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?
