sacrifice with him But how After the order of Melchisedech Or by their own Act Priesthood as M. Iewel gathereth Surely except Guerricus him selfe had made it plaine in what sense the Priest and the People do offer no doubt but M. Iewel in this place would outface vs that this Abbat meant that men and women were Priestes after the order of Melchisedech Notwithstanding that it is not saied the cuÌ„pani of the faithful do coÌ„secrate as though they might do it by themselues but they consecrate with him the Priest signifieng the Office to be singular And it foloweth in the Sermon Neither the Carpenter alone doth make a house but one bringeth roddes an other rafters an other postes or beames and other things By which Similitude it is manifest that the people consecrate in this sense that they bring sumwhat to that end And what is that By this that foloweth it wil be vnderstanded For thus he concludeth Therefore the standers by ought to haue of their owne euen as the Priest ought What A Cope trow you M. Iewel vpon their backes or a Surplesse like Ministers or power and Authoritie of Priesthod No. but a sure faith a pure prayer a godly deuotiâ—n Where then is the Breade and Wine or the Order of Melchisedech which you would proue to perâ—eine to the common people with Therfore S. Bernard saith or Otherwise called Guerricus Here is a Conclusion without Premisses And a comparison without any likelyhoode And A falsification without truth or honestie Alexander of Hales abused The people taking but one kind only receiueth iniurie as M. Harding may see by Alexander de Hales and Durandus other of his owne Doctours Alexanders wordes be these Licèt illa Sumptio c. Although that Order of Receiuing the Sacrâ—ment â–ª which is vnder one kinde be sufficient yet the other which is vnder both kindes is of greater merite Al this M. Iewel is true but this proueth not that the people haue any iniury done vnto them For to Receiue â—nder one kinde it is sufficient by Alexanders expresse wordes but vndoubtedly if any thing lacked of that which were dâ—e â–ª there wer not sufficieÌ„cy Ergo how proue you by Alexander that the people are Iâ—iuried in receiuing vnder one kinde You wil Replie out of him that it is of greater merite to receiue in both kinds than one And what of â—hat It is a greater merite to Celebrate thrise a day as at Christmasse then once as Ordinarily Priestes do vse Do ye thinke then that any Priestes haue Iniury don vnto them because the Order is otherwise that they say but one Masse in one daie except one daie onely in the yeare Againe I say that Alexander noteth a greater merite to be in Receiuing vnder both than one kind not in respect of the Sacramente which is as perfite in one as both and in the least part of one as the whole but in respect of the Receiuers because their deuotion is encreased and their Faith dilated by longer coÌ„tinuing in thâ— Act of Receiuing and their Receiuing is more Complete as being ministred in both kindes And as the causes on the behalfe of the Receiuer do make it to a person so disposed more effectual to Receiue in both than one So other causes there be which doe make y â— Receiuing vnder one kinde to be to the party so affected more fruietful and meritorious than if he tooke both For he that would say vnto him self I wil content my selfe with the common Order of the Church I wil not make any Sturre about both kindes knowing y â— as much is vnder one as both vndoubtedly such a man should both for his Humilitie and for his Faith deserue more a great deale then if he should Receiue in both kindes and find a certaine sense and tast of Denotion The strength therefore and efficatie which Alexander speaketh of depending vpon the Act of the Receiuer and not vpon the Uertue of y â— Sacrament which is al one in effect whether it be ministred in one or both kindes M. Iewel doth very iniuriously to put a fault herein y â— they Receiue not vnder both to make Alexander of this opinion that to minister in one kinde were an Iniurie vnto the people For this I would aske further of him whether the simple and deuout people are not more stirred vp to remember the Death and Bloâ—d of Christe if they should Receiue in Claret or Red Wine than in White No doubt but the imaginatioÌ„ would be more affected and moued by seeing a like colour vnto y â— which it would conceiue