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
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
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
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
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
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
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
vp the Burnt sacrifice of his Passion To conclude then if certaine Fathers in a figuratiue speache and with a qualification say that when one is baptized he offereth vp the Sacrifice of Christes Passion or that in him selfe he crucifieth Christe which is true in a right sense M. Iewel may not thereof conclude that Christe at the celebration of the Supper is not truly offered For if he reason thus Christe is after a manner offered of vs when we are baptized Ergo he is not offered of the Priest in the Sacrament of the Aulter M. Ievv setteth one tru◠against a◠other Forasmuch as in Baptisme he is onely by grace and in the blessed Sacrament really and in substance Euery man of meane vnderstanding may soone espy the fondnesse of the Argument But not being hable directly to impugne this assured truth he maketh such a proffer towardes it as he can by setting one truth against an other truth The .11 Diuision The Ansvver OVR aduersaries crake much of the sealing vp of their newe Doctrine with the Bloud of such and such who be written in the booke of lyes not in the booke of life whome they wil needes to be called Martyrs Verily if those Mounkes and Friers Apostates and renegates wedded to wiues or rather to vse their owne terme yoked to Sisters be true Martyrs then must our Newe Gospellers pul these Holy Fathers and many Thousandes moe out of Heauen For certainly the Faith in Defence of whiche either sorte died is vtterly contrary The worst that I wishe to them is that God geue them eies to see and eares to heare and that he shutte not vp their hartes so as they see not the light here Math. 25 vntil they be throwen away into the outwarde darkenes where shal be weeping and grintinge of teeth Iewel This talke vvas vtterly out of season sauing that it liked vvel M. Harding to sporte him selfe vvith the Scriptures of God and a litle to scoffe at the vvordes of S. Paule 1. Cor. 9. VVhich thing becomming him so vvel may be the better borne vvithal Philip. 4. vvhen it shal please him likevvise to scoffe at others S. Paule calleth vviues Heb. 13. sometimes Sisters sometimes Yokefellows and thinketh Matrimonie to be Honorable in al Personnes 1. Timo. 4. and the forbidding of the same to be the Doctrine of Diuels Neither doth it any vvay appeare that euer honest godly Matrimonie either displeased God or vvas thought vncomely for a Martyr and vvitnesse of Gods Truth Harding Here M. Iewel you leaue my Conclusion and being grieued with certaine termes you shew your selfe much offended and fare as if your soare were touched in the quicke But sir what neede you of al the Gospellers to take this mater so hote You are not yet married pardye Marye if perhaps your fansie lye to a woman and you determine to take her to your wife wel mote you doo God send you good lucke I intende not to forbyd your Banes M Ievvel here digresseth from the purpose into a cōmō place to defend Priestes Mariages But what meant you in this place to vnlade your common stuffe that you haue gathered together in defence of Priestes marriage What iust occasion had you to treate thereof What feared you that the bulke of your booke would not arise huge ynough vnlesse you brought vnto it such heapes of vnnecessary common places Or thought you rather that your companions marriages should be taken as they be in deede for detestable horedome and abominable Inceste except they were by you defended Or brought you in al this vnceasonable talke only to please your felowes the Apostates and their strompets Verily the terme yoked to Sisters which is a badge of your owne liuerie vsed by me as it were by the way speaking of an other mater ministred not sufficient occasion to enter into so large a discourse in defence of your filthy yokinges Why did you not rather reprooue me for calling the Registre of your stincking Martyrs the booke of lyes Why did you not proue your Lecherours married Monkes and Friers the chiefe Apostles of your Synagogue not to be Apostates Why answered you not the point that if they be true Martyrs then must you pul those holy Fathers whom I alleged for the Sacrifice out of heauen For both can not be placed there the faith in defence whereof either sorte dyed being quite contrary This parte of my talke was not al together out of ceason And wherein I pray you do I sporte with the Scriptures and scoffe at the woordes of S. Paule for therewith you burthen me What bicause hauing said of your Monkes and Friers that they were wedded to wiues I corrected my terme saying rather to vse your owne māner of speach that they were yoked to sisters is this sporting with the Scriptures of God Is this scoffing at S. Paules wordes You should first haue proued your Apostates strompettes to be their lawful wiues and then might you better haue framed an obiection against me Now that practise being cōtrary to the Scripture which commaundeth vowes to be kepte and performed Psal. 75. what Scripture haue ye for such yoking What reliefe haue ye for it of S. Paule Though in dede faithful and godly wiues be together with vs that beleeue the children of God and in the primitiue Churche the name of Brother and Sister was cōmon among the beleuers yet how prooue you that S. Paule calleth wyues sometimes Sisters sometimes yoke-fellowes Is it not shame for you who professe so great skil in the Latine tongue and haue such a helper at hand for the Greeke tongue to grounde your selfe vpon the corrupte translation of your English Bible Were it true that S. Paule called wyues sometimes Sisters sometimes Yokefelowes for which ye haue nothing to allege but the English Bibles translation yet how are ye hable to prooue the yoking that is betwene your blessed Brothers and Sisters that is to say betwen your holy Prelates Priests Monkes Friers and Nonnes who haue bounde them selues by solemne vowe to the contrary to be true wedloke VVhat meant S. Paule by A sister vvoman 1. Cor. 9. By you quotation you appoint your Reader to the .9 Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians What is there that maketh for you S. Paule saith Haue not we power to leade about a sister woman with vs as the other Apostles and the brethren of our Lorde and Cephas What meaneth he by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 August li. de opere Monachorū cap. 4. Ambro. in Commen Theophyl in Cōmen Hiero. cōtra Iouin lib. 1. sororem mulierem a Sister woman but a faithful or a Christian woman For as the men that beleued were called Brothers so the wemen were called Sisters As for your Translatour who turneth it a Sister to Wife whether for the Greeke he haue deliuered true English or no let other iudge certainly he hath deliuered vs a false sense For as S.
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
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
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