of shipwracke tooke gaue thankes ouer brake and eate to be the holy Sacrament Hereof M. Iuell tooke occasion to saye his pleasure of me that I mysreported S. Chrysostome and belyed him and therefore was not to be trusted c. Vnderstand Reader for my discharge how good cause I had so to wryte and how litle cause M. Iuell had so to saye For S. Chrysostome writing vpon the seuenth chapter of S. Matthew hom 17. operis imperfecti which worke hath ben alleaged hitherto both of catholikes and ghospellers of all sortes vnder the name of Chrysostome though it hath ben in some places corrupted by Origenistes other heretikes for maintenance of their heresies sheweth himselffe in playne wordes to be of that opinion Neither ought the errours of the Grekes by false meanes cōueyed in to that worke diminish the creditie of the whole specially of that which to this day no man euer found fault with al. Because the place is notable and maketh clearly for proufe of the reall presence in the sacrament and for communion vnder one kynde I may do well to recite the whole thought it be somewhat long Sed quia de Sanctis coepimus dicere c. Because we haue begonne to speake of holy thinges it is not to be left vnspoken that sanctificatiō is one thing and that which is sanctified an other For sanctifiication is that which sanctifieth an other but that which is sanctified can not sanctifie an other though it selfe be holy As for example thou makest the signe of the crosse ouer thy bread which thou eatest right so as S. Paul saith for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer thou hast sanctified it thou hast not made it sanctification But that which the Priest geueth with his hand is not only thing sanctified but also sanctification for asmuch as not only that is geuē which is sene but also which is vnderstanded And so it is laufull to cast of the sanctified bread to beastes and to geue it to infidels because it doth not sanctifie the rceiuer But if that which is taken of the hand of the Priest were such a thing as that is which is eatē from of the boorde all would eate from of the boorde and no man woulde receiue of the Priestes hand Wherefore our Lord also did not only blesse the bread in the waye he meaneth at Emaus but gaue it also with his hand vnto Cleophas and his felow And Paul as he was vnder saile did not only blesse the bread but also with his hand gaue it to Luke and to his other disciples Now that which is geuen with the hand is not to be geuen to beastes nor to infidels for that is not only sanctified but also sanctification and sanctifieth the receiuer Thus Chrysostome In which wordes he doth both expoūde the place of the .24 of S. Luke for the Sacrament and also saith expressely touching the place of the .27 of the Actes that S. Paul in the shippe gaue the bread with his hand to Luke and to the rest of his disciples and that the same was not only a holy thing but also sanctification which sanctifieth and maketh holy the receiuer which is this blessed Sacrament that we speake of which M. Iuell and the rest of his felowes make to be but a signe and figure of a holy thing Now Reader for so muche as Chrysostome sayeth that this sanctification this thing that maketh other thinges holy is geuen by the Priestes hand I wold thou shouldest demaund of M. Iuell when thou meetest him next what that is Require him to answere thee directly And tell him that it can not be vnderstanded of Christ spiritually receiued for that is not the thing which is geuen by the priestes hand Aske him further where this sanctification resteth whether it be in the bread or in the priest for seing that after the mynde of S. Chrysostome it is geuen by the hand of the priest it must be either in the priest that geueth it or in the thing that is geuen I trow M. Iuell will not saye that the great power to sanctifie other is in the priest for it is the proper act of God as him selfe witnesseth Ego Dominus qui sanctifico vos it is I your Lord which do sanctifie you Then the priest sanctifieth not but only deliuereth the sanctification Now yf this Sacrament were nothing in it selffe but bread as M. Iuell and all that newe Geneuian clergy teacheth how could this sanctification by their doctrine be in it For the bread being but a domme creature is not apt to receiue sanctification as they saye much lesse can it sanctifie an other Then sith there is a thing geuen by the hand of the priest in which this sanctification resteth and the same can neither be the priest nor the bread what remaineth but that of force M. Iuell must confesse that it is none other but the most precious body of our Sauiour Christ in that holy Sacramēt who as S. Paul saith is our righteousnes sanctification and redemption which body neuer being separated from the godhed is euen that which sanctifieth vs Item where I saye in the third article of my booke that I neuer read neither I thinke M. Iuell or any the best lerned of his syde is able to proue