thinges which be necessarely required to this Sacrament by Christes Institution either declared by written Scriptures or taught by the holy ghost as bread and wine mingled with water for the matter c. Iewell The .23 Vntruthe The mingling of wine and water together is neither Catholike nor necessary Scotus StapletoÌ„ Yes forsothe this is Catholike and therefore it is necessary That it is Catholike I proue by the coÌ„sent of the Catholike Fathers of all couÌ„tres in the primitiue church In Afrike S. CipriaÌ„ B. of Carthage affirmeth it in these words Copulatio coniunctio aquae vini sic miscètur in calice domini vt commixtio illa non possit abinuiceÌ„ separari The coupling and ioyning togeather of Wine and Water is so mingled in the Cuppe of our Lorde that the same mingling maye not be separated the one part from the other And againe Sic in sanctificando calice domini offerri aqua sola non potest quomodo nec vinum solum potest Nam si vinum tantum quis offerat sanguis Christi incipit esse sine nobis Si vero aqua sola plebs incipit esse sine Christo. QuaÌ„do autem vtruÌ„que miscetur adunatione confusa sibi inuicem copulatur tunc sacramentum spirituale caeleste perficitur In sanctifying the cuppe of our Lorde so water alone can not be offred as neither wine alone can be offered For if any offer wine alone then the bloud of Christ beginneth to be without vs. But if Water be alone the people beginneth to be without Christ. But wheÌ„ bothe is mingled and ioyned together then the spirituall and heauenly Sacrament is perfyted Thus much S. Cyprian and much more in that place disputing against those which vsed only water in consecrating the holy mysteries teaching the InstitutioÌ„ of Christ to be that both Wine and Water be mingled to the perfyting of that heauenly Sacrament S. Augustin an Africane about two hundred yeares after S. Cyprian witnesseth this practise of Christes church in his time also The seare his words In Eucharistia noÌ„ debet pura aqua offerri vt qui daÌ„ sobrietatis falluÌ„tur imagine sed vinuÌ„ cum aqua mixtuÌ„ In the Euchariste Only water ought not to be offred as some vnder the coulour of sobriete are deceiued but Wine mingled with Water In an other place he reckoneth these in the rolle of heretikes which offred Only water without Wine in the holy Sacrifice of Christes church And against such heretikes the 3. CouÌ„cell of Carthage vnto the which S. Augustin subscribed made an expresse decree not yet forbidding vtterly Water but commaÌ„ding wine and water Both to be mingled together These are the words of the decree Vt in sacrameÌ„tis Corporis SaÌ„guinis domini nihil amplius offeratur quà m ipse dominus tradidit hoc est panis Vinum aquae mixtuÌ„ That in the Sacraments of the Body and Bloud of our Lorde nothing elles be offred then oure Lorde him selfe deliuered that is bread and wine mingled with Water This the Councell decreed not as then a new Institution but as a Tradition coming from Christ him selfe Thus we see in Afrike in S. Cyprians and S. Augustins time the mingling of Water and Wine in the blessed SacrameÌ„t was accompted Catholike and necessary In Fraunce how the Sacrament was there celebrated let Ireneus a very auncient writer and nigh vnto the Apostles wtnesse Writing of this blessed Sacrament and by the verite of Christes body and bloud here in prouing the verite of his true flesh and bloud walking here on earth he hath these wordes Quando mixtus Calix factus panis percipit verbum dei fit Eucharistia corporis sanguinis Christi ex quibus augetur consistit carnis nostrae substantia that is WheÌ„ the mingled Cuppe and the made bread receaueth the worde of God it is made the Euchariste of the Body and Bloud of Christ of the which the substaÌ„ce of our flesh is augmented and coÌ„sisteth The Mingled Cuppe that Ireneus speaketh of caÌ„not be meaÌ„t of any other theÌ„ of wine mingled with water Of such a coÌ„mixtion in the blessed Sacrament a Councell holden in Fraunce aboue vnleuen hundred yeares past mencioneth In Italy what the practise of the primitiue church was by two witnesses it shall appere Alexander the fift Pope of Rome after S. Peter writeth thus not as a new decree of his owne but as he saieth vt a patribus accepimus as we haue receaued it froÌ„ the Fathers Repulsis opinionum superstitionibus panis tantum vinum aqua permixtum in sacrificio offerantur Laying aside