really Christ him selfe For say you S. Cyprians wordes be cleare Christ offered the same thinge that Melchisedek had offered The clearer the wordes be the lesse they serue your obscure purpose If we graunted your translation to be true who haue turned hoc idem the same thing where it ought rather to be turned the same Sacrifice being referred to Sacrifice that goeth there before immediatly If we wincked at you for this I say Yet I pray you how foloweth this Argument Christ offered the same thing that Melchisedek had offered Ergo Melchisedek offered vp Christ him selfe verily and really If you would haue gonne the right way to worke thus you should haue argued Christe offered the same thing that Melchisedek had offered Melchisedek had offered bread and wine Ergo Christe offered bread and wine But bicause if you had thus rightly framed your Argument you had concluded with vs against your selfe by S. Cyprian by whose interpretation the bread and wine that Christ offered was his body and bloud rather then you would graunt so much it liked you better to vse false Logique then true Diuinitie The wordes then of S. Cyprian taken in their plaine and litteral sense Christe offered the true bread and true wine at his Supper and without any figure doo signifie that Melchisedek offered bread and wine as muche to say a bare figure and that Christe fulfilling that Figure offered also bread and wine But what bread and wine His body and bloude the true bread and the true wine Which body and bloude bicause they feede and susteine both body and soule to life euerlasting the cōmon bread and wine that Melchisedeck offered◠hauing vertue to feede only the body and that but for a final time are for good cause called the true bread and wine But perhaps you sticke to the worde hoc idē the same Sacrifice The Sacrifice of Melchisedek and the Sacrifice of Christe both diuers and the same or the same thing if you wil needes haue it so If Christe offered the same say you whereas Melchisedek offered but bread and wine how offered Christe him selfe truly and really True it is the Sacrifice of either or the thing that either of them offered is both diuers and also the same How diuers And howe the same Diuers in substance the same in Mysterie The diuersitie of substance not only S. Cyprian in the Epistle to Cecilius but also S. Hierome confesseth writing vpō the .109 Psalme Hierony in Psal. 109 Quomodo Melchisedech obtulit panem vinum sic tu offeres corpus tuum sanguinem verum panem verum vinū Like as Melchisedek offered bread and wine so thou shalt offer thy body and bloud the true bread and the true wine What difference then and diuersitie is betwen the figure and the thing forefigured that is to say betwen Melchisedeks bread and wine and the body and bloud of Christe such diuersitie of substāce is there in the thinges which they offered The Christe offered the same that Melchisedek had offered for the vnderstanding of it it may be said both in consideration of the Mysterie and of the thing it selfe in a right sense either bicause the formes of bread and wine remained after consecration or bicause it was bread and wine in dede before Christ had consecrated and offered We read in the Gospel Ioan. 2. that when our Sauiour at the Mariage had turned water into wine he commaunded the waiters to draw and bring it vnto the Vssher of the Haul They brought it and the Vssher tasted water made wine Now true it is to saye that the waiters did drawe and bring and the Vssher tasted the same thing that the waiters had filled the waterpottes withal a litle before that is water But what water Forsooth water made wine Likewise it was truely said of S. Cyprian that Christe offered the same thing that Melchisedech had offered before him that is bread and wine But what bread and wine Forsooth bread and wine made his body and bloude So the Scripture saith that Aarons Rodde deuoured the Roddes of the Enchaunters Exod. 7. What rodde was that It was the Rodde made a serpent By this it appeareth how sclender your Argument is which here you gather against the Real Sacrifice out of S. Cyprians wordes and how you seeke not so much the truth as to gainesay and ouerthwarte the Authorities that for the same I alleged Let vs examine the rest of your Replie Iewel Notvvithstanding it is certaine that the Sacrifice that Melchisedek made if it vvere graunted to be a Sacrifice yet in plaine and Common manner of speache vvas not Christe the Sonne of God but onely material Breade and VVine and other like prouision of Victualles prepared for Abraham and for his menne And therefore the Olde learned Fathers saie not Melchisedek offered the same in Sacrifice vnto God but He brought it foorth as a present as the manner vvas to refreashe them after the pursuitte and chase of their enimies And S. Hierome in his Translation turneth it not Obtulit He Sacrificed but Protulit He brought it foorthe Ioseph Antiquit lib. 1. cap. 11. Iosephus reporteth the mater thus Melchisedek milites Abrahami hospitaliter habuit nihil illis ad victum deesse Passus Simulque ipsum adhibuit Mēsae Melchisedek feasted Abrahams Souldiers and suffered them to wante nothinge that was necessary for their prouision And likewise he receiued Abraham him selfe vnto his Table Chrysost. in Gene. Homil 35. Epiph. cōt Melc lib. 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysostome and Epiphanius say thus He brought foorthe vnto them Breade and VVine Tertullian saithe Abrahamo reuertenti de praelio obtulit Panem Vinum Melschisedek offered Breade and VVine not vnto God but vnto Abraham returninge from the fighte So S. Ambrose Occurrit Melchisedek obtulit Abrahamo Panem Vinum Melchisedek came foorth to meete and offered nor vnto God but vnto Abraham Breade and VVine By these fevve it may appeare that Melchisedek brought foorthe Bread and VVine Tertull. cōtr Iudaeos and other prouision not as a Sacrifice vnto God but as a Reliefe and Susteinance for Abraham and for his Companie Harding It is a worlde to see your doublenes What are ye not resolued whether the Sacrifice that Melchisedek made were a Sacrifice or no Sir the Sacrifice he made that is to say the thing which he offered in Sacrifice was not Christe the Sonne of God pardy Who euer said it was Wel what was it then Mary onely material bread and wine say you So say we too and that by the same the Sacrifice of Christes body and bloud vnder the forme of bread and wine VVhat vvas Melchisedeks Sacrifice by M. Iew was forefigured But was this al that Melchisedek offered Not al by you For you recken vp also the prouision of victuals that were prepared for Abraham and his men that were in number .318 Then of likelyhod this was a
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
Christian man is bounde to offer vp the Vnblouddy and Daily Sacrifice of the Nevve Testamente and that in as ful and ample sorte as is the Priest And therefore M. Hardinge him selfe saithe euen in the very Canon of his Masse Memento Domine famulorum famularumque tuarum omnium Circumstantium pro quibus tibi offerimus vel qui tibi offerunt hoc Sacrificium Laudis Remember ô Lorde thy Seruantes and al them that stande aboute for whom wee offer vnto thee or els whiche doo offer vnto the this Sacrifice of Praises Out of S. Augustines vvordes M. Hardinge in the ende concludeth thus Christe is a Prieste after the order of melchisedek Ergo The Priest hath Authoritie to offer vp the Sonne of God in Sacrifice vnto his Father It vvere harde to tel vs hovv this Antecedente and this Consequente came togeather No man hath Authoritie thus to mince his Logique but M. Harding Harding If the Sacrifice be external That this sacrifice is external it behoueth the Priesthode also be external That this Sacrifice is external it is cleare For to the making of this Sacrifice external thinges be requisite as bread and wine mixte with water for the mater the wordes of our Lorde outwardly pronouÌ„ced for the fourme a Man ordered and consecrated into a Priest for the Minister The body also and bloude of Christe it selfe which is the substance offered though it be spiritually vnderstanded and not with any outward sense of man perceiued is a real thing of it selfe consisting besides and without the soule spirite or mynde of man and may be