that the church Seruice was within the first six hundred yeres in any barbarous or vulgar tonge Against that M. Iuell would seme to alleage me against my selfe making me forgetfull of that I had said before and contrary to my selfe And therefore he alleaged out of my boke certaine wordes where I make as it were an antithesis betwene the Nouices in faith of S. Paules time and the church of our time vttering these wordes Their prayer I meane the first lerners of the faith was not vaileable for lacke of faith and therefore was it to be made in the vulgar tonge for increace of faith Our faith will stand vs in better stede if we geue our selues to deuout prayer To this I answere I speake of the church Seruice and M. Iuell alleaged against me my wordes mencioning the prayer of the first lerners of the faith which commonly was pronounced in an vnknowen tonge through the working of the holy Ghost miraculously to litle profite of the hearers Now betwen such maner of prayer in the begynning and the publike Seruice which afterward in continuance of time the church had in due and setled order is great difference I speake of the one M. Iuell obiecteth the other to no purpose but only to shew of a will to discredite me Verely by this he proueth no contrarietie to be founde in me where with as I am informed in his Sermon full bitterly he charged me If he had either charitie or honestie or iudgement hauing read the third article of my booke he might well haue vnderstanded that I meane by church Seruice a farre other thing then the vncertaine and as yet
vndisposed prayer of the very first infantes and entrers in to the faith in S. Paules time For proufe that certaine Nations had the church Seruice in vulgar and barbarous tonges he alleaged S. Thomas of Aquine and Eckius whom otherwheres he scoffeth at as men of small auctoritie to such streightes for this point is he dryueÌ„ And yet that which they saye is farre from prouing his assertion For as concerning that which he brought out of Clemens Alexandrinus Origen S. Chrysostome Hierome and Augustine much lesse perteineth it to this purpose He that being asked the way to Yorke answered a potte full of plummes said as aptly to the question as M. Iuell answered to this direct point out of the forsaid fathers Neither more maketh the decree of IustiniaÌ„ for proufe that the seruice was in any other theÌ„ the Greke and Latine tong in the East and West church which to that ende he alleaged but only that Bishops and Priestes should pronouÌ„ce their wordes at the Masse and other Seruice with an audible and distinct voice Neither is he able to proue that that decree was to be extended to the Latines and to all the people of Christendom to whom in his Sermon he said it to perteine If he would stand to Iustinians decrees he would sone be brought to recant in the chiefe pointes that be in questioÌ„ betwixt vs and the Ghospellers as the lerned in the Ciuill lawes do well knowe Item where in the fourth Article of my boke I alleage a testimonie out of Saint Augustine lib. 1. contra 2. epistolas Pelagianorum ad Bonifacium cap. 1. in which that holy and lerned Bishop acknowlegeth the Bishop of Rome his superioritie Englishing his wordes so smoothly as the roughnes of the Latine phrase which in sundry bokes I founde vniforme permitted and there do note in the margent this part of the sentence in Latine so as I founde it in bookes of sundry impressions Quamuis in eo praemineas celsiore fastigio speculae pastoralis Hereat M. Iuell toke occasion to carpe me and to saye his pleasure of me that I had mangled S. Augustines place left out the verbe est placed a nominatiue case without a verbe put communis without a substantiue writteÌ„ speculae for specula had made S. Augustine to speake false Latin and had done I can not tell what To all this I answer I alleaged the place faithfully as I founde it And if M. Iuell will trye my truth herein let hym vewe the bokes of sundry Paris printes in folio and of Lions print in octauo and he shall fynde speculae not specula And in tourning the place into English not being so hardy as to alter any worde of the boke wherein I should geue the aduersarye occasion to charge me with the crime of a falsarie for that I thought not to be vpright dealing I englished it so as the wordes semed best to beare Wherein the fault which M. Iuell charged me with is not to be imputed to my falsehed putting the wordes as I fouÌ„de them but to the printers ouersight if any were Neither do I make S. Augustine to speake false latine but so as the bookes which I consulted report him to speake But what fault so euer he found with my grammer certaine it is as touching diuinitie that Saint Augustine for all that in the forsaid place to Bonifacius acknowlegeth the Bishop of Rome his superioritie ouer and aboue all other Bishops By this I perceiue whereas M. Iuell to impaire my credite in the opinion of the vnlerned people charged me with incongrue speach in