eucharist whereof I haue spoken already but also before when he promised it for that wheÌ„ soeuer he spoke therof he represented the same to the vnderstanding of the hearers as a body sacrificed dead not speaking of his whole person or of himselfe as liuing but of his flesh of his body of his blood as my flesh is truly meate and my blood is truly drink and the bread which I will geue is my flesh this is my body this is my blood or if he spoke of himselfe or of his person it was with an addition to shew that he was to be eaten as when he sayd he which eateth me liueth for me which kynd of speech made some of his disciples forsake him sayâ—ng it was durus sermo ae hard speeche conceauing therby that they were to eate him dead as other flesh bought in the shambles wheras he spoke in that manner to signify that he shuld be sacrificed before he should be eateÌ„ and therefore he euer spoke of himselfe as already killed and dead for that no creature whyles he is liuing is in case to be eaten as S. Gregory Nissen doth note very wel in the place before alledged in which respect Paschasius also sayth that our Lord is killed to the end wee may eate him and Isichius that Christ killed himselfe when he supped with his disciples not because he is truly killed or doth truly dy but because he dyeth mistically that is to say for that his death is mistically and truly represented by the separation of his blood from his body vnder seueral and dyuers formes of bread and wyne for although by reason of his immortality and impassibilytie he cannot dy neyther yet be so deuided but that he remayneth whole vnder both kynds yet for as much as the forme of wyne rather representeth his blood then his body and the forme of bread rather his body theÌ„ his blood according to the very woords of our sauiour saying of the one kynd this is my body and of the other this is my blood it followeth I say that by reason of this separation wrought by the force of the woordes of consecration he is exhibited in the Sacrament as dead and so dyeth in mistery as wel to represent his death vpon the crosse as also to offer himselfe in sacrifice to his father for the which it is not of necessity that he truly and realy dy but it suffiseth that he dy in some sort that is to say mistically for although all liuing creatures that are sacrificed are offred to God with the losse of their lyues and so are made true sacrifices yet in such other creatures as are not subiect to death it sufficeth that they be offred to almighty God and receiue withall some notable mutation or change to make the action to be sacrifical and different from a simple oblation for when any thing is offred to God and remayneth stil in his owne kynd forme and nature it is called an oblation so the first fruits the tythes the first begotten or borne of liuing creatures yea and religious persons as leuits and others in the old law were only offred to God for that they were no way changed wheras al things sacrifysed were eyther wholy destroyed or consumed by swoord or fyre or els at least receiued by the actioÌ„ of the priest some notable mutation Therfore seeing our sauiour being now eternal immortal and impassible is not subiect to death nor to any destruction or mutation by losse of his lyfe it sufficeth to make him a true sacrifice that he be offred to God with such mutation or change as may stand with his present state and condition as wee see he is offred in this sacrifice wherein the selfe same body that was borne of the blessed virgin Mary and is now in heauen glorified with the proper forme and lineaments of a natural body is by the omnipotency of our sauiours woords pronounced by the priest represented vpon the altar as dead and in formes of bread and wyne his body to be handled broken eaten and his blood to be dronke or shed as the body or blood of any other liuing creature that is killed in sacrifice wherby he is also in some sort coÌ„sumed for that his body being eaten and his blood dronke he looseth the forme and peculiar maÌ„ner of beeing that he hath in the sacrament which beeing deuynes caul Sacramental in respect of all which admirable mutations S. Augustin doth notably and truly apply to our sauiour in this sacrifice the history of King Dauid when he changed his countenance as the scripture sayth before Abimelech or king Achis for they are both one which he sayth was verifyed in our sauiour Christ when he changed his countenance in the priesthood and sacrifice of Melchisedech geuing his body and blood to be eaten and dronk There was sayth he a sacrifice of the Iewes in beasts according to the order of Aaron and that in mistery and there was not then the sacrifice of the body and blood of our Lord which the faythful know and is dispersed throughout the world and a litle after shewing how Melchisedech brought forth bread and wyne when he blessed Abraham he teacheth that it was a figure of this sacrifice then prosecuting the history how Dauid being taken for a mad man went from Abimelech which signifieth regnum Patris that is to say as he expoundeth it the people of the Iewes he applyeth also the same to our Sauiour saying that wheÌ„ he told the Iewes that his flesh was meat his blood drinke they took him for a mad man and abandoned him wherevpon he also forsook them changing his countenance in the sacrifice of Melchisedech that is to say leauing all the sacrifices of the order of AaroÌ„ and as it were disguysing him-selfe vnder the formes of bread and wyne which was the sacrifice of Melchisedech he passed from the Iewes to the Gentils This is the effect of S. Augustinus discours in that place concerning the mutation or change incident to our Sauiours person in the sacrament of the Eucharist and requisit to the sacrifice whereof I treat wherby it hath the nature of a true sacrifice as I haue declared before which being considered with the circumstances of our sauiours owne woords as wel in the promise as in the institution thereof all signifying that his flesh his body aud his blood was to be eaten dronk as of a creature killed in sacrifice yea that the same was then presently geuen or offred by him to his Father for his disciples who represented the whole Churche and for remission of sinnes besyds his manifest allusion to the promulgation of the old Testament dedicated with the blood of a present sacrifice and lastly the consent of the learned Fathers of the Churche confirming our Gatholyke doctrin in this behalfe no reasonable man can dout but that our Sauiour at his last super did ordeyn the Sacrament
