of sacrificing and offring M. Iewel falsifieth the vvordes of the Ansvver and that the terme it selfe Oblation or Sacrifice was not expressed to make my saying seme more absurde you falsifie my saying reporting me to haue spoken of the termes of sacrificing as though I had acknowledged the wordes of sacrificing and denied the termes of sacrificing But sir what meane you Hath the long studie of Rhetorique driuen out of your head the remembrance of Logique Haue you quite forgoten the olde Distinction of implicitè and explicitè so much tossed in our Sophismes when we were yong Sophisters at Oxforde Thinges implied though not vttered red in expresse termes Remember you not that a thing may be implyed in wordes albeit the very termes signifying that thing be not expressed As for example where it is written in the Psalme Dixit Dominus Domino meo sede à dextris meis Our Lorde the Father said to my Lorde the Sonne sit at my right hand Psal. 109. is not the Omnipotencie of God the Sonne and his Equalitie with the Father in these woordes signified though the terme it selfe of imnipotencie or equalitie be not expressed It is written of kinge Saules wicked and miserable ende â— Reg. 31. Arripuit Saul galdium suum irruit super eum Saul caught his owne sworde and ranne vpon it doth not the Scripture by those woordes shewe and set forth his murthering and kylling of him selfe though the terme it selfe of murdering or killing be not expressely vttered Likewise the Scripture signifieth with very plaine woordes the Aduoutrie that Dauid committed with Bethsabee 2. Reg. 11. and his murdering of Vrias her husband and yet in what place these actes be described there is not at al expressed the terme of Aduoutrie nor of Murder In the whole storie of Christes passion written by the Euangelistes it is not with any expresse terme of killing said that the Iewes or Souldiers killed him Yet I trowe ye wil not denie but that in woordes it is implied Actor 2. If you denie it S. Peter shal control you who said to the Iewes Hunc interemistis this man ye haue killed Actor 7. S. Steuen also who said vnto them cuius vos nunc proditores homicidae fuistis ye haue now ben the traitours and murderers of Iesus But what neede we to vse so many examples in a mater that may be declared by infinite examples Right so to be shorre the wordes which the Euangelistes No coÌ„tâ—adictioÌ„â—roued by M. Ievvel to be in the Ansvver and S. Paule vse in the Description of the Institution of the blessed Sacrament at Christes last supper be wordes implying and importing a Sacrifice al be it this terme it selfe of Oblation or Sacrifice be not expressed And who so euer affirmeth him that so saith to include a Contradiction is either a wrangler hunting for termes not regarding the thing implyed or very ignorant not knowing the nature of a Contradiction But besides al this The reproche of straggling alone anâ—vvered as M. Iewel hath founde in my wordes a Contradiction where none is so doth he also with like truth and like proufe charge me with as it pleaseth him to terme it straggling alone and swaruing from al the olde Fathers by a strange construction of myne owne for that I haue so construed the wordes vsed in the Scripture to declare the Institution of the Eucharist as to include and implie a Sacrifice For verely I haue learned this construction of the olde learned Fathers and haue not bene so presumptuous as in so weighty a mater to trust the deuise of myne owne head Which Fathers doo not onely in equiualent but in expresse termes declare that Christe offered a Sacrifice at his last supper Hesychius an olde Father maketh mention of three sundry Sacrifices Three sacrifices offered by Christeâ— Hesychius in Leuit. lib. 2. cap. 8 that Christe offered two at his Maundie and the thirde vpon the Crosse. His wordes be plaine Prius figur atam Ouem coenans cum Apostolis postea suum obtulit Sacrificium deinde sicut ouem seipsum occidit That Christe sacrificed hiÌ„ selfe at his last supper Christe supping with his Apostles first offered the figuratiue Lambe afterward he offered his owne Sacrifice and then after that he killed him selfe that is to say deliuered vp him selfe to be killed like a Lambe S. Cyprian one of the most auncient Fathers of the Churche speaking of the Figure of Melchisedech geueth most iust occasion of this construction Cyprian lib. 2. epist. 3. where he saith Quam rem perficiens adimplens Dominus panem calicem mixtum vino obtulit qui est plenitudo Veritatem praefiguratae Imaginis adimpleuit Which thing our Lorde perfourming and fulfylling he meaneth the perfourmance of that which Melchisedeks Sacrifice did foresignifie offered bread and the cuppe mingled with wine and he who is the fulnesse did fulfil the Truth of the forefigured Image Theophylacte although not so olde as the others yet a schoolemaister olde yenough to teach a Christian man this construction expounding the later wordes of the Institution of the Sacrament and speaking of the Sacrifice saith Theophylactus in Matt. 26. Sicut Vetus Testamentum immolationem habebat sanguinem ita Nouum Testamentum sanguinem habet ac immolationeÌ„ Like as the Olde Testament had sacrifice and bloude euen so the Newe Testament hath bloude and Sacrifice Here is to be considered that if the wine by th' almighty power of the Worde be not coÌ„uerted into the bloud of Christe but remaine stil wine as before consecration which doctrine our Caluinistes teach and the Lutherans impugne then wil not this comparison of Theophylacte holde neither is it true at al that now the Newe Testament hath bloude Euthymius also a Father of the Greke Churche Euthym. in Matt. construed the same wordes of Christe in like sense saying Sicut Vetus Testamentum hostias sanguinem habebat ita sanè Nouum Corpus videlicet sanguineÌ„ Domini Non dixit autem haec sunt signa corporis mei sanguinis mei sed haec sunt corpus meum sanguis meus As the Olde Testament had sacrifices and bloude euen so truly hath the New Testament also to wit the Body and Bloud of our Lorde He said not these be the signes of my body and of my bloud but these be my Body and my Bloude These Fathers and sundry others whose â—ayinges here to reherse I omit that I be not tedious auouching so plainely that a Sacrifice was offered by Christe at his Maundie I maruel at the impudencie of M. Iewel It is M. Ievv that in deede straggleth alone who solacing him selfe with the terme of straggling alone reporteth me in this point to swarue from al the olde Fathers as though I had deuised a newe construction that any learned man neuer knewe before Verely in deniyng this Sacrifice he sheweth him selfe to be departed
to doo and make the thing which he had done that is to say to take bread and wine to geue thankes to blesse to breake the bread and to say in the person of Christe this is my Body this is my Bloude c. Which he calleth offering of spiritual sacrifice bicause that body and bloud of Christe are thus offered vp spiritually and in a Mysterie without bloudshed And also that the Apostles afterward instituted Priestes Deacons Subdeacons and Readers S. Chrysostom excusing him selfe for that he presumed to minister vnto Christe at his holy table and gathering boldnesse of that Christe him selfe had commaunded it saith Chrysost. in Liturgia Sacrificiorum ritum instituisti ac solennis huius immaculati Sacrificij celebrationem nobis tradidisti tanquà m Dominus omnium Thou Christe hast instituted the rite of sacrificing and hast deliuered vnto vs the celebration of this solemne and vnspotted Sacrifice as Lord of al. And afterward he saith moreouer hauing rehearsed what Christ did and said at the Supper memoriam igitur agentes salutaris huius mandati we kepe the memorie of this healthful commaundement meaning the commandement geuen by these wordes Luc. 22. Do ye this in my Remembrance When S. Chrysostome saith Christ deliuered the celebration of this Sacrifice vnto vs it is to be considered vnto which vs and when he did deliuer it S. Chrysostome was a Bishop and therefore a Priest so then naming vs he meant Priestes The time when it was deliuered was at his last Supper For the Scripture geueth no occasion to thinke that Christ leafte to Priestes the celebratiō of this Sacrifice any where els but where he said vnto his Apostles Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11. Doo ye this in my remembrance S. Dionyse the Areopagite S. Paules scholer doth acknowledge and in most plaine wordes confesse that Christe by these woordes gaue commaundement to Priestes to offer vp this diuine Sacrifice Thus he saith Quocirca Antistes reuerenter ex Pontificali officio Dionys. in Ecclesiast Hierarch part 3. c. 3. post sacras diuinorum operum Laudes quòd hostiam salutarem quae supra ipsum est litet se excusat ad ipsum primò decenter exclamans Tu dixisti hoc facite in mei commemorationem The Bishop therfore after he hath praised the workes of God excuseth him selfe reuerently and according to his Bishoply office for that he sacrificeth the heathful hoste which is aboue his worthinesse semely first crying vnto him Thou ô Christ hast said Do ye this in my remēbrance Thus it appeareth clearely by this auncient Bishop and blessed Martyr who is to be thought to haue learned the same of S. Paule him self as also by sundry other Fathers of whome some be already alleged some hereafter shal be alleged that Christe by these woordes Doo ye this in my remembrance gaue to Priestes auctoritie and commission to offer vp the healthful Sacrifice which can be none other but that of his body and bloude and that by the same wordes they vnderstode them selues both charged so to doo and also excused of presumption in doing the doing of it being a thing that so farre passeth the worthinesse of humaine condition But M. Iewel to put away wholly the Sacrifice whereas Christe said doo ye this in my remembrance saith very strangely and boldly M. Ievvel vvold al the people to be Ministers of the Sacrifice that this doing perteineth not only vnto the Apostles and their successours but also vnto the whole people And he beareth the worlde in hande that this is the cleare meaning of Christe bicause of these wordes in my remembrance As though bicause that heauenly Sacrifice is to be offered in remembrance of Christe therefore the common people and euery one of them should haue the handling of the diuine Mysteries and be made the Ministers of them If this be true weemen haue much wrong among whom in so many hundred yeres as haue ben since Christ gaue this commaundement none was yet euer admitted vnto that administration And if it perteine vnto the whole people as M. Iewel saith why should weemen be excluded In dede it were a great ease for these holy Ministers that their good wiues ministred sometimes in the Cōgregations for them whiles they be playing with their children or keeling the potre at home He should haue done wel to haue proued this strange point more substantially sith there by he should do great pleasure to his felow Ministers to many other good felowes and specially to many good sad dames of his owne Gospel whose curiositie would be wel pleased if they were admitted to minister and to doo so much as these wordes of Christe doo importe doo ye this in my remēbrance The deuil hauing sowed hatred in M. Iewels breste against the priesthod and Sacrifice of the newe Testament hath brought him vnto this fowle absurditie Peraduenture to auoide so great an inconuenience he wil say that these wordes doo principally perteine vnto the Ministers who haue succeded the Apostles in this ministerie and secondarily vnto the faithful people If he say so let him withal consider that being so vnderstanded they may wel serue for the Apostles to claime vnto them selues the auctoritie of Priesthod to offer vp the Sacrifice and also to ordeine priestes to succede them For as touching the office of a Priest it is a cōfessed truth that the Priest in offering the body and bloud of Christ is the principal agent concerning outward ministerie and as it were the instrument of the people which by a certaine meane offereth also geuing vnto the Priestes action their assent and applying their deuotion Much like to that we say of a multitude to make a supplication when one man is the speaker and chiefe dooer and the reste only geue their consent to that is said and done And what though S. Paule say vnto the Corinthians 1. Cor. 11. As often as ye shall eate this bread and drinke this Cuppe ye shal shewe forth our Lordes death vntil he come wil it folow thereof that Christe speaking these wordes doo ye this in my remembrance woulde the whole people to doo that he at his supper did That is to say that euery lay person boye and woman for they be of the number of the people shal take bread blesse and geue thankes and vtter the wordes of consecration This is my body and likewise the cuppe saying this is my bloude c Doth he not vnderstand there is great difference betwen this commaundement of Christ and that saying of S. Paule betwen doo this in my remembrance which Christe saith and when so euer ye eate this bread and drinke this cuppe ye shew forth our Lordes death whiche S. Paule saith Seeth he not the one to belong vnto the Priest as he is the pronuncer of the Diuine wordes whereby the holy Euchariste is consecrate and made the other to be referred vnto them that receiue it after it is consecrate And though
earth vnder the formes of bread and wine after the order of Melchisedek Which Sacrifice is now frequented ouer al the world the Iewes sacrifices being vtterly abandoned A cleare testimony agaīst those that make this only a figuratiue Sacrifice Isidorus that holy and learned Bishop of Hispalis now called Siuile in Spaine hauing declared out of the Scripture that in the time of Sacrifices in the olde Lawe the Leuites sownded their trumpets by way of comparison speaking of the Offertories soong in the Churche saith that now we likewise doo sing with deede and harte vttering forth praises to our Lorde in the time of our Sacrifice In illo vero Sacrificio cuius sanguine saluatus est mundus Isidorus de Eccles. Officijs li. 1. ca. 14 be his wordes that is to say In that true Sacrifice by the bloude whereof the worlde is saued Here he calleth it the true Sacrifice whereby M. Iewels wicked assertion of his only figuratiue Sacrifice is quite dasshed and ouerthrowen Ibidem cap. 18. Againe in an other place The Sacrifice saith he which is offered vp vnto God by the Christians Christe our Lorde and Maister did first institute it when he gaue vnto the Apostles his body and his bloude before he was betrayed as it is read in the Gospel Iesus saith the Euangelist tooke bread and the Cuppe and hauing blessed Math. 26. gaue to them The which Sacrament Melchisedech King of Salem first offered vp figuratiuely in type or token of the body and bloude of Christe and the same man first of al expressed imaginarily or in image the Mysterie of this so great a Sacrifice foreshewing the likenesse of our Lorde and Sauiour Iesus Christe the euerlasting Priest Imaginariè Psal. 109. To whom it is said Thou arte a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech This Sacrifice the Christians haue bene commaunded to celebrate the Iewish sacrifices leafte of and ended which were commaunded to be celebrated when the people of the olde Lawe were vnder seruitude And so then this thing is done of vs which our Lorde him selfe did for vs whiche he offered not in the morning but afterward for he did it in the euening By this it is cleare that Christe offered vp his body and bloude before he was betrayd that is to say at his last Supper when he gaue the same to his Apostles that he instituted and commaunded the same Sacrifice to be celebrated of vs That this is the true Sacrifice whereof Melchisedech in his sacrifice expressed the Image figure and type Whereby M. Iewels onely imaginatiue figuratiue and typical Imagination to exclude the real presence and substance of Christes Flesh and Bloude is vtterly condemned For the truth of the Real presence and of this Sacrifice he speaketh afterwarde in the same place more plainely if any thing may more plainely he spoken Exhorting maried persons to absteine certaine daies from their carnal imbracinges and to geue them selues to prayer before they come to receiue the body of Christe thus he saith Ibidem Let vs peruse the bookes of the Kinges and we shal finde that Abimelech the Priest would not geue to Dauid and his men any of the Shewbreades 1. Reg. 21. before he asked them whether they were pure from wemen not from strange wemen but from their owne wiues And except he had heard that they had absteined from the wedlocke worcke from the time of yesterday and the day before he would neuer haue graunted them the breades which before he had denyed to them Now so great difference there is betwen the Shewbreades and the body of Christe how much difference there is betwen the body and the shadow betwen the Image and the truth betwen the samplers of thinges to come and the thinges them selues which were figured by the samplers Thus Isidorus If the thing we haue in the Sacrament of the Aulter were but a signe figure or token of Christes body then would not this holy and learned Father as sundry other Fathers haue done so earnestly haue exhorted maried persons to forebeare their wedlocke-worke before the receiuing of it yea specially then would not he by comparing this with the Shewbread so much haue preferred this before that For that was also a figure of the body of Christe And if that whiche we haue be no more but a figure then was that as good as this Now Isidorus preferreth this before that as being the body it selfe whereof that was the shadow the truth whereof that was the Image the thing it selfe whereof that was a sampler Wherefore to conclude this being the true and real Body of Christe whereas Priestes offer vp and sacrifice the same as we must graunt they doo or denie the Fathers it foloweth that they offer vp and sacrifice Christe the Sonne of God vnto his Father The like and plainer sayinges for the truth of this Sacrifice if neede were might in great number sone be recited out of the other Fathers that wrote sithens the faith of Christ was generally receiued where it was preached and al superstition of Gentilitie quite abolished◠but these may suffice Now whereas S. Dionyse calleth this our Sacrifice of the Aulter In vvhat sense is the Sacrifice symbolical or figuratiue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a sacrifice symbolical or done in signes or figure we also graunt it to be symbolical for vnder the signes that are visible and familiar to our senses the heauenly Mysteries to wit the body and bloude of Christe the substance of our Sacrifice are inuisibly conteined And we say that S. Dionyse is here to be vnderstanded to speake of a signe or figure as proper to the newe and not to the olde Lawe Gregor Nazian Hom. 4. de Pasch. euen so as S. Gregorie Nazianzen meaneth by a figure when he saith Iam Pascha fiamus participes figuraliter tamen adhuc si Pascha hoc veteri sit manifestius Si quidem Pascha legale audenter dico figura figurae erat obscurior Let vs now be partakers of the Passeouer but yet figuratiuely as yet albeit this Passeouer be more manifest then the Olde was For the Passeouer of the Lawe was I am bolde thus to say a darcke figure of a figure Here is our Passeouer that is to say our Sacrament called a figure but yet much more manifest then the olde figures were for they were but figures of figures And why is our most blessed Sacrament a figure S. Gregorie euen there sheweth it to be so called in respecte of the fruition of the same whiche we shal enioye in Heauen where we shal after an heauenly manner eate and drinke it without any Fgure or coouer Such a Figure or signe doth not onely signifie but conteineth also the thing signified In consideration whereof S. Augustine putting a difference betwene the Sacramentes of the Newe and of the olde Testament saith that The Sacramentes of the Newe Testament geue Saluation August in Psal. 73. and
wil say perhaps I graunt this much albe it S. Irenaeus referreth this change not to the sacrifices but to the offerers bicause the olde people of the Synagog were bonde men and we of the Churche are free men But let it be as you would haue it Who vnderstandeth not the kinde of sacrifices to be changed for that they killed brute beastes according to Moyses Lawe and we kyl them not as not being vnder that Lawe But what Wil you of this conclude that they offered not vp vnto God the Sacrifices of a contrite harte of prayers of praise and thankesgeuing and such other spiritual sacrifices bicause they offred vp beastes and bicause we now offer these I trowe by that time you haue bethought your selfe you wil not stande in it For be not the Psalmes and the sermons of the Prophetes ful of exhortations to this ende that these spiritual oblations should be made aâ—d the like thinges done that God accepteth for swete smelling sacrifices Would they so haue exhorted the people except these thinges ought to haue ben done And whereas they were to be done wil you say there were none that did them wil you say the holy kinges and Prophetes had not coÌ„trite hartes prayed not nor praised ne thanked God I suppose you wil not say it To what purpose then pyked you out the former saying of S. Irenaeus What maketh it for you what maketh it against vs No more furthereth that your cause which without opening and circumstance you allege out of Angelomus and S. Chrysostome How much better had you done if confessing the truth you had leafte out these obscure and impertinent places and had rehersed vnto your Reader certaine other most plaine sayinges out of S. Irenaeus whereof this is one written in the same chapter out of which you piked the peeces that here you haue patched together Quomodo constabit eis c. How shal they be assuredly certified saith this blessed Martyr that bread whereon thankes be geuen Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34. to be the body of their Lorde and that Cuppe to be the Cuppe of his bloude if they wil not say he is the Sonne of the Creatour of the worlde that is to say his Worde whereby the Vine bringeth forth fruite founteines of wine do runne and which for bread to be had geueth first grasse afterward an eare and then at length ful wheate in the eare Againe how say they that the flesh commeth into corruption and receiueth not life which is fedde of the body and bloude of our Lorde Therefore either let them change their opinion or ceasse from offering vp the thinges that are before said An other like saying there auouching our doctrine is this The Eucharist coÌ„sisteth of tvvo thinges As the bread that is of the earth receiuing the calling vpon of God is not now common bread but the Euchariste consisting of two thinges earthly and heauenly So our bodies receiuing the Euchariste be not now corruptible but haue hope of the Resurrection How plaine and cleare testimonie haue we in these sayinges for the truth and Real presence of our Lordes body and bloude in the blessed Sacrament for the Oblation of the same for the most soueraine effecte that thereby is wrought in our bodies nourrished and fedde therewith At these M. Iewel you closed vp your eyes bicause they confounde the pride and wicked folie of your Chalenge other woordes and patches of sentences you pryed and hunted after by which you might seme to auoid the cleare authoritie in this Diuision alleged against you out of S. Irenaeus yet when you haue al said and shifted your Replie is founde to weake and insufficient Bicause you feele your selfe much pressed and as it were borne downe with the weight of this plaine testimonie of S. Irenaeus Christe hauing confessed of the bread that is was his body and of the cuppe that it was his bloud taught his Apostles the new oblation of the newe Testament faine would you finde some way how to ease your selfe of it and therefore haue you looked ouer as it semeth al your Notebookes and searched the Doctours farre and neare to happen vpon some for your relief but none can you finde And here you shewe your selfe to be graueled with these plaine wordes This sentence of S. Ireneus graueleth M. Ievvel Noui Testamenti nouaÌ„ docuit oblationem Christe taught the newe oblation of the new Testament To auoide this newe oblation that so much combreth you you haue deuised a new policie which would serue you for some shewe and colour were it not altogether stuffe of your owne counterfeyting and forging What is that Beholde Reader and consider of it diligently Thus saith M. Iewel It is called a newe Sacrifice saith Chrysostome now folow the wordes pretended to be S. Chrysostomes in the distinct letter that he putteth the Doctours sayinges in bicause it proceedeth from a new minde and is offered not by fiere and smoke but by Grace and by the Spirite of God But where saith S. Chrysostome this much You haue put it in the letter of the Fathers sayinges tel vs where we may finde the cause thus declared why this oblation of the newe Testament is called Newe By your cotation in the margent you send vs vnto Chrysost. contra Iudaeos lib. 3. but there we finde no such thing at al. Neither be they Bookes but Orations that he wrote against the Iewes and so Erasmus who translated that worke calleth them Mary in the second Oration we haue trakte you M Ievveâ— fouly abuseth S. Chrysost. and founde out the place that you abuse abuse I say for it maketh wholly against you There S. Chrysostom to proue vnto the Iewe to whom he speaketh that both their Lawe and ther Sacrifice is ended and abolished and that an other Sacrifice is come in place of theirs which is pure and is to be offered vp through al the worlde allegeth the prophecie of Malachie from the rising of the Sunne to the going downe Malach. 1. c. a pure Sacrifice shal be offered vnto my name Vpon this prophecie he stayth him selfe and declareth at large how it ought to be vnderstanded and how the Prophete may not seme to be repugnant to Moyses who appointeth the Sacrifice of the Iewes vnto one onely place and how and for what respecte the Sacrifice that Malachie speaketh of is pure whiche S. Chrysostome calleth Sacrificium nostrum our Sacrifice Among other many wordes spoken in praise of this our pure Sacrifice Vvhi our sacrifice iâ— of Malachie called the Pure Sacrifice after the minde of S. Chrysostome thus he saith there If one conferre this Sacrifice with theirs he shal finde an exceding great difference so that according to the proportion of comparison this alone may deserue to be called pure And looke what S. Paule said of the Lawe and Grace that that was not glorified at al which was glorified in comparison of the high Glorie the same here also
had suffered at their handes caused this much to be said vnto him Gen. vltimo Thy Father gaue vs in commaundement before he died that we should say these vnto thee with his wordes I beseche thee to forgete the wicked deede of thy brothers the sinne and malice whiche they wrought against thee And we also on our owne behalfe pray thee to forgeue the seruauntes of thy Father this iniquitie Euen so the Church first with the wordes of Christ recording his commaundement offereth vp vnto the Father his body and bloud After that the Priestes in the person of the Church whose publique ministers they are in this behalfe adde further their owne duetie of offering with their owne wordes These thinges being considered In vvhat parte of the Masse is the holy OblatioÌ„ made Vide Tho 3 part q. 82 art 4. ad primum Homil dâ— proditione Iudâ— that question is soone answered that of some is demaunded where and in what parte of the Masse is this most holy Oblation made For although from the lesser Canon vnto the Communion it be with wordes and intention presented vnto the Father yet forasmuch as the wordes of Christe as S. Chrysostome speaketh geue strength vnto the Sacrifice and they are no where els pronouÌ„ced properly and in deede then it is made when the Priest speaking in the person of Christe saith this is my body to wit whiche for you is geuen and broken which is added in the Canon of S. Iames and in S. Ambroses Masse and This is my bloude which is shed for you For then doo we that which our Lorde commaunded to be done in remembrance of him saying Doo ye this in remembrance of me As for the thinges that be spoken before and after they are to be referred vnto that time For albeit al manner Consecration coÌ„sidered by it selfe includeth not Oblation yet considered as it procedeth of the Priestes Intention to offer vnto God by Consecration it selfe the thing consecrated bicause vnto God and vnto the honour of him he consecrateth it hath the true nature of Oblation and Sacrifice Remembrance distinct from Sacrifice Although therefore our Lorde commaunded vs to doo this in remembrance of him yet is this Sacrifice a farre other thing then the remembraunce it selfe or the praise of God or thankes geuing sith that the thing it selfe whiche is commaunded to be made is in the very woordes of Christe distincted from the remembrance For he said not remember ye this but Doâ— ye this or make this in remembrance of me The Sacrifice and the Oblation ought to be made in the remembrance of Christe so that the remembrance it selfe is not the Sacrifice but the vse and ende of the Sacrifice for whiche it ought to be offered for by this vnbloudy Sacrifice a commemoration of the Blouddy Sacrifice that was offered vpon the Crosse is made vnto the Father And so saith S. Augustine Augu. lib. 20. contra Faustum cap. 18. Christiani per acti Sacrificij memoriam celebrant sacrosancta Oblatione participatione corporis sanguinis Christi The Christians doo celebrate the memorie of the Sacrifice already done vpon the Crosse by the holy Oblation and participation of the body and bloude of Christe Whereof it is euidently gathered also that Oblation is distincted from Participation although Participation perteine to the perfection and ful complement of the Sacrifice So here thou hast Reader that whiche was required in the second place By whom this holy Sacrifice is offered to wit In this sacrifice the Churche offereth and is offered by Christ through the Ministerie of the Priest and by the Priest in the person of Christ. Where also we ought to ioine the Church withal bicause of the vnitie of Christ and the Church and so we vnderstand the Churche also to offer August de Ciuit. Dei li. 10. cap. 6. by the ministerie of the Prieste For so S. Augustine teacheth vs with plaine wordes In that Sacrament saith he it is shewed vnto the Churche that in that Oblation which it offereth it selfe is offered Concerning the third point required by S. Augustine which was promised to be declared VVhat is the thing that is offeredâ— that is to say what is the thing that is offered if we wil admit the godly exposition of the Church the Prophet teacheth vs what it is Psal. 115. where he saith what shal I geue againe vnto our Lorde for al that he hath geueÌ„ vnto me I wil take the Cuppe of our Sauiour and cal vpon the name of our Lorde meaning by the Cuppe his precious bloud that vpon the Crosse was shed for vs and is the price of our Redemption Which bloud together with the body by vertue of Christes worde in the Euchariste is made present Who refuseth this exposition of the Prophete if he wil beleeue Christe him selfe Luc. 22. who said This is my body which is geuen for you Math. 26. This is my bloude which is shed for you he can not be ignorant what it is that is offered in this Sacrifice Whereas then God hath so loued the worlde Iohan. 3. that he hath geuen his onely begoten Sonne Rom. 8. and hath geuen vnto vs with him al thinges for a Babe is borne to vs Esai 9. a Sonne is geuen to vs saith Esaie the whole merite of Christe and the price of the Redemption which he gote vpon the Crosse is ours And therefore in this Oblation the thing offered being the body and bloude of Christe which as a most sufficient price he gaue vppon the Crosse for Redemption of mankinde and which of gifte we haue receiued of God we present and geue vnto God in the person of Christe that same true body and bloud that is to say Christe him selfe together with that great price and merite not to purchace a new Redemption but in commemoration of his death wherby the redemption is already purchaced in rendring of thankes for his benefites in a certaine satisfaction for our sinnes and defectes and for the temporal paines that be due vnto our sinnes mortal sinnes and paines euerlasting being forgeuen either in Baptisme Cyprian ad CeciliuÌ„ epist. 3. lib. 2. or through the Sacrament of Penaunce humbly beseching and as king in the person of Christe that so it be accepted In consideration wherof S. Cyprian calleth it the Passion of our Lorde that we offer And S. Augustine calleth it Aug. Confess lib. 9. cap. 12. Sacrificium prâ—tij nostri the Sacrifice of our Price wherewith our Raunsom is paid And hereof Reader thou maist conceiue what answere is to be made vnto them that moue this question which to some though without iust cause semeth to be of great difficultie whether the Sacrifices of the olde Testament the Sacrifice that our Lorde offered at his Supper the Sacrifice of the Crosse and that Sacrifice which is daily made in the Churche whether al these haue a like and the selfe same