receiued of mannes body by the office of the mouth and is not a mere spiritual thing as loue mercie faith hope ioye sorowe contrition of harte and such other thinges that haue their being onely in the mynde and spirite For proufe that it is external by witnesses no testimonie can be plainer then that of S. Gregorie Nazianzen whereof the three onely later wordes M Iewel hath three times in this Article alleged suppressing the other with crafty silence bicause he sawe they made directly against him Nazianzâ— in Apologetico Thus he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How should I be so bolde as to offer vp vnto him the external Sacrifice the whiche is the true sampler of the great Mysteries Let no man charge me with falsifying this Father by adding this worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnto the sentence the same is in that place necessarily to be vnderstanded and there it should haue bene placed expressely by the Author but that he thought it better the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to haue relation vnto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thrise put before in the same sentence then by â—o ofte repetition of one worde as with an vnpleasant sound to offende learned eares to whose good liking in that Oration as also coÌ„monly in al his other exacte writinges folowing Polemon in his manner of writing as it is reported of him he muche attempered his stile Double Priesthod double Sacrifice in the nevve TestameÌ„t Now as touching Priesthode in the newe Testament it is double internal or spiritual and external as our Sacrifices also be double internal and mere spiritual and this the chiefe and singuler Sacrifice of the Church external The Internal Priesthode is common to al godly persons Internal Priesthod bicause they be membres of Christe the high King and Priest and the members be partakers of what good thinkes so euer the head hath God endeweth al with this Priesthode whom he washeth cleane from their sinnes in the bloude of Christe consecrating and annointing them with none other oile then with the oile of his Grace Of this Kinde of Priesthode speaketh S. Peter and S. Ihon the Apostle 2 Pet i. 2. This Pristhode as we acknowlege Apoc. 1.5 so do our Aduersaries not denie For it is neither a degree nor order nor office nor ministerie in the Churche And verely this Priesthode sometimes is worthier and of more excellencie in a woman or a childe then in a Bishop yea perhaps then in the Pope him selfe For in him it is none at al if he happe to fal into mortal sinne Whereas then al Christian persons be Priestes annointed with that Ointment 1. Ioan. 2. of whiche S. Iohn speaketh Vos vnctionem habetis à Sancto ye haue the ointment of the Holy they ought to offer vp and sacrifice somewhat vnto God soothly them selues and their bodies Rom. 12. a liuely holy and acceptable hoste to God as S. Paul admonished 1. Pet. 2. And S. Peter calleth the faithful a holy Priesthode offering spiritual and acceptable sacrifices vnto God through Iesus Christe The other Priesthode is external or owtwarde in the Churche External Priesthod which is coÌ„municated vnto certaine persons by Consecration and by Imposition of handes of Bishops Character indelebilis imprinting into the soule of him that is made a Priest a marke or Printe that can not be put out the like whereof is imprinted in them that receiue the Sacramentes of Baptisme and Confirmation Of this Priesthode so communicated by Imposition of handes and ordination of a Bishop speaketh S. Paule to Timothe â— Tim. 4. Noli negligere Gratiam quae in te est quae data est tibi per prophetiam cum impositione manuum Presbyterij Despise not the gifte whiche is in thee that was geuen thee through Prophecie with the laying on of the haÌ„des of Priesthode 2. Tim. 1. Againe to him Stirre vp the grace of God that is in thee through the laying on of my handes And in the Epistle to Tite Tit. 2. For this intent I leafte thee in Crete that thou shouldest amende the thinges that want and ordeine Priestes in euery Citie euen so as I tooke order with thee Act. 14. S. Paule also and S. Barnabas did ordeine Priestes in euery Churche in Prayer and fasting as now a daies the custome is obserued when holy orders be geuen This outward Priesthode and the ministerie of it is very necessary in the Churche militant Neither be the Priestes depriued of it if at any time they fal into mortal sinne as Wiclef helde opinion VViclef and was condemned for it in the Councel of Constantia For this Priesthode is not such a grace geuen as maketh one acceptable called of the Diuines Gratia gratum faciens It is an office a dignitie a Degree and a grace freely geuen Gratia gratis data as the Diuines terme it Neither can the prinâ—e that is imprinted in a Priest euer be put out by any mortal sinne Auctoritie to create Priestes leaste to the Churche That the Churche hath auctoritie and power to create and ordeine Priestes of the Apostles and that the Apostles receiued the same of Christe it may be proued by that Christe said at his last Supper hoc facite in meam commemorationem Luca. 22. 1. Cor. 11. Doo ye this in my remembrance For
filios Dei fieri He hath geuen them power to be made the sonnes of God Vnto which dignitie S. Paul addeth a farther degree saying Si autem filij Rom. 8. haeredes haeredes quidem Dei cohaeredes autem Christi If we be the sonnes of God then we be also the heires the heires of God and felow heires with Christe That high degree of honour which S. Peter speaketh of surmounteth al other neither can any other vnto it be cōparable Which is that God through Christe hath bestowed vpon vs so great giftes 2. Pet. 1. vt efficiamur Diuinae consortes naturae that we be made partakers of the Diuine nature Verily of the high dignitie that it hath pleased God to admitte man vnto in these and other the like cases that may wel be said against M. Iewel Esther 6. and all other the enemies of this Sacrifice which King Assuerus commaunded openly to be proclaimed of good Mardochaeus against wicked Aman Hoc honore dignus est quemcunque rex voluerit honorare Of this honour is he worthy whō so euer the King of al Kings wil haue honoured And this is a sufficient answere to M. Iewels secrete obiection against the Sacrifice taken of the basenesse and miserie of humanie condition He wil saye perhaps M. Ievvel denieth the Sacrifice of the Aulter stoutely these examples and Scriptures prooue in dede that God hath aduaūced man vnto high honour but not that he may offer vp Christ vnto his Father For saieth he for ought that may appeare by any clause or sentence of the newe Testament or of the olde God neuer appointed any such Sacrifice to be made Such stoute asseuerations make but weake proufes Here might be alleged for the Sacrifice first out of the olde Lawe the Figures foresignifying and the Prophecies foretelling that suche Sacrifice was to be instituted Secondly out of the newe Testament Christes owne facte offering this Sacrifice and his plaine precepte commaunding his Apostles and their successours in the office of Priesthood to continue the same vntil his comming Thirdly the interpretation of the Fathers expounding in that sense both those figures and Prophecies of the olde Testament and likewise Christes facte and precepte in the newe Testament Last of al the continual practise of the vniuersal Church both Greke and Latine wherein the Priestes in al ages since Christes death haue made to God a Sacrifice of our Lordes body and bloude But because this is done already in the discourse of my Answer to this 17. Article of M. Iewels Chalenge leauing to repeate the same here againe when orderly proceding I shal come vnto the places by M. Iewels Replie impugned there I truste I shal by disclosing the Repliers false sleightes and by bewraying the weakenesse of his Replie to the indifferent and vnaffectionate Reader euidently shewe how strong and sound the Catholike doctrine of the Church is in this behalfe and how inuincibly the testimonies of the Scriptures and Fathers which in my Answer I alleged proue and establish the same VVhat may folovv if al be takē avvay that hath not proufe of Scripture Anabaptistes But touching such kinde of assertions as this is of M. Iewels if they