Henries tyme except he haue a brazen face and a â—eared conscience or els be ignorant of all antiquity But to returne to S. Augustin and those first two hundreth yeres comprysed in the history of S. Bede yf wee consider the notable miracles wherwith it pleased God to confirme this our Catholyke religion in those dayes for his owne glory and the conuersion of the panims no man can â—out that it is the true fayth except he be more faythlesse incredulous then those infidels that were conuerted therby Saynt Bede signifieth that S. Augustin wrought so many miracles whereof he declareth some that S. Gregory wrote vnto him to admonish him not to be proud therof he also declareth very many famous miracles donne by a crosse erected by King Oswald and after by his relickes as wel in Ireland and Germany as England and by the relickes of saynt Eartongatha daughter to the King of Kent and her cosen Edelburg both virgins and nunnes of S. Edelâ—â—eda the Queene that dyed a virgin in a monastery whose â—ody was taken vp whole vncorrupt after many yeares â—â— the discouery whereof diuels were expelled and many â—â—sseasses cured Also he recounteth the lyke notable miraâ—â—es of S. Chad S. Cutbert S. AEdelwald and saynt Iohn a Bishop which they did whyles they were yet liuing and others donne by holy oyle by the blessed sacrifice of the masse all which for breuities sake I omit remitting our aduersaries to the autor in the places aleaged in the margent OF THE FIRST CONUERSION of our country whyles it was called Britany in the tyme of King Lucius with euident proofes that our Catholyke fayth was then preached planted there CHAP. V. BVT for as much as our country hath ben twyse coÌ„uerted from paganisme first in the tyme of the Britains and after in the tyme of the Saxons or English they wil say perhaps that although we proue that the second tyme our Catholyke religion was planted and established there when many errors as they would haue the world to thinke were crept into the Church yet at the first conuersion in King Lucius dayes their religion was taught and deliuered to the Britains which some of their croniclers are not ashamed to intimat to their readers and namely Holinshed who yf my memory fayle me not for I haue not his book here maketh Eleutherius the Pope write a letter to King Lucius more lyke a minister of England then a Bishop of Rome Therefore I wil take a litle paynes to examine this poynt wil make it manifest that our Catholyke religion which saint Augustin planted amongst the English was deliuered 400. yeres before to King Lucius and the Britains by Fugatius and Damianus or as some say Donatianus sent into Britany by Pope Eleutherius in the yeare of our Lord 182. And although no ancient historiographer or writer for ought I haue seene do signify particularly what poynts of religion were preached to King Lucius at his conuersion partly for that matters of so great antiquity are but very breefly and obscurely handled and partly because in those dayes when there was no other but our Catholyke religioÌ„ vniuersally professed this of the protestants not so much as dreamt of it was needlesse to signify the poynts or articles therof for that it could not be immagined to be any other bur the Roman fayth yet in the discourse of the tymes and ages next ensewing the conuersion of King Lucius whyles the fayth which he receiued remayned pure and vncorrupt the cleare light of truth doth snfficiently shew it selfe through the clouds of the obscure breuity wherewith the matters of those tymes are treated To this purpose it is to be vnderstood that as our famous countryman S. Bede testifieth the fayth preached to King Lucius and the Britains remayned in integrity and purity vntil the tyme of the Arrians which was for the space of almost 200. yeares and although he signify that from that tyme forward the people of Britany weare geuen to noueltyes and harkened to euery new doctrine yet it is euident in him that neyther the Arrian heresy nor yet the Pelagian afterwards took any root there or could infect the whole body of the Britain Church but only troobled the peace thereof for a short tyme in so much that it should seeme the first was rooted out by the industry of the good Pastors and Bishops of Britany whereof some were present at the great councel of Sardica held against the Arrians shortly after that of Nice in which respect S. Hilary doth worthely prayse the Britain Bishops for that they wholy reiected the Arrian heresy and the later I meane the heresy of Pelagius which saynt Bede sayth the britains would nullaâ—enus suscipere in no sort receiue was suppressed by S. German and saint Lupus two Bishops of France who at the request of the Britains came into Britany and confounded the Pelagians in open disputation whereby the people were so â—ncensed against the said heretykes that they could hardly â—old theire hands from them and in conclusion banished those that would not yeld to the true Catholyke faith and here vpon ensewed such peace and