Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	origen_n	shed_v	tense_n	42	3	16.1621	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A02635	A reioindre to M. Iewels replie against the sacrifice of the Masse. In which the doctrine of the answere to the .xvij. article of his Chalenge is defended, and further proued, and al that his replie conteineth against the sacrifice, is clearely confuted, and disproued. By Thomas Harding Doctor of Diuinitie.	Harding, Thomas, 1516-1572.	1567 (1567)	STC 12761; ESTC S115168	401,516	660

Passion is the Mysterie of the Saluation of mankinde and by the same he comforteth his Disciples Chrysost. in Caten● Againe he saith De Passione Cruce sua loquebatur Christe vttering the vvordes of the Sacramente spake of his Passion and of his Crosse. Harding Touching that I noted Christes wordes concerning his body and bloude to be spoken in the present Tense Datur is geuen and funditur is shed there was no iust cause The olde texte by me not controlled as M. Ievvel saith why you should say that I am driuen to control the Olde common Translation of the new testament Who so euer cōtrolleth any thing findeth fault with the same As for the Olde Translation of that place I take not vpon me to finde faulte with it It standeth not with the humilitie and modestie of such as be Catholik to control that Translation which hath bene corrected by S. Hierom as it is beleued so generally receiued in the Church and also wel allowed by sundry Councels We leaue that pride and temeritie vnto the sawcinesse of them of your side who as wel in Latine as in their vulgar tongues haue presumed of their owne heades to set forth very many new Translations not one wholy agreeing with an other And yet eche one must boldly and stoutely be auouched to be Gods worde As for my selfe I doo gladly imbrace and folow the olde common Translation confessing the sense and meaof the verbes in the future tense to be true according to the Latine texte Neuer the lesse perceiuing that al the Greekes in whose tongue the greatest parte of the new Testament was first writtē and that many of the Latines and their bookes as S. Ambrose Ambros. in 11. cap. 1. ●d Corint Beda In Luc. cap. 22. and S. Bede and the new Testament of Isidorus Clarius printed in Venis with others do reade those verbes datur frangitur effunditur is geuen is broken is shed in the present tense and that not without cause and reason I thought good thereon to ground an Argument for my purpose and to take the aduantage of that text without controlment of the other Chrysostom belied by M. Ievvel Chryso in 1. Corin. 1● Chrysostome readeth Dabitur shal be geuen say you not datur is geuen For truthes sake I must streine nourture and tel you truely you say false of Saint Chrysostome The Latine Chrysostome hath in two places tradetur shal be deliuered in both it is corrected in the Margent where for traditur is noted frangitur and in both those places the Greke hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which being spoken of our Lordes Body is as much to say as broken in the present tense As for your Dabitur shal be geuen it is of your owne forging the woorde is not in S. Chrysostome in the place by you coted And the olde common texte it selfe in S. Luke Luc. 22. hath datur is geuen and not dabitur shal be geuen And as the Latine translatour hath made S. Chrysostome to speake otherwise in Latine then he speaketh in Greke putting tradetur for frangitur euen so hath he done who so euer translated Origen whom you allege placing effundetur shal be shed in the future tense for effunditur is shed in the present tense Except therfore you can shewe vs the Greke Origen your Latine Origen is to proue your future tense of that verbe of as smal auctoritie as the Latine Chrysostome is now shewed to be for proufe of your false reported Reasons vvhy Origen semeth to be belyed by M. Ievvel Origen in Matth. tract 35. Dabitur How be it that Origen in his owne tongue would say effunditur and not effundetur it may partly be gathe●red by that foloweth in him a fewe lines after the place which you haue alleged For there thus we reade in the present Tence Hic est Sanguis meus noui Testamenti qui bibitur et effunditur c. This is my bloude of the new Testamēt which both is droonke and is shed But wheras Origen treateth vpon S. Matthew how is it to be thought that he being a Greke writer would recite the texte of the Euangelist otherwise then he founde it in the Greke Matt. 26. where it is not reade effundetur in the future tense Marc. 14. as you woulde haue it but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod effunditur which is shed by a participle of the present tense As for that you bring out of Catena aurea of S. Thomas S. Thomas in Catena falsified by M. Ievvel you haue fowly falsified it For neither hath S. Chrysostome nor S. Thomas as you reherse the wordes For these wordes effundetur pro multis be not placed immediatly before this sentence Hoc autem dicens c. Which S. Thomas allegeth as out of an Homilie of S. Chrysostome For a saying of S. Remigius and certaine other wordes are put betwene