any other learned Fathers is a very false parte and such as must nedes much discredit you when it is detected against you And yet by such false dealing you and your felowes haue begyled many vnlearned and vnstable soules How be it if it were S. Augustines or any other auncient Doctours saying it forced nothing For true it is the signes or sacramentes of the newe Testament be diuerse from the sacramentes of the olde Testament the faith notwithstandinge is not changed bicause Christ signified by the signes or sacramentes of both being that which faith reacheth vnto remaineth one and the same Let vs see whether your other stuffe be any better Iewel But here hath M. Hardinge donne greatte and open vvronge vnto S. Augustine vvilfully suppressing and drovvning his vvoordes and vncourteousely commaunding him to silence in the middest of his tale VVherein also appeareth some suspicion of no simple dealing S. Augustines vvoordes touchinge this vvhole mater Aug. De Fide ad Petrum Diacon cap. 19. are these In illis carnalibus Victimis Figuratio fuit Carnis Christi quam pro nobis fuerat oblaturus Sanguinis quem erat effusurus in Remissionem peccatorum In isto autem Sacrificio Gratiarum actio est Commemoratio Carnis Christi quam pro nobis obtulit Sanguinis quem pro nobis idem Deus effudit In illis Sacrificijs quid nobis esset donandum Figurate significabatur In hoc autem Sacrificio quid nobis iam donatum sit euidenter oftenditur In illis Sacrificijs praenunciabatur Filius Dei pro impijs occidendus in hoc autem pro impijs annuntiatur occisus In those Fleashly Sacrifices of the Ievves there was a Figure of the Fleashe of Christ whiche he woulde afterwarde offer for vs and of the Bloude whiche he would afterwarde shead for the Remission of Sinne But in this Sacrifice of the nevve Testament there is a Thankesgeuinge and a Remembrance of the Fleashe which he hath already offered for vs and of the Bloud which he being God hath already shead for vs. In those Sacrifices it was represented vnto vs vnder a Figure what thing should be geuen vnto vs But in this Sacâ—ifice it is plainely set foorth what thing is already geuen vs. In those Sacrifices it was declared that the Sonne of God should be slaine for the wicked But in this Sacrifice it is plainely preached vnto vs that the same Sonne of God hath already benne slaine for the wicked Likevvise againe be saith Huius Sacrificij Caro Sanguis ante Aduentum Christi per Victimas Similitudinum promittebatur Aug. Contrae Faustum lib. 20. ca. 21. in Passione per ipsam Veritatem reddebatur Post Ascensum verò Christi per Sacramentum Memoriae celebratur The fleashe and Bloude of this Sacrifice before the comming of Christ was promised by Sacrifices of Resemblance The same in his Passion vpon the Crosse was geuen in Truth and in deede But after his Ascension it is solemnized by a Sacramente of Remembrance This is the Difference that S. Augustine noteth bitvvene the SacrameÌ„tes of the Olde Lavve and the Sacramentes of the Nevve Therefore the vvoordes that M. Harding hath herevnto added Christe is offered vp vnto his Father and that vnder the Formes of Bread and VVine yea and that truely and in deede are his ovvne onely vvoordes confidently and boldely presumed of him selfe neuer vsed neither by S. Augustine nor by any other Ancient godly Father Harding Ful euil doth it become you to charge me with wrong done vnto S. Augustine wheras in the very next sentence before your self did him so much wrong as to father a saying vpon him in that place where he hath none such at al. If he be to be burthened with doing wrong vnto the Doctours that in alleging their sayinges doth not with al circumstances of the place that serueth to the present purpose set them forth then is there no man so much to be reproued as your selfe M. Iewel For of al that euer wrote we finde none that so much and with like falshode and to so euil meaning cutteth pareth and nippeth their sentences as you commonly doo Truly in laying this to my charge you haue not so clearly proued me to haue donne wrong vnto S. Augustine as you haue with the scornful vtterance of your wordes declared your owne spite Concerning the thing it selfe I haue donne S. Augustine no wrong at al. For what needed me to reherse his whole processe to the ende of the Chapter M. Iewels charge discharged I recited faithfully so muche as apperteined to the proufe of the mater for which I alleged his authoritie The sentence that foloweth belongeth to an other mater whereby is declared which no catholike man euer denied that the Sacrifice of the newe Testament is a thankes geuing and a commemoration of Christes flesh and bloude which he hath offered for vs. But that member of the diuision which I went about to establish by S. Augustines authoritie speaketh onely of the Sacrifices of the olde Lawe that they prefigured the flesh of Christ which he would afterward offer and the bloude that he would shed for remission of sinnes If I had rehersed al that you blame me for leauing it out I had but made the booke bigger and wearied the reader with a long superfluous saying superfluous I say bicause the same was in effect vttered in the next sentence before taken out also of the same S. Augustine For al that you force out of the longe processe there folowing is only the coÌ„memoration of Christes flesh and bloud offred and shed which though in fewer wordes was expressed in the former sentence out of the bookes against Faustus the Manichey as the reader by conference may sone perceiue The place of S. Augustine for leauing out whereof you so much reproue me and wherein you repose the coÌ„fidence of your doctrin helpeth you nothing at al. For there he saith not what is the substance of our Sacrifice wherein lyeth the questioÌ„ but what thing is done in our Sacrifice to wit geuing of thankes and the coÌ„memoratioÌ„ of our Lordes flesh and bloude which he offred and shed for vs and likewise what thing is shewed and declared in the same that is to say his death and passion Al which we denye not But that S. Augustine ascribing vnto the Sacrifice of the Church thankes geuing and commemoration of the flesh and bloude of Christ doth exclude the real Sacrifice of his fleshe and bloude by vertue of his woorde through the holy Ghost made substantially present that we denie vtterly And that was your parte to proue els you proue nothing againste the auncient doctrine of the Church M. Ievvel citeth one truth against an other truth But seing your selfe not hable to performe so muche you thought it an easier mater after your common woonte to set one truth against an other truth to wit the commemoration or memorie of the bloudy Sacrifice of the
which is the vnbloudy Sacrifice S. Irenaeus likewise writing against Valentinus the Heretike Irene lib. 4. ca. 32. Aug. cōtra◠Aduersar leg et prophet lib. 1. cap. 20. Iustmusin Dialog ad Tryphonē S. Augustine also and S. Iustinus the martyr do expounde the prophecie for the same Sacrifice Whose sayinges here to reherse to the proufe of so certaine a doctrine it were more tedious then needeful Wherefore this being so sufficiently witnessed by the Auncient Doctours of the Churche against whose auctoritie no noueltie is to be heard as a most vndoubted truth that the sacrifice which Christe made of his body and bloude at his last supper is that pure and Vnbloudy Sacrifice whiche Malachie prophecied should be offered vp vnto God from the Easte to the west this also being no lesse true that Christe appointed and auctorized some to offer the same otherwise to what purpose was it instituted and sith that we reade of none other appointed and auctorized thereto but the Apostles and their successours Priestes of the newe Testament nor haue we heard of any that lawfully euer tooke vpon them to offer the same that were not Priestes with what impudencie is it denyed that the Apostles had and Priestes now haue auctoritie to offer vp this pure Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christe vnto his Father Thus thou maist perceiue good reader the argument which M. Iewel here ascribeth vnto me and would to seeme ridiculous to conclude rightly for the truth if the due consideration of the circumstances be not omitted Withal thou vnderstandest that who so euer allegeth the figure of Melchisedech and the Prophecie of Malachie to prooue that the Priestes of the new Testament haue auctoritie and power to offer vp Christe vnto his Father he maketh no euil choise of the stoare of authorities by witnesse of which that point is prooued and confirmed As for the mater of greeuance M. Iewel where of you complaine so greeuously which is that I charge them of your syde with wresting by ouerthwart and false interpretation the wordes of the Institution of this Sacrifice the figure of Melchisedech and the Prophecie of Malachie I vttered it vpon very iust occasion as the learned do knowe The same ought to be greuous in dede vnto you not bicause ye are tolde of it by me but bicause it is true Neither thought I it good to exemplifie the mater staying the course of my briefe Answer to your Chalenge by descending vnto the particulars for that my scope and chiefe intent was not to confute the contrary Doctrine but to prooue and establish the truth of this Article by you most wickedly denied If it be pleasure vnto you to beholde paricular places and pointes of your false Legierdemaine disclosed by reading ouer my Confutatiō of your lying Apologie my Reioindre to your Replie that also which M. D. Sander D. Heskins M. Rastel M. Dorman and M. Stapleton haue written against you your luste may happely be satisfied Take your fyl of that vntil more come Iewel Perhappes he vvil say Yee expounde the Prophecie of Malachie sometimes of Praier and sometimes of the Preachinge of the Gospel This vvas neuer the Prophetes meaninge This is an horrible vvreasting of the Scriptures Thus no doubte M. Harding vvil say for othervvise he can say nothinge And yet he knovveth and beinge learned can not choose but knovv that this is the Olde learned Catholique Fathers Exposition touchinge these vvoordes of the Prophete Malachie and not ours He knovveth that the Ancient Father Tertullian saith thus Tertull. contrae Iudaeos Tertull. contra Marcion lib. 4. Hieron in 1. Caput Malach. The pure Sacrifice that Malachias speaketh of that should be offered vp in euery place Est Praedicatio Euangelij vsque ad finem Mundi Is the Preachinge of the Gospel vntil the ende of the worlde And in an other place Simplex Oratio de Conscientia pura The Sacrifice that Malachie meante is a deuoute Praier proceedinge from a pure Conscience He knovveth that S. Hierome expoundeth the same vvoordes in this vvise Dicit Orationes Sanctorum Domino offerendas esse non in vna Orbis Prouincia Iudaea sed in omni loco The Prophete Malachie meaneth hereby That the Praiers of Holy people shoulde be offered vnto God not onely in Iewrie that was one prouince of the worlde but also in al places He knovveth that Eusebius calleth the same Sacrifice of Malachie Euseb. De Demonst. li. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Sacrifice and the Incense of Praier Thus the Holie Catholique Fathers expounded these vvoordes of the Prophete Malachie and yet vvere they not therefore iuaged either ouerthvvarte vvreasters of the Scriptures or horrible deceiuers of the people Novv of the other side if it may please M. Harding to shevvfoorth but one Anciēt Doctour or Father that either by the Exāple of Melchisedech or by force of these vvordes of Malachie vvil conclude that the Priest hath Authoritie and Povver to offer vp Verelie and in dede the Sonne of God vnto his Father he may happily vvinne some credit Harding In defence of your felowes and of your selfe you say that wheras ye expound the prophecie of Malachie somtimes of Praier and sometimes of the preaching of the Ghospel therin ye vse no wreasting of the Scripture nor falshod bicause the old lerned Catholike Fathers haue so expounded the place And here you name Tertullian S. Hierome and Eusebius That the Preaching of the Gospel may be and is called a Sacrifice I denie not Mary that by th'auctoritie which here you pretend to allege out of Tertulliā it is proued and that by the same the meaning of Malachies prophecie is to be drawen quit frō the Sacrifice of th'Aulter this I deny vtterly And how farre your dealīg in these weighty maters cōcerning the faith of a Christē man is to be trusted by this to al it may appere M. Ievvel forgeth a saiyng of his ovvne ād putteth it vpon Tertullian First wheras you beare al men in hand that I know that the Ancient Father Tertullian saith as here you reporte it is very false for how can I know the thing that is not at al Tertullian saith not so These wordes The pure Sacrifice that Malachias speaketh of that should be offered vp in euery place est Praedicatio Euangelij vsque ad finē mundi be not to be found in al Tertullians booke Cōtra Iudaeos Yet you haue put them in a distinct letter in which the sayinges of the Doctors be printed that your Reader should beleue they were the wordes of Tertulliā This is a forgerie wrought in your owne shoppe fathered vpon Tertullian Phy M. Iewel can neither shame nor the feare of God withdraw you from vsing such forged sayinges of your owne with which being by you fathered vpon som Ancient Doctor of the Church your common manner is to face out an vntrue mater as crafty players at Cardes doo as they say with a Carde of ten Nexte