all other superstitious opinions let only bread and wine Mingled with water be offred in the Sacrifice S. Ambrose no Pope but a lerned and blessed B. of Millain writeth thus Diximus quòd in altari constituitur Calix panis In Calicem inquit mittitur vinum Et quid aliud Aqua Sed tu mihi dicis Quomodo ergo Melchisedech panem vinum obtulit Quid sibi vult admixtio aquae Rationem accipe Primo omnium figura c. that is We saied before that vpon the aultar is put a Cuppe and bread In to the Cuppe saieth he wine is putt And what elles Water But thou saiest vnto me How then did Melchisedech offer bread and wine VVhat meaneth this Mingling of water Harken to the Reason First of all the figure and so forthe where S. Ambrose at large geueth ij causes of mingling VVater with wine in the blessed Sacrament The one to answer to the figure of the Water running out of the rocke stricken by Moyses which was Christ that is betokened Christ. An other that as water and bloud ranne out of the side of Christ on the Crosse bothe to redeme and to cleanse mankinde so in this blessed Sacrifice being an expresse resemblance of Christes passion Wine and Water be offred vp to perfit the Sacrament of Christes bloud Thus now we haue Catholike witnesses of the primitiue Church in Italy Fraunce and Afrike touching the Mingling of Water with wine in these holy mysteries In Spaine also wiâ—hin the compasse of M. Iewelles 600. yeares we reade the same confirmed in a Councel holden at Braccara and the very wordes of S. Ciprian aboue alleaged brought in Iewell But saieth M. Iewell Scotus and Innocentius witnesse that the Greke Church in their time vsed it not Is it come to that M. Iewell Must we trie our Catholike faith doctrine and euen the meanest cerimonies by the consent of the first 600. yeares and will you proue a doctrine not Catholike by the practise of certain countres litle more then 300. yeares past For about that time liued Innocentius and Scotus At that time the grekes as they had many other errours so no maruail if they had this also And you do but your kinde to disproue the Catholike seruice by the exaÌ„ple of heretikes For the greke Church
Vrspergensis Sabelliâ—us and such like For as well might he saye that these later Writers had forged such bookes as S. Augustine S. Hierome S. Basill Chrysostome Ambrose and other lerned Fathers are saied to haue writen and all suche Councelles whiche in those yeares are saied to haue ben holden as to discredit other parcels off the Fathers or Canons of Councels whiche are reported by them though suche thinges in the Fathers and Councells are not to be founde And so may M. Iewell make a Religion off his owne beleue him selfe no man and yet require all men to beleue him But bicause M. Iewell speaketh so peremptorely that Nestorius neuer dreamed no suche thinge you shall see howe lykely he was not to dreame only but euen to Speake and teache suche an heresye or foly as M. Iewell termeth it as to saie that vnder the fourme of Breade in the Sacrament is contayned the Body of Christe without Bloude Whiche yet the Lutherans graunting the real presence of Christes body with the breade and teaching withall that the people receiuing vnder one kinde haue iniury and do receiue lesse then if they receiued bothâ— are not farre from For by their opinion it foloweth that lacking somewhat vnder the one kinde and hauing yet the Body of Christ they lacke the bloude whiche is vnder the other kinde only Nowe M. Iewell though he be a Sacramentary yet hathe he good cause to fauour the Lutherans for his olde Masters sake who at his first coming to Oxford was an vpright Lutheran and specially for Luthers sake who stroke the first sparckle of this greate glorious light that M. Iewell and his fellowes so vaunteth of As touching Nestorius his opinion was that we receaued the Flesh of Christe in the Sacrament without his diuinite These are the wordes of Nestorius him selfe as Cyrillus recordeth them Nâ—storius inquit Audite attendentes verba Qui manducat carâ—em meam memores estote quòd de carne est sermo quòd non a me adiectum est carnis nomen ne videar sinistre interpretari Qui manducat meam carnem bibit meum singuinem in me munet ego in eo Non ditit Qui manducat meam diuinitatem bibit meam dâ—uinitatem Qui manducat meam carnem inquit meum sanguinem bibit in me manet ego in eo Memores estote quod de carne