tranquility in the britan Church that for a long tyme after as saynt Bede testifieth the fayth remayned there intemerata vncorrupt wherby it appeareth that after the expulsion of the Pelagians which was about the yeare of our Lord 450. the Church of Britany reteyned the same fayth that it receiued at the first conuersion and therfore yf we fynd the vse and practise of our religion vntil these tymes it may serue for a testimony that the same was deliuered to King Lucius First we read that presently after the persecution of Dioclesian wherin our protomartyr saynt Alban with some others was put to death about the yeare of our Lord 286. the Christians that had liued before in woods and caues not only repayred the Churches which the persecuters had destroyed but also made new in honour of the martyrs celebrated festiual dayes and buylt amongst others a most sumptuous Church in honour of S. Alban where many miracles were wount to be donne continually vntil the tyme of S. Bede as he himselfe witnesseth afterwards when the Pelagian heresy had somwhat infected the country saynt German going thether out of France to confound the Pelagians at the request of the Britans themselues as I haue declared before appeased a great storme at sea with casting therein a little water in the name of the Trinity which no dout was holy water and being arriued there he restored sight vnto a noble mans daughter applying vnto her eyes certayne relyckes which he caryed about him c. after hauing confuted the Pelagians and reduced all to the purity of fayth as saynt Bede sayth meaning therby the fayth first preached to King Lucius he went to the toomb of S. Alban to geue thankes to God per ipsum by
wil geue thee the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and Origen addeth further that there was no smalle differēce betwyxt the Apostles commission to bynd and loose and the commission of S. Peter which he affirmeth to be more ample because sayth he non erant in tanta perfectione sicut Petrus they were not in such perfection as Peter and therfore S. Leo sayth that the authority or power to bynd and loose was geuen Petro prae caeteris to Peter aboue the rest of the Apostles and the reason is for that he being their head and they subordinat to him he receiued the same for him selfe and them and they held it as from him vnder him though they had it also by Christs commissiō as wel as hee which S. Augustin teacheth clearly when he sayth that the keyes of the kingdome of heauen were geuen to S. Peter because he represented the whole church of which representatiō he yeildeth the reason adding immediatly Propter apostolatus sui primatum or as he sayth in an other place propter primatum quem in discipulis habuit by reason of the supremacy he had ouer the rest of the Apostles geuing to vnderstand therby that the keyes being geuen to S. Peter as head of the Apostles and consequently as head of the Church they were geuen also to the Apostles and to the whole Church for what is geuen to the king as king the same is geuen to the common wealth and from him or by him as head therof is communicated imparted to the whole body For this cause S. Chrisostome treating of the promis that our sauiour made to S. Peter to buyld his Churche vpō him and to geue him the keyes of the kingdome of heauen affirmeth that he made him head or gouuernour of the whole world Thus much for the second proof The third and last shal be the commission and charge that our sauiour gaue particularly to S. Peter to feed his sheep wherby he made him general Pastor ouer his whole flock whereof Eusebius Emissenus sayth thus first Christ comitted vnto him his lambs then his sheepe because he made him not only a pastor or shepherd but also the pastor of Pastors Therefore Peter feedeth the lambes he feedeth the sheepe he feedeth the young ones their dammes he gouerneth the subiects their prelats so that he is Pastor of all for besydes lambes sheepe there is nothing in the Church This is more euident in the Greeke wherein the gospel of S. Ihon was written then in our latin translation for where as we haue 3. tymes pasce that is to say feed the greeke hath in the second place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which doth not only signify to feed but also to gouerne and rule wherby the Euangelist signifyed that Christ gaue to S. Peter commission not only to feed his flock with preaching and teaching but also to exercyse all pastoral authority ouer them that is to say to rule and gouern them in which sence the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often vsed in the holy Scriptures as in S. Mathew and Micheas the Prophet where it is sayd of Bethlem there shal come foorth of thee a caeptayne that shal gouern my people Israel and in the Apocalipse he shal rule them in an yron rod and againe in the Psalm thow shalt gouerne or rule theym in a rod of yron in which places as also in dyuers others of the scripture to lyke purpose the greeke hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the same sence our lord saith in the Prophet that the great Monark Cirus should be his Pastor because he should gouern and rule his people and Homer oftentymes cauleth king Agamemnon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the king or Pastor of this people for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth both and therfore S. Augustin expounding those words feede my sheep sayth that Christ recommended his sheepe to S. Peter pascendas id est docendas regendasque to be fed that is to say to be taught and gouerned Theophilactus also vpō the same place witnesseth that Christ gaue to S. Peter praesecturam ouium totius mundi the gouernment of the sheepe of the whole world and S. Chrisostome treating of those words of our sauiour sayth