Example a Commemoration a Remembrance of the Deathe of Christe This kinde of Sacrifice vvas neuer denied but M. Hardinges Real Sacrifice vvas yet neuer proued De Consecat Distin 2. CuÌ„ fraÌ„gitur So saithe S. Augustine Cùm hostia frangitur sanguis in ora Fidelium funditur quid aliud quà m Dominici Corporis in Cruce Immolatio significatur VVen the Oblation is broken and the Bloude that is to say The Sacrament of the Bloude is powred into the mouthes of the Faitheful what other thinge is there signified but the Sacrifice of Our Lordes Bodye vpon the Chrosse Harding How so euer it like you to scorne at our stoare the multitude of cleare testimonies for proufe of the Sacrifice to the learned can not be vnknowen Were it so that ye had but one making so directly against it as these two here and sundry others in this Article by me alleged make for it ye would haue made no smal stoare of it In bookes and pulpites in tauernes and alebenches your trompettes long er this should haue proclaimed it As for these two places let vs see how your sclender Replie is farre to light so to carry away the weight of them First touching S. Chrysostome with what plainer termes with what more effectual wordes could any man haue expressed the truth of our Sacrifice That Priestes haue auctoritie to offer vp Christ vnto his Father If we that be Priestes offer vp now also the selfe same hoste which our Bishop Christe hath offered vpon the Crosse euen that hoste which cleanseth vs from our sinnes as S. Chrysostome saith that being none other but the precious flesh and bloud of Christ that is to say Christe him selfe for he offered him selfe to his Father to cleanse vs how haue not Priestes auctoritie to offer vp Christ vnto his Father which is the expresse Article that you denye That euery simple man may haue in readinesse an Argument against such false teachers for the Sacrifice An Arment for the vnlearned to prooue the Sacrifice thus for their sake it may be framed Who so euer do offer vp the selfe same hoste which Christ hath offered they offer vp Christe The Priestes offer the same that Christe offered Ergo they offer vp Christe The Maior is euident in it selfe the Minor is S. Chrysostomes the Argument being good the Conclusion must needes be true That it may the better appeare of what force M. Iewels Replie is S. Chrysostomes place examined vvith the Replie of M. Ievv this much is to be considered That in this place of S. Chrysostome consisting of two partes two thinges are auouched In the first parte he geueth vs his witnesse for the substaÌ„ce of this Sacrifice which Priestes do now offer in the Churche In the second parte he declareth one ende wherein the Sacrifice offered by Priestes doth differ from the Sacrifice offered by Christ him selfe Christ our Bishop saith he offered the cleansing hoste Ad Heb. Hom. 17. But we offer that â—oste in commemoration Which is as much to say The ende of the Sacrifice that Christe offered was to cleanse vs from our synnes The ende of the Sacrifice that is done by Priestes is to renewe daily the memorie of this cleansing Sacrifice and so consequently to deriue and apply vnto the deuoute and faithful people as also vnto them selues the fruit and effecte of it In Epist. ad Heb. Hom. 17. The identitie of the substance of either Sacrifice and the diuersitie of the ende of either Sacrifice is plainely taught by S. Chrysostome in that Homilie Now let vs examine your Replie Three thinges attributed to this saying of S. Chrysostâ— by M. Ievv You attribute vnto S. Chrysostome for hauing vttered the saying that I here allege three thinges The first is that in these wordes marke Reader what this man saith He openeth him selfe The second is that he sheweth in what sense other auncient Fathers vsed this worde Sacrifice The third is that he ouerthroweth M. Hardings whole purpose touching the Sacrifice Surely this is very much and were it also true I maruel why neither your selfe nor any of your felowes euer heretofore alleged it against the Sacrifice But certaine we are ye shal wring hard before ye wring this muche out of these wordes Hovv S. ChrysostoÌ„ openeth him selfe against M. Iewel That in these wordes he openeth him selfe I may easily graunt you But that opening is openly against your open Sacramentarie heresie For whereas you denie the oblation and Sacrifice of the Church he saith that now also we offer whereas you denie that we offer Christe to the Father he saith we offer now also the selfe same hoste which our high Bishop Christe hath offered And to put it out of doubte what hoste he meaneth he openeth him selfe as you say calling it hostiam mundantem nos the hoste that cleanseth vs which can be none other but Christe him selfe And bicause the hostes that were offered in sacrifice in the olde lawe were forthwith consumed to shewe the excellencie of this hoste he saith of it that being then that is to say vpon the Crosse offered it can not be consumed And therefore in the same Homilie he saith that it is otherwise with vs now then it was with the Iewes For they on diuers daies offered diuers lambes but we saith he offer not one lambe to day and an other lambe to morowe but alwaies we offer one and the same lambe S. Chrysostom returned vpon M. Ievvel Touching the second point if in these wordes let them be consideratly perused S. Chrysostome shewe in what sense other auncient Fathers haue vsed this woorde Sacrifice then by the auncient Fathers your doctrine touching the truth of Christes body in the blessed Sacrament M. Ievv ouershot him selfe in alleging this place of S. Chrysostom is quite ouerthrowen For he calleth it most expressely the Hoste that cleanseth vs from our sinnes which Christe our high Bishop offered vp for vs vppon the Crosse. If the auncient Fathers when so euer they speake of the hoste that is offered vp by Priestes in the Sacrifice of the Churche meane thus as S. Chrysostome speaketh then are they of our side by your owne confession then is the Catholike Doctrine concerning the Sacrament and the Sacrifice by them against your heresie confirmed and mainteined God be praised by whose prouidence the Truth is confessed by the ennemies of Truth Certainely here you ouershote your selfe in telling the truth against your selfe vnwares Here then I shal aduertise the Christian Reader to beare these wordes of S. Chrysostome in memorie and to consider wel of them for so much as in them he openeth him selfe as Mayster Iewel confesseth and sheweth what meaning the auncient Fathers had when they spake of the Sacrifice of the Churche But how in these wordes he ouerthroweth my purpose touching the Sacrifice or rather the vniuersal Doctrine of the whole Churche that neither I nor M. Iewel him selfe nor any
holy Doctours Remembreth he not they were for the more part such Act. 20. as by report of S. Paule the Holy Ghost hath made Bishops to gouerne the Churche of God which he hath purchased with his bloud If thei haue beÌ„ made gouernours of the Church by the holy Ghost may we not boldly say they haue ben taught the truth by the holy Ghost wherewith they might instruct the Church Either the Fathers vvere deceiued or the holy Ghost dissenteth froÌ„ him selfe by M. Ievvel Verily of this doctrine one of these two must folowe That either al the olde learned Fathers were deceiued and taught false doctrine or that the holy Ghost who ruled the penne of them that endited the Scriptures dissented from himselfe speaking in their Successours the learned Fathers For that the Fathers either of their own heads or of priuat inspiratioÌ„ without al warrant of Gods worde instituted this Sacrifice neither M. Iewel saith it nor is it so much as to be suspected The second that is that any dissension or contrarietie be ascribed to the holy Ghoste is hainous blasphemie The first that al the learned Fathers should be deceiued and also deceiue the Churche is not to be graunted For in asmuch as they receiued the spirite of truth which Christe promised to the Apostles Ioan. 14. and were gouerned by the spirite of God and by the same were lead into al truth it ought not to be thought of them in general that they haue inclined vnto falshod specially in so weighty a mater Wherfore it standeth M. Iewel vpon either to deny that the olde learned Fathers haue by their ofte mention of Priestes Aultars and Sacrifice acknowleged the singuler Sacrifice of the Churche or recant what he said of the Scriptures that by any clause or sentence of them it cannot appeare where God appointed any such Sacrifice to be made at al. If he wil say as he semeth to say The Fathers confesse not ne acknowledge not in dede the Sacrifice it selfe but yet ofte tymes they vse the woorde of Sacrifice that is to say they speake of it as also of the Priestes and Aulters to that may be answered that by their woordes we vnderstande their meaning Forasmuch as they confesse it with words and that very oft how can we iudge otherwise of them but that they beleued it also in harte What maketh he the auncient holy Fathers Gods dere frendes placed in authoritie by the holy Ghost to gouerne the Church of God to be double men such as say one thing and thinke an other Why taught they so but that the Churche should beleue so If they would al men to beleue it shal we say they beleued it not them selues When M. Iewel minding to mainteine his Chalenge A shifte deuised bi the schole of this nevve Gospel against the manifold testimonies of the Fathers for the Sacrifice had with him selfe considered this much knowing right wel as thereof he could not be ignoraÌ„t how easy a thing it were for the Catholikes to allege infinite places out of the olde learned Fathers for witnesse and proufe of their faith and of the Churches faith coÌ„cerning this Sacrifice for some shew at least of a colorable answer to be made he deuised this shift or rather vseth a shift inueÌ„ted by the deuisers of this newe Gospel in whose schoole he hath learned his newe diuinitie As the Fathers saith he delited themselues with the wordes Sabbatum Parasceâ—e Pascha Pentecoste and other termes of the olde Lawe notwithstanding the obseruation and Ceremonie thereof were then abolished so they delited themselues oftetimes with these wordes Sacerdos Altare SacrificiuÌ„ Sacrificer Aulter Sacrifice notwithstaÌ„ding the vse hereof were theÌ„ clearly expired This great mater is not so lightlye carried awaye M. Iewel Although with force of your sworde with your mattockes and pickaxes ye haue cut hewed and throweÌ„ downe al the holy Aulters of the Churches of Englande and therefore of the Churches of Christe haue made the Synagoges of Antichrist yet with this sclender worde of yours ye caÌ„ not bereue the whole Church of God of the priesthod of the Aulters of the Sacrifice apperteining to the newe Testament M. Ievvel maketh the Fathers to speak one thing aÌ„d to meane an other If there be no vse of Priestes Aulters and Sacrifice is it to be thought the olde learned Fathers hartes could serue them so ofteÌ„times to speake and write of theÌ„ aÌ„d to deceiue the people coÌ„mitted to their charge for their delite and pleasures sake BeloÌ„ged it to their grauitie holinesse and loue of truth to delite and solace them selues with falshod to vse hypocrisie and as it were legiérdemaine by speaking one thing aÌ„d meaning another to serue Gods people with voide and empty words as it were with pipt nuttes Whiles they teach theÌ„ a doctrin of great importaÌ„ce to vse words that coÌ„tein not the mater which their proper significatioÌ„ reporteth This were crafty cifring it were not right aÌ„d plaine teaching Verely we ought to iudge better of the holy Fathers aÌ„d to thinke that men endued with so great grace swarued not froÌ„ the vpright coÌ„science touching the vse of termes which one of the best lerned of theÌ„ speaketh of Whose words be these wherby it appereth how rightly warely aÌ„d circuÌ„spectly they vsed to speake Aug. de Ciuit. Dei libr. 10. cap. 23. Vse aâ—d obseruatioÌ„ of SabbatuÌ„ Pascha Altare etcâ— is double olde and nevve Nobis ad certaÌ„ regulaÌ„ loqui fas est ne verboruÌ„ liceÌ„tia etiaÌ„ de rebê° quae his significaÌ„tur impiaÌ„ gignat opinioneÌ„ It is right saith he that we speak after a certain rule least the ouermuch libertie of words ingeÌ„der an opinioÌ„ of the thiÌ„gs which by theÌ„ be signified But for a ful answer to you M. Iewel where as you affirme the ObseruatioÌ„ and vse of that is signified by these wordes SabbatuÌ„ Parasceue Pascha PeÌ„tecoste Sacerdos Altare SacrificiuÌ„ to be vtterly abolished and clearly expired in the newe TestameÌ„t you seme either of ignorance not to vnderstand or of malice to disseÌ„ble that the obseruation and vse of these things is of two sortes old and new Legal and Euangelical Iewish and Christian. The olde Legal or Iewish Obseruation and vse of these was clearly expired in right by the comming of Christ specially at what time hanging on the Crosse and now geuing vp the ghoste Ioan. 19. he said Consummatum est It is finished The newe Euangelical and Christian obseruatioÌ„ and vse hereof remaineth in the Church and shall remaine so long as the Church continueth The Iewish Ceremonie of these is quite abolished we grauÌ„t neither be they now in Christs Catholike Church vsed as the Iewes vsed them But the faithful ChristiaÌ„s now kepe vse and celebrate their Sabboth that is to say their restingtide their Parasceue or preparingtide coÌ„monly called Goodfriday their Pascha or Easter their Pentecost or Whitsontide their Priesthod their Aulter their Sacrifice in
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
nor dieth nor sheaddeth his bloude nor is Substantiallie Presente August De Ciuit. Dei lib. 10 cap. 5. nor Reallie Offered by the Prieste In this sorte the Councel saith Christ is offered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without Sacrifice So Saint Augustine saithe Quod ab omnibus appellatur Sacrificium Signum est Veri Sacrificij The thinge that of al menne is called a Sacrifice is a Token or a Signe of the True Sacrifice Likevvise againe he saith Vocatur ipsa Immolatio quae Sacerdotis manibus fit De Conse Dis. 2. Hoc est Christi Passio Mors Crucifixio non rei veritate sed Significante Mysterio The Sacrifice that is wrought by the handes of the Priest is called the Passion the Death the Crucifieinge of Christ not in deede but by a Mysterie Signifieinge And vvhere as M. Hardinge saith further Christ is offered onely in respecte of the presence of his Bodie Neither vvould the Real Presence beinge graunted importe the Sacrifice for Christ vvas Really Presente in his Mothers VVombe and in the Cribbe vvhere notvvithstanding he vvas no Sacrifice nor hath M. Harding hitherto any vvaie prooued his Real Presence Hardinge That the Sacrifice of the Aulter is a true and real Sacrifice The witnesse which I alleged out of the Nicen Councel doth declare sufficieÌ„tly what I meant by saying that Christ is sacrificed in the daily Sacrifice of the Church truly and in deede not in respecte of the manner of offering but in respect of his very body and bloude really that is in deede present For the Sacrifice that was true and real in al respectes both of the inward substance and also of the outward manner was not made without bloudshed and killing This Sacrifice therefore of the Church being made without shedding of bloude or killing lacketh that one point of that most perfite and true Sacrifice Neuerthelesse for that it hath the substance of the bloudy and moste absolutely perâ—ite Sacrifice that was offred vpon the Crosse it is in that consideration a true and real Sacrifice And right wel did I vnderstand what I meant by these wordes M. Iewel and so do you too what so euer you say but of a wilful and peruerse frowardnesse you would seme not to vnderstand them that in worde you might reproue me where in dede you found nothing to be reproued Yet who marketh you shal perceiue how you bewray your owne knowledge by thobiection you make against yourself of the wordes of the Nicen CouÌ„cel M. Iewel falsifieth the CouÌ„cel of Nice which you translate falsely into Latin not englishing them least they should seme to make as they doo for the Sacrifice