A BRIEF ANSWER of Thomas Harding Doctor of Divinity, touching certain untruths, with which Master john jewel charged him in his late Sermon at Paul's Cross the viii. of july. Anno. 1565.  
ANTVERPIAE typis Aegid. Diest. 26. julij.   

TO THE READER.  
FOR so much (Gentle Reader) as Master jewel hitherto hath refused my reasonable request, touching his sermon at Paul's Cross of the .27. of May last, to be imparted unto me, so as he will stand unto it, and hath since that time eftsoons doubled his evil demeanour towards me, and his injury towards the truth, by his other late sermon of the .8. of july last: I trust I shall seem to do neither besides the duty of an honest man, if I clear myself of slander objected, neither besides that appertaineth to my calling, if I defend the truth impugned. I confess in very deed, it should better become my person to bestow a just treatise upon these points, them such short pamphlets, which I would willingly do after the measure of my simple learning, if I had the said sermons either printed, or by M. jewel himself subscribed. But the case standing as it doth, and the same being yet denied: I think it better thus to write briefly, then by silence to seem to acknowledge a guilt, to suffer thee to remain deceived, and the truth injured.  
If the points whereto now I make answer, were more or fewer, or under an other form of words uttered, then here thou findest them reported: therein I am blameless, who follow such informations, as fresh from Paul's Cross I have received. That such things were there spoken, I am not without cause persuaded: seeing that the informations by sundry persons apart made, without diversity agree in one. And because thou art desirous with many other to be resolved therein, to be short, thus it is.  
COncerning his sermon of the .27. of May, there was no great thing said worthy to be answered, besides his disprove of certain ancient fathers in the first article of my book alleged. Of whose good authority I purpose to treat hereafter at large, for so the matter requireth. Which to do at this present, the time and occasion serveth not.  
Touching his other sermon of the eight of july, as the matter he treated of was of more weight, so was his dealing therein of more falsehood and shamelessness.  
First, whereas he bore his hearers in hand, that in my second article for proof of receiving under one kind, I had belied S. Paul, as though I had said, that in the tenth chapter of his first Epistle to the Corinthians, he had made no mention of the cup, for which he triumphed at me not a little:  
How truly this was said, let my book be trial, where upon occasion of S. Paul's receiving of one only kind after S. Chrysostom's mind, thou shalt find Reader, these words, in the first print, fol, 41. a. in the later print, fol. 61. a.  
It is not to be marveled at, albeit S. Paul delivered to the Corinthians the institution of our lords supper under both kinds, that yet upon occasion given, and when condition of time so required, he ministered the communion under one kind, sith that without doubt he took that holy mystery under one kind for the whole Sacrament, as we perceive by his words, 
1. Cor. 10  where he sayeth: unus panis, & unum corpus multi sumus, omnes, qui de uno pane participamus. One bread and one body we being many are, all, that do participate of one bread. where he speaketh nothing of the cup. Thus there.  
Now judge who list, whether in respect of those words of S. Paul, I might not say as I did, where he speaketh nothing of the cup. for in those words in deed he speaketh not of the cup. And that my word (where) hath relation to that sentence of S. Paul only, not to the whole chapter. For neither could I be so blind, as not to see mention of the cup made in the next sentence before, and how absurd had it been by denying so known a troth, to have given such advantage to the adversary? Now that S. Paul in that sentence speaketh nothing of the cup, I will be tried by the most ancient and truest copies both Greek and Latin, and by judgement of them of M. jewels own sect themselves, yea by thenglish Bibles and new testaments of best authority.  
Item where I say in my book, 
In the first print, fol. 14. in the 2. fol. 29.  that the blessed sacrament is not called communion, because many, or as M. jewel teacheth, the whole congregation communicateth together in one place, but because of the effect of the sacrament, for that by the same, we are joined to God, and many that be diverse be united together, and made one mystical body of Christ, which is the church, of which body by virtue and effect of this holy sacrament all the faithfuls be members one of another, and Christ is the head: for proof where of there I allege Dionys. Areopagita:  
Against this he pretended to have the authority of Pachymeres, of Haimo, of Hugo Cardinalis, and Gerardus Lorichius. For his proof he alleged certain words as out of Pachymeres.  
