Sacrifices they thought them selues to be destitute of the benefites of the Lawe and remedies for sinne Herevnto the Apostle maketh answere and in effect teacheth That of such Sacrifices as the Lawe ordeined now we haue no neede for so much as the Priesthood of Christ who hath once offred him selfe with sheadding of his bloude vpon the Aulter of the Crosse hauing thereby fulfilled them remaineth and continueth stil with vs whiche is sufficient We haue saith he to them an Aulter whereof it is not lawful for them to eate whiche doo serue the Tabernacle Heb. 13. And that ye see not hostes to bâ— killed and the bloude of Calues to be shed of vs the cause is for that the onely blouddy hoste of Christe hath sufficed that now we haue neede of no other but of that That hoste is the founteine and endlesse treasure whiche conteineth the sufficient price of our Redemption onely it is neede that wee be made partakers of it Neither were those Sacrifices of Moyses lawe suche that by vertue and power of them being but signes and figures of Christ Heb. 9. synnes were remitted in conscience but by them synnes were brought to remembrance and signification was geuen out that there was neede of an other blouddy Sacrifice by whose vertue men in conscience should be made perfite And so the Apostle treateth of the thing it selfe that was shadowed in al the Sacrifices of the Law and is so acceptable vnto the Father that by his owne propre vertue and merite it sanctifieth men and remitteth sinnes whereunto by the ordinance of Gods iustice the Bloude of the Sonne of God was Requisite Suche is the Hoste or Sacrifice of the Crosse onely by whose vertue and merite they be sanctified whosoeuer from the beginning either by the Sacrifices of the former times or by the daily Sacrifice of the Churche are sanctified By whiche onely for this cause al be said to be sanctified bicause who so euer be sanctified be by that and by the vertue of that made cleane In case the olde Sacrifices or the Sacrifice of the Masse also were suche sufficient prices of our redeÌ„ption without doubte bothe those and this had long sithens ceassed to be offered For suche a Sacrifice whiche by his owne proper merite geteth sufficient price for sinnes ought to be great in deede soothly by the Death of the Sonne of God but one onely sufficeth Heb. 10. Wherefore of a blouddy Sacrifice there is no more neede but of suche a one as by which we may be made partakers of that great and most worthy Sacrifice Of whiche sorte the Sacrifice of the Masse is where in the person of Christe that Death is presented for vs vnto the Father And what Hoste or thing mystically offered could either better set Christes Death before his Fathers sight or more effectually deriue the merites of his Death vnto vs then that very body wherein he suffered For which cause when he deliuered the Sacrament of his Possion vnto vs Lucae 22. he said Doo ye this in remembrance of me So that this Sacrifice of the Masse although it be in his kinde a true Sacrifice as it shal be proued here after in this Reioindre yet it taketh his whole vertue and power of the Sacrifice of the Crosse which is of it selfe the whole price of our Redemption Now S. Paul disputeth with the Hebrewes of that whiche with bloudshed redemed vs and not of that whiche without bloudshed applieh the Redemption vnto vs. That was but once offered this is and must be ofte repeated Faultes escaped in printing Faâ—lte leafe line Correction Accidententes 31. b. 24. Accidentes Sigular 47. a 11. Singular â—nd 56. b. 20. and in here 79. a. 4. is here the termeth 94. a. 21. be termeth end 108. b. 5. and sacrified 111. a. 3. sacrificed iam num 117. b. 25. iam nunc the vnbloudy 119. b. 33. the bloudy taught them the nevv test 131. b. 26. taught them the nevve Oblation of the nevv Testament argume 136. b. 30. argument neither he they 140. b. 13. neither be they and circumstance 149. b. 23. any circumstance is the Masse in one 195. b. 10. in the Masse is one and maketh haste 208 a. 10. and make hast he briefly examined 215. b. 15. be briefly examined In the Epistle to M. Iew. Page 1. In the margent read Math. 5. Item there pag. 11. Lin. 2. for novv broched read nevv broched Item there pag. 13. Lin. 11. for hen read ben Item there Pag. 15. Lin. 14. for him reade him A REIOINDRE TO M. IEWELS REPLIE AGAINST THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASSE The wordes of M. Iewels Chalenge IF any learned man of our Aduersaries or if al the learned men that be alyue be hable to bring any one sufficient sentence out of any olde Catholike Doctour or Father or out of any olde general CouÌ„cel or out of the holy Scriptures of God or any one example of the Primitiue Churche wherby it may clearely and plainly be proued that for the space of sixe hundred yeres after Christe the Priest had authoritie to offer vp Christe vnto his Father I am content to yeelde and to subscribe The wordes of the Answer first made to this Chalenge Of the Priestes auctoritie to offer vp Christe to