that he would haue S. Peter to be endewed with authority and farre to excel the other Apostles and agayne expounding the same words otherwhere he sayth that Christ spake vnto him only because he was the mouth head of the Apostles and committed vnto him curam fratrum suorum the charge of his brethren and a litle after that Christ gaue him the charge of the whole world which he also affirmeth in an other place of the vniuersal Churche saying that the supremacy and gouernment of the Churche throughout the whole world was geuen him by Christ. I wil conclude with S. Leo whereas saith he the power of bynding and loosing was geuen to Peter aboue the rest of the Apostles the care charge of feeding the sheepe of Christ was more specially committed to him to whome whosoeuer shal thinck the principality or supremacy is to be denied he cannot by any meanes diminish his dignity but being puft vp with the spirit of his owne pryde he casts him selfe head-long to hel Thus thow seest good reader that our doctrin of the supremacy of S. Peter is no nouelty of our inuention but the vniform and constant opinion of the most learned and anciēt Fathers of the Churche grounded vpon the scriptures in which respect we fynd in all the sayd auncient Docctors most eminent and excellent tytles of superioritie and praerogatiue attributed to S. Peter who in S. Hilary is cauled the blessed porter of heauen in S. Augustin the first or cheef of the Apostles in Eusebius the greatest of the Apostles and maister of the warfare of God in Epiphanius the captayn of the Disciples in S. Ciril Prince and head of the Apostles in S. Ambrose the Vicar that Christ left vs of his loue and to omit others for breuityes sake in S. Chrysostome the toppe or head of the congregation of the Apostles an vnconsumable rock the vnmoueable top of the buylding and lastly the pastor and head of the Churche THAT THE SVCCESSORS OF S. Peeter to wit the Bishops of Rome succeed him in the supremacy of the Churche CHAP. IX AND for as much as it is euident that our sauiour Christ gaue not this authority to S. Peeter for his owne particular benefit but for the general good of his Churche nor for his owne dayes only but during the tyme of the Churche militāt to the end that so long as their should be any sheep in his fold so long ther should be an vniuersal Pastor to feed and gouerne them and that his Churche which is a visible body
of beasts or catel which he signifyed by the words blynd and lame and other in bread he attributeth the word polluted or defiled to the bread only not without mistery to oppose therto the cleane sacrifice of the gentils in forme of bread cauling it a cleane oblation and putting the special force of the antithesis betwyxt the figure and the verity for that the shew bread or bread of proposition being as S. Hierome sayth the bread which the priests polluted was a proper figure of the holy eucharist as he also testifyeth Furdermore this sacrifice cannot be vnderstood of the sacrifice of our sauiour vpon the crosse which was offred only once and in one place and not amongst the gentils neither yet of spiritual sacrifices as of thankes geuing prayer fasting and other good workes which are improperly cauled sacrifices and therfore it is to be noted that whensoeuer this woord sacrifyce is improperly taken in the scripture some other woord is alwayes ioyned thereto to signify the same as hâ—stiae laudis saecrificium iustitiae Saecrificium cordis contriti the host or sacrifice of prayse the sacrifice of iustice the sacrifice of ae contrit hart and on the other syde whensoeuer it is alone without any woord adioyned to restrayne or diminish the sence as it is in this prophesy it signifyeth a true and proper sacrifice This difference may wel be noted where it is said miscricordiam volui non sacrificium I wil haue mercy and not sacrifice and agayne obedientiae est melior quam victima obedience is better then sacrifice in which sentences sacrifyce properly taken is opposed to mercy and obedience which also may improperly be cauled sacrifices as wel as thankes geuing prayse of God or any other good worke whatsoeuer Agayne the prophet speaketh heere of a sacrifice or oblation which should be but one cauling it a cleane oblation but the spiritual sacrifices are as many as there are good woorkes of the faythful Also he speaketh of a sacrifice proper to the new law and to the gentils such a one as should succeede the sacrifices of the Iewes and be offred in steede therof but spiritual sacrifices haue ben in all tymes and common both to Iewes and gentils But howsoeuer other men may vnderstand this prophesy our aduersaryes cannot with any reason expound it of the good woorks of Christians seeing they teach that the best woorkes of the iustest men are polluted and vncleane sinful and damnable which therfore cannot according to their doctrin be that sacrifice which almighty God himselfe cauled by the mouth of his prophet a cleane oblation Lastly the most learned and auncient fathers of the Churche do vniformly expound this prophesy of the sacrifice of the masse as S. Iustin the learned Philosopher and famous martyr within 150. yeres after Christ sayth that of the sacrifices of the gentils that are offred in euery place videlicet the bread and cup of the Eucharist Malachâ—â— the Prophet euen then spoke and foretold that wee should glorify his name therby Ireneus also hauing declared in what manner our sauiour did institute the blessed SacrameÌ„t of the Eucharist at his last supper and that the Churche receyuing the same of the Apostles offreth it to God throughout the world addeth de quo in duodecim prophetis Malachias sic praesignificauit non est mihi voluntas in vobis c. that is to say wherof Malachias one of the twelue prophets did signify before