable Mark it better M. Iew. you shal perceaue y t which you would cōclude not ōly to be vnlikely but also impossible For y e benediction of which S. Chrysost speaketh was you saie a solēne Praier to cōclude y e whole but y e Benedictiō of which Leōtius telleth you was before the Pater noster of the masse which Praier is vsed when the Mysteries are not yet Receiued Therefore vndoubtedly the meaning is not one in them both concerning Benedicere Sancta which is referred to so distinct Tymes and Conditions And your Craftines may be espied which would destroy one Trueth by an other The Answer which M. Iewel maketh is this Benedicere Sancta signifieth in S. Chrysostome a solemne Praier made to conclude the whole Ergo benedicere Sancta that is to blesse the holy thinges doth not signifie in Leontius Historie Consecration Let vs come to an other Example The 4. Example Matth. 16. Petra Our sauiour saied vnto S. Peter Thow art Peter A Rocke and vpon this Rocke wil I builde my Churche Ergo S. Peter was most fast sett aboue all other in worthinesse and he was a most sure and Principal person in the building of Christ his Churche Such as by which all the faithfull should be staied Which proueth his singular Prerogatiue But saieth M. Iewel Christ is the Rocke Iew. 222. Who denieth it Againe The confession of S. Peter is the Rocke Neither this is denied And to proue this that no Catholike denieth he lacketh no Authorities But how foloweth this that because Christ is the Rock therfore S. Peter is not the Rocke Or because y e Church is builded on the faith of S. Peter therefore it was not builded vppon the person which had that faith By like Reason you might conclude By suche argumēts al religion hathe bene confuted God is our King and our Father Ergo we owe not supreme Reuerence in their kinde to our Prince Or our Parents Which is nothing els but by one Truth to destroy an other And for lacke of Vnderstanding And abundance of Presuming neither to distinct duties and offices accordingly neither to refraine from determining that which we know not ouer hastely Otherwise it were quickly to be perceaued that Christ is the Rocke by merite S. Peter by mere mercy Christ by Absolute Authority S. Peter by meanes of Legacy Christ before and aboue all other S. Peter aboue al other but yet after and not before Christ By which commodity of distinctions those propositiōs which Protestantes faine to be contrary one to y e other will stand and agree well together The briefe Argument of M. Iewels is this The Rocke which Christ spake of to S. Peter signifieth the cōfessiō of S. Peters faith ergo it signifieth not S. Peter confessing it An other Example The. v Example Ambr. 2. Cor. 12. S Androw folowed our sauiour before S. Peter And yet saith S. Ambrose Androw receiued not Primatum the Primacie but Peter But Iew. 245 M. Iewel Auswereth It is easye to be shewed that Primatus emong the olde fathers is farre otherwise vsed I meane for any Superioritie or preferment before others primatus And this he proueth at large by Phrases of Speach vsed about Esau about the Heretike Abbate Eutyches Or towardes any of the foure Patriarches But what concludeth he Thincketh he ▪ because the Primacy that Esau lost for a dish of pottage was to wear a better cote then his felowes Or to syt highest at the Table Or to haue thrise or fiue times more meat for his part then an other Or any other suche thing belonging to the honour of the first borne that the primacy which S. Ambrose attributeth to S. Peter may haue the very self same sense in it Or because Eutyches had a Primacie in his Abbey may it therfore be lawfull for vs to imagine that all the Apostles liued in one Cloister togeather and that S. Peter was no more then an Abbate amonge them Beside this if Primatus doth signify any Preferment it serueth also to signify the Supremacy And so as you wishe that it should be taken in your sense so should you iustly haue prouided for it least it were taken in an other sense And this truly had bene your part M. Iewel to proue that S. Ambrose dothe not meane by S. Peters Primacie the General Gouernmēt ouer al the worlde As for the bare shewing of it y ◠Primatus hath diuers senses it is mete cōuenient for a Scholemaster or maker of Dictionaries but in an Answerer it is not resonable except ther folow an Applicatiō thereof to his purpose You loue allwaies to drine the Catholikes to the prouing side knowing it to be safest easyest for you to stand stil at the denial of euery thing And who so folishe that can not doe so If saye you this worde Primatus muste signifie that power and Gouerment Iew. 145 that M. Harding