Cyprianus De vnctio ne Chrismatis vera synceritas exponeret Gentibus quomodo vinuÌ„ panis caro esset sanguis et quibâ— roÌ„ibus causae effectibus coÌ„uenireÌ„t et diuersa noiÌ„a vel species ad vnaÌ„ reducereÌ„tur essentiaÌ„ et significaÌ„tia et significata eisdeÌ„ nacabulis ceÌ„serentur That the sincere truth and true sinceritie being secretly imprinted in th'Apostles might expouÌ„d vnto the GeÌ„tils how wine and bread should be his flesh and bloud and by what meanes the causes should be agreable to the effectes and diuers names and kindes should be brought vnto one substance and the thinges signifying and the thinges signified should be called by the same names Lo here it is declared what bread and wine it was as much to say the flesh and bloud of Christe which S. Cyprian saith he gaue at his last Supper vnto his Apostles This cleare and syncere truth or true synceritie so he calleth either the true doctrine of this Sacrifice or the Sacrifice it self in respect of the sundry impure and typical sacrifices of Moses Lawe he would secretly that is with th' inward knowledge of these secret mysteries to be imprinted and digested in th'Apostles to thinteÌ„t they should expound vnto the Gentils the Iewes with their olde sacrifices being now reiected how at this heauenly banket the bread and wine is flesh and bloud how the causes and effectes be agreable that is to say how the wordes of CoÌ„secratioÌ„ duely pronouÌ„ced by the Priest and the power of the holy Ghoste which are the causes doo produce and make the body and bloud of our Lord which be the effectes how thinges of diuers names and diuers in nature and therfore diuers kindes be brought vnto one essence or substaÌ„ce to wit bread and wine vnto the substance of Christes flesh and bloude TransubstantiatioÌ„â— whereby Transubstantiation is wrought briefly to conclude how wheras bread signifieth the body and wine the bloud the thinges signifiyng and the thinges signified be called by the same names Which thus appeareth to be true bicause that which before CoÌ„secration was and afterward semeth to be bread is called the flesh and in like case wine is called the bloud and so coÌ„trariwise sometimes the flesh is called the bread and the bloud is called the wine What can be said more directly against M. Iewels Sacramentarie Heresie and more piththily for coÌ„firmation of the Catholike doctrine touching this point And al this M. Iewel hath leaft out The same very thing S. Cyprian doth vtter more plainely in other places Cyprianus De coena Domini In his Treatise of the Supper of our Lorde he hath these most euident wordes Panis iste quem Dominus Discipulis porrigebat non effigie sed natura mutatus Omnipotentia Verbi factus est Caro. This bread Lib. 2. Epiâ—stola 3. which our Lorde gaue vnto his Disciples at his supper being changed not in shape but in nature by the almighty power of the Worde was made flesh Againe writing to Caâ—ilius he saith Qui magis sacerdos â— Dominus noster Iesus Christus qui sacrificiuÌ„ obtulit et obtulit hoc ideÌ„ quod Melchisedech id est paneÌ„ et vinum suuÌ„ scilicet corpus et sanguineÌ„ Who is more a Priest then our Lorde Iesus Christ who offred vp a Sacrifice and offred the very same that Melchisedech did that is to say bread and wine as much to say his owne body and bloude By these places S. Cyprian declareth his minde plainely what he meaneth by the bread and wine that Christe either gaue at the Supper vnto his Disciples or offered vnto his Father to render thankes for the great benefite of his passion soothly none other bread and wine then that which was made by the almighty power of the Woorde his body and bloude And behold Reader how vniforme his vtterance is and how he agreeth with him selfe In the Sermon De vnctione Chrismatis by M. Iewel with false leauing out that whiche made for the truth alleged he saith that diuers kindes are reduced into one substance in his Sermon De coena Domini he saith the bread by the omnipotencie of the Woorde is made flesh so bread and flesh being diuers kindes are brought to one substance There the thinges signifying and the thinges signified saith he be called with the same names as how I haue before declared In his Epistle to Cecilius naming bread and wine he expoundeth him selfe thus suum scilicet corpus sanguinem as much to say his owne body and bloude Where the body and bloude beare the names of bread and wine By this it is clearly seene what an impudent and wicked glose is that which M. Iewel incloseth in his parenthesis added by way of exposition vnto the maimed sentence of S. Cyprian wherewith to exclude the body and bloude of Christe the true bread and wine What haue you wonne here by S. Cyprian M. Iewel Who cutteth and maimeth the Doctours Who is now to be asked whether he haue the chynecoffe M. Ievvels Coffe which in a place of your Reply with out cause you twite me of What kinde of coffe I shal cal this I wote not I feare me the il mater of it lyeth not in your chyne a place so farre from the harte but in the harte it selfe For were not the same by Satans worke festred with the corruption of heresie you had not ben letted as with a coffe from bringing forth the later parte of S. Cyprians saying whose beginning you falsly abuse to obscure the cleare truthe Who so euer thus coffeth I wil not say he hath the chynecoffe as you ieast but verely sauing my charitie that he coffeth as like an heretique as a rotten yew cofâ—eth like a sheepe Laste of al whereas he saith that I am reprooued of vntruth and folie by S. Paule for saying Three lyes made by M. Iewel within three lines that Christe really sacrificed him selfe at two seueral times and twise really shed his bloude only vpon myne owne warrant he maketh no lesse then three lyes within three lines For neither said I in this place that Christe twise really shed his bloude nor onely vpon myne owne warrant said I that Christe sacrificed his body and bloud twise bicause I had the authoritie of Hesychius here as the authoritie of other Fathers before namely Gregorie Nyssen and Theophylacte for my warrant Nor for so saying am I reproued of any vntruth or folie by S. Paule For my assertion is true notwithstanding any thing that S. Paule saith What though S. Paule say Heb. 9. M. Iewel Christus semel oblatus est ad multoruÌ„ exhauriendâ— peccata Christ was once offered Heb. 10â— to take away the synnâ—s of Many Againe with one Sacrifice he hath made perâ—ite for euer them that be sanctified Bicause in these twoo sayinges you finde the termes one and once therefore suppose you that needes they must reprooue my assertion auouching that Christ was twise really
the Sacramentes of the Olde Testament promised the Sauiour Suche signes as geue saluation be meete Sacramentes of the Newe Testament of such kinde of signe or figure speaketh S. Dionyse where he vseth the terme Symbolical speaking of the Sacrifice of the Body and Bloude of Christe Ansvver to Pachymeres As for that M. Iewel allegeth out of Prchymeres the Paraphraste who saith The Priest commeth to the Bread and the Cuppe whereof he would faine conclude that the inuisible substance of the Sacrifice is not the body and bloude of Christe it standeth him in litle stede For in deede it is bread and wine when the Priest first commeth vnto them to celebrate the Sacrifice But when the wordes of Christe be comme vnto them as S. Ambrose saith that is to say Ambros. de Sacramēt lib. 4 cap 5 when the Priest hath duely pronounced the wordes of Consecration then are they made the body and bloude of Christe and so the Sacrifice of Christe And that Pachymeres was of this beleefe it is cleare by his owne woordes whiche M. Iewel either knewe not and so speaketh ignorantly or knewe wel yenough yet dissembled and so doth maliciously Bicause for some credite of his purpose he cited his woordes in Greke though by casting in one woorde of his owne which he founde not in the texte after his common woonte he hath some deale falsified the sentence I wil also here truely cite the woordes in Greke by which Pachymeres sheweth him selfe to be Catholique in this point and quite contrary to M. Iewels Sacramentarie doctrine They be these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pachymee in Dionys. Eccles. Hierarch cap. 3. pag. 136. As muche to say in English There be many that cast their eye vpon the holy signes onely as they who are not hable to conceiue any higher thing But the Bishop him silfe is caried vp vnto those first samplers or natural thinges to wit the pretious body and bloude it selfe of our Lorde beleuing that the thinges which are set forth that is to say the bread and wine be changed into them by the holy and almighty Ghoste Lo M. Iewel here haue you the cleare testimonie of Pachymeres him selfe for his true and Catholique beleefe touching the truth of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament Which beleefe is not onely that the pretious body and bloude of our Lorde are of a right beleeuer beholden and conceiued in the Sacrament verely present which the Lutherans do acknowledge but also that the bread and wine are by the power of the holy Ghoste Transubstātiation into the same conuerted and changed whiche neither ye nor Luthers scholers doo beleeue and so by Pachymeres transubstantion is auouched After al this M. Iewel disposeth him selfe to dally at an Argument of his owne mery heads forging M. Ievvel forgeth Argumēt◠bearing the Reader in hand it is myne And this Argument forsooth is such and so vnskilful as a yong Sophister saith he would neuer haue framed it What any yong Sophister would doo I knowe not But now certaine it is that be it wel or otherwise it is framed by as olde a Sophister as your selfe are M. Iewel If it be vnskilfully framed the blame is yours for yours it is not myne Here that you be so ful of your Argumentes which vntruely you father vpon me and so busy with your Logique I answer you as S. Augustine answered Iulian the Pelagian Heretique dealing with him as you doo with me not onely in this place but in manner in your whole booke Quantùm tibi places tantùm grauibus Lectoribus displices Augustin contra Iulian lib. 3. cap. 7. quod peius est fingis me dicere quod non dico concludere sicut non concludo caet Looke saith he how much you stande in your owne conceite so muche you are out of conceite with the graue Readers and which is worse you feine me to say that which I say not to conclude so as I conclude not If you would needes shewe your cunning in Logique and dispute after the rules of that arte why rehersed you not the whole Antecedent Though in this place I frame no Argume at al but onely recite the saying of S. Dionyse applying it to my purpose yet if the whole should be disposed in fourme of an Argument this is the Argument that thereof might be concluded the circumstance of the place considered The Bishop or Priest by reporte of S. Dionyse standing at the holy Aulter An Argument gathered out of S. Dionyse for the Sacrifice after he hath geuen praises to God for his Diuine workes commeth vnto the mystical Sacrifice excusing him selfe for that he taketh vpon him to offer vp the healthful hoste or Sacrifice that is farre aboue his worthinesse whereof Christe at his last Supper hauing consecrated his body and bloude said by way of commaundement and commission Luc. 22. Doo ye this in my Remembrance But this healthful Sacrifice whereof Christ so said and which he required to be offered is the Sacrifice of his body and bloude vnder the formes of bread and wine Ergo by witnesse of that Auncient and most worthy Father the Bishop or Priest offereth vp Christes body and bloude and consequently Christ him selfe For where the body of Christe is there also is whole Christe bicause of the inseparable vnitie of both natures And if Christe be thus offered to whom is he offred but to the Father Albeit I confesse that Christe is offered to him selfe also as being God and to the holy Ghoste to the whole most blessed Trinitie If you had thus set forth the Argument M. Iewel and dealt simply and truly you should not haue needed to trouble the reader with so much Sophistrie and Logique as here for confutation of your owne forged reason you haue bestowed Bicause you knewe your selfe not hable to auoide the force of the whole Antecedent slyly you answer to that parte of it onely where it is said the Priest excuseth him selfe as though I had layd the chiefe grounde of the authoritie in that clause onely And thereof you take occasion to enter into a needelesse common place proouing by certaine testimonies which no man euer denied that sundry holy thinges are to be done not presumptuously and rashly but reuerently and with feare and trembling as namely when we offer vp the Sacrifice of Praise when we baptise when we preache or heare Gods holy worde when we pray and cal God our Father For the reuerent and hūble demeanour that we ought to shewe in doing these holy thinges you allege S. Basil S. Dionyse S. Paule S. Cyprian But what of al this wil it thereof folowe Ergo though the Priest standing at the Aulter and comming to offer the Mystical Sacrifice excuse him selfe not for praying preaching praising or baptizing but for offering the healthful hoste that farre passeth his degree euen the same that Christe offered at his laste Supper whereof he said This is my Body
was incarnate which is against our Faith Now if Christe touching his Godhead coulde do that which the Father and the Holy Ghoste should not do the Godhead were diuided and peaces or partes were made thereof it being immutable indiuisible one and most excellently perfect so that touching that parte of the Godhead whiche were in Christe Sacrifice might be made but touching that which were in the Father and the Holy Ghoste sacrifice might not be made Here we shal trie how this nowe broched Arian wil purge him selfe Here shal we see whether this Heresie shal also be soothed bolstered and shouldered vp as your other Heresies are or no. Last of al here shal we see whether you wil recant and retract this abominable Heresie as in your Sermon of the .15 of Iune last at Paules Crosse you promised and protested to doo if you could be conuinced of any Of this I say no more But if this blasphemie may be mainteined in this newe English Churche vndoubtedly this English Churche ô pitiful case wil proue a professour of Arianisme yea I feare at length of worse if worse may be Certainely our Christe neuer taught this doctrine neither was euer any such thing attributed vnto Christe by Gods worde nor by the Catholike Churche wherefore you seme not to beleeue in our Christe Christ said of the Spiritual Rewlers Luc. 10. he that heareth you heareth me he that despiseth you despiseth me and so taught obedience vnto his Church and also vnto that chiefe Gouernour whom he instituted Head of the same and appointed to be his Vicare For wheras he said Ioan. 21. feede my shepe he meant that the sheepe should obey him whom he ordeined their feeder or Pastor Whereof it foloweth that who so euer refuseth to be fed that is to say to be gouerned and taught by that general Shepeherd he forsaketh the state and order of a sheepe Math. 25. and becōmeth a Goat and therefore to be placed at the lefte side when the great Shepeherd of al Shepeherdes shal come to sorte his flockes Christ commendeth vnto vs the Sacrament of Penaunce in which if we sinne after Baptisme we are reconciled to God by a Priest whereunto Confession of sinnes belongeth Christ also requireth perfourmance of Vowes This doctrine you receiue not you teache it not You beleeue not our Christe Christ saith S. Irenaeus at his last supper tooke into his handes the creature of bread blessed and gaue thankes Iren. li. 4. cap. 32. saying This is my body and taking the Cuppe likewise he confessed it to be his bloude and taught the nevve Oblation of the nevve Testament vvhich the Churche receiuing it of the Apostles offereth vp to God in the vvhole vvorlde Christian people hath euer bene taught from the Apostles time to this day that to be his true Body and his true Bloude whiche are offered an vppon credit of Christes saying doo adoure and worship the same You teache not this doctrine You beleeue not that Christes wordes do implye this much you teache the contrary Thus you beleeue not in our Christe That Christe sitting at the right hande of his Father in heauen is at the same time in the handes of them who receiue the Sacrament of the Aulter bothe Sacrifice and Sacrificer as S. Chrysostome teacheth and the Church beleeueth you teache not you receiue not you beleeue not Whereas Christ consecrateth the hoste by the ministerie of the Priest saying this is my body this is my bloude his saying being true and you not beleeuing how beleeue you in Christe Christ said Math. 5. A Citie built vpon a hil can not be hidde meaning it of his Church built vpon him selfe You teach that the true Church of Christ hath hen hidde these almost a thousand yeres and so hidde that before Luthers time al Christians were in palpable darknes How then beleue you in Christ Christ said to his Disciples bearing the person of al the Church Math. 28. Behold I am vvith you al daies vntil the end of the vvorld And againe Ioan. 14. I vvil pray my Father and he vvil geue you an other cōforter to remaine vvith you for euer the Spirite of Truth Marke wel good Reader Al daies For euer and The Spirit of Truth But you M. Iewel and your good felowes do teache plainely that the whole Churche of Christ was guided in Truthe by the Holy Ghost only for the space of .600 yeres and therefore you limit and prescribe the trial of Controuersies to that age onely As for these later so many hundred yeres you say the Pope hath blinded the whole worlde You beleue then in a Christe of .600 yeres only not in our Christe and Sauiour which promised to remaine with his Churche Al dayes no daye or yere intermitted euen to the vvorldes ende August in epist. Iohan tractat 6. Nay beleeue you in Christ at al S. Augustine teacheth that Heretikes beleeue not that Christ came in flesh Charitie saith he brought him vnto flesh VVho so euer therefore thus he concludeth hath not Charitie he denieth that Christ came in fleshe And to proue that an Heretike hath not Charitie thus he reasoneth Tu non habes Charitatem quia pro honore tuo diuidis vnitatem Thou hast not Charitie bicause for thine owne honours sake thou diuidest vnitie There for sure trial of Preachers whether they haue the spirite of God or no comparing them as S. Paule doth to earthen pitchers he biddeth men to prooue them by the sounde Pulsate tangite vasa fictilia ne fortè crepuerint male resonent Knocke the earthen pitchers saith he tinke them with your fingers least perhaps they be crackte and geue a broken sounde You are crackte you are crakte M. Iewel We haue knockte you and we finde that your sound is not whole How so Bicause you haue not the Charitie and loue of vnitie You say I knowe wel that you haue Charitie and that ye diuide not the Vnitie but that we the Papistes for so ye cal the Catholiques be they by whom the Vnitie is diuided No no M. Iewel It wil not serue you so to say For when men were once One and in one Auncient felowship or Communion as ye and we were in One Auncient Church before Luther brake the knot he diuideth Vnitie which departeth from his felowes and former godly companie to ioyne him selfe with a newe companie not he who abydeth stil in the former Auncient companie Say therefore what ye wil S. Augustine plainely prooueth that ye are they which haue broken the Vnitie For this can not be denied which by him is spoken as it were to your person Tollis te ab vnitate Orbis terrarum c. Tract 6. in epist. Iohan. You vvithdravv your selfe from the vnitie of the vvhole vvorlde You diuide the Church by Schismes you rent the bodie of Christ. He came to gather together you crie out to the ende to set a sundre It is you M. Iewel
seemely to serue him not onely with inward motions of the soule but also with outward thinges that we haue receiued of his goodnes 1. Cor. 11. Therefore S. Paule gaue preceptes vnto them of Corinth men and wemen concerning the head to be vncoouered or coouered when they prayed or prophecied Christ also in the Gospel declaring that internal faith only doth not suffice saith He that confesseth me before men Math. 10. I wil confesse him also before my Father And S. Paule saith Rom. 10. that with the harte a man beleeueth vnto righteousnes but with the mouth confession is made vnto saluation by the mouth vnderstanding euery external worke whereby confession of our faith is made But what shal we say to those places of the Scriptures in whiche it is reported that God hath no liking in the outward Sacrifices Osee. 6. I wil haue mercie saith he and not Sacrifice Math. 9. If thou wouldest haue had Sacrifice I would haue geuen it thee Psalm 50. With burnt offeringes thou wilt not be delited A troubled spirite is a Sacrifice to God the contrite and humbled harte thou wilt not despise I wil not rebuke thee for Sacrifices Psal. 49. Of the like places in the Scriptures of the olde Testament we finde greate numbers To al this S. Augustine answereth August de Ciui Dei lib. 10. c. 5. In vvhat wise doth God refuse the old Sacrifices Sic illa Deum nolle dixit quomodo ab stultis ea velle creditur velut suae gratiae voluptatis The Prophet said that God would not haue those Sacrifices in suche sorte as fooles beleeue he would haue them as for his owne pleasures sake For elles if he would not haue had them at al he would neuer haue commaunded them in the olde Lawe to be offered And therefore they were saith he to be chaunged now in their due and certaine ceason least men should beleeue that they were such as might be desired of Gods parte or be acceptable of them selfe in our behalfe and not rather those other Sacrifices he meaneth internal Sacrifices whiche by them were signified Now therefore that those olde Sacrifices be chaunged and abrogated The Sacrifice of the Eucharist or of the Aulter the time being come when Moyses Lawe should cease and haue an ende Christe in place of them hath substituted the Sacrifice of the Euchariste greater in vertue better in profite easier in doing and incomparably higher in worthinesse So then that there may be a perfit profession of the supreme Maiestie which is to be shewed by very things them selues we offer vnto it a visible gifte of those thinges which we haue receiued of our Lordes hande for our sinnes and for a thankeful recognition A certain change required in the thinges that be sacrificed 2.2 q. 85. art 3. arg 3. Theoph. in cap. 8. ad Heb. Chrysost. in epist. ad Heb. Homil 18. Then is a gifte said properly to be consecrated or halowed vnto God in sacrifice whē it is deputed to diuine seruice with some rite of religion or Ceremonie obserserued whereby some change is made about it For it is not to be thought that euery oblation is a Sacrifice as it is wel noted of S. Thomas Theophylacte and S. Chrysostome For as it appeareth in the booke named Leuiticus In al the Sacrifices some rite was obserued whereby thinges that before were prophane were made sacred and holy to the honour of God For either they were slaine as the Beastes or burnt as the Incense or sprinkled ouer with oile as bread meale and the first fruites and baked in an Ouen or fryed in a panne or rosted on a gredyern Leuit. 2. and al thinges were sauered and ceasoned with salte Marc. 9. A rite and ceremonie of changing we do obserue in our Sacrifice also now the bread beside breaking and eating by vertue of the woordes of consecration being changed into the body and the wine into the bloude of Christe By which rite and ceremonie we confesse that for so much as we are by nature the children of wrath we haue nede of a great chaūge to be made worthy of God that we haue neede to put on the new man that we protest al that is ours to be ready for his sake to be changed to be consumed to be spent and lost right so as it shal be his pleasure For who so euer doth lose his soule for my sake saith our Sauiour he shal finde his soule Math. 16. That to offer Sacrifice is natural Now let vs come vnto the fourth point and declare that God hath both engraffed in the mindes of men the rite of sacrificing and also by Lawe commaunded it and for what cause This is soone done The consideration of nature and general view of the worlde layeth the one before our eyes and the bookes of the olde Testament the other Natural reason telleth man that he is vnder some Superiour for the defectes which he feeleth in him selfe In whiche defectes he hath neede to be holpen and directed of some Superiour And what so euer that is it is that as S. Thomas saith whiche among al is called God And as in natural thinges naturally the inferiour thinges are vnder the superiour thinges euen so natural reason telleth man according vnto natural inclination that he exhibite to that whiche is aboue man subiection and honour according to his manner And the conuenient manner for man is to vse sensible signes to expresse some thinges bicause he taketh his knowledge of sensible thinges And therefore it procedeth of natural reason that man vse certaine sensible thinges offering them to God in signe of due subiection and honour in like sorte as they doo who offer vnto their Lordes certaine thinges in recognition of their Lordship or Dominion This perteineth to the nature of Sacrifice and therefore the offering of Sacrifice perteineth to the Law of nature Sacrifice hath euer ben general to al peoples Cyprian Serm. de ratione Circūcis Wherefore there lyueth no Nation in the worlde altogether without Religion as we may see and heare nor is Religion mainteined without Ceremonies And among Ceremonies the Nations of al ages haue vsed outward Oblation as the chiefe Although for the more parte as S. Cyprian saith they abhorred Circumcision as a thing cruel and vnfrendly to nature yet the other Sacrifices they did not likewise abhorre but folowing the lawe of Nature in many thinges saith he they reteined the custome of making Sacrifices And this was fastened in their myndes by common consent in general that God onely ought to be wourshipped with outward Sacrifice With that kinde of wourship who euer iudged that any should be honoured saith S. Augustine but whom either he knewe August de Ciuit. Dei li. 10. c. 4. or thought or at lest imagined to be God Of what antiquitie this manner of godly wourship is the Sacrifices of the two first brethren Cain and Abel
Christ is offered vp to his Father in the daily Sacrifice of the Churche vnder the Forme of Bread and Wine truely and in deede not in respect of the maÌ„ner of offering but in respect of his very Bodie and Bloude really that is in deede present as it hath ben sufficiently proued here before M. Iewels Replie The greatter and vvoorthier the vvork is that our Aduersaries haue imagined that is for a Mortal and a Miserable man to offer vp the Immortal Sonne of God vnto his Father and that Really and in deede the more ought the same either by manifest vvoordes or by necessarie collection expressely and plainely to be prooued Hebr. 5. For noman taketh honour and office vnto him self but he that is called and appointed thereto by God But for ought that may appeare by anie clause or sentence either of the nevve Testament or of the olde God neuer appointed anie such Sacrifice to be made by anie Mortal Creature And Theophylacte saith Iesus eiiciendo boues columbas Theophyl in Matt. cap. 21. praesignauit non vltra opus esse animalium Sacrificio sed Oratione Iesus throvving the Oxen aÌ„d Dooues out of the Temple signified that they should no lenger haue nede of the Sacrifice of beastes but of prayer Harding WOVLD God M. Iewel that either your modestie were more or that you had the grace to see howe euil your saucinesse becommeth you As at the first by open Chalenge you prouoked all the learned men that be alyue as it were to trye maisterie with you so in the entrie of your Replie against my Answer to your seueÌ„tienth Article you beare al men in hand that vntil you came froÌ„ the schole of Rhetorike to reach the world this new Gospel no priest euer coÌ„sidered how great and worthy a worke it is to offer vp Christe vnto his Father which apperteineth to Priestly office Wherein you charge the blessed Apostles their successours al the holy Fathers of the Church so many as were Priestes al that haue ben to your time briefly the whole Church it self with the crime of wicked presumptioÌ„ for making this sacrifice How caÌ„ you seme otherwise to doo For whereas you say it may not appeare by any Clause or senteÌ„ce of the olde or new Testament that God euer appointed any such Sacrifice to be made by any Mortal maÌ„ and most certaine it is that by the Apostles and the holy Fathers of the Church and by the priestes of God in euery age it hath ben made what coÌ„clude you hereof but that they haue traÌ„sgressed the Scripture and presumptuously takeÌ„ honour and office vnto them selues Hebr. 5. not being called nor appointed thereto by God And so what may Christ be thought to haue meant in suffering such a heinous errour so long to continue in his Church Esai 59. which he loueth so derely Iohan. 14. to which he promised the assistance of the holy Ghoste the spirite of truth for euer Matt. 28. But consider M. Iewel against whom and how many you striue Wil it do your hart good to heare that spoken of Iewel which by the Angel of God was spokeÌ„ of Ismael Manus eius coÌ„tra oeÌ„s â—â—n 16. et manus oiÌ„m contra cuÌ„ The hand of him against al and the hand of al against him Stande you so farre in your owne conceite as to thinke you shal be able to stand against al RemeÌ„ber you not what is said of the Church Cant. 6. that it is terribilis ut castroruÌ„ acies ordinata terrible like the foreward of an Armie set in battaile raie But leauing to put you in minde of that which might withdraw you froÌ„ your wicked doctrine either for feare of God or for shame of meÌ„ hauing litle hope by wordes to do good with you to th' intent the weakenes of your part laid forth to be coÌ„sidered the vnlerned Reader that perhaps is seduced by you may be admonished to beware of you and to geue no more credite vnto you then a professed enemie of the Church and a teacher of falshod deserueth I wil come to the examinatioÌ„ of your Replie You seme to deduce an argumeÌ„t against this Sacrifice made by a priest of the basenes and vilenesse of humaine coÌ„dition as though maÌ„ who in dede is mortal aÌ„d miserable aÌ„d a mortal creature as you terme him were not worthy ne could not be made worthy to offer vp the Immoral SoÌ„ne of God vnto his Father True it is Man of him self is very vnworthy of that high office neither caÌ„ he by any his owne power or vertue reache vnto the worthines of that soueraine honour But if it please God of his great loue towards his owne dere creature to admit maÌ„ to that dignitie notwitstanding he be neuer so vnworthy of him self so he is made worthy Neither Anna nor Elizabeth nor blessed Marie her selfe nor any other woman was euer worthy of her self to coÌ„ceiue and bring forth th' Immortal SoÌ„ne of God yet the virgin Marie through grace of him whom she bare was made worthy to beare him aÌ„d therfor she said fecit mihi magna q poteÌ„s est he hath don me great thinges Luc. 1. that is mighty Els if coÌ„sideration of the mortal and miserable coÌ„ditioÌ„ of man might be brought in argumeÌ„t for the coÌ„trary what a wide dore were opened vnto the scholers of MarcioÌ„ Manichaeus Apollinaris and to other Heretikes to rush in and to thrust in againe their old heresies against the truth of the Flesh assumpted and the Incarnation of Christe Gene. 18. Abraham was a man mortal and miserable as we are dust and asshes To hovv great dignity a man mortal and miserable hath ben admitted by God as he said himselfe yet was he made worthy to haue talke with God and to vnderstaÌ„d his purpose touching the destruction of Sodoma Moyses like wise though he were but a mortal and miserable man was accoÌ„pted worthy with whom God spake mouth to mouth and as the Scripture saith face to face as a man is woont to speake vnto his frend to see our Lorde opeÌ„ly without obscure signes and figures Num. 12. to be Gods Ambassadour vnto Pharao Exod. 33. Exodi 3. Exod. 19. and the people of Israel to enter into the Cloude vpon the hill where God was and there to receiue the Lawe written with Gods owne finger And to come againe vnto the newe Testament what a dignitie is it for Iohn the Baptist to baptise Christe Mat. 3. Mat. 28. for the Apostles and their successours to carrie his name Ioan. 20. and his worde through out the whole worlde to remit and retaine sinnes Shal we denye or so much as cal in question these great thinges because they be mortal and miserable men to whom they are committed Notwithstanding the mortalitie and miserie of mankinde yet beholde what a high dignitie men are called vnto by testimony of S. Iohn Ioan. 1. Dedit eis potestatem
healthful Sacrifice of Christes body and bloude and to persuade vnlearned soules there is no such Sacrifice really offered vnto God by Priestes of the newe Testament The summe of M. Ievvels shiftes against the Sacrifice Wherevpon I haue stayd somewhat the lenger because I sawe how by guileful persuasions he went about to engraffe at the beginning in the myndes of the vnlearned First that man for cause of his miserable and mortal condition ought not to presume to offer vp the Immortal Sonne of God in a real Sacrifice vnto his Father nexte that by Scripture there appeareth no graunt af auctoritie or warrant so to doo lastly that the termes Sacrificer Sacrifice and Aulter be onely naked and empty termes void of any substance signified that is in the Churche as deriued out of the Lawe of Moyses and vsed by the olde learned Fathers for their delite Al which three pointes how farre wyde they be from truth it may partely appeare by that I haue already said and shal more fully appeare in the processe of this Reioindre Now let vs heare M. Iewel Iewel Novve to comme to M. Hardinges vvoordes Three waies saith he Christ is offered vp vnto his Father In a Figure as in the Olde Lawe In Deede and Blouddily as vpon the Crosse In a Sacrament or Mysterie as in the Newe Testament Of vvhiche three vvaies the Blouddy Oblation of Christe vpon the Crosse is the very true and onely Propitiatorie Sacrifice for the Sinnes of the vvorlde The other tvvo as in respecte and manner of Signifieing they are sundrie so in effecte and substance they are al one For like as in the Sacramentes of the olde Lavve vvas expressed the Death of Christe that vvas to comme Euen so in the Sacramentes of the nevve Lavve of the Ghospel is expressed the same Death of Christe already paste As vvee haue Mysteries so had they Mysteries As vvee Sacrifice Christe so did they Sacrifice Christe As the Lambe of God is slaiue vnto vs So vvas the same Lambe of God slaine vnto them S. Augustine saithe August De vtilitate poenitent cap. 1. Tunc Christus Venturus modò Christus Venit Venturus Venit diuersa verba sunt sed idem Christus Then was Christe shal comme Nowe is Christe Is comme Shall comme and Is comme are sundrye woordes But Christe is al one Againe in like comparison bytvveene the Lavve of Moyses and the Gospel of Christe he saith thus August in Ioannem tract 26. Videte Fide manente Signa variata In Signis diuersis eadem Fides Beholde the Faith remaininge the Sacramentes or Signes are changed The Signes or Sacramentes beinge diuers the Faith is one Harding Now then that after your Preface you come to my woordes M. Iewell what haue you to replye against them that to any learned man may seeme to be to the purpose I said Christe is offered after three manners figuratiuely truely with bloudshedding and sacramentally or in Mysterie With which parte of this threefold Diuision finde you fault As for the two first partes they be clearely proued by the Scriptures The third is that ye call in question and whiche you impugne Bicause you had nothing to say against the two first least your mater should seeme to haue a foile if you yelded to any thing that were by me saied were it neuer so true you goe from the purpose and enter into other talke M. Ievvel diuerteth from the purpose to impertinēt mater Whereof as parte is false so the whole is impertinent What nede was there to tel vs that the bloudy Oblation of Christe vpon the Crosse is the Propitiatorie Sacrifice for the sinnes of the worlde As thereof no man doubted so no man spake of it The point now treated is not whether the Sacrifice of the Crosse be Propitiatorie for it were superfluous thereof to dispute but whether Christe be now offered vp in Mysterie Graunt that first and afterward we may procede further to discusse whether the Sacrifice of the Aulter be Propitiatorie and in what sense it be Propitiatorie Of what effecte and substance so euer the Sacrifices of both Lawes be how so euer the Death of Christe to come or past be expressed in the olde and newe Sacramentes that they of the olde Testament as wel as we had Mysteries of the equalitie and likenesse of Sacrifices and of like slaiyng of the Lambe of God on their parte and ours of all these thinges so particularly to speake the Diuision by me declared ministred you no iuste occasion And al this might wel be suffred to go vnanswered as impertinent had you not by the way as it were spitten forth some poison of erroneous doctrine to the infection of the vnlearned and vnware Readers For by calling the bloudy Oblation of Christe vpon the Crosse the very true and onely Sacrifice Propitiatorie for the synnes of the worlde which no man denieth your meaning is to insinuate that the vnbloudy Sacrifice which Christe instituted at his last Supper of his body and bloude were not in dede a Sacrifice in any sense or respecte Propitiatorie Whereas if that of the Crosse was Propitiatorie the other must nedes be Propitiatorie though in a diuers degree of Propitiation bicause in substance of the thing offered it is one with the other but diuers in the manner of offering as being vnbloudy and done in a mysterie and the other bloudy and don in the forme of a visible body And the force and vertue of Propitiation of the one issueth not from the Priest but from the Propitiation of the other in whose cōmemoration it is offered Cyprianus de coe Do. Verely S. Cyprian sticketh not to cal the holy Euchariste Medicamentum ad sanandas infirmitates holocaustum ad purgandas iniquitates A medicine to heale sickenesses and a wholeburnt Sacrifice to cleanse iniquities Baesilius in Liturg. S. Basile also in his Liturgie making his supplication saith thus Da Domine vt pro nostris peccatis populi ignorantijs acceptum sit Sacrificium nostrum Graunt Lorde that our Sacrifice may be acceptable for our sinnes and for the ignorances of the people Whereas you affirme the other two waies after which Christe is offered that is to say the Sacrifices of the olde Lawe and the singular Sacrifice of the Church now to be one in effecte and substance as they are sundrye in respecte Three vntruthes vttered at once by M. Ievvel and manner of signifiyng you vtter three greate vntruthes at once For first as concerning the respecte of signifiyng in our Sacrifice the formes of Breade and Wine doo signifie the Bodie and Bloude of Christe as the Sacrifices of the olde Lawe signified Christe And although they signifie Christ present and the other absent yet in respecte of signifiyng they agree and therfore are not sundry therin The respect of signifiyng is one and the thing signified is one though the manner of signifiyng be diuers That the substāce of the
Sacrifices of both testamentes is diuers Secondly touching the substance it is diuers in the Sacrifices of both Testamentes For the substance of the olde Sacrifices was a brute beaste meale cakes oile wine and such the like But the substance of our Sacrifice nowe frequented in the newe Testament is the Body and Bloud of Christ. Luc. 22. So both the Scripture teacheth shewing how Christe hauing at his supper consecrated his body and bloude commaunded his disciples to doe the same that he had done in his remembrance and S. Augustine declareth in these woordes August in lib. senten Prosperi Hoc est quod dicimus quod modis omnibus approbare contendimus Sacrificium Ecclesiae duobus confici duobus constare visibili elemētorum specie inuisibili Domini nostri Iesu Christi corpore sanguine sacramento re Sacramenti This is that we say that by al meanes we ernestly endeuour to approue that the Sacrifice of the Churche is made of two thinges and doth consiste of two thinges of the visible forme of the Elementes and of the inuisible body and bloude of our Lorde Iesus Christ of the Sacrament and of the thing of the Sacrament that is to wit of the body of Christe S. Ireneus agreably to this doctrine Irene lib. 4. ca. 34. saith the Euchariste to consiste of two thinges the one earthly whereby he meaneth the forme of the elementes the other heauenly that is to say the body and bloud of Christe Learne Reader by this doctrine of S. Augustine The substance of bread and vvine hath no place in our Sacrifice that the substance of bread and wine which be called here the Elements hath no place in our Sacrifice which doth consist of two partes the one visible the other inuisible The formes of the Elementes be the visible parte As for the substance of bread and wine it is vtterly inuisible But the inuisible parte of the Sacrifice is the body and Bloud of Christ. And therfore onlesse we appoint two inuisible partes of this Sacrifice that is to say the substance of bread and wine and also the body and bloud of Christe which were absurde to thinke it must nedes be confessed that no place is here lefte for the substāce of bread and wine but that the inuisible thing or substance of the Sacrament and likewise of the Sacrifice is the body and bloud of Christe And thus it is euidēt that the substance of the Sacrifices of the olde Law and of the Sacrifices of the new Law is sundry and diuerse Wherof it is concluded that it is either ignorātly and grossely or heretically said if it be stubbornly mainteined that our Sacrifice is one in substance with the Iewish Sacrifices The effectes of the Sacrifices of both Lawes be differēt and diuers Now thirdly to speake of the effect of the Sacrifices of the olde Lawe and of the Sacrifice of the Churche wherein Christ is offered vp vnto his Father in a Sacrament and mystically to wit vnder the forme of bread and wine certaine it is the effectes be diuers To declare fully the manyfolde and heauenly effectes of our Sacrifice farre surmounting any effecte that euer was ascribed to the Sacrifices of the olde Lawe it would require a long treatise The difference of both may sufficiently appeare by comparing two or three of their effectes together The bloude of the Sacrifices of the olde Lawe confirmed the same Lawe The bloude of our Sacrifice confirmeth the newe Testamente Math. 26. Hic est Sanguis meus noui Testamenti this is my bloude of the newe Testamente saieth our Lorde in the Gospel Howe much diuersitie then is betwene the newe Testament and the olde which is incomparably great the new Law passing in excellencie the olde so much differeth and so far surmounteth the effect of the Sacrifice of Christes Church the effecte of the Sacrifices of the Iewish Synagogue Againe August de fide ad Petrum cap. 19. to vse your owne witnesse against your selfe by reporte of Saint Augustine the olde Sacrifices signified in Figures Christes death to come and to be suffered But the Sacrifice of the Churche representeth with the real presence of that body which hath dyed the death already past and perfited And who knoweth not what difference there is betwene a promise and the performance of the promise Performance I say for although in our Sacrifice the death of Christe be not performed a new and againe suffred yet in the same is the truth of that very body inuisibly present which by suffering death hath payd the price of our Redemption In consideration whereof S. Augustine speaking of this Sacrifice offred vnto God for that blessed woman S. Monica his mother at her burial Augustin Confes. lib. 9. cap. 12. whereby he meaneth the Masse calleth it Sacrificium pretij nostri the Sacrifice of our Price that is to say wherewith our Raunsome was payd S. Ignatius ascribeth to our Sacrifice of a faithful person worthily receiued Ignatius in epist. ad Ephesios a maruelous effecte calling it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a medicine of immortalitie and a preseruatiue whereby we may be kepte from dying Which maruelous benefite who euer attributed to the Sacrifices of the olde Lawe Other the like effectes which the olde learned Fathers haue ascribed vnto the blessed Sacrifice be many in number and great in excellencie of which the olde Sacrifices were neuer hable to worke any Wherefore you ought to recant this your false doctrine M. Iewel that the Sacrifices of both Lawes be of one effecte or which is the same one in effecte No lesse false is that you affirme that as we haue Mysteries so had they Mysteries specially yf your worde of comparison imply a likenes and equalitie of Mysteries as the purport of your other doctrine leadeth vs to iudge of you For although it be true that they had Mysteries and we also haue Mysteries yet had not they the like Mysteries nor equal in dignitie truth and plainesse to our Mysteries and Sacramentes Howe much ours are preferred before theirs in the iudgemente of S. Augustine August in Psal. 73. it is euident by that he saith speaking of bothe Mutata sunt Sacramenta facta sunt faciliora pauciora salubriora feliciora The Sacramentes saith he be chaunged they be made easier fewer healthfuller happier And in the same place Sacramenta noui Testamenti dant Salutem sacramenta veteris Testamenti promiserunt Saluatorem The Sacramentes of the newe Testamente geue saluation the Sacramentes of the olde Testamente promised the Sauiour Wherefore M. Iewel either make vs beleue that you are to be heard before S. Augustine and that better is worse and worse better or reuoke your woordes by which you teache likenes and equalitie betwene the Mysteries and Sacramentes of both Testamentes M. Ievvel vtterly taketh avvay the real Sacrifice of the nevv Testamēt Where you say further that as we Sacrifice Christe so did
Crosse against the vnbloudy and mystical Sacrifice of the Aulter By the worde mystical I exclude not the truth of our Lordes body and bloude the substance of this Sacrifice but I signifie the couert manner of their being in the same If S. Augustine had in that place affirmed in the Sacrifice of the Church a thankes geuing and remembrance of Christes death only wherein he should haue said vntruly in some respect then had he serued your turne Now that he saith not so by the vncourteous reproufe of me for leauing the wordes vnrehersed which perteined not to my purpose and helpe your doctrine nothing at al it appeareth how feeble the parte is that with the trompet of your vaine Challenge you woulde needes to be proclaimed and that nowe with your colourable Replie you haue taken in hande to mainteyne S. Augustine contrarywise declaring with what kinde of Sacrifices the Iewes gaue a signification of Christes Sacrifice that was to come and with what kinde of Sacrifice the Christians do kepe the remembrance of Christes Sacrifice now past saith expressely that the substāce of the Iewes sacrifices were brute beasts and that of the Christians Sacrifice is the body and bloude of Christ◠his woordes be these Augu. cōt Faust. lib. 20. ca. 18. Hebraei in victimis pecorum prophetiam celebrabant futurae victimae quam Christus obtulit Vnde iam Christiani per acti eiusdem sacrificij memoriam celebrant oblatione participatione corporis Sanguinis Christi The Hebrewes celebrated a prophecie of the Sacrifice to come which Christe offered Wherevpon the Christians doe now celebrate the memorie of the same Sacrifice already performed by the offering and receiuing of the body and bloud of Christe This Sacrifice was in al times to be recommended vnto the mynde of man bicause thereof onely dependeth the saluation of man Before the Lawe and during the tyme of the Lawe it was prefigured and fore-signified by many and sundry thinges but specially by the sacrifices of beastes In the time of grace wherein we now liue the Christians do preserue kepe celebrate and solemnize the memorie of it by a more liuely and effectual representatiō as to whom more abundāce of grace through Christes Incarnation is dispensed that is as Saint Augustine teacheth by the Oblation and participation of the same body and bloude that was offered and shed for vs. Nowe if it be not the true body and bloude of Christe that we offer and receiue then neither can S. Augustines wordes be duly iustified and the Sacrifice of the Christians shal be lesse liuely lesse euident lesse representatiue as I may so say and of lesse valewe then were the Sacrifices of the Iewes For what comparison is there betwene a Lambe and a piece of bread with a suppe of wine And who iudgeth not the death of Christe to be more expressely represented by a lambe slaine then by bare bread and wine Neither bicause our Sacrifice is done in commemoration or remembrance thereof foloweth it that the presence of Christes body and bloud is not requisite But forasmuch as this is the commemoration which alone maketh God merciful vnto vs Origen in Leuit. Hom. 13. as Origen saith therefore to the working of so great an effecte it is necessary that Christes true body and bloude be really present in our Sacrifice M. Ievvel excludeth one truth by an other And whereas you bring Testimonies of the Fathers to proue that our Sacrifice is a remēbrance an exāple a token or signe of the true Sacrifice that was made vpon the Crosse you tooke more paines then neede required For that no Catholike man denieth But the conclusion which guilefully your endeuour is to inferre thereof which is that therefore Christe is not really present and offered by the Priest we deny vtterly For both be true that Christe is present substantially and in deede and is so offred by the Priest and also that the same is donne in a remembrance And this much is witnessed by S. Chrysostome Chrysost. in epist. ad Heb. Homil 17. where he saith Pontifex noster ille est qui hostiam mundantem nos obtulit Ipsam offerimus nunc quae tunc oblata quidem consumi non potest Hoc autem quod facimus in commemorationē quidem fit eius quod factum est Christ is our Bishop who offered a Sacrifice cleasing vs. We do offer the selfe same now also Which being then offered can not be consumed That which we doo is done in commemoration of that which was done Here we be taught by S. Chrysostom that we offer now the selfe same hoste or Sacrifice that Christe our high Bisshop offered wherewith to cleanse vs from the filth of our sinnes which was none other but his owne body and bloude And neuerthelesse that which we doo is done for a remembraunce of that which Christe did Commemoratiō example ād signe do not exclude the real presence and real oblation So that by Chrysostoms iudgement neither the commemoration nor example nor signe doth exclude the real presence and real oblation of Christes body and bloude But you M. Iewel after your common manner go about to put away one truth by an other truth Which your accustomed shifte is now very stale and moueth fewe that reade your bookes with any meane iudgement For the foolishnes of your argument is laughed at by euery Baker who hauing set forth a loafe of breade vpon his stal can tel you that that loafe signifieth and putteth folke in mynde there is bread to be solde in his house and that the same notwithstanding is breade as other his loaues be and perhaps of the same batche Right so the body of Christe in the Sacrament is both a signe of Christes body and also his very true body in dede And likewise his very flesh and bloude is offered in our dredful mysteries in signe commeration and remembrance of his fleshe and bloude offred and shed vpon the Crosse. YOu finde great fault with that I said Christe is offred vp vnto his Father vnder the formes of breade and wine truly and in dede and to make it seme more odious you affirme these to be myne own only words confidently and boldely presumed of my selfe neuer vsed before by any auncient Father Whiles you take delite in such Rhetorical amplifications you do but increase the number of your vntruthes and make the worlde witnesse of your shamelesse vanitie Though the auncient Fathers that wrote within in the first six hundred yeres after Christe haue not these precise termes yet they haue the self same doctrin and that is ynough Your Sacramētarie heresie is not so auncient the Churche was as it were in quiet possession of the Catholike faith touching this Article for the space of a thousand yeres If the flames of your heresie had flashed abroad out of Hel in their daies there is no doubte they would haue quenched it with streames of holesom doctrine vttered in the
same termes whereof nowe you would faine take some aduauntage These termes Christ is offered vp to his Father vnder the formes of bread and wine truely and in dede proued not to be of my priuate deuise HOw so euer it be concerning the auncient Fathers certaine it is these termes be not of my onely presumption or deuising It is wel knowen to al that reade the later Councels both general and prouincial the Scholastical Doctours and who so euer haue written against Berengarius Wikleff Luther Zuinglius Oecolampadius Caluine and those other late false teachers that these be not wordes of mine owne inuention but common to others that haue written in this mater sithens your Heresie first sprang Christe is in the Sacrifice of the Churche so offered as he is present for there he is made present by vertue of consecration to be offered and to be receiued But he is present vnder the formes of Breade and Wine and that truely and in deede Ergo he is offered vnder the formes of Breade and Wine truly and in deede For proufe of the Minor or second Proposition for els nothing here I suppose you wil denie that it may appeare these wordes not to be of myne owne onely deuising let a fewe testimonies suffice where many might easily be brought In the great Councel of Laterane thus you finde this Article set forth In Actis Conc. Lateran cap. 1. de fid Cat. Verum Christi corpus sanguis in Sacramento Altaris sub speciebus panis vini veraciter continentur transubstantiatis pane in corpus vino in sanguinem potestate Diuina The true Body of Christe and his Bloude are conteined truely and in deede for so much the worde veraciter doth signifie in the Sacrament of the Aulter vnder the formes of breade and wine the breade being transubstantiate into the body and the wine into the bloude by the power of God The Councel of Florence whereat accorde was made betwene the Greke and Latine Churche hath the very like In Decret Con. Flor. super vnio Iacobin Armenior or rather the same wordes touching the point by you denied Sacerdos in persona Christi loqueâ—is hoc conficit SacrameÌ„tum Nam ipsorum verborum virtute substantia panis in corpus Christi substantia vini in sanguinem conuertuntur ita tamen qoòd totus Christus continetur sub specie panis totus sub specie vini sub qualibet quoque parte hostiae consecratae vini coÌ„secrati separatione facta totus est Christus The Priest speaking in the person of Christe coÌ„secrateth this Sacrament For by the vertue of the very wordes the substance of bread is turned into the body of Christe and the substance of wine into his bloude yet so that Christ is conteined whole vnder the forme of bread and whole vnder the forme of wine Also if a diuision be madeâ— Christe is whole vnder euery parte of the consecrate hoste and of the consecrate wine With this agreeth the late learned Councel of Trent whose wordes these be touching both the real presence Concil Trident Sess. 22. cap. 1. and also the real Sacrifice Christus in coena nouissima sacerdotem secundùm ordinem Melchisedech se in aeternum constitutum declarans corpus sanguinem suum sub speciebus panis vini Deo Patri obtulit ac sub earundem rerum symbolis Apostolis quos tunc noui testamenti Sacerdotes coÌ„stituebat vt sumerent tradidit eisdem eoruÌ„que in sacerdotio successoribus vt offerrent praecepit per haec verba Hoc facite in meaÌ„ coÌ„memorationem Christe in his last supper declaring him selfe to be ordeined a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech offered vp vnto God the Father his body and bloud vnder the formes of bread and wine and deliuered them vnder the signes of the same thinges vnto the Apostles whom then he ordeined Priestes of the newe Testament that they should receine and gaue commaundement to them and to their successours in Priesthode that they should offer the â—ame by these wordes Doo ye this in my remembrance Petrus Lombardus saith Sentent lib 4. Distinct 8. Sub specie panis vini corpus sanguinem suum discipulis tradidit Christe gaue his body and his bloude vnto his Disciples vnder the forme of breade and wine S. Thomas also In tertiae parte SuÌ„mae quaestione 75. whom onely I allege among so many Scholastical Doctours saith most plainely Quia non est consuetum hominibus sed horribile carnem hominis comedere sanguinem bibere proponuntur nobis caro sanguis Christi sumenda sub speciebus illorum quae frequentius in vsum hominis veniunt scilicet panis vini Bicause it is not a thing customable for men but a horrible thing to eate mans flesh and drinke mans bloude the flesh and bloude of Christe are set before vs to be receiued vnder the formes of those thinges which man is coÌ„monly vsed vnto to wit of bread and wine There was no neede why I should recite so many testimonies for a thing so cleare An impudent lye that can not be excused and so wel knowen I graunt Yet bicause you are either so ignorant which I beleue not or so shamelesse which semeth as to say these woordes Christe is offred vp vnto his Father vnder the formes of bread and wine truly and in deede to be my woordes onely confidently and boldly presumed of my selfe as though I were the first that deuised them of mine owne head and the first that presumed to vse them I thought good to reherse so much to thintent I might cleare my selfe of such presumption and geue the worlde to vnderstand how litle you regard to vse manifest and impudent lying for maintenance of your doctrine rather then you would seme to be ouercome It is a token ye care litle what ye say when ye feare not to vtter so open vntruth If for this point you require testimonies of auncient Fathers whom you pretende to alowe as the same doctrine is by them most assuredly auouched whiche is ynough as I said before so some of them haue vttered it either with the same wordes or with the very like and such as in signification are equiualent S. Hilary saith Hilar. de Trinit lib. 8. Nos verè sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus We receiue the flesh of his body vnder a mysterie truly or verily Augu. ad BonifaciuÌ„ Epist. 23. S. Augustine saith Nonne semel oblatus est Christus in semetipso Et tamen in SacrameÌ„to non solùm per omnes Paschae solennitates sed omni die populis immolatur Was not Christe once offered vp in him selfe And yet neuerthelesse he is sacrificed in a Sacrament for the people not only through al the solemne feastes of Easter but also euery day Here you must either graunt that the fleshe of Christes body to be receiued of vs in or vnder a
mysterie and Christe him selfe to be sacrificed in a sacrament doth importe his fleshe to be eaten and him to be sacrificed vnder the formes of bread and wine which be our Sacrament and the eating of Christes body vnder the which is an eating mystical or eating vnder a mysterie or els you must shewe vs some other mater wherein as vnder a mysterie and as in a Sacramente his body is eaten and him selfe is offered De consec Distinct. 2. Hoc est quod dicimus But there is an other more manifest place in S. Augustine where he vseth the very same termes and wordes that you would nedes to be myne only and of my selfe boldely and confidently presumed His woordes be these Caro eius est quam forma panis opertam in Saâ—cramento accipimus sanguis eius quem sub vini specie sapore potamus It is the flesh of Christe which we receiue couered with the forme of bread in the SacrameÌ„t and his bloude which we drinke vnder the shewe and taste of wine You see then M. Iewelâ— these wordes be not onely myne they be S. Augustines whose auctoritie you can not contemne Neither can you reasonably reiecte the booke out of which they be taken bicause your selfe euen in this very place haue alleged it for your helpe If as he saith we eate the flesh of Christe couered with the forme of bread then so is he also offred For before it be receiued of vs it behoueth it be coÌ„secrate and offred Therfore it is true which I said Christ is offered in forme of bread onlesse you make a differeÌ„ce betwen Christes flesh and bloud in formes of bread and wine and Christes flesh and bloude coouered with the formes of bread and wine This is so plaine that you must needes yeelde vnto it As for the answer you make to this place alleged by me in the .12 Article In the Replieâ— Page 471. lin 6. it is such as any man that knoweth your Diuinitie would sone iudge it to be a peece of your owne coyning The whole is fooiled and glafed ouer with a false colour of a phrase of speache As though wordes in al phrases were taken in one and the selfe same â—ignification Your aunswer is this Bicause this worde Forma forme or shape in English doth signifie the substance in S. Paule Phill. 2. where he saith Christus seipsum exinaniuit formam serui accipiens Christe empted him selfe taking the forme of a seruaunt therefore it must signifie the substance in this place of S. Augustine Caro Christi est quam forma panis opertam accipimus It is Christes flesh that we receiue coouered with the forme of bread M. Iewels ignorance or malice In this answer you considered not first that a thing can not in proper speache be said to be coouered with the substance of an other thing bicause the substance of thinges is inuisible Next that in some places this worde Forma 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 forma or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which S. Paule in that place vseth is an Accident and a mere qualitie as in Aristotle in quarta specie Qualitatis and is not alwaies taken for the name of nature as it is taken of Aristotle in 2. Physicorum Againe you looked not vnto the later parte of S. Augustines sentence where it is likewise of the bloud said Sanguis est quem sub vini specie sapore potamus It is bloude that vnder the shew and sauour of wine we drinke By these wordes shew and sauour the accidentes of wine and not the substance must needes be vnderstanded By conference of which two membres of one sentence together you should haue perceiued that S. Augustine speaking of Christes flesh meant by the worde Forma the same that he meant by the other wordes species and sapor where he spake of the bloude If then we drinke the bloude of Christe vnder the accidententes of wine then it is a true construction to say that we receiue his flesh coouered with the forme that is to say with the shew and outward shape which is an Accident of bread operta As for the worde operta which â—ignifieth coouered in the same place you make much a doo and rake together out of your Notebookes a heape of phrases and wordes by which lying priuy hyding coouering keeping priuy representation resemblance and any the like thing is signified And al to an heretical purpose to exclude the true presence of Chistes body and bloude out of the blessed Sacrament and to leaue nothing in it but a bare signification And there in the ende you shutte vp the mater with a false caste of legierdemaine falsifiyng a testimonie of S. Augustine For whereas S. Augustine saith In veteri Testamento occultabatur nouum August de Baptis coÌ„t Dona t ist lib. 1. ca. 15 quia occultè significabatur The newe Testament was hidden in the olde Testament bicause it was secretely signified you haue chaunged S. Augustines worde quia into id est and say that he expoundeth him selfe M. Iewel falsifieth S. Austine changing quia into id est occultabatur id est occultè significabatur It was hidden that is to say it was secretely signified And therefore you would haue the place which I alleged out of S. Angustine thus to be expounded and vnderstanded Caro Christi operta id est occultè significata Christes flesh is priuily hidden that is to say is priuily signified whereby you would exclude the real presence And this you call S. Augustines exposition as though S. Augustine had euer said so or meant so and as though operta had in the place I alleged bene put alone without an Ablatiue case as the verbe occultabatur is in the other sentence Nowe the true woordes of S. Augustine be these Caro eius est quam forma panis opertam in Sacramento accipimus It is his flesh which being coouered with the forme of bread in the Sacrament we receiue And if you would needes haue these wordes Forma panis opertam to be expounded by Forma panis occultè significatam though you haue no warrant for it that we vnderstand the flesh of Christe coouered with the forme of breade to be as much as if we said it to be secretely signified by the forme of bread wherein there is no great cause why we should much contend with you what can you thereof substantially conclude against the real presence Wil you make this wise argument The forme or shape of breade signifieth the body of Christ Ergo the body of Christ is not in deede present If you reason so the Baker must haue you to schole who shewing you a loafe set vpon his stal can tel you that that loafe signifieth breade to be in his howse to be solde One truth put avvay by an other and yet that the same loafe also is breade whiche I tolde you before And yet this is al the issue of your wrested
interpretations and heaped phrases Once leaue your bad shifte of putting away one truth by an other truth Howe oftentimes muste we tel you the formes of bread and wine do signifie the body and bloud of Christ present not absent Againe if for proufe that these wordes which reporte Christe to be present in the blessed Sacrament of the Aulter or to be offered in the Sacrifice of the Aulter vnder the formes of bread and wine be not onely my wordes I should here also allege the place of Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus which I alleged in my Answer to the tenth Article of your Chalenge what could you reasonably replye to the contrary That auncient Father saith thus vsing the verie termes of the Scholastical Doctours Cyril Hierosol Catechisi Mystagog Christe once chaunged water into wine which is nye vnto bloude in Chana of Galiley by his onely wil and shal not he be worthy to be beleued of vs that at his last supper he chaunged wine into bloude For if being bidden to a corporal wedding he wrought a woonderous miracle shal we not much more confesse that he gaue his body and bloude vnto the children of the Spouse Wherefore with al assurednesse let vs receiue the body and bloud of Christe Hitherto reason mouing credit now folow the wordes that are specially to be noted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nam sub specie panis datur tibi corpus sub specie vini datur sanguis vt sumpto corpore sanguine Christi efficiaris ei comparticeps corporis sanguinis For vnder the forme shape shew or figure of bread the body of Christe is geuen vnto thee and vnder the shape of wine his bloud is geuen that hauing receiued the body and bloud of Christe thou maist be made coÌ„partener with him of his body and bloude Here haue you the expresse wordes teaching vs the body of Christe to be present in the SacrameÌ„t vnder the forme of bread and his bloude vnder the forme of wine which you report to be wordes of myne owne only inuention neuer vsed by any auncient Father before my tyme. Where you go about to answer to this place of S. Cyrillus in the tenth Article of your Replie to thintent the body and bloud of Christ might not be beleued to be really present in the blessed SacrameÌ„t I wish that al men saw both your weakenes and also your falshod You confesse this lerned Fathers wordes touching this point of the real presence Vvordeâ— in M. Iewels iudgemeÌ„t quicke and violent to be quicke and violent Whereby vnwares as it semeth you confesse him therein to be cleare and resolute as he is in dede To say truly violent he is not but a plaine reporter of the truth But in dede he is to quicke for dul heretikes that beleue their carnal senses rather then Christes owne most plaine wordes In the tenth Article of â—he Replie page 432. Yet he him self in plainest wise say you openeth and cleareth his owne meaning Truth it is he doth so as euery one that readeth the place as the Author reporteth it not as you haue falsified him may easily iudge Now bicause euery man hath not the booke of Cyrillus nor the booke of your Replie at hande for truthes sake and that your impudent falshod may appeare it shal be to good purpose to lay here before the Reader what you make that holy and auncient Father to say and what he saith him selfe Thus then say you falsly M. Ievvel falsifieth S. Cyrillus Hiero solym Cateches Mystagogica 4. For thus he writethâ— Ne consideres tanquam panem nuduÌ„ Panis Eucharistiae non est amplius panis simplex nudus Consider not as if it were bare bread The bread of the Sacrament is no lenger bare and simple breade Which wordes are naturally resolued thus It is bread how be it not only bare bread but bread and some other thing elles beside And there after a few wordes you conclude thus Of these wordes of Cyrillus we may wel reason thus by the way The Sacrament is not onlyâ— or bare bread therefore it is bread albeit not only bare bread And thus the same Cyrillus that is brought to testiâ—ie that there remaineth no bread in the Sacrament testifieth most plainely to the contrary that there is bread remaining in the Sacrament Caâ—echo Myst. 4. On the other side S. Cyrillus truly alleged saith thus Ne consideres tanquà m panem nudum vinum nudum corpus enim est sanguis Christi secundùm ipsius Domini verba Quamuis enim sensus hoc tibi suggesserit tamen fides te confirmet ne ex gusturem iudices quin potius habeas ex fide pro certissimo ita vt nulla subeat dubitatio esse tibi donata corpus sanguinem Doo not consider it as bare breade and bare wine for it is the body and bloude of Christe according vnto the wordes of our Lorde him selfe For although thy sense make that suggestion vnto thee yet let faith strengthen thee that thou iudge not the thing by thy taste but rather that of thy faith thou hold it as a most certaintie so as thou be void of al doubt that the body and bloud are geuen to thee These wordes being truly alleged doo clearely open the meaning of Cyrillus Your false forgeries and corruptions doo vndoubtedly declare that you seeke not the truth but intende deceit False doctrine must be mainteined by false meanes If you had meant good faith and truth you would truly and faithfully haue recited that holy Fathers woordes without such mangling and chaunging Now to vse your owne Rhetorike you haue done him great and open wrong wilfully suppressing and drowning his wordes and vncourteously commaunding him to silence in the middest of his tale Why did you not consider the force of his counsel which is that a Christen man regarde not the suggestion of his senses but stay him selfe vpon his faith not iudging of this high Mysterie what the sense of sight or tast geueth but with a simple faith beleuing the wordes that Christ spake In al S. Cyrillus you find not this order of wordes Panis Eucharistiae non est amplius panis simplex nudus The bread of the Sacrament is no lenger bare and simple breade as you turne it and ascribe it vnto S. Cyrillus By occasion of which wordes you tel vs of your natural resolution and beare vs in hande it is bread how be it not only or bare bread Which is no natural resolution gathered of S. Cyrillus wordes but a crafty collusion wroong out of your owne forged woordes to enuegle the ignorant Now S. Cyrillus wordes be these not in the fourth Catechesis as you haue quoted your booke but in the third where he speaketh of the holy Oile QuemadmoduÌ„ saith he Panis Eucharistiae In cateches 3. My stigogica post sancti spiritus inuocationem non amplius est panis communis sed est corpus Christi sic
sanctum hoc vnguentum non amplius est vnguentum nudum neque si ita quis appellare malit commune post quà m iam consecratum est c. As the bread of the Sacrament after the Holy Ghoste is called vpon it is no lenger common bread but is the body of Christ so this holy ointment also is no lenger a bare ointment nor if any man had rather so to cal it a common ointment after that it is now consecrat The wordes which you abuse to gyle simple bread bare bread only bread be not there vsed of S. Cyrillê° as you of purpose haue falsified him Mary speaking of the holy Oile whose substaÌ„ce is not changed into an other substaÌ„ce and remaineth Oile stil after it is coÌ„secrate he saith it is no lenger after consecration bare Oile But of the breade he saith that after consecration it is not coÌ„mon breade As if it were done of a great foresight and of very purpose to stoppe the wrangling of such false Sacramentaries and corrupte teachers in consideration that after consecration it is no lenger breade that is to say Ioan. 6. common breade but the body of Christe the breade of life M. â—ewels â—alshode plainely detected that came downe from heauen The like is to be iudged of the cup. What wilt thou haue more good Reader Christe faith of the one Math. 26. it is his body of the other it is his bloud Saint Cyrillus here saith Luc. 22. it is not breade it is not wine but the body and bloud of our Lorde And to declare his meaning plainely against al cauillation of heretikes he biddeth vs not to cal our senses as sight taste or any other sense to geue vs accompt what it is but to stay our hartes vpon faith and to beleue the wordes of our Sauiour M. Iewel contrariwise forging a saying of his owne and falsly fathering it vpon S. Cyrillus as though he had said it is not bare simple or only breade which that auncient Father saith not concludeth his Sacramentary doctrine that it is bread If thou hadst rather go out of the way and be deceiued then go right thou hast whome to followe But howe false a guide he is these thinges considered thou canst not be ignorant If after this large proufe of the being of Christes body and bloude in the Sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine whiche forme of wordes you would your Reader thinke to be myne only and neuer to haue ben vsed before by any of the auncient Fathers if I say after al this least you should seme fully confuted you wil yet reply and say that I haue nothing wherby to auouche the true and real Sacrifice of Christe for so much also do your wordes importe then omitting here an infinite number of other testimonies for proufe that Christ is truly That Christe iâ— truly and in deede offered and in deede offered vp of the Priestes in Sacrifice I wil in this place allege onely the testimonie of the first Nicene Councel The auctoritie wherof is and hath euer ben estemed very great as that which declareth not the opinion of one man but the faith of the whole Church of that time vttered by the mouthes and after mature and long deliberation confirmed with the subscription of .318 the best learned and most holy Bishops then lyuing The holy Ghoste by them published to the whole Church of God this doctrine Conc. Nic. Exaltatamente fide consideremus situm esse in illa sancta mensa Agnum Dei qui tollit peccata mundi qui a Sacerdotibus sacrificatur sine â—ruoris effusione Lifting vp our mynde let vs consider by faith the Lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the worlde to be layed vpon that holy table which is of the Priestes sacrificed without the sheddinge of bloude that is to say not after the manner of other sacrifices where the hoste is slain for so signifieth the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Real and true Sacrifice and Sacrifice in deede What other thing doth this addition without the shedding of bloude importe but a true and real sacrificing of one and the same substance that was before sacrificed with bloud shedding For these two contrary Accidentes be referred vnto one substance and haue their being in one substance Seinge then it was the substance of Christes most pretious body and bloude that was offred bloudily truly and in deede vpon the Crosse it wil folow by necessary sequele of reason that it is the same self substance of Christ that is sacrificed vnbloudily onlesse perhaps you wil imagine there be two Christes offered the one bloudily the other vnbloudily If then it be the substance of Christ that is offred it is a true and real Sacrifice For where so euer Christes substance is offred there is a true Sacrifice and a Sacrifice in deede And thus is your vncourteous reproch of my vndue boldenes and presumption in vttering the true doctrine of the Churche with the foresaied woordes answered and clerely discharged Now let vs see what other greater fault or ouersight you finde in my Answer Thus it foloweth in your Replie Iewel But vvhere as he addeth further That Christ is in deede and verily offered by the Priest al be it as he saith not in respecte of the manner of offeringe but onely in respecte of the presence of his Bodie Either he vnderstandeth not vvhat him selfe meaneth or els vvith a vaine distinction of cloudie vvoordes vvithout sense he laboureth to dasle his Readers eies For vvhat a fantasie is this to saie Christ is offred Verily and in deede and yet not in Respecte of the Manner of offeringe VVhat Respecte VVhat Manner is this VVherefore comme these blinde Mysteries abroade vvithout a glose VVhiche of al the Olde Doctours or holy Fathers euer taught vs thus to speake Certainely as he saith Christ is Really offered and yet not in Respect of the Manner of Offering So maie he also saie Christ died vpon the Crosse and yet not in Respect of the manner of dieinge By suche manners and suche Respectes he maie make of Christian Religion vvhat him listeth Yf he thinke Conc. Nic. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 somevvhat to shadovve the mater vvith these vvoordes of the Councel of Nice Sine Sacrificio Oblatus Let him consider a fore hande it vvil not healpe him For the holie Fathers in that Councel neither saie that Christ is Reallie Offered by the Prieste nor seeme to vnderstande these strange Respectes Contra Faustum lib. 20. ca. 21. Chrys. in Epist. ad Hebrae homil 17. and Manners of Offeringe They agree fullie in sense vvith that is before alleged of S. Augustine In this Sacrifice the Death of Christe is solemnized by a Sacramente of Remembrance And vvith that S. Chrysostome saith Hoc Sacrificium Exemplarillius est This Sacrifice is an Example of that Sacrifice Thus the Death of Christe is renued before our eies Yet Christe in deede neither is Crucified
of killed hostes you turne it thus barely sine Sacrificio oblatus offered without sacrifice but vntrulyâ— as I haue said before This place serueth you to no purpose M. Ievv falsifieth S Auguâ—â—ine bicause false translation ought not to make proufe against the truth S. Augustines wordes against Faustus Contra Faustum Manich. lib. 20. cap. 21. you haue also falsified and least you should be taken with the manner you leaue out the Latine and allege them onely in your owne English Whereas he nameth the flesh and bloude of this sacrifice least they might seme to importe a real presence of Cristes body and bloude as they doo in dede you haue put in steede therof the death of Christ. Which declareth your meaning not to be simple and plaine and the same in an other your selfe would not let passe without note of vntrue dealing Chrysost. In epist. ad Heb. Hom. 17. And where S. Chrysostome saith Hoc sacrificium exemplar est illius this Sacrifice is a sampler of that Sacrifice If you had meant good faith and truth you would not so haue nipped that Father and stopped him of his tale For it foloweth in the same sentence immediatly id ipsum semper offerimus M. Ievv falsifieth S. Chrysostome by nipping we offer alwaies that one selfe Sacrifice And that we should knowe certaynely that he meant not a signe or an example of the true sacrifice onely as you doo but the same it self in substance he saith in the same place Pontifex noster ille est qui hostiam mundantem nos obtulit ipsam offerimus nunc quae tunc oblata quidem consumi non potest He is our high Bishop who hath offred vp the Sacrifice or hoste that cleanseth vs the same do we also offer nowe which then being offred can not be consumed Hereupon might a plaine man demaunde of you who is our high Bishop Is it not Christ what is that hoste or sacrifice which purgeth and cleanseth vs from the filth of our synnes Is it any other then the precious body of Christ What can you answer then to S. Chrysostom saying that we now also offer vp the same And this is that for which you make so muche a doo at me for saying that Christ is offered vp in the Sacrifice of the Churche vnder the formes of breade and wine truly and in deede not in respecte of the manner of offering but in respecte of his very body and bloude really present And thus my woordes whiche you would so faine carpe be grounded as you see vpon a truth taught by the Councel of Nice and by S. Chrysostome In the other place of S. Augustine you haue very fowly demeaned your selfe M Ievvel corrupteth S. Augustine You haue snatched a peece of a sentence out of him and hauing framed it to an other sense then he meant by your common sleight of falsifying and vntrue tanslation you set it forth so as to the vnlearned it may make some shew for your side against the Catholike doctrine that we mainteine touching the Sacrifice of the Aulter And some learned also may haply be deceiued if they looke not better to your fingers and by view and confereÌ„ce of the booke espie out your false legierdemaine August de ciuit Dei lib. 10. ca. 5. S. Augustine saith say you Quod ab omnibus appellatur sacrificium signum est veri sacrificij The thing that of al menne is called a sacrifice is a token or signe of the true Sacrifice Who reading these wordes at the first being persuaded you haue plaid a true mans parte in alleging them would not thinke they made much for your negatiue doctrine which denyeth the true and real Sacrifice of the Churche and auoucheth al that is done in the Masse to be but a signe a remembrance and a voide representation Voide I say bicause ye take away the substance of the thing it selfe to wit the body and bloud of Christe Now S. Augustine in that place S. Augustine truly expouÌ„â—ded neither speaketh as you make him speake and much lesse meaneth he as with your falsified allegation you would force vpon him In that chapter he treateth of outward sacrifices and of the inward or spiritual sacrifices And preferring the spiritual sacrifices before the other he sheweth how the outward sacrifices made by the Fathers of the olde Testament with slaughter of beastes were significations of our spiritual sacrifices that is to say of those thinges which be done by vs to this ende that we cleaue vnto God and that vnto the same ende we helpe foreward our neighbour Of these he saith that God requireth them and that he is wel pleased with them Of the other that he requireth not them nor hath great liking in them After certaine places alleged out of the Scriptures for declaration and proufe hereof at length he commeth to the woordes whereof you would take holde against this special and singular Sacrifice of the Churche and saith De ciuit lib. 10. cap. 5. Oseae 6. Per hoc vbi scriptum est misericordiam magis volo quà m Sacrificium nihil aliud quà m Sacrificium Sacrificio praelatum oportet intelligi quoniam illud quod ab homenibus appellatur sacrificium signum est veri sacrificij Porrò autem misericordia verum Sacrificium est vnde dictum est Heb. 13. quod paulò ante commemoraui Talibus enim sacrificijs placatur Deus Whereas it is written I would haue mercie rather then sacrifice hereby we must vnderstand nothing els but that sacrifice is preferred before sacrifice forasmuch as that which is called sacrifice of men is a signe of a true sacrifice And as for mercie it is a true sacrifice In consideration whereof it is said whereof I spake euen now with such sacrifices that is to saye with almose and deedes of charitie God is appeased In the ende of that discourse he concludeth thus Quaecunque igitur c. What so euer thinges therefore we reade to haue bene commaunded by God diuers waies concerning sacrifices in the ministerie of the Tabernacle or of the Temple they are referred to the loue of God and of our neighbour thereby to be signified By due conference and consideration of this whole place and of the discourse there treated thou maist euidently see good Reader how litle M. Iewel is to be trusted when he bringeth ought out of any olde Doctor that semeth not to agree with the doctrine of the Catholike Church He would thee to beleue that S. Augustine spake of the special and singular Sacrifice of the Churche whereof we treate which Sacrifice in dede is of al men called a sacrifice and worthily for so it is But that by verdite of S. Augustine it is a signe of the true Sacrifice as though thereby were meant the same not to be the true Sacrifice and therefore no true and real Sacrifice at al therein lyeth much falshoode For neither speaketh Saint Augustine there of the
he had eaten with his Apostles the flesh of the Lambe he tooke vnto him breade that strengtheneth the harte of man and passeth ouer vnto the true Sacrament of Passeouer that like as Melchisedech the Priest of the highest God had done in offering bread and wine in a foregoing figure of him so he him selfe also might represent the truth of his body and bloude Who can more plainely vtter this mater then S. Hierome hath done in these wordes expressely saying that Christ executed in deede at his last Supper that Priesthode which Melchisedech did prefigurate when hauing taken bread he represented that is to say presently exhibited not the figure or signe as Zuinglius and Oecolampadius teach nor the power and vertue as Caluine teacheth but the truth of his body and bloude Cyprian lib. 2. epistola 3. S. Cyprian speaking of that Christe did at his last Supper auoucheth the same thing with woordes of like effecte Qui magis sacerdos Dei summi quà m Dominus noster Iesus Christus qui sacrificiuÌ„ Deo patri obtulit obtulit hec idem quod Melchisedech id est paneÌ„ vinuÌ„ suuÌ„ scilicet corpus sanguinem Who is more a Priest of the highest God then our Lorde Iesus Christe who offered a Sacrifice of God the Father and offered the same that Melchisedech did that is to wit bread and wine as much to say his body and bloude Consider Reader when Saint Cyprian had said that Christe offered the same sacrifice that Melchisedech had offered which was bread and wine least any man shoulde mistake his meaning and thinke that Christe offered none other nor better thing then breade and wine and in so doing should not excel Melchisedech he addeth an interpretation of his owne woordes to wit that although Christes offering appeared to be bread and wine yet in deede it was his body and bloud Wherefore if thou wilt acknowledge Christes excelleÌ„cie aboue Melchisedech and folow the interpretation that S. Cyprian putteth vpon his owne woordes thou must beleue Christe and Melchisedech to offer one and the same thing in outward forme and in mysterie or sacrament but not one in substance and truth The premisses considered it is most certaine that Christ fulfilling the figure of Melchisedech at his Maundie offered his body and bloude that is to say him selâ—e vnto his Father Let vs go a steppe foreward That priestes haue auctoritie to offer vp Christ vnto his Father and consider one circumstance more whereby it may appeare that priestes also haue auctoritie to offer vp Christ vnto his Father How wil that appeare Forsooth bicause Christ after that he had offered his body and bloude him selfe and deliuered the same vnto his Apostles gaue them withal a coÌ„maundement to doo the same Luc. 22. saying Doo ye this in remembrance of me 1. Cor. 1â— No man be he neuer so great an enemie vnto the continual Sacrifice of the Churche wil denie but that the Apostles had a warrant geuen them by this commaundement requiring them to doo that they had sene their Lorde and Maister to haue done before them But it is proued already by sufficient authorities that Christe at his Supper did offer his body and bloud vnto his Father Ergo the Apostles had warrant to offer Christes bodie and bloude vnto God his Father Nowe let vs descende one steppe lower and we shal come vnto the very point at whiche M. Iewel vnlearnedly and wickedly maketh suche a woondering as if it were a monstrous and most dangerous presumption which is that a priest hath auctoritie to offer vp Christe vnto his Father It is therefore to be vnderstanded that Christe gaue not this commaundement and through vertue of the same a warrant to doo the thing he had him selfe done before vnto his Apostles onely but also vnto such as should succede them in office of Priesthode whereunto they were admitted by Christe at the maundie to the worldes ende Which truth S. Paule doth insinuate 1. Cor. 11. where he speaketh of this blessed Sacrament shewing that it must be celebrated in remembrance of his death vntil his last comming Where of this argument is easily gathered Continuance of Priestes necessary Our lordes Supper is to be celebrated vntil his last comming But that can not be performed onlesse some succede the Apostles in the office by vertue whereof it is done Ergo it is necessary that some succede the Apostles in that office The first proposition is proued by S. Paule The second is manifest bicause the Apostles to whom the commaundement was geuen were not to continue a liue in the Church vntil Christes second comming That commaundement therfore was geuen as wel vnto them who should succeede as vnto the Apostles them selues For that any should take vpon them to execute so high an office who haue no commaundement thereto or that the commaundement was geuen to al in general it is to absurde to thinke To whom then hath this office ben coÌ„mitted By what name haue these successours ben called Priestes by special calling succede the Apostles in degree Hieron ad Heliodorum Verely it hath ben coÌ„mitted to the Priestes of the Church and to none els Of this special calling and coÌ„dition of certaine S. Hierome geueth vs an euident witnes saying Absit vt de ijs quicquam sinist rum loquar qui Apostolico gradui succedeÌ„tes Christi corpus sacro ore conficiunt per quos nos Christiani sumus God forbid I should speake ought amisse of them who succeding into the degree of the Apostles with their sacred mouth make the body of Christ by whom also we be made Christians Thus we are taught that it is the office of Priestes to make or consecrate the precious body of Christe by vertue of his woorde by them as Ministers and substitutes of Christe pronounced for which S. Hierome acknowlegeth their mouth to be sacred and holy and for the same dignitie confesseth them to succede the Apostles in that degree To the like effecte we finde in S. Cyprian a testimonie worthy of note Cyprian lib. 2. ep 3. Si Christus summus Sacerdos Sacrificium Deo Patri ipse primus obtulit hoc fieri in sui commemorationem praecepit vtique ille sacerdos vice Christi verè fungitur Priestes substitutes of Christe qui id quod Christus fecit imitatur If Christe the highest priest him self did first offer the sacrifice vnto God his Father and coÌ„maunded the same to be done in remeÌ„brance of him then that Priest doth truely supply the stede of Christ which foloweth that which Christ did This saying of S. Cyprian goeth somwhat hygher then the former of S. Hierome There it was said that Priestes succeded in Apostolike degree Here a Priest folowing the acte of Christ in offering the Sacrifice is said to be the substitute of Christ him selfe By S. Hieromes verdit they may consecrate the body of Christ as the successours of the Apostles by S.
