Aaron but Aaron him selfe was Priest only in his owne time and after him euery one in his time was priest aswel as he and therefore in that law were many Priests So that the old Testament was like to England since the Conquest hauing successiuely many kings But the new Testament is like to England during the time of one king who being but one yet hath many ministers as one might say so many ministeriall kings Your third argument The Apostle to the Hebrues teacheth vs cap. 10. Pur. 289.201.45.451 that Christ offering but one sacrifice for our sinnes that but once cap. 9. hath made perfect for euer those that are sanctified that our sinnes are taken away by that Sacrifice and therfore there is no more sacrifice for sinnes left Do you vnderstand the words that you alleage Do you know what he meaneth by those that are sanctified by their making perfect by Sacrifice for sinne Verely you do not as by by it will appeare The scope of that Epistle is to exhorte the Hebrewes that is the Christian Iewes who were sore assaulted of the other Iewes partly with obiections partlye with persecutions to perseuer in the faith of Christ He doth therfore tell them that in the old Testamēt there was not Remission of sinnes but continuall commemoration of them Heb. 10. But now that Christ hath offered him selfe vpō the Crosse Vna oblatione cōsummauit in sempiternum by that one oblatiō he hath made perfect for euer sanctificatos the sanctified Heb. 10. that is 1. Cor. 6 the baptized So that of their former sins there is now no more remēbrance Iere. 21· therfore no more any offering for the same Heb. 10. but if they dye they go straight to heauen So mightily and so graciously doth that one oblation work in baptisme But what if after baptisme they sinne againe For that S. Paule there doth not at the least The true meaning of the Epistle to the Heb. directely tell any remedie because his purpose there was no more but to exhorte the standing to perseuerance and therefore he doth rather terrifie them saying If they fall againe Iam non relinquitur pro peccatis hostia now is not leaste Sacrifice for sinnes that is to say Christes death will not worke with them in another baptisme This he telleth them but remedie he doth tell them none But we by his other Epistles by the other Scriptures and by Tradition of the Church do tell such also against the Nouations that the same one oblation of Christ hath prepared for them also a remedie though not another baptisme yet the Sacrament of Penance We magnifie it yet moreouer and say that it hath also prepared many other Sacraments besydes these to other singuler effectes and in one of these Sacramentes a Sacrifice also in which it worketh to sundrie purposes By this appeareth I say your ignorance in things which yet you feare not to affirme as that the Catholikes should saye Christ hath not made them that are sanctified Pur. 451. perfect by a Sacrifice once offered for all for the greatest parte is lefte to the Masse As though when one commeth to vs to be baptized we diuided the remission of his sinnes betwéene Baptisme and the Masse This is your blindnesse to think that to be against the honor of this one Priest and of his one Sacrifice which is highly for it to wit to haue vnder him many ministers and many ministeries as it were cōduites to deriue his purchase and redemption to his people If we ascribed ought to any man or to any thing but from that Priest and from that Sacrifice then you might well exclayme against vs. And we in the meane time worthily exclaime against you for Apostating from the ministerial Priesthood the mysticall sacrifice and gracious Sacraments which he by his death purchased and left to his Spouse the Church our mother for our saluation and she hath kept them to this day deinceps and will kéepe them as S. Augustine said hereafter euen to the ende at what time your vile tongue shall reape as now it soweth Now after your Scriptures let vs heare your Doctors against this Sacrifice to proue that there is none such or at the least not consisting in Christes body Pur. 316.292 That Augustine by this Sacrifice meaneth not the body of Christ is manifest in his booke De fide ad Petrum Diac. cap. 19. Because there he calleth it Sacrificium panis vini the Sacrifice of bread and wine The same writeth being Fulgentius and not Augustine in the very like place as you may sée here cap. 6. pag. 63. and calleth it Sacrificium Corporis Sanguinis Christi The Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ By the firste name for the matter by the seconde for the hoste But he sayth further you obiecte that In isto Sacrificio gratiarum actio atque commemoratio est carnis Christi quam pro nobis obtulit sanguinis quem pro nobis effudit In this sacrifice is Thankesgiuinge and commemoration of the fleshe of Christ whiche he offered for vs vppon the Crosse and of his bloud whiche hee shedde for vs. But what a commemoration In