may take place and if it shal be ynough to say for ought that may appeare shal it not seme lauful to the Anabaptistes to say away with the baptizing of infantes For for ought that may appeare the Scriptures geue vs no warrāt so to do Wil not the blasphemous Ariās say away with Cōsubstātialitie and equalitie of Christ with his Father For Arians for ought that may appeare it can not be auouched by any Clause or sentēce either of the new Testamēt or of the olde Wil not the folowers of Iouinian and Heluidius say Iouinianistes away with the perpetual Virginitie of our blessed Lady Christes Mother Heluidiās For for ought that may appeare the Scriptures be plaine against it rather then with it The Sabbataries Sabbataries wil not they cry out agaīst keping holy and solēne the Sōday For for ought that may appeare say they the cōmaundemēt to hallow the Saturday stādeth stil in force neither is there any clause or sentēce in the olde or new Testament bidding vs to chaunge it into the Sonday To be short what Heretike euer was there in olde time or is at this day whose turne this kind of assertion for ought that may appeare may not serue wherewith to mainteine his Heresie As touching the saying of Theophylact M. Ievvel to proue his Negatiue at the first findeth no aunciēter Doctour thē Theophylacte a late vvriter wherwith this Replier would fortifie his Negatiue it geueth euidence how weake his side is that could not be mainteined by any sentēce of greater force thē this is nor by any writer of more antiquitie thē Theophylact is with him Who requireth his cause to be tried by those Fathers only that liued within the first six hūdred yeres If he were hable to make any mā beleue that the Priests of the Church haue at any time sacrificed beastes vnto God or that Theophylact in that saying meant that now there were neede of nothīg but of prayer only as prayer is takē in the cōmon significatiō and that al other meanes to serue God were needelesse thē might the sentēce be alleged and seeme to serue his turne so farr forth as in cōsideratiō of his request the author were to be estemed But now sith Priestes of the new Testamēt neuer honoured God with bloudy sacrifices ād slaughter of beastes that were foresignified to ceasse by our Lords driuing of the Oxē ād dooues out of the Tēple ād Theophylact here vseth no exclusiue wherby prayer alone as it cōmōly signifieth should be appointed a meane wherewith to serue God the saying was euil chosen ād with smal iudgmēt put into the Replie as that which nothing at al maketh agaīst the singuler external ād publike Sacrifice of the Church in myne Answer defended If M. Iewel would gather arguments out of this place thus he ought to dispose them Theophyl in Matth. cap. 21. In that Christ draue the oxē and dooues out of the Tēple he foresignified that there should be no more nede of sacrifices of beastes or of slaughters but of prayer Vvhat argument may be cōclnded out of Theophylact here alleged So be the very wordes of Theophylacte in Greke somewhat otherwise then this Replier hath translated them Thereof it is concluded Ergo nowe in the newe Testament there is neede of prayer Then further In the newe Testament there is neede of prayer But the Masse whereat the priest offereth vp Christ vnto his Father is no prayer Ergo in the new Testament the Masse is needlesse This is the best Argument he can make out of Theophylactes wordes In which how so euer it be allowed for good or otherwise the minor or second propositiō is euidētly false and so he is stopped frō his cōclusion
suche manner order sense and meaning as the new state and condition of the Church succeding the Iewish Synagoge requireth that is not according to the figure shadow letter or signification but according to the truth the body the spirite and the very thinges Iesus vetus testamentum consummabat Ser. 7. de pass Domini nouum Pascha condebat saieth the auncient and learned Father S. Leo. Iesus made an ende of the olde Testament and did set vp the newe Easter or Passeouer And this new Easter doe we kepe and celebrate The same Father saith also Vt vmbrae cedereÌ„t corpori et cessareÌ„t imagines sub praesentia veritatis antiqua obseruantia nouo tollitur Sacramento hostia in hostiam transit sanguinem sanguis excludit legalis festiuitas dum mutatur impletur That the shadowes should geue place to the Body and the Images ceasse in presence of the Truth the Olde Obseruance is taken away by the newe sacrament hoste passeth ouer into hoste bloude putteth out bloude and the holy solemnitie of the Lawe whiles it is chaunged is fulfilled Againe more plainely to this purpose in an other place Leo. Ser. 13 de Pass Domini Nihil legalium instructionum nihil propheticarum recedit figurarum quod non tatum in Christi sacramenta transierit Nobiscum est Signaculum Circumcisionis sanctificatio Chrismatum consecratio Sacerdotum Nobiscum puritas Sacrificij Baptismi veritas honor Templi vt meritò cessarint nuncij postquam nunciata venerunt What so euer instructions be in the Lawe what figures so euer be in the Prophetes no iote of it departeth quite away but is gone ouer altogether into the Sacramentes of Christe With vs is the signet of Circumcision the hallowing of the holy Ointements Priestes the Consecration of Priestes With vs is the purenesse of Sacrifice Sacrifice the truth of Baptisme Baptisme the honour of the Temple Temple that for good cause the Messangers that is to saie the olde lawe ceassed after that their tidinges came Were it not tedious easily might a hundred such places be alleged out of the Fathers by testimonie of which the obseruation and vse of these thinges of the olde Testament Pascha Easter Pentecoste Priest or Sacrificer Hoste Aulter and Sacrifice is acknowleged as of thinges translated established and hauing place in the newe Testament The olde Obseruation is taken away by the newe Obseruation For the olde Aulter that was in Salomons Temple at Ierusalem we haue newe Aulters in the Churches of Christians thoroughe out the whole worlde Optatus lib. 6. on which the members of Christ be susteined and in which the body and bloude of Christe * Per certâ— momeÌ„ta at certaine times do dwel as the auncient Father Optatus writeth Newe Aulters I say bicause they serue to a new purpose and to a newe kind of Sacrifice in respect of the olde Sacrifices Concerning the hoste for Oxen sheepe goates and dooues we haue the body and bloude of Christ. For the figuratiue Lambe we haue the true Lambe of God that taketh away the synnes of the worlde Ioan. 1. For the feast of the Olde Passeouer Exod. 12. wherein the Iewes solemnized the memorie of the Striking Angels passing ouer them or beside them when he destroyed al the first begoten of the Egyptians and of their owne safe passing ouer the redde Sea out of Egypte 1. Cor. 5. we haue our Passeouer or Easter wherein we kepe a holy and soleÌ„ne feast in remeÌ„brance that by the merite of Christes bloude who is the true Lambe the plague of euerlasting death is past ouer and quite beside vs 1. Pet. 3. that for our sake he hath conquered al power that was against vs I. Ioan. 3. that he is passed ouer froÌ„ death to life and hath traÌ„slated aÌ„d redemed vs froÌ„ death and hel to be partakers of life aÌ„d glorie euerlasting in his kingdoÌ„ As the Iewes had their PeÌ„tecost so we haue ours For as when they were deliuered out of Egypte the Lawe was geueÌ„ them in the Mount Sina vpon the Pentecoste Exod. 20. that is to say the fiftith day after that the Lambe had beÌ„ sacrificed 1. Cor. 5. So vpon the fiftith day after our Passeouer in which the true LaÌ„be of God was slaine the holy Ghost came down vpoÌ„ the Apostles Act. 2. and the coÌ„panie of theÌ„ that beleued which holy Ghost froÌ„ that day to the end of the world coÌ„tinueth with the Church aÌ„d worketh in the sonnes of God the performaÌ„ce of Gods holy wil by loue aÌ„d Matt. 28. charitie as the Lawe wrought it or rather moued men to it by threates and terrour Leo Ser. 1. de Pentecoste Sâ— Leo speaking of this Feast saith Hodiernam solennitatem in praeciâ—â—â—â— festis esse â—â—â—â—â—â—ndâ—m omnium Catholicorum corda cognoscunt The hartes of al Catholike men knowe that the solemnitie of this day of Pentecoste ought to be had in honour among the chiefe feastes