hand speaking to the Iewes in this manner my wil is no longer to be serued by you c. S. Chrysostome hauing alledged the same Prophesy concludeth Behold sayth he how clearly and playnly he hath interpreted the mistical table which is the vnbloody host He that listeth to see more testimonyes of the fathers let him read Tertulian S. Ciprian S. Hierome S. Augustin S. Ciâ—il Eusebius Theodoretus and S. Ihon Damascen in the places alledged in the margent THAT NOT ONLY THE SACRIFICE of Melchisedech but also the sacrifices of the old law were figures of the sacrifice of the masse are changed into the same and by the way is declared the necessity of sacrifice as wel for common welth as for religion CHAP. XV. NOw to speake of the sacrifice of Melchisedech I think our aduersaries wil not deny that our sauiour was and is a Priest according to the order of Melchisedech and that he shal be so for euer as the Prophet Dauid testifieth of him saying tu es sacerdos in eternuÌ„ secundum ordinem Melchisedech thou art a Priest for euer according to the order of Melchisedech the which saynt Paule also sheweth amply in his epistle to the Hebrews the which being granted two things do euidently follow thereon The first is that for as much as priesthood and sacrifice ar correlatiues and cannot be the one without the other in which respect saynt Paule sayth that a Priest or Bishop is ordeyned vt offer at dona sacrificiae to offer gifts and sacrifices agayne that our sauiour being a Priest must needs haue somewhat to offer and seing his sacrifice vpon the crosse was offred by him but once neither can euer be reiterat in that manner and therfore cannot be that continual sacrifice which must needs correspond to his eternal priesthood bee continually offred in his Church I coÌ„clude that besydes his sacrifice vpon the crosse he did institut and leaue behind him some other to be offred dayly not only for remission of dayly sinnes but also for a most deuine act of religion wherby all faythful people may dayly do to almighty God the due worship seruice they owe him the which kind of worship by publik sacrifice was not only vsed in the law of Moyses but also in the law of nature is so due to God from man and proceedeth so â—â—rinsecally from the very grounds and principles of nature it selfe that their can be no perfect religion nor good common welth without it For as for religion whereas the special office and end therof is to acknowledge by external acts the seruice and subiection wee owe to our Lord and creator and the dominion he hath ouer vs it is manifest that no external act of religion doth so fully and conueniently expresse and signify the same as sacrifice wherby wee gratefully offer to almighty God his owne creatures not only rendring him part of his owne gifts and yeilding him thankes therfore but also destroying them in his honour to testify as wel that he is souuerayn Lord of lyfe and death as that we hold our beeing and all wee haue of him and depend wholy of his wil and prouidence yea and that we owe our owne lyfe to him in sacrifice and doe as it were redeeme the same with the death or destruction of an other creature in signification wherof he which in the old law did present to the priest any beast to be sacrifised did hold him by
of the Eucharist to serue vs not only for a food and spiritual meate but also for a sacrifice offring the fame him-selfe first to his Father and then geuing commissioÌ„ and power to his Disciples to do that which he did to wit to offer and sacrifice the same saying hoc facite in nâ—eam commemorationeÌ„ that is to say do make or sacrifice this in remembrance of me for this woord facite as wel in the Syriac Hebrew and Greek as in the Laryn signifieth to sacrifice no lesse then to do or make as in Leuiticus faciet vnum pro peccate he shal sacrifice one of the turtle doues for remissioÌ„ of sinne and in the book of Kings faciam bovem alterum I wil sacrifice the other oxe the lyke may be seene in diuers other places of the holy scriptures where the Hebrew Greek woord which doth properly signify facere must needs be vnderstood to do sacrifice in which sence facâ—re is also vsed amongst the Latins as cum faciam vttulapro frugthus c. when I shal sacrifice a calfe for my corne c also in Plautus faciam tibâ— fideliam mulsiplenam I wil sacrifice vnto the a poâ—ful of sweete wyne and agayne in Cicero Iunoni omnes consules facere necesse est all the consuls must needs sacrifice to Iune But howsoeuer it is it litle importeth for the matter in questioÌ„ whether faecere do properly signify to sacrifice or no seing it is euident that all the doctors of the Churche do vnderstaÌ„d that Christ coÌ„maunding his Apostles to do that which he did commaunded them to sacrifice S. Denis who was conuerted by S. Paul at Athens declaring the practise of the Churche in his tyme fayth that the Bishop in the tyme of the holy mysteries excuseth himself to almighty God for that he is so bold to sacrifice the host that geueth health or saluation aleadging for his excuse our Sauiours commandment to wit hoc facite do this in my remembrance S. Clement in his Apostolical constitutions speaking to Priests in the name of the Apostles fayth suscitato Domino offerte saecrificium vestrum de quo vobis praecepit per nos hae facite in meam commemorationem on easter day when our Lord is risen offer your sacrifice as he commaunded yow by vs saying do this in my remembrance Martialis who also conuersed with the Apostles sayth that the Christians offred the body and blood of our Sauiour Iesus Christ to lyfe euerlasting because he commaunded them to do it in remembrance of him Iustin the Philosopher and Martyr within 140. yeares after Christ sayth that God who receiueth sacrifice at the hands of none but of Priests did