the Latine tong he would if he could also charge me with incoÌ„grue behauioure in Christian life For that is the marke he shooteth at to discredit my person whereas he seeth he is not able to disproue the doctrine that I defend If these be the greatest faultes he could fynde in my boke there is no great cause why his huge booke made against it that now is in printing shold be so much desyred or susteine so great an expectation Which expectation the greater it is the more it shall cause men to contemne it and laugh at it if they shall see so great a hill after so long trauaile brought a bed but of a foolish mouse If greater faultes had ben founde Paules Crosse had rong of them For these foreronning sermons haue set forth the specialst pointes to disproue the doctrine of the Catholike church to discredit me and to gete credite to his owne booke And whereas he vaunted him selffe to haue noted against my boke .97 errours within the compasse of the first .80 leaues of his said booke In case they be of the same coyne that these be of which he hath pyked out for his best shewe in the pulpite as by such coyners they be easely coyned so may they be sone reiected when they come to sight as being light of weight and counterfeites If all were erroneous and faulty that M. Iuell is not ashamed for such to note and reproue then were the whole summe of the Catholike faith and Christian religion erroneous and faulty With the teachinges promptinges of the holy ghoste wherewith the church hath hitherto ben preserued from errour in faith it is small shame my simple doinges by M. Iuelles light report to be named erroneous and faulty I vnderstand by myne informations that he spake of certaine other pointes wherin he sought how to impugne the truth to discredit me as of the secrete pronouncing of the Canon in the West church of th aulters standing in churches of olde time toward the East and such the like matters of smal weight not worthy thanswering But now I intend not by making any answere thereto either to trouble thee or to payne my selfe being otherwise fully occupied This much I thiâ—â—e to be ynough for this time to satisâ—â— thy request to defend the truth and to cleare me of the vntruthes with which I was of M. Iuell vniustly charged Now to ende Reader if thou be setled in the catholike faith there staye thee what so euer thou heare and read to the contrary and thanke God of it If thou be wauering nor yet thoroughly setled but indifferent as it were to the one syde or the other be well assured that the faith of the catholike church of these nyne hundred yeres past be sufficiently disproued and confuted which in dede can not be Christes promise standing and his prayer made to his father for the church performed before thou adueÌ„ter theverlasting state of thy soule by thy priuate choise of a newe founde faith in these later perilous times towardes the coÌ„ming of Antichrist first preached Antuerpiae 1565. 24. Iulij Tho. Harding 1. Cor. 10 In the first print fol. 14. in the 2. fol. 29. In the first prmt fol. 41. in the secoÌ„d print fol. 61. Luc. 24. Act. 27. cod 31. 1. Cor. 1. in the first print fol. 70. a. in the second fol. 95. a De Ecclesiast diuersis capitulis coÌ„stit 123. In the .j. print fol. 80. in the second fol. 107. Iohn 14. Mat. 28. Iohn 14
A BRIEFE ANSWERE of Thomas Harding Doctor of Diuinitie touching certaine vntruthes with which Maister Iohn Iuell charged him in his late Sermon at Paules Crosse the viii of Iuly Anno. 1565. ANTVERPIAE typis Aegid Diest 26. Iulij TO THE READER FOR so muche Gentill Reader as Maister Iuell hitherto hath refused my reasonable request touching his sermon at Paules Crosse of the .27 of Maie last to be imparted vnto me so as he will stand vnto it and hath since that time eftsones doubled his euill demeanour towardes me and his iniurie towardes the truth by his other late sermon of the .8 of Iuly last I trust I shall seme to do neither besydes the dutie of an honest man if I cleare my selfe of slaūder obiected neither besydes that apperteineth to my calling if I defend the truth impugned I confesse in very dede it shold better become my person to bestowe a iust treatise vpō these pointes thē such short pamflets which I wold willingly do after the measure of my simple lerning if I had the said sermons either printed or by M. Iuell hymselfe subscribed But the case standing as it doth and the same being yet denyed I thinke it better thus to write briefly then by silence to seme to acknowledge a gylt to suffer thee to remaine deceiued and the truth iniured If the points whereto now I make answere were mo or fewer or vnder an other forme of wordes vttered then here thou findest them reported therein I am blameles who folow such informations as fresh from Paules Crosse I haue receiued That such thinges were there spokē I am not without cause persuaded seing that the informations by sundry persons aparte made without diuersitie agree in one And because