THE question of the fyrste article, is: Whether anye priuate Masse were in the whole world, for the space of sixe hundred yeres after Christe.

What call we priuate Masse? A priuate Masse? (say the Catholikes) is that, which is not solemne. And other byside this, of that name, they haue none.

But what meane y^e Heretikes by it? Mary, whereas the priest receiueth the Sacramente him self alone, Ie. pa. 4. that we call (sayth M. Iewel) priuate Masse, yea allthoughe the whole pa­rishe be present. Ergo, this terme so ta­ken, is not in the proper bokes & scholes of Catholikes, but is alltogether of the de­uise of Protestantes.

To what ende is the mouinge of this question aboute priuate Masse? Or what hath any Diuine to doe with it? The con­clusion is, that if it can be proued, M. Iewell is content to yeld and subscribe.

But what if it can not be proued? For­soothe then is M. Iewel, I trowe, a true man of his worde. Is this all? And hath this great fighting, and writinge on bothe [Page] sydes no further end, but to the commenda­tion or dispraise of one man, and hym not so wonderfull? No truly, it is not for the ler­ned or studiouse so to doe, suche specially as haue, or take charge of religion, but rather to direct all theyr oppositions and answers vnto that end, by whiche somewhat may be concluded, either duly, to the honor of God, or profitably, to the defense of the Church.

Haue both sydes then, done so for theyr part? That now is to be considered. First concerninge the Catholike, he goeth direct­ly to some purpose, and bringeth the ques­tion vnto that state, in whiche the aduer­sarie is so answered, that the Churche also is defended. The Protestant, he, at the be­ginninge seemed also to meane playnlye, but nowe, he hath brought the question vnto suche pointes, as by whiche neither his aduersarie is any thinge hurted, nor the Churche, whiche he impugnethe, any thinge touched.

By whiche it appeareth, the one to haue labored to some end, the other to haue cra­ked to no purpose.

As in example: D Harding conceyueth the matter thus:

[Page 2] If priuate Masse, in respect only of that it is priuate,Maior. after your meaning, be reproueable:Hard. 39 it is for y^e single Com­munion, that is to say, for y^t the Priest receiueth the Sacrament alone,

But the single Communion is law­full,Minor. yea good and godly:

Ergo the priuate Masse,Conclu. in this respecte, that it is priuate, is not re­proueable.

It followeth then, that Christes insti­tution is not broken,The Ca­tholike resoneth to some pur­pose. when the Priest re­ceiueth alone: And consequently, the Ca­tholike Churche is not to be condemned, for allowing that manner of receiuyng.

Thus hath D. Harding, and euery other Catholike, learned to referre his reasoning to some purpose, that others may be edifi­fied by it.

But nowe on the other side, what say you, M. Iewel, to the matter? what im­porte you wyth all your preparaunce? Whome prouoke you? What cōclusion seke [Page] ou? you aske a question of priuate Masse, whether any suche were, six hundred yeres after Christ. A straunge question vnto Ca­tholikes, and therfore you muste expounde your meaning vnto vs.

1. I demaund (say you) of the open ChurchIe. p [...]. 59 2. I demaund of Priestes. 3. I demaunde of the Masse. 4. I demaund of the right vse of the holy supper that ought to stand. 5. I demaund of the vsage that thē was ordinary.

Fiue greate demaundes, and somewhat terrible vnto the vnskilful, as a visarde vnto a childe, that can not iudge what is within it. But marke,M. Iew els greate a doe a­bout no­thyng. good Reader, how litle he shal make of them. Let me grauut vnto you, M. Iewel, that I can not proue any priest, to haue SAIDE MASSE ORDINA­RILY, in OPEN CHVRCH, and to haue receiued alone. What inferre you herevpon? Or how doth this further your procedings, or disproue the present doings of the Catholike Church? This sure is an idle question, which maketh so much a doe about that, which the contrary syde maye graunt without any preiudice to the cause.

1 For concerning the first: Christes institu­tion may be fulfilled in priuate houses.

[Page 3] The second: women, boyes, and lay mē,2 are christen soules, aud proue, that Christes iustitution is not broken, if they be allowed to receiue alone.

As for the third: I answer, that your que­stiō 3 was not of Masse, but of priuate Masse. And if you wil make the question of Masse, tell vs of it, and you shallbe prouided for.

To the fifth: that which may be but ouer 5 done well, nedeth not many repetitions of the same, to proue that it is lawfull.

Only now therfore, the fourth demaund 4 doth remaine to be discussed, which is of the right vse of y^e holy supper. To which our auswer is, that he vseth it rightlye, which receiueth it with faithe, hope, and charitye. But as for receiuing alone, or with compa­nye, the Catholike Church acknowledgeth her selfe to be therin at liberty, to vse either the one, or the other manner. Vpon this question (whiche in deede is the proper of your firste article) if you dare openlye en­counter with vs, then are you come to the same state of controuersy, to whiche all Ca­tholikes haue brought it. Neither can you complain that he swarueth from that he hath taken in hand. Iew. 5 [...]. But if ye will not reason a­bout sole receiuing, but stande vpon your [Page] circumstancies and demanndes nothinge substantiall, then doe I answer, as I did before, that I can not proue priuate Masse after suche solemne maner as you require: that (I meane) it was ORDINARY, and in OPEN CHVRCHES: conten­ting my selfe with this, that although by euident example, I find not, it was so, yet by moste necessary principles I can proue that it might haue bene so. And further reioysing in this, that although I do yelde in your demaundes vnto you (the fourthe only excepted, which only is worth the as­king, and in which you be sufficientlye an­swered) yet you may not loke, that the La­dies of Israell with their Lutes and Timbrels will receiue you in triumphe, because with all your strokes hitherto, you haue hurted no body.

Your questions therfore, M. Iewel, be­ing altogether so vain and fruteles, y^t they neither touch vs nor profite you, let vs re­turne vnto D. Hardinges argument or re­solution, to geue therby vnto the indiffe­rent Reader,The true state of y^e question aboute pri­uate masse the true meaning of this first Article: and to put before him, y^e Catholike beliefe of the Church in this matter.

The state of the question, as Catholikes [Page 4] haue conceiued it, is comprehended in this one foresaid argument:

If priuate Masse,Maior. in respect only of that it is priuate, be reprouable, it is for the single Communion,

But single Communion is not re­proueable:Minor.

Ergo priuate Masse, in this res­pecte that it is priuate,Conclu. is not reproue­able.

This argument is good,The pro­fe of the cōsequēce in this ar­gument: and holdeth of that common rule: A destructione conse­quentis, ad destructionem antecedētis. That is, to make it plaine, when we make a con­ditionall or double proposicion, the deniall of the former parte, dothe well folowe vp­on the deniall of the later. As in exam­ple:

If M. Iewel be a lawfull Bishop, (this is the former parte) he was duelye consecrated, (this is the later part. And bothe these ioyned together do make one Proposition.

[Page] Take away now the later part, and ye shall conclude the taking away of y^e former, as:

But M. Iewel was not duely conse­crated:

Ergo he is not a lawfull bishop.

The argument therfore, whiche D. Har­ding hath proponed, is of a verye good and right making. But what thinketh M. Iewel of it? He frameth it after his owne likinge,Here be­ginneth M. Iewel to work his seate in alterīg thinges to his pur­pose. and that, which the author himselfe would haue to be Hypothetical, he maketh it allto­gether Cathegorical, in this sorte:

The priuate Masse is single communion. Single communion is lawfull: Ergo priuate Masse is lawfull.

Then dothe he not answer neither this argument, but by another which shallbe fo­lish, & of his owne making, he would haue this to be iudged. As, The ministration of priuate Masse is a single communion, Single communion is lawfull for a woman: Ergo, the ministration of priuate Masse is lawfull for a woman.

No no M. Iewel, you can not goe inui­sible. We se well inough how you cast in the terme Ministration, to make a sport, or Ab­surditie. Of whiche follie or sutteltie you wilbe tolde in due season. But concerning [Page 5] D. Hardings argument, it is an hypothetical Syllogismus: and these which you make are altogether Cathegorical, so that they be of far other kinde and makinge. Whiche geaueth me to suspecte, that your wittes were not in their natural place in your hed, when you were so much occupied, (as your boke declareth) in consideration of Medius Terminus, Ie. pa. [...]9 Subiectum, and Praedicatum: least your reader mighte be deceiued by that ar­gument of D. Hardinges, which had neither directe Medius terminus, nor Praedicatum, nor Subiectum, to be feared, as beinge not made in Mode and Figure, but concluded out of that rule or consequence, A destru­ctione consequentis, &c. Of whych I haue spoken.

The forme therefore of D. Hardinges ar­gument being proued good, let vs consy­der the matter and truthe of euery propo­sition in it. The Maior is declared after this sorte.

If priuate Masse be not reprouea­ble,The pro­fe of the maior in the fore­said argument. in this respecte only, that it is pri­uate and hath single Communion: thē doe you M. Iewel digresse from the [Page] purpose,The pro­fe of the Maior in the forsaid argumēt. and aske more, then one ques­tion, at one tyme. But we could not suspecte, that you would iumble with vs so confusely. Ergo it is saied with good reason, that, if priuate Masse be reproueable, it is in this respecte only, that it is priuate and hath single com­munion.

The forme hereof is good a destructione consequentis &c. as aboue.

The Maior I will declare. For if you will not be bound to rest vppon the terme and sense of priuate, but be at liberty to com­prehend within your meaninge, all that is imported in the name of Masse, then may you require of vs, by vertu of this question to make answer vnto you, not only of sole receauinge, but of receuinge in both kinds, of the seruice in the latiue tonge, of the reall presence of Christe in the Sacrament, of the sacrifice, and many other matters bysides. Because all these are included within the compasse of these two wordes Priuate, and Masse. Now to the Minor.

[Page 6] But we could not suspecte that ye would so iumble with vs.

For distinct articles being put forth by you, of Communion vnder both kindes, Ser­uice in the vulgar tonge &c. Ye signifie ther­by, that ye loke for a seuerall answer vnto eche of them, and that, within the question of priuate Masse, ye intended not to passe the boundes and sense of this worde Priuate, For of Consecration (we may be sure I trust) you moued no question, whether it be proper to the Priest, or whether the people may also doe it. Yet the Masse doth extend it selfe vnto consecration. If therefore, neither we are so suspitious as to feare it, neither you so folish as to say it, that in as­king vs a questiō of priuate Masse, ye douted or demaunded, whether y^e Priest alone doth consecrate and not the people, or, whether one Prieste alone may consecrate by hym selfe, without helpe or assemble of other Priestes, (if this one point which proper­lye pertaineth to the Priestes office and the substance of a Masse) was not respec­ted of you in the question of priuate Mas­se: you muste needes confesse and yelde, [Page] that you referred this first article of yours, to some one speciall and singular matter, and that ye extended it not, vnto all que­stions that mighte be moued vppon the Masse. And that speciall thinge what it should be, besides sole receiuinge, it was not, nor could not be perceiued: Ergo it is saide with good reason, that if the priuate Masse be reproueable, it is for the single com­munion.

Yet knowing so much as we doe, if all were to begin againe, we woulde not vse these Ifs and discourses, to finde oute what you did meane by priuate Masse, but we would rather wil you, to procede againste vs in order, and not to couer manye Arti­cles vnder pretence of one question, that in sifting from one to the other, ye myghte seeme to tarye still in one place, by kee­ping the selfe same termes (priuate Masse) and yet euer skip from one poynte to ano­ther, because ye prouide to be at your own proper choise, what one sense of manye, ye will haue to be conceiued by priuate Masse, and, at pleasure, to passe from any one sēse to the other. But who wold haue thought it, that they affected to make confusion, which promised to bring all truthe into or­der [Page 7] and syght? Or that they which preten­ded to require good profes for Sole recey­uing onlye, woulde afterwardes bynde the answerer to proue the sole receiuynge at MASSE, M. Iēw­els large walkes in plain matter, & one direct question. and then, the SAYING of Masse and after that, the saying of it in OPEN CHVRCH, and yet farther, the ORDI­NARY saying & receiuing in open Church & (to be shorte) binde him to proue CON­SECRATION, OBLATION, E­LEVATION, ALTAR, VES [...] ­MENT, or any other thing to the Masse be­longing? By which words we may see how many questions M. Iewel would saye (for a nead) to be comprehended & ment of him in these. ij. words priuate Masse. D. Harding therfore which knew not so much, or could not suspecte so much (as, y^• M. Iewel did at one time, and with one breathe, aske of so manye distinct matters in one plaine pro­position, without geuing therof any war­ninge) made that conditionall and Maior proposition, to that his argumēt, of whiche I haue spoken,The mi­nor of D. Hardings argumē [...] declared. which Maior being so rea­sonable and allowable, I come now to the prouing of the Minor of y^e same argument, which is this:

Single communion is allowable.

[Page] Here, because M. Iewel is contente to be tried, by the examples of the sixe hundred yeres after Christe, and because this kinde of perswasion is most sensible, I wil bring two or three of them, for our purpose.

The Byshopes of Rome,Eccl. His lib. 5. Ca. 24. Har. fo. [...]2. when any Catholike Byshopes came thither from other countries, vsed to send them the Sacrament to receaue: Ergo single Communion is allowable.

What answereth M. Iewel vnto this? Or howe concludeth he (as it were) in D. Hardinges name?

Ergo (forsooth saieth he) there was Masse, and addeth further:Iew. P. 41. This conclusion is far fet and hangeth losely. Behold, in another example. M. Iew. feate. For I might demaund whiche of the three saied Masse? He that sent the Sacrament, or he that receaued it, or els the messenger that brought it? It were a straunge matter to see a Masse and yet no man to say Masse. Lo how closely M. Iewel ke­peth his wittes together. He is opposed with Single Communion, and he demaun­deth of the Masse: the obiection goeth vpon the receauinge the Communion, and he as­keth (without answer making) who saied the Masse. But to another example.

[Page 8] Tertullian dehorting his wife from mariyng to an Infidel after his death:Har. fo. 3 [...]. will not thy husband know (saieth he of the sacrament) what thou eatest se­cretly before al other meates. &c. Ergo single Communion is alloweable.

But M. Iewel taketh it not so. how thē?Iew. 46. The same feate aga­ine folo­wed. Mary. Ergo Tertullians wife saied priuate Masse. And herevpon then wil ryse a greate dout, whether a woman might say Masse, or no, or who helped her if she saied it. Yet sauing for M. Iewels pleasure, that neaded not, because D. Harding speaketh directly not, of saying Masse, but only of receauing the single Communion.

Another example:Har. fo. 34. Serapion lyeng at the point of death,Eccl. Hi. lib. 6. Ca. 34. y^e Priest whom he sent for, being sycke him selfe, sent the sacramēt vnto him and he receaued it and departed. Ergo single Communion is aloweable.

I pray you M. Iewel, is not this spokē pla­ine enough? no truly, not to such a wrāgler. For, as though it were to be marked in this story, not, how Serapiō receued y^e sacramēt, [Page] but only who brought it vnto him, so see­keth M. Iewel for the bringer of it, and fin­dinge that it was Serapions boy,All of like pretiesent and of like small ho­nestie. to whom the priest deliuered it, he layeth hādes vpon him and concludeth: Ergo Serapions boy saied priuate Masse.

Thus doth M. Iewel handle D. Harding through the whole first article, either like an hypocrite dissembling it, that we vnder­stād by priuate Masse or single Communion, not the saying and celebratinge of Masse, or Communion, but that onlye act, of who soeuer it be, which receaueth the Commu­nion alone: either like a dull or distracted person not perceauing it, that all the Argu­mentes, Examples, and Authorities are, to that only end, referred. But he hath not so litle wit, as not to perceaue whereabout D. Harding went. For, in the answer to the 23. Diuision, wher D. Harding sheweth in what sense he taketh the question of priuate Masse:Iewel 56 he confesseth that D. Harding hath taken paines to proue Sole receauinge, and single Communion that was neuer denyed. And againe. Now he demaundeth whether I reproue the Masse, or the priuate Masse. What meaneth this, that priuate Masse and sole receauing be so sodenly growen in one?

[Page 9] See then, he confesseth that D. Hardinge doth vnderstand by Priuate Masse, sole re­ceauing. And therfore he misliketh it, say­inge, what Meaneth this &c. And then he laboreth to proue that it must not be his meaninge, and why? forsooth, because:

Surely M. Harding well knoweth that the nature of the wordes is not one.Iew. 57. Neither who so euer receaueth alone, doth therefore of necessitie saie Priuate Masse.

True it is, M. Iew. and therfore D. Hardinge knowing right well y^e Priuate Masse, might diuersely be taken, & that you would make it to signify the SAYING of Priuat Masse, & he not so, but the Single Cōmuni­on and Sole Receauing: therfore he warued you of it, that the question might be di­stinctly handled. You therfore confessinge so much, that he went about to proue Sole Receauinge only and not to medle in this article w^t the Masse, either you haue played the very hypocrites part, in pretendinge a talke to the purpose whiche in deede you knew to be otherwise: Either you haue shewed a shamefull and hatefull vilany, in burdeninge a man of good estimation and lerninge with so many, and folish conse­quences as you attribute vnto hym. And [Page] further you haue abused greate numbers of your Readers moste wickedly, in dra­winge theyr soules after you into pervi­tion, by makinge them beleue that you speake as you knowe, your knowledge being contrarie to your vtterance.

For suppose that your meaninge, in the question were, as you saye, and that your demaund was, to be satisfied in all these pointes: Whether a Priest did SAIE MASSE, in OPEN CHVRCH, ORDINARILY, and receaue alone, in the sixe hundred yeares after Christe, and that, if any of these Circumstances were lefte vnproued, ye woulde not be bound to subscribe, suppose I saye, that this were true, yet seeinge your Aduer­sarye folowed another sense, ye should haue consydered, if, not hym, yet your selfe, your lerned Counsell, your Secre­tarye and Scribes, your Prynter, and Reader, and haue made a better answer with lesse coste and labor, declaringe in sewe wordes, howe Doctor Hardinge had mistaken you, and expoundinge in playne wordes, how your owne meaning should be concerned.

[Page 10] But nowe, whereas Doctor Hardinge folowed the right sense in deede of the ques­tion, and your sense, M. Iewel, thereup­pon, hath no end or purpose to whiche it serueth: why aske you so importunately for the Masse? why demaund you?

IF here be a Masse, which of the two is it,Iew. 32. that sayeth this Masse? Is it the sicke man, or the Priest?.

Why trifle you?

That the question is moued not of anye other man or woman,33. but of the Masse,The some of M. Iewels answers in this first Ar­ticle. and only of the Priest that saieth the Masse.

Why lye you?

M. Harding hath brought forth these Fa­thers for his Masse.

Why wrangle you?42

That for lacke of Priestes M. Harding al­legeth Tertullians wife,44. Certaine women out of Cyprian, and Serapions boy, not the fittest persons that might haue bene found to saye Masse.

Why pitie you hym of your pure cōpassion?

Alas doeth M. Hardinge thinke it was the maner in old tymes,59. that laye people should saye Masse?

Why describe you the matter so cunning­ly, and saye?

[Page] M. Hardinge shall not finde here any Masse spoken of at all,76 neither bread nor wine, nor Consecration, nor Oblation, nor Eleuation, nor Altar, nor Vestiment, nor any thing to the Masse belonginge? And to be short, (D. Harding intendinge to speake not of the Masse, or sayinge of it, but only of sole receauing) Why triumph you & why crake you, 91 that The Masse which we must neades beleue, is so Auncient, so vniuersal, so Catho­like, so holy, so Gloriouse, cā not be foūd nei­ther in Churches nor Chappels, nor in secret Oratories, nor in Priuate howses, in Towne or Citie, but must be sought out in some Pe­tie parish in the coūtrie, and that by coniec­ture only.

To this effect then, cometh the first ar­ticle. M. Iewel dalieth stil, y^t D. Harding she weth not any Priuate Masse, that is (by his interpretatiō) where any Priest SAID masse, ORDINARILI, in OPEN CHVRCH and receaued alone: D. Harding proueth Priuate Masse, that is to say, single Com­munion, or Sole receauing.

Of M. Iewels mening, no purpose fo­loweth.

For whē it is graunted, for example that we are not able to proue against him (with [Page 11] all those Circumstances) what is his cause the better for it? Of D. Hardinges con­clusion this commoditie groweth, that sole receauing is allowable by the crample and Testimonies of the Primatiue Church.

Ergo it standeth well with Christes in­stitution. Frome hencefoorth therefore, let no Heretike crake of Christs institution, as though that could not admit Sole re­ceauing. So shall the Church haue some peace, and the Catholikes be quieted in this sure truth, that Sole Receauing is not a­gainst Christes institution.

This ground now and verity standing, let M. Iewel (if he dare) come visiblie furth, and shew an open face and intent, without all dubling. And then shall it be playnly perceaued, whether he must yelde and subscribe or no. Here for example are six questions.

Whether a sicke mā hauing no penance to 1 fulfill, may receaue alone at his departing.

Whether a sicke man whiche is not yet 2 reconciled, but tarieth in his penance, may receaue alone at the point of his death.

Whether a sicke man being not in daun­ger 3 of death may receaue alone.

Whether a man in good health and good 4 [Page] lyfe may receaue alone.

5 Whether a Priest not celebrating, may receaue alone.

6 Whether a Priest at Masse, may receaue alone.

Betwixt these sixe, eche of them towar­des an other, there is some difference, and therefore they make two seueral questions.

The truth which is confessed on both sides, is:

That Christes institution doth stand with Sole Receauing in generall.

For he which is put from the Com­munion, and lyeth at the pointe of death maye receaue alone, euen by Master Ie­wels confession: which yet is impossible to be true, if Sole Receauing were abso­lutely againste Christes Institution.

Therefore, in what other speciall kinde of Sole Receauing his Institution is vio­lated, therein muste, of right, be the ques­tion. And therein let M. Iewel ioyne, (if he thinke hym selfe able) with the Ca­tholike.

As, whether a sicke man beinge not put from the Communion for some faulte of [Page 12] his, maye at the pointe of death receaue alone or no, and so furth, in any of the six foresayed questions.