To this I answer. First, that Georgius Pachymeres in his Greek Paraphrasis upon Saint Dionysius, where only he had cause thereof to treat, wrote no such words, as according to thinformations Master jewel alleged. Neither without doubt hath Haimo, Hugo, or Lorichius any thing to the contrary of the doctrine, which in that behalf my book reporteth. Now whereas M. jewel bindeth us to the authority of the first six hundred years after Christ, and admitteth none for us that wrote sithence: what reason is it he should be heard, bringing against us such as be far out of the compass of those years, and otherwise in his opinion obscure men, and of no fame?  
Lorichius liveth in our time, Hugo Cardinalis lived Anno Domini. 1230. whom M. jewel doubtless little esteemeth, as he who in his replies to M. D. Cole disgraceth men of greater learning than this Hugo was of, with the contemptible name of the black Gard. Yet now he thinketh good to make his most advantage of them, and of who so ever come to hand, albeit their words 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 years past, Haimo long before, about the time of Charlemaigne. These, as the two other, notwithstanding their age, I esteem as I ought. But their bare names without any sentence alleged, prove no more the contrary of that I affirm, them pothecaries empty painted boxes yield wholesome medicines for the sick.  
Item where in my book among their places of holy scripture for proof of communion under one kind, 
In the first prmt, fol. 41. in the second print fol. 61.  I say, that the place of the .17. chapter of the Acts might be alleged, and add for better authority of that point, the judgement of S. Chrysostom, with these words: Where Chrysostom and other fathers understand the bread that S. Paul in peril of shipwreck took, gave thanks over, brake, and eat, to be the holy Sacrament.  
Hereof M. jewel took occasion to say his pleasure of me, that I misreported S. Chrysostom, and belied him, and therefore was not to be trusted. etc.  
Understand Reader for my discharge, how good cause I had so to write, and how little cause M. jewel had so to say. For S. Chrysostom writing upon the seventh chapter of S. Matthew, hom. 17. operis imperfecti, which work hath been alleged hitherto both of catholics and gospellers of all sorts under the name of Chrysostom, though it hath been in some places corrupted by Origenistes & other heretics for maintenance of their heresies, showeth himself in plain words to be of that opinion. Neither ought the errors of the Greeks by false means conveyed in to that work, diminish the creditie of the whole, specially of that which to this day no man ever found fault with al. Because the place is notable, and maketh clearly for proof of the real presence in the sacrament, and for communion under one kind: I may do well to recite the whole, thought it be somewhat long. Sed quia de Sanctis coepimus dicere etc.  
Because we have begun to speak of holy things, it is not to be left unspoken, that sanctification 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 sanctify an other, though itself be holy. As for example, thou makest the sign of the cross over 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 giveth with his hand, is not only thing sanctified, but also sanctification, for as much as not only that is given which is seen, but also which is understanded. And so it is lawful to cast of the sanctified bread to beasts, and to give it to infidels, because it doth not sanctify the rceiver. But if that which is taken of the hand of the Priest were such a thing, as that is which is eaten from of the board, all would eat from of the board, and no man would receive of the priests hand. 
Luc. 24.  Wherefore our Lord also did not only bless the bread in the way, (he meaneth at Emaus) but gave it also with his hand unto Cleophas and his fellow. 
Act. 27.  And Paul as he was under sail, did not only bless the bread, but also with his hand gave it to Luke, and to his other disciples. Now that which is given with the hand, is not to be given to beasts, nor to infidels, for that is not only sanctified, but also sanctification, and sanctifieth the receiver. Thus Chrysostom.  
In which words he doth both expound the place of the .24. of S. Luke for the Sacrament, and also saith expressly touching the place of the .27. of the Acts, that S. Paul in the ship gave 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 receiver, which is this blessed Sacrament that we speak of, which M. jewel and the rest of his fellows make to be but a sign, and figure of a holy thing.  