Wherfore Theophylact helpeth not the mater at al. Theophylacte maketh for the Sacrifice Yea rather by the manner of his speach he auoucheth the Sacrifice of the Church vnderstanding it by the name of prayer For whereas by his reporte which is expressed also in the Gospel Christ dryuing out the oxeÌ„ aÌ„d dooues foresignified the ceassing of the bloudy and vncleane sacrifices of the olde Lawe Matt. 21. certainely he shewed thereby that a newe Sacrifice vnbloudy and pure should succede in place of the olde because euery lawe hath a priesthod and a sacrifice peculier vnto it Which in the newe lawe is none other Prayer then the Sacrifice of his body and bloude consecrated with prayer and offered vp to God with prayer by them who vnder Christ be priestes after Melchisedeks order And this chiefly is that which Theophylacte calleth prayer For in asmuch as this Sacrifice due mater presupposed is coÌ„secrated by the Priest with the wordes of our Lorde Matt. 26. this is my body this is the Cuppe of my bloud Luke 22. c whiche wordes the Fathers oftentimes name the mystical prayer 1. Cor. 11. he had regarde to the fourme of the CoÌ„secration and would speake as the chiefe of the auncient Fathers haue spoken And so the saying of Theophylacte maketh for the Sacrifice it maketh not against the Sacrifice as to that purpose of M. Iewel it is alleged Furthermore Prayer in this place may be takeÌ„ not only for that which commonly we vnderstaÌ„d by the name of praier that is to say for petitioÌ„ made to God with words but for euery such meane Vvhat is signified by the name of Prayer as God is serued withal in his Church according as it is taken in Esay the prophete alleged by Christ in the Gospel Domus mea domus orationis vocabitur Matt. 21. vos autem fecistis eam speluncam latronum My howse shall be called the howse of prayer but ye haue made it a denne of theeues So that Prayer here being set contrary to the bloudy and vncleane sacrifices of the old Lawe signifieth al manner of seruice of God that is pure and cleane without bloudshedding Ye haue made it a denne of theeues In dennes of theeues slaughters and bloudsheddinges are made saith Theophylacte Nicolaus de Lyra writing vpoÌ„ this place Lyra in CommeÌ„t in 21. cap. Matt. saith Non curabaÌ„t de cultu Dei sed magis de excoriatione populi per astutias suas exquisitas They tooke no care for Gods seruice but rather how by their fyne crafty sleightes they might pille the people Praier taken generally for the seruice of God Here what the prophete calleth orationeÌ„ prayer the interpreter nameth it cultum Dei the seruice or worship of God And to this agreeth the general definition of Prayer oratio est mentis eleuatio ad Deum Prayer is the lifting vp of the mynde vnto God And because amoÌ„g al kindes of prayer that wherin and wherby Christ is offered vp vnto his Father is the chiefe therefore may Theophylact reasonably be thought in this place to haue meant that prayer which the Church calleth the Masse So then by Christes driuiÌ„g of the OxeÌ„ aÌ„d dooues out of the TeÌ„ple aÌ„d by coÌ„meÌ„diÌ„g vnto his Church the vse of praier this Sacrifice caÌ„ not in any wise seeme to be excluded but rather to be brought in as that which beiÌ„g vnbloudy aÌ„d pure ought to succede the bloudy aÌ„d impure sacrifices of the Iewes About the administratioÌ„ of which Sacrifice that Theophylact may also the rather seeme to haue vnderstaÌ„ded it by the name of praier after the mind of S. Augustin August ad PaulinuÌ„ epist. 59. the request of S. Paule touching sundry kindes of praier is accoÌ„plished Obsecro igitur primuÌ„ fieri obsecrationes orationes 1. Tim. 2. postulationes gratiaruÌ„ actiones ê“ oiÌ„bê° hominibê° pro regibus oiÌ„bus qui in sublimitate constituti sunt I beseche you therfore that aboue al thiÌ„gs supplicatioÌ„s praiers intercessioÌ„s and geuing of thaÌ„kes be made for al men for Kings and for al that be placed in high authoritie To coÌ„clude al redoundeth to this end that forasmuch as the special Sacrifice of the Churche is made and celebrated with praier so as it selfe be included within the general name of Praier M. Iewel findeth no helpe in this saying of Theophylact towards the maintenaÌ„ce of his Negatiue whereby he would vtterly deface and take the Sacrifice away Which thinge when he sawe him selfe euidently ynough he deuised other shiftes and saith Iewel Hovv be it the old learned Fathers as they oftentimes delited theÌ„selues vvith these vvoordes SabbatuÌ„ Parasceue Pascha Pentecoste and such other like termes of the old Lavv notvvithstaÌ„ding the ObseruatioÌ„ and Ceremony therof vvere theÌ„ abolished aÌ„d out of vse EueÌ„ so likevvise thei delited theÌ„selues oftetimes vvith these vvordes Sacerdos Altare SacrificiuÌ„ the Sacrificer Pachymeres pa 401 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 15. Origen in Epist. ad Rom. li. 10. Nazian in Oratio ad PlebeÌ„ Chryso in Epist. ad Rom. Homil 29. the Aultar the Sacrifice notvvithstaÌ„diÌ„g the vse therof vvere theÌ„ clearly expired only for that the eares of the people as vvel of the Ievves as of the GeÌ„tils had ben long acquainted vvith the same Therfore Pachymeres the Paraphraste vvriting vpoÌ„ Dionysius saith thus PresbyteruÌ„ appellat SacerdoteÌ„ vt etiaÌ„ in Coelesti Hierarchia idque vsus iaÌ„ obtinuit Him that is the Priest or elder he calleth the Sacrificer as he doth also in his Coelestial Hierarchie And the same word Sacrificer is now obteined by Custome In this sense S. Paul saith of him self Sacrifico EuangeliuÌ„ Dei I sacrifice the Gospel of God And OrigeÌ„ saith Sacrificale opus est anuÌ„nciare EuaÌ„geliuÌ„ It is a work of Sacrifice to Preach the Gospel So the learned Bisshop NaziaÌ„zenus saith vnto his people Hostiam vos ipsos obtuli I haue offred vp you for a Sacrifice So saith S. Chrysostom Ipsum mihi Sacerdotium est Praedicare EuaÌ„gelizare HaÌ„c offero oblationeÌ„ My whole priesthod is to teache and to preache the Gospel This is my OblatioÌ„ This is my Sacrifice Thus the holy Fathers alluding to the orders and Ceremonies of Moyses Lavvâ— called the preachiÌ„g of the Gospel a Sacrifice notvvithstanding in dede it vvere no Sacrifice Harding The effect of that hath ben said by the Replier hitherto is this The Sacrifice wherin Christ is offered vp vnto his Father is not appointed by God to be made by maÌ„ for ought that may appere by any Clause or SeÌ„teÌ„ce of the Scripture but yet it is reported aÌ„d ofteÌ„tymes spokeÌ„ of by the Olde learned Fathers What meaneth M. Iewel thus to teach would he haue meÌ„ beleue that the Holy Ghost the spirite of truth who vsed the Prophetes Apostles and Euangelistes for his Secretaries to endite the Scriptures agreeth not with the Holy Ghoste that sithens their tyme hath spoken by the mouthes of the
interpretations and heaped phrases Once leaue your bad shifte of putting away one truth by an other truth Howe oftentimes muste we tel you the formes of bread and wine do signifie the body and bloud of Christ present not absent Againe if for proufe that these wordes which reporte Christe to be present in the blessed Sacrament of the Aulter or to be offered in the Sacrifice of the Aulter vnder the formes of bread and wine be not onely my wordes I should here also allege the place of Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus which I alleged in my Answer to the tenth Article of your Chalenge what could you reasonably replye to the contrary That auncient Father saith thus vsing the verie termes of the Scholastical Doctours Cyril Hierosol Catechisi Mystagog Christe once chaunged water into wine which is nye vnto bloude in Chana of Galiley by his onely wil and shal not he be worthy to be beleued of vs that at his last supper he chaunged wine into bloude For if being bidden to a corporal wedding he wrought a woonderous miracle shal we not much more confesse that he gaue his body and bloude vnto the children of the Spouse Wherefore with al assurednesse let vs receiue the body and bloud of Christe Hitherto reason mouing credit now folow the wordes that are specially to be noted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nam sub specie panis datur tibi corpus sub specie vini datur sanguis vt sumpto corpore sanguine Christi efficiaris ei comparticeps corporis sanguinis For vnder the forme shape shew or figure of bread the body of Christe is geuen vnto thee and vnder the shape of wine his bloud is geuen that hauing receiued the body and bloud of Christe thou maist be made coÌ„partener with him of his body and bloude Here haue you the expresse wordes teaching vs the body of Christe to be present in the SacrameÌ„t vnder the forme of bread and his bloude vnder the forme of wine which you report to be wordes of myne owne only inuention neuer vsed by any auncient Father before my tyme. Where you go about to answer to this place of S. Cyrillus in the tenth Article of your Replie to thintent the body and bloud of Christ might not be beleued to be really present in the blessed SacrameÌ„t I wish that al men saw both your weakenes and also your falshod You confesse this lerned Fathers wordes touching this point of the real presence Vvordeâ— in M. Iewels iudgemeÌ„t quicke and violent to be quicke and violent Whereby vnwares as it semeth you confesse him therein to be cleare and resolute as he is in dede To say truly violent he is not but a plaine reporter of the truth But in dede he is to quicke for dul heretikes that beleue their carnal senses rather then Christes owne most plaine wordes In the tenth Article of â—he Replie page 432. Yet he him self in plainest wise say you openeth and cleareth his owne meaning Truth it is he doth so as euery one that readeth the place as the Author reporteth it not as you haue falsified him may easily iudge Now bicause euery man hath not the booke of Cyrillus nor the booke of your Replie at hande for truthes sake and that your impudent falshod may appeare it shal be to good purpose to lay here before the Reader what you make that holy and auncient Father to say and what he saith him selfe Thus then say you falsly M. Ievvel falsifieth S. Cyrillus Hiero solym Cateches Mystagogica 4. For thus he writethâ— Ne consideres tanquam panem nuduÌ„ Panis Eucharistiae non est amplius panis simplex nudus Consider not as if it were bare bread The bread of the Sacrament is no lenger bare and simple breade Which wordes are naturally resolued thus It is bread how be it not only bare bread but bread and some other thing elles beside And there after a few wordes you conclude thus Of these wordes of Cyrillus we may wel reason thus by the way The Sacrament is not onlyâ— or bare bread therefore it is bread albeit not only bare bread And thus the same Cyrillus that is brought to testiâ—ie that there remaineth no bread in the Sacrament testifieth most plainely to the contrary that there is bread remaining in the Sacrament Caâ—echo Myst. 4. On the other side S. Cyrillus truly alleged saith thus Ne consideres tanquà m panem nudum vinum nudum corpus enim est sanguis Christi secundùm ipsius Domini verba Quamuis enim sensus hoc tibi suggesserit tamen fides te confirmet ne ex gusturem iudices quin potius habeas ex fide pro certissimo ita vt nulla subeat dubitatio esse tibi donata corpus sanguinem Doo not consider it as bare breade and bare wine for it is the body and bloude of Christe according vnto the wordes of our Lorde him selfe For although thy sense make that suggestion vnto thee yet let faith strengthen thee that thou iudge not the thing by thy taste but rather that of thy faith thou hold it as a most certaintie so as thou be void of al doubt that the body and bloud are geuen to thee These wordes being truly alleged doo clearely open the meaning of Cyrillus Your false forgeries and corruptions doo vndoubtedly declare that you seeke not the truth but intende deceit False doctrine must be mainteined by false meanes If you had meant good faith and truth you would truly and faithfully haue recited that holy Fathers woordes without such mangling and chaunging Now to vse your owne Rhetorike you haue done him great and open wrong wilfully suppressing and drowning his wordes and vncourteously commaunding him to silence in the middest of his tale Why did you not consider the force of his counsel which is that a Christen man regarde not the suggestion of his senses but stay him selfe vpon his faith not iudging of this high Mysterie what the sense of sight or tast geueth but with a simple faith beleuing the wordes that Christ spake In al S. Cyrillus you find not this order of wordes Panis Eucharistiae non est amplius panis simplex nudus The bread of the Sacrament is no lenger bare and simple breade as you turne it and ascribe it vnto S. Cyrillus By occasion of which wordes you tel vs of your natural resolution and beare vs in hande it is bread how be it not only or bare bread Which is no natural resolution gathered of S. Cyrillus wordes but a crafty collusion wroong out of your owne forged woordes to enuegle the ignorant Now S. Cyrillus wordes be these not in the fourth Catechesis as you haue quoted your booke but in the third where he speaketh of the holy Oile QuemadmoduÌ„ saith he Panis Eucharistiae In cateches 3. My stigogica post sancti spiritus inuocationem non amplius est panis communis sed est corpus Christi sic
sanctum hoc vnguentum non amplius est vnguentum nudum neque si ita quis appellare malit commune post quà m iam consecratum est c. As the bread of the Sacrament after the Holy Ghoste is called vpon it is no lenger common bread but is the body of Christ so this holy ointment also is no lenger a bare ointment nor if any man had rather so to cal it a common ointment after that it is now consecrat The wordes which you abuse to gyle simple bread bare bread only bread be not there vsed of S. Cyrillê° as you of purpose haue falsified him Mary speaking of the holy Oile whose substaÌ„ce is not changed into an other substaÌ„ce and remaineth Oile stil after it is coÌ„secrate he saith it is no lenger after consecration bare Oile But of the breade he saith that after consecration it is not coÌ„mon breade As if it were done of a great foresight and of very purpose to stoppe the wrangling of such false Sacramentaries and corrupte teachers in consideration that after consecration it is no lenger breade that is to say Ioan. 6. common breade but the body of Christe the breade of life M. â—ewels â—alshode plainely detected that came downe from heauen The like is to be iudged of the cup. What wilt thou haue more good Reader Christe faith of the one Math. 26. it is his body of the other it is his bloud Saint Cyrillus here saith Luc. 22. it is not breade it is not wine but the body and bloud of our Lorde And to declare his meaning plainely against al cauillation of heretikes he biddeth vs not to cal our senses as sight taste or any other sense to geue vs accompt what it is but to stay our hartes vpon faith and to beleue the wordes of our Sauiour M. Iewel contrariwise forging a saying of his owne and falsly fathering it vpon S. Cyrillus as though he had said it is not bare simple or only breade which that auncient Father saith not concludeth his Sacramentary doctrine that it is bread If thou hadst rather go out of the way and be deceiued then go right thou hast whome to followe But howe false a guide he is these thinges considered thou canst not be ignorant If after this large proufe of the being of Christes body and bloude in the Sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine whiche forme of wordes you would your Reader thinke to be myne only and neuer to haue ben vsed before by any of the auncient Fathers if I say after al this least you should seme fully confuted you wil yet reply and say that I haue nothing wherby to auouche the true and real Sacrifice of Christe for so much also do your wordes importe then omitting here an infinite number of other testimonies for proufe that Christ is truly That Christe iâ— truly and in deede offered and in deede offered vp of the Priestes in Sacrifice I wil in this place allege onely the testimonie of the first Nicene Councel The auctoritie wherof is and hath euer ben estemed very great as that which declareth not the opinion of one man but the faith of the whole Church of that time vttered by the mouthes and after mature and long deliberation confirmed with the subscription of .318 the best learned and most holy Bishops then lyuing The holy Ghoste by them published to the whole Church of God this doctrine Conc. Nic. Exaltatamente fide consideremus situm esse in illa sancta mensa Agnum Dei qui tollit peccata mundi qui a Sacerdotibus sacrificatur sine â—ruoris effusione Lifting vp our mynde let vs consider by faith the Lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the worlde to be layed vpon that holy table which is of the Priestes sacrificed without the sheddinge of bloude that is to say not after the manner of other sacrifices where the hoste is slain for so signifieth the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Real and true Sacrifice and Sacrifice in deede What other thing doth this addition without the shedding of bloude importe but a true and real sacrificing of one and the same substance that was before sacrificed with bloud shedding For these two contrary Accidentes be referred vnto one substance and haue their being in one substance Seinge then it was the substance of Christes most pretious body and bloude that was offred bloudily truly and in deede vpon the Crosse it wil folow by necessary sequele of reason that it is the same self substance of Christ that is sacrificed vnbloudily onlesse perhaps you wil imagine there be two Christes offered the one bloudily the other vnbloudily If then it be the substance of Christ that is offred it is a true and real Sacrifice For where so euer Christes substance is offred there is a true Sacrifice and a Sacrifice in deede And thus is your vncourteous reproch of my vndue boldenes and presumption in vttering the true doctrine of the Churche with the foresaied woordes answered and clerely discharged Now let vs see what other greater fault or ouersight you finde in my Answer Thus it foloweth in your Replie Iewel But vvhere as he addeth further That Christ is in deede and verily offered by the Priest al be it as he saith not in respecte of the manner of offeringe but onely in respecte of the presence of his Bodie Either he vnderstandeth not vvhat him selfe meaneth or els vvith a vaine distinction of cloudie vvoordes vvithout sense he laboureth to dasle his Readers eies For vvhat a fantasie is this to saie Christ is offred Verily and in deede and yet not in Respecte of the Manner of offeringe VVhat Respecte VVhat Manner is this VVherefore comme these blinde Mysteries abroade vvithout a glose VVhiche of al the Olde Doctours or holy Fathers euer taught vs thus to speake Certainely as he saith Christ is Really offered and yet not in Respect of the Manner of Offering So maie he also saie Christ died vpon the Crosse and yet not in Respect of the manner of dieinge By suche manners and suche Respectes he maie make of Christian Religion vvhat him listeth Yf he thinke Conc. Nic. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 somevvhat to shadovve the mater vvith these vvoordes of the Councel of Nice Sine Sacrificio Oblatus Let him consider a fore hande it vvil not healpe him For the holie Fathers in that Councel neither saie that Christ is Reallie Offered by the Prieste nor seeme to vnderstande these strange Respectes Contra Faustum lib. 20. ca. 21. Chrys. in Epist. ad Hebrae homil 17. and Manners of Offeringe They agree fullie in sense vvith that is before alleged of S. Augustine In this Sacrifice the Death of Christe is solemnized by a Sacramente of Remembrance And vvith that S. Chrysostome saith Hoc Sacrificium Exemplarillius est This Sacrifice is an Example of that Sacrifice Thus the Death of Christe is renued before our eies Yet Christe in deede neither is Crucified
to finde your forged worde Dabitur which is not in him to be found what eyes had you that you sawe not in him so plaine and so expresse mention both of the real Presence and of the Sacrifice Els if you saw it why do you dissemble it Yea why do you denie it There demaunding of him selfe Chrysost. in 1. Cor. 11. Homil. 27. wherefore he that eateth this bread and drinketh the cuppe of our Lorde vnworthily shal be gilty of the body and bloude of our Lorde doth he not answer bicause he hath shed the bloud and so hath shewed the thing to be a slaughter and not only a Sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Doth he not compare him that doth communicate vnworthily vnto the tormentours who when they pearsed the body of Christ did not pearse it to thintent to drinke but to shed his bloude Now if there be no real bloude at al in the dredful Mysteries but Symbolical and tokening wine only what reason were it so expressely to charge the vnworthy receiuer with the hainous crime of shedding Christes bloude Were your Sacramentarie doctrine true the vnworthy communicant deserueth otherwise to be reprehended he can not truly be called a shedder of Christes bloude For where no bloud is there can not bloude be shed pardy Yet here to auoid the wicked carping of a Sacramentarie In vvhat sense is slaughter cōmitted by the vnvvorthy receiuer◠where S. Chrysostome termeth the vnworthy receiuing of Christes bloude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say slaughter likewise spilling and shedding of his bloude we knowe that it is not a slaughter in deede concerning Christes parte for Christe can no more be slaine and being now risen from the dead Rom. 6. he dieth no more deah shal no more haue maisterie ouer him as S. Paule saith But it is slaughter on the vnworthy receiuers parte bicause by his vnworthy receiuing he doth as it were shed and spille for so much as in him lyeth and caste away the bloude of Christ. Which thing though he doo it not visibly yet doth he it truly not by sensible way of doing but bicause wickedly he presumeth to abuse that which is the very substance of the precious bloude by vertue of the worde of consecration made really present Sacrifice auouched by Saint Chrysostom To be shorte verely in that .27 Homilie vpon the first epistle to the Corinthians S. Chrysostome calleth the body of Christ present by consecration a Sacrifice sundry times and in the .28 Homilie that foloweth he nameth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illud purū Sacrificium that pure Sacrifice with the pronoune 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which importeth a special notification signifying it to be Singular aboue other Sacrifices Touching the Present Tēse in which the wordes of the Institutiō of the Sacrament be expressed whereof I gathered an Argumēt for the Sacrifice at the Supper for answer therto M. Iewel saith that it is the cōmon Phrase of the Scriptures to vse the present Tēse for the future But this confuse and vncertaine answer putteth not away the force of my Argument For what meaneth he That the present Tense be taken for the Future is it cōmon to the whole Scriptures and to euery parte or to some partes only He wil not affirme it of the whole I trowe For so he should be gilty of denying Christ to be come and of many other great vntruthes and absurdities So whereas the voice of God the Father said of Christ Matth. 3. 17. This is my beloued sonne in whom I am wel pleased we should take it as though God had meāt this is he that is not yet my sonne but that shal be my sonne And where Christ said to the Samaritane woman Ioan. 4. I am Messias or Christe euen I that speake with thee that should we expounde of the time to come that he shal be Messias Which doctrine maketh a right way for Antichrist who is to come If he sooth his saying of some parte of the Scriptures the same I graunt also specially of the olde Testament where prophecies are vttered of thinges to come in the new Testament But it had ben his parte to prooue onlesse his profession be to prooue nothing and to stand only in denials that in the Institution of the Sacrament the Present Tense standeth for the future and that so as the thing signified may not by any conuenient sense be verified in the Present Tense For els if it might how much better were it to expounde it of both Tenses then of one onely that Christes saying might thoroughly and on euery side appeare true And if it may appeare true for the Present Tense then so farre forth standeth my reason in force and is not yet repelled Whereas then I said in my Answer That Christ gaue his body for vs and shed his bloud at the supper affirmed by certaine Fathers that Christ gaue his body for vs and shed his bloude at his supper which againe I affirme to be true in a right sense that I said not the same altogether without the authoritie of certaine olde and learned Fathers and therfore neither strangely nor alone as M. Iewell chargeth me by that whiche here foloweth it shal appeare I reporte me to Gregorie Nyssen S. Basils brother and to Theophylacte Gregor Nyss. De Resurrectione Christi Oratio 1. Gregorie Nyssen saith thus Pro ineffabili arcanóque qui ab hominibus cerni nequit sacrificij modo sua dispositione administratione praeoccupat impetum violentum ac sese Oblationem ac victimam offert pro nobis Sacerdos simul Agnus Dei qui tollit peccatum mundi Quando hoc accidit Quum suum corpus ad comedendum sanguinem suum familiaribus ad bibendum praebuit Cuilibet enim hoc perspicuum est quòd oue vesci homo non possit nisi mactatio comestionem praecesserit Qui igitur dedit discipulis suis corpus suum ad comedendum apertè demonstrat iam perfectam absolutam factam esse immolationem c. Christ after a manner of sacrifice that is vnspeakeable secret and such as can not be sene of men by his owne disposition and administration preuenteth the violent assault that afterward was made and offereth him selfe an Oblation and Sacrifice for vs Christ at the supper both Priest and Lābe being the Priest and also the Lambe of God that taketh away the synne of the worlde When was this done At what time he gaue vnto them of his householde his body to be eaten and his bloude to be droonke For to euery one this is a cleare mater that a man may not eate of the Lambe except killing go before the eating Whereas then he gaue vnto his disciples his body to eate he sheweth euidently that a perfite and absolute immolation or Sacrifice was now made What can M. Iewel require more This learned Father saith that Christ preuented the violence and furie of
offering a spiritual Sacrifice vnto God and his Father before his passion commaunded vs his Apostles alone to do the same albeit there were others present with vs that beleued in him but euery one that beleueth is not forth with a priest nor hath Bishopply honour Here haue we expresse and plaine mention of the Sacrifice which Christe as high Bishop offered vp vnto God his Father and commaunded his Apostles to offer the same before his passion This Sacrifice he calleth Spiritual Spiritual in respecte of the sacrifices of Moyses lawe which were grosse and bodily of brute beastes meaning the sacrifice of his body and bloude spiritually that is to say with spiritual manner and not with visible shedding of bloude offred and that before his passion whereby he signifieth the Sacrifice made at the Supper And that it be not vnderstanded of the Sacrifice of Praise or prayer onely S. Clement saith it was such as the Apostles only were commaunded to offer for that they were Priestes A testimony for the Sacriâ—fice of the Altare Of what other sacrifice can M. Iewel vnderstand this whiche Christe offered before his passion and commaunded his Apostles and Priestes onely to offer but of the Sacrifice of his Body and bloud which there after a fewe wordes is called the pure and vnbloudy Sacrifice Of this Sacrifice he is to be expounded where speaking of S. Steuen in the same chapter he saith thus Whereas he was such and so great a man feruent in spirite and saw Christe on the right hande of God and the gates of heauen open yet it appeareth no where that he exercised those offices which be not conuenient for the degree of Deaconship as that either he offered the Sacrifice or laid handes vpon any but kept the order of a Deacon vnto his ende As for the inward spiritual Sacrifices as praise thankes a contrite harte prayer and such the like I trow M. Iewel wil not deny but that S. Steuen did them before his martyrdom and that the same were not vnconueâ—ient for the order and degree of Deacons And so S. Clement geueth vs a plaine testimonie for the Sacrifice of the Aulter the ministration whereof belongeth to the order of Priesthod only which is aboue the order of Deaconship M. Ievvel taken in a manifest and foule coÌ„tradictâ—oÌ„ But who would thinke that M. Iewel who is so busy to burthen other men with contradiction yea where none is would fal into the ouersight of so foule a Contradiction him selfe For what can be a more open contradiction then to say as he doth that S. ClemeÌ„t is brought in dumme and saying nothing and yet his woordes be misreported If he be brought in dumme if he say nothing then where be his woordes that be misereported If his woordes be misereported how is he brought in dumme how saith he nothing I haue reade where speach hath ben attributed to beastes and Trees but that a dumme maÌ„ and one that saith nothing speaketh and vttereth woordes as it is absurde in nature so no man was euer so mad as once to feine it Thus whiles M. Iewel seeketh to skoffe S. Clement out of credite he hath shewed him selfe worthy of smal prayse and credite As touching the worde Antitypon vsed by S. Clement whereof he taketh holde Antitypon doth not exclude the veritie of the mysteries it maketh litle for his purpose In what Logique learned he to make this Argument By S. Clement Priestes are required to offer vp antitypoÌ„ that is to say the signe figure or sampler of Christes body Ergo they haue no commission nor power to offer vp Christe him selfe Where two thinges go to gether it is a foolish reason that with the affirmation of the one concludeth the denial of the other By suche Logique he may as wel denie Christe to be God bicause he is Man For answer to this and the like cauilles made by the Sacramentaries against the veritie of Christes body and bloude in the blessed Sacrament it shal be necessary to informe the Reader of the doctrine of S. Augustine touching this very point Augu. lib. SenteÌ„tiar Prosperi de Consec Dist 2. Hoc est quod His wordes be these Hoc est quod dicimus quod omnibus modis approbare contendimus Sacrificium Ecclesiae duobus confici duobus constare visibili elementorum specie inuisibili Domini nostri Iesu Christi carne sanguine Sacramento re sacramenti id est corpore Christi c. This is that we say that we go about by al meanes to approue That the Sacrifice of the Church is made of two thinges and consisteth of two thinges the visible forme of the elementes and the inuisible flesh and bloud of our Lorde Iesus Christe both the Sacrament and the thing of the Sacrament that is to say the body of Christe Now where as the Sacrifice consisteth of two things the visible forme of the elementes For what antitypon is taken in S. Clement which are bread and wine and the flesh and bloude of our Lorde S. Clement naming antitypon regalis corporis the signe figure or sampler of Christes roial body meaneth the visible forme of the elementes as vnder them the body and bloude is really conteined And so by this woorde antitypon he vnderstandeth not the outward formes of breade and wine only but as in the same sentence he plainely expoundeth him selfe the whole Sacrament otherwise called the Euchariste Which Sacrament is after consecration not without reason termed antitypon partly in consideration of the outward formes partly bicause the external breaking and diuision of the blessed Sacrament representeth and betokeneth Christes passion and bloude shedding Also bicause we haue not yet the fruition of Christes body after such wise as we shal haue in the life to come Here we haue Christe verily in deede and substantially but as yet couered in a mysterie and hidden vnder the outward formes 1. Cor. 13. But in the life to come we shal see him face to face not as through a glasse or darke contemplation but euen so as he is in truth of his owne Maiestie That the terme antitypon maketh nothing for the Sacramentaries Bicause the Sacramentaries where with al their witte and cunning they impugne the Sacrifice of the Aulter pretend to haue great aduauntage against the Catholikes for that S. Basil and certaine other olde Fathers vse this terme antitypon where they speake of the most blessed Sacrament calling it by that name It shal be good to shew how litle the vse of the same in the Fathers writings maketh for proufe of their heresie which they mainteine against the real presence First it is acknowledged and confessed of the Catholikes that the Sacrament of the Aulter is antitypon that is to say a sampler or signe of Christes roial body otherwise it could not be a Sacrament which is a visible signe of inuisible grace Thus farre we agree on both sides The point wherein