dictum sit Nestorius saieth Heare and harken to the wordes He that eateth my Flesh. Remember that Flesh is here mentioned and that the name of Flesh is not added by me lest I seme to expounde amisse He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Bloude abideth in me and I in him He saieth not He that eateth my diuinite and drinketh my diuinite He that eateth my Flesh saieth he and drinketh my Bloud abideth in me and I him Remember that this is spoken of the Fleshe Thus farre Nestorius persuading his hearers that we receaued the bare Fleshe of Christe in the Sacrament without the diuinite or Godhead adioyned Againste the which damnahle Heresye Cyrillus disputing in the same place saieth Num hominis comestionem nostrum hoc Sacramentum pronuncias ad crassas cogitationes vrges eorum qui crediderunt mentes Doest thou speaking to Nestorius cal this our Sacrament the eating of mans Flesh and prouoke the Hartes of the faithefull to grosse cogitations This then being the Opinion of Nestorius as it is here euident that it was that in the Sacrament we did eate the Fleshe of Christe onely and drinke the Bloud only without the Diuinite adioyned it must consequently folowe that his opinion was that the bare Flesh was in the Sacrament a part by it self and the Bloud by it selfe For and marke well this reason the cause why the Catholike Church beleueth that vnder one part of the Sacrament whole Christ is contained and therefore the bloud with the body is bicause it beleueth that vnder that one part of the Sacraâ—ent Christ is as God and not as bare man or bare flesh Vpon this belefe also it is grouÌ„ded that whole Christ is at one time in many places by the way of this most mystical SacrameÌ„t as Chrysostom and Primasius vpon the 10. chapter to the Hebrewes do in expresse wordes declare Now Nestorius not beleuing any such diuinite to be ioyned with the body of Christ in the Sacrament but the bare flesh to be by it selfe and the Bloud in like maner by it selfe it is easy to iudge that he was of this opinioÌ„ that vnder the forme of Bread in the SacrameÌ„t was the Body of Christ without Bloud which is the thinge that D. Harding and those other lerned writers do reporte of him And the which M. Iewell peremptorely denieth without any proofe or Reason in the worlde to the contrary but only by his Negatiue Proofes Such and such mention no such thinge Ergo there was no such matter Thus whether D. Harding spake beside Truthe and lerning let the indifferent reader iudge Harding For whereas Christ commaunded the Apostles to baptise in the name of the Father and the Sonne and the Holy Ghoste they baptised in the name of Iesus Christ 54 only The .54 Vntruthe A foule deprauation of the Scriptures This deprauation M. Iewell laieth to D. Hardinges charge for putting the worde only in the last place Truthe it is that the Only baptim mencioned in the Actes of the Apostles is mencioned to haue ben geueÌ„ in the name of Iesus As in the second the tenth the eight and the seuententh chapters it may be sene And so it is no Vntruthe that by the letter of holy Scripture the Apostles baptised only in the name of Iesus Christ. The displacing of a worde which altereth not the sence vnlesse M. Iewel caÌ„ proue it was done of fraude or malice is no Vntruthe in any vpright iudgement The sence of holy scripture being kept the Scripture is not depraued though some worde be put out of order Now that the Scripture so saieth bothe the only mentioning of such forme of baptim in all the Actes of the Apostles bothe the letter it selfe I saie and the meaning also of the letter if we beleue the iudgemeÌ„t of S. Ambrose coÌ„uinceth S. Ambrose disputing of this baptim mencioned in the Actes of the Apostles hath these wordes Cum dicitur In nomine domini nostri Iesu Christi per vnitatem nominis impletum mysterium est When it is saied In the name of our lorde Iesus Christ by the vnite of the name the sacrament is complete For as S. Ambrose saieth also in that place he that is blessed in Christ is blessed in the name of the Father and the Sonne and the Holy Ghoste Thus by the letter and by the meaning of the letter if we beleue S. Ambrose baptim was geuen in the name of Christ Only without mencioning the Father and the Holy Ghoste and yet in dede in the name of all But beholde good Reader