foretel by his Prophet that those sacrifices should be grateful to him which Iesus Christ commaunded to be offred in the Eucharist S. Cyprian sayth our Lord and God Iesus Christe is the cheefe Priest and offred first sacrifice to God the Father and commaunded that the same should be donne in his remembrance S. Chrysostome teaching that the sacrifice which is dayly offred in the Churche ys alwayes one and the self same sacrifice be it offred neuer so oft addeth that which we do is donne in remeÌ„brance of that which was donne by our Sauiour far he sayd do this in remembrance of me I omit for breuityes sake S. Augustin S. Ambrose Primasius Bishop of vtica S. Isidore Haymo and diuers others that testify in lyke manner that our Sauiour saying to his Apostles do this gaue them coÌ„mission and power to sacrifice and thus much for the institution of the masse by our Sauiour THAT THE APOSTLES practysed the commission geuen them by our Sauiours sacrificing or saying Masse them-selues and leauing the vse and practyse therof vnto the Churche and that the ancient Fathers not only in King Lucius tyme but also for the first 500. yeares after Christ teach it to be a true sacrifice and propitiatory for the liuing and for the dead CHAP. XVII NOW then to speake breefly of the practyse of the Apostles and of Gods Churche euer since It being manifest by that which I haue sayd already that our Sauiour himselfe did not only institute offer the sacrifice of his body and blood at his last super but also gaue commission and power to his disciples to do that which he did it cannot be douted but that they executed this power and commission and did not only consecrate and make the body of our sauiour as he did but also sacrificed the same Therefore whereas we read in the Acts of the Apostles that they vsed to assemble themselues together ad frangendum panem to break bread it is doutles to be vnderstood that they offred this sacrifice informe of bread according to the commission coÌ„maundmeÌ„t of our Sauiour that the same was the publike ministery wherein the scripture sayth they were occupied when they were commanded by the holy ghost to segregat Paul and Barnabas whereof it is sayd ministraÌ„tibus illis Domino ieiunantibus c. whyles they were ministring to our Lord and fasting c. which being in the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signify the ministery of sacrifice in which sence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are taken in the scripture when they are vsed absolutely and spoken of any publyke and holy ministery wherof wee haue examples as wel in the epistieto the Hebrewes in dyuers places as also in the gospel of S. Luke author of the Acts of the Apostles who speaking of Zacharias the priest and of his ministery or office which was to offer sacrifice calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therfore Erasinus of whose iudgement in lyke cases our aduersaries are wont to make no smaâ—e account had great reason to translate the foresayd woords 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. sacrificanâ—bus illu Domino c. as they were sacrifycing to our Lord c. and so coÌ„mon was this sence vnderstanding of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for sacrifice that the grecians haue no other proper woord for the sacrifice of the Masse Furdermore that the ministery of the Apostles in breaking bread was a sacrifice it appeareth euidetly by S. Paule who to withdraw the Corinthians from sacrificing to Idols did represent vnto them the sacrifice which he and the Apostles did vse to offer in the breaking of bread making a playne antithesis betwyxt the one sacrifice and the other and comparing the bread which they brake as wel with the lawful sacrifices of the Iewes as also with the vnlawful sacrifices of the gentils Of the first he sayth Behold Israel according to the flesh are not those which eate of the sacrifices partakers of the Altar and agayne speaking of the other flie sayth he from the woorship that is to say the sacrifices of Idols and yeilding a reason thereof the cup sayth he which wee blesse
is it not a communication of the blood of our Lord the bread which wee breake is it not a participation of our Lords body and after more playnly those things which the gentils do sacrifice they sacrifice to deuils and not to God I wold not haue yow to be partakers with deuils yow cannot drinke the cup of our Lord and the cup of deuils yow can not be partakers of the table of our Lord and the table of deuils c. Thus farre the Apostle who as yow see euidently compareth or rather opposeth cup to cup table to table Altar to Altar sacrifice to sacrifice and therfore saynt Ambrose vnderstandeth in this place the table of our Lord to be the Altar faying he which is partaker of the table of Deuils mensae Domini id est altari obstrepit doth oppose himselfe against the table of our Lord that is to say the Altar and saynt â—ilary expoundeth it to be mensam sacrifictorum the table of sacrifices Also S. Chrisostome vpon these woords Calix beuedictionis the cup of blessing and the rest that followeth in the text sayth in the person of Christ if thou desyre blood sayth be do not sprinkle the Altar of Idols with the blood of brute beasts but my altar with my blood S. Augustin in lyke sort interpreteth this place of the sacrifice of the Churche saying that S. Paul teacheth the Corinthians ad qoud sacrificuÌ„ debeant pertimere to what sacrifice they ought to belong and Haymo who wrote about 800. yeres agoe sayth that calix benedictionis the cup of blessing which S. Paule speaketh of is that cup which is blessed a sacerdoâ—ibus in Altars of priests in the Altar so that if wee consider the circumstances of S. Paules woords with the interpretation of these learned Fathers