Now when it shall be put furth in one speciall case, if he shall then fetche his vagaries about, and run ouer his Com­mon Places, That Christes Institution is to be obserued, That the Primitiue Church had a Communion, and proue it by sundrie wais, Out of holy Fathers, Out of M. Har­dinges owne Doctors (as he will terme them) and Out of the very Masse boke it selfe. &c Let it be vnderstanded, that if he speake so in generall, and applieth it not to the speciall case proponed, he falleth within daunger of his owne sentence. Vanitas vanitatum. Iew. 16. And, that it is a greate token of idlenesse, to bee earnest and copious in prouynge that thinge, that no man de­nieth.

Againe, It is a lewed kinde of Logike, stoutely to proue that thinge, that needeth no profe, & to leaue the thing that should be proued.

On the other syde, if he wyll deale sincerelye and vprightely in deede, and, leaue to vse suche feares as he hath in this [Page] his first Replie practised, then shal it quick­ly be perceiued, that either he must yeld and subscribe, or els craue a licence to be loosed frome y^• bond, into which he cast hym selfe, through his own hastines, in his Challēge.

IN this second Article, the question is,96 whether there was then (vnder­stād six hundred yeres after Christ) any Cōmunion ministred vnto y^e people vnder one kynd.

Is this al? It seemeth to be al, because in the vttering of the Challenge, there is no other forme of wordes concerning this question. Yet least perchance we shall be handeled here, as we haue bene in the first Article, let vs aske M. Iewel what he in­tendeth and what he demaundeth in this question.

Syr, and please you, what if we proue vnto you, that some haue receaued the Sa­crement vnder one kind at home in theyr [Page 13] owne houses as Serapion did:Ecc. hict. lib. 6. [...] 34. is not the question concluded against you? No saieth M. Iewel. The question is of the vsage and order of the CHVRCH. Iew. [...] The firste shift of M. Iew. M. Hardinges answer is of Serapions death bed, as though there had bene no CHVRCH yet erected in those daies.

Yes verely there were, but as we maye say with S. Hierome:In Apdlogia ad­uersus Iouin Christ is not one at home in the house, an other in the Church, and that which is not contrary to Christes institution and commaundement, maye be done without the Church, of building which, he gaue no commaundement. But let vs go further.

If I may proue vnto you, that some certaine persons as sicke men and faintye, haue receiued vnder one kind: shall that stand vs in any stead against you? No say­eth M. Iewel.Iew. 13 [...]. The se­cond shift. This is the only thing that I denied, that ye are notable to bring anye one sufficient example, or authority, that e­uer the WHOLE PEOPLE receiued the Communion in open Church vnder one kinde. Surely you be an hard man to deale withall, which will measure your witnesses by quantity, and not by quality, and sike there, for a number, where a fewe [Page] and honest examples were to be credi­ted.

Well, I will not yet leaue you so. What if I can proue that receiuing vnder one kind, was to be found in close Chappels and Oratories, in Wildernesse and Canes, whyther contempt of the world, or auoy­dinge of persecution draue the Christians: go we not directly vnto the question, and bring you into necessity of subscribing and yelding? No sayeth Maister Iewel a­gaine.

The question that standeth betwene vs,The third Shifte. Iew. 96. is moued thus, WHETHER THE HOLY COMMVNION. &c. were euer ministred OPENLY in the Church. Yet he lieth, for neither OPENLYE, nei­ther CHVRCHE is specifyed in the question.

How say ye to infantes, if I proue that they in old time receiued in one kind, O­PENLY, The [...]urth Shifte. and in the CHVRCH, doth not this make against you? No sayeth Maister Iewel. Maister Harding maketh his whole plea vpon an infant, and yet of in­fantes as he knoweth I spake nothing. No more did ye of OPEN CHVRCH, Iew. 139. [Page 14] WHOLE PEOPLE, LAY MEN, Priestes or others: But ye made an vni­uersal and indefinite negatiue proposition, which is by all reason sufficiently reproued, if but in one particular, the contrarye be proued.

But let vs consider the compasse of your inuentiou a litle further. What if we proue that the two Disciples whom Christ ouer­toke in the way to Emaus, receiued the Sa­crament vnder one kind? Or that S. Am­brose and S. Basile receiued likewise vn­der one? is not all this plaine contrary to your assertions? No sayeth M. Iewel.

For the question is moued of LAY PEOPLE.Iew. 12 [...]. The fifth Shifte. M. Harding bringeth examples of Christ and two disciples, who were of the number of Seuenty and two, and therfore it maye well be thought they were ministers and not of the lay sort.

And againe:

I demaunde of the lavitie, he aunswe­reth of Sainct Ambrose and Sainct Basile whiche were Bishoppes.

In dede M. Iewel you muste pardon him, for hee thoughte that a good argu­mente for Communion vnder one kinde [Page] might haue ben taken of Christ & his two disciples, or of S. Ambrose, or S. Basils authority alone. But seing you haue now so conueighed the matter, that all that will not serue, where might a man finde exam­ples to please you? If it were by one example to be shewed that the laitye and WHOLE PEOPLE receiued O­PENLY vnder one kinde, and in the CHVRCH, would this satisfie you? No not this. For the thing denied by M. Ie­wel,The sixth shifte. Iew. 14 [...] is this. That the Sacrament was euer ministred vnto the people in one kind open­ly in any congregation, or in the OPEN ORDER and vsage of any CHVRCH

And againe: It will not folowe that this was the COMMON ORDER of the Church. Iew. 133. By which wordes OR­DER, and VSAGE, we see one or two euidences would not be taken, because so few proue not an VSAGE.

How now then? When will this felow leaue his flying backe? You should (M. Iewel) come nearer and nearer, or stay at the least in some Conclusion. But ye adde still more and more to the question, and seeke to come out of the straits, into which through folish hardinesse you are cast by [Page 15] your owne glorious Sermon. Surely ye be gone a great way, from those plaine and few wordes, which, this question of Communion vnder both kindes, had at the beginning. Yet will I folowe you, if perchaunce I may see some end.

Therfore if I were able to proue, that the WHOLE PEOPLE (withoute mentioning of Bishops, Priestes, or In­fants) did receiue vnder one kind OPENLY, in any CONGREGATION, or in the OPEN ORDER and VSAGE of any Church: Then I trust, you would geue ouer all contention. No, you will neuer leaue till you haue brought it to an endlesse controuersye. The Negatiue of our side, (say you) which so much troubleth him is this. Iew. 14 [...] Che. vij. shift. That for the space of six hun­dred yeares after Christ, it can not be found in any old Doctor or Councell, that euer the holy Communion was ministred to the peo­ple, in the Church, or in any open assemble, in one kinde only, AS IT IS NOWE MINISRED IN THE CHVRCH OF ROME. You be safe M. Iewel, I warrant you, you be safe. All the Catho­likes in the whole world, are not able to take you. For what ecceptions [Page] will not you make, and what Extensi­ons will not you deuise, vnder pretense of these wordes: AS IT IS NOW MI­NISTRED IN THE CHVRCH OF ROME. Come who will, let him bring what he can: If from the Priestes crowne downe to his foote: And from Confite or to lte Missa est, he proue not the like to haue bene vsed then, as is nowe: in Amice, Albe, Stole, Girdle, Praying, Bles­sing, Eleuating, Breaking, Communica­ting and distributing. &c. who shall let M. Iewel to say, that he demaunded of such order of ministring, as is now in the Church of Rome? For as well he may in this matter of Receiuing vnder both kin­des, make question of the Priestes vest­iuentes, and of his soft speaking: as in the question of Priuate Masse, which concer­neth nothinge else but Sole Receiuinge, draw the state of it vnto saying of Masse, and therevpon shewe many feates of his Cheualry. And when shall he then come to the poynt of the controuersye, whiche hath chosen such compasses to wander a­bout in? Therefore M. Iewel if you hold your selfe here, you be safe enough I war­rant you.

[Page 16] But are ye not ashamed so to trifle, and to fight for nothing with suche con­tention? We can not proue against you so formallye and demonstratiuelye as you require, neither can we answer your chal­lenge as nowe you haue expressed it. But what then? Where is the profit of your victorye? What spoiles bring ye to your companye?

This is your fault Maister Iewell,The vain contention of M. Iewel. as in the former Article, so now againe in this, that you make a mightie shew, and are not hable to fasten one blowe, you laboure with hande and tounge, as thoughe you woulde conquere some, and free passage beinge graunted you, ye can take nothinge away from vs.

For let not the receauing vnder both kindes be foūd in, OPEN CHVRCH, and, VSAGE OF THE CHVRCH, and, in the WHOLE PEOPLE, And, AS IT IS NOWE MI­NISTRED IN THE CHVR­CHE OF ROME: Yet for so muche as by Christe and his two Disciples, by Saincte Ambrose, Scrapion and o­thers, we proue that it is not contrarie to [Page] his Institution, we confound your lying tonge, which speaketh so lowdely and ear­nestly thereof, as though the Catholike Church did not kepe it, because the Laietie now, receaueth vnder one kynd in moste. places.

If it be true (as your selfe confesse either voluntariely or constrained by the Catho­likes) that Receauing vnder one kind, hath Examples for it in the Primitiue Churche,The Ca­tholike hathe his purpose. and those yeres which you were content to be tried by, then is it aloweable. And then surely, it is not against Christes In­stitution. And then, doth the vse of the Church now, stand with Christes Institu­tion: and then shuld not you so shamefully abuse your Aduersarie,Iew. 119 with how can M. Harding warrant the manifeste breach, of Christes INSTITVTION? 343 Againe: The causes that moueth the Church of Rome to break Christes INSTITVTION are not great. 150 Againe: M. Harding, thus maintaining the open abuse of the holy mysteries offendeth against Christes INSTITV­TION. [...]9 Again: what? troweth he there is no difference betwene obeing Gods COMMAVNDEMENT, and breaking gods COMMAVNDEMENT? Againe:

[Page 17] With what indifferent iudgement then can M. Harding thus compare these thinges together, 116 an INSTITVTION with no IN­STITVTION? Againe, 114 the best stay that these mē cā lay hold vpō, is to deny Chri­stes INSTITVTION. Again,110 M. Harding thinketh that the people may safely breake Christes INSTITVTION &c: As though either he, or any other Catholik wēt about it. But if it be so in deede, and if you will abyde by it, that Christes Institution is broken, when any receaueth vnder one kinde alone: goe not then from that state of the question. and before this be tried, troble not vs, and others with matters imper­tinent.

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. [Page] And because exāples are foūd enē 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 cōclude in y^e principal, y^t it is not against Christes Insti­tution to receaue vnder one kinde. Do you deni y^e cōsequēt? How cā you, which haue so appeled to the primitiue Church, as though you wold be cōtēt & quiet, if good testimo­nies of that time could be alleged againste you? What say ye thē to y^e Antecedēt? ye cō ­fesse it in plain words y^e some receaued then vnder one kind,Iew. 132. saying: Neither did I deny that euer any one mā receued the Cōmuniō 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 thē 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▪ 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 cōfesse y^• some hath hen mi­nistred. Ergo it is time ye yeld & subscribe. [Page 18] 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 thē, 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 mēt y^t it was not OPENLY receiued vnder both kinds, & ORDINARIly: Thā what a trif [...]er or wrāgler be you, to chalēge vs about circūstāces, before we wer agreed vpō y^e substāce of y^e mater. yet if you wil nedes haue OPENLY w^t his felowes put in, thē begin again, & speak more plainly. for as ye haue proponed y^e mater, ye ace ouercōme. And yet before ye begin w^t those cirūstāces, I warn you, it wil be to no purpose, because our selues may confesse vnto you, y^t we cā not gaine say it: & you shal cō ­clude nothing against vs, by it. For y^e chur­ches cause is sufficiētly defēded, if receiuing vnder one kind may be proued, by any aūciēt exāple, 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. [Page] 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.

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 cōmaundeth 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 [Page 19] 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 1 betwene the Idiote and him that supplieth the place.It is no wisedome to chaūge that We haue, for an other thing, no mā 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 I [...]iote, answer Amen, vpon thy blessing? Now by Tradi­tion, we haue receaued no other, but Latine 2 or Greeke Seruice. Of the change of the 3 vulgar toūge, 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,4 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 vnknowē 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. [Page] And if it be so in ceremonies, is it not much more so in publike Seruice? For in Cere­monies (because of indifferencie of thē in them selues, and infirmity of some persōs, 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 Coū ­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 [Page 20] of the posteritie? Surely, this can not be but a great wonder, y^t the Cōmon Ser­uice of the West Church, was not general­ly in Latine euery where at y^• 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, of what begynning. But what should a Catholike be trobled in his mind or geue eare to Peekers of quarells?

If the iust and quiet Possessours of Aun­cient and good Landes, should be made to bring foorth Euidencies, and, either an­swer to all demaundes whiche it pleaseth the Aduersarie to moue, or ells to be quyte and cleane thrust out of all, without any further iudgmēt: would it not be accomp­ted so vnreasonable and iniuriouse, that no wise man or honest man, could alowe it or suffer it? What cause then is there, why the troblers of quyet possessouts in Religion, should be praysed and houore [...], as ghostly S [...]ru [...]yers (I trow) of all Christendome? How hold you this, quod he? Mary, what is that to thee? Thou seest I hold it. Yea but how came you by it? Firste who gaue you the authority to aske me that question?

[Page] Then spare not,Enchro­ching and busy here­tikes. but lay it to my charge, if thou hast any euidence against me. It was not so in the Primitiue Church. Yes forsooth was it. Bring me then (sayeth he) any sufficient authority of Doctor or Councell. Folish felow, wilt thou put me to my proofes, which am in possessyon, and haue long dwelt here, as it can not be denied, thy self being not able to shew from whence I had it, except it were of the first Lordes and Patrones? What right I haue, the same I haue receiued. And those that deliuered it to me, toke it of others before them. And they againe, receiued it of their forefathers. Neither canst y^u proue any chaunge of Titles to haue come in be­twene, from the first Apostles & Fathers, to their children which now do liue. Is it not therfore a sufficient defence to vs, that thou canst not deny, but the West Church doth vse, and hath (for hundred of yeres to­gether) spokē Latiu generally in her Ser­uice, and art not able to shew, where she e­uer vsed English, Dutch, French, or Spa­nish? Thy silence in this question doth answer for vs. And it should be a demon­stration to all reasonable men, that vn­doubtedly the publike Seruice here in the [Page 21] Weast was in Latin from the beginning,Trafitiō for the [...] because, no other beginning therof can be shewed, nor the ceasing of those vulgare Tongues, which (as M. Iewel getteth) were once vsed, can any where be found, or espied. Thus much should and would be said, if the right way might be alowed.

But now, present possession maketh no­thing. And therfore is D. Harding con­strained, to folow y^e pleasure of y^• Extorcio­tier, & to proue, that to be ours of auncient ryght: y^e long possession wherof without any disturbāce, cōcludeth it to be our right. Wherein though he hath done very well, yet he bringeth nothing, but M. Iewel turneth it to a gesse, a likelihode, a coniecture. Which phrases are so common wyth him, through all this Article, as though he would admit no Authority or Argument, but such as is taken out of the Scriptures, or such as should be so euident and in­uincible, that he could haue no power to answer them. His Phrases are these: M.Harding is not able to proue this with all his gesses. Iewel. Againe:160 The Minor he war­ranteth but by a gesse only. 166 Againe: Re­ply is made and that by gesses and likelihods. 180 Againe: This gesse standeth vppon two [Page] poyntes. And so in other places moe.

For this cause, that it may be perceiued, whether he allso vseth not Gheasses, & that he may learn in time, to be good to others, when he is fauorable to him selfe: before I speake of D. Hardinges reason, let vs a while hold our peace, and put M. Iewel to answering.

Tel vs, I pray you, Sir, for truths sake, you which are so well seene in Antiquities, and can appose, and presse others so ernest­ly with obscure questions about the Pri­mitiue Church: Is it not reason that you geue better instructions, which finde fault with the Catholikes opinions? And i [...] the iudgment and answere of the whole Church that now is, can not satisfye you: should you, with any conscience, require your opinion to be receiued, except ye bring Demonstrations for it?

Tell vs therfore I beseeche you, with­out Gesses, Coniectures, and Like lihodes, (which you can not away withall,) was the publike Seruice of the Churche, within the six hundred yeares after Christ,Harding Pol. 74. in the Syriacal, or Arabike, in the AEgiptian, AEthiopian, Persian, [Page 22] Armeniā, Scythiā, Frēch, or Britain tounge? Here you may answer vnto vs:

This is no indifferent dealing. Iew. 165 And again: Sodainly he altereth the whole state of the cause, and shifteth his handes and requireth me to shew. But, that it may appeare you deale plainly, and seeke nothing but truthe: Answer I pray you throughly and direct­ly. In one example or two, you are con­tent, but why not in examples for all? For the Syriacal tounge you speake the moste, but why bring you not somewhat for eche of the other? You will refer the rest to an other place (vnto which straighte waits we will folowe you) but presently thus you say.

At Paulaes funerall, all the multitude of the Citye of Palestine met together.Hierony mus in Epita­phio Pan [...] The Psalmes were songe in order, in Hebrewe, Greeke, Latine, and Syrian tonge.

Well, here in dede is mention of the Sy­rian Tounge, and of Psalmes song in it. But how proue you, these Psalmes to in­fer the Cōmon Seruice in the same tounge: For, by Psalmes, I vnderstand Hymnes, Songes, and Praises, made to the houor of God, and memorie of S. Paula. For Theodoretus reporteth (as you beare meLib. 4. cap. 10. [Page] witnesse) that Ephrem made Hymnes and Psalmes in the Syrian tounge, And that the same were songe at the solemne Feastes of Martyrs. Lib. 4. ca. 29. Iew. 157 All Psalmes therefore, were not the Psalmes of Dauid (for Ephrem made new of his owne) and the synginge of Psalmes at Paulaes funerall,Here be­ginneth M. Iew. with his [...]sses. proue not, but by Gheasse, that they were part of the Common Seruice. And therefore, though ye haue brought foorth a place where men­tion is made of Psalmes in the Syrian tounge: yet doe ye not satisfie our demaūd and expectation, whiche aske of Publike Seruice, and looke to be, playnly and eui­dently answered.

Ye adde vnto this, a testimonie out of S. Augustine, where he willeth the pries­tes to correct the errors of theyr Latine speache: That the people vnto the thinge they playnly vnderstand, may say Amen. And what of this? Iew. 156 This (say you) of S.Augus­tine, seemeth to be spoken generally of all Tounges.

To whome seemeth it? To your self (I thinke) and your cumpanie only.An other gesse of M. Iew. And if to any other besyde, it should likewise seeme so, yet Seeming hangeth but vpon Gheas­ses and lykelihoodes. And therefore is, nei­ther [Page 23] to be vsed of you, which are to resolute to allege them: neither to be named a­gainst vs, which seeke now after your Eui­dences and perfect Instructions, and must not be serued with Lykelihoodes.

But ye refer vs to another place. To that place then will we come, and repete our question again.

VVhether your side is able to shew, that the publik Seruice of the Church in any nation was (in the Syriacall, or Arabike, or AEgyptiā, AEthiopiā, Persian, Armenian, Scythian, Frēch, Britaine tounge, or) in any other then in Greeke and Latine.

Here you may againe finde fault as you did before and say:Iew. 15▪ He altereth cunningly the whole case, and willeth me to shew. But we shall desire you againe, to be cōtent and yelde to our request: If there be such good­nesse and pregnancie of your cause, as you speake of, and specially if ye speake for the better contentation of the Good Christian Reader. But remember that ye must exi­dently answer vs without Gheasses, and [Page] Likelihodes. Go to then, wher begin you?

Eckius sayeth, Iew. 175 the Indians had their Ser­uice in the Indian tounge. Durandus saith, the Iewes that were Christened had their Seruice in the Hebrewe tounge.

Call ye this, A contentation of a good Christian Readers mind, to proue vnto hym a Conclusion, by those mennes sayinges, whome, by your example, the better and perfiter Christian he is, the lesse he must ac­cept for witnesses? What tel ye vs now, of Eckius and Durandus, whom you make vs not to passe vpon?More weke (after M. Iew. mind) thē [...] This kind of resoning of there authority, whome you would haue vs thinke to be of no Authoritye, is more weake & vncertain, then if ye should aime onlye and gesse at the matter, whiche we loke to be fully quieted in, by your muche reading and learning. Eckius also sayeth no more,Eckius in Locis commu­nibus. but it was permitted. And he spe­keth of that which was done a this side the six hundred yeres, to the which only, your answer should be referred. And Durādus maketh no mention of Iewes, as though the celebration of the mysteries, had ben for their sakes done in Hebrew, but of the be­ginnings of the primitiue Church, in which not only Iewes but Gentiles also in great [Page 24] number came to the faith of Christ, he saieth generally: In the primitiue Churche,Lib. 4. cap. 1. the Diuine Mysteries were celebrated in the Hebrew tounge. Of which we may iustly gather, that euery Christian vnderstode not the Seruice, because more then Iewes were then Christened, and the Hebrewe tounge was not vulgar to any, sauing Ie­wes. So that the tongue which they vsed in the Diuine mysteries, was straunge and vnknowen vnto many, which from Paga­nisee were conuerted to Christ.

But Nycolaus de Lyra,Iew. 17 [...] An other gheasse of M. Iew. and Thomas of A­quine say (authors whome you thinke wor­thy of small credit) the Common Seruice, in the Primitiue Church, was in the Common vulgar tongue.

This is true, though it were but in the Greeke or Latin tounge only. And so doth it not answer our question throughly.

But what if D. Harding him selfe haue in plaine wordes confessed,Iew. 17 [...]. that Common prai­ers were pronoūced in the primitiue Church in a Common tounge knowen to the people? [...]

But when he shall answer you, that he taketh not Common praite [...] and Common Sernice both for one thing, (whi [...]h with­out what if I am sure he will doe) what is that, to the question which we put forth▪ [Page] Or how haue ye answered, to the Conten­tation of your good Christian reader? Thus then, all this hytherto is litle or nothinge worth. And we loke for strōger argumen­tes at your learned handes. And therefore perchaunce you say:

Yet Good Christian Reader for thy bet­ter satiffaction,Iew. 176 it may please thee to knowe, that in the Primitiue Church,Far from the question. the Common Seruice was not ministred, by one man a­lone, but by the Priest and whole Congre­gation, alltogether.