illis Sacrificijs quid nobis esset donandum figuratè significabatur In hoc autem Sacrificio quid nobis iam donatum sit euidenter ostenditur In the Sacrifices of the olde Testament was figuratiuely signified what should be giuen vs. But in this Sacrifice is not figuratiuely signified but euidently shewed what is alreadye giuen vs. In them praenunciabatur occidendus He was prenounced to be killed for vs in this annunciatur occisus he is announced already killed In such maner as in Rome the martyrdoms of S. Peter Paule are vpon their feast cōmemorated euidently shewed and announced by their very bodies and heads then sene and visited For which cause the Relikes of Martyrs be often in * Aug. de ci li. 22. ca. 8. antiquitie called The memories of the Martyrs And yet no Martyrs Relikes or body doth so expresse the very species of his martyrdome as the mysticall separation of Christes body and bloud in this diuine Sacrament doth expresse the species of his passion Ar. 55. But you haue one wonderfull place of S. Augustines For if it were well wayed it will you say interprete and answere all places of the auncient Doctors where mention is made of sacrificing the body of Christ at the time of the Communion In that place go first the words which I put here in the 22. Dem. pag. that he calleth it the one singular sacrifice of the Christians Then follow afterwards the words that you meane Ipsum vero sacrificium corpus est Christi And that same one singular Sacrifice is the body of Christ quod non offertur ipsis quia hoc sunt ipsi Which body is not offered to the Martyrs for this be they also This to wit the body of Christ Hereof
worde of trueth desiring the spirite of trueth that you may vnderstande and beleeue the trueth and so without doubt you shall come to the knowledge of the trueth and of the Churche of God whiche is the pillar of truth So it is then good syr In this Seminarie of English diuines vnder the gouernement of D. Allen mainteined by his holines for the saluation of our countrey as he mainteineth the like for Germanie also for Bohemia and Students of Polonia The Popes Seminarie for England Suetia Slauonia Hungaria c. yea for the Gréekes likewise yea also for the Hebrues we haue such exercise in the scriptures that we reade ouer the old Testament in euery thrée yeres twelue times one of which times hath ioyned with it an examinatiō by conferēce from Chapter to Chapter and from verse to verse The new Testament we reade ouer in the same thrée yeres sixtéene times with a treble examinatiō of the same sort And not cōtent with those examinations we afterwards write moreouer in paper bookes lay together al the sentences that belong to the controuersies of this time euery one in his place And without all vanitie to speake one word of my selfe after many yeres studie afore after the maner of Englād as many of your owne side can beare me witnesse I haue since then folowed this foresaid trade nine yeres This is partly our diligence in the scriptures besides much other exercise both in the same and in all the studie of diuinitie What more diligence would you haue vs vse this is the principall and as you make it all in all All other helpes you counte but subordinate and seruing vnto this And yet in them also I dare saye if you knewe vs you woulde allowe vs for sufficient at the leaste You maye by the trace of God ere it be long haue some taste of vs therein when one of vs shall set forth a booke to shew to the world that the Hebrew and Gréeke textes in nothing make for you against vs and in very many things make for vs against you much more plainly then our vulgar Latine text Now then how much more certaine of the trueth be we then you also by your owne rule because your diligence herein is nothing comparable but specially because together with this rule we vse the expositiōs that you renounce of the auncient Fathers who for such conference of places and all other studie of the Scriptures were pearlesse ¶ The third part What he meaneth by his Onely Scripture and that thereby he excepteth also against Scripture it selfe Thus haue we heard this Protestant call for expresse Scripture in all things yea also in the expounding of Scripture Now that he séeme not too straight and rigorous in his exception he will tell vs what he meaneth therby as it were to geue vs more scope but in déed as we shall heare soone after to shut vs straighter vp and to except also against Scripture it selfe vnlesse it be so plaine and euident for vs that by no subteltie of theirs they may auoide it Concerning the former thus he saith When we require expresse Scripture for euery controuersie we doe not require that euery thing should be named in Scripture but necessarily concluded out of the true meaning of the Scriptures and purpose of the holy Ghost in them Then on the other side he almost repenteth himselfe againe for graunting so much and saieth And yet we may say Pur. 438. it