we vary froÌ„ the SacrameÌ„taries is touching the substance of the SacrameÌ„t or which is al one though in diuers respectes the Sacrifice We say that onlesse the flesh and bloude of Christe be the substance of this sampler or signe it can not be a Sacrament meete for the dignitie of the new Testament bicause it must be the truth of al the figuratiue Sacrifices of the olde Lawe according to that S. Augustine teacheth speaking of the Tableâ— Augu. De ciuita Dei lib. 17. ca. 20. which Christe being a Priest aftâ—r the order of Melchisedech doth exhibite and geue Id enim Sacrificium successit omnibus illis Sacrificijs veteris Testamenti quae immolabantur in vmbra futuri For that Sacrifice saith he hath succeded al those Sacrifices of the old Testament which were offered in the shadow of that to come Wherefore this Sacrifice being the body of those shadowes must excel in substance the Sacrifices that were the shadowes But how can that be if the substance of bread be the substance of our Sacrifice for asmuch as the substance of bread is no better if it be so good being an artificial and dead thing then is the substance of a lambe an Oxe or a goat which are natural and lyuing creatures whose substances were substances of the olde Sacrifices that were shadowes S. Alexander therefore the fourth Bisshop of Rome after S. Peter considering the excellency of our Sacrifice aboue the olde Sacrifices Alexand. epist. 1. De CoÌ„sec dist 2. cap. Nihil in saith Nihil in Sacrificiis maius esse potest quà m corpus sanguis Christi nec vlla oblatio hac potior est sed omnes haec praecellit c. Nothing can be greater in Sacrifices then the body and bloude Christe neither is there any oblation better then this but this doth farre excel al others the which ought to be offered vp vnto God with a cleane conscience and to be receiued with a pure mynde and of men to be wourshipped Thus our Sacrifice conteyning really the pretious body and bloude of Christe is a Sacrifice worthy of the newe Testamente most meete and hable to represent vnto vs and preserue in perpetual remembraunce the same body and bloude rent and shed vppon the Crosse and most effectual to deriue and apply vnto vs the merites and fruites of that bloudy Sacrifice And yet neuer the lesse being ministred vnder the outward formes not of the body and bloude it selfe but of bread and wine for our infirmities sake and for the better practise of our faith it is rightly called the sampler of the roial body of Christe so termed by a fitte worde in the greke tongue antitypon which being taken in the best signification Augu. lib. 2. quaest Euangel cap. 3. VVhat properly is signified by antitypoÌ„ as it is reason it should so be taken sith it signifieth a Sacrifice most diuine and as S. Augustine termeth it Sacrificium Sanctum Sanctorum the Sacrifice that is of al holy things the most holy doth import a true and like sampler or counterpane equal in truth and worthinesse with that which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the principal copie For so much doth the greke preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie in composition as for example Homere oftentimes calleth that man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 asmuch to say equal to God who for some excellent qualitie semed to be nothing inferiour at least in that point to them whom he feined to be Gods And in consideration hereof learned men haue translated the Greke worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by this Periprasis or circumlocution examplar similis formae a sampler of like forme Now what thing is there any where that is worthy to be or may be a true patern or sampler of like forme to the body and bloud of Christe crucified and shed and now remaining visibly in heauen but the body and bloud of Christe him selfe which by vertue of his almighty woorde he of his singular mercie so maketh and tempereth for vs in the most holy mysteries geuing them vs vnder the formes of our common foode breade and wine that neither the Maiestie of them should deterre and fray vs from offering them nor any lothsomnes or sight of fleshe and bloude shoulde cause vs to abhorre to eate and drinke them And thus the body of Christ in the Eucharist is antitypon that is to say a signe a sacrament a patern a sampler of his body that hoong vpon the Crosse and of his body that is now in Maiestie at the right hande of God the Father Neither is this a new doctrine of our deuise it was taught in Christes Churche aboue eleuen hundred yeres past Let these woordes of S. Augustine serue to witnesse the same Augu. lib. Sentent Prosperi de Consec Dist. 2. Hoc est Caro eius est quam forma panis opertam in Sacramento accipimus sanguis eius quem sub vini specie sapore potamus Caro videlicet carnis sanguis est Sacramentum Sanguinis vtroque inuisibili Spirituali intelligibili signatur visibile Domini nostri Iesu Christi corpus palpabile plenum gratia omnium virtutum diuina Maiestate The flesh of Christe it is that being couered with the forme of bread we receiue in the Sacrament and his bloud it is which vnder the shape and sauour of wine we drinke soothly flesh is a sacrament of flesh and bloude a sacrament of bloude by both being inuisible spiritual and intelligible the body of Iesus Christe our Lord that is visible and palpable ful of the grace of al vertues and diuine Maiesty is betokened Consider this doctrine wel Christian Reader First that whiche we receiue in the Sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine S. Augustine telleth thee is the flesh and bloude of Christe Next he saith not that the outward formes of bread and wine but that the very flesh and bloude be sacramentes of flesh and bloude Lastly to put al doubte away and to make the mater cleare he sheweth how this is trueâ— and saith that by both flesh and bloude inuisible and intelligible the visible and palpable body of Christe is pointed to notified and signified Which is as much to say briefly as that the body of Christe in the Sacrament inuisible is a signe or sampler of Christes body visible Al this yf thou consider diligently and aduisedly thou maist easily vnderstande what both S. Clement in the place by M. Iewel alleged and other learned Fathers meane by this worde antitypon in the mater of the blessed Sacrament soothly not to exclude the real presence of Christes body but to signifie the secret meane of the presence We graunt therefore the Sacrament of the Aulter to be a signe as S. Clement calleth it antitypoÌ„ But when by any Sacramentarie the denial of the thing it self is inferred of the affirmation of the signe The kindes of Signes significatiue only and exhibitiue we
barely cal it bread and a cuppe but this bread This breade◠this Cup. and this Cuppe as S. Paule calleth it likewise this bread and this Cuppe and that bread and the Cuppe of our Lorde 1. Cor. 11. By which manner of speach vttered with the Pronoune Demonstratiue not common bread nor a common cuppe but a singular a diuine a heauenly and the supersubstantial breade and the like cuppe in Saint Clement is signified euen that breade and cuppe which according to Christes Institution was before consecrated with the woordes of our Lorde Math. 26. This is my body This is my bloude Luc. 22. Iewel Neither did Christe by these vvordes Doo ye this in my Remembrance erecte any nevve Succession of Sacrificers to offer him vp Really vnto his Father nor euer did any Auncient learned Father so expounde it Christes meaning is cleare by the vvordes that folovve For he saith not onely Doo yee this but he addeth also In my Remembrance VVhich Doinge perteineth not only vnto the Apostles and their successours as M. Harding imagineth but also to the vvhole people And therefore S. Paule saieth not only to the Ministers but also to the vvhole Congregation of Corinth 1. Cor. 11 As often as ye shal eate this Bread and drinke this Cuppe Ye shal shewe foorthe and publishe the Lordes Deathe vntil he come Likevvise S. Chrysostome applieth the same Chrysost. ad popul Antioch Homil. 61 not onely to the Cleregie but also to the vvhole people of his Churche of Antioche Thus he saith Hoc facite in memoriam Beneficij mei Salutis vestrae Doo ye this in Remembrance of my Benefite and of your Saluation Of these vveake positions M. Harding vvithout the vvarrante or authoritie of any learned Father reasoneth thus Christe saith This is my Bodie that is geuen for you Doo this in my Remembrance Ergo The Prieste hath power to offer vp the Sonne of God vnto his Father Harding What M. Iewel meaneth by erecting a newe succession of Sacrificers Priestes novv b◠made by election and ordinatiō an contine◠not by right of successiō I know not but that he taketh pleasure in his owne skoffing wittte And whereas he was not hable with sounde reasons or good authorities to impugne the Priesthod of the new Testament it liked him to worke his spite against it with scorneful prophane and Iewish vtterance Who euer said that Christe by those wordes erected a new succession of Sacrificers If no man euer said it why chargeth he vs as though it had bene said Aarons Priesthode went by succession and belonged to one Tribe But Priestes of the newe Testamente enter not into their Priesthod by right of succession as they of the Leuitical Tribe did but by election and lawful ordination This Priesthod principally is Christes which continueth without succession for euer as he is a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedek Psal. 109. Neither be we that are Priestes the Successours of Christe and much lesse of Aaron we be the ministers of Christ in the function of this Priesthod and that which we do we do it by vertue and power of Christe and in the person of Christ yea rather Christ is said to doo it through vs. Oecum in epist. ad Heb. ca. 5. For Oecumenius speaking of the daily execution of our Priesthoode and of Priestes that daily do sacrifice saith per quos medios Christus sacrificat sacrificatur Christe by the meanes or mediation of the Priestes that be now of whom there he spake before sacrificeth and is sacrificed Euseb. De Demonst. lib. 5. Eusebius declaring the euerlasting priesthod of Christ after the order of Melchisedek saith likewise Et sanè oraculi exitus admirabilis est ei qui comtempletur quomodo Seruator noster Iesus Christus Dei ipsius Melchisedech ritu ea quae sunt Sacrificij inter homines faciendi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etiam adhuc per suos ministros perficiat And verily the accomplishment of the oracle which is thou art a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedek is maruelous to him that beholdeth Psal. 109. how our Sauiour Iesus the Christ of God doth performe euen vntil this day those thinges that be of the Sacrifice which is to be done amonge men Marke Reader how is that accomplished which the Father in the Psalme is reported to haue said vnto Christ Thou art a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech How remaineth he a Priest for euer sith cōcerning that Oblation and sacrifice which was once offered by him saith Oecumenius meaning the sacrifice of the Crosse he would not haue said in aternum for euer To this question that might be moued both Oecumenius and Eusebius do answer that euen now Christe doth the thinges that belong vnto the Sacrifice which is to be made among men Which is asmuch in sense as Oecumenius saith that now by the mediation of Priestes ministerie Christe sacrificeth and is sacrificed And so he remaineth a Priest for euer But leauing these skorneful termes of erecting a newe succession of Sacrificers to the schoole of Heretiques and vsing the common wordes of the Churche If M. Iewel meane therby to say that Christe speaking these wordes Doo ye this in my remembrance did not ordeine the Apostles Priestes nor therby gaue them auctoritie to ordeine others that for tyme to come should succede them in that order and that so saying he gaue not them power auctoritie and cōmission to offer vp his body and bloud I say his meaning is vtterly vntrue And this also which he saith further that neuer any learned Father so expounded those wordes of Christe I affirme to be very false as here it shal appeare First let S. Clement be heard in this point whom M. Iewel in a false cause doth here take holde of That Christe made the Apostles Priestes Bicause the place is somewhat longe it shal be sufficient to reporte it in English truly translated Thus he saith Of Moyses most derely beloued of God Clemens◠Constitut. Aposto li. 8. cap. vlt. were instituted Bisshops Priestes and Leuites◠Of our Sauiour we thirteen Apostles Of the Apostles I Iames and I Clement and with vs others that we recken not al againe Cōmonly of al vs Priestes Deacons Subdeacons and Readers The first high Bishop then by nature is Christe the only begottē rapuit who caught not honour vnto himselfe but was constituted of his Father Who for our sake being made man and offering spiritual sacrifice to God and his Father before his passion commaunded vs alone to do the same thing albeit others were present with vs that beleued in him But yet not euery one that beleueth is by and by a Priest and promoted vnto Bisshoply honour This testimonie of S. Clement declareth plainely both that Christe made the Apostles Priestes before his Passion geuing charge and commaundement to them onely though others that beleeued were present
the Caluinistes The ministratiō of the nevv holy Cōmunion made a nevv Sacrifice by M. Ievv which they haue set vp like an Idol in their defourmed churches in place of the blessed Masse after a diuers manner in diuers Cities and Countries according to the diuers fantasies of new Ministers who daily please them selues with changing what so euer liketh others in which sorte of Communion there is no substance of any better thing then of bread and wine no due consecration made no oblation no real Sacrifice no participation of the true body and bloude of Christe If this be his meaning as doubtelesse it is most certaine it is those auncient learned Fathers neuer spake of it neuer knewe it much lesse did they any where call the ministration of it a Sacrifice S. Augustine saith not Augustin ad Petrū Diaconū cap. 19. the ministration of the Communion is a Sacrifice which M. Iewel by his wordes taketh vpon him to proue but In this Sacrifice saith he there is a thankesgeuing and a cōmemoration of the flesh of Christe which he offered for vs and of the bloude which the same God did shed for vs. In this Sacrifice saith he he saith not in the ministration of the Cōmunion What he meant by this Sacrifice there he sheweth clearely For hauing said in the beginning of the chapter that beastes were sacrificed vnto Christe with the Father and the holy Ghost by the Patriarkes Prophetes and Priestes of the olde Law forthwith he addeth these wordes Cui nunc id est tempore Noui Testamēti cū Patre Spiritu sancto cū quibus est illi vna Diuinitas sacrificiū Panis vini in fide charitate sancta Ecclesia Catholica per vniuersum orbē terrae offerre nō cessat Vnto whom now that is to say in the time of the Newe Testament with the Father and the Holy Ghoste with whom he hath one Godhed the holy Catholike Church doth not ceasse to offer vp through the whole worlde the Sacrifice of bread and wine in faith and charitie M. Iewel thought to take aduantage of this place The Sacrifice of bread and vvine bicause this Sacrifice is here called the sacrifice of bread and wine and would nedes this to be taken for the ministation of his new Communion as though bicause bread and wine is named which is the substāce of their cōmunion the body and bloud of Christe were excluded But this reason is very weake besides that neither M. Iewel nor any of the Caluinistes doo vse to cal this sacrifice the Sacrifice of bread and wine Neither do they bring their bread and wine to church to make a sacrifice of it to God but to distribute it vnto their Congregations The sacrifice they pretende to make is of thankes and praises any outward thing they sacrifice not at al. True it is this Sacrifice is sometimes called the Sacrifice of bread and wine as in this place De Fide ad Petrum Diaconum either bicause it representeth in outwarde formes bread and wine or bicause bread and wine are the thinges whereof of the change it selfe which perteineth to the nature of a Sacrifice for so much as it requireth that the thing that is offered be sanctified by some change taketh beginning And as in the olde sacrifices of the Iewes the Calfe both being yet aliue was called a Sacrifice bicause it was that thing whiche by killing was to be sanctified and also being killed bicause it was the Hoste now sanctified by sacrificing whiche hoste so many as did eate of were made partakers of the aulter Euen so in the Sacrament of the Euchariste the bread and wine may be called a Sacrifice as being the thinges that by change made of them with consecration are to be sanctified Therefore in the beginning of the Canon of the Masse it is said of them Supplices rogamus ac petimus c. We humbly pray and beseche thee that thou accepte and blesse these giftes these presentes these holy Sacrifices The body it selfe also and bloud of Christe conteined vnder the fourme of bread and wine are called the Sacrifice as being the thinges into which the holy change by vertue of the wordes of Consecration is made of which it is said in the end of the Canon We offer vp vnto thy most honorable Maiestie of thy giftes and benefites a pure Hoste a holy Hoste an vnspotted hoste Thus we say and so the Fathers speake both waies of this Sacrifice that it is the Sacrifice of breade and wine that is to say made of bread and wine bicause that which was breade and wine is now turned and changed into the body and bloude of Christe and the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of our Lorde that is to say the very true hoste it selfe with a certaine diuine change consecrated and made In other places most commonly it is named of the Fathers the Oblation or Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christe in consideration of the inward substance of the Sacrifice vnder the formes of bread and wine conteined As S. Augustine writing against Faustus the Heretique Aug. cont Faust. lib. 20◠ca. 18. hauing spoken of the manifold Sacrifices of the olde law and of the Sacrifice of the Crosse consequently saith whereby he signifieth what he vnderstandeth by this sacrifice of bread and wine I am Christiani peracti eiusdem Sacrificij memoriam celebrant sacrosancta oblatione participatione corporis sanguinis Christi The Christians do nowe celebrate the memorie of the Sacrifice of the Crosse past and done by the holy oblation and participation of the body and bloude of Christe So in diuers considerations both these savinges be true The holy catholike Churche euery where offereth vp to God the sacrifice of bread and wine and it offereth the Sacrifice of the flesh and bloud of Christe And whereas our daily Sacrifice which the Christians doo now euery where offer is the celebration of the memorie of that which was done vpon the Crosse and therefore oftentimes of the Fathers is named a memorie or commemoration as we finde in Eusebius here also alleged by M. Iewel Euseb. in Demonst. lib. 1. the worde Memorie or commemoration excludeth the truth of passion and death for now Christe suffereth Rom. 6. nor dieth no more the truth or real presence of the body which on the Crosse suffered and dyed for vs it excludeth not For with and by the holy Oblation and participation of that flesh and bloude saith S. Augustine we celebrate the memorie of the Sacrifice that was made vpon the Crosse. So that the substance of the Sacrifice of the Crosse and of that of the Aulter is one and the same the flesh and bloude of Christ onely the manner of Oblation is diuers Which if these Gospellers would once confesse as S. Augustine here witnesseth and Christes Church hath euer beleeued and they them selues be not ignorant of we should not haue neede to write so
booke you vsed as it is knowen If you saw it and of purpose would concele it and by rehersing other Sacrifices thought so to coouer this Sacrifice then great was your malice If you sawe it not but trusted your Grecian and such other slipper Merchantes who knewe wel your humour and perceiued what shoulde please your appetite then were you very rash and vnwise and thereby haue geuen occasion to al wise men to take good aduise how they beleue you in so weighty maters Hitherto M. Iewel as now vnto the learned it is made cleare hath said litle for good Answere to the testimonie for the Sacrifice of the Aulter brought out of Eusebius But what falshoode he hathe vsed it is partely disclosed If thou marke him wel Reader thou shalt perceiue this sleight in him that he neuer reherseth the woordes of Eusebius as I haue alleged them For in dede they seme to grauel him and to be so plaine as with plainenesse he seeth no way how to answer them Craftily he dissembleth the Sacrifices of Christes table spoken of by Eusebius in the plural number whereby he vnderstandeth the body bloude of Christe of which eche one is a Sacrifice that is to say M. Iewels guileful dealing the thinge sacrificed and consecrated seuerally in the seueral fourmes of breade and wine in Commemoration and Remembraunce of the Body and Bloude whiche were seuered the one from the other by violence of the souldiers vppon the Crosse and nameth the Sacrifice of the Lordes Table in the singular number for the better oportunitie to deceiue the vnlearned Reader Iewel But Eusebius saith further This Sacrifice is dreadful and causeth the harte to quake M. Harding may not vvel geather by any force of these vvordes that the Sonne of God is Really offered vp by the Priest vnto his Father For al thinges vvhat so euer that put vs in remembrance of the Maiestie and Iudgementes of God of the Holy Fathers are called Dreadful S. Cyril saith Cyril in Apol. Chrysost 1. Cor. Hom. 49. Lectio Diuinarum Terribilium Scripturarum The reading of the Diuine and Terrible Scriptures S. Chrysostome calleth the vvordes of Baptisme Verba arcana metueÌ„da horribiles Canones dogmatum de Coelo transmissorum The Secrete and Dreadful wordes and Terrible Rules of the doctrine that came from Heauen And speaking of the Hande and voice of the Deacon he saith thus Manu illa Tremenda continua Voce clamans alios vocat alios arcet VVith that Terrible Hand and continual Voice crieinge somme he calleth in and somme he putteth of This Sacrifice maketh the Harte to tremble for that therein is laide forth the Mysterie that vvas hidden from vvorlds and Generations The horrour of Sinne The Death of the Sonne of God That he tooke our heauinesse and bare our sorovves and vvas vvounded for our offenses and vvas Rente and Tormented for our VVickednesse That he vvas carried like an innocent Lambe vnto the Slaughter that be cried vnto his Father O God O my God vvhy haste thou thus forsaken mee There vve cal to Remembrance al the causes and circumstances of Christs Death The Shame of the Crosse The Darkening of the Aire The Shaking of the Earth The renting of the Vele The cleauing of the Rocks The opening of the Graues The Descending into Hel and the CoÌ„quering of the Diuel Therefore Chrysostome saith QuaÌ„uis quis lapis esset illa nocte audita Chrysost. in 1. ad Corinth Hom. 17. quomodò cuÌ„ Discipulis tristis fueâ—it quomodò traditus quomodò ligatus quomodò abductus quomodò iudicatus quomodò denique oiÌ„a Passus cera mollior fiet terraÌ„ omneÌ„ terrae cogitationem abijciet Any man hearing of the order of that night how Christe was moorneful emonge his Disciples howe he was deliuered how he was bound how he was leadde away how he was arreigned and how meekely he suffered al that was donne vnto him were he as harde as a Stoane yet woulde he be as softe as VVaxe and would throwe both the Earth and al Earthely Cogitations away from him Thus saith Nicolaus Cabasilas one of M. Hardings late Greeke Doctours Hoc facite in meaÌ„ Commemorationem Sed quaenam est haec Commemoratio c. Doo ye this in Remembrance of me But what is this Remembrance Hovv doo we consider Our Lorde in the Holy Ministration VVhat doo we conceiue him doing Hovv dealing vvhat suffering vvhat thinke vve vvhat speake vve of him Do vve imagin of him in that time of the Holy Mysteries that he healed the Blinde That he raised the Dead That he staied the VVindes Or that vvith a fewe loaues he fead thousandes which are tokens that he was God Omnipotent No not so But rather we cal to remembrance such thinges as declared his weakenesse his Crosse his Passion his Deathe In respect of those thinges he said Doo yee this in my Remembrance The Priest both by his wordes and also by the vvhole Circumstance of doinge seemeth to say Thus Christe came to his Passion Thus he vvas vvounded in the side Thus he died Thus Bloud and VVater issued and streamed from his vvounde These considerations thus laide before our eies are hable to cause any godly harte to quake and tremble As for the Real offeringe vp of Christe in Sacrifice that learned Father Eusebius saith nothing Verily it is but a simple Sophisme to say This Sacrifice is Dreadful and causeth vs to quake Ergo The Priest offereth vp the Sonne of God vnto his Father Harding Whereas I gather an Argument of a plaine testimonie for the Sacrifice of the Aulter out of the whole senteÌ„ce alleged M. Iewel pretendeth to his Reader as though I tooke my chiefe and onely holde of this one worde Dreadful Dreadful which being but one worde in Eusebius he maketh to sounde many wordes and saith that I may not gather by any force of these wordes that the Sonne of God is really offered vp by the Priest vnto his Father Whereas in deed I gather it not by force of that woorde Dreadful whereof for his aduantage he maketh diuers woordes onely nor chiefly but of the whole saying and specially of the very expresse name of the Sacrifice of Christes table and also of that Eusebius saith we haue bene taught by Christe him selfe to offer them vnto God Which I expounde as they are to be expounded of these woordes spoken by Christe at his Supper Luc. 22. Hoc facite in meam commemorationeÌ„ doo ye this in my remembrance as it is to be sene in my Answere and he dissembled to haue sene it As for the Sonne of God really offered vp they be not my wordes as the booke is witnesse they be his whereby he thought to take aduantage though the Proposition in those termes also be true in a right and due sense Bicause therefore he groundeth his Replie vpon that which I say not and bestoweth many wordes in disprouing that I affirme not and prouing
a Mysterie in this Proposition Christe was not sacrificed at the Table really but onely in a Mysterie Onely in a Mysterie If he meane nothing els thereby but to exclude the bloudy manner of sacrificing as in deede properly to speake the sacrificing of lyuing thinges is with bloudeshed and slaughter in that respecte we graunte also that at the Table Christe was not really so sacrificed but in Mysterie only For at the Table we knowe he was not stickte with a knife as the brute beastes in the olde Lawe were nor let bloude with thornes nailes or speare as he was on the nexte morow vppon the Crosse. Mary where the exclusiue particle Onely is added though in a right sense we might beare with it as it is referred to the mystical manner of sacrificing yet we say it is strangely vsed in this place where it may haue relation to two thinges either to the body and bloud of Christe being the substance of the Sacrifice or to the manner of sacrificing But if by his terme Onely in a Mysterie he exclude the Real presence of Christe him selfe and meane that his very body and bloude as muche to say Christe him selfe bicause of the vnitie of the two natures was not in Christes handes and vppon the Table in deede when hauing taken breade he gaue thankes blessed Lucae 22. brake it and said this is my Body and concerning the Cuppe this is my Bloude â—e is not nowe in the Aulter Only when we consecrate doing that Christe did and bad vs to doo but that he was there then and is here now at the Diuine Celebration in a figure signe token signification memorie representation or Mysterie Onely or that a figure signe token or Mysterie Onely is present and sacrificed and not very Christe him selfe If this be his meaning herein we dissent vtterly from him and he dissenteth from the Churche of God from that the holy Ghoste hath taught his Churche from that al faithful Christen people hath euer beleeued from that Christe him selfe professed saying this is my body this is my bloude to be shorte from that which hath bene of late by certaine learned men against him and his felowes sufficiently and substantially prooued But what neede we to demaunde of M. Iewel what he meaneth by his clowdy wordes No clowde can hyde his Sacramentarie heresie it is euident as wel by that he saith here as by that he hath said and writteÌ„ in sundry other places according to the purport of the Caluinists doctrine vnto which sect he hath adioyned him self and by his open profession that he standeth in his Negatiue and holdeth opinion that Christe offered not him selfe really at his last Supper Now the affirmatiue part which is that Christe offered him selfe at that Supper really truly and in dede and made a real Sacrifice though it be in my Answere already proued yet here further for theire sake who breake not out of the Churche by their own stubbornnesse and wilful malice but be lead a syde by simplicitie and ignorance thus we prooue If Christe offered not vp him selfe really and in dede in a Sacrifice at his last Supper he leaft his new Lawe in worse state then was the condition of them who liued in the time of the Lawe of Nature or in the time of the Lawe written But in worse state he leafte it not Ergo he sacrificed him selfe at the Supper truly really and in dede The Minor or second Proposition is such as no Christen man I iudge wil deny or doubte of The first Proposition which is conditional shal sone appeare true to him who considereth that the good and godly people lyuing vnder the Lawe of Nature before any Lawe was written Cyprian Sermone de ratione circuÌ„cisionis by the inspiration of God as S. Cyprian witnesseth offered vp real sacrifices in which they protested their faith and trust in Christe to come by whose Sacrifice to be made vpon the Crosse they looked and hartily desyred to be saued So did Abel offer vp Sacrifice to God of the best of his flocke Gen. 4. Gen. 8. So did Noe offer vp Sacrifice of the cleane beastes that had ben with him in the Arke Gen. 22. So Abraham after that he had for so much as in him was offered vp his onely sonne Isaac did in stede of him sacrifice the Ramme that was tyed by the hornes among the brambles So did other iust and good men of that time offer vp the like sacrifices to the same ende As for the time of the lawe written who is so ignorant that knoweth not that real sacrifices of sundry beastes beside other thinges were commaunded to be offred vp for diuers particular endes yet al to one chiefe ende to foresignifie and prefigurate the most perfite Sacrifice of Christe to come Al these sacrifices although offred in a figure and signification of benefite that then was to come yet were they real and true sacrifices notwithstanding as consisting of real and true substances And thus we see that by Gods prouidence in the time of both Lawes of Nature and of Moyses real sacrifices were offred vp vnto him in figure and token of the Redemption to come Now then if Christe leafte to the newe lawe which he ordeined no real Sacrifice a Sacrifice being the chiefest worship that man can do vnto God but endued it with a sacrifice that is offred onely in a figure how did he not leaue it in worse case then the lawe of nature or the lawe written And certaine it is that he leaft it without any such Sacrifice onlesse he offering him selfe really at his Supper did beginne and institute it after the order of Melchisedek For in any time or place els instituted and commaunded it is not founde Concerning inward and mere spiritual sacrifices they be common to al times and lawes as it is before proued If M. Iewel and the mainteiners of this new Gospel put vs in mynde of bread and wine and tel vs that the substance of bread and wine is our real Sacrifice being the signes and figures of Christes body and bloud in the Lordes Supper to that we answer that bread and wine are not appointed and ordeined by Christe to be the real Sacrifice of the Churche and if they were then were the state of the new Testament no better then that of the olde TestameÌ„t whereas the new farre passing the olde in euery degree of worthinesse as S. Paule in sundry places declareth the Sacrifice frequented in the newe lawe ought to surmount the Sacrifices of the olde lawe Then hath the Churche made a very meane exchange with the Iewish Synagog For if we haue no better substance in our dayly Sacrifice then a peece of bread and a smal portion of wine how was not a goate a lambe an Oxe as good if not better and more worth Christe hath not so solenderly dealt with the heires of the newe Testament as to leaue so base and