But was it in any other tounge, then Greeke or Latine? This is demaunded, to this you haue to answer. And remember here your bluid Senator,Iew. 327 which talked and pointed to the higher end of y^e table, y^e Mul­let which he so much praised, being far be­neth, at the lower end.

Clemens Alexandrinus sayeth, In the Common Prayers they haue all,Iew. 176 An gother [...]esse of M. Iew. as it were, one voice and one mynd.

So may they, though it be out of publike Seruice. Also where he talketh of Prayers indefinitely, you adde the word (Common) vnto them,falthode. leaste it should be any thinge doubtfull. What call you that, a Gheasse, or a Ieaste?

[Page 25] S. Chrysostome sayeth,Iew. 176 An other Gheasse of M. Iew. not only the Priest geaueth thankes, but also all the People.

That is, because he is a publike Mini­ster, to whose prayers all the people must ioyne their consentes, so that they are not excused if they thinke of other matters when y^e priest prayeth, but are bound to applie their deuotions to his, as in whom they all do serue God. But what is this to the vulgare Tongue in Publike Seruice?

Isydorus writeth thus: Iew. 176 Moe Gheasses. when they singe they must singe all togeher, when they pray, they must pray all together.

He speaketh of the Clergie only, that ye neede not extend it to the laye people. And therfore, if you haue no better then this, we may well put you to other proofes. Which are not far of.

For, Iew. 176 Moe Gheasses. out of y^• old father Origen, you tell vs: That al seueral nations, pray vnto god and praise him in their mother tongue.

This may be done in Prinat prayers, And our request is, to haue sure argumen­tes for Publike Seruice.

Out of S, Ambrose, There were Iewes (say you) which in their Sermons and Obla­tions,Iew. 176 Moe Gheasses. vsed sometime the Syrian tongue and [Page] some tymes the Hebrew.

This perteineth then to Sermons and Offeringes, not to Common prayers. And it was, you may perceaue, no appointed and sett order of Common seruice, in which they changed their tongues so, at their pleasures.

Out of S. Basil, ye tell vs, of Such, as offered vp to the lord the Psalme of Confes­sion. Iew. 176. And againe, ye number out of him, Egyptians, and bothe the Countries of Lybia, and the Thebanes,Moe Gheasses. Palestines, Arabi­ [...]ns, Phenicians, Syrians, and the borde­rers of Euphrates, and generally all, that haue VVatchinges, 177. and Prayers, and Com­mon Psalmodie in estimation.

But to what purpose name ye, al these diuerse countries. To make that cleere, which we doubted of? and to proue, y^• the publike Seruice was, at those dayes, in so many tongues? By what reason or argu­ment? because al these, had common Psal­modie in estimation? And who, emonge vs, estemeth in not? Take you rather heede to this, of whose Psalmodie it may be doubted, which haue so litle Prayinge, [Page 26] and no watching. But what meane you here, by Common Psalmodie? Thinke you that al these countries so seuerall, mett in one Place, and songe Psalmes together? that is incredible. How then? wil you gather this sense of it, that the same Psal­mes were reade and songe euery where? Tell vs then in what tongue they were vsed? And consider, whether one tongue, (as the Greeke for example) might not haue serued to that purpose? For in the weast now, we know the selfe same Psal­mes, yea and text also, euery where to be vsed.Basil. in epist. ad Cler. Ne­ocae. But was not this S. Basiles meaninge, that the manner of Watchinge, Prayinge, and singinge Psalmes, should not seeme strannge and newly inuented, because it is allowed & practised in so ma­ny and seuerall countries? yes verely this only is his meaninge. for, certaine hereti­kes there were then, which stirred vp the myndes and stomakes of the Clergie of Neocaesaria, perswadinge them, that the old manner and Custome of synging Psalmes was changed, and saying: At non erant haec tempore Gregorii Ma­gni. But theese thinges were not in [Page] Gregorie the Great his dayes. Vnto whom S. Basil answereth, that y^e maner of psalmodie which he vseth, is not his parti­cular, but common to him and Egiptians, and both Contries of Lybia, and the The­banes etc. But where finde you here (M. Iew.) that these psalmes were in the pecu­liar tongue, of euerie of these countries, or that they were of the publike Seruice? S. Basile speaketh no further, but concerning the order of vsinge them, and you make him to beare you witnesse, in what tongue those psalmes were vttered.

Out of S. Hierome you proue to vs, Iew. 177 An other Gheasse of M. Ie­wels. That the voices and letters of all nations, do sound out Christ his passion and Resurrection.

As who shoud say, that, in Kynge Hen­ry the seauenths tyme, the publike Seruice in England was not in the Latine tonge, because many English bokes did intreate of Christes passion and Resurrection, and because the people in their vulgar ton­gue did speake much of it.

Out of Aeneas Syluius,lesse then a Gheasse for the Seruice in the pri­mity [...]e Church. Iew. [...]77 you say, A voice washeard, as it had ben from heauen [...] (And now you begynne, deuoutly to hearken to Reuelations, though neuer written in go spell, nor six hundered yeares after Christ) [Page 27] Let euerie spirit prayse the lord, and let eue­rie tonge acknowledge him. And that there­upon, the Sclauons wee suffered to vse their owne tonge in their Common Seruice.

When chaunsed this? About the yeare of our Lord eight hundred and three skore.

That is to say, ye come to late by two hundred and threskore yeares or therea­bout, to proue what was done in the six hundred yeares after Christ. Againe, such sute, for the Sclauons, as you speake of, to haue the Cōmon Seruice in their moo­ther tongue, proueth what was ordina­rily vsed then to the contrarie in al Chri­stendome. The great staie of the Pope and Cardinals in grauntinge it, declareth how Straunge, Needelesse, or daungerouse, the Rulers of y^• Church, 800. and odd yeares sence, thought that request to be. The voice from heauen importeth, that it neaded a speciall signe and testimonie to obtaine a di­spensation in a matter so extraordinarie.

Out of Innocentius, you bringe, ye can not tell what. But first what was this In­nocentius? A Pope of Rome. when lyned be? About 300. yeares sence. And dare you confirme your cause, with Popes decrees, of so late yeares? But where, dehreed [...]e this? In the Councel of Lateran. That [Page] Councel, which of all other ye most detest, as in which Transsubstantiation, was in ex­presse termes declared, and in which the kyngedome (as you will say) of y^e Popishe Church was defended. Is it possible then, (to goe no further) that, out of that world and Councel, a Decree should be alleged by the which, M. Iewels Schismaticall o­pinion should be confirmed?

Consider by this one example, (indiffe­rent Reader) how this felow abuseth thy vnskillfulnesse, or lacke of leysure to examin the places, which he allegeth out of the Auncient fathers,Who so bold as Iewel. or practise of the Primi­tiue Church: which dareth, as it were, at high noone, and in y^e very sight of y^• world, to make men beleue, that Innocentius (for­sooth) the third, was a fauorer of their pro­cedinges? And so to interpret his wordes and sett them foorth in great letters, as though he had decreed, that if (for example) Englishe men, Douch men, French men, Italians, Spaniardes &c. were mengled together in one Citye, the Bishope thereof, should prouide meete men, to minister the holy Seruice, Iew. 177. ACCORDINGE TO THE DIVERSITIE OF THEIR MANNERS AND TONGVES, which sould be to say, In English, Douch, [Page 18] French &c.

But doth Innocentius meane so? Nay doth he say so? for if ye dare to set furth his wordes in Latin as though your fide­litie should be seene, and yet, in the Englis­shinge of them, corrupt the same wordes: who may trust you in your Comment and construction vpon them? Prouideant (sa­yeth he, of the Bishopes of such Cityes or dioceses, where sundrie nations dwelled together) viros idoneos qui secundum diuersitates rituum & linguarum diuina ILLIS offica CELEBRENTET ECCLE­SIASTICA SACRAMENTA ad­ministrēt, That is, we straightly commād, y^t the Bishope of such Cityes, prouide meete mē, which according to the diuer sitie of Rites and Tongues, maye cele­brat y^e diuine Seruice vnto thē, & mi­nister the Sacramentes of the Church.

But, M. Iew. leaueth out quite the in­terpretation of Illis celebrent may cele­brate vnto them: And,M. Ie­wels falsehoode, and that to [...] but [...] Gheasse. Ecclesiastica Sa­cramenta, The Sacramentes of the Church makinge of two verbes but one, and of two Accusatiue cases but one: and ap­plienge [Page] y^e verbe to y^e former Accusatiue case, which should gouerne y^• later only: and leauinge the later accusatiue case, not only without the proper verbe to rule it,Iew. 177 but al­togeather leauinge it out. As in example. VVe doe therfore straightly commaund that the Bishopes of such Cities or dioceses pro­uide meete men to minister (he should haue added y^e proper accusatiue case: The Sacra­mentes of the Church, but it leeketh him not, he leaueth it out quite) The holy Seruice (he should haue put before it the proper verbe belonging to it: To celebrate vnto them, the diuine or holy Seruice. for, by say­inge vnto them, the Pope, signifieth, that the people sayed not the seruice, but the priest.) ACCORDING to the diuersi­tie of their manners (more playnly it would haue ben sayed, their Rites or Ceremonies) and tongues.

If any man thinke this omission to be of smal importance: I answer, that in him, which is so curiouse to note in the Margen Rituum & Linguarum, and to english them in y^• text with great letters, the better to be considered, in him, it is no smal fault to place and construe wordes at his pleasure, and to conueygh those away out of the sen­tence, which beinge left alone, doe open [Page 29] and expound the whole matter. For inter­pretinge y^e Canō truly, your greate doub [...] M. Iewel (of Accordinge to the Vniuersi­tie of their manners and tongues) will easily be answered. for the Bishopes (to make it plaine) are commaunded, to prouide meete men, to celebrate the diuine Ser­uice vnto thē, Accordinge to the diuersitie of their manners or Rites, and to minister the Sacramētes of the Church vnto them, accordinge to the diuersitie of their tongues. For as it is not enough, to bringe a simple Italian, (if he [...] be confessed and abso [...]ed) to a priest of the Latine Church, but to such a [...], as vnderstandeth and speaketh y^e Italiā tongue: So in sayinge of Seruice to the same man, it is enough to keepe the Rites and Ce­remonies which he hath ben vsed vnto, in his owne countrie, and it is not required that it should be saied in the Italian ton­gue, because in Confession respect is had to singular persons, but in publik Seruice y^e whole state of the Church is considered. In confession also the priestes goe downe to men, but in publike Seruice [...] [Page] ascend vpward to God. In talking with men our tongue should be knowen vnto them, in praieinge to God the thiefe care ys of denotion. And therfore, it was not sincerely done of M. Iew. so to turne, & leaue out, the wordes of this decree: neither are litle omissions in this kinde, litle faultes.

Who then may trust him with expoun­dinge the wordes? or what hope might he haue, so to handle the matter, that Innocentius the third, might seme to condemne his owne Church of Rome: and straightly commaund, that accordinge to the diuersitie of manners and tonges the holy Seruice should be ministred? Was this law euer put in exe­cution in Rome it selfe? Was it not an easie matter, for him beinge Pope, to doe it? Did not sundrie nations of diuerse tōgues mete in that Citie togeather, to geaue him occa­sion to do it? yet hath he not done it. and the Romaines tontinew still their Seruice in the Latine, though their vulgar speach be Italian. It appeareth then that Inno­centius had no such meaninge as you de­uise.

And note the wordes of the decree. Let meete men be prouided, to celebrate and mi­nister to People of diuers [...] Countries, Ac­cordinge [Page 30] to the diuersitie of their Rites and tongues. Here I would aske, what di­uersitie it speaketh of? Such as was not yet extant in the Church, or such as was presently vsed? If ye meane the first: that can not be. for of those Rites which are not yet, who can say, Let them be serued accor­dinge to the diuersitie of their Rites! If ye meane the second, that is, If ye vnderstand, that such diuersitie of Rites and tongues as was then all readie found in the Catho­like Church, should be vsed toward y^e peo­ple of euerie countrie, where diuerse na­tions met togeather, within one Citie or diocese: this proueth not, that the English men dwellinge at Rome, should haue a new English Seruice made for them, but only,The right meaning of Inno­centius decree. that the like Rites and tongue, as were vsed in their Countrie at home, in their Cō mon Seruice, should be enioyed of them in Rome. After the which rate, the Italians abidinge in Constantinople, should haue the Latin Seruice, and not the Greeke: And the Greekes in Venice, should haue the Seruice after their owne manner, and not after the Latine.

But what is this to our question? for to [Page] make it playner, let vs suppose y^t, a French man dwellinge then in Rome, with other his countrie men, wold require to haue his Common prayer in the French tongue. To him would I say, by what reason or consequent doest thou require it? Here, let his answer be, how Innocentius de­creed, that euery nation should be proui­ded for, according to the diuersitie of their manners and tongues. I would aske him againe, what manner or tongue haste thou, in the Church Seruice in Fraunce? If he answered, we haue the French: he should be taken in an open lye, because none was than thought vpon. If he answered, (as y^e truth was) we haue it in Latin but we haue other fashions in it, then these of Rome haue: then should he perceaue Innocenti­us and the Councels meaninge. which was that the celebratinge of publike Seruice, and ministration of Sacramentes, as it was then presently vsed, in seuerall Coun­tries: so should it be in a readinesse for the men of y^e same Countries (when they met together in one Citie) accordinge to y^• diuersitie of their Rites and tongues.

Therfore if you (M. Iew.) can shew by any meanes, that the Church Seruice of [Page 31] England was, at that tyme, in the En­glish tonge, then may I graunt vnto you, y^t when ye goe to Rome or Constātinople, you may clayme the benefite of Innocētius decree to be serued English wise. But if you can not find, that in any of so many se­uerall Countries, as may be rekoned, the Seruice was then in any other tongue then Greeke or Latin, then shal you see it plainly and necessarily concluded, that eue­ry of them was prouided for According to the diuersitie of Rites and tongue (Tonge, you must meane, which they vsed in publik Seruice, and in Churches, and not in open Market Place, or Pryuate howses) and yet no one of them all should haue o­ther tongue then Greeke or Latine. And therfore, this testimonie doth nor serue you, nor satisfie vs. And byside this, I must tell you, that were it neuer so good and fitt for your purpose, yet is it byside your Glo­rie, to vse Popes decrees of so late ma­kinge.

Now to conclude: M. Iew. signifieth vnto vs, that he might allege much more, e­uen out of Addias him selfe,Iew. 17▪ whom M. Hardinge so much estemeth. But I will only note the complaint of one Iohn Bil­let. [Page] Whome (I beleue) you as much esteme as you doe Abdias.A lamen­tation of some of histr [...]des vpon M. Iewel would serue here wel, for Complainte the [...] of Iohn Billet. Iew. 176 But wherein will ye note his complaint? Concerninge this case? What case? whether that, The Common Seruice was not ministred, by one man alone, but by the Priest and the whole Con­gregatiō together, which is y^e thinge ye pro­mised to shew? Or that the publike Ser­uice was, in the six hundred yeares after Christ, in any other tongue then Gréeke or Latine, which question was only demaun­ded, and vnto which, you were content to answer, for the better Contentation of myn­des, and better satisfaction of the Reader?

Goe to then, what eyleth that, One Iohn Billet, Iew. 178 as you cal hym, and whereof com­playneth he? Mary what shall we do (sayeth he) in our dayes, when as there is, either none at al, or very seldome, that readeth or heareth, or vnderstandeth

Vnderstandeth what? the publike Ser­uice? no but the Gospell which was readen in the Seruice. for the wordes next before, are, that whereas in the Primitiue Church no man should speake wich tongues, on­lesse some were present to expound them: here of (sayeth he) grew a laudable Custo­me y^t after y^e Gospell was read litterally [Page 32] it should straight waies be expounded in the vulgar tongue. And there vpon foloweth his Complaint: what shall we do in our dayes &c. He complaineth therfore of lacke of learninge in the Reader or hearer: not of the vnknowen Tongue in which the Gospell was read. for if the ex­position of it doe folow in y^e vulgar tongue, the Custome is laudable. And so hereby is presupposed, that the Gospell was then in another tongue then vulgar.

But now if the exposition foloweth not, and few either readers or hearers vnder­stand the Gospell: what is to be done? Ve­rely the suerest way is, to sett moe Childrē to schole, and to make better prouision for Scholars, and to chouse out of Scholars, in to the Clergie. But what is your aduise M. Iew.? mary, y^t the Seruice (I trow) should be in the vulgar tongue. But ye find not this, in Iohn Billets complaint. And ex­cept you gather this Conclusion, how make ye an end of your processe with his testimonie? Marke, I pray you (M. Iewel Iohn Billets conclusion vpon his owne Complaint. It (seemeth sayeth he) It were better now to hould their peace, [Page] then so to singe. Lo, he talketh of holdinge their peace in the Church, not of cryenge out in the vulgar tongue. Neither wiss­sheth he nor alloweth he y^• takinge vp of a new tongue and Seruice, but of amending the ignorance of hearers and readers concerninge the old. Also he sayeth,yet moe Gh [...]sses of M. Iewel. It see­meth: but determineth nothinge. And ther­fore it is a wonder that you espied not that Gheasse of his, wherby, we (though it made for your purpose) are not satisfied. And, to be as exact as your selfe are, he was not within the first six hundred yeares after Christ. Therfore you haue sayed hi­therto, with al your Gheasses nothinge to the purpose, nor proued, that the Seruice was in the Primitiue Church in some o­ther tongue, then Greeke or Latine.

But perchaunce the neerer you come homeward, y^• better you be instructed. and therfore leauinge to aske you of the Syri­an, AEthiopian, Persian and Armenian with y^• lyke, what say you to the French tongue? Was the Seruice of Gallia, (now Fraunce) in the vulgar tongue, within the six hundred after Christ? It was not sayed (you will answere) in such order as M. Harding Gheasseth. Iew. [...]84

[Page 33] Doe you then tell vs without Gheasses I pray you, how it was.

But in a knowen tounge vnto the people. Iewel.

What was that? Speake M. Iewel. Tel vs of some certaintie, for of al thinges you loue no Gheasses

That it was in a tounge knowen vnto the people it is euident by Seuerus Sulpitius.Iewel.

To all or some? for herein consisteth the very point. To some, we graunt, and that helpeth you nothing. To all, how proue you, out of Sulpitius, or any other? Here a­gaine you be at a staie. But goe ye foorth with Sulpitius.

The Reader was shut out, by meane of the thronge. One of the companie toke the Psalter, Moreges­ses for the seruice in y^t vulgare tounge. Iewel. Read the verse of the Psalme: Out of the mouth of Infantes and Sucklings, thou hast wrought prayse. And as sone as that verse was read, the people made a shout, and the contrarie part was confounded. Here we see the practise of the Church of Gallia.

A proper practise I promise you, that as soone as the verse of the Psalme was read, the people made a shout. Thinke you, that this Psalme, and Readinge, of y^e which Sulpitius speaketh, was any part of the [Page] Publike Seruice? Or thinke you, the people to haue bene so wyld and dissolute at those dayes, that they made shoutes, when they were in theyr Seruice? But this is enough for you, that they made a shoute. By which you gather, that they vnderstoode what was readde. Yet doe ye not satisfie our question, which is of Pub­like Seruice, and whether all the people vnderstode it or no.

But M.The historye which Sulpiti­us telleth, M. Iew. mangleth. Iewell, if it had pleased you, to haue reported this Historie as Sulpitius telleth it, neither we coulde wonder at the peoples shoute: neither you make an argument thereof, that they vnderstoode the Church Seruice. For to adde, to your tale that which lacketh, when S. Martyne stoode to be Bisshoppe, one of the cheefe Bysshopes of the Countrie (whose name was DEFENSOR) was his grea­teste Aduersarye.Sulpitius lib. i. de vita D. Marti. For which cause, the People beinge offended with hym, when that verse, of whiche you speake was readen, in the end of the whiche, these wordes are (accordinge to an olde La­tine translation) Vt destruas inimicum & defensorem they hearinge the worde DE­FENSOREM, [Page 34] some for ioy (I beleue) that it alluded so rightely to the name of theyr Aduersarye, and other perchaunce of Symplicitie, thinkinge that the Psalme did speak [...] of DEFENSOR the Bis­shope, made a shoute, And signified or agreed, that it was happelye spoken. Whiche, I see not howe it proueth the pub­like Seruice to haue bene in a knowen tounge, and all the People to haue vnder­standen it. But this I mighte gather, that the Psalmes were then openly readde in the Latine tounge.

In whiche thinge what is your opi­nion, M. Iewel? In what toung (thinke you) was the Common Seruice of the Church of France? You answer:Iew. 148 Whether it were in the vulgar Tounge or in the Latine Tounge, it was a Tounge knowen to the People.

But doth this answer, agree with your absolute intelligence, whiche would be compted to knowe the state of the Pri­mitiue Churche so perfectlye: that what so euer others bringe agaynste you, it muste bee taken for Coniectures onlye, and Gheasses? See now, in what darke­nesse of vnderstandinge, your selfe are. [Page] And how much you be to seking, when you be partycularly apposed?

You say of France, that they had theyr Seruice in a knowen tounge:M. Iew. at a stay. but what tounge that was, you can not readily tell. And why so? Can ye say precisely, that all the people vnderstoode it (for of all the people our question is) except ye be sure what toūge it was? And if it wer in any o­ther then y^e vulgar French, can ye warrāt that the whole Congregation vnderstode it▪ And marke, that they must not only vn­derstand it simply, but also turne it to theyr purpose cunnyngly. Except you thinke, that it was an easye matter for euery body to do ( [...]t the reading of the foresayd verse of the Psalme) to perceaue the allusion and conueyghance, which might be made, from defensorem the worde of the Psalme, to DEFENSOR the Bysshope that resisted S. Martine. And that in one instant, eue­ry man did make the sense of the Psalme to answer and serue his iust indignation a­gainst DEFENSOR the Bisshope, and so gaue an vniforme shout, for that they goodwills, and the meaninge of that verse of the Psalme, did so happely meete both together.

[Page 35] And if, as I doe now tel it, there be thou­sandes which wil not perceaue it, forlacke (not of Englishe) but of quicke vnderstan­ding or close attention: who ma [...] thinke, that all the vulgar people, vnderstoode the grace of that facte not looked for, whiche Sulpitius declareth? Or that they being not able to conteine them selues, for the greatenes aud agreablnes which they saw in it, brake out into a shout or acclamation?