Remember M. Iewel if your hart geue you that there is no such feast of Pentecost to be obserued in Christes Churche because the vse of it is expired VVhat ansvver you M. Ievvel as you say by whose verdite you are excluded out of the nuÌ„ber of Catholike men and so pronounced gilty To whether parte wil you answer Doth your harte know it or know it not If your harte know it not then you are not Catholike and therfore you ought not to be admitted to teach Gods people If your harte knowe it and yet ceasse not to teache the coÌ„trarie then are you a daÌ„nable dissembler and a false deceiuer So touching this point euery way your doctrin is to be shunned Thus then it is made cleare the olde learned Fathers folowed not their pleasure or vaine delite when they spake of SabbatuÌ„ Parasceue Pascha Pentecoste Priest Aulter Sacrifice But vttered the truth seriously as men ready to geue accompte of their doctrine before God and man and as speaking of things that haue vse and place in Christes Churche though the Iewish obseruation and Ceremonie of them be abolished M. Iewels reason reproued The reason why the Fathers vsed these termes is as M. Iewel saith onely for that the eares of the people as well of the Iewes as of the Gentiles had ben long acquainted with the same This reason is altogether without fauour For if al manner vse and obseruatioÌ„ of the thinges by these termes signified were quite abolished whereas wordes and termes serue to th ende the hearers and readers by them be taught and the Fathers in al their writings intended to teache Christe and his Lawe what could the Iewes or Gentils learne touching the faith of Christe hearing and reading these termes not signifying to them the thinges which they did before their conuersion The more acquainted their eares wer with them before the more by hearing the same nowe were they put in minde of that they once signified
healthful Sacrifice of Christes body and bloude and to persuade vnlearned soules there is no such Sacrifice really offered vnto God by Priestes of the newe Testament The summe of M. Ievvels shiftes against the Sacrifice Wherevpon I haue stayd somewhat the lenger because I sawe how by guileful persuasions he went about to engraffe at the beginning in the myndes of the vnlearned First that man for cause of his miserable and mortal condition ought not to presume to offer vp the Immortal Sonne of God in a real Sacrifice vnto his Father nexte that by Scripture there appeareth no graunt af auctoritie or warrant so to doo lastly that the termes Sacrificer Sacrifice and Aulter be onely naked and empty termes void of any substance signified that is in the Churche as deriued out of the Lawe of Moyses and vsed by the olde learned Fathers for their delite Al which three pointes how farre wyde they be from truth it may partely appeare by that I haue already said and shal more fully appeare in the processe of this Reioindre Now let vs heare M. Iewel Iewel Novve to comme to M. Hardinges vvoordes Three waies saith he Christ is offered vp vnto his Father In a Figure as in the Olde Lawe In Deede and Blouddily as vpon the Crosse In a Sacrament or Mysterie as in the Newe Testament Of vvhiche three vvaies the Blouddy Oblation of Christe vpon the Crosse is the very true and onely Propitiatorie Sacrifice for the Sinnes of the vvorlde The other tvvo as in respecte and manner of Signifieing they are sundrie so in effecte and substance they are al one For like as in the Sacramentes of the olde Lavve vvas expressed the Death of Christe that vvas to comme Euen so in the Sacramentes of the nevve Lavve of the Ghospel is expressed the same Death of Christe already paste As vvee haue Mysteries so had they Mysteries As vvee Sacrifice Christe so did they Sacrifice Christe As the Lambe of God is slaiue vnto vs So vvas the same Lambe of God slaine vnto them S. Augustine saithe August De vtilitate poenitent cap. 1. Tunc Christus Venturus modò Christus Venit Venturus Venit diuersa verba sunt sed idem Christus Then was Christe shal comme Nowe is Christe Is comme Shall comme and Is comme are sundrye woordes But Christe is al one Againe in like comparison bytvveene the Lavve of Moyses and the Gospel of Christe he saith thus August in Ioannem tract 26. Videte Fide manente Signa variata In Signis diuersis eadem Fides Beholde the Faith remaininge the Sacramentes or Signes are changed The Signes or Sacramentes beinge diuers the Faith is one Harding Now then that after your Preface you come to my woordes M. Iewell what haue you to replye against them that to any learned man may seeme to be to the purpose I said Christe is offered after three manners figuratiuely truely with bloudshedding and sacramentally or in Mysterie With which parte of this threefold Diuision finde you fault As for the two first partes they be clearely proued by the Scriptures The third is that ye call in question and whiche you impugne Bicause you had nothing to say against the two first least your mater should seeme to haue a foile if you yelded to any thing that were by me saied were it neuer so true you goe from the purpose and enter into other talke M. Ievvel diuerteth from the purpose to impertinēt mater Whereof as parte is false so the whole is impertinent What nede was there to tel vs that the bloudy Oblation of Christe vpon the Crosse is the Propitiatorie Sacrifice for the sinnes of the worlde As thereof no man doubted so no man spake of it The point now treated is not whether the Sacrifice of the Crosse be Propitiatorie for it were superfluous thereof to dispute but whether Christe be now offered vp in Mysterie Graunt that first and afterward we may procede further to discusse whether the Sacrifice of the Aulter be Propitiatorie and in what sense it be Propitiatorie Of what effecte and substance so euer the Sacrifices of both Lawes be how so euer the Death of Christe to come or past be expressed in the olde and newe Sacramentes that they of the olde Testament as wel as we had Mysteries of the equalitie and likenesse of Sacrifices and of like slaiyng of the Lambe of God on their parte and ours of all these thinges so particularly to speake the Diuision by me declared ministred you no iuste occasion And al this might wel be suffred to go vnanswered as impertinent had you not by the way as it were spitten forth some poison of erroneous doctrine to the infection of the vnlearned and vnware Readers For by calling the bloudy Oblation of Christe vpon the Crosse the very true and onely Sacrifice Propitiatorie for the synnes of the worlde which no man denieth your meaning is to insinuate that the vnbloudy Sacrifice which Christe instituted at his last Supper of his body and bloude were not in dede a Sacrifice in any sense or respecte Propitiatorie Whereas if that of the Crosse was Propitiatorie the other must nedes be Propitiatorie though in a diuers degree of Propitiation bicause in substance of the thing offered it is one with the other but diuers in the manner of offering as being vnbloudy and done in a mysterie and the other bloudy and don in the forme of a visible body And the force and vertue of Propitiation of the one issueth not from the Priest but from the Propitiation of the other in whose cōmemoration it is offered Cyprianus de coe Do. Verely S. Cyprian sticketh not to cal the holy Euchariste Medicamentum ad sanandas infirmitates holocaustum ad purgandas iniquitates A medicine to heale sickenesses and a wholeburnt Sacrifice to cleanse iniquities Baesilius in Liturg. S. Basile also in his Liturgie making his supplication saith thus Da Domine vt pro nostris peccatis populi ignorantijs acceptum sit Sacrificium nostrum Graunt Lorde that our Sacrifice may be acceptable for our sinnes and for the ignorances of the people Whereas you affirme the other two waies after which Christe is offered that is to say the Sacrifices of the olde Lawe and the singular Sacrifice of the Church now to be one in effecte and substance as they are sundrye in respecte Three vntruthes vttered at once by M. Ievvel and manner of signifiyng you vtter three greate vntruthes at once For first as concerning the respecte of signifiyng in our Sacrifice the formes of Breade and Wine doo signifie the Bodie and Bloude of Christe as the Sacrifices of the olde Lawe signified Christe And although they signifie Christ present and the other absent yet in respecte of signifiyng they agree and therfore are not sundry therin The respect of signifiyng is one and the thing signified is one though the manner of signifiyng be diuers That the substāce of the