do but signifie that is are but the figures of the Body and bloude of Christe and therefore seing as it was proued before in prouing Transubstantiation that the Body of Christ is really present vnder the forme of Breade and without Bloud the body of Christ is not the other kinde for grace to be obtained is not Necessary For receiuing whole Christ there can be no wante of grace M. Iewell saieth All this is an Vntruthe And why For saieth he the Breade and Wine signifie the Bodye and Bloude of Christe This is in plaine termes the Sacramentary heresy clerely ouerthrowen by the real presence of Christe in the Sacrament which being as I saied before so clerely and abundantly proued against M. Iewel it shal not nede here to stāde aboute the confutation of it Harding In distributing the blessed Sacrament to Christen people the Church hath vsed libertie which Christ neuer embarred by any commaundement to the cōtrary so as it hath euer bene moste for the behoulfe and commodite of the Receiuers And hath ministred sometimes bothe kindes sometimes one kinde only as it hath ben thought most expedient in Regarde of time place and personnes Iewell The .48 Vntruthe The Church neuer thus ministred the Sacrament vnto the people in any open Congregation within the space of 600. yeares You alter the question M. Iewell and in so doing you yelde Your first Chalenge was Or that there was any Communion Ministred vnto the people vnder one kinde Thus it stādeth in your Sermō and thus it is againe repeted in the frōte or title of this Article Now bicause you see your selfe clene ouerthrowen in that ouerbolde assertion of youres you put in these wordes in any opē Cōgregatiō which is no part of your Chalēge and therefore of D. Harding not intended to be confuted So in the very entrie of this article you tell the reader and in so telling him you mocke him and deceiue him that the question moued betwene D. Harding and you was moued thus Iewell Whether the holy Communion at any time within the space of sixe hundred yeares after Christ were euer ministred Openly in the Churche vnto the people vnder one kinde This is a manifest and notorious Vntruthe M. Iewell These wordes Openly in the Church be not in your Sermon They be not in your Chalenge You neuer moued your question so Why do you so lie and deceiue your Reader If you had moued the Question so you had bene by D. Harding so answered and satisfied Now hauing neuer moued your question with that condition Openly in the Church you crie out that D. Harding hath brought priuat houses and priuat men to proue Communion vnder one kinde and not done Openly in the Church Whereby you crie Guilty and yelde that your Chalenge is ouerthrowen But now you will renewe the Combat and make a newe state of the Question And when that shall be Answered then you maye yet ones againe Renewe it and Adde farther some other Clause or Condition vnto it and so neuer haue ende of Quarelling As touching this Vntruthe bicause D. Harding saieth only the Church ministred sometimes in bothe kindes sometimes in one kinde which you confesse of priuat men he hath proued it you note it an Vntruthe bicause he hath not proued it to haue ben so ministred in open congregation Which is no vntruthe on D. Hardinges parte which hath proued that which he saieth and that which you craked no man aliue could proue But it is on your part M. Iewell a double and a pregnant Vntruthe First to note an Vntruthe where none is And then so Impudently to Alter the question You haue cried shame and Corruption against your selfe God amende you Harding As touching the wordes of Christ bibite ex hoc omnes Drinke ye all of this They pertaine to the Apostles only and their successours Iewell The .49 Vntruthe For these wordes pertaine as well to the people as to the priestes as shall appeare Stapleton In the text M. Iewel bringeth these reasons to make it so appeare First he saieth If M. Harding will folowe the letter the wordes be plaine Drinke ye all of this I answer If M. Iewell will folowe the letter then not only all the people such as be of lauful yeares and discretion but also all infantes and children that are Christened must receiue bothe kindes Which yet in the religiō of protestants is thought so great an abuse that the Cōmunicating of infants being in S. Augustins time and longe before a customable thing they note it for an errour in the doctrine of S. Augustin that infants ought to