Now Reader, for so much as Chrysostom sayeth, that this sanctification, this thing that maketh other things holy, is given by the priests hand: I would thou shouldest demand of M. jewel, when thou meetest him next, what that is. Require him to answer thee directly. And tell him, that it can not be understanded of Christ spiritually received, for that is not the thing which is given by the priests hand. Ask him further, where this sanctification resteth, whether it be in the bread, or in the priest. for seeing that after the mind of S. Chrysostom, it is given by the hand of the priest, it must be either in the priest that giveth it, or in the thing that is given. I trow, M. jewel will not say, that the great power to sanctify other is in the priest, for it is the proper act of God, as himself witnesseth, Ego Dominus, 
cod. 31.  qui sanctifico vos, it is I your Lord, which do sanctify you. Then the priest sanctifieth not, but only delivereth the sanctification. Now if this Sacrament were nothing in itself but bread, as M. jewel, and all that new Genevian clergy teacheth; how could this sanctification by their doctrine be in it? For the bread being but a dumb creature, is not apt to receive sanctification, as they say, much less can it sanctify an other. Then sith there is a thing given 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. jewel must confess, that it is none other, but the most precious body of our Saviour Christ in that holy Sacrament, who as S. Paul saith, 
1. Cor. 1.  is our righteousness, sanctification, and redemption, which body never being separated from the godhead, is even that which sanctifieth us?  
Item where I say in the third article of my book, that I never read, neither I think M. jewel, or any the best learned of his side is able to prove, that the church Service was within the first six hundred years in any barbarous or vulgar tongue:  
Against that M. jewel would seem to allege me against myself, making me forgetful of that I had said before, and contrary to myself. And therefore he alleged out of my book certain words, where I make as it were an antithesis between the Novices in faith of S. Paul's time, 
in the first print fol. 70. a. in the second fol. 95. a  and the church of our time, uttering these words: Their prayer (I mean the first learners of the faith) was not vaileable for lack of faith, and therefore was it to be made in the vulgar tongue, for increase of faith. Our faith will stand us in better stead, if we give ourselves to devout prayer.  
To this I answer. I speak of the church Service, and M. jewel alleged against me my words mentioning the prayer of the first learners of the faith, which commonly was pronounced in an unknown tongue through the working of the holy Ghost miraculously to little profit of the hearers. Now between such manner of prayer in the beginning, and the public Service which afterward in continuance of time the church had in due and settled order, is great difference. I speak of the one, M. jewel objecteth the other to no purpose, but only to show of a will to discredit me. Verily by this he proveth no contrariety to be found in me, where with (as I am informed) in his Sermon full bitterly he charged me. If he had either charity, or honesty, or judgement, having read the third article of my book, he might well have understanded, that I mean by church Service a far other thing, than the uncertain and as yet undisposed prayer of the very first infants and entrers in to the faith in S. Paul's time.  
For proof that certain Nations had the church Service in vulgar and barbarous tongues, he alleged S. Thomas of Aquine and Eckius, whom otherwhere he scoffeth at as men of small authority, to such straits for this point is he driven. And yet that which they say is far from proving his assertion. For as concerning that which he brought out of Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, S. Chrysostom, Jerome, and Augustine, much less pertaineth it to this purpose. He that being asked the way to York, answered a pot full of plums, said as aptly to the question, as M. jewel answered to this direct point out of the foresaid fathers.  
Neither more maketh the decree of justinian for proof that the service was in any other than the Greek and Latin tongue in the East and West church, 
De Ecclesiast. diversis capitulis, constit. 123.  which to that end he alleged: but only that Bishops and Priests should pronounce their words at the Mass and other Service with an audible and distinct voice. Neither is he able to prove, that that decree was to be extended to the Latins, and to all the people of Christendom, to whom in his Sermon he said it to pertain. If he would stand to justinian's decrees, he would soon be brought to recant in the chief points that be in question betwixt us and the gospellers, as the learned in the Civil laws do well know.  

