A04474:986
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 2 › The B. of Salisbury.Article 2 › 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.
The B. of Salisbury.
The B. of Sarisburie.
I may not disgrace the credit of this story: all be it in Sozomenus, and Nicephorus, of both whom the same is recorded, there be sundry things, that may well be filed. But I see no cause yet, wherefore M. Harding should blow the triumph. For in all this long rehearsal there is not one word spoken of the Communion under One Kind. The Bread so changed into a stone, and kept for a memory among the Jewels there, was a witness of the woman's dissimulation, and not of M. Hardinges half Communion. Yet (saith he) by this story it is clear, the Sacrament was then ministered under one Kind only. For by receiving that one form, the woman would have persuaded her husband, that she had Communicated with him. Else if ⟨p. 137⟩both kinds had then been ministered, she would have practised some other shift, for the avoiding of the Cup, which had not been so easy. Now truly here is but a cold Conclusion, hanging wholly (as it may appear) only upon the sleight of a woman's wit. For as this woman had devised to deceive her husband in the Bread, why might she not as well devise to deceive him in the Cup? Why might she not take the Cup, and feign that she drank, and yet drink nothing? Doubtless such dissimulation is sooner wrought in the Cup, then in the Bread: and she that durst so to dissemble in the one part of God's Sacraments, would little fear to dissemble in the other.
I may not disgrace the credite of this storie: al be it in Sozomenus, and Nicephorus, of bothe whome the same is recorded, there be sundrie thinges, that may wel be filed. But I see no cause yet, wherefore M. Hardinge shoulde blowe the triumphe. For in al this longe rehearsal there is not one woorde spoaken of the Communion vnder One Kinde. The Breade so changed into a stone, and keapte for a memorie emonge the Iewels there, was a witnesse of the womans dissimulation, and not of M. Hardinges halfe Communion. Yet (saith he) by this storie it is cleare, the Sacrament was then ministred vnder one Kinde onely. For by receiuinge that one forme, the woman would haue perswaded her husbande, that she had Communicated with him. Els if