so that the same sentence is to be referred to that went before pro multis or in remissionem peccatorum S. Thomas againe falsified by M. Ievv Your other place also alleged out of Catena conteineth the like falshod For whereas by your owne forged parenthesis vttering these wordes of the Sacrament you would restraine S. Chrysostomes wordes to the mention of the Sacrament which neuerthelesse in a right sense may be graūted therby craftily ye would bereue the blessed Sacrament altogether of the truth of Christes body and bloude Now S. Thomas in Catena allegeth S. Chrysostome thus In Catena in 26. cap. Matt. Quia verò de passione cruce eis locutus erat consequenter eum qui de Resurrectione est sermonem inducit dicens Dico autem vobis non bibam ammodo c. Bicause he had spoken vnto them of his Passion and Crosse ther●vpon he bringeth in talke of his Resurrection saying I tel you I wil not drinke henceforth c. Now the talke that Christ had with his disciples of his passiō and Crosse appereth other wheres at his supper then in the wordes of the Sacrament Matth. 26 For there he said Verely I say vnto you that one of you shal betray me Againe The sonne of man goeth as it is written of him c. Item I haue very much desyred to eate this Passeouer with you● before that I suffer my passion Antequā patiar Luc. 22. In consideration of these and other the like wordes spoken by Christ at his last supper and not only or chiefly of the wordes of the Sacramēt S. Chrysostom saith M. Iewels falshod deprehended as he is alleged in Catena that Christ had spoken of his passion and Crosse. And thus your falshod M. Iewel is disclosed on euery side so much that in manner your whole processe against this Article hitherto is founde to be none other but a continual lye But Sir Real presence and Sacrifice auouched by Saint Chrysostom Dissembled by M. Iew. when you pryed so much in that Homilie of S. Chrysostome

Ecclesiastical writers were accustomed to attribute vnto the chiefe ministers of Gods mysteries as oft or oftener the title of Sacrificers as of Priests or Elders as it may be tried by vewe of the workes written by S. Dionyse Tertullian S. Cyprian S. Chrysostom S. Ambrose S. Hierome S. Augustine S. Leo S. Gregorie and briefly by the writinges of al others from age to age vnto these wretched times when the name and person of a Sacrificer which al good men of times past euer reuerenced and honoured is despised accompted Iewish or Heathenish hated and detested So that the custome which Pachymeres speaketh of to cal a Priest a Sacrificer is now toward the ende of the worlde when Antichrist shal come by the worst sort of men his foreronners interrupted and broken How be it I maruel that M. Iewel who hath so great stoare of phrases wherewith to make shew of somewhat against the Catholiks S. Dionyse vvri●ting to Sopater a Priest calleth hī●acrificer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to bleare the eyes of the vnlerned had no better phrase then this of S. Dionyse against the Sacrifice of the Churche Wil it seme likely to any wise man that S. Dionysius was so farre ouerseene as to vse one word for an other specially in that place where he so ernestly aduertiseth one to vtter nothing that may be reproued For that special counsel he geueth Sopater in that Epistle And whereas writing Epistles to others he geueth to ech one his due title of honour and calling as To Gaius a * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Moonke To Dorotheꝰ a * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Minister or Deacon by interpretation of Pachymeres To Polycarpus a * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bisshop To Iohn the Diuine Apostle and Euāgelist how shal we think he failed only of the true name that Sopaters vocation was called by Verily had not a Priest in his certaine knowledge and in the iudgemēt of the learned Fathers of that time the Apostles scholers don true Sacrifice in dede by offering vp the body and bloud of Christe vnto God he wold not haue called Sopater the Priest a Sacrificer But bicause they had the same faith concerning this Sacrifice that the Churche euer sithens had and we nowe haue he doubted not to cal a Priest a Sacrificer as now he is cōmōly called Neither vsed he that terme only in his Epistle to Sopater but also in his Ecclesiastical Hierarchie where he declared the maner how the Sacrifice was to be celebrated And the custome hath now so preuailed saith Pachymeres Which custome should neuer so haue preuailed in the vniuersal Churche of Christe had not the terme in so weighty a mater bene agreable vnto the truth Thus S. Dionyse whom M. Iewel allegeth for him selfe maketh clearely against M. Iewel Vnto Pachymeres M. Iewel adioineth S. Paule Origen S. Chrysostome to proue that preaching of the Gospel is called a Sacrifice being none in dede and also S. Gregorie Nazianzene calling the people his Sacrifice These authorities might as wel haue ben brought in to proue that Christe offered no true and real Sacrifice vpon the Crosse as that there is no external Sacrifice in the Churche but only a reported Sacrifice