than a contrary or diuerse colour How then Would M. Iewel thinke it an Iniury to minister in white wine vnto the people though thei would be desirous of Red He should not thinke it if he be wise And why so Mary because they haue as much in the White as the Red and to receiue in Red hangeth vpon their priuate deuotion not vpon any precept of the Churche or doctrine of the Apostles or Institution of Christe to which onely the Priest is bound and which if he obserue he doth his duety Be it so then that many good â—olke for diuerse causes should be exceedingly moued and edified by drinking of the Chalice and contemplating of more then is Ordinarie in their minde should they haue any Iniurie done vnto them if they receiued afterwardes when the Priest should iudge it expedient vnder y â— forme of bread only Neyther doth Alexander de Hales so say neither any reason doth make for it But let vs see an other place of Alexander which M. Iewel hath abused The same Alexander againe saith Totus Christus c. Whole Christ is not conteined vnder ech kind by way of SacrameÌ„t but the fleash onely vnder the fourme of bread and the bloud vnder the fourme of wine The woordes can not be denied to be Alexanders but what seâ—se gathereth M. Iewel of them Here M. Hardinges owne Doctours confesse that the people Receiuing vnder one kinde receiueth not the ful SacrameÌ„t nor the bloud of Christe by way of Sacrament You vnderstand not Alexander or you wil not For whereas he saith Christ is not conteined vnder ech kinde Sacramentally he meaneth not that the people Receiue not the Ful Sacrament and their owne Maker Godde and Manne vnder eche kinde but by this woorde Sacramentally he meaneth that concerning the forme of wordes by which consecration is perfited in eche kinde and by external forme of the Signes vnder which Christ is exhibited the flesh only is conteined vnder the forme of Breade and the bloud vnder the forme of Vvine As when Christ said This is my bloud the woordes which we heare doe signify no more than Bloude to be there present And y â— external Signe and liquor of wine doth represent a presence of bloud onely And this is that â—hich Alexander meaneth by the worde Sacramentally when he
saith Vvhole Christ is not conteined vnder ech kind Sacramentally For he speaketh of the representation only which is made to our senses by exterâ—al words Signes and not of y â— thing it selfe and substance of the Sacrament which is apprehended by Faith Now that Alexander was not of this mind which M. Iew. would make him to be of that whole Christ should not be receaued vnder ech kind though whole Christ were not signified by the sound of the wordes of Consecration in ech kind it is manifest by the next article in him where he concludeth that Christus integer Deus homo est sub specie Panis Vvhole Christ God and Man is vnder the forme of Bread And both sayinges are true that vvhole Christ is not vnder ech kind â–ª if ye consider only the Signe of the wordes that are spoken or the thinges that are shewed for in saying this is my bodie no mention is made of bloud And againe that vvhole Christ God and man is vnder the forme of Bread if ye consider the mater Really Alexander therfore speaketh no otherwise in this point then it becummeth A faithful and Catholike man to do And M. Iewel doth no otherwise than he is wont to do but otherwise surely than becumneth an honest and lerned man specially hauinge no neede to alleage any Scholemen and lesse neede to corrupt them when he allegeth them Polidorus Uergilius abused S. Cyprian calleth the Church of Rome Ecclesiam principalem vnde vnit as Sacerdet alis exorta est the principal Church from vvhence the Vnitie of Priestes hath spronge Out of which testimonie M. Iewel gathereth A force as it were of two Argumentes that might be made the one in that it is called Ecclesia principalis the principal or chief Churche the other because it foloweth vnde vnitas Sacordotalis exorta est whiche words D. Harding doth interpret thus from vvhence the vnitie of Priestes is spronge M. Iewel thus froÌ„ whence the vnitie of the Priesthood first began In which his Interpretation there is a plaine falsehod and craftines For in repeting the wordes and in writing of them so as if they were D. Hardings it becummed hym to deliuer them furth in the same forme as he â—ound them in D. Harding