which ye denie The Greke wordes be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Your vntrue translation hath for them thus sine sacrificio oblatus as much to say offred vp without a Sacrifice Which translation conteineth in it a contradiction For if Christ the true Lambe of God as the Councel calleth him be offered vp how is there not a Sacrifice Therfore the true translation of these woordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had ben incruentè sacrificatus sacrificed vnbloudily or without bloude shedding Oecolampadius or as a chiefe founder and mainteiner of your Sacramentarie doctrine hath turned non victimarum more sacrificatus sacrificed not after the manner of hostes which be sacrificed with killing And thus the place hath ben of learned men hitherto translated neither was there euer any so shamelesse as to swarue so farre from the right and natural sense of the wordes as you doo were he neuer so spiteful an enemie to that blessed Sacrifice This terme of the Nicen Councel doth expresse the respect of the manner of offering which I spake of to put a difference betwene the Sacrifice of the Crosse and the daily Sacrifice of the Church bicause the one was with shedding of bloud and with death the other without shedding of bloude or death The same respecte of the manner of offering is vttered by the first Councel of Ephesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Incruentum celebramus in Ecclesiis sacrificij cultum we doo celebrate in our Churches the vnbloudy seruice of the Sacrifice Concil Ephes. in Epist. ad NestoriuÌ„ Aug. CoÌ„t Faustum Manich. lib. 20. ca. 21. The same doth Saint Augustine meane writing that the flesh and bloude of the Sacrifice is celebrated by a Sacrament of remembrance The same doth S. Chrysostome vnderstand where he saith Chrysost. in epist. ad Heb. Homil 17. Non aliud Sacrificium sicut pontifex sed id ipsum semper facimus magis autem recordationem sacrificij facimus We make not a diuers sacrifice as the high bishop did but alwaies the selfe same yea rather we celebrate a memorial of the Sacrifice Here is plainely expressed both the truth and realitie if I may so cal it of the Sacrifice alwaies and continually offered and also the manner of offering bicause it is done in remembrance of the Sacrifice that was made vppon the Crosse. To be shorte these termes remembrance token signe sampler mysterie sacrament and suche like be oftentimes vsed of the Fathers to expresse this manner of offering and in no wise to exclude the truth of the substance of the thinge offered This notwithstanding M. Iewel you are not ashamed to pronounce that the Councell of Nice and the olde Doctours or holy Fathers neuer vnderstode these respectes and manners And whereas you charge me with dazeling the Readers eyes with a vaine distinction of clowdy wordes so it liketh you to control the doctrine of Christes Churche it is you that employe your whole witte and cunning to enuegle and blinde Gods people and to bereue them wandering in the wildernes of this world of the true Manna that came downe from aboue al the clowdes and to dazel their vnderstandinges so that they may not discerne the true body of our Lorde from bare bread and by your phantastical and vncertaine phrases applied out of place to vndermine and shake no smal number of great and necessarie truthes by the Holy Ghoste founded and so many hundred yeres susteined in Christes Churche As for the authorities which you bring either to weaken the doctrine of the Church touching the Sacrifice of the Aulter M. Ievv taketh aduantage of his ovvne false traÌ„slation or to strengthen your owne contrary opinion of how litle force they are it is sone opened First the Councel of Nice maketh clearely for vs which reporteth the Lambe of God that taketh away the synnes of the worlde to be situate vpon the holy table whereby is meant the Aulter and of the Priestes to be sacrificed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say without bloudshed and not after the manner of beastes appointed to be killed in Sacrifice Of these wordes you take a smal aduauntage and that only by false translation For whereas the Councel hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lambe is sacrificed of the Priestes vnbloudily or not after the manner
exact rule of truth it is a point of great witte and cunning neither is it lightly perfourmed but of suche as God hath endewed with special giftes And as excellencie of witte is required to vtter them plainely so it behoueth the Readers senses be wel exeâ—cised to vnderstand them fully The doctrine of this Sacrifice in some parte is harde and obscure such as commonly hath rather ben rightly beleeued then by many clearely declared The honour of holy Mysteries is better saued with reuerent silence then with bolde opening Experience teacheth into what danger of contempte they come when they are openly reueled to populare vnderstanding Although bothe in the Scriptures and in the Fathers we haue most sufficient proufes and testimonies for the real presence and for the real Sacrifice yet they that liued within the first six hundred yeres after Christe wrote hereof more secretly then of other pointes of our Religion The cause vvhy the olde Fathers spake so secretly of these mysteries For reuerence of the Mysterie they thought it more conuenient to teache it by mowthe and by tradition then by euident and open declararion to commit muche to publique writing least so to the Infidels occasion should be ministred of despite and villanie As for example notwithstanding that religious warenesse we read in S. Augustine how the Painimes charged the Christians with the wourship of Ceres August coÌ„tra Faust. Manâ—cha lib. 20. cap. 13. and Bacchus their false Goddes bicause of the bread and wine they vsed in the celebration of their mysteries Thereof it is that we finde in the auncient Fathers so often commendation of their silence Chrysost. in Liturg. S. Chyistome saith in his Masse Conuiuij tui mystici hodie fili Dei communio nem assumpsi non tamen hostibus tuis mysterium diâ—â— I haue receiued this day the Communion of thy mystical banquet ô Sonne of God and yet I haue not tolde the Mysterie vnto thine enemies Ambro. â—i De ijs qui initiantur myster c. 1. S. Ambrose maketh it a Treason and betraying of the Mysteries to shewe them vnto those that be not yet baptized The like commendation of silence in this behalfe wee finde in Origen Orige homil 9 in Leuit. c. 16 and in S. Augustines workes not seldom Aurelianus the Emperour when he saw him selfe and the Romaine Empire to be in great peril for that the people named Marcomanni grewe strong ouer him by a great ouerthrowe they had geuen him in bataile wrote to the Senate of Rome that whiche was woont to be done in publique distresse the Sibylles bookes should be looked in Flauius Vopiscus in Diuo Aureliano In his Epistle he hath these woordes Miror vos Patres sancti tam diu de aperiendis Sibyllinis dubitasse libris perinde quasi in Christianorum Ecclesiá non in Templo Deorum omnium tractaretis I maruel at you Reuerend Fathers that ye haue ben afraid to open Sibylles bookes thus long as though ye had to doo in the Churche of Christians and not in the Temple of al the Goddes By this it appeareth what secretnesse and silence was vsed in the Primitiue Churche touching these mysteries and how feareful the holy Fathers were to say write or doo any thing whereby the Miscreantes might come by knowledge of them For which cause it is not to be marueled if they spake not so plainely and so euidently of euery point touching the Sacrifice as the sawcinesse of heretikes requireth in these daies to be answered and satisfied withal Yet they may seme to haue spoken plainly ynough to right beleuers and for the same we haue no smal number of good and cleare testimonies as by this Reioindre it shal appeare to them that be not wilfully bent either to shutte their eyes bicause they would not see or to wrangle contentiously that they â—eeme not to be ouercomme VVhen began the Fathers to speake more plaiÌ„ly of our mysteries or to denie stubbornly what so euer disliketh their phansie be it neuer so sufficiently proued But after that the Faith was once generally receiued of al where it was preached and professed and no Infidels remained among the Christians that durst openly to worke despite against the holy Mysteries whiche in sundry Prouinces came to passe before the first six hundredth yere was determined and thenceforth the learned Fathers that in those times wrote as occasioÌ„ was geueÌ„ spake of the real Presence of the body an bloud of Christe in the blessed SacrameÌ„t and of the oblatioÌ„ of the same no lesse plainly and clearely then the Churche now teacheth Whiche thing they finde to be true that be conuersant in the workes of Cassiodorus S. Gregorie the Romaine Isidorus Gregorius Turonensis Beda Haimo Rabanus and other about that age If then for this Sacrifice we haue as in this Reioindre thou shalt finde the Scriptures the testimonies of the Fathers of the first six hundred yeres of sufficient clearenes and the most manifest testimonies of the writers that immediatly folowed that age besides the authoritie of Councels that were within and soone after that age and so continually vntil the late Councel of Trent the fauourers of M. Iewels side may see his Chalenge fully answered touching this Article And therefore ought they to consider how safe it is for them to contemne so great authoritie and to be persuaded with suche â—clender Argumentes against the blessed Sacrifice of the Masse as M. Iewel setteth forth in his Replie whiche he hath borowed of the Caluinistes they receiued of Luther and Luther learned of Satan when on a night he disputed with him against the Sacrifice of the Masse as he lay waking in his bed as by his owne confession in his booke De Missa priuata he hath witnessed vnto the worlde So then if with Luther Caluine and M. Iewel they professe hatred against the Masse and denie the real Sacrifice of the Churche they shewe whose scholers they be and by whose sprite they are leade vvhether the Masse be to be taken for an euil thing seing Satan disputeth vvith Luther against it But perhappes some here wil say what is that this Reioinderer telleth vs of Satan Did Satan euer dispute with Luter against the Masse Is this credible If it be so then may I soone beleue that the Masse is a godly thing and that it procedeth from the holy Ghoste For if it were an euil thing as by our Preachers we are borne in hande it is we may be sure the Deuil would not moue Luther to leaue it For so he should worke the destruction of his owne kingdom whiche to doo is the office of Christe and most contrary to the malice of Satans condicioÌ„ This Reioinderâ—â— should do wel here to cleare him selfe of the vehement suspicion of an vntruth And in deede shame it were to belye the Deuil as they say The disputation of Satan the Deuil with Luther against the Masse truly reported out of Luthers owne
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
Sacrifice of the Churche neither vnderstandeth he by a true sacrifice the chiefe and most true Sacrifice which is that of the Crosse but any spiritual sacrifice in general wherein the effect of loue toward God or our neighbour is performed And therefore he much abuseth the simplicitie of the vnlearned Reader by his futtel and false translation turning illud quod ab hominibus appellatur Sacrificium that which of men is called a sacrifice wherby S. Augustine vnderstandeth any of the Sacrifices of the olde Law into illud quod ab omnibus appellatur Sacrificiū c. The thing that of al men is called a sacrifice is a tokē or a signe of the true Sacrifice whereby he induceth the Reader to conceiue the Sacrifice of the Churche and to beleue the same not to be a true and real Sacrifice but only a signe of the true Sacrifice And in that he turneth signum veri Sacrificij a signe or token of the true Sacrifice he meaneth Christe offered vpon the Crosse otherwise then S. Augustine did whereas he should haue trāslated it thus A signe of a true sacrifice And what is there meant by a true sacrifice he could not be ignorant For it foloweth immediatly Porrò autem misericordia verum sacrificium est mercie is a true sacrifice Differēce betvvene a true ād the True Sacrifice And who perceiueth not a difference betwene these two whether we say a True Sacrifice or the True Sacrifice Any spiritual sacrifice is a true Sacrifice The true Sacrifice properly to speake is Christe him selfe Which S. Augustine after that he hath treated of Sacrifices at large calleth Summum verum Sacrificium the highest principal August de ciuit Dei lib. 10. cap. 20. or chiefe and the True Sacrifice whereof the Sacrifice of the Churche saith he is a sacrament The same Sacrifice of the Churche may also be called the True Sacrifice though not in respect of the olde commō maner of offering which was by killing the hoste offred yet in respecte of the thing offred which by vertue of the woorde is made really present which is the same flesh and bloude that was offered and shed vpon the Crosse. Here it is not so offred nor shed but that offering and bloud shedding that is to say the death of Christ is represented and recorded The Sacrifice of the Crosse is the True Sacrifice in respect both of the thing offered and of the common manner of offering for there Christ was killed the Sacrifice of the Aulter which is the Sacrifice of the Churche is also the True Sacrifice in respect of the thing offered which is the body and bloude of Christe as truly present in the Sacrament though inuisibly as vpon the Crosse where it was visibly albe it in respect of the olde common manner of sacrificing it is not a Sacrifice after that manner and therefore is it called sacrificium incruentum the vnbloudy Sacrifice An other manner there is singuler special and proper to this mystical Sacrifice after whiche it is made sacrificed and offered so as the Mysterie that Christ instituted requireth which they knowe that haue grace rightly to beleue Of which manner Oecumenius saith Oecum in Epist. ad Heb. ca. 5. Christus in Mystica coena modum illis tradidit huiusmodi Sacrificij Christe deliuered vnto Priestes the manner of such a Sacrifice This manner hath euer ben and is to this day obserued euen as the Apostles were taught it of Christe and as the Churche hath receiued it of the Apostles and offereth the new Oblation of the newe Testament in the whole worlde as S. Ireneus writeth Iren. lib. 4. cap. 32. Euseb. de demonst lib. 1. lib. 5. Eusebius speaking of the manner of this sacrifice calleth it Melchisedeks manner and saith in one place it is offered after the newe Mysteries of the newe Testament in an other place after the Ecclesiasticall ordinances As for that S. Augustine saith The Sacrifice that is made by the handes that is to say De Conse Dist. 2. Hoc est ministerie of the Priest is called the Passion the death the Crucifying not in truth of the thing but in Mysterie signifying I graunt it to be true and such as may wel serue for answer to certaine blasphemous obiections made by the Sacramentaries against this Sacrifice How this maketh any proufe for your doctrine I see not For though the Sacrifice be called sometimes by the name of the Passion the Death and crucifying of Christe as S. Cyprian saith Cyprian lib. 2. epist. 