his Father CHrist is offered vp to his Father after three manners Figuratiuely Truely with Bloudshedding and Sacramentally or Mystically In Figure or Signification he was offered in the Sacrifice made to GOD bothe in the time of the Lawe of Nature and also in the time of the lawe written And therefore S. Iohn calleth Christe the Lambe Agnus occisus est ab origine mundi Apoc. 13. Heb. 10. Lib. 6. c. 5. which was killed from the beginning of the world meaning in figure The Sacrifices of Abel Noe and Abraham and al those of the people of Israel commaunded by the Lawe of Moses figured and signified Christe For whiche respecte chiefly the lawe is reported of S. Paule to haue the shadowe of the good thinges to come S. Augustine writing against Faustus the Heretike saieth Testamenti Veteris Sacrificia omnia multis varijs modis vnum Sacrificium cuius nunc memoriaÌ„ celebramus significauerunt All the Sacrifices of the olde Testament signified by manie and sundrie waies this one Sacrifice whose memorie we doo nowe celebrate And in an other place he saieth Dâ— fide ad PetruÌ„ Dia câ—nuÌ„ c. 19. That in those Fleashly Sacrifices there was a SignificatioÌ„ of Christes Fleash which he shoulde offer for sinnes and of his Bloud which he should sheadde for the remission of our sinnes Truely and with Bloudsheadding Christ is offered on the Crosse in his owne person wherof S. Paule saith Tit. 2. Christ gaue hiÌ„ self for vs Ephes. 5. that he might redeme vs froÌ„ al iniquitie And againe Christ hath loued vs and hath deliuered him selfe for vs an Oblation and Sacrifice to God into a svvete sauour Sacramentally or in Mysterie
Ecclesiastical writers were accustomed to attribute vnto the chiefe ministers of Gods mysteries as oft or oftener the title of Sacrificers as of Priests or Elders as it may be tried by vewe of the workes written by S. Dionyse Tertullian S. Cyprian S. Chrysostom S. Ambrose S. Hierome S. Augustine S. Leo S. Gregorie and briefly by the writinges of al others from age to age vnto these wretched times when the name and person of a Sacrificer which al good men of times past euer reuerenced and honoured is despised accompted Iewish or Heathenish hated and detested So that the custome which Pachymeres speaketh of to cal a Priest a Sacrificer is now toward the ende of the worlde when Antichrist shal come by the worst sort of men his foreronners interrupted and broken How be it I maruel that M. Iewel who hath so great stoare of phrases wherewith to make shew of somewhat against the Catholiks S. Dionyse vvriâ—ting to Sopater a Priest calleth hiÌ„â—acrificer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to bleare the eyes of the vnlerned had no better phrase then this of S. Dionyse against the Sacrifice of the Churche Wil it seme likely to any wise man that S. Dionysius was so farre ouerseene as to vse one word for an other specially in that place where he so ernestly aduertiseth one to vtter nothing that may be reproued For that special counsel he geueth Sopater in that Epistle And whereas writing Epistles to others he geueth to ech one his due title of honour and calling as To Gaius a * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Moonke To Dorotheê° a * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Minister or Deacon by interpretation of Pachymeres To Polycarpus a * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bisshop To Iohn the Diuine Apostle and EuaÌ„gelist how shal we think he failed only of the true name that Sopaters vocation was called by Verily had not a Priest in his certaine knowledge and in the iudgemeÌ„t of the learned Fathers of that time the Apostles scholers don true Sacrifice in dede by offering vp the body and bloud of Christe vnto God he wold not haue called Sopater the Priest a Sacrificer But bicause they had the same faith concerning this Sacrifice that the Churche euer sithens had and we nowe haue he doubted not to cal a Priest a Sacrificer as now he is coÌ„moÌ„ly called Neither vsed he that terme only in his Epistle to Sopater but also in his Ecclesiastical Hierarchie where he declared the maner how the Sacrifice was to be celebrated And the custome hath now so preuailed saith Pachymeres Which custome should neuer so haue preuailed in the vniuersal Churche of Christe had not the terme in so weighty a mater bene agreable vnto the truth Thus S. Dionyse whom M. Iewel allegeth for him selfe maketh clearely against M. Iewel Vnto Pachymeres M. Iewel adioineth S. Paule Origen S. Chrysostome to proue that preaching of the Gospel is called a Sacrifice being none in dede and also S. Gregorie Nazianzene calling the people his Sacrifice These authorities might as wel haue ben brought in to proue that Christe offered no true and real Sacrifice vpon the Crosse as that there is no external Sacrifice in the Churche but only a reported Sacrifice by a metaphore For if any man allege to the contrarie the testimonies of the Scripture and Doctors wher they cal Christes death a Sacrifice folowing M. Iewel one