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
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
not any such Real Sacrifice of the Sonne of God nor may not in any vvise so be taken it is euidente by the plaine vvoordes that folovve touching the same For thus he saith speaking of the very same Sacrifice of the Nevve Testamente that is mentioned by Malachie Sacrificia non sanctificant hominem sed conscientia eius qui offert existens pura sanctificat Sacrificium The Sacrifice dooth not Sanctifie the Man but the Conscience of the offerer being pure sanctifieth the Sacrifice I trovve M. Harding vvil not saie The Prieste is not sanctified by the Sonne of God but the Sonne of God is sanctified by the Conscience of the Priest For that vvere Blasphemie And yet thus must he needes saie if Irenaeus meante the Real Sacrificinge of the Sonne of God Harding After al these allegations brought by M. Iewel against the Sacrifice of the Churche whereof not one ought at al helpeth his cause VVith vvhat sinceritie aÌ„d truth M. Ievv haÌ„dleth S. Irenaeus as I haue now proued he returneth vnto S. Irenaeus againe and by his accustomed craft of falsifying he would make his Reader beleue that S. Irenaeus expoundeth his owne meaning so as the Sacrifice of Christes body and bloude be quite excluded To bring this to passe it is a woonder to see what fowle shiftes he maketh Of this blessed Fathes sentences he snatcheth here a peece and there a peece taking the head without the taile the body without either dismembring the whole He ioyneth together wordes that be aboue thirty lines a sundâ—r and thereof frameth a sense sounding to his false purpose cleane contrary to the holy Doctors meaning What shal I say of his owne false gloses and additions set forth with that letter in which the Doctours sayinges be printed of corrupting the Latine of making his translation muche worse Briefly he demeaneth him selfe so as who so euer considereth and weigheth the wordes of S. Irenaeus and M. Iewels false sleightes together he wil thinke that he hath vtterly abandoned al truth simplicitie and shamefastnesse and putteth his whole truste in lying Touching then that he first bringeth out of S. Irenaeus I maruel what he meant here to recite it M. Ievvel Fovvly corrupteth S. Irenaeus If he had set forth the whole sentence as it lyeth in the Doctour euery simple man would soone haue perceiued that it furthereth his Chalenge nothing at al. Hauing spoken in the foreparte of the sentence of Oblation that we must offer vp vnto the Creator in pure meaning in faith without Hypocrisie infirme hope inferuent loue he commeth to the later parte whereof M. Iewel hath pyked out a litle peece with wyly falshod turning it to his purpose This it is Et hanc oblationem Ecclesia sola pura offert Fabricatori Iren. li. 4. cap. 34. offerens ei cum gratiarum actione ex creatura eius And this oblation the Churche onely offereth vp pure vnto our Creator offering vnto him with geuing thankes out of his creature that is to say out of that he hath created There it foloweth immediatly Iudaei autem non offerunt c. But the Iewes do not so offer for their handes be ful of bloude c. What maketh this for M. Iewel Mary were al true that he addeth to his Doctors text and in case that folowed immediatly which he adioineth hereunto and with such termes as he hath deuised of his owne and be not in S. Ireneus that is to say if blacke were white it were somewhat perhaps to his purpose But now he hath falsified altogether Fovvle corruption with these wordes falsly infarced into the sentence not his owne and onely Sonne but a natural thing Also by putting these wordes Est ergo Altare in coelo Illuc preces oblationes nostrae diriguntur next after the other as though euen there they folowed which do not folow but be found at the ende of the chapter 36. lines after Which neuerthelesse he traÌ„slateth also very falsly as the Reader may see For these wordes Neither is our Aulter here in earth be of his owne false addition and be not at al in the Doctourâ— and most true it is that we haue Aulters in the Churche to offer the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christâ— vpon which by vertue of his worde be made really present though we haue an Aulter also in heauen Where as S. Ireneus is brought in by M. Iewel in the next paragraph saying Sacrificia The sacrifices doo not sanctifie the man but the conscience of the offerer being pure sanctifieth the sacrifice in that place he speaketh not of the Sacrifice of the Aulter at al but of the Sacrifices of the olde Testament What so euer is offered vnto God it is not the thing offered that of it selfe sanctifieth him that offereth But the pure and cleane harte of the party that offereth sanctifieth the sacrifice that is to say as S. Ireneus expoundeth him selfe praestat acceptare Deum quasi ab amico causeth God to accept it as at the hand of a frend Els if a wicked synner saith the Scripture there also alleged kil me a calfe Esai 66. I had as leaue he killed me a dogge In that place therefore he speaketh against them onely that thought to please God with their outward Sacrifices whereof he hath no neede them selues inwardly being wicked and hauing impure consciences To make this clearer by examples and testimonies of Scripture he allegeth the example of Cain of the Scribes and Pharisees and certaine sayinges out of Ieremie and Esaye Now in the setting forth of this saying Tvvo lieâ— of M. Ievvel M. Iewel deceiueth his Reader but with two lyes at once The one is in that he saith it foloweth after the other before alleged For it foloweth not but goeth before it as it may be sene in the booke The other lye is in that he auoucheth this holy Father to speake this much of the newe oblation of the newe Testament which is vtterly false as I haue now declared Iewel But M. Harding hath diuised a greate many replies to the contrary First he saithe The offering vp of praier Praises and Thankesgeuinge can not be called a Newe Sacrifice for the same was made by Moses Aaron the Prophetes and other holy menne in the Olde Lawe This obiection serueth vvel to control Tertullian S. Augustine and S. Hierome and other learned Fathers that thus haue taken it vvho by M. Hardinges iudgemente vvrote vnaduisedly they knevve not vvhat Hereunto Irenaeus him selfe ansvveareth thus Irenae li. 4. c. 34 Oblationes hîc Oblationes illic Sacrificia in Populo Israel Sacrificia in Ecclesia Sed species immutata est tantùm Quippe cùm iam non à Seruis sed à Liberis offeruntur There were Sacrifiees in the Olde Testament There be Sacrifices in the newe There were Sacrifices in the People of Israel there be Sacrifices in the Church Onely the manner or forme is changed For nowe they
out of S. Ambros. Iewel Euen so S. Ambrose saith Ambrosi in Psal. 38 Apocal. 