is a great preiudice against your Purgatorie and prayer that it is not so much as once named in the Scriptures Againe If the holy Ghost had euer allowed Prayer for the deade he would once at the least haue vttered the same plainely in holy Canonicall Scriptures Pur. 452. Canonicall he saith to except against the very meaning of it also which he séeth in the bookes of the Machabées rather shall that Canonicall Scripture not be Canonicall for so plainely naming that which the eares of the Protestantes can not abide Well in the other Canonicall Scriptures the name is not and that is a great preiudice against vs. But he will be fauourable vnto vs a great preiudice shal not make him geue iudgement against vs if at least The thing it selfe be taught or can be proued by the Scriptures Yet againe he remembreth him selfe Pur. 452. that D. Allen hath alleaged many Scriptures for that thing and the old Fathers likewise before him and therefore to tye vs yet straighter with another exception he said here a little afore But we require that euery thing be necessarily concluded out of the true meaning of the Scriptures And againe he saith speaking of D. Allen See the confidence of the man he is sure Pur. 364. that if we were examined of our conscience what tryall of this doubt we would wish there is none we could name but his cause might well abide it Wherevnto he answereth saying Why M. Allen we haue testified of our conscience long agoe that the onely authoritie of Gods word written shall satisfie vs as well in this as in all other matters If you were able we should haue heard before this time some sentence of Scripture to maintaine prayer and sacrifice for the dead Why in the third Chapter here you confessed that you haue heard of him diuerse sentences and not of him alone Supra pag. 19. but also of the Fathers of the true Churche Yea but now saieth he I adde my exception and say therfore some sentence not standing vpon voluntarie collection but either in plaine wordes or necessarie conclusion For there is nothing that we are bound to know nothing that we are bound to doe but either in expresse wordes or in necessarie collection which is as good as expresse wordes it is set forth in the holy Scriptures Againe Pur. 452. All truth may be proued by Scripture either in plaine wordes or by necessarie conclusion which is all one And againe Pur. 189. There is * For example your ovvne heresie no heresie so absurd which Satā putteth into the head of wicked men but it may finde some sound of words in so many Bookes of the holy scriptures that by peruerse wittes may be wrested vnto it But the doctrine of Gods trueth and all articles of our beliefe are plainely taught in the Scripture either by manifest wordes or by necessary conclusion and argument which by no subtiltie of Satan or his instrumentes may be auoided or deluded And this is the difference betweene heresie and truth when they both appeale to the authoritie of Scripture Which difference as it may be found in al heresies so in none more notably then in this error of Purgatory Consider what texts of holy Scripture are alleaged * against it rather for it you shall see they can not bring one out of which any necessary argument may be framed to proue their cause or which hath not by learned interpretors of the olde time
vnproperly because he also saith our bodies by mortification to be made a liuing Sacrifice Rom. 12. To knowe what is properly or vnproperly called this or that you should sée to the natures of the things in them selues And then séeing in Christes death open separation of his body from his bloud and in Consecration mysticall separation of them because the words do worke that which they signifie you should say in both those Christes body to be properly a Sacrifice as I told you likewise before cap. 6. pag. 47. but in perpetuall virginitie and other mortification because there is no such separation of our substantial partes but onely of our affections from vs they be called Sacrifices not properly but onely by a metaphore and similitude Well then what obiections haue you now against this Priesthood and Sacrifice of the Fathers and ours Either that it is none at all or that it is not a Sacrifice in Christes body as S. Augustine said First Out of doubt Pur. 294.295 if the bringing foorth of bread and wine had bene anye thing parteining to the Priesthood of Melchisedech the Apostle Heb. 7. would not haue omitted to haue compared it with Christ But the Apostle comparing Melchisedech with Christe in all thinges in whiche he was comparable neuer teacheth it as any part of his Priesthood If it were no part of his Priesthood what was it then It is playne by the text that Melchisedech beeing both a king and a Priest as a king liberally enterteined Abraham and his armie and as a Priest blessed him The text in our vulgar Latine translation is this Proferens panem vinum erat enim Sacerdos Dei Altissimi