may easily answere that both the Scripture and Doctours vsed the word improperly alluding for their delite vnto the Sacrifices of the old Law For behold saith he this is not straÌ„ge S. Paul S. Chrysostome and OrigeÌ„ doe cal preaching a Sacrifice whereas in dede preaching is no Sacrifice And so by a phrase of speache the Sacrifice of Christes death whereon our faith and hope as the ground of our saluatioÌ„ stayeth were like to be remoued and displaced What a fond kind of arguing is this The absurdity of M. Iewels argumeÌ„t The terme Sacrifice is sometimes vsed of the Fathers speaking metaphorically Ergo it is so to be taken when thei speake of the Sacrifice of the Aulter The great absurditie of this argumeÌ„t may easily appeare in the like As for example Baptisme is somtime taken in the Scripture by a figuratiue speach for tribulatioÌ„ and suffering of death as when Christ said Baptismo habeo baptizari Luc. 21. et quomodo coartor vsque duÌ„ perficiatur I haue a Baptisme to be baptized withal and how am I straighted vntil it be accomplished Ergo Baptisme hath no proper significatioÌ„ in the last chapter of S. Mathew where Christ gaue coÌ„mandemeÌ„t vnto his disciples Mat. 28. saying Go ye and teach al natioÌ„s baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost But Christ pronouncing the terme of Baptisme Mar. 7. alluded only vnto the obseruaÌ„ce and Ceremonie of the Iewes whose custome was to baptize and washe them selues when they returned home from the market or common place For thy better instruction herein Reader M. Iewels comoÌ„ Arguments deduced from like to like thou maist be aduertised that these Argumentes à Simili from one like thing to an other be the weakest of al others and most deceiueable and are fitter for a Rhetorical declamation then for a probation of truth called in controuersie And therefore it is a kinde of Argument attributed vnto the Rhetorician to explicate and make plaine a mater and not to the Logician strongly to conuince and piththily to proue a veritie Yet M. Iewel notwithstanding is so in loue with this kinde of prouing in his whole booke of Replie that if his comparisons of one phrase with an other were cut of which he woulde haue seme to be like the rest of his booke should appeare of smal quantitie How be it though it be the slipperest way in reasoning yet if M. Iewel had compared phrases together that were like in dede al circumstances obserued he were the more to be borne withal But most coÌ„monly he maketh his comparisons betwixt those phrases that haue litle or none affinitie at al either for that the one is spoken by a Metaphore and the other properly or the one of one mater and the other of an other or the one in one respect the other in an other And by that meanes he confoundeth the Doctours sayinges M. Iewels custome to put avvay one truth by an other and thinketh he hath done the parte of a lerned man if he may seme to foile and desplace one truth by an other truth As for example In our present case bicause S. Paule and certaine Doctours by a Figure do take Preaching for a Sacrifice which is a truth denyed by no man for it is in deede a kinde of spiritual Sacrifice therefore he woulde haue it seme that the same Doctours neuer speake of any real Sacrifice of Christes body and bloude whereas it is most manifest as it shal hereafter be proued that they speake of both kindes
vp the Burnt sacrifice of his Passion To conclude then if certaine Fathers in a figuratiue speache and with a qualification say that when one is baptized he offereth vp the Sacrifice of Christes Passion or that in him selfe he crucifieth Christe which is true in a right sense M. Iewel may not thereof conclude that Christe at the celebration of the Supper is not truly offered For if he reason thus Christe is after a manner offered of vs when we are baptized Ergo he is not offered of the Priest in the Sacrament of the Aulter M. Ievv setteth one tru◠against a◠other Forasmuch as in Baptisme he is onely by grace and in the blessed Sacrament really and in substance Euery man of meane vnderstanding may soone espy the fondnesse of the Argument But not being hable directly to impugne this assured truth he maketh such a proffer towardes it as he can by setting one truth against an other truth The .11 Diuision The Ansvver OVR aduersaries crake much of the sealing vp of their newe Doctrine with the Bloud of such and such who be written in the booke of lyes not in the booke of life whome they wil needes to be called Martyrs Verily if those Mounkes and Friers Apostates and renegates wedded to wiues or rather to vse their owne terme yoked to Sisters be true Martyrs then must our Newe Gospellers pul these Holy Fathers and many Thousandes moe out of Heauen For certainly the Faith in Defence of whiche either sorte died is vtterly contrary The worst that I wishe to them is that God geue them eies to see and eares to heare and that he shutte not vp their hartes so as they see not the light here Math. 25 vntil they be throwen away into the outwarde darkenes where shal be weeping and grintinge of teeth Iewel This talke vvas vtterly out of season sauing that it liked vvel M. Harding to sporte him selfe vvith the Scriptures of God and a litle to scoffe at the vvordes of S. Paule 1. Cor. 9. VVhich thing becomming him so vvel may be the better borne vvithal Philip. 