Cyprians doctrine they may offer the Sacrifice as the Vicars of Christ. What thinke we then May any Christian man sauing his profession imagine yea beleue and openly by preaching and writing publish vnto the worlde that the Apostles successours and Christes substitutes want auctoritie and commission to doo that vnto thoffice whereof they succede and be substitutes Now let these circumstances be gathered and set together in fewer wordes so shal the necessary sequele the better be perceiued Melchisedech was a priest and figure of Christ by offering bread and wine Christ fulfilled this figure at his Maundie by consecrating and offering his bodie and bloude vnder the formes of Breade and Wine vnto his Father him selfe being the true bread of life that came downe from heauen and gaue commaundement and auctoritie to his Apostles and to their successours to do the same in remeÌ„brance of him The successours of the Apostles in this behalfe be the Priestes of the newe Testament Ergo the Priestes haue a commaundement and thereby sufficient auctority to doo that Christe did at his Maundie that is to coÌ„secrate and offer the body and bloud of Christ vnto his Father And so to conclude these circumstances thus considered doo clearely prooue to the detection of M. Iewels either blinde ignorance or cankred malice against the Churche this to be a good and true consequent which he proponed as absurde and ridiculous God the Father saith vnto Christe Thou arte a priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech Ergo the Priest hath auctoritie and power to offer vp Christ vnto his Father That the Prophecie of Malachie foresignifieth the Sacrifice of the Masse Touching the prophecie of Malachie it doth in conclusion importe as much as the figure of Melchisedech if the circumstances be wel weighed and coÌ„sidered This Prophet enspired with the holy Ghoste forsaw that the sacrifices of the Iewes which were grosse and in sundry respectes vncleane yet for a time allowable should ceasse and haue an ende Malach. 1. And that in stede of them God would be honoured with a pure and cleane Sacrifice which should be offred vnto his name not only in Iewrie but also among the Gentiles froÌ„ the rising to the going downe of the sunne This is the effecte of that Prophecie Now if we serch neuer so exactly and seeke for that Sacrifice which was not vsed in the olde Lawe but succeded in the roome of al them of the olde Law and hath ben frequented thorough out al nations what other can we finde but the Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christe In this Sacrifice we perceiue most clearely al the conditions of that Prophecie fulfilled Al the conditioÌ„s of Malachies prophecie founde in the Sacrifice of the Aulter First it is in stede of many Next it is offered vnto Gods most holy name Thirdly it is celebrated and solemnized among the Gentiles and thereby Gods name is magnified Fourthly it is a most pure and syncere Sacrifice bicause the thing that is offered is the immaculate Lambe of God the body and bloud of him 1. Pet. 2. that was conceiued of the holy Ghost borne of the pure virgin who neuer committed synne nor was any guyle founde in his mouth Fiftly it is offered through out al the worlde from East to West Sixthly it had beginning in the newe Testament and was not vsed in the olde Testament but only by figures foresignified Sure it is that none can be named beside this in which al these conditions by the Prophete specified be accomplished As for the Sacrifice of Christes body vpoÌ„ the Crosse it was offered in one special place Sacrifices common to bâ—â—h â—estaments in Golgoltha without the gates of Ierusalem The sacrifices of thankes geuing of praise of almose dedes of mercie of a contrite harte of preaching Gods wordes these and such like succeded not in the roome of al the olde sacrifices nor beganne they in the newe Testament but were vsed in the tyme of the Law as wel as they be now in these daies as they which be common to bothe Testamentes That this Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christe That this Sacrifice succeded al the Sacrifices of the olde Lavve succeded al the Sacrifices of the olde Law which of the Fathers in their learned treatises haue not reported It is needelesse to reherse many testimonies The witnesse of S. Augustine alone for the plainenesse and auctoritie of it might suffice He writeth thus Vbi ait Ecclesiastes non est bonum homini August de ciuita lib. 17. ca. 20. nisi quod manducabit bibet quid credibilius dicere intelligitur quà m quod ad participationem mensae huius pertinet quam sacerdos ipse mediator Testamenti noui exhibet secundùm ordineÌ„ Melchisedech de corpore sanguine suo Id enim Sacrificium successit omnibus illis Sacrificijs veteris Testamenti quae immolabantur in vmbra futuri Propter quod etiaÌ„ voceÌ„ illam in Psalmo tricesimo nono eiusdem mediatoris per Prophetiam loquentis agnoscimus Sacrificium oblationem noluisti corpus autem perfecisti mihi quia pro illis omnibus sacrificijs oblationibus corpus eius offertur participantibus ministratur Whereas Salomon saith Eccles. 3. a man hath no good thing but that he shal eate and drinke what thing is more credible that he vnderstandeth in so saying then that appertaineth vnto the partaking of this table which the Priest him selfe the mediatour of the newe Testament doth exhibit according to the order of Melchisedech of his owne body and bloude For that Sacrifice hath succeded al those sacrifices of the olde Testament which were sacrificed in shadow of that which was to come For whiche cause we doo acknowledge that same voice of the selfe same Mediatour speaking by prophecie in the nyne and thirteth Psalme Sacrifice and Oblation thou refusedst but a body thou madest perfite for me bicause for al those sacrifices and oblations his body is offered and ministred vnto the partakers The last cause of this testimonie declareth plainely that S. Augustine meant not the bloudy Sacrifice made vpon the Crosse but the vnbloudy Sacrifice offered by the Priestes in remembraunce of the same as the which is not only offered vp but also ministred vnto the partakers If this notwithstanding any yet remaine in doubte whether the Prophecie of Malachie be to be vnderstanded of this vnbloudy Sacrifice it may please him to heare other olde learned Fathers teaching the same doctrine S. Chrysostome writing vpon the .95 Psalme alleging this very Prophecie Chrysost. in Psalm 95. In omni loco Sacrificium offeretur nomini meo Sacrificium purum In euery place a Sacrifice shal be offered vnto my name and that a pure Sacrifice saith forthwith Malac. 1. Vide quà m luculenter quámque dilucidè mysticam interpretatus est mensam quae est incruenta hostia See how plainely and how clearely he hath declared the mystical Table
the wordes of the Psalme Psal. 140. Dirigatur Oratio mea sicut Incensum in conspectu tuo Domine Let my Prayer ô Lorde like a perfume be brought vp into thy â—ight Touching the Pure Sacrifice which is offred vp vnto God by pure and godly actions that thereby he vnderstandeth most specially the External Sacrifice of the Church which is offred vpon an Aulter the wordes folowing do manifestly declare For immediatly to shew what he vnderstode by the Pure Sacrifice he bringeth forth a prophecie of Esay foreshewing the same There shal be an Aulter saith the Prophet Esay as Eusebius reciteth to our Lorde in the countrie of Egypte Esai 19. and our Lord shal be knowen vnto the EgyptiaÌ„s and God shal send them a man who shal saue them and the Egyptians shal know our Lorde in that day and they shal offer vp sacrifices and make vowes vnto our Lord and shal performe the same and they shal be conuerted vnto our Lorde and he shal heare them and heale them For the better vnderstanding of this place by the Egyptians Esay meaneth as Eusebius there afterward expouÌ„deth al kind of meÌ„ that before the coÌ„ming of Christ were Idolatours as the Egyptians were Now if Eusebius had vnderstaÌ„ded the Pure Sacrifice meÌ„tioned by Malachie of prayer or only of mere spiritual and internal sacrifices he wold not haue alleged for further prouf and declaratioÌ„ of it that place of Esay wher he maketh expres mentioÌ„ of an Aulter to be set vp among the EgyptiaÌ„s that is amoÌ„g al the Gentiles who were before geuen to Idolatrie The external Aulter argueth and presupposeth an external sacrifice For els if the Sacrifice be inward onely and spiritual to the doing of it the building of an Aulter is void and to no purpose If M. Iewel to auoide the force of this place alleged by Eusebius wil bring phrases as his manner is whereby to declare that Aulters oftentimes be vnderstanded to be spiritual which I acknowledge and confesse that the Aulters of our hartes be of the Fathers not seldom spoken of and therfore wil say that Eusebius vnderstode this prophecie of Esay of such a spiritual Aulter to this I answer Eusebius vnderstandeth Esay to meane such an Aulter as Moses lawe forbad any where els to be set vp then in Iewrie and that only in one citie of Iewrie But it was neuer forbidden by Moses Lawe but that the spiritual Aulters of meÌ„nes hartes might be prepared in moe places then in one onely Citie of Iewrie for Ieremie Ezechiel Daniel Ezdras Tobias and many other holy Iewes and Israelites had such spiritual Aulters and theron offered acceptable spiritual sacrifices vnto God in other Countries besides Iewrie and in Cities farre distaÌ„t from Ierusalem wherefore he meant of such Aulters as Christians haue euer had in their Churches which be made after the manner of the Aulter appointed by Moses though the Sacrifice be of a farre diners manner Visible and external Aulter Eusebius wordes be these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Moses ordeined Aulter and sacrifices to be made in no Land elswhere but in Iewrie only and that in one only Citie therof But this prophecie of Esay saith that an Aulter shal be set vp vnto our Lorde in the Land of Egypte and that the Egyptians them selues shal offer vp the Sacrifices vnto the Lorde of the Prophetes and no lenger vnto their Countrie Goddes After that he hath spoken what he thought good of this new manner of Aulter and Sacrifice of the translation of the Aulter and priesthod appointed by Moses and therefore consequently of the translatioÌ„ of the Law it selfe in conclusion thus he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As much to say Now then is the time come that there is neede of a new lawe to be made that the foresaid thinges may take place But as for the spiritual Aulter of mennes hartes and the mere spiritual and inward sacrifices as the sacrifices of prayer of laude and praise of thankes geuing and such other who vnderstandeth not that they might wel take place and be frequented without necessitie of any newe Lawe to be made and that other wheres then onely in one Citie of Iewrie Verely the vse of such Aulters requireth not a change of Moses lawe and priesthode For such Aulters and such sacrifices were in Egypte and Chaldaea among many thousandes of Iewes who lyued in those Landes long before Moses law was dissolued The Aulter therfor and Sacrifice that Eusebius meaneth in that place for declaratioÌ„ of Malachies Prophecie is the Aulter and Sacrifice wherevpon and which the faithful people by ministerie of Priestes of the new TestameÌ„t doth continually offer vnto God to wit the body and bloude of Christ in remembrance of his death after the new Decrees and ordinances of the new Testament as he saith in * Lib. 1. De Demonstrat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one place after the Decrees and ordinances of the Church as he saith in an * Lib. 5. De Demonstrat other place That no man should doubte of what Aulter he meant thus there he speaketh of it Lib. 1. De Demonst. To our one onely Lorde an Aulter of vnbloudy and reasonable hostes after the new mysteries of the new Testament throughout the whole worlde hath ben erected both in Egypt it selfe and in the other nations being of like conditions vnto the Egyptians as touching wicked errour Verely these wordes can not with any reason seme to be meant of the spiritual Aulter of our hartes For though on the same we offer vp vnbloudy and reasonable hostes yet that is not done after the new Mysteries of the new Testament For in the olde Testament also no lesse then in the new such mere spiritual and internal sacrifices were offered vp vpon the spiritual Aulters of good mennes hartes Luc. 22. And what other be these new Mysteries of the new Testament whereof this doctor speaketh 1. Cor. 11. but those that Christ taught the Apostles and deliuered vnto them at his last Supper where he conuerted bread and wine into his body and bloud whom as S. Irenaeus saith Iren. lib. 4. cap. 32. he taught the new Oblation of the new Testament which the Church receiuing of the Apostles offereth vp vnto God throughout the whole worlde Whereas then Eusebius expounding the prophecie of Malachie speaking of Incense and pure Sacrifice vnderstandeth it to speake of two distinct sortes of Oblations therein appeareth either the ignorance or the wilful malice of M. Iewel who referreth al to one that is to say to Prayer to thintent the Mystical Oblation and Sacrifice of the body aud bloude of Christ be quite excluded But as the weighing of that which is already alleged out of the myddest of Eusebius first booke De Demonstratione Euangelica detecteth M. Iewels falshod not obscurely so the due coÌ„sideration of that he writeth vpon the same place of Malachie in the ende of that booke doth the same most clearely
and putteth away al mystes and clowdes of any obiection to the contrary For hauing alleged the prophecie of Malachie to proue the New state of the new Testamēt in which prophecie God saith that in euery place Incense shal be offred vp vnto his name and Pure Sacrifice to declare what he vnderstādeth by either of them first he sheweth what is the Pure Sacrifice that we offer next what Incense we burne and what perfume we make Concerning Incense VVhat Eusebius vnderstādeth by Incense in Malachie he maketh it to be Prayer and not only Praier but also other spiritual Sacrifices namely the sweete fruit of our right opinion touching God the sacrificing of our selues vnto God the puritie of our bodies and mindes the worshipping of God with syncere affection Ad finem lib. 1. De Demonst. and with doctrines of truth For these saith he do please him more then the multitude of sacrifices made with bloud smoke and vnsweete sauours Touching the Pure Sacrifice Pure Sacrifice he saith that we sacrifice vnto God the sacrifice of praise And least he shuld seme to meane none other but the mere spiritual sacrifice that is declared by wordes he declareth with very expresse and apt termes what Sacrifice specially he meant saying Lib. 1. De Demonst. in fine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. Sacrificamus Diuinum venerandum sacrosanctum Sacrificium Sacrificamus nouè secundùm Nouum Testamentum Sacrificium purum We sacrifice the Diuine and the reuerend and most holy Sacrifice We sacrifice after a new manner according to the new Testament the Pure Sacrifice In these wordes Eusebius doth as it were with pointing of his finger direct vs vnto the most blessed Sacrifice of the Aulter and withal toucheth the manner how it is offred For what other sacrifice is there in the Church which is set forth with so special and so high titles of honour but the Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ For this aboue al other is Diuine as that wherein Christ God and man but as man vnto God is offred This chiefly is reuerend and honorable and most worthily to be accompted holy wherein is conteined Sanctum sanctorum the holiest of al holy As for the manner of sacrificing what is that we offer vp now in the Church of God after a new manner and according vnto the new Testament but the Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ which Priestes vnder Christ after the order of Melchisedech offer vp vnto God vnder the formes of Bread and Wine This new manner of offering Christ taught his Apostles the Apostles deliuered it vnto the Church to whom after that he had taken bread into his handes geuen thankes broken and blessed saying Luke 22. this is my body and likewise the cuppe saying also this is my bloude he gaue that he professed to be his body and bloude and commaunding them and in them their successours to doo the same in remembrance of him he taught as S. Irenaeas saith the new Oblation of the new Testament Irenaeus lib. 4. capite 32. Let it be remembred now and considered how many properties are attributed vnto this Sacrifice that Malachie speaketh of partely by the other olde learned Fathers but specially by S. Hierome and Eusebius whom M. Iewel hath brought for him First that it succede al the sacrifices of the olde Lawe Hieron in Malachi Cap. 1. Secondly that it be offered in euery place Thirdly that it be pure and cleane Fourthly that it be done in the Ceremonies of the Christians Fifthly to come to Eusebius that it be Diuine Euseb. de Demonst. lib. 1. reuerend and most Holy Sixthly that it be offered after a new manner Seuenthly that it be offered according vnto the Mysteries of the new Testament Eightly that I may adde certaine properties out of Eusebius fifth booke De Demonstratione that it be done according vnto the rules rites and ordinances of the Churche Nienthly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Christe doth performe it after the forme and maner of Melchisedech yet to this day amon gest men by his ministers Tenthly that it be such as was first done by our Lord and Sauiour him selfe and afterward by Priestes that * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 procede from out of him Eleuenthly that the thinges which be offered conteined vnder the formes of bread and wine vsed in this Sacrifice Lib. 1 De Demonst. bee as Eusebius saieth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say the very and true thinges and the principal paternes of the Images by which worde he meaneth the Sacrifices of Moses Law which were Images in respect of this truth Twelfthly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they be the thinges whereof being then to come Melchisech long before vsed the Images as Eusebius speaketh which Images were Breade and Wine wherewith as he saith he blessed Abraham S. Cyprian calleth this Gen. 14. Cyprian lib. 2. epistol 3. veritatem praefiguratae Imaginis the truth of the Image that went before in figure Now let M. Iewel name if he can what sacrifice is that which we offer vp after a newe manner according vnto the newe Testament and hath al these conditions and properties And if he haue none to name besides the blessed Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe whereof we speake as we are assured he hath none then I wish his conscience would ouercome shame lead him to recant and consider of the false doctrine whereby he enuegleth the people of God making them to beleue that this Sacrifice is to be vnderstanded only of Prayer as he him selfe taketh Prayer and that there is no such external Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe at al. This much I thinke to be yenough for answer vnto his .3 Diuision The .4 Diuision The Ansvvere FOr whereas the holy Euangelistes reporte that Christe at his last Supper tooke Breade gaue thankes VVordes of Oblatiō without Termes of Oblatiō brake it and said This is my body which is geuen for you Againe this is my Bloude which is sheadde for you in remission of sinnes By these wordes being wordes of Sacrificing and offering they shewe and set forth an Oblatiō in Acte and deede though the terme it selfe of Oblation or Sacrifice be not expressed Albeit to some of excellent knowledge Datur here soundeth no lesse then offertur or immolatur that is to say is offered or Sacrificed specially the addition pro vobis withal considered For if Christe said truely as he is trueth it selfe 1. Pet. 2. and guile was neuer founde in his mouthe then was his body presently geuen and for vs geuen at the tyme he spake the woordes that is at his Supper For he saide datur is geuen not dabitur shal be geuen And likewise was his Bloud sheadde in remission of sinnes at the tyme of that Supper for the text hath funditur is sheadde But the geuing of his Body for vs and the
sheadding of his Bloude in remission of sinnes is an Oblation of the same Ergo Christe offered his body and bloud at the Supper And thus datur signifieth here as much as offertur Now this beinge true that our Lorde offered him selfe vnto his Father at his last Supper hauing geuen coÌ„mandement to his Apostles to do the same that he there did whom then he ordeined Priestes of the newe Testament saying Doo this in my remeÌ„brance as ClemeÌ„t doth plainly shew Lib. 8. Apostol CoÌ„stitut cap. vltimo the same charge perteining no lesse to the Priestes that be now the successours of the Apostles in this behalfe then to the Apostles them selues it doth right wel appear howe so euer M. Iuel assureth him selfe of the contrary and what so euer the Diuel hath wrought and by his Ministers taught against the Sacrifice of the Masse that Priestes haue auctoritie to offer vp Christe vnto his Father Iewel Here M. Harding beginneth to scanne his Tenses to rip vp Syllables and to hunte for Letters And in the ende buildeth vp the highest Castle of his Religion vpon a gheasse I maruel that so learned a man vvoulde either vse so vnlearned argumentes or hauing such stoare of Authorities as he pretendeth vvould euer make so simple choise He saith These wordes Is Geuen Is Shead be wordes of Sacrificing though the Terme it self of Oblation and Sacrifice be not expressed Here M. Harding bâ—sides that he hath imagined a straÌ„ge Construction of his ovvne that neuer any learned man knevve before and so straggleth alone and svvarueth from al the Olde Fathers includeth also a repugnance and Contradiction against him selfe For vvhereas vvoordes and termes sound both one thing the one being mere Englishe the other borovved of the Latine M. Harding saith Christe in the Institution of his Supper vsed the VVordes of Sacrificing and yet expressed not the Termes of Sacrificinge Suche Priuilege these menne haue vvith shifte of termes to beguile the vvorlde For if Christe vsed the vvordes of Sacrificing hovv can M. Harding say He vsed not the Termes of Sacrificing and yf he vsed not the Termes vvordes and Termes being one thing hovv can he say He vsed the vvordes Harding Litle regarding what M. Iewel saith in the lying and scoffing entrie that he maketh vnto his Replie in this Diuision The chief pointes of M. Iewels Replie in the 4. Diuision I wil first briefly note vnto thee good Reader the pointes wherein the weight of his whole tale standeth That done I wil answer to them in such order as they shal be proponed First he would prooue that my wordes include a repugnance and contradiction against my selfe Secondly he chargeth me with controlling the Olde common Translation of the Newe Testament Thirdly he would a contradiction to seme to be implyed in my doctrine Fourthly he burtheneth me with the corruption and falsifying of S. Clement Fifthly and lastly he auoucheth that Christe by these woordes Luc. 22. Doo ye this in my remembrance made not the Apostles Priestes nor gaue them nor their Successours auctoritie therby to consecrate and offer vp in Sacrifice his Body and Bloude but that what so euer was by these wordes commaunded to be done it perteined vnto the whole people as wel as vnto the Apostles So he denieth vtterly the singular and external Sacrifice of the Churche confoundeth the order of the Mysteries and referreth al to eating of bread and drinking of wine in remembrance of Christe These be the pointes he treateh of in this Diuision whereby his intent and endeuour is to reproue my Answer vnto his Chalenge But with how substantial and piththy reasons or authorities he performeth it when they shal be examined and disclosed it wil appeare Touching the first the mater is sone answered Lyes make no proufe This is your common grace M. Iewel M. Iewels custome for your aduantage in one place to make me say lesse then I doo in an other place more then I doo in euery place other â—yse then I doo Why do you here by false abbridging of my wordes attribute that vnto two verbes Is geuen and Is shed which I ascribe vnto the whole sentence In my Ansvvere fol. 165. b Lothe I am to fyl vp the paper with repeating that I said before but your impudencie driueth me vnto it Read the place againe There as you knowe I say thus Luc. 22. Whereas the holy Euangelistes reporte that Christe at his last supper tooke Bread gaue thankes brake it and said This is my body wich is geuen for you Againe this is my bloude which is shed for you in remission of synnesâ— By these woordes being woordes of sacrificing and offering they shewe and set forth an Oblation in acte and deede though the terme it selfe of Oblation or Sacrifice be not expressed Vse as much pryieng as you can in these woordes where finde you the Contradiction M. Ievvel â—aineth a lye vpon his aduersary and therevpoÌ„ descaÌ„â—eth I graunt you that woordes and termes sounde both one thing But where said I that Christe in the Institution of his supper vsed the woordes of sacrificing and yet expressed not the termes of sacrificing For thus you make me to speake and therevpon you dally at your pleasure and grounding your selfe vpon a lye you seme to conclude absurditie against me as though I had said that Christe vsed the wordes of sacrificing and yet had denied that he vsed the termes of sacrificing Which had ben very vaine and fonde wordes and termes being one thing Now the truth is I said not the one ne denied not the other Here one of vs both must needes be found a lyer If it be not you tel al the worlde for clearing of your selfe and for sauing your Ministerships honestie where I say that Christ vsed not the termes of sacrificing The woordes by which the Euangelistes do describe what Christe did at his last supper doo importe and implie the signification of sacrificing and offering Christe say they toke bread into his handes gaue thankes brake it and said This is my body whiche is geuen for you Againe This is my bloud which is shed for you in remission of synnes Bicause these wordes do report and set forth an oblation in acte and deede therfore I said and might wel so say they were wordes of sacrificing and offering Yet in al this description there is not founde this expresse terme Sacrifice or Oblation I referred me to the EuaÌ„gelistes description and you referre al to the wordes of Christe If you marke my wordes wel you shal finde therein reported not only woordes but also an acte of Christe and by the Euangelistes who declare the whole an oblation shewed and set forth in acte and deede this very terme it selfe of OblatioÌ„ or Sacrifice not expressed and this to be shewed and set forth whereby I meane the Gospel written not by Christe but by the EuaÌ„gelistes Againe whereas I said of the woordes of the Gospel that they were wordes
to finde your forged worde Dabitur which is not in him to be found what eyes had you that you sawe not in him so plaine and so expresse mention both of the real Presence and of the Sacrifice Els if you saw it why do you dissemble it Yea why do you denie it There demaunding of him selfe Chrysost. in 1. Cor. 11. Homil. 27. wherefore he that eateth this bread and drinketh the cuppe of our Lorde vnworthily shal be gilty of the body and bloude of our Lorde doth he not answer bicause he hath shed the bloud and so hath shewed the thing to be a slaughter and not only a Sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Doth he not compare him that doth communicate vnworthily vnto the tormentours who when they pearsed the body of Christ did not pearse it to thintent to drinke but to shed his bloude Now if there be no real bloude at al in the dredful Mysteries but Symbolical and tokening wine only what reason were it so expressely to charge the vnworthy receiuer with the hainous crime of shedding Christes bloude Were your Sacramentarie doctrine true the vnworthy communicant deserueth otherwise to be reprehended he can not truly be called a shedder of Christes bloude For where no bloud is there can not bloude be shed pardy Yet here to auoid the wicked carping of a Sacramentarie In vvhat sense is slaughter cōmitted by the vnvvorthy receiuer◠where S. Chrysostome termeth the vnworthy receiuing of Christes bloude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say slaughter likewise spilling and shedding of his bloude we knowe that it is not a slaughter in deede concerning Christes parte for Christe can no more be slaine and being now risen from the dead Rom. 6. he dieth no more deah shal no more haue maisterie ouer him as S. Paule saith But it is slaughter on the vnworthy receiuers parte bicause by his vnworthy receiuing he doth as it were shed and spille for so much as in him lyeth and caste away the bloude of Christ. Which thing though he doo it not visibly yet doth he it truly not by sensible way of doing but bicause wickedly he presumeth to abuse that which is the very substance of the precious bloude by vertue of the worde of consecration made really present Sacrifice auouched by Saint Chrysostom To be shorte verely in that .27 Homilie vpon the first epistle to the Corinthians S. Chrysostome calleth the body of Christ present by consecration a Sacrifice sundry times and in the .28 Homilie that foloweth he nameth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illud purū Sacrificium that pure Sacrifice with the pronoune 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which importeth a special notification signifying it to be Singular aboue other Sacrifices Touching the Present Tēse in which the wordes of the Institutiō of the Sacrament be expressed whereof I gathered an Argumēt for the Sacrifice at the Supper for answer therto M. Iewel saith that it is the cōmon Phrase of the Scriptures to vse the present Tēse for the future But this confuse and vncertaine answer putteth not away the force of my Argument For what meaneth he That the present Tense be taken for the Future is it cōmon to the whole Scriptures and to euery parte or to some partes only He wil not affirme it of the whole I trowe For so he should be gilty of denying Christ to be come and of many other great vntruthes and absurdities So whereas the voice of God the Father said of Christ Matth. 3. 17. This is my beloued sonne in whom I am wel pleased we should take it as though God had meāt this is he that is not yet my sonne but that shal be my sonne And where Christ said to the Samaritane woman Ioan. 4. I am Messias or Christe euen I that speake with thee that should we expounde of the time to come that he shal be Messias Which doctrine maketh a right way for Antichrist who is to come If he sooth his saying of some parte of the Scriptures the same I graunt also specially of the olde Testament where prophecies are vttered of thinges to come in the new Testament But it had ben his parte to prooue onlesse his profession be to prooue nothing and to stand only in denials that in the Institution of the Sacrament the Present Tense standeth for the future and that so as the thing signified may not by any conuenient sense be verified in the Present Tense For els if it might how much better were it to expounde it of both Tenses then of one onely that Christes saying might thoroughly and on euery side appeare true And if it may appeare true for the Present Tense then so farre forth standeth my reason in force and is not yet repelled Whereas then I said in my Answer That Christ gaue his body for vs and shed his bloud at the supper affirmed by certaine Fathers that Christ gaue his body for vs and shed his bloude at his supper which againe I affirme to be true in a right sense that I said not the same altogether without the authoritie of certaine olde and learned Fathers and therfore neither strangely nor alone as M. Iewell chargeth me by that whiche here foloweth it shal appeare I reporte me to Gregorie Nyssen S. Basils brother and to Theophylacte Gregor Nyss. De Resurrectione Christi Oratio 1. Gregorie Nyssen saith thus Pro ineffabili arcanóque qui ab hominibus cerni nequit sacrificij modo sua dispositione administratione praeoccupat impetum violentum ac sese Oblationem ac victimam offert pro nobis Sacerdos simul Agnus Dei qui tollit peccatum mundi Quando hoc accidit Quum suum corpus ad comedendum sanguinem suum familiaribus ad bibendum praebuit Cuilibet enim hoc perspicuum est quòd oue vesci homo non possit nisi mactatio comestionem praecesserit Qui igitur dedit discipulis suis corpus suum ad comedendum apertè demonstrat iam perfectam absolutam factam esse immolationem c. Christ after a manner of sacrifice that is vnspeakeable secret and such as can not be sene of men by his owne disposition and administration preuenteth the violent assault that afterward was made and offereth him selfe an Oblation and Sacrifice for vs Christ at the supper both Priest and Lābe being the Priest and also the Lambe of God that taketh away the synne of the worlde When was this done At what time he gaue vnto them of his householde his body to be eaten and his bloude to be droonke For to euery one this is a cleare mater that a man may not eate of the Lambe except killing go before the eating Whereas then he gaue vnto his disciples his body to eate he sheweth euidently that a perfite and absolute immolation or Sacrifice was now made What can M. Iewel require more This learned Father saith that Christ preuented the violence and furie of
offering a spiritual Sacrifice vnto God and his Father before his passion commaunded vs his Apostles alone to do the same albeit there were others present with vs that beleued in him but euery one that beleueth is not forth with a priest nor hath Bishopply honour Here haue we expresse and plaine mention of the Sacrifice which Christe as high Bishop offered vp vnto God his Father and commaunded his Apostles to offer the same before his passion This Sacrifice he calleth Spiritual Spiritual in respecte of the sacrifices of Moyses lawe which were grosse and bodily of brute beastes meaning the sacrifice of his body and bloude spiritually that is to say with spiritual manner and not with visible shedding of bloude offred and that before his passion whereby he signifieth the Sacrifice made at the Supper And that it be not vnderstanded of the Sacrifice of Praise or prayer onely S. Clement saith it was such as the Apostles only were commaunded to offer for that they were Priestes A testimony for the Sacriâ—fice of the Altare Of what other sacrifice can M. Iewel vnderstand this whiche Christe offered before his passion and commaunded his Apostles and Priestes onely to offer but of the Sacrifice of his Body and bloud which there after a fewe wordes is called the pure and vnbloudy Sacrifice Of this Sacrifice he is to be expounded where speaking of S. Steuen in the same chapter he saith thus Whereas he was such and so great a man feruent in spirite and saw Christe on the right hande of God and the gates of heauen open yet it appeareth no where that he exercised those offices which be not conuenient for the degree of Deaconship as that either he offered the Sacrifice or laid handes vpon any but kept the order of a Deacon vnto his ende As for the inward spiritual Sacrifices as praise thankes a contrite harte prayer and such the like I trow M. Iewel wil not deny but that S. Steuen did them before his martyrdom and that the same were not vnconueâ—ient for the order and degree of Deacons And so S. Clement geueth vs a plaine testimonie for the Sacrifice of the Aulter the ministration whereof belongeth to the order of Priesthod only which is aboue the order of Deaconship M. Ievvel taken in a manifest and foule coÌ„tradictâ—oÌ„ But who would thinke that M. Iewel who is so busy to burthen other men with contradiction yea where none is would fal into the ouersight of so foule a Contradiction him selfe For what can be a more open contradiction then to say as he doth that S. ClemeÌ„t is brought in dumme and saying nothing and yet his woordes be misreported If he be brought in dumme if he say nothing then where be his woordes that be misereported If his woordes be misereported how is he brought in dumme how saith he nothing I haue reade where speach hath ben attributed to beastes and Trees but that a dumme maÌ„ and one that saith nothing speaketh and vttereth woordes as it is absurde in nature so no man was euer so mad as once to feine it Thus whiles M. Iewel seeketh to skoffe S. Clement out of credite he hath shewed him selfe worthy of smal prayse and credite As touching the worde Antitypon vsed by S. Clement whereof he taketh holde Antitypon doth not exclude the veritie of the mysteries it maketh litle for his purpose In what Logique learned he to make this Argument By S. Clement Priestes are required to offer vp antitypoÌ„ that is to say the signe figure or sampler of Christes body Ergo they haue no commission nor power to offer vp Christe him selfe Where two thinges go to gether it is a foolish reason that with the affirmation of the one concludeth the denial of the other By suche Logique he may as wel denie Christe to be God bicause he is Man For answer to this and the like cauilles made by the Sacramentaries against the veritie of Christes body and bloude in the blessed Sacrament it shal be necessary to informe the Reader of the doctrine of S. Augustine touching this very point Augu. lib. SenteÌ„tiar Prosperi de Consec Dist 2. Hoc est quod His wordes be these Hoc est quod dicimus quod omnibus modis approbare contendimus Sacrificium Ecclesiae duobus confici duobus constare visibili elementorum specie inuisibili Domini nostri Iesu Christi carne sanguine Sacramento re sacramenti id est corpore Christi c. This is that we say that we go about by al meanes to approue That the Sacrifice of the Church is made of two thinges and consisteth of two thinges the visible forme of the elementes and the inuisible flesh and bloud of our Lorde Iesus Christe both the Sacrament and the thing of the Sacrament that is to say the body of Christe Now where as the Sacrifice consisteth of two things the visible forme of the elementes For what antitypon is taken in S. Clement which are bread and wine and the flesh and bloude of our Lorde S. Clement naming antitypon regalis corporis the signe figure or sampler of Christes roial body meaneth the visible forme of the elementes as vnder them the body and bloude is really conteined And so by this woorde antitypon he vnderstandeth not the outward formes of breade and wine only but as in the same sentence he plainely expoundeth him selfe the whole Sacrament otherwise called the Euchariste Which Sacrament is after consecration not without reason termed antitypon partly in consideration of the outward formes partly bicause the external breaking and diuision of the blessed Sacrament representeth and betokeneth Christes passion and bloude shedding Also bicause we haue not yet the fruition of Christes body after such wise as we shal haue in the life to come Here we haue Christe verily in deede and substantially but as yet couered in a mysterie and hidden vnder the outward formes 1. Cor. 13. But in the life to come we shal see him face to face not as through a glasse or darke contemplation but euen so as he is in truth of his owne Maiestie That the terme antitypon maketh nothing for the Sacramentaries Bicause the Sacramentaries where with al their witte and cunning they impugne the Sacrifice of the Aulter pretend to haue great aduauntage against the Catholikes for that S. Basil and certaine other olde Fathers vse this terme antitypon where they speake of the most blessed Sacrament calling it by that name It shal be good to shew how litle the vse of the same in the Fathers writings maketh for proufe of their heresie which they mainteine against the real presence First it is acknowledged and confessed of the Catholikes that the Sacrament of the Aulter is antitypon that is to say a sampler or signe of Christes roial body otherwise it could not be a Sacrament which is a visible signe of inuisible grace Thus farre we agree on both sides The point wherein
we vary froÌ„ the SacrameÌ„taries is touching the substance of the SacrameÌ„t or which is al one though in diuers respectes the Sacrifice We say that onlesse the flesh and bloude of Christe be the substance of this sampler or signe it can not be a Sacrament meete for the dignitie of the new Testament bicause it must be the truth of al the figuratiue Sacrifices of the olde Lawe according to that S. Augustine teacheth speaking of the Tableâ— Augu. De ciuita Dei lib. 17. ca. 20. which Christe being a Priest aftâ—r the order of Melchisedech doth exhibite and geue Id enim Sacrificium successit omnibus illis Sacrificijs veteris Testamenti quae immolabantur in vmbra futuri For that Sacrifice saith he hath succeded al those Sacrifices of the old Testament which were offered in the shadow of that to come Wherefore this Sacrifice being the body of those shadowes must excel in substance the Sacrifices that were the shadowes But how can that be if the substance of bread be the substance of our Sacrifice for asmuch as the substance of bread is no better if it be so good being an artificial and dead thing then is the substance of a lambe an Oxe or a goat which are natural and lyuing creatures whose substances were substances of the olde Sacrifices that were shadowes S. Alexander therefore the fourth Bisshop of Rome after S. Peter considering the excellency of our Sacrifice aboue the olde Sacrifices Alexand. epist. 1. De CoÌ„sec dist 2. cap. Nihil in saith Nihil in Sacrificiis maius esse potest quà m corpus sanguis Christi nec vlla oblatio hac potior est sed omnes haec praecellit c. Nothing can be greater in Sacrifices then the body and bloude Christe neither is there any oblation better then this but this doth farre excel al others the which ought to be offered vp vnto God with a cleane conscience and to be receiued with a pure mynde and of men to be wourshipped Thus our Sacrifice conteyning really the pretious body and bloude of Christe is a Sacrifice worthy of the newe Testamente most meete and hable to represent vnto vs and preserue in perpetual remembraunce the same body and bloude rent and shed vppon the Crosse and most effectual to deriue and apply vnto vs the merites and fruites of that bloudy Sacrifice And yet neuer the lesse being ministred vnder the outward formes not of the body and bloude it selfe but of bread and wine for our infirmities sake and for the better practise of our faith it is rightly called the sampler of the roial body of Christe so termed by a fitte worde in the greke tongue antitypon which being taken in the best signification Augu. lib. 2. quaest Euangel cap. 3. VVhat properly is signified by antitypoÌ„ as it is reason it should so be taken sith it signifieth a Sacrifice most diuine and as S. Augustine termeth it Sacrificium Sanctum Sanctorum the Sacrifice that is of al holy things the most holy doth import a true and like sampler or counterpane equal in truth and worthinesse with that which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the principal copie For so much doth the greke preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie in composition as for example Homere oftentimes calleth that man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 asmuch to say equal to God who for some excellent qualitie semed to be nothing inferiour at least in that point to them whom he feined to be Gods And in consideration hereof learned men haue translated the Greke worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by this Periprasis or circumlocution examplar similis formae a sampler of like forme Now what thing is there any where that is worthy to be or may be a true patern or sampler of like forme to the body and bloud of Christe crucified and shed and now remaining visibly in heauen but the body and bloud of Christe him selfe which by vertue of his almighty woorde he of his singular mercie so maketh and tempereth for vs in the most holy mysteries geuing them vs vnder the formes of our common foode breade and wine that neither the Maiestie of them should deterre and fray vs from offering them nor any lothsomnes or sight of fleshe and bloude shoulde cause vs to abhorre to eate and drinke them And thus the body of Christ in the Eucharist is antitypon that is to say a signe a sacrament a patern a sampler of his body that hoong vpon the Crosse and of his body that is now in Maiestie at the right hande of God the Father Neither is this a new doctrine of our deuise it was taught in Christes Churche aboue eleuen hundred yeres past Let these woordes of S. Augustine serue to witnesse the same Augu. lib. Sentent Prosperi de Consec Dist. 2. Hoc est Caro eius est quam forma panis opertam in Sacramento accipimus sanguis eius quem sub vini specie sapore potamus Caro videlicet carnis sanguis est Sacramentum Sanguinis vtroque inuisibili Spirituali intelligibili signatur visibile Domini nostri Iesu Christi corpus palpabile plenum gratia omnium virtutum diuina Maiestate The flesh of Christe it is that being couered with the forme of bread we receiue in the Sacrament and his bloud it is which vnder the shape and sauour of wine we drinke soothly flesh is a sacrament of flesh and bloude a sacrament of bloude by both being inuisible spiritual and intelligible the body of Iesus Christe our Lord that is visible and palpable ful of the grace of al vertues and diuine Maiesty is betokened Consider this doctrine wel Christian Reader First that whiche we receiue in the Sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine S. Augustine telleth thee is the flesh and bloude of Christe Next he saith not that the outward formes of bread and wine but that the very flesh and bloude be sacramentes of flesh and bloude Lastly to put al doubte away and to make the mater cleare he sheweth how this is trueâ— and saith that by both flesh and bloude inuisible and intelligible the visible and palpable body of Christe is pointed to notified and signified Which is as much to say briefly as that the body of Christe in the Sacrament inuisible is a signe or sampler of Christes body visible Al this yf thou consider diligently and aduisedly thou maist easily vnderstande what both S. Clement in the place by M. Iewel alleged and other learned Fathers meane by this worde antitypon in the mater of the blessed Sacrament soothly not to exclude the real presence of Christes body but to signifie the secret meane of the presence We graunt therefore the Sacrament of the Aulter to be a signe as S. Clement calleth it antitypoÌ„ But when by any Sacramentarie the denial of the thing it self is inferred of the affirmation of the signe The kindes of Signes significatiue only and exhibitiue we
deny the Argument For there be two kindes of signes One is significatiue onely the other exhibitiue which doth not only betoken or signifie but also exhibiteth and geueth the thing signified In the olde Lawe the vnleuened bread signified onely that the feast of Easter was to be celebrated with sinceritie of harte and life The corporal purgations signified only the cleansing of myndes But Baptisme in the newe Lawe doth not only signifie but also exhibiteth and worketh the Wasshing of synnes and is the ablution it selfe or wasshing away of sinnes Likewise the holy Euchariste doth not onely betoken or signifie the body and bloud of Christe but contineth and exhibiteth it present Signū signatum exhibitiuū and is the very body and bloude of Christ it is signū signatū exhibitiuū Thus it appeareth how the Sacramentaries Argument is naught The Sacrament is a signe ergo it is not the body For it is both a signe and the body it sefe For if any wil say it is a signe significatiue only it is to be denied as false and contrary to the manifest wordes of Scripture and the expositions of al the Fathers Now I reporte me to the iudgement of the discrete Reader what aduauntage M. Iewel hath gotten by the terme antitypon alleged out of S. Clement against the blessed Sacrifice of the Churche S. Clemēt corrupted by M. Ievvel On the other side what aduauntage may iustly be taken against him for that most falsly he hath corrupted his author For looke Reader vpon the shorte testimonie which he allegeth out of S. Clement and thou shal finde that M. Iewel hath cut of out of the middest two wordes of greatest force for the vnderstanding of that goeth there immediatly before that by falshod he might geue at least some colour vnto his Reply where in truth he had none at al. The wordes falsly cut away be these Clemen Constitut. lib. 6. cap. 30. acceptabilemque Eucharistiam So that the whole sentence is this in S. Clement Antitypum regalis corporis Christi acceptabilēque Eucharistiam offerte in Ecclesiis coemeteriis vestris Offer ye vp the sampler of the roial body of Christ and the acceptable Euchariste in your Churches and burying places These two wordes with the sleight of falsifying nipte away by M. Iewel be so requisite to the vnderstanding of the authours meaning that without them mater of cauil by reason of the terme antitypon may be ministred vnto such as be more ready to impugne then to defend the doctrine of the vniuersal Churche touching the substance of the Sacrament and Sacrifice of the Aulter Contrarywise being leaft in the sentence considered and rightly vnderstanded they exclude al occasion of doubte or cauil that might rise through the other terme of more obscuritie For the Euchariste without doubt in that age being taken for the body of Christ how can it be conceiued that the other terme antitypon in the same place ioyned by a copulatiue together with it should importe the contrary That S. Clement meant by the Eucharist the true and real body of Christe it is euident by that we finde in the learned Fathers of that age namely S. Ignatius and S. Ireneus who lyued in or sone after S. Clementes tyme. S. Irenaeus saith Irenaeus lib. 4. ca. 34. that the breade hauing receiued the calling vpon of the name of God whereby he meaneth the Consecration is no more common bread but Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terrena coelesti the Euchariste consisting of two thinges the one earthly whereby he vnderstandeth the forme of bread the other heauenly which is the body of our Sauiour The Euchariste maketh our bodies to be immortal And that it appeare certainely that he thought the Euchariste to be the body and bloude of Christe he proueth that our bodies shal not remaine in corruption but haue the resurrection that is hoped for bicause they receiue the Euchariste and be fed with the flesh and bloude of our Lorde Ignat. ad Smyrnen apud theo dorit li. 3. Dialog S. Ignatius likewise in an Epistle ad Smyrnenses as Theodoritus allegeth him in the third booke of his Dialogues writing against certaine Heretikes that would haue neither Euchariste nor Sacrifice auoucheth the Eucharist to be the flesh of Christe The Eutheriste is the flesh of Christ that suffered for vs. These be his wordes Eucharistias oblationes non admittunt eò quòd non confiteantur Eucharistiā esse carnēseruatoris nostri Iesu Christi quae pro peccatis nostris passa est quam Pater sua benignitate suscitauit Eucharistes and oblations they wil not admit bicause they wil not confesse the Euchariste to be the flesh of our Sauiour Iesus Christe which flesh suffered for our sinnes and which the Father of his goodnes raised vp from death Marke Reader this auncient Father and blessed Martyr saith not the Euchariste signifieth Christes flesh but is Christes flesh yea that flesh which was crucified buried and rose againe And although Theodoritus alleged this authoritie to proue that it was the humaine flesh and not the Godhed of Christe that suffered death and rose againe which he proueth by the later parte of the same yet it principally proueth our purpose that the Euchariste is the true flesh of Christe Againe onlesse the selfe same flesh of Christe be in the Euchariste which died vpon the Crosse and rose againe this authoritie auailed Theodoritus nothing to proue that Christes flesh was crucified and raised vp againe Wherefore for so much as it is cleare by the testimonies of S. Ignatius and S. Irenaeus who liued not long after S. Clements time that the beleefe of their age was the Euchariste to be the flesh and bloude of Christe how can M. Iewel kepe his credite with any man that loueth truth and not seme to haue intended crafte and deceite in that of purpose least the truth should appeare manifest he falsified his auctor by clipping away those two wordes from the middest of the sentence that make directly against him and put away al doubte of contrary sense Thus to mainteine the false doctrine of his arrogant Chalenge he feareth not to violate the Fathers to corrupte their writings to deceiue the worlde to purchase him selfe the most reprocheful name of a falsifier By such champions such quarrels are mainteined Constitut. lib. 8. As for the other place of S. Clement where he saith offerimus hunc panem hoc poculum we offer this breade and this cuppe who nowe a daies knoweth not that the Sacrament sometimes is called by the name of breade and wine not bicause the substance of breade and wine remaineth but bicause the outwarde formes taft and other qualities of breade and wine be sene felt and perceiued bicause before consecration it was breade and wine and bicause it is the true breade and wine that came downe from heauen Neither doth S. Clement which is to be noted
barely cal it bread and a cuppe but this bread This breade◠this Cup. and this Cuppe as S. Paule calleth it likewise this bread and this Cuppe and that bread and the Cuppe of our Lorde 1. Cor. 11. By which manner of speach vttered with the Pronoune Demonstratiue not common bread nor a common cuppe but a singular a diuine a heauenly and the supersubstantial breade and the like cuppe in Saint Clement is signified euen that breade and cuppe which according to Christes Institution was before consecrated with the woordes of our Lorde Math. 26. This is my body This is my bloude Luc. 22. Iewel Neither did Christe by these vvordes Doo ye this in my Remembrance erecte any nevve Succession of Sacrificers to offer him vp Really vnto his Father nor euer did any Auncient learned Father so expounde it Christes meaning is cleare by the vvordes that folovve For he saith not onely Doo yee this but he addeth also In my Remembrance VVhich Doinge perteineth not only vnto the Apostles and their successours as M. Harding imagineth but also to the vvhole people And therefore S. Paule saieth not only to the Ministers but also to the vvhole Congregation of Corinth 1. Cor. 11 As often as ye shal eate this Bread and drinke this Cuppe Ye shal shewe foorthe and publishe the Lordes Deathe vntil he come Likevvise S. Chrysostome applieth the same Chrysost. ad popul Antioch Homil. 61 not onely to the Cleregie but also to the vvhole people of his Churche of Antioche Thus he saith Hoc facite in memoriam Beneficij mei Salutis vestrae Doo ye this in Remembrance of my Benefite and of your Saluation Of these vveake positions M. Harding vvithout the vvarrante or authoritie of any learned Father reasoneth thus Christe saith This is my Bodie that is geuen for you Doo this in my Remembrance Ergo The Prieste hath power to offer vp the Sonne of God vnto his Father Harding What M. Iewel meaneth by erecting a newe succession of Sacrificers Priestes novv b◠made by election and ordinatiō an contine◠not by right of successiō I know not but that he taketh pleasure in his owne skoffing wittte And whereas he was not hable with sounde reasons or good authorities to impugne the Priesthod of the new Testament it liked him to worke his spite against it with scorneful prophane and Iewish vtterance Who euer said that Christe by those wordes erected a new succession of Sacrificers If no man euer said it why chargeth he vs as though it had bene said Aarons Priesthode went by succession and belonged to one Tribe But Priestes of the newe Testamente enter not into their Priesthod by right of succession as they of the Leuitical Tribe did but by election and lawful ordination This Priesthod principally is Christes which continueth without succession for euer as he is a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedek Psal. 109. Neither be we that are Priestes the Successours of Christe and much lesse of Aaron we be the ministers of Christ in the function of this Priesthod and that which we do we do it by vertue and power of Christe and in the person of Christ yea rather Christ is said to doo it through vs. Oecum in epist. ad Heb. ca. 5. For Oecumenius speaking of the daily execution of our Priesthoode and of Priestes that daily do sacrifice saith per quos medios Christus sacrificat sacrificatur Christe by the meanes or mediation of the Priestes that be now of whom there he spake before sacrificeth and is sacrificed Euseb. De Demonst. lib. 5. Eusebius declaring the euerlasting priesthod of Christ after the order of Melchisedek saith likewise Et sanè oraculi exitus admirabilis est ei qui comtempletur quomodo Seruator noster Iesus Christus Dei ipsius Melchisedech ritu ea quae sunt Sacrificij inter homines faciendi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etiam adhuc per suos ministros perficiat And verily the accomplishment of the oracle which is thou art a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedek is maruelous to him that beholdeth Psal. 109. how our Sauiour Iesus the Christ of God doth performe euen vntil this day those thinges that be of the Sacrifice which is to be done amonge men Marke Reader how is that accomplished which the Father in the Psalme is reported to haue said vnto Christ Thou art a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech How remaineth he a Priest for euer sith cōcerning that Oblation and sacrifice which was once offered by him saith Oecumenius meaning the sacrifice of the Crosse he would not haue said in aternum for euer To this question that might be moued both Oecumenius and Eusebius do answer that euen now Christe doth the thinges that belong vnto the Sacrifice which is to be made among men Which is asmuch in sense as Oecumenius saith that now by the mediation of Priestes ministerie Christe sacrificeth and is sacrificed And so he remaineth a Priest for euer But leauing these skorneful termes of erecting a newe succession of Sacrificers to the schoole of Heretiques and vsing the common wordes of the Churche If M. Iewel meane therby to say that Christe speaking these wordes Doo ye this in my remembrance did not ordeine the Apostles Priestes nor therby gaue them auctoritie to ordeine others that for tyme to come should succede them in that order and that so saying he gaue not them power auctoritie and cōmission to offer vp his body and bloud I say his meaning is vtterly vntrue And this also which he saith further that neuer any learned Father so expounded those wordes of Christe I affirme to be very false as here it shal appeare First let S. Clement be heard in this point whom M. Iewel in a false cause doth here take holde of That Christe made the Apostles Priestes Bicause the place is somewhat longe it shal be sufficient to reporte it in English truly translated Thus he saith Of Moyses most derely beloued of God Clemens◠Constitut. Aposto li. 8. cap. vlt. were instituted Bisshops Priestes and Leuites◠Of our Sauiour we thirteen Apostles Of the Apostles I Iames and I Clement and with vs others that we recken not al againe Cōmonly of al vs Priestes Deacons Subdeacons and Readers The first high Bishop then by nature is Christe the only begottē rapuit who caught not honour vnto himselfe but was constituted of his Father Who for our sake being made man and offering spiritual sacrifice to God and his Father before his passion commaunded vs alone to do the same thing albeit others were present with vs that beleued in him But yet not euery one that beleueth is by and by a Priest and promoted vnto Bisshoply honour This testimonie of S. Clement declareth plainely both that Christe made the Apostles Priestes before his Passion geuing charge and commaundement to them onely though others that beleeued were present
to doo and make the thing which he had done that is to say to take bread and wine to geue thankes to blesse to breake the bread and to say in the person of Christe this is my Body this is my Bloude c. Which he calleth offering of spiritual sacrifice bicause that body and bloud of Christe are thus offered vp spiritually and in a Mysterie without bloudshed And also that the Apostles afterward instituted Priestes Deacons Subdeacons and Readers S. Chrysostom excusing him selfe for that he presumed to minister vnto Christe at his holy table and gathering boldnesse of that Christe him selfe had commaunded it saith Chrysost. in Liturgia Sacrificiorum ritum instituisti ac solennis huius immaculati Sacrificij celebrationem nobis tradidisti tanquà m Dominus omnium Thou Christe hast instituted the rite of sacrificing and hast deliuered vnto vs the celebration of this solemne and vnspotted Sacrifice as Lord of al. And afterward he saith moreouer hauing rehearsed what Christ did and said at the Supper memoriam igitur agentes salutaris huius mandati we kepe the memorie of this healthful commaundement meaning the commandement geuen by these wordes Luc. 22. Do ye this in my Remembrance When S. Chrysostome saith Christ deliuered the celebration of this Sacrifice vnto vs it is to be considered vnto which vs and when he did deliuer it S. Chrysostome was a Bishop and therefore a Priest so then naming vs he meant Priestes The time when it was deliuered was at his last Supper For the Scripture geueth no occasion to thinke that Christ leafte to Priestes the celebratiō of this Sacrifice any where els but where he said vnto his Apostles Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11. Doo ye this in my remembrance S. Dionyse the Areopagite S. Paules scholer doth acknowledge and in most plaine wordes confesse that Christe by these woordes gaue commaundement to Priestes to offer vp this diuine Sacrifice Thus he saith Quocirca Antistes reuerenter ex Pontificali officio Dionys. in Ecclesiast Hierarch part 3. c. 3. post sacras diuinorum operum Laudes quòd hostiam salutarem quae supra ipsum est litet se excusat ad ipsum primò decenter exclamans Tu dixisti hoc facite in mei commemorationem The Bishop therfore after he hath praised the workes of God excuseth him selfe reuerently and according to his Bishoply office for that he sacrificeth the heathful hoste which is aboue his worthinesse semely first crying vnto him Thou ô Christ hast said Do ye this in my remēbrance Thus it appeareth clearely by this auncient Bishop and blessed Martyr who is to be thought to haue learned the same of S. Paule him self as also by sundry other Fathers of whome some be already alleged some hereafter shal be alleged that Christe by these woordes Doo ye this in my remembrance gaue to Priestes auctoritie and commission to offer vp the healthful Sacrifice which can be none other but that of his body and bloude and that by the same wordes they vnderstode them selues both charged so to doo and also excused of presumption in doing the doing of it being a thing that so farre passeth the worthinesse of humaine condition But M. Iewel to put away wholly the Sacrifice whereas Christe said doo ye this in my remembrance saith very strangely and boldly M. Ievvel vvold al the people to be Ministers of the Sacrifice that this doing perteineth not only vnto the Apostles and their successours but also vnto the whole people And he beareth the worlde in hande that this is the cleare meaning of Christe bicause of these wordes in my remembrance As though bicause that heauenly Sacrifice is to be offered in remembrance of Christe therefore the common people and euery one of them should haue the handling of the diuine Mysteries and be made the Ministers of them If this be true weemen haue much wrong among whom in so many hundred yeres as haue ben since Christ gaue this commaundement none was yet euer admitted vnto that administration And if it perteine vnto the whole people as M. Iewel saith why should weemen be excluded In dede it were a great ease for these holy Ministers that their good wiues ministred sometimes in the Cōgregations for them whiles they be playing with their children or keeling the potre at home He should haue done wel to haue proued this strange point more substantially sith there by he should do great pleasure to his felow Ministers to many other good felowes and specially to many good sad dames of his owne Gospel whose curiositie would be wel pleased if they were admitted to minister and to doo so much as these wordes of Christe doo importe doo ye this in my remēbrance The deuil hauing sowed hatred in M. Iewels breste against the priesthod and Sacrifice of the newe Testament hath brought him vnto this fowle absurditie Peraduenture to auoide so great an inconuenience he wil say that these wordes doo principally perteine vnto the Ministers who haue succeded the Apostles in this ministerie and secondarily vnto the faithful people If he say so let him withal consider that being so vnderstanded they may wel serue for the Apostles to claime vnto them selues the auctoritie of Priesthod to offer vp the Sacrifice and also to ordeine priestes to succede them For as touching the office of a Priest it is a cōfessed truth that the Priest in offering the body and bloud of Christ is the principal agent concerning outward ministerie and as it were the instrument of the people which by a certaine meane offereth also geuing vnto the Priestes action their assent and applying their deuotion Much like to that we say of a multitude to make a supplication when one man is the speaker and chiefe dooer and the reste only geue their consent to that is said and done And what though S. Paule say vnto the Corinthians 1. Cor. 11. As often as ye shall eate this bread and drinke this Cuppe ye shal shewe forth our Lordes death vntil he come wil it folow thereof that Christe speaking these wordes doo ye this in my remembrance woulde the whole people to doo that he at his supper did That is to say that euery lay person boye and woman for they be of the number of the people shal take bread blesse and geue thankes and vtter the wordes of consecration This is my body and likewise the cuppe saying this is my bloude c Doth he not vnderstand there is great difference betwen this commaundement of Christ and that saying of S. Paule betwen doo this in my remembrance which Christe saith and when so euer ye eate this bread and drinke this cuppe ye shew forth our Lordes death whiche S. Paule saith Seeth he not the one to belong vnto the Priest as he is the pronuncer of the Diuine wordes whereby the holy Euchariste is consecrate and made the other to be referred vnto them that receiue it after it is consecrate And though
the Caluinistes The ministratiō of the nevv holy Cōmunion made a nevv Sacrifice by M. Ievv which they haue set vp like an Idol in their defourmed churches in place of the blessed Masse after a diuers manner in diuers Cities and Countries according to the diuers fantasies of new Ministers who daily please them selues with changing what so euer liketh others in which sorte of Communion there is no substance of any better thing then of bread and wine no due consecration made no oblation no real Sacrifice no participation of the true body and bloude of Christe If this be his meaning as doubtelesse it is most certaine it is those auncient learned Fathers neuer spake of it neuer knewe it much lesse did they any where call the ministration of it a Sacrifice S. Augustine saith not Augustin ad Petrū Diaconū cap. 19. the ministration of the Communion is a Sacrifice which M. Iewel by his wordes taketh vpon him to proue but In this Sacrifice saith he there is a thankesgeuing and a cōmemoration of the flesh of Christe which he offered for vs and of the bloude which the same God did shed for vs. In this Sacrifice saith he he saith not in the ministration of the Cōmunion What he meant by this Sacrifice there he sheweth clearely For hauing said in the beginning of the chapter that beastes were sacrificed vnto Christe with the Father and the holy Ghost by the Patriarkes Prophetes and Priestes of the olde Law forthwith he addeth these wordes Cui nunc id est tempore Noui Testamēti cū Patre Spiritu sancto cū quibus est illi vna Diuinitas sacrificiū Panis vini in fide charitate sancta Ecclesia Catholica per vniuersum orbē terrae offerre nō cessat Vnto whom now that is to say in the time of the Newe Testament with the Father and the Holy Ghoste with whom he hath one Godhed the holy Catholike Church doth not ceasse to offer vp through the whole worlde the Sacrifice of bread and wine in faith and charitie M. Iewel thought to take aduantage of this place The Sacrifice of bread and vvine bicause this Sacrifice is here called the sacrifice of bread and wine and would nedes this to be taken for the ministation of his new Communion as though bicause bread and wine is named which is the substāce of their cōmunion the body and bloud of Christe were excluded But this reason is very weake besides that neither M. Iewel nor any of the Caluinistes doo vse to cal this sacrifice the Sacrifice of bread and wine Neither do they bring their bread and wine to church to make a sacrifice of it to God but to distribute it vnto their Congregations The sacrifice they pretende to make is of thankes and praises any outward thing they sacrifice not at al. True it is this Sacrifice is sometimes called the Sacrifice of bread and wine as in this place De Fide ad Petrum Diaconum either bicause it representeth in outwarde formes bread and wine or bicause bread and wine are the thinges whereof of the change it selfe which perteineth to the nature of a Sacrifice for so much as it requireth that the thing that is offered be sanctified by some change taketh beginning And as in the olde sacrifices of the Iewes the Calfe both being yet aliue was called a Sacrifice bicause it was that thing whiche by killing was to be sanctified and also being killed bicause it was the Hoste now sanctified by sacrificing whiche hoste so many as did eate of were made partakers of the aulter Euen so in the Sacrament of the Euchariste the bread and wine may be called a Sacrifice as being the thinges that by change made of them with consecration are to be sanctified Therefore in the beginning of the Canon of the Masse it is said of them Supplices rogamus ac petimus c. We humbly pray and beseche thee that thou accepte and blesse these giftes these presentes these holy Sacrifices The body it selfe also and bloud of Christe conteined vnder the fourme of bread and wine are called the Sacrifice as being the thinges into which the holy change by vertue of the wordes of Consecration is made of which it is said in the end of the Canon We offer vp vnto thy most honorable Maiestie of thy giftes and benefites a pure Hoste a holy Hoste an vnspotted hoste Thus we say and so the Fathers speake both waies of this Sacrifice that it is the Sacrifice of breade and wine that is to say made of bread and wine bicause that which was breade and wine is now turned and changed into the body and bloude of Christe and the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of our Lorde that is to say the very true hoste it selfe with a certaine diuine change consecrated and made In other places most commonly it is named of the Fathers the Oblation or Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christe in consideration of the inward substance of the Sacrifice vnder the formes of bread and wine conteined As S. Augustine writing against Faustus the Heretique Aug. cont Faust. lib. 20◠ca. 18. hauing spoken of the manifold Sacrifices of the olde law and of the Sacrifice of the Crosse consequently saith whereby he signifieth what he vnderstandeth by this sacrifice of bread and wine I am Christiani peracti eiusdem Sacrificij memoriam celebrant sacrosancta oblatione participatione corporis sanguinis Christi The Christians do nowe celebrate the memorie of the Sacrifice of the Crosse past and done by the holy oblation and participation of the body and bloude of Christe So in diuers considerations both these savinges be true The holy catholike Churche euery where offereth vp to God the sacrifice of bread and wine and it offereth the Sacrifice of the flesh and bloud of Christe And whereas our daily Sacrifice which the Christians doo now euery where offer is the celebration of the memorie of that which was done vpon the Crosse and therefore oftentimes of the Fathers is named a memorie or commemoration as we finde in Eusebius here also alleged by M. Iewel Euseb. in Demonst. lib. 1. the worde Memorie or commemoration excludeth the truth of passion and death for now Christe suffereth Rom. 6. nor dieth no more the truth or real presence of the body which on the Crosse suffered and dyed for vs it excludeth not For with and by the holy Oblation and participation of that flesh and bloude saith S. Augustine we celebrate the memorie of the Sacrifice that was made vpon the Crosse. So that the substance of the Sacrifice of the Crosse and of that of the Aulter is one and the same the flesh and bloude of Christ onely the manner of Oblation is diuers Which if these Gospellers would once confesse as S. Augustine here witnesseth and Christes Church hath euer beleeued and they them selues be not ignorant of we should not haue neede to write so
booke you vsed as it is knowen If you saw it and of purpose would concele it and by rehersing other Sacrifices thought so to coouer this Sacrifice then great was your malice If you sawe it not but trusted your Grecian and such other slipper Merchantes who knewe wel your humour and perceiued what shoulde please your appetite then were you very rash and vnwise and thereby haue geuen occasion to al wise men to take good aduise how they beleue you in so weighty maters Hitherto M. Iewel as now vnto the learned it is made cleare hath said litle for good Answere to the testimonie for the Sacrifice of the Aulter brought out of Eusebius But what falshoode he hathe vsed it is partely disclosed If thou marke him wel Reader thou shalt perceiue this sleight in him that he neuer reherseth the woordes of Eusebius as I haue alleged them For in dede they seme to grauel him and to be so plaine as with plainenesse he seeth no way how to answer them Craftily he dissembleth the Sacrifices of Christes table spoken of by Eusebius in the plural number whereby he vnderstandeth the body bloude of Christe of which eche one is a Sacrifice that is to say M. Iewels guileful dealing the thinge sacrificed and consecrated seuerally in the seueral fourmes of breade and wine in Commemoration and Remembraunce of the Body and Bloude whiche were seuered the one from the other by violence of the souldiers vppon the Crosse and nameth the Sacrifice of the Lordes Table in the singular number for the better oportunitie to deceiue the vnlearned Reader Iewel But Eusebius saith further This Sacrifice is dreadful and causeth the harte to quake M. Harding may not vvel geather by any force of these vvordes that the Sonne of God is Really offered vp by the Priest vnto his Father For al thinges vvhat so euer that put vs in remembrance of the Maiestie and Iudgementes of God of the Holy Fathers are called Dreadful S. Cyril saith Cyril in Apol. Chrysost 1. Cor. Hom. 49. Lectio Diuinarum Terribilium Scripturarum The reading of the Diuine and Terrible Scriptures S. Chrysostome calleth the vvordes of Baptisme Verba arcana metueÌ„da horribiles Canones dogmatum de Coelo transmissorum The Secrete and Dreadful wordes and Terrible Rules of the doctrine that came from Heauen And speaking of the Hande and voice of the Deacon he saith thus Manu illa Tremenda continua Voce clamans alios vocat alios arcet VVith that Terrible Hand and continual Voice crieinge somme he calleth in and somme he putteth of This Sacrifice maketh the Harte to tremble for that therein is laide forth the Mysterie that vvas hidden from vvorlds and Generations The horrour of Sinne The Death of the Sonne of God That he tooke our heauinesse and bare our sorovves and vvas vvounded for our offenses and vvas Rente and Tormented for our VVickednesse That he vvas carried like an innocent Lambe vnto the Slaughter that be cried vnto his Father O God O my God vvhy haste thou thus forsaken mee There vve cal to Remembrance al the causes and circumstances of Christs Death The Shame of the Crosse The Darkening of the Aire The Shaking of the Earth The renting of the Vele The cleauing of the Rocks The opening of the Graues The Descending into Hel and the CoÌ„quering of the Diuel Therefore Chrysostome saith QuaÌ„uis quis lapis esset illa nocte audita Chrysost. in 1. ad Corinth Hom. 17. quomodò cuÌ„ Discipulis tristis fueâ—it quomodò traditus quomodò ligatus quomodò abductus quomodò iudicatus quomodò denique oiÌ„a Passus cera mollior fiet terraÌ„ omneÌ„ terrae cogitationem abijciet Any man hearing of the order of that night how Christe was moorneful emonge his Disciples howe he was deliuered how he was bound how he was leadde away how he was arreigned and how meekely he suffered al that was donne vnto him were he as harde as a Stoane yet woulde he be as softe as VVaxe and would throwe both the Earth and al Earthely Cogitations away from him Thus saith Nicolaus Cabasilas one of M. Hardings late Greeke Doctours Hoc facite in meaÌ„ Commemorationem Sed quaenam est haec Commemoratio c. Doo ye this in Remembrance of me But what is this Remembrance Hovv doo we consider Our Lorde in the Holy Ministration VVhat doo we conceiue him doing Hovv dealing vvhat suffering vvhat thinke vve vvhat speake vve of him Do vve imagin of him in that time of the Holy Mysteries that he healed the Blinde That he raised the Dead That he staied the VVindes Or that vvith a fewe loaues he fead thousandes which are tokens that he was God Omnipotent No not so But rather we cal to remembrance such thinges as declared his weakenesse his Crosse his Passion his Deathe In respect of those thinges he said Doo yee this in my Remembrance The Priest both by his wordes and also by the vvhole Circumstance of doinge seemeth to say Thus Christe came to his Passion Thus he vvas vvounded in the side Thus he died Thus Bloud and VVater issued and streamed from his vvounde These considerations thus laide before our eies are hable to cause any godly harte to quake and tremble As for the Real offeringe vp of Christe in Sacrifice that learned Father Eusebius saith nothing Verily it is but a simple Sophisme to say This Sacrifice is Dreadful and causeth vs to quake Ergo The Priest offereth vp the Sonne of God vnto his Father Harding Whereas I gather an Argument of a plaine testimonie for the Sacrifice of the Aulter out of the whole senteÌ„ce alleged M. Iewel pretendeth to his Reader as though I tooke my chiefe and onely holde of this one worde Dreadful Dreadful which being but one worde in Eusebius he maketh to sounde many wordes and saith that I may not gather by any force of these wordes that the Sonne of God is really offered vp by the Priest vnto his Father Whereas in deed I gather it not by force of that woorde Dreadful whereof for his aduantage he maketh diuers woordes onely nor chiefly but of the whole saying and specially of the very expresse name of the Sacrifice of Christes table and also of that Eusebius saith we haue bene taught by Christe him selfe to offer them vnto God Which I expounde as they are to be expounded of these woordes spoken by Christe at his Supper Luc. 22. Hoc facite in meam commemorationeÌ„ doo ye this in my remembrance as it is to be sene in my Answere and he dissembled to haue sene it As for the Sonne of God really offered vp they be not my wordes as the booke is witnesse they be his whereby he thought to take aduantage though the Proposition in those termes also be true in a right and due sense Bicause therefore he groundeth his Replie vpon that which I say not and bestoweth many wordes in disprouing that I affirme not and prouing
that I denie not and maketh a long needelesse talke of the worde Dreadful shewing sundry thinges to be called Dreadful wherein he telleth some truth pretending to the Reader thereby as though bicause Eusebius is alleged calling this Sacrifice Dreadful thereof specially I had concluded the auctoritie of offering Christe vnto his Father whiche thing in dede I do not And forasmuch as this much is vntruly attributed vnto me and therefore may with like facilitie be denyed as it is without proufe said and the whole processe of the rest of this Diuision is vtterly impertinent and besides the purpose I thinke this much ynough for answer vnto it that it is not worth the answering The .6 Diuision The Ansvvere Hesychius lib. 1. c. 4. THat Christe Sacrificed himselfe at his Supper Hesychius affirmeth with these wordes Quod Dominus iussit Leuit. 4. vt Sacerdos vituluÌ„ pro peccato oblaturus Ioan. 10. ponat manuÌ„ super caput eius iugulet euÌ„ coraÌ„ Domino ChristuÌ„ significat quem nemo obtulit sed nec immolare poterat nisi semetipsum ipse ad patienduÌ„ tradidisset Propter quod non solùm dicebat Potestatem habeo ponendi animan meam potestatem habeo iterum sumeÌ„di eam sed praeueniens semetipsum in Coena ApostoloruÌ„ immolauit quod sciunt qui Mysteriorum percipiunt virtutem That our Lord commaunded saith he the Priest which should offer a calfe for sinne to put his hande vpon his heade and to sticke him before our Lord it signifieth Christ whom noman hath offered neither could any man Sacrifice him excepte he hadde deliuered him selfe to suffer For the which he said not only I haue power to lay downe my Soule and I haue power to take it againe But also preuenting it he offred vp him selfe in Sacrifice in the Supper of the Apostles which they knowe that receiue the vertue of the Mysteries By these wordes of Hesychius we learne that Christ offered and sacrificed his Body and Bloud twise Firste in that Holy Supper vnbloudely when he tooke Bread in his handes and brake it c Without Diuision of the Sacrifice for it is but one and the same Sacrifice And afterwarde on the Crosse with Shedding of his bloud and that is it he meaneth by the woorde Preuenting Iewel VVe denie not but it may vvel be saide Christe at his last Supper offered vp him selfe vnto his Father Albeit not Really and in deede but accordinge to M. Hardinges ovvne Distinction in a Figure Apocal. 13. or in a Mysterie in suche sorte as vve say Christe vvas offered in the Sacrifices of the Olde Lavve and as S. Iohn saieth Agnus Occisus ab Origine Mundi The Lambe was shaine from the beginninge of the VVorlde As Christe vvas slaine at the Table so vvas he Sacrificed at the Table But he vvas not slaine at the Table Verily and in dede but onely in a Mysterie Therefore he vvas not Sacrificed at the Table Really and in deede but onely in a Mysterie So saith S. Augustine Nonne semel immolatus est Christus in sâ—m etipso August Epist. 23. Et tamen in Sacramento non tantùm per omnes Paschae Solennitates sed etiam omni die populis immolatur Nec vtique mentitur qui interrogatus eum responderit immolari Si enim Sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum quarum Sacramenta sunt non haberent omnino Sacramenta non essent VVas not Christe once offered in him selfe And yet in or by vvay of a Sacramente not only at the Solemne Feaste of Easter but euery daye he is offered vnto the people And he saith no vntrueth that being demaunded maketh answeare that Christe is Sacrificed His reason is this For if Sacramentes had not a certaine Likenesse or Resemblance of the thinges wherof they be Sacramentes then should they vtterly be no Sacramentes Harding The contentes of M. Iewels Replie in this Diuision stand in .4 pointes First he graunteth that Christe offered vp him selfe vnto his Father at his last Supper in a figure or in a Mysterie that is to say as he expoundeth himselfe in such sorte as he was offered vp in the Sacrifices of the olde Lawe But that he was there really and in dede offred he vtterly denieth Secondly for answer to the authoritie alleged out of Hesychius he saith that sometimes he was driuen to streatche and straine the Scriptures to his purpose Thirdly he would prooue his Sacramentary opinion touching the difference betwen the Sacrifice of the Table and the Sacrifice of the Crosse by a place of S. Cyprian leauing out the which foloweth in him being such as clearely determineth the point against him Fourthly whereas I say that Christe twise sacrificed him selfe really he auoucheth it to be reproued by plaine wordes of S. Paule Of the falshode of the first point though I haue spoken somewhat already yet because M. Iewel ceasseth not to sing one song and eftsones repeateth the same tale standing vppon his false Negatiue some deale more semeth here necessary to be spoken that it may appeare how cleare the truth is of our side and how weake the stuffe is that he bringeth against vs. Although he tel not his tale in most distincte and plaine wise as this doctrine of the vnbloudy Sacrifice of Christe ought to be vttered vsing the termes of Figure and Mysterie confusely yet his meaning is plaine yenough verely more plaine then true Which is that Christe offered vp him selfe vnto his Father at his laste Supper in Figure onely and that concerning both the thing offered and the manner of offering For adding as it were an exposition of his owne wordes M. Iewels doctrine touching the Sacrifice is only figuratiue In such sorte saith he as we say Christe was offered in the Sacrifice of the olde Lawe Now certaine it is that in the sacrifices of the olde Lawe Christe was offered in Figure onely whether we consider the substance that was offered or the manner of offering The substance of those olde Sacrifices was a brute beast a sheepe a calfe a goat an Oxe Of which euery one was but a figure onely of Christâ— the manner of offering was slaughter with bloudshed which slaughter was also a figure onely of Christes bloudy death to be suffered vppon the Crosse. So M. Iewels doctrine touching this point is figuratiue on euery side that is to say that Christe offered vp him selfe at his supper in Figure onely Yet vnderstanding with him self and as it were beiâ—g gilty in his owne conscience that this doctrine soundeth very strangely and would offend the eares of the learned Catholiques in the conclusion he qualifieth his tale with termes and shunning the odious woorde of a Figure onely guilefully shifteth in the worde Mysterie saying that Christe was not sacrificed at the Table really and in dede but onely in a Mysterie Nowe that our disputation fal not into wrangling and cauilles here he is to be demaunded what he meaneth by this terme onely in
a Mysterie in this Proposition Christe was not sacrificed at the Table really but onely in a Mysterie Onely in a Mysterie If he meane nothing els thereby but to exclude the bloudy manner of sacrificing as in deede properly to speake the sacrificing of lyuing thinges is with bloudeshed and slaughter in that respecte we graunte also that at the Table Christe was not really so sacrificed but in Mysterie only For at the Table we knowe he was not stickte with a knife as the brute beastes in the olde Lawe were nor let bloude with thornes nailes or speare as he was on the nexte morow vppon the Crosse. Mary where the exclusiue particle Onely is added though in a right sense we might beare with it as it is referred to the mystical manner of sacrificing yet we say it is strangely vsed in this place where it may haue relation to two thinges either to the body and bloud of Christe being the substance of the Sacrifice or to the manner of sacrificing But if by his terme Onely in a Mysterie he exclude the Real presence of Christe him selfe and meane that his very body and bloude as muche to say Christe him selfe bicause of the vnitie of the two natures was not in Christes handes and vppon the Table in deede when hauing taken breade he gaue thankes blessed Lucae 22. brake it and said this is my Body and concerning the Cuppe this is my Bloude â—e is not nowe in the Aulter Only when we consecrate doing that Christe did and bad vs to doo but that he was there then and is here now at the Diuine Celebration in a figure signe token signification memorie representation or Mysterie Onely or that a figure signe token or Mysterie Onely is present and sacrificed and not very Christe him selfe If this be his meaning herein we dissent vtterly from him and he dissenteth from the Churche of God from that the holy Ghoste hath taught his Churche from that al faithful Christen people hath euer beleeued from that Christe him selfe professed saying this is my body this is my bloude to be shorte from that which hath bene of late by certaine learned men against him and his felowes sufficiently and substantially prooued But what neede we to demaunde of M. Iewel what he meaneth by his clowdy wordes No clowde can hyde his Sacramentarie heresie it is euident as wel by that he saith here as by that he hath said and writteÌ„ in sundry other places according to the purport of the Caluinists doctrine vnto which sect he hath adioyned him self and by his open profession that he standeth in his Negatiue and holdeth opinion that Christe offered not him selfe really at his last Supper Now the affirmatiue part which is that Christe offered him selfe at that Supper really truly and in dede and made a real Sacrifice though it be in my Answere already proued yet here further for theire sake who breake not out of the Churche by their own stubbornnesse and wilful malice but be lead a syde by simplicitie and ignorance thus we prooue If Christe offered not vp him selfe really and in dede in a Sacrifice at his last Supper he leaft his new Lawe in worse state then was the condition of them who liued in the time of the Lawe of Nature or in the time of the Lawe written But in worse state he leafte it not Ergo he sacrificed him selfe at the Supper truly really and in dede The Minor or second Proposition is such as no Christen man I iudge wil deny or doubte of The first Proposition which is conditional shal sone appeare true to him who considereth that the good and godly people lyuing vnder the Lawe of Nature before any Lawe was written Cyprian Sermone de ratione circuÌ„cisionis by the inspiration of God as S. Cyprian witnesseth offered vp real sacrifices in which they protested their faith and trust in Christe to come by whose Sacrifice to be made vpon the Crosse they looked and hartily desyred to be saued So did Abel offer vp Sacrifice to God of the best of his flocke Gen. 4. Gen. 8. So did Noe offer vp Sacrifice of the cleane beastes that had ben with him in the Arke Gen. 22. So Abraham after that he had for so much as in him was offered vp his onely sonne Isaac did in stede of him sacrifice the Ramme that was tyed by the hornes among the brambles So did other iust and good men of that time offer vp the like sacrifices to the same ende As for the time of the lawe written who is so ignorant that knoweth not that real sacrifices of sundry beastes beside other thinges were commaunded to be offred vp for diuers particular endes yet al to one chiefe ende to foresignifie and prefigurate the most perfite Sacrifice of Christe to come Al these sacrifices although offred in a figure and signification of benefite that then was to come yet were they real and true sacrifices notwithstanding as consisting of real and true substances And thus we see that by Gods prouidence in the time of both Lawes of Nature and of Moyses real sacrifices were offred vp vnto him in figure and token of the Redemption to come Now then if Christe leafte to the newe lawe which he ordeined no real Sacrifice a Sacrifice being the chiefest worship that man can do vnto God but endued it with a sacrifice that is offred onely in a figure how did he not leaue it in worse case then the lawe of nature or the lawe written And certaine it is that he leaft it without any such Sacrifice onlesse he offering him selfe really at his Supper did beginne and institute it after the order of Melchisedek For in any time or place els instituted and commaunded it is not founde Concerning inward and mere spiritual sacrifices they be common to al times and lawes as it is before proued If M. Iewel and the mainteiners of this new Gospel put vs in mynde of bread and wine and tel vs that the substance of bread and wine is our real Sacrifice being the signes and figures of Christes body and bloud in the Lordes Supper to that we answer that bread and wine are not appointed and ordeined by Christe to be the real Sacrifice of the Churche and if they were then were the state of the new Testament no better then that of the olde TestameÌ„t whereas the new farre passing the olde in euery degree of worthinesse as S. Paule in sundry places declareth the Sacrifice frequented in the newe lawe ought to surmount the Sacrifices of the olde lawe Then hath the Churche made a very meane exchange with the Iewish Synagog For if we haue no better substance in our dayly Sacrifice then a peece of bread and a smal portion of wine how was not a goate a lambe an Oxe as good if not better and more worth Christe hath not so solenderly dealt with the heires of the newe Testament as to leaue so base and
vnworthy a sacrifice vnto them base and vnworthy I say in comparison of the high dignitie that God through his sonnes death hath called them vnto but by his almighty power and according to his passing great mercy and loue hath geuen no worse thing then him selfe to be their true and real Sacrifice Some one wil say perhappes I woulde beleue this doctrine the rather if it were confirmed with the testimonie of an Auncient learned Father Let vs heare then what S. Chrysostome saith touching this point Chrysost. in 1. Cor. 10. Ho. 24 A cleare testimony for the Sacrifice of Christe in the Churche His wordes be these In veteri quidem Testamento cùm imperfectiores essent quem Idolis offerebant sanguinem cum ipse accipere volait vt ab Idolis nos auerteret Quod etiam inenarrabilis amoris signum erat Hic autem multò admirabilius magnificentius facrificium praeparauit quum sacrificium commutaret pro brutorum caede se ipsum offerendum praciperet In the olde Testament when men were more vnperfecte Christe him selfe would take that bloude which they offered vp vnto Idols to th ende to turne them from Idolatrie Which thing was a signe of an vnspeakeable loue But here in the newe Testament he hath prepared a much more maruelous and honorable Sacrifice both in that he changed the Sacrifice and also for that in stede of the slaughter of brute beastes he commaunded his owne selfe to be offered Here we haue by testimony of this auncient Father the abolishing of the worse sacrifice and the appointment of a better That was made of brute beastes this of Christe him selfe Now consider good Reader whether reason wil beare it that the worse and baser sacrifice should be both real and also in figure and signification for so were al the Iewes sacrifices and the better be in figure or mysterie onely and not real as M. Iewel wil haue the Sacrifice of the Churche to be But that our Sacrifice is real and that it is Christe him selfe and that he is really and in deede sacrificed the woordes aboue rehersed and others of the like force in that place of S. Chrysostome doo plainely auouche For first let this be examined that as he saith Christe commaunded for the slaughter of brute beastes now in the new Testament him selfe to be offered Of what Sacrifice can this be meant but of that which he both made and instituted him selfe at his last Supper and gaue charge to be frequented and done vntil he come For as touching the Sacrifice of the Crosse though he suffered him selfe to be taken and to be crucified and to be offred vp with shedding of bloude vnto death yet he commaunded not so muche to be done for then had the wicked workers of his death ben giltlesse Lucae 22. This commaundement then of offering vp Christe him selfe 1. Cor. â—1 is vnderstanded to haue ben geuen at the Supper when after that he had consecrated his body and bloude he said doo ye this in my remembrance And therefore S. Chrysostom speaketh thus vnto Christe in his Liturgie or Masse Chrysost. in Liturgia Memoriam igitur agentes huius salutaris mandati c. We kepe the memorie of this healthful commaundement If M. Iewel replye and say that Christe commaunded at the supper a memory onely to be celebrate of the true and real Sacrifice vpon the Crosse to that we answer That this Sacrifice whereof we speake is a memorie of that we confesse but that it is a memorie onely so as the real presence of Christ be excluded that we deny and to the contrary S. Chrysostome saith that he commaunded se ipsum him selfe to be offred vp Christe coÌ„maunded him selfe to be offred vp Neither can M. Iewel shifte the mater from him by expounding this worde him selfe of the signe or figure of him selfe meaning the bread and wine as the Sacramentaries doo For if that which is now daily in the Churche offered vp at the Aulter were but bread and wine the signes of Christes body and bloude S. Chrysostome woulde not ne could not iustly haue said that Christe hath prepared for vs of the newe Testament multò admirabilius magnificentius Sacrificium a much more maruelous and honorable Sacrifice For how can we conceiue a peece of bread and a cuppe of wine to be in respecte of sacrifice a thing muche more maruelous and magnificent or honourable then a shepe a goate and an Oxe bothe these and those signifying al one thinge that is Christe him selfe Nay thinges compared with thinges are not the beastes of a farre more price I trow M. Iewel wil not set a greater price vpon the bread and wine vsed in this Sacrifice for that they signifie a more pretious thing then the brute beastes did in the sacrifices of the olde lawe to wit Christe already come whereas they signified Christe to come For so he should diuide Christe and imagine him to be better and worthier in the newe Testament then he was in the olde Verely though redemption perfourmed be to vs better then redemption promised yet Christe before and after the perfourmance that is to say Christe now come and then to come is one Christe and of one worthinesse It foloweth therefore by al meanes that either S. Chrysostome said vntruly affirming Christe to haue prepared for the new Testament a farre more wonderful and magnificent Sacrifice then were the sacrifices of the Iewes whiche I suppose M. Iewel wil not be so shamelesse as to say what so euer he thinke or that we haue now in the Sacrifice of the Churche Christe him selfe truly really and in deede and that he him selfe is really offred vp vnto his Father by Priestes of the new Testament VVitnes for the true and real bloud of Christ in the Sacrament according to the commaundement he gaue at his supper saying doo ye this in my remembrance And that it is the real and true bloude of Christe which we haue in the Sacrifice of the Aulter whereby the real Sacrifice touching the thing sacrificed is proued it is most clearely affirmed by S. Chrysostome in the place before alleged For thus he speaketh there Quid hoc admirabilius Chrysost. in prior ad Cor. Hom. 24. dic quaeso quid amabilius Hoc amantes faciunt cùm amatos intuentur alienorum cupiditate allectos suae verò contemnentes proprijs elargitis suadent vt ab illis abstineant Sed amantes quidem in pecunijs vestibus possessionibus hanc ostendunt cupiditatem in proprio sanguine nemo vnquam What thing I pray thee is more maruelous then this What more louing He speaketh of the bloud that is in the chalice which he saith to be the same that ranne out of Christes syde This is a thing that louers doo when they beholde them whom they loue to be allured with the desire of other mens thinges and to set litle by theirs they geue them their owne
euen right now donne In this point therefore this Sacrifice is clearely vnlike the sacrifices of the olde lawe wherein although beastes of one kinde were offered daily as for example this day a lambe and to morow likewise a lambe yet it was not one lambe but diuers lambes And therfore a new killing and shedding of bloude was daily required But we doo not offer this day one lambe to morow an other but alwaies the selfe same as S. Chrysostome saith Chrysost. in epist. ad Heb. Hom. 17. Ibidem Againe this Hoste is suche as can not be consumed though they be neuer so many that be made partakers of it as he also saith Ipsam offerimus nunc quae tunc oblata quidem consumi noÌ„ potest We doo offer vp now also the same hoste which being offered then he meaneth vpon the Crosse can not be consumed Wherfore sith it is continually the selfe same hoste in number with that which was slaine vpon the Crosse albeit it be really againe sacrificed to continue the memorie of the real death of the same and to be the real Sacrifice of the newe Testament M. Iewel going about to abolish the truth of our Sacrifice for that it is not truly againe slaine bewrayeth his owne penurie of better and sounder reasons and semeth to reproue al the olde learned Fathers for calling it the vnbloudy Sacrifice Iewel Notvvitstandinge Hesychius expoundinge the Booke of Leuiticus to the intente he may force the vvhole Storie of the Life and Deathe of Christe to ansvveare euery particulare Ceremonie of the Lavve is sometimes driuen Hesych in Leuit. li. 1 cap. 4. to streatche and straine the Scriptures to his pnrpose So he saithe Christe is the Aultare And Christe Incarnate in the Virgins VVombe is the Sodden Sacrifice Novv as Christe vvas the Aultare Li. 1. ca. 2. SacrificiuÌ„ Coctum and as he vvas Sacrificed in his Mothers VVombe euen so he Sacrificed him selfe at his Supper not in proper or vsual manner of speache but onely in a Mysterie Signifieinge Othervvise S. Cyprian plainely openeth the vvhole difference of these tvvo Sacrifices in this sorte Cyprianus de Vnctione Chrismatis Dedit Dominus noster in mensa in qua Vltimum cum Apostolis participauit Conuiuium proprijs manibus Panem vinum In Cruce verò manibus militum Corpus tradidit vulnerandum Our Lorde at the Table whereat he receiued his laste Supper with his Disciples with his owne handes gaue not his very Bodie and very Bloude Really and in deede but Breade and VVine But vpon the Crosse he gaue his owne Bodie with the Souldiers handes to be VVounded This saithe Sainte Cyprian is the difference bitvvene the Sacrifice of the Table and the Sacrifice of the Crosse At the one Christe gaue Breade and VVine Vpon the other he gaue his Bodie Therefore vvhereaâ— M. Harding saith onely vpon his ovvne vvarrante That Christe Really Sacrificed him selfe at two sundrie times and that he twise Really Shead his Bloude Firste at the Table and Afterwarde vpon the Crosse The vntrueth and folie hereof is easily reproued by these plaine vvordes of S. Paule Hebrae 9. Semel Oblatus est ad multorum exhaurienda peccata He was once offered to take away the sinnes of many Hebrae 10. And againe VVith one Sacrifice he hath made perfite them for euer that be Sanctified These places are cleare and vvithout question onlesse M. Harding vvil say that One and Tvvo and Once and Tvvise be bothe one thing Harding Concerning the wordes of Hesychius they be plaine for the real sacrifice of Christe at the Supper For if he had there offered vp him selfe in a figure or Mysterie only as M. Iewel meaneth by his only mystery he would neuer haue called it a preuention of the bloudy Sacrifice Hesychius In Leuit. li. 1. cap. 4. neither would he haue vsed the terme praeueniens preuenting For Christe to offer vp him selfe at the supper in a figure onely in such sorte as he was offered in the sacrifices of the olde lawe had not ben a preuention of his bloudy Sacrifice vpon the Crosse. Verely if M. Iewels vnderstanding were streatched and strained vnto the obedience of faith he would not say so sawcily of that auncient and learned Father that he is driuen to stretche and straine the Scriptures to his purpose And what if it were graunted that so he did sometimes for more this Replyer saith not him selfe wil it thereof folow that he hath so done in this place As for the streatching and straining of the Scriptures which he layeth to Hesychius charge it is a very simple answer to the authoritie out of him alleged That he calleth Christe the Aulter it is not strange for so S. Paule calleth him as there he allegeth Neither was Christe by his reporte sacrified in his Mothers wombe he was incarnate in the virginis wombe and the same Christes incarnation he calleth the baked Sacrifice for thereof he speaketh and not of a sodden sacrifice as the place is euident The Oouen wherein it was baked was the Virgins wombe Hesychius in Leuit. li. 1. cap. 2. Lucae 1. bicause as he saith shee receiued from aboue the bread of life to wit the worde of God in her wombe and the fire of the presence of the holy Ghoste For the holy Ghoste saith the Angel shal come ouer into thee and thee power of the highest shal ouershadow thee And the same Christe that was incarnate in the Virgins wombe sacrificed him selfe at his Supper although not in such manner as the liue hostes in the olde Testament were sacrificed that is to say with bloudshed and slaughter yet in a mysterie but truly and really and after that manner of speache which is proper and vsual to the Catholique Church speaking of this singular Sacrifice not onely in a mysterie signifying that is to say in a figure or signification onely as M. Iewel meaneth the substance of Christes body and bloud excluded but so in a mystery as that most diuine substance be beleued to be verely present and by vs in remembrance of his death presented to God Touching the place of S. Cyprian S. CypriaÌ„ falsified by M. Ievvels maÌ„gling and hevving de vnctione Chrismatis he is like to haue smal aduantage and lesse honesty by alleging it when it is knowen how falsly he hath done in taking the begynning of the sentence which being set a parte from the rest semeth to geue a sownde of his doâ—ctrine and cutting away the ende that declareth the Doctours meaning and quit ouerthroweth the SacrameÌ„tary heresie For immediatly after the wordes that M. Iewel taketh for his purpose wherby is signified that our Lorde at his last Supper gaue vnto his Apostles bread and wine with his owne handes and vpon the Crosse deliuered his body to be wounded with the handes of the Souldiers this much foloweth in the same senteÌ„ce Vt in Apostolis secretius impressa syncera veritas