it can not be denyed but that he and the other Apostles in the ceremony of breaking bread did not only administer the Sacrament of the eucharist to the people as our aduersaries would haue it but also offer sacrifice Which may sufficiently be coÌ„firmed as wel by the liturgy or masse of S. Iames the Apostle yet extant agreeing with ours for as much as concerneth the substance of the sacrifice as also by a constitution of the Apostles mentioned by S. Clement saynt Peters disciple wherein they decreed that nothing should be offred super Altare vpon the Altar more then our Lord had commaunded and speaking furder in the same decree of the sunday he signifyeth that they exercysed that day 3. seueral acts of religion that is to say euangelij praedictionemâ— oblationem sacrificij sacricibs dispensationem the preaching of the gospel oblation of sacrifice and the distribution of the holy meate that is to say the holy eucharist wherby it is euident that the publyke ministery of the Apostles consisted not only in preaching and ministring the Sacrament of the eucharist but also in oblation of sacrifice here to I may ad the testimony of saynt Andrew the Apostle Who being vrged by Egeas the proconsul to sacrifice to the fals God answered that he sacrificed dayly and distributed to the people the flesh of the immaculat lambe as witnesseth the Epistle of the churches of Achaia declaring the story of his passion besyds that Epiphanius a most auncient Father of the Churche doth testify that all the Apostles did sacrifice who writing against the sect of heretykes called Colliridians and reprehending them woorthely for hauing certayne women priests that offred sacrifice to our lady which could not be offred to any but to God alone sayth it was neuer heard of since the world beganne that any woman did sacrifice neither our first mother Eua nor any of the holy women in the old Testament no nor the virgin Mary her selfe nor the 4. daughters of Philip the deacon though they were prophetesses and then hauing named Zacharias father to saynt Iohn for one that offred sacrifice in the old law he addeth that all the 12. Apostles whome he nameth particulerly did sacrifice whereof it were a sufficient argument though there were no other that those Fathers who partly liued with them and receiued of them the Christian fayth and partly succeeded them immediatly do signify not only the vse of the sacrifice in the Churche in theyr tyme but also their constant and most reuerend opinion thereof as it may appeare sufficiently by that which I haue already aleadged out of S. Clement S. Denis S. Martial S. Iustin and S. Ireneus all which do vniformely teach that Christ deliuered this sacrifice to his Apostles and the last of them to wit S. Ireneus scholer to S. Policarp who was scholer to S. Iohn the Euangelist sayth that the Churche receining it of the Apostels did offer it throughout the world in his tyme which as I haue sayd before was in the tyme of K. Lucius and therfore I shal not neede to enlarge my selfe furder in this matter to produce the testimonies of the later fathers partly because I haue already accomplished my principal intention in this treatyse which is to proue that king Lucius could receaue from the Churche of Rome no other but our Gatholyke Roman fayth as wel in this poynt of the sacrifice of the Masse as in all other which wee professe and partly because in handling and explicating the prophecies and figures of the old testament and the actions and woords of our Sauiour and of his Apostles concerning the institution vse and practyse of this sacrifice I haue already aleadged so many playne and euident testimonies of the fathers that it is needles to aleadge any more Seeing it is most manyfest therby that all those of the first 500. yeares both taught our doctrin in this poynt and vnderstood the scriptures concerning the same as wee doe and that they speake not of this sacrifice as our aduersaries wil needs vnderstand them as of an improper sacrifice but in such sort that they euidently shew their opinions of the propriety verity and excellent dignity therof and therfore in S. Denis scholer to S. Paule it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Budaeus translateth sacrificium sacrificiorum the sacrifice of sacrifices In S. Cyprian verum plenum sacrificium a tiue and ful sacrifice which he sayth the priest doth offer in the person of Christ to God the Father In S. Chrisostome sacrificium tremendum horror is plenum caleste summéque venerandum sacrificium a dreadful sacrifice ful of horror a heauenly most reuerend sacrifice In S. Augustin singulare summum verissimum sacrificium cui omnia falsa sacrificia cesserunt the singuler and the most highest and most true sacrifice wherto all the salse sacrifices of the gentils haue geuen place In Eusebius sacrificium Deo plenum a sacrifice ful of God In S. Iohn Damascen tremendum vitale sacrificium a dreadful sacrifice and geuing lyfe In Theodoretus sacrificationem agni deminies the sacrificing of the
