A defence of the Apology of the Church of England containing an answer to…A defence of the Apologie of the Churche of Englande conteininge an answeare to…

Now consider the order, and plainness of your dealing. Ye bestow wellnigh the third part of your Book about the Sacrifice: as though there were no Sacrifice without Private Mass. Al the rest ye consume in idle discourses, and needless talks, of Consecration, of the Intention of the Priest, of Mingling the water with the wine, of the Name of the Mass, of Transubstantiation, of Real Presence, of Church Feasts, (which in old time were called Agapae), of Singular Communion, of Communion of Faith, of our Union with Christ, of sending abroad the Sacrament, of Priests wives, of Vows, of Bigamy, of Good works, of Only Faith, of Public Prayer in a tongue unknown, of Ceremonies, of Forms, of Accidents, of the Epistles Decretal, of Clemens, Cletus, Anacletus, Obadiah, Leontius, &c. Hereof ye have told us such things, as perhaps we knew before, and were not hard to be known, and pertained full little to the purpose. Ye should rather have proved, that within the first six hundred years after Christ, some one, or other of the Holy Learned Catholic Fathers Ministered the Holy Communion openly in the Church, and received the Sacrament Alone not dividing the same to any other, the whole multitude of the people ⟨image 390⟩sitting, or standing by, and looking on him. This was the matter, that lay between us: Hereunto ye should have laid your force: This was it, ye should have proved. For proof of such things, as needed no proof, ye have brought forth great shows of Learning. But as touching your Private Mass, which only ye had taken in hand to prove, ye have hitherto proved nothing. Your Reader, M. Harding, can never be, neither so simple, nor so partial, but he must needs have an eye unto your issue, and remember, what ye had in hand. If amongst so many, and so Learned words, he find not one word of that he sought for, may he not think, he hath lost his labour, and that there is some folly in your fardle? May he not say within him selfe, Quò nunc se proripit iste? What shall I make of these vagaries? what meaneth this man, to shoot so fair beside the mark? He must needs perceive by your silence, that, notwithstanding your so many fair, and liberal promises, yet the thing, he sought for, cannot be found.

Now consider the order, and plainenesse of your dealinge. Yee bestowe welneare the thirde parte of your Booke aboute the Sacrifice: as though there were no Sacrifice without Priuate Masse. Al the reste yee consume in idle discourses, and needelesse talkes, of Consecration, of the Intention of the Prieste, of Minglinge the vvater vvith the vvine, of the Name of the Masse, of Transubstantiation, of Real Presence, of Churche Feastes, (whiche in olde time were called Agapae), of Singulare Communion, of Communion of Faithe, of our Vnion with Christe, of sendinge abroade the Sacramente, of Priestes vviues, of Vovves, of Bigamie, of Good vvoorkes, of Onely Faithe, of Publique Praier in a tongue vnknowen, of Ceremonies, of Fourmes, of Accidentes, of the Epistles Decretal, of Clemens, Cletus, Anacletus, Abdias, Leontius, &c. Hereof yee haue tolde vs sutche thinges, as perhaps wee knewe before, and were not harde to be knowen, and perteined ful litle to the pourpose. Yee should rather haue proued, that within the firste sixe hundred yeeres after Christe, somme one, or other of the Holy Learned Catholique Fathers Ministred the Holy Communion openly in the Churche, and receiued the Sacramente Alone not diuidinge the same to any other, the vvhole multitude of the people