A04474:2976
A reply unto M. Hardinges answerA replie vnto M. Hardinges ansvveare
A reply unto M. Hardinges answer by perusing whereof the discrete, and diligent reader may easily see, the weak, and unstable grounds of the Romaine religion, which of late hath been accounted Catholic. By John Jewel Bishop of Salisbury.A replie vnto M. Hardinges ansvveare by perusinge whereof the discrete, and diligent reader may easily see, the weake, and vnstable groundes of the Romaine religion, whiche of late hath beene accompted Catholique. By Iohn Iewel Bishoppe of Sarisburie.
Imprinted at London : In Fleetestreate, at the sign of the Black Oliphant, by Henry Wykes, Anno. 1565Imprinted at London : In Fleetestreate, at the signe of the Blacke Oliphante, by Henry VVykes, Anno. 1565
Article 13 › The B. of Salisbury.Article 13 › The B. of Sarisburie.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Hereof M. Harding frameth us this formal Syllogismus: The cause, that moved Leo to take this order, was, that all, and every of the devout people might hear Mass: But it is likely, the people resorted to the Church at sundry times, some rather, some later, and not all at once: Ergo, It is likely, that to satisfy the peoples devotion, there were sundry Masses said in one day.
Hereof M. Hardinge frameth vs this formal Syllogismus: The cause, that mooued Leo to take this order, was, that al, and euery of the deuoute people might heare Masse: But it is likely, the people resorted to the Churche at sundrie times, some rather, some later, and not al at once: Ergo, It is likely, that to satisfie the peoples deuotion, there were sundrie Masses saide in one day.
It is likely, that M. Harding never examined the parts, and likelihood of this Argument. For first the Major, or Head Proposition is apparent false, grounded, as it is termed in Logique, A non causa, ut causa, Presuming, that thing to be the cause, which in deed is no cause. For the cause, that moved Leo, was not the hearing of Mass, as it is already proved, but the receiving of the Holy Communion.
It is likely, that M. Hardinge neuer examined the partes, and likelyhoode of this Argument. For first the Maior, or Head Proposition is apparent false, grounded, as it is termed in Logique, A non causa, vt causa, Presuming, that thing to be the cause, whiche in déede is no cause. For the cause, that mooued Leo, was not the hearinge of Masse, as it is already prooued, but the receiuinge of the Holy Communion.
The Minor, or Second Proposition, notwithstanding in some part it may seem true, yet it is nothing agreeable to Leos meaning. For Leo speaketh not of one man, or two, nor of the ordinary course of every day, but only of great Solemn Feasts, and of such resort of people, as might fill up the whole Church. His words be plain, Cùm solennior Festivitas conuentum populi numerosioris indixerit: And, Quoties Basilicam praesentia novae plebis impleverit. Therefore, to bear us thus in hand, that Leo had such a special care, either for the Term time in London, or for the people about Pauls, or for hearing the Postel's mass, it is a very vain, and a childish fantasy: like as this also is, that he addeth, The people should be denied that Spiritual Comfort. For, alas, what Comfort can the people receive, where as they can neither see, nor hear, nor understand, nor know, nor learn: but stand only as men amazed, utterly bereft of all their senses? Let M. Harding once lay apart dissimulation, and tell us, by what ways, or means, the people at his Mass can possibly receive this Spiritual Comfort. If he would speak truly, and that he knoweth, as he seldom doth, he should rather call it Spiritual Blindness.