But herein is your craft and subtiltie M. Iewel y^•, vnder the generalitie or inde­fitenes of wordes, ye prouide to kepe some gappes alwayes open, by which you may shift frome sense to sense, and prolonge the tyme of your taking. For wher ye can safe­ly saye it without espying, that, the seruice was in the vulgar tounge: there will you meane by a Strange toūge, that which is not vulgar, in which sense, the Latin toūge, in England, is a strange tounge. And where it is lyke to be playnly proued a­gainst you, that the Common Seruice was in another tounge then the vulgar: There, by a Strange tounge, you will vnderstand, not a contrary to the vulgar, but a contra­ry to the knowen tounge, & so in this sense [Page] the Latine is not a Strange tounge in Englande, because it is vnderstanden of the inhabitours, though not generallye of all.

And so by this kinde of Shiftinge in the question of the Common Seruice of Gallia, Present shiftes at a nead. where it appeareth, by that one verse of the Psalme which Seuerus Sulpitius reher­seth, that it was in Latine, there, ye care not for the distinction: but, whether it were in the vulgare tounge or in the Latine, it was (you say) in a Tounge knowen to the people. Iew. 184

But, when we shall come to our owne Countrye of Englande, and beginne to proue, that Seruice there, was in Latine: You can not abyde to heare it, but you will needes haue it to be in the vulgare Tounge.

Yet ye nede not so to answer (if it plea­sed you) because, if the Latine Tounge were graunted, to haue bene in the Pub­like Seruice of England, when Sainte Augustine conuerted it: Yet might ye as well answer, that the Latine was a kno­wen Tounge there, as you seeme easye to be perswaded, that it was a knowen [Page 36] Tounge, to al the people in France.

By which your handlynge of the matter, it is moste euidente, that you are sure lytle or nothinge, of the state of the Pri­mitiue Churche concerninge the Parti­culars of it, but, that you frame your conclusion to your knowlege.

And where you fynde, that the Ser­uice was in the Latine Tounge, there will you make, that the Latine was a knowen Tounge: And where your selfe can fynde nothinge, nor your Aduersarye brynge for his purpose playne euidence: there wyll you reste, and saye, that the Common Seruyce was in the Vulgare Tounge only.

Againste which your Determination, if it shoulde be proued hereafter that the Latine Seruice was vsed, euen there, where you thoughte otherwise: then woulde you (without all doubte) retorne to your foresayed place of Euasion, that Whether it were in the Vulgar Tounge, or in the Latine, it was a Tounge knowen to the People.

Nowe to leaue all other Churches of the world, and for your readines M. Iewel, [Page] and our shortnesse sake, to speake to you of England only: In what tongue was the Seruice there at the beginning? That be­ginning I meane, when we were first con­uerted to the faith by S. Augustin? Whom your Simplicity, and holinesse, and merci­fulnesse, and humility aboue measure, is so good as to iudge, to be vnworthy to be cal­led a Saincte, Is this your Te Deū Lauda­mus, for S. Augustines coming in to Eng­land, and cōuerting it. but an Hypocrite, a Superstiti­ous man, Cruell, Bloudy, and Proud aboue measure, and that by the reporte of them, which sawe him and knewe him. As who should say, that such men were meete ves­sels, for God to dwell in, and woorke the conuersion of Idolatours, such as our fore­fathers (according to the fleshe) were: Or, as though S. Gregorye, which sent him, sawe him not, and knew him not, yea and tried him not better before he sent him,Iew. 185 then any Britains could doe, which stomaked & enuied his doinges, when he was come ne­rer vnto them: Or, as thoughe this were an high poynt in your Schooles, when a question is asked of the Seruice which any Country had at the first conuersion therof, to defame and slaunder that Person, which first conuerted it, and put forthe, to be mar­ked of others, or lightly beleue it your selfe, [Page 37] the worst that the malice of the enemy could speake against him, without any counter­poysing of it, with the iust and true commē ­dations, which, the best men then liuing, or the general voyce of the world afterwards, gaue vnto him. To say no more vnto you for this blabbing or slaundering, then God reward you for it, I continue in my questi­on, asking you:

What manner tongue was vsed in the Common Seruice of England, at the first conuersion of it? The Latine you will not graunt to haue bene vsed, though S. Augu­stine with other Monkes, planted then by likelihoode, no other then thē selues knew: except you thinke that they stayed frō pub­like Mynistration, vntill them selues had learned our English, or [...]aught the people with all speede to vnderstand their Latine) and though S. Gregory reioysed that Al­leluya was songe in England.

But, Iew. 185 these be but gheasses, 185. you say. And Maister Harding should not thus mocke the world.186 He knoweth well a Childe woulde not make such reasons.188 Againe: God wot he might haue made it better.

Wel Sir, for this purpose I am desirous to heare your answers because ye wot, they [Page] neede to be absolute and excellent, whiche come from your grauity and learning. If then our Common Seruice were not in the Latine: was it in y^e Hebrew, or Greke, or any vnknowen tounge? For ye seeme to incline to the surmises of y^e Brittish Chro­nicles concerning Ioseph of Arimathaea, and to the report of Theodoretus,167 that S. Paule came into this Ilande, nowe called Eng­land. So that it is hard to say, what An­tiquities you haue in store, concerninge this matter.

Yet because y^• greatest part hereof is like to be proued by Surmises, I beleue rather that your finall answer will be, that the Seruice in Englande, was in the vulgar English tounge. But howe proue you this? So common a thing, as the pub­like Seruice, So farre and widespred a brode, as the Realme of England is long and rounde, So generally planted as you suppose, So diligently remembred and marked, as people muste doe, whyche (by your reade) must say Amen, and vn­derstand the Priest when he celebrateth: This to be so taken away, that you can shewe no token whether euer it was or [Page 38] no, is it credible, or is it possible?

Can ye thē blame vs, if we aske for some Monumentes and Bookes, to be shewed out of one place or other, Or if none at all be founde, (for no doubt you haue sear­ched and labored) can ye blame vs if we doubt of the matter? Yet say you:

O what foly is this?

What to doe?Iew. 187 How loth or vnable rather M. Iewel is to shew any eui­dence. Iew. 187 to aske for witnesses in a doubtfull matter? And to loke for some steppe of a foote or token of highe way, which thousand thousandes haue Ordina­rily, and Openly passed by?

But, who is able to shewe anye Booke wrytten in Englyshe a thousande yeares a goe?

If ye can not shewe a whole booke, yet shewe but a peece of the leafe of one: Or some token or testimonye thereof, that euer any such booke was vsed.

Or if it could be shewed, yet who were a­ble to vnderstand it?

You may see then, how vaine it is, to thinke that the Apostles or their successors did commit the woorde of God to vulgare tonges, which being so subiect vnto chāges [Page] coulde not well be trusted with the preser­uing of the true Scriptures. For if the English Seruice (which vndoubtedly, if any suche had bene consisted of the holye Scriptures) if it should haue had the scrip­tures translated into it, there to be kept for the Christians: in what case should we haue bene nowe, being not able to vnderstande that English? Or in what case shoulde the Scripture it selfe haue bene, if, as the pro­priety of the tongue was altered, so it shuld again be interpreted to the capacity of eue­ry generation? Yet ye procede further.

There is no boke to be found of the pray­ers,Iew. 187 that the Druides made in Fraunce, or the Gymnosophistae in India. And will M. Har­ding therof conclude, that therfore the Dru­ides or Gymnosophistae praied in Latine?

1 First, how know you, what may be she­wed, for the Gymnosophistes Prayers in India: How long studied you there? How narowly searched you? Or what cer­tificates haue you receiued, of any man of 2 credit, from that Country? Consider then, that the Druides and Gymnosophistae were Idolatours: & no maruel therfore, thoughe all their bokes and Superstitions be gone and consumed. But the Christians Ser­uice [Page 39] in the Vulgar tounge, pertaineth (you will say) to the substaunce of true religion, and coulde not therfore be so broughte to nought, that no mon [...]ment therof should be remaining. Or the Druides also, and the Gymnosophistes, we know some what, the names (at the least) of them be preser­ued, and what men these were, we finde it expounded. But of the Seruice in Eng­lish, before now of late, who euer read, who euer heard, who euer thought?

Neither doth Doctor Hardinge reason with you after this sort:

There is no old boke to be found of the Seruice in Englishe:It is his maner, not so good as common. ergo it was in Latine.

This is but a tricke of your Logike M. Iewel, to alter the sense of your aduersary, and forme his arguments after your plea­sure. But this rather is his reason. If the Seruice had bene in Englishe, conside­ring the multitude of bookes and Chur­ches, some memory would be left of it: But none is found, Ergo by good consequence there was neuer any such Seruice. And you, to shift your handes of this argument, doe make as though his only Demaunde [Page] were, to haue Englishe bokes of the aunci­ent Seruice brought forth: and as though his conclusion should be, if ye shewed not y^e plaine bokes, Ergo y^t seruice was in Latin.

But that you may not escape so, I will not aske you for Bookes, nor Monuments nor Relikes, nor tokens of the English ser­uice: But in this one, and reasonable, and easy question to be answered, I wold faine perceiue, what sense you haue or vnderstā ­ding. When you were borne, and long be­fore that, the Seruice in England was in the Latine tonge: If therfore it had not ben so, from the beginning: when began the Latine? when ceased the English?

Doubtlesse (sayeth D. Harding) some mention would haue bene made of the time & causes hereof. Harding Fol. 88. For, if in the smallest mat­ters of the Church Seruice, there haue ben found, which haue noted the particulars, as that Damasus caused the Psalmes to be sōg by sides, and Thelesphorus made Gloria in excelsis to be song, and that S. Gregory ad­ded y^e Anthems and Alleluya, & so in euery part of the Masse: Is it possible, y^t so great a change of the publike Seruice from Eng­lish into Latin, should not be marked of a­ny man, or put in record by any wryter?

Was it done sodainly in the night, when [Page 40] al were a slepe? Or in the morning, did eue­ry man forget him self? Or were there no wryters then? Or were all corrupted? Or was there no Heretike, to leaue behind him a note of it: but y^t such an euident, & wonder ful chaūge of the whole Seruice, frō Eng­lish, (as you M. Iewel think) into Latine, should either not be espied, or not cōmitted to memory? What āswer ye now vnto this?

Ye answer not one worde, ye make,M. Iew. duin, and yet would not be kno­wen of it. as though ye did not see it, ye pull y^e reader frō y^t matter, to the Druides of France, & Gym­nosophistes of India, ye speke as though D. Harding framed a direct argumēt for y^• La­tine tounge, & asked you no question of the English Seruice. Ye cry out, O what a foly is this. And as though al mē were foles (for ye answer not one word to y^e principal poynt) You do not bring so much as a gesse, a cōiecture, a likelihode. You steale away though you be eied, & the questiō being so resonable you answer not one word to it. Whē began y^t Latin Seruice M. Iewel? whē ceased the English? If there be any thing in record of it, bring it forth: if ther be nothing, thē do I proue y^t you are blind in these maters, & y^t al y^• grace of your reply, & force of your lerning, cōsisteth in ri [...]eling of other mēs argumēts [Page] (an easy matter in Rhetorike) not in cōfir­ming any of your owne, which should not be to sekinge in a new Gospeller.

Thus haue I then discoursed with M. Iewel, about the publike Seruice in the Syriacall, Egyptian, Ethiopian, Persian, Armenian, Scythian, Frenche or Britain tounge.

I haue asked, whether he coulde proue any of these to haue bene vsed within the six hundred after Christ.

I haue requyred sure demonstrations, because he contemneth Coniectures and Gheasses.

I haue cōsidered both those common places of his, pa. 155. 175. in which he brin­geth the best and moste that he can say for the Cōtentatiō and Satisfactiō of his reader.

I finde no mention of Publike Seruice in any tounge in the primitiue Church, by­side Greeke or Latine.

He proueth his matters by Gheasses, he alleageth Authorities and Examples which were long sence the first six hundred yeres: to which tyme we bounde him as he doth vs.

I bring hym to the question of our owne coūtry, and leaue him not one likely word [Page 41] which he might answer.

And so (I trust) he will be taken, as he is, for a mouer of contention, about other mēs right and possession, him self hable to bring furth no one scrap neuer so little, of any old Euidence to make expressely for his pur­pose. As for vs, this only, is a very good & sufficient answer, to say: We found at our comming vnto the faith of Christ the Latin Seruice, of y^e Englissh we neuer herd before now of late: And surely, A chainge from Englisshe into latine, could not be but no­ted in some place: And without euident demonstration to the contrarie, we ought not to be moued with any winde: & so we nee­ded not to troble our selues any further, but put them to shew.

Yet, because D. Harding hath not dealt so sparingly, but hath ben content to bring good Reason and Authoritie for that, which was and is sufficiently defended, with the force and worthinesse of Traditiō, by which it hath ben commēded vnto vs: I therefore also, wil put furth and declare, that his argument, which he prosequuteth most in this Article. That by conferryng the order and weight of reasonynge on bothe sydes, it maie the soner and better appere which [Page] of y^• two, vseth more vncertain Gesses, Cō ­iectures, & lykelyhoodes. M. Iewel, whō I haue proued to shewe nothing for Pub­like Seruice in y^e vulgare tonge, or D. Harding, which shal be perceiued to cōclude di­rectly for y^• publike Seruice in Greeke or Latin, & not euery vulgar tonge. First thē, The questiō is,Iew. 1 [...]1 whether, for the space of 600 yeres after christ, the people had their Cōmō praiers ī a strāge tōge, y^t they vnderstode not.

D.Hardinge, to make his owne purpose plaine, answereth with a distinction, that, If M. Iewel meaneth by y^e peoples Cōmō Prayers,Hard. 72. such as they made Comōly to God in priuate deuotion, he thinketh they vttered thē, in y^t tōge which they vnderstode:A distinc­tion of common prai­ers. but if he mean bi thē, y^e publike seruice of y^e Church (whereof the most part hath bene pronounced by the Bishops, Priests, Deacōs, & other Ecclesiasticall ministers) he graunteth y^t some of the people vnderstode the lan­gage therof, & some vnderstode it not. And so vpō this later point cōsisteth y^t que­stiō. Yet M. Iew. hath a quarel to y^e former saying. This distinction of Common Prai­ers, [Page 42] is both vnperfit and nedeles.

Nay, distinctions can neuer be nedelesse, where, some Reader, is like to be of small & plain vnderstāding, & wher, y^e Aduersary is ful of words, ful of shifts, ful of digressions, ful of craking & vātage making, ful of equi­uocatiōs. For see but this one short exā ­ple. D. Harding graunteth,Hard. 94 y^• Prayers in the Primitiue Church were in a known tōge.

M. Iew. layeth hold vpon y^t word,175 & re­porteth y^• M. Hard. confesseth, that the Cōmō praiers wer ꝓnoūced, in a cōmō known tōge. Falsely. Here therfor, wold not a distinctiō do good y^t of Praiers some be Cōmon, some be priuate & that D. Harding spake of priuate: but M. Iew. draweth it to Cōmō Prayers? yet this is no great matter, (sauing for M. Iewels boldnes in additiō) because D. harding wil in an other place, not refuse y^t terme of Cō ­mō praiers, but cōfesse y^t they were, at y^e be­ginning, in a Cōmō tonge.Iew. 175 But now if vpō this graūt M. Iewel wil begin to triūph & say, althoug he haue wātōli denied Christ, yet I trow, he wil not deni himself. And again M. Hard. cōfesseth that the cōmō Praiers wer ꝓ­noūced in a Cōmon known tōge. &c. Now quite cōtrary, as a mā that had vtterli forgot­tē himself, he sayeth: The Cōmon seruice was neuer said, but either in the Greke tōge, or in [Page] the latine. And againe (auouching it with his warrant verely) VERELy his sainges can not stand both together.

After all these sharp spitefull, glorious and bragging wordes, is not a distinction nedefull to declare y^e truth of D. Hardings cause and meaning? For, Common Praiers may be vnderstanded two waies First, that 1 praier, which is commonly made to God in priuate deuotion, is or may be called com­mon. 2 Secondly the publike Seruice of the Church beareth the name of Common praier. & of this we shall by and by speake more. Concerning the first sense, Common prayer was in a tongue knowen to the people, were they Iewes, Greks, Latines, A­phricans, Frenchmen or Englishmen. Cō cerning the second it was in no other ton­gue, than Greke or Latine: & some vnder­stode it, some vnderstode it not.

How think we then? was it not nedefull to put this distinction, in the very begin­ning of this Article? For by this meane,One di­stinction [...] M. Ie­wels [...]. neither D.Harding hath vtterly forgottē him self, neither M. Iewell meanely remēbred himself. The plain dealing of the one, is euidently defended, the blinde bragging of the other, is iustly abhorred. The lybertie of [Page 43] making distinctions is with reason to be graunted, the licensiousnes in confounding of wordes and senses, is with conscience to be stopped. And now may D. harding con­fesse, that the Common Praiers (as they are distinct from Common Seruice) were sayed in a knowen tongue: neither can M. Ie­well gather any speciall conclusion there­of, which quite ouerthroweth our whole purpose. Now for the other parte,Iew. 15 [...]. if the foresayed distinction be vnperfite, doe yow then, M. Iewell, add somewhat vnto it: for take away from it yow can not well, as hauing two membres, and vnitie being indiuisibill. But what is the reason, where fore you mislike the distinction?

For the secrete Praiers,15 [...]. that the faithful make seuerally by them selues, haue euer more ben called Priuate, and neuer Com­mon.

In dede as you vtter this matter, there appeereth no likelihode of cause, why the Se­crete Prayers, which the faithful make se­uerally by themselues, should be called Cō mon. But add this one worde Commonly, (which D. Harding expresseth, and on which, the strength and consequence of his saieng resteth) and then, if your self can not [Page] be ashamed of your craftines, yet other mai be warned, by y^e exāple, to take hede of you. As The secrete praiers that the faithful made Cōmōly by thē selues be called Cōmō. What absurdity in this? Or what vātage to be ta­kē against it? none surely at al. Yet because it stode not w^t your pride & cōtētiousnes, to let your aduersaries distinctiō frely passe, w^t out sōe disprofe, & iustli speke against it you could not, as he ꝓponed it: therfor ye made as though ye did not see y^e place & force of y^• word, (cōmōli) but quite leuing it out, ye in fer your reply, as though D. Har. had saide, Secrete Praiers be called Common. But perchāce, though ye dissēble y^e word (cō mōly) yet your answer goth rightly against his mening. What āswer is y^t? Mary that the secret praiers of the faithfull, Iew. 152. haue euermore bē called cōmō & neuer priuate. What if thei haue ben alwais so cald? Is y^t a good argu­mēt in your cōsciēce? Do ye not your selues vsurp, such ā authority & supremacy ouer al christēdō, y^t ye dare both speak & do, y^e cōtra­ry to y^t, which hath bē euer more said & practised? for what if priuate praiers haue neuer ben called cōmō? yet y^t shall not let, but you wil at your plesure name thē so, whē you be disposed. And therfore D. Harding as it se­meth to me, spake very warely, in referring [Page 44] the matter to your meaning only, saying: (If you mean M. Iew. by y^e peoples cōmō praiers. &c. Again: But if by y^e cōmon praiers you mean y^e publike seruice &c As if he should say: M. Iewel hath y^e vpper groūd aboue vs: what he denieth, y^• must we proue: what he affirmeth, y^t is wel proued &c & therfor I wil put this matter to his own meaning & make my distinctiō accordingli. Byside this they may for some cause, continuing priuate, be called cōmō although (which negatiue is very hard for you to proue) thei were neuer heretofore so named. For in Englād now at this presēt, i [...]ne shuld say, The Aue Maria is a Common Praier, (as at rehersal wherof thousāds emōg y^e people do lift vp their mindes towardes God) though it be not cōmōly vsed in your pub­like seruice (for special & pure fear perchāce lest our Ladie shuld be to much remēbred & Christ lesse regarded) yet doth he not speake truly & ꝓprely y^• doth so say? you think not, I trust, y^• it is a Salutatiō & Praiers for holy dais only, or Church only, or Lords & Ladies only: & what fault thē is it in speache, when it is Cōmonly vsed, to call it a Cōmō praier? I wil say more, not only Priuate praiers being cōmōly said mai be & are cald cōmō praiers, & differ frō publik seruice: but [Page] also those self same praiers, which are made openly, in the hearing and sight of other, & vnto which they answer Amē, are of an o­ther sorte & kinde, thā the Cōmon praier, as it is takē for publike Seruice. As, when the Apostles, in the cumpany of a hundred and twēty 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, frō which Iu­das the Traitour had falsely departed: was not that a Common praier? yet cā you not proue (I beleue) that it was a parte of their Ordinary & Cōmon Seruice.

Byside this also, when the Christiās met together in the Primitiue Church, among other gifts, which were plētifully thē geuē by the holyghost, y^e gift of Prayer was one. That is, some one of the cūpany (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 Cōmon prayer, yet was it not their Cōmon Seruice. For in publike Seruice, the Ecclesiastical ministers doe goe before & pronoūce it, but this was such [Page 56] 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 Cō ­mon Prayers are so distincted, first in res­pect 1 of the Cōmones of thē (though the vse be Priuate according to deuotiō) Secondly 2 for the open communicating of them accor­ding to y^e Holyghosts inspiration, Thirdly 3 because of the order & continuance of them, according to the Catholike Churchs law & cōstitution: 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 Cō ­mon Seruice was also in a tongue knowē vnto all the people vndoubtedly?

How cā he deny y^• first? How doth he nor cōsider y^• second? How much abuseth he his [Page] 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.

[Page 46] Here vnwares he implieth a repugnance in reason,Iew. 15 [...] 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: [Page] 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: yet Latin is not so Common now in Englād, as it was, in y^e Primitiue Church, through all these weast parts, where the Emperour of Rome had chiefe iurisdiction and go­uernment.