5. Christe is offered here in the Earth not Really and in deede as M. Hardinge saithe but in like sorte and sense as S. Iohn saithe The Lamme was slaine from the beginninge of the worlde that is not Substantially or in Real manner but in signification in a Mysterie and in a figure And thus S. Ambrose expoundeth his ovvne meaning Ambros. in Psalm 38. euen in the same place that is here alleged PrimuÌ„ Vmbra praecessit Secuta est Imago Erit Veritas Vmbra in lege Imago in Euangelio Veritas in Coelestibus Ascende homo in coelum videbis illa quorum hîc Vmbra erat vel Imago First the Shadowe wente before The Image folowed The Truethe shal be The Shadowe in the Lawe The Image in the Gospel The Trueth in the Heauens O Man goe vp into Heauen and thou shalte see those thinges whereof here was an Image and a shadowe Ambros. in Lucam lib. 5. ca. 7 To like purpose S. Ambrose vvriteth thus Vidimus eum oculis nostris perspeximus in vestigia clauorum eius digitos nostros inseruimus Videmur enim vidisse eum quem legimus spectasse pendentem vulnera eius Spiritu Ecclesiae scrutante tentasse wee haue seene him and lookte vpon him with our eies and wee haue thrust our fingers into the dentes of his nayles The reason hereof is this For wee seeme to see him that wee reade of to haue beholden him hanginge on the Crosse and with the feelinge Sprite of the Churche to haue searched his woundes Hieron in Psalm 86. So S. Hierome saithe Quod semel natum est ex Maria quotidiè in nobis nascitur Christe that was once borne of Marie is borne in vs euery daie Novve as S. Ambrose saithe VVee see Christe euen with our eies hanginge vpon the Crosse and thruste in our fingers and searche his woundes Euen so doo vvee see Christe Comminge vnto vs and Offeringe him selfe in Sacrifice vnto God And as S. Hierome saithe Christe is Borne euery day Euen so and none othervvise Ambros. de Virginib lib. 2. S. Ambrose saithe Christe is Sacrificed euery daie In like manner S. Ambrose vvriteth vnto certaine Virgins Vestras Mentes confidenter Altaria dixerim in quibus quotidiè pro Redemptione Corporis Christus offertur I maie boldely saie Your hartes be Aultars vpon whiche Hartes Christe is dayly offered for the Redemption of the Bodie Hitherto M. Hardinge hath founde no manner tâ—ken of that he sought for Harding This Euen so if I may be so bolde with you as to vse a homely prouerbe is as euen as a rammes horne And Sir is this place of S. Ambrose so soone answered Is it ynough for you to say as you doo and proue nothing Is it lawful for you to say what you list and denie what you list without any proufe at al And if ye stand so al waies in your Negatiues what a coomber shal it be vnto vs to proue any neuer so certaine a truth to such a wrangler How oftentimes haue you now said that Christe is none otherwise offered in earth then he was offered in the Sacrifices of Abel of Abraham or of them of the olde Testament And al this vppon warrant of this saying of S. Iohn Apoc. 5. The lambe was slaine from the beginning of the worlde which maketh nothing against the daily Sacrifice of the Churche How sufficiently and by how many authorities hath this Sacrifice bene prooued Yet forth you go as if nothing had ben said If our Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament be not real If our Mysteries be excellenter then the Sacrifices of the old Law then are they not significatiue only and substantial but only figuratiue and significatiue as you say then how be our Mysteries of more excellencie then the Iewes Sacramentes were Nay how do not the liue beastes which they sacrificed passe a dead peece of breade for better ye esteme it not If our Sacrifice be no better then their Sacrifices were then is our Priesthod of the new TestameÌ„t no better then their Priesthode was If our Priesthod be no better Heb. 7. then is the Lawe of the Gospel wherein we liue no better then the olde Lawe of Moyses was vnder which the Iewes lyued For these three Sacrifice Priesthod and Lawe be so proportionate together be so of cousinage and alwaies go so together by the doctrine of S. Paule as you knowe that the bettering of either of them doth in ferre the bettering of the other Nowe let the Christian reader make his choise Ambro. in Psal. 38. whether he wil beleeue the whole Churche of Christe and S. Ambrose or you He saith Christe is offered on the earth when the body of Christe is offered you say Neither Christ nor the body of Christ is offered on the earth but al that is done is but a token and a figure Here were it to good purpose to proue the truth of the body and bloud of Christ in the SacrameÌ„t for els we labour in vaine a wrangling and contentious witte euer finding shiftes by running alwaies to his Negatiues But bicause that Article hath ben already proued Article 5. partly by me in my Answer to your Chalenge and more amply by Doctor Heskins and Doctor Saunder as also by sundry other learned and worthy men before you and your coÌ„panions russhed into the Church by the window I mynd not to enter into that large feelde now nor think it nedeful to do that is wel done already That point then being cleare by Gods worde and besides substantially proued determined by the Church in General Councels according to the Scriptures beleued euer of al Christian and faithful people and graunted by the Fathers of your religion the Lutherans let vs consider of that you bring against the Sacrifice auouched by S. Ambrose Image vvhat it signifieth and how it excludeth not the truthâ— As touching your other place of S. Ambrose whereby you would seme to expounde the former by me alleged it maketh for the Sacrifice it maketh nothing against the Sacrifice Neither can you take any aduantage of the worde Imago Image For by that worde the truth is not excluded but signified yet so as thereby we be admonished that we beholde thinges more obscurely here then we shal beholde them in heaueÌ„ and that the thinges here be but an Image in coÌ„parison of the true thinges in heaueÌ„ The truth is here no lesse then in heaueÌ„ But bicause it is not so truly sene here Ambro. li. 1. officioruÌ„ cap. 48. In Psal. 38. as there therfore S. Ambros coÌ„sidering the diuerse degree of our knowledge calleth in sundry places accordiÌ„g to S. Paule writiÌ„g to the Hebrues the state here an Image and the state there the truth And if we may expounde S. Ambrose by S. Ambrose Heb. 10.
the earth when the body of Christ is offered Lo he saith expressely he is not seene to offer and yet he is offered Your parte is to impugne the offering and bicause you cannot you impugne the seing of him cōming and offering him selfe We see him not and yet he is offered in earth as S. Ambrose saith Now then whereas you are driuen from this if thus you make your Argument as in effecte you doo and as your fetche is to conclude As Christ is seene of vs hanging vpon the Crosse and as his woūdes be touched with our fingers so he is by Priests offred but he is not sene hāging vpō the Crosse really and in dede nor his woūdes be so touched with our fingers Ergo he is not offered really and in dede As I graunt the Argument to be good in forme so I denie the mater to be true For the Maior or first proposition is false For Christes hanging on the Crosse and the print of his woundes is seene and felt of vs by faith or by charitie as I haue now declared but Christe is offered vp in Sacrifice really and in dede bicause his body is really and in dede present in the Sacrament as it hath bene against you M. Iewel by the Catholikes most sufficiently prooued by scriptures Fathers and the faith of the Churche and as you knowe in your owne gilty conscience The saying which you attribute vnto S. Hierom M. Ievvel forgeth vvordes of his ovvne ād attributeth them to S. Hierom. Hierony in Psal. 86. Quod semel natū est ex Maria quotidie in nobis nascitur Christe that was once borne of Marie is borne in vs euery day is an inuētion of your owne S. Hierom hath it not you may sone fil your booke with such authorities being made at home in your owne forge S. Hierome expoūding an obscure place of the .86 Psalme tropologically saith this much I graūt Si volumus quotidie nascitur Christus If we wil Christ is borne daily There he calleth the doing of euery vertue the begeting and bringing forth of Christe bicause Christ is the vertue and wisedome of his Father But what maketh this saying against the real Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe By occasion of these wordes you reason thus as it may be conceiued As S. Hierom saith Christ is borne euery day Euen so ād none otherwise S. Ambros saith Christ is sacrificed euery day But Christe is not borne euery day really Ergo S. Ambrose meaneth not that he is sacrificed euery day really I answer Your Maior is false For there is a manifest dissimilitude betwen the partes compared together When we bring forth good vertues and Christe therefore is said to be borne in vs this is spoken by a Metaphore and is true onely in a tropological or morale sense and not in the litteral sense The other parte of the comparison Christ is offered day when his body is offered as S. Ambrose saith is a proper speache and the same is true in the litteral sense as now we haue prooued Lastly that I let not passe the other place of S. Ambrose where he calleth the myndes of holy virgins Aulters the reason you gather thereof is naught For of the affirmation of an internal Sacrifice Ambros. de Virginib lib. 2. M. Iewels