Then whereas it is not al one to say the vnitie of Priesthood sprange from Rome and the vnitie of Priesthod began first at Rome for there may be springs two or three in one place and although the water issue not out first at the lowest yet the lowest of the three maie be the chiefe head vnto al the riuers beneth M. Iewels intent was not simple to cast in this word first into the sentence as though the question were not whether the Chife Prieste in all the world were at Rome but whether the first Priest in al the world began at Rome Betwene which two propositions there is a great difference But what sayth M. Iewel to these wordes Vnde vnitas Sacerdotalis exorta est from whence the vnitie of Priesthoode first begaÌ„ as he englisheth it for a vaÌ„tage For that these words seme for to weigh much I thinke it good herein to heare the Iudgement of some other man that may seeme Indifferent Why should Polidore Uergile be Indifferent He lyued not fiftie yeres sens he was a Collectour to y â— Bishop of Rome and therefore to you not Indifferent And to vs on the other side not Indifferent because this very booke de Inuenâ—orâ—â—â—s rerum is condemned by the General Councel at Trent But you haâ—e fouÌ„d somewhat in him by likelihod which maketh for you that you esteeme of hym so wel And what is that I praie you We aske you for the Answer to S. Cyprians words you bring in Polidore to expound them but what wil ye conclude of Polidore That This commendation of which S. CypriaÌ„ speaketh was geauen by S. Cyprian to the Church of Rome in respect of Italie and not in respect of the whole world Whether this be so or no Polidors owne wordes shal trie it In his fourth booke the sâ—xth Chapiter his purpose was to shew of whom first the Order of Priesthood was Instituted And he proueth that Christ hym selfe was the first maker of Priestes Then both it folowe in hym Aâ— posâ— Chrisâ—um Petrus in Sacerdotio praerâ—gatiuaâ— habuisâ—e dicitur quòd primus in Apostolorum ordine eius Sacrosancti Collegij Caput fuisset â–ª Quapropter D. Cyprianus epist. 3. aâ— CorneliuÌ„ Cathedram Petri PrincipaleÌ„ vocat But after Christ Peter is said to haue had the prerogâ—â—iue in priesthood because he vvas the first in the revv of the Apostles and head of that holy College â—herefore S. Cyprian in his third epistle to Cornelius calleth the Chaire or Sec of S. Peter the 〈◊〉 or principal 〈◊〉 then this touching any woâ—ds of S. Câ—prian if any man can there find iâ— Polidore I wil leâ—se my right hand for 〈◊〉 and neuer write hereafter against any heretiâ—e but the Booke is common the place is intelligible and my eyes and vnderstanding serueth me so wel that I am sure Polidore in that place expoundeth not these wordes of S. Cyprian â—nde â—nitas Sacerdot alis exorta est What Impudencie then is it in M. Iewel for that these words seme to weigh much to bring furth the Iudgement of Polidore a man that may seme to be Indifferent whereas they are not at all in Polidore Polidorus Virgilius saieth he expouÌ„deth the same words of S. Cyprian Dare ye say he expoundeth them whereas he hath not them He bringeth in S. Cyprian to proue that the See of S. Peter was principal but of Vnitas Sacerdotalis the vnitie of Priesthood Upon which wordes you made hast to shewe his exposition he maketh no mention He saieth in his owne wordes not in S. Cyprians that the order of Priesthood can not be sated to haue grovven first from the Bishope of Rome onlesse vve vnderstand it only by Italie for Priesthood was rightly instituted at Hierusalem but that the Commendation geauen by S. Cyprian to the Church of Rome was geauen in respect only of Italy and not in respect of the whole world he saied it not nor intended it The Order also of Priesthood and vnitie of Priesthood are two thinges In the Order is considered the Author and effect of that Sacrament In the Unitie is considered the preseruation and Gouernement of that Order Of the Order it selfe and where Priesthod first began Polidore doth speake Of the vnity and of the Relation which all Priestes should haue to their chiefe head and Gouernour S. Cyprian doth speake and Polidore saieth nothing The Order began at Dierusalem and not at Rome The vnity I wil not say begaÌ„ at Rome but after y â— s. Peter had by his martyrdoÌ„ there takeÌ„ ful possession of that See then was it seen where the Principal Church in al the world was and to
