A04474:490
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 1 › M. Harding. The .24. Division.Article 1 › M. Hardinge. The .24. Diuision.
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.
M. Harding. The .24. Division.
M. Hardinge. The .24. Diuision.
Upon this resolution, that the Mass, as it is taken in general, is to be allowed: I enter further in reason with you, and make you this argument. If Private Mass, in respect only of that it is Private after your meaning, be reprovable, it is for the single Communion, that is to say, for that the priest receiveth the Sacrament alone: But the single Communion is lawful, yea good and godly: Ergo, the Private Mass in this respect that it is Private, is not reprovable, but to be allowed, holden for good and holy, and to be frequented. If you deny the first proposition or Major, then must you show for what else you do reprove Private Mass in respect only that it is Private, then for single Communion. If you show any thing else, then do you digress from our purpose, and declare that you reprove the Mass. The Minor you cannot deny, seeing you see, how sufficiently I have proved it. And so the Private Mass in that respect only it is private, is to be allowed for good, as the Mass is.
Vpon this resolution, that the Masse, as it is taken in general, is to be allowed: I enter further in reason with you, and make you this argument. If Priuate Masse, in respecte onely of that it is Priuate after your meaninge, be reproueable, it is for the single Communion, that is to saie, for that the priest receiueth the Sacrament alone: But the single Communion is lawful, yea good and godly: Ergo, the Priuate Masse in this respecte that it is Priuate, is not reproueable, but to be allowed, holden for good and holy, and to be frequented. If you denie the firste proposition or Maior, then muste you shewe for what els you doo reproue Priuate Masse in respecte onely that it is Priuate, then for single Communion. If you shewe any thinge els, then doo you digresse from our purpose, and declare that you reproue the Masse. The Minor you cannot denie, seinge you see, howe sufficiently I haue proued it. And so the Priuate Masse in that respecte onely it is priuate, is to be allowed for good, as the Masse is.
The B. of Salisbury.
The B. of Sarisburie.
Out of all these former authorities of Tertullians Wife, Monks in the wilderness, Lay men, Women, and Boys, M. Harding gathereth this conclusion, which as he would have folk think, standeth so soundly on every side, that it cannot possibly be avoided.
Out of al these former authorities of Tertullians Wife, Monkes in the wildernesse, Laye menne, Wemen, and Boyes, M. Hardinge geathereth this conclusion, whiche as he woulde haue folke thinke, standeth so soundely on euery side, that it cannot possibly be auoided.
The Private Mass is single Communion: Single Communion is lawful: Ergo, Private Mass is lawful.
The Priuate Masse is single Communion: Single Communion is lawful: Ergo, Priuate Masse is lawful.
This Syllogism unto the unskilful may seem somewhat terrible, as a visard unto a child, that can not judge, what is within it. But M. Harding that made it, knoweth it is vain and worth nothing. And that it may the better appear, I will open the error by an other like.
This Syllogisme vnto the vnskilful may séeme somewhat terrible, as a visard• vnto a childe, that can not iudge, what is within it. But M. Hardinge that made it, knoweth it is vaine and woorthe nothinge. And that it may the better appeare, I wil open the errour by an other like.
The Ministration of Private Mass is a single Communion: Single Communion is lawful for a woman: Ergo, the Ministration of Private Mass is lawful for a woman.
The Ministration of Priuate Masse is a single Communion: Single Communion is lawful for a woman: Ergo, the Ministration of Priuate Masse is lawful for a woman.
It is all one kind of argument, of like form, and like terms. And as this is deceitful, so is the other likewise deceitful. The error is in the Second Proposition, which is called the Minor: and that shall ye soon see, if you turn the same Minor, and make it an universal, and say thus in M. Hardinges argument.
It is al one kinde of argument, of lyke forme, and like termes. And as this is deceiteful, so is the other likewise deceiteful. The errour is in the Seconde Proposition, whiche is called the Minor: and that shall ye soone sée, if you turne the same Minor, and make it an vniuersal, and saye thus in M. Hardinges argument.
Al manner Single Communions be lawful: Or in the other argument, Al manner single Communions are lawful for a woman. So shall ye soon find out the folly.
Al manner Single Communions be lawful: Or in the other argument, Al manner single Communions are lawful for a woman. So shal ye soone finde out the folie.
Further Medius Terminus, that holdeth and knitteth the argument, must agree with the Subiectum and Praedicatum in circumstance of time, of place, of person, of subject, and part of subject. With which circumstances a thing may be lawful: and without the same may be unlawful. For example, It is thought lawful for a woman to Baptize at home: but it is not thought lawful for a woman to baptize in the open Church: yet is the thing all one: but the circumstance of place being changed, changeth the whole. Again, it is lawful for a Priest to minister the Sacrament in the forenoon, and in the Church: but it is not lawful for a Priest to Minister the Sacrament after he hath dined, or in his bed: Yet was it lawful for S. Ambrose, and others so to receive the Sacrament. We see therefore, there is great matter in alteration of the circumstance.