3. Passio est Domini sacrificium quod offerimus The Sacrifice that we offer is the Passion of our lorde bicause it representeth and renueth the memorie of the Passion once performed and done whereas in deede it is not the sensible Passion death or Crucifying but the same is signified in mysterie for that the body which suffred died and was crucified is truly exhibited yet this taketh not away the truth of a Sacrifice Such a great Logician as you would seme to be wil not make this childish Argument I dare say That whiche the Priest maketh signifieth the Passion and Death of Christe and is not the Passion and Death in deede Ergo it is not a Sacrifice That it be a true and real Sacrifice it is not necessary that Christe suffer againe and be slaine it is yenough the body of Christe that once suffred and was slaine be truly exhibited and offered vnto God Which is done in our Mysterie by them who haue commaundement to doo that Christe did when he said Doo this in my remembrance In the ende of this your first Diuision you say that Neither would the Real presence being graunted importe the Sacrifice nor that I haue hitherto any waie prooued the Real presence which after your scoffing custome you cal my Real presence as though it had not ben taught by the cleare scriptures by al the olde learned Fathers and vniuersally beleued of Christen people til the wicked generation of the Sacramentaries came But sir whether the Real presence of Christe where so euer it be do importe a sacrifice or no it is impertinent to our purpose here to dispute How be it I am not ignorant that there want not learned men who holde that Christes body from the time it was first fourmed in and of the body of the blessed virgin his mother neuer ceassed nor shal ceasse to be a sacrifice according as S. Paule to the Hebrewes alleging the prophecie vttered in the Psalme Hebr. 10. teacheth Ingrediens mundum dicit hostiam oblationem noluisti Psalm 39. corpus autem aptasti mihi Christe entring into the worlde saith Sacrifice and oblation thou wouldest not haue but a body thou hast made fitte for me To your position briefly I answer that although the Real presence of Christe in other places and times imported not a sacrifice yet the same in the Sacrament doth necessarily inferre a sacrifice bicause according to
the general teaching of al the Fathers Christe did institute it not onely to be receiued as a necessary foode but also to be offered as an healthful Sacrifice Cyprian de Caen. Dom. medicamentum holocaustum existens ad sanandas infirmitates purgandas iniquitates ◠being a medicine and sacrifice to heale infirmities and to purge iniquities as S. Cyprian saith Lib. 4.32 He taught the new oblation of the new Testament saith S. Irenaeus That I haue sufficiently proued the Real presence of Christes body and bloude in the Sacrament the Answer I made to the fifth Article of your Chalenge doth witnes to as many as be not lead with lewde and blind affection to your syde As for the shiftes of your Replie thereunto they are so detected and fully confuted and the Real presence otherwise so substantially proued by M. D. Saunder and M. D. Heskins that euery meane witte may easely see the weaknes of your cause The 2. Diuision The Ansvver THe two first manners of the offeringe of Christe our aduersaries acknowledge and confesse The thirde they denie vtterly And so they robbe the Churche of the greatest treasure it hath or may haue the Bodie and Bloud of our Sauiour Christe once offered vpon the Crosse with paineful suffering for our redemption and now daiely offered in the blessed Sacramente in remembrance For which we haue so many proufes as for no one pointe of our Christian religion moe And herein I am more encombred with store then straighted with lacke and doubte more what I may leaue then what I may take Wherefore thinking it shal appeare to the wise more skille to shewe discretion in the choise of places rather then learning in recital of number though we are ouer peartely thereto prouoked by M. Iuelles vauntinge and insolent chalenge I intende herein to be short verily shorter then so large a mater requireth and to bring for proufe a fewe suche auctorities I meane a fewe in respecte of the multitude that might be brought as ought in euery mannes iudgement to be of great weight and estimation Iewel Touching the Oblation of Christes Bodie vvee beleue and Confesse as much as the holy Ghost hath opened in the Scriptures VVhere as M. Harding saith Christes Bodie is offred vp by the Priest vnto God the Father in remembrance of that Bodie that Christe him selfe offered vpon the Crosse He seemeth not to consider the inconstancie and folie of his ovvne tale For it is vvel knovven to al Creatures not onely Christians but also Ievves Turckes and Saracenes that Christ vvas Crucified vpon the Crosse But that Christe should be sacrificed by a Mortal man Inuisibly and as they say vnder the Formes of Bread and vvine and that Really and in deede it is a thinge so far passinge the common sense of Christian knovvledge that the best learned and vvisest of the Ancient learned Christian Fathers coulde neuer knovv it Therefore this is not onely the proouing of a thinge knovven by a thinge vnknovven and of a thinge moste certaine by a thinge vncertaine but also the Confirmation of a manifest Trueth by an open Errour Neither do vvee robbe the Churche of God of that most Heauenly and moste comfortable Sacrifice of Christes Bodie But rather vvee open and disclose the errours vvherevvith certaine of late yeeres haue vvilfully deceiued the Churche of God Esay 53. VVee knovv That Christes Bodie was rente for our Sinnes and that by his VVounds wee are made whole 1. Pet. 2. That Christe in his Bodie caried our Sinnes vpon the Tree Heb. 9. And by the Oblation thereof once made vpon the Crosse Actor 4. bath sanctified vs for euer aud hath purchased for vs euerlastinge Redēption And That there is none other Name or Sacrifice vnder Heauen whereby wee can be saued but onely the name and Sacrifice of Iesus Christe I recken◠vvho so teacheth this Doctrine leaueth not the Churche of God vvithout a Sacrifice Touchinge the multitude of Authorities vverevvith M. Harding findeth him selfe so muche encombred the greater his stoare is the more vvil vvise men require his discretion and skil in the choise His choise vvil seeme vnskilful if he allege his Authorities biside his purpose His purpose and promise is to prooue that the Priest hath good vvarrant to offer vp Christe the Sonne of God vnto his Father VVhiche purpose if he neuer vouchesaue once to touche but range abroade as his manner is and roaue idlely at maters impertinent then muste vvee needes say He bevvraieth his vvante and bringeth his greate Stoare out of credit So shal the offer that is gently made him seeme to stande vpon good and conuenient termes of Trueth and Modestie So shal his stoareful Vaunte of al thinges perfourming nothing vnto the vvise to vse his ovvne vvordes seeme pearte and insolent Harding In your 2. Diuision though you be shorte yet you spende many moe wordes then either were nedeful or imported any direct answer M. Ievvel faineth me to say that I say not◠and therto directeth his Replie reason or learning You pretend that to be said by me which I say not and then as your manner is fighting with my shadow which you set before you by your owne fained imagination you come not to answer the point directly but speake altother inconsideratly Had that bene my tale whiche you tel for me wherein shewe you inconstancie and folie to be in it whereof you note the fame For say you not onely Christians but also Iewes Turkes Saracens you might haue added also the Deuil whose knowledge is great know that Christe was crucified vpon the Crosse. This much I graunt what conclude you But say you againe that he is sacrificed by a mortal man inuisibly vnder the formes of bread and wine the auncient Fathers could neuer know it Here I stoppe you and this I denie And what cause I haue to denie it I haue in the Diuision before shewed After this you come vnto your Conclusion wherein appeareth in deede both the inconstancie and folie of your tale Therefore say you of me in effecte I prooue a thing knowen by a thing vnknowen and a thing certaine by a thing vncertaine and confirme manifest truth by open errour Here if I would folow you and set forth the peeuishnes of your Argument by telling you how the Maior or first Prorosition is impertinent the Minor false being the Negatiue of our Question which being denied of me was very absurdly brought by you in the Premisses nor Moode nor Figure nor iust disposition of the termes duely obserued the Conclusion not folowing of the Premisses in right order of a Syllogismus I should bestowe many woordes to prooue that a foolish Argument whiche thereof without any curiouse shewing of Logique of it selfe geueth witnesse What leadeth you to thinke that by the vnbloudy Sacrifice of the Churche which you cal a thing vncertaine I go about to prooue the Sacrifice of the Crosse whiche I graunt to be certaine
deny the Argument For there be two kindes of signes One is significatiue onely the other exhibitiue which doth not only betoken or signifie but also exhibiteth and geueth the thing signified In the olde Lawe the vnleuened bread signified onely that the feast of Easter was to be celebrated with sinceritie of harte and life The corporal purgations signified only the cleansing of myndes But Baptisme in the newe Lawe doth not only signifie but also exhibiteth and worketh the Wasshing of synnes and is the ablution it selfe or wasshing away of sinnes Likewise the holy Euchariste doth not onely betoken or signifie the body and bloud of Christe but contineth and exhibiteth it present Signū signatum exhibitiuū and is the very body and bloude of Christ it is signū signatū exhibitiuū Thus it appeareth how the Sacramentaries Argument is naught The Sacrament is a signe ergo it is not the body For it is both a signe and the body it sefe For if any wil say it is a signe significatiue only it is to be denied as false and contrary to the manifest wordes of Scripture and the expositions of al the Fathers Now I reporte me to the iudgement of the discrete Reader what aduauntage M. Iewel hath gotten by the terme antitypon alleged out of S. Clement against the blessed Sacrifice of the Churche S. Clemēt corrupted by M. Ievvel On the other side what aduauntage may iustly be taken against him for that most falsly he hath corrupted his author For looke Reader vpon the shorte testimonie which he allegeth out of S. Clement and thou shal finde that M. Iewel hath cut of out of the middest two wordes of greatest force for the vnderstanding of that goeth there immediatly before that by falshod he might geue at least some colour vnto his Reply where in truth he had none at al. The wordes falsly cut away be these Clemen Constitut. lib. 6. cap. 30. acceptabilemque Eucharistiam So that the whole sentence is this in S. Clement Antitypum regalis corporis Christi acceptabilēque Eucharistiam offerte in Ecclesiis coemeteriis vestris Offer ye vp the sampler of the roial body of Christ and the acceptable Euchariste in your Churches and burying places These two wordes with the sleight of falsifying nipte away by M. Iewel be so requisite to the vnderstanding of the authours meaning that without them mater of cauil by reason of the terme antitypon may be ministred vnto such as be more ready to impugne then to defend the doctrine of the vniuersal Churche touching the substance of the Sacrament and Sacrifice of the Aulter Contrarywise being leaft in the sentence considered and rightly vnderstanded they exclude al occasion of doubte or cauil that might rise through the other terme of more obscuritie For the Euchariste without doubt in that age being taken for the body of Christ how can it be conceiued that the other terme antitypon in the same place ioyned by a copulatiue together with it should importe the contrary That S. Clement meant by the Eucharist the true and real body of Christe it is euident by that we finde in the learned Fathers of that age namely S. Ignatius and S. Ireneus who lyued in or sone after S. Clementes tyme. S. Irenaeus saith Irenaeus lib. 4. ca. 34. that the breade hauing receiued the calling vpon of the name of God whereby he meaneth the Consecration is no more common bread but Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terrena coelesti the Euchariste consisting of two thinges the one earthly whereby he vnderstandeth the forme of bread the other heauenly which is the body of our Sauiour The Euchariste maketh our bodies to be immortal And that it appeare certainely that he thought the Euchariste to be the body and bloude of Christe he proueth that our bodies shal not remaine in corruption but haue the resurrection that is hoped for bicause they receiue the Euchariste and be fed with the flesh and bloude of our Lorde Ignat. ad Smyrnen apud theo dorit li. 3. Dialog S. Ignatius likewise in an Epistle ad Smyrnenses as Theodoritus allegeth him in the third booke of his Dialogues writing against certaine Heretikes that would haue neither Euchariste nor Sacrifice auoucheth the Eucharist to be the flesh of Christe The Eutheriste is the flesh of Christ that suffered for vs. These be his wordes Eucharistias oblationes non admittunt eò quòd non confiteantur Eucharistiā esse carnēseruatoris nostri Iesu Christi quae pro peccatis nostris passa est quam Pater sua benignitate suscitauit Eucharistes and oblations they wil not admit bicause they wil not confesse the Euchariste to be the flesh of our Sauiour Iesus Christe which flesh suffered for our sinnes and which the Father of his goodnes raised vp from death Marke Reader this auncient Father and blessed Martyr saith not the Euchariste signifieth Christes flesh but is Christes flesh yea that flesh which was crucified buried and rose againe And although Theodoritus alleged this authoritie to proue that it was the humaine flesh and not the Godhed of Christe that suffered death and rose againe which he proueth by the later parte of the same yet it principally proueth our purpose that the Euchariste is the true flesh of Christe Againe onlesse the selfe same flesh of Christe be in the Euchariste which died vpon the Crosse and rose againe this authoritie auailed Theodoritus nothing to proue that Christes flesh was crucified and raised vp againe Wherefore for so much as it is cleare by the testimonies of S. Ignatius and S. Irenaeus who liued not long after S. Clements time that the beleefe of their age was the Euchariste to be the flesh and bloude of Christe how can M. Iewel kepe his credite with any man that loueth truth and not seme to haue intended crafte and deceite in that of purpose least the truth should appeare manifest he falsified his auctor by clipping away those two wordes from the middest of the sentence that make directly against him and put away al doubte of contrary sense Thus to mainteine the false doctrine of his arrogant Chalenge he feareth not to violate the Fathers to corrupte their writings to deceiue the worlde to purchase him selfe the most reprocheful name of a falsifier By such champions such quarrels are mainteined Constitut. lib. 8. As for the other place of S. Clement where he saith offerimus hunc panem hoc poculum we offer this breade and this cuppe who nowe a daies knoweth not that the Sacrament sometimes is called by the name of breade and wine not bicause the substance of breade and wine remaineth but bicause the outwarde formes taft and other qualities of breade and wine be sene felt and perceiued bicause before consecration it was breade and wine and bicause it is the true breade and wine that came downe from heauen Neither doth S. Clement which is to be noted