fantasieth then must it folow of necessitie that Esau Eutyches the bishop of Antioche and the Bishop of Alexandria had the Vniuersall power and Gouernmēt of the whole worlde As who should say that the question had bene whether Primatus hath any moe significations then one Or that D. Harding had taken vpon him to proue that Primatus where so euer it be founde must needes signifie the Supremacy of the B. of Rome No M. Iewel let Primatus haue as manye diuers significations as you haue deuises to confound A trueth D. Harding obiecteth you the testimony of S. Ambrose where it is plaine that S. Peter had a Primacy To this now make a direct answer not by telling a long Tale True inough of the Significations of Primatus but in Applying them to the Purpose and Instructing vs in what one sense it is to be taken in S. Ambrose And if you dare say that he meant suche a Primacy as Esau lost for a dishe of Pottage Or such as the Heretike Eutiches had in his Abbey then shall we prouide an Answer for you But whereas the very wordes themselues doe geue it that it coulde not be so Simple a mater for S. Androw as euery other of y e Apostles had Authority geuen him in the whole worlde and yet the Primacie was bestowed vpon S. Peter only of whiche it foloweth that emong the chiefest he was the chiefe What helpeth it you to the Answering of S. Ambrose to declare that Primatus is taken for any Superiority or Preferment Againe whereas
either of Idle heades for their fantasy or by Aduersaries for some Anger Or of Gentlemen merchantes for their pleasure or of men right vvorshipfull vpon sad reporte made vnto them But yet vvhat is any of these vnto the question whether in the six hundred yeares after Christ there wer any Sole Receauing or Receiuing vnder both kinds And so furth in any other of the Challengers Articles nothing at all vndoubtedly For be they true be they false because vve vvil not spend much time about it they concerne priuate mennes Conditions and not the Catholike Religion And they are as it vvere a spotted Cote vpon a Reasonable mannes backe but they proue not that he hath no Reason at all vvhich vveareth the Cote VVherfore it becometh not vs so basely to thinke of their iudgements that consider of our Bokes that because of the Authors small fauor the boke it selfe should be out of fauor or because the person is Condemned that immediatly the Boke is ansvvered Some cause therfore vndoubtedly there is in the Bokes thēselues for vvhich they are misliked But vvhat is that Is it for the Vntruthes sake vvhich are conteined in them Is it for the Wreasting and Racking of the Scriptures Is it for misalleging Iewel in his Preface to the Reader misconstrueing corrupting or altering the holy Fathers c. These thinges in deede are directly obiected to D. Harding by M. Ievvel but I trovv the Serche is not therefore apoynted that no Ansvver should come in against them Yet except this only be the cause vvherfore els is the bringing in of them so daungerous Is there any thing in them against the Obedience and Fidelitie due to a Soueraigne Is there any one blast in them against the Gouernment of vvomen Do they moue the Cōmons to take vveapons against the Nobilitie Or doe they instruct the Nobilitie hovv to let the Commons of their libertie In one vvord to speake it doe vve meddle vvith the proper maters of VVeastminster Ilaule Parleament house or Cyuile Policie and not only intreat of Articles proponed in Scholes meete for Conuocations and Generall to all Christendome Take for exāple any one vvhat so euer you vvil of the Articles proponed by M. Ievvel He denyeth vve affirme He contrarieth vs vve againe resist him Before any man encountred vvith hym he Raigned in peace and vvas Magnified It vvas thought no man vvas euer hable to matche him and therefore for very despair of any succour many submitted them selues vnto him But novve sense there haue ben found vvhich haue met vvith him it is perceaued that he had no certaine victorye And if it seemed so before yet novve the battle beginning a freshe there is sturred vp a closer attention in euery mannes minde to marke hovv truely it is fought And in marking diligently he is novve and then found to be iustly noted of Hypocrisy Foly Heresy and other faultes Novv they vvhich read not the Bokes can not marke so muche Yet they also of others that haue reader and considered may lerne It cummeth then at length to the knovvledge of many And the very nature of Truthe or dispositions of men so geuing it many are confirmed many are vvarned many are troubled euery one is moued Some see it manifestly M. Iewel is cōfuted other looke not so narovvly