Cyprianus De vnctio ne Chrismatis vera synceritas exponeret Gentibus quomodo vinuÌ„ panis caro esset sanguis et quibâ— roÌ„ibus causae effectibus coÌ„uenireÌ„t et diuersa noiÌ„a vel species ad vnaÌ„ reducereÌ„tur essentiaÌ„ et significaÌ„tia et significata eisdeÌ„ nacabulis ceÌ„serentur That the sincere truth and true sinceritie being secretly imprinted in th'Apostles might expouÌ„d vnto the GeÌ„tils how wine and bread should be his flesh and bloud and by what meanes the causes should be agreable to the effectes and diuers names and kindes should be brought vnto one substance and the thinges signifying and the thinges signified should be called by the same names Lo here it is declared what bread and wine it was as much to say the flesh and bloud of Christe which S. Cyprian saith he gaue at his last Supper vnto his Apostles This cleare and syncere truth or true synceritie so he calleth either the true doctrine of this Sacrifice or the Sacrifice it self in respect of the sundry impure and typical sacrifices of Moses Lawe he would secretly that is with th' inward knowledge of these secret mysteries to be imprinted and digested in th'Apostles to thinteÌ„t they should expound vnto the Gentils the Iewes with their olde sacrifices being now reiected how at this heauenly banket the bread and wine is flesh and bloud how the causes and effectes be agreable that is to say how the wordes of CoÌ„secratioÌ„ duely pronouÌ„ced by the Priest and the power of the holy Ghoste which are the causes doo produce and make the body and bloud of our Lord which be the effectes how thinges of diuers names and diuers in nature and therfore diuers kindes be brought vnto one essence or substaÌ„ce to wit bread and wine vnto the substance of Christes flesh and bloude TransubstantiatioÌ„â— whereby Transubstantiation is wrought briefly to conclude how wheras bread signifieth the body and wine the bloud the thinges signifiyng and the thinges signified be called by the same names Which thus appeareth to be true bicause that which before CoÌ„secration was and afterward semeth to be bread is called the flesh and in like case wine is called the bloud and so coÌ„trariwise sometimes the flesh is called the bread and the bloud is called the wine What can be said more directly against M. Iewels Sacramentarie Heresie and more piththily for coÌ„firmation of the Catholike doctrine touching this point And al this M. Iewel hath leaft out The same very thing S. Cyprian doth vtter more plainely in other places Cyprianus De coena Domini In his Treatise of the Supper of our Lorde he hath these most euident wordes Panis iste quem Dominus Discipulis porrigebat non effigie sed natura mutatus Omnipotentia Verbi factus est Caro. This bread Lib. 2. Epiâ—stola 3. which our Lorde gaue vnto his Disciples at his supper being changed not in shape but in nature by the almighty power of the Worde was made flesh Againe writing to Caâ—ilius he saith Qui magis sacerdos â— Dominus noster Iesus Christus qui sacrificiuÌ„ obtulit et obtulit hoc ideÌ„ quod Melchisedech id est paneÌ„ et vinum suuÌ„ scilicet corpus et sanguineÌ„ Who is more a Priest then our Lorde Iesus Christ who offred vp a Sacrifice and offred the very same that Melchisedech did that is to say bread and wine as much to say his owne body and bloude By these places S. Cyprian declareth his minde plainely what he meaneth by the bread and wine that Christe either gaue at the Supper vnto his Disciples or offered vnto his Father to render thankes for the great benefite of his passion soothly none other bread and wine then that which was made by the almighty power of the Woorde his body and bloude And behold Reader how vniforme his vtterance is and how he agreeth with him selfe In the Sermon De vnctione Chrismatis by M. Iewel with false leauing out that whiche made for the truth alleged he saith that diuers kindes are reduced into one substance in his Sermon De coena Domini he saith the bread by the omnipotencie of the Woorde is made flesh so bread and flesh being diuers kindes are brought to one substance There the thinges signifying and the thinges signified saith he be called with the same names as how I haue before declared In his Epistle to Cecilius naming bread and wine he expoundeth him selfe thus suum scilicet corpus sanguinem as much to say his owne body and bloude Where the body and bloude beare the names of bread and wine By this it is clearly seene what an impudent and wicked glose is that which M. Iewel incloseth in his parenthesis added by way of exposition vnto the maimed sentence of S. Cyprian wherewith to exclude the body and bloude of Christe the true bread and wine What haue you wonne here by S. Cyprian M. Iewel Who cutteth and maimeth the Doctours Who is now to be asked whether he haue the chynecoffe M. Ievvels Coffe which in a place of your Reply with out cause you twite me of What kinde of coffe I shal cal this I wote not I feare me the il mater of it lyeth not in your chyne a place so farre from the harte but in the harte it selfe For were not the same by Satans worke festred with the corruption of heresie you had not ben letted as with a coffe from bringing forth the later parte of S. Cyprians saying whose beginning you falsly abuse to obscure the cleare truthe Who so euer thus coffeth I wil not say he hath the chynecoffe as you ieast but verely sauing my charitie that he coffeth as like an heretique as a rotten yew cofâ—eth like a sheepe Laste of al whereas he saith that I am reprooued of vntruth and folie by S. Paule for saying Three lyes made by M. Iewel within three lines that Christe really sacrificed him selfe at two seueral times and twise really shed his bloude only vpon myne owne warrant he maketh no lesse then three lyes within three lines For neither said I in this place that Christe twise really shed his bloude nor onely vpon myne owne warrant said I that Christe sacrificed his body and bloud twise bicause I had the authoritie of Hesychius here as the authoritie of other Fathers before namely Gregorie Nyssen and Theophylacte for my warrant Nor for so saying am I reproued of any vntruth or folie by S. Paule For my assertion is true notwithstanding any thing that S. Paule saith What though S. Paule say Heb. 9. M. Iewel Christus semel oblatus est ad multoruÌ„ exhauriendâ— peccata Christ was once offered Heb. 10â— to take away the synnâ—s of Many Againe with one Sacrifice he hath made perâ—ite for euer them that be sanctified Bicause in these twoo sayinges you finde the termes one and once therefore suppose you that needes they must reprooue my assertion auouching that Christ was twise really
the Sacramentes of the Olde Testament promised the Sauiour Suche signes as geue saluation be meete Sacramentes of the Newe Testament of such kinde of signe or figure speaketh S. Dionyse where he vseth the terme Symbolical speaking of the Sacrifice of the Body and Bloude of Christe Ansvver to Pachymeres As for that M. Iewel allegeth out of Prchymeres the Paraphraste who saith The Priest commeth to the Bread and the Cuppe whereof he would faine conclude that the inuisible substance of the Sacrifice is not the body and bloude of Christe it standeth him in litle stede For in deede it is bread and wine when the Priest first commeth vnto them to celebrate the Sacrifice But when the wordes of Christe be comme vnto them as S. Ambrose saith that is to say Ambros. de Sacramēt lib. 4 cap 5 when the Priest hath duely pronounced the wordes of Consecration then are they made the body and bloude of Christe and so the Sacrifice of Christe And that Pachymeres was of this beleefe it is cleare by his owne woordes whiche M. Iewel either knewe not and so speaketh ignorantly or knewe wel yenough yet dissembled and so doth maliciously Bicause for some credite of his purpose he cited his woordes in Greke though by casting in one woorde of his owne which he founde not in the texte after his common woonte he hath some deale falsified the sentence I wil also here truely cite the woordes in Greke by which Pachymeres sheweth him selfe to be Catholique in this point and quite contrary to M. Iewels Sacramentarie doctrine They be these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pachymee in Dionys. Eccles. Hierarch cap. 3. pag. 136. As muche to say in English There be many that cast their eye vpon the holy signes onely as they who are not hable to conceiue any higher thing But the Bishop him silfe is caried vp vnto those first samplers or natural thinges to wit the pretious body and bloude it selfe of our Lorde beleuing that the thinges which are set forth that is to say the bread and wine be changed into them by the holy and almighty Ghoste Lo M. Iewel here haue you the cleare testimonie of Pachymeres him selfe for his true and Catholique beleefe touching the truth of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament Which beleefe is not onely that the pretious body and bloude of our Lorde are of a right beleeuer beholden and conceiued in the Sacrament verely present which the Lutherans do acknowledge but also that the bread and wine are by the power of the holy Ghoste Transubstātiation into the same conuerted and changed whiche neither ye nor Luthers scholers doo beleeue and so by Pachymeres transubstantion is auouched After al this M. Iewel disposeth him selfe to dally at an Argument of his owne mery heads forging M. Ievvel forgeth Argumēt◠bearing the Reader in hand it is myne And this Argument forsooth is such and so vnskilful as a yong Sophister saith he would neuer haue framed it What any yong Sophister would doo I knowe not But now certaine it is that be it wel or otherwise it is framed by as olde a Sophister as your selfe are M. Iewel If it be vnskilfully framed the blame is yours for yours it is not myne Here that you be so ful of your Argumentes which vntruely you father vpon me and so busy with your Logique I answer you as S. Augustine answered Iulian the Pelagian Heretique dealing with him as you doo with me not onely in this place but in manner in your whole booke Quantùm tibi places tantùm grauibus Lectoribus displices Augustin contra Iulian lib. 3. cap. 7. quod peius est fingis me dicere quod non dico concludere sicut non concludo caet Looke saith he how much you stande in your owne conceite so muche you are out of conceite with the graue Readers and which is worse you feine me to say that which I say not to conclude so as I conclude not If you would needes shewe your cunning in Logique and dispute after the rules of that arte why rehersed you not the whole Antecedent Though in this place I frame no Argume at al but onely recite the saying of S. Dionyse applying it to my purpose yet if the whole should be disposed in fourme of an Argument this is the Argument that thereof might be concluded the circumstance of the place considered The Bishop or Priest by reporte of S. Dionyse standing at the holy Aulter An Argument gathered out of S. Dionyse for the Sacrifice after he hath geuen praises to God for his Diuine workes commeth vnto the mystical Sacrifice excusing him selfe for that he taketh vpon him to offer vp the healthful hoste or Sacrifice that is farre aboue his worthinesse whereof Christe at his last Supper hauing consecrated his body and bloude said by way of commaundement and commission Luc. 22. Doo ye this in my Remembrance But this healthful Sacrifice whereof Christ so said and which he required to be offered is the Sacrifice of his body and bloude vnder the formes of bread and wine Ergo by witnesse of that Auncient and most worthy Father the Bishop or Priest offereth vp Christes body and bloude and consequently Christ him selfe For where the body of Christe is there also is whole Christe bicause of the inseparable vnitie of both natures And if Christe be thus offered to whom is he offred but to the Father Albeit I confesse that Christe is offered to him selfe also as being God and to the holy Ghoste to the whole most blessed Trinitie If you had thus set forth the Argument M. Iewel and dealt simply and truly you should not haue needed to trouble the reader with so much Sophistrie and Logique as here for confutation of your owne forged reason you haue bestowed Bicause you knewe your selfe not hable to auoide the force of the whole Antecedent slyly you answer to that parte of it onely where it is said the Priest excuseth him selfe as though I had layd the chiefe grounde of the authoritie in that clause onely And thereof you take occasion to enter into a needelesse common place proouing by certaine testimonies which no man euer denied that sundry holy thinges are to be done not presumptuously and rashly but reuerently and with feare and trembling as namely when we offer vp the Sacrifice of Praise when we baptise when we preache or heare Gods holy worde when we pray and cal God our Father For the reuerent and hūble demeanour that we ought to shewe in doing these holy thinges you allege S. Basil S. Dionyse S. Paule S. Cyprian But what of al this wil it thereof folowe Ergo though the Priest standing at the Aulter and comming to offer the Mystical Sacrifice excuse him selfe not for praying preaching praising or baptizing but for offering the healthful hoste that farre passeth his degree euen the same that Christe offered at his laste Supper whereof he said This is my Body
by a figuratiue speache onely as it is said the rocke was Christe For though the Fathers vse sometimes figuratine speaches yet thereof it foloweth not that S. Cyprian in this place of his Epistle to Cecilius spake figuratiuely in saying that Christe is the Sacrifice That he spake truly and meant according to the proprietie of the speach it is cleare by his owne wordes in the same Epistle For els hauing mencioned the Sacrifice of Melchisedech which consisted of bread and wine he would neuer haue said these wordes Quam rem perficiens adimplens Dominus panem calicem mixtum vino obtulit Cypria ad Cecil lib. 2. epâ—â—stola 3. qui est plenitudo veritatem praefiguratae Imaginis adimpleuit Our Lorde offered bread and cuppe mixte with wine perfiting and fulfilling the thing that Melchisedech did Christe his suppâ—â— fulfilled the figuâ—â— of Melchisedeâ—â— and he that is the fulnes fulfilled the truth of the forefigured Image Now if Christe at his Supper for thereof S. Cyprian speaketh offered not a true Sacrifice of his body and bloude in deede and therefore a true and real Sacrifice vnder the formes of bread and wine but onely a signe and figure or an Image representing his body and bloude How then was he the fulnesse How did he fulfil the truth of the forefigured Image For if al were but a signe and token Fulnes 〈◊〉 perfourmance memorie or representation that he offered then was not he the fulnesse neither fulfilled the truth For signes if they be onely signes be empty and void of the truth neither is fulnesse but where the very thinges be present And by such interpretation S. Cyprian should make the Sacrifice of Christe at his Supper no better then that of Melchisedech was and which is absurde the truth of a forefigured image should be but a figure and fulnesse should be voide of the thing fulfilled How be it to proue the Sacrifice by witnesse of S. Cyprian I stayed not my selfe vpon these wordes In Sacrificio quod Christus est M. Ievvel aÌ„svvereth as he thinketh good to a word or tvvo aÌ„d leaueth the chiefe substance vnaÌ„svvered specially but vpon the large processe of that whole Epistle Whereof I tooke what seemed to make good proufe of that I entended And I pray you Sir why answer you not to the other manifest wordes What Sacrifice is that which as S. Cyprian saith Christe first of al offered vp vnto his Father and coÌ„maunded the same to be offered in his remembrance What Sacrifice is that in doing whereof the Priest doth the office of Christe truly What Sacrifice is that in offring vp whereof the Priest doth by imitation the same thing that Christe did What is that true and perfite Sacrifice that he offreth vp to God if he beginne to offer right so as he seeth Christe him selfe to haue offered If you could haue named vs any other besides the Satrifice of the body and bloud of Christe is it to be thought you would haue conceeled it to so great hinderance of your cause That whereby your Chalenge is fully answered and the Catholique Doctrine plainely auouched you ouerhippe and dissemble and vppon a peece of a sentence by your selfe falsified and by your wrong translation wreathed from S. Cyprians meaning you bestowe many woordes and muche of your common stuffe which consisteth of your Phrases pyked out of your Notebookes and here without trueth or iudgement shuffled together Iewel And that the vveaknes of M. Hardinges gheasses may the better appeare vnderstande thou good Christian Reader that the Holy Catholique Fathers haue vsed to say that Christe is Sacrificed not only in the Holy Supper but also in the Sacrament of Baptisme S. Augustine saithe August expositioÌ„ inchoatâ— ad Rom. Holocaustum Dominicae Passionis eo tempore pro se quisque offert qno eiusdem Passionis Fide dedicatur The Sacrifice of our Lordes Passion euery man then offereth for him selfe when he is Confirmed in the Faithe of his Passion And againe Holocaustum Domini tunc pro vnoquoque offertur quodammodo In eod cùm eius nomine Baptizando signatur Then is the Sacrifice of our Lorde In a Manner offered for eche man In eod when in Baptisme he is marked with the name of Christe And againe Non relinquitur Sacrificium pro peccatis Chrysost in epist. a Hebraeos hom 16 Ambros. de poeniâ— li. 2. ca. 2 id est non potest denuo Baptizari There is leafte no Sacrifice for Sinne that is to say He can be no more Baptized And in this consideration Chrysostome saithe Baptisma Christi Sanguis Christi est Christes Baptisme is Chtistes Bloude And likevvise S. Ambrose In Baptismo Crucifigimus in nobis Filium Dei In Baptisme wee Crucifie in our selues the Sonne of God Harding Concerning the Sacrifice made in Baptisme August iâ— expositioÌ„e inchoatae in epistol ad Rom. whereof you tel vs out of the Auncient Fathers That euery one at that time for his synnes offereth vp the Burnt sacrifice of our Lordes Passion when in the faith of the same Passion he is dedicated as S. Augustine saith and that in Baptisme we crucifie in vs the Sonne of God as S. Ambrose saith Ambros. de poenit li. 2. ca. 2. by their owne woordes they teache vs to vnderstande this spiritually and not as the woordes sounde in proper speache For S. Augustine in that place qualifieth the manner of his vtterance and calleth his reader backe from absurde imagination by this woorde quodammodo Quodammodo asmuch to say in a manner And S. Ambrose likewise saith not simply that in Baptisme we crucifie Christe but that we crucifie him in vs. Crucifigimus in nobis Filium Dei We crucifie in vs the Sonne of God saith he Whereby they meane that in Baptisme we put on Christe that to sinne we die with Christe and are buried with him into death and are made conformable to the similitude of his death and that the effecte vertue and benefite of his Passion by Baptisme is applyed vnto vs. And bicause as Moyses sprinckled with bloude the booke of the Olde Testament Leuit. 4. the Tabernacle Hebr. 9. and the Vessels of Ministerie right so Christe with his owne Bloude cleanseth our myndes which be the bookes of the Newe Testament by interpretation of S. Chrysostome Chrysosto in epist. ad Hebraeos Homi. 16. and with the same bloude sprinckleth vs who are his Tabernacle for him to dwel in and to walke in as he saith him selfe and his Vessels to serue him in holy Ministeries which great benefite is chiefly deriued vnto vs in Baptisme In consideration hereof forasmuch as vpon the Crosse onely his pretious bloud ranne out of his body and then was he in him selfe sacrificed these Fathers feared not to say * Ambros. the one that in Baptisme we crucifie in vs the Sonne of God * August the other that when we are baptized we offer
Simplici Sacrificio Christi dedicauit Sacramentum He dedicated the Sacramente of Christe in Breade and VVine which is not a Bloudy or loathsome but a Pure and a Simple Sacrifice This Remembrance and Oblation of praises and Rendring of thankes vnto God for our Redemption in the Bloud of Christe is called of the olde Fathers An Vnbloudy Sacrifice and of S. Augustine The Sacrifice of the Newe Testament Iustinus Martyr saith Esaias non pollicetur Cruentarum Victimarum instaurationem sed veras Spirituales Oblationes laudis Gratiarum actionis Esaias promiseth not the restoaringe of Blouddy Sacrifices but True and Spiritual Oblations of Praises and Thankesgeuing S. Chrysostome saith Non iam Sanguinem aut adipem offerimus c. VVe offer not now the fatte Chrysos in Epist. ad Hebr. Homil 11. or Bloude of Beastes Al these thinges are abolished And in steede thereof there is brought in a Reasonable or Spiritual dewtie But what is this dewtie that we cal Reasonable or Spiritual That it is that is offered by the Soule and Sprite Harding What needeth al this longe processe vppon the woorde Incruentum Vnbloudy Go to the purpose M. Iewel By the place alleged out of S. Chrysostome it is euident that he vnderstandeth Malachies prophecie of the vnbloudy Sacrifice which Christ offered at his Mystical Table in his Last Supper and is now daily offered by Priestes according to his Institution Examin the woordes wel See how plainely and clearely saith he the Prophete hath interpreted the Mystical Table Chrysos in Psal. 55. which is the vnblouddy Sacrifice Yet so plaine and cleare as it is you can not see or rather you wil not see it And by al your witte and cunning you endeuour so to dasel the eyes of others that they may not see it But why doo you turne al your long talke onely to the woorde M. Ievvel turneth al his Reply to the vvorde vnbloudy leauing other mater that he is not wel hable to answer Vnbloudy Why doo you not aswel speake of the Mystical Table Can ye not away to heare thereof Say what you liste of the terme Vnblouddy and allege so many sentences of Doctours as woulde fil a whole booke yet must S. Chrysostome to al men of learning appeare to expounde the Prophecie of Malachie of that whiche is vnbloudily sacrificed at the Mystical Table What Mystical Table can ye name vs now in the Churche but that whereon the Body and Bloude of Christe are sacrificed whereof it is named an Aulter Aulter Table and from whens they are of the faithful receiued for whiche it is named a Table Verily this place presseth you so that you are faine to flee as it were out of the feelde And yet least you should seme to flee away cowardly by long needeles talke vpon the woorde Vnbloudy as it were by holding vp your shilde you make a shewe as though you faught stil. In effecte two thinges you go about to prooue The first is that the Sacrifice of our Prayers and deuotion of mynde is called of the Fathers Vnbloudy The second is that the Ministration of the holy Communion which terme is very common with you is called also an vnbloudy Sacrifice Touching the first you haue taken great paines to litle purpose For it is by noman denied Touching the second what so euer you meane by your Ministring terme of the Ministration of the Holy Communion we say that the Hoste of the Mystical Table whiche is none other but the body and bloude of Christe is both of S. Chrysostome here and otherwheres of the learned Fathers called the vnbloudy Sacrifice not for that it representeth and reporteth vnto our myndes the Sacrifice of the Crosse as you say for in that respect it ought rather to be called representatiue or commemoratiue but for that being the same in substance with that whiche was offered vppon the Crosse with shedding of bloude Bloudy and vnbloudy referred to one subiecte it is here offered vnbloudily And so both these termes Bloudy and Vnbloudy be referred to one subiect or thing offered whereby the diuersitie of the manner of offering is signified Furthermore whereas you say that the Christians Sacrifices be mere spiritual and procede wholy from the harte if you meane that al our Sacrifices be such and that no external thing is offered in any of them it is vntruely spoken For the Sacrifice of Christes body and Bloude is not so mere spiritual that it may be said to proceede onely from the harte of the offerer but it requireth an external action of the Minister to wit an external pronouncing of the sacramental woordes This is my body c. Besides this external breade and wine be also necessary without the which this Sacrifice can not be made And herein after that by the power of the wordes of our Lorde by the Priest pronounced there is made the Diuine chaunge of the substāce of the bread and wine into the body and bloude of Christe August de ciuita Dei li. 10. c. 20 then is there as S. Augustine calleth it the true Sacrifice as S. Gregorie Nazianzen termeth it Nazian in Apologetico 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the external Sacrifice of the newe Testament Consider wisely with thy selfe good Christian Reader whether M. Iewel be to trusted or no in that he traueleth so much to abolish the mystical Table the vnbloudy Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ vvhether M. Ievvel be to be trusted which is the most honorable and the chiefe Sacrifice of the Church Whereas S. Chrysostom declareth diuers kindes of Sacrifices to be among the Christians as there were in olde time among the Iewes M. Iewel acknowlegeth al saue that which is most worthy and chiefe In an Homilie that he wrote vpon the .95 Psalme he reckeneth in order ten kindes of Sacrifices Ten kīdes of Sacrifices which be sitting saith he for the grace of the Gospel That I may speake of the first and chiefe after that the others be accompted the second is Martyrdom the thirde is the Sacrifice of Prayer the fourth is of Iubilation or ioyful synging out a loude the fifth of Iustice the sixth of Almose geuing the seuenth of Praise the eighth of Compunction the ninth of Humilitie the tenth of Preaching eche one of these there he prooueth by Scripture These nyne M. Iewel can finde in his harte to confesse But the first Satan and he may not abyde And that is the Sacrifice wherein Christe him selfe is offered Which Sacrifice of S. Chrysostom in that Homilie is called by these names Chrysost. in Psalm 95. Tom. 1 Mystica mensa coeleste summeque venerandum Sacrificium Spirituale illud mysticum donum hostia salutaris salutare donum The mystical Table the heauenly and most honorable Sacrifice That spiritual and Mystical gifte The healthful hoste the healthful gifte And we that should not doubte what thing this first and chiefe Sacrifice is with
accedat Caluin acknovvlegeth the Sacrifice vvas in the ancieÌ„t Churche M. Ievvel denieth nec Domini institutioni consentaneum sit minimè probo That the olde Fathers called the Supper a Sacrifice it is knowenâ— neither can I excuse the custome of the auncient Churche for that with gesture and outward rite they did set forth a certaine fourme of a Sacrifice with the same Ceremonies in a manner Caluin alloweth not the olde Churche yet must vve needes allovv Caluin that were in vse in the olde Testament saue that they vsed the hoste of Bread in place of a beast Whiche thing sith it commeth to nigh to Iewishnes neither is agreable vnto the Institution of the Lorde I doo not allow Thus M. Iewel should haue tolde his tale if he had folowed the chiefe Inuentour and founder of his Geneuian Gospel for so besides heresie he had offended but in pride But now he hath so proclaimed his Chalenge that besides heresie and pride he hath also proued him selfe ignorant rash and impudent And thus is he confuted by his owne chiefe Doctor who being conuicte with euident truth with some modestie confesseth that he could not denie though with intolerable pride he disallowed that whiche he was not hable to disproue So Lucifer knew that his Creator was aboue him yet not lyking wel of it Esai 14. he said I wil be like vnto the highest As concerning the Institution of Christe that by a cleare declaration of it The institution of Christe declared it may appeare by the acte of Christe that at his Supper he offered vp to his Father his body and bloude it is to be considered what he did Doo ye this said he in my remembrance What this This very thing that I now haue done He tooke bread into his handes and lifting vp his eyes vnto heauen as by assured tradition the Churche hath receiued Ambrosius De sacrament li. 4. cap. 5. and S. Ambrose reporteth it as a thing vndoubted and shewing it vnto the Father as we read in S. Iames Masse he gaue thankes vnto him as being the author almighty of al thinges Iacobus in Liturgia from whom al that good is procedeth and as it was accustomed to be done in Sacrifices with a certaine rite of Religion he consecrated the bread blessing it he brake it and gaue it vnto his Disciples to eate saying This is my Body that is geuen for you To whom is it geuen To my Father almighty to whom as being Lorde of al I haue geuen thankes It is geuen I say to my Father presently without bloudshed and in a Mysterie but anonne for his willes sake to be rent and torne and to be put to death Euen so a litle after he said lifting vp his eyes also into Heauen as it is in S. Iohn Iohan. 17. Pro illis ego sanctisico meipsum I sanctifie my selfe for them fulfilling that olde Lawe in deede it selfe Exod. 13. whiche required Num. 8. that euery first begoten should be sanctified vnto our Lorde Luc. 2. that is to say be offered and appointed vnto Gods holy seruice Likewise he tooke the Cuppe after that he had supped saying Mat. 26. This is my bloude of the new Testament that for you and for many is shed Luc. 22. in remission of sinnes This is the visible worke whiche we doo according to the instruction of Christe with which by publique auctoritie bicause Christe so ordeined and commaunded we professe God to be not onely the beginning and end of al thinges the founteine of al felicitie and ende of our desires but also through the Death of his owne Sonne the redemer of al men and the repairer of al thinges which through sinne we had lost That this commemoration ought to be celebrated externally with outward worke S. Paule plainely signifieth saying to the Corinthians So ofte as ye eate this bread 1. Cor. 1â— and drinke of this Cuppe ye doo shew forth the Death of our Lorde vntil he come For that shewing forth can not be made with the internal commemoration of the minde Whiche sense is also signified by the verbe of the present tense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ye doo shew forth our Lordes death for so in the Greke S. Paule speaketh Touching testimonies that may be alleged for further proufe of this Sacrifice bicause it is declared and set forth at large bothe in my Answer to M. Iewels 17. Article and in this Reiondre and for so much as the coÌ„uenient breuitie of a Preface wel beareth not so large a treatie as the dew opening of this point requireth and furthermore least by treating of it here I should withdraw thy desire Reader from perusing that wherewith I haue fortified and made good my Answere for these considerations I referre thee vnto my Reioindre it selfe Now let vs see how the foure thinges whiche after the doctrine of S. Augustine be required in euery Sacrifice August de Trinit lib 4. c. 14. be found in the most blessed Sacrifice of the Aulter 1 To whom oblatioÌ„ is made 2 by whom it is made 3 what is that whiche is offered 4 and for whom it is offered To vvhoÌ„ is OblatioÌ„ made in the Sacrifice of the Churche Concerning the first This doctrine of the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe whiche now we are driuen to defende against the Professours of this newe deuised Gospel was so certainely knowen and generally holden of al men in the first times of the Church that the very Arians who were Heretiques and enemies of Christe thought they had founde an inuincible Argument against the Equalitie of the Sonne of God with the Father bicause in this Sacrifice the Sonne is offered vp vnto the Father For it is certaine said they that he which is offered is lesse then he to whom he is offered To whiche Argument that which Fulgentius an auncient Father writeth may serue for answer who sheweth learnedly writing to Monimus that this Sacrifice is not offered to the Father onely but to the whole Trinitie If â—here be any Catholique beleuers saith he that seemed hitherto to be ignorant of this Sacrifice Fulgenâ—tius lib. 2. ad Moninum from hence forth they ought to knowe that al seruice of euery wourship and healthful Sacrifice OblatioÌ„ is made to the most blessed Trinitie is of the Catholique Churche exhibited both to the Father and to the Sonne and to the Holy Ghoste that is to say to the Holy Trinitie in whose onely name it is manifest that the Holy Baptisme also is celebrated Neither is preiudice goten vnto the Sonne or vnto the Holy Ghoste whiles prayer by him that offereth is directed vnto the person of the Father the ending of which prayer whereas it hath in it the name of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghoste sheweth that no * discrimeÌ„ oddes is in the Trinitie bicause whiles the wordes of honour be directed vnto the person
al forasmuche as we present the body and bloude of Christe vnto the Father in his person and by his commission and beseche his goodnes that in regarde of his body and bloude he wil haue mercie vppon them But we doo not presente these giftes for al as a Price that is exhibited for them whiche thing the propre nature of this oblation comprehendeth in respecte of release of the paines bicause al be not capable that is to say not apte vessels to receiue suche benefite As touching other thinges whiche profitably be asked in the Masse Benifites redounding to vs by the Masse as victorie peace health ceasonable wether and such other the like wherewith mannes miserie is releeued and holpen the Sacrifice of the Masse is auaileable for them according to the order of Gods eternal disposition not onely by reason of the merite of the Priest and of the Churche that offereth but also and that more amply by reason of the qualitie and vertue of the Sacrifice whiche is consecrated in the person of Christe and by his commission But this is by way of Prayer whiche Prayer bicause it is not sitting the wordes of Christe to be frustrate by whiche he committed this Sacrifice vnto vs the Father very oftentimes heareth And whereas he heareth it not the iudgementes of God be secrete For great is the vertue of the signes and Sacramentes of the name of Iesus Christe vnto whose honour the very powers of the Aier are commaunded to yelde and geue place though it be called vppon by euil and for euil persons as S. Augustine very learnedly teacheth in his booke of .83 questions Augu. lib. 83. quaest quaest 79. or who els so euer is author of that booke For in no wise dare any sprites saith he to contemne these signes For they tremble at these where so euer they beholde them but men being vnwitting of it by God an other thing sometime is commaunded For whereas they geue not place vnto these-Signes God him selfe forbiddeth when he iudgeth it iuste and profitable Thus S. Augustine To this very aptly serueth that he writeth in his .22 booke De Ciuitate Dei Where he telleth of a house deliuered from euil Sprites by the Prayers and Sacrifice of the Masse August de Ciuit. Dei lib. 22. c. 8. Hesperius a noble maÌ„ saith he who dwelleth in our countrie hath in the Lordship of Fussala a Ferme called Cubedi Where when he vnderstoode that his house which he hath there susteined great hurte by euil Sprites and that his catail and his Seruauntes were much troubled he besought our Priestes in my absence that one would go thither that by his Prayers they might be driuen away One went and offered vp there the Sacrifice of the body of Christe praying as muche as he was haâ—le that the vexation might ceasse Forthwith by the mercie of God is ceassed S. Gregorie sheweth by many examples that through the Sacrifice of the Masse diuers receiued temporal benefites Grego in Dialogis who neither were present when Masse was said for them nor thought at al of it Also certaine special helpes by this Sacrifice be obteined which of the Diuines are called prima gratia for with these God doth oftentimes helpe them for whom the Sacrifice is offered that the motion of faith and deuotion and desire of the medicine of the Sacramentes be stirred vp in them Thus thou seest Reader what power the Sacrifice of the Masse hath And as this Sacrifice hath vertue to remoue al manner euils from vs so it hath vertue to get and procure al good thinges vnto vs according to the disposition of Gods Prouidence VVhat force the Sacrifice of the Masse hath â—ouching the remissioÌ„ of mortal sinnes Wherefore that also may easily be conceiued which of many men is called in question touching the remission of mortal sinnes Verely the blessed Martyr S. Alexander fifth in the Regester of the Popes saith in his firste epistle that Crimes and sinnes be put out by these Sacrifices offered vp vnto our Lorde And againe that our Lorde is delited and appeased with such Sacrifices and that through them he forgeueth great sinnes Alexander epist. ad oâ—Ì„s orthodoxos For nothing saith he can be greater in Sacrifices then the body and bloud of our Lorde Iulius speaking likewise of the Sacrifices saith that by them offred to God al crime and sinne is quite put out S. Gregorie also saith Iulius De Cons. Distinct. 2. CuÌ„ omne Gregor Dialog 4. Cap. 58. that this Sacrifice singularly saueth the soule from euerlasting destruction Al whiche and sundry other the like sayinges of certaine Fathers are so to be vnderstanded not as though we might obteine remission of such sinnes after Baptisme committed without Absolution of the Priest who is the Ministre of the Sacrament of Penaunce but that this blessed Sacrifice doth geue such grace and worketh so together with the infirmitie of the Penitentes that they may by the Priests be reconciled vnto God And it is so acceptable in the sight of God Sess. 22. Cap. 2. that as the CouÌ„cel of Trent teacheth being appeased by the Oblation of it graunting grace and the gifte of Penaunce he forgeueth Crimes and sinnes yea that be right great As concerning them The Sacrifice of the Masse profitable for the dead 2. Mac. 12 Ioan. 11. August in Enchirid. cap. 110. that with godlinesse are departed this life and haue taken their slepe as the Scripture speaketh and haue not as it behooued them made ful satisfaction whom we beleeue to remaine in Purgatorie although now they be not in state to merite any thing by any operatioÌ„ of their owne wil or to do holesom Penaunce for their sinnes yet bicause they be the members of Christ and felow citizens withal the Saintes felowes and brothers with them the Sacrifice of the Masse profiteth them as it doth the other iuste persons here but that their owne propre deuotioÌ„ caÌ„ helpe them nothing â—s now depending wholly of Christ and of the Church For although God in the day of our departure hence as it is said of the wise man do rendre to euery man according to his waies Eccle. 11. yet after the doctrine of S. Augustin this much by their good workes they haue deserued at Gods hand whiles they lyued here August in Enchirid. ad LaureÌ„ti cap. 11â— that these common dueties of Christian felowship might profit them also after their departure hence For els it should seme very vniuste and iniurious vnto the body of Christe if there were any members of it to which being in distresse it could not procure succour The motion of contrition and charitie with whiche they departed hence for els they remaine not in Purgatorie is a disposition Athanas. in quaest ad AntiochuÌ„ q. 34. Chrysost. ad pop Antioch Homil. 69 Sermo 3. in epist. ad Philip. Damas. in Oratione de ijs qui hinc in fide migraâ—â—nâ— whiche