4. vvhen it shal please him likevvise to scoffe at others S. Paule calleth vviues Heb. 13. sometimes Sisters sometimes Yokefellows and thinketh Matrimonie to be Honorable in al Personnes 1. Timo. 4. and the forbidding of the same to be the Doctrine of Diuels Neither doth it any vvay appeare that euer honest godly Matrimonie either displeased God or vvas thought vncomely for a Martyr and vvitnesse of Gods Truth Harding Here M. Iewel you leaue my Conclusion and being grieued with certaine termes you shew your selfe much offended and fare as if your soare were touched in the quicke But sir what neede you of al the Gospellers to take this mater so hote You are not yet married pardye Marye if perhaps your fansie lye to a woman and you determine to take her to your wife wel mote you doo God send you good lucke I intende not to forbyd your Banes M Ievvel here digresseth from the purpose into a cōmō place to defend Priestes Mariages But what meant you in this place to vnlade your common stuffe that you haue gathered together in defence of Priestes marriage What iust occasion had you to treate thereof What feared you that the bulke of your booke would not arise huge ynough vnlesse you brought vnto it such heapes of vnnecessary common places Or thought you rather that your companions marriages should be taken as they be in deede for detestable horedome and abominable Inceste except they were by you defended Or brought you in al this vnceasonable talke only to please your felowes the Apostates and their strompets Verily the terme yoked to Sisters which is a badge of your owne liuerie vsed by me as it were by the way speaking of an other mater ministred not sufficient occasion to enter into so large a discourse in defence of your filthy yokinges Why did you not rather reprooue me for calling the Registre of your stincking Martyrs the booke of lyes Why did you not proue your Lecherours married Monkes and Friers the chiefe Apostles of your Synagogue not to be Apostates Why answered you not the point that if they be true Martyrs then must you pul those holy Fathers whom I alleged for the Sacrifice out of heauen For both can not be placed there the faith in defence whereof either sorte dyed being quite contrary This parte of my talke was not al together out of ceason And wherein I pray you do I sporte with the Scriptures and scoffe at the woordes of S. Paule for therewith you burthen me What bicause hauing said of your Monkes and Friers that they were wedded to wiues I corrected my terme saying rather to vse your owne māner of speach that they were yoked to sisters is this sporting with the Scriptures of God Is this scoffing at S. Paules wordes You should first haue proued your Apostates strompettes to be their lawful wiues and then might you better haue framed an obiection against me Now that practise being cōtrary to the Scripture which commaundeth vowes to be kepte and performed Psal. 75. what Scripture haue ye for such yoking What reliefe haue ye for it of S. Paule Though in dede faithful and godly wiues be together with vs that beleeue the children of God and in the primitiue Churche the name of Brother and Sister was cōmon among the beleuers yet how prooue you that S. Paule calleth wyues sometimes Sisters sometimes yoke-fellowes Is it not shame for you who professe so great skil in the Latine tongue and haue such a helper at hand for the Greeke tongue to grounde your selfe vpon the corrupte translation of your English Bible Were it true that S. Paule called wyues sometimes Sisters sometimes Yokefelowes for which ye haue nothing to allege but the English Bibles translation yet how are ye hable to prooue the yoking that is betwene your blessed Brothers and Sisters that is to say betwen your holy Prelates Priests Monkes Friers and Nonnes who haue bounde them selues by solemne vowe to the contrary to be true wedloke VVhat meant S. Paule by A sister vvoman 1. Cor. 9. By you quotation you appoint your Reader to the .9 Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians What is there that maketh for you S. Paule saith Haue not we power to leade about a sister woman with vs as the other Apostles and the brethren of our Lorde and Cephas What meaneth he by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 August li. de opere Monachorū cap. 4. Ambro. in Commen Theophyl in Cōmen Hiero. cōtra Iouin lib. 1. sororem mulierem a Sister woman but a faithful or a Christian woman For as the men that beleued were called Brothers so the wemen were called Sisters As for your Translatour who turneth it a Sister to Wife whether for the Greeke he haue deliuered true English or no let other iudge certainly he hath deliuered vs a false sense For as S.