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
thinges and intreate them to absteine from others But louers shewe this their desire in money in garmentes in possessions in his owne bloude no man euer shewed it Figure only excluded To proue that Christe loueth vs more then euer any man loued an other he saith that he geueth vs his owne bloude Which in this place of S. Chrysostome can in no wise be expounded of the Figure and token of his bloude For worldly louers geue vnto their beloued as much and as good a thing as that namely money garmentes their possessions As for a token or signe of their bloude or of their persons it were easy for them to geue But Christ saith he sheweth his loue toward vs by that whereby no man euer shewed his loue to an other If the onely token of bloude might at any time haue declared so certaine and assured loue louers would oftentimes haue spared their money their garmentes and their possessions and would haue geuen vnto their dere beloued the figure of their bloude or of their whole persons Thus is the true and real presence of Christes bloud and consequently of his flesh prooued by witnesse of S. Chysostome And by the same is that prooued which we cal the real Sacrifice of the Church For by that we say Christe to be really offered vp vnto his Father we meane none other thing but that the substance which we offer and sacrifice is the real body and bloude of Christe This much therefore may stande for answer to M. Iewels Reply in this place Christe in the Sacrifices of the olde Lawe was so offred in a Figure as he was not the substance of them In the Supper he was and in the Masse he is so offered as he is the substance present And bicause this real Sacrifice of Christe being the Sacrifice of the New Testament and the worthinesse of it is much impugned by the enemies of the Churche in our time yea villanously mocked skoffed and railed at by Antichristes wicked broode Reasons vvhereby the Catholikes may be armed agaiÌ„st the SacrameÌ„taries for defense of this Sacrifice the godly Catholiques may by these reasons be sufficiently armed against them If it were necessary for the people of the olde Lawe to haue real sacrifices to protest and to mainteine their beleefe in Christes Death to come why is it not as necessary that the faithful people of the Newe Lawe haue also a real Sacrifice to protest and keepe in memorie their beleefe in Christes Death already past Againe as the newe Lawe is better and excellenter then the olde so is it necessary it haue a better and excellenter Sacrifice But if we take away the Sacrifice of the Reall flesh and bloude of Christe and leaue onely bread end wine to be offred vp in a figure or mysterie then haue we not a Sacrifice proper vnto the new Law that in worthinesse passeth and excelleth the Sacrifices of the olde Lawe as the which consisted of as good a substance as the other and signified as good a thing as the other and expressed it by slaughter and shedding of pure and innocent beastes bloude more liuely then the other Contrarywise let the real body and bloude of Christe be the substanee of the Sacrifice of the new Law as the truth teacheth saying Lucae 22. this is my body which is geueÌ„ for you this is my bloud which is shed for you Math 26 c. and the Church beleueth then doth it infinitely excel al the Sacrifices offered in the Lawe of Nature or in the Lawe written And then shal the New Lawe as in greatenesse of graces and promises and plainenesse of Scripture so surmount and passe also the olde Lawe in Maiestie of the Sacrifice and of Priesthode which haue euer in al Lawes ben accompted the two principal pointes of the same To be shorte how can it be conceiued that our Sacrifice should be but a figure a signe or a mysterie onely and no true and real Sacrifice better then the olde sacrifices sith that by the teaching of al the auncient learned Fathers it is the truth and perfourmance of al the olde sacrifices Hauing said this much for the real offering of Christe let vs now examine M. Iewels argument Examination of M. Iuels Argument As Christe was slaine at the Table saith he so was he sacrificed at the Table But he was not slaine at the Table verely and in dede but onely in a Mysterie Therefore he was not sacrificed at the Table really and in deede but onely in a Mysterie Christe was then and is now also at the holy Table both really sacrificed in respect of his real and true body and bloude by vertue of the Worde made present and also in a Mysterie in respect of the outward formes of bread and wine vnder which they are present and of the mystical manner of sacrificing This being true as before we haue declared and therefore the Conclusion being false let vs see which of the Premisses of M. Iewels Argument is false It is the Maior or first Proposition If the same be resolued into the partes whereof it consisteth the vntruth wil soone appeare The first parte is this Christe was slaine at the Table That is false The second is this Christe was sacrificed at the Table That is true So that one parte is false and the other true And so by this trial which is the surest way to trie such kinde of Propositions the whole Proposition in it selfe is found false and therefore the Conclusion foloweth not For the better euidence of the thing it selfe we most gladly acknowledge and protest to the worlde that Christe was really and in deede slaine and put to death once for euer and neuer shal againe suffer the paines of Death Yet neuerthelesse he is and shal to the worldes ende continue the real and true Sacrifice of the newe Testament according to his owne merciful Institution at his last Supper As for the lacke of any slaying and shedding of bloude it is no cause at al why it was not at the Supper is not now or may not be a true and real Sacrifice For it is sufficient that is was once offered vp with slaying and bloudeshedding to pay the raunsom of our synnes He did then and we de now offer the same body and bloude in consideration and remembrance of that slaying and shedding He offered at the Supper his body and bloud that on the morow was to be slaine and shed we at the Aulter do stil offer that body and bloude that was slaine and shed euen the same selfe body and bloude in number For as Theophylacte folowing S. Chrysostome saith Theophylact in â—0 c. ad Heb. Eundem semper offerimus Imò potius memoriam illius oblationis qua seipâ— sum obtulit facimus ceu nunc iam facta sit we offer vp alwaies the selfe same Christe or rather we kepe the memorie of that oblation whereby he offered him selfe as though it were
Cyprianus De vnctio ne Chrismatis vera synceritas exponeret Gentibus quomodo vinuÌ„ panis caro esset sanguis et quibâ— roÌ„ibus causae effectibus coÌ„uenireÌ„t et diuersa noiÌ„a vel species ad vnaÌ„ reducereÌ„tur essentiaÌ„ et significaÌ„tia et significata eisdeÌ„ nacabulis ceÌ„serentur That the sincere truth and true sinceritie being secretly imprinted in th'Apostles might expouÌ„d vnto the GeÌ„tils how wine and bread should be his flesh and bloud and by what meanes the causes should be agreable to the effectes and diuers names and kindes should be brought vnto one substance and the thinges signifying and the thinges signified should be called by the same names Lo here it is declared what bread and wine it was as much to say the flesh and bloud of Christe which S. Cyprian saith he gaue at his last Supper vnto his Apostles This cleare and syncere truth or true synceritie so he calleth either the true doctrine of this Sacrifice or the Sacrifice it self in respect of the sundry impure and typical sacrifices of Moses Lawe he would secretly that is with th' inward knowledge of these secret mysteries to be imprinted and digested in th'Apostles to thinteÌ„t they should expound vnto the Gentils the Iewes with their olde sacrifices being now reiected how at this heauenly banket the bread and wine is flesh and bloud how the causes and effectes be agreable that is to say how the wordes of CoÌ„secratioÌ„ duely pronouÌ„ced by the Priest and the power of the holy Ghoste which are the causes doo produce and make the body and bloud of our Lord which be the effectes how thinges of diuers names and diuers in nature and therfore diuers kindes be brought vnto one essence or substaÌ„ce to wit bread and wine vnto the substance of Christes flesh and bloude TransubstantiatioÌ„â— whereby Transubstantiation is wrought briefly to conclude how wheras bread signifieth the body and wine the bloud the thinges signifiyng and the thinges signified be called by the same names Which thus appeareth to be true bicause that which before CoÌ„secration was and afterward semeth to be bread is called the flesh and in like case wine is called the bloud and so coÌ„trariwise sometimes the flesh is called the bread and the bloud is called the wine What can be said more directly against M. Iewels Sacramentarie Heresie and more piththily for coÌ„firmation of the Catholike doctrine touching this point And al this M. Iewel hath leaft out The same very thing S. Cyprian doth vtter more plainely in other places Cyprianus De coena Domini In his Treatise of the Supper of our Lorde he hath these most euident wordes Panis iste quem Dominus Discipulis porrigebat non effigie sed natura mutatus Omnipotentia Verbi factus est Caro. This bread Lib. 2. Epiâ—stola 3. which our Lorde gaue vnto his Disciples at his supper being changed not in shape but in nature by the almighty power of the Worde was made flesh Againe writing to Caâ—ilius he saith Qui magis sacerdos â— Dominus noster Iesus Christus qui sacrificiuÌ„ obtulit et obtulit hoc ideÌ„ quod Melchisedech id est paneÌ„ et vinum suuÌ„ scilicet corpus et sanguineÌ„ Who is more a Priest then our Lorde Iesus Christ who offred vp a Sacrifice and offred the very same that Melchisedech did that is to say bread and wine as much to say his owne body and bloude By these places S. Cyprian declareth his minde plainely what he meaneth by the bread and wine that Christe either gaue at the Supper vnto his Disciples or offered vnto his Father to render thankes for the great benefite of his passion soothly none other bread and wine then that which was made by the almighty power of the Woorde his body and bloude And behold Reader how vniforme his vtterance is and how he agreeth with him selfe In the Sermon De vnctione Chrismatis by M. Iewel with false leauing out that whiche made for the truth alleged he saith that diuers kindes are reduced into one substance in his Sermon De coena Domini he saith the bread by the omnipotencie of the Woorde is made flesh so bread and flesh being diuers kindes are brought to one substance There the thinges signifying and the thinges signified saith he be called with the same names as how I haue before declared In his Epistle to Cecilius naming bread and wine he expoundeth him selfe thus suum scilicet corpus sanguinem as much to say his owne body and bloude Where the body and bloude beare the names of bread and wine By this it is clearly seene what an impudent and wicked glose is that which M. Iewel incloseth in his parenthesis added by way of exposition vnto the maimed sentence of S. Cyprian wherewith to exclude the body and bloude of Christe the true bread and wine What haue you wonne here by S. Cyprian M. Iewel Who cutteth and maimeth the Doctours Who is now to be asked whether he haue the chynecoffe M. Ievvels Coffe which in a place of your Reply with out cause you twite me of What kinde of coffe I shal cal this I wote not I feare me the il mater of it lyeth not in your chyne a place so farre from the harte but in the harte it selfe For were not the same by Satans worke festred with the corruption of heresie you had not ben letted as with a coffe from bringing forth the later parte of S. Cyprians saying whose beginning you falsly abuse to obscure the cleare truthe Who so euer thus coffeth I wil not say he hath the chynecoffe as you ieast but verely sauing my charitie that he coffeth as like an heretique as a rotten yew cofâ—eth like a sheepe Laste of al whereas he saith that I am reprooued of vntruth and folie by S. Paule for saying Three lyes made by M. Iewel within three lines that Christe really sacrificed him selfe at two seueral times and twise really shed his bloude only vpon myne owne warrant he maketh no lesse then three lyes within three lines For neither said I in this place that Christe twise really shed his bloude nor onely vpon myne owne warrant said I that Christe sacrificed his body and bloud twise bicause I had the authoritie of Hesychius here as the authoritie of other Fathers before namely Gregorie Nyssen and Theophylacte for my warrant Nor for so saying am I reproued of any vntruth or folie by S. Paule For my assertion is true notwithstanding any thing that S. Paule saith What though S. Paule say Heb. 9. M. Iewel Christus semel oblatus est ad multoruÌ„ exhauriendâ— peccata Christ was once offered Heb. 10â— to take away the synnâ—s of Many Againe with one Sacrifice he hath made perâ—ite for euer them that be sanctified Bicause in these twoo sayinges you finde the termes one and once therefore suppose you that needes they must reprooue my assertion auouching that Christ was twise really
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.