of Christs entring into his passion and that done to receiue bread and wine in remembrance thereof and to be thankeful therefore he promised to come hymselfe and set thinges in order and therefore such orders and maners as the whole Church hath and doth throughly vse about the celebration of the Mysteries are to be thought to haue come from the Apostles Of these words then also As for the rest vvhen I come my selfe I vvil dispose it maie with good reason be gathered that the Apostle did prescribe orders and rules to be obserued concerning Persons Time and Place with other Circumstances And that the Institution of Christ stretched no further than to Consecration Oblation and Participation of his pretious bodie And that one alone or manie togeather to receaue was not by Christ apointed but left to his Apostles to be ordered But it foloweth in M. Iewel that S. Augustine in this place speaketh not one word of any number But only of the time of Receauing whether it might seme conuenient to minister the Communion after Supper You be verie bold either with S. Augustine or with your Reader Doe ye cal y â— speaking only of the time where the question of tyme is not at al spoken of Reade the place who wil and if there be any such question intreated as M. Iewel reporteth although I haue many Arguments to the contrarie yet wil I say he is an honest and true man In the fifthe chapiter of that epistle these questions are mentioned whether vpon good friday Oblation and Sacrifice should be done twise in the morning first and then after supper Item whether the people should first keepe their faste then eate that daies meale and last of all haue the Oblation and Sacrifice made Or first keepe their faste and then haue the Sacrifice made and last of al go to their meales meat To which questioÌ„s his answer is that euery man should in these points do as y e vse of the church is vnto which he cummeth Because ther is nothing in them against either Faith or good maners In the next chapiter folowing out of which D. Harding toke his testimony the question doubt is not whether one might Offer or Receaue in the morning or at euening which perteineth to tyme but whether he that had eaten the same daie before might afterwardes either Offer or Receaue the bodie of Christe whiche is A Question concerninge the state of the Persons only And not the qualitie of Tyme Unto which his answer is that it hath pleased y â— holy Ghost that for the honour of so great a Sacrament the bodie of our Lord should first enter into the mouth of a Christian before external and carnal meates Now because the heretike might say as some in these daies vphold where is it in al the Scripture that a man should come fasting to the communion And whi might not one if he would receiue after Supper as the Apostles dyd or in the Supper tyme as the Corinthians dyd S. Augustine meeteth with this obiection alleging that sentence which M. Harding to like effect vsed and saying That in vvhat order the Sacrament should be receiued Christ gaue no precept thereof but left that office to his Apostles Let M. Iewel now defend hymselfe if he can and proue that he hath not falsly reported of S. Augustine in the place of the Epistle ad â—anuarium saying of hym that he speaketh not one word of the number of CoÌ„municantes but only of the tyme of Receauing That he speaketh only of the time of Receauing it is false For these be his wordes Saluator non praecepit quo deinceps ordine sumeretur vt Apostolis per quos dispositurus erat ecclesiam seruaret hunc locum Our Sauiour gaue no commaundemeÌ„t in vvhat order it should be Receaued to the intent he might leaue that mater to his Apostles by vvhom he vvould dispose his Church Hereof I gather this Argument The apointing of Order how thinges should be don doth extend itself to more than apointing only of the time in which it is to be done But of the Authoritie left with the Apostles to set an Order in Receauing of the Sacrament S. Augustine doth speake in his epistle 〈…〉 speaketh only of the tyme of receauing S. Gregorie abused In the communion As the people saied the Lordes praier altogether as it is noted by S. Gregorie so they Receaued al togeather Are ye not ashamed so to say that it is noted so by S. Gregorie we haue I thinke his epistles in the same priâ—t as you