as I brought how aptely they serue to this purpose and how directely thei strike the marke it doth already I doubt not appeare to such as with an indifferent eye haue perused myne Aunswere to this your seuenteenth Article And more euidently it shal appeare with Gods grace by this processe when the weakenes and falshoode of your Replie shal be detected and thereby it shal be prooued that your vaine Chalenge being too malepertly and presumptuously made standeth neither vpon good nor conuenient termes but vpon a deuilish denial vnmeete to procede out of any Christian mans mouth The .3 Diuision The Ansvvere THe Scripture it selfe ministring euideÌ„t proufe for the OblatioÌ„ of Christ to his Father by the Priestes of the New Testament in the Institution of this Holy Sacrament in the figure of Melchisedech and in the Prophecie of Malachie the Prophete the authorities of the Fathers needed not to be alleaged were not the same Scripture by the ouerthwarte and false interpretations of our aduersaries wrested and tourned to a coÌ„trary sense to the horrible seducing of the vnlearned Iewel Alas vvhat toole is there so vveake that M. Harding vvil refuse to strike vvithal To prooue his imagined Kind of Sacrifice he hath brought vs forth out of his great stoare the example of Melchisedeck and the Prophecie of Malachie As if he vvould reason thus God saith vnto Christ Thou arte a Priest for euer according to the order of Melchisedek Psal. 110. Or God saith by the Prophete Malachie Malac. 1. A pure Oblation shal be offred vnto me in euery place Ergo The Priest hath Authoritie and power to offer vp the Sonne of God vnto his Father If he had not had good choise and stoare of Authorities he vvould neuer haue begonne vvith these But he addeth further as mater of greeuance That these plaine Scriptures by the ouerthwarte and false Interpretations of his Aduersaries are wreasted and turned to a contrary sense and that as he saith to the horrible seducing of the vnlearned Doubtlesse here is a very horrible accusation Hovv be it if vve happely had mistaken these places and our errour therein vvere fully prooued yet should not M. Harding in such horrible termes reprooue vs for doing that thing once that he and his felovves doo so often But by vvhat vvordes by vvhat false Interpretation into vvhat peruerse or Heretical Sense haue vve so horribly vvreasted these Scriptures M. Harding is vvise is eloquente is vvatcheful is circumspecte is fast addicted vnto his cause he dissembleth and leaueth nothing that any vvay may sexue his purpose If our Errours be so horrible he should not haue spared them If there be none he should not thus haue touched them If M. Hardinge vvinke at them vvho can see them If M. Hardinge knovv them not vvho can knovv them Harding Whether my tooles be weake as you ieast or of good strength let it be iudged by the strokes they geue with which doubteles the heresie that ye sustaine aganst the outward and sigular Sacrifice of the Churche is striken downe and quite ouerthrowen And the same tooles haue the chiefe Doctours and auncient Fathers of the Church vsed before me By the tooles I meane as you doo the Figure of Melchisedech and the Prophecie of Malachie by which the doctrine of the Church concerning the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe is auouched And here to enter into that special point litle esteming your other impertinent talke which you thinke toucheth my person and wise men see helpeth not your cause directing my wordes to the Reader of whom I may conceiue better hope then I doo of you thus I say The Argument which M. Iewel here maketh as on my behalfe albeit to the learned who knowe and vnderstand the circumstances of the figure of Melchisedech and of the prophecie of Malachie concludeth sufficiently and fully yet thou maist be wel assured good Reader I would neuer my selfe haue proponed it so nakedly and without any declaration of the necessary circumstances Although there folow hereafter more proper placâ—s to open the figure of Melchisedech and the prophecie of Malachie where I bring them in for proufe of this intent yet bicause M. Iewel hath by preuention abruptly fallen into them and to the ende noman be deceiued by his cutted argument which in deede is good if the circumstances were not guilefully conceeled here I thinke good to vtter some of those circumstances To beginne therfore with Melchisedech It may please thee Reader to vnderstand that he is recorded in the Scripture to be a Priest of God the highest Gen. 14. Then being a Priest it behoued him to offer Sacrifice according vnto S. Paules doctrine Heb. 5. Euery Bishop or Priest taken from among men is for men appointed in those thinges that belong to God to offer vp giftes and sacrifices for sinnes What sacrifice then did he offer He offered vp bread and wine as Arnobius that auncient Father That Melchisedek offered bread and vvine beside sundry other Doctours doth witnesse notwithstanding the Scripture make plaine and