Sacrifices of both testamentes is diuers Secondly touching the substance it is diuers in the Sacrifices of both Testamentes For the substance of the olde Sacrifices was a brute beaste meale cakes oile wine and such the like But the substance of our Sacrifice nowe frequented in the newe Testament is the Body and Bloud of Christ. Luc. 22. So both the Scripture teacheth shewing how Christe hauing at his supper consecrated his body and bloude commaunded his disciples to doe the same that he had done in his remembrance and S. Augustine declareth in these woordes August in lib. senten Prosperi Hoc est quod dicimus quod modis omnibus approbare contendimus Sacrificium Ecclesiae duobus confici duobus constare visibili elemētorum specie inuisibili Domini nostri Iesu Christi corpore sanguine sacramento re Sacramenti This is that we say that by al meanes we ernestly endeuour to approue that the Sacrifice of the Churche is made of two thinges and doth consiste of two thinges of the visible forme of the Elementes and of the inuisible body and bloude of our Lorde Iesus Christ of the Sacrament and of the thing of the Sacrament that is to wit of the body of Christe S. Ireneus agreably to this doctrine Irene lib. 4. ca. 34. saith the Euchariste to consiste of two thinges the one earthly whereby he meaneth the forme of the elementes the other heauenly that is to say the body and bloud of Christe Learne Reader by this doctrine of S. Augustine The substance of bread and vvine hath no place in our Sacrifice that the substance of bread and wine which be called here the Elements hath no place in our Sacrifice which doth consist of two partes the one visible the other inuisible The formes of the Elementes be the visible parte As for the substance of bread and wine it is vtterly inuisible But the inuisible parte of the Sacrifice is the body and Bloud of Christ. And therfore onlesse we appoint two inuisible partes of this Sacrifice that is to say the substance of bread and wine and also the body and bloud of Christe which were absurde to thinke it must nedes be confessed that no place is here lefte for the substāce of bread and wine but that the inuisible thing or substance of the Sacrament and likewise of the Sacrifice is the body and bloud of Christe And thus it is euidēt that the substance of the Sacrifices of the olde Law and of the Sacrifices of the new Law is sundry and diuerse Wherof it is concluded that it is either ignorātly and grossely or heretically said if it be stubbornly mainteined that our Sacrifice is one in substance with the Iewish Sacrifices The effectes of the Sacrifices of both Lawes be differēt and diuers Now thirdly to speake of the effect of the Sacrifices of the olde Lawe and of the Sacrifice of the Churche wherein Christ is offered vp vnto his Father in a Sacrament and mystically to wit vnder the forme of bread and wine certaine it is the effectes be diuers To declare fully the manyfolde and heauenly effectes of our Sacrifice farre surmounting any effecte that euer was ascribed to the Sacrifices of the olde Lawe it would require a long treatise The difference of both may sufficiently appeare by comparing two or three of their effectes together The bloude of the Sacrifices of the olde Lawe confirmed the same Lawe The bloude of our Sacrifice confirmeth the newe Testamente Math. 26. Hic est Sanguis meus noui Testamenti this is my bloude of the newe Testamente saieth our Lorde in the Gospel Howe much diuersitie then is betwene the newe Testament and the olde which is incomparably great the new Law passing in excellencie the olde so much differeth and so far surmounteth the effect of the Sacrifice of Christes Church the effecte of the Sacrifices of the Iewish Synagogue Againe August de fide ad Petrum cap. 19. to vse your owne witnesse against your selfe by reporte of Saint Augustine the olde Sacrifices signified in Figures Christes death to come and to be suffered But the Sacrifice of the Churche representeth with the real presence of that body which hath dyed the death already past and perfited And who knoweth not what difference there is betwene a promise and the performance of the promise Performance I say for although in our Sacrifice the death of Christe be not performed a new and againe suffred yet in the same is the truth of that very body inuisibly present which by suffering death hath payd the price of our Redemption In consideration whereof S. Augustine speaking of this Sacrifice offred vnto God for that blessed woman S. Monica his mother at her burial Augustin Confes. lib. 9. cap. 12. whereby he meaneth the Masse calleth it Sacrificium pretij nostri the Sacrifice of our Price that is to say wherewith our Raunsome was payd S. Ignatius ascribeth to our Sacrifice of a faithful person worthily receiued Ignatius in epist. ad Ephesios a maruelous effecte calling it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a medicine of immortalitie and a preseruatiue whereby we may be kepte from dying Which maruelous benefite who euer attributed to the Sacrifices of the olde Lawe Other the like effectes which the olde learned Fathers haue ascribed vnto the blessed Sacrifice be many in number and great in excellencie of which the olde Sacrifices were neuer hable to worke any Wherefore you ought to recant this your false doctrine M. Iewel that the Sacrifices of both Lawes be of one effecte or which is the same one in effecte No lesse false is that you affirme that as we haue Mysteries so had they Mysteries specially yf your worde of comparison imply a likenes and equalitie of Mysteries as the purport of your other doctrine leadeth vs to iudge of you For although it be true that they had Mysteries and we also haue Mysteries yet had not they the like Mysteries nor equal in dignitie truth and plainesse to our Mysteries and Sacramentes Howe much ours are preferred before theirs in the iudgemente of S. Augustine August in Psal. 73. it is euident by that he saith speaking of bothe Mutata sunt Sacramenta facta sunt faciliora pauciora salubriora feliciora The Sacramentes saith he be chaunged they be made easier fewer healthfuller happier And in the same place Sacramenta noui Testamenti dant Salutem sacramenta veteris Testamenti promiserunt Saluatorem The Sacramentes of the newe Testamente geue saluation the Sacramentes of the olde Testamente promised the Sauiour Wherefore M. Iewel either make vs beleue that you are to be heard before S. Augustine and that better is worse and worse better or reuoke your woordes by which you teache likenes and equalitie betwene the Mysteries and Sacramentes of both Testamentes M. Ievvel vtterly taketh avvay the real Sacrifice of the nevv Testamēt Where you say further that as we Sacrifice Christe so did
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
you swarue very much from the meaning and purpose of Tertullian For he saith not that the Preaching of the Ghospel is that cleane Sacrifice which Malachie prophecied of but farre otherwise Tertullian hauing spoken of the two kindes of Sacrifices of the two peoples the Iewes and the Gentiles foreshewed at the beginning in th' oblations of Cain Genes 4. and Abel demaundeth whereas Gods law geuen by Moyses required the carnal sacrifices to be made by the people of Israel in the land of promise and nowher els why the holy Ghost afterward notwithstanding by Malachie Psal. 95. and also by Dauid fortelleth that the Iewes earthly and fleshly sacrifices should ceasse and that spiritual Sacrifices should be offered vp to God ouer the whole world Vnto this question he answereth him selfe Tertulliae contra Iudaeos and saith Indubitatè quòd in omni terra exire habebat praedicatio ApostoloruÌ„ that is to say Vndoubtedly bicause the preaching of th'Apostles was to come forth ouer al the world This assuredly is the true abbrigement and meaning of Tertullians woordes there TertuliaÌ„s place truly declared And cleare it is he saith not that the Preaching of the Ghospell is the pure Sacrifice that Malachie speaketh of as you vntruly reporte of him but onely that the holy Ghoste foresignified by Malachie and by Dauid that the Iewes sacrifices being abolished pure sacrifices should be offered among al Nations of the earth bicause it should come to passe that the Apostles should preach ouer the whole worlde So that by Tertullians verdite the preaching of the Gospel was not that pure Sacrifice it selfe spoken of by Malachie but the Apostles preaching that then was to come was the cause why Malachie and Dauid enspired of the holy Ghoste fortolde the ceassing of the Iewes carnal sacrifices and the setting vp or vse of the Gentiles spiritual Sacrifices More then this which is nothing at al TertulliaÌ„ in that place maketh not for you Leaue leaue M. Iewel for your credites sake if nothing els can moue you to deceiue vnlearned soules whom Christe hath so derely bought with sayinges of your owne forging fathering them vpon the auncient Doctours It is a manifest token what litle good stuffe ye haue to defend your new ghospel withal whereas ye set forth your owne pelfe vnder the name of the auncient writer Tertullian Wherein ye folow false Lapidanies and Goldsmithes who sel Cristal and glasse for true pretious stoanes and gilted copper for pure golde Your other three places which you pretend to allege out of Tertullian S. Hierome and Eusebius be not with such forme of wordes by those Fathers set forth as you here reporte them The sleight of falsifiyng that you so coÌ„monly vse in this place for your purpose maketh but only a colourable shew to the ignoraÌ„t who beleue what so euer you say to the learned who by diligent examition wil serch what you say a substantial proufe in dede it maketh not Thymiama oblatio munda Al be it I graunt wheras the Prophecie of Malachie speaketh of two thinges thymiama incense and Oblatio munda the cleane Oblation or Sacriâ—ice that the best learned Fathers haue expounded the Incense of Prayer and the cleane Oblation of the Sacrifice of the Aulter that is now offered in the Churche through the whole worlde Where Tertullian disputing with Marcion the heretike expoundeth it of Prayer Contra MarcioneÌ„ lib. 4. either it is his priuate sense which bringeth no preiudice vnto the doctrine of the Catholike Churche VVhat Tertullian meant by pure praier or he meaneth it as the other Fathers doo of the Sacrifice of the Aulter which is coÌ„secrate with prayer For so the olde learned Fathers cal the wordes of Consecration Els if it should be expounded of al manner of prayer or of prayer in general as it is made of ech priuate man it can not alwaies seme to be the cleane Sacrifice prophecied of by Malachie bicause the same is made by those that be not altogether pure Prouerbior 20. and without spot of sinne For so the Scripture witnesseth who can say my hart is cleane I am cleane froÌ„ sinne But the Prayer wherewith the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe is consecrate 1. Pet. 2. being the wordes of our Lorde Esai 53. who neuer did synne nor was guile found in his mouth is both in that respect pure and cleane and also for that it is pronounced by the Priest as the publike minister of the Churche whose priuate vncleannes what so euer it be in that behalfe impaireth not the worthinesse of the sacrifice nor of the prayer wherewith it is conâ—ecrate Who also at what time he offered that Sacrifice ought specially to be of a pure coÌ„science And therefore Tertullian hauing rehersed the woordes of Malachie though some what otherwise then either the seuenty Interpretours or the Hebrue bookes haue and otherwise then he him selfe rehersed them writing against the Iewes in euery place shal be offered vp in my name sacrifice Tertullia aduersus Marcion lib. 4. and the cleane Sacrifice might wel adde further by way of exposition scilicet simplex oratio de conscientia pura to wit simple or pure prayer from a cleane conscience In which prophecie the prophete fortelleth that God hath disposed a better Sacrifice to be offered vp vnto his name then the sacrifices were which the Iewes offered Simple Prayer By simple prayer he meaneth such as is not tempered and mingled with any sinneful infection of humane affections of which sorte is the prayer of coÌ„secration of this Sacrifice as that which is the worde of our Lorde and not the worde of man Whose prayer as al other his actions proceding out of his corrupte harte is steined with some spotte of synne wereunto oure nature corrupted in Adam is thral and subiecte The wordes of Consecration of the Sacrament called by the name of prayer If to any it seme strange the wordes wherewith the body and bloude of Christe are consecrate to be called a prayer by reading the olde learned Fathers he shal finde it so termed in sundry places Instinus martyr in 2. Apolog. S. Iustine the Martyr speaking of the blessed Sacrament nameth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the foode which is made the Eucharist through the prayer of the worde that we haue of him he meaneth Christe Loe he calleth the consecration the Prayer of the woorde that Christ deliuered vnto his Apostles and consequently to their successours Priestes of the new Testament S. Augustine writing vnto Paulinus saith Precationes accipimus dictas Augustin ad Paulinum Epistol 59. quas facimus in celebratione SacramentoruÌ„ antequam illud quod est in Domini mensa incipiat benedici Orationes cuÌ„ benedicitur sanctificatur ad distribuenduÌ„ coÌ„minuitur We take PrecatioÌ„es to be called those praiers which we make in the celebratioÌ„ of the sacramentes before that which is on our Lordes table beginne to
be blessed and OratioÌ„es we take for the praiers that be said when that which is on our Lordes table is blessed and sanctified or consecrated and broken to be distributed Againe he saith there excepto nomine generali orationis ea propriè intelligenda est Oratio quaÌ„ facimus ad votum id est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vouentur auteÌ„ omnia quae offeruntur Deo maximè sancti Altaris Oblatio c. Beside the general name of Praier that properly is to be vnderstaÌ„ded praier which we make at vowe And al thinges are vowed which be offred vnto God chiefly the OblatioÌ„ of the holy Aulter Sith then that is properly a praier which is made at vow that is to say when we vow ought vnto God and what thinges so euer we offer vnto God the same be vowed that is to wit by the seruice of our harte be geueÌ„ dedicated and rendred vnto God thereby to protest our faith in him to thanke him to praise him to honour him to shewe ourselues myndeful of his benefites among al thinges the Oblation of the Aulter being that which is chiefly vowed it foloweth that the Consecration is specially to be called and accompted prayer S. Hierome likewise called the wordes of Consecration by the name of Praier Hierony ad Euâ—grium where he saith in his Epistle to Euagrius Quid patitur mensarum minister vt super eos se tumidus efferat ad quorum preces Christi corpus sanguisque conficitur What aileth the minister of tables wherby he meanetha DeacoÌ„ to swel and aduaunce him selfe ouer them he speaketh there of Priestes at whose Prayers the body and bloude of Christe is consecrated What shal I neede to allege mo Fathers for proufe of a thing so wel knowen to them that be conuersant in their bookes Wherefore seing the worde of Consecration is the woorde of prayer whereby the body and bloude of Christe the Sacrifice of our Raunsom as S. Augustine calleth it Augustin Confess libro 9. cap. 12. is by vs offered vp and vowed vnto God that a remembrance of his death be celebrated of our parte and that mercie be extended vnto vs of Gods parte for that bodies sake represented and offered vp which hath dyed for vs and seing in the same we our selues are also offered vp dedicated vowed and rendred vnto God bicause therein Christe our head whereof we be members is offered the worde of Consecration in this consideration being most properly ond truly a prayer yea if I may so terme it an actual prayer bicause it is such a woorde as fulfilleth the acte of the Sacrifice it standeth with good reason and learning that Tertullian expounding the cleane Sacrifice wherof Malachie speaketh of prayer be vnderstanded to meane the oblation and Sacrifice of the Aulter as being that which is the highest kinde of prayer and of worshipping God that can be Thus that you bring out of TertulliaÌ„ maketh nothing for excuse of them of your side whom I noted for wresting the place of Malachie for that by their ouerthwart and false interpretations they racke it from the meaning of the Sacrifice of the Aulter offered vp vnto God in the new Testament in al places among the Gentiles by Priestes after the order of Melchisedek vnder Christe TOuching the two other Doctours S. Hierome and Eusebius whom you allege for you as expounding this place of Malachie of praier whereby though they so did you see the Sacrifice of the Aulter is not excluded let vs see whether in them you haue vsed a more truth and fidelitie then you haue in Tertullian Verily were you myne Aduersarie neuer so much yet for truthes sake I can not but geue you this commendation You shewe your selfe alwaies in your writing one manner a man which is a token of great constancie I meane that lightly you neuer recite any Doctour but you falsifie him The practise of falsifiers and corrupte his meaning by clipping away of parte or by changing of woordes or by adding of your owne or by keeping close some what that goeth before or commeth after or by conceeling the circumstances of the places alleged by one way or other He knoweth say you meaning of me that Saint Hierome expoundeth the same woordes in this wise Dicit orationes sanctorum Domino offerendas esse non in vna orbis prouincia Iudaea sed in omni loco The Prophete Malachie meaneth hereby so you interprete that the praiers of holy people should be offered vnto God not onely in Iewrie that was but one prouince of the worlde but also in al places For the right vnderstanding of this point I pray thee Reader peruse the place of S. Hierome thy selfe beleue thine owne eyes beleue not such false iugglers Which counsel I aduise thee to obserue not onely for trial of this one place but also for trial of other places which M. Iewel bringeth in defence of any his negatiue Articles Verily neither hath S. Hierom these very wordes in such order M. Ievvel falsifieth S. Hierome as they be here laid forth and the whole sentence vewed and considered together maketh directly for the Catholike doctrine which I defend and quite against that M. Iewel saith To thintent I be plainer though longer here I wil reherse the whole place as we finde it written in S. Hierome Thus he saith Hieron in Commen in Malac. cap. 1. Propriè ad Sacerdotes Iudaeorum sermo fit Domini qui offerunt coecum claudum languidum ad immolandum vt sciant carnalibus victimis spirituales victimas successur as Et nequaquam taurorum hircorumque sanguinem sed thymiama hoc est Sanctorum Orationes Domino offerendas non in vna orbis prouincia Iudaea nec in vna Iudaeae vrbe HierusaleÌ„ sed in omni loco offerri oblationem nequaquaÌ„ immundaÌ„ vt à populo Israel sed mundaÌ„ vt in Ceremoniis Christianorum Ab ortu enim solis vsque ad occasum magnum est nomen Domini in gentibus c. The worde of our Lord is nowe properly vttered vnto the Priestes of the Iewes who do offer that which is blind lame and sickely to be sacrificed to thintent they might know that spiritual sacrifices should succede their carnal Sacrifices And that the bloude of bulles and goates should no more be offered vnto our Lorde but Incense that is to say the Prayers of Holy men and that not in Iewrie only which is but one prouince of the world nor in Ierusalem only which is but one Citie of Iewrie but in euery place there is offered an Oblation not an vncleane one as was offered of the people of Israel but a cleane one as is offred vp in the Ceremonies of the Christians For from the rising of the sunne to the setting the name of our Lorde is greate among the Gentiles This Prophet speaketh of two things Tvvo thinges spoken of by Malachie the one don amoÌ„g the Iewes and now to be leafte of the
sheadding of his Bloude in remission of sinnes is an Oblation of the same Ergo Christe offered his body and bloud at the Supper And thus datur signifieth here as much as offertur Now this beinge true that our Lorde offered him selfe vnto his Father at his last Supper hauing geuen coÌ„mandement to his Apostles to do the same that he there did whom then he ordeined Priestes of the newe Testament saying Doo this in my remeÌ„brance as ClemeÌ„t doth plainly shew Lib. 8. Apostol CoÌ„stitut cap. vltimo the same charge perteining no lesse to the Priestes that be now the successours of the Apostles in this behalfe then to the Apostles them selues it doth right wel appear howe so euer M. Iuel assureth him selfe of the contrary and what so euer the Diuel hath wrought and by his Ministers taught against the Sacrifice of the Masse that Priestes haue auctoritie to offer vp Christe vnto his Father Iewel Here M. Harding beginneth to scanne his Tenses to rip vp Syllables and to hunte for Letters And in the ende buildeth vp the highest Castle of his Religion vpon a gheasse I maruel that so learned a man vvoulde either vse so vnlearned argumentes or hauing such stoare of Authorities as he pretendeth vvould euer make so simple choise He saith These wordes Is Geuen Is Shead be wordes of Sacrificing though the Terme it self of Oblation and Sacrifice be not expressed Here M. Harding bâ—sides that he hath imagined a straÌ„ge Construction of his ovvne that neuer any learned man knevve before and so straggleth alone and svvarueth from al the Olde Fathers includeth also a repugnance and Contradiction against him selfe For vvhereas vvoordes and termes sound both one thing the one being mere Englishe the other borovved of the Latine M. Harding saith Christe in the Institution of his Supper vsed the VVordes of Sacrificing and yet expressed not the Termes of Sacrificinge Suche Priuilege these menne haue vvith shifte of termes to beguile the vvorlde For if Christe vsed the vvordes of Sacrificing hovv can M. Harding say He vsed not the Termes of Sacrificing and yf he vsed not the Termes vvordes and Termes being one thing hovv can he say He vsed the vvordes Harding Litle regarding what M. Iewel saith in the lying and scoffing entrie that he maketh vnto his Replie in this Diuision The chief pointes of M. Iewels Replie in the 4. Diuision I wil first briefly note vnto thee good Reader the pointes wherein the weight of his whole tale standeth That done I wil answer to them in such order as they shal be proponed First he would prooue that my wordes include a repugnance and contradiction against my selfe Secondly he chargeth me with controlling the Olde common Translation of the Newe Testament Thirdly he would a contradiction to seme to be implyed in my doctrine Fourthly he burtheneth me with the corruption and falsifying of S. Clement Fifthly and lastly he auoucheth that Christe by these woordes Luc. 22. Doo ye this in my remembrance made not the Apostles Priestes nor gaue them nor their Successours auctoritie therby to consecrate and offer vp in Sacrifice his Body and Bloude but that what so euer was by these wordes commaunded to be done it perteined vnto the whole people as wel as vnto the Apostles So he denieth vtterly the singular and external Sacrifice of the Churche confoundeth the order of the Mysteries and referreth al to eating of bread and drinking of wine in remembrance of Christe These be the pointes he treateh of in this Diuision whereby his intent and endeuour is to reproue my Answer vnto his Chalenge But with how substantial and piththy reasons or authorities he performeth it when they shal be examined and disclosed it wil appeare Touching the first the mater is sone answered Lyes make no proufe This is your common grace M. Iewel M. Iewels custome for your aduantage in one place to make me say lesse then I doo in an other place more then I doo in euery place other â—yse then I doo Why do you here by false abbridging of my wordes attribute that vnto two verbes Is geuen and Is shed which I ascribe vnto the whole sentence In my Ansvvere fol. 165. b Lothe I am to fyl vp the paper with repeating that I said before but your impudencie driueth me vnto it Read the place againe There as you knowe I say thus Luc. 22. Whereas the holy Euangelistes reporte that Christe at his last supper tooke Bread gaue thankes brake it and said This is my body wich is geuen for you Againe this is my bloude which is shed for you in remission of synnesâ— By these woordes being woordes of sacrificing and offering they shewe and set forth an Oblation in acte and deede though the terme it selfe of Oblation or Sacrifice be not expressed Vse as much pryieng as you can in these woordes where finde you the Contradiction M. Ievvel â—aineth a lye vpon his aduersary and therevpoÌ„ descaÌ„â—eth I graunt you that woordes and termes sounde both one thing But where said I that Christe in the Institution of his supper vsed the woordes of sacrificing and yet expressed not the termes of sacrificing For thus you make me to speake and therevpon you dally at your pleasure and grounding your selfe vpon a lye you seme to conclude absurditie against me as though I had said that Christe vsed the wordes of sacrificing and yet had denied that he vsed the termes of sacrificing Which had ben very vaine and fonde wordes and termes being one thing Now the truth is I said not the one ne denied not the other Here one of vs both must needes be found a lyer If it be not you tel al the worlde for clearing of your selfe and for sauing your Ministerships honestie where I say that Christ vsed not the termes of sacrificing The woordes by which the Euangelistes do describe what Christe did at his last supper doo importe and implie the signification of sacrificing and offering Christe say they toke bread into his handes gaue thankes brake it and said This is my body whiche is geuen for you Againe This is my bloud which is shed for you in remission of synnes Bicause these wordes do report and set forth an oblation in acte and deede therfore I said and might wel so say they were wordes of sacrificing and offering Yet in al this description there is not founde this expresse terme Sacrifice or Oblation I referred me to the EuaÌ„gelistes description and you referre al to the wordes of Christe If you marke my wordes wel you shal finde therein reported not only woordes but also an acte of Christe and by the Euangelistes who declare the whole an oblation shewed and set forth in acte and deede this very terme it selfe of OblatioÌ„ or Sacrifice not expressed and this to be shewed and set forth whereby I meane the Gospel written not by Christe but by the EuaÌ„gelistes Againe whereas I said of the woordes of the Gospel that they were wordes
his intent is to report vnto the simple to wit an external and sensible shedding which was done only at the tyme of his Passiō That the mater might seme the more absurde and vnreasonable If saith he Christes Sacrifice made at the Supper were vnbloudy how then did he there shed his bloud If he did shed his bloud how can that Sacrifice be called vnbloudy Why Sir wil you nedes haue the Mysteries of this Singular and peerlesse Sacrifice to be discussed by reason and not to be conceiued only by faith Wil you require the meane of this Sacrifice to be set forth euidently vnto you which is secret as Nyssen before mentioned saith inuisible and vnspeakeable S. Paule him selfe where he speaketh of the Priesthoode of Christe after the order of Melchisedek Heb. 5. saith he not that thereof he hath much to say and that the things be hard to expound These howe 's and questions M. Iewel become Iewes Infidels and Heretikes much better then a true Christian man Christes bloud was shed at his Supper so as it is now shed in the daily Sacrifice of the Aulter that is to say in a mysterie and in a Sacrament by a meane to man inuisible and vnspeakeable Bicause his bloud is beneficial vnto vs to redemption in that it was once actually externally and with death drawen forth of his body In cōsideration thereof where so euer that bloud is by the almighty power of our Lords worde in the Sacrifice made and exhibited we thinke it no absurditie nor inconuenience to say that his bloude is shed in a mysterie and vnbloudily Whereby we meane that not only his memorie is celebrated but also that the effecte of the bloudy shedding of his bloude that is to say the effect of his death is thereby applied vnto vs hauing faith and being disposed as we ought to be as if he were now hanging on the Crosse and presently bleeding before our eyes For to shew this and that of the Crosse to be one and the selfe Sacrifice we offer him saith Theophylact perinde ac si esset hoc tempore immolatus Theophylact in cap. 10. ad Heb. as if he were at this very time sacrificed Againe hanc hostiam semper vt praesentem offerimus we offer vp this hoste alwaies as if it were present saith he meaning the visible presence vpon the Crosse for otherwise it is present And therefore it may truly be termed an vnbloudy shedding of bloude the terme of shedding being referred to the bloude by the power of the worde of consecration made present offered presented and verily exhibited the terme vnbloudy referred to the manner of offering and exhibiting it without any such violence as was done vnto the person of Christe by the Souldiers who with thornes nailes and speare drew bloud of him when he hong on the Crosse. That no doubte remaine to speake so plainely as I can of this high Mysterie thus it is The bloude of Christe we confesse is the price of our Redemption in that it was once shed vpon the Crosse. That bloude and body whereof it issued out is the Hoste of our Saluation That very bloude is here made present in the Sacrifice of the Aulter by vertue of Christes worde and is said presently to be shed whiche neuer the lesse we vnderstand to be done in mysterie and in remēbrance of that which was shed vpon the Crosse bicause the effecte of that external shedding by this is applied vnto vs as if it were now in our sight offered and shed The vnbloudy shedding of bloud This shedding may be and is called vnbloudy as the offering and the Sacrificing of Christ and as the death is called vnbloudy For like as is the Sacrifice such is the Death Where is bloudy Sacrifice there is bloudy Death Where is the vnbloudy Sacrifice there is the vnbloudy Death and consequently the mystical and vnbloudy Sheddding of bloude But for better credite and that it seme not strange let vs confirme this pointe with some testimonies of Ancient Faters where the like speaches are vttered S. Gregorie saith Gregorius Dialog 4. cap. 58. De consec di 2. Quid sit Christus in seipso immortaliter viuens iterum in hoc mysterio moritur ◠Christe who liueth immortally in him selfe in this Mysterie dieth againe S. Augustine likewise Semel immolatus est in semetipso Christus tamen quotidie immolatur in Sacramento Christe was sacrificed in him selfe once August epist 23. De Conse dist 2. Semel De Conse dist 2. Iteratur and yet is he sacrificed daily in a Sacrament Paschasius saith in like manner Quotidie Christus mysticè pro nobis immolatur Passio Christi in Mysterio traditur c. Christe is daily sacrificed for vs mystically and the Passion of Christe is in a mysterie deliuered To be shorte Eusebius Caesarienses Cyrillus S. Chrysostome Theophylacte Euthymius S. Gregorie Nazianzen and in manner all the other Fathers doo cal this Incruentam immolationem the vnbloudy sacrificing and vnbloudy Hoste By the whiche Christe to effecte is so sacrificed for vs as to them who were present when he offered him selfe on the Crosse yet so as this Sacrifice take effecte of that And that there be truely and properly a Sacrifice it is yenough that Christes death be so now applyed to remission of synne as if he him selfe now dyed In these former and the like sayinges the Fathers doo set forth the way and meane of this Sacrifice of this Death and consequently of this shedding of Christes bloude as they may seeme to signifie not obscurely their vnablenesse to expresse the same terming it Sacrifice in a Sacrament Death in a Mysterie Sacrificing mystical The whiche wordes Sacrament and Mysterie doo not importe a signification of absence of the thing reported to be sacrificed to be shed and to dye but the secrete manner of sacrificing shedding and dying And bicause this oblation is not with shedding of bloude whiche bloude may presently be sene but by application of the bloude already shed it is of the auncient Fathers rightly called an vnbloudy Sacrifice S. Chrysostome ioyning Hostiam an Hoste and Incruentam Chrysost. in Psal. 95. Vnbloudy together could vnderstand an vnbloudy shedding of bloude in a Mysterie and thought it not absurde Yet neuerthelesse a man that standeth wel in his owne conceite and skanneth al Diuinitie by Phrases as M. Iewel doth might finde mater in it to vtter a scoffe or two and demaunde of Chrysostome if it be an Hoste how is it vnbloudy If it be vnbloudy how can it be an Hoste seing that an Hoste hath not bene woont to be offered without bloudshedding Likewise S. Gregorie Nazianzen that great Diuine hauing respect vnto the body and bloude of Christe offred by the Priestes in the Sacrament feared not to set together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gregor Nazian in Carminibus ad Episcopos sacrifices and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnbloudy saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O