communicat And yet the wordes of Christ be plaine Drinke ye all of this Therefore the letter as it forceth not infants to receiue vnder any kinde at all so neither doth it force the lay people to receiue vnder bothe kindes M. Iewell goeth forthe Iewell If M. Harding will leaue the letter and take the meaning S. Paule hath opened it For writing vnto the whole Congregation at Corinthe he saieth thus As often as shall eate this bread and drinke of this Cuppe ye shall declare the Lordes death vntill he come If he doubte S. Paule yet the very practise and continuall order of the primitiue Church fully declareth what Christ meant And they saie Custom is the best interpreter of the lawe If he will take neither the wordes of Christe nor Christes meaning then I know not how to deale with him Doubt you not M. Iewell D. Harding will take and obey bothe Christes wordes and his meaning with all his harte As for the wordes you see they can not be precisely takē for all without exception For then as I saied children and infantes should be forced to receiue Which you thinke a great abuse and we are persuaded that it nedeth not Now then for the meaning of Christ you bringe S. Paule and the practise of the primitiue Church which ministred vnder bothe kindes to the people and here you wil haue Custome to interpret the lawe I graunte S. Paule and the primitiue Church vsed so to do longe and many yeares But after the same Church of Christ many hūdred yeares also vsed the contrary As your selfe can not denie Now then here be two Customes Here is a double practise of the Church What then Hath one of these two brokē Christes Institution No M. Iewel We holde and I haue proued it in an other place that the Church of Christ can neuer erre damnably As truly to breake Christes Institution is a damnable errour Therefore by these two customes of the Church of God by this double practise of Christian people we gather the meaning of Christes wordes drinke ye all of this not to haue ben precisely spoken as a commaundement to all Christen people but to the Apostles and their successours which should for euer Celebrat and receiue that holy Sacrament vnder bothe kindes I will put you a clere example
like a Cancre as we see it daily dothe only for the multitude of our iniquities prouoking allwaie his iust indignation but that he looke mercifully vpon his spouse and confounde al her enemies vt coÌ„fundantur auertantur retrorsum omnes qui oderunt Syon that they be confouÌ„ded and recoyled backe all that hate Sion the holy Catholike Church Farewel In Antvverpe the 24. of Iuly 1566. Thomas Stapleton FAVLTES ESCAPED IN printing of this booke Leafe Syde Line Fault Correction In The Epistle 10. a. 20. Choynecyngh Choynecoâ—gh In The .3 Article 113. b. 3. fore fere 114. a. 10. fiet fit 116. a. 20. as is 121. In the margin Saint Paule to the Corin. c. put it out 122. 123. 125. b. 15. put in the margyn Pantaleon in Chronographia 129. a 12. nation Incarnation 134. b. 21. ten nyne In The .4 Article 104 b. 15. three but three assaultes made but 107 b. 11. extrema externa   27 comentum conuentum 115. b. 1. decree drawe   13. 3000 300 133. a. â— pointed painted 13â— b. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 146. a. 16. were summoned were not summoned 147. b. 33. Constantius Constantinus 165 a. 5. of ofte A RETVRNE OF VNTRVTHES VPON M. IEVVEL c. The first Article Harding THE communion likewise of the Sacrament is a publike feast by Christ through the ministerie of the priest in the same prepared for euery faitheful person Iewell The first Vntruthe For there is no such preparation StapletoÌ„ There is preparation made by the Priest for all such as wil receiue When none will receiue no such preparation is made Yet bicause euery faithefull person duly prepared thereunto may receiue if he will and for all such the feast is prepared of Christ by the ministerie of the priest it is prepared for euery faithfull person And so being common by order of the firste institution and by will of the ministres it ought to be reputed for common not priuate Iewell The second Vntruthe There appeareth no suche will in the Ministre StapletoÌ„ Though there appeare no such will in the Minister to you M. Iewell and others which will deme the worste of the Priest yet to all well meaning folcke such will doth appeare who knowe the duty of the priest to be to