peculiar Sophistrie to put away one truth by an other you inferre the denial of the external Sacrifice and so you would driue out one truth by an other truthe after your common wount Which kinde of reasoning is very fonde and childish For both may and ought to stand together Your Argument if you conclude ought must be this Christe is offered in the myndes of virgins which therefore may be called Aulters internally and spiritually Ergo he is not offered on the true Aulters in the Churche externally and really The Argument is naught as euery yong Sophister knoweth bicause he is offered both waies As wel you might reason thus Christ is God Ergo he is not man◠or contrarywise Christe is man ergo he is not God Thus thou mayst easily perceiue good Reader what guileful Sophistrie M. Iewel vseth putting away the visible and outwarde Sacrifice of the Churche by alleging places of Fathers commending vnto vs the inwarde and mere spiritual Sacrifices of mannes harte Withal thou seest also what so euer M. Iewel saith that I haue founde in S. Chrysostome and S. Ambrose that I sought for The .13 Diuision The Ansvver NOwe for proufe of the Sacrifice and Oblation of Christe by the Doctours mynde vpon the figure of Melchisedech First S. Cyprian saith thus Qui magis Sacerdos Dei summi Lib. 2. Epist. 3. quam Dominus noster Iesus Christus qui Sacrificium Deo patri obtulit obtulit hoc idem quod Melchisedech id est Panem Vinum suum scilicet Corpus Sāguinē Who is more the Priest of the highest God then our Lorde Iesus Christe who offered a Sacrifice to God the Father and offered the selfe same that Melchisedeck did that is Breade and Wine that is to say his owne body and Bloude S. Hierome in an epistle that he wrote for the vertuouse women Paula and Eustochium to Marcella hath these wordes Recurre ad Genesim Melchisedech Regem Salem Huius Principem inuenies ciuitatis qui iam in typo Christi Panem Vinum obtulit Mysterium Christianum in Saluatoris sanguine corpore dedicatrit Retourne to the Booke of Genesis and to Melchisedek the King of Salem And thou shalt finde the Prince of that Citie who euen at that time in the figure of Christe offered Breade and Wine and dedicated the Mysterie of Christians in the Body and Bloude of our Sauiour Here this learned Father maketh a plaine distinction betwene the Oblation of the Figure which was Breade and Wine and the Oblation of the Trueth which is the Mysterie of Christen people the Bloude and Body of Christe our Sauiour Of this S. Augustine speaketh largely in his first Sermon vpon the .33 Psalme and in the .17 booke De Ciuitate Dei cap. 20. Iewel Yf M. Harding meane plainely and vvil haue S. Cyprians vvordes taken as they lie vvithout Figure then must he say That Melschidek offered vp verily and Really◠Christ him selfe For S. Cyprians vvordes be cleare Cyprianus Lib. 2. Epist. 3. Christus obtulit hoc idem quod Melchisedek obtulerat◠Christ offered vp the same thing that Melchisedek had offered Harding Sir I assure you I meane plainely would God you did so too verily if you did we should not thus finde you alwaies starting a side to figures and phrases Folowing my prefixed order in my Answer I come now to proue the Sacrifice by the witnesse of two auncient Fathers S. Cyprian and S. Hierome alleging for it the figure of Melchisedek First touching S. Cyprian let his wordes be taken as they lie without figure folde or wrinckle how therof wil it folow that Melchisedek offered verely and
eum iubet hoc est vt mortem eius insinuent Tunc enim cuique occiditur cùm credit occisum Whereas he commaundeth them to bring him what is that to say els but that they preache him and by telling of him cause him to come into the bowels quite famished for hunger of the hungry sonne For he commaundeth also that they kill him that is to say that they insinuate and shewe his Death For then he is slaine to euery man when he beleueth that he was slaine 3. Thus S. Augustine expounded him selfe who maketh the killing of Christe now to be none other but the insinuation of his Death vnto vs by preaching Christ was once killed corporally and in deede And now he is killed as concerning the Application of the benefite of his Death that is to say his death is insinuate and applied vnto vs when we beleue hat he was killed for vs. Which Death neuerthelesse to wit the effect of his Death is applied vnto vs not by faith only but also faith presupposed by meane of the Sacraments So Christe is said by S. Augustine to rise againe to vs euery day In vvhat sense M. Ievvels mystical speaches alleged out of the Fathers be true bicause we beleue that he rose againe S. Chrysostom saith not simply as you reporte the Death of Christe is wrought and perfited in the holy Mysteries but illa mors perficitur that Death is perfited asmuch to say the vnbloudy and Mystical Death that is the vertue and effect of his Death is applied vnto vs in these Mysteries So meant S. Gregorie saying Dum illa mors perficitur that Christe lyuing immortally in him selfe dieth againe in this Mysterie That is to say as there he expoundeth him selfe this healthful Sacrifice repaireth and renueth vnto vs and applyeth vnto vs by mysterie the Death of Gods onely begoten Sonne Whereas then the learned Fathers speake thus of Christes daily birth De Consecrat dist 2. Quid sit of his daily crucifying his daily killing and his daily resurrection they meane not a real and a carnal presence of his body to be borne to be crucified to be slaine and to rise againe from the Dead but al is spoken mystically and the same is true in a manner of speache and in a mystical sense as now I haue declared But where they speake as Oecumenius here speaketh of th'vnbloudy host or Sacrifice naming it by way of expositioÌ„ Christes own body saying of it that they who haue Priesthod from him do offer it vp in Sacrifice without shedding of bloude and that for their continual offering of the same Psal. 109. Christe is called a Priest for euer by whom he sacrificeth and is sacrificed to whom also at his Mystical Supper he deliuered the manner of such Sacrifice where so euer they speake of this Sacrifice and after this manner there they meane a true and real Sacrifice and thereby signifie that Christe is sacrificed verely really and in deede Whiche notwithstanding is to be vnderstanded in respecte of the body of Christe really and in deede by vertue of Christes wordes made present in the Sacrament being the thing sacrificed and not in respecte of the common blouddy manner of sacrificing Whiche manner vntil Christe was sacrificed vpon the Crosse who is the truth and ende of al Sacrifices that were before was for the most parte with shedding of bloude and with slaughter of lyuing thinges In vvhat sense and respect is Christe novv Srcrificed and not sacrificed Rom. 6. To be plaine and shorte in respecte of that olde and common manner of sacrificing we denie as you doo that Christe is now really verely and in deede sacrificed For hauing bene once dead he dieth no more as S. Paule saith But in respecte of the substance of the Sacrifice which thing the olde leraned Fathers haue euer taught and the Churche practiseth as deliuered commaunded and taught by Christe at his last Supper as S. Irenaeus saith whiche substance is the body of Christe Irenaeus li. 4. cap. 32. and consequently Christe him â—elfe the Sonne of God We affirme and beleue and promise to defend with our bloude that Christe in our Mysterie is most truly really verely and in deede sacrificed Iewel The reste that follovveth in Oecumenius onely expresseth the tvvo seueral Natures in Christe the Godheade and the Manheade That touchinge his Manheade he was Sacrificed touching his Godheade he was the Prieste and made the Sacrifice And further to M. Hardinges purpose it maketh no thinge So Beda saithe although somevvhat othervvise Beda in Episto ad Ephes. c. 2. Filius Dei Orat pro nobis Orat in nobis Oratur à nobis Orat pro nobis vt Sacerdos Orat in nobis vt caput Oratur à nobis vt Deus The Sonne of God both Praieth for vs and Praieth in vs and is Praied of vs. He Praieth for vs as our Prieste He Praieth in vs as our Heade He is praied of vs as our God Epiphanius saith Epipha de Melchisedechian lib. 2. Christus est Victima Sacerdos Altare Deus Homo Rex Pontifex