should be greatly a shamed For had I ben a stubborne and a farre gone heretique as in truth myne errour was humaine neuerthelesse in that case who so euer is amended by iudgement of S. Augustine his estimation thereby is nothing impaired For saith he Maioris ingenij est animosit at is flāmas consirēdo extīguere ◠falsitatis nebulas intelligēdo vitare It is a point of more witte to quenche the flames of stourdinesse by confessing errour then to auoide the clowdes of falshod by vnderstāding as much to say by shift of witte to escape He is a Renegate Vvho is a Renegate that forsaketh God and his truth and wilfully departeth from the Churche not he that leaueth errour and commeth vnto Gods truth and reposeth him selfe in the lappe of the Catholik Church I wil not folow you here M. Iewel and by casting durte as it were vppon your coate againe defile my handes If I had desire to prooue the name of a Renegate to apperteine by right vnto you it were soone done Your owne open and vnforced subscription at Oxford to this very Article whereof now I treate and to sundry others which now you impugne◠must be an euerlasting testimonie against you The married and vnmarried yonge and olde boyes and Maides and the rest that you recken vp in your long rolle we haue not slaine I tel you once againe as maliciously you charge vs We I meane that are of the Clergie against whom specially you vtter your spite It was the Prince that cōmaunded according to the auncient Lawes of al Christendom iustice to be executed vpon them for that they beside robberies Sacrilege treason rebellion and other heinous crimes cōmitted by the more parte of them not only resisted the truth despised Christian religion contemned the holy Sacramentes and were open blasphemers of God but also did what in their power was stirre others to like wickednes Neither were boyes slaine as you say Iustice was with more equitie and moderatiō executed vpon the blasphemous and traiterous offenders of al sortes then their horrible crimes deserued Among them that suffered death there were no boyes As they were olde in malice so were they not boyes in yeres Bishops and Archbishops you put in your reckening to aggrauate the mater Cranmare the Archebishop of Cantorburie Archebishop there was but one yourselfe doo knowe But ô Lorde what an Archebisshop The See of Cantorbury had neuer any such sithens the English natiō receiued the Faith in S. Gregories time If he had ben either good in life or constant in Faith or true of promise made by solemne Othe to the See Apostolike he had neuer yeelded him selfe to be made an instrument of so many and so great euils but with Bishoply auctoritie grauitie and constancie would haue withdrawen the Prince and his ambitious Ministers frō their vnlawful lustes and wicked attemptes Of this Archebishop ye haue litle cause to crake As for wordly dignities sake once he forsooke his olde Catholique Faith and fel to professe your newe Gospelling Faith So assoone as he had lost his dignities for life to be graunted him he was content to forsake your new faith And in witnesse therof with his owne hand he subscribed to a great number of Billes conteining the confession of the Catholike faith Crāmares subscriptions At length when he sawe that for his desertes he should needes dye for anger he defied Catholique faith Churche and al and like a dogge returned to his vomite so litle grace had the manifolde wickednes of his former life deserued Some were scourged with Roddes Scourgīg vvith roddes an olde punishmēt vsed of Bishops you say Whether this be true or no I know not The same is a meete punishmēt for boyes Neither is it altogether a strange and an vnwount thing a Bishop to vse such manner of correction For S. Augustine in an epistle to a noble man called Marcellinus speaking of scourging with Roddes faith Qui modus coertionis à Magistris artiū liberalium August epist. 159. ab ipsis parentibus saepè etiam in iudicijs solet ab Episcopis haberi that it was a manner of correction vsed of Schoolemasters and Parentes and also oftentimes of Bisshoppes in iudgementes Some you say had burning torches set to their handes We wil beleue it when we vnderstād it was so Some had their tonges cut out of their head If we denie it by what meanes can you prooue it Though the same be cōmonly done in Fraunce towardes heretiques that wil not recant to thintent they be not heard to blaspheme as in Spaine they put a Gagge in their mouthes for the same purpose Cutting out of heretiques tongues an old punishmēt Nicephor lib. 17. c. 2 yet in England it hath not ben vsed And if any had his tongue cut out as you reporte it was not done without example of antiquitie For so did Iustinian the Emperour cut out by the roote the tongue of an heretique named Seuerus Bishop of Antioche Better it were that both tongue and harte were cut out then that God should be blasphemed Some were hanged True it is but remember you wherefore Verily either for thefte or robberie or for murder or for sacriledge or for treason and rebellion VViat Headded Some were beheadded I graunte as Wiate and some others that for Treason had by Lawe deserued that death at the Princes handes But how many thorough great Clemencie escaped with their heades who had loste them if mercie had not tempered the rigour of Iustice But some were burnt to Asshes And that iustly by the auncient Lawes of al Christian Realmes Why might not Queene Mary doo in that case as other Kinges and Princes doo in their Dominions and as your Master Iohn Caluine him selfe did to Seruerus the heretike at Geneua Yea The fable of the woman of Garnsey burnt for heresie vvith a childe in her belly but a poore Innocent Babe falling from the mothers wombe was taken and throwen cruelly into the Fier What if it were denied you that euer any such thing was done Let vs heare how you are hable to prooue it O say you it must needes be true For we finde it so written by M. Iohn Foxe in his great booke of Actes and Monumentes Why Sir dare you so constantly auouche this facte onely vppon the reporte of Foxe As though he had not tolde vs in his false Martyrologe a thousand mo lyes then this I pitie you M. Iewel that craking so muche of antiquitie and appealing continually to the Fathers of the six hundred yeres you are now driuen to stay your credite vppon Foxe who hath into that Huge volume infarced lyes moe in number and notabler for vanitie then euer were raked together into any one heape or booke This fable by report of Foxe vvas founde not certaine but probable Wel if al were false that here you tel then haue you loste a ioily tale Foxe him selfe reporteth when
the difference betwene this and that is this That was the Sacrifice that cleanseth our synnes with his bloude actually shed and redemed vs by vertue of it selfe This is the Commemoratiue Sacrifice which is offered in commemoration of that hauing for the substance of it the same body and bloude of Christe that was offered vpon the Crosse by vertue of Consecration made really present and applieth vnto vs the merite and effecte of the cleansing and redemption wrought and perfourmed vpon the Crosse. Then immediatly foloweth the last sentence of the Homilie a parte whereof you haue taken for your purpose Non aliud Sacrificiū sicut Pontifex sed idipsum semper offerimus caet we offer not an other Sacrifice as the Bishop of the olde lawe did but alwayes we offer the very same that Christe offered or rather we worke the remembrance of the Sacrifice In the Discourse of S Chrysostom out of whiche M. Iewel hath piked and culled out certaine peeces three thinges in effect are declared First that we offer secondly that our manner of offering is other then Christes was therefore ours is called a sampler of that and it is donne in commemoration of his Death Thirdly that the Hoste or thing offered in either Sacrifice is one and the same in substance which is the true body of Christe Graunt vs the first and the last that is to say that we offer in deede yea and that the same Hoste which Christe offered and to al men of reason and iudgement though our Sacrifice be a sampler of Christes Sacrifice vpō the Crosse and though it be done for commemoration of that shal our Real Sacrifice be sufficiently proued For what is our endeuour in this Article but to proue that we offer vnto God that which Christo our Bishop hath offered which is Christe him selfe And whereas making vp your Epiphonema you say with more brauarie then truth Thus we offer vp Christe that is to say an example a commemoration a remembrāce of the Death of Christe I neuer heard of such a that is to say before specially if the real presence by these wordes be excluded as your meaning is O what impudencie is this Differēce betvven the hoste and the commemoratiō Doth not S. Chrysostom by your selfe alleged make a plaine distinction and difference betwen the hoste offered and the remembrance saying that which we doo is done for a commemoration Doth it not therby appeare that somewhat must be done before and besides the Commemoration Who euer so confounded thinges as as by your absurde and false interpretation you doo making the body and bloude of Christe or Christe him selfe and the remembrance of Christes death one thing What is this your meaning as though the substance of the Sacrifice were nothing els but the remembrance of Christes death Let this once be graunted and why may not any man or woman make vs as good a Sacrifice at their table at home in their owne howse as your selfe can at the Communion table in our Ladies Churche at Sarisburie For at that homely table may Christes death be remembred aswel as at your Communion table This kinde of Sacrifice say you speaking of the commemoration of Christes Death was neuer denied As in a right sense it is very true and was neuer by vs denied for the deuoute remembrance of Christes Death by it selfe considered is a kinde of spiritual Sacrifice so if you meane thereby to exclude the truth of the thing offered whiche is the body and bloud of Christe M. Ievvel alvvaies cōcludeth the denial of one truth by thaffirmation of an other truth and serue vs with a shewe and a remembrance onely distinct from the true thing it selfe that is offered which seemeth to be your whole drifte this parte of your doctrine we vtterly denie and tel you that for maintenance of the same you vse a fond and vaine reason For what an Argument is it when two thinges be bothe true by the affirmation of the one to conclude the denial of the other As for example what witte wil allowe this Argument The Sunne shineth Ergo it raineth not or Ergo it is not colde whereas many times we see it raine and feele it colde when the Sunne shyneth cleare and bright Right so we tel you and neuer stint telling you which neuerthelesse ye dissemble to vnderstand that this your common Argument is naught the Sacrifice which we offer is a sampler or a commemoration of that which Christe offered Ergo it is not the same which Christe offered For in diuers respectes it is bothe as now we haue proued by S. Chrysostome It is the same in substance that is to say the substance of that was offered vpon the Crosse and of that is offered by Priestes is the Masse in one and the same but it is diuers in the manner of offering For that was offered bloudily this vnbloudily in mysterie and by way of commemoration So it is the body and Bloud of Christe offered and also a commemoration of the bloudy offering The testimonie of S. Augustine I maruel what you meant to allege it maketh quite against you For both it reporteth the real presence which you denie and sheweth a difference betwixt the thing which is offered and Christes Death by the same signified which you cōfounde We graunt with S. Augustin when the hoste is broken De Consec Dict. 2. Cum frangitur and the bloude is powred into the mouthes of the faithful the Sacrificing of our Lordes body is signified It is not your false translation of the Oblation for the hoste nor your Sacramentarie exposition of the Sacrament of the bloude for the bloude that can racke S. Augustine to the defence of your doctrine If you grate vpon the worde Significatur and therefore wil needes haue it to be a signification of Christes Sacrifice as we denie not the signification so we require you to acknowlege the real body and bloude of Christe by breaking whereof vnder the forme of bread and powring whereof into the mowthes of the faithful vnder the forme of wine the same signification and commemoration of Christes Death is made You handle this place of S. Augustine as it semeth as you handled the place of S. Chrysostome before Sweeping cleane away the hoste and wyping away the bloude you leaue remaining onely a signification or token And thus you feede your people with signes and tokens in steede of the most holesome and substantial meate and drinke Thus haue you not weakened the strength of S. Chrysostomes testimonie by your feeble answer thus it remaineth stil in good force against your Chalenge thus by your sclender Replie you haue geuen al men occasion to thinke how good and sufficient our Stoare is for the proufe of the external Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christe in scoffing whereat you take so muche pleasure It remaineth that we trie of what substance and pith your Replie is to the place by me alleged