expresse mention only of bringing forth bread and wine His wordes be these Christus per mysterium panis vinisacerdos sactus est secundùm ordineÌ„ Melchisedech Arnob. in Psal. 109. qui panem vinum solus obtalit in sacerdotibus dum Abraham Victor reuerteretur de praelio By the mysterie of bread and wine Christ became a Priest after the order of Melchisedech who onely among the Priestes offered bread and wine when Abraham returned conquerour from bataile Cyprian epist. ad Cecilium lib. 2. epistola 3. This order saith S. Cyprian speaking of the order of Melchisedech is here comming of that sacrifice he meaneth Melchisedeks sacrifice and descending from thens that Melchisedech was the priest of the highest God that he offered bread and wine that he blessed AbrahaÌ„ Here it is expressely affirmed that Melchisedech offered bread and wine and moreouer that Christ by doing the like was made a Priest according to the order of the same Melchisedek That Christe at his Supper shewed him selfe a priest after the order of Melchisedek But when and where did Christe beginne to shewe him selfe a Prieste in offering sacrifice after that Order Verely at his last Supper For of that he did vppon the Crosse whereof the Sacrifice of the Supper taketh his merite now I speake not And that he did so at his laste Supper S. Hierome in his Commentaries vpon the .26 chapter of S. Matthew is an euident witnesse where he saith thus Hieron in Mat. 26. Post quam typicum Pascha fuerat impletum Agni carnes cum Apostolis comederat assumit panem qui confortat cor hominis ad verum Paschae transgreditur sacramentum vt quomodo in praefiguratione eius Melchisedech summi Dei sacerdos panem vinum offerens fecerat ipse quoque veritatem sui corporis sanguinis repraesentaret After that the figuratiue Passeouer had ben fulfilled and
that I denie not and maketh a long needelesse talke of the worde Dreadful shewing sundry thinges to be called Dreadful wherein he telleth some truth pretending to the Reader thereby as though bicause Eusebius is alleged calling this Sacrifice Dreadful thereof specially I had concluded the auctoritie of offering Christe vnto his Father whiche thing in dede I do not And forasmuch as this much is vntruly attributed vnto me and therefore may with like facilitie be denyed as it is without proufe said and the whole processe of the rest of this Diuision is vtterly impertinent and besides the purpose I thinke this much ynough for answer vnto it that it is not worth the answering The .6 Diuision The Ansvvere Hesychius lib. 1. c. 4. THat Christe Sacrificed himselfe at his Supper Hesychius affirmeth with these wordes Quod Dominus iussit Leuit. 4. vt Sacerdos vituluÌ„ pro peccato oblaturus Ioan. 10. ponat manuÌ„ super caput eius iugulet euÌ„ coraÌ„ Domino ChristuÌ„ significat quem nemo obtulit sed nec immolare poterat nisi semetipsum ipse ad patienduÌ„ tradidisset Propter quod non solùm dicebat Potestatem habeo ponendi animan meam potestatem habeo iterum sumeÌ„di eam sed praeueniens semetipsum in Coena ApostoloruÌ„ immolauit quod sciunt qui Mysteriorum percipiunt virtutem That our Lord commaunded saith he the Priest which should offer a calfe for sinne to put his hande vpon his heade and to sticke him before our Lord it signifieth Christ whom noman hath offered neither could any man Sacrifice him excepte he hadde deliuered him selfe to suffer For the which he said not only I haue power to lay downe my Soule and I haue power to take it againe But also preuenting it he offred vp him selfe in Sacrifice in the Supper of the Apostles which they knowe that receiue the vertue of the Mysteries By these wordes of Hesychius we learne that Christ offered and sacrificed his Body and Bloud twise Firste in that Holy Supper vnbloudely when he tooke Bread in his handes and brake it c Without Diuision of the Sacrifice for it is but one and the same Sacrifice And afterwarde on the Crosse with Shedding of his bloud and that is it he meaneth by the woorde Preuenting Iewel VVe denie not but it may vvel be saide Christe at his last Supper offered vp him selfe vnto his Father Albeit not Really and in deede but accordinge to M. Hardinges ovvne Distinction in a Figure Apocal. 13. or in a Mysterie in suche sorte as vve say Christe vvas offered in the Sacrifices of the Olde Lavve and as S. Iohn saieth Agnus Occisus ab Origine Mundi The Lambe was shaine from the beginninge of the VVorlde As Christe vvas slaine at the Table so vvas he Sacrificed at the Table But he vvas not slaine at the Table Verily and in dede but onely in a Mysterie Therefore he vvas not Sacrificed at the Table Really and in deede but onely in a Mysterie So saith S. Augustine Nonne semel immolatus est Christus in sâ—m etipso August Epist. 