but say I will better thinke of these matters Other be lothe to chainge their opinion and are grieued to heare of ought sayed against him So that somevvhat is vvrought I think in euery man one vvay or other about these matters This by likelihode then is the Sedition vvhich our Bokes are said to moue They confirme some in the Truthe that they be not lightly remoued from it They direct other vnto the Truthe that they pretend not lacke of Instruction they confounde and confute other by the Truthe that they may take lesse pride in their Chiualry and they sturre vp a General attention to marke on vvhose side the Truthe shall stand and vvho shall most Faithfully behaue himselfe in the mater Are the Authors then of this maner of Sedition ▪ to be punished Or the bokes by vvhich Lies Deceiptes and Heresies be detected are they to be condemned If Protestantes may be suffered to vvryte as largely as they vvill shall they be permitted allso to vvryte as falsely as they vvill Or if no Priuilege be it neuer so Speciall doth license them to print any Slaunders or Lies yet if aftervvardes they be found out and marked in theyr Bokes may no man freely tell them of it but he shall incurre the daunger of the Lavv and further displeasure Surely this case is very hard to call first into Question those Truthes of vvhiche the Catholike Church vvoulde haue no doubt feared And then to graunt the Protestāt such fauour that he might allvvaies denye and still driue the Catholike to proue And further as longe as the Catholike made a stay of yelding so much to his Aduersary to dravv that to an Argument of a vveake cause and a faint hart and to incline to the nevve Gospellers side And novv last of all vvhen the Catholikes ansvver them and so ansvver that they make the other euery day more and more to be taken in their craft and heresy novv I say to forbid the Catholikes to Ansvver for themselues Or to speake any more against such faultes as they finde this surely is a case very strainge and hard So hard vndoubtedly that vvhat to ansvver vnto it vve can not tell For if our Aduersaries vvill haue the matter tried by Lerning our Diuinitie the end shall declare it is much truer than theirs but if they vvill novve defend themselues by force of Authoritye One extraordinary Argument made by a nevve and freshe Sercher shall more dissvvade then a vvhole shiplode of our Bokes can moue vvhen the reading of them it taken avvay But is it not possible to finde fauoure in his sight vvhich hath the Ordering of these matters committed vnto him Yeas verely possible inoughe if the Suer for it be notus Pontifici and fauored of the Superintendents Louanians then must holde their peace but the Apology of England I trovv may be heard VVhy vvhat sayeth it Mary for men to be carelesse what is spokē by them and their owne mater c. is the part doubtlesse of dissolute and Rechlesse persons The Apology of England and of them which wickedly winke at the Iniuries done vnto the name of God Againe Al Lawes and Natures owne voyce doe commaund vs to defend our owne Cause and Innocencye Againe The Auncient Christians c. put vp Supplications and made meanes to Emperours and Princes that they might defend themselues and their felowes in open Audience Loe hovv vvell the makers of that Apology could speake for themselues and hovv vvell it serueth our purpose at this present Yet the Oddes is exceding great For the Catholikes hauing continued time out of minde in a consent and certaintye of theyr Faith might vvell take
Wherefore did you mone this question whether within six hundred yeares after Christ any Communion was ministred vnto the people vnder one kind did ye it not to this end that you might conclude there vpon if no man woulde aunswer you that Christes Institution is now broken of the Catholikes which minister otherwise then they did in the Primitiue Churche Ergo the marke which you loke vnto is Christes Institution which to proue to be with vs or against vs we therefore consider the doinges of the Primitiue Church And because exaÌ„ples are fouÌ„d eneÌ„ in y e age such records as your self dare not yet deny by which we know y e receauing vnder one kind was many times vsed we coÌ„clude in y e principal y t it is not against Christes Institution to receaue vnder one kinde Do you deni y e coÌ„sequeÌ„t How caÌ„ you which haue so appeled to the primitiue Church as though you wold be coÌ„teÌ„t quiet if good testimonies of that time could be alleged againste you What say ye theÌ„ to y e AntecedeÌ„t ye coÌ„fesse it in plain words y e some receaued then vnder one kind Iew. 132. saying Neither did I deny that euer any