ye Priestes that offer vp vnbloudy Sacrifices And to put al out of doubte that he meant it of the Sacrifice of the Body and Bloude of Christe he addeth further in the same place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O yee that beare the wrought worke of Greate GOD in your handes Whereby he meaneth the true and real Body of Christe in the Sacrament Theophylacte also among other is very plaine where he saith thus Theophylactus in 10. cap. ad Hebr. Num ipsi sine sanguine immolamus Omnimo Sed nunc reminiscimur mortis Domini Do we also sacrifice without bloude Yea verely But now in our Sacrifice we remember the death of our Lorde The Greke woorde which Theophylacte vseth is such as properly signifieth the killing of a lyuing thing Here is a woorde alone for M. Iewel to vtter his scoffing eloquence vpon Do we kill Then how without bloude If without bloude how then do we kill Thus the learned Fathers being persuaded that through the almighty power of Christes woordes his flesh and bloude are really exhibited and made present in the Sacrament thought it no absurditie in this singular Sacrifice to ioyne those termes together which in no truth could stand together in the order and manner of offering the olde sacrifices or Christes Sacrifice vpon the Crosse. If M. Iewel wil here replie and say that the ioyning of these vnagreeing termes together is an Argument that the Fathers meant not to auouche a true and Real Sacrifice but a figuratiue Sacrifice onely how can it not appeare most absurde to thinke that whereas they affirme Christes Real flesh and bloude to be made present by vertue of his woorde to th ende it be the Sacrifice of the newe Testament and likewise where as they teache this Sacrifice and this hoste to be one with that of the Crosse they should meane no true and Real Sacrifice but onely a Figuratiue Sacrifice And wilt thou vnderstand Christian Reader how the olde Fathers of the Churche meane where they reporte the Sacrifice of the Aulter to be one with the Sacrifice of the Crosse In vvhat sense the Fathers make the sacrifice of the Aulter and of the Crosse one Sacrifice Verely they meane as euery where we teache the Hoste or the thinge sacrificed to be one and the very selfe same vpon the Aulter and vpon the Crosse. For witnesse hereof heare S. Chrysostome Hauing asked this question Quomodo vna est Hostia non multae How is it one Hoste and not many After a few wordes he saith Id ipsum semper offerimus Nec nunc quidem alium agnum â—rastina alium Chrysost. homil 17. in Epist. ad Heb. sed semper eundem ipsum Proinde vnum est hoc Sacrificium hac ratione We offer vp alwaies the selfe same thing Neither doo we offer one Lambe to day an other to morow but alwaies one the selfe same Therefore this is but one Sacrifice by this reason Hacratione or in consideration hereof that is to say bicause the thinge whiche is offered is one Christe is our high Bishop there saith he further which hath offered vp the hoste that cleanseth vs of our sinnes the same offer we now also which being then offered can not be consumed If we offer the same hoste and sacrifice that Christe offered whereby we are made cleane from our sinnes whiche is the sacrifice of the Crosse it foloweth that this be a true and real sacrifice in respecte of the thing sacrificed as that was By this M. Iewel may vnderstand how lawful it is for me to speake as the catholique Churche speaketh that Christe is offered vp vnto his Father by the Priestes of the new Testament verely really and in deede Now let vs see what substance there is in al that wherewith he burdeneth me touching S. Clement Iewel As for Clemens vvhom M. Harding so often calleth the Apostles felovve as he is but lately start vp and comme abroade and therefore hath not yet gotten sufficient credit and in here brought in dumme and saieing nothing so is he not vvorthy of further ansvveare Hovve be it M. Harding dooth greate vvrong othervvise to report his Authours vvordes then he findeth them Truely his Clemens vvhat so euer he vvere saith not The Priest hath CommissioÌ„ or Power to offer vp the Sonne of God Clemens Constit. Apostoli lib. 6. cap. 30. Clemens Constit. Apostol lib. 8. His vvordes are plaine to the contrary Antytipon Regalis Corporis Christi offerte Offer ye vp not the Bodie of Christe but the Signe or Sacramente of the Roial Bodie of Christe Likevvise againe he saith Offerimus tibi Regi Deo iuxta Institutionem Christi Hunc Panem hoc Poculum VVee offer vp vnto thee our Kinge and God not the very Bodie of thy Sonne Really and in dede but This Breade and this Cuppe accordinge to Christes Institution It is a greate Prerogatiue for M. Hardinge both to make Doctours of his ovvne and also to geue them his ovvne Constructions Harding First Philip. 4. Hierony in peroratione traÌ„slatoris ad finem CoÌ„meÌ„tariorum Origenis in epist ad Romanos he laboureth to put him out of credite to that ende vsing prety light termes but neuer a weighty reason He is but lately start vp and come abroad saith he For whereas I cal him the Apostles felow and that not often as he saith he should be offended with the Apostles who so vsed him and with S. Hierome who so calleth him Next he reproueth me after his scoffing manner for that I bring him in dumme and saying nothing Lastly he chargeth me with reporting my authours wordes otherwise then I finde them That S. Clement can not truly be said lately to haue started vp as it pleaseth M. Iewel to speake I haue in my Reioindre to his first Article sufficiently proued his Antiquitie Page .29 b and authoritie as there the Reader may see S. ClemeÌ„t not brought in duÌ„me I do not bring him in dumme To referre the Reader vnto a special place of a writer is not to bring him in dumme So I in my Answer referred the Reader to the eight booke and last chapter of S. Clements Constitutions There shal he finde a cleare testimonie for the vnbloudy Sacrifice for the Priesthod and for the Institution and commaundement of the exercise of the same al which M. Iewel denieth The wordes for breuities sake I rehersed not To aduertise the Reader of the place I thought it yenough Least M. Iewel charge me againe with S. Clements dumnesse Clemens in Constitut li. 8 cap. vlt. certaine of his wordes here briefly to satisfie the man I am content to allege Thus then he saith Christe the only begoten sonne of God by nature is the first high Bishop who tooke not honour vnto him selfe but was ordeined of his Father Christe made Sacrifice before his Passion and commaunded the same to be coÌ„tinued who for our sake being made man and
deny the Argument For there be two kindes of signes One is significatiue onely the other exhibitiue which doth not only betoken or signifie but also exhibiteth and geueth the thing signified In the olde Lawe the vnleuened bread signified onely that the feast of Easter was to be celebrated with sinceritie of harte and life The corporal purgations signified only the cleansing of myndes But Baptisme in the newe Lawe doth not only signifie but also exhibiteth and worketh the Wasshing of synnes and is the ablution it selfe or wasshing away of sinnes Likewise the holy Euchariste doth not onely betoken or signifie the body and bloud of Christe but contineth and exhibiteth it present Signū signatum exhibitiuū and is the very body and bloude of Christ it is signū signatū exhibitiuū Thus it appeareth how the Sacramentaries Argument is naught The Sacrament is a signe ergo it is not the body For it is both a signe and the body it sefe For if any wil say it is a signe significatiue only it is to be denied as false and contrary to the manifest wordes of Scripture and the expositions of al the Fathers Now I reporte me to the iudgement of the discrete Reader what aduauntage M. Iewel hath gotten by the terme antitypon alleged out of S. Clement against the blessed Sacrifice of the Churche S. Clemēt corrupted by M. Ievvel On the other side what aduauntage may iustly be taken against him for that most falsly he hath corrupted his author For looke Reader vpon the shorte testimonie which he allegeth out of S. Clement and thou shal finde that M. Iewel hath cut of out of the middest two wordes of greatest force for the vnderstanding of that goeth there immediatly before that by falshod he might geue at least some colour vnto his Reply where in truth he had none at al. The wordes falsly cut away be these Clemen Constitut. lib. 6. cap. 30. acceptabilemque Eucharistiam So that the whole sentence is this in S. Clement Antitypum regalis corporis Christi acceptabilēque Eucharistiam offerte in Ecclesiis coemeteriis vestris Offer ye vp the sampler of the roial body of Christ and the acceptable Euchariste in your Churches and burying places These two wordes with the sleight of falsifying nipte away by M. Iewel be so requisite to the vnderstanding of the authours meaning that without them mater of cauil by reason of the terme antitypon may be ministred vnto such as be more ready to impugne then to defend the doctrine of the vniuersal Churche touching the substance of the Sacrament and Sacrifice of the Aulter Contrarywise being leaft in the sentence considered and rightly vnderstanded they exclude al occasion of doubte or cauil that might rise through the other terme of more obscuritie For the Euchariste without doubt in that age being taken for the body of Christ how can it be conceiued that the other terme antitypon in the same place ioyned by a copulatiue together with it should importe the contrary That S. Clement meant by the Eucharist the true and real body of Christe it is euident by that we finde in the learned Fathers of that age namely S. Ignatius and S. Ireneus who lyued in or sone after S. Clementes tyme. S. Irenaeus saith Irenaeus lib. 4. ca. 34. that the breade hauing receiued the calling vpon of the name of God whereby he meaneth the Consecration is no more common bread but Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terrena coelesti the Euchariste consisting of two thinges the one earthly whereby he vnderstandeth the forme of bread the other heauenly which is the body of our Sauiour The Euchariste maketh our bodies to be immortal And that it appeare certainely that he thought the Euchariste to be the body and bloude of Christe he proueth that our bodies shal not remaine in corruption but haue the resurrection that is hoped for bicause they receiue the Euchariste and be fed with the flesh and bloude of our Lorde Ignat. ad Smyrnen apud theo dorit li. 3. Dialog S. Ignatius likewise in an Epistle ad Smyrnenses as Theodoritus allegeth him in the third booke of his Dialogues writing against certaine Heretikes that would haue neither Euchariste nor Sacrifice auoucheth the Eucharist to be the flesh of Christe The Eutheriste is the flesh of Christ that suffered for vs. These be his wordes Eucharistias oblationes non admittunt eò quòd non confiteantur Eucharistiā esse carnēseruatoris nostri Iesu Christi quae pro peccatis nostris passa est quam Pater sua benignitate suscitauit Eucharistes and oblations they wil not admit bicause they wil not confesse the Euchariste to be the flesh of our Sauiour Iesus Christe which flesh suffered for our sinnes and which the Father of his goodnes raised vp from death Marke Reader this auncient Father and blessed Martyr saith not the Euchariste signifieth Christes flesh but is Christes flesh yea that flesh which was crucified buried and rose againe And although Theodoritus alleged this authoritie to proue that it was the humaine flesh and not the Godhed of Christe that suffered death and rose againe which he proueth by the later parte of the same yet it principally proueth our purpose that the Euchariste is the true flesh of Christe Againe onlesse the selfe same flesh of Christe be in the Euchariste which died vpon the Crosse and rose againe this authoritie auailed Theodoritus nothing to proue that Christes flesh was crucified and raised vp againe Wherefore for so much as it is cleare by the testimonies of S. Ignatius and S. Irenaeus who liued not long after S. Clements time that the beleefe of their age was the Euchariste to be the flesh and bloude of Christe how can M. Iewel kepe his credite with any man that loueth truth and not seme to haue intended crafte and deceite in that of purpose least the truth should appeare manifest he falsified his auctor by clipping away those two wordes from the middest of the sentence that make directly against him and put away al doubte of contrary sense Thus to mainteine the false doctrine of his arrogant Chalenge he feareth not to violate the Fathers to corrupte their writings to deceiue the worlde to purchase him selfe the most reprocheful name of a falsifier By such champions such quarrels are mainteined Constitut. lib. 8. As for the other place of S. Clement where he saith offerimus hunc panem hoc poculum we offer this breade and this cuppe who nowe a daies knoweth not that the Sacrament sometimes is called by the name of breade and wine not bicause the substance of breade and wine remaineth but bicause the outwarde formes taft and other qualities of breade and wine be sene felt and perceiued bicause before consecration it was breade and wine and bicause it is the true breade and wine that came downe from heauen Neither doth S. Clement which is to be noted
of the body and bloude being two thinges that are offered he calleth it the Sacrifices of Christes table as now the Churche coÌ„monly calleth it the Sacrifice of the Aulter Touching the third kinde of sacrifices he nameth them first in general by the terme of vnbodyly and spiritual sacrifices Afterward particularly he calleth them the sacrifice of praise of praiers of lifting vp the haÌ„des of a contrite harte The sacrifice of thankes geuing by these very termes he nameth not In dede I confesse that where he saith we sacrifice the memorie of the great Sacrifice meaning that of the Crosse celebrating it according to the mysteries deliuered vnto vs by Christe There he saith further that we offer vp vnto God by godly hymnes and prayers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eucharistiam pro salute nostra the Euchariste for our saluation whiche peraduenture M. Iewel had rather to cal the thankes geuing for our saluation To shewe that the first and chiefe kinde of sacrifice was prophecied of in the time of the olde Testament he allegeth the Prophete Dauid Psal. 39. saying Oblationem sacrificium noluisti corpus autem aptasti mihi Oblation and sacrifice thou refusedst and had framed me a body For the sacrifices of the third kinde Psal. 49. he allegeth the knowen scriptures offer vnto God the sacrifice of praise and render vnto the highest thy vowes and cal vpon me in the day of â—ribulation Psal. 140. Psal. 50. and I wil deliuer thee Againe The lifâ—ing vp of my handes is an euening sacrifice Item A contrite spirite is a sacrifice to God c. In this order is to be placed the sacrifice of thankes geuing which M. Iewel strangely and absurdly auoucheth to be that whiche Eusebius calleth by the name of the Sacrifices of Christes table Now concerning the second kinde of Sacrifice The Sacrifices of Christes table vvhat they are that Eusebius speaketh of which is the sacrifice of th'Aulter or as the termeth it the dreadful Sacrifices of Christes table whiles he allegeth the prophecies of Dauid and of Esay for it he sheweth clearely that he meant not thereby the sacrifice of thankes principally or praise for the Sacrifice once made vpon the Crosse nor the Ministration of the holy Communion of which M. Iewel confusely expoundeth Eusebius but the holy Mysteries of Christes table to wit the Body and Blounde of Christe vnder the formes of bread and wine offered at the table in remembrance of Christes death Which I confesse neuer the lesse alwaies to be offered not without the Sacrifice of thankes and praise and with that Sacrifice we doo thanke and praise God most principally The saying of Dauid propheciyng of the Sacrifices of this table Psal. 22. as Eusebius allegeth is this Parasti in conspectu meomensam aduersus eos qui tribulant me Impinguasti in oleo caput meum calix tuus inebrians me quà m fortissimè Thou hast prepared before mine eyes a table against those that trouble me thou hast anointed my head with oile and thy Cuppe maketh me dronke after a most stroÌ„g wise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Expressely and manifestly in these wordes saith Eusebius is signified the mystical Chrisme or ointment and the dreadful or honorable Sacrifices of Christes table Verely this soueraigne praise that Dauid after the mynde of Eusebius geueth vnto the mystical Cuppe of our Lordes table can not seme to be attributed vnto the Cuppe of the Sacramentarie Suppers which conteineth in it no better thing then common wine It is the bloud of Christe not a suppe of common wine that doth moist and inebriate a man in that most strong wise wherof Dauid prophecied The Hebrew worde importing signification of great abundance maketh muche for this sense and quite contrary to the Sacramentarie doctrine From Dauid he goeth to Esay the Prophete alleging among other thinges a saying out of him signifiyng that the Lorde of bostes should do maruelous thinges in al nations What those thinges are the prophete declareth They shal haue pleasant drinke saith he they shal drinke wine They shal be annointed with an ointment in this hil Vpon these wordes of Esay thus saith Eusebius These maruelous thinges that Esay speaketh of did promise not to Israel but to al nations the annointing of a good sweete smelle and of ointmeÌ„tes by reason whereof bicause of the annointing of the ointment they obteined to be called Christians that is to say the annointed Then folow the wordes which declare what he meant by the Sacrifices of Christes table Furthermore saith he this prophete prophecieth vnto the Gentiles of the pleasantnes of wine secretly signifying the Mysterie of the new Testament of Christe which is manifestly celebrated at this time among al nations Thus Eusebius in that place expounding the prophecies of Dauid and of Esay promising the inebriating Cuppe and gifte of wine vnto the Gentiles of the blessed Sacrifice of Christes table which as it is called a table for that the heauenly foode is thence ministred vnto vs so it is called also an Aulter in respect of the oblation and Sacrifice there made and solemnized doth plainely signifie what he vnderstode by the Sacrifices of Christes table soothly not the sacrifice of thankes geuing principally which semeth to the vnlearned to consist onely in wordes but the Sacrifices of the body and bloude of Christe and consequently Christe him selfe And therfore that place of Eusebius is in my Answer to the Chalenge rightly and aptly to my purpose alleged as the whiche proueth against M. Iewel that the Priest hath auctoritie to offer vp Christe vnto his Father Yet if M. Iewel wil not ceasse to cal for his owne termes August Epist. 174. not being content with termes equiualent I thinke good to answer him as S. Augustine answered Pascentius the Arian crying importunatly for the terme Homusion to be shewed him in the Scriptures Quid est contentiosius quà m vbi de re constat certare de nomine What is a more contentious parte then to striue about the name when the thing it selfe is certainely knowen But now M. Iewel bringeth in S. Augustine Eusebius and S. Gregorie Nazianzen to witnesse with him that the ministration of the holy Communion is called a Sacrifice bicause therein thankes and Praises be offered vp vnto God for the Sacrifice made vpon the Crosse. To this I answer that these Fathers can not be shewed so much as once to haue named the Sacrifice of the Ministration of the Communion nor that this Ministration of the CommunioÌ„ is in any of their workes expressely called a Sacrifice He should haue done wel if he had made it cleare what he meaneth by this holy CommunioÌ„ and what by the Ministration of the same That the Ministration of the Communion is a Sacrifice I trowe it is a speache neuer heard of in the Churche of God before these Ministring prelates came to teache vs a new faith If he vnderstand by the holy Communion the new deuise of
Dionysius had put such a difference as you imagin wil it necessarily folowe that in the place alleged in my Answer he maketh not mention of offering Christe vnto his Father This kinde of reason in any mater is faulty but in this mater it is most faulty For albeit the manner of the oblatiō or Sacrifice made vpon the Crosse be diuers from that which Christe made at his Supper and is now continued by the Priestes in the Masse yet the thing it selfe offred and substance is al one in both Sacrifices In epistol ad Hebr. Hom. 17. as it hath ben clearely proued before by testimonie of S. Chrysostom and others So that the shewing of some difference betwene them doth not exclude the thing or substance of either of them nor concludeth them so to be diuers but the one may wel stande with the other Touching the mater of the former Argument it is euidently false For S. Dionyse in that place treateth not of difference betwene this and that Sacrifice as you M. Iewel would haue him appeare to doo by wilful falsifying of the place by putting in woordes of your owne and by clipping away wordes of that holy Doctour These be S. Dionyses wordes Dionys. eccles Hierarc Cap. 3. p. 3. as they lye in the Greeke faithfully englished Wherefore the Diuine Bishop standing at the Diuine Aulter doth praise the said holy and godly actions of IESVS for his heauenly prouidence towardes vs whiche actions he according to the Scripture perfited for the saluation of Mankinde through the good pleasure of his most holy Father in the Holy Ghoste And after that he hath ended the praises and beholden the reuerent and spiritual contemplation of those thinges with the eyes of vnderstanding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he commeth vnto the Mystical Sacrifice of them and that according to Gods tradition By Gods tradition he meaneth that which Christe taught his Disciples at the Supper how and after what manner Luc. 22. they should offer this Sacrifice in remembrance of his death Now gentle Reader conferre this testimonie of S. Dionyse and M. Iewels falsified allegation together Note first that the Bisshop or Priest is said to stand at the holy Aulter Aulter That clause M. Iewel hath quite cutte of And by the way consider to what purpose serueth an Aulther M. Ievvel falsifieth S Dionyse onlesse there be a Real and outwarde Sacrifice to be made Nexte that there is no mention at al made of the flesh or Crosse of Christe which termes he hath patched in of his owne Thirdly the good pleasure of the Father and holy Ghoste is leafte out To be shorte whereas the praises be rendred not onely for Christes passion wrought in his flesh vpon the Crosse albe it◠specially for that but also for the doinges of his whole life as for his birth his fasting his praying his preaching and the reste he to make his fained differēce to appeare hath drawen them vnto the thinges onely wrought by Christe vpon the Crosse. Such a licentious priuilege this man taketh vnto him selfe to pare and hew lesse and to enlarge at his owne pleasure the saynges of the most auncient and learned Fathers Againe whereas the Greeke hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for which the Latine translation vseth this circumlocution sacra mysteria in signis celebranda the holy Mysteries that are to be celebrated in or vnder signes he translateth it by the basest worde that he coulde inuent of that signification calling it Figuratiue sacrifice craftily intending to bring into the Readers mynde and conceit thereby that this Sacrifice wherein after praises in manner for al the actions of Christes life the body and bloude of Christe are offred vp should appeare to be no better then a bare figure or then the figuratiue sacrifices of the olde lawe The premisses considered what man but M. Iewel would haue presumed to set abroad to the worlde in printe a sentence of an olde writer so hewed and hackled so bodged and peeced so corruptly translated And who but he could espie in that saying any cleare and plaine difference betwen the Sacrifice of the Crosse and the Sacrifice of the Aulter which guilefully he calleth the Sacrifice of the holy Communion such a one as he impudently auoucheth to be But here S. Dionyse saith he calleth not the Ministration of the holy Mysteries the sacrificing of Christe I graunt How could he so cal it here that is to say in this your falsified sentence which S. Dionyse neuer vttered And sir what if S. Dionyse do not so cal it What maketh that to the point that presently we treate of Mine endeuour was not to shewe that S. Dionyse calleth the Ministration of the Mysteries the sacrificing of Christe but that in deede he sacrificed the body and bloude of Christe and consequently Christe him selfe And bicause it semed to him very much a mortal man to offer vp the body and bloude of his Lorde reuerently and in seemely wise he maketh his excuse saying Lorde thou hast said Doo ye this in my remembrance As who should say Lorde hadst thou not by thine expresse worde commaunded vs so to doo I would not be so bolde as to take that vpon me which so farre passeth my worthinesse Hunt not after wordes and syllables M. Iewel When ye haue the thing it selfe whereof ye contende what a vaine wrangling is it to require certaine precise termes So when somtimes we bring you forth your owne very wordes then you make a brabbling about the meaning These be the poore shiftes of such as being ouercomme that by the confession of their silence they might not seme ouercomme wil not holde their peace This is that S. Augustine reproued in Pascentius the Arian whereof you were tolde before August epist. 174. What is a more contentious parte saith he then to striue about the name of Homusion he meaneth where the thing it selfe is certainely knowen What can you demaunde more Haue you not here a manifest witnesse of sacrificing the healthful Sacrifice which S. Dionyse acknowlegeth to be aboue his degree and worthinesse What other is that then the body and bloude of Christe What is to be accompted healthful in comparison of that which is as S. Augustine calleth it August Confess lib. 9. ca. 12. the Sacrifice of our Raunsom That is to say of that thing whereby we haue ben bought from the Deuil from hel and euerlasting damnation If you say this saying is to be expounded of the sacrifice of praise and thankes geuing tel vs who euer gaue the title of so soueraine honour vnto such kinde of Sacrifice Though it be our duetie and also healthful for vs to offer vp the sacrifice of praise and thankes yet who euer called it hostiam salutarem the healthful hoste The sacrifice of praise here I meane as it is our owne spiritual worke for otherwise I confesse the blessed Sacrifice it selfe of the body and bloude of Christe is also
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
the Euangelist by Polycarpus S. Iohns scholar He declareth it with these wordes Eum qui ex creatura Panis est Lib. 4. cap. â—3 accepit gratias egit dicens Hoc est Corpus meum Et Calicem similiter qui est ex creatura quae est secundùm nos suum Sanguinem confessus est Noui Testamenti nouam docuit Oblationem quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens in vniuerso mundo offert Deo De quo in duodecim Prophetis Malachias sic presignificauit Malac. 1. Non est mihi voluntas in vobis dicit DOMINVS exercituum munus non suscipiam de manu vestra He tooke that which by creation is breade and gaue thankes sayinge This is my Body And likewise the Cuppe ful of that Creature whiche is here with vs and confessed it to be his Bloude and thus taught the newe Oblation of the Nwe Testamente whiche the Churche receiuinge of the Apostles dooth offer to God through the whole worlde whereof Malachie one of the twelue Prophetes did prophecie thus I haue no likinge in you saith our Lord almightie neither wil I take Sacrifice of your handes bicause from the risinge of the Sunne to the going downe of the same my name is glorified amonge the Nations and Incense is offered to my name in euery place and pure Sacrifice for that my name is greate amonge Nations What can be vnderstanded by this newe Oblation of the Newe Testamente other then the Oblation of that which he saide to be his Body and confessed to be his Bloude And if he had offered Breade and Wine onely or the Figure of his Body and Bloude in Bread and Wine it had beene no Newe Oblation for suche had beene made by Melchisedech longe before Neither can the Prophecie of Malachie be vnderstanded of the Oblation of Christe vppon the Crosse forasmuche as that was doone but at one time onely and in one certaine place of the worlde in Golgoltha a place without the gates of Hierusalem neare to the walles of that Citie Concerninge the Sacrifice of a contrite and an humbled harte and al other Sacrifices of our deuotion that be mere Spiritual they can not be called the Newe Oblation of the newe Testament forasmuche as they were doone as wel in the Olde Testamente as in the Newe neither be they altogeather pure Wherefore this place of Ireneus and also the Prophecie of Malachie wherewith it is confirmed must needes be referred to the Sacrifice and Oblation of the Bodie and Bloude of Christe daily throughout the whole worlde offered to God in the Masse which is the external Sacrifice of the Churche and proper to the Newe Testament which as Ireneus saith the Churche receiued of the Apostles and the Apostles of Christe Iewel Here at laste M. Harding hath founde out the name of a Sacrifice that vvas not denied him But the Sacrifice that he hath so long sought for and hath so assuredly promised to finde hitherto he hath not founde For Ireneus not once nameth neither the Masse nor this Real Oblation of the Sonne of God vnto his Father Malac. 1. Thus onely he saith God hath vtterly misliked Martialis ad Burdegalenses and refused the olde Carnal Sacrifices of the Iewes and hath taught vs to offer vp the New Sacrifice of the new Testamente according to the Prophecie of Malachie This Sacrifice M. Harding imagineth Tertul. contra Iudaeos can be none other but the offering vp of Christ in the Masse These Conclusions be very suddaine The Olde learned Fathers could neuer vnderstande so much One of M. Hardings ovvne Nevve founde Doctours Tertul. contra Marcio lib. 4. Martialis saith thus Oblatio munda non tantùm in Ara Sanctificata offertur sed etiam vbique The pure Sacrjfice which Malachie meaneth is offered not only vppon the Holy Aultare or Communion Table but also euery where M. Harding saith Hieron in 1. cap. Malach It is offered onely vppon the Aulter Martialis saith It is offered euerywhere and not onely vpon the Aultare Certainely if Malachie meante the Sacrifice that may be offered in al places Hieron in Zacha. li. 2. cap. 8. and vvithout an Aultare as Martialis saith then he meante not the Sacrifice of the Masse Tertullian saith That the Prophete Malachie by that pure Sacrifice meant the Preaching of the Gospel the offering vp of a Contrite Harte Aug. contra aduer Legis Prophet cap. 20. and praier proceeding from a pure Conscience S. Hierom likevvise expoundeth the same of the Sacrifice of Praier and openeth it by these VVordes of the Prophete Dauid Let my Praier be directed as incense before thy sight S. Augustine calleth the same Sacrificium Laudis Gratiarum actionis The Sacrifice of Praise Contra Liter Petilian lib. 2. cap. 86. and of Thankesgeuinge Harding What truth thou arte like to find in M. Iewels Reply to the rest of this Diuision thou maist sone coÌ„ceiue Reader seing he maketh his entrie with so shamelesse and so open a lye Here at the last saith he M. Harding hath found the name of Sacrifice And but here at the laste good Sir As though expresse mention of Sacrifice were not conteined in sundry testimonies before alleged Where be your eyes Nay where is your fidelitie Where is your sinceritie Where is your honestie Where is your shamefastnesse Doth not S. Dionyse in the last Diuision before this name the Sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hesych li. 1. cap. 4. that is aboue his worthynesse Doth not Hesychius say that Christe at his Supper sacrificed him selfe Doth not Eusebius reporte vnto you the dreadful Sacrifices of Christes Table I leaue the reste Diony Ecclesiast Hierarch c. 1. p. 3. For shame M. Iewel if you haue no way to escape the iust request of your promised Subscription but by lying yet haue some regarde of your estimation that the very simplest of the worlde espye not out your so grosse lying And now touching the chiefe point of this Diuision what thinke you to auoide the strength of S. Irenaeus testimonie for the Sacrifice bicause he nameth not the Masse expressely nor the real Oblation of the Sonne of God vnto his Fatherâ— Why Sir then wil you not staÌ„d to the mater but cowardly flie away and lurke in termes How be it the real Oblation of the Sonne of God vnto his Father if you wil needes put the trust of your cause in termes if you remember be not the wordes of your owne Chalenge If this Argument be good that here you make S. Irenaeus not once nameth the Masse nor real Oblation of the Sonne of God vnto his Father Ergo by him the Sacrifice of the Churche can not be auouched why may not this also be as good Not one of the foure Euangelistes saith expressely that Christe offered or sacrificed him selfe vpon the Crosse nor once nameth that Sacrifice of Christe Ergo Christe was not sacrificed for vs vpon the Crosse If this Argument