distribute vnto all which duly prepared come to receiue The priestes will is not to be iudged of any externall vsage or practise such as you gather but of this only if any coming to the communion duly and semely prepared be repelled of the priest Which thinge bicause in no priest appeareth or if euer it appered by the Churche it was neuer allowed therefore it is true that by the will of the minister admitting gladly al faithful folcke prepared thereunto the feast is commoÌ„ for all not priuat for the priest alone These two Vntruthes are gathered only of the externall behauiour of the priest whereas the truth thereof dependeth of the preparation and deuotion of the people ioyntly concurring with the ministerie of the priest by the meanes whereof the feast is commoÌ„ It appeareth also by Reseruation that the Catholike Churche prepareth more for the people then the protestants which abhorre from all Reseruation Harding Therefore in this respect we do not acknowleadg any priuat Masse but leaue that terme to Luthers schoole where it was first diuised Iewell The 3. Vntruthe StapletoÌ„ Here is an Vntruthe noted but no cause or reason brought to proue it so Therefore vntell M. Iewell bringe some elder theÌ„ Luther which termed priuat Masse of the Sole Receiuing of the priest it is truly saied that that terme in that sence was in Luthers schole first diuised Harding The vnblouddy and daily sacrifice of the church commonly called the Masse Iewell The 4. Vntruthe The olde Fathers neuer commonly called it so StapletoÌ„ Yet the younge Fathers in kinge Edwardes dayes called it the Masse For in the first communion booke it is saied The CoÌ„munion otherwise called the Masse Howbeit all were it true that the olde Fathers neuer commonly called it so yet were it no Vntruthe to saye it is commonly called so For if these ix C. yeares onely the daily sacrifice had ben commoÌ„ly called the Masse were it an Vntruthe trowe ye to write coÌ„monly called the masse The ile of Brytanny is now commonly called England and and Scotland Yet the olde writers aboue litle more then a thousand yeares neuer called it so Shal it be now an Vntruth if a writer saie The ile of Britanny commonly called England and Scotland But the olde fathers euen within the compasse of six hundred yeares did commonly call it so S. Ambrose Leo the first and S. Gregory The olde fathers in the councells off Milleuet of whom S. Augustine was one and in the second at Carthage in Afrike the olde fathers of the councells of Arelat off Orleans and Agatha in Fraunce the olde Fathers of the councels of Ilerd and Gerund in Spayne all within the compasse of 500. yeares speaking of that dayly sacrifice do call it by the name of Masse Iudge now gentle reader whether it be an Vntruthe to saye Commonly called the Masse Harding VVe Haue for proofe of the sacrifice beside other places c the Institutyon of Christ in the new Testament Iewell The 5. Vntruthe Christ speaketh not one worde of any Sacrifice StapletoÌ„ Christ speaketh not one worde of any Sacrament in the last Supper and yet it is no Vntruthe to say For proofe of the Sacrament we haue the institution of Christ in the new Testament But aâ— Christ instituted a Sacrament by doing not by speaking so Christ instituted a Sacrifice by doing and sacrificing in dede not by speaking or reporting a Sacrifice Againe that Christ instituted a Sacrament in the last Supper we lerne it not by any expresse naming of a Sacrament in the Scripture But by the authorite of the Church expounding so the Siripture Right so that Christ sacrificed in dede vnto God the Father his precious body and bloud in the last supper we lerne by the Fathers of the Chrurch expounding vnto vs the Institution of Christ not by the expresse termes of Sacrifice in the Scripture The consent of the Fathers so teaching vs is other where at large expressed In the 34. Vntruthe Last of all the sacrifice of Christ on the crosse is not of any Euangelist named and yet off the Euangelistes we lerne that Christ was sacrificed on the Crosse. Harding That S. Andrew the apostle touching the substaunce of the masse worshipped God euery day with the same seruice as priestes now doe in celebrating the externall sacrifice of the Church Iewell The .6 Vntruthe S. Andrew saide the Communion and not the Masse StapletoÌ„ First the Masse and the Communion Dewly ministred is all one Therefore you doe but fondly to make as though it were a Contradiction bewene