one maÌ„ receued the CoÌ„munioÌ„ in one kind But yet you reply it was an abuse I here you wel But that is another question The. viij shift And it is another shift also much fouler theÌ„ any of the fornamed Remember your self M. Iewel I pray you and let vs conclude our matters in order The first question should haue bene â–ª VVhether Christes Institution doth stand with receauing vnder one kinde The first w t you but the second rather w t vs is whether any Communion was then ministred vnto the people vnder one kinde We proue you coÌ„fesse y â— some hath hen ministred Ergo it is time ye yeld subscribe A iij. question now if you wil shal be whether it were an abuse in y e primi tiue Church to receue vnder one kind And so furth in many other according to the circumstancies of Persons time and places But before we come to theÌ„ do you in the meane time as you promised for we haue proued y t which you denied Either yelde or take better hold fast and begin again If you striue say ye meÌ„t y t it was not OPENLY receiued vnder both kinds ORDINARIly ThaÌ„ what a trifâ—er or wraÌ„gler be you to chaleÌ„ge vs about circuÌ„staÌ„ces before we wer agreed vpoÌ„ y e substaÌ„ce of y e mater yet if you wil nedes haue OPENLY w t his felowes put in theÌ„ begin again speak more plainly for as ye haue proponed y e mater ye ace ouercoÌ„me And yet before ye begin w t those ciruÌ„staÌ„ces I warn you it wil be to no purpose because our selues may confesse vnto you y t we caÌ„ not gaine say it you shal coÌ„clude nothing against vs by it For y e churches cause is sufficieÌ„tly defeÌ„ded if receiuing vnder one kind may be proued by any auÌ„cieÌ„t exaÌ„ple w tout any exception made by you Thus it may be againe sene how M. Iew. speaketh in all this second Article to no purpose if he make the question so circumstantiall as he hath labored to haue it On the other syde the Catholike cause is sufficientlye defended both by our owne witnesses and by confession of our Aduersaries because it is proued sundry wayes that receauing vnder one kind was knowen and vsed in the Primitiue Churche and therefore vndoubtedly it is not repugnant to Christes Institution The third Article â‚ COncerning this question of the Common Prayers whether in the sixe hundred yeres after Christ they wert in a strange tonge which the People did not vnderstand what can any Catholik of these partes of the world say more then that they were in the Greeke tounge or Latine tounge only For whereas neither Authoritye of Scripture coÌ„maundeth it neither veritie of Tradition confirmeth it neither report of Historie witnesseth it neither yet any Token or Memorie signifieth it that the Publike Seruice of the Churche Easte or Weaste was within the compasse of the first six hundred yeres in any other tounge then Greeke or Latine what lightnesse muste it be to forsake the orders which we haue and take others I can not tell what 1. Cor. 14. The Apostle maketh an expresse distinction betwene the Idiote and him that supplieth the place It is no wisedome to chauÌ„ge that We haue for an other thing no maÌ„ is sure What. Of the Idiote concerning the Common Prayers he geueth no precept of the other he sayeth how shall he that supplieth the place of the Iâ—iote answer Amen vpon thy blessing Now by Tradition we haue receaued no other but Latine or Greeke Seruice Of the change of the vulgar touÌ„ge into any of these two Greek or Latin or of setting vp of these in stede of the knowen and vulgar tounge there is no mention in any writer And laste of al ther can be shewed no token or sufficient similitude that the Seruice of old tyme was in the vulgar tounge Ergo how should a reasonable man condemne that whiche hym selfe seeth so generally vsed and folowe another vnknoweÌ„ manner to which he is vncertainely referred S. Augustine saieth it but of Ceremonies August ad Ianuar ep 118. that If the whole Church throughout the world doe obserue any thing to dispute thereof it is a point of most insolent madnes And if it be so in ceremonies is it not much more so in publike Seruice For in Ceremonies because of indifferencie of theÌ„ in them selues and infirmity of some persoÌ„s which be ouer curiouse against them manie poyntes might be reasoned vpon and If manifest neede require be omitted Yet If the whole Church vse them there ought to be no question But in publike Seruice which perteyneth to the state of the Church and in which the mouing of any dout causeth the whole Religion to be shaken how is it to be suffered that she should be apposed Or that any Priuate persons without reason or authority shuld cal that into question which is generally