Further Medius Terminus, that holdeth and knitteth the argument, muste agrée with the Subiectum and Praedicatum in circumstance of time, of place, of person, of subiecte, and parte of subiecte. With whiche circumstances a thinge may be lawful: and without the same may be vnlawful. For example, It is thought lawful for a woman to Baptize at home: but it is not thought lawful for a woman to baptize in the open Churche: yet is the thinge al one: but the circumstance of place beinge changed, changeth the whole. Againe, it is lawful for a Priest to minister the Sacrament in the forenoone, and in the Church: but it is not lawful for a Prieste to Minister the Sacrament after he hath dined, or in his bedde: Yet was it lawful for S. Ambrose, and others so to receiue the Sacrament. We sée therefore, there is greate mater in alteration of the circumstance.
These things perhaps may seem over curious, and therefore I pass them by, doing thee nevertheless, Gentle Reader, to understand, that without consideration hereof thou mayst be deceived. Set the head in his natural place between the shoulders: and there is a man. Set the same head in the breast or other where out of his place: and there is a Monster.
These thinges perhaps may séeme ouer curious, and therefore I passe them by, dooinge thée neuerthelesse, Gentle Reader, to vnderstande, that without consideration hereof thou mayst be deceiued. Set the heade in his natural place betwéene the shoulders: and there is a man. Set the same heade in the breast or other where out of his place: and there is a Monster.
Now touching M. Hardinges Syllogism, thou mayst see, that the Minor, or Second Proposition is not true, as they term it, Simpliciter, and without exception. For the Single Communion was never so taken for lawful, but only in consideration of circumstances, & cases of necessity. Which cases being either removed, or better examined, the same kind of Single Communion is no longer thought lawful. Therefore thou mayst thus say to M. Harding: How say you sir? Do you allow the examples that you have brought to prove your Mass by? or do you not allow them? If you allow them, why then suffer ye not Women to carry home the Sacrament, and to keep it in Chests, and Napkins, as they did of old? If you allow them not, because they were abuses, why then seek you to prove your Mass by the same, and so to establish one abuse by an other? Now let us look a little back to the note, that M. Harding set out in the Margin for our remembrance, by these words (Proofs for Private Mass). That it might seem lawful for a Priest to say Private Mass, he hath brought in examples of Lay men, Women, Sick folk, & Boys. Alas doeth M. Harding think, it was the manner in old times, that Lay people should say Mass? Or was there no Priest all this while in the world for the space of .600. years, that Women and Children must come forth to prove these matters? Or was there no difference then between Sole Receiving, and Private Mass? Or shall we think that Women and Boys did then Consecrate the holy Mysteries, or offer up Christs Body: or make Sacrifice for quick and dead: or apply Christs death unto others? Where is M. Hardinges Logic become? where is the sharpness of his wit?
Now touchinge M. Hardinges Syllogisme, thou mayst see, that the Minor, or Seconde Proposition is not trewe, as they terme it, Simpliciter, and without exception. For the Single Communion was neuer so taken for lawful, but onely in consideration of circumstances, & cases of necessitie. Which cases beinge either remoued, or better examined, the same kinde of Single Communion is no longer thought lawful. Therefore thou mayst thus say to M. Hardinge: How say you sir? Doo you allowe the examples that you haue brought to proue your Masse by? or doo you not allowe them? If you allowe them, why then suffer ye not Wemen to carie home the Sacrament, and to keepe it in Cheastes, and Napkins, as they did of olde? If you allowe them not, bicause they were abuses, why then séeke you to proue your Masse by the same, and so to establishe one abuse by an other? Now let vs looke a litle backe to the note, that M. Harding set out in the Margine for our remembrance, by these woordes (Proufes for Priuate Masse). That it might séeme lawful for a Prieste to say Priuate Masse, he hath brought in examples of Laye men, Wemen, Sicke folke, & Boyes. Alas doeth M. Hardinge thinke, it was the manner in olde times, yt Laye people should say Masse? Or was there no Priest al this while in the world for the space of .600. yéeres, that Wemen and Children muste come foorth to proue these maters? Or was there no difference then betwéene Sole Receiuinge, and Priuate Masse? Or shal we thinke that Wemen and Boyes did then Consecrate the holy Mysteries, or offer vp Christes Bodie: or make Sacrifice for quicke and dead: or applie Christes deathe vnto others? Where is M. Hardinges Logique becomme? where is the sharpenesse of his witte?
But mark,1 good Christian Reader, how far he swerveth from that he hath taken in hand. I demand of the open Church: he answereth me of Private Houses. I demand of Priests: He answereth me of Women, Boys, and Lay men. I demand of the Mass: He answereth me of that thing, that him self granteth, is no Mass. I demand of the right Use of the Holy Supper, that ought to stand: he answereth me of Abuses, that be abolished. I demand of the usage that then was Ordinary: He answereth of necessity, ⟨p. 60⟩and cases Extraordinary. Judge thou therefore how well, and substantially he hath hitherto performed his promise.
But marke,1 good Christian Reader, howe farre he swarueth from that he hath taken in hande. I demaunde of the open Churche: he answeareth me of Priuate Houses. I demaunde of Priestes: He answeareth me of Wemen, Boyes, and Laye men. I demaunde of the Masse: He answeareth me of that thinge, that him selfe graunteth, is no Masse. I demaunde of the righte Use of the Holy Supper, that ought to stande: he answeareth me of Abuses, that be abolished. I demaunde of the vsage that then was Ordinarie: He answeareth of necessitie, ⟨p. 60⟩and cases Extraordinarie. Iudge thou therefore howe wel, and substantially he hath hitherto performed his promisse.
- 1Howe aptly M. Harding answereth to the question.Howe aptely M. Hardinge answeareth to the question.