Rocke was not Christe in deede Ergo Neither Christe is the Sacrifice If he make this Argument I denie his Maior or first Proposition For the Rocke was Christe in signe onely but Christes body and bloud Really made present by the almighty power of the Worde is in deede the substance of the commemoratiue Sacrifice Wherefore no likenesse touching the Phrase being betwen these two Propositions the Rocke was Christe and Christe is the Sacrifice the one can not rightly be applyed to ouerthrowe the other And whereas M. Iewel maketh his colourable aduantage by making Sacrifice the nominatiue case to the verbe in this saing of S. Cyprian In Sacrificio quod Christus est he is to be tolde that he misconstrueth it and that false coÌ„structioÌ„ maketh no proufe For S. Cyprian saith not the Sacrifice is Christ which also is true and that taketh M. Iewel for his purpose but Christe is the Sacrifice In coÌ„sideratioÌ„ wherof the figuratiue saying and the Phrase of the Rock and the great number of his other phrases serueth not his turne That the Sacrifice after the order of Melchisedech was not onely vpon the Crosse but also at the Supper Vpon this false constructioÌ„ of S. Cyprians saying how so euer he procedeth speaking coÌ„fusely of the sacrifice which is after the order of Melchisedek and of the propitiation for the synnes of the worlde this I acknowledge that onely Iesus Christe the Sonne of God is the propitiatorie Sacrifice for the synnes of the worlde and that such a Sacrifice in most perfit wise he was vpoÌ„ the Crosse yea also after th' order of Melchisedek wher as Melchisedek offred bread and wine so he offered vp his body and bloud Hieronym in Psalm 109. the true bread and the true wine as s. Ierom saith For al though he expressed the shadowes of al Aarons sacrifices vpon the Crosse yet ther he was a Priest after the order of Melchisedek For so S. Paule in th'Epistle to the Hebrues sheweth by the dissimilitude of both Priesthods But that he was a sacrifice after th' order of Melchisedek only when he hoong vpoÌ„ the Crosse that I denie For he was a Priest and also a sacrifice after th' order of Melchisedek at his last supper at what time offring vp his body and bloud vnder the formes of bread and wine he began to execute th' office of the Priesthod after th' order of Melchisedek and taught his Disciples the way Theophyl in Matth. cap. 28. how after his death to make the same oblatioÌ„ Vpon which coÌ„sideratioÌ„ Theophylact as it is before rehersed saith Tunc iÌ„molauit seipsuÌ„ ex quo tradidiâ— Discipulis corpus suuÌ„ he sacrificed him selfe at the time he deliuered his body to his Disciples And S. Austine more plainly August de ciuit Dei lib. 17. capit 20. expounding this place of Ecclesiastes Non est bonuÌ„ homini nisi quod maÌ„ducabit et bibet wher he saith thus Quid credibilius etc. What is more credible we should thinke SalomoÌ„ meant by those wordes then that perteineth to the participatioÌ„ of this table which Christ him selfe a Priest and mediator of the new TestameÌ„t doth exhibit after the order of Melchisedek of his body and bloud For that sacrifice did succede al other sacrifices of the olde Testament which were offred in the shadow of this to come A litle before in the same chapter speaking of the Table which Christe prepared with bread and wine he geueth an euideÌ„t testimonie for the Sacrifice and Priesthod after th' order of Melchisedek where he saith thus Vbi apparet etiaÌ„ fâ—cerdotiuÌ„ secunduÌ„ ordineÌ„ Melchisedech that is to say where also appeareth the priesthod after the order of Melchisedek By this authoritie it is cleare that Christ at the table wher the blessed SacrameÌ„t was first instituted and is now daily celebrated in memorie of his Passion doth exhibite that which is a sacrifice after the order of Melchisedech which can be nothing els but the Sacrifice of his body and bloude vnder the formes of bread and wine That Christ merited the forgeuenes and propitiatioÌ„ of the sinnes of the world vpoÌ„ the Crosse only that I gladly graunt As for the Sacrifice and Priesthode after the order of Melchisedech S. Augustine in an other place saith August in Psalm 33. concion 2. that Christe at his Supper instituted a Sacrifice of his body and bloude according to the order of Melchisedech De corpore et saÌ„guine suo of his body and bloud saith he signifying his body and bloud to be the mater of the Sacrifice Lo here againe it is plainely auouched that Christe instituted a Sacrifice after the order of Melchisedech before he was nayled vpon the Crosse yea the Sacrifice of his body and bloude For to the time of the Supper this is to be referred when both he taught them how and commaunded them to sacrifice Of this Sacrifice S. Augustine in the sermon there nexte before geueth vs a manifest testimonie where he saith Nondum erat Sacrificium corporis sanguinis Domini quod fideles norunt Ibidem in Psal. 33. CoÌ„cion 1. qui Euangelium legerunt quod sacrificium nunc diffusum est toto orbe terrarum The Sacrifice of the body and bloude of our Lorde was not yet in place he speaketh of the time when beastes were sacrificed which the faithful do knowe and they that haue reade the Gospel Which Sacrifice is now spreade abroade in al the worlde Let M. Iewel tel vs what iâ— this Sacrifice of the body and bloude of our Lorde that is diffused and spread ouer al the worlde besides that is celebrated in the Masse and then we wil say he saith somewhat to his purpose NOw M. Iewel departeth from our special point which is as it is auouched by S. Ireneus S. Cyprian and others that Christe offered his body and bloude vnto God at his Supper and commaunded the same sacrifice to be offered by Priestes of the newe Testament in remembrance of his death and commeth to proue that whereof no question was moued That the Ministration of the holy Mysteries in a phrase and manner of speach is the same Sacrifice How be it what he meaneth by his ministerlike termes wel I wote not He sheweth him selfe inconstant in the vse of them In this one Diuision he calleth it first The ministration of the holy Mysteries Nexte the Ministration of the holy Communion Thirdly the Sacrifice of the holy Communion For the same he allegeth a certaine saying as he telleth vs out of S. Augustine vpon the .20 Psalme where he hath no such saying at al. The place he meaneth is in Gratian. Where it speaketh not of M. Iewels Ministration of the holy Mysteries which I trow in his meaning is the Ministration of bread and wine at the Geuenian Communion for what other holy Mysteries they haue I knowe not nor of the Sacrifice that is daily celebrated in the Churche but of the solemnitie which once in
Example a Commemoration a Remembrance of the Deathe of Christe This kinde of Sacrifice vvas neuer denied but M. Hardinges Real Sacrifice vvas yet neuer proued De Consecat Distin 2. CuÌ„ fraÌ„gitur So saithe S. Augustine Cùm hostia frangitur sanguis in ora Fidelium funditur quid aliud quà m Dominici Corporis in Cruce Immolatio significatur VVen the Oblation is broken and the Bloude that is to say The Sacrament of the Bloude is powred into the mouthes of the Faitheful what other thinge is there signified but the Sacrifice of Our Lordes Bodye vpon the Chrosse Harding How so euer it like you to scorne at our stoare the multitude of cleare testimonies for proufe of the Sacrifice to the learned can not be vnknowen Were it so that ye had but one making so directly against it as these two here and sundry others in this Article by me alleged make for it ye would haue made no smal stoare of it In bookes and pulpites in tauernes and alebenches your trompettes long er this should haue proclaimed it As for these two places let vs see how your sclender Replie is farre to light so to carry away the weight of them First touching S. Chrysostome with what plainer termes with what more effectual wordes could any man haue expressed the truth of our Sacrifice That Priestes haue auctoritie to offer vp Christ vnto his Father If we that be Priestes offer vp now also the selfe same hoste which our Bishop Christe hath offered vpon the Crosse euen that hoste which cleanseth vs from our sinnes as S. Chrysostome saith that being none other but the precious flesh and bloud of Christ that is to say Christe him selfe for he offered him selfe to his Father to cleanse vs how haue not Priestes auctoritie to offer vp Christ vnto his Father which is the expresse Article that you denye That euery simple man may haue in readinesse an Argument against such false teachers for the Sacrifice An Arment for the vnlearned to prooue the Sacrifice thus for their sake it may be framed Who so euer do offer vp the selfe same hoste which Christ hath offered they offer vp Christe The Priestes offer the same that Christe offered Ergo they offer vp Christe The Maior is euident in it selfe the Minor is S. Chrysostomes the Argument being good the Conclusion must needes be true That it may the better appeare of what force M. Iewels Replie is S. Chrysostomes place examined vvith the Replie of M. Ievv this much is to be considered That in this place of S. Chrysostome consisting of two partes two thinges are auouched In the first parte he geueth vs his witnesse for the substaÌ„ce of this Sacrifice which Priestes do now offer in the Churche In the second parte he declareth one ende wherein the Sacrifice offered by Priestes doth differ from the Sacrifice offered by Christ him selfe Christ our Bishop saith he offered the cleansing hoste Ad Heb. Hom. 17. But we offer that â—oste in commemoration Which is as much to say The ende of the Sacrifice that Christe offered was to cleanse vs from our synnes The ende of the Sacrifice that is done by Priestes is to renewe daily the memorie of this cleansing Sacrifice and so consequently to deriue and apply vnto the deuoute and faithful people as also vnto them selues the fruit and effecte of it In Epist. ad Heb. Hom. 17. The identitie of the substance of either Sacrifice and the diuersitie of the ende of either Sacrifice is plainely taught by S. Chrysostome in that Homilie Now let vs examine your Replie Three thinges attributed to this saying of S. Chrysostâ— by M. Ievv You attribute vnto S. Chrysostome for hauing vttered the saying that I here allege three thinges The first is that in these wordes marke Reader what this man saith He openeth him selfe The second is that he sheweth in what sense other auncient Fathers vsed this worde Sacrifice The third is that he ouerthroweth M. Hardings whole purpose touching the Sacrifice Surely this is very much and were it also true I maruel why neither your selfe nor any of your felowes euer heretofore alleged it against the Sacrifice But certaine we are ye shal wring hard before ye wring this muche out of these wordes Hovv S. ChrysostoÌ„ openeth him selfe against M. Iewel That in these wordes he openeth him selfe I may easily graunt you But that opening is openly against your open Sacramentarie heresie For whereas you denie the oblation and Sacrifice of the Church he saith that now also we offer whereas you denie that we offer Christe to the Father he saith we offer now also the selfe same hoste which our high Bishop Christe hath offered And to put it out of doubte what hoste he meaneth he openeth him selfe as you say calling it hostiam mundantem nos the hoste that cleanseth vs which can be none other but Christe him selfe And bicause the hostes that were offered in sacrifice in the olde lawe were forthwith consumed to shewe the excellencie of this hoste he saith of it that being then that is to say vpon the Crosse offered it can not be consumed And therefore in the same Homilie he saith that it is otherwise with vs now then it was with the Iewes For they on diuers daies offered diuers lambes but we saith he offer not one lambe to day and an other lambe to morowe but alwaies we offer one and the same lambe S. Chrysostom returned vpon M. Ievvel Touching the second point if in these wordes let them be consideratly perused S. Chrysostome shewe in what sense other auncient Fathers haue vsed this woorde Sacrifice then by the auncient Fathers your doctrine touching the truth of Christes body in the blessed Sacrament M. Ievv ouershot him selfe in alleging this place of S. Chrysostom is quite ouerthrowen For he calleth it most expressely the Hoste that cleanseth vs from our sinnes which Christe our high Bishop offered vp for vs vppon the Crosse. If the auncient Fathers when so euer they speake of the hoste that is offered vp by Priestes in the Sacrifice of the Churche meane thus as S. Chrysostome speaketh then are they of our side by your owne confession then is the Catholike Doctrine concerning the Sacrament and the Sacrifice by them against your heresie confirmed and mainteined God be praised by whose prouidence the Truth is confessed by the ennemies of Truth Certainely here you ouershote your selfe in telling the truth against your selfe vnwares Here then I shal aduertise the Christian Reader to beare these wordes of S. Chrysostome in memorie and to consider wel of them for so much as in them he openeth him selfe as Mayster Iewel confesseth and sheweth what meaning the auncient Fathers had when they spake of the Sacrifice of the Churche But how in these wordes he ouerthroweth my purpose touching the Sacrifice or rather the vniuersal Doctrine of the whole Churche that neither I nor M. Iewel him selfe nor any
the difference betwene this and that is this That was the Sacrifice that cleanseth our synnes with his bloude actually shed and redemed vs by vertue of it selfe This is the Commemoratiue Sacrifice which is offered in commemoration of that hauing for the substance of it the same body and bloude of Christe that was offered vpon the Crosse by vertue of Consecration made really present and applieth vnto vs the merite and effecte of the cleansing and redemption wrought and perfourmed vpon the Crosse. Then immediatly foloweth the last sentence of the Homilie a parte whereof you haue taken for your purpose Non aliud Sacrificiū sicut Pontifex sed idipsum semper offerimus caet we offer not an other Sacrifice as the Bishop of the olde lawe did but alwayes we offer the very same that Christe offered or rather we worke the remembrance of the Sacrifice In the Discourse of S Chrysostom out of whiche M. Iewel hath piked and culled out certaine peeces three thinges in effect are declared First that we offer secondly that our manner of offering is other then Christes was therefore ours is called a sampler of that and it is donne in commemoration of his Death Thirdly that the Hoste or thing offered in either Sacrifice is one and the same in substance which is the true body of Christe Graunt vs the first and the last that is to say that we offer in deede yea and that the same Hoste which Christe offered and to al men of reason and iudgement though our Sacrifice be a sampler of Christes Sacrifice vpō the Crosse and though it be done for commemoration of that shal our Real Sacrifice be sufficiently proued For what is our endeuour in this Article but to proue that we offer vnto God that which Christo our Bishop hath offered which is Christe him selfe And whereas making vp your Epiphonema you say with more brauarie then truth Thus we offer vp Christe that is to say an example a commemoration a remembrāce of the Death of Christe I neuer heard of such a that is to say before specially if the real presence by these wordes be excluded as your meaning is O what impudencie is this Differēce betvven the hoste and the commemoratiō Doth not S. Chrysostom by your selfe alleged make a plaine distinction and difference betwen the hoste offered and the remembrance saying that which we doo is done for a commemoration Doth it not therby appeare that somewhat must be done before and besides the Commemoration Who euer so confounded thinges as as by your absurde and false interpretation you doo making the body and bloude of Christe or Christe him selfe and the remembrance of Christes death one thing What is this your meaning as though the substance of the Sacrifice were nothing els but the remembrance of Christes death Let this once be graunted and why may not any man or woman make vs as good a Sacrifice at their table at home in their owne howse as your selfe can at the Communion table in our Ladies Churche at Sarisburie For at that homely table may Christes death be remembred aswel as at your Communion table This kinde of Sacrifice say you speaking of the commemoration of Christes Death was neuer denied As in a right sense it is very true and was neuer by vs denied for the deuoute remembrance of Christes Death by it selfe considered is a kinde of spiritual Sacrifice so if you meane thereby to exclude the truth of the thing offered whiche is the body and bloud of Christe M. Ievvel alvvaies cōcludeth the denial of one truth by thaffirmation of an other truth and serue vs with a shewe and a remembrance onely distinct from the true thing it selfe that is offered which seemeth to be your whole drifte this parte of your doctrine we vtterly denie and tel you that for maintenance of the same you vse a fond and vaine reason For what an Argument is it when two thinges be bothe true by the affirmation of the one to conclude the denial of the other As for example what witte wil allowe this Argument The Sunne shineth Ergo it raineth not or Ergo it is not colde whereas many times we see it raine and feele it colde when the Sunne shyneth cleare and bright Right so we tel you and neuer stint telling you which neuerthelesse ye dissemble to vnderstand that this your common Argument is naught the Sacrifice which we offer is a sampler or a commemoration of that which Christe offered Ergo it is not the same which Christe offered For in diuers respectes it is bothe as now we haue proued by S. Chrysostome It is the same in substance that is to say the substance of that was offered vpon the Crosse and of that is offered by Priestes is the Masse in one and the same but it is diuers in the manner of offering For that was offered bloudily this vnbloudily in mysterie and by way of commemoration So it is the body and Bloud of Christe offered and also a commemoration of the bloudy offering The testimonie of S. Augustine I maruel what you meant to allege it maketh quite against you For both it reporteth the real presence which you denie and sheweth a difference betwixt the thing which is offered and Christes Death by the same signified which you cōfounde We graunt with S. Augustin when the hoste is broken De Consec Dict. 2. Cum frangitur and the bloude is powred into the mouthes of the faithful the Sacrificing of our Lordes body is signified It is not your false translation of the Oblation for the hoste nor your Sacramentarie exposition of the Sacrament of the bloude for the bloude that can racke S. Augustine to the defence of your doctrine If you grate vpon the worde Significatur and therefore wil needes haue it to be a signification of Christes Sacrifice as we denie not the signification so we require you to acknowlege the real body and bloude of Christe by breaking whereof vnder the forme of bread and powring whereof into the mowthes of the faithful vnder the forme of wine the same signification and commemoration of Christes Death is made You handle this place of S. Augustine as it semeth as you handled the place of S. Chrysostome before Sweeping cleane away the hoste and wyping away the bloude you leaue remaining onely a signification or token And thus you feede your people with signes and tokens in steede of the most holesome and substantial meate and drinke Thus haue you not weakened the strength of S. Chrysostomes testimonie by your feeble answer thus it remaineth stil in good force against your Chalenge thus by your sclender Replie you haue geuen al men occasion to thinke how good and sufficient our Stoare is for the proufe of the external Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christe in scoffing whereat you take so muche pleasure It remaineth that we trie of what substance and pith your Replie is to the place by me alleged
of thinges to come August in Psal. 80. The redde Sea is consecrate in the bloude of our Lorde faith S. Augustin Againe Baptisme saith he is redde being consecrate in the bloude of Christe August in Ioan. Tract 11. The meaning hereof is As our sinnes be taken away and cleansed in baptisme taking vertue and effect of the bloud of Christ through faith So to the Iewes was forefigured the bloude of Christe in the redde Sea Baptisme is redde with the bloude of Christe and is consecrate by the same Thus it is said bicause it is ordeined by Christe to be a meane whereby the effecte and merite of his bloud is through â—aith imparted into vs. This much weighed and considered it may soone to any man appeare how litle reliefe M. Iewel shal finde in these pharses The .14 Diuision The Ansvver OF al other Oecumenius speaketh most plainely to this purpose vpon this place of S. Paule alleged out of the Psalme Oecumen in Epist. ad Heb. cap. 5. Psal. 119. Tu es Sacerdos in aeternum secundùm Ordinem Melchisedech Thou arte a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedek His wordes be these Significat sermo quod non solùm Christus obtulit incruentam hostiam siquidem suum ipsius corpus obtulit verùm etiam qui ab ipso fungentur Sacerdotio quorum Deus Pontifex esse dignatus est sine sanguinis effusione offerent Nam hoc significat in aeternum Neque enim de ea quae semel à Deo facta est Oblatio Hostia dixisset in aeternum sed respiciens ad praesentes Sacrificos per quos medios Christus sacrificat sacrificatur qui etiam in Mystica Coena modum illis tradidit huiusmodi Sacrificij The meaninge of this place is saithe he that not onely Christe offered an Vnblouddy Sacrifice for he offered his owne Bodie but also that they which after him shal doo the office of a Priest whose Bishop he vouchesaueth to be shal offer without shedding of Bloud For that signifieth the worde For euer For coÌ„cerning that Oblation and Sacrifice which was once made by God he would neuer saye In aeternum for euer But he saide so hauing an eye to those Priestes that be nowe by the mediation of whom Christe sacrificeth and is sacrificed who also in his Mystical Supper taught by tradition the manner of suche a Sacrifice Concerning the Prophecie of Malachie for proufe of this Oblation though the place of Irenaeus aboue recited may stande in steede of many auctorities yet I wil not let to rehearse the sayinges of a Father or two for confirmation of this Article Chrysostome saith very plainely In omni loco Sacrificium offertur nomini meo In Psal. 95. SacrificiuÌ„ purum Vide quà m luculenter quámque dilucidè Mysticam interpretatus est Mensam quae est Incruenta hostia In euery place a Sacrifice shal be offered to my name and that a pure Sacrifice See how plainely and clearely he interpreted the Mystical Table which is the Vnbloudy Sacrifice Iewel Here mighte I iustly take exception against this Doctour as findinge him vvithout the compasse of the firste sixe hundred yeeres Hovv be it He saithe not That the Prieste hath power or Authoritie to Sacrifice the Sonne of God nor seemeth any vvaie to fauer M. Hardinges purpose Therefore vve shal not neede to touche his credite Harding In this Diuision M. Iewel you set forth as it were in a moustre a number of authorities and not one to the purpose Yet fewe thinges excepted you tel vs litle here that you haue not tolde vs before One apte and plaine testimonie would haue holpen your cause more then al this impertinent and confuse number It is not harde for one that is furnished with stoare of Notebookes of common places as you are to fil the paper with heapes of allegations This kinde of writing as to the ignorant it maketh a false shewe of stoare of learning so to the learned bringeth assured euidence of lacke bothe of truth and iudgement You are much beholding to your Phrases and metaphorical speaches For in them at least as in a smooddering smoke you trust to conuey your selfe away that the weakenesse of your parte appeare not openly as it should if you would directly answer to the pointes wherewith the truth of our syde is confirmed By this you shewe your selfe to be mynded not to yeelde and to subscribe according to your promise what so euer and how muche so euer be proued against you Concering Oecumenius in my Answer alleged Oecumenius you might iustly take exception against him you say for that he falleth without the compasse of the first six hundered yeres As though an Author allowed by the best learned of the Churche for the speace of an vnknowen time should be of lesse credite then an other that wrote one hundred yeres before him As though also after the first six hundred yeres the holy Ghoste forsooke the Churche and therefore least it vnfurnished of good and learned teachers Of what age he was I trowe it is not certainely knowen but that he is of great antiquitie it is certaine Neither can ye refuse him for a Papist bicause he was of the Greke Churche which your selfe haue cleared of Papistrie Wel touching his credite forasmuch as vpon a braue shewe of a confidence in your cause you are so good Mayster vnto him as not to take exception against him we take that ye geue Let it then stand for good and allowed as in deede M. Ievvel speaketh directly against his ovvn knovvledge touching Oecumenius there is no cause but so it should Bicause you pretend in worde knowing the contrary in harte that this testimonie of Oecumenius maketh no proufe for the Sacrifice against your Chalenge whether it be so or no let it he briefly examined First saith he not that Christe him selfe offered an vnbloudy Sacrifice By the epipheton Vnbloudy added to Sacrifice is it not manifest that this Sacrifice was distincte and diuers from the Sacrifice that he made vpon the Crosse which was bloudy Nexte least any man might happen to doubte what the substance was which was offered vnbloudily by Christe doth not this Author declare it by his plaine Parenthesis saying for he offered his owne body That Christ offered his ovvne body vnblouddily Is it not cleare then that Christes body was the substance which he offered vnbloudily Note then good Reader that the substance which was offered bloudily vpon the Crosse and vnbloudily at the Supper for that was the time when the vnbloudy Sacrifice was made by this testimonie is al one to wit the body of Christe the body of Christe I say and not onely thankes geuing praises and remembrance of his Death whereunto onely you M. Iewel would draw it Thus it is euident that Christe him selfe offered to his Father not onely a bloudy but also an vnbloudy Sacrifice Let vs see whether by Oecumenius it may appeare
time ye shal not be angry with vs but with that holy learned Father S. Augustine if we accompte your scattered troupes not for the Churche of Christe nor any parte thereof but for Dennes of theeues and Synagogues of Antichriste Neither doo ye sacrifice vnto God the Sacrifice of Praise in the body of Christe which the Churche doth as S. Augustine saith for ye acknowledge no Sacrifice of the body of Christe at al in whiche God is chiefly praised and thanked for his benefites The Singular Sacrifice that S. Austine speaketh of is the Sacrifice of the Eucharist Furthermore what Sacrifice is that whereof the sacrifices of Israel according to the flesh were significations which S. Augustine here calleth the Singuler Sacrifice that Israel after the spirite offereth vp now What other is it then the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe after an vnbloudy manner daily offered in the Churche For of the Sacrifice of the Crosse ye can not expounde it bicause the same is done once already and is not now offered vp Neither can ye vnderstande it of mere spiritual Sacrifices for they are not Singuler neither offered onely now that is to say in the time of the newe Testament but are common to the faithful personnes and times of bothe Testamentes By this it is euident that the Sacrifice of Praise which Israel after the spirite that is to say the Churche offereth vp vnto God not after the order of Aaron but after the order of Melchisedek as S. Augustine writeth is the Sacrifice of the Euchariste in whiche the body and bloude of Christe is offered vp vnder the fourmes of bread and wine Genes 14. in which Melchisedek made his Sacrifice forefiguring this Your thirde authoritie which you haue somedeale corrupted by nipping away certaine wordes and by false translation maketh for proufe of our Sacrifice it helpeth your Negatiue nothing at al. The whole sentence truly translated August li. 83. quaestion q. 61 is this Christe hath commended vnto vs a likenes of his bloudy Sacrifice for of that he speaketh there to be celebrated in remembrance of his Passion to the ende we may see now that which Melchisedek offered vnto God to be offered in the Churche of Christe through the whole worlde Here are touched three Sacrifices the Sacrifice of the Crosse Three Sacrifices the Sacrifice of the Aulter the Sacrifice of Melchisedek On the Crosse Christe was sacrificed truly according to the truth of substance of the thing sacrificed and of the manner of sacrificing which was by shedding of bloude and killing the hoste that was to be sacrificed In the Supper then and in the Aulter now he is truly sacrificed as touching the truth of the substance of the thing that is offered that is to say the body and bloude of Christe For he said Luc. 22. This is my body this is my bloude doo ye this in remembraÌ„ce of me 1. Cor. 11. But not according to the truth of such manner of sacrificing For he is sacrificed vnbloudily and in Mysterie The body that now is offered is a liue body For it is the same in the Sacrament that hong vpon the Crosse and that is now in heauen But though Christes body be now a lyue in the Sacrament and the bloud in the Body yet neither is the body of vs offered bicause it is a lyue and now to be killed nor the bloude bicause it is in the body as againe to be shed but bicause the body was once killed and the bloude once shed that which is now done is done in remembrance of that And hereof it commeth that this Sacrifice is oftentimes called of the Fathers in respecte of the bloudy Sacrifice of the Crosse as it is in the thirde fourth and fifth testimonie of S Augustine here alleged to be sene a likenes an Image of that Sacrifice a memorie or Sacrament of memorie From the affirmation of which likenes Imageâ— memorie SacrameÌ„t representation or figure to inferre the denial of a true presence and Sacrifice is besides al rules of Logique and reason sithens both stand wel together And yet this is in maÌ„ner the only kinde of reason and Argument that M. Iewel vseth through his whole Reply and otherwheres Which kind of ArgumeÌ„tes they must needes vse if they wil vse any at al who by opening the truth of any question by due distinctions see their false doctrine confuted and therfore make their apparent aduantage of confusion Which Confusion is soonest wrought by heapes of vndiscussed authorities without declaration of the circumstances patchedly and by peece meale alleged and iumbled together as M. Iewel is woont to doo Likenes aÌ„d Image how they signifie in the nevv testameÌ„t being spoken of the sacrament And remember good Reader that whereas S. Augustine here alleged speaketh of a Similitude or likenes he meaneth not euery common kinde of likenes but a likenes that is a Sacrament of the newe Testament Which is a holy effectual and visible signe of inuisible grace If thou take away the body and bloude of Christe from this likenes it shal lacke the inuisible grace and so shal it not be such a likenes as S. Augustine here speaketh of Image An Image also which terme he vseth likewise in the newe Testament considered in Christe or his Sacramentes doth not signifie a bare figure voide of the thing whose Image it is But rather signifieth the true thing it selfe exhibited in the fourme of an other thing and not in proper shape De Cons. Dist. 2. Hoc est quod dicimus So is Christe Imago Patris the Image of his Father appearing in the fourme of man So is the Sacrament of Christes body the Image of the same body crucified yea the body of Christe in the Sacrament inuisible is a Sacrament and sampler of the same body visible For so S. Augustine speaketh Caro videlicet carnis sanguis est sacramentum Sanguinis carne sanguine vtroque inuisibili spirituali intelligibili signatur visibile Domini nostri Iesu Christi corpus palpabile plenum gratiae omnium virtutum diuina Maiestate The flesh of Christe in the Sacrament is the sacrament of his flesh and the bloude is a sacrament of his bloude By his flesh and bloude bothe inuisible spiritual intelligible is betokened the body of our Lorde Iesus Christ that is visible palpable ful of the grace of al vertues and diuine Maiestie Neither maketh it ought for M. Iewel that S. Augustine calleth this Sacrament a Sacrament of remembrance SacrameÌ„t of remeÌ„â—brance Bicause it were not a Sacrament of remembrance fitte for the newe Testament onlesse the body and bloude of Christe were really conteined therein according to the saying of Christe Lucae 22. this is my body this is my bloude For we haue no warrant of the Scripture that bread and wine is the Sacrament of remembrance The .6 authoritie taken out of S. Augustine de Ciuitate