23. Et tamen in Sacramento non tantùm per omnes Paschae Solennitates sed etiam omni die populis immolatur Nec vtique mentitur qui interrogatus eum responderit immolari Si enim Sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum quarum Sacramenta sunt non haberent omnino Sacramenta non essent VVas not Christe once offered in him selfe And yet in or by vvay of a Sacramente not only at the Solemne Feaste of Easter but euery daye he is offered vnto the people And he saith no vntrueth that being demaunded maketh answeare that Christe is Sacrificed His reason is this For if Sacramentes had not a certaine Likenesse or Resemblance of the thinges wherof they be Sacramentes then should they vtterly be no Sacramentes Harding The contentes of M. Iewels Replie in this Diuision stand in .4 pointes First he graunteth that Christe offered vp him selfe vnto his Father at his last Supper in a figure or in a Mysterie that is to say as he expoundeth himselfe in such sorte as he was offered vp in the Sacrifices of the olde Lawe But that he was there really and in dede offred he vtterly denieth Secondly for answer to the authoritie alleged out of Hesychius he saith that sometimes he was driuen to streatche and straine the Scriptures to his purpose Thirdly he would prooue his Sacramentary opinion touching the difference betwen the Sacrifice of the Table and the Sacrifice of the Crosse by a place of S. Cyprian leauing out the which foloweth in him being such as clearely determineth the point against him Fourthly whereas I say that Christe twise sacrificed him selfe really he auoucheth it to be reproued by plaine wordes of S. Paule Of the falshode of the first point though I haue spoken somewhat already yet because M. Iewel ceasseth not to sing one song and eftsones repeateth the same tale standing vppon his false Negatiue some deale more semeth here necessary to be spoken that it may appeare how cleare the truth is of our side and how weake the stuffe is that he bringeth against vs. Although he tel not his tale in most distincte and plaine wise as this doctrine of the vnbloudy Sacrifice of Christe ought to be vttered vsing the termes of Figure and Mysterie confusely yet his meaning is plaine yenough verely more plaine then true Which is that Christe offered vp him selfe vnto his Father at his laste Supper in Figure onely and that concerning both the thing offered and the manner of offering For adding as it were an exposition of his owne wordes M. Iewels doctrine touching the Sacrifice is only figuratiue In such sorte saith he as we say Christe was offered in the Sacrifice of the olde Lawe Now certaine it is that in the sacrifices of the olde Lawe Christe was offered in Figure onely whether we consider the substance that was offered or the manner of offering The substance of those olde Sacrifices was a brute beast a sheepe a calfe a goat an Oxe Of which euery one was but a figure onely of Christâ— the manner of offering was slaughter with bloudshed which slaughter was also a figure onely of Christes bloudy death to be suffered vppon the Crosse. So M. Iewels doctrine touching this point is figuratiue on euery side that is to say that Christe offered vp him selfe at his supper in Figure onely Yet vnderstanding with him self and as it were beiâ—g gilty in his owne conscience that this doctrine soundeth very strangely and would offend the eares of the learned Catholiques in the conclusion he qualifieth his tale with termes and shunning the odious woorde of a Figure onely guilefully shifteth in the worde Mysterie saying that Christe was not sacrificed at the Table really and in dede but onely in a Mysterie Nowe that our disputation fal not into wrangling and cauilles here he is to be demaunded what he meaneth by this terme onely in
damnation Like as it happeth sometimes a Prince to reiecte a very pretious Iuel offered by his enemie or one that he fauoureth not not bicause the Iuel misliketh him but bicause the partie that offered it was his foe or out of his fauour And whereas M. Iewel would haue it seme absurde that the Father should be entreated with his merciful and fauourable countenance to looke vpon the holy bread of life euerlasting In Canone Missae and the cuppe of perpetual saluation and to accepte the same as he vouchesaued to accepte the giftes and Sacrifices of Abel Abraham and Melchisedech for so the Priest prayeth at the Masse and not as M. Iewel to colourable aduantage falsly reporteth it I answer that happy be we if for our behalfe he wil so accepte that our Sacrifice as he did the Sacrifices of those holy men his dere frendes Furthermore M. Iewel is not ignorant if he be so wel learned as he is thought to be that the aduerbe of simimilitude Sicuti As Sicuti doth not alwaies signifie a ful equalitie but onely a likenesse in some parte and degree As for example it doth in that prayer which Christe made vnto his Father for his chosen Iohan. 