But let vs consider, how M. Iewel pro­ueth y^• foresaied cōtradiction. For if some of the people vnderstode it not, how could al y^e people say Amen? [...]orthie [...] Iew. 52. Aske ye how? I will tell you. The ignorant sorte of the people, which for their lack of lerning, knew no [Page 58] more than their owne tōgue, & yet for Ch [...] rities sake at the least, should think the best of the Churches Seruice, they, when the lerned began, might ioyne to, their voices and declare by Amen, that they pray and wishe and assent, as their betters doe be­fore them. And is this vnlikely or im­possible? What shall we then thinke of y^e Amen, which soundeth at Paules Crosse, when some famous and feruent Brother preacheth? Doth euery one that crieth A­men, heare his Prayer? And can ye reproue one for his good will, in helping for­ward to make the shoute greater, though he know not what the matter is: but only beleueth, that it is well saied, what soeuer that man of God vttereth? If there haue ben found emong your peuish Martyrs, which would dye, they knew not for what, but only that some one whom they loued, died before them: may not the faithfull peo­ple answer to the Quiers Amen, them sel­ues vnderstanding not what was spoken, but trusting the others knowledge and Authoritie?

Againe, what necessitie that all the peo­ple should say, Amen▪ Or who maketh a [Page] conclusion so generall? Surely not D. Harding. And therfore he for his part vtte­red no Contradiction. Who then? M. Iewell by likelihode will tell vs.Iew. 152.

S. Paules wordes be playne. How shal the vnlearned say Amen to thy thankes geuing? For he knoweth not, what thou saiest. This renneth directly against M. Harding. Al the people gaue their assent and said Amen &c.

How haue you proued, that All? By S. Paules words? First he hath not this word All. The Apostle falsify to by M. Iewel. Thē you falsify him, because he should not make directly against your purposse. For his words are not, how shall the vnlearned say Amen. But how shal he that SVPPLIETH the PLACE of the Idiote and vn­learned say Amen? He speaketh not therfore generally: nor of al y^e people? but, he noteth by special words sōe distinct persōs, which stode & answered in the place and stead of y^e people. It is rather and trulier gathered by this place of S. Paule, (if you corrupt him not) y^t all y^e people did not answer Amē ordinarily: but y^• others ther were appoin­ted, to supply their place. And so may D. Harding repete his proposition again, (as he doth) & say w^tout reproch of cōtradictiō:

Isaye, that the Seruice was in a [Page 48] tonge, which some people vnderstode and some vnderstode not:

And M. Iewell in reprouing him for it hath done nothing els, but shewed his egernes and his feblenes.

But what meaneth D. Harding by it, y^t the Seruice was in a knowen tongue: which some people vnderstoode, and some vnderstode not? Whether intendeth he some subtiltie, and will play such a parte as M. Iewell often tymes doth, in hyding his purpose vnder y^• generalitie of termes: that ye may not be sure wher to finde him? No truly. The thing it self doth testify the contrary. For concerning the,Hard. 7 [...]. Tongue I meane (saieth he) the Greke tongue and y^e Latine tounge. Concerning those Some, Hard. 77. which vnderstode it, he meaneth (as it is easy to be perceyued) Lerned men, Gen­tilmen, Merchantes, al of liberal edu­cation. Concerning the other Some. which vnderstode it not, he meaneth, al vplan­dishe people, Tillers of groūd, heard mē & womē. [...]hn [...] doth he deale plainly and [Page] sensiblie, And not only that, but mo­destly also and quietly. I neuer read (saieth he) neither, I think, M. Iewel &c. that the Common seruice was in any other barbarous, and vulgare tongue within the six hundred yeres after Christ. And here, least errour should rise, by mistaking of termes: I cal (saieth he) al tongues barbarous by­side the Hebrew, Greeke, and Latine.

So that it may be well noted, that D. Harding seketh, by distincting of duble and doutfull wordes, and by his naming of y^• sēse on which he intēdeth to reason, to haue the truth openly knowen, & shortly to haue y^e question perceyned. But M. Iewel wor­keth by a contrary sprite, and as before he misliked with the distinction of Common Praiers: so now he is offended with the distinction of Tongues,M. Ie­wel ly­keth not distincti­ons. where D. Harding placeth on the one side, Hebrew, Greke & Latine, and on the other, Barbarous and Vulgare tongues. Of whom he saieth.

[Page 49] All other tounges byside Greeke and Latine he condemneth for Barbarous,Iew. 155 by what authoritie I can not tell.

See the malice of the man, and of the word.Falshode intepeting of words. He condemneth (you say) all other tounges for barbarous. wher find ye this? And if ye finde it not, how dare you affirme it, excepte by Authority, your self cannot tell what?

I cal (saieth D. Harding) al tounges barbarous and Vulgar &c.Hard. 73.

And that ye mighte not gather thereof, that he spake so in reproche and condem­nation of any tounge, he putteth before the reason of it, saying:

To be the better vnderstanded, I cal all tounges barbarous &c.

He sowght not therefore to CONDEM­NE any Tounge, but to declare, what he would meane by a Barbarous toūge. Nei­ther maketh he himselfe a Controller and Iudge ouer other mens opinions herein: but an Interpretour of his owne. Yet doth M. Iewel so take him vp for y^e matter, as thought this geare dyd sauor of heresye. And therfore like a Diuine) for con [...]utation [Page] thereof, he goeth to y^e highest cause, that is God him selfe, saying:

For in respect of God there is neither Iew nor Gentile, nor Greeke, nor Barbarous.

If you aleage this as out of the Scrip­ture (as it appeareth that ye doe by the quotation in the margine and by the dis­tincte lettre in whiche it is printed) then must I tel you, that the Apostle nameth in deede Iewe and Greeke: but Gentile or Barbarous he nameth not, neither spea­keth he of theyr diuersitie in tounges, but, in religion and affectiōs. But if you allude onlye to that place, and by accommodation make a further meaning of it: let it be wri­ten then, in the cursiue letter of your owne wordes, so much as is not expressely in the Scripture. Yet your saying is true, though your doing be suspitious, and it maketh to this purpose: that one shoulde not con­demne an other: But, that one might not call an other after the proper name of the Countrye where hee was borne, thinke you that it is forbydden? Or is it againste the blessede and vniforme will and mynde of God, to call one Tounge Greeke, an other Latine: Or one pure and [...]yne, an other ragged and Barbarous? [Page 50] In respect of God, there is neyther Iew nor Gentile: ergo (you shall see a meruei­lous conclusion gathered out of Diuini­tye) who soeuer calleth some Iewes and some Gentiles, speaketh, by what Autho­ritie M. Iewel can not tell. Or els thus, In respect of God there is neyther Greeke nor Barbarous: Ergo who so calleth one a Greeke Tounge, an other Barbarous, speaketh, Master Iewel can not tell by what Authoritye.

Againe, In respecte of God, all is one: but in respecte of men are not some Toun­ges Eloquent, and other Barbarous? And doe not your selfe confesse, in thys very place,M. Iew. forgetteth himselfe. of whiche we speake, that S. Paule, makinge a full Diuision of the whole worlde, nameth some Greekes and some Barbarous? Yet in respecte of God there is neither Greke nor Barba­rous.pa. 155. Truly, if D. Hardinge woulde haue made this distinction of his owne heade only, you should not yet so curiously haue reproued hym for it, consideringe that he sayth no more but: I cal tounges Barbarous &c. And makethe no rule to the worlde, And that you haue his meaninge, thereby expressed vnto you. [Page] But least you thinke hym to be singular herein, you shall finde in Contradus Ges­nerns (no Papiste I warant you) that:

Barbarae siue Barbaricae linguae,Con [...]in suo Mi­chridatis praeter Graecam & Latinam, omnes dicuntur. Nos etiam Hebraeam exci­pimus. All tounges are called Barba­rous or barbaricall byside the Greeke and Latine: but we also doe except the Hebrew tounge.

I note therefore this much, that you may consider with what Sprite ye procede: whiche will not suffer a Lerned man, to seperate by commodious distinction, the three moste principal knowen and lerned Tounges, Hebrew, Greeke and Latine, from other baser and Ruder tounges. And that you fetch a far of, such a reasō, to ouer­thwart only his sayinges as may serue a­gainste the Apostle himself, for calling some Greekes and some Barbarous.

These thinges thus presupposed, that Common Prayers and Common Seruice of the Church are not al one, and that some there were within the sixe hundred after [Page 51] Christ, which vnderstoode not the Publike Seruice, and, that all Tounges are Bar­barous and Vulgare, byside Greeke and Latine: D. Harding begynneth to make argumentes for profe of his purpose.

Whereof it may begathered,Iew. 159 How gre­dye. that hitherto he hath proued nothing.

Much better it might be gathered, that hitherto he hath made a plaine way to the matter, by putting asyde suche doubtes, as might come in betwene through occasion of wordes mistaken and misunderstanden. What needeth therefore this brauerie? Or what meaneth this hastines? Or why tri­umpheth he, not only before the victorye, but also before battaile? Wil not M. Iewel suffer a man to make a preface vnto his treatise, And speake some generall thinges pertcining to the question, before he make his principall argument against it? but he must shew furth his winninges (I can not tell what) and say: hereof it may be gathe­red, that he hath hitherto proued nothing? There is neither Wit, nor Grauitie, not Commoditie, in it, so to hall and put vnto him, out of no occasion, that which may sounde to disgracing of the Aduersary, and magnifyinge of his owne cause. But to the [Page] pointe of the question.

The chiefe Argument that D. Harding maketh, is of one sorte, as if he should say: The inferiour Countries and Churches, folowed the same tounge in publike Ser­nice, which theyr Mother or Principall Church had: But those inferiour Churches had sundry and seueral Languages: ergo the vulgar people of thē, could not vnder­stand that general and vniforme tounge, of the Principall Church. This Argument he prosecuteth in order: firste by Example of the Greeke Church, then of the Latine: and, before he bringeth the Examples, he doth in both places signify, what he inten­deth to proue, and by what meanes or Propositions he will proue it. And firste therefore these are to be considered, either because they serue to the openinge of the state of this question: either because it will be perceyued by them, what truste is to be geuen to M. Iewel: which so despe­rately (as I may say) doth put to and take away from D. Hardings words, y^t to know his falsehoode and Craftines, it should be a good lesson, to such as loue their saluation.

D. Harding, before he sheweth particu­larly, what he can say of the Seruice in the [Page 52] Greeke Church, hath these wordes:

If Icā shew, y^t the people of some coun­tries of y^e Greeke church which al had their praiers and Seruice in y^e Greeke tounge,The prin­cip [...]es out of which D. Har­ding will deduce his Conclu­sion, in the question of Publike Seruice. for y^e more part vnderstode not the Greeke tounge: thē haue I proued, that I promised.

In which sentence he declareth his in­tent and purpose, and sheweth what y^e pro­positions are, which being proued, will serue that purpose. The first is this.

The people of some Countries of the 1 Greeke church vnderstode not, for the more parte, the Greeke tounge.

The seconde is. Al the people of those countries had their Common praiers in the Greeke tounge.2

This is y^• most, y^• any man cā peeke out of those words: except it be an other as M. Iewel is, which as he can make of nothing somewhat, so doth he make of somwhat al: for thus he gloseth vpon the text of D. Har­dinges wordes.

Two propositōs M. Hardīg hath here chosē to proue.Iew. 1 [...]9. the one is that AL the greeke church, [Page] had the common Seruice,More fal­sho [...]e of M. Iew­els. WHOLY and THOROVGHLY in the Greeke tounge.

Here first you lye, For in D. Hardinges sentence, these wordes, WHOLY and THOROVGHLY, are not founde at al: and the, WHICH AL, that you seeme to take as spoken of the whole Greeke Churche, is not thereto referred of D. Harding, but to the people only of those some Countries, which he mentioned the lyne before. And therfor as much difference as there is, betwene a General and a Spe­ciall proposion, Or the people of al Greece, & Al the people of some Coutries of Greece: so greate and euident oddes there is, be­twene true meaning and M. Iewels dea­ling. Nowe to the other proposition as M. Iewel reherseth it:

The other proposition is, That some whole Countries in the Grekee Church vn­derstoode not the Greeke tounge.Yet more craft.

Before, you were blamed for addinge, here now are you to be noted for taking a­way. But what is that? No smal thinge surely, nor such as may be spared: but those very wordes, which declare the truth and reasonablenesse of the proposition. For it is to absolute and vnlikely to say, Some [Page 53] whole Countries of the Greeke Church vn­derstoode not the Greeke tounge, but that, for the more parte, (which wordes M. Ie­well suppressed), they vnderstode not the Greeke tongue, that will be true in theyr iudgement, which can consider, how many Simple, Rude, and Ignorant there are, in euery Country, which know no other 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 propositiōs (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 [Page] 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.

1 The first,Propositiōs seruing to the question of Publike Seruice. the weast Churches had suche Seruice, as was vsed in the Chur­ches, from whence their first Apostles [Page 54] 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,2 because this is not the first,Iew. 167 M. Iew. busy in changing & sh [...]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 [Page] because S. Paule planted the faith in Eng­land,Nedelesse proues, of M. Iew. and full of [...]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.

Thē, 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 secōd.

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 [Page 55] second poynt: and in D. Hardinges words there is speciall mention neither of LATIN TOVNGE, More chā 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 [Page] set purpose, labored to make confusion.The sūme of M. Iewels con­ueiaunce in [...]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 plāters of y^e faith set vp, in the Coūtries by thē cōuerted, such Seruice as thē 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 tōge.

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 frō taking, if he cā bring the questiō to such a Generali­ty: y^t if he be driuen frō one place, he mai flee to an other, to make y^• aduersary weri of fo­lowing, [Page 56] & 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 frō Country to Country, in a straunge Visitation, & neuer make an end of Interrogatories & Inquisitiōs: vn­til D. Harding shal satisfy his Lordship in al poynts, and proue y^• 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 & cūning 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, an other mannes Propositions.

Thus hauing declared what the chiefe Propositions were, whiche D. Hardinge thought vpon in this Controuersye, and which M. Iewel hath so hādled, as though no body would thinke vpon them: Let vs [Page] now return to that Argument, in shewing of which, the most of this Article consisteth: And which, if it be proued accordingly, shal constrain M. Iewel to subscribe. Which al­though it may be exemplified in both Churches, Greke & Latine, yet for so much as being ended in one, it may very easely be ap­plied to the other, and also because I haue already bene to long in this Article: I will make it no further, then to y^e Greke church: After this maner.

The lesse Asia had the Seruice in the Greeke tounge:D. Hard. argumēt, against this thirde Article of M. Iew. Fol. 75.

But sundrye Countries of the same Asia vnderstode not the Greke tounge,

Ergo they had their Seruice in a tounge, which they vnderstode not.

Take heede good Reader (sayeth M. Ie­well) Onlesse thou eie him wel,Iew 160 M. Harding wil steale from thee. Againe: Here is a faire glosse, but be not deceiued. M. Harding kno­weth wel inough, it is but a fallacy, that is to say a deceitful argumēt, named in the scholes ex meris particularibus, or, A non distributo ad distributum. Onlesse he amend the Maior and make it an vniuersal and say thus: Al Asia she lesse had the Seruice in the Greke toūge.

[Page 57] Concerning D. Hardinges knowlege, I beleue he putteth nothing in print, that he thinketh to be a fallacie. But why, is it a deceytfull Argument? Because it is na­med in Scholes, ex meris particularibus. Yet the Scholes,M. Iew. Logike more har­der then that of the Scholes. I trow, speak not of D. Har­dinges argument, neither doe they con­demne all Argumentes, which consiste of mere particulars. For the Syllogismus, na­med in Scholes expositorius, is of that ma­king, and therefore your rule (M. Iewell) hath exceptions.

But you find fault with it an other way saying: Or, a non distributo ad distributum, as though it were to be suspected, that D. Harding (in sayeing, Asia the Lesse had the Seruice in the Greeke tounge) had meant to except some countries thereof: and that therfore it should be nede to bid him to put in Al, and amend the proposition. Wheras, within six lines before,Neadlesse fear. he doubted not to say (Al the Greeke Church had theyr Com­mon Seruice in the Greeke tounge) to put you out of feare (M. Iewel) that he would not deny it of the lesse Asia being but a part of the Greeke Church, that which he graū ­ted of the whole, & which also you specially marked. [Page] marked. How say you also to this argumēt? Englād hath the Seruice in the English tōge, Wales the same Seruice that Englād hath: er­go Wales hath the Seruice in the English tōg.

Surely it seemeth good inough. And though some Protestant of other countreis, (thinking perchaunce that in the reformed Church of England, euery part thereof is prouided for, According to the diuersitie of Rites and Tounges, as Innocētius hath by his vnderstanding, decreed) though he (I say) would tel me, that it is a deceytful ar­gument named in Scholes ex meris parti­cularibus, or, a non distributo ad distributū: Yet would I not chainge my minde, but think it stil a good reason, which I see pro­ued so euidently to my face, by the practise and vse of our country, that I can not deny the consequence. Therfore perchaunce you are to scrupulous or to curious, M. Iewel in these schole points of which you speake, or rather, if y^e mater shuld be examined to y^• vttermost, I think you would be proued ob­liuious, or worthy to be set again to schole to lerne more Logik. But for shortnes sake let y^e Maior be reformed as you require, as

Al Asia y^e lesse had y^e cōmon seruice in the Greeke tounge,

[Page 58] But sundry nations in Asia the lesse vnderstode not the Greeke tounge:

Ergo sundry natiōs in Asia the lesse vnderstod not the Common Seruice.

The argument being now amended in y^e point, for which only ye bid your Reader take heed and eie him wel, if both proposi­tions may be proued, thē shal it behoue M. Iew. to subscribe. Therfore, to the Maior and first of the two, what say you?

That Asia the lesse had the Seruice in greke, it is doubted of no mā, nor lernd nor vnlernd.Iew. 160

See, what a good wil can do? Now, whē you be disposed, you are so fre,Bounte­futty. y^• rather then fail, the vnlearned also shallbe supposed to know y^• Asia the lesse had theyr Seruice in Greke: which yet, being vnlearned, know not what Asia y^e lesse is, & much lesse what tonge was there vsed, a M. yeres a go. For how should they come to y^e knowledge? by seing & hearing? they are not thē aliue now which so do know it. By reading & consi­dering y^e bokes & records of those dayes? They are not thē vnlearned which can so doe. By gessing it and gathering it by their own reason, or of an other mās talke? That could not put thē out of doubt in y^e matter. [Page] That could not put them out of doubt in the matter. Yet sayeth M. Iewel, It is doubted of no man, nor learned nor vnlear­ned. It foloweth.

But that al Asia the lesse had throughout in al parts the same Seruice (why adde you) THROVGHOVT, In al partes, the same Seruice? Shifts in a readines This signifieth, that ye haue your termes and shiftes in a readinesse, if neede be. But goe ye forwarde.

If it be denied, M. Hardinge with all his learning, is not hable to proue it.

But you, I trow, are able, and that may be perchaunce the cause, why you say, If it be denied. Contenti­ons. Sparinge, as it were for consci­ence sake, to deny that which may be pro­ued: and yet taking that praise away frome your aduersary, that he should be able to doe it. But what shal we doe with your If? A greate sturre you haue kepte, in bidding the Reader take heede. And to eye D. Har­ding least he steale away, in examininge the argument, in amending the Maior: & now when it is, as you wisshed, and the propo­sition is full and vniuersall, you steale a­way in deede by an If, and can not be cer­tainely eyed, whither ye goe or what ye in­tend. Yet, because the presumption is very [Page 59] good, that you would not spare your aduersary, if opportunitie serued, or leese any vantage that might be taken: we may con­ceyue, that you permit y^e Maior to stand as graunted. But yet againe, least hereafter you shuld driue him in your āger to proue it, and flatly then deny that, which now fa­uorably ye remit vnto him, signifyeing on­ly by an If, the liberty which you haue to vse more rigour & extremity, but not folo­wing the vantage to the vttermoste: there­fore will I tell you sumwhat before hand, how y^e Maior shalbe proued, that you may well thinke vpon a direct answer.

I proue it by this consequence.The fyrst profe of y^e Maior in the princi­pall argu­ment afore saide. All Asia the lesse was of the Greke church: Ergo they had y^e Seruice in the Greeke Tounge.

The consequence if you will doubt of it foloweth of that Rule, A definitione ad de­finitum. For after ye haue declared,What the Greekes church [...]. what this word, Church meaneth, and founde, that it includeth without exception all the nūber of thē, which through y^e whole world confesse & professe, one God one faith and one Obedience: after this, I say, when you come to y^e particulars, and define vnto vs, [Page] what y^e Greke Church is: you shalbe con­strained to meane y^• society & cumpany of the faithful, whose publike Seruice is in y^e Greeke tounge.

The antecedēt I neade not proue,Iew. 164 least M. Iewel should cal it vanitas vanitatum, & tel vs, y^• it is not denied neither of learned nor vnlearned. And yet least he should in­terprete this my opiniō to be but for a shift and euasion, I will shew him good cause, wherefore I take it.159. For, if M. Iewel find no fault with D. Harding, for comprising within the name of the Greeke Church:

That coūtrie which properly is called Graecia, Macedonia, Thracia, Asia y^e lesse & coūtries adioining, y^e prouinces allotted to y^e Patriarke of Alexandria in AEgypt and of Antiochia in Syria:

I can not feare, y^t he wil be lesse indiffe­rent and quiet towards me: which speak so much within my bounds, and mention no other Countries belonging to the Greeke Church, but only the lesse Asia.

Beside this, your selfe, M. Iewel, diuide the Church, not only into the Greeke and the Latine: but also in to the Churches of Aethiopia, Scythia, India, Arabia, Syria, Persia [Page 60] Media, Armenia, & a great number of other countries. In which part then of al these, is Asia the lesse? Not in the Latin Church, not in the cumpasse of Aethiopia, Scythia, India, Arabia, Syria, Persia, Media, Armenia or any other of y^e great nūber of Countries which you signify. If it be in any, name it vnto vs, & shew your Authority: y^t and if it be not (as in dede it is manifest by y^e borders whiche learned and experte Wryters doe note to be attributed and made vnto them) then muste all Asia the lesse be of the Greke Churche.