if this whiche he bad them to doo was a Sacrifice as now it hath ben proued it was then verely did he institute his Apostles Priestes excepte we wil say he bad them to doo and gaue them no autoritie to doo which were absurde Now to make and consecrate the body and bloude of Christ to th ende we doo our Sacrifice vnto God bicause it is aboue nature without facultie and power from God it can not be done DeriuatioÌ„ of priestly duetie And bicause our Lorde commaunded this Sacrifice to be made vntil he come it is necessary what leaue and power to make the continual and perpetual Sacrifice Christe gaue vnto the Apostles that they transfunded and deliuered ouer vnto their aftercoÌ„mers the same along through al times and ages For so after the exposition of Oecumenius and Eusebius as it is before mencioned the Priesthode of Christe after the order of Melchisedek is euerlasting among men Whereas then M. Iewel denieth God to haue appointed any certaine order of owtward Priestode to make this Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe and auoucheth euery faithful Christian man to haue auctoritie to offer vp and make the same though there be litle hope of good to be done with him yet for thy sake good Reader that thou maist see what trusty teachers these felowes be I wil here allege some testimoonies of the olde learned Fathers for the owtward Priesthode albe it the same is proued already bicause the Sacrifice is owtwarde and for that this Sacrifice is to be made by those that be Priestes by proper and special ordination and not by euery faithful person Testimonies for outward Priesthod and for the Sacrifice to be made by the special Priestes LEt vs beginne with the blessed Martyr and learned Bishop S. Cyprian who to declare the excellencie of the Churche of Christe that now is aboue the olde Synagogue of the Iewes that was vnder Moyses among other prerogatiues numbreth this for one Cyprian de vnctione Chrismatis that in the Churche Non sunt haereditariae successiones Pontificum vel vni Leuiticae tribui ministeria assignata sed de omni tribu gente lingua quos dignos idoneos Diuinae probat electio secundùm vitae non generis meritum statuit Sacerdotes quibus Calicem sanguinis sui inexhaustae plenitudinis abundantia semper refertum conseruandum tradidit erogandum The successions of Bishops come not by heritage neither the ministeries be assigned vnto the Leuitical tribe onely but whom Gods election approueth to be worthy and meete he ordeineth them Priestes out of euery tribe nation and tongue according to the desert of their lyfe and not of their birth to whom he hath deliuered the Chalice of his bloud filled alwaies with infinite abundance to be kepte and distributed Here the election of God appointing certaine special persons to be Priestes allowed for worthy and meete in respecte of good life not of noble parentage the function and ministerie whereunto they be ordeined whiche is to attende vppon the Chalice of Christes bloude to consecrate offer vp and distribute the same for thus to doo belongeth to Priestes these thinges doo argue manifestly an outward Priesthode and shewe as it were to the eye that they who be thus chosen of God and to whom suche ministerie and office is committed in the Churche are special Priestes For certainely what answer so euer may be made by a wrangler touching the reste of S. Cyprians saying ErogatioÌ„ of Christes bloud the Erogation here spoken of that is to say the geuing and distributing of Christes bloude perteineth not to euery Christian man but to him that properly and specially and by consecration of a Bishop is made Priest The holy and eloquent Father S. Leo speaking of the Priesthode of Christe after the Order of Melchisedek geueth vs a most plaine testimonie for the special and outward Priesthode Leo. Sermone 2. When the Sacrament saith he of this Diuine Priesthode commeth vnto humaine functions that is to say when men be made Priestes it runneth not by way of generations neither is that thing chosen which fleshe and bloude hath created but the priuiledge of Fathers hauing no place and the order of families set aparte the Churche taketh those gouernours whom the holy Goost hath prepared Vt in populo adoptionis Dei cuius vniuersitas sacerdotalis atque regalis est non praerogatiua terrenae originis obtineat vnctionem sed dignatio coelestis gratiae gignat Antistitem That in the people of Gods adoption whose vniuersitie is Priestly and Kingly that is to say who in general and vniuersally are Priestes and Kinges it be not the prerogatiue of earthly progenie that shal obteine the annointing but that he be made a high Priest whom the heauenly grace vouchesaueth to ordeine Lo to the function and ministerie of the Sacrifice of Christe that is after the order of Melchisedek the people whom God hath adopted and chosen for his be not admitted be they neuer so much vniuersally Priestes and Kinges as the Scripture calleth them for offering vp pure Sacrifices from the Aulter of their harte and for ruling their fleshe and subduing fleshly lustes vnto the spirite which are priestly and kingly partes neither is any of them for doing this duetie a Priest after the Doctrine of S. Leo but onely he whom the holy Ghoste hath prepared and promoted to haue the special annointing of the external Priesthode and so is ordeined a Priest for elles as touching the vniuersal Annointing of the holy Ghoste euery spiritual Priest that is to say euery faithful person hath it Leo hom 3. in Anniuers die suae Asâ—uÌ„pt The same S. Leo geueth vs yet a more euident testimonie for the outward and special Priesthode in an other place saying thus Omnes in Christo regeneratos Crucis signum efficit Reges Sancti verò spiritus vnctio consecrat Sacerdotes vt praeter istam specialem nostri ministerij seruituteÌ„ vniuersi spiritales rationales Christiani agnoscant se regij generis sacerdotalis officij esse consortes The signe of the Crosse maketh al that be regenerate in Christe Kinges But the annointing of the holy Ghoste doth consecrate Priestes Special Priesthod that besides this Special seruice of our Ministerie al spiritual and reasonable Christians vniuersally acknowlege them selues to be partakers of a Kingly linage and of a Priestly office Here he acknowlegeth a special Priesthode and an vniuersal Priesthode that is the external this is the internal and spiritual Priesthoode That perteineth to certaine called thereto and annointed by the holy Ghoste this to al in general that be faithful Christians And though he confesse al Christians to be Priestes yet he acknowledgeth some to be Priestes after an other manner who be chosen and admitted Ad specialem Ministerij Seruitutem that is to say to doo a special seruice of Priestly ministerie This special and external Priesthode S. Augustine
vnto God the most holy Sacrifice of the Euchariste in the steede of our Lorde And here is to be noted that we make this Sacrifice and offer it vp vnto God not as of our selues and in our owne persons but vice Domini in the steede of our Lorde Christe it is that consecrateth In this Sacrifice vvhat is Christe vvhat are vvee that offereth that sacrificeth He is the Priest and the Sacrifice Neuerthelesse we that haue receiued the holy Order of Priesthode by lawful imposition of handes do also in our degree consecrate and sacrifice But how As ministers in the person of Christe in the steede of our Lorde Christ onely and alone we confesse is the true Priest Priestes are Christes vicares in ma◠making this Sacrifice For by the Oblation of his owne body he onely hath done the office of the true Mediatour and hath reconciled vs to God And with that body he appeareth before his Father now in heauen Wee are vicarij Sacerdotes his Vicars and vicegerentes in this behalfe and doo the office of Priesthode in steede of him Eusebius saith notably that the euent and issue of Dauids Prophecie Thou art a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedek is seene in this that Christe perfourmeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the thinges that belong to the Sacrifice which is among men Oecumen in Epist. ad Heb. cap. 5. yet to this day by his ministers We are but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ministers and by the mediation or meane of these ministerial and vicare Priestes Christe sacrificeth and is sacrificed saith Oecumenius To further proufe hereof S. Basil saith in Liturgia Basil. in Liturgia speaking vnto Christe For thine vnspeakeable and incomprehensible goodnesse without any chaunge and turning thou hast bene made man and hast ben called our hye Bishop huius ministratorij incruenti Sacrificij consecrationem nobis tradidisti and thou hast deliuered vnto vs the consecratiō of this Ministratorious and vnbloudy Sacrifice Lo he calleth this Sacrifice the Ministratorious Sacrifice bicause in making it weare but Ministers of our Lord and doo his steede Vnbloudy he calleth it bicause it is offered vp without bloudshed being the same that was offered vpō the Crosse with bloudshed And here appeareth the vaine cauil of M. Iewel who referreth the terme vnbloudy Vnbloudy spokē of the Sacrifice of the Aulter onely to the mere spiritual sacrifices of our deuotion In offering whereof we are not only Ministers of Christe but being endewed with grace we offer vp such kinde of Sacrifice in our owne person This muche haue I thought good here to inculcate and make plaine the rather bicause bothe the folowers of M. Iewel ceasse not to vtter vnsemely and lewd talke against Priestes saying in scorne that they make God and bicause M. Iewel him selfe in the beginning of his Replie to this Article maketh so much a doo for that a Mortal and a Miserable man should offer vp the Immortal Sonne of God vnto his Father Replie page 555. Where he saith further that God neuer appointed any suche Sacrifice to be made by any Mortal Creature As wel he might finde faulte with Kinges and Iudges of the worlde for that being mortal and miserable men they take vpon them to rule and iudge whereas in deede and truth Christe onely is King of al and Iudge of al. For to me al power is geuen in heauen and in earh saith he Matth. 28. And S. Iohn saith Iohan. 5. Omne iudicium dedit Filio God hath geuen al iudgement to his Sonne In the former testimonie of S. Basil Povver to consecrate by Christ deliuered vnto the special Priestes only it is to be considered that he saith to Christe in his Masse thou hast deliuered the Consecration of this Sacrifice vnto vs meaning when Christ said Doo ye this in my remembrance Wherby we vnderstand M. Iewels general and common Priestes quite excluded Elles let him shewe if he can where euer Christe deliuered power to consecrate the body and bloude of Christe to the Laye people that be not Priestes but as al Christian folke in general men wemen and children are S. Hierome saith writing to Heliodorus Hieron ad Heliodor Absit vt de ijs quicquam sinistrum loquar qui Apostolico gradui succedentes Christi corpus sacro ore conficiunt per quos nos Christiani sumus God forbid that I should speake any sinistre or euil thing against them who succeding in degree of the Apostles doo with their sacred mowthe consecrate the body of Christe by whom also we are Christians Againe in his Dialogue against the Luciferians he saith Hieron Cōtra Luciferianos that one Hilarius coulde not consecrate the Euchariste bicause he was but a Deacon If one that hath receiued the holy order of Deaconship can not consecrate and make this Sacrifice but to doo this it must be a Priest as S. Hierome teacheth How shal we beleeue M. Iewel who telleth vs here that euery faithful Christian man hath authoritie to make it and to offer it The policie of Satan and M. Iewel is to abandon the external Priesthode To vvhat ende tendeth M. Iewels doctrine against the blessed Sacrifice and to set the lay people a worke bearing them in hande they haue authoritie to make and offer vp this Sacrifice to thintent they may bring to passe first that the most holy and dredful Mysteries be contemned nexte that when there is none that hath authoritie to consecrate the body and bloude of Christe and to remitte synnes the remembrance of Christes Death vanish away and the people remaine fast bounde in the bandes of their synnes Our Lorde who came to dissolue the workes of Satan confounde the wicked attemptes 1. Ioan. 3. and damnable doctrine of Satans Minister The Churches determination touching this point I trust so many as feare God and haue care of their soules in this weighty mater wil litle regarde what he saith but rather consider how muche safer it is to hearken vnto the determination of the Chuche in the great general Councel of Laterane vttered by these wordes Hoc vtique Sacramentum nemo potest conficere Concil Lateranen nisi Sacerdos fuerit ritè ordinatus secundùm claues Ecclesiae quas ipse concessit Apostolis eorum successoribus Iesus Christus Noman can make or consecrate this Sacrament except he be a Priest duely ordered according to the keyes of the Churche Mat. 16. which Iesus Christe him selfe hath graunted vnto the Apostles Ioan. 20. and their Successours Here I haue sayd yenough of the outward Priesthode and that this Sacrifice can not be made but by a Priest laufully ordered and consecrated with due laying on of handes But whereas M. Iewel geueth auctoritie to euery faithful Christian man that is to say to Laye men wemen boyes gyrles and children for they be conteined vnder the name of Faithful Christian men to make and offer vp
this Sacrifice he maketh this Prouiso M. Ievvels prouiso and putteth in as it were a Caueat that it be not vnderstanded of the Ministration of the Sacramentes For that perteineth saith he onely to the Minister but onely of the Oblation and making of this Spiritual Sacrifice Verely I doubte whether this Minister vnderstandeth what he speaketh 1. Tim. 1. and whereof he affirmeth So confuse is his tale Euery Christian man by him may make this Sacrifice But none can minister the Sacramentes but a Minister I can not wel reason with him onlesse I knewe where to haue him what he meaneth by This Sacrifice what by making what by his Minister what by Ministration what by Sacramentes For our whole Religion by these men now turned vpside doune and the olde termes being of them abused to signifie other thinges then before they did al Disputation with them must needes be obscure Concerning the Sacrifice he nameth it This Spiritual Sacrifice If he had spoken indefinitely of Spiritual Sacrifice euery Lay faithful person may I graunt and ought to make and offer vp vnto God Spiritual Sacrifice For besides other Contrite harte a Contrite hart by report of Scripture is such a Sacrifice that al are bounde to offer vp vnto God But calling this Sacrifice whereof our controuersie is spiritual he semeth to vse sutteltie and to prouide him selfe a starting hole if he happen to be chafed and pursued In respecte of vnderstanding it is spiritual for that whiche is hid vnder the formes of bread and wine with vnderstanding it is conceiued and is not with bodily sense perceiued But in respecte of the substance of it whiche is the Real body and bloude of Christe it is not properly and altogether spiritual specially as Spirite doth exclude the vetitie of Body Affirming then that euery faithful man hath authoritie to make and offer this Sacrifice what sowndeth this tale but that euery suche hath authoritie to make and consecaate and offer vp the body and bloude of our Lorde whiche belongeth onely to them that properly be Priestes as now I haue proued This is bothe a Sacrament and a Sacrifice If none may minister this Secrament but the Minister for he speaketh of Sacramentes generally how muche lesse may any make that is to say consecrate or outwardly offer this Sacrifice but he that is duely made Priest by Bishoply Consecration External oblation propre to Priestes internal ê‘teineth also to the faithful peple and laying on of handes Outwardly offer I say whereby I meane the actual external and ministerial offering For els I acknowledge that by vowe affection and deuotion of harte the faithful and godly people doth also offer vp vnto God this Sacrifice Touchinge the testimonies here alleged where S. Cyprian saith Cyprian de vnct Crismat Al that of Christe be called Christians doo offer vnto God Daily Sacrifice ordeined of God Priestes of holines he meaneth it of the common spiritual sacrifices of our deuotion whiche of bounden duetie we offer vp daily and not of this Singuler Sacrifice whiche bicause it is daily offered for that we daily sinne that a remembrance of Christes Death be renued being the chiefe of al the Sacrifices that we daily offer vp vnto God the learned Fathers oftentimes haue called Quotidianum Sacrificium the daily Sacrifice Wherefore M. Iewel doth very vntruly The daily Sacrifice and A daily Sacrifice and contrary to his owne knowledge in this place to turne it The Daily Sacrifice as though S. Cyprian had meant of this Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe Of what Sacrifice it is to be vnderstanded it is soone iudged by that he maketh al Christians the offerers of the same Therefore in his translation he shoulde haue called it not The daily Sacrifice but a daily Sacrifice That he allegeth here out of Origen Origen in Leuit. Homil. 9. maketh nothing against the Catholique Doctrine touching this Sacrifice Origen onely teacheth whiche we also doo teache that al good Christian folke are spiritual Priestes Suche Sacrifices Spiritual sacrifices spiritual Priesthod suche Priesthode and suche Priestes The Christians common sacrifices be mere spiritual for they offer vp them selues Praises thankes Confession a contrite harte a troubled spirite and suche other the like whiche are mere spiritual Of the same rate is their Priesthode The peeces of sentences cut out of S. Augustine S. Ambrose and S. Chrysostome as they doo nothing relieue M. Iewels cause so doo they nothing hinder ours And bicause they be idlely and to no directe purpose alleged but as it seemeth onely to increase the heape it is not worth labour in setting forth the large circumstance of them to spende time and to answer vnto them Yet be the two last in my Reioindre to the first Article of M. Iewels Chalenge sufficiently answered Chrysost. in 2. Cor. Hom. 18. But as for S. Chrysostome he is by M. Iewel so impudently falsified in this place that I should iniurie the Truth if I dissembled it He maketh S. Chrysostome thus to say In Mysterijs nihil differt Sacerdos à Subdito In the holy Mysteries the Priest differeth nothing from the people whereby he would persuade M. Ievv fovvly falsifieth S. Chrysostom that touching the Sacrifice duly to be made beside the Ministration by which he meaneth only his Ministers geuing of bread and wine at the newe found communion the priest doth no more then the people whereas S. Chrysostome saith farre otherwise Est vbi nihil differt Sacerdos a subdito vt quando fruendum est horrendis Mysterijs There is a time saith he when the Priest differeth nothing from the subiecte that is from one of the Laietie as when they must receiue the dreadful Mysteries Is there no difference whether one say there is a time or place where the Priest differeth not from the people whiche exception negatiue manifestly includeth an affirmation of a differeÌ„ce in a certaine time or place or generally the Priest differeth nothing from the people Out vpon suche shamelesse corruption Touching the true vnderstanding of the place when the Sacrifice is to be receiued whiche is the body and bloude of Christe the subiecte that is any Laye person what so euer Leuit. â—â— 22. hath as good parte and receiueth as worthy a thing as the Priest For it is not now as it was in the olde Lawe so muche S. Chrysostome saith there when the Prieste receiued one peece of the Beastes sacrificed and the people an other peece but when we come to receiue the Mysteries we al participate of one heauenly breade to al is proponed saith he one body and one cuppe Bothe Priest and people offereth and how eche That thus we pray in the Canon of the Masse Remember ô Lorde thy Seruauntes and al them that stande aboute for whom we offer vnto thee or elles who doo offer vnto thee this Sacrifice of praise al this gladly we graunt For not onely the
an other place Item In this Sacrifice saith he there is a thankesgeuing and commemoration of the flesh of Christe whiche he offered for vs and of his bloude whiche he shed for vs. But you wil say we graunt that a memorie is celebrated we denie the real Sacrifice And we tel you that the memorie or commemoration excludeth not the real Sacrifice It is bothe commemoratiue This Sacrifice is bothe CoÌ„memoratiue and Real and Real For there is bothe the memorie of Christes death and the thing it selfe that suffered death For prouse hereof it may please you to consider one sentence of S. Augustine in steede of many that it were easy to allege Thus he saith Augu contra Faust. lib. 20. ca. 18. Iam Christiani peracti eiusdem Sacrificij memoriam celebraÌ„t sacrosancta oblatione participatione corporis sanguinis Christi The Christians doo celebrate the memorie of the same Sacrifice that was made vpon the Crosse now done and paste by the holy oblation and participation of the body and bloude of Christe Lo M Iewel here you see it to be a memorie and neuerthelesse the body and bloude to be offered whiche are the thing and the substance it selfe of the Sacrifice The weakenes of your cause is suche that onlesse your Argumentes procede so as you may iustle away one truth by an other you haue nothing to say And thus alwaies you reason though to no purpose least ye should seme to say nothing and so to be without al defence of the Doctrine that ye deceiue Gods people withal For if that appeare openly ye stande in feare least ye should lose your lyuinges your Dignities your wiues your wanton fleshly pleasures and what els I knowe not Iewel S. Peter saithe Christe offereth vp vs vnto God his Father S. Paule saithe 1. Pet. 3. Through Christe wee haue accesse to the Throne of Glorie Heb. 4. VVhat then meaneth M. Hardinge thus to tel vs and to beare the vvorlde in hande that contrary vvise he hath Authoritie to offer vp Christe and to presente him before the Throne of Glorie Or hovve dareth he to desire God to receiue his onely begoten Sonne into fauoure and fauourably and fatherly to looke vpon him at his request For thus he biddeth his praier euen in his Canon euen in the secreteste and deuoutest parte of his Masse Super quae propitio ac sereno vultu c. Vpon these thinges that is to saie saithe Gabriel Biel vpon the Bodie and Bloud of Christe thy Sonne O Lorde looke doune with a merciful and cheereful countenance and receiue the same the Bodie and Bloude of thy Sonne as thou diddest in olde times receiue the Sacrifice of Abel and of Abraham vvhich vvas a vveather or a calfe or some other like thinge Thus he not onely taketh vpon him to praie for Christe but also compareth the Sacrifice of the Sonne of God vvith the Sacrifice of brute Cattaile Yf he denie any parte hereof his ovvne Canon his ovvne Massebooke vvil reproue him Yf this be not Blasphemie vvhat thinge can be called Blasphemie Harding To answer to al that is obiected in order first S. Peter saith not altogether as you reporte him But thus he saith 1. Pet. 3. Christe once died for our sinnes the Iuste for the vniuste to th ende he might offer vp vs vnto God Neither speaketh S. Paul as you haue set him to schoole and teache him to speake but otherwise Adeamus cum fiducia ad thronum gratiae eius c. Let vs go vnto the seate of his grace with confidence that we may obteine mercie and finde grace to helpe at neede Now Sir to iustifie that you haue here said Heb. 4. A priest to offer vp Christe vnto his Father in the Euchariste how can you proue it to be done contrariwise to ought that either S. Peter or S. Paule here saith Thus you reason your Allegations supposed to be iuste Christe offereth vp vs vnto God M. Ievvels ArgumeÌ„t Item Through Christe we haue accesse to the throne of Grace Ergo a Priest hath not auctoritie to offer vp Christe vnto God in the Sacrament O profounde Logique O sharpe witte O inuincible Disputer Here your owne skoffing Rhetorique might wel be returned vpon you It were harde to tel vs how this Antecedent and Consequent came together No man hath auctoritie thus to mince his Logique but M. Iewel Why Sir must it needes folowe that if Christe who is the head of his Churche vnder which name both he and the Churche be oftentimes conteined haue offered vp vs vnto God that we may not offer vp Christe vnto God I maruel that so learned a Minister as by purporte of your Arrogant fonde Chalenge it appeareth you take your selfe to be should be ignorant of that S. Augustine writeth notably in his tenth booke De Ciuitate Dei August de Ciuit. Dei li. 10. c. 20. where speaking of this very Sacrifice calling it the daily Sacrifice of the Churche he saith Ipsius Corporis ipse est Caput ipsius Capitis ipsa est Corpus tam ipsa per ipsum quà m ipse per ipsam suetus offerri Christe him selfe is the head of his body the Churche and the Churche is the body of that Head as wel the Churche by him as he by the Churche is wount to be offered vp Lo here you see a mutual Oblation Christe offereth vs to God and we offer Christe to God so farre of it is that his offering of vs should exclude our offering of him Thus appeareth the peeuishnes of your Argument Of like force and witte is the reason if it be deduced of the other scripture alleged as out of S. Paule For what though through Christe we haue accesse vnto the throne of grace Ergo may not a Priest offer vp Christe to the Father in the Sacrament You must deuise vs a newe Logique as you haue deuised vs a newe Diuinitie before ye shal proue these Argâ—mentes to be ought worthe A defence of the Canon of the Masse against M. Iewels scoffes YOV finde great faulte with the holy Canon of the Masse vttering the spite of your blasphemous harte against it with vile termes of skoffing as though in it the Priest desired God for these be your wordes to receiue his only begotten sonne into fauour and fauourably and fatherly to looke vpon him at his request And further to aggrauate the mater you say that he taketh vpon him not only to pray for Christe but also that he compareth the Sacrifice of the Sonne of God with the Sacrifice of brute Cataile For proufe hereof you referre your Reader to the Canon of the Masse and to the Masse booke Gabriel Biel also for colour of your better credite you bring in as a witnesse who wrote vpon the Canon Al this is a false and a slaunderous lye And albeit you directe your whole talke to my person yet with the same you inueigh not onely against me but
also against al the Priestes of Christes Churche that be or haue ben sithens the Apostles yea against that learned and auncient Bishop S. Ambrose who hath and alloweth the same prayer in his booke de Sacramentis And furthermore against al the holy people of God for they specially bid that prayer as it is expressed in the Canon sed plebs tua sancta though the wordes be pronunced by a Priest For answer this we say The Priest in the Canon of the Masse praieth not for Christe the natural Sonne of God that God be fauourable vnto him who can not but infinitely aboue the reache of mannes vnderstanding fauer and loue him of whom he said This is my derely beloued Sonne Matth. 3. in whom I am wel pleased But humbly he besecheth God that he vouchesafe fauourably to looke vpon the giftes whiche the Canon nameth the holy Bread of eternal life and Cuppe of euerlasting saluation and to accepte them to our behoofe And though Gabriel Biel by the same vnderstand as true it is the Body and bloude of Christe yet he expoundeth the place in suche wise that had you euer read it shame if any were in you should haue withdrawen you from making mention of his name Whereas the Priest besecheth God that he with his merciful countenance vouchesafe to beholde those giftes and take them in good worthe as in olde time he toke the sacrifices of Abel Abraham and Melchisedek the whiche were figures of this Sacrifice by this it is not meant that the Sonne of God be receiued into fauour and be accepted of God but that he vouchesafe to accepte and take in good worth the Action of the Priest whereby he offereth vp vnto him in Mysterie Christe the pure Lambe vnder the formes of bread and wine Basil. in Liturgia In this sense S. Basil prayeth in the Canon of his Masse where he saith thus Respice super nos Deus super hanc nostram Latriam suscipe eam sicuti suscepisti munera Abel sacrificium Noe holocaustum Abrahae c. Looke vpon vs ô God and vpon this our worship and receiue it as thou diddest receiue the giftes of Abel A true expositiō of the prayer that M. Ievvel reproueth out of Gabriel Biel. Lectione 55. the sacrifice of Noe the burnt offering of Abraham c. This prayer of the Canon saith Gabriel Biel whereby God is besought to accepte and mercifully to fauer perteineth to the offerers For they being afraid of their sinnes and distrusting their owne vertue offer vp an acceptable Sacrifice and beseche God that through the same they may be accepted whiche they doubte not of but that it is accepted Wherefore they pray that he wil accepte it as touching the behalfe of them that offer S. Chrysostom in his Masse prayeth for the precious giftes Chrysost. in Liturgia That this manner of prayer seme the lesse strange and the lesse subiecte to the reproche and spite of Heretiques it is to be considered that S. Chrysostome in his Masse hath the like Where he prayeth for these most holy and precious giftes His wordes be these Pro oblatis sanctificatis preciosis Donis Dominum deprecemur For the precious giftes offered and sanctified let vs pray vnto our Lorde Go your way nowe M. Iewel and like an Hicke Scorner aske of S. Chrysostome how he dareth to pray to God for the Sonne of God For these giftes being duly sanctified and cōsecrated by the Priest he taketh for the body and bloud of Christ and therefore for Christe him selfe the Sonne of God Vpon this place of S. Chrysostomes Masse thus writeth Nicolaus Cabasilas the Grecian in his exposition Cabasilas in expositione Liturgiae Let vs pray to our Lorde for the sanctified giftes not that they receiue sanctification for to that ende he named them sanctified that thou shouldest not so thinke but that they imparte him vnto vs that is to say his grace Againe he saith there Oremus inquit pro Donis vt in nos operentur ne ad hanc gratiam non sit potens sicuti quando cum hominibus versabatur hoc omnipotens corpus in nonnullis Ciuitatibus non potuit signa facere propter eorùm incredulitatem Let vs pray saith Chrysostome for the Giftes that they may worke vpon vs least he be not of power to the working of this grace as this almighty Body when it was conuersant with men in certaine Cities Marc. 6. was not hable to worke Miracles for their vnbeleefe Beware Reader thou vnderstand not this of Christes absolute power but of the dispensation then taken in hande For of his absolute power he was hable to worke Miracles whether they beleued or otherwise Though he be hable alwaies to heale vs and to worke miraculously with vs yet oftentimes the riuer of his Diuine vertue by our ingratitude and incredulitie is so stopped from his course that it is not powred vpon vs. Whiche I thought good to note that thou be not deceiued According to this former meaning the Priest may wel pray in his Masse that God wol vouchesafe mercifully to looke vpon and to accepte those giftes to wit the body and bloude of Christe that they may haue vertue to worke the effecte of grace in vs that is to say that the course of grace whiche their vertue is to worke on their behalfe be not stopped from vs by our vnworthinesse And here it is to be considered that when a condition of a sute is by secrete meaning annexed vnto a gifte presented which most commonly happeth the partie that presenteth it besecheth him to whom it is presented to receiue it with good wil and take it in good woorth Whiche if he professe to doo then the presentour trusteth to obteine his sute secretly conteined in the condition of the gifte Now as when either by him selfe or by an other he desireth that his gifte may be accepted his meaning is specially that he him selfe making sute or that his requeste be accepted so in the Canon of the Masse the Priest and in him Gods holy people prayeth that God fauourably receiue those giftes meaning that they them selues and their sute be fauourably receiued as being a condicion annexed by inward intention to their offering of the giftes So that in this sense al hath relation to them that present and offer Chysost in Liturgia And therefore S. Chysostome after that he hath said Let vs pray to our Lorde for the precious giftes offered and sanctified forthwith addeth vt clemens Deus qui suscepit ea in sancto coelesti intelligibili Altari suo mittat nobis propterea gratiam donum sancti Spiritus That our merciful God who hath receiued them in his holy and heauenly intelligible Aulter vouchesafe to sende vs for the same the grace and gifte of the Holy Ghoste Beholde Reader he prayeth for the pretious giftes that for them God sende his grace What is this to say but that he