before offered in figure But that performance of truth is by the learned Fathers commonly acknowleged in the Sacrifice of the Supper In which Christe offered his body and bloude vnder the formes of bread and wine after the order of Melchisedek for thankesgeuing which he offered vpon the Crosse for redemption August in Ioan. Tract 26. Your common figuratiue saying taken out of S. Augustine Illis Petra Christus vnto them the Rocke was Christe though it be not altogether so reported of S. Augustin in the place by you coted is abruptely brought in to what purpose I see not but to beguile the vnlerned as I suppose who therby may be moued to thinke that our Sacrifice is as mere a figure as the figures of the olde lawe were To this I haue answered once or twise before In al the frayes ye make against the most holy Mysteries this bad toole is euer at hand with you to strik withal Iewel Sometimes they compare it vvith the Sacrifice of Thankesgeuinge and vvith the Ministration of the holy Communion and make it equal vvith the same S. Augustine saithe August in quaest Noui Veter Testamēt quaest 109. Melchisedek Abrahae primum quasi Patri fidelium tradidit Eucharistiam Corporis Sanguinis Domini Melchisedek gaue first vnto Abraham as vnto the Father of the Faithful the Sacramente of the Bodie and Bloud of Christe So S. Hierome saithe Melchisedek in typo Christi Panem Vinum obtulit Mysterium Christianorum in Saluatoris Corpore Hierō ad Marcellā Sanguine dedicauit Melchisedek in the Figure of Christe offered Breade and VVine and dedicated the Mysterie of Christians in the Bodie and Bloude of Christe These Authorities might serue to make some shevv that Melchisedeck saide Masse and Consecrated the Sacrament of the Bodie and Bloude of Christe and offered vp Christe in Sacrifice vnto his Father But of M. Hardinge or any other suche Prieste they touche nothinge Harding You shal neuer shewe vs where either the Present that Melchisedek gaue to Abraham by which terme you would abolish the Sacrifice or the Sacrifice which he made in bread and wine was cōpared with the Sacrifice of thankesgeuing onlesse it be the Euchariste which also beareth that name wherein the real body and bloud of Christe is present As for the ministration of the holy Communion it is false to say It is compared with the ministration that is to say with the acte of the ministring the Communion But I graunt it is compared to the thing it selfe that is to say to the body and bloud of Christe consecrated offered and receiued in the holy Communion Prouided alwaies that by the holy Communion we meane not your newe toye now practized in England by your Ministers that be no Priestes where there is no holy thing consecrated to make it holy Dionys. in Ecclesiast Hierarchia but the holy Communion of the Catholike Churche which S. Dionyse calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The authoritie you allege vnder the name of S. Augustine is not S. Augustines If I had alleged it against you a great deale of your scoffing Rhetorike should haue ben bestowed both to reproue the booke and also me for alleging the same I am sure if you haue read either the worke it selfe with any iudgement or the Censure of Erasmus vpon it you are persuaded it is an vnworthy peece of worke to be fathered vpō so worthy a Doctor As for the very Question it selfe out of which you bring your authoritie I maruel you considered not what Erasmus saith of it Quaestione CIX multa garrit vt ostendat Melchisedek non fuisse hominem In the CIX question saith he this author maketh a great bible bable to shewe that Melchisedeck was not a man In the same line there he speaketh of him as it were of your selfe saying Quaest. 125. scurram agit But who soeuer and what so euer the author of that worke be the place is alleged without any dependence or coherence as though you cared not in what order you allege testimonies so you make vp a heape Either for haste or which is more likely for guile you leafte out both the beginning and the ende of it whereby the meaning is clearely declared Melchisedek saith the author gaue vnto Abraham Quaest. Veteris noui testament q. 109. as vnto the Father of the faithful the Eucharist or Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ. But what was it that he gaue It foloweth in the same sentence Vt praefiguraretur in Patre quae in filijs futura erat veritas That the truth which was to come in the children might be foreshewed by a figure in the Father Doo not these later wordes most euidently declare that Melchisedek gaue onely the figure of the Sacrament of Christes body and bloude to Abraham the Father of the faithful and that the truth of that figure which is the body and bloude of Christe is amongst vs that are in respecte of faith his children That he calleth the thinge which Melchisedek gaue to Abraham by the name of the Eucharist it is no great maruel Whether S. Augustine him selfe would so haue spoken it may be doubted Verely it is no straunge thing in the olde learned Fathers to geue the name of the thing signified vnto the figure that signifieth and contrariwise This nipping of sentences M. Iewels Nipping of sentences specially of such as wordes as open the truth and ouerthrow your doctrine doth euerywhere bewray your guileful intent The whole sentence considered as it is vttered by the author doth so clearely serue for confirmation of the real Sacrifices of Christes body and bloude in the newe Testament as a more clearer any faithful man would not desire The saying you take out of S. Hierome I maruel what you meant to allege it It maketh fully for our parte that is to say for establishing of the Catholike beleefe There is mention made bothe of the Figure bread and wine offered by Melchisedek and of the veritie the body and bloude of Christe offered by the Christians in their Mysteries God be praised through whose power his truth is vttered by the mouthes of his enemies As for your pleasant collection and scorneful ieasting howe much it pleaseth you or becommeth the person you haue taken vpon you I knowe not Sure I am the holy mysteries of Christian religiō should with more feare of God be treated of The roome you occupie is to reuerent the mater we handle too holy the daies ye ruffle in too lamentable the stage you play this parte on too sad M. Iewel for you thus to play Hick scorner I should haue said Iacke scorner But what may we say Kinde wil shewe it selfe The English cōmunion cōpared vvith Melchisedeks Sacrifice vvhiche M. Ievv calleth Melchisedeks Masse If Melchisedek said any Masse it was like vnto the English Communion that offereth nothing els but bare bread and wine
the Sonne equal with God the Father Or wil you make vs a great God and a lesse God as we reade that Arius did Philip. 2. Saith not S. Paule Whereas he was in the forme of God he thought it no Robberie to be equal with God As he is God how doth he the office of the Priest How doth he Sacrifice Is not he that sacrificeth inferiour to him to whom sacrifice is done The creature worshippeth God and offereth Sacrifice vnto him That God worshippeth ought and doth Sacrifice there was neuer any so ignorant and blasphemous as to speake it This doctrine smelleth of the Arians who affirme the Sonne of God to be inferiour to his Father Our Lorde saue his people from such blinde guydes and false Prophetes Christ sacrificeth as man not as God but as God receiueth Sacrifice August de Ciuitat Dei li. 10. cap. 20. S. Augustine is more worthy to be hearde who farre otherwise teacheth vs that Christe receiueth Sacrifice as God and offereth Sacrifice as man His wordes be these Verus ille mediator in quantum formam serui accipiens mediator effectus est Dei hominum homo Christus Iesus cùm in forma Dei Sacrificium cum Patre sumat cum quo vnus Deus est tamen in forma serui Sacrificium maluit esse quà m sumere ne vel hac occasione quisquam existimaret cuilibet esse sacrificandū creaturae Per hoc Sacerdos est ipse offerens ipse oblatio That the true mediatour in asmuch as he tooke the fourme of a Seruaunt was made the mediatour of God and menne the man Christ Iesus whereas in the fourme of God he taketh Sacrifice with the Father with whom he is one God yet in the fourme of a Seruaunt he had rather be a Sacrifice then take Sacrifice least through this occasiō some man might thinke that Sacrifice were to be made to any what so euer creature By this he is a Priest him selfe being he that offereth and also the thing that is offered In this testimonie S. Augustine saith expressely that Christe as touching his manhead and as he is man is both the Priest that offereth and the Sacrifice offered and that touching his Godhead and as he is God he receiueth Sacrifice Which is quite contrary to that you here affirme Answer me to this question M. Iewel Beleue you that Christe was a Priest after the order of Melchisedek before he became man or only after that he became man If your answer be that he was Priest of that order after he had taken our flesh I haue nothing to say against you For that is the truth But if your answer shal be that he was such a Priest before flesh taken as you must answere if you wil defend this your doctrine then wil I turne you ouer vnto S. Augustine who I am sure in al wise mennes iudgement ouermatcheth you and is to be credited before you and al your Scoolemaisters of Zurich or Geneua This profounde learned Father expounding these woordes of the Psalme August in Psal. 109. Thou art a Priest for euer after the Order of Melchisedeck saith Ad hoc natus ex vtero ante luciferū vt esses Sacerdos in aeternum secundùm ordinē Melchisedech Thou wast borne from the wombe of the virgin before the daie sterre that thou mightest be a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedek And there eftsones Secundùm id quod natus est de Patre Deus apud Deum Non Sacerdos coaeternus gignenti non Sacerdos sed Sacerdos propter carnem assumptam propter victimam quam pro nobis offerret à nobis acceptam As touching that Christe was borne of the Father God with God he is equally euerlasting with him that begotte him not a Priest but a Priest for the fleshe assumpted for the hoste that he should offer for vs being taken of vs. Nothing can more plainely be spoken against you M. Iewel which nowe beginne to teache the worlde a newe heresie and prepare a way to the recidiuation of Arius heresie by affirming that Christe was a Priest and made Sacrifice according to his Godhead Whereof it must folow that as being God he was not equal with his Father M. Iewels promise made in his last Sermon at Poules Crosse. Be not a shamed M. Iewel to recant this fowle and grosse error I vnderstand you said in your Sermon at Poules Crosse the .xv. of Iune laste that if you had euer either spoken in Pulpit or written in booke any thing that may be prooued false your mouth should confesse it and your hand should retracte it By this it shal appeare to al men how farre your worde is to be trusted The wordes of Beda Epiphanius and S. Augustine which here you allege I see not to what purpose they serue you For they prooue no more that Christe touching his Godhead was euer a Priest and a Sacrificer then that the Moone is made of greene cheese if I may vse so grosse a Prouerbe in reproouing your so grosse an errour Neither wil these testimonies or any of them conclude against the offering of the body and bloude of Christ in the daily Sacrifice of the Churche M. Iewels common Logique is to put avvay one truth by an other truth onlesse you folow your accustomed Logique in excluding one truth by an other truth It were good for you once to remember that one truth alwaies driueth not out an other truth as one wedge driueth out an other wedge Wil you thus reason Christe was offered vpon the Crosse and the Crosse was then the Aulter which S. Augustine alleged saith Ergo he is not offered in the Churche by the Ministerie of Priestes which Eusebius and Oecumenius say and the Aulters of the Church serue not to any such purpose Euseb. De Demonstr lib. 1. As wel may we thus argue Iohn is a Minister Ergo Iohn is not an honest man Which Argument though perhaps it holde touching the mater yet for the fourme I am sure you wil not allow it This pelting kinde of Argument you vse through your whole Replie and in manner none other That if a learned man would examine that you write he should finde that neuer man wrote so loosely I doubte not good Reader but thou lookest for a larger truer and apter Replie then M. Iewel hath hitherto made to Oecumenius But what could he say No smoke cā wholy take away the light of the bright Sunne Considering his owne vnhablenes to answer the place keeping his syde vnsteyned he slyly passeth from it as one that would faine ridde his handes of so busy a comber Oecumenius speaketh most plainly and distinctly of a double oblation and Sacrifice the one once made vppon the Crosse in respect whereof Christe by his interpretation is not called a Priest for euer the other offered vp by the Priestes continually by whose mediation and ministerie Christe sacrificeth and is sacrificed In that I terme
time ye shal not be angry with vs but with that holy learned Father S. Augustine if we accompte your scattered troupes not for the Churche of Christe nor any parte thereof but for Dennes of theeues and Synagogues of Antichriste Neither doo ye sacrifice vnto God the Sacrifice of Praise in the body of Christe which the Churche doth as S. Augustine saith for ye acknowledge no Sacrifice of the body of Christe at al in whiche God is chiefly praised and thanked for his benefites The Singular Sacrifice that S. Austine speaketh of is the Sacrifice of the Eucharist Furthermore what Sacrifice is that whereof the sacrifices of Israel according to the flesh were significations which S. Augustine here calleth the Singuler Sacrifice that Israel after the spirite offereth vp now What other is it then the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe after an vnbloudy manner daily offered in the Churche For of the Sacrifice of the Crosse ye can not expounde it bicause the same is done once already and is not now offered vp Neither can ye vnderstande it of mere spiritual Sacrifices for they are not Singuler neither offered onely now that is to say in the time of the newe Testament but are common to the faithful personnes and times of bothe Testamentes By this it is euident that the Sacrifice of Praise which Israel after the spirite that is to say the Churche offereth vp vnto God not after the order of Aaron but after the order of Melchisedek as S. Augustine writeth is the Sacrifice of the Euchariste in whiche the body and bloude of Christe is offered vp vnder the fourmes of bread and wine Genes 14. in which Melchisedek made his Sacrifice forefiguring this Your thirde authoritie which you haue somedeale corrupted by nipping away certaine wordes and by false translation maketh for proufe of our Sacrifice it helpeth your Negatiue nothing at al. The whole sentence truly translated August li. 83. quaestion q. 61 is this Christe hath commended vnto vs a likenes of his bloudy Sacrifice for of that he speaketh there to be celebrated in remembrance of his Passion to the ende we may see now that which Melchisedek offered vnto God to be offered in the Churche of Christe through the whole worlde Here are touched three Sacrifices the Sacrifice of the Crosse Three Sacrifices the Sacrifice of the Aulter the Sacrifice of Melchisedek On the Crosse Christe was sacrificed truly according to the truth of substance of the thing sacrificed and of the manner of sacrificing which was by shedding of bloude and killing the hoste that was to be sacrificed In the Supper then and in the Aulter now he is truly sacrificed as touching the truth of the substance of the thing that is offered that is to say the body and bloude of Christe For he said Luc. 22. This is my body this is my bloude doo ye this in remembraÌ„ce of me 1. Cor. 11. But not according to the truth of such manner of sacrificing For he is sacrificed vnbloudily and in Mysterie The body that now is offered is a liue body For it is the same in the Sacrament that hong vpon the Crosse and that is now in heauen But though Christes body be now a lyue in the Sacrament and the bloud in the Body yet neither is the body of vs offered bicause it is a lyue and now to be killed nor the bloude bicause it is in the body as againe to be shed but bicause the body was once killed and the bloude once shed that which is now done is done in remembrance of that And hereof it commeth that this Sacrifice is oftentimes called of the Fathers in respecte of the bloudy Sacrifice of the Crosse as it is in the thirde fourth and fifth testimonie of S Augustine here alleged to be sene a likenes an Image of that Sacrifice a memorie or Sacrament of memorie From the affirmation of which likenes Imageâ— memorie SacrameÌ„t representation or figure to inferre the denial of a true presence and Sacrifice is besides al rules of Logique and reason sithens both stand wel together And yet this is in maÌ„ner the only kinde of reason and Argument that M. Iewel vseth through his whole Reply and otherwheres Which kind of ArgumeÌ„tes they must needes vse if they wil vse any at al who by opening the truth of any question by due distinctions see their false doctrine confuted and therfore make their apparent aduantage of confusion Which Confusion is soonest wrought by heapes of vndiscussed authorities without declaration of the circumstances patchedly and by peece meale alleged and iumbled together as M. Iewel is woont to doo Likenes aÌ„d Image how they signifie in the nevv testameÌ„t being spoken of the sacrament And remember good Reader that whereas S. Augustine here alleged speaketh of a Similitude or likenes he meaneth not euery common kinde of likenes but a likenes that is a Sacrament of the newe Testament Which is a holy effectual and visible signe of inuisible grace If thou take away the body and bloude of Christe from this likenes it shal lacke the inuisible grace and so shal it not be such a likenes as S. Augustine here speaketh of Image An Image also which terme he vseth likewise in the newe Testament considered in Christe or his Sacramentes doth not signifie a bare figure voide of the thing whose Image it is But rather signifieth the true thing it selfe exhibited in the fourme of an other thing and not in proper shape De Cons. Dist. 2. Hoc est quod dicimus So is Christe Imago Patris the Image of his Father appearing in the fourme of man So is the Sacrament of Christes body the Image of the same body crucified yea the body of Christe in the Sacrament inuisible is a Sacrament and sampler of the same body visible For so S. Augustine speaketh Caro videlicet carnis sanguis est sacramentum Sanguinis carne sanguine vtroque inuisibili spirituali intelligibili signatur visibile Domini nostri Iesu Christi corpus palpabile plenum gratiae omnium virtutum diuina Maiestate The flesh of Christe in the Sacrament is the sacrament of his flesh and the bloude is a sacrament of his bloude By his flesh and bloude bothe inuisible spiritual intelligible is betokened the body of our Lorde Iesus Christ that is visible palpable ful of the grace of al vertues and diuine Maiestie Neither maketh it ought for M. Iewel that S. Augustine calleth this Sacrament a Sacrament of remembrance SacrameÌ„t of remeÌ„â—brance Bicause it were not a Sacrament of remembrance fitte for the newe Testament onlesse the body and bloude of Christe were really conteined therein according to the saying of Christe Lucae 22. this is my body this is my bloude For we haue no warrant of the Scripture that bread and wine is the Sacrament of remembrance The .6 authoritie taken out of S. Augustine de Ciuitate