depryue vs of it in our country not only by their doctrine but also by rigorous and violent lawes resembling therin as wel the old persecutors of Gods Churche that did the lyke as also Antichrist that is to come who as Daniel the Prophet fortelleth shal take a way iuge sacrificium the cōtinual sacrifice of the Churche which is the sacrifice of the masse and the ancient Byshop and martyr Hypolitus doth testify in his book of the consummation of the world that in the tyme of Antichrist Churches shal be lyke cottages and that the precious body and blood of Christ shal not be in those dayes the liturgy shal be taken a way the singing of the Psalmes shal ceasse and the reading of the scripture shal not be heard thus farre saynt Hipolitus that wrote within 250. yeares after Christ. Seing then the Caluinists and Lutherans abolish the sacrifice of the masse yea and bring christian religion to a very desolation and ruine ouerthrowing altars churches monasteries images relickes of saynts the signe of the crosse sacraments ceremonies and all external memories and monuments of christianity and in steed of the blessed body and blood of our sauiour bring into the churche nothing but a bare signe therof what els are they but true figures or the forerunners of Antichrist that shal set vp the abomination of desolation in the temple of God as sayth the Prophet that is to say shal bring an abominable desolation vpon the Churche and true religion of Christ OVR DOCTRIN OF THE merits of woorkes and Iustification is proued and cleared from the slanders of our aduersaries commonly publyshed in their Sermons and lately insinuated in a book set forth concerning the conuiction of my Lord of Essex CAP. XIX FOR as much as my intention in this treatise was to detect and confute certayn slanderous lyes of our aduersaryes spread abroad agaynst vs in some of theyr late bookes and lybels no lesse touching matter of religion then matter of state I can not forbeare to discouer vnto thee here good reader their notable impudency in charging vs to be enemies of the Passion of Christ and to euacuate the merits therof by ascribing our saluatiō to our owne workes which they are wount to publish in their sermons and common table talke and haue of late insinuated in a pamphlet concerning the conuiction of my Lord of Essex wherein treating of Sir Christofer Blunt that he protested to dy a Catholyke some foolish minister I think foysted in an aparenthesis signifying that he dyed not such a Catholyk but that he hoped to be saued by the merits of Christs passion not ascribing his saluation to his owne workes as though other Catholykes that teach merits of workes did not hope to be saued by the passion of Christ wherin I know not whether I should wounder more at their ignorance or their malice their ignorance if they know not what we hold and their malice if they know it and yet slander vs. For who knoweth not that wee acknowledge the blessed passion of our Sauiour to be the root and ground of our redemption and reconciliation to God and the fountayne from whence floweth all our iustification and saluation saying with S. Peter that we are redeemed with the precious blood of Christ the immaculat lambe and with S. Paule that wee are iustified in his blood shal be saued from wrath by him and that there is no other name wherein wee can be saued but the name of IESVS neuerthelesse wee know withall that though his passion be most meritorious the redemption that wee haue therby most copious yet it was his wil that wee shuld doe somewhat of our parts to haue the benefit therof which our aduersaries cannot but grant confessing as they doe that to be partakers therof they must be baptysed they must beleeue they must repēt after they haue sinned seeing vpon the warrāt of the holy scriptures they ad all this to the passion of Christ without derogation to the dignity therof what reason haue they to blame vs if vpon the same warrant we ad another condition no lesse expresse in scripture then any of the rest seeing our sauiour himselfe sayth if thou wilt enter into lyfe keepe the commaundments to which purpose S. Paule also sayth omnibus obremperantibus sibi factus est causa salutis that is to say he was made a cause of saluation to all such as obey him and in another place the dooers of the law shal be iustified before God and not the hearers only and S. Iames wee think a man to be iustified by workes and not by faith only and our Sauiour himselfe not euery one sayth he that sayth to mee Lord Lord shal enter into the kingdome of heauen but he which doth the wil of my Father by all which wee see that good workes are necessary to saluation and must concurre therto with the merits of Christs passion which being the root fountayne of all mannes merit giueth as it were lyfe and force both to fayth and also to the good workes of faythful men to make them meritorious before God wherin three things are to be noted for the better explication of this matter The first is that there is two manners of iustification the one the iustification of the wicked man be he infidel or christian in mortal sinne the other the iustification of the iust man or an increase of Iustice the first proceedeth merely of the grace of God without merit of workes for that it is not in the power of nature being auerted and alienat from God to conuert it selfe vnto him without his grace vocation therfore S. Paule worthely excludeth frō the first iustificatiō both of the Iewes the gentils all merit of man The second which is the iustification of the iust man or encrease of Iustice is procured by good woorkes proceeding of Gods grace without the which their can be no iustification and therfore the Catholikes do teach not only the precedence of Gods grace before euery good woork according to that of the prophet misericordia eius praeueniet me his mercy shal preuent or goe before me but also the concurrence therof according as S. Paule sayth non ego sed gratia Dei mecum not I but the grace of God with me and as our Sauiour sayth sine me nihil potestis facere without me you can do nothing and agayne S. Paule omnia possum in eo qui me comfortat I can do all things in him that strengthneth or comforteth me Of the first iustification S. Paule sayth in diners places that wee are iustified gratis freely or for nothing by the grace of God by fayth and not by woorkes as meritorious and of the second he sayth speaking of the effect of almes yt shal multiply your seed and shal augment the increase of the fruit of your iustice and saynt Iames a