thou art desyrous with many other to be resolued therein to be short thus it is COncerning his sermon of the .27 of Maie there was no great thing said worthy to be answered besydes his disproufe of certaine auncient fathers in the first article of my boke alleaged Of whose good auctoritie I purpose to treate hereafter at large for so the matter requireth Whiche to do at this present the tyme and occasion serueth not Touching his other sermon of the eight of Iuly as the matter he treated of was of more weight so was his dealing therein of more falsehed and shamelesnes First whereas he bare his hearers in hande that in my secōd article for proufe of receiuing vnder one kinde I had belyed S. Paul as though I had said that in the tenth chapter of his first Epistle to the Corinthians he had made no mencion of the cuppe for whiche he triumphed at me not a litle How truly this was said let my boke be triall where vpon occasion of S. Paules receiuing of one only kynde after S. Chrysostomes mynde thou shalt fynde Reader these wordes in the first print fol 41. a. in the later print fol. 61. a. It is not to be marueiled at albeit S. Paul deliuered to the Corinthians the institution of our Lordes supper vnder both kyndes that yet vpon occasion geuen and when condition of time so required he ministred the communion vnder one kynde sith that without doubt he tooke that holy mysterie vnder one kynde for the whole Sacrament as we perceiue by his wordes where he sayeth Vnus panis vnū corpus multi sumus omnes qui de vno pane participamus One bread and one body we being many are all that do participate of one bread where he speaketh nothing of the cuppe Thus there Now iudge who list whether in respect of those wordes of S. Paul I might not saye as I dyd where he speaketh nothing of the cuppe for in those wordes in dede he speaketh not of the cuppe And that my word where hath relation to that sentence of S. Paul only not to the whole chapter For neither coulde I be so blind as not to see mention of the cuppe made in the next sentence before and how absurd had it ben by denying so knowen a trouth to haue geuen such aduantage to the aduersarie Now that S. Paul in that sentence speaketh nothing of the cuppe I will be tried by the most auncient and truest copies both Greke and Latine and by iudgemēt of them of M. Iuelles owne secte them selues yea by thenglish Bibles and new testamentes of best auctoritie Item where I saye in my boke that the blessed sacrament is not called communion because many or as M. Iuell teacheth the whole congregation communicateth together in one place but because of the effect of the sacrament for that by the same we are ioyned to God and many that be diuerse be vnited together and made one mysticall body of Christ which is the church of which body by vertue and effect of this holy sacrament all the faithfuls be members one of another and Christ is the head for profe where of there I alleage Dionys. Areopagita Against this he pretended to haue the auctoritie of Pachymeres of Haimo of Hugo Cardinalis and Gerardus Lorichius For his proufe he alleaged certaine wordes as out of Pachymeres To this I answer First that Georgius Pachymeres in his Greke Paraphrasis vpon Saint Dionysius where only he had cause thereof to treate wrote no suche wordes as according to thinformations Maister Iuell alleaged Neither without doubt hath Haimo Hugo or Lorichius any thing to the contrary of the doctrine which in that behalfe my boke reporteth Now whereas M. Iuell byndeth vs to the auctoritie of the first six hundred yeres after Christ and admitteth none for vs that wrote sithens what reason is it he shuld be heard bringing against vs such as be farre out of the compasse of those yeres and otherwyse in his opinion obscure men and of no fame Lorichius lyueth in our time Hugo Cardinalis lyued Anno Domini 1230. whom M. Iuell doubtles litle estemeth as he who in his replyes to M. D. Cole disgraceth men of greater lerning then this Hugo was of with the contemtible name of the blacke Gard. Yet now he thinketh good to make his most aduantage of them and of who so euer come to hand albeit their wordes that make for his purpose against the doctrine of Saint Dionysius touching this point are not yet brought forth Georgius Pachymeres a Grecian wrote not full three hundred yeres past Haimo long before about the time of Charlemaigne These as the two other notwithstanding their age I esteme as I ought But their bare names without any sentēce alleaged proue no more the contrary of that I affirme thē potecaries empty painted boxes yelde holesome medicines for the sicke Item where in my booke among ther places of holy scripture for proufe of cōmunion vnder one kynde I saye that the place of the .17 chapter of the Actes might be alleaged and adde for better auctoritie of that point the iudgement of S. Chrysostome with these wordes Where Chrysostome and other fathers vnderstand the bread that S. Paull in perill