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.

The B. of Sarisburie.

I may not disgrace the credite of this storie: al be it in Sozomenus, and Nice∣phorus, 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 dissimu∣lation, 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

bothe kindes had then beene ministred, she woulde haue practised some other shifte, for thauoidinge of the Cuppe, whiche had not beene so easie. Nowe truely here is but a colde Conclusion, hanginge wholy (as it may appeare) onely vpon the sleight of a womans witte. For as this woman had diuised to deceiue her husbande in the Breade, why might she not as wel diuise to deceiue him in the Cuppe? Why might she not take the Cuppe, and faine that she dranke, and yet drinke nothinge? Doubtles suche dissi∣mulation is sooner wrought in the Cuppe, then in the Breade: and she that durst so to dissemble in thone parte of Goddes Sacramentes, would little feare to dissemble in the other.

Here we sée the certaintie of M. Hardinges gheasses. He reapeth the thinge, that was neuer sowen: and geathereth of his authours the thinge, that was neuer spoaken.

But touchinge the trueth of this whole mater, if a man liste onely to goe by gheasse, as M. Hardinge doeth, why may he not thus imagine with him selfe, If this woman would thus dissemble in a case so dangerous, what néeded her to take the Breade at her maides hande, and specially at that time, in that place, and in the sight of y^e whole people? Or how coulde she so openly receiue it without suspicion? Or why might she not haue brought it in a Naptkine secretely aboute her selfe? The burthen was not greate: her fayninge and hypocrisie had beene the easier.

And thus muche to answeare one gheasse by an other.

But that there was no suche dismembringe of the holy Communion at that time, we may wel vnderstande both by S. Basile,* 1.1 Nazianzene, Gregorie Nyssene, and others of that age, and also by these plaine woordes of Chrysostome, Est vbi nihil differat Sacerdos a subdito: vt quando fruēdum est horrendis Mysterijs. In some cases there is no difference betweene the Prieste and the people: as when they must enioye the reue∣rende Mysteries. Bysides y^t, the Gréeke Churche neuer had this halfe Communion, neither before that time, nor neuer sithence. And therefore Pope Leo the tenthe, calleth the vse of the whole Sacrament according to Christes Institution, the Bo∣hemians, and the Grecians Heresie.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Chrysost. in. 2. Cor. hom 18.