And again, if throughout al y^e lesse Asia, y^e Publike Seruice had not ben in one cōmon and currant Greke, it must haue folowed, y^• according to y^e diuersity of tounges & coū ­tries therof, a distinct interpretation of the Scriptures, was also prouided for thē. For the Publike Seruice consisteth chiefly of the Scriptures, as the proper bookes of Christians (whiche are to be, either in­structed, Or furthered, Or perfited in the lawe of God) and as mooste proper for that place, where all Prophane thinges sette a syde, the Diuine Hystoryes, Psal­mes, Gospels and Lessōs are to be reher­sed & cōsidered. Will M. Iewel deny this: [Page] how can he? which is so redye to graunt it,M. Iew. a falsifier of coūcels. 153. that the belieth two Councels (of Laodi­c [...]a and of Carthage) sayeing them to haue decreede, that nothing must be redde in the Church to the people, sauing only the Cano­nicall Scriptures. Yet the Councel is not so, but, in prouiding that no other bookes should be red there, as in the name of Scrip­tures, but onlye the Canonicall Scriptu­res, it declareth, what a singular estimation and vse of them was in the Common Ser­uice of the Church.

This Seruice then, consisting chiefly of Scriptures, must not the people vnder­stande it? By M. Iewels Diuinitie they muste. Ergo the tounges, in which the Scriptures were then writen, should be knowen vnto them. And to bring this to passe, looke how many seueral Countries were in the lesse Asia: so many interpreta­cions of the Scriptures were made cor­respondent vnto them. But what shal we nowe saye?Of the in­terpretation of scriptures into Greeke. For manye skore yeres after Christ there was in all the world but one Greeke interpretation of the Scriptures, and that was made by seauentie Elders of y^e Iewes in y^• tyme of Ptolomeus Philadel­phus. After which, there folowed six inter­pretations: [Page 61] the first of Aquila, the second of Symmachus, y^• third of Theodotio, Euthymius in praesatione in Psal­mos. y^e fourth had no certaine Author, and was founde in Hiericho. The fift, was (without Authors name) found in Nicopolis. The sixte, was made by Lucianus the Heremite and Mar­tyr, and found in a tower of Nicomedia.

Consider now by this, indifferent Rea­der, how litle store and copy of Interpreta­tions of Scriptures, was then, when of vij. only so great accompt is made: And howe litle haste was made to set them abrode, which were so kept in by the Authors: and howe great price was then made of them, the finding of which is so singularly noted.

But let vs staye our selues vpon those first yeres, in which there was no other in­terpretation of the Scriptures in y^e Greeke Tounge, but that of the Septuagintes.

In this case then, did all Churches of A­sia the lesse, vse that Interpretation? They must haue vsed it, or else haue none.

Did all vnderstand it? How is it possi­ble, the seuerall Countries and Tounges in Asia the lesse, being at the least. xiiij. in number. Forth then: had some Churches no Seruice at all, because they vnderstode not the Greeke of the Septuagintes? Or [Page] Or had they such Seruice,Here let M. Iew. shew hys know­ledge. in whiche n [...] Scripture was read? Either ye must ad­mit this absurdity, either ye must hold your peace (M. Iewel) for lacke of answer, ei­ther ye must subscribe and yelde to the Ca­tholikes. For, if the Scriptures were then in no other Greeke tounge, then that of the Septuagintes: And if the vulgar peo­ple of diuers Countries and Languages in the lesse Asia vnderstode not that Greeke: And if without the Scriptures, the Pub­like Seruice be not made: either the Ser­uice was in that tounge which all the Vul­gare people of the lesse Asia did not vnder­stand, (and then you must subscribe) Or else in some Churches they had no Seruice, because they had no Scriptures turned in­to the Vulgare tounge, (which is most ab­surde and vnreasonable) Or else you muste secretely confesse it, that you can not fynde, what tounge they vsed in their Seruice, or what you may answer to this Argument.

Thirdly I proue the Maior,The. iii. pro [...]e. by an In­duction.

In Smyrna, in Pontus, in Cappado­cia, in Lycaonia, in Caria or Thracia, [...]t Sic de singulis, and so in eche other [Page 62] Countrey of the lesse Asia the Seruice was in the Greeke tounge:

Ergo (the Maior foloweth,) that all the lesse Asia had their Seruice in the Greeke tounge.

The Induction is good and lawfull, as consisting of a sufficient Enumeration of particular Countries in the lesse Asia, with Importing, or Supplying, or Making good, the rest vnrehersed, by this clause, Et sic de singulis, and so in eche of the rest.

The Antecedent I proue, Iew 161. concerning those Countries which I named. And I proue it by your warrant (M. Iewel) be­cause it is surest. Verily, say you, Polycar­pus was Bishop of Smyrna, Gregorius Bi­shop of Pontus, S. Basil was Bishop of Caesa­rea in Cappadocia, Amphilochius B. of Ico­nium in Lycaonia, Gregorius S.Basiles bro­ther B. of Nyssa in Caria or Thracia after your reckoning: All these in sondrye Coun­tries in Asia preached openlye in the Greeke tonge, and the vulgar people vnderstode thē.

I take your Confession, and proue there by, in your Iudgemente, and euerye o­ther Protestantes, that the Seruice also was in the Greeke tounge in those Countreis: [Page] except you would answer, that they prea­ched in the Greeke and knowen Tounge, but ministred in an other then Greeke or knowen. And herein I vse the vauntage of your graunt, to proue that the Seruice was in Greeke: but that it was knowen vnto all y^e Vulgare people, therin we agree not w^t you. Yea y^e very Sermōs & Treari­ses of S. Basile, Gregory Nazianzene and Gregory Nissine, as they are nowe extant, were not surely vnderstanded of the Com­mon people of those Countries, wher they sate Bishops: but were pronounced, to the capacity of the vulgare audience, in termes most familiar and knowen, and afterwards penned in the learned Tounge, as well for other Nations as their owne Countries. For the Seruice being wryten in the Com­mon Greeke, as appereth by S. Basiles Liturgie or Masse, and their bokes also ke­ping the same Tounge: it is impossible, by common reason, that the Vulgare people of Cappadocia, Pōtus and Caria should vn­derstand it, whose language shalbe straite­waies proued (in declaring of the Minor proposition) to haue bene either Barba­rous, that is no Greeke at all: either so cor­rupt and vncleane Greeke, that in compa­rison [Page 63] of the Tounges, vsed in the foresayde Liturgie or Sermons, they were (at the least) as far to seking, what was saide: as a vulgare Italian or Frenchman is, when he heareth a Latine Oration.

Concerning nowe the other Countreis which I haue not named, you can not re­quire it of me, to goe particularly throughe them: but your part is to geue an Instance and to name any one, that had not the Ser­uice in the Greeke tounge: vntill whiche time the Maior standeth in good force, and may well be vsed of vs for certaine, whiche can not suspect the contrary. Now ther­fore let vs come to the Minor proposition.

Sundry Nations (saithe D. Har­ding) in Asia the lesse vnderstode not the Greeke.Harding Fol. 75.

But to what end?Iew. 160 for neither this is denied by any of vs, nor is it any part of the questiō.

If ye deny it not, then foloweth the Cō ­clusion, that sundry Nations in Asia the lesse vnderstode not the Common Seruice: and so the end is, that you must subscribe.Subscribe If it be no part of the question, how coulde you by force therof, be driuen to yeld? But consider what foloweth.

[Page] And yet notwithstanding,Iew. 160 is not M. Har­ding able to proue it with all his gheasses.

Loe,What a stomake? he confesseth the Proposition to be true, and yet (so contentious he is) he will stand against D. Harding, that he is not a­ble to proue it. Which stomake being once taken, what foule shifts will not a man in­uent, rather then he wil take a double foile: The one, in yelding vnto his Aduersarye, the other in not defending that, whiche he toke vpon him to say. But for so muche as M. Iewel is so set, let vs proue the Minor, and consider his Answer thervnto.

The Minor is thus declared by y^e Actes of the Apostles.Sundry Coūtries of Asia the lesse vn­derstode not the learned Greeke?

The inhabitors of Cappadocia and Pā ­philia are within Asia the lesse, and eche of them had a distinct and peculiar language. For S. Luke reporteth, as of others so also of these, y^• when the Apostles begā to speak in diuers tounges, they were astonied and wondered at y^e matter,Act. 2. saying: A see, are not all these that speak, men of Galilee? and how doth euery one of vs, heare oure Tounge, in which we were borne? The Lycaonians also are of Asia the lesse. And S. Luke noteth, that the people of Lystris spake Lyeaonice, Act. 14. that is, after the proper and peculiar tonge [Page 64] of the Country of Lycaonia, wherof Listris was one of the Cities. Ergo, sundry coun­tries of Asia the lesse vnderstode not the Greke. What answereth M. Iewel? Mary to the first of these two authorities he saith:

What if answer be made,Iew. 16 [...] that all these re­hearsed in the Actes of the Apostles were not diuers Tounges but rather certain differen­cies in one Tounge?

Yet more what ifs?Contenti­ous if sing, & striuing of M. Iewel. And are ye not yet at a poynt, to answer directly neither to Maior nor to Minor, but, that in both you muste hange vpon Ifs? Here may we see, what a sprite can do. He said that M. Harding is not able to proue his Minor (which he saide to try mastries) and now rather thē he will seme not to abide by his worde, he neither wil holde his Tounge, nor yet speake anye thing to the purpose: but by a what if, he prouideth that if he be taken tardy, he may not leese all, but say, I affirmed nothynge, but only put forth a case: and if no man re­proue him, that then, his What if, may stād for a perfite Resolution.

But let vs consider your saying better. What if answere be made. &c. as before.

Mary without peraduenture, it will be an idle answer and to no effect.

[Page] For, to let it passe that S. Luke expressely sayeth, Euery one hearde them speake Lingua sua, in his owne Tounge, and to graunt vnto you, that all the toungs mentioned in the Actes, were not diuers, but that some were distincted from other, only by certaine differencies: Yet those dif­ferences were so great, that the Vulgare people of one Tounge, vnderstode not them of an other: For (I trust) you meane not such differencies, as are made by reason of Swiftnesse, Slownesse, Smothnesse or Hardnesse, and so furthe of Tounges: but such only as cōsist in the variety of Letters, Wordes and Dialect. In which respect, though the Tounge of Saxonie, Flanders, England and Scotland be one: yet because of a peculiar Property and Dialect whiche is in them, the Vulgar Saxons are not on­ly Strangers to Englishe men, but allso to the Flemminges their neighbors: and the Vulgare Scottesman not only vnderstan­deth not the Flemming, but of the Sow­therland so nigh vnto him, he knoweth not the wordes and meaning.

There be about three skore seueral Coū ­tries, that vse the Tounge named Illyrica, [Page 75] but though the kind of the Tounge be one,Gesne­rus in Mithri­date. and the difference consiste in Dialecte and proprietie only: yet they vnderstand not one the other, as in example: Hungari­ans, Moscouites, Polonians, Sclauons, Bohe­mians, & caet.

Also, if you wil conclude vpon this, be­cause the kinde of tounge was one, of some of them which are rehersed in the Actes of the Apostles, that therfore, they vnderstode one the other: What miracle call you this to make men astonied at? And that Cappa­docians and Bythinians, hearing the A­postles speaking vnto them in theyr owne Tounge, vnderstoode them both at once? Or howe could S. Luke so forget himselfe, that to commend and set furth the greate worke and gifte of God shewed by y^e toun­ges of the Apostles, he would make a great mater of it, and say, that: the inhabitants of Pōtus, Cappadocia, Phrygia, Pam­philia, & Asia wer amased & astonied asking: how do we euery one of vs here our tounge, in which we were borne? if in deede these had one naturall tounge, & vnderstode one an other, sauinge for cer­tein [Page] odd differences. Cartainly if y^e differēce were smal, the miracle must needs be smal, which S. Luke telleth for greate.

If an English man, knowing no other tounge byside his owne, and a Welshman, of y^e like knowledge in his naturall tounge only, shoulde come together to Diuinitye Schole in Oxforde, and both of them vn­derstād y^e Kinges Reader, this were much to be wondred at: but if there come to Pau­les Crosse, out of eche Sheer in England, seueral persons, and vnderstand the Prea­chers English, doe they loke one vpon an other for it? do they wōder at the working sprite in him, and say: howe doe we heare, euery one of vs, this fellowe, whiche is borne an English man, to speake our Vul­gar tounge? Yet no doubt there is a diffe­rence of speache, betwen English men of diuers Sheers. But it is not so great, as to make a miracle when they, Englishe men borne, vnderstand the self same tounge in an English Preacher.

Now, that in the Actes of the Apostles was a wonderfull Strainge and Diuine matter, and y^e grace and strength of it con­sisted herein, that they (whom for y^• purpose S. Luke rekeneth vp) vnderstoode at one [Page 66] tyme, a third person speakinge vnto them, & could not yet vnderstand eche the other, speaking together. Wherefore you may as wel confesse, M. Iewel, y^• al there expressed had a diuers language: as y^e some had,M. Iew. what if hepeth nothing. but a certaine differēce only frō other, therein. Because, y^• difference helpeth you so litle, that we proue thereby y^e tounge of Cappa­docia, Pontus, and Asia, to haue bene so muche distincte one frome y^e other: that the Common & learned Greeke tounge, which was vsed in the Churches of those selfsame coūtries, could not be vnderstāded of euery vulgar mā womā & child, of those coūtries.

But let vs consider M. Iewels answer, to the other Authority of the Actes of the Apostles, that we may al vnder one cōfute his oft repeted Iffinge and shiftinge. To that of the Lycaonians thus he sayeth:

The people of Lycaonia spake vnto Paule and Barnabas Lycaonicè: Ergo,Iew. 164 saieth M. Harding, they spake no Greeke.

This is one cōmon trik, of your Logike, to peruerte and alter the intent of your ad­uersary.A commō tricke of M. Iew. D. Hardings cōclusiō wil be this: Ergo they vnderstod not the learned Greeke tounge: for to this purpose he allegeth all his Authorities.

[Page] Therefore, whether they spake Greeke or no, that is not the mater: but whether they spake or vnderstoode suche Greeke, as the Scriptures and Church Seruice were then conteyned in, Or such as we reade now in the workes and Liturgies of S. Basile, Gregorie Nazianzene, or Chrysostome. Considertherfore (M. Iewel) how proper­ly ye procede and argue.

But what if S. Luke had saied, they spake Ionicê,Iew. 164 Aeolicè, or Doricê, which tounges were adioyning fast vpon Lycaonia. would he therfore conclude they spake no Greeke?

Here loe is a what if, to further the cause. But what seke you by it.M. Iew. much de­ceyued in his aunīg M. Iewel? Sub­pose, goe to, that S. Luke, in place of Lyca­onicè, had writen Ionicê, what then? would he therfore (say you of M. Harding) cōclude they spake no Greeke? No forsoth: for he sought not after y^e cōclusiō. And Alas therfore (to take more iust pity of you then you can doe of others) here hath M. Iewell loste a good Argument.

Againe, he knoweth, that the Greeke tounge is diuided by the learned therein, in to fyue Dialectes: of which Ionica, Aeolica, and Dorica, are three, and therefore he spea­keth Greeke that speaketh in them, but we [Page 67] haue no such warrant for the Lycaonicall Tounge.

Thirdly he might conclude, y^e al though they spake Greeke, yet not that which is Attica or the pure and Common Greeke tounge: in which two the Scriptures, and old Fathers writings, are set furth.

But what talke you of that, whiche S. Luke might haue sayed, and do not answer to that, which he hath writen? These toun-(ges say you, meaning Ionica, Aeolica Do­rica) were adioyning fast vpon Lycaonia. An Idle reason or talke of M. Iew. I finde no fault with your Cosmographie, but I see not, what end ye bringe it to. For Spaine is adioyning faste vppon France, yet Spanish and French, are two sundry languages. And Lycaonia though it should stand in the myddest of Ionium or Aeolia, it needeth not yet, forget it felse and become Ionical or A [...]olical.

Verely (say you) if a man by way of conten­tion would say, the Lycaonical tounge was a Corruption or differēce of the greeke tonge and not a seueral tounge of it self (M. Harding should haue much a do to proue the cōtrary.

So should he, to proue that S. Peter was euer at Rome. For what is so plaine or tes­tified, that a Contentious felow can not say [Page] or suppose somewhat, against it. But this way (one would think) you folow not your selfe, and therfore you goe warely and wi­sely forward, with Verely if a man & caet. Yet ye seeme to take, as it were, some cum­fort of it: that M. Harding shuld haue much adoe with a Wrangler, if one would cōtend with him. And sodainly your selfe begyn to play that part in prouing, that the Lycao­nians should speake Greeke, saying:

Doubtlesse they whorshipped Iupiter:Here is to be learned how one might go [...] inthe way of concen­tion. But M. Iew. doth as [...] If [...] &c. And they had the Greeke Sacrifice as it appeareth by the wordes of S. Luke. And it may be credibly gathered that Paule and Barnabas spake to them in Greeke.

Doubtlesse you haue well declared and pith [...]ly, what a man would say, by way of Contention. Otherwise, ye might by these reasons proue that y^e Romanes also spake, after a certaine corrupte kinde of Greeke, because they worshipped Iupiter the God of the Greekes:Alex. ab Alexand genidl. dier, li. 6 And had Greeke Sacri­fice also, as much as they of Lycaonia, & because S. Paule wrote to thē in Greeke. &, as it may be credibly gathered, spake also vnto them in Greeke.

Howebeit (say you) whether it were so or otherwise, it importeth nothing (why then reason you so mighte [...]y about it) sauing that [Page 68] M. Harding maketh the matter so certaine.

I per [...]ey [...] then it is one of your cares,A Greate [...], and set to resist how to ouerthwart D. Harding: And, sauinge that he sayeth it, otherwise you care not to graunt, that the Lycaonians had a seueral tounge by them selues. For whe­ther it were so or otherwise, it inporteth no­thing, you say. Yet neither this is, is true, y^• you say: Because, it importeth doth way [...].

For if their tounge were a corrupt Greke (as y^e Italiā or Spanish is a corrupt Latin) thē did they not vnderstād psalmes & chapi [...]ters of Scripture in theyr Seruice, which were trāslated into true & cleane Greke only. And if they had a seueral Tounge by thē selues, much lesse thē, did they vnderstand, what was sayed in the Church.

The question also, is not herein whether, they spake greeke or no: but whether they vnderstode the learned Greek or no. So y^• vnderstāding therefore al to be is. And whereas we see by experience at th [...]e dayes, that euery Englishman vendersten­deth not y^e Scot, nor y^e lower coūtries th [...]e speak Duch, vnderstand the hygh [...] (which yet differ but in [...] we think, y^• euery one in Asia y^• spake greke, vn derstode also the proper & oure greeke: [Page] For the pure Greeke, which holy Fathers haue writen, and in which the Scriptures be preserued, is comprised within a small cumpasse of Countries, and continueth af­ter one maner still: but the Corrupte and Barbarous Greeke extendeth it selfe farre and wide, and is, by sundry occasions, alte­red, euery day, wandring further and fur­ther of, from the likenesse and vicinitie to the cleane and Learned Greeke. And ther­fore, Ioannes Grammaticus writing pur­posly of y^e Greeke Dialectes, him self being a Greeke writer, sayeth, that if ye will take into the number, y^• Dialect called Cōmunis: then are there fyue of them, Ionica, Attica, Dorica, Aeolica, Communis. But the bar­barous Dialectes (sayeth he) being of great number and far out of reache, it is not easy to declare. [...].

Yea rather we muste not call them Dia­lects, but tounges. So vnlike they were to other Greke Tounges, not only the Com­mon but also y^e peculiare fower Dialectes.

So that if the Lycaonians had a Seueral tounge, vtterly distincted from Greeke, so much wilbe imported therby: y^e al vnderstod not y^e greeke Seruice, nor yet y^e Sermōs [Page 69] of Amphilochius, or any other Bishop ther if they spake, as they wryte. And if on the other side, they spake Greeke, but yet cor­ruptly & barbarously, that it selfe importeth so much, that they vnderstode not their ser­uice, whiche was wrytten in the learned Greeke. And as I haue said now for Ly­caonia, so may I reason of Cappadocia, Pō ­tus, Thracia, and proue that whether the people of that Country spake Greeke or o­therwise: yet vndoubtedly they vnderstode not (all of them) the Greeke of the Church Seruice.

Wherfore the Maior being presupposed as euident, that all Asia the lesse had the Seruice in Greeke, (vntil M. Iewel bring an instance) and M. Iewel helpinge forward to the prouing of it by his graunt, that these Countries within it, Smyrna, Pō ­tus, Cappadocia, Lycaonia, Caria, had their Sermons and (by consequence) Seruice in Greeke: The Minor being also abundātly proued by D. Harding, and by me suffciēt­ly declared, that sundrye Countries in Asia the lesse vnderstode not the learned Greeke. The Conclusion foloweth, y^• some Coun­tries had the Seruice in that tounge, which [Page] was vnknowen and strainge vnto them, and that Master Iewell mus yeld and subscribe. And thus muche concerning the Greeke Church.

To speake now of the Latin Church, and to prosequente the forsayed argument by it also, I think it nedlesse. Either because that which hath ben spokē of y^e Greeke Church, y^• it had y^e publike Seruice in y^e greeke tōge, may easely be applied to y^e Latin Church, to proue the Latin Seruice there (which once admitted, M. Iewel will not deny, but that sundry Countries of the same Church vn­derstoode not Latine, nor had it as theyr Vulgare tounge, where vpon his yelding must folow) either because my intent is, not to speake so much, as the matter geaueth occasion, but shortly to comprehend the Some of that whiche is done: Either be­cause the Aduersary will be so vnable and impotent to answer that which allreadye is sayed: that, to troble hym with more, were loste lavor. I maye also moste iustlye saye it, that he is so wilfully dispo­sed and sette, not to yelde, and hath so ma­ny wayes, through much Practise of his owne, and helpe of other Subtile [...]eades, To Disso [...]ble the righte Obiections, To [Page 70] make longe Answers to Thinges that were not moued, [...] Au­thorityes alleaged, To brynge all thyn­ges into playne doubte, or S [...]pition thereof: that nothinge shall be brought whiche he will not [...], except it be very sensible.