In the i print, fol. 80. in the second, fol. 107.  Item where in the fourth Article of my book, I allege a testimony out of Saint Augustine lib. 1. contra. 2. epistolas Pelagianorum ad Bonifacium, cap. 1. in which that holy and learned Bishop acknowledgeth the Bishop of Rome his superiority, Englishing his words so smoothly as the roughness of the Latin phrase, which in sundry books I found uniform permitted, and there do note in the margin this part of the sentence in Latin, so as I found it in books of sundry impressions, Quamuis in eo praemineas celsiore fastigio speculae pastoralis:  
Hereat M. jewel took occasion to carp me, and to say his pleasure of me, that I had mangled S. Augustine's place, left out the verb est, placed a nominative case without a verb, put communis without a substantive, written speculae for specula, had made S. Augustine to speak false Latin, and had done I can not tell what.  
To all this I answer. I alleged the place faithfully as I found it. And if M. jewel will try my truth herein, let him view the books of sundry Paris prints in folio, and of Lion's print in octavo, and he shall find speculae, not specula. And in turning the place into English, not being so hardy as to alter any word of the book, wherein I should give the adversary occasion to charge me with the crime of a falsary: for that I thought not to be upright dealing: I englished it so, as the words seemed best to bear. Wherein the fault which M. jewel charged me with, is not to be imputed to my falsehood, putting the words as I found them, but to the printers oversight, if any were. Neither do I make S. Augustine to speak false latin, but so as the books which I consulted, report him to speak. But what fault so ever he found with my grammar, certain it is as touching divinity, that Saint Augustine for all that in the foresaid place to Bonifacius, acknowledgeth the Bishop of Rome his superiority over and above all other Bishops.  
By this I perceive, whereas M. jewel to impair my credit in the opinion of the unlearned people, charged me with incongrue speech in the Latin tongue, he would if he could, also charge me with incongrue behaviour in Christian life. For that is the mark he shooteth at, to discredit my person, whereas he seeth, he is not able to disprove the doctrine that I defend.  
If these be the greatest faults he could find in my book, there is no great cause why his huge book made against it, that now is in printing, should be so much desired, or sustain so great an expectation. Which expectation the greater it is, the more it shall cause men to contemn it, and laugh at it, if they shall see so great a hill after so long travail, brought a bed but of a foolish mouse. If greater faults had been found, Paul's Cross had rung of them. For these foreronning sermons have set forth the specialst points, to disprove the doctrine of the Catholic church, to discredit me, and to get credit to his own book.  
And whereas he vaunted he to have noted against my book .97. errors within the compass of the first .80. leaves of his said book: In case they be of the same coin that these be of, which he hath piked out for his best show in the pulpit, as by such coiners they be easily coined: so may they be soon rejected, when they come to sight, as being light of weight, and counterfeits. If all were erroneous and faulty, that M. jewel is not ashamed for such to note and reprove, than were the whole sum of the Catholic faith and Christian religion erroneous and faulty. With the teachings & promptings of the holy ghost, 
john. 14.  wherewith the church hath hitherto been preserved from error in faith: it is small shame my simple doings by M. jewels light report to be named erroneous and faulty.  
I understand by mine informations, that he spoke of certain other points, wherein he sought how to impugn the truth, & to discredit me, as of the secret pronouncing of the Canon in the West church, of th'altars standing in churches of old time toward the East, and such the like matters of small weight not worthy thanswering. But now I intent not by making any answer thereto, either to trouble thee, or to pain myself being otherwise fully occupied. This much I thi●●e to be enough for this time, to satisfy thy request, to defend the truth, and to clear me of the untruths, with which I was of M. jewel unjustly charged.  
Now to end Reader, if thou be settled in the catholic faith, there stay thee, what so ever thou hear and read to the contrary, and thank God of it. If thou be wavering, nor yet thoroughly settled, but indifferent as it were to the one side or the other: be well assured, that the faith of the catholic church of these nine hundred years passed be sufficiently disproved and confuted, which in deed can not be Christ's promise standing, 
Mat. 28.  and his prayer made to his father for the church performed: 
john. 14  before thou adventure theverlasting state of thy soul by thy private choice of a new found faith in these later perilous times towards the coming of Antichrist first preached.  
Antuerpiae. 1565. 24. julij. Tho. Harding.