haue them and y â— effect of that epistle out of which you haue gathered this note vpon S. Gregorie is that he answereth certaine persons which thought it was vnmeete that he should goâ— aboute to keepe vnder the Church of Constantinople but his owne Church And of the Pater noster he saith Dominica oratio apud Graecos ab omni populo dicitur apud nos autem a solo Sacerdote Our Lordes praier is said among the Grecians of al the people but with vs it is saied by the Priest alone Here then I appose you againe M. Iewel was the Masse of S. Gregories tyme a Communion or Priuate Masse â–ª for you make an oppositioÌ„ betwen these two thinges If it were a priuate masse then must you yeld and subscribe because it is then found by your own confession within the first six hundred yeres If it were a Communion how say you that the people said the coÌ„munion praier al together as it is noted by S. Gregorie wheras you see him so plainely to testifie that in Rome the Priest alone dyd saie our Lordes Praier Yea say you perchaunce but it was otherwise emonge the Greekes and in their Communion the people saied the Lords praier al together Yea but S. Gregorie noteth not only such point and he speaketh not of their communion or not CoÌ„munion So that you be exceding much to blame for abusing the names of holy Doctours so vainely and making them to be compted to thinke that which they doe not speake S. Cyprian abused The Catholâ—ke Faith is that the Churche is not bound by the vertue of Christes Institution to deliuer the Sacrament vnder forme of wine vnto the people The hereâ—ikes repiâ—e against it and saie that by Christes Institution the people should Receiue the Cup also But how wil this be proued By many old Fathers But In steede of many for shortnes sake to allege but one S. Cyprians wordes in this mater be verie plaine Remember then what the mater is You must proue out of S. Cyprian that the people should Receaue not in the one kinde alone of Bread but of wine also And if you M. Iewel wil not remember it yet I praie thee gentle Reader to marke diligently whether he proue any such thing out of S. Cyprian Some ther be that in sanctifiyng the cup and deliuering it
Christs Institution it foloweth then that the Distinction is good and y â— we may affirme wel inough A reasonable ConclusioÌ„ And vse proper Termes and wordes to expresse it by although we haue no warrant of the Scriptures neither of the old Fathers The Councel of Basile aboue one hundred and thirtie yeeres past made no conscience to graunt the vse of both kinds vnto the kingdom of Bohemia and this CouÌ„cel now presently holden at Trident vpon certaine coÌ„ditions hath graunted the same to other kingdomes and Countries Of whome then speake you these words in an other place of your Replie These men take quite awaie from the people both the Element and kind of wine and also the wordes of Consecration Cal you this takinge of the kind of wine quite awaie the vse whereof was permitted to Bohemie and at this day is ready to be permitted vnto other if that would deliuer them from their heresies If needes you wil lye you should doe it alwaies so warely as ye can wel inough when you be disposed that you might not yet be coÌ„uinced therof through any of your owne words spokeÌ„ at other times But now it is past remedy except you wil Repent because I point you to the places wher ye confesse both that the Papistes haue graunted the vse of wine to other kingdomes and Countries bysides Bohemie and also obiect that they haue quite taken awaie the kinde of wine from the people Al the East speaketh the Greeke Tongue saieth S. Hierome To this I Answer saith D. Harding y â— some of al Countries of the East spake Greeke M. Iewel Replieth M. Hardings distinction of al in General and al in Particular that he hath here deuised to shift of S. Hierome seemeth verie homelâ— and home made For how can it be a general onlesse it include euery Particular By M. Hardinges construction we must take AL for SOME or AL not for the 〈◊〉 part of AL And by this Rhetoâ—â—â—e lesse then halfe is as much as AL and so AL is not AL. I would say vnto you sauing that you be a fore fellow when you come to quiddities and also that you would aske for a warrant of the Scriptures or olde Fathers â—o iustify my woordes by it els I would say that AL that you haue now spoken is Nothing