receaued The Heretikes of this age say that the Latine Seruice for example in all the West Churche hathe not come frome the six hundred yeres after Christe Frome whence came it then Who were the planters of it Who were the mainteyners If they did it w t consent of al the Weast CouÌ„tries that is a great preiudice against your contentionsnesse How unlikely If they did it by force or violence would no man complaine of it presently Or put it in writing for instruction of the posteritie Surely this can not be but a great wonder y t the CoÌ„mon Seruice of the West Church was not generally in Latine euery where at y â— begynning And that so many thousand Churches in so many seuerall and diuerse Countries thereof should altogether most faithfully hold and kepe the same And no man yet tell
supremacy ouer al christeÌ„doÌ„ y t ye dare both speak do y e coÌ„trary to y t which hath beÌ„ euer more said practised for what if priuate praiers haue neuer ben called coÌ„moÌ„ yet y t shall not let but you wil at your plesure name theÌ„ so wheÌ„ you be disposed And therfore D. Harding as it semeth to me spake very warely in referring the matter to your meaning only saying If you mean M. Iew. by y e peoples coÌ„moÌ„ praiers c. Again But if by y e coÌ„mon praiers you mean y e publike seruice c As if he should say M. Iewel hath y e vpper grouÌ„d aboue vs what he denieth y â— must we proue what he affirmeth y t is wel proued c therfor I wil put this matter to his own meaning make my distinctioÌ„ accordingli Byside this they may for some cause continuing priuate be called coÌ„moÌ„ although which negatiue is very hard for you to proue thei were neuer heretofore so named For in EnglaÌ„d now at this preseÌ„t iâ—â—ne shuld say The Aue Maria is a Common Praier as at rehersal wherof thousaÌ„ds emoÌ„g y e people do lift vp their mindes towardes God though it be not coÌ„moÌ„ly vsed in your publike seruice for special pure fear perchaÌ„ce lest our Ladie shuld be to much remeÌ„bred Christ lesse regarded yet doth he not speake truly ê“prely y â— doth so say you think not I trust y â— it is a SalutatioÌ„ Praiers for holy dais only or Church only or Lords Ladies only what fault theÌ„ is it in speache when it is CoÌ„monly vsed to call it a CoÌ„moÌ„ praier I wil say more not only Priuate praiers being coÌ„moÌ„ly said mai be are cald coÌ„moÌ„ praiers differ froÌ„ publik seruice but also those self same praiers which are made openly in the hearing and sight of other vnto which they answer AmeÌ„ are of an other sorte kinde thaÌ„ the CoÌ„mon praier as it is takeÌ„ for publike Seruice As when the Apostles in the cumpany of a hundred and tweÌ„ty persons together Act. 1. praied that God would shew whether of the two Ioseph or Matthias he would choose to take the place of y e ministery Apostleship froÌ„ which Iudas the Traitour had falsely departed was not that a Common praier yet caÌ„ you not proue I beleue that it was a parte of their Ordinary CoÌ„mon Seruice Byside this also when the ChristiaÌ„s met together in the Primitiue Church among other gifts which were pleÌ„tifully theÌ„ geueÌ„ by the holyghost y e gift of Prayer was one That is some one of the cuÌ„pany and he not alwaies of the Clergy graciousely inspired vttered in the audience of the rest that forme or matter of Praier which the other should lerne and folow being yet to seking how to doe by them selues And this was in true speach a CoÌ„mon prayer yet was it not their CoÌ„mon Seruice For in publike Seruice the Ecclesiastical ministers doe goe before pronouÌ„ce it but this was such as lay men sometymes did vtter Also in Publike Seruice the order is appointed and set but in this case of which I speake the Prayer was not knowen before it was geauen and they were not euery day sure of the geuing the Holyghost alwaies disposing it by more or lesse according to his blessed inspiration Seing therefore that these kindes of CoÌ„mon Prayers are so distincted first in respect of the CoÌ„mones of theÌ„ though the vse be Priuate according to deuotioÌ„ Secondly for the open communicating of them according to y e Holyghosts inspiration Thirdly because of the order continuance of them according to the Catholike Churchs law coÌ„stitution why doth M. Iewel finde fault with distinctions or that which is graunted to be true in the first and seconde why will he haue it to be like in y e thirde kinde And because the people vnderstode w t they praied Priuately or some other what they vttered by the Holyghosts gift spiritually how can he conclude therefore that the CoÌ„mon Seruice was also in a tongue knoweÌ„ vnto all the people vndoubtedly How caÌ„ he deny