damnation Like as it happeth sometimes a Prince to reiecte a very pretious Iuel offered by his enemie or one that he fauoureth not not bicause the Iuel misliketh him but bicause the partie that offered it was his foe or out of his fauour And whereas M. Iewel would haue it seme absurde that the Father should be entreated with his merciful and fauourable countenance to looke vpon the holy bread of life euerlasting In Canone Missae and the cuppe of perpetual saluation and to accepte the same as he vouchesaued to accepte the giftes and Sacrifices of Abel Abraham and Melchisedech for so the Priest prayeth at the Masse and not as M. Iewel to colourable aduantage falsly reporteth it I answer that happy be we if for our behalfe he wil so accepte that our Sacrifice as he did the Sacrifices of those holy men his dere frendes Furthermore M. Iewel is not ignorant if he be so wel learned as he is thought to be that the aduerbe of simimilitude Sicuti As Sicuti doth not alwaies signifie a ful equalitie but onely a likenesse in some parte and degree As for example it doth in that prayer which Christe made vnto his Father for his chosen Iohan. 1◠Pater sancte serua eos in nomine tuo quos dedisti mihi vt sint vnum sicut nos O Holy Father keepe them in thy name whom thou hast geuen vnto me that they may be one as wee are In this Prayer Christes meaninge was not that the electe shoulde be thoroughly in substance al one as God the Father and God the Sonne be but one in charitie wil and concorde thinking al one thing and willing al one thing Theophyl in Iohan. cap. 17. as Theophilacte with other Doctours expoundeth the place And whereas the Scripture saith in the person of God speaking vnto Iosue Sicut cum Moyse fui Iosue 3. ita tecum sum As I was with Moyses euen so I am with the also It is not meant that God was with Moyses in no greater an higher degree of power and vertue then he was with Iosue For Moyses was admitted vnto a peerlesse frendship with God and endewed with more special auctoritie then euer Iosue was as the Scriptures doo euidently witnesse So doth the Churche besech the Father to looke vpō that holy bread and cuppe of life and health euerlasting that is to say the body and bloude of his Sonne Iesus Christ with a merciful and cleare countenance as he did vpō the sacrifices of Abel Abrahā and Melchisede◠not that it is mistrusted least God be lesse or not infinitely more pleased with the one Sacrifice then with the other but that humbly we thinke it shal be wel with vs if he respecte See what I say touching this Prayer of the Canon in the last Diuision beholde and allowe the ministerie and deuotion of vs as farre forth as he did the deuotion of the others Of this M. Iewel geueth me occasion to speake more in the last Diuision of this Article If M. Iewel had in his harte so much deuoute humilitie or humble deuotion as he seemeth to haue deuilish arrogancie or arrogant deuilishnesse he would neuer haue accused me or rather the Churche for vsing this humble and deuoute Prayer in the Masse which in spite he calleth my Masse being the common Seruice and Sacrifice of the whole Churche of Christ. But bicause like an vnkinde and degenerate or rather a rebellious sonne he despiseth the auctoritie of his Mother the Church I wil put him in minde of S. Ambrose that holy and learned Bisshop and excellent member of the Churche yet doubting whether he wil ought reuerence one after he hath so insolently contemned them al. Fayne would I vnderstand with what sope or lye he is hable to scoure out the spotte of so vaine wicked and foolish an opinion so contrary to that S. Ambrose writeth Who to prooue that this is the Sacrament the figure whereof went before and to shewe how great a Sacrament it is bringeth in this Prayer vsed in the Masse and wherein M. Iewel findeth so great beguyling of the simple mocking of the worlde and open wickednesse as a most strong argument His wordes be these the same very few wordes excepted that be in Canon of the Masse that so confidently he reproueth both here and also in the Sermon wherein he made the first proclamation of his vaine Chalenge Sacerdos dicit Ambrosius de sacram lib. 4. cap. 6. Ergo memores gloriosissimae eius Passionis ab inferis Resurrectionis in coelum Ascensionis offerimus tibi hanc immaculatam hostiam rationabilem hostiam incruentam hostiam hunc panem sanctum calicem vitae aeternae petimus precamur vt hanc oblationē suscipias in sublimi altari tuo per manus Angelorum tuorum sicut suscipere dignatus es munera pueri tui iusti Abel sacrificium Patriarchae nostri Abrahae quod tibi obtulit summus sacerdos Melchisedech The priest saith Therefore being myndeful of his most glorious Passion and Resurrection from hell and of his Ascension into heauen we offer vp vnto thee this vnspotted hoste this reasonable hoste this vnbloudy hoste this holy bread and cuppe of life euerlasting And we beseeche and pray thee that thou receiue this Oblation in thy Aulter on high by the handes of thy Angels as thou vouchesauedst to receiue the giftes of thy childe Iuste Abel and the sacrifice of Abraham our Patriarke and that which Melchisedech the higest Priest offered vp vnto thee Lo good Reader thus prayed S. Ambrose in his Masse nor for so doing was he euer thought to haue begyled the simple nor to haue mocked the worlde And the whole Catholique Churche hath euer so farre cleared him of al wickednesse not onely open but also priuy that he is holden for a holy Confessour vncontrolled Doctour and strong pillour of the Churche vntil M. Iewel a very begyler of the simple and mocker of the worlde in deede came to prie out in his doctrine and prayer being also the cōmon prayer of the Church a heinous wickednesse Iewel Notvvitstandinge this matter is easily ansvveared For saith he we Sacrifice not Christe againe The Oblation that Christe made vpon the Crosse and ours in the Masse is al one And this Sacrifice Christe hath commaunded vs to continew vntil his comminge If M. Harding make the selfe same Sacrifice that Christe made vpon the Crosse then is he A Priest ofter the order of Melchisedeck And so The king of Iustice The Prince of Peace and a Prieste for euer without Successour For these titles be incident to the Priesthoode of Melchisedeck vvhiche neuerthelesse I thinke M. Hardinge of his modestie vvil not acknovvledge And vvithout the same he can not offer vp to God the same Sacrifice that Christe offered vpon the Crosse. And vvhere he saithe Christe hath commaunded him and his Felowes to make and continew this Sacrifice vntil his
comminge If he had meante simply and plainely he vvould haue shevved either vvhen or vvhere or by vvhat vvordes Christe gaue him this Commaundement For so large a Commission is vvoorthy the shevving And it vvere greate boldenesse to attempte suche a mater vvithout Commission Harding Last of al commeth M. Iewel to declare the titles and dignities of Melchisedech and saith that M. Harding that is to say any Priest of the Catholique Churche can not offer vp the same Sacrifice that Christe offered vpon the Crosse bicause he is not a king of Iustice a Prince of peace and a Priest for euer without Successour For these titles saith he belong to Melchisedeks Priesthode Here I must againe warne the Reader to haue a good eye to M. Iewel and to consider first that now as oftentimes before he frameth an Obiection with his owne wordes whiche I make not and replyeth against it as if it were myne Nexte that in case I had said as he pretendeth I said neuerthelesse when we say the Priest offereth the same Sacrifice which Christe offered vpon the Crosse the substance of the Sacrifice it selfe that is the thing sacrificed which is the body and bloude of Christe is meant thereby and not the manner of sacrificing Of this M. Iewel and his felowes be not ne can not be ignorant being by the Catholiques so oftentimes tolde of it Yet euer they wil seeme not to knowe it least their common obiection against the Sacrifice of the Aulter wherewith they haue neuer done should appeare friuolous For they iarre alwaies vpon the false string of the manner of sacrificing which we touche not but auouche the same substance of the Sacrifice that was offered vp vpon the Crosse. If I had swarued so farre from truth and reason as to say that I being a Priest do offer vp to God the same Sacrifice which Christe offered vpon the Crosse and that in the same manner and to the same effecte and merite which is to vsurpe the office that is proper to Christe onely then with some reason he might haue replied as he doth that I were a Priest after the order of Melchisedech and so the king of Iustice the Prince of peace and a Priest for euer without Successour Which titles of right belong to Christe onely But now wheras I am farre froÌ„ saying yea also froÌ„ thinking any such thing he replieth with asmuch reason as if he should tel one of the Iudges of the Realme who executeth his office vnder the Prince and by CoÌ„mission froÌ„ the Prince Sir if you acquit men in EnglaÌ„d and condeÌ„ne meÌ„ to die then are you a King of England for what greater thing can a King doo then to saue and condemne men And if you be King of England then of Fraunce also and of Ireland and so defendour of the Faith for these titles belong to the king of England or who so euer els succedeth in the kingly right In this case might not that Iudge answer you againe and say M. Superintendent you may talke of your Ministers and your Ministring matters You speake ye wote not what I tel you I neither acquitte nor condemne men to die of myne owne power or auctoritie but vnder the Prince and by vertue of my Commission from the Prince And therefore you may go to schoole againe to learne your Logique better and to make a wiser Argument The case betwen Christe and those that execute the office of Priesthode vnder Christe standeth in like condition Albeit in Christe being Cod Psal. 44. and man annoinâ—ted of God him selfe with the oile of gladnesse aboue his comparteners MeÌ„ offer this Sacrifice and be Priestes after the order of Melchiseâ—dek vnder Christ as in the Psalme it is of him prophecied and being the highest Priest the foresaid conditions be most perfitely accomplished that is to say though by nature he be the King of Iustice the Prince of Peace and the most true Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech without any other to succede him Yet it is not necessary the same soueraine conditions in al pointes be required in those that be made Priestes from among men and be Priestes vnder Christe or as Eusebius speaketh Euseb. de demonstr lib. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Priestes out of him For whom it is sufficieÌ„t they be laufully chosen and ordered to be Ministers vnder Christ of his Mysteries and of his Priesthood by meane of whom and through whom Christe doth celebrate after the manner of Melchisehech the thinges that apperteine vnto the Sacrifice that is among men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 euen vnto this day as Eusebius saith Marke Reader Eusebius saith after the manner of Melchisedech expounding the meaning of the worde Order where it is said of Christe that he is a Prieste after the Order of Melchisedek Whereby we vnderstand that he was a Priest not onely after the dignitie of Melchisedek that is to say bicause he was a King of peace and of iustice without father without mother without Genealogie neither hauing beginning of daies nor ending of life but also after the rite and manner of Melchisedek whose Sacrifice was in bread and wine After whiche manner Christe did at the Supper and we doo now at the Aulter offer his body and bloud vnder the formes of bread and wine And this much that auncient and learned Doctour would to be considered Psal. 109. as the wonderful ende and performance of the Oracle pronounced of Christe Thou art a Priest for euer after the Order of Melchisedek Theophylactus bicause he coÌ„tinueth his Priesthood by the ministerie of Priestes Theophylacte expoundeth it likewise In epist. ad Heb. cap. 5. Oecumenius also hauing conceiued thereof the same sense saith He would neuer haue said In aeternum for euer hauing respect vnto the oblation that was but once offred vpon the Crosse but referring consideration vnto the Priestes Qui quotidie offertur per Dei Ministros that be at this present by whom as by meanes Christe doth sacrifice and is sacrificed who also in his Mystical Supper deliuered vnto them the manner of such Sacrifice Ibidem And the later parte of this Testimonie doth make answer in my behalfe vnto you M. Iewel burthening me with no simple and plaine dealing for that I haue not shewed when and where or by what woordes Christe gaue commaundement to make and continue this Sacrifice By OEcumenius you haue heard it tolde that Christe deliuered vnto Priestes at his last Supper the manner of this Sacrifice And if it had liked you to haue looked backe or to haue remembred what I had said in the 5. Diuision you would neuer so without cause haue reprehended me for not telling when and where and by what wordes Christe gaue commaundement to make and continue this Sacrifice For there euen in the beginning the time when the place where and the woordes by which this Sacrifice was instituded and commaunded be plainely expressed Now
not seldom named the sacrifice of praise as your selfe haue in this Diuision alleged a place out of S. Basils Masse where it is so called And that S. Dionyse meant not the Sacrifice of praise and thankes it is cleare in that he speaketh of a Sacrifice to be offered after that praises of Gods woorkes and thankes for the same be geuen How be it what so euer M. Iewel say there can be no doubte what Sacrifice S. Dionyse meant For by alleging this Scripture Doo ye this is my remembrance for his warrant he leadeth vs directly vnto the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe which he offered vp at his last Supper DiuisioÌ„ 6. as it is before proued by S. Ireneus S. Cyprian S. Chrysostome Hesychius Gregorie Nyssen and others Which Sacrifice bicause Christe him selfe both offered and taught his Apostles likewise to offer in remembrance of him for then he taught them the new Testament Iren. li. 4. cap. 32. saith S. Ireneus and deliuered them a forme how they should doo it afterwarde in consideration hereof S. Dionyse who beleued Christe to be God The Tradition of God in this very place calleth it the Tradition of God Againe for further proufe of this most honorable and heauenly Sacrifice this is to be considered in S. Dionyses Treatise That S. Dionyse meaneth the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe So long as the bishop or Priest is attent to geuing praises and thankes for the great workes of God which is also a kinde of sacrifice so long we see none excuse made of any vnworthinesse But the praises being once finished as sone as he commeth vnto the mystical Sacrifice before he dare to aduenture it he premitteth his humble sute for excuse to be obteined What should the cause be why the Bishop or Priest before the offering of the one Sacrifice maketh no excuse of his vnworthinesse and here as he entreth vnto it maketh so humble an excuse but bicause there is a great difference betwen the excellencie of the one and the other In both sacrifices Christes benefites be remembred for how can that be praised that is not remembred The difference must nedes be in the excellencie of the thing offred But what thing can be better and excellenter then the praise of God and thankes geuing but onely the body and bloud of Christ Wherefore it must needes be the body and bloude of Christe which the Bishop or Priest offered premitting so humble an excuse and appealing vnto Christes owne commaundement for his warrant This much with the circumstances of the place duely considered I doubte not but any reasonable man wil sone conceiue S. Dionyse to speake of the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe and so consequently of Christe offered and sacrificed vnto God to whom onely Sacrifice is to be made though M. Iewel be so shamelesse as to say that he hath no token nor inkling of any such Sacrifice and though in very deede the precise termes of Sacrificing Christe or the Sonne of God vnto his Father be not expressely set forth The which termes as to expresse them it was not necessary so of great discretion and wisedome this holy learned Father who liued in the Apostles time eschewed and yet he so signified the thing by other wordes as of the faithful it might be vnderstanded and from the Infidels kept secret Who if our Mysteries had bene with plaine speache made open vnto them through lacke of faith would haue had them in derision and trodden them vnder their feete as swyne doo precious stones and as Heretiques doo at this day August in Psalm 33. epistol 120. For which cause S. Augustine and S Chrysostome and al other in manner the olde learned Fathers speaking of this most reuerent Sacrifice Origen in Leuit. ca. 16. hom 9 doo vse these or the like admonitions The Sacrifice which the faithful knowe and those that haue read the Gospel Againe The which Sacrifice where and when and how it is offred thou shalt knowe At the begiÌ„ning â—ge Fathers spake secâ—etly of the Sacrifice at leÌ„gth vvhen the faith had preuailed generally thei spake more plainely Cassiodor Psal. 109. when thou art baptized c. But in the age that folowed when the faith was generally receiued ouer the worlde the learned Fathers spake more plainely of it As for example Cassiodorus that noble Senatour of Rome and learned writer who liued about the yere of our Lorde 570. in his Commentaries vpon the Psalmes expounding the place of Christes euerlasting Priesthoode in the .109 Psalme saith thus in most plaine wise To whom can this truly and euidently be applied but vnto our Lorde our Sauiour who healthfully in the gifte of bread and wine consecrated his Body aâ—d Bloude As him selfe saith in the Ghospel Except ye eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his bloude ye shal not haue life euerlasting But in this flesh and bloude let mans mynde conceiue nothing that is bloudy nothing that is corruptible least iâ— come to passe which the Apostle saith 1. Cor. 11. he that eateth the body of our Lorde vnworthily eateth to him selfe condemnation the wordes that folowe be these Sed viuificatricem substantiam at que salutarem ipsâ—us verbi propriam factam per quam peccatorum remissio vitae aeternae dona praestantur But let the mynde of man conceiue it to be the quickening the healthful substance and that which was made the worde it selfes owne proper substance by which the remission of sinnes and the giftes of euerlasting life be geuen The which order of Priesthode and Sacrifice by mystical similitude Melchisedech that most iust king did institute Gen. 14. when he offered vp vnto our Lorde the fruites of bread and wine For it is cleare that the sacrifices of beastes are quite gone away which were of the order of Aaron and that Melchisedeks order rather remaineth which in the deliuering forth of the Sacramentes is celebrated in al the worlde Which thing the obstinate Iewes doo not yet vnderstand whereas it is certaine that both their Priest and Sacrifices are taken quite away This learned Father here setteth forth plainely three thinges concerning the Sacrifice we speake of The first is that Christe at his Supper consecrated his body and bloude Pag. 19. which you M. Iewel in your Replie of the first Article doo denie The second is what flesh and what bloude it is that is so consecrated to wit vnbloudy bloude andâ— if it be lawful so to speake vnfleshy flesh and yet true shesh and true bloude euen the quickening substance that which is proper to the Worde it selfe and whereby Mankinde is redemed The thirde is that the Priesthoode after Melchisedeks order remaineth stil doubtelesse bicause as Christe presenteth him selfe continually in heauen vnto the Father for vs so by Priestes of the newe Testament his Vicars he offereth him selfe vnto the Father now also in
earth vnder the formes of bread and wine after the order of Melchisedek Which Sacrifice is now frequented ouer al the world the Iewes sacrifices being vtterly abandoned A cleare testimony agaīst those that make this only a figuratiue Sacrifice Isidorus that holy and learned Bishop of Hispalis now called Siuile in Spaine hauing declared out of the Scripture that in the time of Sacrifices in the olde Lawe the Leuites sownded their trumpets by way of comparison speaking of the Offertories soong in the Churche saith that now we likewise doo sing with deede and harte vttering forth praises to our Lorde in the time of our Sacrifice In illo vero Sacrificio cuius sanguine saluatus est mundus Isidorus de Eccles. Officijs li. 1. ca. 14 be his wordes that is to say In that true Sacrifice by the bloude whereof the worlde is saued Here he calleth it the true Sacrifice whereby M. Iewels wicked assertion of his only figuratiue Sacrifice is quite dasshed and ouerthrowen Ibidem cap. 18. Againe in an other place The Sacrifice saith he which is offered vp vnto God by the Christians Christe our Lorde and Maister did first institute it when he gaue vnto the Apostles his body and his bloude before he was betrayed as it is read in the Gospel Iesus saith the Euangelist tooke bread and the Cuppe and hauing blessed Math. 26. gaue to them The which Sacrament Melchisedech King of Salem first offered vp figuratiuely in type or token of the body and bloude of Christe and the same man first of al expressed imaginarily or in image the Mysterie of this so great a Sacrifice foreshewing the likenesse of our Lorde and Sauiour Iesus Christe the euerlasting Priest Imaginariè Psal. 109. To whom it is said Thou arte a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech This Sacrifice the Christians haue bene commaunded to celebrate the Iewish sacrifices leafte of and ended which were commaunded to be celebrated when the people of the olde Lawe were vnder seruitude And so then this thing is done of vs which our Lorde him selfe did for vs whiche he offered not in the morning but afterward for he did it in the euening By this it is cleare that Christe offered vp his body and bloude before he was betrayd that is to say at his last Supper when he gaue the same to his Apostles that he instituted and commaunded the same Sacrifice to be celebrated of vs That this is the true Sacrifice whereof Melchisedech in his sacrifice expressed the Image figure and type Whereby M. Iewels onely imaginatiue figuratiue and typical Imagination to exclude the real presence and substance of Christes Flesh and Bloude is vtterly condemned For the truth of the Real presence and of this Sacrifice he speaketh afterwarde in the same place more plainely if any thing may more plainely he spoken Exhorting maried persons to absteine certaine daies from their carnal imbracinges and to geue them selues to prayer before they come to receiue the body of Christe thus he saith Ibidem Let vs peruse the bookes of the Kinges and we shal finde that Abimelech the Priest would not geue to Dauid and his men any of the Shewbreades 1. Reg. 21. before he asked them whether they were pure from wemen not from strange wemen but from their owne wiues And except he had heard that they had absteined from the wedlocke worcke from the time of yesterday and the day before he would neuer haue graunted them the breades which before he had denyed to them Now so great difference there is betwen the Shewbreades and the body of Christe how much difference there is betwen the body and the shadow betwen the Image and the truth betwen the samplers of thinges to come and the thinges them selues which were figured by the samplers Thus Isidorus If the thing we haue in the Sacrament of the Aulter were but a signe figure or token of Christes body then would not this holy and learned Father as sundry other Fathers haue done so earnestly haue exhorted maried persons to forebeare their wedlocke-worke before the receiuing of it yea specially then would not he by comparing this with the Shewbread so much haue preferred this before that For that was also a figure of the body of Christe And if that whiche we haue be no more but a figure then was that as good as this Now Isidorus preferreth this before that as being the body it selfe whereof that was the shadow the truth whereof that was the Image the thing it selfe whereof that was a sampler Wherefore to conclude this being the true and real Body of Christe whereas Priestes offer vp and sacrifice the same as we must graunt they doo or denie the Fathers it foloweth that they offer vp and sacrifice Christe the Sonne of God vnto his Father The like and plainer sayinges for the truth of this Sacrifice if neede were might in great number sone be recited out of the other Fathers that wrote sithens the faith of Christ was generally receiued where it was preached and al superstition of Gentilitie quite abolished◠but these may suffice Now whereas S. Dionyse calleth this our Sacrifice of the Aulter In vvhat sense is the Sacrifice symbolical or figuratiue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a sacrifice symbolical or done in signes or figure we also graunt it to be symbolical for vnder the signes that are visible and familiar to our senses the heauenly Mysteries to wit the body and bloude of Christe the substance of our Sacrifice are inuisibly conteined And we say that S. Dionyse is here to be vnderstanded to speake of a signe or figure as proper to the newe and not to the olde Lawe Gregor Nazian Hom. 4. de Pasch. euen so as S. Gregorie Nazianzen meaneth by a figure when he saith Iam Pascha fiamus participes figuraliter tamen adhuc si Pascha hoc veteri sit manifestius Si quidem Pascha legale audenter dico figura figurae erat obscurior Let vs now be partakers of the Passeouer but yet figuratiuely as yet albeit this Passeouer be more manifest then the Olde was For the Passeouer of the Lawe was I am bolde thus to say a darcke figure of a figure Here is our Passeouer that is to say our Sacrament called a figure but yet much more manifest then the olde figures were for they were but figures of figures And why is our most blessed Sacrament a figure S. Gregorie euen there sheweth it to be so called in respecte of the fruition of the same whiche we shal enioye in Heauen where we shal after an heauenly manner eate and drinke it without any Fgure or coouer Such a Figure or signe doth not onely signifie but conteineth also the thing signified In consideration whereof S. Augustine putting a difference betwene the Sacramentes of the Newe and of the olde Testament saith that The Sacramentes of the Newe Testament geue Saluation August in Psal. 73. and
the Euangelist by Polycarpus S. Iohns scholar He declareth it with these wordes Eum qui ex creatura Panis est Lib. 4. cap. â—3 accepit gratias egit dicens Hoc est Corpus meum Et Calicem similiter qui est ex creatura quae est secundùm nos suum Sanguinem confessus est Noui Testamenti nouam docuit Oblationem quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens in vniuerso mundo offert Deo De quo in duodecim Prophetis Malachias sic presignificauit Malac. 1. Non est mihi voluntas in vobis dicit DOMINVS exercituum munus non suscipiam de manu vestra He tooke that which by creation is breade and gaue thankes sayinge This is my Body And likewise the Cuppe ful of that Creature whiche is here with vs and confessed it to be his Bloude and thus taught the newe Oblation of the Nwe Testamente whiche the Churche receiuinge of the Apostles dooth offer to God through the whole worlde whereof Malachie one of the twelue Prophetes did prophecie thus I haue no likinge in you saith our Lord almightie neither wil I take Sacrifice of your handes bicause from the risinge of the Sunne to the going downe of the same my name is glorified amonge the Nations and Incense is offered to my name in euery place and pure Sacrifice for that my name is greate amonge Nations What can be vnderstanded by this newe Oblation of the Newe Testamente other then the Oblation of that which he saide to be his Body and confessed to be his Bloude And if he had offered Breade and Wine onely or the Figure of his Body and Bloude in Bread and Wine it had beene no Newe Oblation for suche had beene made by Melchisedech longe before Neither can the Prophecie of Malachie be vnderstanded of the Oblation of Christe vppon the Crosse forasmuche as that was doone but at one time onely and in one certaine place of the worlde in Golgoltha a place without the gates of Hierusalem neare to the walles of that Citie Concerninge the Sacrifice of a contrite and an humbled harte and al other Sacrifices of our deuotion that be mere Spiritual they can not be called the Newe Oblation of the newe Testament forasmuche as they were doone as wel in the Olde Testamente as in the Newe neither be they altogeather pure Wherefore this place of Ireneus and also the Prophecie of Malachie wherewith it is confirmed must needes be referred to the Sacrifice and Oblation of the Bodie and Bloude of Christe daily throughout the whole worlde offered to God in the Masse which is the external Sacrifice of the Churche and proper to the Newe Testament which as Ireneus saith the Churche receiued of the Apostles and the Apostles of Christe Iewel Here at laste M. Harding hath founde out the name of a Sacrifice that vvas not denied him But the Sacrifice that he hath so long sought for and hath so assuredly promised to finde hitherto he hath not founde For Ireneus not once nameth neither the Masse nor this Real Oblation of the Sonne of God vnto his Father Malac. 1. Thus onely he saith God hath vtterly misliked Martialis ad Burdegalenses and refused the olde Carnal Sacrifices of the Iewes and hath taught vs to offer vp the New Sacrifice of the new Testamente according to the Prophecie of Malachie This Sacrifice M. Harding imagineth Tertul. contra Iudaeos can be none other but the offering vp of Christ in the Masse These Conclusions be very suddaine The Olde learned Fathers could neuer vnderstande so much One of M. Hardings ovvne Nevve founde Doctours Tertul. contra Marcio lib. 4. Martialis saith thus Oblatio munda non tantùm in Ara Sanctificata offertur sed etiam vbique The pure Sacrjfice which Malachie meaneth is offered not only vppon the Holy Aultare or Communion Table but also euery where M. Harding saith Hieron in 1. cap. Malach It is offered onely vppon the Aulter Martialis saith It is offered euerywhere and not onely vpon the Aultare Certainely if Malachie meante the Sacrifice that may be offered in al places Hieron in Zacha. li. 2. cap. 8. and vvithout an Aultare as Martialis saith then he meante not the Sacrifice of the Masse Tertullian saith That the Prophete Malachie by that pure Sacrifice meant the Preaching of the Gospel the offering vp of a Contrite Harte Aug. contra aduer Legis Prophet cap. 20. and praier proceeding from a pure Conscience S. Hierom likevvise expoundeth the same of the Sacrifice of Praier and openeth it by these VVordes of the Prophete Dauid Let my Praier be directed as incense before thy sight S. Augustine calleth the same Sacrificium Laudis Gratiarum actionis The Sacrifice of Praise Contra Liter Petilian lib. 2. cap. 86. and of Thankesgeuinge Harding What truth thou arte like to find in M. Iewels Reply to the rest of this Diuision thou maist sone coÌ„ceiue Reader seing he maketh his entrie with so shamelesse and so open a lye Here at the last saith he M. Harding hath found the name of Sacrifice And but here at the laste good Sir As though expresse mention of Sacrifice were not conteined in sundry testimonies before alleged Where be your eyes Nay where is your fidelitie Where is your sinceritie Where is your honestie Where is your shamefastnesse Doth not S. Dionyse in the last Diuision before this name the Sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hesych li. 1. cap. 4. that is aboue his worthynesse Doth not Hesychius say that Christe at his Supper sacrificed him selfe Doth not Eusebius reporte vnto you the dreadful Sacrifices of Christes Table I leaue the reste Diony Ecclesiast Hierarch c. 1. p. 3. For shame M. Iewel if you haue no way to escape the iust request of your promised Subscription but by lying yet haue some regarde of your estimation that the very simplest of the worlde espye not out your so grosse lying And now touching the chiefe point of this Diuision what thinke you to auoide the strength of S. Irenaeus testimonie for the Sacrifice bicause he nameth not the Masse expressely nor the real Oblation of the Sonne of God vnto his Fatherâ— Why Sir then wil you not staÌ„d to the mater but cowardly flie away and lurke in termes How be it the real Oblation of the Sonne of God vnto his Father if you wil needes put the trust of your cause in termes if you remember be not the wordes of your owne Chalenge If this Argument be good that here you make S. Irenaeus not once nameth the Masse nor real Oblation of the Sonne of God vnto his Father Ergo by him the Sacrifice of the Churche can not be auouched why may not this also be as good Not one of the foure Euangelistes saith expressely that Christe offered or sacrificed him selfe vpon the Crosse nor once nameth that Sacrifice of Christe Ergo Christe was not sacrificed for vs vpon the Crosse If this Argument
wil say perhaps I graunt this much albe it S. Irenaeus referreth this change not to the sacrifices but to the offerers bicause the olde people of the Synagog were bonde men and we of the Churche are free men But let it be as you would haue it Who vnderstandeth not the kinde of sacrifices to be changed for that they killed brute beastes according to Moyses Lawe and we kyl them not as not being vnder that Lawe But what Wil you of this conclude that they offered not vp vnto God the Sacrifices of a contrite harte of prayers of praise and thankesgeuing and such other spiritual sacrifices bicause they offred vp beastes and bicause we now offer these I trowe by that time you haue bethought your selfe you wil not stande in it For be not the Psalmes and the sermons of the Prophetes ful of exhortations to this ende that these spiritual oblations should be made aâ—d the like thinges done that God accepteth for swete smelling sacrifices Would they so haue exhorted the people except these thinges ought to haue ben done And whereas they were to be done wil you say there were none that did them wil you say the holy kinges and Prophetes had not coÌ„trite hartes prayed not nor praised ne thanked God I suppose you wil not say it To what purpose then pyked you out the former saying of S. Irenaeus What maketh it for you what maketh it against vs No more furthereth that your cause which without opening and circumstance you allege out of Angelomus and S. Chrysostome How much better had you done if confessing the truth you had leafte out these obscure and impertinent places and had rehersed vnto your Reader certaine other most plaine sayinges out of S. Irenaeus whereof this is one written in the same chapter out of which you piked the peeces that here you haue patched together Quomodo constabit eis c. How shal they be assuredly certified saith this blessed Martyr that bread whereon thankes be geuen Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34. to be the body of their Lorde and that Cuppe to be the Cuppe of his bloude if they wil not say he is the Sonne of the Creatour of the worlde that is to say his Worde whereby the Vine bringeth forth fruite founteines of wine do runne and which for bread to be had geueth first grasse afterward an eare and then at length ful wheate in the eare Againe how say they that the flesh commeth into corruption and receiueth not life which is fedde of the body and bloude of our Lorde Therefore either let them change their opinion or ceasse from offering vp the thinges that are before said An other like saying there auouching our doctrine is this The Eucharist coÌ„sisteth of tvvo thinges As the bread that is of the earth receiuing the calling vpon of God is not now common bread but the Euchariste consisting of two thinges earthly and heauenly So our bodies receiuing the Euchariste be not now corruptible but haue hope of the Resurrection How plaine and cleare testimonie haue we in these sayinges for the truth and Real presence of our Lordes body and bloude in the blessed Sacrament for the Oblation of the same for the most soueraine effecte that thereby is wrought in our bodies nourrished and fedde therewith At these M. Iewel you closed vp your eyes bicause they confounde the pride and wicked folie of your Chalenge other woordes and patches of sentences you pryed and hunted after by which you might seme to auoid the cleare authoritie in this Diuision alleged against you out of S. Irenaeus yet when you haue al said and shifted your Replie is founde to weake and insufficient Bicause you feele your selfe much pressed and as it were borne downe with the weight of this plaine testimonie of S. Irenaeus Christe hauing confessed of the bread that is was his body and of the cuppe that it was his bloud taught his Apostles the new oblation of the newe Testament faine would you finde some way how to ease your selfe of it and therefore haue you looked ouer as it semeth al your Notebookes and searched the Doctours farre and neare to happen vpon some for your relief but none can you finde And here you shewe your selfe to be graueled with these plaine wordes This sentence of S. Ireneus graueleth M. Ievvel Noui Testamenti nouaÌ„ docuit oblationem Christe taught the newe oblation of the new Testament To auoide this newe oblation that so much combreth you you haue deuised a new policie which would serue you for some shewe and colour were it not altogether stuffe of your owne counterfeyting and forging What is that Beholde Reader and consider of it diligently Thus saith M. Iewel It is called a newe Sacrifice saith Chrysostome now folow the wordes pretended to be S. Chrysostomes in the distinct letter that he putteth the Doctours sayinges in bicause it proceedeth from a new minde and is offered not by fiere and smoke but by Grace and by the Spirite of God But where saith S. Chrysostome this much You haue put it in the letter of the Fathers sayinges tel vs where we may finde the cause thus declared why this oblation of the newe Testament is called Newe By your cotation in the margent you send vs vnto Chrysost. contra Iudaeos lib. 3. but there we finde no such thing at al. Neither be they Bookes but Orations that he wrote against the Iewes and so Erasmus who translated that worke calleth them Mary in the second Oration we haue trakte you M Ievveâ— fouly abuseth S. Chrysost. and founde out the place that you abuse abuse I say for it maketh wholly against you There S. Chrysostom to proue vnto the Iewe to whom he speaketh that both their Lawe and ther Sacrifice is ended and abolished and that an other Sacrifice is come in place of theirs which is pure and is to be offered vp through al the worlde allegeth the prophecie of Malachie from the rising of the Sunne to the going downe Malach. 1. c. a pure Sacrifice shal be offered vnto my name Vpon this prophecie he stayth him selfe and declareth at large how it ought to be vnderstanded and how the Prophete may not seme to be repugnant to Moyses who appointeth the Sacrifice of the Iewes vnto one onely place and how and for what respecte the Sacrifice that Malachie speaketh of is pure whiche S. Chrysostome calleth Sacrificium nostrum our Sacrifice Among other many wordes spoken in praise of this our pure Sacrifice Vvhi our sacrifice iâ— of Malachie called the Pure Sacrifice after the minde of S. Chrysostome thus he saith there If one conferre this Sacrifice with theirs he shal finde an exceding great difference so that according to the proportion of comparison this alone may deserue to be called pure And looke what S. Paule said of the Lawe and Grace that that was not glorified at al which was glorified in comparison of the high Glorie the same here also
iustly we may say 2. Cor. 3. to wit that this Sacrifice compared with that of the Lawe ought alone to be called pure Then folowe the wordes which M. Iewel hath by falsifying and fowle corruption abused to his purpose Non enim per fumum ac nidorem non per sanguinem ac redemptionis precia sed per spiritus gratiam offertur For it is not offered by smoke and gresy sauour Chrysosto oratioee 2 contra Iudaos not by bloude and prices of redemption but by grace of the spirite With these wordes he rendreth the cause why the Sacrifice of the Churche is of Malachie called pure and not why it is called Newe ChrysostoÌ„ misreported by M. Ievvel as M. Iewel hath peruerted the sentence Compare good Reader this Repliers wordes with S. Chrysostomes wordes and thou shalt espye what a corrupter and falsifier he is of the Doctours Wherefore seing he can finde no helpe at S. Chrysostomes handes whom here he hath much iniured and misreported nor at the handes of any other Doctor nor can shewe vs what Sacrifice that is which S. Ireneus calleth the newe Sacrifice or newe Oblation of the newe Testament that Christ taught when he said of the bread and Cuppe this is my body this is my bloude but the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe with right he may be required to subscribe and yeelde Which wil be best for him to doo least the time come when not yeelding he shal be taken prysoner and for his heresie and impenitent harte be caste into the owtward darkenes Matt. 22. where shal be weeping and gnasshing of teeth Bicause M. Iewel harpeth so much vpon the prophecie of Malachie and putteth the confidence of his cause therein and hath taken his aduantage of S. Chrysostome by falsifying his wordes let vs see how litle cause he had so to doo and how muche S. Chrysostome being truly alleged proueth in that very place which M. Iewel bringeth treating of Malachie the Catholique assertion Whereas Moyses forbad sacrifice to be made in any other place Deut. 16. but in that place whiche our Lorde had chosen and Malachie saith that the pure Sacrifice is to be offered vp in euery place from the East to the West that these two should not seme to be repugnant S. Chrysostome saith that Moyses spake of one Sacrifice and Malachie prophecied of an other To prooue this he asketh this question Vnde hoc declaratur Whereby is this declared There for declaration and proufe hereof among other thinges he bringeth the argument of the place For saith he Malachie foretolde that this worship should be celebrated not in one Citie as the Iewish sacrifice was but from the rysing of the Sunne to the going downe Then folowe these woordes CoÌ„clusioÌ„s gathered out of S Chrysost. against M. Ievv Praeterea ex Sacrificij modo siquidem puram illam appellans declarauit de qua loqueretur Furthermore this is declared by the manner of the Sacrifice for in that he calleth that oblation or worship pure he hath declared of what oblation or worship he spake This much S. Chrysostome there Hereof and of that S. Chrysostome saith in that place these Conclusions may be gathered against M. Iewel The First Concusion Malachie in S. Chrysostomes iudgement speaketh of suche a Sacrifice as for commendation whereof he might seme repugnant to Moyses But in respecte of those which are mere spiritual Sacrifices of which onely M. Iewel wil Malachie to be expounded as of a contrite harte of prayer of praise and thankesgeuing Malachie can not seme repugnant to Moyses bicause Moyses neuer forbad them Ergo the Sacrifice that Malachie speaketh of is not to be vnderstanded of mere spiritual sacrifices The .2 Conclusion Malachies prophecie is of such a Sacrifice after the mynde of S. Chrysostome as the celebration whereof should abandon and quite put away the Priesthoode and Sacrifices of the Iewes But the mere spiritual Sacrifices of our deuotion whereto only M. Iewel draweth the prophecie of Malachie haue not that power and effecte For they continued with their Sacrifices as they do with ours Ergo Malachie is not to be vnderstanded of the mere spiritual Sacrifices The .3 Conclusion S. Chrysostome speaking of â—â—e Sacrifice mentioned by Malachie vseth these wordes Praedixit hanc culturam celebrandam he fortolde that this worship should be celebrated not in one citie c. But of any of the mere spiritual sacrifices of our deuotion no learned Father euer said that it is a worship to be celebrated nor are these termes coÌ„uenient for them or for any of them for they are not properly to speake a worship by vs to be celebrated but thereby and therewith we doo celebrate and worship God Ergo Malachie by S. Chrysostomes doctrine speaketh not specially of the mere spiritual sacrifices of mannes harte but of an other Sacrifice outwardly celebrated The .4 Conclusion The Sacrifice that Malachie prophecied of S. Chrysostom saith it is such as is declared what it is by the manner of it But a thing can not be declared what it is by the manner onlesse the manner be external and sensible so as it may be perceiued by sense and the mere spiritual sacrifices of mans inward deuotion be not such Ergo Malachie meant not of them but of an other Sacrifice The .5 Conclusion Malachie by the exposition of S. Chrysostome speaketh of that Sacrifice which properly is Nostrum that is to say ours belonging to vs that be of the newe Testament But the Sacrifice of a contrite harte of Praiers Praise and thankesgeuing be theirs of the olde Testament as wel as ours Ergo of that kinde of Sacrifice he spake not That I make an ende of Conclusions the sixth and last Conclusion may be this By interpretation of S. Chrysostome the Sacrifice that Malachie prophecied of is pure in the most excellent degree of purenesse But the spiritual Sacrifices proceeding from the harte of man be not pure in the highest degree of purenesse Ergo it is an other kinde of Sacrifice which Malachie foretolde So then it is M. Ievvel reasonably required to yeelde if M. Iewel can not declare and clearely prooue vnto vs that Malachie prophecying of a mere spiritual Sacrifice of mans deuotion might reasonably seme to S. Chrysostom to be repugnant to Moyses that such a sacrifice should abolish the Iewes sacrifices that it is called a worship to be celebrated by vs that it is declared what it is by the external manner of it that in proper and right speache it ought to be called our Sacrifice or the Sacrifice of the newe Testament and to conclude that it is most singularly and most excellently pure if I say he can not make good these pointesâ— as to euery man of meane iudgement and learning most certaine it is he can not iudge discrete Reader how good reason we haue to require him to yeelde and to deceiue the worlde no more by alleging the authoritie of
Christe is wrought in the Mysteries Hieron in Psalm 97 So saith Beda Exaltatio Serpentis Aenei Passio Redemptoris nostri in Cruce The lifting vp of the Brasen Serpent is the Passion of our Redeemer vpon the Crosse. Ambro. dâ— Virginib So saith S. Hierome Quotidiè nobis Christus Crucifigitur August Quaest. Eâ—uaÌ„ge lib. 2. Vnto vs Christe is daily Crucified So S. Ambrose Christus quotidiè immolatur Christe is daily sacrificed So S. Augustine Tunc vnicuique Christus occiditur cùm credit occisum Then is Christe slaine to euery man Hieron ad Damas. when he beleeueth that Christe was slaine To conclude so S. Hierome â—aith Semper Christus credentibus immolatur Vnto the faithfâ—l Christe is euermore sacrificed Thus may the Sacrifice of the Holy Communion be called Christe to vvitte euen so as the ministration of the same is called the Passion or the Death of Christe Harding The first sentence of your Replie in this Diuision M. Iewel consisteth of .4 particles and eche of them is an impudent lye By the spiteful woordes you vtter against the most holy Masse you shewe vs with what stampe you are coined As for S. Cyprian neither doth he in this place condemne the Churche for ministring the Communion vnder one kinde nor for hauing the publike Churche seruice in the Latine tongue Which in these Westerne partes of Christendome is not as you cal it a strange vnknowen tongue but contrarywise a tongue among al other best knowen in general and common to al nations of the West Touching the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe so clearely by S. Cyprian here auouched that so it is you woulde neuer haue denyed had not you put the whole confidence of your cause in lying and denying most euident truthes And now therefore I must prooue against such a cauiller and wrangler as you are M. Ievvel standeth altogether vpoÌ„ certaine precise termes that there is light where the Sunne shyneth And here once againe you thinke to finde a lurking corner in your precise termes of the real sacrificing of Christe vnto his Father as though I prooued not that which in this Article you denie except the truth be affirmed in the same forme of wordes which your selfe haue deuised If you had good mater I trow you would not thus stand only vpon termes But let vs pul you out of your lurking corner An euideÌ„t place of S. CypriaÌ„ for the Sacrifice of the Aulter Cyprian lib. 2. epistol 3. as it were out of Cacus Denne and bring you abroade into the light Answer me Sir Wil it not appeare by this place of S. Cyprian that Christe offered him selfe vnto his Father at his laste Supper Be not these his very wordes Iesus Christe our Lorde and God first offered a Sacrifice to God the Father and commaunded the same to be done in his Remembraunce What Sacrifice was this It was not the Sacrifice of the Crosse pardy For that very same Sacrifice was not commaunded to be made againe it was once made for euer by Christe him selfe What can you name but the vnbloudy Sacrifice of his body and bloude For if you name vs the mere spiritual sacrifices of deuotion as Prayer Praise Thankesgeuing or any such other the like you must remember Christe did not first of al sacrifice the same For the Patriarkes and Prophetes did so long before Christe was incarnate What is it then S. Cyprian telleth it him selfe expressely saying Christe is the Sacrifice In Sacrificio quod Christus est He speaketh of such a Sacrifice in which the Priest occupieth the roome and doth the office of Christ truly and in doing whiche the Prieste by imitation doth the same thing that Christe did Then what did Christe and where did he that the Prieste is commaunded to folowe What neede I to stande vppon it Who knoweth not Cyprian ad CeciliuÌ„â— whereof S. Cyprian treateth in that Epistle to Caecilius and what Christe did at his Supper He tooke bread Math. 26 and then the Cuppe he gaue thankes blessed Luc. 22. and consecrated his body and bloud sayinge this is my Body 1. Cor. 11. Cyprian lib. 2. epistol 3. this is my Bloud and so offered vp as S. Cyprian saith the same thing which Melchisedech had offered that is to sayâ— bread and wine to wit his owne body and bloude Which Body and Bloude bicause both natures be inseparably vnited together in one person he calleth also by the name of Christe In Sacrificio quod Christus est in the Sacrifice which Christ is for here Christus is the nominatiue case to the verbe est Whereas then Christe offered Christe to his Father at his Supper and coÌ„maunded Priestes to doo the same in Remembrance of him vntil he come that being in euery respecte lawful which he commaundeth it foloweth that Priestes haue authoritie to offer vp Christe who is the Sonne of God vnto his Father which is the pointe of this Article that M. Iewel denieth And thus is the real sacrificing of Christe vnto his Father prooued by S. Cyprian real I say not in respecte of the manner of sacrificinge that was vppon the Crosse but of the Body and Bloude really present and being the real substance of this commemoratiue Sacrifice Here I needed not to procede further in this Diuision my Answer to the Chalenge being so sufficiently iustified touching the vnbloudy Sacrifice and this being prooued by S. Cyprians testimonie as it was prooued before by testimonie of S. Irenaeus that it is not onely lawful but also dutiful for Priestes to offer vp Christe vnto his Father Yet bicause M. Iewel who from the beginning neuer intended to yeelde how plaine mater so euer were prooued against him commeth now in with his Phrases hauing no plaine and directe authoritie whereby to prooue his negatiue doctrine Let vs see what pith his obscure phrases and tropical speaches do conteine Where as S. Cyprian saith plainely Christe is the Sacrifice meaning the substance of the Sacrifice celebrated at the Supper and now at the Aulter he willeth me to remember August in Ioan. tractat 26. that S. Augustine saith Petra erat Christus the Rocke was Christe For that he putteth vnto S. Augustine this worde illis interpreting it of the Iewes it is his owne addition S. Augustine hath it not But what concludeth he of this Not onely S. Augustine but S. Cyprian also in this very Epistle and first of al S. Paule saith 1. Cor. 1â— the Rocke was Christe I say to M. Iewel eftsones it may please him to remember that S. Augustine expoundeth him selfe immediatly in the next sentence saying Petra Christus in signo The Rocke vvas Christe The Rocke was Christe in a signe that is to say the Rocke was not Christe in substance and in deede but signified Christe If he intende thus to conclude as the Replie semeth to reporte As the Rocke was Christe so Christe is the Sacrifice but the
Rocke was not Christe in deede Ergo Neither Christe is the Sacrifice If he make this Argument I denie his Maior or first Proposition For the Rocke was Christe in signe onely but Christes body and bloud Really made present by the almighty power of the Worde is in deede the substance of the commemoratiue Sacrifice Wherefore no likenesse touching the Phrase being betwen these two Propositions the Rocke was Christe and Christe is the Sacrifice the one can not rightly be applyed to ouerthrowe the other And whereas M. Iewel maketh his colourable aduantage by making Sacrifice the nominatiue case to the verbe in this saing of S. Cyprian In Sacrificio quod Christus est he is to be tolde that he misconstrueth it and that false coÌ„structioÌ„ maketh no proufe For S. Cyprian saith not the Sacrifice is Christ which also is true and that taketh M. Iewel for his purpose but Christe is the Sacrifice In coÌ„sideratioÌ„ wherof the figuratiue saying and the Phrase of the Rock and the great number of his other phrases serueth not his turne That the Sacrifice after the order of Melchisedech was not onely vpon the Crosse but also at the Supper Vpon this false constructioÌ„ of S. Cyprians saying how so euer he procedeth speaking coÌ„fusely of the sacrifice which is after the order of Melchisedek and of the propitiation for the synnes of the worlde this I acknowledge that onely Iesus Christe the Sonne of God is the propitiatorie Sacrifice for the synnes of the worlde and that such a Sacrifice in most perfit wise he was vpoÌ„ the Crosse yea also after th' order of Melchisedek wher as Melchisedek offred bread and wine so he offered vp his body and bloud Hieronym in Psalm 109. the true bread and the true wine as s. Ierom saith For al though he expressed the shadowes of al Aarons sacrifices vpon the Crosse yet ther he was a Priest after the order of Melchisedek For so S. Paule in th'Epistle to the Hebrues sheweth by the dissimilitude of both Priesthods But that he was a sacrifice after th' order of Melchisedek only when he hoong vpoÌ„ the Crosse that I denie For he was a Priest and also a sacrifice after th' order of Melchisedek at his last supper at what time offring vp his body and bloud vnder the formes of bread and wine he began to execute th' office of the Priesthod after th' order of Melchisedek and taught his Disciples the way Theophyl in Matth. cap. 28. how after his death to make the same oblatioÌ„ Vpon which coÌ„sideratioÌ„ Theophylact as it is before rehersed saith Tunc iÌ„molauit seipsuÌ„ ex quo tradidiâ— Discipulis corpus suuÌ„ he sacrificed him selfe at the time he deliuered his body to his Disciples And S. Austine more plainly August de ciuit Dei lib. 17. capit 20. expounding this place of Ecclesiastes Non est bonuÌ„ homini nisi quod maÌ„ducabit et bibet wher he saith thus Quid credibilius etc. What is more credible we should thinke SalomoÌ„ meant by those wordes then that perteineth to the participatioÌ„ of this table which Christ him selfe a Priest and mediator of the new TestameÌ„t doth exhibit after the order of Melchisedek of his body and bloud For that sacrifice did succede al other sacrifices of the olde Testament which were offred in the shadow of this to come A litle before in the same chapter speaking of the Table which Christe prepared with bread and wine he geueth an euideÌ„t testimonie for the Sacrifice and Priesthod after th' order of Melchisedek where he saith thus Vbi apparet etiaÌ„ fâ—cerdotiuÌ„ secunduÌ„ ordineÌ„ Melchisedech that is to say where also appeareth the priesthod after the order of Melchisedek By this authoritie it is cleare that Christ at the table wher the blessed SacrameÌ„t was first instituted and is now daily celebrated in memorie of his Passion doth exhibite that which is a sacrifice after the order of Melchisedech which can be nothing els but the Sacrifice of his body and bloude vnder the formes of bread and wine That Christ merited the forgeuenes and propitiatioÌ„ of the sinnes of the world vpoÌ„ the Crosse only that I gladly graunt As for the Sacrifice and Priesthode after the order of Melchisedech S. Augustine in an other place saith August in Psalm 33. concion 2. that Christe at his Supper instituted a Sacrifice of his body and bloude according to the order of Melchisedech De corpore et saÌ„guine suo of his body and bloud saith he signifying his body and bloud to be the mater of the Sacrifice Lo here againe it is plainely auouched that Christe instituted a Sacrifice after the order of Melchisedech before he was nayled vpon the Crosse yea the Sacrifice of his body and bloude For to the time of the Supper this is to be referred when both he taught them how and commaunded them to sacrifice Of this Sacrifice S. Augustine in the sermon there nexte before geueth vs a manifest testimonie where he saith Nondum erat Sacrificium corporis sanguinis Domini quod fideles norunt Ibidem in Psal. 33. CoÌ„cion 1. qui Euangelium legerunt quod sacrificium nunc diffusum est toto orbe terrarum The Sacrifice of the body and bloude of our Lorde was not yet in place he speaketh of the time when beastes were sacrificed which the faithful do knowe and they that haue reade the Gospel Which Sacrifice is now spreade abroade in al the worlde Let M. Iewel tel vs what iâ— this Sacrifice of the body and bloude of our Lorde that is diffused and spread ouer al the worlde besides that is celebrated in the Masse and then we wil say he saith somewhat to his purpose NOw M. Iewel departeth from our special point which is as it is auouched by S. Ireneus S. Cyprian and others that Christe offered his body and bloude vnto God at his Supper and commaunded the same sacrifice to be offered by Priestes of the newe Testament in remembrance of his death and commeth to proue that whereof no question was moued That the Ministration of the holy Mysteries in a phrase and manner of speach is the same Sacrifice How be it what he meaneth by his ministerlike termes wel I wote not He sheweth him selfe inconstant in the vse of them In this one Diuision he calleth it first The ministration of the holy Mysteries Nexte the Ministration of the holy Communion Thirdly the Sacrifice of the holy Communion For the same he allegeth a certaine saying as he telleth vs out of S. Augustine vpon the .20 Psalme where he hath no such saying at al. The place he meaneth is in Gratian. Where it speaketh not of M. Iewels Ministration of the holy Mysteries which I trow in his meaning is the Ministration of bread and wine at the Geuenian Communion for what other holy Mysteries they haue I knowe not nor of the Sacrifice that is daily celebrated in the Churche but of the solemnitie which once in
by a figuratiue speache onely as it is said the rocke was Christe For though the Fathers vse sometimes figuratine speaches yet thereof it foloweth not that S. Cyprian in this place of his Epistle to Cecilius spake figuratiuely in saying that Christe is the Sacrifice That he spake truly and meant according to the proprietie of the speach it is cleare by his owne wordes in the same Epistle For els hauing mencioned the Sacrifice of Melchisedech which consisted of bread and wine he would neuer haue said these wordes Quam rem perficiens adimplens Dominus panem calicem mixtum vino obtulit Cypria ad Cecil lib. 2. epâ—â—stola 3. qui est plenitudo veritatem praefiguratae Imaginis adimpleuit Our Lorde offered bread and cuppe mixte with wine perfiting and fulfilling the thing that Melchisedech did Christe his suppâ—â— fulfilled the figuâ—â— of Melchisedeâ—â— and he that is the fulnes fulfilled the truth of the forefigured Image Now if Christe at his Supper for thereof S. Cyprian speaketh offered not a true Sacrifice of his body and bloude in deede and therefore a true and real Sacrifice vnder the formes of bread and wine but onely a signe and figure or an Image representing his body and bloude How then was he the fulnesse How did he fulfil the truth of the forefigured Image For if al were but a signe and token Fulnes 〈◊〉 perfourmance memorie or representation that he offered then was not he the fulnesse neither fulfilled the truth For signes if they be onely signes be empty and void of the truth neither is fulnesse but where the very thinges be present And by such interpretation S. Cyprian should make the Sacrifice of Christe at his Supper no better then that of Melchisedech was and which is absurde the truth of a forefigured image should be but a figure and fulnesse should be voide of the thing fulfilled How be it to proue the Sacrifice by witnesse of S. Cyprian I stayed not my selfe vpon these wordes In Sacrificio quod Christus est M. Ievvel aÌ„svvereth as he thinketh good to a word or tvvo aÌ„d leaueth the chiefe substance vnaÌ„svvered specially but vpon the large processe of that whole Epistle Whereof I tooke what seemed to make good proufe of that I entended And I pray you Sir why answer you not to the other manifest wordes What Sacrifice is that which as S. Cyprian saith Christe first of al offered vp vnto his Father and coÌ„maunded the same to be offered in his remembrance What Sacrifice is that in doing whereof the Priest doth the office of Christe truly What Sacrifice is that in offring vp whereof the Priest doth by imitation the same thing that Christe did What is that true and perfite Sacrifice that he offreth vp to God if he beginne to offer right so as he seeth Christe him selfe to haue offered If you could haue named vs any other besides the Satrifice of the body and bloud of Christe is it to be thought you would haue conceeled it to so great hinderance of your cause That whereby your Chalenge is fully answered and the Catholique Doctrine plainely auouched you ouerhippe and dissemble and vppon a peece of a sentence by your selfe falsified and by your wrong translation wreathed from S. Cyprians meaning you bestowe many woordes and muche of your common stuffe which consisteth of your Phrases pyked out of your Notebookes and here without trueth or iudgement shuffled together Iewel And that the vveaknes of M. Hardinges gheasses may the better appeare vnderstande thou good Christian Reader that the Holy Catholique Fathers haue vsed to say that Christe is Sacrificed not only in the Holy Supper but also in the Sacrament of Baptisme S. Augustine saithe August expositioÌ„ inchoatâ— ad Rom. Holocaustum Dominicae Passionis eo tempore pro se quisque offert qno eiusdem Passionis Fide dedicatur The Sacrifice of our Lordes Passion euery man then offereth for him selfe when he is Confirmed in the Faithe of his Passion And againe Holocaustum Domini tunc pro vnoquoque offertur quodammodo In eod cùm eius nomine Baptizando signatur Then is the Sacrifice of our Lorde In a Manner offered for eche man In eod when in Baptisme he is marked with the name of Christe And againe Non relinquitur Sacrificium pro peccatis Chrysost in epist. a Hebraeos hom 16 Ambros. de poeniâ— li. 2. ca. 2 id est non potest denuo Baptizari There is leafte no Sacrifice for Sinne that is to say He can be no more Baptized And in this consideration Chrysostome saithe Baptisma Christi Sanguis Christi est Christes Baptisme is Chtistes Bloude And likevvise S. Ambrose In Baptismo Crucifigimus in nobis Filium Dei In Baptisme wee Crucifie in our selues the Sonne of God Harding Concerning the Sacrifice made in Baptisme August iâ— expositioÌ„e inchoatae in epistol ad Rom. whereof you tel vs out of the Auncient Fathers That euery one at that time for his synnes offereth vp the Burnt sacrifice of our Lordes Passion when in the faith of the same Passion he is dedicated as S. Augustine saith and that in Baptisme we crucifie in vs the Sonne of God as S. Ambrose saith Ambros. de poenit li. 2. ca. 2. by their owne woordes they teache vs to vnderstande this spiritually and not as the woordes sounde in proper speache For S. Augustine in that place qualifieth the manner of his vtterance and calleth his reader backe from absurde imagination by this woorde quodammodo Quodammodo asmuch to say in a manner And S. Ambrose likewise saith not simply that in Baptisme we crucifie Christe but that we crucifie him in vs. Crucifigimus in nobis Filium Dei We crucifie in vs the Sonne of God saith he Whereby they meane that in Baptisme we put on Christe that to sinne we die with Christe and are buried with him into death and are made conformable to the similitude of his death and that the effecte vertue and benefite of his Passion by Baptisme is applyed vnto vs. And bicause as Moyses sprinckled with bloude the booke of the Olde Testament Leuit. 4. the Tabernacle Hebr. 9. and the Vessels of Ministerie right so Christe with his owne Bloude cleanseth our myndes which be the bookes of the Newe Testament by interpretation of S. Chrysostome Chrysosto in epist. ad Hebraeos Homi. 16. and with the same bloude sprinckleth vs who are his Tabernacle for him to dwel in and to walke in as he saith him selfe and his Vessels to serue him in holy Ministeries which great benefite is chiefly deriued vnto vs in Baptisme In consideration hereof forasmuch as vpon the Crosse onely his pretious bloud ranne out of his body and then was he in him selfe sacrificed these Fathers feared not to say * Ambros. the one that in Baptisme we crucifie in vs the Sonne of God * August the other that when we are baptized we offer
Nettes neither forsake the great House that is to say the Churche for their sakes who be Vessels made to dishonour Now in case ye also by like rule wil say that they at whose handes the Catholique Churche suffereth suche thinges be not of your side then trie your owne mynde amend your errour imbrace vnitie of sprite in the band of peace Iewel Certainely the holy Fathers and Martyrs of God vvil say unto you VVee knovve not your Priuate Masses vvee knovve not your Halfe Communion vvee knovv not your Strange Vnknovven Praiers vvee knovve not your Adoration of Gorruptible Creatures vve knovve not this Sacrificing of the Sonne of God vvee knovve not your Nevve Religion vvee knovve not you God open the eyes of your Hartes that ye may see the miserable state ye stande in and recouer the place that ye haue loste and finde your Names vvritten in the Booke of Life Harding In the ende of this Diuision by a Rhetorical fiction you make the holy Fathers The holy lerned Fathers tale to M. Ievv and hi◠Cōpanion◠and Martyrs of God to say vnto vs as your blasphmous harte doth phontasie But as we feare not that any suche thing by them shal be tolde vs so were they now lyuing doubtelesse thus would they saye vnto you and them of your sectes as neuerthelesse in their bookes and learned workes they also doo now in effecte say vnto you daily We knowe not your strange state that is without external Sacrifice and Priesthod and consequently without a Lawe We knowe not your eating of common bread and drinking of common wine at your newe founde Suppers in steede of receiuing the true body and bloude of Christe We knowe not your Iustification by your special Faith onely We knowe not your perilous doctrine of Predestination We knowe not your new manner of baptizing without holy oile and other auncient rites and Ceremonies We knowe not your chaungeable new deuised Cōmunions We knouwe not your monstrous Supremacie of Princes in Ecclesiastical maters that is to say the keyes of the kingdom of heauen the supreme Cōmission to feede Christes lambes and shepe and the whole auctoritie that Christe gaue to S. Peter and his Successours so to be vnited by a forced Parlament to the Crowne of a laye Prince that it be made a mater of inheritaunce so that the Prince for the time being be head of the Churche and supreme gouernour in al thinges and causes as wel spiritual as temporal be it man or woman or childe sucking at the Nourses breste We condemne your negatiue Diuinitie which denieth mannes freewil merites of good workes done in grace Prayers made to our blessed lady the Apostles Martyrs and other Saintes to be intercessours for vs to God Prayers for the dead We deteste your wicked and incestuous mariages of Priestes Monkes Friers and Nonnes and of al such as haue made solemne vowe to liue without the vse of wedlocke We deteste your impietie in that ye refuse to adore and doo godly honour to the body and bloude of your Creator in the Sacrament of the Aulter We detest your pulling downe of Aulters your robbing of Churches your schismes and heresies and rebellion against your lawful Princes we detest your prophane contempte of al good religion and godlynes we detest your wickednes we detest you As for you M. Iewel I pray God to touche your harte so as you may be induced rather with some shame of the worlde to recant your heresies and repent to saue your soule then with desperat continuing in that you haue taken vppon you by your foolish and arrogant Chalenge to keepe the vaine estimation of deceiued men and finally to lose your foule for euer The .12 Diuision The Ansvver LEauing no smal number of places that might be recited out of diuerse other Doctours I wil bring two of two woorthy Bishops one of Chrysostom the other of S. Ambrose confirming this Trueth S. Chrysostomes woordes be these Chrysosto in epist. ad Heb. homi 17. Pontifex noster ille est qui hostiam mundantem nos obtulit ipsam offerimus nunc quae tunc oblata quidem consumi non potest Hoc autem quod nos facimus in commemorationem fit eius quod factum est Hoc enim facite inquit in mei commemorationem He is our Bishop that hath offered vp the Hoste whiche cleanseth vs. The same doo we offer also nowe whiche though it were then offered yet can not be consumed But this that we doo is done in Remembraunce of that whiche is done For doo ye this saith he in my Remembraunce S. Ambrose saith thus Ambros. In Psal. 38. Vidimus Principem Sacerdotum ad nos venientem vidimus audiuimus offerentem pro nobis sanguinem suum sequamur vt possumus sacerdotes vt offeramus pro populo sacrificium etsi infirmi merito tamen honorabiles Sacrificio Quia etsi Christus non videtur offerre tamen ipse offertur in terris quando Christi Corpus offertur We haue seene the Prince of Priestes come to vs we haue seene and hearde him offer for vs his Bloude Let vs that be Priestes folow him as we may that we may offer Sacrifice for the people being though weake in merite yet honourable for the Sacrifice Because al be it Christe be not seene to offer yet he is offered in earth when the Body of Christe is offered Of these our Lordes woordes which is geuen for you and which is shedde for you and for many here S. Ambrose exhorteth the Priestes to offer the Body and Bloud of Christe for the people and willeth them to be more regarded then cōmonly they be now a daies for this Sacrifice sake though otherwise they be of lesse desert Iewel This allegation argueth no greate abundance of stoare For Chrysostome in these vvoordes bothe openeth him selfe and shevveth in vvhat sense other Ancient Fathers vsed this vvorde Sacrifice and also vtterly ouerthrovveth M. Hardinges vvhole purpose touching the same For as he saithe wee offer vp the same Sacrifice that Christe offered so in most plaine vvise and by sundrie vvordes he remooueth al doubte and declareth in vvhat sorte and meaning vvee offer it He saithe not as M. Hardinge saithe wee offer vp the Sōne of God vnto his Father and that verily and in deede but contrary vvise thus he saithe Chrysost. in Epist. ad Hebr. Hom. 17. Offerimus quidem sed ad Recordationem facientes Mortis eius Hoc Sacrificium Exemplarillius est Hoc quod nos facimus in commemorationem fit eius quod factum est Id ipsum semper offerimus Magis autem Recordationem Sacrificij operamur VVe offer in deede but in remembrance of his Death This Sacrifice is an Examlpe of that Sacrifice This that we doo is donne in remembrannce of that that was done VVee offer vp the same that Christe offered Or rather wee worcke the Remembrance of that Sacrifice Thus vvee offer vp Christe That is to say an
other man I am sure S. Chrysostome maketh directly for the real Sacrifice can perceiue In these wordes I say whiche be here alleged in my Answer to the Chalenge Nay how can they not seme most plainely and directly to auouche our doctrine touching the Sacrifice Doth he not set Christe and Priestes that be now together in the office of offering He hath offered we offer also now saith he Doth he not auouche the hoste that Christ offered and the hoste that Priestes now offer for thereof he speaketh to be one and the selfe same hoste And that no man should doubte what hoste he meant saith he not it is that which cleanseth our sinnes that which then being offered to witte vpon the Crosse with shedding of bloude with death to cleanse synnes and to redeme the worlde can not be consumed What hoste can this be but the body of Christ but Christe him selfe For nothing could cleanse our synnes but he who onely is the Lambe of God Ioan. 1. that taketh a way the synnes of the worlde Thus then the substance of the hoste that Christe our Bishop offered and of that we offer is one and the selfe same So it is clearely proued by these wordes of S. Chrysostome that it is not onely a memorie an example a similitude a figure or resemblance of Christes body that we offer in our daily Sacrifice but the selfe same hoste in substance that Christe offered to cleanse vs which is the substance of his owne body and bloud for it was not a figure that he offered for vs but his true and real bodye But as the substance of his and our Sacrifice is one so the ende and effecte by S. Chrysostome in this place The ende of Christes Sacrifice and of ours is diuers He offered him selfe to death to cleanse the synnes of the worlde to redeme mankinde We offer him in remembrance of that his death to be partakers of his redemption But hereof I speake more particularly in my preface before this Roioindre S. Chrysostome say you remoueth al doubte and declareth in what sorte and meaning we offer the Sacrifice How so good sir tel it vs I pray you for I accompt it wel worth the learning Mary say you he saith not as M. Harding saith we offer vp the Sonne of God vnto his Father and that verely and in deede First it is a strange thing to me that a man should remoue al doubtes and declare the certaintie of thinges by not saying as you replye Nexte what if he say not in expresse termes that we offer vp the Sonne of God vnto his Father Wil you now go from the matter and flie for refuge to your owne precise termes Consider I praye you how this vaine wrangling becommeth the Person of the Great Minister of Sarisburie M. Iewels obiection is but a vaine vvrangling Whereas S. Chrysostome saith that we offer vp the selfe same Hoste that Christe our Bisshop hath offered which cleanseth vs from our synnes is it not as muche as if he had said we offer vp the Sonne of God What hoste is that which cleanseth vs Is it not Christe onely Who is Christe Is he not the Sonne of God And to whom is Sacrifice done but to God Al this set together how much varieth he from S. Chrysostome who saith that we offer vp the Sonne of God vnto his Father If you sticke to that other worde verely and in deede remember you haue by your translation made S. Chrysostome in this very place so to speake your selfe We offer in deede be the wordes Now that you haue tolde vs what S. Chrysostome saith not which helpeth your cause nothing at al you shewe vs what he saith And here you bring in certaine peeces and maimed sayinges out of him being a fraid to allege the whole sentences as they lye in that learned Doctor least you should marre altogether as you should haue done if you had suffered him to tel his owne tale Bicause the place is somewhat long I had rather referre the Reader vnto the .17 Homilie vpon the Epistle to the Hebrewes where it is written then here to reherse the whole But let vs see what you pike out of that Homilie for your purpose M. Iuels promise vpon S. Chrysost. hovv it is ê‘formed and how much it relieueth your cause Remember what you haue promised to shewe out of S. Chrysostome that he remoueth al doubte and declareth in what sorte and meaning we offer the Sacrifice You allege out of the said Homilie foure sentences or rather foure peeces of sentences The first is this Offerimus quidem c. We offer in deede Chrysost. Hom. 17. in epist. ad Heb. but in remembrance of his Death These wordes by your interpretation declare in what sorte we offer the Sacrifice Wel be it so I wil not muche contende with you so that you meane by this sorte the excluding of the bloudy manner of oblatioÌ„ But here I must put the reader in mynde what foloweth immediatly in that auncient Father Whiche you haue vntruly conceeled Vna est hostia non multae The hoste that we offer daily for there he speaketh of the dayly Oblation is one it is not many If it be bread made by the handes of a man that we offer and wine pressed out of the grape for the Real Oblation of the body and bloud of Christe ye denie albe it the same properly can not be called an Hoste how can you say it is one Hoste that we offer daily and not many Hostes seing that euery day we take newe bread and newe wine for our Sacrifice In our Sacrifice vve haue the sampler and the true thing it selfe vvhich Christe offered Your second peece of a sentence is this Hoc Sacrificium exemplar illius est This Sacrifice is an example of that Sacrifice But what foloweth Id ipsum semper offerimus We offer alwaies the selfe same thing And what thing is that There he sheweth It is the Hoste that cleanseth vs which Christe our Bisshop hath offered So then we see it called both the real thing it selfe that was offered and the sampler of the thing In that he calleth it a sampler thereby he putteth vs in minde the order and manner of offering it now to be different from the manner of the oblation of the Crosse. For there it was bloudy here vnbloudy there with suffering the tourments of death here with commemoration representation and application of his death there the thing offered visible in proper forme here inuisible vnder the forme of bread and wine Your thirde peece of a sentence taken out of S. Chrysostome is this This that we doo is done in remembrance of that that was done Which wordes declare the thing that we doo to be donne in remembrance of the Death of Christe And they folow immediatly vpon that he said of the cleansing Hoste whiche our Bishop Christe offered and we also offer the same So that
the earth when the body of Christ is offered Lo he saith expressely he is not seene to offer and yet he is offered Your parte is to impugne the offering and bicause you cannot you impugne the seing of him cōming and offering him selfe We see him not and yet he is offered in earth as S. Ambrose saith Now then whereas you are driuen from this if thus you make your Argument as in effecte you doo and as your fetche is to conclude As Christ is seene of vs hanging vpon the Crosse and as his woūdes be touched with our fingers so he is by Priests offred but he is not sene hāging vpō the Crosse really and in dede nor his woūdes be so touched with our fingers Ergo he is not offered really and in dede As I graunt the Argument to be good in forme so I denie the mater to be true For the Maior or first proposition is false For Christes hanging on the Crosse and the print of his woundes is seene and felt of vs by faith or by charitie as I haue now declared but Christe is offered vp in Sacrifice really and in dede bicause his body is really and in dede present in the Sacrament as it hath bene against you M. Iewel by the Catholikes most sufficiently prooued by scriptures Fathers and the faith of the Churche and as you knowe in your owne gilty conscience The saying which you attribute vnto S. Hierom M. Ievvel forgeth vvordes of his ovvne ād attributeth them to S. Hierom. Hierony in Psal. 86. Quod semel natū est ex Maria quotidie in nobis nascitur Christe that was once borne of Marie is borne in vs euery day is an inuētion of your owne S. Hierom hath it not you may sone fil your booke with such authorities being made at home in your owne forge S. Hierome expoūding an obscure place of the .86 Psalme tropologically saith this much I graūt Si volumus quotidie nascitur Christus If we wil Christ is borne daily There he calleth the doing of euery vertue the begeting and bringing forth of Christe bicause Christ is the vertue and wisedome of his Father But what maketh this saying against the real Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe By occasion of these wordes you reason thus as it may be conceiued As S. Hierom saith Christ is borne euery day Euen so ād none otherwise S. Ambros saith Christ is sacrificed euery day But Christe is not borne euery day really Ergo S. Ambrose meaneth not that he is sacrificed euery day really I answer Your Maior is false For there is a manifest dissimilitude betwen the partes compared together When we bring forth good vertues and Christe therefore is said to be borne in vs this is spoken by a Metaphore and is true onely in a tropological or morale sense and not in the litteral sense The other parte of the comparison Christ is offered day when his body is offered as S. Ambrose saith is a proper speache and the same is true in the litteral sense as now we haue prooued Lastly that I let not passe the other place of S. Ambrose where he calleth the myndes of holy virgins Aulters the reason you gather thereof is naught For of the affirmation of an internal Sacrifice Ambros. de Virginib lib. 2. M. Iewels peculiar Sophistrie to put away one truth by an other you inferre the denial of the external Sacrifice and so you would driue out one truth by an other truthe after your common wount Which kinde of reasoning is very fonde and childish For both may and ought to stand together Your Argument if you conclude ought must be this Christe is offered in the myndes of virgins which therefore may be called Aulters internally and spiritually Ergo he is not offered on the true Aulters in the Churche externally and really The Argument is naught as euery yong Sophister knoweth bicause he is offered both waies As wel you might reason thus Christ is God Ergo he is not man◠or contrarywise Christe is man ergo he is not God Thus thou mayst easily perceiue good Reader what guileful Sophistrie M. Iewel vseth putting away the visible and outwarde Sacrifice of the Churche by alleging places of Fathers commending vnto vs the inwarde and mere spiritual Sacrifices of mannes harte Withal thou seest also what so euer M. Iewel saith that I haue founde in S. Chrysostome and S. Ambrose that I sought for The .13 Diuision The Ansvver NOwe for proufe of the Sacrifice and Oblation of Christe by the Doctours mynde vpon the figure of Melchisedech First S. Cyprian saith thus Qui magis Sacerdos Dei summi Lib. 2. Epist. 3. quam Dominus noster Iesus Christus qui Sacrificium Deo patri obtulit obtulit hoc idem quod Melchisedech id est Panem Vinum suum scilicet Corpus Sāguinē Who is more the Priest of the highest God then our Lorde Iesus Christe who offered a Sacrifice to God the Father and offered the selfe same that Melchisedeck did that is Breade and Wine that is to say his owne body and Bloude S. Hierome in an epistle that he wrote for the vertuouse women Paula and Eustochium to Marcella hath these wordes Recurre ad Genesim Melchisedech Regem Salem Huius Principem inuenies ciuitatis qui iam in typo Christi Panem Vinum obtulit Mysterium Christianum in Saluatoris sanguine corpore dedicatrit Retourne to the Booke of Genesis and to Melchisedek the King of Salem And thou shalt finde the Prince of that Citie who euen at that time in the figure of Christe offered Breade and Wine and dedicated the Mysterie of Christians in the Body and Bloude of our Sauiour Here this learned Father maketh a plaine distinction betwene the Oblation of the Figure which was Breade and Wine and the Oblation of the Trueth which is the Mysterie of Christen people the Bloude and Body of Christe our Sauiour Of this S. Augustine speaketh largely in his first Sermon vpon the .33 Psalme and in the .17 booke De Ciuitate Dei cap. 20. Iewel Yf M. Harding meane plainely and vvil haue S. Cyprians vvordes taken as they lie vvithout Figure then must he say That Melschidek offered vp verily and Really◠Christ him selfe For S. Cyprians vvordes be cleare Cyprianus Lib. 2. Epist. 3. Christus obtulit hoc idem quod Melchisedek obtulerat◠Christ offered vp the same thing that Melchisedek had offered Harding Sir I assure you I meane plainely would God you did so too verily if you did we should not thus finde you alwaies starting a side to figures and phrases Folowing my prefixed order in my Answer I come now to proue the Sacrifice by the witnesse of two auncient Fathers S. Cyprian and S. Hierome alleging for it the figure of Melchisedek First touching S. Cyprian let his wordes be taken as they lie without figure folde or wrinckle how therof wil it folow that Melchisedek offered verely and
really Christ him selfe For say you S. Cyprians wordes be cleare Christ offered the same thinge that Melchisedek had offered The clearer the wordes be the lesse they serue your obscure purpose If we graunted your translation to be true who haue turned hoc idem the same thing where it ought rather to be turned the same Sacrifice being referred to Sacrifice that goeth there before immediatly If we wincked at you for this I say Yet I pray you how foloweth this Argument Christ offered the same thing that Melchisedek had offered Ergo Melchisedek offered vp Christ him selfe verily and really If you would haue gonne the right way to worke thus you should haue argued Christe offered the same thing that Melchisedek had offered Melchisedek had offered bread and wine Ergo Christe offered bread and wine But bicause if you had thus rightly framed your Argument you had concluded with vs against your selfe by S. Cyprian by whose interpretation the bread and wine that Christ offered was his body and bloud rather then you would graunt so much it liked you better to vse false Logique then true Diuinitie The wordes then of S. Cyprian taken in their plaine and litteral sense Christe offered the true bread and true wine at his Supper and without any figure doo signifie that Melchisedek offered bread and wine as muche to say a bare figure and that Christe fulfilling that Figure offered also bread and wine But what bread and wine His body and bloude the true bread and the true wine Which body and bloude bicause they feede and susteine both body and soule to life euerlasting the cōmon bread and wine that Melchisedeck offered◠hauing vertue to feede only the body and that but for a final time are for good cause called the true bread and wine But perhaps you sticke to the worde hoc idē the same Sacrifice The Sacrifice of Melchisedek and the Sacrifice of Christe both diuers and the same or the same thing if you wil needes haue it so If Christe offered the same say you whereas Melchisedek offered but bread and wine how offered Christe him selfe truly and really True it is the Sacrifice of either or the thing that either of them offered is both diuers and also the same How diuers And howe the same Diuers in substance the same in Mysterie The diuersitie of substance not only S. Cyprian in the Epistle to Cecilius but also S. Hierome confesseth writing vpō the .109 Psalme Hierony in Psal. 109 Quomodo Melchisedech obtulit panem vinum sic tu offeres corpus tuum sanguinem verum panem verum vinū Like as Melchisedek offered bread and wine so thou shalt offer thy body and bloud the true bread and the true wine What difference then and diuersitie is betwen the figure and the thing forefigured that is to say betwen Melchisedeks bread and wine and the body and bloud of Christe such diuersitie of substāce is there in the thinges which they offered The Christe offered the same that Melchisedek had offered for the vnderstanding of it it may be said both in consideration of the Mysterie and of the thing it selfe in a right sense either bicause the formes of bread and wine remained after consecration or bicause it was bread and wine in dede before Christ had consecrated and offered We read in the Gospel Ioan. 2. that when our Sauiour at the Mariage had turned water into wine he commaunded the waiters to draw and bring it vnto the Vssher of the Haul They brought it and the Vssher tasted water made wine Now true it is to saye that the waiters did drawe and bring and the Vssher tasted the same thing that the waiters had filled the waterpottes withal a litle before that is water But what water Forsooth water made wine Likewise it was truely said of S. Cyprian that Christe offered the same thing that Melchisedech had offered before him that is bread and wine But what bread and wine Forsooth bread and wine made his body and bloude So the Scripture saith that Aarons Rodde deuoured the Roddes of the Enchaunters Exod. 7. What rodde was that It was the Rodde made a serpent By this it appeareth how sclender your Argument is which here you gather against the Real Sacrifice out of S. Cyprians wordes and how you seeke not so much the truth as to gainesay and ouerthwarte the Authorities that for the same I alleged Let vs examine the rest of your Replie Iewel Notvvithstanding it is certaine that the Sacrifice that Melchisedek made if it vvere graunted to be a Sacrifice yet in plaine and Common manner of speache vvas not Christe the Sonne of God but onely material Breade and VVine and other like prouision of Victualles prepared for Abraham and for his menne And therefore the Olde learned Fathers saie not Melchisedek offered the same in Sacrifice vnto God but He brought it foorth as a present as the manner vvas to refreashe them after the pursuitte and chase of their enimies And S. Hierome in his Translation turneth it not Obtulit He Sacrificed but Protulit He brought it foorthe Ioseph Antiquit lib. 1. cap. 11. Iosephus reporteth the mater thus Melchisedek milites Abrahami hospitaliter habuit nihil illis ad victum deesse Passus Simulque ipsum adhibuit Mēsae Melchisedek feasted Abrahams Souldiers and suffered them to wante nothinge that was necessary for their prouision And likewise he receiued Abraham him selfe vnto his Table Chrysost. in Gene. Homil 35. Epiph. cōt Melc lib. 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysostome and Epiphanius say thus He brought foorthe vnto them Breade and VVine Tertullian saithe Abrahamo reuertenti de praelio obtulit Panem Vinum Melschisedek offered Breade and VVine not vnto God but vnto Abraham returninge from the fighte So S. Ambrose Occurrit Melchisedek obtulit Abrahamo Panem Vinum Melchisedek came foorth to meete and offered nor vnto God but vnto Abraham Breade and VVine By these fevve it may appeare that Melchisedek brought foorthe Bread and VVine Tertull. cōtr Iudaeos and other prouision not as a Sacrifice vnto God but as a Reliefe and Susteinance for Abraham and for his Companie Harding It is a worlde to see your doublenes What are ye not resolued whether the Sacrifice that Melchisedek made were a Sacrifice or no Sir the Sacrifice he made that is to say the thing which he offered in Sacrifice was not Christe the Sonne of God pardy Who euer said it was Wel what was it then Mary onely material bread and wine say you So say we too and that by the same the Sacrifice of Christes body and bloud vnder the forme of bread and wine VVhat vvas Melchisedeks Sacrifice by M. Iew was forefigured But was this al that Melchisedek offered Not al by you For you recken vp also the prouision of victuals that were prepared for Abraham and his men that were in number .318 Then of likelyhod this was a
ioyly Sacrifice For Melchisedek being a King as he was like it is that he prouided biefe veale and mutton pigge goose and capon baakte boiled and roste For such victuals are mete for the prouision of an Armie And did Melchisedek sacrifice al these thinges This is more then euer I read or heard of before or you either I am bold to say For your credites sake you should haue alleged but one Doctor of good same olde or new that so writeth Bicause ye haue none to allege we take it for a forgerie of your owne shoppe set out to thintent bread and wine only named should not represent to the memorie of men the body and bloud of Christe whereof the bread and wine were figures Verely Eusebius writeth lib. 5. De Demonstrat that he neuer offered bodyly Sacrifices that is to say thinges that had liuing bodies but only bread and wine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The like is reported in S. Hierome Epist. ad Euagrium As for Iosephus that learned Iewe Iosephus we admit him for an eloquent writer of a storie not for an assured teacher of Diuinitie And yet his authoritie being admitted Melchisedeks feasting of Abrahams people inferreth no Argument against his Sacrifice in bread and wine For why might he not do the duetie of a Priest first satisfying the mysterie and the duetie of a liberal Prince afterward in refresshing that weary and hungry cōpanie And therefore touching the worde Protulit Protulit whereby you would proue that Melchisedek brought forth bread and wine and your other prouision of victuals I can not tel what for Abrahams menne you take great paines in vaine As we are wel hable to proue obtulit I meane that Melchisek offered to with bread and wine so we denie not protulit that is to say that he brought those thinges forth But good sir I pray you in what schoole learned you to make this Argumēt Melchisedek brought forth bread and wine to refresh Abrahā and his men ergo he offered not bread and wine to God in sacrifice Whereas the scripture after mētion made of bred and wine Genes 14. forthwith addeth erat enī Sacerdos Dei altissimi for he was the Priest of God the highest onlesse that cause be vnaptly applied we must vnderstand that he was wont to offer vp those thinges to God which then he brought forth vnto Abraham geuing the same to him for meate to God for Sacrifice That Melchisedeck offered and made his sacrifice in bread and wine Bicause you seme coouertly to denie that Melchisedeck offered bread and wine in Sacrifice which some of your syde let not openly to denie which you also would doo but that by your Chalenge you haue bounde your selfe to admitte the olde Doctours for that the worde of the texte is protulit and not obtulit I thinke it good to put you in mynde of learned Fathers two or three by whom it is auouched that he offered and that he made his Sacrifice in bread and wine Arnobius In Psal. 109. Arnobius who lyued aboue thirtien hundred yeres past saith Panem vinum solus obtulit in sacerdotibus Melchisedech alone among Priestes offered bread and wine S. Cyprian saith Cyprian lib. 2. Epist. 3. Melchisedeck was the Priest of the highest God and panem vinum obtulit offered bread and wine S. Hierome saith Hieron in Psal. 109. that he offered bread and wine Melchisedech obtulit panem vinnm be his wordes The same he hath in his epistle written for Paula to Marcella S. Ambrose saith it with the same wordes expressely in two places De Sacramentis lib. 4. cap. 3. lib. 5. cap. 1. And al these vse the worde obtulit which you can not away with in the sense of sacrificing If you demaunde for other witnesses of Melchisedecks Sacrifice in bread and wine it may please you to reade Eusebius lib. 5. De Demonstratione Euangelica S. Augustine in Psal. 33. Concione 1. and in many other places S. Chrysostome in the Homilie de Proditione Iudae Damascen lib 4. cap. 14. Cassiodorus in Psal. 109. To be short few Doctors can be named in whom this Sacrifice is not most plainly auouched So that you would neuer haue douted of it had you ben learned much lesse denied it had you not ben impudent As for that you allege out of Tertullian and S. Ambros who say that Melchisedek obtulit Abrahamo panem vinum offered to Abraham bread and wine Obtulit for dedit it relieueth your cause neuer a whit For there the worde obtulit signifieth as much as exhibuit or dedit gaue or presented and thereof your selfe being so good a Grammarian as you are could not be ignorant So much the more you shewe your selfe a false handler of this high Mysterie in twise putting in your false parenthesis not to God but as though Melchisedek had not offered to God any Sacrifice at al. Iewel S. Paule compareth Christe vvith Melchisedek Ambros. de Sacrament li. 4. cap. 3. In that like vnto Melchisedeck he was the kinge of Iustice In that he was the Prince of peace◠as Melchisedek was And in that he had neither Father nor Mother For so is it likewise writtē of Melchisedeck But of the Sacrifice of Breade Hebrae 7. and VVine he speaketh nothing Yet notvvithstandinge the Auncient holy Faethers oftentimes resemble the same presente of Melchisedek vnto the Sacrifice that Christe made vpon the Crosse. And in that respecte S. Cyprian saithe Christe offered the same thinge that Melchisedek offered That is to say as M. Hardinge him selfe must needes expounde it The same thinge in perfourmance of Trueth vpon the Crosse that Melchisedeck had before offered in a Figure So saith S. Augustine Illis Petra Christus Vnto them the Rocke was Christe August in Ioan. tractat 26. And yet not Really and in deede but onely by vvay of Signification bicause it Signified and Represented Christe Harding S. Paule speaketh not of it ergo it is not a cōmon Argument vvith the Ministers and here vsed by M. Iewel I graunt that whereas S Paule extolleth the Priesthod of Christ which is after the order of Melchisedek aboue the Leuitical Priesthod speaking of certaine thinges wherin Christe and Melchisedek were like speaketh nothing of the Sacrifice of bread and wine What of that Wil ye thereof conclude that Melchisedek did not offer vnto God bread and wine What a fond and Ministerlike kinde of Argument is this S. Paule spake it not Ergo it is not S. Paule saith not in al that Epistle that Christe was conceiued of the holy Ghoste borne of the virgin Marie shal it be lawful for vs therefore to denie it We may wel thinke that therein S. Paule vsed the counsel Ioan. 16. that Christ once vsed when he said I haue many thinges to tel you that ye can not beare away now S. Paule sheweth so much him selfe Epistola ad Euagrium In principio To. 3. operum
Hieronymi Heb. 5. where beginning to speake of Melchisedek he doth exaggerate and very much coÌ„fesse the difficultie of that high mysterie with this Proâ—me as S. Hierome noteth Super quo multus nobis sermo ininterpretabilis We haue a long processe to vtter touching Melchisedek and such as can not be expounded Not bicause the Apostle could not expounde it but bicause it was not a mater conuenient for that time Hieron ad Euagrium Mysteries kepte secret saith S. Hierome And wherefore Bicause he persuaded with the Hebrewes that is to say the Iewes not yet come to the faith that he might not reuele that sacred and secret Sacrament And whereas the vessel of Election saith he is astoined at that Mysterie and confesseth the mater whereof he disputeth to be vnspeakeable or vndeclarable how much more ought we seely wormes and gnattes confesse the only knowledge of our vnskil c. S. Augustine speaking vnto his hearers August in Psal. 109. of whom some were Cathecumens or learners of the faith thought not good to vtter plainely the doctrine of Melchisedeks Sacrifice Fidelibus loquor c. I speake to the faithful saith he if there be any Catechumens that vnderstand it not let them put away slewth and maketh hast to haue knowlege It is not needeful to open the Mysteries let the Scriptures tel you what the Sacrifice after the order of Melchisedek is If S. Augustine thought it good not to shewe and publish these mysteries abroad at what time almost the whole world professed the faith of Christ what good cause had S. Paule not to open the same vnto such as were yet but babes in the faith and were to be fedde with milke and pappe rather then with sownde meate and were not of capacitie for such Mysteries By consideration of this much it appeareth of what force your Argument is S. Paule speaketh nothing of Melchisedeks Sacrifice of bread and wine Ergo Melchisedek made no such Sacrifice at al. You that so scornefully reiecte other mennes Argumentes should haue taken better aduise of your Logique before you had made such peeuish Arguments your selfe Why S. Paule spake not of the manner of Melchisedeks Sacrifice in bread and wine Thus it may be said and reasonally that the greatnesse of the Mysterie and the vnmeete time and disposition of them to whom S. Paule wrote was the cause why he spake nothing touching the manner and mysterie of Melchisedeks Sacrifice in bread and wine An other cause of as much importance or more was this S. Paules chiefe intent in this place was for better meane to allure the Iewes vnto the faith to shewe the excellencie of Christes Priesthod which is after the order of Melchifedek in coÌ„pariâ—on of the Leuitical Priesthod This to performe Heb. 7. he setteth forth the prerogatiue of the same aboue the Leuitical Priesthood partly on the behalfe of the person of the Priest partly on the behalfe of the exercise of the Priesthod it selfe Touching the one Melchisedek in dignitie aboue Abraham bicause Melchisedek was the type and figure of Christe and bare the person of Christe he doth according to the Scriptures attribute great dignities vnto him as that he was King of Iustice King of Peace the Priest of God the highest without father without mother hauing neither beginning of daies nor ende Which dignities perteined not vnto his owne person in truth but as he bare the person of Christe the true Melchisedek Touching the other he declareth out of the booke of Genesis Gen. 14. how he blessed Abraham and how Abraham gaue vnto him tythes of al thinges in bothe which consisted the exercise of Priesthood and thereby Abraham is proued to be of lower degree then Melchisedek For without controuersie he is lesse which receiueth blessing Heb. 7. and the geuer of blessing is the greater by verdit of S. Paule The priesthod after the order of Melchisedek farâ— passeth the Leuitical Priesthod And as concerning the tythes that Melchisedek receiued of Abraham Leui him selfe also who receiued tythes paid tythes in Abraham for he was yet in the loynes of Abraham as S. Paule saith when Melchisedek met him Now whereas the Leuitical Priestes are coÌ„maunded according to the Iawe to take tythes of the people and haue thereby a Dignitie aboue the people Melchisedeks taking of tythes of Abraham their chiefe Patriarke Prince and head of the whole progenie and consequently of Leui also and his children the Priestes of that order for that they were then in his loynes doth proue the preemineÌ„ce and excellencie of that Priesthod in comparison of the Leuitical Priesthod in so much that in comparison of the same the Leuites be but Lay men and of the popular order By these and certaine other Argumentes S. Paule proueth and setteth forth the excellencie of Christes Priesthod after the order of Melchisedek aboue the Leuitical Priesthod Among which he maketh no mention of the manner of Melchisedeks Sacrifice Bicause if he had alleged that Melchisedek sacrificed in bread and wine the Hebrewes woulde soone haue replied that their sacrifices in that behalfe farre excelled as the which being of lyuing beastes had a more glorious shew and countenance then the Sacrifice of bread and wine Thus you haue two causes declared why S. Paule where he treateth so much of the dignitie of Melchisedek and of the Priesthod that is after his order speaketh nothing at least manifestly of his Sacrifice in bread and wine If the Fathers haue oftentimes resembled this present of Melchisedek vnto the Sacrifice that Christ made vpon the Crosse as you say why do you not shewe vs where we may finde it Wil any wise man trow you beleue it onely vpon your bare worde If it be a thing done oftentimes it was the easier for you to shewe it once But your oftentimes in the ende wil proue neuer That Melchisedek gaue to Abraham a present of bread and wine being returned from the battail it is not denied but that euer any auncient learned Father resembled that present as you cal it abhorring the name of Sacrifice as it had the condition of a present vnto the Sacrifice that Christe made vpon the Crosse I vtterly denie it If any where they resemble the bread and wine that Melchisedek made his Sacrifice of vnto the Sacrifice of the Crosse they doo it in respecte that the thing signified by it that is the body and bloud of Christe was one both in the Sacrifice made at the Supper and also in that which was made vpon the Crosse and not that the manner of Sacrifice made vpon the Crosse which was bloudy was semblable vnto it And so in respecte had to the body and bloud of Christe offered vpon the Crosse and not vnto the manner of offering I graunt the exposition you make of S. Cyprians wordes to be true that is to say that Christe offered the same thing in performance of truth vppon the Crosse that Melchisedek had