by a metaphore For if any man allege to the contrarie the testimonies of the Scripture and Doctors wher they cal Christes death a Sacrifice folowing M. Iewel one may easily answere that both the Scripture and Doctours vsed the word improperly alluding for their delite vnto the Sacrifices of the old Law For behold saith he this is not strāge S. Paul S. Chrysostome and Origē doe cal preaching a Sacrifice whereas in dede preaching is no Sacrifice And so by a phrase of speache the Sacrifice of Christes death whereon our faith and hope as the ground of our saluatiō stayeth were like to be remoued and displaced What a fond kind of arguing is this The absurdity of M. Iewels argumēt The terme Sacrifice is sometimes vsed of the Fathers speaking metaphorically Ergo it is so to be taken when thei speake of the Sacrifice of the Aulter The great absurditie of this argumēt may easily appeare in the like As for example Baptisme is somtime taken in the Scripture by a figuratiue speach for tribulatiō and suffering of death as when Christ said Baptismo habeo baptizari Luc. 21. et quomodo coartor vsque dū perficiatur I haue a Baptisme to be baptized withal and how am I straighted vntil it be accomplished Ergo Baptisme hath no proper significatiō in the last chapter of S. Mathew where Christ gaue cōmandemēt vnto his disciples Mat. 28. saying Go ye and teach al natiōs baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost But Christ pronouncing the terme of Baptisme Mar. 7. alluded only vnto the obseruāce and Ceremonie of the Iewes whose custome was to baptize and washe them selues when they returned home from the market or common place For thy better instruction herein Reader M. Iewels comō Arguments deduced from like to like thou maist be aduertised that these Argumentes à Simili from one like thing to an other be the weakest of al others and most deceiueable and are fitter for a Rhetorical declamation then for a probation of truth called in controuersie And therefore it is a kinde of Argument attributed vnto the Rhetorician to explicate and make plaine a mater and not to the Logician strongly to conuince and piththily to proue a veritie Yet M. Iewel notwithstanding is so in loue with this kinde of prouing in his whole booke of Replie that if his comparisons of one phrase with an other were cut of which he woulde haue seme to be like the rest of his booke should appeare of smal quantitie How be it though it be the slipperest way in reasoning yet if M. Iewel had compared phrases together that were like in dede al circumstances obserued he were the more to be borne withal But most cōmonly he maketh his comparisons betwixt those phrases that haue litle or none affinitie at al either for that the one is spoken by a Metaphore and the other properly or the one of one mater and the other of an other or the one in one respect the other in an other And by that meanes he confoundeth the Doctours sayinges M. Iewels custome to put avvay one truth by an other and thinketh he hath done the parte of a lerned man if he may seme to foile and desplace one truth by an other truth As for example In our present case bicause S. Paule and certaine Doctours by a Figure do take Preaching for a Sacrifice which is a truth denyed by no man for it is in deede a kinde of spiritual Sacrifice therefore he woulde haue it seme that the same Doctours neuer speake of any real Sacrifice of Christes body and bloude whereas it is most manifest as it shal hereafter be proued that they speake of both kindes

sheadding of his Bloude in remission of sinnes is an Oblation of the same Ergo Christe offered his body and bloud at the Supper And thus datur signifieth here as much as offertur Now this beinge true that our Lorde offered him selfe vnto his Father at his last Supper hauing geuen cōmandement to his Apostles to do the same that he there did whom then he ordeined Priestes of the newe Testament saying Doo this in my remēbrance as Clemēt doth plainly shew Lib. 8. Apostol Cōstitut cap. vltimo the same charge perteining no lesse to the Priestes that be now the successours of the Apostles in this behalfe then to the Apostles them selues it doth right wel appear howe so euer M. Iuel assureth him selfe of the contrary and what so euer the Diuel hath wrought and by his Ministers taught against the Sacrifice of the Masse that Priestes haue auctoritie to offer vp Christe vnto his Father Iewel Here M. Harding beginneth to scanne his Tenses to rip vp Syllables and to hunte for Letters And in the ende buildeth vp the highest Castle of his Religion vpon a gheasse I maruel that so learned a man vvoulde either vse so vnlearned argumentes or hauing such stoare of Authorities as he pretendeth vvould euer make so simple choise He saith These wordes Is Geuen Is Shead be wordes of Sacrificing though the Terme it self of Oblation and Sacrifice be not expressed Here M. Harding b●sides that he hath imagined a strāge Construction of his ovvne that neuer any learned man knevve before and so straggleth alone and svvarueth from al the Olde Fathers includeth also a repugnance and Contradiction against him selfe For