y â— first How doth he nor coÌ„sider y â— second How much abuseth he his Aduersary and his Reader in the third For whiles he woulde haue it beleued that Common Praier is no other thing to say then Common Seruice of the Church what so euer either Scriptures and auncient Fathers doe proue Craft in double vnderstanding of a word concerning Common Praier that it was in the Primitiue Churche in a knowen Tounge that he draweth to Common Seruice of the Churche And againste all forewarning and distinction and reason he will triumphe therevpon and crake that it was euery where in a Tongue knowen to all the people For whiche cause this distinction is the better to be marked least M. Iew. through his confusion trouble the clerenesse of the matter Now therefore concerning the other part of D. Hardings distinction in which he declareth vnto you wherevpon he mindeth to ioyne with you in this third Article what say yow therevnto His wordes be plaine If you meane by Common praiers the Publike Seruice Hard. 72. some vnderstode it and some vnderstode it not Here vnwares he implieth a repugnance in reason Iew. 15â— and a manifest contradiction Whye so may not both there propositions stand togeather When your felfe doe preache M. Iewell some I beleue vnderstande you not and some vnderstand you for many stand a far of some nerer vnto you some vnderstand not all fyne English yet some vnderstand it well inough I will say further Your self I thinke sometymes vnderstand your self and some tymes ye doe not Yet here is no necessitie of contradiction For they nede not to be contrarye sayinges one to the other in whiche sometymes ye knowe where ye be some tymes ye speake you can not tell what As in the Declaming against the Sellinge and Byinge of Masses you knowe what you speake but in declaring of Christes Presence in the Sacrament to be Reallye Verely Substantially not by imagination c. and yet by faith Onlye M. Iewel himselfe vnderstandeth not M. Iewel Yet this is no Contradiction neither shoulde that be the faulte whiche I woulde therevppon obiecte vnto you but this rather that ye goe about to destroy the Religion it self because of the euill maners of them which professe it or that you which haue no Masters worth the hearing whom ye can or dare name vnto vs presume to reach the Catholike Church Diuinitie How proue you then a Contradiction to be implied herein and a Contradiction of M. Hardings where he saieth Some vnderstode the Common Seruice some vnderstode it not For euen in England it self when the Latine Seruice was of late vsed as it had continued hundreds of yeres together it was true in lesser Cities by many degrees than London or Yorck that some vnderstode it some vnderstode it not
Places which you so ofte and thicke Expound your own meaninge if we M. 〈◊〉 haue missed doe bring againste the Pope are odious at the firste hearinge but when they shall be Considered and Answered either they shall he founde not to be so as you reporte either els to haue a true and Christian sense in them Therefore to presse vs w t them out of Place Season that we should not intend to answer theÌ„ that they so 〈◊〉 away for the present without Answer might hinder our cause in the iudgement of many a Reader it was craftely done and vnhonestlye As on the other side if you God wote meante no harme at all but without all immoderate Affection or Crafty cumpasse went plainely and directly forwarde in your matters only that your Replie might be full then haue you done grosselye and vnorderly To be shorte whatsoeuer and howsoeuer the causes be the Indifferent Reader may iudge of y e Effect and perceaue that they are vndoubted Digressions whiche you haue made from the question to Canons and the Gloses vpon theÌ„ and which I burden you withall And I burden you herewithall so much the more iustely and ernestly M. Iew. finâ—â—th fault with digressioÌ„s because your selfe are so Rigorous vppon lesse Occasion or none at all againste D. Hardinge For when he in the Article of Priuate Masse did put it as a sure Ground that the Masse or Vnbloudye Sacrifice was so manye wayes to the Proued that you coulde not withstande the Catholykes therein Hard. Fol. 25. And towched shortelye in a Leafe and a half the Authorities which dydde serue that Purpose of whiche he might haue made A Iuste Treatise and neuer haue gone byside hys Purpose yet that litle whiche he spake greeueth you so much that you say It is a simple kinde of Rhetorike Iew. p 12 to vse so large digressions frome the matter before ye once enter into the matter As who should say that the Author of a Treatise might not take what Order he would Or that