before offered in figure But that performance of truth is by the learned Fathers commonly acknowleged in the Sacrifice of the Supper In which Christe offered his body and bloude vnder the formes of bread and wine after the order of Melchisedek for thankesgeuing which he offered vpon the Crosse for redemption August in Ioan. Tract 26. Your common figuratiue saying taken out of S. Augustine Illis Petra Christus vnto them the Rocke was Christe though it be not altogether so reported of S. Augustin in the place by you coted is abruptely brought in to what purpose I see not but to beguile the vnlerned as I suppose who therby may be moued to thinke that our Sacrifice is as mere a figure as the figures of the olde lawe were To this I haue answered once or twise before In al the frayes ye make against the most holy Mysteries this bad toole is euer at hand with you to strik withal Iewel Sometimes they compare it vvith the Sacrifice of Thankesgeuinge and vvith the Ministration of the holy Communion and make it equal vvith the same S. Augustine saithe August in quaest Noui Veter Testamēt quaest 109. Melchisedek Abrahae primum quasi Patri fidelium tradidit Eucharistiam Corporis Sanguinis Domini Melchisedek gaue first vnto Abraham as vnto the Father of the Faithful the Sacramente of the Bodie and Bloud of Christe So S. Hierome saithe Melchisedek in typo Christi Panem Vinum obtulit Mysterium Christianorum in Saluatoris Corpore Hierō ad Marcellā Sanguine dedicauit Melchisedek in the Figure of Christe offered Breade and VVine and dedicated the Mysterie of Christians in the Bodie and Bloude of Christe These Authorities might serue to make some shevv that Melchisedeck saide Masse and Consecrated the Sacrament of the Bodie and Bloude of Christe and offered vp Christe in Sacrifice vnto his Father But of M. Hardinge or any other suche Prieste they touche nothinge Harding You shal neuer shewe vs where either the Present that Melchisedek gaue to Abraham by which terme you would abolish the Sacrifice or the Sacrifice which he made in bread and wine was cōpared with the Sacrifice of thankesgeuing onlesse it be the Euchariste which also beareth that name wherein the real body and bloud of Christe is present As for the ministration of the holy Communion it is false to say It is compared with the ministration that is to say with the acte of the ministring the Communion But I graunt it is compared to the thing it selfe that is to say to the body and bloud of Christe consecrated offered and receiued in the holy Communion Prouided alwaies that by the holy Communion we meane not your newe toye now practized in England by your Ministers that be no Priestes where there is no holy thing consecrated to make it holy Dionys. in Ecclesiast Hierarchia but the holy Communion of the Catholike Churche which S. Dionyse calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The authoritie you allege vnder the name of S. Augustine is not S. Augustines If I had alleged it against you a great deale of your scoffing Rhetorike should haue ben bestowed both to reproue the booke and also me for alleging the same I am sure if you haue read either the worke it selfe with any iudgement or the Censure of Erasmus vpon it you are persuaded it is an vnworthy peece of worke to be fathered vpō so worthy a Doctor As for the very Question it selfe out of which you bring your authoritie I maruel you considered not what Erasmus saith of it Quaestione CIX multa garrit vt ostendat Melchisedek non fuisse hominem In the CIX question saith he this author maketh a great bible bable to shewe that Melchisedeck was not a man In the same line there he speaketh of him as it were of your selfe saying Quaest. 125. scurram agit But who soeuer and what so euer the author of that worke be the place is alleged without any dependence or coherence as though you cared not in what order you allege testimonies so you make vp a heape Either for haste or which is more likely for guile you leafte out both the beginning and the ende of it whereby the meaning is clearely declared Melchisedek saith the author gaue vnto Abraham Quaest. Veteris noui testament q. 109. as vnto the Father of the faithful the Eucharist or Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ. But what was it that he gaue It foloweth in the same sentence Vt praefiguraretur in Patre quae in filijs futura erat veritas That the truth which was to come in the children might be foreshewed by a figure in the Father Doo not these later wordes most euidently declare that Melchisedek gaue onely the figure of the Sacrament of Christes body and bloude to Abraham the Father of the faithful and that the truth of that figure which is the body and bloude of Christe is amongst vs that are in respecte of faith his children That he calleth the thinge which Melchisedek gaue to Abraham by the name of the Eucharist it is no great maruel Whether S. Augustine him selfe would so haue spoken it may be doubted Verely it is no straunge thing in the olde learned Fathers to geue the name of the thing signified vnto the figure that signifieth and contrariwise This nipping of sentences M. Iewels Nipping of sentences specially of such as wordes as open the truth and ouerthrow your doctrine doth euerywhere bewray your guileful intent The whole sentence considered as it is vttered by the author doth so clearely serue for confirmation of the real Sacrifices of Christes body and bloude in the newe Testament as a more clearer any faithful man would not desire The saying you take out of S. Hierome I maruel what you meant to allege it It maketh fully for our parte that is to say for establishing of the Catholike beleefe There is mention made bothe of the Figure bread and wine offered by Melchisedek and of the veritie the body and bloude of Christe offered by the Christians in their Mysteries God be praised through whose power his truth is vttered by the mouthes of his enemies As for your pleasant collection and scorneful ieasting howe much it pleaseth you or becommeth the person you haue taken vpon you I knowe not Sure I am the holy mysteries of Christian religiō should with more feare of God be treated of The roome you occupie is to reuerent the mater we handle too holy the daies ye ruffle in too lamentable the stage you play this parte on too sad M. Iewel for you thus to play Hick scorner I should haue said Iacke scorner But what may we say Kinde wil shewe it selfe The English cōmunion cōpared vvith Melchisedeks Sacrifice vvhiche M. Ievv calleth Melchisedeks Masse If Melchisedek said any Masse it was like vnto the English Communion that offereth nothing els but bare bread and wine
if it offer ought at al and feedeth the people with figures in steede of the truth Nay this Communion is not by many partes so good as Melchisedeks oblation and blessing of Abraham was For he offered in a figure and blessed according to his Priesthod being in time of figures before the truth was come into the worlde But our prety Cōmunion of England bringeth forth bare shewes of bread and wine now in the time of grace the truth being come and accepted Iewel And least any maen happen of simplicitie to be deceiued thinkinge that S. Hierome hereby meante M. Hardinges Real Presence for that he saith Melchisedek dedicated the Christian Mysterie in the Bodie and Bloude of Christe It may please him to consider that bothe S. Hierome and also other ancient Fathers haue often vsed the same manner of speache in other cases vvherein M. Harding can haue no manner suspicion of Real Presence Hieron aduers Iouin lib. 1. S. Hierome saithe Euangelium Passione Sanguine Domini Dedicatur The Gospel is Dedicated in the Passion and Bloude of Christe S. Augustine saithe Quid est mare Rubrum August in Psal. 80. Sanguine Domini Consecratum VVhat is the Redde sea He ansvveareth Consecrate in the Bloude of Christe Againe he saithe August in Ioan. tractat 11. Vnde rubet Baptismus Christi nisi Christi Sanguine Consecratus VVhereof is Christes Baptisme redde but that it is Dedicate in the Bloude of Christe Thus Melchisedek Dedicated the Christian Mysterie in the Bloude of Christe Harding Al that here foloweth to the ende of the Replie to this Diuision toucheth not at al any thing by me written or faid But it is inferred by M. Iewel vpon occasion of a testimonie of S. Hierom which he him selfe alleged fearing in the conceit of his owne imagination that S. Hierome wil be found against him in the very place where he craued helpe of him as he is directly against him in deede M. Iuels feare least the Eucharist be accompted a better thing thē bread and vvine And here is a great feare conceiued least forsooth the reader should be deceiued and thinke that S. Hierome in this place meant the real Presence Then tel vs good Sir onlesse the body and bloude of Christe be really present in the Mysterie of the Christians how is not the Figure of Melchisedech who dedicated the same as good and as worthy as is the Mysterie it selfe of the Christians which was dedicated But say you where so euer any thing is said to be dedicated in the body and bloude of Christe there his body and bloude are not consequently present as it may appeare by the example aboue alleged and by many other the like I graunt this muche what then Wil it thereof folow by necessary cousequent that in the Mysterie of the Christians whereof Melchisedeks Oblation was a figure and which was by him dedicated in a figure Matt. 26. the body and bloude of Christe is not really present Luc. 22. specially whereas Christe him selfe doth in termes pronounce Marc. 14. This is my body 1. Cor. 11. this is my bloude What neede you here to talke so much of the real presence You know pardy I stay not vpon this saying of S. Hierome for proufe of the real presence as though we had not many other and manifester proufes for it I confesse if Christe had neuer spoken those wordes and had neuer made promise that he would geue vs in our Mysterie the selfe same flesh Ioan. 6. that he would geue for the life of the worlde S. Hieromes testimonie of it selfe were not a sufficient proufe like as neither his saying that the Ghospel is dedicated by the Passion and bloude of Christe doth force vs to graunt that the Ghospel is the real bloude of Christe for lacke of Christes owne worde pronouncing that the Ghospel is his bloude And likewise for lacke of the worde of Christe saying that Baptisme is his very bloude which is shed for remission of sinne although it be said by S. Augustine not onely of Baptisme it selfe but also of the Read Sea which was a figure of it that they were redde as being consecrate in the bloude of Christe yet neither of them is in deede Christes bloude Concerning your phrase of dedicating VVhat S. Hierom vnderstode by the terme of dedication alleged out of S. Hierome I see not to what purpose it serueth you but to dazel the eyes of the vnlearned The circumstance of the place doth easily shewe what he meant by saying The Gospel is dedicated by the Passion and bloude of Christe for so it is to be turned Bicause Iouinian the heretique against whom he wrote making mariage equal with virginitie Hieron lib. 1. aduersus Iouinianū after that he had in his booke alleged examples of the olde testament folowing his order pretented to come to the Gospel and then in commendation of Mariage brought forth Zacharie Elizabeth and Peter with his wiues mother as perteining to the time of the new Testament and to the Gospel S. Hierome taketh him vp roundly and twiteth him of ignorance saying Consueta Vecordia non intelligit istos quoque inter eos qui legi seruierint debuisse numerari Neque enim Euangelium ante Crucem Christi est quod Passione sanguine ipsius dedicatur Thorough his accustomed doltishnes he vnderstandeth not that they also ought to haue ben numbred among them that were vnder the lawe For the Gospel is not before the Crosse of Christe that is to say before Christe was crucified whiche is dedicated by his Passion and bloude S. Hierome meaneth by these last wordes that the time of the Gospel beganne when Christe had suffered his Passion and shed his bloude and not before And here this worde◠Gospel Gospel signifieth not the booke written by the Euangelistes but the state and 〈◊〉 of the newe Testament Whiche tooke force and was dedicated that is to say was consecrated and made holy to the seruice and honour of God by the Passion and bloude of Christe Therefore he noteth Iouinian to be but a dolte in that he did attribute the Mariages of Zacharie and Elizabeth and Peter to the Gospel whiche in deed belonged vnto the lawe of the olde Testament bicause the lawe continewed til Christe had suffered his Passion Iohan. 19. as he said him selfe Consummatum est it is ended In like sense S. Hierome vseth the worde of Dedicating in the same booke a litle before saying Virginitatem à Saluatore virgine dedicari that virginitie is dedicated by our Sauiour being a virgin for that now it is otherwise with vs then it was with them of the olde lawe and with those to whom it was said Gen. 1. Grow ye and be ye multiplied and that virginitie is now sithens our Sauiour came in fleshe more generally commended then it was before among them who as there S. Hierome saith haue geuen vs types and figures
it a double oblation and Sacrifice I haue regard to the maÌ„ner of offering which is diuers vpoÌ„ the Crosse and in the Eucharist Otherwise the substance of the Sacrifice and the thing it selfe that is sacrificed is one and the same in either Now it had ben M. Iewels parte to tel vs what Sacrifice is that wherin Christ by the meane of Priestes that be now sacrificeth and is sacrificed and the manner and order whereof he taught the Apostles and consequently Priestes in power and office of sacrificing their Successours in his Mystical Supper What Sacrifice this is Christes most plaine wordes do declare who at his last Supper after he had taken bread and the Cuppe into his handes Luc. 22. geuen thankes broken and blessed said take eate 1. Cor. 11. drinke this is my Body this is my bloud do ye this in my remembrance By doing which thing and saying which wordes he taught them the way and manner how to do such Sacrifice by this he taught as S. Ireneus saith the new Oblation of the new Testament Iren. li. 4. cap. 32. Here M. Iewels Phrases Metaphores Allegories Tropes and Figures wil not serue his turne Therefore he conueyeth him selfe to an other testimonie by me alleged out of S. Chrysostom interpreting the knowen place of Malachie of this Sacrifice Wherevnto he maketh answer of as litle substance as his other is to Oecumenius And here is to be noted that to obscure both the order and force of my Answer he hath caused the Printer coÌ„fusely to set that I bring in touching Malachie together with that goeth before that the Distinction of thinges might not appeare which I by my new beginning of the line caused to be disticted from the former mater Let vs heare what he saith Iewel This vvorde Incruentum that M Harding hath here alleged out so Chrysostom is thought to beare great vveight but being vvel considered of that side it is alleged for as it shal appeare it vveigheth nothing The Holy learned Fathers applie that vvorde sometime to Prater and other deuotion of the minde and somtimes to the Ministration of the holy Communion For the better opening hereof it may please thee good Christian Reader to vnderstande that in the time of Moyses Lavve the Priestes and Leuites offered vp vnto God Oxen Calues Rammes and Goates and vvith the Bloude thereof sprinkled the Booke the instrumentes of the Ministerie the vvhole Tabernacle Heb. 9. and al the People and as S. Paule saith In the Ceremonies of that Lavve vvithout Bloudsheadding there vvas no remission of Sinne. Likevvise the Heathens killed and offered vp their cattaile vnto their Idolles sometimes an hundred sat Oxen in one daie Sometime they proceeded further and made their Sacrifices of Mannes Bloude Clemens in Orat. cont Gentes Erichtheus of Athens and Marius of Rome killed and offered vppe their ovvne Daughters in the honour of Pallas The Nobles of Carthage in honour of their Idole Saturnus killled and offered vp .lxx. of their ovvne male Children in one Sacrifice In respecte of these grosse and Fleashely and Blouddy Sacrifices our Christian Sacrifices in the Gospel Euseb. De Demonst. lib. 1. ca. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bicause thei are mere Spiritual and proceede vvholy from the harte are called Vnblouddy Eusebius saith Incendimus Orationis suffitum Sacrificium quod appellatur Purum non per Cruores facimus sed per puras actiones VVee burne the Incense of Praier and we offer vp the Sacrifice that is called Pure not by sheadding of Bloude but by Pure and godly doinges So Chrysostome Chrysost. cont Iudaeos Ora. 3. Offerimus non per Fumum Nidorem aut Sanguinem sed per Spiritns Gratiam wee make our Sacrifices not by Smoke Smel and Bloude but by the Grace of the Holy Sprite He addeth further For God is Spirite and he that adoureth him must adoure in Sprite and Trueth And this is the Vnbloudy Sacrifice So saithe Eusebius Offerent illi Rationabiles Euseb. De Demonst. lib. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Incruentas Hostias They shal offer vnto him Reasonable or Spritual and Vnbloudy Oblations And the same he expoundeth The Sacrifice of Praise In like sorte S. Hierome seemeth to saie In sinceritate azima epulamur wee feaste in Purenes without leauen In like consideration the Sacrifices that in olde times vvere made vnto Fides and Terminus Hieron in Epist. ad Galat. 4. vvere called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vnblouddy bicause they consisted only in Suffumigations and Odours and vvere not imbrued vvith any Bloude And for the like cause Thucydides calleth certaine of the HeatheÌ„ oblations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pure Sacrifices Cyrillus ad Reginas Likevvise Cyrillus calleth the Praiers and Melodie of the Angels and blissed Spirites in Heauen continually praising and glorifieing the name of God Incruenta Sacrificia Vnbloudy Sacrifices Gyrillus coÌ„tra Iulian li. 10 Againe he saith Nos relicto crasso ministerio Iudaeorum praeceptum habemus vt tenue Spirituale Subtile Sacrificium faciamus Itaque offerimus Deo in odorem suauitatis virtutes omne genus Fidem Spem Charitatem VVe hauing leaâ—te the grosse Ministerie of the Iewes haue a CommauÌ„dement to make a Fine Thinne and Spiritual Sacrifice And therefore we offer vnto God al manner Vertues Faith Hope Charitie as most sweete sauours For this cause the Sacrifices of our Praiers and other like deuotions are called Vnbloudy for that they require no Fleashly Seruice or Sheadding of Bloude as did the Sacrifices of the Ievves and Heathens but are mere Ghostly Euseb. De Demonst. lib. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Spiritual and stand vvholy in the lyfting vp and eleuation of the minde In like maner the Ministration of the Holy Communion is sometimes of the Ancient Fathers called an Vnbloudy Sacrifice not in respect of any Corporal or Fleashely presence that is imagined to be there vvithout Bloudsheaddinge but for that it representeth and reporteth vnto our mindes that One and euerlasting Sacrifice that Christe made in his body vpon the Crosse. Therefore Eusebius saith Excitamus illi Altare Incruentorum Rationabilium Sacrificiorum secundùm Noua Mysteria VVe erecte vnto God an Aultar of vnbloudy and reasonable or Spiritual Sacrifices accordingc to the Newe Mysteries Againe In eodem libro Sacrificium incendimus illi Memoriam magni illius Sacrificij VVe burne a Sacrifice vnto God that is the Remembrance of that greate Sacrifice In eodem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hieron ad Euagrium August de Gratia noui Testa ad Honoratum Iustinus Martyr in Dialogis cum Tryphone Likevvise againe Christus obtulit Mirabile Sacrificium pro salute omnium nostrum iubens nos offerre MemoriaÌ„ pro Sacrificio Christe offered vp that Marueilous Sacrifice for our Saluation commaundinge vs to offer a Remembrance thereof in stede of a Sacrifice So likevvise saith S. Hierome although not altogeather in like respect Pane Vino Puro
Simplici Sacrificio Christi dedicauit Sacramentum He dedicated the Sacramente of Christe in Breade and VVine which is not a Bloudy or loathsome but a Pure and a Simple Sacrifice This Remembrance and Oblation of praises and Rendring of thankes vnto God for our Redemption in the Bloud of Christe is called of the olde Fathers An Vnbloudy Sacrifice and of S. Augustine The Sacrifice of the Newe Testament Iustinus Martyr saith Esaias non pollicetur Cruentarum Victimarum instaurationem sed veras Spirituales Oblationes laudis Gratiarum actionis Esaias promiseth not the restoaringe of Blouddy Sacrifices but True and Spiritual Oblations of Praises and Thankesgeuing S. Chrysostome saith Non iam Sanguinem aut adipem offerimus c. VVe offer not now the fatte Chrysos in Epist. ad Hebr. Homil 11. or Bloude of Beastes Al these thinges are abolished And in steede thereof there is brought in a Reasonable or Spiritual dewtie But what is this dewtie that we cal Reasonable or Spiritual That it is that is offered by the Soule and Sprite Harding What needeth al this longe processe vppon the woorde Incruentum Vnbloudy Go to the purpose M. Iewel By the place alleged out of S. Chrysostome it is euident that he vnderstandeth Malachies prophecie of the vnbloudy Sacrifice which Christ offered at his Mystical Table in his Last Supper and is now daily offered by Priestes according to his Institution Examin the woordes wel See how plainely and clearely saith he the Prophete hath interpreted the Mystical Table Chrysos in Psal. 55. which is the vnblouddy Sacrifice Yet so plaine and cleare as it is you can not see or rather you wil not see it And by al your witte and cunning you endeuour so to dasel the eyes of others that they may not see it But why doo you turne al your long talke onely to the woorde M. Ievvel turneth al his Reply to the vvorde vnbloudy leauing other mater that he is not wel hable to answer Vnbloudy Why doo you not aswel speake of the Mystical Table Can ye not away to heare thereof Say what you liste of the terme Vnblouddy and allege so many sentences of Doctours as woulde fil a whole booke yet must S. Chrysostome to al men of learning appeare to expounde the Prophecie of Malachie of that whiche is vnbloudily sacrificed at the Mystical Table What Mystical Table can ye name vs now in the Churche but that whereon the Body and Bloude of Christe are sacrificed whereof it is named an Aulter Aulter Table and from whens they are of the faithful receiued for whiche it is named a Table Verily this place presseth you so that you are faine to flee as it were out of the feelde And yet least you should seme to flee away cowardly by long needeles talke vpon the woorde Vnbloudy as it were by holding vp your shilde you make a shewe as though you faught stil. In effecte two thinges you go about to prooue The first is that the Sacrifice of our Prayers and deuotion of mynde is called of the Fathers Vnbloudy The second is that the Ministration of the holy Communion which terme is very common with you is called also an vnbloudy Sacrifice Touching the first you haue taken great paines to litle purpose For it is by noman denied Touching the second what so euer you meane by your Ministring terme of the Ministration of the Holy Communion we say that the Hoste of the Mystical Table whiche is none other but the body and bloude of Christe is both of S. Chrysostome here and otherwheres of the learned Fathers called the vnbloudy Sacrifice not for that it representeth and reporteth vnto our myndes the Sacrifice of the Crosse as you say for in that respect it ought rather to be called representatiue or commemoratiue but for that being the same in substance with that whiche was offered vppon the Crosse with shedding of bloude Bloudy and vnbloudy referred to one subiecte it is here offered vnbloudily And so both these termes Bloudy and Vnbloudy be referred to one subiect or thing offered whereby the diuersitie of the manner of offering is signified Furthermore whereas you say that the Christians Sacrifices be mere spiritual and procede wholy from the harte if you meane that al our Sacrifices be such and that no external thing is offered in any of them it is vntruely spoken For the Sacrifice of Christes body and Bloude is not so mere spiritual that it may be said to proceede onely from the harte of the offerer but it requireth an external action of the Minister to wit an external pronouncing of the sacramental woordes This is my body c. Besides this external breade and wine be also necessary without the which this Sacrifice can not be made And herein after that by the power of the wordes of our Lorde by the Priest pronounced there is made the Diuine chaunge of the substāce of the bread and wine into the body and bloude of Christe August de ciuita Dei li. 10. c. 20 then is there as S. Augustine calleth it the true Sacrifice as S. Gregorie Nazianzen termeth it Nazian in Apologetico 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the external Sacrifice of the newe Testament Consider wisely with thy selfe good Christian Reader whether M. Iewel be to trusted or no in that he traueleth so much to abolish the mystical Table the vnbloudy Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ vvhether M. Ievvel be to be trusted which is the most honorable and the chiefe Sacrifice of the Church Whereas S. Chrysostom declareth diuers kindes of Sacrifices to be among the Christians as there were in olde time among the Iewes M. Iewel acknowlegeth al saue that which is most worthy and chiefe In an Homilie that he wrote vpon the .95 Psalme he reckeneth in order ten kindes of Sacrifices Ten kīdes of Sacrifices which be sitting saith he for the grace of the Gospel That I may speake of the first and chiefe after that the others be accompted the second is Martyrdom the thirde is the Sacrifice of Prayer the fourth is of Iubilation or ioyful synging out a loude the fifth of Iustice the sixth of Almose geuing the seuenth of Praise the eighth of Compunction the ninth of Humilitie the tenth of Preaching eche one of these there he prooueth by Scripture These nyne M. Iewel can finde in his harte to confesse But the first Satan and he may not abyde And that is the Sacrifice wherein Christe him selfe is offered Which Sacrifice of S. Chrysostom in that Homilie is called by these names Chrysost. in Psalm 95. Tom. 1 Mystica mensa coeleste summeque venerandum Sacrificium Spirituale illud mysticum donum hostia salutaris salutare donum The mystical Table the heauenly and most honorable Sacrifice That spiritual and Mystical gifte The healthful hoste the healthful gifte And we that should not doubte what thing this first and chiefe Sacrifice is with
Christian man is bounde to offer vp the Vnblouddy and Daily Sacrifice of the Nevve Testamente and that in as ful and ample sorte as is the Priest And therefore M. Hardinge him selfe saithe euen in the very Canon of his Masse Memento Domine famulorum famularumque tuarum omnium Circumstantium pro quibus tibi offerimus vel qui tibi offerunt hoc Sacrificium Laudis Remember ô Lorde thy Seruantes and al them that stande aboute for whom wee offer vnto thee or els whiche doo offer vnto the this Sacrifice of Praises Out of S. Augustines vvordes M. Hardinge in the ende concludeth thus Christe is a Prieste after the order of melchisedek Ergo The Priest hath Authoritie to offer vp the Sonne of God in Sacrifice vnto his Father It vvere harde to tel vs hovv this Antecedente and this Consequente came togeather No man hath Authoritie thus to mince his Logique but M. Harding Harding If the Sacrifice be external That this sacrifice is external it behoueth the Priesthode also be external That this Sacrifice is external it is cleare For to the making of this Sacrifice external thinges be requisite as bread and wine mixte with water for the mater the wordes of our Lorde outwardly pronouÌ„ced for the fourme a Man ordered and consecrated into a Priest for the Minister The body also and bloude of Christe it selfe which is the substance offered though it be spiritually vnderstanded and not with any outward sense of man perceiued is a real thing of it selfe consisting besides and without the soule spirite or mynde of man and may be receiued of mannes body by the office of the mouth and is not a mere spiritual thing as loue mercie faith hope ioye sorowe contrition of harte and such other thinges that haue their being onely in the mynde and spirite For proufe that it is external by witnesses no testimonie can be plainer then that of S. Gregorie Nazianzen whereof the three onely later wordes M Iewel hath three times in this Article alleged suppressing the other with crafty silence bicause he sawe they made directly against him Nazianzâ— in Apologetico Thus he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How should I be so bolde as to offer vp vnto him the external Sacrifice the whiche is the true sampler of the great Mysteries Let no man charge me with falsifying this Father by adding this worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnto the sentence the same is in that place necessarily to be vnderstanded and there it should haue bene placed expressely by the Author but that he thought it better the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to haue relation vnto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thrise put before in the same sentence then by â—o ofte repetition of one worde as with an vnpleasant sound to offende learned eares to whose good liking in that Oration as also coÌ„monly in al his other exacte writinges folowing Polemon in his manner of writing as it is reported of him he muche attempered his stile Double Priesthod double Sacrifice in the nevve TestameÌ„t Now as touching Priesthode in the newe Testament it is double internal or spiritual and external as our Sacrifices also be double internal and mere spiritual and this the chiefe and singuler Sacrifice of the Church external The Internal Priesthode is common to al godly persons Internal Priesthod bicause they be membres of Christe the high King and Priest and the members be partakers of what good thinkes so euer the head hath God endeweth al with this Priesthode whom he washeth cleane from their sinnes in the bloude of Christe consecrating and annointing them with none other oile then with the oile of his Grace Of this Kinde of Priesthode speaketh S. Peter and S. Ihon the Apostle 2 Pet i. 2. This Pristhode as we acknowlege Apoc. 1.5 so do our Aduersaries not denie For it is neither a degree nor order nor office nor ministerie in the Churche And verely this Priesthode sometimes is worthier and of more excellencie in a woman or a childe then in a Bishop yea perhaps then in the Pope him selfe For in him it is none at al if he happe to fal into mortal sinne Whereas then al Christian persons be Priestes annointed with that Ointment 1. Ioan. 2. of whiche S. Iohn speaketh Vos vnctionem habetis à Sancto ye haue the ointment of the Holy they ought to offer vp and sacrifice somewhat vnto God soothly them selues and their bodies Rom. 12. a liuely holy and acceptable hoste to God as S. Paul admonished 1. Pet. 2. And S. Peter calleth the faithful a holy Priesthode offering spiritual and acceptable sacrifices vnto God through Iesus Christe The other Priesthode is external or owtwarde in the Churche External Priesthod which is coÌ„municated vnto certaine persons by Consecration and by Imposition of handes of Bishops Character indelebilis imprinting into the soule of him that is made a Priest a marke or Printe that can not be put out the like whereof is imprinted in them that receiue the Sacramentes of Baptisme and Confirmation Of this Priesthode so communicated by Imposition of handes and ordination of a Bishop speaketh S. Paule to Timothe â— Tim. 4. Noli negligere Gratiam quae in te est quae data est tibi per prophetiam cum impositione manuum Presbyterij Despise not the gifte whiche is in thee that was geuen thee through Prophecie with the laying on of the haÌ„des of Priesthode 2. Tim. 1. Againe to him Stirre vp the grace of God that is in thee through the laying on of my handes And in the Epistle to Tite Tit. 2. For this intent I leafte thee in Crete that thou shouldest amende the thinges that want and ordeine Priestes in euery Citie euen so as I tooke order with thee Act. 14. S. Paule also and S. Barnabas did ordeine Priestes in euery Churche in Prayer and fasting as now a daies the custome is obserued when holy orders be geuen This outward Priesthode and the ministerie of it is very necessary in the Churche militant Neither be the Priestes depriued of it if at any time they fal into mortal sinne as Wiclef helde opinion VViclef and was condemned for it in the Councel of Constantia For this Priesthode is not such a grace geuen as maketh one acceptable called of the Diuines Gratia gratum faciens It is an office a dignitie a Degree and a grace freely geuen Gratia gratis data as the Diuines terme it Neither can the prinâ—e that is imprinted in a Priest euer be put out by any mortal sinne Auctoritie to create Priestes leaste to the Churche That the Churche hath auctoritie and power to create and ordeine Priestes of the Apostles and that the Apostles receiued the same of Christe it may be proued by that Christe said at his last Supper hoc facite in meam commemorationem Luca. 22. 1. Cor. 11. Doo ye this in my remembrance For
vnderstandeth August ad Hieronym epist. 19. where he writeth thus vnto S. Hierome a Priest him selfe being a Bisshop Quanquam secundùm honorum vocabula quae iam vsus Ecclesiae obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio maior sit tamen Augustinus Hieronymo minor est Albe it after the rate of wordes of Dignities which the custome of the Churche hath now obteined Bisshoprike is greater then Priesthode yet is Augustine lesse then Hierome S. Ambrose expounding the place of the Epistle to the Ephesians Ambros. in Epist. ad Ephes. 4. where S. Paule speaketh of Apostles Prophetes Euangelistes Pastours and Doctours by Christe placed in the Churche by Apostles vnderstandeth Bisshops and by Prophetes he vnderstandeth them that be first in degree after Bishops whiche Order may now be the Order of a Priest qui ordo nunc potest esse Presbyteri saith he meaning the Special Priesthoode geuen by Consecration of a Bishop Of this Priesthode is to be vnderstanded the .3 Canon of the .4 Councel of Carthage in which those two hundred and fourteen Bishops Concil Carthag 4. Can. 3. among whom S. Augustine was one as it is certaine by his owne subscription describe a fourme how a Priest ought to be ordered that is consecrated into that holy Order Of this Priesthode speaketh S. Augustine writing Against the Epistle of Permenian Augustin lib. 2. cōtra epist. Parmen c. 13. where making mention of Baptisme and of power to baptise he saith thus Vtrumque Sacramentum est quadam consecratione vtrumque homini datur illud cùm baptizatur istud cùm ordinatur Ideoque in Catholica vtrumque non licet iterari Either of them is a Sacrament and by a certaine Consecration either is geuen vnto a man that when he is baptized this when he is ordered And therefore in the Catholike Churche either may not be iterated or taken twise For the outward and special Priesthod these fewe may suffice That the Sacrifice is not to be consecrate and made but onely by the Special Priestes NOW touching that this Sacrifice is to be consecrated and made not by euery faithful Christian person but by those that by special consecration be ordered Priestes let vs allege the testimonies of some Fathers What force is in the worde of our Sauiour Doo ye this in my remembrance Luc. 22. spoken to none but to the Apostles 1. Cor. 11. for they onely were present at the Supper if it were ernestly vrged the learned do wel conceiue But bicause these men wil not soone be confuted by Scripture for that they can not be brought to take it in that sense in which the Churche hath alwaies bene taught by the holy Ghoste to vnderstand it let vs heare the voice of the Churche vttered by some learned and auncient Father The Bishop saith S. Dionyse the Areopagite S. Paules scholer of reuerence and Bisshoply dutie Dionysius in Ecclesiastic Hierar cap. 3. part 3. that he offereth vp the healthful Sacrifice which passeth his worthines excuseth him selfe in seemely wise first crying out vnto him Thou ô Lorde hast spoken the worde Doo ye this in my remembrance If it were lauful for euery Christian to performe this dutie Bisshoply dutie what needed S. Dionyse to speake of Bishoply dutie Againe in that he allegeth the worde of Christe Doo ye this in my remembrance for excuse of his boldnesse he signifieth this office to apperteine not to euery faithful person but to that special order of men who haue succeded the Apostles to whom onely that worde was first spoken that is to say to them that be called to the special Priesthode wherevnto Christe then promoted his Apostles by that worde geuing power office and commission S. Iustine Philosopher and Martyr saith likewise Iustinus Martyr The Apostles in their Commentaries or bookes which are called Euangelia Gospels haue recorded that Christe gaue commaundement vnto them so that they should consecrate this meate by the prayers of the woorde of him selfe that he tooke bread and after he had geuen thankes said Do ye this in remēbrance of me This is my body Item that he said hauing taken the Cuppe after he had geuen thankes This is my bloude and that he gaue it to them alone Marke here good Rearde by witnesse of this blessed Martyr who was so nygh vnto the Apostles time the commaundement to do that whiche Christe did at his supper that is to say to consecrate and offer the body and bloude of Christe was geuen to the Apostles and consequently to their successours for he bad them so to doo vntil he come and to none elles Of his wordes this Argument may wel be gathered They onely haue commaundement to doo that Christe did at the Supper to whom he gaue the Sacrament but by reporte of S. Iustine he gaue the Sacrament to the Apostles onely Ergo the Apostles onely and suche as in the function of Priesthod there instituted doo succede them haue auctorite to doo that whiche Christe did Now Christe consecrated his body and bloude and offered the same and made this Sacrifice after the order of Melchisedek Therefore they be Priestes onely Priestes I meane Hierarchical that be appointed by Christe and haue auctoritie to consecrate and make this Sacrifice whiche is the point that M. Iewel here denieth but how impudently he denieth it any man may see that hath eyes to see That this auctoritie and ministerie perteineth not to euery faithful Christian man as M. Iewel holdeth opinion but to Priestes onely the olde learned writer Tertullian acknowlegeth with these wordes Eucharistiae Sacramentum nec de aliorum manu Tertulliā lib. de Corona militis quà m Praesidentium sumimus We receiue not the Sacrament of the Eucharist of the hande of others then of the Rulers by that he vnderstanded Priestes Of this auctoritie speaketh S. Ambrose expounding this place of S. Paule to Timothe 1. Tim. 4. Despise not the grace which hath ben geuen vnto thee through prophecie with laying on of handes of Priesthode These be his wordes Prophetia est Ambros. in 1. Tim. 4. qua eligitur quasi Doctor futurus idoneus manus verò impositiones verba sunt mystica quibus confirmatur ad opus electus accipiens auctoritatem teste conscientia sua vt audeat vice Domini sacrificium Deo offerre Prophecie is saith he by which is chosen as a man would say one that shal proue a fitte teacher but the layinges on of hande are wordes mystical by whiche he that is chosen is confirmed vnto the worke receiuing auctoritie his owne conscience being witnesse that he may be so bolde as in the stede of our Lorde to offer vp the Sacrifice vnto God This place of S. Paule and the witnesse of conscience as he saith telleth them who be made Priestes by lawful imposition of handes what auctoritie they haue and how litle they ought to be a fearde being in them selues duly examined and approued to offer vp
this Sacrifice he maketh this Prouiso M. Ievvels prouiso and putteth in as it were a Caueat that it be not vnderstanded of the Ministration of the Sacramentes For that perteineth saith he onely to the Minister but onely of the Oblation and making of this Spiritual Sacrifice Verely I doubte whether this Minister vnderstandeth what he speaketh 1. Tim. 1. and whereof he affirmeth So confuse is his tale Euery Christian man by him may make this Sacrifice But none can minister the Sacramentes but a Minister I can not wel reason with him onlesse I knewe where to haue him what he meaneth by This Sacrifice what by making what by his Minister what by Ministration what by Sacramentes For our whole Religion by these men now turned vpside doune and the olde termes being of them abused to signifie other thinges then before they did al Disputation with them must needes be obscure Concerning the Sacrifice he nameth it This Spiritual Sacrifice If he had spoken indefinitely of Spiritual Sacrifice euery Lay faithful person may I graunt and ought to make and offer vp vnto God Spiritual Sacrifice For besides other Contrite harte a Contrite hart by report of Scripture is such a Sacrifice that al are bounde to offer vp vnto God But calling this Sacrifice whereof our controuersie is spiritual he semeth to vse sutteltie and to prouide him selfe a starting hole if he happen to be chafed and pursued In respecte of vnderstanding it is spiritual for that whiche is hid vnder the formes of bread and wine with vnderstanding it is conceiued and is not with bodily sense perceiued But in respecte of the substance of it whiche is the Real body and bloude of Christe it is not properly and altogether spiritual specially as Spirite doth exclude the vetitie of Body Affirming then that euery faithful man hath authoritie to make and offer this Sacrifice what sowndeth this tale but that euery suche hath authoritie to make and consecaate and offer vp the body and bloude of our Lorde whiche belongeth onely to them that properly be Priestes as now I haue proued This is bothe a Sacrament and a Sacrifice If none may minister this Secrament but the Minister for he speaketh of Sacramentes generally how muche lesse may any make that is to say consecrate or outwardly offer this Sacrifice but he that is duely made Priest by Bishoply Consecration External oblation propre to Priestes internal ê‘teineth also to the faithful peple and laying on of handes Outwardly offer I say whereby I meane the actual external and ministerial offering For els I acknowledge that by vowe affection and deuotion of harte the faithful and godly people doth also offer vp vnto God this Sacrifice Touchinge the testimonies here alleged where S. Cyprian saith Cyprian de vnct Crismat Al that of Christe be called Christians doo offer vnto God Daily Sacrifice ordeined of God Priestes of holines he meaneth it of the common spiritual sacrifices of our deuotion whiche of bounden duetie we offer vp daily and not of this Singuler Sacrifice whiche bicause it is daily offered for that we daily sinne that a remembrance of Christes Death be renued being the chiefe of al the Sacrifices that we daily offer vp vnto God the learned Fathers oftentimes haue called Quotidianum Sacrificium the daily Sacrifice Wherefore M. Iewel doth very vntruly The daily Sacrifice and A daily Sacrifice and contrary to his owne knowledge in this place to turne it The Daily Sacrifice as though S. Cyprian had meant of this Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe Of what Sacrifice it is to be vnderstanded it is soone iudged by that he maketh al Christians the offerers of the same Therefore in his translation he shoulde haue called it not The daily Sacrifice but a daily Sacrifice That he allegeth here out of Origen Origen in Leuit. Homil. 9. maketh nothing against the Catholique Doctrine touching this Sacrifice Origen onely teacheth whiche we also doo teache that al good Christian folke are spiritual Priestes Suche Sacrifices Spiritual sacrifices spiritual Priesthod suche Priesthode and suche Priestes The Christians common sacrifices be mere spiritual for they offer vp them selues Praises thankes Confession a contrite harte a troubled spirite and suche other the like whiche are mere spiritual Of the same rate is their Priesthode The peeces of sentences cut out of S. Augustine S. Ambrose and S. Chrysostome as they doo nothing relieue M. Iewels cause so doo they nothing hinder ours And bicause they be idlely and to no directe purpose alleged but as it seemeth onely to increase the heape it is not worth labour in setting forth the large circumstance of them to spende time and to answer vnto them Yet be the two last in my Reioindre to the first Article of M. Iewels Chalenge sufficiently answered Chrysost. in 2. Cor. Hom. 18. But as for S. Chrysostome he is by M. Iewel so impudently falsified in this place that I should iniurie the Truth if I dissembled it He maketh S. Chrysostome thus to say In Mysterijs nihil differt Sacerdos à Subdito In the holy Mysteries the Priest differeth nothing from the people whereby he would persuade M. Ievv fovvly falsifieth S. Chrysostom that touching the Sacrifice duly to be made beside the Ministration by which he meaneth only his Ministers geuing of bread and wine at the newe found communion the priest doth no more then the people whereas S. Chrysostome saith farre otherwise Est vbi nihil differt Sacerdos a subdito vt quando fruendum est horrendis Mysterijs There is a time saith he when the Priest differeth nothing from the subiecte that is from one of the Laietie as when they must receiue the dreadful Mysteries Is there no difference whether one say there is a time or place where the Priest differeth not from the people whiche exception negatiue manifestly includeth an affirmation of a differeÌ„ce in a certaine time or place or generally the Priest differeth nothing from the people Out vpon suche shamelesse corruption Touching the true vnderstanding of the place when the Sacrifice is to be receiued whiche is the body and bloude of Christe the subiecte that is any Laye person what so euer Leuit. â—â— 22. hath as good parte and receiueth as worthy a thing as the Priest For it is not now as it was in the olde Lawe so muche S. Chrysostome saith there when the Prieste receiued one peece of the Beastes sacrificed and the people an other peece but when we come to receiue the Mysteries we al participate of one heauenly breade to al is proponed saith he one body and one cuppe Bothe Priest and people offereth and how eche That thus we pray in the Canon of the Masse Remember ô Lorde thy Seruauntes and al them that stande aboute for whom we offer vnto thee or elles who doo offer vnto thee this Sacrifice of praise al this gladly we graunt For not onely the
Priestes but also the faithful Christian people doo offer vp this Sacrifice whiche here M. Iewel calleth the vnbloudy and Daily Sacrifice of the newe Testament meaning notwithstanding thereby not the body and bloude of Christe but a mere spiritual Sacrifice of Praise thinking by the name of the Sacrifice of Praise to exclude the Real Sacrifice of Christes body and bloude whereas none other is so muche a Sacrifice of praise and thankes as this Sacrifice is Touching the Priestes and the peoples parte in this behalfe looke what the people doth in good affection and vowe the same doo the Priestes in Ministerie saith the learned Pope Innocentius Tertius Innocentius 3. De officio Missae li. â— cap. 20. As for the Argument which M. Iewel saith I conclude out of S. Augustines wordes he may scoffe at it as he liste being the inuention of his owne meery head by me not so muche as once dreamed of It is not so harde to tel how the Antecedent and Consequent of it came together as it is for him to shewe how I haue so concluded out of S. Augustines wordes For in this place as S. Augustine alludeth to the Prophecie of Malachie so of Melchisedek he speaketh not so muche as one worde No man hath a grace to fight with his owne shadow in stede of his aduersarie but M. Iewel What he meaneth by mincing of my Logique I wote not But verely by this and a thousand mo places it is now wel knowen what a number of lyes and corruptions he hath minced and shrid together to fil vp the Hotchepotte of his Replie Iewel Christe onely is that Priest for euer accordinge to the order of Melchisedek He hath made an endles Sacrifice He him selfe hath offered vp him selfe vnto God his Father vpon the Crosse. Therefore God the Father saithe vnto him Thou art that Priest foreuer not any mortal Creature Hebrae 7. 9. or vvorldly vvight but thou onely beinge bothe God and man Psal. 110. art that Priest for euer S. Paule saithe VVee ar made perfite and Sanctified by that one Sacrifice once made vpon the Crosse. Hebrae 9. 1. Ioan. 2. S. Ihon the Euangelist saithe He is the propitiaton and Sacrifice for our sinnes 1. Pet. 2. S. Peter saithe He carried our sinnes in his Bodie vpon the Tree 2. Cor. 5. S. Paul saithe God was in Christ reconcilinge the worlde vnto him selfe Therefore S. Iohn the Baptiste saithe Iohan. 1. Beholdâ— that Lambe of God that taketh awaie the sinnes of the worlde Yf M. Hardinge and his felovves doubte hereof as they seeme to doo let Ceriste him selfe beare vvitnesse to the price of his ovvne Bloude Hanging vpon the Crosse and yeldinge vp the Sprite he sealed vp al vvith these vvordes Consummatum est That is to say This is the Sacrifice for sinne Hereby my Fathers wrathe is paciâ—ied hereby al thinges are made perfite Thus Sacrifice is but one wee maie looke for none other It is ful and perfite wee maie looke for no better Harding What neede so many wordes in a mater confessed Who denieth but Christe is a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedek Yea he is not That Priest so onely vpon which worde you harpe much but that men may be Priestes vnder him and Ministers of the same Priesthode as before I haue proued by witnesse of Eusebius and of Oecumenius And S. Augustine also saith August de Ciuit. Dei lib. 17. cap. 17. Iam vbique offertur sub Sacerdote Christo quod protulit Melchisedech quando benedixit Abraham Now is that offered vp euery where vnder the Priest Christ which Melchisedek brought forth when he blessed AbrahaÌ„ whereby he vnderstandeth not only the bare figure bread and wine but more specially the body and bloude of Christe now really conteined vnder the formes of bread and wine after consecration and then signified and forefigured by bread and wine True it is no mortal Creature or worldly wight as you speake is that Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedek To what ende bring you this in Christe also is the Lambe of God Ioan. 1. that taketh away the sinnes of the worlde He is the propiciation and Sacrifice for our sinnes What conclude you of al your needeles number of allegations Whereas you say that I and my felowes seme to doubte hereof you say like your selfe The wordes of Dronckerdes of Skoldes and of Common Lyers must not alwaies be taken for a sclaunder This Sacrifice is but one say you we may looke for none other it is ful and perfite we may looke for no better Is this the mater for which you haue spent so many wordes and textes Why sir I pray you is there any man so farre an ennemie to Christe and to his Death that now telleth you of mo redemptions then one of an other Redeming Sacrifice besides that of the Crosse of any perfiter and better then that If there be any suche let him be punished in Gods name to the example of al blasphemers yea if ye wil let him be handled as il as ye would longer this haue handled Bishop Boner that constant Confessour of God if ye could haue had so much lawe thereto as ye had malice Or as ye would haue handled me when M. Grindal procured some of the Quenes Garde with his owne men to be sent out by nyght in al haste vnto a place in Essex I knowe not where to take me and bring me prisoner to London being at good reste in my bed at Louaine Touching this point we tel you and this is not the first time we haue tolde it you There is but one Sacrifice of it selfe sufficient for the Redemption of Mankind There is but one Lambe that taketh away the synnes of the worlde Ioan. 1. and that one Lambe was neuer but once killed for taking away synnes The Sacrifice that now is daily offered in the Churche is done in remembrance of that was once done for our Redemption vpon the Crosse. We pretende not to make a newe worke of Redemption as though that whiche Christe wrought vpon the Crosse were insufficieÌ„t and vnperfite For better declaration of that whiche we doo Chrysost. in Epist. ad Hebr. Homil. 17 S. Chrysostome demaundeth Do we not offer euery day Yeas saith he we do offer but we doo it for remembrance of his death And this Sacrifice is one not many How one and not many In asmuche as it was once offered it was offered vp into the most holy of al holy But this Sacrifice is a sampler of that we offer vp alwaies the selfe same thing August coÌ„tra Faust. lib. 6. c. 5. Ibid. lib. 20. ca. 21. August li. De fide ad Petrum cap. 19. Al the Iewes sacrifices by many and diuers wayes signified the one Sacrifice the memorie of which now we celebrate saith S. Augustine After Christes Ascension it is celebrated by the Sacrament of memorie saith he in
also against al the Priestes of Christes Churche that be or haue ben sithens the Apostles yea against that learned and auncient Bishop S. Ambrose who hath and alloweth the same prayer in his booke de Sacramentis And furthermore against al the holy people of God for they specially bid that prayer as it is expressed in the Canon sed plebs tua sancta though the wordes be pronunced by a Priest For answer this we say The Priest in the Canon of the Masse praieth not for Christe the natural Sonne of God that God be fauourable vnto him who can not but infinitely aboue the reache of mannes vnderstanding fauer and loue him of whom he said This is my derely beloued Sonne Matth. 3. in whom I am wel pleased But humbly he besecheth God that he vouchesafe fauourably to looke vpon the giftes whiche the Canon nameth the holy Bread of eternal life and Cuppe of euerlasting saluation and to accepte them to our behoofe And though Gabriel Biel by the same vnderstand as true it is the Body and bloude of Christe yet he expoundeth the place in suche wise that had you euer read it shame if any were in you should haue withdrawen you from making mention of his name Whereas the Priest besecheth God that he with his merciful countenance vouchesafe to beholde those giftes and take them in good worthe as in olde time he toke the sacrifices of Abel Abraham and Melchisedek the whiche were figures of this Sacrifice by this it is not meant that the Sonne of God be receiued into fauour and be accepted of God but that he vouchesafe to accepte and take in good worth the Action of the Priest whereby he offereth vp vnto him in Mysterie Christe the pure Lambe vnder the formes of bread and wine Basil. in Liturgia In this sense S. Basil prayeth in the Canon of his Masse where he saith thus Respice super nos Deus super hanc nostram Latriam suscipe eam sicuti suscepisti munera Abel sacrificium Noe holocaustum Abrahae c. Looke vpon vs ô God and vpon this our worship and receiue it as thou diddest receiue the giftes of Abel A true expositiō of the prayer that M. Ievvel reproueth out of Gabriel Biel. Lectione 55. the sacrifice of Noe the burnt offering of Abraham c. This prayer of the Canon saith Gabriel Biel whereby God is besought to accepte and mercifully to fauer perteineth to the offerers For they being afraid of their sinnes and distrusting their owne vertue offer vp an acceptable Sacrifice and beseche God that through the same they may be accepted whiche they doubte not of but that it is accepted Wherefore they pray that he wil accepte it as touching the behalfe of them that offer S. Chrysostom in his Masse prayeth for the precious giftes Chrysost. in Liturgia That this manner of prayer seme the lesse strange and the lesse subiecte to the reproche and spite of Heretiques it is to be considered that S. Chrysostome in his Masse hath the like Where he prayeth for these most holy and precious giftes His wordes be these Pro oblatis sanctificatis preciosis Donis Dominum deprecemur For the precious giftes offered and sanctified let vs pray vnto our Lorde Go your way nowe M. Iewel and like an Hicke Scorner aske of S. Chrysostome how he dareth to pray to God for the Sonne of God For these giftes being duly sanctified and cōsecrated by the Priest he taketh for the body and bloud of Christ and therefore for Christe him selfe the Sonne of God Vpon this place of S. Chrysostomes Masse thus writeth Nicolaus Cabasilas the Grecian in his exposition Cabasilas in expositione Liturgiae Let vs pray to our Lorde for the sanctified giftes not that they receiue sanctification for to that ende he named them sanctified that thou shouldest not so thinke but that they imparte him vnto vs that is to say his grace Againe he saith there Oremus inquit pro Donis vt in nos operentur ne ad hanc gratiam non sit potens sicuti quando cum hominibus versabatur hoc omnipotens corpus in nonnullis Ciuitatibus non potuit signa facere propter eorùm incredulitatem Let vs pray saith Chrysostome for the Giftes that they may worke vpon vs least he be not of power to the working of this grace as this almighty Body when it was conuersant with men in certaine Cities Marc. 6. was not hable to worke Miracles for their vnbeleefe Beware Reader thou vnderstand not this of Christes absolute power but of the dispensation then taken in hande For of his absolute power he was hable to worke Miracles whether they beleued or otherwise Though he be hable alwaies to heale vs and to worke miraculously with vs yet oftentimes the riuer of his Diuine vertue by our ingratitude and incredulitie is so stopped from his course that it is not powred vpon vs. Whiche I thought good to note that thou be not deceiued According to this former meaning the Priest may wel pray in his Masse that God wol vouchesafe mercifully to looke vpon and to accepte those giftes to wit the body and bloude of Christe that they may haue vertue to worke the effecte of grace in vs that is to say that the course of grace whiche their vertue is to worke on their behalfe be not stopped from vs by our vnworthinesse And here it is to be considered that when a condition of a sute is by secrete meaning annexed vnto a gifte presented which most commonly happeth the partie that presenteth it besecheth him to whom it is presented to receiue it with good wil and take it in good woorth Whiche if he professe to doo then the presentour trusteth to obteine his sute secretly conteined in the condition of the gifte Now as when either by him selfe or by an other he desireth that his gifte may be accepted his meaning is specially that he him selfe making sute or that his requeste be accepted so in the Canon of the Masse the Priest and in him Gods holy people prayeth that God fauourably receiue those giftes meaning that they them selues and their sute be fauourably receiued as being a condicion annexed by inward intention to their offering of the giftes So that in this sense al hath relation to them that present and offer Chysost in Liturgia And therefore S. Chysostome after that he hath said Let vs pray to our Lorde for the precious giftes offered and sanctified forthwith addeth vt clemens Deus qui suscepit ea in sancto coelesti intelligibili Altari suo mittat nobis propterea gratiam donum sancti Spiritus That our merciful God who hath receiued them in his holy and heauenly intelligible Aulter vouchesafe to sende vs for the same the grace and gifte of the Holy Ghoste Beholde Reader he prayeth for the pretious giftes that for them God sende his grace What is this to say but that he
the people Your selfe also now doutlesse do see it Yet for your worldly estimations sake hauing made suche an Arrogant Chalenge you may not seeme to see it At least what so euer you see you wil not confesse your errrour Thus in ouersight to boast of sight in darkenes to crake of light VVho playeth Thraso his parte the Chalenger or Defender in weakenesse to speake of strength in maters for whiche of your side no learning can be shewed to chalenge al men aliue this is the parte of Thraso But in this Article of the Sacrifice for which we haue so manifest Scripture so many Doctours so many Councels so common and so long continued custome and faith of the Churche for proufe thereof to auouche stoare of testimonies it is not the parte of Thraso it is the confidence of him that knowethâ— how sufficiently the Catholike Religion may be defended against heretiks This serueth not to fray the simple as you say it serueth to cal backe the presumptuous rashnes of a newe Gospeller to animate right beleeuers and to stay the simple As for the wise whether they wil more condemne of folie me for shewing iust confidence in defence of the truthe or you for making suche a proude Chalenge against the truth I leaue it to their secrete iudgementes Bring vs but one plaine sentence of any Scripture auncient Doctor or Councel making clearely for you that a Priest hath not auctoritie and therefore may not offer vp Christe in the Euchariste as I haue brought many for proufe of the contrary and I wil be contente the name of Thraso be not returned vpon you If ye haue none to bring as sure I am ye haue not for your Thrafonical Chalenge that name wil become you better then me that how so euer you wrangle promise no more then I performe That the Reader go not farre for one suche sentence among many of our parte let the very laste alleged out of S. Chrysostome be considered In whiche he saith plainely Châ—ysost in 1. Cor. Hâ—st 24. that Christe commaunded him selfe to be offered Whiche can not be referred to the Sacrifice of the Crosse. For if he had commaunded the Iewes to Crucifie him they had not bene gilty of his Death Neither permitteth the circumstance of the place any other to be vnderstanded then the Sacrifice of the Aulter in whiche Christe him selfe according to his commaundement Doo ye this in my remembrance is as I haue now proued really offered If in defence of your side you can not shew vs so muche as one sentence of like clearenes you must beare with wise men if they thinke the great sturre you haue made with your Chalenge to be great folie And likewise must you beare with your Aduersaries if they reporte you haue more shew of wordes then substance of mater To conclude go plainely to worke M. Iewel The handling of these maters requireth honestie sinceritie fidelitie truth conscience and the feare of God Set vs forth the light of true thinges if ye haue any leaue the darke clowdes of youy Phrases and Figures Conclude your Doctrine with some firme Argumentes confirme it with good and sufficient authorities Be ashamed of your loose and childish Argumentes by whiche in manner alwaies you inferre the denial of one truth by the affirmation of an other truth Let the world see that you allege your testimonies truly iointly and wholly that you falsifie them not by your diuisions taking one peece here and an other peece there by nipping of by adding vnto by hewing mangling and when you doo least by wrong and wrested vnderstanding Otherwise if you shal continue to set maters of Faith vpon vncertaine Phrases and Figures and Tropical speaches to confounde one truth with an other to corrupte to patche together to mangle and by other waies to falsifie as hitherto you haue done be the cotations of your Bookes Margent neuer so thicke be the number of your vnlearned and partial Fauourers neuer so great the wise the godly the learned shal iudge you as they finde you to be but a Maister of Phrases a confounder of Truthes a patcher a mangler a shifter a Falsifier THE TABLE A ABra by M. Iewel reported to be S. Hilaries daughter 172. b This worde Al in Scripture oft-times admitteth exception of many 168. a. b. Amalricus his carkasse digged vp and burnt in Paris 187. a. Anathema pronounced against the dead 186. b. Antitypon excludeth not the veritie of the Mysteries 80. b. Antitypon howe it is taken in S. Clement 81. a. The terme Antitypon maketh not for the Sacramentaries 81. b. Antitypon what it signifieth properly 82. b Apostles made Priestes by Christ at the last Supper 87. a. b. in sequent The Apostles made vowe to forsake al thinges 171. b. The Apostles forsoke the companie of their wiues Ibidem Application of Christes Death no strange Doctrine 219. a. Application of this Sacrifice prooued 114. b. 121. a. 162. a. b. 219. a. Aulters vsed of the Christians 9. a. b. 99. a. Aulter 61. a. 130. a. 225. b. 230. a. Aulter visible and external 60. b. 130. a. 143. a. 229. a. b. Aulters material 99. a. 229. a. sequent External Aulter argueth external Sacrifice 229. a. Authoritie geuen to Priests to offer vp the dreadful Sacrifice 88. a. 128. a. B. Baptisme 9. b. Baptisme doth not only signifie but also exhibit wasshing of sinnes 83. b. Beza 17. a. Beza defendeth it to be lawful to put Heretiques to death 179. a. The Bible corrupted by the Protestantes 167. a. b. Bishoply duetie 246. a. Blouddy and vnbloudy referred to one subiecte 226. a Burning of Heretiques Dead carcasses no newe thing .186 b. sequent C. CAluine defendeth it lawful to put Heretiques to Death 197. a The Canon of the Masse defended against M. Iewels scoffes 123. b. 254. b. 257. a. The prayer of the holy CanoÌ„ found in S. Ambrose 258. a. Ceremonies of the Iewes changed 9. a. sequent Ceremonies of the Christians 59. a. The Chalenger playeth Thraso his parte 261. b. How we see Christe suffering by Charitie 200. b. Christe truly and in in deede offered 35. a. Christ offered vp his body at his last Supper 45. a. 48. a. Christ sacrificed him selfe at his Supper 67. b. 79. b. sequent Christe gaue his body and shed his bloud at the Supper affirmed by certaine Fathers 73. a. Christe sacrificeth and is sacrificed by the meanes or mediation of Priestes 86. a. 127. a. Christe dieth againe in this Mysterie and how 161. b. 162. a. Christ at the Supper both Priest and Lambe 73. b. Christ commaunded him selfe to be offered 79. b. 106. b. 259. b. Christe appeareth before the Father in heauen with his wounded body 117. a. 118. a. The Rocke was Christe and how 1â—7 a. Christes being in the Sacrifice and in reading of the Storie of the Gospel is different 199. a. Christe offred the true bread and the true wine at his Supper 48. a. 204. a.
Priesthod 209. a The Priesthod of Christe continueth stil both in heauen and in the Churche 235. b Internal Priesthod 241. b External Priesthod 242. a. Authoritie to create Priestes leafte to the Churche 242. b Deriuation of Priestly duetie 243. a Special Priesthod 244. b. seq Priestes Christes vicars and substitutes in making this Sacrifice 50. a. 247. a. Both Priest and people offereth and howe eche 25â— a The people offer by geuing assent to the Priestes action and applying their deuotion Ibid. Real Priesthod in the Church now ergo real Sacrifice 11. b Christen men how they be Priestes in general and also kinges 12. b. Priest in english a name common to Presbyter and Sacerdos 13. a. VVhy S. Paule calleth rather Priests then Sacrificers 14. a. Priestes haue authoritie to offer vp Christe vnto his Father 49. a. 50. a. b. 90. a. b. 143. b. 144. a. 190. b. 216â— a. Continuance of Priestes necessary 49. b. Priestes succede the Apostles in degree 49. b. 64. a. Iust punishment merciful 179. b R. REal presence 42. a. 72. a. 92. b. 105. b. 107. b. 111. b. 112. a. Real presence and Sacrifice auouched by S. Chrysostom dissembled by M. Ievvel 72. a Real Sacrifice 35. b. 42. a. 253. a The name of a Renegate ansvvered 182. a. VVho is a Renegate Ibid. b ReparatioÌ„ repairing or renuing and RepresentatioÌ„ of Christes Death 219. a. Robert King of Dednam and Robert Debnam of Elsbergholt haÌ„ged for felonie Foxes Martyrs 181. a. S SAbbatum olde and nevv 8. b. 9. a Real Sacrifice in the Churche 11. b. 105. b The substance of the Sacrifice in both Testamentes diuers 20. b The substance of bread and vvine hath no place in our Sacrifice 21. a The effectes of the Sacrifices of both Lavves diuers Ibi. b. seq Real and true Sacrifice and Sacrifice in dede 35. b The Sacrifice of the Aulter a true and real Sacrifice 36. b. 80. a. 98. b Difference betvvene a true and the true Sacrifice 40. b The Sacrifice that vve offer is the PassioÌ„ of Christ and why 41. b. Christes body neuer ceassed nor shal ceasse to be a Sacrifice 42. a The fruictes of this Sacrifice 44. b. 45. a. The Sacrifice of Christe auouched in the Gospel by S. Augustines iudgement 45. b Sacrifice spred ouer the vvorlde Ibi. In the Sacrifice of the Aulter al the conditions of Malachies prophecie are founde 51. a Sacrifices common to both Testamentes 51. a The Sacrifice of the Aulter succede al the Sacrifices of the olde Lavv. 51. b. The properties attributed to this Sacrifice by Malachie 63. a Sacrifice auouched by S. Chrysostome 72. b. 78. b. 105. b. 114. b. 119. b. 189. a. 192. a. 214. b. 226. b. The Sacrifice of the Supper and the Sacrifice of the Crosse one and diuers in diuers respectes 74. a. 78. b. This Sacrifice auouched by the Nicâ—n Councel 217. a. Hovv Christe sacrificeth 221. b Ten kindes of Sacrifices 226. b Three Sacrifices noted by S. Augustine 237. b Sacrifices of tvvo sortes invvarde and outvvard 239. b This Sacrifice is external 241. a Sacrifice taken tvvo vvaies 74. a This Sacrifice called Spiritual and vvhy 79. a Three kinds of Sacrifices of the new Testament by Eusebius 93. a A memorie of the Sacrifice of the Crosse excludeth not the Sacrifice of the Aulter 98. a Reasons for this Sacrifice 108. a. 137. b. 190. b. This Sacrifice is a meane to deriue the effect of Christes Death vnto vs. 121. a. This Sacrifice called the tradition of God 131. b. sequent VVhy the Fathers spake at the beginning secretly of this Sacrifice 132. b. And in the Preface 33. a In what sense the Sacrifice is Symbolical or Figuratiue 135. a S. Dionyse for the Sacrifice 137. a S. Gregorie Nazianzene for the external Sacrifice 138. a The Sacrifice of the Aulter the Sacrifice of Praise 145. a The Singular Sacrifice 145. a. 236. b. 237. a Our Sacrifice is the pure Sacrifice and why 151. a S. Cyprian euident for the Sacrifice 156. a The Sacrifice after Melchisedeks order both on the Crosse and also at the Supper 157. b A plaine argument for the Sacrifice out of S. ChrysostoÌ„ 190. b. seq The ende of Christes Sacrifice and of ours 192. b Yf Christ leaft no real Sacrifice to his people the new Law was left in worse case then the olde c. 104. b. 105. a Our Sacrifice a much more maruelous and honorable sacrifice then al other 105. b The substance of the Sacrifice on the Crosse and Sacrifice on the Aulter al one 113. b The Sacrifice why of Malachie called the pure Sacrifice 151. a The Sacrifice of Prayse how general it is 144. b Sacrifice Priesthod Law go so together that the bettering of either of them doth infer the bettering of the other 197. a The differeÌ„ce of Christ being in the Sacrament and in the reading of the storie of the Gospel 199. a The Sacrifice not to be consecrate but only by the Special Priestes 245. b. seq 248. a. In this Sacrifice what is Christe what are we 247. a This Sacrifice both Commemoratiue and real 253. a In this Sacrifice the Churche is offred 257. a Spiritual Sacrifice as a contrite hart and such like not the proper Sacrifice of the new testameÌ„t 140. b Sacerdotes that is Sacrificers be now properly in the Churche 13. b The terme Sacerdos Priest vsed of the Fathers and how 7. a. seq 11. b. The olde terme Sacrificer vsed after the destruction of Ierusalem 14. a. The terme Sacrificer vsed by S. Dionyse 15. a. VVhy S. Paule calleth the publike persones of the Churche Priestes rather then sacrificers 14. a Sacrament and Mysterie do not importe a signification of absence of the thing reported to be sacrificed c. but the secret maÌ„ner of sacrificing c. 77. b. VVhy the Sacrament is geuen vs in forme of bread and wine 82. b. 83 a. The Sacrament called by the name of bread and vvine 85. b The Sacramentaries Argument It is a signe of the bodie ergo not Christes true bodie stark naught 83. b. The true and real bloude of Christe in the Sacrament 107. a Sacrament of Remembrance 239. a If al be taken away that hath no proufe of Scripture what inconuenience vvil folovve 4. b. A Shifte of the newe Gospellers against the Fathers testimonies for the Sacrifice 8. a. 218. a Sicuti as in the CanoÌ„ reporteth not equalitie but likenes 124. b. 258. b Signes of two sortes significatiue onely and exhibitiue 83. b. A Syster woman vvhat it meaneth in S. Paule 166. b. seq Spiridion made bishop after he had ben married 171. b Spiridion not proued by Sozomenus to be a married Bishop 172. a. Spiritual Sacrifices Spiritual Priesthod 250. a. The reproche of Straggling alone answered 67. a. sequent T. TAble 225. b. 230. a Temple 9. b Thinges signifying and thinges signified called by the same names and hovv 111. b. 112. a. b Thinges implied though not vttered in expresse Termes 66. b. Thraso his parte played by the Chalenger rather then by the defender 261. b. The olde translation of the testament not controlled by Catholikes 70. a Translatours of the Bible into English false harlots 167. b Tertullian no martyr 172. b How the Churche speaketh vvith al tongues 200. b Transsubstantiation 29. a. b. 33. a. 84â— b. 92â— b. 112. a. 136. a. â—ne Truth put away by an other truth M. Iewels common custome 16. b. 17. b. 26. b. 27. b. 32. b. 59. a. 98. b. 165. a. 195. a. 198. b. 202 b. 223. a. 227. b. 233 a. 239. b. Truth not excluded by Image 161. a V. VNbloudy Sacrifice 37. a. b. 41. a. 52. a. 77. a. b. 78. a. 102. a. 214. a. b. 227. a. b. Vnbloudy shedding of bloude 76. b 77. a. b. Vnblouddy Death 16â— b. Vnbloudy spoken of the Sacrifice of the Aulter 247. b Christe offered his ovvne body vnblouddily 215. b Blouddy and vnblouddy referred to one subiecte 226. a. Vntruthes vttered by M. Ievvel three at once 20. b. 113. a. 147. a. An impudent vntruth and lye that can not be excused 30. aâ— 34. b. 171. a. 177. a. Vse and obseruation of of Sabbatum Pascha Altare c. double olde and nevve 8. b. 9. a W. VVHy Christ gaue his body and bloud vnder the formes of bread and vvine 30. a. VViat beheadded 183. b. VViued Apostares and their vvysedom 168. a. VViclef 242. b. VVordes vsed of the Fathers to expresse the manner of this blouddy Sacrifice 77. a. VVilliam Cowbridge Foxes Martyr 181. a VVilliam Flovver Foxes Martyr Ibid. a. Y. Yoke fellovve man 168. a. Liber iste lectus est approbatus à viris sacrae Theologiae Angâ—ici Idiomatis peritissimis quibus sicut ipsi Authori M. N. Thomae Hardingo tutò credendum iudico Quâ—re sine scrupulo edendâ—n esse existimo magnam ex hoc argumento vtilitatem spero Cunerus Petri Pastor S. Peâ—â—i Louanij 23. Augusts An. 1567.
of the new TestameÌ„t to be without external Sacrifice and Priesthod propre to that state he should seme to haue deliuered vnto his people not the Testament of grace but a state of ire and wrath yea of more wrath then was the state of the Iewish people But whereas he saith him selfe Esai 61. that he came praedicare annuÌ„ Domini acceptuÌ„ to preache the acceptable yeare of our Lorde Luc. 4. that is to say the time of grace mercie and saluation and sith that S. Paul saith 2. Cor. 6. Behold now is the acceptable time beholde now is the day of saluation verely assured we are forasmuch as to euery lawe ordeined by God Sacrifice and Priesthod belongeth propre and conuenient to the same that God would not suffer his most deare people of the newe TestameÌ„t his best beloued spouse the Church to be without external Sacrifice and Priesthod the lacke whereof was sometimes threatened to the Iewes for a greuous plague Neither to say the trouth could it in any wise seme conuenieÌ„t that that ReligioÌ„ which of al that euer haue ben is most absolute should lâ—cke that Seruice and wourship wherby the external and propitiatorie sacrifice is offred which Seruice hath alwaies ben most highly estemed in euery ReligioÌ„ not only in that which is true and instituted of God but also in that which is false and deuised by the enuie and suggestion of the Deuil wherein he endeuoureth al that he can that the Image of the true Religion as muche as may be be expressed and liuely set forth Forasmuche then as in the olde Testament The Sacrifice of the Churche as S. Paule witnesseth there wanted perfection by reason of the weakenes and vnhablenes of the Leuitical Priesthoode for the lawe brought nothing to perfection it behoued Heb. 7. God the Father of mercie so disposing that an other Priest after the order of Melchisedek should rise who might make perfite al that were to be sanctified This Priest was Iesus Christe our Lorde and God Who whereas he came not to loose the Lawe in asmuch as it was Natural Mat. 5. or Moral but rather to fulfil the Law when he brought his new Lawe into the worlde so much promised before in Ieremie Ierem. 31. and th' other Prophetes least he should haue least it maimed and vnperfit in this behalfe coÌ„trarywise then the manner of the former lawes of nature and of Moyses was either of which had outward sacrifice furnished it with a peculiar Sacrifice and Priesthod For it could not otherwise be but that when a new Lawe tooke place Sacrifice propre to that Lawe should go with it and Priestes likewise as Ministers of the same Sacrifice For according to the Doctrine of S. Paule Lawe Sacrifice and Priesthode go euer together Therefore though he would once offer him selfe Heb. 7. vnto God the Father vppon the Aulter of the Crosse with Death that he might there pay the price of the raunsom of the worlde and worke euerlasting Redemption yet bicause his Priesthod was not to be extinguished and ended by Death and euery Priesthod requireth a proper Sacrifice at his last Supper in the night that he was betrayed that he might leaue vnto his Deare Spouse the Churche a visible Sacrifice as the nature of men required whereby that blouddy Sacrifice once to be made vpon the Crosse might be represented and the Memorie of it kepte and the healthful Vertue of it appyled vnto vs and God duely recognized at the same Supper declaring him selfe to be constituted a Priest after the order of Melchisedek according to the dutie of Priesthoode he offered vp vnto God the Father his body and bloude vnder the formes of bread and wine and deliuered the same vnto the Apostles whom then he made Priestes of the newe Testament that they should receiue them and by these wordes Hoe facite in meam coÌ„memorationem Luc. 12. Doo ye this in my remembrance 1. Cor. 11. vnder whiche request that his whole action is comprehended he gaue commaundement to them and to their Successours in Priesthoode to offer vp the same Thus the Churche hath alwaies vnderstanded thus it hath taught thus it hath beleued In witnesse hereof S. Ireneus speaking of that which Christe did at his Supper Iren. lib. 4. cap. 32. saith Noui Testamenti nouam docuit oblationem He taught the new oblation of the newe testament And this is the doctrine of the Catholike Churche touching the Sacrifice of the newe Testament simply declared which Sacrifice is now according to our Lordes Institution and commaundement offered daily by Priestes in this office the Apostles successours Neither saith S. Irenaeus of this Oblation onely that it is the newe Oblation of the newe Testament Ibidem and that Christe taught it but also that the Churche receiuing it of the Apostles doth offer this Sacrifice to God in vniuerso mundo in the whole worlde Wherefore it is mere madnesse yea if we would speake as S. Augustine speaketh in euery the like case it is most insolent madnesse August Epist. 118. ad Ianuar. to dispute whether in the Masse there be a Sacrifice and oblation or no and whether the same ought to be continued seing that the whole Churche through the worlde doth celebrate and frequent it For good proufe of it we haue the Scriptures Auctorities for the sacrifice of the Aulter the Doctours of al ages the auncient Councels the sense practise and vse of the vniuersal Churche As for the Scriptures I thinke it ynough here only to note certaine places Scripturâ— for the Sacrifice that be alleged for it They are these the Institution of Christe described in the Ghospel the prophecie of Malachie the Fignre of Melchisedek Vnto whiche may be added the manifest place of the first Epistle to the Corinthians Luc. 22. where S. Paule saith Malach. 1. they could not be made partakers of the Table of our Lorde Gen. 14. who had defiled them selues with taking parte of the Table of Deuils 1. Cor. 10. where by Table he vnderstandeth in bothe places the Aulter whereon the prophane meates were offered to Deuils among the Gentiles and the Euchariste is consecrated and offered vp vnto God among the true beleeuers whereof Sacrifice is concluded For by those woordes it is manifest that S. Paule doth compare our Euchariste in respecte of Sacrifice to the Sacrifices of the olde lawe and to the Sacrifices of the Deuils Whiche thing he would not haue done onlesse he had ben assured and onlesse it had ben wel knowen to the ChristiaÌ„ people that the Euchariste is so a true Sacrifice as those that were offered to God in the olde Testament and as those that of thâ— Gentiles were offred to Deuils Doctours for prouf of the Sacrifice As for the Doctours their witnesses for proufe hereof be in manner infinite In al their writinges whereof speake they so often as of this Sacrifice Many
of their sayinges I wil not here reherse many of good force I wil dissemble and the sayinges of a Li 8â— CoÌ„stitut Apost Epist. 2. S. Clement b Epist. 1 of S. Anacletus c Epist. 1. of S. Alexander d Ecclesiast Hierarch c. 3 part 3. of S. Dionysius and e Epist. ad Smyruen Trallian Iren. li. 4. cap. 32. Infra fol. â—40 b. etc Cyprian Lib. 2. S. Ignatius I wil not touche Who as they were either in the Apostles time or soone after and therefore are the rather to be heaâ—d so of this Sacrifice they haue geuen forth in writing very plaine witnesse Verely S. Irenaeus speaketh so clearely of it in his fourth booke against Valentinus that by no shifte it can be auoided by no myste or clowde it can be darkened M. Iewel hath beaten his wit very muche about it and hath trauailed al that he could to frame an answer to it in his Replie but he laboureth in vaine and sheweth more wilfulnes then reason more talke then learning as by this Reiondre it shal appeare S. Cyprian writing to Caecilius saith that the Priest doth then offer in the Churche a true and ful sacrifice vnto â—od the Father if he beginne so to offer euen as he seeth Christe to haue offered In whiche place he declareth how Christe offering his body and bloude in the forme of bread and wine at his Supper Epist. 3. Ambros. lib. 4.5.6 De Sacrament lib. 5. exercised the office of his Priesthoode after the order of Melchiâ—edech Here I might allege S. Ambrose in sundry places of his bookes De Sacramentis and in his Epistle to the noble woman Marcellina his sister Epist. 33. where expressely he nameth the Masse by the name of Missa and the Oblation that it be not wrested to an other signification S. Hierome in sundry places of his workes but specially in his epistle to Euagrius and to Hedibia quaest 2. hath a manifest testimonie of this sacrifice S. Augustin likewise in many places of his workes De Ciuit. li. 17. c. 20 In the .17 booke De Ciuitate Dei speaking of the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe which he doth exhibite after the order of Melchisedek saith Id sacrificium successit omnibus illis sacrificijs veteris Testamenti quae immolabantur in vmbra futuri This Sacrifice hath come in place of al those sacrifices of the olde Testament whiche were sacrificed in the shadow of the sacrifice to come And to thintent we should vnderstand this not to be the blouddy Sacrifice of the Crosse but the vnblouddy Sacrifice of the Aulter he addeth these wordes to put the Reader out of doubte pro illis omnibus sacrificijs Oblationibus corpus eius offertur participantibus ministratur For al those sacrifices and Oblations of the olde Lawe Christes body is offered and ministred vnto the receiuers In his booke of Confessions he speaketh of this Sacrifice so clearly as it can not be denied shewing how it was offred for his Mother Monica that holy woman at her burial August Confess lib. 9. c. 12 His wordes be plaine Neque in eis precibus quas tibi fudimus cùm offerretur pro eae Sacrificium precij nostri ego fleui Neither wepte I in those praiers whiche we made vnto the he speaketh vnto God at what time the Sacrifice of our Price was offered vp for her In an other place he telleth what a great desire she had not to haue her body sumptuously and honorably buried but to be remembred at the Aulter of Godâ— Ibid. â— 13 vnde sciret dispensari victimam sanctam qua deletum est Chirographum quod erat contrariumnobis qua triumphatus est hostis computans delicta nostra etc. From whence she knew that holy hoste or sacrifice to be bestowed by which the handwriting that was contrary to vs was blotted out by which the enemie that reckeneth our offenses was ouercomme By these two testimonies bothe the Sacrifice offered at the Aulter and the Oblation of the same for the Dead is auouched If al were laid together that may be alleged out of S. Augustine in witnes of this Sacrifice it would fil a booke 〈◊〉 serm 7. de Passione Domini At what time the matter was treated in Caiphas haul saith S. Leo How Christe should be killed then he ordeined the Sacrament of his body and bloud and taught his Disciples what Sacrifice froÌ„ thenceforth ought to be offered vnto God Against these our Aduersaries can take no exception either for their age or for their auctoritie Masses made by S. Iames S. Basil S. Chrysostom S. Ambros. What shal I speake of the Masse of S. Iames the Apostle and the Masse of S. Basil allowed by the sixth general Councel holden at Constantinople and by al the Greekes of the Masse of S. Chrysostome and of S. Ambrose al whiche the antiquitie acknowleged and now be extant In those Masses this Sacrifice and Oblation is oftentimes spoken of and it is declared how it is offered Councels for vvitnes of this Sacrifice â—â—cil Nicâ—n â—ae 14â— Hereunto may be added the auctoritie of many Councels that conteine most cleare witnes of the Sacrifice of the Aulter Those holy and learned Fathers of the great first General Councel holden at Nice say that it is an vnworthy thing that they which haue not power to offer the Sacrifice that is to say the Deacons should geue the body of Christe to them that offer it The first Councel Ephesine likewise acknowledgeth the Vnblouddy Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe Concil Ephesinâ— in Epistola Cyrill ad NestoriuÌ„ and the true presence of that body whiche is proper vnto the Worde The Testimonies of other Councels that folowed these might easily be alleged for this pointe in great number But these may suffice M. Iewel impudently beareth the world in hande that nothing can be founde in the auncient Doctours or Councels M. Ievvel in his ChaleÌ„ge that maketh clearely for the Sacrifice Yea he pretendeth him selfe to be so sure of it that he offereth freely to yeelde and subscribe which it semeth he mindeth not to doo what so euer be brought if any learned man of his Aduersaries or al the learned men aliue be hable to bring any one sentence out of any one olde Doctour or Councel for it But his Maister Iohn Caluine as wicked an Heretique as he was was neuer so shamelesse as to denie a thing so manifestâ— nor so rash as to graunt so muche And therefore thus he writeth Veteres Coenam Sacrificium vocasse notum est neque possum veteris Ecclesiae consuetudinem excusare Caluinâ—â— de Coena dominiâ— quòd gestu ac ritu suo speciem quandam sacrificij figuraret ijsdem ferè ceremonijs quae sub veteri Testamento in vsuerant eo excepto quod panis hostia animalis loco vtebantur Quod cùm nimis ad Iudaisinum
accedat Caluin acknovvlegeth the Sacrifice vvas in the ancieÌ„t Churche M. Ievvel denieth nec Domini institutioni consentaneum sit minimè probo That the olde Fathers called the Supper a Sacrifice it is knowenâ— neither can I excuse the custome of the auncient Churche for that with gesture and outward rite they did set forth a certaine fourme of a Sacrifice with the same Ceremonies in a manner Caluin alloweth not the olde Churche yet must vve needes allovv Caluin that were in vse in the olde Testament saue that they vsed the hoste of Bread in place of a beast Whiche thing sith it commeth to nigh to Iewishnes neither is agreable vnto the Institution of the Lorde I doo not allow Thus M. Iewel should haue tolde his tale if he had folowed the chiefe Inuentour and founder of his Geneuian Gospel for so besides heresie he had offended but in pride But now he hath so proclaimed his Chalenge that besides heresie and pride he hath also proued him selfe ignorant rash and impudent And thus is he confuted by his owne chiefe Doctor who being conuicte with euident truth with some modestie confesseth that he could not denie though with intolerable pride he disallowed that whiche he was not hable to disproue So Lucifer knew that his Creator was aboue him yet not lyking wel of it Esai 14. he said I wil be like vnto the highest As concerning the Institution of Christe that by a cleare declaration of it The institution of Christe declared it may appeare by the acte of Christe that at his Supper he offered vp to his Father his body and bloude it is to be considered what he did Doo ye this said he in my remembrance What this This very thing that I now haue done He tooke bread into his handes and lifting vp his eyes vnto heauen as by assured tradition the Churche hath receiued Ambrosius De sacrament li. 4. cap. 5. and S. Ambrose reporteth it as a thing vndoubted and shewing it vnto the Father as we read in S. Iames Masse he gaue thankes vnto him as being the author almighty of al thinges Iacobus in Liturgia from whom al that good is procedeth and as it was accustomed to be done in Sacrifices with a certaine rite of Religion he consecrated the bread blessing it he brake it and gaue it vnto his Disciples to eate saying This is my Body that is geuen for you To whom is it geuen To my Father almighty to whom as being Lorde of al I haue geuen thankes It is geuen I say to my Father presently without bloudshed and in a Mysterie but anonne for his willes sake to be rent and torne and to be put to death Euen so a litle after he said lifting vp his eyes also into Heauen as it is in S. Iohn Iohan. 17. Pro illis ego sanctisico meipsum I sanctifie my selfe for them fulfilling that olde Lawe in deede it selfe Exod. 13. whiche required Num. 8. that euery first begoten should be sanctified vnto our Lorde Luc. 2. that is to say be offered and appointed vnto Gods holy seruice Likewise he tooke the Cuppe after that he had supped saying Mat. 26. This is my bloude of the new Testament that for you and for many is shed Luc. 22. in remission of sinnes This is the visible worke whiche we doo according to the instruction of Christe with which by publique auctoritie bicause Christe so ordeined and commaunded we professe God to be not onely the beginning and end of al thinges the founteine of al felicitie and ende of our desires but also through the Death of his owne Sonne the redemer of al men and the repairer of al thinges which through sinne we had lost That this commemoration ought to be celebrated externally with outward worke S. Paule plainely signifieth saying to the Corinthians So ofte as ye eate this bread 1. Cor. 1â— and drinke of this Cuppe ye doo shew forth the Death of our Lorde vntil he come For that shewing forth can not be made with the internal commemoration of the minde Whiche sense is also signified by the verbe of the present tense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ye doo shew forth our Lordes death for so in the Greke S. Paule speaketh Touching testimonies that may be alleged for further proufe of this Sacrifice bicause it is declared and set forth at large bothe in my Answer to M. Iewels 17. Article and in this Reiondre and for so much as the coÌ„uenient breuitie of a Preface wel beareth not so large a treatie as the dew opening of this point requireth and furthermore least by treating of it here I should withdraw thy desire Reader from perusing that wherewith I haue fortified and made good my Answere for these considerations I referre thee vnto my Reioindre it selfe Now let vs see how the foure thinges whiche after the doctrine of S. Augustine be required in euery Sacrifice August de Trinit lib 4. c. 14. be found in the most blessed Sacrifice of the Aulter 1 To whom oblatioÌ„ is made 2 by whom it is made 3 what is that whiche is offered 4 and for whom it is offered To vvhoÌ„ is OblatioÌ„ made in the Sacrifice of the Churche Concerning the first This doctrine of the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe whiche now we are driuen to defende against the Professours of this newe deuised Gospel was so certainely knowen and generally holden of al men in the first times of the Church that the very Arians who were Heretiques and enemies of Christe thought they had founde an inuincible Argument against the Equalitie of the Sonne of God with the Father bicause in this Sacrifice the Sonne is offered vp vnto the Father For it is certaine said they that he which is offered is lesse then he to whom he is offered To whiche Argument that which Fulgentius an auncient Father writeth may serue for answer who sheweth learnedly writing to Monimus that this Sacrifice is not offered to the Father onely but to the whole Trinitie If â—here be any Catholique beleuers saith he that seemed hitherto to be ignorant of this Sacrifice Fulgenâ—tius lib. 2. ad Moninum from hence forth they ought to knowe that al seruice of euery wourship and healthful Sacrifice OblatioÌ„ is made to the most blessed Trinitie is of the Catholique Churche exhibited both to the Father and to the Sonne and to the Holy Ghoste that is to say to the Holy Trinitie in whose onely name it is manifest that the Holy Baptisme also is celebrated Neither is preiudice goten vnto the Sonne or vnto the Holy Ghoste whiles prayer by him that offereth is directed vnto the person of the Father the ending of which prayer whereas it hath in it the name of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghoste sheweth that no * discrimeÌ„ oddes is in the Trinitie bicause whiles the wordes of honour be directed vnto the person
of the Father onely with the Faith of him that wel beleueth the whole Trinitie is honoured and when the intention of him that sacrificeth is directed vnto the Father the gifte of the Sacrifice with one and the same dewtie of the offerer is offered vnto the whole Trinitie Thus Fulgentius When Christe the Sonne of God is offered vp according to his body and bloude that is to say according to his humaine nature according to whiche he is lesse then the Father then him selfe then the holy Ghost he is consecrated vnto the holy Trinitie And so much doth the Churche in the lesser Canon and specially in the ende of the Masse professe August de Ciuit. Dei li. 10. c. 20 with expresse wordes naming the Trinitie it selfe Therefore S. Augustine saithâ— that whereas Christe Iesus in the forme of God taketh sacrifice with the Father Christe is sacrificed in the forme of a seruauÌ„tâ— with whome he is one God yet in the forme of a seruaunt he had rather be a Sacrifice then take Sacrifice least by this occasion some man should thinke that Sacrifice were to be done to any creature By this he is a Priest him selfe both the offerer and him selfe also the offering Of which thing he willed the daily Sacrifice of the Churche to be a Sacrament which Church whereas it is the body of him selfe the head is taught through him to offer vp it selfe Masses in honour and memorie of Sanctes Although sometime the Churche do celebrate certaine Masses in the honour and memorie of Saintes yet it doth not offer Sacrifice vnto them but vnto the Trinitie only that hath crowned them and geuing thankes vnto God for their victories sueth for their aides and desireth to be holpen by their merites and prayers Wherof S. Augustine treateth Lib. 8. De Ciuitate Dei cap. vâ—t lib. 20. Contrà Faustum cap. 21. Concerning the second point which is by whom this Oblation and Sacrifice is made By vvhoÌ„ is this Sacrifice made among some men there is some doubte thereof For some say that Christe offereth not but that we only do offer Others there be that wil Christe here also to be the Priest who wil seme to leane to the authoritie of S. Ambrose Ambr. lib. 1. Officiorum c. 48. De SuÌ„ma Trinit fide Cath. cap. firmiter and of the Laterane Councel Now Christ is offered saith S. Ambrose but he is offred as man as receiuing passion and he offereth him selfe as a Priest to forgeue our sinnes The Councel hath thus There is one vniuersal Churche of the faithful in which the selfe same Priest is the Sacrifice Iesus Christe If our Lorde bicause he is a Priest for euer according to the order of Melchisedeck haue an euerlasting Priesthode Heb. 7. as S. Paul saith although he offered him selfe vnto the Father with death in the Aulter of the Crosse to pay the price of mannes redemption yet his Priesthode was not extinquished by death Wherefore as in the Epistle to the Hebrewes S. Paule concludeth Heb. â— it is necessary that he haue also that which he may offer But whereas it is not Christe him selfe in his owne person but a man Priest that standeth at the Aulter who with the wordes of Christ doth consecrat and offer this Sacrifice as to this purpose he is assumpted the learned Fathers of the Councel of Trent Concil Trident. Sessi 22. cap. 2. haue discussed this controuersie with three wordes For the Hoste say they is one and the selfe same He the same now offereth by the ministerie of Priestes that offered himselfe vpon the Crosse with a diuers way onely of offering Whereof it foloweth that both Christe and also we here are Priestes he bicause he consecrateth by our ministerie we bicause we consecrate in his person and with his woordes For whereas he said to his Apostles Luc. 22. Doo ye this in my remembrance after that he had offered him selfe vnbloudily at the Supper as he is now offered in the Aulter the Apostles so vnderstoode him the Holy Ghost geuing them suche sense or Christe by expresse wordes so teaching them that they should consummate and make perfite this Mysterie in the person of him and with his wordes Which of an assured tradition of the Churche that can not be deceiued the auncient Fathers haue alwaies taught and the Churche to this day obserueth This doctrine S Chrysostome confirmeth with these wordes Chrysost. homil De prodiâ—ione Iudae Now the time inuiteth vs to come vnto that dreadful Table with due reuerence and agreable watchefulnes Let no Iudas there be found let no euil disposed person thither come For it is not man that of the CoÌ„secratioÌ„ of our Lordes Table maketh the thinges set forth the body and bloude of Christâ— The wordes be vttered with the Priestes mouth and with the power of God and his grace they are consecrated This is my body saith Christ with this worde the thinges set forth be consecrated And as that worde Gen. 1. which saith Grow ye and be ye multiplied and fil the earth was once spokeÌ„ but at al time feeleth his effect nature working vnto generation EueÌ„ so that worde was once spoken but it geueth strength vnto the Sacrifice through al the Tables of the Church vntil this day and vntil his comming Againe he saith in an other Homilie Idem Homil 2. I wil tel you further of a maruelous thing and woonder not at it let it not trouble you In 2. ad Timoth. What is that The holy Oblation it selfe be it Peter be it Paule or of what so euer merite the Priest be that offereth it is the very same that Christ him selfe gaue vnto his Disciples and that Priestes now also do consecrate This hath no whit lesse then that Why so Bicause they be not men that sanctifie this but Christe which consecrated that before For as the wordes that Christe spake be the same which the Priestes now also do pronounceâ— so the Oblation is the same Chrysost. Homil. 60 ad popul Antioch Therefore he saith in an other place Ministrorum nos ordinem tenemus qui verò ipsa sanctificat transmutat ipse est We are but in the order of Ministers but he that sanctifieth the thinges brought forth and changeth them into the body and bloude of Christe is he him selfe that is to say Christe Concil Florentinum Hereunto agreeth the Councel of Florence The Priest say those learned Fathers doth consecrate this Sacrament speaking in the person of Christe in the person of Christe they meane sitting and offering vp him selfe at his Supper For the Churchâ— teacheth not that the woordes of consecration be spoken by way of rehersal only and that the body and bloude of Christe is made at euery pronounciation of them as by a couenaunt made by Christe with vs. But as the brothers of Ioseph in Egypte fearing least he would beare in minde the iniuries which he
had suffered at their handes caused this much to be said vnto him Gen. vltimo Thy Father gaue vs in commaundement before he died that we should say these vnto thee with his wordes I beseche thee to forgete the wicked deede of thy brothers the sinne and malice whiche they wrought against thee And we also on our owne behalfe pray thee to forgeue the seruauntes of thy Father this iniquitie Euen so the Church first with the wordes of Christ recording his commaundement offereth vp vnto the Father his body and bloud After that the Priestes in the person of the Church whose publique ministers they are in this behalfe adde further their owne duetie of offering with their owne wordes These thinges being considered In vvhat parte of the Masse is the holy OblatioÌ„ made Vide Tho 3 part q. 82 art 4. ad primum Homil dâ— proditione Iudâ— that question is soone answered that of some is demaunded where and in what parte of the Masse is this most holy Oblation made For although from the lesser Canon vnto the Communion it be with wordes and intention presented vnto the Father yet forasmuch as the wordes of Christe as S. Chrysostome speaketh geue strength vnto the Sacrifice and they are no where els pronouÌ„ced properly and in deede then it is made when the Priest speaking in the person of Christe saith this is my body to wit whiche for you is geuen and broken which is added in the Canon of S. Iames and in S. Ambroses Masse and This is my bloude which is shed for you For then doo we that which our Lorde commaunded to be done in remembrance of him saying Doo ye this in remembrance of me As for the thinges that be spoken before and after they are to be referred vnto that time For albeit al manner Consecration coÌ„sidered by it selfe includeth not Oblation yet considered as it procedeth of the Priestes Intention to offer vnto God by Consecration it selfe the thing consecrated bicause vnto God and vnto the honour of him he consecrateth it hath the true nature of Oblation and Sacrifice Remembrance distinct from Sacrifice Although therefore our Lorde commaunded vs to doo this in remembrance of him yet is this Sacrifice a farre other thing then the remembraunce it selfe or the praise of God or thankes geuing sith that the thing it selfe whiche is commaunded to be made is in the very woordes of Christe distincted from the remembrance For he said not remember ye this but Doâ— ye this or make this in remembrance of me The Sacrifice and the Oblation ought to be made in the remembrance of Christe so that the remembrance it selfe is not the Sacrifice but the vse and ende of the Sacrifice for whiche it ought to be offered for by this vnbloudy Sacrifice a commemoration of the Blouddy Sacrifice that was offered vpon the Crosse is made vnto the Father And so saith S. Augustine Augu. lib. 20. contra Faustum cap. 18. Christiani per acti Sacrificij memoriam celebrant sacrosancta Oblatione participatione corporis sanguinis Christi The Christians doo celebrate the memorie of the Sacrifice already done vpon the Crosse by the holy Oblation and participation of the body and bloude of Christe Whereof it is euidently gathered also that Oblation is distincted from Participation although Participation perteine to the perfection and ful complement of the Sacrifice So here thou hast Reader that whiche was required in the second place By whom this holy Sacrifice is offered to wit In this sacrifice the Churche offereth and is offered by Christ through the Ministerie of the Priest and by the Priest in the person of Christ. Where also we ought to ioine the Church withal bicause of the vnitie of Christ and the Church and so we vnderstand the Churche also to offer August de Ciuit. Dei li. 10. cap. 6. by the ministerie of the Prieste For so S. Augustine teacheth vs with plaine wordes In that Sacrament saith he it is shewed vnto the Churche that in that Oblation which it offereth it selfe is offered Concerning the third point required by S. Augustine which was promised to be declared VVhat is the thing that is offeredâ— that is to say what is the thing that is offered if we wil admit the godly exposition of the Church the Prophet teacheth vs what it is Psal. 115. where he saith what shal I geue againe vnto our Lorde for al that he hath geueÌ„ vnto me I wil take the Cuppe of our Sauiour and cal vpon the name of our Lorde meaning by the Cuppe his precious bloud that vpon the Crosse was shed for vs and is the price of our Redemption Which bloud together with the body by vertue of Christes worde in the Euchariste is made present Who refuseth this exposition of the Prophete if he wil beleeue Christe him selfe Luc. 22. who said This is my body which is geuen for you Math. 26. This is my bloude which is shed for you he can not be ignorant what it is that is offered in this Sacrifice Whereas then God hath so loued the worlde Iohan. 3. that he hath geuen his onely begoten Sonne Rom. 8. and hath geuen vnto vs with him al thinges for a Babe is borne to vs Esai 9. a Sonne is geuen to vs saith Esaie the whole merite of Christe and the price of the Redemption which he gote vpon the Crosse is ours And therefore in this Oblation the thing offered being the body and bloude of Christe which as a most sufficient price he gaue vppon the Crosse for Redemption of mankinde and which of gifte we haue receiued of God we present and geue vnto God in the person of Christe that same true body and bloud that is to say Christe him selfe together with that great price and merite not to purchace a new Redemption but in commemoration of his death wherby the redemption is already purchaced in rendring of thankes for his benefites in a certaine satisfaction for our sinnes and defectes and for the temporal paines that be due vnto our sinnes mortal sinnes and paines euerlasting being forgeuen either in Baptisme Cyprian ad CeciliuÌ„ epist. 3. lib. 2. or through the Sacrament of Penaunce humbly beseching and as king in the person of Christe that so it be accepted In consideration wherof S. Cyprian calleth it the Passion of our Lorde that we offer And S. Augustine calleth it Aug. Confess lib. 9. cap. 12. Sacrificium prâ—tij nostri the Sacrifice of our Price wherewith our Raunsom is paid And hereof Reader thou maist conceiue what answere is to be made vnto them that moue this question which to some though without iust cause semeth to be of great difficultie whether the Sacrifices of the olde Testament the Sacrifice that our Lorde offered at his Supper the Sacrifice of the Crosse and that Sacrifice which is daily made in the Churche whether al these haue a like and the selfe same