1◠Pater sancte serua eos in nomine tuo quos dedisti mihi vt sint vnum sicut nos O Holy Father keepe them in thy name whom thou hast geuen vnto me that they may be one as wee are In this Prayer Christes meaninge was not that the electe shoulde be thoroughly in substance al one as God the Father and God the Sonne be but one in charitie wil and concorde thinking al one thing and willing al one thing Theophyl in Iohan. cap. 17. as Theophilacte with other Doctours expoundeth the place And whereas the Scripture saith in the person of God speaking vnto Iosue Sicut cum Moyse fui Iosue 3. ita tecum sum As I was with Moyses euen so I am with the also It is not meant that God was with Moyses in no greater an higher degree of power and vertue then he was with Iosue For Moyses was admitted vnto a peerlesse frendship with God and endewed with more special auctoritie then euer Iosue was as the Scriptures doo euidently witnesse So doth the Churche besech the Father to looke vpō that holy bread and cuppe of life and health euerlasting that is to say the body and bloude of his Sonne Iesus Christ with a merciful and cleare countenance as he did vpō the sacrifices of Abel Abrahā and Melchisede◠not that it is mistrusted least God be lesse or not infinitely more pleased with the one Sacrifice then with the other but that humbly we thinke it shal be wel with vs if he respecte See what I say touching this Prayer of the Canon in the last Diuision beholde and allowe the ministerie and deuotion of vs as farre forth as he did the deuotion of the others Of this M. Iewel geueth me occasion to speake more in the last Diuision of this Article If M. Iewel had in his harte so much deuoute humilitie or humble deuotion as he seemeth to haue deuilish arrogancie or arrogant deuilishnesse he would neuer haue accused me or rather the Churche for vsing this humble and deuoute Prayer in the Masse which in spite he calleth my Masse being the common Seruice and Sacrifice of the whole Churche of Christ. But bicause like an vnkinde and degenerate or rather a rebellious sonne he despiseth the auctoritie of his Mother the Church I wil put him in minde of S. Ambrose that holy and learned Bisshop and excellent member of the Churche yet doubting whether he wil ought reuerence one after he hath so insolently contemned them al. Fayne would I vnderstand with what sope or lye he is hable to scoure out the spotte of so vaine wicked and foolish an opinion so contrary to that S. Ambrose writeth Who to prooue that this is the Sacrament the figure whereof went before and to shewe how great a Sacrament it is bringeth in this Prayer vsed in the Masse and wherein M. Iewel findeth so great beguyling of the simple mocking of the worlde and open wickednesse as a most strong argument His wordes be these the same very few wordes excepted that be in Canon of the Masse that so confidently he reproueth both here and also in the Sermon wherein he made the first proclamation of his vaine Chalenge Sacerdos dicit Ambrosius de sacram lib. 4. cap. 6. Ergo memores gloriosissimae eius Passionis ab inferis Resurrectionis in coelum Ascensionis offerimus tibi hanc immaculatam hostiam rationabilem hostiam incruentam hostiam hunc panem sanctum calicem vitae aeternae petimus precamur vt hanc oblationē suscipias in sublimi altari tuo per manus Angelorum tuorum sicut suscipere dignatus es munera pueri tui iusti Abel sacrificium Patriarchae nostri Abrahae quod tibi obtulit summus sacerdos Melchisedech The priest saith Therefore being myndeful of his most glorious Passion and Resurrection from hell and of his Ascension into heauen we offer vp vnto thee this vnspotted hoste this reasonable hoste this vnbloudy hoste this holy bread and cuppe of life euerlasting And we beseeche and pray thee that thou receiue this Oblation in thy Aulter on high by the handes of thy Angels as thou vouchesauedst to receiue the giftes of thy childe Iuste Abel and the sacrifice of Abraham our Patriarke and that which Melchisedech the higest Priest offered vp vnto thee Lo good Reader thus prayed S. Ambrose in his Masse nor for so doing was he euer thought to haue begyled the simple nor to haue mocked the worlde And the whole Catholique Churche hath euer so farre cleared him of al wickednesse not onely open but also priuy that he is holden for a holy Confessour vncontrolled Doctour and strong pillour of the Churche vntil M. Iewel a very begyler of the simple and mocker of the worlde in deede came to prie out in his doctrine and prayer being also the cōmon prayer of the Church a heinous wickednesse Iewel Notvvitstandinge this matter is easily ansvveared For saith he we Sacrifice not Christe againe The Oblation that Christe made vpon the Crosse and ours in the Masse is al one And this Sacrifice Christe hath commaunded vs to continew vntil his comminge If M. Harding make the selfe same Sacrifice that Christe made vpon the Crosse then is he A Priest ofter the order of Melchisedeck And so The king of Iustice The Prince of Peace and a Prieste for euer without Successour For these titles be incident to the Priesthoode of Melchisedeck vvhiche neuerthelesse I thinke M. Hardinge of his modestie vvil not acknovvledge And vvithout the same he can not offer vp to God the same Sacrifice that Christe offered vpon the Crosse. And vvhere he saithe Christe hath commaunded him and his Felowes to make and continew this Sacrifice vntil his