Ouis Agnus omnia in omnibus pro nobis factus Christ is our Sacrifice our Priest our Aultar God MaÌ„ King Bishop Sheepe LaÌ„me made for oursakes al in al. Thus is Christ our Sacrifice thus is Christ our Sacrificer not to be offered by the Priest as M. Harding imagineth but as the olde Maisters and Fathers of the Church haue taught vs. offered by him selfe vpoÌ„ the Crosse. Augu. Dâ— Tempore Serm. 13â— S. Augustin saith Ecce illic oblatus est Ibi seipsum obtulit Simul Hostia Sacerdos Et altare erat Crux Beholde there was he offered There he offered him selfe He was both the Priest and the Sacrifice And his Crosse was the Aultare Harding This answer is farre fetched and proceedeth from a great insight Fewe men but M. Iewel could haue seene so farre in Ocumenius woordes as to see in them that which by him was neuer meant nor so much as dreamed of M. Ievvel either of ignoraÌ„ce or of Malice vttereth manifest heresie yea that which also is very false and an heynous heresie if it be obstinatly mainteined But Sir wote ye what ye speake or speake you at al aduenture Surely here you are taken Neither can you escape but must needes confesse your errour and yeeld Was Christ touching his Godhead a Priest and touching the same made he Sacrifice Who euer said so but you What M. Iewel besides other heresies shal we haue an AriaÌ„ of you Wil you take that name vpoÌ„ you or coÌ„fesse that you lacke the principles of Diuinitie Aug. cont Faust. lib. 20. ca. 21. To offer Sacrifice is it not a kinde of worship called Latria that is due vnto God onely and to no creature Now shal we make Christe as he is God to doo worship and not to receiue worship onely done to him by others Is not God
prayeth not for the giftes considered in them selfe but for grace to be geuen to the offerers through the giftes and for the giftes sake This is one sense whereby the Prayer of the Canon is cleared of al reproche AN other sense there is The CanoÌ„ of the Masse defended by an other declaration according to whiche this Prayer of the Canon may reasonably seme to conteine nothing that is absurde For clearenes hereof this saying of S. Augustine is here to be considered Hoc est Sacrificium Christianorum Multi vnum Corpus sumus in Christo quod etiam Sacramento Altaris Fidelibus noto frequentat Ecclesia August de Ciui Dei lib. 10. c. 6 vbi ei demonstratur quòd in ea Oblatione quam offert ipsa offeratur This is the Sacrifice of the Christians saith he We being many are one body in Christe whiche thing the Churche also frequenteth in the Sacrament of the Aulter knowen to the Faithful In this Sâ—crifice the Churche is offred where it is shewed vnto the Churche that in that Oblation which it offereth the Churche it selfe is offered Marke good Reader in that oblation whiche the Churche offereth vp vnto God the Churche it selfe is offred bicause it offereth Christe in whom the Church that is to say the number of the Faithful is one body he being the head they the members And forasmuche as the head and members make one body that is not separated where Christe in the Sacrament of the Aulter is offered there also is the Churche offered According to this doctrine the prayer of the Priest pronouncing the Canon of the Masse may be referred to Christ being offered in respecte of the Churche whiche Church is offered vp whole that is to say the body with the Head So then thereof this sense redoundeth O heauenly Father looke mercifully vpon these giftes and vouchesafe to accepte them as touching the Churche whiche is offered Neither is it a strange thing in the Scriptures the wordes of Christe spoken as of Christe him selfe to be referred to the Churche as to the whole body yet so as sometimes the speache be vnderstanded of the head onely sometimes of the body only which is the Church For example may be alleged the wordes of the Psalme which our Sauiour Christe spake hanging on the Crosse. Deus meus Psal. 21. Deus meus quare me dereliquisti My God my God Math. 27 why hast thou forsaken me S. Augustine hauing rehersed Why hast thou forsaken me saith Quare dicitur nisi quia nos ibi eramus August in Psal. 21. expositione secuÌ„da nisi quia Corpus Christi Ecclesia Wherefore is this said but bicause we were there but bicause the Churche is the body of Christ Likewise there a litle after Dixit vtique de me de te de illo Corpus enim suum gerebat id est Ecclesiam He speake thus saith he meaning Christe of me of thee of him For he bare his dody that is his Churche Againe of certaine thinges spoken in that Psalme by Christe yet not truly vnderstanded of Christe but of the Churche he saith Illa vox membrorum ipsius vox erat non Capitis That voice was the voice of his members not of the head So the prayer of the Priest in the Canon of the Masse being referred to the Church whiche is the body of Christ and not specially to the person of Christe as he is considered besides and without the Church conteineth nothing whereat M. Iewel or any other such Scorner can skoffe or reproue Verely if there had ben any thing worthy of reprehension in those wordes of the holy Canon The praier of the holy CanoÌ„ found in S. Ambrose S. Ambrose that auncient and worthy Bishop would not haue alleged the same as he doth to set forth the greatnes and worthines of this Sacrament Thus he rehearseth the prayer that M. Iewel skoffeth at as it is before set forth Sacerdos dicit Ergo memores c. The Priest saith We therefore being myndeful of that most glorious Passion Ambros. de sacramentis li. 4. cap. 5 and resurrection from Hell and ascension into heauen do offer vnto thee ô God this vnspotted Sacrifice reasonable Sacrifice vnbloudy Sacrifice this holy bread and cuppe of life euerlasting and we beseche and pray thee that thou receiue this Oblation in thy hye Aulter by the handes of thy Angels as thou didst vouchesafe to receiue the giftes of thy iuste Childe Abel and the sacrifice of our Patriarke Abraham and that whiche thy highest Priest Melchisedek offered vp vnto thee Thus appeareth bothe the auncientie and the auctoritie of the Romaine Canon sithens it is brought in as of good auctoritie by S. Ambrose as if it were a thing in his time commonly vsed in the Church and reuerently estemed And therefore M. Iewel as I saide before your skornes and skoffes touche not me they touche al Priestes the holy people of God S. Ambrose and the Churche that was in and before his time The lesse cause haue I to be moued therewith and you the more to be ashamed of your selfe would God it were ynough to driue you to repent of suche wicked follies ALso whereas you say in great spite that in the prayer of the Canon I compare the Sacrifice of the Sonne of God with the Sacrifice of brute Cataile it is as false and slaunderous as the rest of your scorneful tale is We desire God that he vouchesafe to accepte these giftes at our handes as he vouchesaued to accepte the giftes and sacrifices of Abel Abraham and Melchisedek In whiche prayer Sacrifice is not compared with Sacrifice in them selues but Gods good acceptation of our doing is prayed for comparable to that wherewith God accepted the doing of Abel Abraham and Melchisedek in offering their Sacrifices The Aduerbe Sicuti Sicuti as in the Canon reporteth not equalitie but a likenes that is to say As in this prayer as in many other places signifieth not an equalitie but a likenes God forbid but we shoulde acknowledge and confesse this Sacrifice whiche is Christe to be infinitely more acceptable to God then the Sacrifice of Abel were it sheepe goate or calfe then the Sacrifice of Abraham whether it were his Sonne Isaac or the ramme that was tyed by the hornes in the brambles or the Sacrifice of Melchisedek Gen. 22. Gen. 14. whiche was bread and wine For there is no Sacrifice comparable to this this passeth al. And therefore for the right construction of the Canon we must consider similitude rather then equalitie suche similitude I meane as mought be of the figure towarde the truth Neither yet doth the Aduerbe Sicuti as note an equalitie of similitude or likenes according to the selfe same degree of likenes as touching the Sacrifices them selues but a certaine deegree of likenes as touching the offerers So then the sense shal be this Accepte these giftes ô God as thou didst accepte the giftes or