be made no where but in the Temple In deede prayer was euermore added vnto the Sacrifices wherwith they asked that of God for which they offered Yet say we not that sacrifice is prayer as the name of prayer is taken properly but that oftentimes it is vnderstanded by the name of prayer bicause in this it is like vnto it for that it offereth a gifte vnto God to thintent to receiue some thing of him wherein it appeareth to be a prayer not in worde but in deede And bicause it geueth to receiue it hath also the nature of a certaine satisfaction as that which geueth one thing for an other The Sacrifice then of the Masse The Sacrifice auailable ex opere operato in vvhat respecte is auailâ—able ex opere operato that is to say in respecte of the vertue and strength of the thing it selfe that is offred of the thing it selfe I meane without consideration had of the priest whether he be good or euil bicause in the person of Christe and by his commission the body and bloude of Christe are offered vp vnto God Whiche oblation it selfe for the worthines and reuerence of Christe as a Prayer of greatest efficacie and moste worthy to be heard the Father beholdeth and in regard of it performeth that for whiche the body and bloude of his Sonne are so offred according to the order of his Diuine disposition and as it shal seme conuenient to him selfe forasmuche as al iudgement is geuen vnto him Iohan. 5. By the same consideration it hath very great force and strength to satisfie for temporal paines that be due vnto sinnes The Sacrifice satisfieth for paines whiche paines oftetimes in Scripture be called by the name of sinnes For if according vnto the counsel of Daniel Daniel 4. sinnes that is to say paines due to sinnes are redemed with almose how muche more with the body and bloude of the Sonne of God offered at the Aulter If paines were loosed by the sacrifices of the olde Lawe shal they not muche more be loosed by the Sacrifice of the newe Lawe For els what shal we say that the bloude of Christe is of lesse price in the sight of God then the bloude of a calfe Although Sacrifices haue their valour by way of Prayer yet when they bring a present that is worthy of Gods fauour to remission of paines and of his giftes they leane to a certaine right and equitie as the Price being exhibited and so they be satisfactorie S. Augustine speaking of this way of working by the name of Christe August coÌ„tra literas Petiliani lib. 2 cap. 54. in Sacrifices and otherwise saith to Petilian the Donatist Gratias Deo quia tandeÌ„ confessus es valere inuocatuÌ„ nomen Christi ad aliorum saluteÌ„ etiaÌ„ si à peccatoribus inuocetur God be thanked for that thou hast at length confessed that the name of Christe called vpon is auaileable vnto the health of others although it be called vpon of sinners If the name of Christe onely called vpon be auaileable vnto health shal not the bloud of Christ be auaileable to procurement of health specially if the person for whom it is offered be through his owne good disposition meete to receiue suche benefite Neither is this Sacrifice auaileable onely ex opere operato of it selfe The Saâ—crifice Auaileable 〈◊〉 opere operantis and of the worke done but also in some degree ex opere operantis for and through the merite of the offerer For in asmuch as the Priest doth offer this holy Sacrifice not as a priuate man and in his owne priuate name but as the publike Minister of the Church and in the name of the Churche assumpted thervnto by publike auctoritie whereas there neuer want great merites in the Churche the merite of the offerer is neuer separated from the vertue of the worke that is wrought that is to say from the body and bloude of Christe so that although the Priest that offereth and they that be present be wicked yet the Sacrifice of the Masse is not void and frustrat but much auaileable to the working of some good effect according to the disposition of Gods merciful prouidence â—ugust câ—â— epist. Parmen lib. 2. And therefore no maruel is it after the teaching of S. Augustin that good wordes which be said in the publike Praiers for the people though they be said of euil Bishops neuerthelesse be heard not according to the peruersitie of the Gouernours but according to the deuotion of the people And yet it skilleth muche what the Gouernours be seing that their godlines through the Sacrifice much helpeth the infirmitie of the people For which coÌ„sideration as S. Cyprian saith Cyprian lib. 1. epist. 4. we ought not to electe any other to be Bishops but suche as be vnspotted and whole who offering vp Sacrifices vnto God worthily and holily may be heard in their Prayers which they make for the safetie of our Lordes people Gregor in Pastorali part 1. ca. 2. For els when he that is sent to make intercession displeaseth the mind of the displeased is more greeuously prouoked saith S. Gregorie speaking of vnworthy Priestes But yet the Priestes impietie can not let but that the Sacrifice The impietie of the Priest is no hinderance to others touching the benefite of thâ— Sacrifice whiche of it selfe and being offred in the name of the Churche is so good and acceptable a thing vnto God shal profite them whiche besides the Priestes with godlines doo offer it according to the deuotion bothe of them that with the Priestes doo offer and of them for whom it is offred For true it is that S. Augustin saith to Petilianus the Donatiste Nos dicimus tale cuique SacrificiuÌ„ fieri qualis accedit vt offerat We say that the Sacrifice to eche man is made suche August contrà lit Petil. lib. 2. c. 52 1. q. 1. cap. Dominus as he is that commeth to offer Whereas then the wel disposed people doth offer vp that same very Sacrifice by deuoute affection whiche the Priest offereth by outward Ministerie the wickednes of the Minister bereueth not any deuoute person of the benefite of the Sacrifice Neither is this so to be taken as though in this case nothing were to be looked for aboue the merite of our deuotion for then to what purpose were the Sacrifice But what so euer benefite redoundeth of the vertue of the Sacrifice ouer and aboue the merite of deuotion the same is so muche the more abundantly of euery one enioyed with how muche more deuotion towardes Christe and his Death he offereth This deuoute disposition of the offerers our Lorde prescribed when consecrating and making his Apostles Priestes Luc. 22. he said Doo ye this in remembrance of me In whiche commaundement 1. Cor. 11. whereas there be two thinges conteined dooing and remembring or commemoration this muche our Lorde therein signified The Sacrifice profiteth in
diuers degrees that with how muche the more grateful and deuoute memorie they did it so muche the more by this Sacrifice they should obteine and againe how muche the nearer any man came vnto that dooing and action of offering the more benefite thereof he should receiue For though al they that be iuste may be said to offer this Sacrifice by a certaine generalitie August Epist. 23. which S. Augustin semeth to meane for so muche as it pleaseth them al that it be offered yet they come nearer vnto this action who doo it them selues who heare Masse deuoutely who serue and attend vpon the Priest to doo that actioÌ„ who susteine him for his ministerie who with godly desire require Masse of him Wherefore as a prayer profiteth them that pray them selues more then an other for whom it is made so this Sacrifice profiteth more them that offer it them selues then it doth them for whom only it is offered And as a Prayer profiteth more that is specially made for one then that whiche is made onely in general for al euen so it is in the Sacrifice But these thinges shal appeare more clearely by the effectes whiche we looke for to enioye by the Sacrifice of the Masse through the vertue of Christes passion if we reherse them particularly The first effecte by consent of al men is the remission of Venial sinnes The effectes that we obteine by the Sacrifice of the Masse which the very iuste doo daily commit and also of temporal paines vnto whiche they remaine thral and bounde though damnation euerlasting be forgeuen An other effecte is the increase of righteousnes and the continuance in good life These are expressely declared in the Institution of this Sacrifice by the Institutor him selfe who first offered it This is my bloude saith he of the new Testament a Luc. 22. whiche for you and b Mat. 26. for many is shed in remission of sinnes That the Apostles vnderstood the very same also in the Consecration of the Body the Masse of S. Iames doth shewe Where after the pronouncing of those wordes Liturgia Iacobi this is my body which for you is geuen and broken the Deacon forthwith addeth in remissionem peccatorum in remission of sinnes By whiche wordes for so muche as with them Christ to this effecte offered him selfe albe it peraduenture they might be more generally vnderstanded that at least may be gathered which now we haue said of the remission of Venial sinnes and temporal paines vnto whiche the Apostles them selues were thral Touching the other there is a manifest place in S. Iohn Christe speaking of the Apostles and of them that should through their preaching beleue in him Iohan. 17. saith For them I sanctifie my selfe that they also may be sanctified in truth Whiche saying is truly vnderstanded of the encrease of holynesse and of continuance in asmuche as the Apostles were now cleansed and sanctified And vnto these effectes the Sacrifice of the Masse is auaileable for al the faithful that pertaine to the body of Christe that is to say for the iuste not only by the deuotion and merite of men that offer it but by the vertue of the Sacrifice it selfe neither onely by meane of a certaine common Prayer whiche standeth vpon liberalitie but of suche prayer as satisfieth the requestes of Gods iustice with presenting vnto him the price paid for sinnes and with a gifte geuen worthy to obteine that is asked whiche is the proper nature of a Sacrifice which is to be satisfactorie and to be offered by way of satisfaction And therefore S. Paule specially considering the worthines of this true Sacrifice said in general that euery Bishop or Priest is ordeined to offer giftes and Sacrifices for sinnes Of this it is learnedly by the Diuines gathered that for so muche as Infidels and suche wicked persons as be not yet reconciled vnto the Churche or vnto God nor so disposed that for them satisfaction may effectually be made Sacrifice for them is not properly offered For whether they them selues or others for them doo offer God doth not accepte giftes for the wicked to this ende for whiche properly they be offered as it appeared in Cain Gen. 4. This is witnessed in the Scriptures and in sundry other places Prouer. 15 Eccles. 34 Therefore S. Augustine saith writing to Renatus Quis offerat Corpus Christi August de origine animae lib. 1. c. 9. nisi pro eis qui membra sunt Christi Who may offer the body of Christe but for them whiche are the members of Christe The late holy general Councel of Trent approuing this sentence of S. Augustine Masses common not priuate and wherfore Concil Trident. Sess. 22. cap. 6. and declaring that the Masses whereat no man communicateth besides the Priest be not priuate but common saith that they ought to be iudged common partely for that the people in them doth communicate spiritually partly for that they be celebrated by the publique Minister of the Churche not for him selfe onely but for al the Faithful that pertaine to the Body of Christe When therefore Petrus à Soto that learned man was demaunded in that Councel whether Chaunteries might be erected and Masses appointed to be said for Infidels he answered that it was vnlawful bicause to ordeine Masse for any is to ordeine that Sacrifice for them be offered and that to them thereby satisfaction be applied whiche ought not to be done bicause satisfaction requireth before a remission of the deadly faulte Yet wel may it be said he that Prayer in the Masse for their Conuersion be made Our Sauiour him selfe semeth to haue insinuated this propertie of the Oblation when offering vp his body and bloude at the Supper after the fourme and rite of Melchisedek not without cause he said of the one Lucae 22. whiche for you is geuen of the other whiche for you Math. 26 and for many is shed that is to say is presently offered vp and shed in Mysterie anonne with outward violence to be shed in remission of sinnes For as touching the valour of the price it was offered vpon the Crosse not for many but for al. And so the Sacrifice of Melchisedek obteined the benediction for iuste Abraham who is the example and paterne of al that folow him This iudge I to be the chiefe cauâ—e why in the Primitiue Churche as we finde in S. Dionysius the Areopagite when true discipline was exactly kepte Ecclesiast Hierarch c. 3 part 5. the learners of the faith before they receiued Baptisme then called Catechumeni they that were possessed of vncleane sprites called Energumeni Publique Sinners and they that did publique penaunce were commaunded by the Deacon to departe out of the Churche before the Oblation that they should not be present at it Yet as it is here before said and as it is cleare by S. Paul 1. Tim. 2. in a certaine general and coÌ„mon respecte we offer for
al forasmuche as we present the body and bloude of Christe vnto the Father in his person and by his commission and beseche his goodnes that in regarde of his body and bloude he wil haue mercie vppon them But we doo not presente these giftes for al as a Price that is exhibited for them whiche thing the propre nature of this oblation comprehendeth in respecte of release of the paines bicause al be not capable that is to say not apte vessels to receiue suche benefite As touching other thinges whiche profitably be asked in the Masse Benifites redounding to vs by the Masse as victorie peace health ceasonable wether and such other the like wherewith mannes miserie is releeued and holpen the Sacrifice of the Masse is auaileable for them according to the order of Gods eternal disposition not onely by reason of the merite of the Priest and of the Churche that offereth but also and that more amply by reason of the qualitie and vertue of the Sacrifice whiche is consecrated in the person of Christe and by his commission But this is by way of Prayer whiche Prayer bicause it is not sitting the wordes of Christe to be frustrate by whiche he committed this Sacrifice vnto vs the Father very oftentimes heareth And whereas he heareth it not the iudgementes of God be secrete For great is the vertue of the signes and Sacramentes of the name of Iesus Christe vnto whose honour the very powers of the Aier are commaunded to yelde and geue place though it be called vppon by euil and for euil persons as S. Augustine very learnedly teacheth in his booke of .83 questions Augu. lib. 83. quaest quaest 79. or who els so euer is author of that booke For in no wise dare any sprites saith he to contemne these signes For they tremble at these where so euer they beholde them but men being vnwitting of it by God an other thing sometime is commaunded For whereas they geue not place vnto these-Signes God him selfe forbiddeth when he iudgeth it iuste and profitable Thus S. Augustine To this very aptly serueth that he writeth in his .22 booke De Ciuitate Dei Where he telleth of a house deliuered from euil Sprites by the Prayers and Sacrifice of the Masse August de Ciuit. Dei lib. 22. c. 8. Hesperius a noble maÌ„ saith he who dwelleth in our countrie hath in the Lordship of Fussala a Ferme called Cubedi Where when he vnderstoode that his house which he hath there susteined great hurte by euil Sprites and that his catail and his Seruauntes were much troubled he besought our Priestes in my absence that one would go thither that by his Prayers they might be driuen away One went and offered vp there the Sacrifice of the body of Christe praying as muche as he was haâ—le that the vexation might ceasse Forthwith by the mercie of God is ceassed S. Gregorie sheweth by many examples that through the Sacrifice of the Masse diuers receiued temporal benefites Grego in Dialogis who neither were present when Masse was said for them nor thought at al of it Also certaine special helpes by this Sacrifice be obteined which of the Diuines are called prima gratia for with these God doth oftentimes helpe them for whom the Sacrifice is offered that the motion of faith and deuotion and desire of the medicine of the Sacramentes be stirred vp in them Thus thou seest Reader what power the Sacrifice of the Masse hath And as this Sacrifice hath vertue to remoue al manner euils from vs so it hath vertue to get and procure al good thinges vnto vs according to the disposition of Gods Prouidence VVhat force the Sacrifice of the Masse hath â—ouching the remissioÌ„ of mortal sinnes Wherefore that also may easily be conceiued which of many men is called in question touching the remission of mortal sinnes Verely the blessed Martyr S. Alexander fifth in the Regester of the Popes saith in his firste epistle that Crimes and sinnes be put out by these Sacrifices offered vp vnto our Lorde And againe that our Lorde is delited and appeased with such Sacrifices and that through them he forgeueth great sinnes Alexander epist. ad oâ—Ì„s orthodoxos For nothing saith he can be greater in Sacrifices then the body and bloud of our Lorde Iulius speaking likewise of the Sacrifices saith that by them offred to God al crime and sinne is quite put out S. Gregorie also saith Iulius De Cons. Distinct. 2. CuÌ„ omne Gregor Dialog 4. Cap. 58. that this Sacrifice singularly saueth the soule from euerlasting destruction Al whiche and sundry other the like sayinges of certaine Fathers are so to be vnderstanded not as though we might obteine remission of such sinnes after Baptisme committed without Absolution of the Priest who is the Ministre of the Sacrament of Penaunce but that this blessed Sacrifice doth geue such grace and worketh so together with the infirmitie of the Penitentes that they may by the Priests be reconciled vnto God And it is so acceptable in the sight of God Sess. 22. Cap. 2. that as the CouÌ„cel of Trent teacheth being appeased by the Oblation of it graunting grace and the gifte of Penaunce he forgeueth Crimes and sinnes yea that be right great As concerning them The Sacrifice of the Masse profitable for the dead 2. Mac. 12 Ioan. 11. August in Enchirid. cap. 110. that with godlinesse are departed this life and haue taken their slepe as the Scripture speaketh and haue not as it behooued them made ful satisfaction whom we beleeue to remaine in Purgatorie although now they be not in state to merite any thing by any operatioÌ„ of their owne wil or to do holesom Penaunce for their sinnes yet bicause they be the members of Christ and felow citizens withal the Saintes felowes and brothers with them the Sacrifice of the Masse profiteth them as it doth the other iuste persons here but that their owne propre deuotioÌ„ caÌ„ helpe them nothing â—s now depending wholly of Christ and of the Church For although God in the day of our departure hence as it is said of the wise man do rendre to euery man according to his waies Eccle. 11. yet after the doctrine of S. Augustin this much by their good workes they haue deserued at Gods hand whiles they lyued here August in Enchirid. ad LaureÌ„ti cap. 11â— that these common dueties of Christian felowship might profit them also after their departure hence For els it should seme very vniuste and iniurious vnto the body of Christe if there were any members of it to which being in distresse it could not procure succour The motion of contrition and charitie with whiche they departed hence for els they remaine not in Purgatorie is a disposition Athanas. in quaest ad AntiochuÌ„ q. 34. Chrysost. ad pop Antioch Homil. 69 Sermo 3. in epist. ad Philip. Damas. in Oratione de ijs qui hinc in fide migraâ—â—nâ— whiche
may suffice in their behalfe that Sacrifices and other godly workes offered and done for them may helpe them Wherefore as S. Athanasius S. Chrysostom Damascen and the more parte of the auncient Fathers doo witnesse it descended by Tradition from the Apostles that this vnbloudy Sacrifice be continually offered for them Now then Christian Reader thou hast here declared vnto thee those pointes that I promised in the beginning what is Sacrifice being considered either as it is taken for the Action of offering or for the giftâ— offered for what consideration it is due vnto God that it is most conuenient for our nature that it be visible that the rite of sacrificing hath ben by God bothe engraffed in the mindes of men before the Lawe and commaunded in the Lawe That for loue of his Churche our Lorde Instituted the singular Sacrifice of his body and bloude at his last Supper How those foure thinges be in this singular Sacrifice whiche S. Augustine teacheth to be required in euery Sacrifice lastly for whom this Sacrifice is offered by what waies it is auaileable for man what effectes it bringeth forth Some here perhaps do wish that I said somewhat in defence of the Prayers that be commonly said in the Masse about the Oblation of this vnblouddy Sacrifice The Praiers of the Masse godly and without superstition and of the Ceremonies whiche the Churche vseth in the celebration of the same for our Aduersaries by diuers waies labour to bring them in contempte As touching the Canon of the Masse what parte of it M. Iewel reproueth as blasphemous in this Reiondre I doo sufficiently defend Pag. 123. b. item pag. 254. b. c. Ambro. de SacrameÌ„t lib. 4. c. 4. as godly and holy and such as may worthily seme meeâ—e to be said at the celebratioÌ„ of these Mysteries As for al the rest that is said for so much as therein as S. Ambrose saith Praise is deferred to God prayer is made for the people for Kings and for al men and for al our necessities briefly â—ith nothing is done but that which S. Paule exhorteth to be done in his epistle to Timothe 1. Tim. 2. whereof we spake before what is there that M. Iewel or any of that side or Sathan him selfe the great enemie of this Sacrifice can finde fault withal Concerning the Ceremonies vsed in the Masse Ceremonies vsed in the celebration of the Masse which consiste in the behauiour Gesture Mouinges and Signes of the Priest whereat also these men beare great spite they be void of superstition and free from al iuste reproche bicause they be onely such as put vs in minde of some special thing touching the Incarnation Birth Life Preaching Death and Resurrection of Christe which perteineth to the stirring vp of Deuotion and to the commaundement of Christe the more conueniently to be obserued For whereas he commaunded vs Luc. 22. that what he did we should doo the same it may reasonably seeme to be our duetie that as he did and after what manner he did we also doo likewise Verily the Ceremonies which we vse be of more antiquitie represent thinges of more excelleÌ„cie and through the practise of the whole Churche of Christe be of more auctoritie then that by the doctrine of any new Gospel it may now towarde the time of Antichriste seeme either necessarie or conuenient that they be changed And to thintent these ouerthrowers of al auncient Religion and setters vp of their owne Nouelties haue ceremonies in lesse contempte let vs consider whether Christe him selfe who first of al celebrated Masse at his last Supper 1. Tim. 2. and did those things which S. Paule requiteth in his epistle to Timothee obserued not certaine Ceremonies Ceremonies vsed by our Sauiour him selfe muche like to ours He layd downe his garment he girded him selfe he kneeled or stooped downe he washed his Disciples feete he gaue thankes to his Father he consecrated and offered vp vnto him his Body and Bloude Iohan. 17. he spake vnto his Disciples he admonished he taught he comforted them he lifted vp his eyes vnto heauen he prayed vnto the Father for them and for vs. 1. Cor. 11. S. Paule straitly forbiddeth a man to pray or prophecie in the Churche with coouered head If the Catholikes without expresse Scripture though moued with the like reason that moued S. Paule had so ordeined these men would haue cried out that it had bene superstitious Touching this mater here to speake of al it were very long and a thing meete for a special booke to be written thereof rather then for the breuitie of a Preface Therefore I let passe much that might wel be recited out of S. Dionyse the Areopagite S. Iustine the Martyr Tertullian Innocentius the firste and others that of these thinges haue written Hovv ceremonies may be vsed with out superstitioÌ„ Certaine it is that the Ceremonies we vse be not superstitious For that we iudge to be superstitious whiche being vsed in place of Gods seruice perteineth not to the wourship of God nor to the loue of our neighbour And whereas the worship of God is double for so muche as we haue from him both thâ— inward and the outward good thinges then is it duely and lawfully and without al superstition done when the outwarde thinges by some publique auctoritie as from God for al power is of God or by a certaine leading of nature be ordeined vnto an inward reuerence and a duetiful kindnes towardes God to be stirred vp nourrished and continued For the mouing it selfe of the soule as saith S. Augustine so long as it is yet lapped within earthly thinges August ad Ianuar. epist. 119. is but slowly inflamed but if it be carried vnto bodily likenesses and thence be carried vnto the spiritual thinges that by those likenesses be figured with the passing it selfe as it were from the one to the other it is quickened and being stirred as fyre in a fyrebrande it is enkindled and with a more ardent loue it is pulled vnto her rest and quiet Therefore the vse of comely Ceremonies moueth the minde more then if the thinges by them signified were vttered naked and without similitudes of Sacramentes as there also he saith And this is the meaning of al the outwarde Rites The meaning of the Ceremonies vsed in the celebration of the Masse that be obserued in the Masse As for example the Priestes Vestimentes doo signifie either the garmentes of Christe with which he was mockt either the new condition of the new man or the Incarnation of the new King His comming vnto the Aulter betokneth Christes appearing whiche was receiued with great ioye and singing of Angels Math. 27 the going from the one side of the Aulter to the other Luc. 2. sheweth the translation of the Gospel vnto the GeÌ„tiles and the returning of it vnto the Iewes by the washing of handes the Priestes cleannesse of life by his bowing downe humilitie by
stretching of his Armes abroade the Crosse by his making of many signes of the Crosse euery good effecte to procede of the merite of the Crosse is signified The like may be conceiued of such others moe For certainly as wordes be signes of thinges so be these Rites in the blessed Masse signes of great Mysteries To be shorte bicause through the infirmitie of our condition humaine affection for the most parte litle estemeth common thinges and such as be not distincte from other thinges by some token of a more excellencie yea rather dispiseth them as Malachie the Prophet complained of the vncleane Malac. 1. contemptible and vile Oblations of his time and woundereth and reuerenceth those thinges that by some shewe of excellencie seme to surmount others it was necessarie for the reuerence of so holy an Oblation and of the woâ—rship of so great a Maiestie that peculiar places as Churches Tabernacles Aulters also consecrated Ecclesias Hierarch cap. 5. p. 1 as we finde in S. Dionysius special and not common Vessels and peculiar Ministers were appointed for the same whereby the colde myndes of men might be brought to thinke more reuerently thereof As touching the practise of the Churche that is to say of the holy and learned Priestes and of al the people of God from the Apostles timâ— to these daâ—es what the Auncient Fathers haue wrâ—â—â—en in proâ—fe and confirmation of the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christ which hereto might be added for al this I reâ—erâ—e the Reader vnto my Reioindre Now then to coÌ„clude Sith that it is our duety to geue and offer vnto God some gifte and Sacrifice whereby to rendre vnto him due thankes for his benefites and to recognise him for our Creator and Redemer and nothing we haue to geue either in it selfe better or to him more acceptable then the body and bloude of his Sonne Iesus Christe and whereas we haue commaundement to offer the same and so great profite commeth to men thereof and whereas in the Masse in whiche this Sacrifice is offered by Christe and the Churche godly prayers be made for Kinges for them that be in auctoritie and for al men thankes be geuen certaine outward signes are shewed whereby the memorie of Christes Passion is stirred vp and to vs renewed and reuerence to Godward is enkindled what forbiddeth why on the behalfe of the most blessed Masse and of them who susteine persecution for this Sacrifice I may not here vtter the woordes of the Holy Patriarke Iacob by way of expostulation with our Aduersaries Quam ob culpam nostram Gen. 31. ob quod peccatum quod in Missa committimus Expostulation vvith the persecutions of the Masse sic exarsistis post nos scrutaeti estis omnem suppellectilem nostram What is our trespace and what is the sinne that we haue committed in saying and hearing the Masse that ye are so wroth and fume so much against vs Ye haue searched al stuffe as Iacob said to Laban ye haue examined our doctrine and what haue ye founde Ye haue examined vs ye haue depriued vs ye haue condemned vs some to prisons some to certaine places ye haue debarred vs of libertie to see our deare frendes to enioye our swete Countrie ye haue taken from vs great summes of money ye haue thirsted our bloude ye haue oftetimes called for the Princes sword to be drawen against vs ye haue geuen the cause of the losse of many of our liues This and much more haue ye done touching our parte But as touching Gods parte what iniurie what dishonour what pillages what robberies what Sacrileges what spoiles what prophane and Turkish saggages of Churches what contempte what despite what villanies ye and your brethren haue done in sundry places of Christendome what needeth it any man to speake the secretes of hartes do speake the sighing of Gods people speaketh the Earth the Heauen God him selfe by his brute and dumme Creatures speaketh But what auaileth it to make complaint vnto them that be not onely farre from al griefe of their euil doing and from remorse of conscience but also reioyse and glorie in malice NOw therfore to returne to thee good Reader that thou maist the better vnderstand our procedings when at the first I tooke in hand to answer M. Iewels ChaleÌ„ge and to iustifie the Articles that rashly and wickedly he had denied amnog other things I brought some of that I haue here said and what elles then to me semed good for proufe of the Sacrifice of the Masse which in his .17 Article he denieth Therto as to the rest of my Answere he hath made his Replie In which Replie he hath said what he was hable to say in disprouse of that singular Sacrifice But how insufficient his disprouse iâ— and of how litle substance al is that he hath brought how litle he amendeth his common woont of falsifying his testimonies what other false partes he playeth and what grosse errours he is fallen into thou shalt perceiue if thou vouchesafe to read this Reioindre Whereas against this Sacrifice by many men many wordes haue ben said many villanies haue ben wrought many blasphemous bookes haue ben written as is before meÌ„cioned according to the sprite that Satan the enemie of the Sacrifice hath enspired into their wretched breastes Out of al M. Iewel like a Spyder hath suckte the most venemous iouice and in his Replie hath vttered it as it were spitting forth his poison Which Replie as perhaps it poisoneth the lighter sorte who haue delite to feede thereon so to the wise and those that be stedfast in the Catholique Faith al the stuffe of his great booke appeareth as it were but Cobwebbes For in dede as with Cobwebbes nothing is holden but light moâ—es and weake flees euen so of a light witte and feeble Faith he sheweth him selfe to be whom that Replie catcheth and holdeth He hath not one Auncient Doctour for him not one Councel General or Prouincial olde or newe not one Example of the Primitiue Churche not one sentence of the holy Scriptures Not one I say for him that is to wit whereof any cleare conclusion may be gathered against the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe These doo I the rather make accompte of bicause by his owne appointement they be good waies and meanes whereby to trie pointes of Faith in Controuersie Now if M. Iewel haue nothing out of al these for a cleare disproufe of this Sacrifice after he hath vewed al the bookes that by these newe Maisters haue bene written in defence of his side after that he hath furnished him selfe with al that euer Luther Bucer Zuinglius Oecolampadius Caluine Beza and the vpholders of their sectes could deuise against it after that he hath coÌ„ferred with his felow Ministers and SuperinteÌ„dentes who most readily ioine their forces together against the Sacrifice yea after that he hath learned the Argumentes of Satan him selfe the first Founder of this new
Gospel wherewith he impugned the blessed Masse disputing with Luther as he witnesseth of him selfe if I say after al this he be hable to bring nothing whereby this Sacrifice to any learned man may seeme clearely disprooued hereof thou maist soone conceiue good Reader how assured and certaine the doctrine of the Catholike Churche is that teacheth the Body and Bloud of Christ to be offered vp vnto God vnder the formes of breade and wine by Priestes and the same to be the Sacrifice propre to the new Testament and how litle there is to be said against it Bicause in this treatise I do mainteine my Answere and disprooue what M. Iewel hath replied against it that the whole processe may seeme the plainer and for that oftentimes I am driuen by him falsly reporting my woordes to referre the Reader to that I said before I haue thought it necessary to set foorth my Answere with his Replie and my Reioindre together the order of his Diuisions truly kepte Wherefore when M. Iewel beareth thee in hande that I speake either absurdly or vntruly or that I make a fonde Argument it may please thee to returne backe vnto the Answere and vewing the place diligently to consider whether thou finde as he reporteth If this be done I doubte not but the chiefe aduantage he seemeth to take against me shal in thy iudgement appeare to stand altogether vpon manifest vntruthes Yea if thou wilt not be deceiued by M. Iewel How M. levvels vvritings are to be read beleeue not at the firste what in proufe or disproufe of any thing he reporteth as out of others Examine the places from whence he bringeth his testimonies beleeue not his shewes beleeue thine owne eyes Compare the authours texte The sleightes he vseth in vvriting against the Catholikes and his reportes together And doubtelesse wheresoeuer he allegeth ought that disagreeth with the doctrine of the Catholique Churche thou maist be assured by diligent searche to finde that he hath corrupted and falsified the Doctor either by taking away or by adding vnto by exchange of wordes or by peruerting the order of the sentence by conceeling the Circumstance of the place or by applying it to a sense contrary to the writers meaning briefly by one false meane or other as al merchantes of such false wares lacke not craftes and sleightes to helpe their vtterance And as his sleightes of corrupting the Doctours be sundry and many The sleightes he vseth in ansvvering to the Catholiques so be the meanes also many and of no lesse crafte whiche he vseth in answering to certaine their most plaine testimonies with which oftentimes he is pressed Some Doctours with him be vtterly refused some be of doubteful authoritie some be disliked for their age some be auoided by a crafty vnderstanding some that speake plainely be tolde they speake violently Whiche is a very poore shifte and seemeth to haue least weight of Learning or Reason When al other sleightes be spent yet this serueth him for the last refuge He draweth this mater of the Sacrifice to Phrases of speache Tropes and Metaphores and alleging some Tropical speache that receiueth a reasonable vnderstanding somewhat diuers from the literal sownde of the naked woordes he requireth the place that maketh for the truth of the Sacrifice to be in like sorte vnderstanded This is a way whereby one may seme to say somewhat when in deede he saith nothing By suche meane the truthe in any controuersie is darkened it is not discussed and in the iudgement of the vnlearned confusion is wrought M. Iewels common Argumentes What shal I speake of the force of his Argumentes Certainely they be suche as very Boyes that learne their Sophistrie may be a shamed to make In manner he neuer maketh Argument against the Sacrifice but wherein with one truth he excludeth an other truth whiche kinde of reason of al other is the most childish and fondest As for example Bicause the Fathers sometimes cal the Euchariste an Image a Figure a memorie a sampler of the Sacrifice that was made vpon the Crosse thereof alwaies he concludeth that it is not a true Sacrifice As thoughe one might not by suche Logique conclude that the Sacrifices of the olde Lawe were not truely and properly Sacrifices bicause they were al a Figure of that great Sacrifice whiche Christe offered when he died Both Sacrifices are a signe of that one and the selfe same hoste that of the Lawe was a signe of the hoste to come ours of that is paste Yet either is a true Sacrifice Likewise of the affirmation of the Sacrifice of Praise and Thankesgeuing he induceth the denial of the true and real Sacrifice of Christes Body and Bloude in the Euchariste as thoughe it were not bothe But what neede I here Reader to tel thee of M. Iewels manyfold shiftes and sleightes See the Preface before my first Reioindre sith I haue spoken thereof otherwheres and other men haue detected them at large And in deede what elles is conteined in our bookes but a discouering of his Legierdemaine For how could the truthe haue bene set forth excepte his lies had ben discried and his falshoode confuted As for the Vntruthes that be in his Replie to this parte of my Answere I haue not curiously noted the number of them for so muche as that hath bene once doone by D. Sander and me in parte and by M. Stapleton more copiously whereas the number of his Vntruthes founde in foure Articles onely of six and twenty amount to a Thousand and odde and the same are not yet discharged of M. Iewels parte I intend not to bestow muche time about such a lothsome worke It is more meete for Pinners Pointers and Nailesellers to spende their tyme about telling and making such accomptes And though I had liked to haue kepte tale of them yet the Margent of my booke would not haue sufficed to conteine them the number is so great Yet that his lyes falsifyinges corruptions and vntruthes appeare to be of smal number and that the shame whiche would growe in respecte of the multitude if al were seuerally tolde be not to the hinderance of his estimation discoouered I am content his whole Replie touching this article be taken as it is in deede fewe thinges excepted wherein gladly I agree with him but for one Vntruth Touching this Reioindre I haue here defended and confirmed my Answere to his 17. Article whiche is of the Sacrifice and al that he hath replied against it I haue fully refelled God geue thee iudgement good Reader to discerne truth from vntruth If perhaps I shal seme in some places ouer obscure and tedious and not to haue framed my writing meete for al mennes capacities thou maist thinke that either learning failed or that the mater would not suffer verely good wil wanted not To make harde thinges easy to be vnderstanded and to geue light to thinges that of them selfe be darke and not to swarue from the
exact rule of truth it is a point of great witte and cunning neither is it lightly perfourmed but of suche as God hath endewed with special giftes And as excellencie of witte is required to vtter them plainely so it behoueth the Readers senses be wel exeâ—cised to vnderstand them fully The doctrine of this Sacrifice in some parte is harde and obscure such as commonly hath rather ben rightly beleeued then by many clearely declared The honour of holy Mysteries is better saued with reuerent silence then with bolde opening Experience teacheth into what danger of contempte they come when they are openly reueled to populare vnderstanding Although bothe in the Scriptures and in the Fathers we haue most sufficient proufes and testimonies for the real presence and for the real Sacrifice yet they that liued within the first six hundred yeres after Christe wrote hereof more secretly then of other pointes of our Religion The cause vvhy the olde Fathers spake so secretly of these mysteries For reuerence of the Mysterie they thought it more conuenient to teache it by mowthe and by tradition then by euident and open declararion to commit muche to publique writing least so to the Infidels occasion should be ministred of despite and villanie As for example notwithstanding that religious warenesse we read in S. Augustine how the Painimes charged the Christians with the wourship of Ceres August coÌ„tra Faust. Manâ—cha lib. 20. cap. 13. and Bacchus their false Goddes bicause of the bread and wine they vsed in the celebration of their mysteries Thereof it is that we finde in the auncient Fathers so often commendation of their silence Chrysost. in Liturg. S. Chyistome saith in his Masse Conuiuij tui mystici hodie fili Dei communio nem assumpsi non tamen hostibus tuis mysterium diâ—â— I haue receiued this day the Communion of thy mystical banquet ô Sonne of God and yet I haue not tolde the Mysterie vnto thine enemies Ambro. â—i De ijs qui initiantur myster c. 1. S. Ambrose maketh it a Treason and betraying of the Mysteries to shewe them vnto those that be not yet baptized The like commendation of silence in this behalfe wee finde in Origen Orige homil 9 in Leuit. c. 16 and in S. Augustines workes not seldom Aurelianus the Emperour when he saw him selfe and the Romaine Empire to be in great peril for that the people named Marcomanni grewe strong ouer him by a great ouerthrowe they had geuen him in bataile wrote to the Senate of Rome that whiche was woont to be done in publique distresse the Sibylles bookes should be looked in Flauius Vopiscus in Diuo Aureliano In his Epistle he hath these woordes Miror vos Patres sancti tam diu de aperiendis Sibyllinis dubitasse libris perinde quasi in Christianorum Ecclesiá non in Templo Deorum omnium tractaretis I maruel at you Reuerend Fathers that ye haue ben afraid to open Sibylles bookes thus long as though ye had to doo in the Churche of Christians and not in the Temple of al the Goddes By this it appeareth what secretnesse and silence was vsed in the Primitiue Churche touching these mysteries and how feareful the holy Fathers were to say write or doo any thing whereby the Miscreantes might come by knowledge of them For which cause it is not to be marueled if they spake not so plainely and so euidently of euery point touching the Sacrifice as the sawcinesse of heretikes requireth in these daies to be answered and satisfied withal Yet they may seme to haue spoken plainly ynough to right beleuers and for the same we haue no smal number of good and cleare testimonies as by this Reioindre it shal appeare to them that be not wilfully bent either to shutte their eyes bicause they would not see or to wrangle contentiously that they â—eeme not to be ouercomme VVhen began the Fathers to speake more plaiÌ„ly of our mysteries or to denie stubbornly what so euer disliketh their phansie be it neuer so sufficiently proued But after that the Faith was once generally receiued of al where it was preached and professed and no Infidels remained among the Christians that durst openly to worke despite against the holy Mysteries whiche in sundry Prouinces came to passe before the first six hundredth yere was determined and thenceforth the learned Fathers that in those times wrote as occasioÌ„ was geueÌ„ spake of the real Presence of the body an bloud of Christe in the blessed SacrameÌ„t and of the oblatioÌ„ of the same no lesse plainly and clearely then the Churche now teacheth Whiche thing they finde to be true that be conuersant in the workes of Cassiodorus S. Gregorie the Romaine Isidorus Gregorius Turonensis Beda Haimo Rabanus and other about that age If then for this Sacrifice we haue as in this Reioindre thou shalt finde the Scriptures the testimonies of the Fathers of the first six hundred yeres of sufficient clearenes and the most manifest testimonies of the writers that immediatly folowed that age besides the authoritie of Councels that were within and soone after that age and so continually vntil the late Councel of Trent the fauourers of M. Iewels side may see his Chalenge fully answered touching this Article And therefore ought they to consider how safe it is for them to contemne so great authoritie and to be persuaded with suche â—clender Argumentes against the blessed Sacrifice of the Masse as M. Iewel setteth forth in his Replie whiche he hath borowed of the Caluinistes they receiued of Luther and Luther learned of Satan when on a night he disputed with him against the Sacrifice of the Masse as he lay waking in his bed as by his owne confession in his booke De Missa priuata he hath witnessed vnto the worlde So then if with Luther Caluine and M. Iewel they professe hatred against the Masse and denie the real Sacrifice of the Churche they shewe whose scholers they be and by whose sprite they are leade vvhether the Masse be to be taken for an euil thing seing Satan disputeth vvith Luther against it But perhappes some here wil say what is that this Reioinderer telleth vs of Satan Did Satan euer dispute with Luter against the Masse Is this credible If it be so then may I soone beleue that the Masse is a godly thing and that it procedeth from the holy Ghoste For if it were an euil thing as by our Preachers we are borne in hande it is we may be sure the Deuil would not moue Luther to leaue it For so he should worke the destruction of his owne kingdom whiche to doo is the office of Christe and most contrary to the malice of Satans condicioÌ„ This Reioinderâ—â— should do wel here to cleare him selfe of the vehement suspicion of an vntruth And in deede shame it were to belye the Deuil as they say The disputation of Satan the Deuil with Luther against the Masse truly reported out of Luthers owne
Workes In the Replieâ— Diuision 2. Pag. 2. FOr asmuch then as I vnderstand many doubte hereof and M. Iewel calleth it a scorneful and slaunderous tale blased abroade by Pighius Hosius and Staphylus of malice and hatred of the truth to thintent the truth be knowen and that it be considered what Captaine they folowe who make warre against the Sacrifice of the Masse and that the memorie of this thing remaine to our posteritie I wil here truly and faithfully set forth the disputation that was betwixt Frier Lutheâ— the first author and founder of the Protestantes Religion and Satan the Deuil as Luther him selfe reporteth it in the seueÌ„th Tome of his workes in a booke intituled De Missa priuata Vnctione Sacerdotum Who soeuer is desirous to see the place it is to be founde in the seuenth Tome printed at WitteÌ„berg by one Thomas Klug in the yere of our Lorde 1557. Folio 228. There thus writeth Luther Luthers report of his Conference vvith the Deuil COntigit me semel c. It befel me on a time that after midnight suddainly I awooke Then Satan began disputation with me after this manner Audi inquit Luthere Doctor perdocte Listen ê™ he â— right learned M. Doctor Luther 2 Thou knowest thou hast celebrated priuate Masses these fiften yeres almost euery day 3 What if suche priuate Masses were horrible Idolatrie Denial of AdoratioÌ„ of Christs body the Deuils Doctrine 4 What if it were so that the body and bloud of Christe were not present but that thou didst adoure bread and wine onely and shewedst the same to be adoured of others To whom I answered I am an annointed Priest I haue receiâ—ed vnction and consecration of a Bishop and al these thinges haue I done 5 by coÌ„maundement of my Superiours Why should I not haue coÌ„secrated sith that I pronounced the wordes of Christe seriously and celebrated Masses in great earnest The Deuil coÌ„fesseth outvvard Priesthod M. Ievvel deneeth This muche thou knowest 6 Al this ê™ Satan is true 7 But the Turkes and the Gentiles also doo al thinges in their temples vpon obedieÌ„ce and make their sacrifices in ernest The Priestes of IeroboaÌ„ also did al thinges with a certaine zeale and desire contrary to the true Priestes that were in Ierusalem 8 And what if thy taking of Orders and consecration were also false as the Turkes and Samaritanes Priestes are false Priestes and their worship is false and wicked worship First thou knowest ê™ he 9 At that time thou hadst no knowledge of Christe nor true faith and as touching faith thou wast no better then any Turke For the Turke yea al the Deuils also doo beleue the storie of Christe that he was borne that he was orucified that he died c. But the Turke and we reiected sprites doo not truste in his mercie neither haue we him for a mediatour and Sauiour but feare him as a cruel Iudge This manner of faith and none other thou hadst when thou tokest vnctioÌ„ of a Bishop and 10 al others bothe the annointers and the aÌ„nointed so thought of Christ and none otherwise For that cause ye fled 11 from Christ as from a cruel Iudge to S. Marie and the Saintes They were your mediatours betwene you and Christe 12 so the glorie was taken from Christe 13 This neither thou nor any other Papist can denie The Deuil calleth vs Papisteâ— Therefore ye are annointed consecrated and shauen and haue sacrificed in the Masse as Gentiles and Heathens and not as Christians 14 How then could ye consecrate in the Masse and celebrate a true Masse sith that which thing after your owne doctrine marreth altogether there wanteth a person hauing power to consecrate c. A briefe Reproufe of these Diuelish Blasphemies 1 In this insinuation the Deuil claweth the vaine glorious Frier by the backe as it were where he knew him to itche Right learned M. Doctor Luther ê™ he 2 Thou liest Satan as thy woont is Luther knew not ne could not know that which is false For in that which is chiefly to be accompted of the Masse is publlque and coÌ„mon Out of thy scoole the name of Priuate Masse in the sense that Luther conceiueth Priâ—at Masse the Deuils terme first proceded 3 VVhat if they were not as this Sacrifice is the highest honour that can be done vnto God being done as it ought to be 4 VVhat if it were present as it is present consecration duly made And so Luther him selfe teacheth against the Sacramentaries as it is knowen Marcke Reader from whose schoole the doctrine coÌ„meth that teacheth the body and bloud not to be adoured in the blessed Sacrament 5 Not only of them but rather by coÌ„maundement of Christe who said do this in my remeÌ„braÌ„ce 6 Ergo Luther was a Priest specially and properly not as euery faithful is Then had he auctoritie and povver to offer the Sacrifice This muche thou coÌ„fessest vnvvares as it semeth M. Ievv denieth VVhat is he vvorse then thee selfe 7 Such obedience of Turkes and Gentiles is not for Gods sake And therefore it is not obedience as it is a vertue and a seruice of God It is the seruitude of thee Satan VVherefore therein the more earnest the more sinneful The Zeale likevvise thou speakest of vvas vvicked therfore the case is not like aÌ„d so thy reason is naught 8 But vvhat if it vvere true as it vvas true 9 Here thou lyest Satan doune right 10 Auaunt Satan thou beliest Gods seruauntes It is not so thou enemie VVhen we beseche S. Marie and the other Sainctes to pray for vs we flee not froÌ„ Christe no more then S. Paule did wheÌ„ he desired the Romains the EphesiaÌ„s and the ThessaloniaÌ„s to pray for him Rom. 15. Ephes. 6. 2. Thess 3. but vve go to Christ with other helpers and suters as if hauing a sute to an earthly Prince I make his mother and his dearest frendes to go vnto him with me aÌ„d speake for me 12 By making the Saintes intercessours for vs to Christe no part of his glorie is taken from him Marke Reader who it is that teacheth thee not to câ—â— to the Sainctes for their aides and prayers 13 This we al doo denie and know it to be false It pleaseth vs to be called Papistes of thee Satan Auaunt blasphemous Sprite In the blessed Masse wee present and offer to God that bodyâ— that suffered vpon the Crosse and that bloude that was shed for vs whereby we are redemed from thee and froÌ„ thy most grisly miserie By this tale we are faught to esteme annointing consecration and â—haning beâ—â—oâ— bicause the Deuil liketh it not 14 The Deuil procedeth to his Conclusion as though his premisses vvere true VVherein M. Ievv folovveth him as the scholer the Maister and so doo al other the Sacramentaries and Protestantes And there afterward Folio 229. b. it foloweth In his angustijs c. Being in these 15 straightes and in this conflicte against the Deuil my wil was
to knocke him againe with the weapons that I was accustomed vnto lyuing in Papistrie and I laid for me the Intention and 16 faith of the Churche to wit that I had celebrated priuat Masses in the faith and intention of the Churche Albeit ê™ I 17 that I haue not beleeued or thought rightly yet in this point the Churche beleueth and thinketh rightly But then Satan laying at me more mightily and more vehemently Go too ê™ he bring me forth 18 where it is written that a man which is wicked and vnbeleeuing may stande at the Aulter of Christe and consecrate in the faith of the Churche Where hath God bid or commaunded this thing How wilt thou prooue that the Churche doth imparte vnto thee Intention to this thy priuate Masse 19 If now thou haue not the worde of God for thee but if men haue taught thee this thinge without the worde then all this Doctrine is a lye Beholde your boldnes c. 15 VVhy didst thou not blesse thee and arme thy selfe vvith the signe of the Crosse VVhy didst thou not cal vpon the name of Iesus Thoughtest thou thy selfe hable to matche the Deuil vvith vvordes 16 If thou hadst the Faith of the Church vvhy vventst thou from it And if thou hadst this Faith then hovv beleuest thou not Christe saying Doo this in my remembrance 17 By this thou impliest that the rest of the Churche before thou brochedst thy fifth Gospel beleued not Rightly wherin thou folowest Satan and beliest thy selfe and the Churche For the common profession of the Faith was â—hen right and sounde 18 To confounde this Frier the Deuil ioyneth a vvicked man and an vnbeleeuer together in the case of ConsecratioÌ„ and requireth Scripture of him for that which neither was ne neuer shal be done An euil Priest notwithstaÌ„ding his wickednes of life may consecrate though to his damnation as he may baptise and absolue but an vnbeleuing man that is to say an Infidel can not consecrate And what absurditie is it to say an vnbeleeuing maÌ„ to consecrate in the Faith of the Churche If in the Faith of the Churche how is he vnbeleeuing If vnbeleeuing how in the Faith of the Churche 19 For this Oblation and Sacrifice we haue the worde of Christe Do ye this in my remembrance And after this in the ende of the Disputation for it were to long to recite al thus it foloweth Fol. 230. Confessus quideÌ„ sum lege Dei coÌ„uictus coram Diabolo me peccasse me damnatum esse vt Iudam sed verto me ad Christum cum Petro c. 20 Being caste by the law of God I was faine to confesse before the Deuil that I had sinned and that I was damned like Iudas 21 But I turne my self vnto Christe with Peter c. 20 Say not foolish Fryer thou were caste by the lavv of God but by the Deuil for desert of thine ovvne iniquitie Thou makest Satan thy Ghostly Father vvho aftervvard taughtst that confession ought not to be made to a Priest for benefite of absolution 21 No no thou turnedst thy self from Christ vnto the Deuil vvith Iudas vvith SimoÌ„ Magê° and vvith other Heretiques And so do al that folovv thee and thy doctrine This is the Summe of the conference and disputation that Satan had with Frier Luther against the Sacrifice of the Masse by which Luther was persuaded not only to say Masse no more but also to write preach and worke against it in suche wise as became Satans scholer And thus thou seest Reader that this is not a tale maliciously and sclaunderously blased abroade by Pighius Hosius and Staphylus as M. Iewel saith but that it is in great sooth reported and in printed bookes published to the worlde by Luther him selfe Though M. Iewel be ashamed to heare of it yet he alloweth Satans Conclusion against the Masse The person of such a Schoolemaster he commendeth not but the Scholer he praiseth calling him In M. Ievvels Replie pag. 2. that godly man Doctor Luther and the doctrine he imbraceth By this we may conceiue what resistence the professours of this new Gospel wil make against Antichrist when he shal come among whoÌ„ the doctrine of the Deuil him selfe is so soone receiued so wel liked so boldly defended But ô foolish Frier whose vnstedfast harte was so soone ouerthrowen by Satans wicked suggestions false lyes and vaine reasons And ô light and miserable soules that sithens with the winde of that lewd Friers doctrine haue ben carried away For what is there in al Satans tale in Luthers bookes in the treatises of al his Scholers of Germanie of Cranmare Peter Martyr Zuinglius Oecolampadius Caluine Beza of al the other Sacramentaries briefly in the whole Replie of M. Iewel whose Puddel is filled with their Sinckes that ought to withdraw any learned wise or godly man from that beleefe touching the Sacrifice of the body and Bloude of Christe whiche the Catholique Churche hath alwayes taught from the beginning What so euer they haue said and what so euer they can say against this blessed Sacrifice assure thy selfe Christian Reader the effecte of al here shalt thou finde laid together in M. Iewels Replie Al whiche of how litle force it is consideratly perusing and weghing this Reioindre thou shalt perceiue Although the authoritie of the Churche be ynough to stay thee yet if thou desire to see the Aduersarie encountred and his Obiections answered reade what I haue here written and iudge not forgeting to cal to God for the assistence of his holy Spirite to illuminate thy vnderstanding and to purge thy affection that thou maist see what is true obserue the same and haue a ful wil to perfourme what is good and acceptable before God The chiefe and most common Argument that the Protestantes make against the Sacrifice of the Masse S. Paule declareth in the Epistle to the Hebrewes Heb. 9. that Christ was but once onely offered and that he offereth not him selfe oftentimes Cap. 9. By his ovvne bloude saith the Apostle he entred in once into the holy place and founde eternal redemption Againe He vvas but once offred to take avvay the sinnes of many And in an other place VVith one oblation he hath made perfite them that are sanctified for euer Heb. 10. Ergo to what purpose is it that Christe is thus daily offred vp vnto God in the Masse Solution This Argument is soone solued if a man consider the scope marke and purpose wherevnto S. Paule directeth him selfe in that Epistle This muche therefore is to be weighed There were many of the Hebrewes that although through the preaching and miracles of the Apostles were persuaded to beleue in Christe yet remained in great estimation and zeale of the Law stickte vnto their olde customes and ordinances of Moyses and specially vnto their Sacrifices whiche they were desirous to retaine for their sinnes And therefore they founde them selues agreeued with the Apostle for that whereas he tooke away their olde
filios Dei fieri He hath geuen them power to be made the sonnes of God Vnto which dignitie S. Paul addeth a farther degree saying Si autem filij Rom. 8. haeredes haeredes quidem Dei cohaeredes autem Christi If we be the sonnes of God then we be also the heires the heires of God and felow heires with Christe That high degree of honour which S. Peter speaketh of surmounteth al other neither can any other vnto it be cōparable Which is that God through Christe hath bestowed vpon vs so great giftes 2. Pet. 1. vt efficiamur Diuinae consortes naturae that we be made partakers of the Diuine nature Verily of the high dignitie that it hath pleased God to admitte man vnto in these and other the like cases that may wel be said against M. Iewel Esther 6. and all other the enemies of this Sacrifice which King Assuerus commaunded openly to be proclaimed of good Mardochaeus against wicked Aman Hoc honore dignus est quemcunque rex voluerit honorare Of this honour is he worthy whō so euer the King of al Kings wil haue honoured And this is a sufficient answere to M. Iewels secrete obiection against the Sacrifice taken of the basenesse and miserie of humanie condition He wil saye perhaps M. Ievvel denieth the Sacrifice of the Aulter stoutely these examples and Scriptures prooue in dede that God hath aduaūced man vnto high honour but not that he may offer vp Christ vnto his Father For saieth he for ought that may appeare by any clause or sentence of the newe Testament or of the olde God neuer appointed any such Sacrifice to be made Such stoute asseuerations make but weake proufes Here might be alleged for the Sacrifice first out of the olde Lawe the Figures foresignifying and the Prophecies foretelling that suche Sacrifice was to be instituted Secondly out of the newe Testament Christes owne facte offering this Sacrifice and his plaine precepte commaunding his Apostles and their successours in the office of Priesthood to continue the same vntil his comming Thirdly the interpretation of the Fathers expounding in that sense both those figures and Prophecies of the olde Testament and likewise Christes facte and precepte in the newe Testament Last of al the continual practise of the vniuersal Church both Greke and Latine wherein the Priestes in al ages since Christes death haue made to God a Sacrifice of our Lordes body and bloude But because this is done already in the discourse of my Answer to this 17. Article of M. Iewels Chalenge leauing to repeate the same here againe when orderly proceding I shal come vnto the places by M. Iewels Replie impugned there I truste I shal by disclosing the Repliers false sleightes and by bewraying the weakenesse of his Replie to the indifferent and vnaffectionate Reader euidently shewe how strong and sound the Catholike doctrine of the Church is in this behalfe and how inuincibly the testimonies of the Scriptures and Fathers which in my Answer I alleged proue and establish the same VVhat may folovv if al be takē avvay that hath not proufe of Scripture Anabaptistes But touching such kinde of assertions as this is of M. Iewels if they may take place and if it shal be ynough to say for ought that may appeare shal it not seme lauful to the Anabaptistes to say away with the baptizing of infantes For for ought that may appeare the Scriptures geue vs no warrāt so to do Wil not the blasphemous Ariās say away with Cōsubstātialitie and equalitie of Christ with his Father For Arians for ought that may appeare it can not be auouched by any Clause or sentēce either of the new Testamēt or of the olde Wil not the folowers of Iouinian and Heluidius say Iouinianistes away with the perpetual Virginitie of our blessed Lady Christes Mother Heluidiās For for ought that may appeare the Scriptures be plaine against it rather then with it The Sabbataries Sabbataries wil not they cry out agaīst keping holy and solēne the Sōday For for ought that may appeare say they the cōmaundemēt to hallow the Saturday stādeth stil in force neither is there any clause or sentēce in the olde or new Testament bidding vs to chaunge it into the Sonday To be short what Heretike euer was there in olde time or is at this day whose turne this kind of assertion for ought that may appeare may not serue wherewith to mainteine his Heresie As touching the saying of Theophylact M. Ievvel to proue his Negatiue at the first findeth no aunciēter Doctour thē Theophylacte a late vvriter wherwith this Replier would fortifie his Negatiue it geueth euidence how weake his side is that could not be mainteined by any sentēce of greater force thē this is nor by any writer of more antiquitie thē Theophylact is with him Who requireth his cause to be tried by those Fathers only that liued within the first six hūdred yeres If he were hable to make any mā beleue that the Priests of the Church haue at any time sacrificed beastes vnto God or that Theophylact in that saying meant that now there were neede of nothīg but of prayer only as prayer is takē in the cōmon significatiō and that al other meanes to serue God were needelesse thē might the sentēce be alleged and seeme to serue his turne so farr forth as in cōsideratiō of his request the author were to be estemed But now sith Priestes of the new Testamēt neuer honoured God with bloudy sacrifices ād slaughter of beastes that were foresignified to ceasse by our Lords driuing of the Oxē ād dooues out of the Tēple ād Theophylact here vseth no exclusiue wherby prayer alone as it cōmōly signifieth should be appointed a meane wherewith to serue God the saying was euil chosen ād with smal iudgmēt put into the Replie as that which nothing at al maketh agaīst the singuler external ād publike Sacrifice of the Church in myne Answer defended If M. Iewel would gather arguments out of this place thus he ought to dispose them Theophyl in Matth. cap. 21. In that Christ draue the oxē and dooues out of the Tēple he foresignified that there should be no more nede of sacrifices of beastes or of slaughters but of prayer Vvhat argument may be cōclnded out of Theophylact here alleged So be the very wordes of Theophylacte in Greke somewhat otherwise then this Replier hath translated them Thereof it is concluded Ergo nowe in the newe Testament there is neede of prayer Then further In the newe Testament there is neede of prayer But the Masse whereat the priest offereth vp Christ vnto his Father is no prayer Ergo in the new Testament the Masse is needlesse This is the best Argument he can make out of Theophylactes wordes In which how so euer it be allowed for good or otherwise the minor or second propositiō is euidētly false and so he is stopped frō his cōclusion
Wherfore Theophylact helpeth not the mater at al. Theophylacte maketh for the Sacrifice Yea rather by the manner of his speach he auoucheth the Sacrifice of the Church vnderstanding it by the name of prayer For whereas by his reporte which is expressed also in the Gospel Christ dryuing out the oxeÌ„ aÌ„d dooues foresignified the ceassing of the bloudy and vncleane sacrifices of the olde Lawe Matt. 21. certainely he shewed thereby that a newe Sacrifice vnbloudy and pure should succede in place of the olde because euery lawe hath a priesthod and a sacrifice peculier vnto it Which in the newe lawe is none other Prayer then the Sacrifice of his body and bloude consecrated with prayer and offered vp to God with prayer by them who vnder Christ be priestes after Melchisedeks order And this chiefly is that which Theophylacte calleth prayer For in asmuch as this Sacrifice due mater presupposed is coÌ„secrated by the Priest with the wordes of our Lorde Matt. 26. this is my body this is the Cuppe of my bloud Luke 22. c whiche wordes the Fathers oftentimes name the mystical prayer 1. Cor. 11. he had regarde to the fourme of the CoÌ„secration and would speake as the chiefe of the auncient Fathers haue spoken And so the saying of Theophylacte maketh for the Sacrifice it maketh not against the Sacrifice as to that purpose of M. Iewel it is alleged Furthermore Prayer in this place may be takeÌ„ not only for that which commonly we vnderstaÌ„d by the name of praier that is to say for petitioÌ„ made to God with words but for euery such meane Vvhat is signified by the name of Prayer as God is serued withal in his Church according as it is taken in Esay the prophete alleged by Christ in the Gospel Domus mea domus orationis vocabitur Matt. 21. vos autem fecistis eam speluncam latronum My howse shall be called the howse of prayer but ye haue made it a denne of theeues So that Prayer here being set contrary to the bloudy and vncleane sacrifices of the old Lawe signifieth al manner of seruice of God that is pure and cleane without bloudshedding Ye haue made it a denne of theeues In dennes of theeues slaughters and bloudsheddinges are made saith Theophylacte Nicolaus de Lyra writing vpoÌ„ this place Lyra in CommeÌ„t in 21. cap. Matt. saith Non curabaÌ„t de cultu Dei sed magis de excoriatione populi per astutias suas exquisitas They tooke no care for Gods seruice but rather how by their fyne crafty sleightes they might pille the people Praier taken generally for the seruice of God Here what the prophete calleth orationeÌ„ prayer the interpreter nameth it cultum Dei the seruice or worship of God And to this agreeth the general definition of Prayer oratio est mentis eleuatio ad Deum Prayer is the lifting vp of the mynde vnto God And because amoÌ„g al kindes of prayer that wherin and wherby Christ is offered vp vnto his Father is the chiefe therefore may Theophylact reasonably be thought in this place to haue meant that prayer which the Church calleth the Masse So then by Christes driuiÌ„g of the OxeÌ„ aÌ„d dooues out of the TeÌ„ple aÌ„d by coÌ„meÌ„diÌ„g vnto his Church the vse of praier this Sacrifice caÌ„ not in any wise seeme to be excluded but rather to be brought in as that which beiÌ„g vnbloudy aÌ„d pure ought to succede the bloudy aÌ„d impure sacrifices of the Iewes About the administratioÌ„ of which Sacrifice that Theophylact may also the rather seeme to haue vnderstaÌ„ded it by the name of praier after the mind of S. Augustin August ad PaulinuÌ„ epist. 59. the request of S. Paule touching sundry kindes of praier is accoÌ„plished Obsecro igitur primuÌ„ fieri obsecrationes orationes 1. Tim. 2. postulationes gratiaruÌ„ actiones ê“ oiÌ„bê° hominibê° pro regibus oiÌ„bus qui in sublimitate constituti sunt I beseche you therfore that aboue al thiÌ„gs supplicatioÌ„s praiers intercessioÌ„s and geuing of thaÌ„kes be made for al men for Kings and for al that be placed in high authoritie To coÌ„clude al redoundeth to this end that forasmuch as the special Sacrifice of the Churche is made and celebrated with praier so as it selfe be included within the general name of Praier M. Iewel findeth no helpe in this saying of Theophylact towards the maintenaÌ„ce of his Negatiue whereby he would vtterly deface and take the Sacrifice away Which thinge when he sawe him selfe euidently ynough he deuised other shiftes and saith Iewel Hovv be it the old learned Fathers as they oftentimes delited theÌ„selues vvith these vvoordes SabbatuÌ„ Parasceue Pascha Pentecoste and such other like termes of the old Lavv notvvithstaÌ„ding the ObseruatioÌ„ and Ceremony therof vvere theÌ„ abolished aÌ„d out of vse EueÌ„ so likevvise thei delited theÌ„selues oftetimes vvith these vvordes Sacerdos Altare SacrificiuÌ„ the Sacrificer Pachymeres pa 401 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 15. Origen in Epist. ad Rom. li. 10. Nazian in Oratio ad PlebeÌ„ Chryso in Epist. ad Rom. Homil 29. the Aultar the Sacrifice notvvithstaÌ„diÌ„g the vse therof vvere theÌ„ clearly expired only for that the eares of the people as vvel of the Ievves as of the GeÌ„tils had ben long acquainted vvith the same Therfore Pachymeres the Paraphraste vvriting vpoÌ„ Dionysius saith thus PresbyteruÌ„ appellat SacerdoteÌ„ vt etiaÌ„ in Coelesti Hierarchia idque vsus iaÌ„ obtinuit Him that is the Priest or elder he calleth the Sacrificer as he doth also in his Coelestial Hierarchie And the same word Sacrificer is now obteined by Custome In this sense S. Paul saith of him self Sacrifico EuangeliuÌ„ Dei I sacrifice the Gospel of God And OrigeÌ„ saith Sacrificale opus est anuÌ„nciare EuaÌ„geliuÌ„ It is a work of Sacrifice to Preach the Gospel So the learned Bisshop NaziaÌ„zenus saith vnto his people Hostiam vos ipsos obtuli I haue offred vp you for a Sacrifice So saith S. Chrysostom Ipsum mihi Sacerdotium est Praedicare EuaÌ„gelizare HaÌ„c offero oblationeÌ„ My whole priesthod is to teache and to preache the Gospel This is my OblatioÌ„ This is my Sacrifice Thus the holy Fathers alluding to the orders and Ceremonies of Moyses Lavvâ— called the preachiÌ„g of the Gospel a Sacrifice notvvithstanding in dede it vvere no Sacrifice Harding The effect of that hath ben said by the Replier hitherto is this The Sacrifice wherin Christ is offered vp vnto his Father is not appointed by God to be made by maÌ„ for ought that may appere by any Clause or SeÌ„teÌ„ce of the Scripture but yet it is reported aÌ„d ofteÌ„tymes spokeÌ„ of by the Olde learned Fathers What meaneth M. Iewel thus to teach would he haue meÌ„ beleue that the Holy Ghost the spirite of truth who vsed the Prophetes Apostles and Euangelistes for his Secretaries to endite the Scriptures agreeth not with the Holy Ghoste that sithens their tyme hath spoken by the mouthes of the
suche manner order sense and meaning as the new state and condition of the Church succeding the Iewish Synagoge requireth that is not according to the figure shadow letter or signification but according to the truth the body the spirite and the very thinges Iesus vetus testamentum consummabat Ser. 7. de pass Domini nouum Pascha condebat saieth the auncient and learned Father S. Leo. Iesus made an ende of the olde Testament and did set vp the newe Easter or Passeouer And this new Easter doe we kepe and celebrate The same Father saith also Vt vmbrae cedereÌ„t corpori et cessareÌ„t imagines sub praesentia veritatis antiqua obseruantia nouo tollitur Sacramento hostia in hostiam transit sanguinem sanguis excludit legalis festiuitas dum mutatur impletur That the shadowes should geue place to the Body and the Images ceasse in presence of the Truth the Olde Obseruance is taken away by the newe sacrament hoste passeth ouer into hoste bloude putteth out bloude and the holy solemnitie of the Lawe whiles it is chaunged is fulfilled Againe more plainely to this purpose in an other place Leo. Ser. 13 de Pass Domini Nihil legalium instructionum nihil propheticarum recedit figurarum quod non tatum in Christi sacramenta transierit Nobiscum est Signaculum Circumcisionis sanctificatio Chrismatum consecratio Sacerdotum Nobiscum puritas Sacrificij Baptismi veritas honor Templi vt meritò cessarint nuncij postquam nunciata venerunt What so euer instructions be in the Lawe what figures so euer be in the Prophetes no iote of it departeth quite away but is gone ouer altogether into the Sacramentes of Christe With vs is the signet of Circumcision the hallowing of the holy Ointements Priestes the Consecration of Priestes With vs is the purenesse of Sacrifice Sacrifice the truth of Baptisme Baptisme the honour of the Temple Temple that for good cause the Messangers that is to saie the olde lawe ceassed after that their tidinges came Were it not tedious easily might a hundred such places be alleged out of the Fathers by testimonie of which the obseruation and vse of these thinges of the olde Testament Pascha Easter Pentecoste Priest or Sacrificer Hoste Aulter and Sacrifice is acknowleged as of thinges translated established and hauing place in the newe Testament The olde Obseruation is taken away by the newe Obseruation For the olde Aulter that was in Salomons Temple at Ierusalem we haue newe Aulters in the Churches of Christians thoroughe out the whole worlde Optatus lib. 6. on which the members of Christ be susteined and in which the body and bloude of Christe * Per certâ— momeÌ„ta at certaine times do dwel as the auncient Father Optatus writeth Newe Aulters I say bicause they serue to a new purpose and to a newe kind of Sacrifice in respect of the olde Sacrifices Concerning the hoste for Oxen sheepe goates and dooues we haue the body and bloude of Christ. For the figuratiue Lambe we haue the true Lambe of God that taketh away the synnes of the worlde Ioan. 1. For the feast of the Olde Passeouer Exod. 12. wherein the Iewes solemnized the memorie of the Striking Angels passing ouer them or beside them when he destroyed al the first begoten of the Egyptians and of their owne safe passing ouer the redde Sea out of Egypte 1. Cor. 5. we haue our Passeouer or Easter wherein we kepe a holy and soleÌ„ne feast in remeÌ„brance that by the merite of Christes bloude who is the true Lambe the plague of euerlasting death is past ouer and quite beside vs 1. Pet. 3. that for our sake he hath conquered al power that was against vs I. Ioan. 3. that he is passed ouer froÌ„ death to life and hath traÌ„slated aÌ„d redemed vs froÌ„ death and hel to be partakers of life aÌ„d glorie euerlasting in his kingdoÌ„ As the Iewes had their PeÌ„tecost so we haue ours For as when they were deliuered out of Egypte the Lawe was geueÌ„ them in the Mount Sina vpon the Pentecoste Exod. 20. that is to say the fiftith day after that the Lambe had beÌ„ sacrificed 1. Cor. 5. So vpon the fiftith day after our Passeouer in which the true LaÌ„be of God was slaine the holy Ghost came down vpoÌ„ the Apostles Act. 2. and the coÌ„panie of theÌ„ that beleued which holy Ghost froÌ„ that day to the end of the world coÌ„tinueth with the Church aÌ„d worketh in the sonnes of God the performaÌ„ce of Gods holy wil by loue aÌ„d Matt. 28. charitie as the Lawe wrought it or rather moued men to it by threates and terrour Leo Ser. 1. de Pentecoste Sâ— Leo speaking of this Feast saith Hodiernam solennitatem in praeciâ—â—â—â— festis esse â—â—â—â—â—â—ndâ—m omnium Catholicorum corda cognoscunt The hartes of al Catholike men knowe that the solemnitie of this day of Pentecoste ought to be had in honour among the chiefe feastes Remember M. Iewel if your hart geue you that there is no such feast of Pentecost to be obserued in Christes Churche because the vse of it is expired VVhat ansvver you M. Ievvel as you say by whose verdite you are excluded out of the nuÌ„ber of Catholike men and so pronounced gilty To whether parte wil you answer Doth your harte know it or know it not If your harte know it not then you are not Catholike and therfore you ought not to be admitted to teach Gods people If your harte knowe it and yet ceasse not to teache the coÌ„trarie then are you a daÌ„nable dissembler and a false deceiuer So touching this point euery way your doctrin is to be shunned Thus then it is made cleare the olde learned Fathers folowed not their pleasure or vaine delite when they spake of SabbatuÌ„ Parasceue Pascha Pentecoste Priest Aulter Sacrifice But vttered the truth seriously as men ready to geue accompte of their doctrine before God and man and as speaking of things that haue vse and place in Christes Churche though the Iewish obseruation and Ceremonie of them be abolished M. Iewels reason reproued The reason why the Fathers vsed these termes is as M. Iewel saith onely for that the eares of the people as well of the Iewes as of the Gentiles had ben long acquainted with the same This reason is altogether without fauour For if al manner vse and obseruatioÌ„ of the thinges by these termes signified were quite abolished whereas wordes and termes serue to th ende the hearers and readers by them be taught and the Fathers in al their writings intended to teache Christe and his Lawe what could the Iewes or Gentils learne touching the faith of Christe hearing and reading these termes not signifying to them the thinges which they did before their conuersion The more acquainted their eares wer with them before the more by hearing the same nowe were they put in minde of that they once signified
special kings bearing rule not only ouer them selues yea though perhaps not ouer them selues sometimes which may be said for some parte of them but at the least ouer their Subiectes notwithstandinge that al the faithful people through Christ whose members thei are be made by Baptisme kinges ouer their own soules and bodies So there be special Priestes in the newe Testament called and appointed to that function albeit al Christians be spiritual Priestes as being the membres of the highest Priest Iesus Christe Here I thinke good to fore warne the Reader that bicause I am constrained by the Replie to make a distinction betwen these two termes Sacerdos and Presbyter Presbyter Sacerdos Priest Sacrificer by which the persons of the highest order in the Church be called and in our English tongue there want two distinct termes correspondent to them the name of Priest seruing to both as the common vse hath receiued I wil for a fewe leaues that my talke may be more distincte and better perceiued vse the terme Sacrificer for the Latine worde Sacerdos and the terme Priest for the worde Presbyter When therfore I shal name a Sacrificer that is to be vnderstanded which this worde Sacerdos signifieth and likewise Priest shal be that which is signified by the worde Presbyter Thus I require the vse of an vnwoont terme to be taken in good part for so good and profitable a cause After a fewe leaues I wil returne to the vse of the accustomed terme Priest whether the Latine where vnto it shal answer be Sacerdos or Presbyter And now to come againe froÌ„ wheÌ„ce I haue thus digressed If for the force of the former coÌ„parison M. Iewel wil coÌ„fesse that there be certaine special persons chosen and sent to beare in the congregatioÌ„ certaine offices which euery man vpon the coÌ„mission of their general Priesthod may not adueÌ„ture vpon without a special coÌ„mission and appointement and those persons be of the Fathers by an abuse of the worde called Sacerdotes Sacrificers wheras in deede and properly they are to be called Presbyteri Priestes Elders or Ministers to this I reply graunting and coÌ„fessing that such persons called to these special functions were at the beginning and may now also be called Priests aÌ„d Ministers That there be novve in the Churche vvho ought properly to be called Sacerdotes that is Sacrificers But I deny vtterly that the same may not ne ought not properly to be called Sacrificers Yea doubtlesse the name of a Sacrificer doth more aptly and properly agree vnto theÌ„ theÌ„ doth the terme Priest or Minister For of these termes the one rather declareth the age or auncient grauitie which is most seemely in these persons then expresseth their office The other through the largenes of the significatioÌ„ is such as may be applied as wel vnto Maiors of Cities and temporal Iudges ministring Iustice as vnto those persons that minister and dispeÌ„se the mysteries of God But the terme Sacrificer doth properly extend only to those who haue auctoritie to coÌ„secrat the Body and Bloud of Christ aÌ„d be by special vocatioÌ„ ministers and dispensers of most holy things which ministratioÌ„ aÌ„d dispeÌ„satioÌ„ is to be fouÌ„d in the Church only To him that perhaps wil reply VVhy S. Paule calleth them Priestes rather then Saâ—crificers and demaunde why then did S. Paule as it were of purpose shuÌ„ning the terme Sacrificer alwaies cal them Priestes or Ministers I answer S. Paule had iust cause so to doe The which cause learned men shewe to be for that in his time the olde Law and Priesthod of the same was yet amoÌ„g the Iewes fresh in estimatioÌ„ and stickte so in their coÌ„science as they could not vpon the soudaine be remoued from the obseruation of their accustomed ReligioÌ„ deliuered vnto them of God by Moyses his special prophete S. Paule therfore with other the first setters forth of Christes Law the Gospel preaching coÌ„tinually of the end of the old Law aÌ„d of the ceassing aÌ„d abrogatioÌ„ of the Sacrifices thought it coÌ„uenient for a time to forbeare the name of Sacrificer and to cal the spiritual officers by the name of Priests aÌ„d Ministers least the Iewes hearing the termes of their owne ReligioÌ„ might falsly suppose no differeÌ„ce or preemineÌ„ce to be betwen the office aÌ„d officers of the new and their ReligioÌ„ that is to say of the new and old TestameÌ„t And this warenesse of speaking coÌ„tinued vntil IerusaleÌ„ After the destruction of IerusaleÌ„ the olde terme Sacrificer vvas resumed and vsedâ— and the TeÌ„ple it self wher only their Sacrifices were to be made were destroyed at what time the kingdom Priesthode and rite of Sacrificing of the Iewes was quite ended and takeÌ„ away FroÌ„ theÌ„ce forth to this time the learned Fathers haue coÌ„moÌ„ly without feare or doubte resumed the termes of Priesthod and Sacrificers and applied theÌ„ to the spiritual ministerie administers of the Church This cause being knowen and wel weighed bewrayeth M. Iewels ignoraÌ„ce or folieâ— affirmiÌ„g the Fathers to haue vsed the termes Sacrifice Sacrificer aÌ„d Aulter for that the Iewes aÌ„d the GeÌ„tils eares were wel acquainted with these termes Where as contrary wise the first Preachers of Christian Religion absteined from those woordes bicause the same were vnto them vsual and familiar least by the vse of theÌ„ some errour or inconuenience might chaunce to growe Ansvvere to M. Ievvels authorities Now to answer the authorities first whereas Pachymeres is haled in whether he wil or no to be a witnesse in this wrong cause let it be considered how iniurious M. Iewel is in that he bindeth other men to Doctours and Councels of the first six hundred yeres after Christe only and here vseth him selfe the auctoritie of so late a writer as Pachymeres is And therefore sith that he hath first broken his owne Lawe and the bonde of the couenances we thinke it right he beare with vs if sometime we allege Doctours and Councels though some deale beneath the first sixe hundred yeres yet auncienter and of farre better auctoritie then Pachymeres a writer of Notes vpon S. Dionyse hath euer ben accompted of Next how proueth Pachymeres the purpose for which he is brought in Be it graunted that S. Dionyse writing to Sopater being a Priest calleth him a Sacrificer and that custome hath now obteined a Priest or Elder to be named a Sacrificer as Pachymeres saith what can be concluded of al this Wil it folow hereof that Sopater was no true Sacrificer but onely a figuratiue Sacrificer And that the name of a Priest doth more aptlye expresse the office of the stewardes of Gods Mysteries in the Churche then doth the terme Sacrificer Nothing lesse This is it only that wil folow that the dispensatours of those spiritual treasures were called by both the names of a Priest and of a Sacrificer euen from the beginning of the Churche a shorte time only excepted vntil the Iewish Synagogue was buried and almost forgotteÌ„ After which time the
Ecclesiastical writers were accustomed to attribute vnto the chiefe ministers of Gods mysteries as oft or oftener the title of Sacrificers as of Priests or Elders as it may be tried by vewe of the workes written by S. Dionyse Tertullian S. Cyprian S. Chrysostom S. Ambrose S. Hierome S. Augustine S. Leo S. Gregorie and briefly by the writinges of al others from age to age vnto these wretched times when the name and person of a Sacrificer which al good men of times past euer reuerenced and honoured is despised accompted Iewish or Heathenish hated and detested So that the custome which Pachymeres speaketh of to cal a Priest a Sacrificer is now toward the ende of the worlde when Antichrist shal come by the worst sort of men his foreronners interrupted and broken How be it I maruel that M. Iewel who hath so great stoare of phrases wherewith to make shew of somewhat against the Catholiks S. Dionyse vvriâ—ting to Sopater a Priest calleth hiÌ„â—acrificer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to bleare the eyes of the vnlerned had no better phrase then this of S. Dionyse against the Sacrifice of the Churche Wil it seme likely to any wise man that S. Dionysius was so farre ouerseene as to vse one word for an other specially in that place where he so ernestly aduertiseth one to vtter nothing that may be reproued For that special counsel he geueth Sopater in that Epistle And whereas writing Epistles to others he geueth to ech one his due title of honour and calling as To Gaius a * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Moonke To Dorotheê° a * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Minister or Deacon by interpretation of Pachymeres To Polycarpus a * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bisshop To Iohn the Diuine Apostle and EuaÌ„gelist how shal we think he failed only of the true name that Sopaters vocation was called by Verily had not a Priest in his certaine knowledge and in the iudgemeÌ„t of the learned Fathers of that time the Apostles scholers don true Sacrifice in dede by offering vp the body and bloud of Christe vnto God he wold not haue called Sopater the Priest a Sacrificer But bicause they had the same faith concerning this Sacrifice that the Churche euer sithens had and we nowe haue he doubted not to cal a Priest a Sacrificer as now he is coÌ„moÌ„ly called Neither vsed he that terme only in his Epistle to Sopater but also in his Ecclesiastical Hierarchie where he declared the maner how the Sacrifice was to be celebrated And the custome hath now so preuailed saith Pachymeres Which custome should neuer so haue preuailed in the vniuersal Churche of Christe had not the terme in so weighty a mater bene agreable vnto the truth Thus S. Dionyse whom M. Iewel allegeth for him selfe maketh clearely against M. Iewel Vnto Pachymeres M. Iewel adioineth S. Paule Origen S. Chrysostome to proue that preaching of the Gospel is called a Sacrifice being none in dede and also S. Gregorie Nazianzene calling the people his Sacrifice These authorities might as wel haue ben brought in to proue that Christe offered no true and real Sacrifice vpon the Crosse as that there is no external Sacrifice in the Churche but only a reported Sacrifice by a metaphore For if any man allege to the contrarie the testimonies of the Scripture and Doctors wher they cal Christes death a Sacrifice folowing M. Iewel one may easily answere that both the Scripture and Doctours vsed the word improperly alluding for their delite vnto the Sacrifices of the old Law For behold saith he this is not straÌ„ge S. Paul S. Chrysostome and OrigeÌ„ doe cal preaching a Sacrifice whereas in dede preaching is no Sacrifice And so by a phrase of speache the Sacrifice of Christes death whereon our faith and hope as the ground of our saluatioÌ„ stayeth were like to be remoued and displaced What a fond kind of arguing is this The absurdity of M. Iewels argumeÌ„t The terme Sacrifice is sometimes vsed of the Fathers speaking metaphorically Ergo it is so to be taken when thei speake of the Sacrifice of the Aulter The great absurditie of this argumeÌ„t may easily appeare in the like As for example Baptisme is somtime taken in the Scripture by a figuratiue speach for tribulatioÌ„ and suffering of death as when Christ said Baptismo habeo baptizari Luc. 21. et quomodo coartor vsque duÌ„ perficiatur I haue a Baptisme to be baptized withal and how am I straighted vntil it be accomplished Ergo Baptisme hath no proper significatioÌ„ in the last chapter of S. Mathew where Christ gaue coÌ„mandemeÌ„t vnto his disciples Mat. 28. saying Go ye and teach al natioÌ„s baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost But Christ pronouncing the terme of Baptisme Mar. 7. alluded only vnto the obseruaÌ„ce and Ceremonie of the Iewes whose custome was to baptize and washe them selues when they returned home from the market or common place For thy better instruction herein Reader M. Iewels comoÌ„ Arguments deduced from like to like thou maist be aduertised that these Argumentes à Simili from one like thing to an other be the weakest of al others and most deceiueable and are fitter for a Rhetorical declamation then for a probation of truth called in controuersie And therefore it is a kinde of Argument attributed vnto the Rhetorician to explicate and make plaine a mater and not to the Logician strongly to conuince and piththily to proue a veritie Yet M. Iewel notwithstanding is so in loue with this kinde of prouing in his whole booke of Replie that if his comparisons of one phrase with an other were cut of which he woulde haue seme to be like the rest of his booke should appeare of smal quantitie How be it though it be the slipperest way in reasoning yet if M. Iewel had compared phrases together that were like in dede al circumstances obserued he were the more to be borne withal But most coÌ„monly he maketh his comparisons betwixt those phrases that haue litle or none affinitie at al either for that the one is spoken by a Metaphore and the other properly or the one of one mater and the other of an other or the one in one respect the other in an other And by that meanes he confoundeth the Doctours sayinges M. Iewels custome to put avvay one truth by an other and thinketh he hath done the parte of a lerned man if he may seme to foile and desplace one truth by an other truth As for example In our present case bicause S. Paule and certaine Doctours by a Figure do take Preaching for a Sacrifice which is a truth denyed by no man for it is in deede a kinde of spiritual Sacrifice therefore he woulde haue it seme that the same Doctours neuer speake of any real Sacrifice of Christes body and bloude whereas it is most manifest as it shal hereafter be proued that they speake of both kindes
of these Sacrifices and both may wel stand together Rom. 15. Origen in Epist. ad Ro. lib. 10. Where he saith S. Paule speaketh of him self in this sense saying Sacrifico Euangelium Dei I sacrifice the Ghospel of God and Origen Sacrificale opus est annunciare Euangelium It is a worke of Sacrifice to preach the Gospel What sense meaneth he or what sense would he his Reader to conceiue sith that he spake no worde of any sense before He spake onely of a certaine delite that the olde learned Fathers had in vsing wordes which after the promulgation of the Gospel signified nothing extant nor practised I trow therefore he meant that S. Paule had also that delite which he pretendeth Now true it is that S. Paule hath nowhere these very wordes Sacrifico Euangelium Dei I sacrifice the Gospel of God Neither be the woordes Origens that he ascribeth to Origen but S. Hieromes who added vnto and tooke from Origens fifteen vnperfite bookes vpon the Epistle to the Romains and disposed that whole worke as he thought best as it appeareth by his Epistle to Heraclius The place which he meaneth Rom. 15. is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for which the common Latine bookes haue sanctificans Euangelium Dei Erasmus administrans S. Augustine consecrans which worde liketh Caluine and the same he pteferreth before Erasmus worde whiche notwithstanding the translatours of the Englishe newe Testament folowed Al which interpretations be too obscure Beza in Annot. in no. test as Beza iudgeth and therefore he liketh his owne best Operans Euangelio Dei as his Maister Caluine liked his owne better then that of Erasmus S. Hierome confesseth it to be more highly and with a more magnificēce spoken in Greke then he was hable fully to expresse in Latine Yet as being destitute of a fuller and perfiter worde he turneth the Greke worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into sacrificans and saith that to preach the Gospel is a sacrificing worke and there plainely declareth how Now though it be graunted that both S. Paule alluded to the manner and condition of the Sacrifices of Moyses lawe and S. Hierome consydered the same in his exposition of that place yet thereof it wil not folowe that when so euer the olde Learned Fathers speake of the external visible and singular Sacrifice of the Churche they meane that there is no real Sacrifice in deede but onely in a figuratiue speache M Ievvel for the most part so argueth that he impugneth one truth by an other truth This Argument is naught pardy as M. Iewel knoweth him selfe S. Paule saith he consecrated the Gospel as it were a Sacrifice throughe preaching of the same offering vp the beleeuers as Hostes vnto God Item Saint Hierome for that respecte calleth preaching of the Ghospel a sacrificing worke Ergo the Fathers woordes spoken of the daily Sacrifice of the Churche are to be taken metaphorically onely and not properly Bothe manners of sayinges be true in their right sense the one in figuratiue the other in proper sense Who so euer aunswereth M. Iewel he must alwaies sing one song vnto him that his continual shift is to impugne one truth by an other truth The same answer serueth to the places by him alleged out of S. Gregorie Nazianzen and S. Chrysostome if S. Nazianzen haue any such wordes at al. For amongst al his Orations that be extant none beareth the title that is here noted in the margent Yet I acknowledge them to be such as he might wel haue spoken them by a metaphore M. Ievvel falsifieth S. Chrysostome The Testimonie of S. Chrysostome he hath fouly falsified with vntrue translation For whereas he found these wordes in S. Chrysostome Ipsum mihi Sacerdotium est praedicare Euagnelizare he hath thus translated it into English My whole priesthoode is to teach and to preach the Ghospel As though ipsum in Latine signified whole in English and as though it were true that S. Paules Priesthode consisted wholy and altogether in preaching the Ghospel whereas he confesseth him selfe to haue baptized Crispus 1. Cor. 1. and Caius and the householde of Stephana and it is not to be doubted but he consecrated and ministred also the blessed Sacrament of Christes body and bloude and where occasion so required loosed and retained synnes Which three functions be diuerse from the preaching of the Ghospel Whereby it is cleare that S. Paules whole Priesthode consisted not in preaching But these men would faine inclose al Priestly office within the limittes of preaching For so should our whole Religion consiste in prating so few Sacramentes would serue so the continual Sacrifice should ceasse so should Hostlers and Tapsters occupie the Pulpittes and what other so euer lewd Iackes could chatte and chapter their matters they should be admitted to the gouernement of soules And thus thinke they Papistrie should quit be throwen doune and their glorious Ghospel be set vp But S. Chrysostomes meaning was vpon occasion of S. Paules worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 15. whereby he signified the excellencie of his Office deducing his talke from the inferiour and common terme Latria that apperteineth to al whereof he spake in the beginning to termes of an higher and more speciall dignitie to wit Liturgia and Hierurgia which import Priestly Office his meaning I say was partely to declare that S. Paules preaching was a certaine Priesthode forasmuche as by the same he offered vp those that beleued as a sacrifice vnto God their outwarde man killed and carnal affections quite mortified for which cause he calleth the Gospel his sworde Machaera mea Euangelium est the Gospel which is the worde of preaching Chrysosto in epist. ad Romanos homil 29. is my sworde partely also to signifie that of al other offices and dueties the chiefe function of S. Paules Priesthode was to preach the Gospel according to that him selfe witnesseth Non misit me Christus baptizare sed euangelizare Christe sent me not to baptize 1. Cor. 1. but to preache Which wordes Thephylacte expounding wherein he foloweth the vaine of S. Chrysostome saith expressely that although the Apostle were not sent specially to baptize yet he was not forebidden to take that office vpon him M. Iewel not being ignorant of al this I see not what he can pretend for any colorable excuse of his false translation specially directed to so wicked an ende as of him it is which is either quit to abolish the external and true Priesthode of the newe Testament or to abridge it onely to a bare preaching of Gods wordes al other functions therevnto belonging as to baptize to loose and binde synnes to consecrate and offer vp to God the body and bloude of Christe to minister the other Sacramentes and the like clearely excluded Thus I hope thou perceiuest Reader what miserable and shameful an entrie M. Iewel hath ben driuē to make to come to his purpose whiche was to impugne the most worthy and
they Sacrifice Christe you vtterly take away the Real Sacrifice of the newe Testamente Wherein being a very weighty pointe you dissent from the Catholike Churche for which you and your felowes be condēned of the Churche and holden for Heretiks This haue I auouched and sufficiently proued in myne Aunswere to this 17. Article of your Chalenge What you reply against the same here in the processe of this Reioindre by Gods grace I shal confute To make your vntrue and heretical saying appeare the more tollerable to the vnlearned you ioine vnto it a saying that in a righte construction may be admitted As the Lambe of God is slaine vnto vs say you so was the same Lambe of God slaine vnto them In deede if you meane a newe actual sleying of Christ who is the true Lambe of God he is not now in the daily Sacrifice of the Church slaine no more then he was slaine in the daily sacrifices or in the yerely Passeouer of the Iewes But for asmuch as in our daily Sacrifice we haue the true Body and Bloude of the Lambe of God Ioan. 1. that taketh away the sinnes of the worlde laid vpon the holy table which is the Aulter sacrificed of Priestes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Nicen Councel saith that is to say without killinge and bloudshed In consideration hereof you should not haue saied as we sacrifice Christ so did they sacrifice Christ. For though in our Sacrifice we sley not Christ the true Lambe of God as they slewe the Lambes which prefigured Christ yet so farre as that is true which the Fathers of the Nicen Councel reporte and as by vertue of Christes almighty wordes according to his commaundement and Institution his Body and Bloud are consecrate and really present we offer vp Christe in deede vnto God in the Sacrifice of the Church For proufe of the real presence I referre the Reader who vnderstandeth not the Latine tongue to sundry learned workes written in the Englishe tongue in our time therof In which he shal finde the mater so largely so clearely and so substantially proued that he shal confesse he seeth the same onlesse he wil as some doo wilfully blindefolde him self and say in midday it is darke night Forasmuch then as we sacrifice Christ truely bicause we haue and offer vp in our sacrifice the truth of the body and Bloude of Christ in deede present by th' almighty power of his owne worde after which sorte the Iewes had not Christ present therefore it is not true that you say that as we sacrifice Christe so did they sacrifice Christe Diuersite in the Sacramentes of both Lavves Touching the comparison you make betwen the Sacramentes of both Lawes for now soudeinly you chop from the Sacrifices into the Sacramentes in expressing Christes death then to come and nowe paste whereby you go about to proue the equal valewe of both Sacramentes notwithstanding that both do expresse or signifie though in diuers degree the death of Christ yet doth our Sacrament of the Aulter farre surmount theirs bicause in ours is conteyned the very body and bloude of Christ in theirs was nothing but a figure in theirs the shadow in ours the body The place you allege out of the booke de vtilitate Poenitentiae that you attribute to S. Augustine contrary to the censure of Erasmus serueth you to no purpose We agree vnto it no lesse then your selfe In that place the authour speaketh of the spiritual meate which the Iewes did eate the same as we do And that meate he wil both to be Christ teaching how they did eate Christe Aug. de Vtilitate Poenitentiae whom we do eate The whole processe there is to be vnderstanded of the spiritual eatinge for so he saieth Quicunque in Manna Christum intellexerunt eundem quem nos cibum spiritalem manducauerunt Quicunque autem de Manna solam saturitatem quaesierunt patres infidelium manducauerunt mortui sunt Sic etiam eundem potum Petra enim Christus Eundem ergo potum sed spiritalem id est qui fide capiebatur non qui corpore hauriebatur Who so euer in the Manna vnderstoode Christe they did eate the same spiritual meate that we eate But who so euer sought onely to fil their bellies by eating Manna being the Fathers of the vnfaithful they did eate and dyed So likewise they dranke the same drinke For the Rocke was Christe And therefore the same drinke which we drinke they dranke but spiritual that is to say whiche was receiued by faith not that whiche was taken in by the body Now what though Christe whome both the Iewes and we do eate spiritually be one spiritual meate one Christe and likewise one spiritual drinke as he is eaten and dronken with spiritual eating and drinking Shal that therefore whiche we receiue in our Sacrament by sacramental eating and drinking vnder the formes of bread and wine be no better then that which they did eate and drinke in the ceremonie of their Sacramentes Christe that was to come and Christ that now is come is one Christe thereof who doubteth And though the wordes shal come and is come be sundry yet Christe is one Christe is not sundred with diuision of times And this is al that the auctour meant wherein lyeth no controuersie betwixte vs. But that you woulde proue and can not proue and we vtterly denye is this that the thing and substance of the Sacramentes of both Lawes be not sundry but one and the same and of equal worthines We receiue Christ both sacramentally to wit his true and real body and bloude in the Sacrament of the Aulter vnder the formes of bread and wine and also spiritually that is to say by faith They receiued him only spiritually bicause in Manna they vnderstode Christ. The like is to be sayd of the water that flowed out of the Rocke which they dranke in comparison of the very bloude of Christe which we drinke not onely spiritually but also sacramentally and in deede vnder the forme of wine mingled with water which bloude is the true water of life the same that issued out of our Lordes body the true Rocke after it was striken with the Rodde Exod. 15. Aug. Tractatu de vtilitate Poenitentiae that is to say after that the Crosse came vnto it For in figure thereof the olde Rocke was striken with woodde and not with Iron quia Crux ad Christum accessit vt nobis gratiam propinaret bicause the Crosse came vnto Christ that it might * Propinaret brince his grace vnto vs as saith S. Augustine or who so euer was the author of that booke The other place that you pretende to allege out of S. Augustine M. Ievv forgeth sayinges of his ovvn fathering them vpon the Doctours In Iohannem Tractat. 26. is soone answered where so euer it be it is not there Thus to forge sayinges of your owne and to beare your Reader in hande it is S. Augustines or
nor dieth nor sheaddeth his bloude nor is Substantiallie Presente August De Ciuit. Dei lib. 10 cap. 5. nor Reallie Offered by the Prieste In this sorte the Councel saith Christ is offered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without Sacrifice So Saint Augustine saithe Quod ab omnibus appellatur Sacrificium Signum est Veri Sacrificij The thinge that of al menne is called a Sacrifice is a Token or a Signe of the True Sacrifice Likevvise againe he saith Vocatur ipsa Immolatio quae Sacerdotis manibus fit De Conse Dis. 2. Hoc est Christi Passio Mors Crucifixio non rei veritate sed Significante Mysterio The Sacrifice that is wrought by the handes of the Priest is called the Passion the Death the Crucifieinge of Christ not in deede but by a Mysterie Signifieinge And vvhere as M. Hardinge saith further Christ is offered onely in respecte of the presence of his Bodie Neither vvould the Real Presence beinge graunted importe the Sacrifice for Christ vvas Really Presente in his Mothers VVombe and in the Cribbe vvhere notvvithstanding he vvas no Sacrifice nor hath M. Harding hitherto any vvaie prooued his Real Presence Hardinge That the Sacrifice of the Aulter is a true and real Sacrifice The witnesse which I alleged out of the Nicen Councel doth declare sufficieÌ„tly what I meant by saying that Christ is sacrificed in the daily Sacrifice of the Church truly and in deede not in respecte of the manner of offering but in respect of his very body and bloude really that is in deede present For the Sacrifice that was true and real in al respectes both of the inward substance and also of the outward manner was not made without bloudshed and killing This Sacrifice therefore of the Church being made without shedding of bloude or killing lacketh that one point of that most perfite and true Sacrifice Neuerthelesse for that it hath the substance of the bloudy and moste absolutely perâ—ite Sacrifice that was offred vpon the Crosse it is in that consideration a true and real Sacrifice And right wel did I vnderstand what I meant by these wordes M. Iewel and so do you too what so euer you say but of a wilful and peruerse frowardnesse you would seme not to vnderstand them that in worde you might reproue me where in dede you found nothing to be reproued Yet who marketh you shal perceiue how you bewray your owne knowledge by thobiection you make against yourself of the wordes of the Nicen CouÌ„cel M. Iewel falsifieth the CouÌ„cel of Nice which you translate falsely into Latin not englishing them least they should seme to make as they doo for the Sacrifice which ye denie The Greke wordes be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Your vntrue translation hath for them thus sine sacrificio oblatus as much to say offred vp without a Sacrifice Which translation conteineth in it a contradiction For if Christ the true Lambe of God as the Councel calleth him be offered vp how is there not a Sacrifice Therfore the true translation of these woordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had ben incruentè sacrificatus sacrificed vnbloudily or without bloude shedding Oecolampadius or as a chiefe founder and mainteiner of your Sacramentarie doctrine hath turned non victimarum more sacrificatus sacrificed not after the manner of hostes which be sacrificed with killing And thus the place hath ben of learned men hitherto translated neither was there euer any so shamelesse as to swarue so farre from the right and natural sense of the wordes as you doo were he neuer so spiteful an enemie to that blessed Sacrifice This terme of the Nicen Councel doth expresse the respect of the manner of offering which I spake of to put a difference betwene the Sacrifice of the Crosse and the daily Sacrifice of the Church bicause the one was with shedding of bloud and with death the other without shedding of bloude or death The same respecte of the manner of offering is vttered by the first Councel of Ephesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Incruentum celebramus in Ecclesiis sacrificij cultum we doo celebrate in our Churches the vnbloudy seruice of the Sacrifice Concil Ephes. in Epist. ad NestoriuÌ„ Aug. CoÌ„t Faustum Manich. lib. 20. ca. 21. The same doth Saint Augustine meane writing that the flesh and bloude of the Sacrifice is celebrated by a Sacrament of remembrance The same doth S. Chrysostome vnderstand where he saith Chrysost. in epist. ad Heb. Homil 17. Non aliud Sacrificium sicut pontifex sed id ipsum semper facimus magis autem recordationem sacrificij facimus We make not a diuers sacrifice as the high bishop did but alwaies the selfe same yea rather we celebrate a memorial of the Sacrifice Here is plainely expressed both the truth and realitie if I may so cal it of the Sacrifice alwaies and continually offered and also the manner of offering bicause it is done in remembrance of the Sacrifice that was made vppon the Crosse. To be shorte these termes remembrance token signe sampler mysterie sacrament and suche like be oftentimes vsed of the Fathers to expresse this manner of offering and in no wise to exclude the truth of the substance of the thinge offered This notwithstanding M. Iewel you are not ashamed to pronounce that the Councell of Nice and the olde Doctours or holy Fathers neuer vnderstode these respectes and manners And whereas you charge me with dazeling the Readers eyes with a vaine distinction of clowdy wordes so it liketh you to control the doctrine of Christes Churche it is you that employe your whole witte and cunning to enuegle and blinde Gods people and to bereue them wandering in the wildernes of this world of the true Manna that came downe from aboue al the clowdes and to dazel their vnderstandinges so that they may not discerne the true body of our Lorde from bare bread and by your phantastical and vncertaine phrases applied out of place to vndermine and shake no smal number of great and necessarie truthes by the Holy Ghoste founded and so many hundred yeres susteined in Christes Churche As for the authorities which you bring either to weaken the doctrine of the Church touching the Sacrifice of the Aulter M. Ievv taketh aduantage of his ovvne false traÌ„slation or to strengthen your owne contrary opinion of how litle force they are it is sone opened First the Councel of Nice maketh clearely for vs which reporteth the Lambe of God that taketh away the synnes of the worlde to be situate vpon the holy table whereby is meant the Aulter and of the Priestes to be sacrificed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say without bloudshed and not after the manner of beastes appointed to be killed in Sacrifice Of these wordes you take a smal aduauntage and that only by false translation For whereas the Councel hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lambe is sacrificed of the Priestes vnbloudily or not after the manner