For whiche cause, it had not bene euill, neuer to haue mentioned, so muche as I haue done of D. Hardinges Argu­mentes, but, by a more compendious waye, to haue lefte them passe by, in si­lence, and to haue stayed in the myddle of this Article, where, I lefte Master Ie­well, without anye good Argumente or Lykelyhoode for his Assertion, Requi­ringe hym to shewe, what sure Euiden­eies, he or his Fryndes could bringe furth, in the cause.

Yet for so muche as I spared not to de­clare also, howe D. Hardinge hath reaso­ned, nowe it remayneth, not only to co [...] ­syder his Argumentes, but also to com­pare them: that is, not onlye to attend and marke what strength they haue by thē selues, but also how much more force & certayntie they haue in resepte of M. Ie­wels [Page] surmises. Consider it by it selfe and say:

The Latin Church is therfore called La­tine, because of the tounge which is cōmon and currant through it.

Againe, in all Italy at the least, the Ser­uice was in true Latine, but vndoubtedly the vulgare speache of the whole Countrye was not pure Latine.

Againe: If there had bene in the Weast Church any other Tounge then Latine, it could not, but by some token be apparent and euident, and some fragmentes or por­tions, of the Seruice in the Vulgar tounge would haue bene preserued, if by no other meanes, yet by History.

Consider I saye these thinges in them selues, and it may become a right good and wise man, not to mistrust, at this present, the vse of the Latine Tounge in Publike Seruice, which he maye by so good reason gather to haue bene vsed at the beginning in suche Churches, where they that were present, vnderstode it not. But compare nowe with this, that on the other syde which M. Iewel alleageth, that in Olde time they had in their prayers, al, Iew. 176 as it were one voyce and one minde: and, that al seueral [Page 71] nations praied vnto God and praised him in their owne natural and Mother tounge: and, That watchinges, Praiers and Common Psal­modie, was in estimation in iūdrie countries, and, That Christe is nowe the voice of the whole world: Compare, I say, these allega­tions with the Authorities of D. Harding, and thou shalt synde, that the oddes is so greate, that in these of M. Iewels there is no Testimonye or Reason at all, for Pub­like Seruice. Yet if this shal not seeme so to his Fauorers, and if they wil needes de­fende it, that M. Iewel hath spoken like a Greate Clerke to no litle purpose, maie it please them, to intreate him to satisfie vs a litle more, y^• we may vnderstand but of our owne Countrie (to troble him with no other) when the Englisshe Seruice ceased, and when the Latine began.

And if he shal neuer be able to bring any Token or Argument, that euer it was in any other Tounge then Latine,Reasona­ble. sauing of late in King Edward the vj. dayes, can it with any conscience be required of a Ca­tholike, to forsake that Order of which the Aduersary, with all his Serche or Curio­sitie, can geue no other begynninge, but from the founders of our Christian faithe [Page] in England? Or will he enforce vs to subscribe to his newly inuented manner of Seruice, which neither we, nor he, did euer Reade or heare, that it was vsed in any tyme these fiuetene hundred yeres?

All other Argumentes maye be lette passe, This one of Tradition beinge so a­uaileable and sufficient,Traditiō that, excepte we would of set purpose and againste all con­science folow new deuises and inuentions, we ought not to forsake the Auncient and receaued Order in Seruice.

And therefore to the ouerthrowing of this third Article, and strieng of a faithfull and Catholike harte, let it be answered to all busie peekers of quarels about other mens right: I holde the Latine Seruice by Tradition, I beleue it came frome the first planters of the faith in our countrie. If I he deceaued, tell me, frome whome els, And whē, And how, I receaued it? And shew, by whome, when, And how, the Englishe Seruice was firste receaued, and afterwardes how it decaied?

And if thou canst not in these two poyn­tes, neither speake againste the firste, nor shewe for the second: hold thy peace then like a wise man, and blame not them which [Page 72] holde aduisedly the Latine Seruice, because they haue receaued it, And will not Yeld rasshly to y^e chainging of it into Englishe, because no Example maketh for it.

BY what name foeuer, the B. of Rome was then called, if it be plainly pro­ued, that his Supreme power and Authoritie ouer the whole Churche, was then acknowledged and cōfessed: there is no more to be required or sought for in this Article. Is not this true? And shall not euery quiet & reasonable man, be con­tented herewithal? Yes verely. Except we would be brought to that foly, we muste not passe vppon the thinges themselues, but seeke only after the names of them: And discredit the Truth of the matter, for lacke of finding the worde whiche betoke­neth it. Will it please then M. Iewel. to be contented and answered, if we proue to him the Popes Supreme Authoritie ouer the Church: though we alleage not the very termes of Vniuersal Bisshope or head, which he asketh for.

[Page 73] I would some indifferēt man would per­swade with him,A reaso­nable re­questo to remit somewhat of y^e rigor of his, and extreme hard dealing, that if the Thinge it selfe be found, & the Terme of it to seekinge, yet, he obey the appro­ued Authoritie and confound not al order for lacke of significant wordes to expresse it by. Yet, he shall haue Termes significāt enough: as Principalitie, Primacie, Chiefe Rule, and such others, as the Fathers vse, in speakinge of the See of Rome. Mary, for those two which he requireth, he must not be to hasty vpon vs, consideringe, that it is not the word that maketh a Thinge, but the wil of God or act of man. And againe, that one Thinge may, by sundrie wayes of like force, be expressed, y^• if some one lacke, some other may supply it.

Lyke as therefore in cominge to some one place, that hath many wayes leadinge thither, he, should lacke either his sight or his reason, which would wrangle and con­tend with me, that I am not there, because I knowe not, or folowed not, that way which he would haue taken, & yet I chose (I trow) a good way enough, which brought me directly to my purpose: So in y^e seeking out of the Truth which is in the thinges [Page] themselues, vnto which we are conducted many wayes by varietie and copie of wor­des, he that could not deny it me, but that I haue the Matter I sought for, and yet would aske me where is the speciall word, Head of the Church which signifieth the Popes Supremicie, doth by al reason de­clare, not, that I am far from my purpose, but that him selfe is desirous to peeke quarels and seeke digressions.

Let vs be iudged then with tolerable indifferēcie. Hath not D. Hardinge folowed a reasonable and allowable order, which, in this question of the Supremicie, proueth the Thinge it selfe, and counteth it of no greate importance, to seeke for the speciall wordes which M. Iew. requireth? Is not so much enough for a quiet Reader? And y^e end beinge attained vnto, haue we to goe any further? I could proue no. But I do not mistrust, so little Iudgment or Consci­ence, to be in honest natures. And first therfore I desire this, wel to be remēbred & noted, y^t y^e heretike hath no vātage against y^e Catholike, for his goinge to y^e matter, and passinge ouer Names, & Titles, & wordes.

Secondly it foloweth to be marked well, that D. Harding (not, because y^e question it [Page 74] selfe required it of necessitie, but, for that he would satisfie to the vttermost M. Iewels, or some others, curiositie) he sheweth out of good authoritie the very selfe names which M. Iewel requireth: (Vniuersall bishop & Head of the Church,) to haue ben spoken of the B. of Rome, within the compasse of the six hundred yeares after Christ. But marke it (I pray thee good Reader) perfitely, that by the conferringe of Person with person, Behauior with behauior, Chalenger with defender, and Aunswer with Argument, the triflinge or earnest dealinge may the better appeare, the more nigh these con­traries, be in sight the one of the other.

Now then in the third place, consider, how vnreasonably M. Iew. craketh, in this Article, against him, which by all right was not bound to Names, and Titles, pro­uinge the Thinges them selues, and which afterward, brought furth the very Names so much asked for: least perchaunce by M. Iewels triumphinge there vpon, many should certainely beleue, we had lost y^e victorie. Whosoeuer therefore wil haue some ex­amples, where a great shew is made of no­thinge, to beware in him selfe of y^t foly, let him marke these that folowe.

[Page] The chief Authoritie beinge ac­knowleged and confessed, [...]at. fo. 101. whether thē he were called, by either of those names that you deny, or no: it is not, of greate importance.

M. Hardinge seemeth in part willingly to yeeld.Iew. 220 Againe:

It was as easy a matter for Christ, to geue Peter the Power and Title bothe togeather, as to geue him the power alone, without the Title.

Here, I can not chuse but answer some what, though for desire of shortnesse I haue and must let many thinges passe, which might be staied vpon. Who doubteth, but Christ in deede might haue geuen the Title (which M. Iew. findeth lackinge) togeather with the power and Authoritie ouer the Church? yet for so much as he hath not done it, it becometh not vs to find any imperfe­ction in his doinges: but to honor them with all Reuerence, though we see no rea­son for them, or with all humilitie to thinke vpon them, whether good causes may be brought furth and alleged for them or no.

And truly, concerninge this matter of [Page 73] which we speake, we may rightly iudge, y^t because weyght and worthinesse is in the Thinges them selues, therfore he gaue the power to S. Peter. As for Names and Titles, because they are so easely geueu (as appereth by styles of Noble men and Princes) his maiestie was not ouer curiouse in them. Yet, he left not S. Peter without a name of honor also, sayinge: Thou shalt be called Cephas, Io. 1. which is interpreted Petrus, a rocke or Stone.

Which Title, duly considered, is of more weight and worthinesse, than either the name of Head, Rector, Gouernor, Prince, Christ gaue S. Peter a Title of dignitie and po­wer. or vniuersal Bishope. Which as they signifie a Preeminence aboue others, so do they not warrant, a Continuance, a Stedfastnes, a sure Ground to buyld vpon, and a Princi­pall and Chiefe Stone in the house of God, as Cephas or Petros (which are to say a Rocke) doe. for our Sauyour expressed it, in the hearinge of the twelue, and sayed to S. Peter only and specially:

Thou art Peter or a Rocke,Mat. 16. and, vpō this rocke, will I buyld my Church, [Page] and the gates of hell shal not preuaile against it. And to thee will I geue, the keyes of the kingdome of heauens, and what thinge soeuer thou byndest vpon Earth, shalbe bound in heauē: & what thinge soeuer thou loosest vpon Earth, shalbe loosed in Heauen.

Mary this Title of Vniuersall bishope or Head of the Church, he gaue not him in plaine Termes. But what of that? He instituted effectuall Sacramentes: yet he neuer called any of them by the name of Sacrament. He taught men to beleue in the Trinitie, yet the word is not found in all scripture. The prophet Dauid calleth the Apostles Princes of all the Earth, Psal. 44. yet Christ which gaue them Authoritie ouer al, sayeth no more but: Goe and Preach the Gospell to al creatures. Mar. 16. And againe, I send you furth as sheepe emong wolues. Mat. 10. Againe: your master is one, Christ, and al ye, are Brethern: Mat. 23. and neuer called them Princes.

How then? Doth M. Iew. find an im­perfection [Page 77] in Christes doinges? And thinketh he secretly in his hart, that a Po­wer is not well geuen without a Title? And that, if him selfe might haue ordered the matter,To anger or troble the Catholikes M. Iewel mak [...]th obiections against God him­selfe. the Name and Office should haue ben geuen, both together? from whēce cometh this, that a wretched and a vile cre­ature, hath to saye any thinge against his Maker? The Catholike Church is cōtēned, The iudgement of y^e highest Bishope in the earth is condēned, & to hinder y^• Pope, And āger y^• Catholikes, he is not afraied to dally with Almightie God him selfe, And to aske of vs, whether it was not an easy matter for him, to geue Peter the Power and Title, al together. That when we shall confesse the Title was not geuen,Either foolishe or blasphemous. he may infer: Ergo neither the Power. Which argument, If your selfe M. Iewel thinke to be naught, what a wyse man are you, so trimly to set it furth? If it be good, what a Miserable felow are you, which dare so to speake of him, that is Alwyse, and Almightie? As though it should not be agreable, to geue a Power and not the Title. Confesse that you haue ouershot your selfe, in ma­kinge so much, of a weake reason: Or looke to be Answeered accordingly, [Page] when him selfe shal come in Iudgement for such purpose. But let vs goe forward.

To this Church of Rome,D. Har. Fo. 106. it is ne­cessarie, al that be faithfull to repaire and come togeather: for the mightier Principalitie of the same.Iren. lib. 3. cap. 3. Againe:

Andrew re [...]eiued not the Primacie, but Peter.Amb. 2. Cor. 12. Againe,

The Primacie or Principalitie of the Apostolike Chayre,Aug. epi. 162. hath euermore bene in force in the Romaine Church.

Now marke what M. Iew. concludeth. He answereth after his maner vnto euery one, but he triumpheth not therein, but in this, sayinge:

M. Hardinge trippinge (as he sayeth) so nicely ouer the Doctors, hath not yet once towched,Iew. 254 Here be­gynneth the he and [...]. the thingethat was looked for, and that he hath only, and with such affiance, take in hand For, notwithstanding a great Pōpe of wordes and the Names of manie holie Fathers, yet hath he not hitherto shewed, that the Bishope of Rome within the space o [...] six hundred yeares after Christ, was euer called the Vniuersall bishope, Or the head of the vniuersall Church, VVhich thinge i [...] [Page 57] he could haue shewed, I beleue he wold not so lightlie haue tripte it ouer.

See, how ernest he is, vpon the name of Vniuersall Bishop. And how sore him selfe stumbleth, at one simple word (Tripping.) And how much he craketh, before the end, that the word he looketh for, is not yet shewed. But see in an other place.

D. Harding, from the 108. leafe to the 119. of his boke, proueth the necessitie of one head, and authoritie of the Bishope of 1 Rome.

By naturall reason. By Appeales 2-3 made to Rome. By Excommunications 4 directed from Rome. By Elections of Bishopes, confirmed by the Pope. By his Approuinge or Disprouinge of 5 Councels, By restoringe, of Bishopes 6 wrongfulli cōdēned, to their Churches.7 By Bishops and Patriarches reconci­led vnto him. And then goeinge forward in this matter, Although it be a childish thinge (saieth he) to sticke at the name, any thinge is called by, yet I will [Page] bringe good witnesse for these names, VNIVERSAL BISHOPE & HEAD of the CHVRCH.

This, I trow, should cause M. Iew. to be more calme and quiet, consideringe that he shall not tary longe, but haue the very Names brought furth, which he craueth so much for. But, he must make somewhat of nothinge, aud seeme to be a Winner, before his aduersarie ioyne with him. And therfore, he taketh him selfe to Coniectures and Gheasses, sayinge:

Here M. Hardinge secretlie confesseth,Iew. fol. 295. An other copy of vnreasonable crakinge. that in al he hath hitherto alleaged, he hath not yet found, that the bishop of Rome was knowen in the world, within the space of the first six hundred yeares after Christ, by the Name, either of the Vniuersall bishop, or of the Head of the Church.

Well, because you are so importunate and hastie with vs vpon the foresayd Titles: I can not stay now, to tell you here againe of your crakinge, but wil make speede, to the places which might satisfie your expectation.

D. Hardinge therfore, from the 119. [Page 80] leafe, to the 124. proueth, by S. Gregorie, that the Councell of Chalcedon called the Bishop of Rome the vniuersall Bi­shop: And by S. Chrysostome, S. Hie­rome, S. Cyrill, and others, he proueth that Peter was called the Head of the Church. Now betwene he sayeth, that euery where almost, this Name is attri­buted to S. Peter either in Termes equiualent, or expresly.Har. fo. 110.

Thereupon, M. Iewell triumpheth. Thus he doubteth at the matter and stam­mereth and faltereth at the beginninge.Iew. 30 [...] But if the B. of Rome were the Head of the Church in deede,More crakinge. so allowed and taken in the whole world: why was he neuer expresly and plainly Named so? VVas there no man in the world then, for the space of six hundred yeares, able to expresse his Name; Againe. It had bene the simpler and plainer dealinge for M. Hardinge to haue saied, This Name can not yet be found: and so to haue taken a longer daie.

What will you doe when you ouer­come [Page] in deede, which although y^e stroke be but cominge, make rekeninge of your gaines, And accompt it halfe a Victorie, for that it is not more quickly geuen? But D. Hardinge, before he bringeth furth the ex­presse Terme (Head) to diminish the neede­les curiositie of some persons, he sayeth:

VVhat forceth it,Har. fo. 1 [...]1. whether that very terme (HEAD) be found in any auncient writer, or no? And it foloweth, But to take away occasion of cauill, I wil alleage a few places, where the ex­presse Terme (HEAD) is attribu­ted to Peter the first B. of Rome.

Here now should M. Iew. be attent, in harkeninge to the Obiection. But, as though al the matter were lyke to be lost, for lacke of a good face to set vpon it, he looketh merily vpō the cause, And turneth his eye away from that which is coming against him, And is glad for a thinge past & gone, I can not tell what: Sayinge.

Gentill reader,Iew. 306 I beseche the, marke wel this dealinge. This Name the (Head) of the v­niuersall Church is the (verie Thing) that we denie,Fol. 77. And that M. Hardinge hath taken in [Page 77] hand to proue, And boldly auoucheth, that he hath already plainly shewed and proued the same: yet now, in the end, finding him self destitute,Lycinge and. he turneth it of, as a thinge of nought. Againe: VVithin the space of the first six hundred yeares, there were in Rome 68. Bishops,Iew. 20 for their Constance in fayth, for their vertu and Lerninge, far exceedinge the rest that haue bene [...]ithence. The Number of them beinge so greate,Bragg [...] ­ge owt of measure. their Learninge so no table, their Life so holie, it is meruaile M. Hardinge should not be able to showe that ani one of them al, in so Long time, was once caled the (Head) of the Church, & therfor should thus rest vpon S. Peter, who, when he receaued these Titles was not bishop of Rome, And of whom there is no question moued.

Here lacketh (I confesse) no Inuention or Exornation. A Title only or two are sought for. The finding of which, is made to be of Greate Importance.

The omnipotencie of Christ is conside­red 1 for the matter (because he was hable to geaue the Power & Title both togeather)

The disposition of the Aduersarye (be­cause 2 if he could, he would bring them furthe.)

The space of six hundred yeres (whether 3 [Page] in that tyme no man was hable to expres­se them.)

4 The number and worthinesse of 68. Bisshopes of Rome, (with a special maruel, y^• M. Hardinge should not be hable to shew that any one of them al, in so Longe tyme was once called Heade of the Church.) And al this (with much more, which I let passe) is considered and Amplified to the most Vantage, As though it would be saide: Good Lord what a felow is he, that hath so opposed al the world? And how can that be, but of Greate force to saluation, about which, so Notable a Clerke doth keepe so greuous a Stur?

Yet in very deede, those his Sentences are not Argumentes of his well sayinge, but rather Copies, of his foule crakinge. Which how vayne and vnsensible it is, let it now be tried, by indifferēt Readers. For, if it had ben plainly Answered vnto him, at the beginninge: That these forsaied Titles could not be found, he might (I graunt) haue Concluded as he doth:Iew. 306 Ergo mie asser­tion is true, (vnderstād verbo tenus, that is, concerninge the outward sound of y^e word only) But Crake thereof he could not by any right: Because he winneth no more, but that no such Name was then vsed: and [Page 86] cometh not to the Thinge it selfe, and Substaunce of the questiō. Yea rather, he might be ashamed, To Looke so bygge, And Speake so lowdly, And Prouoke so gene­rally, And Stur about so busily, And geaue great hope of victorie, And when all that he asketh, is Graunted, to be able to make no other vantage, but only this: Ergo mie as­sertion is True. Yea forsoth A worthie As­sertion, To proue that, And stand vpon y^t, And bragge on that, which the Aduersarie may easely graunt, without any losse of the cause, & you hauinge it yelded vnto you, cā infer nothing against y^e Popes supremicie.

Take it vnto you M. Iew. that the name, Vniuersall Head, is not found: We are con­tent with y^• sense or Meaninge of the name.A Greate victorie and nothing taken. Returne you home, from your Greate fight, with certaine bare Titles & Letters: And the aduersarie hath not much to com­plaine, keepinge the Thinge it selfe with him, vnder other wordes and Letters.

You haue done valiantly, (I trow) to stand against al mē aliue vpon two names and Titles: And we are not much hurted, when, for all your Cost, and Charges, you haue come nothing nigh to y^e matter, which by those Names or other, is imported.

[Page] Thus, if D. Hardinge would make short, and graunt vnto M. Iew. his Assertion: Yet should he so litle make any Bost or Triumphe thereof, that the might rather be ashamed, to leaue the Thinges them sel­ues, and striue vpon the bare Names of them. But, on the other side, now, whereas D. Harding hath, not only so de­clared the cause of the B. of Rome, that, without seekinge or caringe for the Names of Vniuersall Bishop or head, he hath, plainely proued his Supremicie: But also hath condescended vnto M. Iewels Infir­mitie or Curiositie, And hath brought furth, in conuenient place, the very Names themselues which M. Iew. demaundeth: What modestie or honestie is this,Consider M. Ie­wels be hauiour. so, to Triumph, and Crake, as though thei were not at al found out and recited?

If he Answered D. Hardinge before he had Read what he had sayed: he Answered by happ and not by cunninge: If he Read ouer this Article, before he beganne to Re­plie against it, how did he not marke, that in the later part thereof, the very Names which he asketh for, are alleged out of the Auncient Fathers? And then further, how should he, so, either dissemble or trifle, as, to [Page 81] presse in still vpon his aduersarie, with Importunate & Impertinēt askinge for those Titles, (the place of shewinge the which foloweth afterward) and thereupon so solemly to Triumph, as though no such Title were to be found at all, because they were not found Immediately in the begin­ninge of the Article, but in the latermost part only thereof?

But here now let vs consider, whether M. Iew. as he was hastie in askinge for those foresaied Titles, whiles the place was not yet come where D. Hardinge apointed to vtter thē: so now, whē they are brought furth against him let vs see whether he Shifteth not as fast away from them, as euer he was Inquisitiue for them, And whether he do not in deede Trip nicely ouer the Doctors:

Leo the greate,Har. fol. 119. B. of Rome, was cal­led in the Councell of Chalcedon by the Name of VNIVRSAL BISHOP. And this Councell was within the six hundred yeares after Christ:Note the seuen fetches or flinges, or vagaries, or delaies or trials how to escape, Ergo your Assertion M. Iew. is false.

In answeringe to this Argument, first you comfort your selfe, that this is the first Testimonie of D Hardinges, for profe [Page] of the Name it selfe: with,which M. Iewel he­re najetg vefire ge cine [...] Iew. 295 Ergo hitherto, he hath nor found it. Much good may it do you if yow can make anie thing of it, sauing a Beggarly and an Idle Bragge.