and that should seeme more 〈◊〉 than that AL is not AL. But I wil not geauâ— you this vantage I wil put your owne wordes vnto you Al the Iewes Generally gloried of the Law euen so al the Greekes Generally gloried in their wisedome And S. Paule sayeth Generally of them both The Iewes call for 〈◊〉 and Miracles â–ª and the Iewes 〈…〉 And therefore one of the Philosophers sayed In old times there were Seuen Wise men emong the Greks but nowe there are not so manie Fooles for that they all Gloried in their Wisedome What thinke you then of the Apostles Or of our â—lessed Lady herself and other good and holy Iewes did they cal for Signes Yf they did then were they reproueable because the strength of a Christian resteth vpon Faith which commeth by hearing of Goddes woord and requireth not the shewing of Merueilouse Signes If they did not How did al the Iewes cal for Signes except you also wil take AL for SOME or AL for not AL The Philosopher also which saied very wittily in reproche of the Grecians vaine Opinion of themselues that there were not so manye Fooles emonge them as of Olde time were Wise men for that they all Gloried in theyr Wisedome He meant I trow y â— there were almost seuen fooles in Greece nigh to the number of the Seuen wise that were iâ—â— Olde times there And he tooke him selfe perchaunce to be one of the Seuen So that his General Proposition included not euery Particular But I haue yet a better Example to declare my purpose What say you M. Iewel to S. Chrysostomes wordes No body doth Communicate â–ª You Answer His purpose was to rebuke the negligence of the people for that in so populous a Citie thei came to the holy Communion in so smal companies which companies he in a vehemencie of speach by an exaggeration in respect of the whole calleth NO BODY The like maner of Speach is vsed also sometimes in the Scriptures S. Iohn saith of Christe TestimoniuÌ„eius nemo accipit not for that no body at al receiued his witnesse for his Disciples and many other receiued it but for that of a great multitude very few receiued it In like Phrase Chrysostom him selfe saith other where Nemo diuina sapit No Body sauoreth Godly thinges These be your owne wordes M. Iewel whose were those other where you said How can it be a General onlesse it include euery Particular Be not these also yours How make you then both to agree togeather For NO BODY importeth an vniuersal and general Negatiue and then by your very homly and home made Logique it includeth euery Particular How make ye then in this place of NO BODY SOME BODY and of NO BODY not NO BODI but Disciples of Christe and many other Thus you see that by your owne wordes in one place you be driuen from your owne Sense in an other And by reason of your Contradictions none more Ennemie to M. Iewell than M. Iewel Notwithstanding S. Augustine whome S. Gregorie sent into England withdrew the English Nation from their grosse Idolatrie wherein he had no great trauaile for perchaunce it is an easie mater to coÌ„uert Countries Yet it is certaine he planted not Religion in this Realme What did he then vnto them whom he withdrew from their Idolatrie Did he leaue them without a Religion Did he pul their olde Cote from them and geue them no newe He Baptised at one Christmasse more than ten thousand English men as S. Gregorie witnesseth And before he baptised them did he not plante Religion in theyr hartes Otherwyse how is it credible that euer they would haue come to Baptisme Yet I note this place not for the open lie which is in it but for the Contradiction for that it seemeth impossible y â— a Nation should be coÌ„uerted from Idolatrie and yet not turned to Religion whereas the very Conuersion it selfe doth import a forsaking of one mind and taking of an other And no Heretikes haue power to turne Nations and the Catholiques to whom God geaueth that Grace do for that end tourne them from Idolatrie that afterwardes they may become Christians Which End if they be not brought vnto Who can say that they are conuerted S. Gregorie iudgeth Generally of the Name of Vniuersal Bishop that it is vaine and hurtful the Corruption the Poison and vtter and Vniuersal destruction of the Church c. Verely Iustinian him selfe writing vnto Epiphanius the Bishop of Constantinople calleth him the Vniuersal Patriarke Whom then da you folow the Pope or the Emperour â–ª