Sacrifice of the Churche neither vnderstandeth he by a true sacrifice the chiefe and most true Sacrifice which is that of the Crosse but any spiritual sacrifice in general wherein the effect of loue toward God or our neighbour is performed And therefore he much abuseth the simplicitie of the vnlearned Reader by his futtel and false translation turning illud quod ab hominibus appellatur Sacrificium that which of men is called a sacrifice wherby S. Augustine vnderstandeth any of the Sacrifices of the olde Law into illud quod ab omnibus appellatur Sacrificiū c. The thing that of al men is called a sacrifice is a tokē or a signe of the true Sacrifice whereby he induceth the Reader to conceiue the Sacrifice of the Churche and to beleue the same not to be a true and real Sacrifice but only a signe of the true Sacrifice And in that he turneth signum veri Sacrificij a signe or token of the true Sacrifice he meaneth Christe offered vpon the Crosse otherwise then S. Augustine did whereas he should haue trāslated it thus A signe of a true sacrifice And what is there meant by a true sacrifice he could not be ignorant For it foloweth immediatly Porrò autem misericordia verum sacrificium est mercie is a true sacrifice Differēce betvvene a true ād the True Sacrifice And who perceiueth not a difference betwene these two whether we say a True Sacrifice or the True Sacrifice Any spiritual sacrifice is a true Sacrifice The true Sacrifice properly to speake is Christe him selfe Which S. Augustine after that he hath treated of Sacrifices at large calleth Summum verum Sacrificium the highest principal August de ciuit Dei lib. 10. cap. 20. or chiefe and the True Sacrifice whereof the Sacrifice of the Churche saith he is a sacrament The same Sacrifice of the Churche may also be called the True Sacrifice though not in respect of the olde commō maner of offering which was by killing the hoste offred yet in respecte of the thing offred which by vertue of the woorde is made really present which is the same flesh and bloude that was offered and shed vpon the Crosse. Here it is not so offred nor shed but that offering and bloud shedding that is to say the death of Christ is represented and recorded The Sacrifice of the Crosse is the True Sacrifice in respect both of the thing offered and of the common manner of offering for there Christ was killed the Sacrifice of the Aulter which is the Sacrifice of the Churche is also the True Sacrifice in respect of the thing offered which is the body and bloude of Christe as truly present in the Sacrament though inuisibly as vpon the Crosse where it was visibly albe it in respect of the olde common manner of sacrificing it is not a Sacrifice after that manner and therefore is it called sacrificium incruentum the vnbloudy Sacrifice An other manner there is singuler special and proper to this mystical Sacrifice after whiche it is made sacrificed and offered so as the Mysterie that Christ instituted requireth which they knowe that haue grace rightly to beleue Of which manner Oecumenius saith Oecum in Epist. ad Heb. ca. 5. Christus in Mystica coena modum illis tradidit huiusmodi Sacrificij Christe deliuered vnto Priestes the manner of such a Sacrifice This manner hath euer ben and is to this day obserued euen as the Apostles were taught it of Christe and as the Churche hath receiued it of the Apostles and offereth the new Oblation of the newe Testament in the whole worlde as S. Ireneus writeth Iren. lib. 4. cap. 32. Euseb. de demonst lib. 1. lib. 5. Eusebius speaking of the manner of this sacrifice calleth it Melchisedeks manner and saith in one place it is offered after the newe Mysteries of the newe Testament in an other place after the Ecclesiasticall ordinances As for that S. Augustine saith The Sacrifice that is made by the handes that is to say De Conse Dist. 2. Hoc est ministerie of the Priest is called the Passion the death the Crucifying not in truth of the thing but in Mysterie signifying I graunt it to be true and such as may wel serue for answer to certaine blasphemous obiections made by the Sacramentaries against this Sacrifice How this maketh any proufe for your doctrine I see not For though the Sacrifice be called sometimes by the name of the Passion the Death and crucifying of Christe as S. Cyprian saith Cyprian lib. 2. epist. 3. Passio est Domini sacrificium quod offerimus The Sacrifice that we offer is the Passion of our lorde bicause it representeth and renueth the memorie of the Passion once performed and done whereas in deede it is not the sensible Passion death or Crucifying but the same is signified in mysterie for that the body which suffred died and was crucified is truly exhibited yet this taketh not away the truth of a Sacrifice Such a great Logician as you would seme to be wil not make this childish Argument I dare say That whiche the Priest maketh signifieth the Passion and Death of Christe and is not the Passion and Death in deede Ergo it is not a Sacrifice That it be a true and real Sacrifice it is not necessary that Christe suffer againe and be slaine it is yenough the body of Christe that once suffred and was slaine be truly exhibited and offered vnto God Which is done in our Mysterie by them who haue commaundement to doo that Christe did when he said Doo this in my remembrance In the ende of this your first Diuision you say that Neither would the Real presence being graunted importe the Sacrifice nor that I haue hitherto any waie prooued the Real presence which after your scoffing custome you cal my Real presence as though it had not ben taught by the cleare scriptures by al the olde learned Fathers and vniuersally beleued of Christen people til the wicked generation of the Sacramentaries came But sir whether the Real presence of Christe where so euer it be do importe a sacrifice or no it is impertinent to our purpose here to dispute How be it I am not ignorant that there want not learned men who holde that Christes body from the time it was first fourmed in and of the body of the blessed virgin his mother neuer ceassed nor shal ceasse to be a sacrifice according as S. Paule to the Hebrewes alleging the prophecie vttered in the Psalme Hebr. 10. teacheth Ingrediens mundum dicit hostiam oblationem noluisti Psalm 39. corpus autem aptasti mihi Christe entring into the worlde saith Sacrifice and oblation thou wouldest not haue but a body thou hast made fitte for me To your position briefly I answer that although the Real presence of Christe in other places and times imported not a sacrifice yet the same in the Sacrament doth necessarily inferre a sacrifice bicause according to
the general teaching of al the Fathers Christe did institute it not onely to be receiued as a necessary foode but also to be offered as an healthful Sacrifice Cyprian de Caen. Dom. medicamentum holocaustum existens ad sanandas infirmitates purgandas iniquitates ◠being a medicine and sacrifice to heale infirmities and to purge iniquities as S. Cyprian saith Lib. 4.32 He taught the new oblation of the new Testament saith S. Irenaeus That I haue sufficiently proued the Real presence of Christes body and bloude in the Sacrament the Answer I made to the fifth Article of your Chalenge doth witnes to as many as be not lead with lewde and blind affection to your syde As for the shiftes of your Replie thereunto they are so detected and fully confuted and the Real presence otherwise so substantially proued by M. D. Saunder and M. D. Heskins that euery meane witte may easely see the weaknes of your cause The 2. Diuision The Ansvver THe two first manners of the offeringe of Christe our aduersaries acknowledge and confesse The thirde they denie vtterly And so they robbe the Churche of the greatest treasure it hath or may haue the Bodie and Bloud of our Sauiour Christe once offered vpon the Crosse with paineful suffering for our redemption and now daiely offered in the blessed Sacramente in remembrance For which we haue so many proufes as for no one pointe of our Christian religion moe And herein I am more encombred with store then straighted with lacke and doubte more what I may leaue then what I may take Wherefore thinking it shal appeare to the wise more skille to shewe discretion in the choise of places rather then learning in recital of number though we are ouer peartely thereto prouoked by M. Iuelles vauntinge and insolent chalenge I intende herein to be short verily shorter then so large a mater requireth and to bring for proufe a fewe suche auctorities I meane a fewe in respecte of the multitude that might be brought as ought in euery mannes iudgement to be of great weight and estimation Iewel Touching the Oblation of Christes Bodie vvee beleue and Confesse as much as the holy Ghost hath opened in the Scriptures VVhere as M. Harding saith Christes Bodie is offred vp by the Priest vnto God the Father in remembrance of that Bodie that Christe him selfe offered vpon the Crosse He seemeth not to consider the inconstancie and folie of his ovvne tale For it is vvel knovven to al Creatures not onely Christians but also Ievves Turckes and Saracenes that Christ vvas Crucified vpon the Crosse But that Christe should be sacrificed by a Mortal man Inuisibly and as they say vnder the Formes of Bread and vvine and that Really and in deede it is a thinge so far passinge the common sense of Christian knovvledge that the best learned and vvisest of the Ancient learned Christian Fathers coulde neuer knovv it Therefore this is not onely the proouing of a thinge knovven by a thinge vnknovven and of a thinge moste certaine by a thinge vncertaine but also the Confirmation of a manifest Trueth by an open Errour Neither do vvee robbe the Churche of God of that most Heauenly and moste comfortable Sacrifice of Christes Bodie But rather vvee open and disclose the errours vvherevvith certaine of late yeeres haue vvilfully deceiued the Churche of God Esay 53. VVee knovv That Christes Bodie was rente for our Sinnes and that by his VVounds wee are made whole 1. Pet. 2. That Christe in his Bodie caried our Sinnes vpon the Tree Heb. 9. And by the Oblation thereof once made vpon the Crosse Actor 4. bath sanctified vs for euer aud hath purchased for vs euerlastinge Redēption And That there is none other Name or Sacrifice vnder Heauen whereby wee can be saued but onely the name and Sacrifice of Iesus Christe I recken◠vvho so teacheth this Doctrine leaueth not the Churche of God vvithout a Sacrifice Touchinge the multitude of Authorities vverevvith M. Harding findeth him selfe so muche encombred the greater his stoare is the more vvil vvise men require his discretion and skil in the choise His choise vvil seeme vnskilful if he allege his Authorities biside his purpose His purpose and promise is to prooue that the Priest hath good vvarrant to offer vp Christe the Sonne of God vnto his Father VVhiche purpose if he neuer vouchesaue once to touche but range abroade as his manner is and roaue idlely at maters impertinent then muste vvee needes say He bevvraieth his vvante and bringeth his greate Stoare out of credit So shal the offer that is gently made him seeme to stande vpon good and conuenient termes of Trueth and Modestie So shal his stoareful Vaunte of al thinges perfourming nothing vnto the vvise to vse his ovvne vvordes seeme pearte and insolent Harding In your 2. Diuision though you be shorte yet you spende many moe wordes then either were nedeful or imported any direct answer M. Ievvel faineth me to say that I say not◠and therto directeth his Replie reason or learning You pretend that to be said by me which I say not and then as your manner is fighting with my shadow which you set before you by your owne fained imagination you come not to answer the point directly but speake altother inconsideratly Had that bene my tale whiche you tel for me wherein shewe you inconstancie and folie to be in it whereof you note the fame For say you not onely Christians but also Iewes Turkes Saracens you might haue added also the Deuil whose knowledge is great know that Christe was crucified vpon the Crosse. This much I graunt what conclude you But say you againe that he is sacrificed by a mortal man inuisibly vnder the formes of bread and wine the auncient Fathers could neuer know it Here I stoppe you and this I denie And what cause I haue to denie it I haue in the Diuision before shewed After this you come vnto your Conclusion wherein appeareth in deede both the inconstancie and folie of your tale Therefore say you of me in effecte I prooue a thing knowen by a thing vnknowen and a thing certaine by a thing vncertaine and confirme manifest truth by open errour Here if I would folow you and set forth the peeuishnes of your Argument by telling you how the Maior or first Prorosition is impertinent the Minor false being the Negatiue of our Question which being denied of me was very absurdly brought by you in the Premisses nor Moode nor Figure nor iust disposition of the termes duely obserued the Conclusion not folowing of the Premisses in right order of a Syllogismus I should bestowe many woordes to prooue that a foolish Argument whiche thereof without any curiouse shewing of Logique of it selfe geueth witnesse What leadeth you to thinke that by the vnbloudy Sacrifice of the Churche which you cal a thing vncertaine I go about to prooue the Sacrifice of the Crosse whiche I graunt to be certaine
and to confirme that most manifest truth by this other Sacrifice which you and they of your side denie By what one woorde can you gather that to haue bene myne intent If it were not as most certainely it was not for what neede was there to bring any proufe for the Sacrifice of Christe vpon the Crosse why bestow you so many wordes to prooue your beleefe touching that Sacrifice I said not that ye robbed the Churche of the Sacrifice done vpon the Crosse For of that being now paste how can ye robbe the Churche But of the body and bloude of Christe as it is daily offered at the Aulter in remembrance of his Death and Passion of the Presence of the body and bloud and of the Sacrifice of the same in mysterie which the Churche from the Apostles time hitherto hath euer celebrated you robbe the Churche and of that spake I expressely as my wordes be plaine and thereof your selfe could not be ignorant Whether the Sacramentaries rob the Churche of her greatest treasure But how doo you auoide the crime of spoiling the Churche of her greatest treasure Bicause forsooth ye know and teach that Christe suffered death for vs vpon the Crosse. As though the Heretikes haue not alwaies acknowledged and confessed the same Arius confessed Christe was God and the Sonne of God yet he robbed him of his equalitie of Godhed of his coeternitie and of his consubstantialitie with God his Father In like sorte although ye beleue neuer so constantly and preach neuer so ernestly that Christe shed his bloude and died for vs vpon the Crosse yet shal ye be accompted to robbe the Chruche of her chiefe treasure onlesse ye leaue vnto her the real flesh and bloude of Christe by oblation and participation whereof the effect of the Sacrifice made vpon the Crosse is transferred vnto vs. Cyprian de coena Domini Origen in Lucam Hom. 38. Concilium Nicenum Concilium Ephesin Ye shal defraude her touching foode Alimonia immortalitatis portione vitae aeternae of the foode of immortalitie and of the portion of life euerlasting as S. Cyprian saith Pane vitae epulo incorrupto of the bread of life of the banket that is incorruptible as Origen writeth Of the Pledges of our Resurrection as the Nicen Councel determineth Of the flesh verely geuing life and proper to the Worde it selfe as the Councel of Ephesus declareth to be shorte of the meate of Angels as S. Ambros testifieth Ye shal rob her touching the Sacrifice Diony Ecclesia Hiâ—rarch c. 3. Augu. lib. 9. Confess cap. 12. Concil Nicen. Hostia salutari of the healthful Hoste as S. Dionyse calleth it of the permanent and alwaies continuing burnt offering as S. Cyprian esteemeth it of the Sacrifice of our Raunsome as S. Augustine termeth it Finally of the Lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the worlde as the Councel of Nice teacheth What iudge you They that violently take from the Churche of Christe these thinges seme they not to rob her of the gratest treasure she hath though they preach that Christe died vpon the Crosse for vs neuer so busily Doo they not leaue her without a Sacrifice and therefore without a Religion according vnto S. Cyprians mynde Doo not they take the next way to abolishe that which faith and coÌ„trition presupposed is the chiefest meane to apply vnto vs the benefite of Christes death by abolishing the daily Sacrifice S. Gregorie saith Gregor Hom. 37. Dialog 4. cap. 58. Quoties ei hostiam suae passionis offerimus toties nobiâ— ad absolutionem nostram ipsius passionem reparamus As often as we offer vnto him the Sacrifice of his passion so ofte doo we repaire and renew vnto our selfe his passion to our absolution Al this notwithstanding touching the Oblation of Christes body you saye that ye beleue and confesse as much as the Holy Ghoste hath opened in the Scriptures That Christ offered vp his body at his last Supper But how vntruly this is spoken who vnderstandeth not For the holy Ghost hath opened in the Gospel that Christe made an Oblation of his body and bloude at his last Supper which you M. Iewel and your felowes wil not beleue That Christe made such a Sacrifice and that the same is reueled in the Gospel if you wil not beleue the Catholike Church that is to be beleued before any one man August in Psalm 33. Concio 1. yet may it please you to beleue S. Augustine with these woordes recording the same Erat vt nostis Sacrificium Iudaeorum anteà secundùm ordinem Aaron in victimis pecorum hoc in mysterio Nondum enim erat sacrificium corporis sanguinis quod fideles nôrunt qui Euangelium legerunt quod sacrificium nunc diffusum est toto orbe terrarum The sacrifice of the Iewes was as ye knowe before after the order of Aaron in Sacrifices of brute beastes and that in mysterie For the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe which the faithful and they that haue read the Gospel do know was not as yet The which Sacrifice is now dispersed abroade in the whole worlde The Sacrifice of Christe auouched in the Gospel in the iudgement of S. Augustine Now marke good Reader S. Augustine saith that the faithful and so many as haue perused the Gospel doo knowe the Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christe What shal we say then Is not that Sacrifice opened by the holy Ghoste in the Scriptures And least any man should mystake him and thinke him to speake of the Sacrifice of Christes body and bloud made vpoÌ„ the Crosse on the mounte of Caluarie without the gates of Ierusalem he declareth his meaning Sacrifice spred ouer the worlde and nameth plainely the Sacrifice which is now spred and made thorough out the whole worlde Which Sacrifice of Christes body and bloude can be none other but that which the Church hath ben accustomed to offer vp to God in the Masse vnder the visible formes of bread and wine in remembrance of Christes Passion Resurrection Ascension and other his great benefites Cauil not M. Iewel vpon wordes commonly vsed by the Churche for a more certaine explication and the better to repel the wrangling obiections of the Sacramentarie Heretikes sithens the tyme of BereÌ„garius The Sacrifice that we defende is which S. Augustine confesseth the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe which succeded the Sacrifices of the Iewes that were of brute beastes which al Christian people and the faithful that read the newe Testamente doo acknowledge and confesse which is nowe frequented and celebrated in al partes of the worlde where so euer the voice of the Gospel hath bene sounded and receiued Touching the stoare of auctorities that may be alleged for good witnesse of this Sacrifice though your sprite stirreth you to scoffe at it how great it is and of what number they are vnto the learned it is not vnknowen And suche witnesses
as I brought how aptely they serue to this purpose and how directely thei strike the marke it doth already I doubt not appeare to such as with an indifferent eye haue perused myne Aunswere to this your seuenteenth Article And more euidently it shal appeare with Gods grace by this processe when the weakenes and falshoode of your Replie shal be detected and thereby it shal be prooued that your vaine Chalenge being too malepertly and presumptuously made standeth neither vpon good nor conuenient termes but vpon a deuilish denial vnmeete to procede out of any Christian mans mouth The .3 Diuision The Ansvvere THe Scripture it selfe ministring euideÌ„t proufe for the OblatioÌ„ of Christ to his Father by the Priestes of the New Testament in the Institution of this Holy Sacrament in the figure of Melchisedech and in the Prophecie of Malachie the Prophete the authorities of the Fathers needed not to be alleaged were not the same Scripture by the ouerthwarte and false interpretations of our aduersaries wrested and tourned to a coÌ„trary sense to the horrible seducing of the vnlearned Iewel Alas vvhat toole is there so vveake that M. Harding vvil refuse to strike vvithal To prooue his imagined Kind of Sacrifice he hath brought vs forth out of his great stoare the example of Melchisedeck and the Prophecie of Malachie As if he vvould reason thus God saith vnto Christ Thou arte a Priest for euer according to the order of Melchisedek Psal. 110. Or God saith by the Prophete Malachie Malac. 1. A pure Oblation shal be offred vnto me in euery place Ergo The Priest hath Authoritie and power to offer vp the Sonne of God vnto his Father If he had not had good choise and stoare of Authorities he vvould neuer haue begonne vvith these But he addeth further as mater of greeuance That these plaine Scriptures by the ouerthwarte and false Interpretations of his Aduersaries are wreasted and turned to a contrary sense and that as he saith to the horrible seducing of the vnlearned Doubtlesse here is a very horrible accusation Hovv be it if vve happely had mistaken these places and our errour therein vvere fully prooued yet should not M. Harding in such horrible termes reprooue vs for doing that thing once that he and his felovves doo so often But by vvhat vvordes by vvhat false Interpretation into vvhat peruerse or Heretical Sense haue vve so horribly vvreasted these Scriptures M. Harding is vvise is eloquente is vvatcheful is circumspecte is fast addicted vnto his cause he dissembleth and leaueth nothing that any vvay may sexue his purpose If our Errours be so horrible he should not haue spared them If there be none he should not thus haue touched them If M. Hardinge vvinke at them vvho can see them If M. Hardinge knovv them not vvho can knovv them Harding Whether my tooles be weake as you ieast or of good strength let it be iudged by the strokes they geue with which doubteles the heresie that ye sustaine aganst the outward and sigular Sacrifice of the Churche is striken downe and quite ouerthrowen And the same tooles haue the chiefe Doctours and auncient Fathers of the Church vsed before me By the tooles I meane as you doo the Figure of Melchisedech and the Prophecie of Malachie by which the doctrine of the Church concerning the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe is auouched And here to enter into that special point litle esteming your other impertinent talke which you thinke toucheth my person and wise men see helpeth not your cause directing my wordes to the Reader of whom I may conceiue better hope then I doo of you thus I say The Argument which M. Iewel here maketh as on my behalfe albeit to the learned who knowe and vnderstand the circumstances of the figure of Melchisedech and of the prophecie of Malachie concludeth sufficiently and fully yet thou maist be wel assured good Reader I would neuer my selfe haue proponed it so nakedly and without any declaration of the necessary circumstances Although there folow hereafter more proper placâ—s to open the figure of Melchisedech and the prophecie of Malachie where I bring them in for proufe of this intent yet bicause M. Iewel hath by preuention abruptly fallen into them and to the ende noman be deceiued by his cutted argument which in deede is good if the circumstances were not guilefully conceeled here I thinke good to vtter some of those circumstances To beginne therfore with Melchisedech It may please thee Reader to vnderstand that he is recorded in the Scripture to be a Priest of God the highest Gen. 14. Then being a Priest it behoued him to offer Sacrifice according vnto S. Paules doctrine Heb. 5. Euery Bishop or Priest taken from among men is for men appointed in those thinges that belong to God to offer vp giftes and sacrifices for sinnes What sacrifice then did he offer He offered vp bread and wine as Arnobius that auncient Father That Melchisedek offered bread and vvine beside sundry other Doctours doth witnesse notwithstanding the Scripture make plaine and expresse mention only of bringing forth bread and wine His wordes be these Christus per mysterium panis vinisacerdos sactus est secundùm ordineÌ„ Melchisedech Arnob. in Psal. 109. qui panem vinum solus obtalit in sacerdotibus dum Abraham Victor reuerteretur de praelio By the mysterie of bread and wine Christ became a Priest after the order of Melchisedech who onely among the Priestes offered bread and wine when Abraham returned conquerour from bataile Cyprian epist. ad Cecilium lib. 2. epistola 3. This order saith S. Cyprian speaking of the order of Melchisedech is here comming of that sacrifice he meaneth Melchisedeks sacrifice and descending from thens that Melchisedech was the priest of the highest God that he offered bread and wine that he blessed AbrahaÌ„ Here it is expressely affirmed that Melchisedech offered bread and wine and moreouer that Christ by doing the like was made a Priest according to the order of the same Melchisedek That Christe at his Supper shewed him selfe a priest after the order of Melchisedek But when and where did Christe beginne to shewe him selfe a Prieste in offering sacrifice after that Order Verely at his last Supper For of that he did vppon the Crosse whereof the Sacrifice of the Supper taketh his merite now I speake not And that he did so at his laste Supper S. Hierome in his Commentaries vpon the .26 chapter of S. Matthew is an euident witnesse where he saith thus Hieron in Mat. 26. Post quam typicum Pascha fuerat impletum Agni carnes cum Apostolis comederat assumit panem qui confortat cor hominis ad verum Paschae transgreditur sacramentum vt quomodo in praefiguratione eius Melchisedech summi Dei sacerdos panem vinum offerens fecerat ipse quoque veritatem sui corporis sanguinis repraesentaret After that the figuratiue Passeouer had ben fulfilled and
which is the vnbloudy Sacrifice S. Irenaeus likewise writing against Valentinus the Heretike Irene lib. 4. ca. 32. Aug. cōtra◠Aduersar leg et prophet lib. 1. cap. 20. Iustmusin Dialog ad Tryphonē S. Augustine also and S. Iustinus the martyr do expounde the prophecie for the same Sacrifice Whose sayinges here to reherse to the proufe of so certaine a doctrine it were more tedious then needeful Wherefore this being so sufficiently witnessed by the Auncient Doctours of the Churche against whose auctoritie no noueltie is to be heard as a most vndoubted truth that the sacrifice which Christe made of his body and bloude at his last supper is that pure and Vnbloudy Sacrifice whiche Malachie prophecied should be offered vp vnto God from the Easte to the west this also being no lesse true that Christe appointed and auctorized some to offer the same otherwise to what purpose was it instituted and sith that we reade of none other appointed and auctorized thereto but the Apostles and their successours Priestes of the newe Testament nor haue we heard of any that lawfully euer tooke vpon them to offer the same that were not Priestes with what impudencie is it denyed that the Apostles had and Priestes now haue auctoritie to offer vp this pure Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christe vnto his Father Thus thou maist perceiue good reader the argument which M. Iewel here ascribeth vnto me and would to seeme ridiculous to conclude rightly for the truth if the due consideration of the circumstances be not omitted Withal thou vnderstandest that who so euer allegeth the figure of Melchisedech and the Prophecie of Malachie to prooue that the Priestes of the new Testament haue auctoritie and power to offer vp Christe vnto his Father he maketh no euil choise of the stoare of authorities by witnesse of which that point is prooued and confirmed As for the mater of greeuance M. Iewel where of you complaine so greeuously which is that I charge them of your syde with wresting by ouerthwart and false interpretation the wordes of the Institution of this Sacrifice the figure of Melchisedech and the Prophecie of Malachie I vttered it vpon very iust occasion as the learned do knowe The same ought to be greuous in dede vnto you not bicause ye are tolde of it by me but bicause it is true Neither thought I it good to exemplifie the mater staying the course of my briefe Answer to your Chalenge by descending vnto the particulars for that my scope and chiefe intent was not to confute the contrary Doctrine but to prooue and establish the truth of this Article by you most wickedly denied If it be pleasure vnto you to beholde paricular places and pointes of your false Legierdemaine disclosed by reading ouer my Confutatiō of your lying Apologie my Reioindre to your Replie that also which M. D. Sander D. Heskins M. Rastel M. Dorman and M. Stapleton haue written against you your luste may happely be satisfied Take your fyl of that vntil more come Iewel Perhappes he vvil say Yee expounde the Prophecie of Malachie sometimes of Praier and sometimes of the Preachinge of the Gospel This vvas neuer the Prophetes meaninge This is an horrible vvreasting of the Scriptures Thus no doubte M. Harding vvil say for othervvise he can say nothinge And yet he knovveth and beinge learned can not choose but knovv that this is the Olde learned Catholique Fathers Exposition touchinge these vvoordes of the Prophete Malachie and not ours He knovveth that the Ancient Father Tertullian saith thus Tertull. contrae Iudaeos Tertull. contra Marcion lib. 4. Hieron in 1. Caput Malach. The pure Sacrifice that Malachias speaketh of that should be offered vp in euery place Est Praedicatio Euangelij vsque ad finem Mundi Is the Preachinge of the Gospel vntil the ende of the worlde And in an other place Simplex Oratio de Conscientia pura The Sacrifice that Malachie meante is a deuoute Praier proceedinge from a pure Conscience He knovveth that S. Hierome expoundeth the same vvoordes in this vvise Dicit Orationes Sanctorum Domino offerendas esse non in vna Orbis Prouincia Iudaea sed in omni loco The Prophete Malachie meaneth hereby That the Praiers of Holy people shoulde be offered vnto God not onely in Iewrie that was one prouince of the worlde but also in al places He knovveth that Eusebius calleth the same Sacrifice of Malachie Euseb. De Demonst. li. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Sacrifice and the Incense of Praier Thus the Holie Catholique Fathers expounded these vvoordes of the Prophete Malachie and yet vvere they not therefore iuaged either ouerthvvarte vvreasters of the Scriptures or horrible deceiuers of the people Novv of the other side if it may please M. Harding to shevvfoorth but one Anciēt Doctour or Father that either by the Exāple of Melchisedech or by force of these vvordes of Malachie vvil conclude that the Priest hath Authoritie and Povver to offer vp Verelie and in dede the Sonne of God vnto his Father he may happily vvinne some credit Harding In defence of your felowes and of your selfe you say that wheras ye expound the prophecie of Malachie somtimes of Praier and sometimes of the preaching of the Ghospel therin ye vse no wreasting of the Scripture nor falshod bicause the old lerned Catholike Fathers haue so expounded the place And here you name Tertullian S. Hierome and Eusebius That the Preaching of the Gospel may be and is called a Sacrifice I denie not Mary that by th'auctoritie which here you pretend to allege out of Tertulliā it is proued and that by the same the meaning of Malachies prophecie is to be drawen quit frō the Sacrifice of th'Aulter this I deny vtterly And how farre your dealīg in these weighty maters cōcerning the faith of a Christē man is to be trusted by this to al it may appere M. Ievvel forgeth a saiyng of his ovvne ād putteth it vpon Tertullian First wheras you beare al men in hand that I know that the Ancient Father Tertullian saith as here you reporte it is very false for how can I know the thing that is not at al Tertullian saith not so These wordes The pure Sacrifice that Malachias speaketh of that should be offered vp in euery place est Praedicatio Euangelij vsque ad finē mundi be not to be found in al Tertullians booke Cōtra Iudaeos Yet you haue put them in a distinct letter in which the sayinges of the Doctors be printed that your Reader should beleue they were the wordes of Tertulliā This is a forgerie wrought in your owne shoppe fathered vpon Tertullian Phy M. Iewel can neither shame nor the feare of God withdraw you from vsing such forged sayinges of your owne with which being by you fathered vpon som Ancient Doctor of the Church your common manner is to face out an vntrue mater as crafty players at Cardes doo as they say with a Carde of ten Nexte
you swarue very much from the meaning and purpose of Tertullian For he saith not that the Preaching of the Ghospel is that cleane Sacrifice which Malachie prophecied of but farre otherwise Tertullian hauing spoken of the two kindes of Sacrifices of the two peoples the Iewes and the Gentiles foreshewed at the beginning in th' oblations of Cain Genes 4. and Abel demaundeth whereas Gods law geuen by Moyses required the carnal sacrifices to be made by the people of Israel in the land of promise and nowher els why the holy Ghost afterward notwithstanding by Malachie Psal. 95. and also by Dauid fortelleth that the Iewes earthly and fleshly sacrifices should ceasse and that spiritual Sacrifices should be offered vp to God ouer the whole world Vnto this question he answereth him selfe Tertulliae contra Iudaeos and saith Indubitatè quòd in omni terra exire habebat praedicatio ApostoloruÌ„ that is to say Vndoubtedly bicause the preaching of th'Apostles was to come forth ouer al the world This assuredly is the true abbrigement and meaning of Tertullians woordes there TertuliaÌ„s place truly declared And cleare it is he saith not that the Preaching of the Ghospell is the pure Sacrifice that Malachie speaketh of as you vntruly reporte of him but onely that the holy Ghoste foresignified by Malachie and by Dauid that the Iewes sacrifices being abolished pure sacrifices should be offered among al Nations of the earth bicause it should come to passe that the Apostles should preach ouer the whole worlde So that by Tertullians verdite the preaching of the Gospel was not that pure Sacrifice it selfe spoken of by Malachie but the Apostles preaching that then was to come was the cause why Malachie and Dauid enspired of the holy Ghoste fortolde the ceassing of the Iewes carnal sacrifices and the setting vp or vse of the Gentiles spiritual Sacrifices More then this which is nothing at al TertulliaÌ„ in that place maketh not for you Leaue leaue M. Iewel for your credites sake if nothing els can moue you to deceiue vnlearned soules whom Christe hath so derely bought with sayinges of your owne forging fathering them vpon the auncient Doctours It is a manifest token what litle good stuffe ye haue to defend your new ghospel withal whereas ye set forth your owne pelfe vnder the name of the auncient writer Tertullian Wherein ye folow false Lapidanies and Goldsmithes who sel Cristal and glasse for true pretious stoanes and gilted copper for pure golde Your other three places which you pretend to allege out of Tertullian S. Hierome and Eusebius be not with such forme of wordes by those Fathers set forth as you here reporte them The sleight of falsifiyng that you so coÌ„monly vse in this place for your purpose maketh but only a colourable shew to the ignoraÌ„t who beleue what so euer you say to the learned who by diligent examition wil serch what you say a substantial proufe in dede it maketh not Thymiama oblatio munda Al be it I graunt wheras the Prophecie of Malachie speaketh of two thinges thymiama incense and Oblatio munda the cleane Oblation or Sacriâ—ice that the best learned Fathers haue expounded the Incense of Prayer and the cleane Oblation of the Sacrifice of the Aulter that is now offered in the Churche through the whole worlde Where Tertullian disputing with Marcion the heretike expoundeth it of Prayer Contra MarcioneÌ„ lib. 4. either it is his priuate sense which bringeth no preiudice vnto the doctrine of the Catholike Churche VVhat Tertullian meant by pure praier or he meaneth it as the other Fathers doo of the Sacrifice of the Aulter which is coÌ„secrate with prayer For so the olde learned Fathers cal the wordes of Consecration Els if it should be expounded of al manner of prayer or of prayer in general as it is made of ech priuate man it can not alwaies seme to be the cleane Sacrifice prophecied of by Malachie bicause the same is made by those that be not altogether pure Prouerbior 20. and without spot of sinne For so the Scripture witnesseth who can say my hart is cleane I am cleane froÌ„ sinne But the Prayer wherewith the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe is consecrate 1. Pet. 2. being the wordes of our Lorde Esai 53. who neuer did synne nor was guile found in his mouth is both in that respect pure and cleane and also for that it is pronounced by the Priest as the publike minister of the Churche whose priuate vncleannes what so euer it be in that behalfe impaireth not the worthinesse of the sacrifice nor of the prayer wherewith it is conâ—ecrate Who also at what time he offered that Sacrifice ought specially to be of a pure coÌ„science And therefore Tertullian hauing rehersed the woordes of Malachie though some what otherwise then either the seuenty Interpretours or the Hebrue bookes haue and otherwise then he him selfe rehersed them writing against the Iewes in euery place shal be offered vp in my name sacrifice Tertullia aduersus Marcion lib. 4. and the cleane Sacrifice might wel adde further by way of exposition scilicet simplex oratio de conscientia pura to wit simple or pure prayer from a cleane conscience In which prophecie the prophete fortelleth that God hath disposed a better Sacrifice to be offered vp vnto his name then the sacrifices were which the Iewes offered Simple Prayer By simple prayer he meaneth such as is not tempered and mingled with any sinneful infection of humane affections of which sorte is the prayer of coÌ„secration of this Sacrifice as that which is the worde of our Lorde and not the worde of man Whose prayer as al other his actions proceding out of his corrupte harte is steined with some spotte of synne wereunto oure nature corrupted in Adam is thral and subiecte The wordes of Consecration of the Sacrament called by the name of prayer If to any it seme strange the wordes wherewith the body and bloude of Christe are consecrate to be called a prayer by reading the olde learned Fathers he shal finde it so termed in sundry places Instinus martyr in 2. Apolog. S. Iustine the Martyr speaking of the blessed Sacrament nameth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the foode which is made the Eucharist through the prayer of the worde that we haue of him he meaneth Christe Loe he calleth the consecration the Prayer of the woorde that Christ deliuered vnto his Apostles and consequently to their successours Priestes of the new Testament S. Augustine writing vnto Paulinus saith Precationes accipimus dictas Augustin ad Paulinum Epistol 59. quas facimus in celebratione SacramentoruÌ„ antequam illud quod est in Domini mensa incipiat benedici Orationes cuÌ„ benedicitur sanctificatur ad distribuenduÌ„ coÌ„minuitur We take PrecatioÌ„es to be called those praiers which we make in the celebratioÌ„ of the sacramentes before that which is on our Lordes table beginne to
be blessed and OratioÌ„es we take for the praiers that be said when that which is on our Lordes table is blessed and sanctified or consecrated and broken to be distributed Againe he saith there excepto nomine generali orationis ea propriè intelligenda est Oratio quaÌ„ facimus ad votum id est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vouentur auteÌ„ omnia quae offeruntur Deo maximè sancti Altaris Oblatio c. Beside the general name of Praier that properly is to be vnderstaÌ„ded praier which we make at vowe And al thinges are vowed which be offred vnto God chiefly the OblatioÌ„ of the holy Aulter Sith then that is properly a praier which is made at vow that is to say when we vow ought vnto God and what thinges so euer we offer vnto God the same be vowed that is to wit by the seruice of our harte be geueÌ„ dedicated and rendred vnto God thereby to protest our faith in him to thanke him to praise him to honour him to shewe ourselues myndeful of his benefites among al thinges the Oblation of the Aulter being that which is chiefly vowed it foloweth that the Consecration is specially to be called and accompted prayer S. Hierome likewise called the wordes of Consecration by the name of Praier Hierony ad Euâ—grium where he saith in his Epistle to Euagrius Quid patitur mensarum minister vt super eos se tumidus efferat ad quorum preces Christi corpus sanguisque conficitur What aileth the minister of tables wherby he meanetha DeacoÌ„ to swel and aduaunce him selfe ouer them he speaketh there of Priestes at whose Prayers the body and bloude of Christe is consecrated What shal I neede to allege mo Fathers for proufe of a thing so wel knowen to them that be conuersant in their bookes Wherefore seing the worde of Consecration is the woorde of prayer whereby the body and bloude of Christe the Sacrifice of our Raunsom as S. Augustine calleth it Augustin Confess libro 9. cap. 12. is by vs offered vp and vowed vnto God that a remembrance of his death be celebrated of our parte and that mercie be extended vnto vs of Gods parte for that bodies sake represented and offered vp which hath dyed for vs and seing in the same we our selues are also offered vp dedicated vowed and rendred vnto God bicause therein Christe our head whereof we be members is offered the worde of Consecration in this consideration being most properly ond truly a prayer yea if I may so terme it an actual prayer bicause it is such a woorde as fulfilleth the acte of the Sacrifice it standeth with good reason and learning that Tertullian expounding the cleane Sacrifice wherof Malachie speaketh of prayer be vnderstanded to meane the oblation and Sacrifice of the Aulter as being that which is the highest kinde of prayer and of worshipping God that can be Thus that you bring out of TertulliaÌ„ maketh nothing for excuse of them of your side whom I noted for wresting the place of Malachie for that by their ouerthwart and false interpretations they racke it from the meaning of the Sacrifice of the Aulter offered vp vnto God in the new Testament in al places among the Gentiles by Priestes after the order of Melchisedek vnder Christe TOuching the two other Doctours S. Hierome and Eusebius whom you allege for you as expounding this place of Malachie of praier whereby though they so did you see the Sacrifice of the Aulter is not excluded let vs see whether in them you haue vsed a more truth and fidelitie then you haue in Tertullian Verily were you myne Aduersarie neuer so much yet for truthes sake I can not but geue you this commendation You shewe your selfe alwaies in your writing one manner a man which is a token of great constancie I meane that lightly you neuer recite any Doctour but you falsifie him The practise of falsifiers and corrupte his meaning by clipping away of parte or by changing of woordes or by adding of your owne or by keeping close some what that goeth before or commeth after or by conceeling the circumstances of the places alleged by one way or other He knoweth say you meaning of me that Saint Hierome expoundeth the same woordes in this wise Dicit orationes sanctorum Domino offerendas esse non in vna orbis prouincia Iudaea sed in omni loco The Prophete Malachie meaneth hereby so you interprete that the praiers of holy people should be offered vnto God not onely in Iewrie that was but one prouince of the worlde but also in al places For the right vnderstanding of this point I pray thee Reader peruse the place of S. Hierome thy selfe beleue thine owne eyes beleue not such false iugglers Which counsel I aduise thee to obserue not onely for trial of this one place but also for trial of other places which M. Iewel bringeth in defence of any his negatiue Articles Verily neither hath S. Hierom these very wordes in such order M. Ievvel falsifieth S. Hierome as they be here laid forth and the whole sentence vewed and considered together maketh directly for the Catholike doctrine which I defend and quite against that M. Iewel saith To thintent I be plainer though longer here I wil reherse the whole place as we finde it written in S. Hierome Thus he saith Hieron in Commen in Malac. cap. 1. Propriè ad Sacerdotes Iudaeorum sermo fit Domini qui offerunt coecum claudum languidum ad immolandum vt sciant carnalibus victimis spirituales victimas successur as Et nequaquam taurorum hircorumque sanguinem sed thymiama hoc est Sanctorum Orationes Domino offerendas non in vna orbis prouincia Iudaea nec in vna Iudaeae vrbe HierusaleÌ„ sed in omni loco offerri oblationem nequaquaÌ„ immundaÌ„ vt à populo Israel sed mundaÌ„ vt in Ceremoniis Christianorum Ab ortu enim solis vsque ad occasum magnum est nomen Domini in gentibus c. The worde of our Lord is nowe properly vttered vnto the Priestes of the Iewes who do offer that which is blind lame and sickely to be sacrificed to thintent they might know that spiritual sacrifices should succede their carnal Sacrifices And that the bloude of bulles and goates should no more be offered vnto our Lorde but Incense that is to say the Prayers of Holy men and that not in Iewrie only which is but one prouince of the world nor in Ierusalem only which is but one Citie of Iewrie but in euery place there is offered an Oblation not an vncleane one as was offered of the people of Israel but a cleane one as is offred vp in the Ceremonies of the Christians For from the rising of the sunne to the setting the name of our Lorde is greate among the Gentiles This Prophet speaketh of two things Tvvo thinges spoken of by Malachie the one don amoÌ„g the Iewes and now to be leafte of the
other to be done among the Gentils Of ech he hath a double coÌ„sideration Concerning the first which is the sacrifice of brute beastes that it was done but in one prouince of the worlde in Iewrie and only in Hierusalem a Citie of that Prouince Againe that the same thing was vncleane and filthy For how filthy a thing the bloude of Bulles goates rammes and other beastes the smoke and sauour of their grese burnt in Sacrifice was it is sone conceiued Concerning the second which is Sacrifice to be done among the Gentiles the consideration thereof is also double for that it is pure and cleane and also for that it is frequented in euery place This Sacrifice is of two sortes the one mere spiritual and internal the orher external as touching the Ceremonie of doing it Prayer signified by Incense Apoc. 5. Lib. 4. ca. 33. Augu. contra aduersar legis et Prophetarum lib. 1. c. 20 spiritual also notwithstanding The one after the maner of the Prophetes who be wont to expresse thinges of the new Testament with wordes of the olde Testament he calleth Incense and S. Hierome expoundeth it of praier which ascendeth froÌ„ our hartes vnto the heauenly throne of mercie like a swete perfume of Incense And so S. Iohn in his reuelation as S. Irenaeus writeth calleth the swete perfumes the prayers of Sainctes The other he termeth a pure Oblation the which S. Hierom expouÌ„deth of that pure Oblation which is offred euery where in the Ceremonies of the Christians Which can be vnderstanded of none other but of the Sacrifice of the Body and Bloude of Christe offered vp vnto God by Priestes of the newe Testament For what other Oblation or sacrifice can be named Foure conditioÌ„s of the Mystical OblatioÌ„ that hath these foure conditions which S. Hierome here toucheth but the Oblation of the Aulter The conditions be these That it succede the Sacrifices of the olde Law that it be pure and cleane that it be made in al places and that it be celebrated and solemnized in the Ceremonies of the Christians Of what so euer spiritual and internal Sacrifice the Gospellers wil vnderstand this place be it laude and praise In his booke Against the B. of VVinchester li. 3. fol 425. 443. thankes geuing prayer a contrite harte mercie or any suche other as Cranmare vnderstandeth it of laude praise and thankes and M. Iewel of prayer it shal quite be auoided by one or other of these conditions specially by the first and the fourth For how can laude and praise or praier ar any other mere spiritual sacrifice vâ—ed in the newe Testament seme to succede the Sacrifices of the olde Testament seing al suche spiritual Sacrifices be coÌ„monÌ„ to both Testaments and that thing can not be said to succede that had place before And if our Aduersaries wil cauil neuer so much expounding the pure Oblation that Malachie speaketh of Against the B. of Vvinster lib. 3. fol. 99. of some other thinge as Cranmare in one place expoundeth it in general of al the workes that Christian people doo to the glorie of God the same shal be auoided by that it is restrained vnto that Oblation which is made as S. Hierom declareth in Ceremonijs ChristianoruÌ„ in the Ceremonies of the Christians For al these spiritual and internal sacrifices be done inwardly in the harte of man and what other workes can they name done to the glorie of God in the publike Ceremonies of the Christians Ceremonies of the Christians which the prophete may reasonably seme to haue meant And what meaneth S. Hierome by the Ceremonies of the Christians but the Ceremonies of the Church vsed through al the worlde in the celebration and solemnitie of the Masse wherein the Sacrifice of the Body and bloud of Christ is made and offered by the Priestes touching ministerie by the faithful people also touching vowe Which Ceremonies be the chiefe the most auncient the most reuerent the most mystical and most holy Ceremonies that Christians haue Wherefore whereas Malachie and likewise S. Hierome expounding his wordes speake of two thinges of prayer and of the pure OblatioÌ„ the same being that Oblation which is offred euery where from the East to the west in the Ceremonies of the Christians by his interpretation now it appeareth how falsly M. Iuel demeaneth him selfe in this point who maketh S. Hierome so to vnderstand the place of Praier as though he vnderstode the whole saying of Prayer only and not one parte of it of Prayer and an other parte also of the Sacrifice of the Church whereas in deede he vnderstandeth it of both and most expressely speaketh of both as I haue now declared Thus he neuer leaueth to iustle away one truth with an other truth NOw to come to Eusebius let vs see whether you entreate him with more truth then you haue entreated Tertullian and S. Hierom. He knoweth say you likewise of me that Eusebius calleth the same sacrifice of Malachie the sacrifice and the Incence of prayer And for some shewe of proufe for that you say you put in the margent of your booke this peece of a Greke senteÌ„ce out of Eusebius Euseb. De Demonst. lib. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as much to say the incense or perfume that is made through prayers For answer here vnto It is to be remembred as I said before that Malachie speaketh of two thinges to be offred vp vnto God in al nations from the East to the west Incense Incense Pure Sacrifice and the pure Sacrifice Eusebius where he allegeth this place of Malachie to proue that Moses Lawe is ended and that the new Lawe of the new Testament is come in place by Incense vnderstandeth Prayer as S. Hierome M. Ievvel falsifieth Eusebius and other olde learned Fathers doo As for the Pure Sacrifice whereof now we speake that he calleth it the Sacrifice and the Incense of Prayer it is vtterly false In that very place which you allege Eusebius doth so expounde Malachie as to any man of iudgement it shal euidently appeare how vntruly you reporte of him and how aptly he maketh for the catholike doctrine and against you Euseb. De Demonst. lib. 1. The beginning of the sentence is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. In English the whole truely turned worde for worde soundeth thus That in euery place Incense and Sacrifice is offred vp vnto God what other thing doth it signifie then that the time shal come when they shal offer vp vnto God that is aboue al the Incense which is made by Prayers and that which is called the Pure Sacrifice that is made not by bloude but by Godly actions not in Ierusalem neither in this or that determinate place but in euery countrie and in al nations Beholde Reader how he expoundeth the Incense or perfume whereof Malachie speaketh of the Incense that is made by Prayer as afterward in the ende of that first booke to that meaning he allegeth
of sacrificing and offring M. Iewel falsifieth the vvordes of the Ansvver and that the terme it selfe Oblation or Sacrifice was not expressed to make my saying seme more absurde you falsifie my saying reporting me to haue spoken of the termes of sacrificing as though I had acknowledged the wordes of sacrificing and denied the termes of sacrificing But sir what meane you Hath the long studie of Rhetorique driuen out of your head the remembrance of Logique Haue you quite forgoten the olde Distinction of implicitè and explicitè so much tossed in our Sophismes when we were yong Sophisters at Oxforde Thinges implied though not vttered red in expresse termes Remember you not that a thing may be implyed in wordes albeit the very termes signifying that thing be not expressed As for example where it is written in the Psalme Dixit Dominus Domino meo sede à dextris meis Our Lorde the Father said to my Lorde the Sonne sit at my right hand Psal. 109. is not the Omnipotencie of God the Sonne and his Equalitie with the Father in these woordes signified though the terme it selfe of imnipotencie or equalitie be not expressed It is written of kinge Saules wicked and miserable ende â— Reg. 31. Arripuit Saul galdium suum irruit super eum Saul caught his owne sworde and ranne vpon it doth not the Scripture by those woordes shewe and set forth his murthering and kylling of him selfe though the terme it selfe of murdering or killing be not expressely vttered Likewise the Scripture signifieth with very plaine woordes the Aduoutrie that Dauid committed with Bethsabee 2. Reg. 11. and his murdering of Vrias her husband and yet in what place these actes be described there is not at al expressed the terme of Aduoutrie nor of Murder In the whole storie of Christes passion written by the Euangelistes it is not with any expresse terme of killing said that the Iewes or Souldiers killed him Yet I trowe ye wil not denie but that in woordes it is implied Actor 2. If you denie it S. Peter shal control you who said to the Iewes Hunc interemistis this man ye haue killed Actor 7. S. Steuen also who said vnto them cuius vos nunc proditores homicidae fuistis ye haue now ben the traitours and murderers of Iesus But what neede we to vse so many examples in a mater that may be declared by infinite examples Right so to be shorre the wordes which the Euangelistes No coÌ„tâ—adictioÌ„â—roued by M. Ievvel to be in the Ansvver and S. Paule vse in the Description of the Institution of the blessed Sacrament at Christes last supper be wordes implying and importing a Sacrifice al be it this terme it selfe of Oblation or Sacrifice be not expressed And who so euer affirmeth him that so saith to include a Contradiction is either a wrangler hunting for termes not regarding the thing implyed or very ignorant not knowing the nature of a Contradiction But besides al this The reproche of straggling alone anâ—vvered as M. Iewel hath founde in my wordes a Contradiction where none is so doth he also with like truth and like proufe charge me with as it pleaseth him to terme it straggling alone and swaruing from al the olde Fathers by a strange construction of myne owne for that I haue so construed the wordes vsed in the Scripture to declare the Institution of the Eucharist as to include and implie a Sacrifice For verely I haue learned this construction of the olde learned Fathers and haue not bene so presumptuous as in so weighty a mater to trust the deuise of myne owne head Which Fathers doo not onely in equiualent but in expresse termes declare that Christe offered a Sacrifice at his last supper Hesychius an olde Father maketh mention of three sundry Sacrifices Three sacrifices offered by Christeâ— Hesychius in Leuit. lib. 2. cap. 8 that Christe offered two at his Maundie and the thirde vpon the Crosse. His wordes be plaine Prius figur atam Ouem coenans cum Apostolis postea suum obtulit Sacrificium deinde sicut ouem seipsum occidit That Christe sacrificed hiÌ„ selfe at his last supper Christe supping with his Apostles first offered the figuratiue Lambe afterward he offered his owne Sacrifice and then after that he killed him selfe that is to say deliuered vp him selfe to be killed like a Lambe S. Cyprian one of the most auncient Fathers of the Churche speaking of the Figure of Melchisedech geueth most iust occasion of this construction Cyprian lib. 2. epist. 3. where he saith Quam rem perficiens adimplens Dominus panem calicem mixtum vino obtulit qui est plenitudo Veritatem praefiguratae Imaginis adimpleuit Which thing our Lorde perfourming and fulfylling he meaneth the perfourmance of that which Melchisedeks Sacrifice did foresignifie offered bread and the cuppe mingled with wine and he who is the fulnesse did fulfil the Truth of the forefigured Image Theophylacte although not so olde as the others yet a schoolemaister olde yenough to teach a Christian man this construction expounding the later wordes of the Institution of the Sacrament and speaking of the Sacrifice saith Theophylactus in Matt. 26. Sicut Vetus Testamentum immolationem habebat sanguinem ita Nouum Testamentum sanguinem habet ac immolationeÌ„ Like as the Olde Testament had sacrifice and bloude euen so the Newe Testament hath bloude and Sacrifice Here is to be considered that if the wine by th' almighty power of the Worde be not coÌ„uerted into the bloud of Christe but remaine stil wine as before consecration which doctrine our Caluinistes teach and the Lutherans impugne then wil not this comparison of Theophylacte holde neither is it true at al that now the Newe Testament hath bloude Euthymius also a Father of the Greke Churche Euthym. in Matt. construed the same wordes of Christe in like sense saying Sicut Vetus Testamentum hostias sanguinem habebat ita sanè Nouum Corpus videlicet sanguineÌ„ Domini Non dixit autem haec sunt signa corporis mei sanguinis mei sed haec sunt corpus meum sanguis meus As the Olde Testament had sacrifices and bloude euen so truly hath the New Testament also to wit the Body and Bloud of our Lorde He said not these be the signes of my body and of my bloud but these be my Body and my Bloude These Fathers and sundry others whose â—ayinges here to reherse I omit that I be not tedious auouching so plainely that a Sacrifice was offered by Christe at his Maundie I maruel at the impudencie of M. Iewel It is M. Ievv that in deede straggleth alone who solacing him selfe with the terme of straggling alone reporteth me in this point to swarue from al the olde Fathers as though I had deuised a newe construction that any learned man neuer knewe before Verely in deniyng this Sacrifice he sheweth him selfe to be departed
from Christes folde the Churche and like a lost shepe to straggle alone and to wander from the saued flocke Our Lorde yet turne his harte and kepe him from the wolues and roaring Lion that neuer ceaseth going about 1. Pet. 5. and seking whom he may deuour Iewel Verify yf this Latine vvorde Dare be Sacrificare and Geuinge be Sacrificinge then vvhere as S. Paule â—aithe If thine enimie be thirstie Geue him drinke Roman 15 And vvhere as Iudas saithe VVhat wil ye Geue me Matt. 26. Matt. 25. and I wil deliuer him vnto you And vvhere as the foolish Virgins saie Geue vs parte of your Oile c. In euerie of these and suche other like places by this Nevve Diuinitie M. Harding vvil be hable to finde a Sacrifice Harding Forth you go rather ieasting and scoffing then prouing ought or disprouing If Dare be Sacrificare and geuing be sacrificing say you then where so euer in the Scriptures the worde Dare which signifieth to geue is found there must be concluded a Sacrifice And so sacrifice must be done vnto Iudas bicause he said Quid vultis mihi dare Matt. 26. What wil ye geue me and I wil deliuer him vnto you M. Ievvel fondly argueth froÌ„ the special to the general affirmatiuely The sadnesse of this mater M. Iewel beareth not wel your lightnesse Praised be God that his enemies wittes finde so litle weight of reason or learning in impugning his truth You knowe that I make not geuing to be sacrificing nor that Dare should alwaies signifie sacrificare Which if it be not presupposed your Argument is peeuish For what if Datur in the wordes of Christes Institution of the Sacrament for thereto onely my saying is restrained do founde to some learned men as much as offertur specially in that place where the addition of these two woordes pro vobis for you is withal to be considered wil it thereof folowe that euery where els Dare be sacrificare and that geuing be sacrificing in general By this your Logique it wil folow that bicause this worde calix is taken sometimes for passion and tribulation as where Christ said Matt. 26. transeat à me calix iste let this cuppe passe from me Luc. 22. and likewise in other places wher it is written of Christe being at his last supper accipiens Calicem gratias egit Iohn 18. He tooke the Cuppe and gaue thankes it must be interpreted Christ tooke his passion and gaue thankes whereby it is concluded that he suffered his passion at his supper in the euening and not on the morow onlesse it be said that he suffered his passion twise By this it is made cleare how fondly you reason How be it I iudge if you were wel examined your selfe would not denie but that Dare Dare vsed for offerre may signifie offerre where the circumstance of the place reporteth Christe to geue his body or him self for vs or for our synnes specially when being spoken of Christe it is put with this Proposition pro. This if you deny S. Paule shal conuince you writing to the Galathians Galat. 1. Gratia vobis pax a Deo Patre nostro Domino Iesu Christo qui dedit semet ipsum pro peccatis nostris vt eriperet nos de praesenti seculo nequam Grace and peace be to you from God our Father and our Lorde Iesus Christe who gaue him selfe for our sinnes to deliuer vs from this present wicked world Now if dare be offerre in this place why may it not signifie the same in the wordes of the Sacraments institution where Christ also gaue his body and bloude not only vnto vs to be a foode which no man denieth but also for vs to be a Sacrifice which our newe Gospellers denie and I now haue proued Iewel Yet saith he Certaine menne of excellent knowledge haue thus expounded it It seemeth very strange that these so notable men of excellent knovvledge should haue no names Perhappes he meaneth Tapper of Louaine or Gropper of Colaine of vvhom he hath borovved the vvhole substance vvelneare of al this Article Hovv be it the demaunde vvas of the Ancient Doctours of the Churche not of any of these or other suche petite Fathers Harding I said not as you reporte me that certaine men of excellent knowledge haue thus expounded it but that to some such men Datur here soundeth nolesse then offertur specially in coÌ„sideration of the addition pro vobis And therein I said truly And though I named them not yet was there no cause why you should make so straÌ„ge a mater of it as though worthy men had no names Bicause some of them be yet liuing I thought it better not to name them If I had meaÌ„t Tapper of Louaine Tapper Gropper as I did not or Gropper of Coulen I had meant men in dede wel knowen and coÌ„mended vnto the worlde both for excellent learning and singulâ—r vertue How so euer it please you in contempt to cal them petite Fathers These or others like them if I folow and helpe my selfe in this or any other question with their or with any other mennes knowledge what skilleth that so that I mainteine nothinge but the truth If you thought to abase myne estimation with the report of helping my selfe with other mennes labours you are deceiued the thing is lawful and commendable Neither ought that to grieue me being obiected by you who as it is wel knowen haue taken the parcels of the false wares packâ— together in your Replie out of other mennes shoppes I meane the Lutherans and Caluinistes of our age who haue impugned the Catholike Religion fithens Luther beganne to write against the Churche Iewel But Christe saieth in the Present Tense This is my Bodie That is Geuen not in the Future Tense That shal be Geuen And likevvise This is my Bloude That Presently is shead not in the Future Tense That shal be Shead Therefore Christ sacrificed his Body and shead his bloude presently at the Supper Here M. Harding is driuen to control the olde Common Translation of the nevv testament not only that beareth the name of S. Hierome and hath ben euermore generally receiued in the Churche and is allovved by the Councel of Tridente but also that is stil vsed and continued in his ovvne Masse Booke Chryso in 1. Corin. 1â— Origen in MatthaeuÌ„ tract 35. I graunte In the Greeke it is vvriten Datur Is Geuen not Dabitur shal be Geuen But here the Present Tense according to the Common Phrase of the Scriptures is vsed for the Future Chrysostome readeth it thus Dabitur shal be GeueÌ„ not Datur Is geuen Origen likevvise readeth not Effunditur Is Shead but Effundetur Shal be Shead And in this sorte Chrysostom also expoundeth it Effundetur pro multis Hoc dicens ostendit quòd Passio eius Mysterium Salutis humanae per quod etiam Discipulos consolatur Shalbe shead for many Thus saying he sheweth that his
Passion is the Mysterie of the Saluation of mankinde and by the same he comforteth his Disciples Chrysost. in Catenâ— Againe he saith De Passione Cruce sua loquebatur Christe vttering the vvordes of the Sacramente spake of his Passion and of his Crosse. Harding Touching that I noted Christes wordes concerning his body and bloude to be spoken in the present Tense Datur is geuen and funditur is shed there was no iust cause The olde texte by me not controlled as M. Ievvel saith why you should say that I am driuen to control the Olde common Translation of the new testament Who so euer coÌ„trolleth any thing findeth fault with the same As for the Olde Translation of that place I take not vpon me to finde faulte with it It standeth not with the humilitie and modestie of such as be Catholik to control that Translation which hath bene corrected by S. Hierom as it is beleued so generally receiued in the Church and also wel allowed by sundry Councels We leaue that pride and temeritie vnto the sawcinesse of them of your side who as wel in Latine as in their vulgar tongues haue presumed of their owne heades to set forth very many new Translations not one wholy agreeing with an other And yet eche one must boldly and stoutely be auouched to be Gods worde As for my selfe I doo gladly imbrace and folow the olde common Translation confessing the sense and meaof the verbes in the future tense to be true according to the Latine texte Neuer the lesse perceiuing that al the Greekes in whose tongue the greatest parte of the new Testament was first writteÌ„ and that many of the Latines and their bookes as S. Ambrose Ambros. in 11. cap. 1. â—d Corint Beda In Luc. cap. 22. and S. Bede and the new Testament of Isidorus Clarius printed in Venis with others do reade those verbes datur frangitur effunditur is geuen is broken is shed in the present tense and that not without cause and reason I thought good thereon to ground an Argument for my purpose and to take the aduantage of that text without controlment of the other Chrysostom belied by M. Ievvel Chryso in 1. Corin. 1â— Chrysostome readeth Dabitur shal be geuen say you not datur is geuen For truthes sake I must streine nourture and tel you truely you say false of Saint Chrysostome The Latine Chrysostome hath in two places tradetur shal be deliuered in both it is corrected in the Margent where for traditur is noted frangitur and in both those places the Greke hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which being spoken of our Lordes Body is as much to say as broken in the present tense As for your Dabitur shal be geuen it is of your owne forging the woorde is not in S. Chrysostome in the place by you coted And the olde common texte it selfe in S. Luke Luc. 22. hath datur is geuen and not dabitur shal be geuen And as the Latine translatour hath made S. Chrysostome to speake otherwise in Latine then he speaketh in Greke putting tradetur for frangitur euen so hath he done who so euer translated Origen whom you allege placing effundetur shal be shed in the future tense for effunditur is shed in the present tense Except therfore you can shewe vs the Greke Origen your Latine Origen is to proue your future tense of that verbe of as smal auctoritie as the Latine Chrysostome is now shewed to be for proufe of your false reported Reasons vvhy Origen semeth to be belyed by M. Ievvel Origen in Matth. tract 35. Dabitur How be it that Origen in his owne tongue would say effunditur and not effundetur it may partly be gatheâ—red by that foloweth in him a fewe lines after the place which you haue alleged For there thus we reade in the present Tence Hic est Sanguis meus noui Testamenti qui bibitur et effunditur c. This is my bloude of the new TestameÌ„t which both is droonke and is shed But wheras Origen treateth vpon S. Matthew how is it to be thought that he being a Greke writer would recite the texte of the Euangelist otherwise then he founde it in the Greke Matt. 26. where it is not reade effundetur in the future tense Marc. 14. as you woulde haue it but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod effunditur which is shed by a participle of the present tense As for that you bring out of Catena aurea of S. Thomas S. Thomas in Catena falsified by M. Ievvel you haue fowly falsified it For neither hath S. Chrysostome nor S. Thomas as you reherse the wordes For these wordes effundetur pro multis be not placed immediatly before this sentence Hoc autem dicens c. Which S. Thomas allegeth as out of an Homilie of S. Chrysostome For a saying of S. Remigius and certaine other wordes are put betwene so that the same sentence is to be referred to that went before pro multis or in remissionem peccatorum S. Thomas againe falsified by M. Ievv Your other place also alleged out of Catena conteineth the like falshod For whereas by your owne forged parenthesis vttering these wordes of the Sacrament you would restraine S. Chrysostomes wordes to the mention of the Sacrament which neuerthelesse in a right sense may be grauÌ„ted therby craftily ye would bereue the blessed Sacrament altogether of the truth of Christes body and bloude Now S. Thomas in Catena allegeth S. Chrysostome thus In Catena in 26. cap. Matt. Quia verò de passione cruce eis locutus erat consequenter eum qui de Resurrectione est sermonem inducit dicens Dico autem vobis non bibam ammodo c. Bicause he had spoken vnto them of his Passion and Crosse therâ—vpon he bringeth in talke of his Resurrection saying I tel you I wil not drinke henceforth c. Now the talke that Christ had with his disciples of his passioÌ„ and Crosse appereth other wheres at his supper then in the wordes of the Sacrament Matth. 26 For there he said Verely I say vnto you that one of you shal betray me Againe The sonne of man goeth as it is written of him c. Item I haue very much desyred to eate this Passeouer with youâ— before that I suffer my passion AntequaÌ„ patiar Luc. 22. In consideration of these and other the like wordes spoken by Christ at his last supper and not only or chiefly of the wordes of the SacrameÌ„t S. Chrysostom saith M. Iewels falshod deprehended as he is alleged in Catena that Christ had spoken of his passion and Crosse. And thus your falshod M. Iewel is disclosed on euery side so much that in manner your whole processe against this Article hitherto is founde to be none other but a continual lye But Sir Real presence and Sacrifice auouched by Saint Chrysostom Dissembled by M. Iew. when you pryed so much in that Homilie of S. Chrysostome
the Iewes meaning that he did vnto him selfe that at the Supper which was done on the morow with the violence of them that crucified him Wherby neuerthelesse he vnderstandeth the mystical Oblation of him selfe not the manner of his blouddy Oblation For he confesseth it to be secret inuisible and vnspeakeable And that no man should doubte of this Sacrifice he ascribeth vnto him both the office of a Priest and also of the Lambe As a Priest he sacrificed as the Lambe he was sacrificed For the better vnderstanding of this point the Sacrifice at the Supper and that on the morow vppon the Crosse The sacrifice of the supper and the sacrifice of the Crosse one and diuers in diuers respectes may truly be accompted and named one Sacrifice and also diuers Sacrifices Neither is this Sophistrie good Reader as these newe Gospellers wil beare thee in hande by this true distinction sophistical obiections and wranglings of the Gospellers may reasonably be answered How then is it one how be they diuers Learne it once and be no more contentious as they be who hauing heard it so oftentimes by the Catholikes tolde them wil yet seme not to vnderstand it Before I answer to this question Sacrifice taken tvvo vvaies this much is necessarily to be declared that the name of Sacrifice is wont to be taken sometime for the thing that is offred vnto God sometime for the action it selfe of sacrificing Now then it is one Sacrifice in respect of the thing offred and sacrificed which is the body and bloude of Christ. For that is one and the selfe same in both in the Supper and vpon the Crosse. The Action is of two manners bloudy and vnbloudy These Sacrifices be diuers in respect of the manner of the Action and of the offering For in the Supper it was vnbloudy and vpon the Crosse it was bloudy Concerning the former Sacrifice in deede al dependeth of the real presence that is to say vppon the credite of Christes worde whereby his body and bloude is both professed to be present and is made really present Which if it were truly beleued al contention about the Sacrifice were sone ended And yet hath that point of late bene learnedly and substantially entreated by D. Heskins and by D. Saunder who hath clearely answered and refuted the obiections what so euer Maister Iewel in his Replie was hable to bring to the contrary Tertull. In praescript But what shal we say These mennes reasons may sone be answered their pertinacie can neuer be answered Of suche Tertullian saith ouercome they may be persuaded they can not be Theophylact in Matt. capit◠28. Now to come vnto Theophylacte His wordes be these according to the Greke Quinta feria fecit Dominus coenam Discipulis dixit Accipite comedite Corpus meum Itaque quia potestatem ex se habebat ponendi animā suam manifestum est quòd ex eo tempore immolauerit seipsum quando tradidit discipulissuis corpus suum Nemo enim comedit aliquid nisi prius fuerit immolatum Vpon the fifth day our Lorde made his Supper and said vnto his Disciples take ye and eate my body So that bicause he had power of him selfe to put of his soule it is manifest that from that time he sacrificed him selfe when he delyuered his body vnto his Disciples For no man doth eate any thing at the solēnitie of a sacrifice so he meaneth which is not sacrificed before What can be vttered in plainer termes then that we find in these two Fathers The one saith that Christ offered him selfe when he gaue his body and bloude vnto his Disciples The other that he preuented the violence that was done vnto him on the morow and offered vp him selfe an Oblation and Sacrifice performing the parte bothe of a Prieste and of the Lambe And least any man should myssetake them vnderstanding it to haue ben done vpon the Crosse onely with most expresse wordes they referre it vnto the Supper And so by their doctrine be the verbes Datur frāgitur effunditur is geuen is brokē is shed verefied in the present Tense and not only in the future Tense In these testimonies the cause that both Nyssen and Theophylacte geueth why Christe offered his body which he deliuered vnto his Disciples is specially to be noted which is bicause in the solemnitie of Sacrifices no mā eateth that which is not before sacrificed Wherein they allude vnto the olde manner of Sacrifices which alwaies were offered vp before they were eaten And so the body and bloude of our Sauiour Christe our true Paschal Lambe was at his Maundie and now ought to be offered vp before it was then or now is to be eaten and dronke in the blessed Sacrament Hesychius lib. 1. in Leuit. cap. 46. Hesychius vttereth the like doctrine writing vpon the booke of Leuiticus Iewel To be shorte if it be true that Christe shead his bloud at his Last Supper and that Verily Really and in deede as M. Hardinge alone strangely auoucheth and no man els I trovve beside him then can he no more say The same was an vnbloudy Sacrifice And so must he yelde vp the strongest Tovver of al his Holde For yf the Sacrifice that Christe made at his Supper vvere vnbloudy hovv did Christ there shead his bloud Yf Christ as M. Harding saith did there Shead his Bloude hovv can that Sacrifice be called Vnbloudy But to leaue these fantasies and vaine shiftes Christe gaue his Bodie to be broken and his Bloude to be shead not at his Last Supper but only vpō his Crosse and no vvere els There he bare our iniquities there was he rent for our Sinnes Psal. 53. And in that only respect vve receiue his body and embrace it and haue fruit of it In this respect S. Paule saith God forbid Galat. 6. I should reioice in any thing sauing onely in the Crosse of our Lorde Iesus Christe Therefore this nevv Article of the faith of the real sacrificing and Sheadding of Christes bloud at the table neither being true in it self nor hitherto by M. Harding any vvay proued notvvithstāding the great Stoare and choise of his Authorities for asmuch as Christ neuer gaue neither his Apostles nor any their successours Commission to do more in that behalfe then he him selfe had done To say that any mortal man hath povver and authoritie really and in dede to Sacrifice the sonne of God it is a manifest and vvicked blasphemie the great and grosse errours vvherevvith the Diuel and his Disciples in the time of his kingdome of darkenesse haue deceiued the vvorlde notvvithstanding Harding But here M. Iewel replieth and would faine prooue a contradiction to be implyed in this doctrine I omit his falsifying of my Answer affirming me to say that Christe did shed his bloud at his last Supper verily really and in dede which I said not though it may be so said in a right sense and much lesse meant I as thereby
his intent is to report vnto the simple to wit an external and sensible shedding which was done only at the tyme of his Passiō That the mater might seme the more absurde and vnreasonable If saith he Christes Sacrifice made at the Supper were vnbloudy how then did he there shed his bloud If he did shed his bloud how can that Sacrifice be called vnbloudy Why Sir wil you nedes haue the Mysteries of this Singular and peerlesse Sacrifice to be discussed by reason and not to be conceiued only by faith Wil you require the meane of this Sacrifice to be set forth euidently vnto you which is secret as Nyssen before mentioned saith inuisible and vnspeakeable S. Paule him selfe where he speaketh of the Priesthoode of Christe after the order of Melchisedek Heb. 5. saith he not that thereof he hath much to say and that the things be hard to expound These howe 's and questions M. Iewel become Iewes Infidels and Heretikes much better then a true Christian man Christes bloud was shed at his Supper so as it is now shed in the daily Sacrifice of the Aulter that is to say in a mysterie and in a Sacrament by a meane to man inuisible and vnspeakeable Bicause his bloud is beneficial vnto vs to redemption in that it was once actually externally and with death drawen forth of his body In cōsideration thereof where so euer that bloud is by the almighty power of our Lords worde in the Sacrifice made and exhibited we thinke it no absurditie nor inconuenience to say that his bloude is shed in a mysterie and vnbloudily Whereby we meane that not only his memorie is celebrated but also that the effecte of the bloudy shedding of his bloude that is to say the effect of his death is thereby applied vnto vs hauing faith and being disposed as we ought to be as if he were now hanging on the Crosse and presently bleeding before our eyes For to shew this and that of the Crosse to be one and the selfe Sacrifice we offer him saith Theophylact perinde ac si esset hoc tempore immolatus Theophylact in cap. 10. ad Heb. as if he were at this very time sacrificed Againe hanc hostiam semper vt praesentem offerimus we offer vp this hoste alwaies as if it were present saith he meaning the visible presence vpon the Crosse for otherwise it is present And therefore it may truly be termed an vnbloudy shedding of bloude the terme of shedding being referred to the bloude by the power of the worde of consecration made present offered presented and verily exhibited the terme vnbloudy referred to the manner of offering and exhibiting it without any such violence as was done vnto the person of Christe by the Souldiers who with thornes nailes and speare drew bloud of him when he hong on the Crosse. That no doubte remaine to speake so plainely as I can of this high Mysterie thus it is The bloude of Christe we confesse is the price of our Redemption in that it was once shed vpon the Crosse. That bloude and body whereof it issued out is the Hoste of our Saluation That very bloude is here made present in the Sacrifice of the Aulter by vertue of Christes worde and is said presently to be shed whiche neuer the lesse we vnderstand to be done in mysterie and in remēbrance of that which was shed vpon the Crosse bicause the effecte of that external shedding by this is applied vnto vs as if it were now in our sight offered and shed The vnbloudy shedding of bloud This shedding may be and is called vnbloudy as the offering and the Sacrificing of Christ and as the death is called vnbloudy For like as is the Sacrifice such is the Death Where is bloudy Sacrifice there is bloudy Death Where is the vnbloudy Sacrifice there is the vnbloudy Death and consequently the mystical and vnbloudy Sheddding of bloude But for better credite and that it seme not strange let vs confirme this pointe with some testimonies of Ancient Faters where the like speaches are vttered S. Gregorie saith Gregorius Dialog 4. cap. 58. De consec di 2. Quid sit Christus in seipso immortaliter viuens iterum in hoc mysterio moritur ◠Christe who liueth immortally in him selfe in this Mysterie dieth againe S. Augustine likewise Semel immolatus est in semetipso Christus tamen quotidie immolatur in Sacramento Christe was sacrificed in him selfe once August epist 23. De Conse dist 2. Semel De Conse dist 2. Iteratur and yet is he sacrificed daily in a Sacrament Paschasius saith in like manner Quotidie Christus mysticè pro nobis immolatur Passio Christi in Mysterio traditur c. Christe is daily sacrificed for vs mystically and the Passion of Christe is in a mysterie deliuered To be shorte Eusebius Caesarienses Cyrillus S. Chrysostome Theophylacte Euthymius S. Gregorie Nazianzen and in manner all the other Fathers doo cal this Incruentam immolationem the vnbloudy sacrificing and vnbloudy Hoste By the whiche Christe to effecte is so sacrificed for vs as to them who were present when he offered him selfe on the Crosse yet so as this Sacrifice take effecte of that And that there be truely and properly a Sacrifice it is yenough that Christes death be so now applyed to remission of synne as if he him selfe now dyed In these former and the like sayinges the Fathers doo set forth the way and meane of this Sacrifice of this Death and consequently of this shedding of Christes bloude as they may seeme to signifie not obscurely their vnablenesse to expresse the same terming it Sacrifice in a Sacrament Death in a Mysterie Sacrificing mystical The whiche wordes Sacrament and Mysterie doo not importe a signification of absence of the thing reported to be sacrificed to be shed and to dye but the secrete manner of sacrificing shedding and dying And bicause this oblation is not with shedding of bloude whiche bloude may presently be sene but by application of the bloude already shed it is of the auncient Fathers rightly called an vnbloudy Sacrifice S. Chrysostome ioyning Hostiam an Hoste and Incruentam Chrysost. in Psal. 95. Vnbloudy together could vnderstand an vnbloudy shedding of bloude in a Mysterie and thought it not absurde Yet neuerthelesse a man that standeth wel in his owne conceite and skanneth al Diuinitie by Phrases as M. Iewel doth might finde mater in it to vtter a scoffe or two and demaunde of Chrysostome if it be an Hoste how is it vnbloudy If it be vnbloudy how can it be an Hoste seing that an Hoste hath not bene woont to be offered without bloudshedding Likewise S. Gregorie Nazianzen that great Diuine hauing respect vnto the body and bloude of Christe offred by the Priestes in the Sacrament feared not to set together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gregor Nazian in Carminibus ad Episcopos sacrifices and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnbloudy saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O
ye Priestes that offer vp vnbloudy Sacrifices And to put al out of doubte that he meant it of the Sacrifice of the Body and Bloude of Christe he addeth further in the same place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O yee that beare the wrought worke of Greate GOD in your handes Whereby he meaneth the true and real Body of Christe in the Sacrament Theophylacte also among other is very plaine where he saith thus Theophylactus in 10. cap. ad Hebr. Num ipsi sine sanguine immolamus Omnimo Sed nunc reminiscimur mortis Domini Do we also sacrifice without bloude Yea verely But now in our Sacrifice we remember the death of our Lorde The Greke woorde which Theophylacte vseth is such as properly signifieth the killing of a lyuing thing Here is a woorde alone for M. Iewel to vtter his scoffing eloquence vpon Do we kill Then how without bloude If without bloude how then do we kill Thus the learned Fathers being persuaded that through the almighty power of Christes woordes his flesh and bloude are really exhibited and made present in the Sacrament thought it no absurditie in this singular Sacrifice to ioyne those termes together which in no truth could stand together in the order and manner of offering the olde sacrifices or Christes Sacrifice vpon the Crosse. If M. Iewel wil here replie and say that the ioyning of these vnagreeing termes together is an Argument that the Fathers meant not to auouche a true and Real Sacrifice but a figuratiue Sacrifice onely how can it not appeare most absurde to thinke that whereas they affirme Christes Real flesh and bloude to be made present by vertue of his woorde to th ende it be the Sacrifice of the newe Testament and likewise where as they teache this Sacrifice and this hoste to be one with that of the Crosse they should meane no true and Real Sacrifice but onely a Figuratiue Sacrifice And wilt thou vnderstand Christian Reader how the olde Fathers of the Churche meane where they reporte the Sacrifice of the Aulter to be one with the Sacrifice of the Crosse In vvhat sense the Fathers make the sacrifice of the Aulter and of the Crosse one Sacrifice Verely they meane as euery where we teache the Hoste or the thinge sacrificed to be one and the very selfe same vpon the Aulter and vpon the Crosse. For witnesse hereof heare S. Chrysostome Hauing asked this question Quomodo vna est Hostia non multae How is it one Hoste and not many After a few wordes he saith Id ipsum semper offerimus Nec nunc quidem alium agnum â—rastina alium Chrysost. homil 17. in Epist. ad Heb. sed semper eundem ipsum Proinde vnum est hoc Sacrificium hac ratione We offer vp alwaies the selfe same thing Neither doo we offer one Lambe to day an other to morow but alwaies one the selfe same Therefore this is but one Sacrifice by this reason Hacratione or in consideration hereof that is to say bicause the thinge whiche is offered is one Christe is our high Bishop there saith he further which hath offered vp the hoste that cleanseth vs of our sinnes the same offer we now also which being then offered can not be consumed If we offer the same hoste and sacrifice that Christe offered whereby we are made cleane from our sinnes whiche is the sacrifice of the Crosse it foloweth that this be a true and real sacrifice in respecte of the thing sacrificed as that was By this M. Iewel may vnderstand how lawful it is for me to speake as the catholique Churche speaketh that Christe is offered vp vnto his Father by the Priestes of the new Testament verely really and in deede Now let vs see what substance there is in al that wherewith he burdeneth me touching S. Clement Iewel As for Clemens vvhom M. Harding so often calleth the Apostles felovve as he is but lately start vp and comme abroade and therefore hath not yet gotten sufficient credit and in here brought in dumme and saieing nothing so is he not vvorthy of further ansvveare Hovve be it M. Harding dooth greate vvrong othervvise to report his Authours vvordes then he findeth them Truely his Clemens vvhat so euer he vvere saith not The Priest hath CommissioÌ„ or Power to offer vp the Sonne of God Clemens Constit. Apostoli lib. 6. cap. 30. Clemens Constit. Apostol lib. 8. His vvordes are plaine to the contrary Antytipon Regalis Corporis Christi offerte Offer ye vp not the Bodie of Christe but the Signe or Sacramente of the Roial Bodie of Christe Likevvise againe he saith Offerimus tibi Regi Deo iuxta Institutionem Christi Hunc Panem hoc Poculum VVee offer vp vnto thee our Kinge and God not the very Bodie of thy Sonne Really and in dede but This Breade and this Cuppe accordinge to Christes Institution It is a greate Prerogatiue for M. Hardinge both to make Doctours of his ovvne and also to geue them his ovvne Constructions Harding First Philip. 4. Hierony in peroratione traÌ„slatoris ad finem CoÌ„meÌ„tariorum Origenis in epist ad Romanos he laboureth to put him out of credite to that ende vsing prety light termes but neuer a weighty reason He is but lately start vp and come abroad saith he For whereas I cal him the Apostles felow and that not often as he saith he should be offended with the Apostles who so vsed him and with S. Hierome who so calleth him Next he reproueth me after his scoffing manner for that I bring him in dumme and saying nothing Lastly he chargeth me with reporting my authours wordes otherwise then I finde them That S. Clement can not truly be said lately to haue started vp as it pleaseth M. Iewel to speake I haue in my Reioindre to his first Article sufficiently proued his Antiquitie Page .29 b and authoritie as there the Reader may see S. ClemeÌ„t not brought in duÌ„me I do not bring him in dumme To referre the Reader vnto a special place of a writer is not to bring him in dumme So I in my Answer referred the Reader to the eight booke and last chapter of S. Clements Constitutions There shal he finde a cleare testimonie for the vnbloudy Sacrifice for the Priesthod and for the Institution and commaundement of the exercise of the same al which M. Iewel denieth The wordes for breuities sake I rehersed not To aduertise the Reader of the place I thought it yenough Least M. Iewel charge me againe with S. Clements dumnesse Clemens in Constitut li. 8 cap. vlt. certaine of his wordes here briefly to satisfie the man I am content to allege Thus then he saith Christe the only begoten sonne of God by nature is the first high Bishop who tooke not honour vnto him selfe but was ordeined of his Father Christe made Sacrifice before his Passion and commaunded the same to be coÌ„tinued who for our sake being made man and
both tende to one ende that is to celebrate the memorie of Christes death yet be not the actions diuers and may they not be done by diuers persons as it happeth when the people receiueth the body of Christe at the priestes handes This much may serue also for answer to the autoritie brought out of S. Chrysostome For the circumstance of the place declareth euidently that he spake there of the peoples receiuing of the mysteries And so in that place facere signifieth onely to receiue and not to consecrate and minister the Sacrament M. Ievv corrupteth S. Chrysostome And here M. Iewel least he should not be alwaies like vnto him selfe altereth and changeth his authours wordes and maketh S. Chrysostomes wordes to sounde to the aduantage of his owne false purpose For whereas S. Chrysostome saith thus Chrysost. hom 61. ad Pop. Antioch Quotiescunque hoc feceritis mortem Domini annunciabitis hoc est facietis commemorationem salutis vestrae beneficij mei As often as ye shal do this ye shal set forth our Lordes death that is to say ye shal make a commemoration of your saluation being my benefite M. Iewel allegeth him thus Hoc facite in memoriam beneficij mei salutis vestrae Doo ye this in remenbrance of my benefite and of your saluation Wherein he falsifieth the Doctor maketh a false translation of the place and geueth out a sense contrary to S. Chrxsostomes meaning Such aduenturing to alter Modes and Tenses to tel an other tale then the Doctor alleged telleth to leaue out to put in wordes of priuate forgerie is a most certaine argument of vntrue dealing and of guile intended of M. Iewels parte The 5. Diuision The Ansvver THat Christe offred him selfe to his Father in his last Supper and that Priestes by those woordes Doo this in my remeÌ„braunce haue not onely auctoritie but also a special commaundement to doo the same and that the Figure of Melchisedech and the Prophecie of Malachie perteineth to this Sacrifice and maketh proufe of the same let vs see by the testimonies of the Fathers what doctrine th'Apostles haue left to the Church Eusebius Caesariensis hath these woordes Euseb. li. 1 de demoÌ„strat Horrorem afferentia Mensae Christi Sacrificia Supremo Deo offerre per eminentissimum omnium ipsius Pontificem edocti sumus We are taught saith he to offer vnto our Supreme God the Sacrifices of Christes Table which cause vs to tremble and quake for feare by his Bishop highest of al. Here he calleth Christe in respect of his Sacrifice Gods Bishop highest of al Bishoppes the Sacrifices of Christes Table he calleth the Bodie and Bloude of Christe bicause at the Table in his last Supper he Sacrificed and offered the same and for that it is his very Bodie and his very Bloude imagination onely Phantasie and Figure set aparte he termeth these Sacrifices as commonly the auncient Fathers doo horrible causing trembling and feare And whereas he saithe we haue bene taught to offer these Sacrifices to God doubtlesse he meaneth by these woordes of Christe Doo this in my remembraunce This is my Bodie whiche is geuen for you This is my Bloude whiche is shedde for you Clement in his eight Booke often cited speaking of the Sacrifice offered by the Apostles commonly addeth these woordes Secundùm ipsius ordinationem or ipso ordinante whereby he confesseth it to be Christes owne ordinaunce Iewel To proue that the Priest offereth vp the Sonne of God M. Hardinge hath here brought in Euseâ—ius an Ancient Father that neuer once named any suche Oblation of the Sonne of God So much is he opprest and encombred vvith his stoare True it is The Ministration of the Holy Communion is oftentimes of the olde learned Fathers called a Sacrifice not for that they thought the Prieste had Authoritie to Sacrifice the Sonne of God but for that therein vvee offer vp vnto God Thankes and Praises for that greate Sacrifice once made vpon the Crosse. So saithe S. Augustine August ad PetruÌ„ Diaco ca. 19. In isto Sacrificio est gratiarum actio Commemoratio Carnis Christi quam pro nobis obtulit In this Sacrifice is a Thankes geuinge and a remembrance of the flesh of Christe Euseb. De demonstr li. 1. c. 10. whiche he hath offered for vs. Likevvise Eusebius saithe Christe after al other thinges donne made a marueilous Oblation and a passinge Sacrifice vnto his Father vpon his Crosse for the Saluation of vs al Nazian in Apolog. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 geuinge vnto vs to offer continually vnto God a Remembrance in steede of a Sacrifice So Nazianzenus calleth the Holy Communion A Figure of that great Mysterie of the Deathe of Christe This is it that Eusebius calleth The Sacrifice of the Lordes Table VVhiche also he calleth Sacrificium Laudis The Sacrifice of Praise Harding M. Iewels Replye in this Diuision is of smal pith and substance Least he should seme to say nothing whereas in deede he hath nothing to say whereby clearely to auoide the force of Eusebius authoritie by me alleged he darkeneth the mater with many wordes partly of his owne partly of other Doctours to litle purpose rehersed The effect of his whole tale consisteth in these .4 pointes First he denieth that Eusebius euer named any such Sacrifice of the Sonne of God vnto his Father Secondly he adknowlegeth the Ministration of the holy Communion for so he calleth it of the olde learned Fathers to be called a Sacrifice bicause of thankes and praises therein offered vnto God Thirdly he alloweth not the Argumente made out of Eusebius for proufe that Christe is offered vnto his Father Fourthly he pretendeth to shewe causes why the Sacrifice of the Communion is dredful and causeth the harte to tremble Touching the first what meane you M. Iewel by saying that Eusebius neuer once named any suche oblation of the Sonne of God Be you so addicted to the precise termes of your own Chalenge M. Ievvel is driuen from the mater vnto precise vvordes that other wordes of equal force may not be admitted Verely this declareth the weaknesse of your cause and openeth your poore shifte to the worlde which is that whereas you are conuicte by cleare truth of thinges yet you runne for succour vnto the shadowe of wordes You denye by the wordes of your Chalenge that by witnesse of any doctor within the first six hundred yeres after Christe we are hable to shewe that a Priest hath auctoritie to offer vp Christe vnto his Father Now this are we hable to proue as by diuers others so in this place by testimonie of Eusebius though expressely he name it not an oblation of the Sonne of God And for asmuch as you stand vpon your owne precise termes you shal be driuen from your holde by a precise Argument Answer it if you can What so euer we that are Priestes haue ben taught by Christe to doo to doo the same we haue auctoritie But we haue ben
taught by Christe to offer vp Christe vnto his Father Ergo to offer vp Christe vnto his Father we haue auctoritie Ergo the Priest hath auctoritie c. The Minor or second proposition of this Syllogisme you denye I doubte not For nought els with reason is here to be stickt at 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb. de DemoÌ„str EuaÌ„g lib. 1. That proposition then thus I proue by Eusebius whom I alleged in my Answer We haue ben taught saith he to offer vp vnto our Supreme God the dredful Sacrifices of Christes table by his Bishop highest of al. Whereat doo you cauill The proposition that you denye and we affirme being this The Priest hath auctoritie to offer vp Christe vnto his Father what lacketh here that answereth not the purport of your owne precise termes We haue ben taught by Gods bishop highest of al saith Eusebius Ergo The Priest hath auctoritie Require you the worde to offer Beholde here it is put expressely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 .i. offerre Cal you for the name of the Father Looke in Eusebius and you shal finde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as much to say vnto God that is ouer al. there haue you the Father of Christe plainely yenough expressed onlesse you denie that the Father of Iesus Christe is God ouer al. How be it we acknowledge this sacrifice to be offered not only vnto the Father but also vnto the Sonne in as much as he is God and vnto the holy Ghoste Now for Christe you haue here expressed the dreadful or honorable Sarifices of Christes table But you wil say I heare the dreadful sacrifices of Christes table but Christe him selfe I heare not Truth it is Christe him selfe to be offered you heare not in expresse termes but those termes which to our vnderstanding do import Christes body and bloud you heare and therfore Christ him selfe bicause of the vnioÌ„ of both persons For what other thing may we with any reason vnderstand by the dreadful Sacrifices of Christes table but the body and bloude of Christe What cause had Eusebius to make mention of Christes table Math. 26. but to put vs in mynd of that table Lucae 2â— wherevpon Christe at his last Supper consecrated and offered his pretious body and bloud 1. Cor. 11. saying this is my bodie which is geuen for you this is my bloude whiche is shed for you as the Scripture teacheth vs Wherevpon the bread Cyprian de coenae Domini that Christe gaue vnto his disciples changed not in shape but in nature by the omnipotencie of the worde is made flesh as S. Cyprian writeth Wherevpon is laid the lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the worlde Concil Nicen. Optatus lib. 6. Iren. lib. 5 as we finde it reported by the Fathers of the first Nicen Councel Wherevpon the vowes of the people and the members of Christ be borne as the Ancient Father Optatus speaketh From whence our flesh is nourrished with the bloude and body of Christe as S. Ireneus saith Chrysost. in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. From whence Christe hath geuen vs his flâ—sh to fil vs withal as S. Chrysostome preacheth But M. Iewel vnderstandeth by the Sacrifices of Christes table spoken of in Eusebius the Sacrifice of thankes geuing For whereas I say in my Answer that the Body and bloude of Christe are called of Eusebius the Sacrifices of Christes table bicause at the table in his last Supper he sacrificed and offered the same he controlleth me for so saying and skoreth it vp in the margent for his 222. Vntruth shewing this cause why For saith he Eusebius calleth it the sacrifice of thankes geuing M. Ievvel belyeth Eusebius wherein he deserueth an vntruth or rather a manifest lie to be scored vp vpon him selfe For neither nameth Eusebius a sacrifice in that place which he would if he had meant the sacrifice of thankes geuing but sacrifices in the plural number yea expressely the dreadful or honorable Sacrifices of Christes table neither nameth he there expressely the sacrifice of thankes geuing at al And neuer was it heard before that any olde or late learned catholike writer called thankes geuing indefinitely the dreadful Sacrifices of Christes table For to geue thankes it is not dredful neither is it peculiar to the mystical table but common in respect of al times places and seruices Certaine it is as it shal be euident to al that wil peruse that place of Eusebius that by the dreadful Sacrifices of Christes table he meant the body and bloud of Christe How be it he speaketh so thereof vsing the termes of memorie signes and tokens as it was most conuenient for that time when the Christians lyued among the Painimes and Infidels to whom those secretes were not to be reueled Math. 7. accordingly as Christe forebad a holy thing to be geuen to dogges and precious stones to be caste before swyne By which way of vtterance the olde learned Fathers intent was not to exclude the true presence of the most holy thinges but to coouer them from the vnworthy Painimes prophane vnderstanding and to insinuate vnto the beleuers the mystical and secret manner of their presense To returne to Eusebius In the later parte of his first booke De demonstratione Euangelica discoursing vpon the excellencie of the newe Testament in comparison of the olde hauing declared the figuratiue sacrifices of Moyses lawe to be abolished Three kindes of Sacrifices of the nevv Testament mencioned by Eusebius Euseb. li. 1 de demoÌ„strat and that lawe it selfe to haue his ende by the comming of Christe into flesh at length he speaketh of three kindes of Sacrifices of the new TestameÌ„t prouing ech one to haue ben forespoken of by the Prophetes They are the Sacrifice of the Crosse the Sacrifice of the Aulter and the mere spiritual Sacrifices The which we cal the Sacrifice of the Crosse he nameth the maruelous oblation and passing Sacrifice which Christe offered vnto his Father for the saluation of vs al. He termeth it also in respcte of the thing sacrificed the * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fleshly presence of Christ and his framed body that God fitted for him alluding to the woordes of the Psalme * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Corpus aptasti mihi thou ô God hast framed or fitted to me a bodye That which of vs is commonly called the Sacrifice of the Aulter Psal. 39. he calleth in respect of the action of offering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The memorie of this Sacrifice of the Crosse celebrated vpon a table He calleth it also in respect of the thing offered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Diuine honorable and holy Sacrifice And terming it also the pure Sacrifice alluding to the Prophecie of Malachie he saith that we sacrifice it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after a new manner according to the new Testament Which can not be vnderstand of any other then of the Sacrifices of the Aulter Furthermore in respect