Then, you signifie, that you will sticke at the Name it selfe. Because D. Hardinge warned you, That y^e Thinge sufficiently proued, to sticke at y^e Name it self was but a Childish point. 3. After this, you cast the Accompt,Hard. fol. 119. that the Councell of Chalcedon was holden in the yeare of our lord 488. Ergo of the whole number of the six hundred yeares, Iew. 296. M Hardinge freely euen at the sight, hath yelded vs backe, foure hun­dred eight skore and eight yeares (writen out at length and not in figures of Arith­metike, to make the more show) towardes the rekeninge. As who should say, he shall not goe backe againe, And glad I am that there remayne but 112. yeares to ac­compt vpon, for the which I will Shift well enough.

Fourthly, He addeth that Leo Accuseth that whole Councell of Ambition, and that the Apostolike See of Rome, in part allowed it not By which you may gather, that the Pope thē, much within y^e 600. after Christ, [Page 82] toke him selfe to be of Greater Authoritie then the whole Councel: the Actes wherof, he either Confirmed or Disalowed by his final sentence.

After this you come to VVhat If, and say: 5 VVhat if there were no such Title, either Geauen or offered in the Councell (reversed ?) Iew. 297 Againe: VVhy doth not M. Hardinge alleage, either y^• Place or the Canō or the wordes? Againe. Why geaueth he no Note in the Margine? &c. Mary, because he went not about to proue his sayinge by any Canon or decree of y^e Councell, but by other sufficient authoritie.

Now a man would thinke that by this 6 tyme, ye had tryfied enough. Yet ye pro­cede in your Vanitie, & find matter of talke where none is geuē,Iew. 297. with: Perhaps he will say, this Canon was burnt by some heretikes. &c. No M. Iew. he wil not say so: Yet you, as though he were like to say it, do make a Solemne & Curiouse Confutation of it: How that it were much for him to say so. And concludinge with a victorious Epiphone­ma and Acclamation, ye Vaunt and say. M. Hardinge hath no other Councell, within 600. yeares after Christ to hold by, but only this: and yet the same can not be found.

Wel syr, what haue ye more to daly vpō? [Page] Will ye now at length come to the matter? You haue perchaunce forgot your selfe, And therfore I will put you in memorie, what you must answer vnto.

D. Hardinge, to proue that the B. of Rome hath ben called by the Name of Vni­uersall bishop, allegeth S. Gregorie. You haue asked where it is to be found in the Councel, And you would make him to be laughed at,Iew. 198 Or discredited, that He allegeth a Coūcell without a Canō. But he speaketh it expressely y^t, you shall looke for it, not in y^e Coūcell, but in S. GREGORIE. What answer ye now?

This is an vntruth to beguile the reader.Iew.

Then I beshrew the lyer. But, how do you proue it?

For Gregorie sayeth not, [...]97. Shift. the bishops in that Councell, Saluted, Intitled, Proclamed, or Called the bishop of Rome by that name: only he saieth, the Name of Vniuersal bishop was Offered by the Councell of Chalcedon to the B. of Rome.S. Gregorie shame­ful [...] interpreted. He saieth they Offered to Call him so, but that they Called him so in deede, he saieth not.

What meane you bere by, They OFFE­RED to call him so? Is OFFERED taken there, for makinge a Profer, Or for goinge about to call him so? If it be, how [Page 83] might this Ridle of yours be perceaued? or how might I conceaue, that they made such an Offer? First, they stode vp perchaunce, They looked one vpon another, They turned them selues to y^t Presidentes of that Councell, They held furth their hādes as if they had somewhat to geaue, They bowed w^t their bodies, They gaped & breathed, like mē very desyrouse & willinge to Offer some what: but speake they durst not. Who then can tell vs, of their Meaninge? or who can say, that those Bishops, by these Gestu­res, do Intend to call the B. of Rome, an Vniuersall bishop? For, A thousand other matters there are, which may lye in the hart of man, before the vtteringe of which, these Profers and Signes do goe.

How can M. Iew. then, make vs vnder­stand it, that the Offers which the Fathers of the Chalcedō Councell made, were Pro­per and Speciall tokens of the Title Vniuersal bishop, which they were readie to call him by, And not of some other thinge? Or how can he say, that not Callinge him so in deede, they went yet about it to Call him so? Thinketh he, that they had respect so longe before, to his Honestie, And feared to let the Title of Vniuersall bishop to passe [Page] their Lippes, least M. Iew. should be con­strained to yeld and Subscribe, and that therfore they Offered (no man I beleue can tell how) to Call him so, but Called him not so in deede.

Suppose it M. Iewel (which is proba­ble enough, least by deuienge my case, you should crst, Alas, then hath he lost a good ar­gument) suppose I say, that A Catholike were before you, And consideringe your owtward Behauior, with Relation had to your Bookes, Or otherwise takinge Occa­sion or Indignation, would thinke you in his conscience, to be an Hypocrite and A wrangler, And therewith Offer to call you so: except he veter so much by expresse word or writinge of his owne, Or consent vnto it, by sa [...]e other mans mouth or hande, cou [...]d you, with all your Lerned Councell, be able to change [...] therewithall, and say that In deede he Called you not so, but yet Offered so to doe? No surely, except ye had A Familiar (which through his subtilitie of Nature, is able to [...] better of a mans intent and meaninge, than the quickest per­son of sight and witt in all the word) no mortall Creature is able to know what is within a man.

[Page 84] Returne then, with your consideration, vnto the fathers of the Chal [...]edon Co [...] ­cell. If they Offered to Call y^e B. of Rome vniuersall Bishop, either that was percea­ued by their wordes, either by their wri­tinge, or some other plaine Signe. If [...] writinge, that confirmeth the Popes Su­premicie better, then if they had but spokē it, because it tarieth longer, and testifieth plainer. If by wordes, then vndoubtedly they Called him so. But, if they made but a Profer, and did it not in deede, who could tell you, that their Profer had such a Sense and Meaninge in it? whereas it is impossible to know particularly, what an other thinketh, except it be vttered of the partie him selfe, by some word, Or Signe as good as his word? And bysides this, If you can say, that their Secret mind and wil was so bent and disposed toward the B. of Rome as you imagine, how so euer you came by y^e knowledge, Yet this is manifest, y^e it must not be absurd for vs to geaue him a Singular Reuerence and [...], whō so Great & Graue a Councel thought in their hartes, to excell in authoritie aboue others, & therfore should Offer (to signifie their good will) to cal him Vniuersal bishop [Page] though in deede they Called him not so.

But who is the Author of this false tale [...] M. Iewel. where had he it? Of S. Grego­rie, as he sayeth. But doth S. Gregorie say so? be not these his very wordes: Nomen OBLATVM est, the name was OFFE­RED? Doth it not serue the purpose of which he speaketh in those Epistles, that the Name was in deede geauen to his Pre­decessors? For he sayeth, that they neuer consented to reaceue it. But how could this be, except that very Name, which they refused, had ben Offered? for if they did but Offer to cal him so: then did they not yet so cal him. & not callinge him by the name,The for­sayed shift vtterly taken awaie. how could the other well refuse, that, which at all was not vttered? But that this shift of Interpretation may not serue you, marke what S. Gregorie writeth vnto the Bishop of Constantinople.Lib 4. epist. 38.

VVere not the Bishops (as your holinesse knoweth) of this Apostolike see,The B. of Rome called vniuersal. Oblato honore. (which by Gods disposinge I serue and attend) called (by the reuerend Coūcel of Chalcedō VNIVERSALES VNIVERSAL, by an Honor or Name (not sought for, but) Offered?

[Page 85] Here M. Iewel ye haue, that the B. of Rome were called so. S. Gregory testifi­eth it, his Authority you seeme to regard & honor, especially in this matter of Vniuer­sall Bishop. Ergo your Assertion is false, fo­lowing the very word and Title, which so Cowhartly, and yet Braggingly allwaies you driue vs to finde. And now therefore you must Subscribe. Except you will flee from the word, vpon which you haue hi­therto so much sticked, vnto your Meaning vpon the word. Which we woulde sayne haue you to do: but thē, you could not crake as you haue done, by setting forth your selfe, vnder this bare Title of vniuersall Bishop or Head. &c. which now being found out a­gainst you, you begin to seke more rome because you are pinched, and to extende this word CALLED to signify, SALVTED, INTITLED, PROCLAIMED, but this Shift is not yet so currant. Howbeit, great feare there is, leaste after an other boke set forthe as big as this whiche alrea­dy is made, by much turning of wordes, y [...] will more often vse INTITLED and PROCLAIMED in steade of Called, that the question may be, not what was thē [...]one, but what OPENLY and Ordinarily [Page] was INTITLED and PROCLAI­MED.

But let vs cōsider a plainer place against you, and so discouer an other maner of shif­ting. You sticke vpon the bare F [...]ame, and as long as the Equiualent, and n [...]t y^e same which you specified, is brought forth, ye in­sult still and egge your Aduersarye. What wil you say now then, whē it shalbe plain­ly shewed? Athanasius, Ischyriō, Theodorus saluted S. Leo in three sundry Epistles, by the name of Vniuersall Patriarche: Ergo your Assertion is false and you must Sub­scribe. How auoid you? Mary ye cōfesse it to be true.

But of that whole number of sixe hundred and thirty Bishops,Iew. 298 there assēbled, I trow M. Harding is not wel able to shew, that any one euer Saluted or Called him so.

Why doe you take your question so, that three honest mens Testimonies are not suf­ficient,What a [...] and [...] but you must haue a whole Coūcell to call the Pope Vniuersall Bishop, Or els ye wil not be consuted? You asked, whether the B. of Rome was then called vniuersall Bi­shop. Iew. [...]0 And you limited it not within the cō ­passe of Generall Councell. Therfore if ye [Page 86] will sticke to the wordes, you muste Sub­scribe, Or els confesse, that this was one of the shiftes which you kept in store.

But why should you refuse the Te­stimonies of Athanasius, Ischyrion, and Theodorus, supposing that it were true, y^e in the Councel of Chalcedon, no one called the B. of Rome Vniuersall Bishop? The one of them, Athanasius, was a Priest, the other two were Deacons. But what of that? You make light of them as though they were some abiectes of the world, and say:

A straunge Priest,Iew. 298 and two poore Deacons in their Priuate Sutes for their Goodes and Legacies, named Leo the Vniuersall Bishop.

Ergo, within six hundred yeares [...] Christe, there were that Called and [...] the B. of Rome Vniuersall Bishop. B. [...] ye except against Priestes, and Pore Dea­cons, and suche as haue [...] and [...] ye will allowe none of the Cleargy for a witnesse, except he be a Bishop, and sit in a generall Councell. Or a [...] and [...] Prelate. Ergo, here againe ye sticke not to the wordes of your question, but [...] a Copy of another kind of your [...].

[Page] How say ye now then to S. Peter? He was Bishop of Rome, and he was called Heade of the Churche: Ergo, a Bishop of Rome was called Head of the Churche. Haue ye any shift for this argument?

But M. Harding knoweth the case is mo­uedIew. 308 not of S. Peter, but specially and namely of the bishop of Rome.

But Master D. Harding inferreth, that S. Peter was Bishop of Rome: ergo your Assertion is false, if you sticke to the bare Letter of your question, and inuent not some otherway to eskape by. But when wil M. Iewel be to seeking? For I dout not (sayeth he)

But M. Harding doth remember,Iew. 309 that the question that lieth betweene vs, riseth not of any Extraordinary Name once or twice ge­uen vpon some speciall Affection:Shiftinge and lying. but of the vsuall and knowen Title of the Bishoppe of Rome.

How shoulde he remember that, whiche you were not so Gentle or Wise, to tel him of? Haue ye not alwaies pressed hym, with bringing forth of the Name of vniuersal Bi­shop▪ Haue ye not misliked with him for it, that he would not be bound to shewe the Name, though he brought as much in sense [Page 87] as the Name importeth?

This haue ye done through your whole Aunswer with extreme Craking and In­sultation. And now, when to satisfy your fantasticall request, he hath alleaged the ve­ry Names and Titles, which you vaunted your selfe so much vpon, as thoughe they were neuer able to be found in any wryter: ye flee to the Interpretation and Limitati­on of your question, and stick not to y^e plain and Grammatical construction of it.

And now (see the vanity) your selfe are able to bring forth good Authoritye, where some Bishop of the worlde was called vni­uersall Patriarch, Iew. 30 [...] Hipocrite. and that, not by shifting of Termes one for another, but in plaine, mani­fest and expresse wordes, and suche as in no wise, may be denied.

Say you so? Why then haue you, all this while, made such a matter of findinge oute these Termes vniuersal bishop, and hed. &c. as though you would straight waies sub­scribe and yeld, if you might therein be an­swered. And why say you so constantly in an other place, This Name is the verye thing that we deny. If your selfe haue the places for that purpose already prepared & gathe­red (vndoubtedly to the Greate Praise ofIew. [...]06. [Page] your Note Boke) why doe you with suche brauery demaund them of your Aduersa­ries? Or with extreme Iniquitie, make a Tumult and Stur in mens consciencies for that word, in which your selfe do know you are but a Bragger? For, if the Bishope of Constantinople were called an Vniuersall Patriarch & caet. how could you mistruste, but as much and with more reason, might haue bene sayed of the B. of Rome, which was (as you confesse) the Cheife of the four Patriaches? Or how could you be so earnest, in reprouinge of that Title, which your wisedome confesseth (for a Surplu­sage to shew your greate learning and stu­dy) to haue bene geuen to baser persons then the B. of Rome is?

If your Conscience were open, through your owne sincere and true Dealing, Or if by the Authorities, which we should allege, you were constrayned, outwardly to ex­presse, what ye conceaue and cōcele within: then should it be euident in sight, that ye passe no more for the Names of Vniuersall Bishope, Or Head of the Vniuersal Church, though a thowsand Fathers had geauen them to the B. of of Rome: then you doe regard the Termes, Realy, Verely & truly [Page 88] with such like,M. Iew. seketh not peace and concord, but con [...]ē ­tion and s [...]ite. when they are by Catholike writers attributed to Christes body in the Sacrament. And like as whē these words, Principality, Primacy, Cheife Rule or Ruler, are proued to haue ben spokē by old Fathers of y^e See of Rome, or B. there: you turne your selfe to some dictionary or Eti­mologicō of your owne or others,Iewel. 244 & say, A Principal Church, is sometime vsed of the Fa­thers in this sense, to signifie a Ciuil dominiō or principalitie of a Citie. Againe, Primatus is vsed for any superioriti or prefermēt aboue others: Againe, Princeps, in the latin tōge is oftē vsed for a mā, 245 that, for his vertu or rome, or any singular qualitie, is to be had in estimatiō aboue others: 246 To be short, wheras you say, being pressed to S. Ambrose authoritie which called Damasus y^• B. of Rome,Iew. 306 The Rector & gouernor of y^e church. Let vs cōsider whether the self [...]ame form of speach, haue bē applied to any other in like sort. By which shift, you satisfie y^e cōmō readers, vn­til you be againe answered to your greater cōfusiō: so, hauing in your bosō, Iam sure, lik distinctiōs & expositiōs, wher Vniuersal B. & Head of the church, are sundry wayes vsed, you wold neuer (if you had ben aquiet [...] & louer of truth) so lōg haue cōtinued, [Page] in requiring those ve [...]y Termes to be alle­ge [...], which, as you do expound them, proue not to you sufficiētly y^e Popes Supremicy.

You affirme,194 that, in deede in a kinde of speach, both Rome and Antioche, and other great Cities, famous for Religion, may be cal­led the Head and Spring of the Gospel. And what shal let you then to turne thē to phra­ses, whatsoeuer Titles be found attributed to the B. of Rome: & so, by a kind of speach, to make that Common which is Singular? Wherby it is manifest that ye maintain Cō ­tention, and put those thinges forth, which you know to be Nedelesse and Weake, and Feeble, only to try perchaunce the strength of your Aduersaries, to the Commēdation of your owne Learning, Or Vttering of y^t Notes which ye haue gathered, Or to op­presse your Answerer wyth multitude of words and quarels, y^t for the very heaps of them, being either not Answered at all, Or answered not so speedily, you might triūph i [...] y^• meane space, w^t some probability. For, when y^• Catholikes alleage Termes of like force and Equiualent, then wil you haue no other but the Names of Vniuersall Bishop and Head &c and then the Name is the thing that you deny. From o [...]e corner to an other. [Page 89] And when those selues same very NAMES are brought before you, then ye make as though it were no harde matter to haue founde them out, but then bring you the lyke of your owne Motion: and then you run to Limitations vpon your question, and to Shiftinge frome one point to an­other, declaringe thereby, that your sense only is to be cōsidered, although ye peeked the quarell against the Word. But where will you staie your selfe?

For if it were proued, in most ample manner, with al Conditions and Circum­stances (as you by Shiftinge, haue nowe added to the Principall question) that, the B. of Rome was not called, but Intitled and Proclamed, not of Priests & pore Dea­cons, but of some Riche Prelates sitting in GENERAL COVNCEL, and that, not once or twise vpō fauor, but by an Vsu­all and knowen Stile: All this would not conuert M. Iewel. For in the end of this Article these be his wordes, Or rather his difinitiue sentence:

Although that which the Pope claymeth,Extre [...] shi [...]. were his very right, yet by his owne Iudge­ment, he is whorthie to lose it. For Pope Gregorie saieth: Priuilegium meretur amit­tere, qui abutitur potesta [...]e.Iew. 31 [...] He that abuseth [Page] his authoritie, is worthie to lose his priuilege. And Pope Siluerius sayeth: Etiam quod ha­buit amittat, qui quod non accepit, vsurpat. He that vsurpeth that he receaued not, let him loose that he had.

Be it so. He, for his own part deserueth. Like as the Temporal heades and Princes of the world, whē they doe not their office, are worthie of losinge it. But who shall depose them? It must be done by Law, and not by Insurrection. And vntil lawful pro­cesse against them be ended, the Common Wealthes are bound to obey them, be they neuer so vnworthie. Yet the Princes are made by men, and raceaue Authoritie, not immediatly from God, but of the Cōmon Wealth which doth choose them. But the Pope, whome Christ him selfe (without Consent of men goinge before, or voyce of y^• world) hath made Head of his Church, throughout the whole worlde: who shall take his Priuilege frome him, if he should be thereof vnworthie?

For the Prerogatiue and chiefe Autho­ritie geauen by God, muste continew, what soeuer the partye his merites are, [Page 90] The Apostle also saieng:

There is no power except it be frō God: and obey you,Rom. 13. Prepositours and such as are set ouer you.Heb. 13.

And if the chosen of God,1. Reg. 24 King Dauid hauinge Saull at a vantage, besought God to staye his handes, that hym selfe might not kill hym sweringe, that, As trewlye as GOD liueth, excepte God stroke hym, or hys tyme were come to dye, or he should be destroyed in Battayle, he would not lay hāds vpon the Anoynted of God: And if our Sauiour Christe com­maunded the Iewes,

To doe that which the Scribes and Pharisies dyd saye vnto them, though their lyuing and behauiour otherwise was so euill, that he charged them, not to doe as they dyd,

who dare be so bould, as hurte Or disso­beye, the Anoynted of God, The Highest Bisshoppe in all Christendome, the Suc­cessour of S. Peter, lawfullye sutttrg in Chaire and Place, of Instructinge and gouerning the Faithfull? [Page] Wil the Superintendētes of the Church of England doe it? By what law and reason? Mary, y^• Canon law shalbe brought furth, 11. quaest. 2. p [...]iuilegium. and 25. quaest. 2. Sic decet & caet. And M. Iewel shal alleage a Glose or make a Glose vpon it, Of which the whole Fraternity must cōclude, that if it were neuer so much proued, that the B. of Rome, was Called in the six hundred yeres after Christ, Head of the Vniuersall Church, And though it were his verye Right: Ye [...], for as much he abuseth his Priuilege, he deserueth to leese it, And we wil haue him no more Obeied. Fare well he. And so breketh out this fourth Artitle, into Presumptuons Contempte of Law­full Authoritie.

1 Thus haue we the cumpasse of M. Ie­wels triflinge Processe. First, the Name (he saieth) can not be found, and as long as that Answer will hold, he Insulteth and Braggeth like Iewel him selfe.

2 Then, the Calling of S. Leo Vniversal Bisshope, in the Councel of Chalcedon, was not a Calling of him so in deede, but an Offering to cal him so. And so the tes­tymony of y^• inward Goodwill is not suf­ficiente, but he muste haue it declared by [Page 91] worde of mouthe.

Thirdly, poore Priestes and Deacons,3 but none of the Councell of Chalcedon did geue it. So by like none but Noble Per­sonages, and men of honor shall geaue Voices.

Fourthly, though S. Peter, the first 4 Bisshope of Rome, were so called, yet the question is not moued of him, but of the Pope. So might the Successour challenge nothing, of the Prerogatiue of his Prede­cessour.

Fyfthly, if it were geuen but once Or 5 twise, it is no matter: because our question (sayth he) is of the Vsual Stile. So must we bringe furth a Proclamation (I trow) Or Scale for it, Or els nothing is done.

Sixthly in a kinde of Speache the B.6 of Rome, as also of Constantinople may be called by the Title of VNIVERSAL. So shail it be but a Phrase only, and of no weight Or Substance, what so euer be alleaged for these Titles aforsayed.

Last of all, if it were the Popes Right,7 Yet is he worthy to leese it. And so it [...]ooteth no more, to Reason of this ques­tion, for that they haue done, they wil not [...]: Such is theyr finall determination. [Page] By which way of violence and force, if the cause of Religion may be folowed, ye will be to stronge (M. Iewel) not only for Op­pressed Catholikes in these your prospe­rous daies, but allso againste quiet Catho­likes, where they liue with the loue of their Soueraignes. But if this muste needes seeme vnreasonable in Professors of a new Gospel, which take vpon them to direct vs by the expresse woorde of the Lorde in the Right knowledge of all Truthe and Ho­nesty: I will truste, that this Detection of you their Chiefe man of Warre, Shifting, Striuing, Craking, Dissembling, Ly­ing, Triumphing. &c. will cause the Indifferent Reader, to Beware of M. Iewel. (❧ ❧ ❧)