an other place Item In this Sacrifice saith he there is a thankesgeuing and commemoration of the flesh of Christe whiche he offered for vs and of his bloude whiche he shed for vs. But you wil say we graunt that a memorie is celebrated we denie the real Sacrifice And we tel you that the memorie or commemoration excludeth not the real Sacrifice It is bothe commemoratiue This Sacrifice is bothe CoÌ„memoratiue and Real and Real For there is bothe the memorie of Christes death and the thing it selfe that suffered death For prouse hereof it may please you to consider one sentence of S. Augustine in steede of many that it were easy to allege Thus he saith Augu contra Faust. lib. 20. ca. 18. Iam Christiani peracti eiusdem Sacrificij memoriam celebraÌ„t sacrosancta oblatione participatione corporis sanguinis Christi The Christians doo celebrate the memorie of the same Sacrifice that was made vpon the Crosse now done and paste by the holy oblation and participation of the body and bloude of Christe Lo M Iewel here you see it to be a memorie and neuerthelesse the body and bloude to be offered whiche are the thing and the substance it selfe of the Sacrifice The weakenes of your cause is suche that onlesse your Argumentes procede so as you may iustle away one truth by an other you haue nothing to say And thus alwaies you reason though to no purpose least ye should seme to say nothing and so to be without al defence of the Doctrine that ye deceiue Gods people withal For if that appeare openly ye stande in feare least ye should lose your lyuinges your Dignities your wiues your wanton fleshly pleasures and what els I knowe not Iewel S. Peter saithe Christe offereth vp vs vnto God his Father S. Paule saithe 1. Pet. 3. Through Christe wee haue accesse to the Throne of Glorie Heb. 4. VVhat then meaneth M. Hardinge thus to tel vs and to beare the vvorlde in hande that contrary vvise he hath Authoritie to offer vp Christe and to presente him before the Throne of Glorie Or hovve dareth he to desire God to receiue his onely begoten Sonne into fauoure and fauourably and fatherly to looke vpon him at his request For thus he biddeth his praier euen in his Canon euen in the secreteste and deuoutest parte of his Masse Super quae propitio ac sereno vultu c. Vpon these thinges that is to saie saithe Gabriel Biel vpon the Bodie and Bloud of Christe thy Sonne O Lorde looke doune with a merciful and cheereful countenance and receiue the same the Bodie and Bloude of thy Sonne as thou diddest in olde times receiue the Sacrifice of Abel and of Abraham vvhich vvas a vveather or a calfe or some other like thinge Thus he not onely taketh vpon him to praie for Christe but also compareth the Sacrifice of the Sonne of God vvith the Sacrifice of brute Cattaile Yf he denie any parte hereof his ovvne Canon his ovvne Massebooke vvil reproue him Yf this be not Blasphemie vvhat thinge can be called Blasphemie Harding To answer to al that is obiected in order first S. Peter saith not altogether as you reporte him But thus he saith 1. Pet. 3. Christe once died for our sinnes the Iuste for the vniuste to th ende he might offer vp vs vnto God Neither speaketh S. Paul as you haue set him to schoole and teache him to speake but otherwise Adeamus cum fiducia ad thronum gratiae eius c. Let vs go vnto the seate of his grace with confidence that we may obteine mercie and finde grace to helpe at neede Now Sir to iustifie that you haue here said Heb. 4. A priest to offer vp Christe vnto his Father in the Euchariste how can you proue it to be done contrariwise to ought that either S. Peter or S. Paule here saith Thus you reason your Allegations supposed to be iuste Christe offereth vp vs vnto God M. Ievvels ArgumeÌ„t Item Through Christe we haue accesse to the throne of Grace Ergo a Priest hath not auctoritie to offer vp Christe vnto God in the Sacrament O profounde Logique O sharpe witte O inuincible Disputer Here your owne skoffing Rhetorique might wel be returned vpon you It were harde to tel vs how this Antecedent and Consequent came together No man hath auctoritie thus to mince his Logique but M. Iewel Why Sir must it needes folowe that if Christe who is the head of his Churche vnder which name both he and the Churche be oftentimes conteined haue offered vp vs vnto God that we may not offer vp Christe vnto God I maruel that so learned a Minister as by purporte of your Arrogant fonde Chalenge it appeareth you take your selfe to be should be ignorant of that S. Augustine writeth notably in his tenth booke De Ciuitate Dei August de Ciuit. Dei li. 10. c. 20. where speaking of this very Sacrifice calling it the daily Sacrifice of the Churche he saith Ipsius Corporis ipse est Caput ipsius Capitis ipsa est Corpus tam ipsa per ipsum quà m ipse per ipsam suetus offerri Christe him selfe is the head of his body the Churche and the Churche is the body of that Head as wel the Churche by him as he by the Churche is wount to be offered vp Lo here you see a mutual Oblation Christe offereth vs to God and we offer Christe to God so farre of it is that his offering of vs should exclude our offering of him Thus appeareth the peeuishnes of your Argument Of like force and witte is the reason if it be deduced of the other scripture alleged as out of S. Paule For what though through Christe we haue accesse vnto the throne of grace Ergo may not a Priest offer vp Christe to the Father in the Sacrament You must deuise vs a newe Logique as you haue deuised vs a newe Diuinitie before ye shal proue these Argâ—mentes to be ought worthe A defence of the Canon of the Masse against M. Iewels scoffes YOV finde great faulte with the holy Canon of the Masse vttering the spite of your blasphemous harte against it with vile termes of skoffing as though in it the Priest desired God for these be your wordes to receiue his only begotten sonne into fauour and fauourably and fatherly to looke vpon him at his request And further to aggrauate the mater you say that he taketh vpon him not only to pray for Christe but also that he compareth the Sacrifice of the Sonne of God with the Sacrifice of brute Cataile For proufe hereof you referre your Reader to the Canon of the Masse and to the Masse booke Gabriel Biel also for colour of your better credite you bring in as a witnesse who wrote vpon the Canon Al this is a false and a slaunderous lye And albeit you directe your whole talke to my person yet with the same you inueigh not onely against me but
the people Your selfe also now doutlesse do see it Yet for your worldly estimations sake hauing made suche an Arrogant Chalenge you may not seeme to see it At least what so euer you see you wil not confesse your errrour Thus in ouersight to boast of sight in darkenes to crake of light VVho playeth Thraso his parte the Chalenger or Defender in weakenesse to speake of strength in maters for whiche of your side no learning can be shewed to chalenge al men aliue this is the parte of Thraso But in this Article of the Sacrifice for which we haue so manifest Scripture so many Doctours so many Councels so common and so long continued custome and faith of the Churche for proufe thereof to auouche stoare of testimonies it is not the parte of Thraso it is the confidence of him that knowethâ— how sufficiently the Catholike Religion may be defended against heretiks This serueth not to fray the simple as you say it serueth to cal backe the presumptuous rashnes of a newe Gospeller to animate right beleeuers and to stay the simple As for the wise whether they wil more condemne of folie me for shewing iust confidence in defence of the truthe or you for making suche a proude Chalenge against the truth I leaue it to their secrete iudgementes Bring vs but one plaine sentence of any Scripture auncient Doctor or Councel making clearely for you that a Priest hath not auctoritie and therefore may not offer vp Christe in the Euchariste as I haue brought many for proufe of the contrary and I wil be contente the name of Thraso be not returned vpon you If ye haue none to bring as sure I am ye haue not for your Thrafonical Chalenge that name wil become you better then me that how so euer you wrangle promise no more then I performe That the Reader go not farre for one suche sentence among many of our parte let the very laste alleged out of S. Chrysostome be considered In whiche he saith plainely Châ—ysost in 1. Cor. Hâ—st 24. that Christe commaunded him selfe to be offered Whiche can not be referred to the Sacrifice of the Crosse. For if he had commaunded the Iewes to Crucifie him they had not bene gilty of his Death Neither permitteth the circumstance of the place any other to be vnderstanded then the Sacrifice of the Aulter in whiche Christe him selfe according to his commaundement Doo ye this in my remembrance is as I haue now proued really offered If in defence of your side you can not shew vs so muche as one sentence of like clearenes you must beare with wise men if they thinke the great sturre you haue made with your Chalenge to be great folie And likewise must you beare with your Aduersaries if they reporte you haue more shew of wordes then substance of mater To conclude go plainely to worke M. Iewel The handling of these maters requireth honestie sinceritie fidelitie truth conscience and the feare of God Set vs forth the light of true thinges if ye haue any leaue the darke clowdes of youy Phrases and Figures Conclude your Doctrine with some firme Argumentes confirme it with good and sufficient authorities Be ashamed of your loose and childish Argumentes by whiche in manner alwaies you inferre the denial of one truth by the affirmation of an other truth Let the world see that you allege your testimonies truly iointly and wholly that you falsifie them not by your diuisions taking one peece here and an other peece there by nipping of by adding vnto by hewing mangling and when you doo least by wrong and wrested vnderstanding Otherwise if you shal continue to set maters of Faith vpon vncertaine Phrases and Figures and Tropical speaches to confounde one truth with an other to corrupte to patche together to mangle and by other waies to falsifie as hitherto you haue done be the cotations of your Bookes Margent neuer so thicke be the number of your vnlearned and partial Fauourers neuer so great the wise the godly the learned shal iudge you as they finde you to be but a Maister of Phrases a confounder of Truthes a patcher a mangler a shifter a Falsifier THE TABLE A ABra by M. Iewel reported to be S. Hilaries daughter 172. b This worde Al in Scripture oft-times admitteth exception of many 168. a. b. Amalricus his carkasse digged vp and burnt in Paris 187. a. Anathema pronounced against the dead 186. b. Antitypon excludeth not the veritie of the Mysteries 80. b. Antitypon howe it is taken in S. Clement 81. a. The terme Antitypon maketh not for the Sacramentaries 81. b. Antitypon what it signifieth properly 82. b Apostles made Priestes by Christ at the last Supper 87. a. b. in sequent The Apostles made vowe to forsake al thinges 171. b. The Apostles forsoke the companie of their wiues Ibidem Application of Christes Death no strange Doctrine 219. a. Application of this Sacrifice prooued 114. b. 121. a. 162. a. b. 219. a. Aulters vsed of the Christians 9. a. b. 99. a. Aulter 61. a. 130. a. 225. b. 230. a. Aulter visible and external 60. b. 130. a. 143. a. 229. a. b. Aulters material 99. a. 229. a. sequent External Aulter argueth external Sacrifice 229. a. Authoritie geuen to Priests to offer vp the dreadful Sacrifice 88. a. 128. a. B. Baptisme 9. b. Baptisme doth not only signifie but also exhibit wasshing of sinnes 83. b. Beza 17. a. Beza defendeth it to be lawful to put Heretiques to death 179. a. The Bible corrupted by the Protestantes 167. a. b. Bishoply duetie 246. a. Blouddy and vnbloudy referred to one subiecte 226. a Burning of Heretiques Dead carcasses no newe thing .186 b. sequent C. CAluine defendeth it lawful to put Heretiques to Death 197. a The Canon of the Masse defended against M. Iewels scoffes 123. b. 254. b. 257. a. The prayer of the holy CanoÌ„ found in S. Ambrose 258. a. Ceremonies of the Iewes changed 9. a. sequent Ceremonies of the Christians 59. a. The Chalenger playeth Thraso his parte 261. b. How we see Christe suffering by Charitie 200. b. Christe truly and in in deede offered 35. a. Christ offered vp his body at his last Supper 45. a. 48. a. Christ sacrificed him selfe at his Supper 67. b. 79. b. sequent Christe gaue his body and shed his bloud at the Supper affirmed by certaine Fathers 73. a. Christe sacrificeth and is sacrificed by the meanes or mediation of Priestes 86. a. 127. a. Christe dieth againe in this Mysterie and how 161. b. 162. a. Christ at the Supper both Priest and Lambe 73. b. Christ commaunded him selfe to be offered 79. b. 106. b. 259. b. Christe appeareth before the Father in heauen with his wounded body 117. a. 118. a. The Rocke was Christe and how 1â—7 a. Christes being in the Sacrifice and in reading of the Storie of the Gospel is different 199. a. Christe offred the true bread and the true wine at his Supper 48. a. 204. a.