of the body and bloude being two thinges that are offered he calleth it the Sacrifices of Christes table as now the Churche coÌ„monly calleth it the Sacrifice of the Aulter Touching the third kinde of sacrifices he nameth them first in general by the terme of vnbodyly and spiritual sacrifices Afterward particularly he calleth them the sacrifice of praise of praiers of lifting vp the haÌ„des of a contrite harte The sacrifice of thankes geuing by these very termes he nameth not In dede I confesse that where he saith we sacrifice the memorie of the great Sacrifice meaning that of the Crosse celebrating it according to the mysteries deliuered vnto vs by Christe There he saith further that we offer vp vnto God by godly hymnes and prayers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eucharistiam pro salute nostra the Euchariste for our saluation whiche peraduenture M. Iewel had rather to cal the thankes geuing for our saluation To shewe that the first and chiefe kinde of sacrifice was prophecied of in the time of the olde Testament he allegeth the Prophete Dauid Psal. 39. saying Oblationem sacrificium noluisti corpus autem aptasti mihi Oblation and sacrifice thou refusedst and had framed me a body For the sacrifices of the third kinde Psal. 49. he allegeth the knowen scriptures offer vnto God the sacrifice of praise and render vnto the highest thy vowes and cal vpon me in the day of â—ribulation Psal. 140. Psal. 50. and I wil deliuer thee Againe The lifâ—ing vp of my handes is an euening sacrifice Item A contrite spirite is a sacrifice to God c. In this order is to be placed the sacrifice of thankes geuing which M. Iewel strangely and absurdly auoucheth to be that whiche Eusebius calleth by the name of the Sacrifices of Christes table Now concerning the second kinde of Sacrifice The Sacrifices of Christes table vvhat they are that Eusebius speaketh of which is the sacrifice of th'Aulter or as the termeth it the dreadful Sacrifices of Christes table whiles he allegeth the prophecies of Dauid and of Esay for it he sheweth clearely that he meant not thereby the sacrifice of thankes principally or praise for the Sacrifice once made vpon the Crosse nor the Ministration of the holy Communion of which M. Iewel confusely expoundeth Eusebius but the holy Mysteries of Christes table to wit the Body and Blounde of Christe vnder the formes of bread and wine offered at the table in remembrance of Christes death Which I confesse neuer the lesse alwaies to be offered not without the Sacrifice of thankes and praise and with that Sacrifice we doo thanke and praise God most principally The saying of Dauid propheciyng of the Sacrifices of this table Psal. 22. as Eusebius allegeth is this Parasti in conspectu meomensam aduersus eos qui tribulant me Impinguasti in oleo caput meum calix tuus inebrians me quà m fortissimè Thou hast prepared before mine eyes a table against those that trouble me thou hast anointed my head with oile and thy Cuppe maketh me dronke after a most stroÌ„g wise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Expressely and manifestly in these wordes saith Eusebius is signified the mystical Chrisme or ointment and the dreadful or honorable Sacrifices of Christes table Verely this soueraigne praise that Dauid after the mynde of Eusebius geueth vnto the mystical Cuppe of our Lordes table can not seme to be attributed vnto the Cuppe of the Sacramentarie Suppers which conteineth in it no better thing then common wine It is the bloud of Christe not a suppe of common wine that doth moist and inebriate a man in that most strong wise wherof Dauid prophecied The Hebrew worde importing signification of great abundance maketh muche for this sense and quite contrary to the Sacramentarie doctrine From Dauid he goeth to Esay the Prophete alleging among other thinges a saying out of him signifiyng that the Lorde of bostes should do maruelous thinges in al nations What those thinges are the prophete declareth They shal haue pleasant drinke saith he they shal drinke wine They shal be annointed with an ointment in this hil Vpon these wordes of Esay thus saith Eusebius These maruelous thinges that Esay speaketh of did promise not to Israel but to al nations the annointing of a good sweete smelle and of ointmeÌ„tes by reason whereof bicause of the annointing of the ointment they obteined to be called Christians that is to say the annointed Then folow the wordes which declare what he meant by the Sacrifices of Christes table Furthermore saith he this prophete prophecieth vnto the Gentiles of the pleasantnes of wine secretly signifying the Mysterie of the new Testament of Christe which is manifestly celebrated at this time among al nations Thus Eusebius in that place expounding the prophecies of Dauid and of Esay promising the inebriating Cuppe and gifte of wine vnto the Gentiles of the blessed Sacrifice of Christes table which as it is called a table for that the heauenly foode is thence ministred vnto vs so it is called also an Aulter in respect of the oblation and Sacrifice there made and solemnized doth plainely signifie what he vnderstode by the Sacrifices of Christes table soothly not the sacrifice of thankes geuing principally which semeth to the vnlearned to consist onely in wordes but the Sacrifices of the body and bloude of Christe and consequently Christe him selfe And therfore that place of Eusebius is in my Answer to the Chalenge rightly and aptly to my purpose alleged as the whiche proueth against M. Iewel that the Priest hath auctoritie to offer vp Christe vnto his Father Yet if M. Iewel wil not ceasse to cal for his owne termes August Epist. 174. not being content with termes equiualent I thinke good to answer him as S. Augustine answered Pascentius the Arian crying importunatly for the terme Homusion to be shewed him in the Scriptures Quid est contentiosius quà m vbi de re constat certare de nomine What is a more contentious parte then to striue about the name when the thing it selfe is certainely knowen But now M. Iewel bringeth in S. Augustine Eusebius and S. Gregorie Nazianzen to witnesse with him that the ministration of the holy Communion is called a Sacrifice bicause therein thankes and Praises be offered vp vnto God for the Sacrifice made vpon the Crosse. To this I answer that these Fathers can not be shewed so much as once to haue named the Sacrifice of the Ministration of the Communion nor that this Ministration of the CommunioÌ„ is in any of their workes expressely called a Sacrifice He should haue done wel if he had made it cleare what he meaneth by this holy CommunioÌ„ and what by the Ministration of the same That the Ministration of the Communion is a Sacrifice I trowe it is a speache neuer heard of in the Churche of God before these Ministring prelates came to teache vs a new faith If he vnderstand by the holy Communion the new deuise of
many bookes and the worlde should sone drawe to a better quiet As for the two other testimonies alleged out of Eusebius and S. Gregorie Nazianzen they prooue not that for which they be alleged which is that the Ministration of the Communion is of them called a sacrifice wherby M. Iewel would exclude the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe For first as touching Nazianzen by what Logique maketh he this Argument good He calleth the holy Communion * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exemplar magnorum Mysteriorum the Figure or sampler of the great Mysteries Ergo the Ministration of the Communion is called a Sacrifice Verily in this Argument is neither reason nor good Logique What though Eusebius say thus being truly translated Christe after al the Sacrifices of Moses Lawe hauing sacrificed a maruelous sacrifice and a passing Hoste vnto his Father offred it vp for al our saluatioÌ„ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hauing deliuered vnto vs also a memorie to offer it vp continually vnto God * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a Sacrifice so it is to be translated not in stede of a Sacrifice as Maister Iewel hath turned it Wil he conclude of this that Eusebius calleth the Ministration of his Communion a Sacrifice No no his purpose was not so much to proue the ministration of their Communion to be called a sacrifice as to disproue the Sacrifice of the Aulter which Eusebius in my Answer alleged calleth in respect of Christes body and bloude offered in the same the Sacrifices of Christes table To that ende he semeth to haue alleged Eusebius A memorie of the Sacrifice of the Crosse excludeth not the Sacrifice of the Aulter bicause he nameth that which Christ deliuered vnto vs to offer vp daily vnto God a memorie As though Christes body and bloud could not be really present in these holy Mysteries if that which we doo be a memorie or coÌ„memoratioÌ„ of that which Christ did Yeas forsoth M. Iewel The Sacrifice that we offer when we doo that which Christ at his last Supper coÌ„mauÌ„ded vs to do is the memorie of the body and bloud of Christ and in respect of the thing offered and sacrificed the very and true body and bloud of Christ it self And this is accordiÌ„g to the doctrine of S. Augustin Aug. cont Faust. lib. 20. cap. â—â— who saith as is afore rehersed The Christians do celebrate the memorie of the Sacrifice of the Crosse now performed which Eusebius in respect of the thing offered calleth the maruelous Sacrifice and passing hoste with the holy Oblation and Participation of the body and bloude of Christe If they doo it with the Oblation and participation of the body and bloude of Christe then is the body and bloud of Christe present then is it offered and participated which Eusebius for that cause calleth theâ— Sacrifices of Christes Table Eusebius also saith M. Iewel calleth this a Sacrifice of praise In deee as I declared before Eusebius speaketh of diuers Sacrifices Of the Sacrifice of the Crosse of the sacrifices of the table of Christ of the Sacrifice of praise of prayers of a contrite harte And what if he speake of the Sacrifice of praise wil it thereof folow M. Iewel by your new Logique that the Sacrifices of Christes table be not taken in Eusebius for the body and bloude of Christ And I pray you may not the selfe same in one respect be a Sacrifice of Praise M. Iewels common custom to disproue one truth by an other truth and also in an other respect the Sacrifice of Christes body and bloud When wil you leaue your common woont to disproue one truth by an other truth If one should say vnto you concerning a sorte of your Ministers standing before you at a visitatioÌ„ Sir these felowes be no Ministers of Gods worde and holy SacrameÌ„tes for they be handy Craftesmen would you not answer him Sir your reason is naught for they be Ministers and honest Craftesmen both No better is your reason where you say This Sacrifice is a Sacrifice of Praise and of thankes geuing or it is a memorie and a sampler of the bloudy Sacrifice ergo it is not the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe it is not a true and a very Sacrifice For there is no inconuenience in attributing these names and termes vnto the most blessed Sacrament and Sacrifice of the Aulter diuers respectes being considered A plaine testimonie for the Sacrifice of the Aulter But M. Iewel how happed it that where you founde in Eusebius Sacrificium laudis the Sacrifice of Praise the Greeke whereof also you would needes to be noted in the margent of your booke though with addition of an article more then is in the Doctour you saw not among the manifold sacrifices there reckened this Sacrifice so expressely set foorth and coÌ„mended with these wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb. lib. 1. de Demonst in fine That is to say we sacrifice the diuine and honorable and most holy Sacrifice We sacrifice the pure Sacrifice after a new manner according to the newe Testament By which description that which we cal the Sacrifice of the Aulter is plainely signified Againe how could you not see the manifest mention of the Aulter A testimonie for material Aulters whereon this Sacrifice is offred there a litle before expressed And least you might auoide the force of that cleare testimonie by expounding it of the spiritual Aulter of mans harte remember that he speaketh of such an Aulter as might not by Moses lawe be set vp but onely in Iewrie and that as there he saith in one only Citie of that Prouince As for the spiritual Aulters of mens hartes Moses Lawe did neuer forbid An Aulter saith Eusebius of vnbloudy and reasonable sacrifices 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is now erected according to the new Mysteries of the new Testament ouer al the worlde both in Egypte and in other nations c. What can be vnderstanded by this Aulter builded in witnesse of the abrogation of Moses Lawe of his Aulter at Hierusalem and of his vncleane Sacrifices as there Eusebius discourseth and that according to the new Mysteries of the newe Testament but the external Aulter of the Church whereupon the body and bloud of Christe In Apologetico in forme of bread and wine the external Sacriâ—fice as S. Gregorie Nazianzen calleth it is offered and the most holy and dreadful Mysteries are celebrated Hath Satan the enemie of this Sacrifice so blinded your harte with malice against the same that you saw the sacrifice of Praise of Praiers and other mere spiritual Sacrifices and this most Diuine most high and most special Sacrifice of the Churche could not see so euidently and with so expresse colours set forth in the same place What can be said in your excuse Either you saw this much in Eusebius your selfe or you trusted your Greeke frende of Oxford whose helpe for the fuller stuffing of your great
thinges and intreate them to absteine from others But louers shewe this their desire in money in garmentes in possessions in his owne bloude no man euer shewed it Figure only excluded To proue that Christe loueth vs more then euer any man loued an other he saith that he geueth vs his owne bloude Which in this place of S. Chrysostome can in no wise be expounded of the Figure and token of his bloude For worldly louers geue vnto their beloued as much and as good a thing as that namely money garmentes their possessions As for a token or signe of their bloude or of their persons it were easy for them to geue But Christ saith he sheweth his loue toward vs by that whereby no man euer shewed his loue to an other If the onely token of bloude might at any time haue declared so certaine and assured loue louers would oftentimes haue spared their money their garmentes and their possessions and would haue geuen vnto their dere beloued the figure of their bloude or of their whole persons Thus is the true and real presence of Christes bloud and consequently of his flesh prooued by witnesse of S. Chysostome And by the same is that prooued which we cal the real Sacrifice of the Church For by that we say Christe to be really offered vp vnto his Father we meane none other thing but that the substance which we offer and sacrifice is the real body and bloude of Christe This much therefore may stande for answer to M. Iewels Reply in this place Christe in the Sacrifices of the olde Lawe was so offred in a Figure as he was not the substance of them In the Supper he was and in the Masse he is so offered as he is the substance present And bicause this real Sacrifice of Christe being the Sacrifice of the New Testament and the worthinesse of it is much impugned by the enemies of the Churche in our time yea villanously mocked skoffed and railed at by Antichristes wicked broode Reasons vvhereby the Catholikes may be armed agaiÌ„st the SacrameÌ„taries for defense of this Sacrifice the godly Catholiques may by these reasons be sufficiently armed against them If it were necessary for the people of the olde Lawe to haue real sacrifices to protest and to mainteine their beleefe in Christes Death to come why is it not as necessary that the faithful people of the Newe Lawe haue also a real Sacrifice to protest and keepe in memorie their beleefe in Christes Death already past Againe as the newe Lawe is better and excellenter then the olde so is it necessary it haue a better and excellenter Sacrifice But if we take away the Sacrifice of the Reall flesh and bloude of Christe and leaue onely bread end wine to be offred vp in a figure or mysterie then haue we not a Sacrifice proper vnto the new Law that in worthinesse passeth and excelleth the Sacrifices of the olde Lawe as the which consisted of as good a substance as the other and signified as good a thing as the other and expressed it by slaughter and shedding of pure and innocent beastes bloude more liuely then the other Contrarywise let the real body and bloude of Christe be the substanee of the Sacrifice of the new Law as the truth teacheth saying Lucae 22. this is my body which is geueÌ„ for you this is my bloud which is shed for you Math 26 c. and the Church beleueth then doth it infinitely excel al the Sacrifices offered in the Lawe of Nature or in the Lawe written And then shal the New Lawe as in greatenesse of graces and promises and plainenesse of Scripture so surmount and passe also the olde Lawe in Maiestie of the Sacrifice and of Priesthode which haue euer in al Lawes ben accompted the two principal pointes of the same To be shorte how can it be conceiued that our Sacrifice should be but a figure a signe or a mysterie onely and no true and real Sacrifice better then the olde sacrifices sith that by the teaching of al the auncient learned Fathers it is the truth and perfourmance of al the olde sacrifices Hauing said this much for the real offering of Christe let vs now examine M. Iewels argument Examination of M. Iuels Argument As Christe was slaine at the Table saith he so was he sacrificed at the Table But he was not slaine at the Table verely and in dede but onely in a Mysterie Therefore he was not sacrificed at the Table really and in deede but onely in a Mysterie Christe was then and is now also at the holy Table both really sacrificed in respect of his real and true body and bloude by vertue of the Worde made present and also in a Mysterie in respect of the outward formes of bread and wine vnder which they are present and of the mystical manner of sacrificing This being true as before we haue declared and therefore the Conclusion being false let vs see which of the Premisses of M. Iewels Argument is false It is the Maior or first Proposition If the same be resolued into the partes whereof it consisteth the vntruth wil soone appeare The first parte is this Christe was slaine at the Table That is false The second is this Christe was sacrificed at the Table That is true So that one parte is false and the other true And so by this trial which is the surest way to trie such kinde of Propositions the whole Proposition in it selfe is found false and therefore the Conclusion foloweth not For the better euidence of the thing it selfe we most gladly acknowledge and protest to the worlde that Christe was really and in deede slaine and put to death once for euer and neuer shal againe suffer the paines of Death Yet neuerthelesse he is and shal to the worldes ende continue the real and true Sacrifice of the newe Testament according to his owne merciful Institution at his last Supper As for the lacke of any slaying and shedding of bloude it is no cause at al why it was not at the Supper is not now or may not be a true and real Sacrifice For it is sufficient that is was once offered vp with slaying and bloudeshedding to pay the raunsom of our synnes He did then and we de now offer the same body and bloude in consideration and remembrance of that slaying and shedding He offered at the Supper his body and bloud that on the morow was to be slaine and shed we at the Aulter do stil offer that body and bloude that was slaine and shed euen the same selfe body and bloude in number For as Theophylacte folowing S. Chrysostome saith Theophylact in â—0 c. ad Heb. Eundem semper offerimus Imò potius memoriam illius oblationis qua seipâ— sum obtulit facimus ceu nunc iam facta sit we offer vp alwaies the selfe same Christe or rather we kepe the memorie of that oblation whereby he offered him selfe as though it were
God for vs. Nowe as this Oblation and Sacrifice of Christe endureth in Heauen continually for as much as he is risen from the dead and ascended into heauen with that Bodie which be gaue to Thomas to feele bringing in thither his Bloude as Hesychius saith Lib. 1. c. 4. and bearing the markes of his woundes and there appeareth before the face of God with that Thorneprickte Naileboared Spearepearsed and otherwise wounded rent and torne Body for vs wherby we vnderstand the vertue of his Oblation on the Crosse euer enduringe not the Oblation it selfe with renewing of paine and sufferaÌ„ce continued so we do perpetually celebrate this Oblation and Sacrifice of Christes very body and bloud in the Masse in remembraunce of him coÌ„maunded so to do vntil his comminge Wherein our Aduersaries so foolishely as wickedly scoffe at vs as though we sacrificed Christe againe so as he was Sacrificed on the Crosse that is in Bloudy manner But we doo not so Offer or Sacrifice Christe againe but that Oblation of him in the Supper and ours in the Masse is but one Oblation the same Sacrifice for this cause by his Diuine ordinaunce leaft vnto vs that as the OblatioÌ„ once made on the Crosse continually endureth and appeareth before the face of God in Heauen for our behalfe continued not by new suffering but by perpetual intercession for vs So the memorie of it may euer vntil his second comming be kept amongest vs also in earth and that thereby we may apply and bring vnto vs through Faith the great benefits which by that one Oblation of him selfe on the Crosse he hath for vs procured and daily doth procure Iewel At the same very instaÌ„t of time saith M. Harding when Christ was sacrificed vpon the Crosse he offered vp him self also in Heauen in the sight of his heauenly Father VVhich thing he enlargeth Rhetorically vvith a Tragical Description of a Thorneprickte Naileboared Spearepearsed and otherwise rente and Torne Body And this saith he is a necessary point of ChristiaÌ„ doctrine And that he auoucheth constantly albeit vvithout the vvorde or vvitnesse of any Ancient vvriter only vpon his ovvne credit VVhereof also grovveth some suspicion that his Stoare of olde Recordes is not so plenteous as it is supposed But vvhere he saith Christ was thus Inuisibly sacrificed in Heauen I marueile he saith not likevvise that Pilate Annas Caiphas the Souldiers and the tourmentours vvere likevvise in Heauen to make this Sacrifice For vvithout this Companie Christes Bloude vvas not shead And without Sheadding of Bloude S. Paule saith There is no Sacrifice for Remission of Sinne. This Fable is so vaine that I beleeue M. Harding him selfe is not vvel hable to expounde his ovvne meaning Origen saith There vvere some in his time that thought That as Christ was Crucified in this worlde for the liuing so he should afterwarde suffer Origen in epist. ad Rom. lib. 5. cap. 6. and be Crucified in the worlde to come for the deade But that Christ vvas thus Thorneprickte Naileboarde Spearepearsed and Crucified in HeaueÌ„ I thinke noman euer savv or said but M. Hardinge The Apostles the Euangelistes the Olde Doctours and Ancient Fathers neuer knevv it S. Paule saith Semel seipsum obtulit Once he offered vp him selfe Heb. 7. Heb. 9. Semel introiuit in Sancta Once he entred into the holy place And therefore hanging vpon the Crosse and yelding vp the Ghost he said Consummatum est It is finished This Sacrifice is perfitely vvrought for euer This onely Sacrifice of Christ the Sonne of God the Scriptures acknovvlege and none other Harding In this Diuision M. Iewels Replie conteineth litle that is worthy to be answered Yet least more substance of mater should be thought to be in it then is in deede with some fewe woordes the vanitie of it is to be detected The contentes of M. Iewels Replie in the 7. Diâ—uision First he skoffeth at an absurditie of his owne Deuise by his false reporte attributed to me as though I had vttered it Secondly he affirmeth that noman denied which is altogether impertinent that Christes Sacrifice vppon the Crosse remaineth stil in force Thirdly he findeth fault with an Auncient Prayer vsed to be said in the Masse Fourthly he goeth about by a fonde reason to shewe the Sacrifice of the Aulter not to be the same that was offered vpon the Crosse. For answer to his first parte I desire no more but that the wordes of my booke be circumspectly reade ouer and considered Which done I doubt not but the reader shal easily espie the lightnesse of his Replie and the vanitie of his skoffes For proufe that our Sauiour Christe appeareth in heauen before the face of his Father with his rent and torne body for vs partely in my Answer I touched a testimony taken out of Hesychius as there it is to be sene and harde it was not other testimonies to haue brought If I wist that would satisfie him and bring him to recant and returne vnto the catholique faith I would gladly proue that point with some good number of the olde Learned Fathers That Christe appeaâ—reth before the Father in heauen vvith his wounded body But doubting much thereof I thinke in a mater so generally beleued and confessed a fewe testimonies may suffice First Hesychius saith thus Cicatrices portans Passionum à mortuis resurrexit vnde suum corpus palpandum Thomae praebuit atque ita in caelos ascendit Christe rose againe from the dead bearing with him the skarres of his stripes and woundes Hesychius in Leuit. lib. 1. c. 4. For so he offered his owne body to Thomas to feele it and so he ascended into heauen Nexte S. Cyprians wordes be plaine CypriaÌ„ de baptismo Christi Semper reseruatae in corpore plagae salutis humanae exigunt precium obedientiae donatiuum requirunt The woundes reserued styl in Christes body doo demaunde the paiment of Mannes saluation and require the rewarde of his obedience Now what were the woundes that Christe receiued in his body at the time when he suffered his Passion but the prickinges of the Thornes the boaringes of the Nailes and the pearsing of the Souldiours speare If these woundes be reserued alwaies in his body and claime for paiment to be made which paiment is the saluation of Mankinde as S. Cyprian saith why maketh M. Iewel so much a doo for that I said that Christe appeareth continually before the face of God with that thorneprickte naileboared spearepearsed and otherwise wounded rent and torne body for vs And whereas he calleth this a Rhetorical enlarging of the thing with a Tragical description if it were so what euil is therein committed Do not the best learned Fathers oftentimes to moue deuotion and compassion vse Rhetorical amplifications and much more vehement speaches Doth not S. Cyprian in the place aboue mentioned tell vs of certaine wordes quae emolliunt animum accenduntque deuotionis affectum which doo soften and supple our
Nec Sacerdotij eius paenituit Deum quoniam Sacrificium quod in Cruce obtulit sic in beneplacito Dei constat acceptabile perpetua virtute consistit vt non minus hodiè in conspectu Patris Oblatio illa sit efficax quà m ea die qua de saucio latere Sanguis Aqua exiuit semper reseruatae in Corpore plagae salutis Humanae exigant pretium It neuer repented God of Christes Priesthoode For the Sacrifice that he offered vpon the Crosse is so acceptable in the good wil of God and so standeth in continual strength and Vertue that the same Oblation is no lesse acceptable this daie in the sight of God the Father then it was that day when Bloud and VVater ranne out of his VVounded side The Skarres reserued stil in his Bodie doo weighe the price of the Saluation of man Harding Now commeth M. Iewel to proue that no man denied That the Sacrifice of Christe vpon he Crosse continueth stil in force and effectual as the Prayers that he once made and the doctrine that he once taught remaine effectual as at the first Al this is true M. Iewel but how pertaineth it to your purpose Wil you thereof conclude against vs and thus reason against the vnbloudy Sacrifice The vnbloudy Sacrifice continueth alwaies in force Ergo the vnbloudy Sacrifice is superfluous That is acceptable in the sight of God Ergo this is vnacceptable and displeasant If this be not your Argument why said you so much for that which euery faithful man confesseth If this be your Argument we require you to learne your Logique better before you teache vs newe Diuinitie For whereas there be two thinges true it is a fonde kinde of reasoning to conclude the denial of the one by the affirmation of the other as I must tel you oftentimes This much we confesse also that onlesse the Sacrifice whereof we speake were one and the same in substance of the thing offered with the Sacrifice made vpon the Crosse though the manner of offering be diuers it were superfluous and to God displeasant For the newe Testament acknowledgeth nor accepteth none other real and external Sacrifice but the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe which hath succeded as S. Augustine August de ciuitate Dei li. 17. cap. 20. and al the learned Fathers with one consent do confesse in place of al the olde Sacrifices Yet you wil replie and say If that Sacrifice vpon the Crosse be styl effectual and continue in force for euer what neede is there of this Sacrifice daily made vpon the Aulter Concerning this Replie euery man shal easily satisfie him selfe if he wil consider it in a like case Christe once prayed and that prayer is effectual to this day and shal be to the worldes ende Neuerthelesse we must pray also if we wil be partakers of his prayer Christe wasshed away the sinnes of the worlde with the bloude that was shed out of his body at his Passion Notwitstanding we must if we wil be saued be baptised that we be made cleane from Original sinne and from Actual too if we haue committed any before our Baptisme Hebr. 10. Christe hath for euer perfited them that be sanctified with one oblation 2. Cor. 7. Yet S. Paules counsel is vt emundemus nos ab omni inquinamento carnis spiritus perficientes sanctificationem in timore Dei That we cleanse our selues from al filth of flesh and spirite perfiting our sanctification in the feare of God Here is special mention made of two perfitinges of our sanctification the one belonging to Christe the other to our selues If Christe doo perfite what neede we to perfite For the better assoiling of this doubte let vs cal to mynde what S. Paule writeth in his Epistle to the Corinthians saying 1. Cor. 3. Dei sumus adiutores We are the helpers of God What wil some say hath God neede of helpers Yea truly His goodnes is suche that he vouchesaueth to take vs to be his helpers not for any defecte or vnhablenesse that is in him but bicause he would haue vs to be occupied in his seruice and not to be idel And therfore he hath appointed certaine meanes and instrumentes to practise vs withal as Faith Baptisme Penance Fasting Prayer Almose and specially a Sacrifice wherein we may concurre with him not in the chiefe first and general cause which alone hath wrought and daily worketh but as liuely instrumentes to deriue vnto our selues the effecte of that chiefe first and general cause that as he generally hath deserued and purchased a most ful and perfite saluation for al the worlde which in it selfe can not be increased bicause it is perfite ne can not be diminished bicause it is infinite so we ech of vs by his grace vsing and putting in practise the meanes that he hath appointed may be made comparteners of the same saluation which otherwise can not be auaileable vnto vs. It should be ouer longe and beside my purpose to stande about the prouing that Baptisme Penaunce Prayer Fasting Almose ioyned with Faith that worketh through Charitie That thiâ— Sacrifice is a meane to deriue thâ— effecte of Christes death vnto vs. be meanes to deriue vnto vs the effect of Christes death It shal suffise to prooue the Sacrifice of Christes body and bloud vpon the Aulter to be one of those meanes This truth is prooued not onely by that which I haue before alleged out of S. Gregorie who saith that as ofte as we offer vp vnto him the hoste of his Passion so ofte we renew vnto our selues his Passion for our absolution Gregor Hom. 37. but also by that which S. Augustine writeth in a Prayer which is to be founde in a treatise of deuoute Prayers intituled Manuale August in Manuali cap. â—1 Where asking of God a contrite harte and a fountaine of teares specially at the time when he prayeth he saith thus Dum sacris Altaribus licet indignus assisto cupiens tibi offerre illud mirabile coeleste Sacrificium omni reuerentia deuotione dignum quod tu Domine Deus meus sacerdos immaculate instituisti offerre praecepisti in commemorationem tuae charitatis mortis scilicet Passionis pro salute nostra pro quotidiana nostrae fragilitatis reparatione Geue me I besech thee ô Christe Iesu contrition of harte c. Whiles I although vnworthy doo stande at the holy Aulters desirous to offer vp vnto thee that maruelous and heauenly Sacrifice worthy of al reuerence and deuotion which thou Lorde my God vnspotted Priest didst institute Luc. 22. and commaundedst to offer vp for a remembrance of thy charitie that is to say of thy death and passion for our saluation and for the daily repairing of our frailtie Nowe whereas this Sacrifice offered vp for the remembraunce of Christes death is here said to be profitable to saue vs and to repaire our daily ruines happening vnto vs through our frailtie
in what other sense can it be true but bicause thereby as by a soueraigne meane appointed by Christe some particular effecte of that general and infinite saluation and reparation made vpon the Crosse is applied vnto our sicke and much decayed soules And thus it is declared although not so largely as the worthinesse of the mater requireth how the Sacrifice of the Aulter is auaialeble and requisite although the Sacrifice made vpon the Crosse remaine stil in ful force effectual and perfite and endure for euer Iewel But M. Harding condemneth vs al for Foolishe and VVicked people For Foolishe I knovv not vvhy Neither is it thought a vvise-mannes parte either greatly to mislike other mennes vvittes or ouermuche to like his ovvne Hovv be it vvho so speaketh as neuer vvise-man spake and yet him selfe vnderstandeth not vvhat he speaketh as in this case it is thought M. Harding doth hath no greate cause in this behalfe to charge others vvith folie Harding M. Iewel is much offended for that I said our aduersaries no lesse foolishly then wickedly skoffe at vs us though when we celebrate the vnbloudy Sacrifice we sacrificed Christe againe so as he was sacrificed vpon the Crosse. But why should you herewith be offended good sir Is it not a foolish thing to tel vs as ye do that we shed the bloud of Christe and doo such violence vnto him at the Aulter as the Souldiours did at the Crosse Though ye be so malicious as to speake it yet is there any man so simple as to beleeue it Who thus speaketh I trowe he speaketh as foolishly as he that goeth about to make one beleeue the Moone is made of greene cheese As that is a foolish persuasion so is this nolesse foolish but more malicious This notwithstanking why I should cal them foolish M. Iewel seeth no cause And no maruel For a rare thing it is to heare of a foole that wil acknowledge him selfe to be a foole or to doo foolishly How be it wheras M. Iewel and his Companions do cal in question and disputation whether many thinges as wel touching this vnbloudy Oblation of the Churche as other pointes be to be done of our parte which though not expressely written yet deliuered from hand to hand be obserued through out the whole worlde and therefore are presupposed to be reteined as commended and decreed either by the Apostles them selues or by General Councels whose auctoritie in the Churche is most holesome August ad IanuariuÌ„ Epist. 118. for this cause Saint Augustine condemneth them not of bare folie but of most insolent madnes Thus to doo is a point insolentissimae insaniae of most insolent madnes saith he If then this be S. Augustines verdite of them for doubting and reasoning of such things that be not expressely written in the Scripture but be receiued by custome by what name deserueth M. Iewel to be called who flatly denieth and with tongue penne and outwarde force of punishmentes withstandeth the Sacrifice of the Churche offered and instituted by Christe described in the Gospel Math. 26. auouched of the olde learned Fathers frequented Luc. 22. through out the whole Catholike Church of al ages 1 Cor. 11. and countries Neither hath M. Iewel sufficient reason to conclude that either I ouermuch like myne owne witte or mislike his witte and his felowes bicause I said they skossed foolishly and wickedly at vs touching this point He and they may haue witte ynough and yet for lacke of grace doo ful foolishly Esai 6. We reade in the Scriptures of some who haue eyes Math. 13. yet see not eares yet heare not hartes yet vnderstand not So there be that haue witte yet many times do not wisely but so as it may be said of them that fooles haue it in keeping You haue witte ynough M. Iewel I denie not ne enuye not the praise of it would God a good man had the occupying of it Whereas I charged our Aduersaries with folie and wickednesse in that they skoffe at vs as though we sacrificed Christe againe with violent drawing of bloude out of his body as he was sacrificed vpon the Crosse M. Iewel vnderstanding him selfe therein touched hath ful wisely put away from him the blemish of folie as now it is declared It remaineth he purge him selfe and his felowes of the crime of wickednesse The same now he goeth about to doo But how and with what reason it is worth the consideration Iewel Of the other side vvhat so euer Mortal man presumeth to offer vp Christe in Sacrifice and dareth to desire God the Father so fauourably to beholde his ovvne onely Sonne as in olde times he behelde the Oblation of Abel or of Melchisedek and is not afraide therevvith to beguile the simple and to mocke the vvorlde as M. Harding doth daily at his Masse he can not vvel excuse him selfe of open vvickednesse Harding To auoide the crime of wickednesse he againe falsly accuseth me and in my person the whole Catholique Churche of the same faulte as if a theefe being burthened with fellonie by some true man would thinke him selfe vnburthened of that infamie by charging the true man with thefte on the other side And what is this greate wickednesse that he layeth vnto our charge Forsooth bicause being mortal men we offer vp Christe in Sacrifice and dare to desire God the Father pronouncing the auncient Prayer of the Churche in the Canon of the Masse fauourably to beholde our oblation and to accepte it as he vouchesaued to accepte the giftes of Abel the Sacrifice of Abraham and that which Melchisedech offered For so we doo and not altogether as M. Iewel reporteth This is that whereof he saith we beguile the simple and mocke the worlde This is sufficiently answered before For vs to offer vp to God the body and bloude of Christe as executing thereby the plaine commaundement of Christe who at his laste Supper hauing consecrated his body and bloude said Luc. 22. Doo ye this is in my Remembrance is neither to beguile the simple nor to mocke the worlde If we did it not we should by not doing that we are commaunded to doo beguile the worlde and defraude Gods people of the most heauenly and pretious tresoure that our Lorde lefte vnto his Churche And as touching the Prayer we are taught to make vnto God A defence of the prayer vâ—sed to be said in the holy Canon of the Masse wherein we humbly besech him to accept our oblation of his Sonnes body and bloude as he accepted the sacrifices of Abel Abraham and Melchisedech therin is no doubte made but God the Father is best pleased with his onely and most dere Sonne Christe Iesus The feare of our on worthinesse moueth vs so to pray least that although the thing offered of it selfe be most acceptable yet the Father through our greuous synnes displeased with vs wil not admit and accept that most acceptable Sacrifice to our saluation but rather to our
Dionysius had put such a difference as you imagin wil it necessarily folowe that in the place alleged in my Answer he maketh not mention of offering Christe vnto his Father This kinde of reason in any mater is faulty but in this mater it is most faulty For albeit the manner of the oblatiō or Sacrifice made vpon the Crosse be diuers from that which Christe made at his Supper and is now continued by the Priestes in the Masse yet the thing it selfe offred and substance is al one in both Sacrifices In epistol ad Hebr. Hom. 17. as it hath ben clearely proued before by testimonie of S. Chrysostom and others So that the shewing of some difference betwene them doth not exclude the thing or substance of either of them nor concludeth them so to be diuers but the one may wel stande with the other Touching the mater of the former Argument it is euidently false For S. Dionyse in that place treateth not of difference betwene this and that Sacrifice as you M. Iewel would haue him appeare to doo by wilful falsifying of the place by putting in woordes of your owne and by clipping away wordes of that holy Doctour These be S. Dionyses wordes Dionys. eccles Hierarc Cap. 3. p. 3. as they lye in the Greeke faithfully englished Wherefore the Diuine Bishop standing at the Diuine Aulter doth praise the said holy and godly actions of IESVS for his heauenly prouidence towardes vs whiche actions he according to the Scripture perfited for the saluation of Mankinde through the good pleasure of his most holy Father in the Holy Ghoste And after that he hath ended the praises and beholden the reuerent and spiritual contemplation of those thinges with the eyes of vnderstanding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he commeth vnto the Mystical Sacrifice of them and that according to Gods tradition By Gods tradition he meaneth that which Christe taught his Disciples at the Supper how and after what manner Luc. 22. they should offer this Sacrifice in remembrance of his death Now gentle Reader conferre this testimonie of S. Dionyse and M. Iewels falsified allegation together Note first that the Bisshop or Priest is said to stand at the holy Aulter Aulter That clause M. Iewel hath quite cutte of And by the way consider to what purpose serueth an Aulther M. Ievvel falsifieth S Dionyse onlesse there be a Real and outwarde Sacrifice to be made Nexte that there is no mention at al made of the flesh or Crosse of Christe which termes he hath patched in of his owne Thirdly the good pleasure of the Father and holy Ghoste is leafte out To be shorte whereas the praises be rendred not onely for Christes passion wrought in his flesh vpon the Crosse albe it◠specially for that but also for the doinges of his whole life as for his birth his fasting his praying his preaching and the reste he to make his fained differēce to appeare hath drawen them vnto the thinges onely wrought by Christe vpon the Crosse. Such a licentious priuilege this man taketh vnto him selfe to pare and hew lesse and to enlarge at his owne pleasure the saynges of the most auncient and learned Fathers Againe whereas the Greeke hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for which the Latine translation vseth this circumlocution sacra mysteria in signis celebranda the holy Mysteries that are to be celebrated in or vnder signes he translateth it by the basest worde that he coulde inuent of that signification calling it Figuratiue sacrifice craftily intending to bring into the Readers mynde and conceit thereby that this Sacrifice wherein after praises in manner for al the actions of Christes life the body and bloude of Christe are offred vp should appeare to be no better then a bare figure or then the figuratiue sacrifices of the olde lawe The premisses considered what man but M. Iewel would haue presumed to set abroad to the worlde in printe a sentence of an olde writer so hewed and hackled so bodged and peeced so corruptly translated And who but he could espie in that saying any cleare and plaine difference betwen the Sacrifice of the Crosse and the Sacrifice of the Aulter which guilefully he calleth the Sacrifice of the holy Communion such a one as he impudently auoucheth to be But here S. Dionyse saith he calleth not the Ministration of the holy Mysteries the sacrificing of Christe I graunt How could he so cal it here that is to say in this your falsified sentence which S. Dionyse neuer vttered And sir what if S. Dionyse do not so cal it What maketh that to the point that presently we treate of Mine endeuour was not to shewe that S. Dionyse calleth the Ministration of the Mysteries the sacrificing of Christe but that in deede he sacrificed the body and bloude of Christe and consequently Christe him selfe And bicause it semed to him very much a mortal man to offer vp the body and bloude of his Lorde reuerently and in seemely wise he maketh his excuse saying Lorde thou hast said Doo ye this in my remembrance As who should say Lorde hadst thou not by thine expresse worde commaunded vs so to doo I would not be so bolde as to take that vpon me which so farre passeth my worthinesse Hunt not after wordes and syllables M. Iewel When ye haue the thing it selfe whereof ye contende what a vaine wrangling is it to require certaine precise termes So when somtimes we bring you forth your owne very wordes then you make a brabbling about the meaning These be the poore shiftes of such as being ouercomme that by the confession of their silence they might not seme ouercomme wil not holde their peace This is that S. Augustine reproued in Pascentius the Arian whereof you were tolde before August epist. 174. What is a more contentious parte saith he then to striue about the name of Homusion he meaneth where the thing it selfe is certainely knowen What can you demaunde more Haue you not here a manifest witnesse of sacrificing the healthful Sacrifice which S. Dionyse acknowlegeth to be aboue his degree and worthinesse What other is that then the body and bloude of Christe What is to be accompted healthful in comparison of that which is as S. Augustine calleth it August Confess lib. 9. ca. 12. the Sacrifice of our Raunsom That is to say of that thing whereby we haue ben bought from the Deuil from hel and euerlasting damnation If you say this saying is to be expounded of the sacrifice of praise and thankes geuing tel vs who euer gaue the title of so soueraine honour vnto such kinde of Sacrifice Though it be our duetie and also healthful for vs to offer vp the sacrifice of praise and thankes yet who euer called it hostiam salutarem the healthful hoste The sacrifice of praise here I meane as it is our owne spiritual worke for otherwise I confesse the blessed Sacrifice it selfe of the body and bloude of Christe is also
shal be taken for good then haue the Arians ouercomme For if the Churche shal be driuen to shewe letters syllables and termes neither can we finde the CoÌ„substantialitie of the Sonne of God with the Father nor the Procession of the holy Ghoste from the Father and the Sonne nor certaine other great pointes of our Faith which notwithstanding being reueled to the Churche by the holy Ghoste the spirite of truth and declared by the expositions of the holy Fathers we are bounde to beleue vnder paine of eternal damnation Knowing your selfe ouerborne with the force of this plaine testimonie of S. Irenaeus craftily you dissemble it and keepe your selfe a loofe of from rehersing the wordes pretending thereby that he neuer said so as I haue reported him But let the booke be vewed and it shal be founde wil you nil you that I haue truly alleged him M. Ievvel forgeth sayinges of his ovvne head and reporteth them for the sayinâ—ges of S. Ireneus You on the other side to conueigh the whole point to Malachie the Prophete where you thought rather to haue some colour of aduantage come in with a forged saying of your owne and setting it forth in the lettre that you caused the Doctours sayinges to be printed in you ascribe it vnto S. Irenaeus whereas the sentence which here you haue inserted pretending for credit your solemne warrant with these woordes Thus onely he saith is not in S. Irenaeus You should haue tolde vs M. Ievvel diuerteth from the testimonie wher vvith he is vrged and entreth into an other mater and with good authoritie haue prooued it what other thing can be vnderstanded by the newe Oblation of the newe Testament whereof S. Irenaeus speaketh but the Oblation of that which Christ said to be his body and confessed to be his bloude To this you make no directe Answer but slily carye away the reader vnto the saying of Malachie whereof I haue treated before I vrge you with S. Irenaeus and you shooting wide of the marke make answer to the place of Malachie whose saying is not in this place principally obiected but brought in by the way as it were by Saint Irenaeus interpretinge the pure Sacrifice by him mentioned of the Newe Oblation of the Newe Testament The olde learned Fathers you say neuer vnderstoode so much So much What so muche meane you That the Oblation of Christes body and Bloud is the new Oblation of the New Testament Irenaeus li. 4. cap. 23. which Christ taught his Disciples which the Church receiued of the Apostles and now offereth vp vnto God through the whole wrrlde as S. Irenaeus saith Did the Fathers neuer vnderstand this much What say you then to S. Irenaeus who vnderstoode so much as by his wordes it is cleare What is this but to set the holy Fathers at variance with S. Irenaeus Yet you wil needes seme to vnderstande the Sacrifice that Malachie spake of of Preaching of a Contrite hart of Prayer of Praise and thankesgeuing For credite hereof you allege TertulliaÌ„ S. Hierom and S. Augustin Wel what if it be so What answer is that to S. Irenaeus As for the place of Malachie as I said before it is past and answered Certainly it can not be vnderstanded of the purenes of mans hart for of lacke therof he complaineth not but of polluted sacrifices Againe the purenes of mans harte commonly is not so great as therfore the name of God should so much be magnified And the same was in many Iewes then no lesse then it is in the ChristiaÌ„s now To that you bringe out of Tertullian and S. Hierome concerning what is meante by the Pure Sacrifice in Malachie you haue myne answer before in the thirde Diuision In the .3 Diuision fol. â—0 b. deinceps What you bringe here you brought the same before Sparing my labour inke and paper I remitte the Reader vnto that place where he shal finde you to haue but a weake aide of Tertullian and shamefully to haue falsified S. Hierome as becommeth such false shifters to doo To prooue that Malachie by the pure Sacrifice meant not the Sacrifice of the Aulter you bringe in S. Martialis ad Burdegalenses whom you cal one of myne owne newe founde Doctours If you contemne him why doo you allege him Wil you shunne his auctoritie and yet craue helpe of him If I would vse your owne Rhetorique here might I say what toole is so bad that Maister Iewel wil not occupie M. Ievvel falsifieth Martialis rather then seeme to be without al weapon Of what authoritie so euer he be once this is true in your translation you haue fowly falsified him by putting in woordes of your owne forgerie For he speaketh nothing at al of Malachie nor in that place once nameth him Whose name you added of your owne vnto the sentence out of him alleged to vnderproppe your weake and ruinous building with al. In that Epistle ad Burdegalenses S. Martialis vnderstandeth by Ara Sanctificata one Special Aulter that in the Citie of Burdeaulx was consecrated in the name of GOD and S. Steuen Which Aulter being in olde time dedicated to an vnknowen God he at the ouerthrowe of Idols Aulters there caused to be reserued whole and him selfe halowed it This much is declared in the Epistle it selfe And as you haue falsified your Doctor with putting in stuffe of your owne to the beginning of the sentence so haue you corrupted him much worse with cutting away from the middest the hinder parte Martialis Epistol ad Burdegal For these be his wordes Nec solùm in ara sanctificata sed vbique offertur Deo oblatio munda sicut testatus est cuius corpus sanguinem in vitam aeternam offerimus Neither onely vpon the halowed Aulter but euery where is the cleane oblation offered vp vnto God as he hath witnessed whose body and bloude we offer vp to life euerlasting And what is that Christ hath witnessed for of him he speaketh That Priestes should offer vp his body and bloude in euery countrie Luc. 22. saying Do this in my Remembrance This serued not your purpose and therefore you hewed it away Double oblation one in spirite only the other in the Sacrament If this answer do not satisfie you may it please you to take this other S. Martialis speaketh of two kindes of Oblations The one is offered vp in spirite only the other in mysterie and in the Sacrament The spiritual oblation is offered vp not only vpon a sanctified Aulter but also euerywhere But the mystical and Sacramental oblation which is of the body and bloud of Christe is offered vp only vpon a consecrated Aulter bicause thereon is the real presence of the same And of that kinde of oblation in that very place which you haue so fowly corrupted he saith thus Christ hauing a body both vnspotted and without synne bicause he was conceiued of the Holy Ghoste and borne of the virgin Marie permitted it to be
sacrificed on the Aulter of the Crosse. And the same thing which the Iewes sacrificed through enuie thinking so they should abolish his name quite out of the earth we set forth vppon the halowed Aulter for cause of our health knowing that by this onely remedie life is to be geuen vnto vs and death to be driuen away For our Lorde him selfe commaunded vs to doo this in remembraunce of him By this it is made cleare that if you wil stand to the authoritie of S. Martialis you must recant your Chalenge denying the Priestes to haue power and cōmission to offer vp Christe vnto his Father Vpon the false construction you make of S. Martialis you procede as if it were the Gospel that you said But your grounde being false for neither once there nameth he Malachie and of the Sacrifice he speaketh plainely al likewise is false that you buylde thereon or conclude thereof S. Augustine say you calleth the same Sacrifice whereof Malachie speaketh Sacrificiū Laudis Aug. cōtra Aduers Legis Prophetarum c. 20. Cont. lit Petiliani li. 2. c. 86. gratiarū actionis The Sacrifice of Praise and of thankesgeuing And that it should appeare you allege him truly you haue by your cotation in the margent directed your reader vnto two places But in those places S. Augustine calleth it Sacrificium Laudis the Sacrifice of praise onely as for the Sacrifice of thankesgeuing it is of your owne putting in S. Augustine there doth not once name it The mater is not great yet your vntruth is to be noted How be it what should I note this There is in manner nothing by you in any place alleged which more or lesse by your crafte of falsifying you haue not altered and corrupted And though S. Augustine cal the pure Sacrifice prophecied of by Malachie the Sacrifice of Praise what conclude you thereof Ergo it is not the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe Thus you must conclude for els it serueth you to no purpose This being your argument you shew vs as good Logique as if one shoulde thus prooue your ring not to be golde This ring is metal ergo it is not golde For as metal is general to gold syluer brasse and to other thinges of that kinde and compriseth them within his generalitie so as the Argument is foolish which from the affirmation of the general deduceth the denial of the special No whit wiser nor of better force is your reason This Sacrifice by reporte of S. Augustin is the Sacrifice of Praise Ergo it is not the Sacrifice of the Body and bloud of Christe For the Sacrifice of Praise is general to al those Sacrifices The Sacrifice of Praise hovv general it is by which the name of God is praised and is not only the Praise of God that is vttered by wordes proceeding out of our mouthe And God is praised by no other thing so much as by this vnbloudy Sacrifice representing the oblation of Christe vpon the Crosse. And S. Augustine him selfe writing vpon the .49 Psalme calleth the liberal almose of Zachaeus who said Luc. 19. I geue the halfe of my goodes to the poore and the two Mites Mat. 12. Math. 10. that the poore widow gaue to the common Boxe and the Cuppe of colde water that the poore hoste gaue as it is tolde in the Gospel eche of these I say he calleth Sacrificium Laudis a Sacrifice of praise This Sacrifice of Praise saith he had Zachaeus in his Patrimonie August in Psal. 49. had the wydow in her purse had the poore hoste in his tubbe So then M. Iewel what you bring here out of S. Augustine disprooueth nothing at al the Doctrine of the Catholique Churche concerning that we cal the Sacrifice of the Body and Bloude of Christe celebrated in the Masse whereof Saint Irenaeus so plainely speaketh that you not beinge hable to auoide the force of his cleare woordes are fayne to shifte your handes of it The Sacrifice of the Aulter is th◠Sacrifice of praise and turne away al your talke vnto Malachie Neither is it strange that S. Augustine calleth it the sacrifice of praise For whereby is the mercie of God so much praised as by the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of his Sonne which we offer vp in remembrnce of his Death But Sir why haue you dissembled and conceeled these other woordes with which S. Augustine in the very booke and chapter that you allege confirmeth the Catholique doctrine on our behalfe against you and auoucheth that Sacrifice which most wickedly you denie his woordes be these Augustin cōtra Aduers legis proph li. 1. c. 20. This Churche is Israel according to the spirite from which that Israel according to the flesh is distincted which serued in the shadowes of sacrifices by which the Singular Sacrifice was signified that now Israel according to the spirite offereth vp Againe a litle after in the same place They that reade do knowe what Melchisedech brought forth when be blessed Abraham And now they are partakers of it Ibidem Gen. 14. they see that kinde of Sacrifice now to be offred vp vnto God ouer al the worlde What is this Singular Sacrifice The Singular Sacrifice which the Churche offereth vp but the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe For what so euer els you recken it shal appeare common as wel to Israel according to the flesh as to Israel according to the spirite And what sacrifice can you name vs like vnto that which Melchisedek brought forth when he blessed Abraham which they that reade do knowe by which manner of speache as by holding vp a finger S. Augustin is woont to point the Reader vnto the Sacrifice of the Aulter and which is now offred vp vnto God ouer al the worlde but the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe vnder the formes of bread and wine Thus we thanke you M. Iewel for leading vs vnto those places in S. Augustine where our Doctrine is so substantially auouched and your heresie so plainely confuted Iewel In like sorte Irenaeus also expoundeth his ovvne meaninge Ecclesia offert Deo cum Gratiarum actione ex Creatura eius Est ergo Altare in Coelo Iren. lib. 4 cap. 34. illuc Preces Oblationes nostrae diriguntur The Churche offereth vp to God not his ovvne and onely Sonne but a natural thinge of Goddes Creation Neither is our Aultare here in earthe but in heauen Thither our Praiers and Sacrifices be directed Euseb. de Demōstr lib. 1. c. 10. So likevvise Eusebius saith Sacrificamus incendimus Memoriam Magni illius Sacrificij secundùm ea quae ab ipso tradita sunt Mysteria celebrantes gratias Deo pro salute nostra agentes wee Sacrifice and offer vp vnto God the Remembrance of that Greate Sacrifice vsinge the Holy Mysteries accordingly as Christe hath deliuered them and geuinge God Thankes for our Saluation And that Irenaeus meante
not any such Real Sacrifice of the Sonne of God nor may not in any vvise so be taken it is euidente by the plaine vvoordes that folovve touching the same For thus he saith speaking of the very same Sacrifice of the Nevve Testamente that is mentioned by Malachie Sacrificia non sanctificant hominem sed conscientia eius qui offert existens pura sanctificat Sacrificium The Sacrifice dooth not Sanctifie the Man but the Conscience of the offerer being pure sanctifieth the Sacrifice I trovve M. Harding vvil not saie The Prieste is not sanctified by the Sonne of God but the Sonne of God is sanctified by the Conscience of the Priest For that vvere Blasphemie And yet thus must he needes saie if Irenaeus meante the Real Sacrificinge of the Sonne of God Harding After al these allegations brought by M. Iewel against the Sacrifice of the Churche whereof not one ought at al helpeth his cause VVith vvhat sinceritie aÌ„d truth M. Ievv haÌ„dleth S. Irenaeus as I haue now proued he returneth vnto S. Irenaeus againe and by his accustomed craft of falsifying he would make his Reader beleue that S. Irenaeus expoundeth his owne meaning so as the Sacrifice of Christes body and bloude be quite excluded To bring this to passe it is a woonder to see what fowle shiftes he maketh Of this blessed Fathes sentences he snatcheth here a peece and there a peece taking the head without the taile the body without either dismembring the whole He ioyneth together wordes that be aboue thirty lines a sundâ—r and thereof frameth a sense sounding to his false purpose cleane contrary to the holy Doctors meaning What shal I say of his owne false gloses and additions set forth with that letter in which the Doctours sayinges be printed of corrupting the Latine of making his translation muche worse Briefly he demeaneth him selfe so as who so euer considereth and weigheth the wordes of S. Irenaeus and M. Iewels false sleightes together he wil thinke that he hath vtterly abandoned al truth simplicitie and shamefastnesse and putteth his whole truste in lying Touching then that he first bringeth out of S. Irenaeus I maruel what he meant here to recite it M. Ievvel Fovvly corrupteth S. Irenaeus If he had set forth the whole sentence as it lyeth in the Doctour euery simple man would soone haue perceiued that it furthereth his Chalenge nothing at al. Hauing spoken in the foreparte of the sentence of Oblation that we must offer vp vnto the Creator in pure meaning in faith without Hypocrisie infirme hope inferuent loue he commeth to the later parte whereof M. Iewel hath pyked out a litle peece with wyly falshod turning it to his purpose This it is Et hanc oblationem Ecclesia sola pura offert Fabricatori Iren. li. 4. cap. 34. offerens ei cum gratiarum actione ex creatura eius And this oblation the Churche onely offereth vp pure vnto our Creator offering vnto him with geuing thankes out of his creature that is to say out of that he hath created There it foloweth immediatly Iudaei autem non offerunt c. But the Iewes do not so offer for their handes be ful of bloude c. What maketh this for M. Iewel Mary were al true that he addeth to his Doctors text and in case that folowed immediatly which he adioineth hereunto and with such termes as he hath deuised of his owne and be not in S. Ireneus that is to say if blacke were white it were somewhat perhaps to his purpose But now he hath falsified altogether Fovvle corruption with these wordes falsly infarced into the sentence not his owne and onely Sonne but a natural thing Also by putting these wordes Est ergo Altare in coelo Illuc preces oblationes nostrae diriguntur next after the other as though euen there they folowed which do not folow but be found at the ende of the chapter 36. lines after Which neuerthelesse he traÌ„slateth also very falsly as the Reader may see For these wordes Neither is our Aulter here in earth be of his owne false addition and be not at al in the Doctourâ— and most true it is that we haue Aulters in the Churche to offer the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christâ— vpon which by vertue of his worde be made really present though we haue an Aulter also in heauen Where as S. Ireneus is brought in by M. Iewel in the next paragraph saying Sacrificia The sacrifices doo not sanctifie the man but the conscience of the offerer being pure sanctifieth the sacrifice in that place he speaketh not of the Sacrifice of the Aulter at al but of the Sacrifices of the olde Testament What so euer is offered vnto God it is not the thing offered that of it selfe sanctifieth him that offereth But the pure and cleane harte of the party that offereth sanctifieth the sacrifice that is to say as S. Ireneus expoundeth him selfe praestat acceptare Deum quasi ab amico causeth God to accept it as at the hand of a frend Els if a wicked synner saith the Scripture there also alleged kil me a calfe Esai 66. I had as leaue he killed me a dogge In that place therefore he speaketh against them onely that thought to please God with their outward Sacrifices whereof he hath no neede them selues inwardly being wicked and hauing impure consciences To make this clearer by examples and testimonies of Scripture he allegeth the example of Cain of the Scribes and Pharisees and certaine sayinges out of Ieremie and Esaye Now in the setting forth of this saying Tvvo lieâ— of M. Ievvel M. Iewel deceiueth his Reader but with two lyes at once The one is in that he saith it foloweth after the other before alleged For it foloweth not but goeth before it as it may be sene in the booke The other lye is in that he auoucheth this holy Father to speake this much of the newe oblation of the newe Testament which is vtterly false as I haue now declared Iewel But M. Harding hath diuised a greate many replies to the contrary First he saithe The offering vp of praier Praises and Thankesgeuinge can not be called a Newe Sacrifice for the same was made by Moses Aaron the Prophetes and other holy menne in the Olde Lawe This obiection serueth vvel to control Tertullian S. Augustine and S. Hierome and other learned Fathers that thus haue taken it vvho by M. Hardinges iudgemente vvrote vnaduisedly they knevve not vvhat Hereunto Irenaeus him selfe ansvveareth thus Irenae li. 4. c. 34 Oblationes hîc Oblationes illic Sacrificia in Populo Israel Sacrificia in Ecclesia Sed species immutata est tantùm Quippe cùm iam non à Seruis sed à Liberis offeruntur There were Sacrifiees in the Olde Testament There be Sacrifices in the newe There were Sacrifices in the People of Israel there be Sacrifices in the Church Onely the manner or forme is changed For nowe they
be offered not by Bonde menne as before but by Free menne In like sense vvriteth Angelomus Angelomê° Antiâ—â—â—m lib. 3. Mandatum nouum scribo vobis non alterum sed ipsum quod dixi Vetus idem est Nouum I write vnto yowe a Newe Commaundemente None other but that I called the Olde the selfe same is the Newe And it is called a Nevve sacrifice saith Chrysostome Chrysost. contra Iudaeos lib. 3. Bicause it proceedeth from a Newe minde and is offered not by fiere and smoke but by Grace and by the Spirite of God And in this consideration Irenaeus thinketh Dauid said vnto the Children of the Church of Christ Irenae lib. 4. cap. 1. O sing vnto the Lord a New Song M. Hardinge saithe further The wordes of Malachie maie in no wise be taken for the Oblation of Christe vpon the Crosse. For that saith he was donne at one time onely aâ—d in one certaine place in Golgotha without the Gates of Hierusalem and not in euery place Yet M. Hardinge maie easily vnderstande that the Remembrance of that Sacrifice and Thankesgeuinge for the same maie be made at al times and in al places And therefore Eusebius as it is noted before Eusebius de demon lib. 1. c. 10. calleth our Sacrifice Magni illius Sacrificij Memoriam The Remembrance of that greate Sacrifice and the Thankesgeuinge which vvee yelde vnto God for our Saluation Dionysius calleth it Ecclaesia Hierar cap. 3. Augustin in Psal. 75â— Hiero. in Psal. 147. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Figuratiue Sacrifice And S. Augustine saithe Cùm credimus in Christum ex ipsis reliquijs cogitationis Christus nobis quotidiè immolatur VVhen vvee beleeue in Christe euen of the very remanentes of our Cogitation in vvhat place so euer vve be Christe is Sacrificed vnto vs euery day Likevvise S. Hierome saithe Cùm audimus Sermonem Domini Caro Christi Sanguis eius in auribus nostris funditur VVhen vve heare the vvorde of the Lorde the Fleash of Christ and his Bloude is povvred out into our eares And vvhereas M. Hardinge saithe further that the Spiritual Sacrifices of our deuotion cannot altogeather be called pure Esai 64. and therefore can not be the Sacrifices of the Nevve Testamente Psal. 50. it must needes be confessed that al our righteousnes in respecte of many imperfections Euseb. de demon li. 1. cap. 6. Orationis sacrificiuÌ„ quod MuÌ„dum dictum est Tertul ad ScapulaÌ„ maie be coÌ„pared as the prophete Esay saithe vnto a filthy clovvte Yet in respecte of Goddes mercie and in Christe the Prophete Dauid saithe Thou shalt vvashe me and I vvil be vvhiter then the snovve Hovve be it herein I vvil remit M. Hardinge to the iudgement of them vvhoes Authorities he can not vvel denie Eusebius calleth our Praiers Mundum Sacrificium A Pure Sacrifice Tertullian saithe VVee make Sacrifice vnto our God for the safetie of our Emperours Pura prece vvith a Pure Praier S. Hierome speaking of the Sacrifice of Christian Praiers saithe thus A pure Sacrifice is Offered vnto me in euery place not in the Oblations of the Olde Testamente but in the holynes of the Puritie of the Gospel To be short S. Paule saithe Hiero. in Zachar. lib. 2. c. 8. Volo viros precari in omni loco leuantes manus Puras I vvoulde that menne should praie in al places lifting vp Pure handes vnto God Touchinge the Sacrifice of the Lordes Table In sanctitate EuaÌ„gelicae Puritatis Eusebius vvriteth thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He gaue vs a RemeÌ„brance in steede of a Sacrifice to offer vp coÌ„tinually vnto God And this he calleth IncruentuÌ„ et Rationabile sacrificiuÌ„ The vnbloudy 1. Tim. 2. Eusebius de demoÌ„stra lib. 1. and Reasonable Sacrifice This saith Iraeneus is the Sacrifice of the Nevve Testament This Sacrifice the Churche receiued of the Apostles and the same the Apostles receiued of Christe that made al thinges Nevve Harding Concerning the Sacrifices of our deuotion say I in my Answer that be mere spiritual they can not truly be called the newe oblation of the new Testament bicause they were offered vp to God in the olde Testament as now they be in the newe By this M. Iewels shifte is quite auoided who hath nothing to answer to this place of S. Ireneus reporting Christe after that he had consecrated his body and bloude to haue taught vs the newe oblation of the newe Testament but that it is the pure sacrifice that Malachie speaketh of that is to say a contrite harte or preaching of the Gospel or prayer or praise and thankesgeuing or he can not tel what This obiection saith M. Iewel serueth wel to control the olde Fathers namely Tertullian S. Augustine S. Hierome No No M. Iewel it controlleth the olde Fathers nothing at al. It controlleth our yong Fathers such as you and your felowes be who haue most rashly most vnlearnedly most wickedly and Antichristlike abolished out of the Churches of England the most blessed Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe and now being vrged and pressed with this manifest place of this Auncient and learned Father who affirmeth it so clearely ye haue not what to answer Your whole booke of Replie conteineth nothing in effecte but wyly sleightes vaine shiftes shamelesse lyes and fowle corruptions of the Doctours and Councels aboue al measure But of such Merchandize you make your shew no where more then in this Article in which you impugne the Sacrifice And of al your Diuisions of the same Article hitherto in this Diuision the vanitie of your shiftes appeareth most Yet you wil not geue ouer Irenaeus corrupted by M. Ievv but that at least to the ignorant people it may seme you haue ynough to say for your selfe you come againe to S. Irenaeus for helpe and he helpeth your cause nothing at al. Wel what saith he Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34. Oblationes hî c Oblationes illic c. The head of the sentence you haue lopped of This is the whole It is the kinde of Oblations that is reiected for ther were Oblations both there among the Iewes and ther be Oblations also here There were sacrifices among that people there be sacrifices in the Churche But the Kinde or forme is changed onely for somuch as they be not bonde men that offer now but freemen What conclude you of al this M. Iewel What maketh this against the real Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christe Mary say you Thus answereth Irenaeus to my Obiection What was my Obiection This is that I said in effect as is before rehersed that the mere spiritual sacrifices of our deuotion can not truely be called the New Oblation of the New Testament bicause they are common to them of both Testamentes How say you is not this true And what haue you to the contrary in this saying of S. Irenaeus The kinde or forme of their and our sacrifices is changed you
S. Chrysostome as though he so vnderstoode Malachies Prophecie and consequently were contrary to S. Irenaeus That S. Chrysostom is to be vnderstanded of the Sacrifice of the Aulter And on the other side who is so wilfully blinde that seeth not al these properties to be agreeable vnto the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe For this is not contrary to Moyses but it is the perfection of Moyses the truth of the figure the body of the shadow the comming of this hath abolished the Iewish Sacrifices by this God is most highly praised thanked and honored and this it selfe is a worship most holyly to be celebrated In â—rat 2. contra Iudaeos This what it is most plainely by the manner of offering is declared for the Priest saith in the person of Christ as by him he is taught to do this is my body which is geuen for you Luc. 22. this is my bloud which is shed for you and for many Math. 26. This by al right is our Sacrifice in so much that if this be not ours I meane of the new Testament whereas besides this ther is none other external and real sacrifice then haue we none at al that is external and real Which if it were true then neither had we a Priesthoode nor Laweâ— and so then were we a people neither of the one Testament nor of the other To conclude this and none other but this is touching the substaÌ„ce of it the pure Sacrifice in highest and supreme degree of purenesse For what caÌ„ be thought purer then that body which was coÌ„ceiued of the holy Ghost and borne of the most pure Virgin which is the proper body of the Worde To the heape of Allegations which M. Iewel in the ende of this Diuision hath as it weâ—e with scoopes castâ— together bicause they importe litle substance and be some vntruly and al without sinceritie brought in the circumstance of the places whens they be taken out not declared the opening whereof would require many wordes which should weary rather then profite the reader I esteme a iuste and particuler Answer vtterly nedelesse specially what so euer is of any importance being already sufficiently answered The .10 Diuision The Ansvver NOw let vs heare what S. Cyprian hath written to this purpose Bicause his workes he common to be shorter I wil rehearse his woordes in Englishe If in the Sacrifice which is Christe none but Christe is to be folowed soothly it behooued vs to obey and doo that which Christe did and commaunded to be done For if Iesus Christe our Lorde and God very he him selfe be the high Priest of God the Father and him selfe first offered Sacrifice to God the Father and commaunded the same to be doone in his RemembraÌ„ce Verily that Prieste dooth occupie the office of Christe truely who dooth by imitation the same thing that Christe did And then he offereth to God the Father in the Churche a true and a perfite Sacrifice yf he beginne to offer right so as he seeth Christe him selfe to haue offered This farre S. Cyprian Howe can this Article be auouched in more plaine woordes he saith that Christe offered him selfe to his Father in his Supper and likewise commaunded vs to doo the same Here wee haue prooued that it is lawful and hath alwaies from the beginning of the Newe Testamente bene lawful for the Priestes to offer vp Christe vnto his Father by the testimonies of three holy Martyrs two Greekes and one Latine most notable in sundry respectes of antiquitie of the roume they bare in Christes Churche of Learninge of Constancie of Faith stedfastly keapte to Death suffered in places of same and knowledge at Paris at Lions at Carthage Iewel This place of S. Cyprian as it not once toucheth the real Sacrificinge of Christ vnto his Father so it vtterly condemneth the Communion vnder One Kinde the Common Praiers in a strange vnknowen tongue and briefly the vvhole disorder and abuse of M. Hardinges Masse But S. Cyprian saith In Sacrificio quod Christus est In the Sacrifice that is Christe Yf M. Harding thinke to finde great aduantage in these vvoordes August in Iohan. tract 26. it may please him to Remember that S. Augustin saith Illis Petra erat Christus Vnto the Iewes the Rocke was Christ. Verily the Sacrifice after the order of Melchisedek vvhich is the Propitiation for the Sinnes of the vvorld is onely Iesus Christ the Sonne of God vpon the Crosse. And the ministration of the Holy Mysteries in a phrase and manner of speache is also the same Sacrifice bicause it laieth foorthe the Death and bloud of Christ so plainely and so euidently before our eies So saith S. Augustine August in Psalm 20 The very Remembrance of Christes Passion sturreth vp such motions within vs as if we sawe Christ presently hauing vpon the Crosse. Vpon vvhich vvoordes the Common Glose noteth thus De Conse Dis. 2. Semel Christus immolatur id est Christi immolatio repraesentatur fit memoria passionis Christe is sacrificed that is to say The Sacrifice of Christe is represented and there is made a Remembrance of his passion So S. Cyprian saith Vinum exprimit sanguinem Cypri lib. 2. epist. 3. In Aqua populus intelligitur In Vino sanguis ostenditur Itaque passionis eius mentionem in Sacrificijs facimus Passio enim Domini est Sacrificium quod offerimus The VVine sheweth the Bloude in the VVater we vnderstande the people The Bloude is expressed in the VVine And therefore in our sacrifices we make mention of Christes passion For the Sacrifice that we offer De Conse Distinct. 2. Quid sit is the passion of Christe As the ministration of the holy CoÌ„munion is the Death and Passion of Christ euen so and in like sort and sense may the Sacrifice thereof be called Christe Therefore S. Gregorie saith Christus in seipso immortaliter viuens iterum in hoc Mysterio moritur De Cons. Dist. 2. Quid sit Eius Caro in populi SaluteÌ„ patitur Christ liuiÌ„g immortally in him selfe dieth againe in this Mysterie His Fleash suffereth in the Mysterie for the Saluation of the people I recken M. Harding vvil not say In Glosa Chryso in Acta Homil 21. that Christe Dieth in deede according to the force and sounde of these vvordes or that his Fleashe verily and in dede as tormented and suffereth in the Sacrament S. Gregorie better expoundeth him selfe in this vvise Hoc Sacramentum Passionem Vnigeniti Filij imitatur Beda expoâ—nens illudâ— Sicut Moses exalta uit c. This Sacrament expresseth or representeth the Passion of the Onely begotten Sonne And the very Barbarous Glose touching the same saith Christus Moritur Patitur id est Mors Passio Christi repraesentatur Christ Dieth and Suffereth that is to say Christes Death and Passion is represented So S. Chrysostom saith Iohan. 3. In Mysterijs mors Christi perficitur The Death of
the yere vpon Maundie thursday and Good fryday is celebrated with special ceremonies in remembrance of Christes death and passing out of this mortal life This Anniuersary recordation saith he for so he calleth it doth represent that which was once done De Consecrat distinct 2. Semel and causeth vs so to be moued as if we saw our Lorde present on the Crosse. Neither noteth the Glose vpon these wordes that you reporte of it M. Iewel but vpon the worde immolatur which is in the next chapter folowing For whereas Gratian reciteth S. Augustine speaking thus of the Sacrifice August epist. 23. ad Bonifacium semel immolatus est in semetipso Christus tamen quotidie immolatur in sacramento Christe was once sacrificed in him selfe that is to say he suffered once in his owne person in the forme of man and yet he is daily sacrificed in a Sacrament vpon this last worde immolatur the Glose hath noted that you bring The Sacrifice meaning the bloudy Sacrifice vpon the Crosse is represented and a Memorie of the Passion is made In the former chapter is declared what is done at one certaine time in the yere touching the representation and remembrance of Christes passion in the nexte what is done daily M. Iewel hauing alleged the first applyeth vnto it the glose of the second And al is quite besides his purpose For how hangeth this Argument together The Seruice of the Church in the holy weke before Easter as the reading of the Passion creaping to the Crosse the salutatioÌ„ of the Crosse and other Ceremonies in olde time vsed in England and yet vsed through the whole Catholique Church do liuely represent vnto vs Christes PassioÌ„ Ergo the Priest doing that Christe did at his Supper and that he is coÌ„maunded to doo doth not offer vp his body and bloud to God Logike must nedes be good cheape where such Argumentes be made good chaffer And forasmuch as M. Iewel him selfe who craketh so much of Antiquitie M. Ievvel craueth helpe of the Glose that he calleth Barbarous and wil al controuersies to be tried by the Fathers of the first .600 yeres is not a shamed here to craue helpe of the Common Glose which within few lines after he calleth barbarous as he hath brought it against vs though in deede it be not against vs at al let him paciently suffer vs to tel him what he sawe in the same Glose in that very place that is cleare against him De Consecrat Dist. 2. Semel In Glossa In this part of this distinction saith the Glose It is proued that Christe once hauing dyed can dye no more yet the truth of his flesh and of his bloude is alwaies in the Sacrament of the Aulter And there it setteth forth .10 verses declaring the summe of the catholike faith touching the most blessed Sacrament In which perhappes M. Iewel may espie a fault touching the rules of Poetrie but verely touching the rules of faith he shal finde no faulte Al conteining excellent sense for auoiding prolixitie to gratifie the Reader here I wil reherse two Clauditur hoc vase nostri pia victima Phase Ibidem Viua salutaris semel in cruce semper in aris Here is inclosed in this vessel the diuine hoste of our Paschal lambe the hoste that lyueth that is healthful that was once on the Crosse and alwaies is on the Aulters Go forth M. Iewel and stil for lacke of good mater that maketh for you allege vs places where your heresie is most euidently confuted and condemned Stil you harpe vpon a wrong string alleging S. CypriaÌ„ and S. Gregorie to disproue that which you feine me to say or at least mistake me to say as reporting the wordes of S. Cyprian Your parte had ben to yelde or to shewe good reason why you deny Christe or which is al one Christes flesh and bloude to be offered vp vnto God by Priestes Lucâ— 22. to whom in the Apostles he said doo ye this in my remembrance I go not about in this DiuisioÌ„ to proue that the Sacrifice is Christ In sacrificio quod Christus est wherof in your owne conceit you haue stuffe to cauil and wrangle though the same be true as I tolde you before but I allege S. Cyprian to this ende that the ChristiaÌ„ Reader should beleue that Christ is the Sacrifice How and wherewith is there made in our Mysteries a memorie and significatioÌ„ of Christe and of his death For so S. CypriaÌ„ precisely englished saith In the Sacrifice which Christ is whereof by right construction ryseth this Proposition Christe is the Sacrifice Which is true though neuer so muche it be said by some Fathers that the Passion and Death of Christe is represented in a mysterieâ— both may stand together ful wel In this Mysterie there is a representation I graunt there is a signification there is a memorie or commemoration made of Christe of his PassioÌ„ and of his Sacrifice vpon the Crosse but how and where withal Figuratiuely by imagination by thinking by tokens and signes onely or by wordes of praise and thankes onely Not so By these and with these partly but specially by offering and receiuing the same body that suffered death So. S. Augustine touching a memorie or commemoration teacheth clearely writing against Faustus the Manichee Hebraei in victimis pecorum prophetiam celebrabaÌ„t futurae victimae August coÌ„t Faust. lib. 20. cap. 18. quam Christus obtulit Vnde iam Christiani peracti eiusdem Sacrificij memoriam celebrant sacrosancta oblatione participatione corporis sanguinis Christi The Hebrewes saith he in their sacrifices of beastes did celebrate a prophecie of the Sacrifice to come which Christe offered The Christians now doo delebrate the memorie of the same Sacrifice that is past by the most holy Oblation and participation of Christes body and bloude Lo here haue you â—he memorieâ— but withal the Oblation of that very body whereby the memorie of his bloudy Sacrifice is celebrated VVherin M. Ievvel and they of that syde are deceiued of ignoraÌ„ce or of malice deceiue otheâ— You seme to be much deceiued in your thoughtes in that you thinke that a thing can not be exhibited really and also in a mysterie in a sampler in an Image in a commemoration in a representation in signification in figures signes and tokens And where so euer you finde in the writinges of the Fathers any of these termes thereof coÌ„monly you induce a Conclusion denying the truth of the thing wherein either you are deceiued through ignorance and then are you very sawcie to be so busy in teaching that you vnderstand not or of very malice you trauaile al that you can to deceiue others least you should seme to haue craked more in your Chalenge then you are hable to mainteine Concerning the point it selfe doo you not remember that S. Paule doth attribute to the Law Hebr. 10. Image excludeth not truth vmbraÌ„ reruÌ„ the
shadow of thinges and to the newe Testament Imaginem rerum an Image of thinges If of the affirmation of the Image you wil inferre as your manner is the negation of the thing it selfe shal you not so prepare a way for the heinous heresie of the Arians who denyed the Sonne of God to be of one substance with God the Father For though it be most true that he is so yet doth not the Scripture cal him the Image of the inuisible God Coloss. â— Doth not S. Ambrose speaking of the bloudy oblation of Christe vpon the Crosse cal it an Image in comparison of the true and euerlasting Oblation that is in heauen Ambros. of ficiorum libr 1. c. 48. Hîc vmbra hîc Imago illic veritas caet Here saith he that is to say in this worlde there is a shadow here there is an Image there in heauen is the truth The shadow in the Lawe the image in the Gospel the truth in heauen Before a lambe was offered and a Calfe now Christe is offered But he is offred as man as receiuing Passion and he offereth him selfe as being a Priest to remit our synnes here in Image there in truth where with the Father as an Aduocate he maketh intercession for vs. How say you Sir if a man would folow the veine of your Logique whereby you conclude the denial of a real and true Sacrifice in the Masse bicause you can bring certaine peeces of Doctours sayinges reporting a representation commemoration and image of it might he not of this place of S. Ambrose denie that Christe was euer offered vp and sacrificed vpon the Crosse truly and in deede bicause he saith he was offered here in Image And so should not the Deuil haue a prety deuise to shake the foundation of our faith and put the simple in doubte whether the worke of our Redemption be yet truly performed or no That S. Cyprian saith the Sacrifice which we offer is the Passion of our Lorde August libro senâ—ent Prosperi S. Augustine declareth how such sayinges are to be vnderstanded Vocatur ipsa immolatio carnis quae sacerdotis manibus fit Christi passio mors Crucifixio non rei veritate sed significante Mysterio The oblation saith he of Christes flesh which is made in the handes of a Priest is called the Passion Death and crucifying of Christe not in truth of the thing but in a Mysterie signifying Which is as muche as if he should say it is not called passion death and crucifying for that Christ dieth or suffereth againe but for that in mysterie it renueth representeth signifieth and putteth vs in mynde againe of his Death and Passion Hovv Christe dieth againe in this Mysterie Where S. Gregorie saith after that he hath taken away al occasion of grosse imaginations that Christe who dyeth no more but lyueth immortally in him selfe dyeth againe in this Mysterie and that his flesh suffereth againe for the peoples health De Consecrat Distin. 2. Quid sit August Epist. 23. ad Bonifacium it is the sooner vnderstanded what he meaneth if his Antithesis be considered which consisteth in these wordes in seipso in hoc Mysterio in him selfe and in this Mysterie The like whereof we finde in S. Augustine before alleged Christe was once sacrificed in seipso in him selfe and yet he is daily sacrificed in sacramento in a Sacrament In him selfe that is to say in his visible person and in the forme of man he dyeth no more yet in this Mysterie he dieth againe that is to say his death is so for our behoofe by vs to the Father represented and to vs renued and the vertue and effect of it is so applied and transferred vnto vs as if he were now presently hanging vpon the Crosse. De Consecrat Dist. 2. Quid sit Haec salutaris victima illam nobis mortem vnigeniti per Mysterium reparat This healthful sacrifice doth renue vnto vs the Death of the only begoteÌ„ by this Mysterie saith S. Gregorie in the same place doth any man aske wherewithal and whereby this is done Verely as it is said before touching the memorie out of S. Augustine by the Oblation and participation of the same body that suffered and died vpoÌ„ the Crosse. For though the paines and violeÌ„ce of Death be not here presently suffered yet the body that once suffered Ibidem is present and the bloude that was shed on the handes of infidels is now shed into the mouthes of the faithful as S. Gregorie him selfe here saith And to the working of such a death of Christe againe and of his Passion to our saluatioÌ„ in this Mysterie that is to say to the repairing and renuing and applying of the effecte of his death vnto vs that which is done in this Mysterie without violent shedding of bloude is sufficient This doctrine S. Gregorie teacheth in other places wherby he both declareth the vertue of the Mystical Sacrifice and also expoundeth him selfe how that strange Phrase may be vnderstanded which M. Iewel bringeth against the Real and true Sacrifice Gregor lib. 4. Dialog cap. 58. Thus he saith in one place Haec victima singulariter ab aeterno interitu animam sâ—lâ—at quae illaÌ„ nobis morteÌ„ vnigeniti per Mysterium reparat This Sacrifice doth singularly saue the soule froÌ„ euerlasting destructioÌ„ which by Mysterie renueth vnto vs the. Death of Gods onely begoten Sonne Againe in an other place Idem homil 37. Quoties ei hostiam suae Passionis offerimus toties nobis ad absolutionem nostram passionem illius reparamus As often as we offer vp vnto him the hoste or sacrifice of his Passion so often we renue and repaire his Passion vnto vs for our absolution Now then bicause by this Sacrifice the Death of Christe is renued and applied vnto vs for our absolution and remission of synne which is the effecte of his Death as if we had ben present at the Crosse when he was crucified therefore S. Gregorie was so bolde as to say that Christe lyuing immortally in him selfe in this Mysterie dyeth againe Such Sacrifice such Death If the Sacrifice be bloudy then the Death must be bloudy or with shedding of bloude If the Sacrifice be vnbloudy Vnbloudy Death then is the Death also vnbloudy and mystical that is to say the effecte of his death as if it were now present And that there be truly and in proper speach a Sacrifice it is ynough that the body and bloude of Christe being made present by vertue of his worde his Death be so applied vnto vs to remission of synne as if he were now a dying And this muche may serue for Answer to the heape of your mangled and maimed allegations that here you haue laid so thicke together Whereof not one proueth your purpose which is that in S. Cyprians iudgement Christe in the celebration of the Supper is not a Sacrifice in true and proper speache and in deede but
the difference betwene this and that is this That was the Sacrifice that cleanseth our synnes with his bloude actually shed and redemed vs by vertue of it selfe This is the Commemoratiue Sacrifice which is offered in commemoration of that hauing for the substance of it the same body and bloude of Christe that was offered vpon the Crosse by vertue of Consecration made really present and applieth vnto vs the merite and effecte of the cleansing and redemption wrought and perfourmed vpon the Crosse. Then immediatly foloweth the last sentence of the Homilie a parte whereof you haue taken for your purpose Non aliud Sacrificiū sicut Pontifex sed idipsum semper offerimus caet we offer not an other Sacrifice as the Bishop of the olde lawe did but alwayes we offer the very same that Christe offered or rather we worke the remembrance of the Sacrifice In the Discourse of S Chrysostom out of whiche M. Iewel hath piked and culled out certaine peeces three thinges in effect are declared First that we offer secondly that our manner of offering is other then Christes was therefore ours is called a sampler of that and it is donne in commemoration of his Death Thirdly that the Hoste or thing offered in either Sacrifice is one and the same in substance which is the true body of Christe Graunt vs the first and the last that is to say that we offer in deede yea and that the same Hoste which Christe offered and to al men of reason and iudgement though our Sacrifice be a sampler of Christes Sacrifice vpō the Crosse and though it be done for commemoration of that shal our Real Sacrifice be sufficiently proued For what is our endeuour in this Article but to proue that we offer vnto God that which Christo our Bishop hath offered which is Christe him selfe And whereas making vp your Epiphonema you say with more brauarie then truth Thus we offer vp Christe that is to say an example a commemoration a remembrāce of the Death of Christe I neuer heard of such a that is to say before specially if the real presence by these wordes be excluded as your meaning is O what impudencie is this Differēce betvven the hoste and the commemoratiō Doth not S. Chrysostom by your selfe alleged make a plaine distinction and difference betwen the hoste offered and the remembrance saying that which we doo is done for a commemoration Doth it not therby appeare that somewhat must be done before and besides the Commemoration Who euer so confounded thinges as as by your absurde and false interpretation you doo making the body and bloude of Christe or Christe him selfe and the remembrance of Christes death one thing What is this your meaning as though the substance of the Sacrifice were nothing els but the remembrance of Christes death Let this once be graunted and why may not any man or woman make vs as good a Sacrifice at their table at home in their owne howse as your selfe can at the Communion table in our Ladies Churche at Sarisburie For at that homely table may Christes death be remembred aswel as at your Communion table This kinde of Sacrifice say you speaking of the commemoration of Christes Death was neuer denied As in a right sense it is very true and was neuer by vs denied for the deuoute remembrance of Christes Death by it selfe considered is a kinde of spiritual Sacrifice so if you meane thereby to exclude the truth of the thing offered whiche is the body and bloud of Christe M. Ievvel alvvaies cōcludeth the denial of one truth by thaffirmation of an other truth and serue vs with a shewe and a remembrance onely distinct from the true thing it selfe that is offered which seemeth to be your whole drifte this parte of your doctrine we vtterly denie and tel you that for maintenance of the same you vse a fond and vaine reason For what an Argument is it when two thinges be bothe true by the affirmation of the one to conclude the denial of the other As for example what witte wil allowe this Argument The Sunne shineth Ergo it raineth not or Ergo it is not colde whereas many times we see it raine and feele it colde when the Sunne shyneth cleare and bright Right so we tel you and neuer stint telling you which neuerthelesse ye dissemble to vnderstand that this your common Argument is naught the Sacrifice which we offer is a sampler or a commemoration of that which Christe offered Ergo it is not the same which Christe offered For in diuers respectes it is bothe as now we haue proued by S. Chrysostome It is the same in substance that is to say the substance of that was offered vpon the Crosse and of that is offered by Priestes is the Masse in one and the same but it is diuers in the manner of offering For that was offered bloudily this vnbloudily in mysterie and by way of commemoration So it is the body and Bloud of Christe offered and also a commemoration of the bloudy offering The testimonie of S. Augustine I maruel what you meant to allege it maketh quite against you For both it reporteth the real presence which you denie and sheweth a difference betwixt the thing which is offered and Christes Death by the same signified which you cōfounde We graunt with S. Augustin when the hoste is broken De Consec Dict. 2. Cum frangitur and the bloude is powred into the mouthes of the faithful the Sacrificing of our Lordes body is signified It is not your false translation of the Oblation for the hoste nor your Sacramentarie exposition of the Sacrament of the bloude for the bloude that can racke S. Augustine to the defence of your doctrine If you grate vpon the worde Significatur and therefore wil needes haue it to be a signification of Christes Sacrifice as we denie not the signification so we require you to acknowlege the real body and bloude of Christe by breaking whereof vnder the forme of bread and powring whereof into the mowthes of the faithful vnder the forme of wine the same signification and commemoration of Christes Death is made You handle this place of S. Augustine as it semeth as you handled the place of S. Chrysostome before Sweeping cleane away the hoste and wyping away the bloude you leaue remaining onely a signification or token And thus you feede your people with signes and tokens in steede of the most holesome and substantial meate and drinke Thus haue you not weakened the strength of S. Chrysostomes testimonie by your feeble answer thus it remaineth stil in good force against your Chalenge thus by your sclender Replie you haue geuen al men occasion to thinke how good and sufficient our Stoare is for the proufe of the external Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christe in scoffing whereat you take so muche pleasure It remaineth that we trie of what substance and pith your Replie is to the place by me alleged
out of S. Ambros. Iewel Euen so S. Ambrose saith Ambrosi in Psal. 38 Apocal. 5. Christe is offered here in the Earth not Really and in deede as M. Hardinge saithe but in like sorte and sense as S. Iohn saithe The Lamme was slaine from the beginninge of the worlde that is not Substantially or in Real manner but in signification in a Mysterie and in a figure And thus S. Ambrose expoundeth his ovvne meaning Ambros. in Psalm 38. euen in the same place that is here alleged PrimuÌ„ Vmbra praecessit Secuta est Imago Erit Veritas Vmbra in lege Imago in Euangelio Veritas in Coelestibus Ascende homo in coelum videbis illa quorum hîc Vmbra erat vel Imago First the Shadowe wente before The Image folowed The Truethe shal be The Shadowe in the Lawe The Image in the Gospel The Trueth in the Heauens O Man goe vp into Heauen and thou shalte see those thinges whereof here was an Image and a shadowe Ambros. in Lucam lib. 5. ca. 7 To like purpose S. Ambrose vvriteth thus Vidimus eum oculis nostris perspeximus in vestigia clauorum eius digitos nostros inseruimus Videmur enim vidisse eum quem legimus spectasse pendentem vulnera eius Spiritu Ecclesiae scrutante tentasse wee haue seene him and lookte vpon him with our eies and wee haue thrust our fingers into the dentes of his nayles The reason hereof is this For wee seeme to see him that wee reade of to haue beholden him hanginge on the Crosse and with the feelinge Sprite of the Churche to haue searched his woundes Hieron in Psalm 86. So S. Hierome saithe Quod semel natum est ex Maria quotidiè in nobis nascitur Christe that was once borne of Marie is borne in vs euery daie Novve as S. Ambrose saithe VVee see Christe euen with our eies hanginge vpon the Crosse and thruste in our fingers and searche his woundes Euen so doo vvee see Christe Comminge vnto vs and Offeringe him selfe in Sacrifice vnto God And as S. Hierome saithe Christe is Borne euery day Euen so and none othervvise Ambros. de Virginib lib. 2. S. Ambrose saithe Christe is Sacrificed euery daie In like manner S. Ambrose vvriteth vnto certaine Virgins Vestras Mentes confidenter Altaria dixerim in quibus quotidiè pro Redemptione Corporis Christus offertur I maie boldely saie Your hartes be Aultars vpon whiche Hartes Christe is dayly offered for the Redemption of the Bodie Hitherto M. Hardinge hath founde no manner tâ—ken of that he sought for Harding This Euen so if I may be so bolde with you as to vse a homely prouerbe is as euen as a rammes horne And Sir is this place of S. Ambrose so soone answered Is it ynough for you to say as you doo and proue nothing Is it lawful for you to say what you list and denie what you list without any proufe at al And if ye stand so al waies in your Negatiues what a coomber shal it be vnto vs to proue any neuer so certaine a truth to such a wrangler How oftentimes haue you now said that Christe is none otherwise offered in earth then he was offered in the Sacrifices of Abel of Abraham or of them of the olde Testament And al this vppon warrant of this saying of S. Iohn Apoc. 5. The lambe was slaine from the beginning of the worlde which maketh nothing against the daily Sacrifice of the Churche How sufficiently and by how many authorities hath this Sacrifice bene prooued Yet forth you go as if nothing had ben said If our Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament be not real If our Mysteries be excellenter then the Sacrifices of the old Law then are they not significatiue only and substantial but only figuratiue and significatiue as you say then how be our Mysteries of more excellencie then the Iewes Sacramentes were Nay how do not the liue beastes which they sacrificed passe a dead peece of breade for better ye esteme it not If our Sacrifice be no better then their Sacrifices were then is our Priesthod of the new TestameÌ„t no better then their Priesthode was If our Priesthod be no better Heb. 7. then is the Lawe of the Gospel wherein we liue no better then the olde Lawe of Moyses was vnder which the Iewes lyued For these three Sacrifice Priesthod and Lawe be so proportionate together be so of cousinage and alwaies go so together by the doctrine of S. Paule as you knowe that the bettering of either of them doth in ferre the bettering of the other Nowe let the Christian reader make his choise Ambro. in Psal. 38. whether he wil beleeue the whole Churche of Christe and S. Ambrose or you He saith Christe is offered on the earth when the body of Christe is offered you say Neither Christ nor the body of Christ is offered on the earth but al that is done is but a token and a figure Here were it to good purpose to proue the truth of the body and bloud of Christ in the SacrameÌ„t for els we labour in vaine a wrangling and contentious witte euer finding shiftes by running alwaies to his Negatiues But bicause that Article hath ben already proued Article 5. partly by me in my Answer to your Chalenge and more amply by Doctor Heskins and Doctor Saunder as also by sundry other learned and worthy men before you and your coÌ„panions russhed into the Church by the window I mynd not to enter into that large feelde now nor think it nedeful to do that is wel done already That point then being cleare by Gods worde and besides substantially proued determined by the Church in General Councels according to the Scriptures beleued euer of al Christian and faithful people and graunted by the Fathers of your religion the Lutherans let vs consider of that you bring against the Sacrifice auouched by S. Ambrose Image vvhat it signifieth and how it excludeth not the truthâ— As touching your other place of S. Ambrose whereby you would seme to expounde the former by me alleged it maketh for the Sacrifice it maketh nothing against the Sacrifice Neither can you take any aduantage of the worde Imago Image For by that worde the truth is not excluded but signified yet so as thereby we be admonished that we beholde thinges more obscurely here then we shal beholde them in heaueÌ„ and that the thinges here be but an Image in coÌ„parison of the true thinges in heaueÌ„ The truth is here no lesse then in heaueÌ„ But bicause it is not so truly sene here Ambro. li. 1. officioruÌ„ cap. 48. In Psal. 38. as there therfore S. Ambros coÌ„sidering the diuerse degree of our knowledge calleth in sundry places accordiÌ„g to S. Paule writiÌ„g to the Hebrues the state here an Image and the state there the truth And if we may expounde S. Ambrose by S. Ambrose Heb. 10.