In your vulgar English translation this He brought foorth bread wine For he was the Priest of the most highest God And in the Hebrew the poynting declareth that also the Rabbins thēselues take it in the same sort as also the very words do signifie specially standing in such order And all our Fathers do agrée Cyp. ep 63. S. Cyprian shall suffice for all who declareth the order of Melchisedech De sacrificio illo venire to come of that Sacrifice not of euery Sacrifice but of that Sacrifice And more distinctly to descende of these thrée thinges quod Melchisedech Sacerdos Dei summi fuit that he was not a common Priest but the Priest of the highest God as S. Iohn Baptists preeminence among al the Prophets is signified by this word Propheta altissimi the prophet of the highest Luc. 1. quod panē vinū obtulit hauing said afore protulit which two you thinke cannot stand together that he offered not as other Priests but bread and wine Quod Abraham benedixit that he blessed not euery body but Abraham the father of al the faithfull of Christ And in déede who is so blinde not to sée the corresspondence in Christ but you onely that are not Abrahams children We Catholikes his children in faith and souldiers in confession of the same do sée playnly before our eyes our true Melchisedech as first by him selfe at his last Supper so stil by his ministers to bring forth bread and wine and thereof as our High Priest to offer for vs this most acceptable Sacrifice and as our king of kings who with so few loaues fed many thousands to prepare for vs this most Royal feast which we can neuer inough admire Mat. 14. 15. so singularly by this blessing both God and vs that the sacrifice and feast it selfe is named Benedictio and Eucharistia Blessing and Thankesgiuing Which S. Cyprian doth there prosecute very swéetely saying For who is more the Priest of the highest God then our Lord Iesus Christ who offered Sacrifice to God the Father and offered the same against those Aquarij who offered water in the Chalice and not wine which Melchisedeth had offered that is bread and wine suum corpus sanguinem his owne body perdie and bloud Also that blessing going afore about Abraham ad nostrum populum pertinebat belonged to our people saith he as a Bishop minister of the true Melchisedech To * The end of bringing foorth vvas to blesse as also S. Augustine said aboue the end therefore that in Genesis the blessing about Abraham might by Melchisedech the Priest be duely celebrated there goeth afore an Image of Christes sacrifice an image I say consisting in bread and wine c. Where is now your argumēt ab authoritate Heb. 7. negatiuè with your out of doubt contrarie to your owne Logike here cap. 8. pag. 134. For besides all this I aske you whether Melchisedeth were a Priest without all sacrifice at all If you say yea your Diuinity is contrary to Heb. 8. For euery high Priest is ordeined to offer giftes and sacrifices Note Wherefore it is necessary hunc habere aliquid quod offerat this Priest also to haue somwhat to offer If you say he had some sacrifice tell vs I pray you how he was comparable to Christ in his Priesthood vnlesse he were also in his Sacrifice considering that his Priesthood consisted in his Sacrifice And so you sée that he was comparable to Christ in some thing to wit in his Sacrifice supposing also that it was not the sacrifice of bread wine in which the Apostle compareth them not What a blindnes is this in you not to sée Melchisedech in his bread and wine so expresly mentioned to be comparable vnto Christ whereas by the Apostle also the very omitting of his father and mother and genealogie is in Genesis a shadowing of Christ séeing also bread and wine so notably vsed in the world by the institution of Christ Such is either your ignorance in the Scriptures or also peruersenes against your owne knowledge Your second argument may be where you take on like Caiphas Mat. 26. and say it is a blasphemie Pur. 298.299 c. for the Fathers and vs to say that we haue the Priesthood after the order of Melchisedech confirmed vnto vs by oth Psal 109. For then you saye we must be Christ him selfe with his eternall diuinitie and euerlasting natiuitie and sitting on the right hand Why syr doth not the Scripture likewise say that there is one Baptizer Ioan. 1. Mat. 3. Hic est qui baptisat and he such a one as vpon whom the holy Ghost cōmeth and abideth and to whom the Father saith This is my naturall sonne Must we then be said to blaspheme VVhat a doctor Fulke is and take al that to our selues if we say that we are baptizers You are a great Doctor forsooth so to argue No syr we are baptizers and priests Aug. de ci li. 17. c. 17. but as his ministers we offer Sub Sacerdote Christo quod protulit Melchisedech Vnder Christ the Priest saith S. Augustine and therfore he singulerly is the one baptizer and the one priest So were not all the rest in the time of the olde Testament the ministers of