vvhereas vvoordes and termes sound both one thing the one being mere Englishe the other borovved of the Latine M. Harding saith Christe in the Institution of his Supper vsed the VVordes of Sacrificing and yet expressed not the Termes of Sacrificinge Suche Priuilege these menne haue vvith shifte of termes to beguile the vvorlde For if Christe vsed the vvordes of Sacrificing hovv can M. Harding say He vsed not the Termes of Sacrificing and yf he vsed not the Termes vvordes and Termes being one thing hovv can he say He vsed the vvordes Harding Litle regarding what M. Iewel saith in the lying and scoffing entrie that he maketh vnto his Replie in this Diuision The chief pointes of M. Iewels Replie in the 4. Diuision I wil first briefly note vnto thee good Reader the pointes wherein the weight of his whole tale standeth That done I wil answer to them in such order as they shal be proponed First he would prooue that my wordes include a repugnance and contradiction against my selfe Secondly he chargeth me with controlling the Olde common Translation of the Newe Testament Thirdly he would a contradiction to seme to be implyed in my doctrine Fourthly he burtheneth me with the corruption and falsifying of S. Clement Fifthly and lastly he auoucheth that Christe by these woordes Luc. 22. Doo ye this in my remembrance made not the Apostles Priestes nor gaue them nor their Successours auctoritie therby to consecrate and offer vp in Sacrifice his Body and Bloude but that what so euer was by these wordes commaunded to be done it perteined vnto the whole people as wel as vnto the Apostles So he denieth vtterly the singular and external Sacrifice of the Churche confoundeth the order of the Mysteries and referreth al to eating of bread and drinking of wine in remembrance of Christe These be the pointes he treateh of in this Diuision whereby his intent and endeuour is to reproue my Answer vnto his Chalenge But with how substantial and piththy reasons or authorities he performeth it when they shal be examined and disclosed it wil appeare Touching the first the mater is sone answered Lyes make no proufe This is your common grace M. Iewel M. Iewels custome for your aduantage in one place to make me say lesse then I doo in an other place more then I doo in euery place other ●yse then I doo Why do you here by false abbridging of my wordes attribute that vnto two verbes Is geuen and Is shed which I ascribe vnto the whole sentence In my Ansvvere fol. 165. b Lothe I am to fyl vp the paper with repeating that I said before but your impudencie driueth me vnto it Read the place againe There as you knowe I say thus Luc. 22. Whereas the holy Euangelistes reporte that Christe at his last supper tooke Bread gaue thankes brake it and said This is my body wich is geuen for you Againe this is my bloude which is shed for you in remission of synnes● By these woordes being woordes of sacrificing and offering they shewe and set forth an Oblation in acte and deede though the terme it selfe of Oblation or Sacrifice be not expressed Vse as much pryieng as you can in these woordes where finde you the Contradiction M. Ievvel ●aineth a lye vpon his aduersary and therevpō descā●eth I graunt you that woordes and termes sounde both one thing But where said I that Christe in the Institution of his supper vsed the woordes of sacrificing and yet expressed not the termes of sacrificing For thus you make me to speake and therevpon you dally at your pleasure and grounding your selfe vpon a lye you seme to conclude absurditie against me as though I had said that Christe vsed the wordes of sacrificing and yet had denied that he vsed the termes of sacrificing Which had ben very vaine and fonde wordes and termes being one thing Now the truth is I said not the one ne denied not the other Here one of vs both must needes be found a lyer If it be not you tel al the worlde for clearing of your selfe and for sauing your Ministerships honestie where I say that Christ vsed not the termes of sacrificing The woordes by which the Euangelistes do describe what Christe did at his last supper doo importe and implie the signification of sacrificing and offering Christe say they toke bread into his handes gaue thankes brake it and said This is my body whiche is geuen for you Againe This is my bloud which is shed for you in remission of synnes Bicause these wordes do report and set forth an oblation in acte and deede therfore I said and might wel so say they were wordes of sacrificing and offering Yet in al this description there is not founde this expresse terme Sacrifice or Oblation I referred me to the Euāgelistes description and you referre al to the wordes of Christe If you marke my wordes wel you shal finde therein reported not only woordes but also an acte of Christe and by the Euangelistes who declare the whole an oblation shewed and set forth in acte and deede this very terme it selfe of Oblatiō or Sacrifice not expressed and this to be shewed and set forth whereby I meane the Gospel written not by Christe but by the Euāgelistes Againe whereas I said of the woordes of the Gospel that they were wordes