he sheweth his meaning clearly in an other place Which is by the terme Image in respect of the state of the Gospel not to exclude the Truth of thinges but to insinuat an obscurer manner of exhibeting the truth in comparison of the state of heauen Ambro. de interpellatione Dauid His wordes be these Ecclesia est imago coelestiū etenim postquā vmbra praeterijt imago successit Vmbra synagoga est In vmbra lex in Euangelio veritas The Church is an image of heauen or of heauenly thinges for after that the shadowe was gone away the Image succeded The shadow is the Synagogue In the shadowe was the Lawe in the Gospel is the Truth Lo wheras he said in the place by you alleged the image is in the Gospel here expounding his minde more plainely he faith in the Gospel is Truth calling that Truth here which he called Image there But sir with what face M. Ievvel falsifieth S. Ambrose I say not with what cōscience durst you so fowly in translating this place of S. Ambrose to falsifie his wordes and sense Why did you trāspose his wordes setting the former word in the second place and why did you turne and for or The later sentence truly translated is this O man go vp into heauen and thou shalt see those thinges whereof here was a shadow or an Image Which last wordes you falsified thus whereof here was an Image and a shadowe By this chopping and chaunging of woordes your euil intent was to bring your reader in beleefe that the Sacramentes of the olde Law be of equal worthines with the Sacramentes of the newe Lawe By your sclender Replie and by such false legierdemaine I doubte not but the wiser sorte wil be moued to trie your strange doctrine better then heretofore of many it hath ben tryed before they beleeue it M. Ievvel confoundeth one truthe vvith an other truth Lib. 5. Commēt in Luc. cap. 7. From this place to the ende of the Diuision this Replier doth nothing els but endeuour to confound thinges that in them selues be distinct that so at least he might cast some myste as it were before the readers eyes As for example bicause the reading of the storie of the Gospel sheweth vnto our vnderstāding and faith Christ hanging vpon the Crosse as S. Ambrose saith his syde opened with the souldiours speare his handes and feete pearced through with the nayles and the Sacrament also of Christes body and bloud doth represent and commend vnto our memories the same Hieron in Psal. 86. Againe bicause Christe being virtus Patris the vertue of his Father is borne in vs euery daye when any vertue is wrought by vs as S. Hierome saith Therefore by this mannes Logique Christe is not really but by a similitude or figure only sacrificed of Priestes euery day Furthermore bicause the myndes of holy virgins be meete Aulters for Christ daily to be offered vpon to wit by daily meditation of his Passion as S. Ambrose sticketh not to say Ambro. de Virginib lib. 2. therefore Christe is no more really present vppon the real Aulters of the Churche when the Sacrifice of his body and bloude is offered by the Priest then he is in the mynde of a pure and holy virgine deuoutly thinking of his death Seme not these reasons to procede from a profounde Diuinitie What is this but to confounde one truth with an other truth and to vndoo al proper speaches by figuratiue and metaphorical Phrases He should haue remembred that euen they of his owne side doo teache that we ought not to ronne vnto tropes for the vnderstanding of any point onlesse there felowe a great absurditie if the wordes be taken in their proper signification That this myste of M. Iewels confusion be discussed and put a waye who is so vnskilful in maters of our faith that putteth not a manifest difference betwen the setting forth of Christes death vnto our vnderstanding by reading the Scriptures and the representation and cōmemoration of the same vnto our faith by the Sacramēt of his body and bloude The difference of Christes being in the Sacrifice and in the reading of the storie of the Gospel In that a Description only by wordes is made of the order and manner of putting Christ to death whereby an Image thereof is imprinted in our vnderstanding and memorie In this the body of Christe that was put to death is present layd before vs according to his worde This is my body which is geuen for you That is a general meane to come to the knowledge of Christes death This is a special meane to remember his death Luc. 22. That is common vnto the Infidel reading the storie of the Gospel as wel as vnto the faithful This is proper to the true Christiā geuing credit to Gods worde That may be conueniently reade by euery priuate man at al times and in al places This can not duely be consecrate and ministred but by a Priest lawfully ordered and that in time and place appointed That may be read by a wicked man without increase of his sinne This can not be consecrate nor receiued of any being in deadly sinne without increase of his farther damnation This is and euer hath bene by the Churche called and taken for the very body and bloud of Christe That neither is nor euer hath ben commonly so called or taken This is a Sacrament and the Sacrifice of the new Lawe That is neither of them both Finally that feedeth the vnderstanding onely This is the foode both of soule and body to life euerlasting These differences being so apparent so greate and of such importance who can otherwise iudge but that Christes presence in the Sacrifice of the Churche must be after a more substantial and real manner then in the letter of the Gospel or in the reading thereof Moreouer if he be present in the Sacrament and Sacrifice none otherwise then he is at the reading of the Gospel then is the Sacrifice and Sacrament superfluous For to stirre vp in our myndes the remembraunce of Christes Death it should suffice to reade or to heare readen daily the storie of the Passion without any celebration of the Sacrament But Christe knowing the dulnesse of our hartes to be such M. Ievvel acknovvledgeth Christes presence in the Bless Sacrament no othervvise thē in the storie of the Gospel vvhen it is read ād heard that woordes be not sufficient to repaire our memorie and to stirre vp our affection without the presence of some thing of more Maiestie then woordes be of his tender loue leafte to his dere spouse the Churche besides his Gospel a thing of most excellent Maiestie his owne flesh and bloude that we being assured through faith of his real presence in our Mysteries should more dreadfully reuerence him more expressely remember him more affectuously loue him and by the worthy receiuing of it be made partakers of the fruit of his Passion Of this
presence and of this great fruit would M. Iewel with al his lewde harte bereue vs by making Christe present in the Mysteries none otherwise then he is at the reading of the storie of the Gospel that is to say onely by the comprehension of our vnderstanding and by faith And that he is as truly now hanging vpon the Crosse when we reade the storie of his passion and do by the eyes our of Imagination beholde him hanging as he doth sacrifice him selfe when his body is sacrificed as S. Ambrose before alleged speaketh Touching the right vnderstanding of this place of S. Ambrose VVe see Christ haÌ„ging on the Crosse and grope his vvouÌ„des tvvo vvaies we see Christe hanging vpon the Crosse and thrust our fingers into the dentes of his nayles twoo waies either by faith or by charitie Faith hath eyes to see and fingers to feele But what manner eyes and fingers spiritual Through faith we see Christe hanging vpon the Crosse Hovv vve see the vvouÌ„des of Christ by faith and feele his woundes That is to say The benefite of his Passion through the merite of faith is imparted vnto vs nolesse then if we behelde him with our eyes hanging vppon the Crosse and with our fingers touched his woundes Of them that haue this faith our Lorde saith in the Gospel Ioanâ— 20. Beati qui non viderunt crediderunt Blessed by they that haue not sene with bodily eyes and beleeue Neither saith S. Ambrose plainely that we see Christe with our eyes hanging vpon the Crosse Ambros. In Luc. lib. 5. c. 7. and that we thrust in our fingers and searche his woundes as to your aduantage you report him but correcting him selfe he saith Videmur vidisse eum c. We seeme to haue seene him and with the searching sprite of the Churche to haue groped his woundes He attributeth al to the spirite which through faith seeth and feeleth By charitie we behold Christ haÌ„ging vpon the Crosse and thrust our fingers into his woundes Hovv vve see Christ â—ufferingâ— by Charitie bicause through charitie we are in that body of Christe to witte the Churche which seeth Christe so hanging and thrusteth the fingers into his woundes For what grace vertue miracle or other excellencie so euer is in the Body of the Churche through the merite of charitie which causeth participation of al good thinges to be common euery one that is of that body Augu. sermone 188 De tempore may say that he hath the same In consideration whereof S. Augustine saith notably If any wil say to one of vs thou hast receiued the holy Ghost Hovv speaketh the Churche vvith al toÌ„gues why speakest not with al tongues He ought to Answer I speake with al tongues bicause I am in that body of Christe in the Church which speaketh with al tongues But how may it be vnderstanded that the Churche speaketh with al tongues Augu. sermone 186. De Tempore In asmuch as some of the Churche doo speake with al tongues Therefore in an other place he saith In some Saintes the Churche worketh Miracles in other Saintes it speaketh the truth in other Saintes it kepeth virginitie Guerricus abbas Igniacensis Sermo in die Purificat inter opera Bernardi in other Saintes it kepeth the chastitie of wedlocke in others this in others that Certaine vertues saith a holy Father though al persons haue not yet let them loue him who hath that which they finde not in themselues and then haue they in him that whiche in them selues they see not as Peter in Iohn hath the merite of virginitie so Iohn in Peter hath the reward of Martyrdom 1. Ioan. 1. The Churche beholdeth Christ and toucheth his vvouÌ„des In whom then doth the Churche see Christe hanging vpon the Crosse and feele his woundes In S. Iohn the Churche seeth him who saith That which from the beginning we haue heard we haue sene with our eyes and our handes haue touched c. In the Apostles it beholdeth with eyes Christe vpon the Crosse in S. Thomas it toucheth his woundes That this seeme not strange euen so saith S. Ambrose in the booke and chapter aboue meÌ„cioned Sed etiam nos vidimus in Iohanne Ambros. in Lucam lib. 5. ca. â— oculis nostris perspeximus in Apostolis manibus nostris perscrutati sumus in Thomae digitis Yea we also haue seene Christe in Iohn with our eyes we haue beholden him in the Apostles and with our handes we haue serched his woundes in the fingers of Thomas Now if this body the Churche and consequently euery one that is a member of this body see Christe hanging vpon the Crosse and with the fingers touche his woundes either bicause he hath the light and sight of faith or bicause through Charitie he is incorporate and made a member of that body and so seeth and toucheth by participatioÌ„ what maketh this against the real Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ frequented in the Church Bicause this manner of seeing Christe and of touching his woundes whether it be through vertue of faith or merite of charitie is not real and in dede wil you therof gather an ArgumeÌ„t that Christ in the Sacrifice of the Churche is not really offered O that you would make this Argument in Louaine or Paris or in any other famous Schoole of Diuinitie in the worlde this Argument I say Christe is not now seene hanging vpon the Crosse neither be his woundes touched really and in dede Ergo he is not of the Priestes offered vp in the Mysteries really You may be sure the Audience with hissing and trampling would driue you out of the Schoole If you say I doo you wrong in reporting your Argument to disaduantage which is your coÌ„mon practise towardes me I am content you frame it to your best aduaÌ„tage Let your owne Argument stand as your selfe haue set it forth An Argument I may cal it for by your Maior any man may sone vnderstaÌ„d what should be your Minor and conclusion Your Argument then is this As we see Christ eueÌ„ with our eyes hanging vpon the Crosse and thrust in our fingers and searche his woundes Euen so doo we see Christ comming vnto vs and offering him selfe in Sacrifice vnto God Your Minor or secoÌ„d proposition must be this but really and in deede so we see not Christ neither doo we so with our fingers searche his woundes Ergo really and in deede we see not Christe comming vnto vs and offering him selfe in Sacrifice Why sir al this I graunt For in deede we see not now Christe comming vnto vs nor offering him selfe But our controuersie is not of seing Christ comming and offering him selfe but of the offering of his body in Sacrifice And to that I alleged S. Ambrose saying Et si Christus non videtur offere tamen ipse offertur in terris quando Christi corpus offertur Although Christ be not seene to offer yet him selfe is offered in
of thinges to come August in Psal. 80. The redde Sea is consecrate in the bloude of our Lorde faith S. Augustin Againe Baptisme saith he is redde being consecrate in the bloude of Christe August in Ioan. Tract 11. The meaning hereof is As our sinnes be taken away and cleansed in baptisme taking vertue and effect of the bloud of Christ through faith So to the Iewes was forefigured the bloude of Christe in the redde Sea Baptisme is redde with the bloude of Christe and is consecrate by the same Thus it is said bicause it is ordeined by Christe to be a meane whereby the effecte and merite of his bloud is through â—aith imparted into vs. This much weighed and considered it may soone to any man appeare how litle reliefe M. Iewel shal finde in these pharses The .14 Diuision The Ansvver OF al other Oecumenius speaketh most plainely to this purpose vpon this place of S. Paule alleged out of the Psalme Oecumen in Epist. ad Heb. cap. 5. Psal. 119. Tu es Sacerdos in aeternum secundùm Ordinem Melchisedech Thou arte a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedek His wordes be these Significat sermo quod non solùm Christus obtulit incruentam hostiam siquidem suum ipsius corpus obtulit verùm etiam qui ab ipso fungentur Sacerdotio quorum Deus Pontifex esse dignatus est sine sanguinis effusione offerent Nam hoc significat in aeternum Neque enim de ea quae semel à Deo facta est Oblatio Hostia dixisset in aeternum sed respiciens ad praesentes Sacrificos per quos medios Christus sacrificat sacrificatur qui etiam in Mystica Coena modum illis tradidit huiusmodi Sacrificij The meaninge of this place is saithe he that not onely Christe offered an Vnblouddy Sacrifice for he offered his owne Bodie but also that they which after him shal doo the office of a Priest whose Bishop he vouchesaueth to be shal offer without shedding of Bloud For that signifieth the worde For euer For coÌ„cerning that Oblation and Sacrifice which was once made by God he would neuer saye In aeternum for euer But he saide so hauing an eye to those Priestes that be nowe by the mediation of whom Christe sacrificeth and is sacrificed who also in his Mystical Supper taught by tradition the manner of suche a Sacrifice Concerning the Prophecie of Malachie for proufe of this Oblation though the place of Irenaeus aboue recited may stande in steede of many auctorities yet I wil not let to rehearse the sayinges of a Father or two for confirmation of this Article Chrysostome saith very plainely In omni loco Sacrificium offertur nomini meo In Psal. 95. SacrificiuÌ„ purum Vide quà m luculenter quámque dilucidè Mysticam interpretatus est Mensam quae est Incruenta hostia In euery place a Sacrifice shal be offered to my name and that a pure Sacrifice See how plainely and clearely he interpreted the Mystical Table which is the Vnbloudy Sacrifice Iewel Here mighte I iustly take exception against this Doctour as findinge him vvithout the compasse of the firste sixe hundred yeeres Hovv be it He saithe not That the Prieste hath power or Authoritie to Sacrifice the Sonne of God nor seemeth any vvaie to fauer M. Hardinges purpose Therefore vve shal not neede to touche his credite Harding In this Diuision M. Iewel you set forth as it were in a moustre a number of authorities and not one to the purpose Yet fewe thinges excepted you tel vs litle here that you haue not tolde vs before One apte and plaine testimonie would haue holpen your cause more then al this impertinent and confuse number It is not harde for one that is furnished with stoare of Notebookes of common places as you are to fil the paper with heapes of allegations This kinde of writing as to the ignorant it maketh a false shewe of stoare of learning so to the learned bringeth assured euidence of lacke bothe of truth and iudgement You are much beholding to your Phrases and metaphorical speaches For in them at least as in a smooddering smoke you trust to conuey your selfe away that the weakenesse of your parte appeare not openly as it should if you would directly answer to the pointes wherewith the truth of our syde is confirmed By this you shewe your selfe to be mynded not to yeelde and to subscribe according to your promise what so euer and how muche so euer be proued against you Concering Oecumenius in my Answer alleged Oecumenius you might iustly take exception against him you say for that he falleth without the compasse of the first six hundered yeres As though an Author allowed by the best learned of the Churche for the speace of an vnknowen time should be of lesse credite then an other that wrote one hundred yeres before him As though also after the first six hundred yeres the holy Ghoste forsooke the Churche and therefore least it vnfurnished of good and learned teachers Of what age he was I trowe it is not certainely knowen but that he is of great antiquitie it is certaine Neither can ye refuse him for a Papist bicause he was of the Greke Churche which your selfe haue cleared of Papistrie Wel touching his credite forasmuch as vpon a braue shewe of a confidence in your cause you are so good Mayster vnto him as not to take exception against him we take that ye geue Let it then stand for good and allowed as in deede M. Ievvel speaketh directly against his ovvn knovvledge touching Oecumenius there is no cause but so it should Bicause you pretend in worde knowing the contrary in harte that this testimonie of Oecumenius maketh no proufe for the Sacrifice against your Chalenge whether it be so or no let it he briefly examined First saith he not that Christe him selfe offered an vnbloudy Sacrifice By the epipheton Vnbloudy added to Sacrifice is it not manifest that this Sacrifice was distincte and diuers from the Sacrifice that he made vpon the Crosse which was bloudy Nexte least any man might happen to doubte what the substance was which was offered vnbloudily by Christe doth not this Author declare it by his plaine Parenthesis saying for he offered his owne body That Christ offered his ovvne body vnblouddily Is it not cleare then that Christes body was the substance which he offered vnbloudily Note then good Reader that the substance which was offered bloudily vpon the Crosse and vnbloudily at the Supper for that was the time when the vnbloudy Sacrifice was made by this testimonie is al one to wit the body of Christe the body of Christe I say and not onely thankes geuing praises and remembrance of his Death whereunto onely you M. Iewel would draw it Thus it is euident that Christe him selfe offered to his Father not onely a bloudy but also an vnbloudy Sacrifice Let vs see whether by Oecumenius it may appeare
that Priestes haue authoritie to offer vp the vnbloudy Sacrifice That Prieâ—stes haue autoritie to offer the vnbloudy Sacrifice Verely it appeareth most manifestly For saith he Not onely Christe offered the vnbloudy Sacrifice but also they which from him shal doo the office of Priestes shal offer without shedding of bloud Marke M. Iewel The Priestes that shal haue authoritie from Christe their hye Bishop to execute the office of Priesthod shal offer vnbloudly But what shal they offer What other thing but that which Christe offered What offered Christe An vnblouddy Sacrifice What was the substance of that vnbloudy Sacrifice His very body Suum ipsius corpus obtulit he offered his owne body saith Oecumenius Therefore the Priestes shal offer the vnbloudy Sacrifice which is Christes body and the same shal they doo vpon good authoritie for that in so doing they shal execute the Priesthod which they shal receiue ab ipso from him that is from Christe If you can tel vs of any power and warrant more sufficient than that which commeth from Christe vnto the Priestes of his Churche then shal you require me to yeeld and with you to confesse that Priestes doo without good authoritie presume to offer vp Christe vnto his Father in their daily Sacrifice You wil say perhaps I heare that Priestes shal offer Christes body without shedding of bloud but that they haue any authoritie graunted them so to doo yet I heare not It may please you for this to consider what foloweth in Oecumenius This terme In aeternum for euer signifieth so much as that Priestes shal offer in executing their Priesthod from Christe his vnbloudy Sacrifice For the Prophete Dauid would neuer haue said that Christe was a Priest for euer Psal. 109. in respecte of the Sacrifice which Christe made once onely vpon the Crosse but in respecte of the Priestes that be now lyuing by whom as by meanes and instrumentes or rather ministers Christe bothe doth offer Sacrifice and is offered in Sacrifice Loe here by the ministerie of the Priestes Christe doth presently sacrifice and is sacrificed so that they do their office of Priesthode presently and accomplish that in deede whereby the Priesthod of Christe after the order of Melchisedek is daily put in practise and so continewed for euer not onely in power and vertue but also in acte and effecte VVhere gaue Christe to Priestes auctorite to sacrifice his body It remaineth it be shewed where and when Christe gaue them authoritie thus to doo Oecumenius in the ende of this allegation saith it more plainely then it may be doubted of much lesse denied Qui etiam in mystica coena modum illis tradidit huiusmodi Sacrificij Christe in his Mystical Supper deliuered vnto them the manner of such a Sacrifice I presuppose no man to be so vaine a wrangler as to cauille for that Oecumenius saith not he deliuered them authoritie but the manner how to offer this Sacrifice For the deliuering of the manner how to doo it had nothing auailed onlesse he had withal deliuered authoritie lawfully to executeat Thus haue you in this one authoritie expressed al the termes of your Chalenge to wit that Priestes haue authoritie to offer vp Christe vnto his Father in Sacrifice For here is mention made of Priestes of sacrificing vnbloudily of the body of Christe and therefore of Christe him selfe of authoritie bicause they execute Priesthod in the person of Christe from Christe and for Christe in that they be meanes by whom Christ sacrificeth and is sacrificed The same authoritie is further auouched by that that Christe deliuered vnto them in his last Supper the manner of such a Sacrifice How be it I was deceiued in saying that al the termes of your Chalenge be expressed in this testimonie for here lacketh the name of the Father But the Father of heauen be thanked that it forceth not muche whether his name be expressed or no seing it is so necessarily included For to whom should Christe offer Sacrifice but to his Father To whom ought man offer Sacrifice but to God onely as to whom and to none other that kinde of seruice is due If you require a plaine place witnessing that Priestes haue authoritie to offer vp Christe This sacrifice auouched by the Nicen Councel heare what the Fathers of the first Nicen Councel say The Councel is aduertised say they that in certaine places and Cities Diacons geue the Sacramentes vnto Priestes This neither Rule Concil Nicen Cano ne 14. nor Custome hath deliuered vnto vs that they who haue not power to offer vp the Sacrifice should deliuer the body of Christe vnto them that haue power to offer it Here you may see it expressely auouched that Priestes haue authoritie and power to offer vp the body of Christe Now let vs see what you answer to the plaine place of Oecumenius Iewel The vvhole Contentes of his vvordes are these That there is in the Churche an Vnblouddy Sacrifice and that Christe him selfe offereth vp the same by the meane and Ministerie of the Priest and that Christe him selfe is that Sacrifice VVhich vvordes vvith due construction and in the sense Hieron in Psal. 86. and meaning of the Ancient Fathers may vvel be graunted For like as S. Hierom saith as it is alleged before Quod natuÌ„ est ex Virgine Hieron in Psal. 97. nobis qâ—otidiè nascitur Christus nobis quotidiè crucifigitur Christe that was borne of the Virgin is borne vnto vs euery day Augustin quaest EuaÌ„ lib. 2. Christe vnto vs is daily Crucified And as S. Augustin saith Tum Christus cuique occiditur cùm credit Occisum Then is Christe presently slaine to euery man when he trusteth wholy in his Death August de verbis Domini SecuÌ„ Luc. Serm. 38. and beleueth he was slaine And as the same S. Augustin saith Tibi Christus quotidiè Resurgit Christe Riseth againe to thee euery daie And as Chrysostome saithe In the Holy Mysteries is wrought and perfited the Death of Christ Briefely as Gregorie saithe Christus iterum in hoc Mysterio Moritur Christe is slaine in this Mysterie Chrysost. in Acta hom 21. and dieth againe Euen so and in the same sense and meaninge and none othervvise Oecumenius saith Christe is offered in the Holy Supper De Cons. distinct 2. Quid sitâ— But as Christe neither is daily Borne of the Virgin nor daily Crucified nor daily Slaine nor daily Riseth from the dead nor daily Suffereth nor daily Dieth but onely in a certaine manner of Speache not verily and in dede Euen so Christ is daily Sacrificed only in a certaine manner of speach and in a Mysterie But Really verily and in deede he is not Sacrificed Harding Greate pointes coÌ„teined in the testimonie of Oecumenius by M. Ievvel disseÌ„bled There is more comprehended in the wordes of Oecumenius then you reporte For he saith that Christe hath offered the Vnbloudy Sacrifice which he expoundeth to haue ben the oblation
eum iubet hoc est vt mortem eius insinuent Tunc enim cuique occiditur cùm credit occisum Whereas he commaundeth them to bring him what is that to say els but that they preache him and by telling of him cause him to come into the bowels quite famished for hunger of the hungry sonne For he commaundeth also that they kill him that is to say that they insinuate and shewe his Death For then he is slaine to euery man when he beleueth that he was slaine 3. Thus S. Augustine expounded him selfe who maketh the killing of Christe now to be none other but the insinuation of his Death vnto vs by preaching Christ was once killed corporally and in deede And now he is killed as concerning the Application of the benefite of his Death that is to say his death is insinuate and applied vnto vs when we beleue hat he was killed for vs. Which Death neuerthelesse to wit the effect of his Death is applied vnto vs not by faith only but also faith presupposed by meane of the Sacraments So Christe is said by S. Augustine to rise againe to vs euery day In vvhat sense M. Ievvels mystical speaches alleged out of the Fathers be true bicause we beleue that he rose againe S. Chrysostom saith not simply as you reporte the Death of Christe is wrought and perfited in the holy Mysteries but illa mors perficitur that Death is perfited asmuch to say the vnbloudy and Mystical Death that is the vertue and effect of his Death is applied vnto vs in these Mysteries So meant S. Gregorie saying Dum illa mors perficitur that Christe lyuing immortally in him selfe dieth againe in this Mysterie That is to say as there he expoundeth him selfe this healthful Sacrifice repaireth and renueth vnto vs and applyeth vnto vs by mysterie the Death of Gods onely begoten Sonne Whereas then the learned Fathers speake thus of Christes daily birth De Consecrat dist 2. Quid sit of his daily crucifying his daily killing and his daily resurrection they meane not a real and a carnal presence of his body to be borne to be crucified to be slaine and to rise againe from the Dead but al is spoken mystically and the same is true in a manner of speache and in a mystical sense as now I haue declared But where they speake as Oecumenius here speaketh of th'vnbloudy host or Sacrifice naming it by way of expositioÌ„ Christes own body saying of it that they who haue Priesthod from him do offer it vp in Sacrifice without shedding of bloude and that for their continual offering of the same Psal. 109. Christe is called a Priest for euer by whom he sacrificeth and is sacrificed to whom also at his Mystical Supper he deliuered the manner of such Sacrifice where so euer they speake of this Sacrifice and after this manner there they meane a true and real Sacrifice and thereby signifie that Christe is sacrificed verely really and in deede Whiche notwithstanding is to be vnderstanded in respecte of the body of Christe really and in deede by vertue of Christes wordes made present in the Sacrament being the thing sacrificed and not in respecte of the common blouddy manner of sacrificing Whiche manner vntil Christe was sacrificed vpon the Crosse who is the truth and ende of al Sacrifices that were before was for the most parte with shedding of bloude and with slaughter of lyuing thinges In vvhat sense and respect is Christe novv Srcrificed and not sacrificed Rom. 6. To be plaine and shorte in respecte of that olde and common manner of sacrificing we denie as you doo that Christe is now really verely and in deede sacrificed For hauing bene once dead he dieth no more as S. Paule saith But in respecte of the substance of the Sacrifice which thing the olde leraned Fathers haue euer taught and the Churche practiseth as deliuered commaunded and taught by Christe at his last Supper as S. Irenaeus saith whiche substance is the body of Christe Irenaeus li. 4. cap. 32. and consequently Christe him â—elfe the Sonne of God We affirme and beleue and promise to defend with our bloude that Christe in our Mysterie is most truly really verely and in deede sacrificed Iewel The reste that follovveth in Oecumenius onely expresseth the tvvo seueral Natures in Christe the Godheade and the Manheade That touchinge his Manheade he was Sacrificed touching his Godheade he was the Prieste and made the Sacrifice And further to M. Hardinges purpose it maketh no thinge So Beda saithe although somevvhat othervvise Beda in Episto ad Ephes. c. 2. Filius Dei Orat pro nobis Orat in nobis Oratur à nobis Orat pro nobis vt Sacerdos Orat in nobis vt caput Oratur à nobis vt Deus The Sonne of God both Praieth for vs and Praieth in vs and is Praied of vs. He Praieth for vs as our Prieste He Praieth in vs as our Heade He is praied of vs as our God Epiphanius saith Epipha de Melchisedechian lib. 2. Christus est Victima Sacerdos Altare Deus Homo Rex Pontifex Ouis Agnus omnia in omnibus pro nobis factus Christ is our Sacrifice our Priest our Aultar God MaÌ„ King Bishop Sheepe LaÌ„me made for oursakes al in al. Thus is Christ our Sacrifice thus is Christ our Sacrificer not to be offered by the Priest as M. Harding imagineth but as the olde Maisters and Fathers of the Church haue taught vs. offered by him selfe vpoÌ„ the Crosse. Augu. Dâ— Tempore Serm. 13â— S. Augustin saith Ecce illic oblatus est Ibi seipsum obtulit Simul Hostia Sacerdos Et altare erat Crux Beholde there was he offered There he offered him selfe He was both the Priest and the Sacrifice And his Crosse was the Aultare Harding This answer is farre fetched and proceedeth from a great insight Fewe men but M. Iewel could haue seene so farre in Ocumenius woordes as to see in them that which by him was neuer meant nor so much as dreamed of M. Ievvel either of ignoraÌ„ce or of Malice vttereth manifest heresie yea that which also is very false and an heynous heresie if it be obstinatly mainteined But Sir wote ye what ye speake or speake you at al aduenture Surely here you are taken Neither can you escape but must needes confesse your errour and yeeld Was Christ touching his Godhead a Priest and touching the same made he Sacrifice Who euer said so but you What M. Iewel besides other heresies shal we haue an AriaÌ„ of you Wil you take that name vpoÌ„ you or coÌ„fesse that you lacke the principles of Diuinitie Aug. cont Faust. lib. 20. ca. 21. To offer Sacrifice is it not a kinde of worship called Latria that is due vnto God onely and to no creature Now shal we make Christe as he is God to doo worship and not to receiue worship onely done to him by others Is not God
the Sonne equal with God the Father Or wil you make vs a great God and a lesse God as we reade that Arius did Philip. 2. Saith not S. Paule Whereas he was in the forme of God he thought it no Robberie to be equal with God As he is God how doth he the office of the Priest How doth he Sacrifice Is not he that sacrificeth inferiour to him to whom sacrifice is done The creature worshippeth God and offereth Sacrifice vnto him That God worshippeth ought and doth Sacrifice there was neuer any so ignorant and blasphemous as to speake it This doctrine smelleth of the Arians who affirme the Sonne of God to be inferiour to his Father Our Lorde saue his people from such blinde guydes and false Prophetes Christ sacrificeth as man not as God but as God receiueth Sacrifice August de Ciuitat Dei li. 10. cap. 20. S. Augustine is more worthy to be hearde who farre otherwise teacheth vs that Christe receiueth Sacrifice as God and offereth Sacrifice as man His wordes be these Verus ille mediator in quantum formam serui accipiens mediator effectus est Dei hominum homo Christus Iesus cùm in forma Dei Sacrificium cum Patre sumat cum quo vnus Deus est tamen in forma serui Sacrificium maluit esse quà m sumere ne vel hac occasione quisquam existimaret cuilibet esse sacrificandū creaturae Per hoc Sacerdos est ipse offerens ipse oblatio That the true mediatour in asmuch as he tooke the fourme of a Seruaunt was made the mediatour of God and menne the man Christ Iesus whereas in the fourme of God he taketh Sacrifice with the Father with whom he is one God yet in the fourme of a Seruaunt he had rather be a Sacrifice then take Sacrifice least through this occasiō some man might thinke that Sacrifice were to be made to any what so euer creature By this he is a Priest him selfe being he that offereth and also the thing that is offered In this testimonie S. Augustine saith expressely that Christe as touching his manhead and as he is man is both the Priest that offereth and the Sacrifice offered and that touching his Godhead and as he is God he receiueth Sacrifice Which is quite contrary to that you here affirme Answer me to this question M. Iewel Beleue you that Christe was a Priest after the order of Melchisedek before he became man or only after that he became man If your answer be that he was Priest of that order after he had taken our flesh I haue nothing to say against you For that is the truth But if your answer shal be that he was such a Priest before flesh taken as you must answere if you wil defend this your doctrine then wil I turne you ouer vnto S. Augustine who I am sure in al wise mennes iudgement ouermatcheth you and is to be credited before you and al your Scoolemaisters of Zurich or Geneua This profounde learned Father expounding these woordes of the Psalme August in Psal. 109. Thou art a Priest for euer after the Order of Melchisedeck saith Ad hoc natus ex vtero ante luciferū vt esses Sacerdos in aeternum secundùm ordinē Melchisedech Thou wast borne from the wombe of the virgin before the daie sterre that thou mightest be a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedek And there eftsones Secundùm id quod natus est de Patre Deus apud Deum Non Sacerdos coaeternus gignenti non Sacerdos sed Sacerdos propter carnem assumptam propter victimam quam pro nobis offerret à nobis acceptam As touching that Christe was borne of the Father God with God he is equally euerlasting with him that begotte him not a Priest but a Priest for the fleshe assumpted for the hoste that he should offer for vs being taken of vs. Nothing can more plainely be spoken against you M. Iewel which nowe beginne to teache the worlde a newe heresie and prepare a way to the recidiuation of Arius heresie by affirming that Christe was a Priest and made Sacrifice according to his Godhead Whereof it must folow that as being God he was not equal with his Father M. Iewels promise made in his last Sermon at Poules Crosse. Be not a shamed M. Iewel to recant this fowle and grosse error I vnderstand you said in your Sermon at Poules Crosse the .xv. of Iune laste that if you had euer either spoken in Pulpit or written in booke any thing that may be prooued false your mouth should confesse it and your hand should retracte it By this it shal appeare to al men how farre your worde is to be trusted The wordes of Beda Epiphanius and S. Augustine which here you allege I see not to what purpose they serue you For they prooue no more that Christe touching his Godhead was euer a Priest and a Sacrificer then that the Moone is made of greene cheese if I may vse so grosse a Prouerbe in reproouing your so grosse an errour Neither wil these testimonies or any of them conclude against the offering of the body and bloude of Christ in the daily Sacrifice of the Churche M. Iewels common Logique is to put avvay one truth by an other truth onlesse you folow your accustomed Logique in excluding one truth by an other truth It were good for you once to remember that one truth alwaies driueth not out an other truth as one wedge driueth out an other wedge Wil you thus reason Christe was offered vpon the Crosse and the Crosse was then the Aulter which S. Augustine alleged saith Ergo he is not offered in the Churche by the Ministerie of Priestes which Eusebius and Oecumenius say and the Aulters of the Church serue not to any such purpose Euseb. De Demonstr lib. 1. As wel may we thus argue Iohn is a Minister Ergo Iohn is not an honest man Which Argument though perhaps it holde touching the mater yet for the fourme I am sure you wil not allow it This pelting kinde of Argument you vse through your whole Replie and in manner none other That if a learned man would examine that you write he should finde that neuer man wrote so loosely I doubte not good Reader but thou lookest for a larger truer and apter Replie then M. Iewel hath hitherto made to Oecumenius But what could he say No smoke cā wholy take away the light of the bright Sunne Considering his owne vnhablenes to answer the place keeping his syde vnsteyned he slyly passeth from it as one that would faine ridde his handes of so busy a comber Oecumenius speaketh most plainly and distinctly of a double oblation and Sacrifice the one once made vppon the Crosse in respect whereof Christe by his interpretation is not called a Priest for euer the other offered vp by the Priestes continually by whose mediation and ministerie Christe sacrificeth and is sacrificed In that I terme
these plaine woordes he describeth it Ephes. 5. Est primum Sacrificium Spirituale illud mysticum donum de quo Paulus ait Imitatores estote Dei c. The first and chiefe Sacrifice is that spiritual and Mystical gifte whereof S. Paul speaketh Be ye the folowers of God as beloued children and walke in loue euen as Christe hath loued vs and deliuered him selfe vnto God for vs a sacrifice and oblation into a swete sauour By which wordes he geueth vs to vnderstand that among al the kindes of Sabrifices whiche we haue being ten in number as there he reckeneth the first and chiefe of al is Christe him selfe who gaue him selfe to be sacrificed bloudily for vs vppon the Crosse and nowe in the Mystical Table offereth him selfe and is offered vnbloudily In consideration whereof he calleth it the spiritual and mystical gifte the pure healthful and vnbloudy hoste of the Mystical Table If there were none other proufe for this Sacrifice M. Ievv by false and crafty silence bevvraieth his syde and iustifieth the catholique doctrine the onely consideration of M. Iewels dealinge with S. Chrysostome in that he conceeleth and suppresseth the manifest mencion of it in that place from whens he taketh testimonies for proufe of the mere spiritual Sacrifices were yenough to persuade a man who is not desperately addicted to thopinions of his priuate lyking the doctrine of the Churche touching this point to be true and M. Iewels to be false If he would haue wrought directly to the purpose he should haue prooued that the vnbloudy Sacrifice of the Mystical Table were nothing elles but Prayers Thankesgeuing Praises and a remembraunce of Christes Death For we graunt that al these doo concurre vpon that Table But that they be there onely that is to say without the Sacrifice of the Body and Bloude of Christe we denie vpon S. Chrysostomes auctoritie who annumbreth this Sacrifice distinctly and alone from the reste Againe if he would fully haue acheeued his intent it stode him vpon to proue that they onely are vnbloudy Sacrifices and that this is not For otherwise wee wil alwaies stande to this trueth that both be vnbloudy Sacrifices and so this is an vnbloudy Sacrifice yea this more properly then the other For those mere spiritual Sacrifices be of them selues neither bouddy nor vnblouddy but in mere respecte of certaine external Sacrifices whiche were offered in the olde Lawe with shedding of Bloude But the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe offered in the Churche is so called in consideration of the one and the same substance whiche once was bloudily offerred and is now offered without Bloudshed in a Mysterie In the Councel of Ephesus Cyrillus calleth it Ephesin Concil in Epist. Cyril ad Nestor incruentam Sacrificij seruitutem the vnbloudy worship of the Sacrifice Nowe good Reader wilt thou see how M. Iewel doth alwaies like him selfe and what smal shifte of reasoning he hath Marke whether of the affirmation of the mere spiritual Sacrifices of the mynde he inferre not the Denial of the external and real Sacrifice of Christes Body and Bloude that is to say whether he make not one trueth to put away an other truth The thing he taketh in hande to prooue is this That the Sacrifice offered at the Mystical Table is not the vnbloudy Sacrifice of the Churche Remember wtihal that his conclusion should be this that by the vnblouddy hoste of the Mystical Table S. Chrysostome meant not the Vnblouddy Sacrifice of the Body and Bloude of Christe His reason then is this The Holy learned Fathers doo applie the terme M. Iewels argumeÌ„t against the vnbloudy Sacrifice as the Catholikes take it Vnblouddy to Prayer to Thankes geuing to Praises to the Melodie of Angels praysing God in heaueÌ„ yea to faith hope and charitie and to other vertues Ergo S. Chrysostome meant not the pure and vnbloudy offering of Christes Body and Bloude by the Vnblouddy Sacrifice at the Mystical Table This is the whole effecte of his prooufe and this is his Argument Let it be lawful forme that the force of this reason be opened to vse the like forme of Argument in an other mater that by comparison the lewdnes of his Argument may appeare The holy learned Fathers do applie this terme Necessarie to Faith hope penaunce pacience fasting praying and to almose deedes saying they be necessary for a Christian man Ergo the same Fathers thought not that Charitie was necessary for a Christian man Is not here a denial of a trueth inferred vppon the affirmation of an other truth Right so doth M. Iewel prooue that Christes Body and bloude is not the Vnblouddy Sacrifice of the Churche bicause other spiritual Sacrifices be called Vnblouddy As thoughe the Terme might not or were not by the Fathers applied to both Euery childe may sone espie this absurditie and follie Bicause there is no pith in this confuse number of authorities that be here by heapes layd together neither prooue they any thing contrary to that we defende I thinke it better to passe them ouer as altogether impertinent and superfluous then by discussing of them to be tedious vnto the reader And that which foloweth to the ende of this Diuision is no better stuffe then the other before Thus he saith Iewel This Kinde of Sacrifice bicause it is mere Spiritual and grovveth onely from the Minde therefore it needeth not any material Aultar of Stoane or Timber to be made vpon as doth that Sacrifice that M. Harding imagineth in his Masse Chrysostome saith Chrysos in Psal. 95. Munus Euangelij sine Sanguine sine Fumo sine Altari caeterisque sursum ascendit The Sacrifice of the Gospel ascendeth vp without Bloud without Smoke without Aultare and other the like In the Sâ—cond Councel of Nice it is vvriten thus Nos Christiani propemodum quid sit Ara quid sit Victima nescimus VVhat Sacrifice or Aultar meaneth we beinge Christian people in a manner can not tel Hieron in Psal. 26. August de Tempore Serm. 125. S. Hierome saith Vnusquisque Sanctus Altare Domini in se habet quod est Fides Euery Holy man hath in him selfe the Aultar of God which is Faith To be shorte S. Augustine saith Sacrificium Noui Testamenti est quando Altaria Cordis nostri munda pura in conspectu Diuinae Maiestatis offerimus The Sacrifice of the Newe Testamente is when we offer vp the Aultrrs of our hartes pure and cleane in the sight of the Diuine Maiestie In these respectes our Praiers our Praises our Thankesgeuinge vnto God for our Saluation in the Death of Christe is called an Vnbloudy Sacrifice Hereof the sclendernesse of M Hardinges gheasses may soone appeare For thus he vvoulde seeme to reason The Ministration of the Holy Communion and our humble Remembrance of the Death of Christe is called an Vnblouddy Sacrifice Ergo The Priest hath power to offer vp the Sonne of God in sacrifice vnto his Father Harding If
the Sacrifice of the Churche whereof we treate were nothing elles but Prayers Praises thankes geuing and a remembrance and had no substance at al which consisteth without and besides the minde of man then might we graunt that al Aulters of Stoane or Timber were needelesse But seing that the Auncient learned Fathers make often mention of Aulters in their Churches and of their Sacrifices thereon it foloweth necessarily that their Sacrifices consisted not wholly of Prayers Material Aulters thankes and of suche other deuotion of the minde but of some such thing also which required a place wherevpon it may be laid What that thing is Optatus that auncient and learned Bishop of Mileuitum in Afrik doth declare Optatus libro 6. geuing withal an euident recorde for the vse of Aulters Thus he saith writing against the Donatistes Quid tam sacrilegum quà m Altaria Dei in quibus vos aliquando obtulistis An external Aulter argueth the real presence and an external Sacrifice frangere radere remouere Quid enim est Altare Dei nisi sedes Corporis Sanguinis Christis What greater Sacriledge can there be then to breake rase and quite remoue away the Aulters of God vpon which your selues once offered For what other thing is an Aulter then a seate both of the Body and of the Bloude of Christe These termes of breaking rasing and remouing do conuince the Aulters were material as made of Stoane or Timber The vse also is expressed manifestly which is to be a seate for the body and bloude of Christe to be laid vpon when they be consecrate and sacrificed Whereof may be gathered an Argument of the real presence and of the external Sacrifice For a seate serueth to place real and external substances and not mere spiritual thinges of which sorte contrition of harte Praiers thankes and praises are If I thought it needeful in this place to allege auctorities for proufe of this vse of material Aulters it were easy to allege no smal number for the same out of the most auncient Fathers and Councels The thing being so cleare and so wel knowen of al that haue any skil of antiquitie it may suffice to ioyne the testimonie of S. Augustine with that of Optatus Who speaketh bothe of building of Aulters in Churches whereby it is certaine they were material and also of sacrificing vpon them August de Ciuitat Dei li. 22. cap. 10. His wordes be plaine Nos autem Martyribus nostris non Templa sicut Dijs sed memorias sicut hominibus mortuis quorum apud Deum viuunt spiritus fabricamus Nec ibi erigimus Altaria in quibus sacrificemuâ— Martyribus sed vni Deo Martyrum nostro sacrificium immolamus As for vs saith he we buylde for our Martyrs not Temples as for Goddes but Memories by Memories he meaneth Chappels or Churches builded in the memorie of Martyrs as for dead men whose Spirites be lyuing with God Neither do we there set vp Aulters that on them we may sacrifice to Martyrs but to God onely we offer Sacrifice Aulters auouched who is the God bothe of Martyrs and of vs also By this saying it is witnessed vnto vs that the Aulters erected in Martyrs Churches were material as the Churches were and that on them Priestes made Sacrifice vnto God Whereas then M. Iewel admitteth none other kinde of Sacrifice in the newe Testament than such as for offering whereof any material Aulter is not required and S. Augustine speaketh of a Sacrifice that is offered vnto God vpon the material Aulters by this we vnderstand this newe doctrine of M. Iewel touching the Sacrifice to dissent from the olde Doctrine of S. Augustin Consider wel of it Christian Reader how safe it is for thee to forsake the Churche to contemne S. Augustine Optatus and al other the olde learned Fathers in whose workes we finde often mention of material Aulters and the Sacrifice therevpon daily offered and to pinne thy faith on M. Iewels sleeue who as thou seest hath no sure grounde but onely denieth al and for colour of some defence shuffleth together by heapes patches and peeces of the Fathers sayinges whereby a confusion is sought no certaintie is taught If he wil replye against this Table and Aulter saying that the Fathers cal the Aulter a table as to gete some auctoritie vnto his remoueable Communion Table he is wont commonly to translate a Table for an Aulter it may please him to vnderstand that the Fathers do truely cal it by bothe names according to the double vse of the Euchariste which is ministred vpon the same For the Euchariste is bothe a Sacrament and a Sacrifice As it is a Sacrament so is it our heauenly foode and sustenance As it is a Sacrifice so is it our daily offering Vnto the which two vses S. Cyprian hauing respecte saith of the bread and Chalice consecrated by solemne blessing Cyprian De Coena Domini that it is bothe a medicine and also a Sacrifice to heale our infirmities and to purge our iniquities Therefore the Fathers cal it a Table in consideration we receiue from thens our substantial foode And for that cause it is alwaies couered with a white linnen cloth They cal it an Aulter for that we offer vpon it the heauenly Sacrifice of Christes body and bloude and for that cause also it is fastened to the place where it standeth Wherefore the Table doth not exclude the Aulter nor doth the Aulter exclude the Table But bothe are one in deede and yet double in respecte of the double vse of the thing wrought vpon it So that to turne the Aulter into a Table is but a seely shifte and a poore refuge This muche being now knowen it wil be easy to perceiue that the authorities by him alleged be to be vnderstanded either of the Aulters Sacrifices smoke and other Ceremonies vsed in the olde lawe or of mere spiritual Sacrifices which require none other Aulter than the harte of man Chrysost. Homil. in Psal. 95. So is the saying of S. Chrysostome here to be taken The gifte of the Gospel whereby is meant what so euer man offereth to God now in the state of the new Testament ascendeth vp vnto God without bloude without smoke without Aulter and without the other Ceremonies for so is it in the author Who seeth not by these wordes the filthy shedding of bloude the stincking smoke and therefore also the Aulter of the Iewes in the olde lawe to be signified Our Sacrifice is pure and cleane without the smoke of burnt grease and fleshe and so without that Aulter whereon such thinges were burnt BVt what is to be said vnto the autoritie alleged out of the second Councel of Nice M. Iewel here craueth help at the second NiceÌ„ Councel vvhich otherâ—wheres he despiseth what Sacrifice or Aulter meaneth we Christians in a manner can not tel saith Leontius cited in that Councel What M. Iewel wil you craue helpe to
the ouerthrowing of Aulters of that Councel at which your selfe and your companions do so rage and raile as being wicked and contrary to the worde of God for allowing the Images of Christe and his Sainctes and for cursing the ouerthrowers and breakers of them I perceiue you be not so scrupulous nor timorous but you wil take an Apple at your ennimies hande You are more hardy then Laoocon was Aeneid 2. who said as the Poet reporteth Timeo Danaos dona ferentes Touching the mater it selfe you ouermuch abuse your Readers M. Iewel If euer you haue read the place your selfe and haue not onely trusted your gatherers and serchers you could not be ignorant that it maketh nothing at al against the Aulters vsed in Christian Churches but that onely it declareth the Aulters and sacrifices of the Paynimes wherewith they honoured their Idols to be now so farre growen out of vse that the Christians skarse knewe what was meant by them The wordes going before and folowing do declare the meaning of the place Which I thinke good here to rehearse both for the Readers better instruction and that your false dealing be plainely detected Thus then the holy Bishop Leontius saith writing against the Iewes CoÌ„cil Nicen 2. Session 4. who charged the Christians with idolatrie for worshipping God and his Saintes before their Images Qua tandem fronte Iudaei nos vocant Idololatras Vbi nunc sunt quae olim ab ipsis oblatae sunt Idolis boum ouiuÌ„ filiorum quoque victimae Vbi sacrificioruÌ„ fumi Vbi Arae profusiones sanguinum Nos verò Christiani propemoduÌ„ quid â—it Ara quid victima ignoramus Nam Graeci adulteris quibusdom hominibus homicidis impuris scelestis templa dicârunt eorumque Idola cum illis ipsis Deos fecerunt neque sanè vel Prophetarum vel Sanctorum Martyrum nomine Templum aut aram appellantes With what face doo the Iewes cal vs Idolaters where be now becomme the sacrifices of Oxen of shepe and of Children also which they once offered to Idols Where is the smoke of the sacrifices The Aulters and Sacrifices of the Panimes be vnknovven to the Christians Where are the Aulters and sheddinges of bloude As for vs that be Christians we are wel nigh ignorant what an Aulter and what a sacrifice is The Gentiles dedicated Temples to certaine men being aduoutrers murderers filthy and abominable and made their Images or Idols and them selues to be taken for Goddes and yet neuer called they temple or Aulter by the name of Prophetes or holy Martyrs Who seeth not at the first reading of what kinde of Aulters and Sacrifices this place is to be vnderstanded And to speake likewise of the Christians that be in our time how many be there that in manner knowe not what such an Aulter and what such a sacrifice is In al England who euer sawe any such If they haue not bene sene how can they be knowen onlesse it be by reading of the bookes of the Gentiles Neither doth Leontius finde fault with the Gentiles for hauing Temples and Aulters but for dedicating them to Idols and not to God and for not calling them by the names of Gods frendes as of the Prophetes or holy Martyrs so as Christian people doth vse to name their Churches Chappels and Aulters some of S. Marie some of S. Peter some of S. Paule some of S. Laurence c. Yet neuerthelesse they erecte not temples or Aulters vnto any Martyr but onely vnto him that is the God of Martyrs though for the memories of Martyrs For what Prelate standing at the Aulter saith S. Augustine in the places of Saintes bodies August coÌ„tra Faust. lib. 20. c. 21 hath euer said We do offer vnto thee Peter or Paule or Cyprian But that which is offered is offered vnto God that crowned the Martyrs at the Toumbes of them whom he crowned to th ende that by the suggestion of the places themselues greater affection may rise to whette our charitie both towardes them whom we may be hable to folowe and towardes him by whose aide we may be made hable In this sense spake the Learned Bishop Leontius those wordes M. Iuels falshod disclosed not to disanulle Aulters in the Churches of Christe for which purpose you M. Iewel haue alleged them Neither meant he to signifie that in his time the name of Aulters simply and generally had bene strange among the Christians He meant only Idolatrie Aulters It was guilefully done of you to take out a fewe wordes of the whole saying which being set apart and diuided from that goeth before and that commeth after seme to make against the auncient custome of hauing Aulters in Christian Churches But the whole place vewed it soone appeareth how litle it serueth to your purpose and how muche it discloseth your wicked falshod Where is conscience Where is shame If you feare not God yet thinke what the worlde wil say of you But such a cause would haue no better Aduocates As for that you bring out of S. Hierome what maketh it for you Hieronyin Psalm 25. Expounding this verse of the .25 Psalme I wil wash my handes among Innocentes and I wil compasse thy Aulter rownde about ô Lorde maketh Aulter in a moral sense to signifie Faith as handes also to signifie workes Now saith he Aulter is asmuche to say as Faith I wil compasse this Aulter rownde about with good-workes That is to say I wil not put my trust in Faith alone I wil ioyne vnto it also good workes Vnusquisque sanctus altare Domini in se habet quae est fides Euery Saint saith he hath the Aulter of our Lorde in him that is Faith As the real hostes and Sacrifices which are offered vp vnto God are laid vpon the Aulter and thens are offered So al our good workes which be spiritual sacrifices offered vp vnto God must be laid vpon Faith as vpon an Aulter and from thens onely being offered they be acceptable in Gods sight For without Faith no worke is good ne pleaseth God Now what Argument you can gather out of this place for your purpose I see not Al M. Ievvels argumentes be suche as of the affirmation of one truth inferre the denial of an other truthe onlesse it be this The spiritual Aulter wherevpon our spiritual sacrifices be offered vp to God is Faith Ergo there ought to be no external Aulter to offer vp the external Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe vpon which is the external Sacrifice of the newe Testament But stil we answer Your Arguments be childish and of no force whiche of the affirmation of one truth conclude the denial of an other truth Touching that you allege here as out of S. Augustine I doubte whether any such saying be in S. Augustine Certaine it is your quotation is false And therefore it may be suspected Albe it if he say it in some place it maketh nothing against the real and
external Sacrifice of the Churche For the spiritual Sacrifices of our hartes exclude not the real Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe and the pure Aulters of our hartes may wel and do wel stande with the material Aulters of Christian Churches whereon the vnbloudy Sacrifice of Christes body and bloude are offered Hereof then and of that is before in this Diuision by you said the sclendernesse of your Argumentes doth soone appeare For thus you reason The Sacrifices of Prayers The best Argumēts that M. Ievv maketh against the Sacrifice Praises thankes geuing and other the like deuotions are of the Fathers called vnbloudy Ergo the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe now offered by Priestes of the newe Testament is not called the vnbloudy Sacrifice Item By reporte of the auncient Bishop Leontius alleged in the seconde Nicen Councel Christen people in manner knowe not what an Aulter of Idolatrous Paynimes and what their Sacrifice is Ergo they knowe not what the Aulters of our Churches now nor what the dreadful Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe is Item The Fathers speake muche of the spiritual Aulters of our harte and of mere spiritual sacrifices Ergo they denie that there be any material Aulters and that thereon the real and external Sacrifice of Christes body and bloude is offered Logique is good cheape where these Argumentes be allowed But he that lacketh a Recorder may yet pype with an oten reede If Logique can not handsomly be applyed to mainteine M. Iewels glorious Chalenge yet Rhetorique wil do good seruice And yet in Rhetorique it selfe these Argumentes be but childish As wel might one proue there is none other heauen besides our hartes bicause S. Augustine saith August de Tempore Serm. 44 in a Sermon Corda fide lium coelum sunt The hartes of the faithful be heauen Ergo heauen that is said to be out of this worlde is but a tale As wel one might say Christe is not the Sonne of God bicause he is the sonne of man And in a mater of lesse weight as wel and by like Logique one shrewde boy might say to an other Iacke I wil proue thou hast no nose Thou hast great lolling eares Ergo thou hast no nose Of such Argumentes we haue great stoare in M. Iewels writinges and in manner none other For which cause to any graue and learned man he semeth rather worthy of contempte then of Answer Who so euer cōsidereth not the number of his wordes but the weight of his sentences not the multitude of his patched and peeced allegations but the force of the mater by the same auouched shal iudge no lesse God be thanked that heresie hath so weake a defence The .15 Diuision The Ansvver S. Augustin hath many euidēt sayinges touching this matter in his workes One shal suffice for al which is in a litle treatise he made contra Iudaeos vttered in these wordes Cap. ◠Aperite oculos tandem aliquando videte ab Oriente sole vsque ad Occidentem non in vno loco vt vobis fuit constitutum sed in omni loco offerri Sacrificium Christianorum non cuilibet Deo sed ei qui ista praedixit Deo Israël Open your eies at last you Iewes and see that from the rising of the Sunne to the setting not in one place as it was appoincted to you but in euery place the Sacrifice of the Christian people is offered not to euery God but to him Malach. 1. that prophecied of these thinges before the God of Israel And euen so with that protestation which S. Augustine made to the Iewes I ende this tedious matter consistinge in manner altogeather in allegations to M. Iewel Open your eies at last M. Iewel and see how al the holy and learned Fathers that haue preached the Faithe of Christe from the rising of the Sunne to the setting haue taught this Doctrine by worde and writing lefte to the posteritie that they which vnder Christe doo vse the office of a Priest after the order of Melchisedek haue not only Authoritie but also expresse commaundement to offer vp Christe vnto his Father The proufe of which Doctrine although it depende of the weight of one place yet I haue thought good to fortifie it with some number that it may the better appeare to be a moste vndoubted Truthe not moued greatly with the blame of tediousnes where no thankes are sought but onely the defence of the Catholike Religion is intended Iewel S. Augustine as in these vvordes he neither toucheth nor signifieth this nevv manner of offeringe vp Christe vnto his Father so in sundrie other places he openeth his ovvne meaninge plainely and fully touchinge the same In his Treatie against the Ievves he vvriteth thus Sacerdotium Aaron iam nullum est in aliquo templo August ad uersus Iudaeos c. 1 At Christi Sacerdotium aeternum perseuerat in coelo The Blouddy Priesthode of Aaron is nowe in no Temple to be founde But the Priesthoode of Christe Continueth stil not vpon any Earthely Aultar But in Heauen Cont. Aduers legis proph lib. 1. ca. 1. Againe The Priest offereth vp the Sacrifice of Praise not after the Order of Aaron but after the order of Melchisedek Eius Sacrificij similitudinem celebrandam in suae Passionis Memoriam commendauit illud quod Melchisedek obtulit Deo iam per totum orbem terrarum videmus offerri Christ hath leafte vnto vs a likenes or Token of that Sacrifice in Remēbrancè of his Passion August in lib. 80. quast qu. 61. And the same that Melchisedek offered vnto God wee see is nowe offered throughout the whole VVorlde Holocausti eius Imaginem ad Memoriam Passionis suae in Ecclesia celebrandam dedit Christ hath geuen vs to celebrate in his Churche In eadem quaestione an Image or Token of that Sacrifice for the Remembrance of his Passion Huius Sacrificij Caro Sanguis ante Aduentum Christi per victimas similitudinum promittebatur Augustin cōt Faust li. 20. c. 21 De Cons. dis 2. Sacrificium August de Ciuit. Dei li. 10. c. 5. In Passione Christi per ipsam veritatem reddebatur Post Ascensionem Christi per Sacramentum Memoriae celebratur The Fleashe and Bloude of this Sacrifice before the Cumminge of Christe was promifed by Sacrifices of Resemblance The same was perfourmed in deede in the time of Christes Passion But after Christes Ascension it is frequented by a Sacramente of Remembrance Sacrificium hoc Visibile Inuisibilis Sacrificij Sacramentum id est Sacrum Signum est This Visible Sacrifice is a Sacramente Naziā in Apologet. that is to saie a Token or Signe of the Sacrifice Inuisible Quod Appellamus Sacrificium Signum est Repraesentatio Sacrificij The thinge that wee calle a Sacrifice is a Signe and Representation of a Sacrifice Thus many vvaies S. Augustine him selfe teacheth vs vvhat he meante by this vvorde Sacrifice An Oblation
of Praise A Similitude a Resemblance a Likenes an Image a Remembrance a Token a Signe a Representation of a Sacrifice So Nazianzene calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Figure or Token of the Greate Mysteries To conclude S. Hierome saithe thus Hieron in Psalm 51. Tunc acceptabis Sacrificium vel cum te pro nobis offers Patri vel cum à nobis Laudes Gratiarum actiones accipis Then shalt thou receiue Sacrifice either when thou offerest thee selfe vpon thy Crosse for vs vnto thy Father or when thou receiuest of vs Praises and Thankesgeuinge Harding What this man lacketh in weight he maketh vp in nuÌ„ber If a controuersie might be decided by a multitude of forged peeced maimed corrupte and impertinent sentences shuffled together this mater were fully coÌ„cluded The Prentises the coÌ„mon deceiued people the Ministers comen of late from their shoppes and handy craftes and others that can not iudge of these pointes thinke perhaps that he hath acquitted him selfe like a great Clerke bicause they see such a number of authorities heaped together and beholde the Margent of his booke so painted with quotations But the wise who haue skil hereof whereas among so many places alleged out of the Fathers neuer a one proueth his purpose see wel ynough that he is vtterly destitute of good mater and that he onely setteth foorth an ydle shewe of wordes The two first authorities be not founde in the places by him quoted which causeth suspicion Notwithstanding the mater is not of great importance First what if S. Augustine say as here he is made to speake The Priesthod of Aaron is now to be founde in no temple The Priesthod of Christ coÌ„tinueth stil bothe in heaueÌ„ and in the Churche but the Priesthod of Christe continueth stil in heauen If he reason thus The Priesthod of Christe continueth stil in Heauen Ergo it continueth not in the Churche I denie the Argument For it continueth both in heauen and also in the Church though otherwise there otherwise here In heauen it continueth bicause he is a Priest by nature And what dignitie he hath by nature that hath he not loste ne put of by his entring into heaueÌ„ And therfore he coÌ„tinueth a Priest there not by passible renuing of his Sacrifice but by presenting him selfe to God and by his merciful interpellation and appearing for vs before God with that body that was once sacrificed for vs Heb 9. as S. Paule saith Christe is entred into heauen for to appeare now in the sight of God for vs. Againe Heb. 7 Euermore he liueth to make sute vnto God for vs. His Priesthod continueth in the Churche that is in earth by the ministerie of men that vnder him be Priestes of the newe Testament by meane of whom as Oecumenius before allegeth saith he sacrificeth and is sacrificed Eusebius declaring the Prophecie of Christes euerlasting Priestod after the order of Melchisedek saith The euent or ende of that Prophecie is maruelous to one that considereth Euseb. de Demonst. EuaÌ„g lib. 5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how our Sauiour Iesus Christe after the manner of Melchisedek doth by his Ministers euen to this time celebrate those thinges that apperteine to the Sacrifice which is among men And thus your false interlined glose denying Sacrifice to be done vpon an earthly Aulter which you haue impudently added by a parenthesis vnto your Doctour is controlled and confuted The second authoritie falsly quoted is this The Priest offereth vp the Sacrifice of praise not after the order of Aaron but after the order of Melchisedek What conclude you hereof Ergo he offereth not the real Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe The Argument is naught For he offereth vp bothe the Sacrifice of praise and also the body and bloude of Christe vnder the formes of bread and wine and therefore after the order and manner of Melchisedek This is very simple Logique If you had directed the Reader by a true quotation vnto the place where this authoritne is written you should haue sent him thither where S. Augustine maketh clearely against you And therefore of very falshod by wrong quotation you thought it policie to deceiue your Reader The testimonie is to be founde contra aduersarâ— legis Prophet lib. 1. cap. 20. Per Episcoâ—porum successiones certisâ—maâ— Where he saith thus The Churche coÌ„tinueth from the Apostles time to our time and so foreward by most certaine successions of Bishoppes and sacrificeth vnto God in the body of Christe the Sacrifice of Praise c. For this Churche is Israel after the spirite from whom that Israel after the flesh is distincted which serued in the shadowes of Sacrifices by the which was signified THE SINGVLAR SACRIFICE that Israel after the Spirite doth now offer vp The singular Sacrifice c. Out of this Israels House God taketh not Calues neither Goates from his heardes This Israel sacrificeth vnto God the Sacrifice of Praise not after the order of Aaron but after the order of Melchisedek Yet a litle after in the same place speaketh S. Augustine more plainely of this Sacrifice They whiche reade doo knowe saith he what Melchisedek brought forth when he blessed Abraham And now they be partakers of it and they see such a Sacifice now to be offered vp vnto God in the whole world He speaketh thereof as he is woont to speake when he commeth to this Mysterie making this preface before They knowe that reade As who should say This Mysterie is not to be reueled in open writing least the despite of Infidels and Heretikes reache vnto it but the beleuers that reade the place of Genesis where it is spoken of knowe what it meaneth And they are partakers of it by receiuing the Sacrament and see such kinde of Sacrifice to be offered now through the whole Churche that now is dispersed ouer the whole worlde Beholde he speaketh of a Sacrifice that is receiued of the faithful and seene euerywhere to be offered Which argueth the same to be an external and visible Sacrifice Al these properties can not reasonably seme to perteine to a mere spiritual Sacrifice but onely to the Sacrifice of the Euchariste Thus teacheth S. Augustine there Touching the first sentence if it be true that S. Augustine saith A marke to knovv the true Churche vvhiche these Gospellers do lackâ— in what ranke shal we place you and your felowes M. Iewel If ye wil chalenge vnto you the name and estimation of the Churche by S. Augustines doctrine ye must shewe vs your continuance from the Apostles time to these dayes and so foreward to the ende not by a fewe wrested falsified and misconstrued places of writers seming to blame thinges that ye like not but by most certaine Successions of Bishoppes But bicause ye shal neuer be hable to shewe vs Bishops that haue succeeded one after an other in profession of your strange Doctrines from the Apostles age to this present
time ye shal not be angry with vs but with that holy learned Father S. Augustine if we accompte your scattered troupes not for the Churche of Christe nor any parte thereof but for Dennes of theeues and Synagogues of Antichriste Neither doo ye sacrifice vnto God the Sacrifice of Praise in the body of Christe which the Churche doth as S. Augustine saith for ye acknowledge no Sacrifice of the body of Christe at al in whiche God is chiefly praised and thanked for his benefites The Singular Sacrifice that S. Austine speaketh of is the Sacrifice of the Eucharist Furthermore what Sacrifice is that whereof the sacrifices of Israel according to the flesh were significations which S. Augustine here calleth the Singuler Sacrifice that Israel after the spirite offereth vp now What other is it then the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe after an vnbloudy manner daily offered in the Churche For of the Sacrifice of the Crosse ye can not expounde it bicause the same is done once already and is not now offered vp Neither can ye vnderstande it of mere spiritual Sacrifices for they are not Singuler neither offered onely now that is to say in the time of the newe Testament but are common to the faithful personnes and times of bothe Testamentes By this it is euident that the Sacrifice of Praise which Israel after the spirite that is to say the Churche offereth vp vnto God not after the order of Aaron but after the order of Melchisedek as S. Augustine writeth is the Sacrifice of the Euchariste in whiche the body and bloude of Christe is offered vp vnder the fourmes of bread and wine Genes 14. in which Melchisedek made his Sacrifice forefiguring this Your thirde authoritie which you haue somedeale corrupted by nipping away certaine wordes and by false translation maketh for proufe of our Sacrifice it helpeth your Negatiue nothing at al. The whole sentence truly translated August li. 83. quaestion q. 61 is this Christe hath commended vnto vs a likenes of his bloudy Sacrifice for of that he speaketh there to be celebrated in remembrance of his Passion to the ende we may see now that which Melchisedek offered vnto God to be offered in the Churche of Christe through the whole worlde Here are touched three Sacrifices the Sacrifice of the Crosse Three Sacrifices the Sacrifice of the Aulter the Sacrifice of Melchisedek On the Crosse Christe was sacrificed truly according to the truth of substance of the thing sacrificed and of the manner of sacrificing which was by shedding of bloude and killing the hoste that was to be sacrificed In the Supper then and in the Aulter now he is truly sacrificed as touching the truth of the substance of the thing that is offered that is to say the body and bloude of Christe For he said Luc. 22. This is my body this is my bloude doo ye this in remembraÌ„ce of me 1. Cor. 11. But not according to the truth of such manner of sacrificing For he is sacrificed vnbloudily and in Mysterie The body that now is offered is a liue body For it is the same in the Sacrament that hong vpon the Crosse and that is now in heauen But though Christes body be now a lyue in the Sacrament and the bloud in the Body yet neither is the body of vs offered bicause it is a lyue and now to be killed nor the bloude bicause it is in the body as againe to be shed but bicause the body was once killed and the bloude once shed that which is now done is done in remembrance of that And hereof it commeth that this Sacrifice is oftentimes called of the Fathers in respecte of the bloudy Sacrifice of the Crosse as it is in the thirde fourth and fifth testimonie of S Augustine here alleged to be sene a likenes an Image of that Sacrifice a memorie or Sacrament of memorie From the affirmation of which likenes Imageâ— memorie SacrameÌ„t representation or figure to inferre the denial of a true presence and Sacrifice is besides al rules of Logique and reason sithens both stand wel together And yet this is in maÌ„ner the only kinde of reason and Argument that M. Iewel vseth through his whole Reply and otherwheres Which kind of ArgumeÌ„tes they must needes vse if they wil vse any at al who by opening the truth of any question by due distinctions see their false doctrine confuted and therfore make their apparent aduantage of confusion Which Confusion is soonest wrought by heapes of vndiscussed authorities without declaration of the circumstances patchedly and by peece meale alleged and iumbled together as M. Iewel is woont to doo Likenes aÌ„d Image how they signifie in the nevv testameÌ„t being spoken of the sacrament And remember good Reader that whereas S. Augustine here alleged speaketh of a Similitude or likenes he meaneth not euery common kinde of likenes but a likenes that is a Sacrament of the newe Testament Which is a holy effectual and visible signe of inuisible grace If thou take away the body and bloude of Christe from this likenes it shal lacke the inuisible grace and so shal it not be such a likenes as S. Augustine here speaketh of Image An Image also which terme he vseth likewise in the newe Testament considered in Christe or his Sacramentes doth not signifie a bare figure voide of the thing whose Image it is But rather signifieth the true thing it selfe exhibited in the fourme of an other thing and not in proper shape De Cons. Dist. 2. Hoc est quod dicimus So is Christe Imago Patris the Image of his Father appearing in the fourme of man So is the Sacrament of Christes body the Image of the same body crucified yea the body of Christe in the Sacrament inuisible is a Sacrament and sampler of the same body visible For so S. Augustine speaketh Caro videlicet carnis sanguis est sacramentum Sanguinis carne sanguine vtroque inuisibili spirituali intelligibili signatur visibile Domini nostri Iesu Christi corpus palpabile plenum gratiae omnium virtutum diuina Maiestate The flesh of Christe in the Sacrament is the sacrament of his flesh and the bloude is a sacrament of his bloude By his flesh and bloude bothe inuisible spiritual intelligible is betokened the body of our Lorde Iesus Christ that is visible palpable ful of the grace of al vertues and diuine Maiestie Neither maketh it ought for M. Iewel that S. Augustine calleth this Sacrament a Sacrament of remembrance SacrameÌ„t of remeÌ„â—brance Bicause it were not a Sacrament of remembrance fitte for the newe Testament onlesse the body and bloude of Christe were really conteined therein according to the saying of Christe Lucae 22. this is my body this is my bloude For we haue no warrant of the Scripture that bread and wine is the Sacrament of remembrance The .6 authoritie taken out of S. Augustine de Ciuitate
Dei S. Augustine falsified by M. Ievv is falsified by casting vnto it this Pronoune hoc this Whereby M. Iewel deceiueth the vnlearned Reader and such as doo not examine his allegations causing them to thinke that S. Augustine spake specially of the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe whereof now we treate whereas he spake in that place of the Sacrifices of the olde lawe in which brute beastes were slaine Albeit true it is generally that visible Sacrifice is a Sacrament that is to say a holy signe of inuisible Sacrifice If of this place of S. Augustine M. Iewel wil thus frame an Argument against the real Sacrifice of the Churche August de ciuita Dei li. 10. c. 5. The external and visible Sacrifice of the Churche is a Sacrament that is a signe of the inuisible Sacrifice Ergo it is not a true and real Sacrifice The Argument is to be denied For by like reason he should proue that al the Sacrifices of the olde lawe were no Sacrifices at al bicause they were as S. Augustine in the place before mencioned saith Sacramentes and signes of internal inuisible and spiritual Sacrifices Sacrifice of tvvo sortes invvard ād outvvard The .7 authoritie is with other wordes reported then S. Augustine wrote Wherein was false meaning The same helpeth his cause nothing at al. For Answer this muche may be said We are taught by S. Augustine in that place that Sacrifice is of two sortes the one in the reputation of man August de ciuita Dei li. 10. c. 5. the other in the sight of God whiche in comparison of that other he calleth verum Sacrificium true Sacrifice Whereas it is written saith he I had rather haue mercie then Sacrifice none other thing is to be vnderstanded Osee. 6. but that Sacrifice is preferred before Sacrifice in asmuche as that which of men is called Sacrifice is a signe of true Sacrifice And as for mercie it is a true Sacrifice Of al this nothing can be concluded but that an outward Sacrifice is a signe and token of an inward Sacrifice Whereby it is euident that one and the same thing is a Sacrifice and the signe of a Sacrifice Wherefore of the affirmation of a signe or token by good Argument the Denial of the thing can not be inferred Al M. Ievvels Arguments faile for lacke of good logique for stil he inferreth the denial of one truth of thaffirmatiō of an other truth Whereas then M. Iewel impugneth the Sacrifice with this common Argument The Sacrifice of the Churche is a similitude a likenes an Image a remembrance a Sacrament of remembrance a signe a token of a Sacrifice and a figure or a sampler of great Mysteries as S. Nazianzen calleth it Ergo it is not a true Sacrifice we tel him his cause must needes haue a fall for lacke of a good Argument and we counsel him to go to schoole againe to learne better Logique How be it more profitable it were for him to learne better Diuinite By an example it may be made manifest how it is both a memorie and neuerthelesse the thing it selfe Paulus Aemylius that noble man of Rome and C. Iulius Caesar and many other noble Romains after they had acheued great victories in warre and conquestes were receiued into the Citie of Rome with Triumphe Euery triumphe was a memorie and solemne celebration of the memorie of victories by them obteined and for memories sake of worthy and famous deedes eche Triumphe was kept Now what a folish Argument were this if one had then said This triumphe is celebrated and kepte in memorie of the great Conquest and of the Conquerour Ergo the Conquerour him selfe is not present For at suche Triumphes the Conquerours were present riding most gloriously in their chariotes And euery one at suche a solemnitie was bothe the Conquerour him selfe and was there in memorie of him selfe hauing done the worthy Actes for which he deserued the honour of a Triumph So in this Mysterie the memorie of Christes Passion and Death is celebrated and Christe him selfe neuerthelesse is present and by the Prieste offered vp to his Father Alleging the authoritie of S. Gregorie Nazianzen Gregorie Nazianzen falsified by M. Ievv calling the blessed Sacrament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a paterne or sampler of great Mysteries he hath done very falsly in that he leaueth out of the sentence those other wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 asmuche to say the external Sacrifice for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be vnderstanded Of which wordes it foloweth necessarily that it is a real and true Sacrifice It is a signe he regardeth not so muche the truth as he seeketh how by some crafte or shifte he may make an apparēt defence of his vaine Chalenge Last of al the place of S. Hierome semeth to haue ben thrust in to make vp the number and increase the heape How it relieueth his side I see not onlesse he wil beare men in hande that the Sacrifice of Praises and thankesgeuing must in any wise exclude the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe Which thing when he shal make men beleeue then and not elles may this place of S. Hierome serue his purpose Hitherto he hath said litle to any purpose Now commeth he in with newe Diuinitie and vttereth plaine heresie Iewel Neither hath God appointed any certaine order of outvvarde Priesthode to make this Sacrifice Euery Faitheful Christian man hath Authoritie to offer vp and to make the same Hovve be it this I meane not of the Ministration of the holy Sacraments vvhiche onely perteineth vnto the Minister but onely of the Oblation and makinge of this Spiritual Sacrifice Cypria De vnctione Chrsyma Thus muche I saie least any man either of malice take occasion or of ignorance be deceiued S. Cyprian saithe Omnes qui à Christi nomine dicuntur Christiani offerunt Deo Quotidianum Sacrificium ordinati à Deo Sanctimoniae Sacerdotes Al Orig. in Leuit hom 9 1. Pet. 2. that of Christe be called Christians offer vp vnto God the daily Sacrifice being ordeined of God Priestes of holines Origen saithe Omnes quicunque caet Al that are bathed with the holy ointement August in Expositiōe inchoata ad Rom. Ambros. in 1. Cor. 11. Chrysost. ī 2. Corint Homi. 18. are made Priestes euen as Peter saithe vnto the whole Churche yowe are the Chosen Stocke and kingely Priesthode S. Augustine saithe Holocaustum Dominicae Passionis offert quisque pro peccatis suis Euery man offereth vp the Sacrifice of our Lordes Passion for his owne sinnes S. Ambrose saithe Inuicem expectate vt multorum Oblatio simul celebretur VVaite ye one for an other that the Sacrifice of many maie be offered togeather S. Chrysostome saithe In Mysterijs nihil differt Sacerdos à Subdito In the holy Mysteries the Ministration onely excepted the Priest differeth nothing from the People It appeareth by these Ancient Learned Fathers that euery
if this whiche he bad them to doo was a Sacrifice as now it hath ben proued it was then verely did he institute his Apostles Priestes excepte we wil say he bad them to doo and gaue them no autoritie to doo which were absurde Now to make and consecrate the body and bloude of Christ to th ende we doo our Sacrifice vnto God bicause it is aboue nature without facultie and power from God it can not be done DeriuatioÌ„ of priestly duetie And bicause our Lorde commaunded this Sacrifice to be made vntil he come it is necessary what leaue and power to make the continual and perpetual Sacrifice Christe gaue vnto the Apostles that they transfunded and deliuered ouer vnto their aftercoÌ„mers the same along through al times and ages For so after the exposition of Oecumenius and Eusebius as it is before mencioned the Priesthode of Christe after the order of Melchisedek is euerlasting among men Whereas then M. Iewel denieth God to haue appointed any certaine order of owtward Priestode to make this Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe and auoucheth euery faithful Christian man to haue auctoritie to offer vp and make the same though there be litle hope of good to be done with him yet for thy sake good Reader that thou maist see what trusty teachers these felowes be I wil here allege some testimoonies of the olde learned Fathers for the owtward Priesthode albe it the same is proued already bicause the Sacrifice is owtwarde and for that this Sacrifice is to be made by those that be Priestes by proper and special ordination and not by euery faithful person Testimonies for outward Priesthod and for the Sacrifice to be made by the special Priestes LEt vs beginne with the blessed Martyr and learned Bishop S. Cyprian who to declare the excellencie of the Churche of Christe that now is aboue the olde Synagogue of the Iewes that was vnder Moyses among other prerogatiues numbreth this for one Cyprian de vnctione Chrismatis that in the Churche Non sunt haereditariae successiones Pontificum vel vni Leuiticae tribui ministeria assignata sed de omni tribu gente lingua quos dignos idoneos Diuinae probat electio secundùm vitae non generis meritum statuit Sacerdotes quibus Calicem sanguinis sui inexhaustae plenitudinis abundantia semper refertum conseruandum tradidit erogandum The successions of Bishops come not by heritage neither the ministeries be assigned vnto the Leuitical tribe onely but whom Gods election approueth to be worthy and meete he ordeineth them Priestes out of euery tribe nation and tongue according to the desert of their lyfe and not of their birth to whom he hath deliuered the Chalice of his bloud filled alwaies with infinite abundance to be kepte and distributed Here the election of God appointing certaine special persons to be Priestes allowed for worthy and meete in respecte of good life not of noble parentage the function and ministerie whereunto they be ordeined whiche is to attende vppon the Chalice of Christes bloude to consecrate offer vp and distribute the same for thus to doo belongeth to Priestes these thinges doo argue manifestly an outward Priesthode and shewe as it were to the eye that they who be thus chosen of God and to whom suche ministerie and office is committed in the Churche are special Priestes For certainely what answer so euer may be made by a wrangler touching the reste of S. Cyprians saying ErogatioÌ„ of Christes bloud the Erogation here spoken of that is to say the geuing and distributing of Christes bloude perteineth not to euery Christian man but to him that properly and specially and by consecration of a Bishop is made Priest The holy and eloquent Father S. Leo speaking of the Priesthode of Christe after the Order of Melchisedek geueth vs a most plaine testimonie for the special and outward Priesthode Leo. Sermone 2. When the Sacrament saith he of this Diuine Priesthode commeth vnto humaine functions that is to say when men be made Priestes it runneth not by way of generations neither is that thing chosen which fleshe and bloude hath created but the priuiledge of Fathers hauing no place and the order of families set aparte the Churche taketh those gouernours whom the holy Goost hath prepared Vt in populo adoptionis Dei cuius vniuersitas sacerdotalis atque regalis est non praerogatiua terrenae originis obtineat vnctionem sed dignatio coelestis gratiae gignat Antistitem That in the people of Gods adoption whose vniuersitie is Priestly and Kingly that is to say who in general and vniuersally are Priestes and Kinges it be not the prerogatiue of earthly progenie that shal obteine the annointing but that he be made a high Priest whom the heauenly grace vouchesaueth to ordeine Lo to the function and ministerie of the Sacrifice of Christe that is after the order of Melchisedek the people whom God hath adopted and chosen for his be not admitted be they neuer so much vniuersally Priestes and Kinges as the Scripture calleth them for offering vp pure Sacrifices from the Aulter of their harte and for ruling their fleshe and subduing fleshly lustes vnto the spirite which are priestly and kingly partes neither is any of them for doing this duetie a Priest after the Doctrine of S. Leo but onely he whom the holy Ghoste hath prepared and promoted to haue the special annointing of the external Priesthode and so is ordeined a Priest for elles as touching the vniuersal Annointing of the holy Ghoste euery spiritual Priest that is to say euery faithful person hath it Leo hom 3. in Anniuers die suae Asâ—uÌ„pt The same S. Leo geueth vs yet a more euident testimonie for the outward and special Priesthode in an other place saying thus Omnes in Christo regeneratos Crucis signum efficit Reges Sancti verò spiritus vnctio consecrat Sacerdotes vt praeter istam specialem nostri ministerij seruituteÌ„ vniuersi spiritales rationales Christiani agnoscant se regij generis sacerdotalis officij esse consortes The signe of the Crosse maketh al that be regenerate in Christe Kinges But the annointing of the holy Ghoste doth consecrate Priestes Special Priesthod that besides this Special seruice of our Ministerie al spiritual and reasonable Christians vniuersally acknowlege them selues to be partakers of a Kingly linage and of a Priestly office Here he acknowlegeth a special Priesthode and an vniuersal Priesthode that is the external this is the internal and spiritual Priesthoode That perteineth to certaine called thereto and annointed by the holy Ghoste this to al in general that be faithful Christians And though he confesse al Christians to be Priestes yet he acknowledgeth some to be Priestes after an other manner who be chosen and admitted Ad specialem Ministerij Seruitutem that is to say to doo a special seruice of Priestly ministerie This special and external Priesthode S. Augustine
vnto God the most holy Sacrifice of the Euchariste in the steede of our Lorde And here is to be noted that we make this Sacrifice and offer it vp vnto God not as of our selues and in our owne persons but vice Domini in the steede of our Lorde Christe it is that consecrateth In this Sacrifice vvhat is Christe vvhat are vvee that offereth that sacrificeth He is the Priest and the Sacrifice Neuerthelesse we that haue receiued the holy Order of Priesthode by lawful imposition of handes do also in our degree consecrate and sacrifice But how As ministers in the person of Christe in the steede of our Lorde Christ onely and alone we confesse is the true Priest Priestes are Christes vicares in ma◠making this Sacrifice For by the Oblation of his owne body he onely hath done the office of the true Mediatour and hath reconciled vs to God And with that body he appeareth before his Father now in heauen Wee are vicarij Sacerdotes his Vicars and vicegerentes in this behalfe and doo the office of Priesthode in steede of him Eusebius saith notably that the euent and issue of Dauids Prophecie Thou art a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedek is seene in this that Christe perfourmeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the thinges that belong to the Sacrifice which is among men Oecumen in Epist. ad Heb. cap. 5. yet to this day by his ministers We are but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ministers and by the mediation or meane of these ministerial and vicare Priestes Christe sacrificeth and is sacrificed saith Oecumenius To further proufe hereof S. Basil saith in Liturgia Basil. in Liturgia speaking vnto Christe For thine vnspeakeable and incomprehensible goodnesse without any chaunge and turning thou hast bene made man and hast ben called our hye Bishop huius ministratorij incruenti Sacrificij consecrationem nobis tradidisti and thou hast deliuered vnto vs the consecratiō of this Ministratorious and vnbloudy Sacrifice Lo he calleth this Sacrifice the Ministratorious Sacrifice bicause in making it weare but Ministers of our Lord and doo his steede Vnbloudy he calleth it bicause it is offered vp without bloudshed being the same that was offered vpō the Crosse with bloudshed And here appeareth the vaine cauil of M. Iewel who referreth the terme vnbloudy Vnbloudy spokē of the Sacrifice of the Aulter onely to the mere spiritual sacrifices of our deuotion In offering whereof we are not only Ministers of Christe but being endewed with grace we offer vp such kinde of Sacrifice in our owne person This muche haue I thought good here to inculcate and make plaine the rather bicause bothe the folowers of M. Iewel ceasse not to vtter vnsemely and lewd talke against Priestes saying in scorne that they make God and bicause M. Iewel him selfe in the beginning of his Replie to this Article maketh so much a doo for that a Mortal and a Miserable man should offer vp the Immortal Sonne of God vnto his Father Replie page 555. Where he saith further that God neuer appointed any suche Sacrifice to be made by any Mortal Creature As wel he might finde faulte with Kinges and Iudges of the worlde for that being mortal and miserable men they take vpon them to rule and iudge whereas in deede and truth Christe onely is King of al and Iudge of al. For to me al power is geuen in heauen and in earh saith he Matth. 28. And S. Iohn saith Iohan. 5. Omne iudicium dedit Filio God hath geuen al iudgement to his Sonne In the former testimonie of S. Basil Povver to consecrate by Christ deliuered vnto the special Priestes only it is to be considered that he saith to Christe in his Masse thou hast deliuered the Consecration of this Sacrifice vnto vs meaning when Christ said Doo ye this in my remembrance Wherby we vnderstand M. Iewels general and common Priestes quite excluded Elles let him shewe if he can where euer Christe deliuered power to consecrate the body and bloude of Christe to the Laye people that be not Priestes but as al Christian folke in general men wemen and children are S. Hierome saith writing to Heliodorus Hieron ad Heliodor Absit vt de ijs quicquam sinistrum loquar qui Apostolico gradui succedentes Christi corpus sacro ore conficiunt per quos nos Christiani sumus God forbid that I should speake any sinistre or euil thing against them who succeding in degree of the Apostles doo with their sacred mowthe consecrate the body of Christe by whom also we are Christians Againe in his Dialogue against the Luciferians he saith Hieron Cōtra Luciferianos that one Hilarius coulde not consecrate the Euchariste bicause he was but a Deacon If one that hath receiued the holy order of Deaconship can not consecrate and make this Sacrifice but to doo this it must be a Priest as S. Hierome teacheth How shal we beleeue M. Iewel who telleth vs here that euery faithful Christian man hath authoritie to make it and to offer it The policie of Satan and M. Iewel is to abandon the external Priesthode To vvhat ende tendeth M. Iewels doctrine against the blessed Sacrifice and to set the lay people a worke bearing them in hande they haue authoritie to make and offer vp this Sacrifice to thintent they may bring to passe first that the most holy and dredful Mysteries be contemned nexte that when there is none that hath authoritie to consecrate the body and bloude of Christe and to remitte synnes the remembrance of Christes Death vanish away and the people remaine fast bounde in the bandes of their synnes Our Lorde who came to dissolue the workes of Satan confounde the wicked attemptes 1. Ioan. 3. and damnable doctrine of Satans Minister The Churches determination touching this point I trust so many as feare God and haue care of their soules in this weighty mater wil litle regarde what he saith but rather consider how muche safer it is to hearken vnto the determination of the Chuche in the great general Councel of Laterane vttered by these wordes Hoc vtique Sacramentum nemo potest conficere Concil Lateranen nisi Sacerdos fuerit ritè ordinatus secundùm claues Ecclesiae quas ipse concessit Apostolis eorum successoribus Iesus Christus Noman can make or consecrate this Sacrament except he be a Priest duely ordered according to the keyes of the Churche Mat. 16. which Iesus Christe him selfe hath graunted vnto the Apostles Ioan. 20. and their Successours Here I haue sayd yenough of the outward Priesthode and that this Sacrifice can not be made but by a Priest laufully ordered and consecrated with due laying on of handes But whereas M. Iewel geueth auctoritie to euery faithful Christian man that is to say to Laye men wemen boyes gyrles and children for they be conteined vnder the name of Faithful Christian men to make and offer vp
an other place Item In this Sacrifice saith he there is a thankesgeuing and commemoration of the flesh of Christe whiche he offered for vs and of his bloude whiche he shed for vs. But you wil say we graunt that a memorie is celebrated we denie the real Sacrifice And we tel you that the memorie or commemoration excludeth not the real Sacrifice It is bothe commemoratiue This Sacrifice is bothe CoÌ„memoratiue and Real and Real For there is bothe the memorie of Christes death and the thing it selfe that suffered death For prouse hereof it may please you to consider one sentence of S. Augustine in steede of many that it were easy to allege Thus he saith Augu contra Faust. lib. 20. ca. 18. Iam Christiani peracti eiusdem Sacrificij memoriam celebraÌ„t sacrosancta oblatione participatione corporis sanguinis Christi The Christians doo celebrate the memorie of the same Sacrifice that was made vpon the Crosse now done and paste by the holy oblation and participation of the body and bloude of Christe Lo M Iewel here you see it to be a memorie and neuerthelesse the body and bloude to be offered whiche are the thing and the substance it selfe of the Sacrifice The weakenes of your cause is suche that onlesse your Argumentes procede so as you may iustle away one truth by an other you haue nothing to say And thus alwaies you reason though to no purpose least ye should seme to say nothing and so to be without al defence of the Doctrine that ye deceiue Gods people withal For if that appeare openly ye stande in feare least ye should lose your lyuinges your Dignities your wiues your wanton fleshly pleasures and what els I knowe not Iewel S. Peter saithe Christe offereth vp vs vnto God his Father S. Paule saithe 1. Pet. 3. Through Christe wee haue accesse to the Throne of Glorie Heb. 4. VVhat then meaneth M. Hardinge thus to tel vs and to beare the vvorlde in hande that contrary vvise he hath Authoritie to offer vp Christe and to presente him before the Throne of Glorie Or hovve dareth he to desire God to receiue his onely begoten Sonne into fauoure and fauourably and fatherly to looke vpon him at his request For thus he biddeth his praier euen in his Canon euen in the secreteste and deuoutest parte of his Masse Super quae propitio ac sereno vultu c. Vpon these thinges that is to saie saithe Gabriel Biel vpon the Bodie and Bloud of Christe thy Sonne O Lorde looke doune with a merciful and cheereful countenance and receiue the same the Bodie and Bloude of thy Sonne as thou diddest in olde times receiue the Sacrifice of Abel and of Abraham vvhich vvas a vveather or a calfe or some other like thinge Thus he not onely taketh vpon him to praie for Christe but also compareth the Sacrifice of the Sonne of God vvith the Sacrifice of brute Cattaile Yf he denie any parte hereof his ovvne Canon his ovvne Massebooke vvil reproue him Yf this be not Blasphemie vvhat thinge can be called Blasphemie Harding To answer to al that is obiected in order first S. Peter saith not altogether as you reporte him But thus he saith 1. Pet. 3. Christe once died for our sinnes the Iuste for the vniuste to th ende he might offer vp vs vnto God Neither speaketh S. Paul as you haue set him to schoole and teache him to speake but otherwise Adeamus cum fiducia ad thronum gratiae eius c. Let vs go vnto the seate of his grace with confidence that we may obteine mercie and finde grace to helpe at neede Now Sir to iustifie that you haue here said Heb. 4. A priest to offer vp Christe vnto his Father in the Euchariste how can you proue it to be done contrariwise to ought that either S. Peter or S. Paule here saith Thus you reason your Allegations supposed to be iuste Christe offereth vp vs vnto God M. Ievvels ArgumeÌ„t Item Through Christe we haue accesse to the throne of Grace Ergo a Priest hath not auctoritie to offer vp Christe vnto God in the Sacrament O profounde Logique O sharpe witte O inuincible Disputer Here your owne skoffing Rhetorique might wel be returned vpon you It were harde to tel vs how this Antecedent and Consequent came together No man hath auctoritie thus to mince his Logique but M. Iewel Why Sir must it needes folowe that if Christe who is the head of his Churche vnder which name both he and the Churche be oftentimes conteined haue offered vp vs vnto God that we may not offer vp Christe vnto God I maruel that so learned a Minister as by purporte of your Arrogant fonde Chalenge it appeareth you take your selfe to be should be ignorant of that S. Augustine writeth notably in his tenth booke De Ciuitate Dei August de Ciuit. Dei li. 10. c. 20. where speaking of this very Sacrifice calling it the daily Sacrifice of the Churche he saith Ipsius Corporis ipse est Caput ipsius Capitis ipsa est Corpus tam ipsa per ipsum quà m ipse per ipsam suetus offerri Christe him selfe is the head of his body the Churche and the Churche is the body of that Head as wel the Churche by him as he by the Churche is wount to be offered vp Lo here you see a mutual Oblation Christe offereth vs to God and we offer Christe to God so farre of it is that his offering of vs should exclude our offering of him Thus appeareth the peeuishnes of your Argument Of like force and witte is the reason if it be deduced of the other scripture alleged as out of S. Paule For what though through Christe we haue accesse vnto the throne of grace Ergo may not a Priest offer vp Christe to the Father in the Sacrament You must deuise vs a newe Logique as you haue deuised vs a newe Diuinitie before ye shal proue these Argâ—mentes to be ought worthe A defence of the Canon of the Masse against M. Iewels scoffes YOV finde great faulte with the holy Canon of the Masse vttering the spite of your blasphemous harte against it with vile termes of skoffing as though in it the Priest desired God for these be your wordes to receiue his only begotten sonne into fauour and fauourably and fatherly to looke vpon him at his request And further to aggrauate the mater you say that he taketh vpon him not only to pray for Christe but also that he compareth the Sacrifice of the Sonne of God with the Sacrifice of brute Cataile For proufe hereof you referre your Reader to the Canon of the Masse and to the Masse booke Gabriel Biel also for colour of your better credite you bring in as a witnesse who wrote vpon the Canon Al this is a false and a slaunderous lye And albeit you directe your whole talke to my person yet with the same you inueigh not onely against me but
Sacrifices of Abel Abraham and Melchisedek whiche were acceptable to thee not for their owne worthines but for the worthines of that Sacrifice which they prefigured and for the faith and deuotion of them that offered the same Gen. 4. for the Scripture saith God looked vpon Abel and vpon his giftes Euen so that our Sacrifice may be made acceptable vnto thee besides that of it selfe it pleaseth thee alwaies let it also please of our parte that offer it that is to say make vs that doo offer it by faith and deuotion suche as Abel Abraham and Melchisedek were He that calleth this blasphemie sheweth him selfe to be without al sense of pietie and godlines Iewel But God vvil ansvveare suche a Blasphemous rashe Sacrificer I know my Sonne In him my harte is pleased But what art thou VVho bade thee thus to praie VVho required suche Sacrifice at thy hande Harding God graunte that he accepte vs and this Sacrifice at our handes vntil he answer thus vnto vs. This is not ne shal neuer be Gods answer It is the answer of an heretique the ennimie of God and of the Sacrifice God knoweth his Sonne in him he is pleased therefore this Sacrifice being the Body and Bloude of him can not be to him but of al other most pleasant Thus to pray we haue bene taught by the Apostles their Successours and by the Churche alwaies gouerned by the holy Ghoste If by prayer Consecration of the Hoste be meant whiche as I haue shewed before is not seldom called by the name of Prayer the same as the Sacrifice it selfe we haue bene taught of Christe who at his last Supper tooke bread gaue thankes blessed brake Luc. 22. gaue to his Disciples saying Take eate this is my body c. Likewise it is to be said of the Cuppe By doing this he taught vs the newe Oblation of the newe Testament Iren. lib. 4. cap. 32. which the Churche receiued of the Apostles and offereth it vnto God through the whole worlde as S. Irenaeus saith Neither hath he onely taught vs this in and by his Apostles Christ coÌ„maunded this Sacrifice to be made but hath also commaunded them and vs their Successours in this office to doo the same Whiche I shewe the rather for that M. Iewel asketh who requireth this Sacrifice at our hande S. Chrysostome calleth it plainely a Commaundement where after consecration of the bloude he saith Memores igitur salutaris huius mandati Chrysost. in Liturgia c. te laudamus te benedicimus tibi agimus gratias Being therefore mindeful of this healthful Commaundement c. we praise thee we blesse thee we geue thankes vnto thee and beseche thee our God Therefore S. Germanus Archebishop of Constantinople writeth thus Ipse dixit Hoc est Corpus meum hic Sanguis meus Germanus in consideratione rerum Ecclesiast Ipse Apostolis inssit per illos vniuersae Ecelsiae hoc facere Hoc enim art facite in meam commemorationem Non sane id facere iussisset nisi vim inditurus fuisser vt id facere liceret He him selfe said This is my body this is my bloude He him selfe bothe gaue commaundement to the Apostles and through them to the whole Churche to doo this For doo ye this faith he in my remembrance Verely he would not haue commaunded them to doo it excepte he woulde haue geuen them power that it might be lauful for them to doo it Let M. Iewel demaunde of S. Chrysostome who required him to make this Sacrifiee who saith thus in an other place Chrysost. in 1. Cor. hom 24. In the time of the olde Testament when men were more vnperfite the bloude that they offered vp vnto Idols God would take him selfe that he might so turne them away from Idols whiche was a signe of an vnspeakeable loue But nowe in the newe Testament he hath prepared a farre more wounderful and honorable Sacrifice bothe whereas he changed the Sacrifice and also commaunded seipsum offerendum him selfe to be offered in place of the slaughter of brute beastes Let him demaunde of S. Cyprian how he durst to be so bolde as to write Iesus Christus Dominus Deus noster Cyprian li. 2. epist. 3. Sacrificium Deo Patri ipse primus obtulit hoc fieri in sui commemorationem praecepit Iesus Christe our Lorde and God offered the Sacrifice first him selfe vnto God his Father and commaunded this to be made in remembrance of him And that this Sacrifice is his body and bloude there he declareth M. Iewel should doo wel for his credites sake to allege vs but one so plaine a place as these places are where any Catholique learned Doctour olde or newe euer said that this Sacrifice is not to be made Were there any suche it should not haue bene kepte in silence al this while we may be wel assured Iewel O M. Hardinge God open the eies of your harte that you maie seâ— the miserable nakednes of your side Deceiue not your selfe Mockâ— not the vvorld Consider better of your Authorities Of al the holy Learned Fathers of vvhom ye tel vs ye haue suche stâ—are ye are not yet hable to shevv vs one either Greeke or Latine or Heritique or Catholique from the risinge of the Sonne to the Sonne goeinge dovvne that euer saide as you saie A mortal man hath Authoritie and power to offer vp in Sacrifice the Sonne of God Talke of your stoare vvhen ye haue tried it better Thrasâ— vvil talke of that he hath not And somevvhat it maie serue to fraie the simple But the vvise vvil thinke it folie Harding O M. Iewel God geue you a simple and an humble harte that grace may entre God open your eyes to see the wretched malice wherwith your harte is fraught against the Churche of Christe Beware you continue not in this desperate minde and purpose least you caste your selfe and so many as by you shal be deceiued into euerlasting damnatioÌ„ If that moue you not yet let not the fillie folie of this vaine worlde amaze your senses Let not the pleasure of this fickle felicitie which presently you enioye wholy withdraw your minde from consideration of that which is to come hereafter Take heede your deceiued fauourers with their light praise and fawning flaterie make not a foole of you Kicke no more against the pricke go not obout to darkeÌ„ the bright Sunne with smoothering smokes Touching the Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christe what stoare of testimonies whereat you cease not to skosse I haue brought for it how litle you haue to say against it and al that you haue said of how litle pith and substance it is al may see that haue eyes to see The learned and al they that can iudge doo see it and consider of it I doubte not And that is ynough touching my parte and the defence of the Catholique doctrine Would God it were ynough also touching the holesom persuasion of
Christe consecrated his body and bloud at his Supper 133. a. The Churche speaketh with al tongues 200. b. The Churche beholdeth Christ and toucheth his woundes 200. b. A marke to know the true Church which the Gospellers lacke 237. a. The Churche hath authoritie to create Priestes 242. b. The Churches determination touching the consecration of the Sacrament 248. a. Most insolent madnes to cal in question thinges generally receiued in the Catholike Churche 122. a. Commemoration example and signe exclude not the real presence and real oblation 28. a. 97. b. 98. a. 253. a. Commemoration and the hoste different 194. b. Communion of England compared with Melchisedeks Sacrifice which M. Iew. calleth Melchisedeks Masse 211. b. Conclusions out of S. Chrysostome against M. Iewel 152. a. b. 153. b Contrite harte a Sacrifice 249. a. Cranmere and his subscriptions 183. a. Crucifying of Christe considered two waies 259. a. D Dare vsed for offerre 69. a. The Daily Sacrifice and a Daily Sacrifice 250. a. Dauid Georges carkasse digged vp and burnt with his image at Basile 187. a. Dedication what thereby is meant in S. Hierome 213. a. Dicke Adams hanged at Bristowe for felonie Foxes Martyr 181. a. E. EMamuel the Iewes euangelical wedlocke to an other mans wyfe 175. a The Euchariste maketh our bodies immortal 84. b. 150. a. The Euchariste what it is 83. b. sequent The Euchariste consisteth of two thinges 150. a. The Eucharist is the Singular Sacrifice 237. a. External Sacrifice 138. a. b. 229. a. 241. a. External Priesthod 242. a. External Oblation proper to Priestes 249. b F. Howe vve see Christes woundes by Faith 200. a. The Faith of the Fathers of the old Testament and ours remaineth one and the same 25. a. Either the Fathers were deceiued or the holy Ghoste dissenteth froÌ„ him selfe 7. b Falsifiers practise 57. a The holy learned Fathers tale to M. Iewel and his felowes 188. a Figure onely excluded 107. b. Foxes holy Martyrs 181. a G. The fable of the Garnsey woman burnt for heresie 184. a. Of the woman of Garneseys childe falling out of her bely into the fier 184. b. Germane Compar what thereby is meant in S. Paule 167. b. Gospel what it signifieth sometimes 213. a. H. HEretiques robbe the Church of the greatest Treasure 44. a. b Heretikes punished by death 178. b sequent Heretikes scourged with roddes an olde punishment 183. a Heretikes tongues cut out an olde punishment 183. b Hoste and vnblouddy ioyned together 77. b. I M. Iewels obiectioÌ„ against the sacrifice taken of the basenesse of maÌ„kinde answered 4. a M. Iewel to proue his Negatiue at the first findeth no auncienter doctour then Theophylacte a late writen 5. a M. Iewel maketh the Fathers to speake one thing and thinke an other 8. b M. Iewel excluded out of the number of Catholiques by Leo his iudgement 10. b M. Iewels reason vvhy Priesthood Aulters sacrifice and such other termes were vsed of the Fathers reproued 10. b. 11. a M. Iewel vtterly taketh away the real sacrifice of the new testameÌ„t 22. b M. Iewel maketh it a daÌ„gerous presuÌ„ptioÌ„ that a Priest hath auctoritie to offer vp Christ vnto his Father 49. a M. Iewel like to false Lapidaries and goldsmithes 54. b. M. Iewels Custome for aduantage against his Aduersarie 65. a M. Iewel straggleth alone like a lost sheepe 68. a That absurde to M. Iewel which S. Chrysostome Gregorie Nazianzen Theophylact and the holy Fathers alowe 77. b. 78. a M. Ievvel skanneth Diuinitie by Phrases 77. b Scorneful termes vsed by M. Iewel 86.87 M. Iewels Greeke frend of Oxford trusted of him to much 99. b M. Iewels scorneful absurditie of one and two once and tvvise answered 115. a M. Iewels argument absurd 16. a. 228. a. 254. a. fonde 136. b. forged 68. b. 207. b. M. Iew. falsifieth S. Chrysostom 17. b. 38. b. 70. b. 89. b. 151. a. b. 250. b M. Iewels shiftes against the Sacrifice 19. b. 155. b. M. Iewels diuerting from the purpose to impertinent matter 19. b. 137. b. 142. a. 165. b. 166. b. 176. b. 225. b. M. Iew. forgeth sayings of his own fathering theÌ„ vpon the Doctours 24. b. 34. a. 53. b. 54. b. 142. a. 200. a. 202. a. M. Iew. laboureth to proue that the thing and substance of the Sacramentes of both Testamentes be not sundry but one 24. a. b. M. Iewel changeth the Doctours wordes 32. a. 111. a. 239. b. M. Iewel taketh aduantage of his owne false translation 38. a. M. Iew. faineth his Aduersarie to say that he saith not and therto directeth his Replie 43. b. 101. a. 126. a M. Iew. falsifieth S. Augustine 32. a. 38. a. 39. a. 239. a. M. Ievvel falsifieth S. Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus 33. b. M. Iewels falshod plainly detected 34. b. 71. b. 232. a. M. I. falsifieth the couÌ„cel of Nice 37. a M. Iewel forgeth a saying of his owne and putteth it vpon Tertullian 53. b. M. Iewel falsifieth S. Hierom. 57. b. M. Iewel falsifieth Eusebius 59. b. 92. b. M. Iewel falsifieth S. Thomas in Catena Aurea 71. a. b. M. Iewel taken in a foule contradiction 80. b. M. Iewel corrupteth S. Clement 48. a. M. Iewels guileful dealing 100. a. 139. a. 150. b. 163. b. M. Iewels howe 's and Ifs whome they become 76. a. M. Iew. falsifieth the woordes of the answer 66. a. 75. b. 118. a M. Iewel addeth of his owne 57. a M. Iewel falsly reporteth the Aunswer where it is said inuisibly offered he saieth inuisibly sacrificed 116. a. 118. b M. Iewel a begyler of the simple a mocker of the world a controller of S. Ambrose and a condemner of the whole Churche 1â—5 a M. Iew. allegeth the wordes of the Authours of which none be extant bearing the same title 17. b M. Iewel vseth false translation 17. b 18. a. 37. a. 40. a. 98. a. 114. b. 177. b 195. b. 204. a. M. Iewel swarueth from the meaning of the Fathers 54. a. 90. a. M. Iewel conceeleth the circumstances of places alleged 57. a. 102. b. 145. a. 149. b. 193. b. 211. a. 227. a. b. 231. b. 241. b. M. Iewel findeth contradiction where none is 67. a. M. Iewel dissembleth truthes as the Real presence found in the Authours 72. a M. Ievvel laboureth to put the Fathers out of credit and to that end vseth light termes 79. a. 110. a. b M. Ievvel taketh the beginning of a Sentence and cutteth away the ende 111. a. b. M. Ievvel deuiseth impudent gloses and setteth them in by way of a Parenthesis 112. b. M. Iewel reporteth the Canon of the Masse falsly to colourable aduantage 123. a. â— M. Iewels doctrine only figuratiue 103. a. 218. a. M. Iewel falsifieth S. Cyprian 111. a M. Iewels coffe 112. b A Common shifte of M. Iewels Rhetorique 129. a M. Iewel falsifieth S. Dionyse 130. a M. Iew. falsifieth Pachymeres 136. a M. Iewel falsifieth S. Gregorie Nazianzene 138. a. 240. a M. Ievvels Logique 139. a. 239. b. M. Iewel
this is my Bloud and gaue commission to doo the same yet he offereth not Christe vnto his Father This is the iust iudgement of God M. Iewel that you where you be so busy in scorning at other mens good Argumentes be founde your selfe to frame most fonde and childishe Argumentes by certaine phrases eluding weighty pointes of Christian Religion and alwaies impugning one truthe by an other truthe which way of reasoning is of al other the weakest Thus you see good Sir that I haue not prooued this Sacrifice only by the vnworthinesse of the Priest as you say but by other force clearly appearing in the foresaid testimonie of S. Dionyse Of al the authorities that here to litle purpose you haue alleged I had thought to touche neuer a one forasmuche as I yeelde to tbat by the same is reported had you not too shamefully falsified and corrupted a sentence of S. Gregorie Nazianzen M. Ievvel falsifieth and fowly corrupted S. Gregorie Nazianzene bothe with your false interlaced glose and by changing the whole purporte thereof Thus you make that learned Father to speake How can they or dare they offer vnto God he saith not the body of Christe really and in deede but the figure of these great Mysteries Gregor Nazian in Apologetico Nowe let vs see S. Gregorie Nazianzens owne woordes The whole sentence being long I wil recite onely the later ende of it which aunswereth to your allegation S. Gregorie Nazianzen acknovvledgeth the external Sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As much to say Howe shoulde I dare to offer vp vnto him he meaneth God the external Sacrifice that is the sampler of the great Mysteries Compare this and your owne allegation together and you shal perceiue your vntrue dealinge and corruption of the sentence to be espied You haue changed the firste person singuler into the thirde person plural Whiche is an argument that your selfe neuer saw the place it selfe in the Author but receiued it of some that was appointed to gather notes for you such as you might frame to your purpose Your Note-gatherer espying as he thought some vantage in the later woordes of the Sentence wrote them out onely leauing out the beginning where the pronoune 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is expressely founde And so both you and he were deceiued in the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which serueth indifferently to the first person singuler or to the third person plural you of ignorance as I suppose he of malice specially if he were learned Although this be no litle faulte yet is it not the greatest by many partes For you haue quite hewed away a principal member of the sentence to wit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say the external Sacrifice for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Sacrifice is there to be supplied Whereby you shewe vnto vs that as you and your companions haue bannished the thing it selfe already out of the Churches of Englād so would you gladly also skrape the name and terme out of the bookes of the auncient writers if by any meanes ye could For this one clause the external Sacrifice External Sacrifice ouerthroweth al your doctrine against the Sacrifice of the Aulter and proueth your interlined Glose to be false and heretical For if it be an external Sacrifice it can not be but real and true and a Sacrifice in dede The addition that foloweth in S. Gregorie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is nothing els but a declaration of what external Sacrifice he spake to wit not of that great external and open Sacrifice which Christe offered vpon the Crosse but of the true sampler of the same Which is the external Sacrifice of the Churche made by the ministerie of the Priest vpon the Aulter one with the other in substance but diuers in the manner of offering as we are driuen by your affectate and dissembled ignorance oftentimes to say Antitypō Fol. 82. b. 83. Of this terme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sampler how it is to be taken I haue already declared before in the .4 Diuision Here to reherse the same againe it were superfluous Now I require thee to iudge indifferently gentle Reader whether M. Iewel be to be accompted a true and a faithful dealer in these weighty causes concerning our faith and whether he be not worthy to be suspected who hath so fowly falsified and corrupted this auncient and learned Father by changing one person into an other one number into an other by altering the true sense with his heretical parenthesis and by maiming the whole sentence with his cutting away of a principal member In the ende M. Iewel to leaue in the Readers mynde an opinion of his skil in Logique A nevv fallacie diuised by M. Iewel which is knowen to be very smal repeating againe the former Argument of his owne forging and falsly ascribed vnto me saith It is a fallax à meris particularibus a kind of fallacie of his owne inuention vnknowen to Aristotle and to al that haue writtē since of deceitful Argumentes For al skilful Logicians do knowe that of two premisses being both particular a good argument may be concluded although it be not directly in any of the three perfite Figures And if the Argument be not faulty for this cause yet it procedeth saith he A non distributo ad distributū Wel if it so procede and therefore be naught let him selfe amende it that made it As for my grounde it resteth vpon the authoritie of S. Dionyse the blessed Apostle S. Paules scholer An other faulte in this Argument is founde contrary to the rules of Logique Beholde reader the rare cunning this man hath in Logique for that it concludeth saith this great Logician affirmatiuely in the second Figure What Sir Haue you forgoten your selfe so quickly Said you not in the line before it was ex meris particularibus If it be so then is it neither in the first nor second nor third Figure So that either the first faulte is none and this later one or this later none and the first one or rather neither this nor that any at al. Beside this it is an Enthymema consisting onely of two propositions And then if it were myne Argument how knowe you to what Mode and Figure by a litle displacing of the termes I were hable to reduce it vnto if it should be denyed Thus I abuse thy leisure gentle Reader with standing vppon these trifles But I trust thou wilt consider how farre I was enforced thereunto by M. Iewels trifling in an ernest mater Prouer. 26 And as by the aduise of the wise man we may aunswere a foole according to his foolishnes least he seme wise in his owne conceit so sometimes it is profitable to answer a trifler according to his trifles that he may beholde his owne vanitie and trifling witte And thus standeth S. Dionyses saying in his ful force The .9 Diuision The Ansvvere IRenaeus receiued the same from S. Iohn