to speake of the Masse were an Impertinent thinge to Priuate Masse Or that in the discussing of a compound it were not lawfull to open the nature of y e simple Or when two things are at one tyme yet couertly impugned to shew that the one of them standeth vppon sure ground thereby to discumforte the Aduersarie After like sorte of quarrelling whereas D. Harding concluded that Single Communion was not only suffered in tyme of persecution Hard. 38. but also allowed in quiet peaceable tymes euen in the Churche of Rome it selfe where true Religion hath euer bene moste exactly obserued caet M. Iewel greately offended herewith all and merueilinge as it were at the Matter But why doth M. Hardinge sayeth he Iew. 5â— thus out of reason rush into the Church of Rome that was longe agoe But why say you so M. Iewel Doth not the Argument which he maketh require that he should commend that See For Rome itselfe allowed sayeth he paiâ—ate Masse ergo it is the lesse to be douted of Whiche Argument because it will at these dayes seeme the worse the more that it dependeth of the Authoritie of that See could he doe lesse then bring one testimonie in the praise thereof and call you this a Russhing in thereto out of season But what should he haue done by your fyne aduise Mary say you See the malice to speake il of Rome he taketh it to be to some purpose and to speake wel therof he coÌ„pteth it out of season It had bene more to the purpose to haue vewed the state of the same Church as it standeth now Had it so And you being so Maliciously and wickedly disposed would the Authoritie thereof as it is now haue preuailed with you Lette anie indifferent man be Iudge whether it had bene aptlye done of D. Harding in warrantinge of Sole Receauinge as alowed in Rome to commend y â— ConsequeÌ„ce by telling the faults which may be founde in that Citie nowe rather then the testimony of the Bishopes of all Gallia whiche within the six hundred yeres after Christe acknowleged that from thence came the Fountaine and spring of theyr Religion Againe let any Indifferent man iudge whether M. Iewell hath Answered this prayse of the Bisshoppes of Gallia geauen so longe agoe vnto the Churche of Rome by his Accusinge of Bisshoppes Cardinales and Priestes Or by Lamentinge the case of Rome as S. Bernarde dyd Or by makinge of Prouerbes vppon it as Euripides sometyme dyd of the Citie of Athens Surely in this very place Is this the liberty of the Gospell or the Charitye of your Sprites where without cause he reproueth his Aduersarie for commendinge out of season as he iudgeth the See of Rome it is a greate shame to Rushe into Discommendation of Bisshoppes Cardinals and Priestes attendinge vppon that See And to like it better to Examine and Iudge the Present 〈◊〉 of Rome then to remember the Auncient Dignitie and Vertue thereof to confirmation of suche pointes as in those dayes were by it alowed Other places and Signes thâ—re are out of which I doe gather that M. Iewel can not abide Digressions as when he sayeth This Question is out of course Iew. 149 We may well suffer M. Hardinge to wander at large in matters that relieue him nothing 153. Iâ— it were lawfull for others so to doe it were no greate Masterie to write Bookes Again These be none of the maters that lie in Question M. Harding maketh a longe discourse of the Apostles caet 155. If he had shewed to what end we might the better haue knowen his purpose But to what end 160. For neither it is denied of vs nor it is any part of our question Which thinge neither is denied by me 180. nor any wise toucheth the question By these I am persuaded that he would haue y e matter it self folowed and loueth not to haue the time idelly bestowed Nowe though I am hable to declare that Doctour Hardinge in these pointes hath done no otherwise then he lawfullye might Yet to lette that passe I Conclude agaynste 〈◊〉 Iewell that of all thinges it is most Absurd in him that is so Precise with other Vnequall measure to be wide and large towardes him selfe in the selfe same kinde of thing for which though vniustlye he reproueth other And if Iew. 153. as M. Iewel confesseth it be no great mastery to wryte bookes if it be lawful to waÌ„der at large in matters that relieue not Let no man wonder at the worthynesse of him which hath wrytten so mightye a Reply considering that he runneth so far into Common Places and Rusheth so fowlye into dispraise of Popes Cardinals Priests and Church of Rome whiche neither maketh the new Gospellers the honester meÌ„ neither destroieth the Present and Auncient faith of the Catholike Church ¶ Of a thirde kinde of Common Places worse then any of