the Communion and the Masse Againe S. Andrew offred vnto God the sacrifice of his dere Son the body and bloud of our Sauiour This is the substauÌ„ce of the Masse of which only D. Harding here speaketh This was no such Communion as ye do practise where no externall sacrifice of Christ his body is This was masse where such externall sacrifice is made Harding Abdias who saw Christ our Sauiour in the flesh Iewell The 7. Vntruthe This Abdias neuer saw Christ in the flesh It is a very legende of lyes StapletoÌ„ If Abdias neuer sawe Christ in the flesh it is an Vntruthe of the history which in the name of Abdias so reporteth It is no Vntruthe on D. Hardinges part But how proueth M. Iewell the history of Abdias to reporte Vntruly Marry saieth he of it It is a very legende of lyes This is sone saied but nothing proued As for that which in the text M. Iewell bringeth for proofe hereof it is of M. D. Harding thouroughly confuted Harding They shall finde in Clement the whole order and forme of the Masse set foorth by the Apostles them selues Iewell The 8. Vntruthe There is no maner token or shew of priuat Masse StapletoÌ„ Clement is brought to proue the Sacrifice of the Masse not to proue Priuat Masse that is Sole Receiuing of the priest in the Masse Therefore it is true that in Clement touching the Substaunce of the Masse which is the daily Sacrifice of the Church the whole order and fourme of the Masse is to be founde though there be in him no token or shew of Priuat Masse Harding They shall finde the same most plainly treated of and a forme of the Masse much agreable to that is vsed in these daies set foorth by S. Dionyse Iewell The 9. Vntruthe It is the very fourme of the Communion and no thinge like the priuat Masse StapletoÌ„ It hath external Oblation Consecration of the Mysteries Prayer for the dead Aultar Censing Memory of the saintes al which thinges M. Iewelles Communion lacketh and the Masse hath And to proue the Masse it was brought not to proue Priuat Masse Harding I do farder referre thee to Iustinus the martyr and philosoâ—her To Irenaeus the martyr and bishop of Lyons etc. To the olde Bishop and Martyr Hippolytus Iewell 10. A Burthen of Vntruthes StapletoÌ„ Not one Vntruthe For all these Fathers do clerely testifie the Sacrifice of the masse for the which they are brought Reade the 2. Apologie of Iustinus martyr Ireneus lib. 4. cap. 32. and Hippolitus as it is in M. D. Harding alleaged Iustinus saieth Panis vinum aqua offeruntur The bread wine and water are offred Ireneus saith of Christ in his last Supper Noui testamenti nouam docuit Oblationem quam ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens in vniuerso mundo offert deo He taught a new sacrifice of the new Testament which the Church receiuing of the Apostles doth offer vnto God through out all the worlde Hippolytus saieth Pontifices immolare preciosum Corpus Sanguinem Christi quotidie That bishops do offer the precyous Body and Bloud of Christ daily These considered I trust the burthen will sone be disâ—urdened Harding Finally I referre them in stede of many to the two worthy fathers Basill and Chrysostom whose Masses be lefte to the posterite at this time extant Iewell The 11. Vntruthe They conteine the very order of the CoÌ„munion StapletoÌ„ Basil and Chrysostom are brought to witnesse the Sacrifice of the Masse as the other fathers aboue are That to be true let their wordes testifie In the Masse of S. Basil after the Consecration of the mysteries the priest offreth them vnto God saying Tua ex tuis tibi offerimus per omnia in omnibus We offer vnto thee thy owne of thy owne thourough all thinges and in all thinges The very same wordes are in the Masse off Chrysostom After which as well in the Masse off S Basyll as of Chrisostom a commemoration of the blessed Saints in heauen namely of our Lady of Saint Iohn Baptist and of the Saint of the day is made and praier for the dead in the faith of Christ is had Is this the very order of the Communion M. Iewell Doe you offer the mysteries in your communion Make you any CoÌ„memoration of the Saints Pray you for the dead Is it now an Vntruthe that S. Basill and Chrysostom in their Masses do witnesse the daily sacrifice of the Church Or is it true that the Masses of S. Basill and Chrysostom do conteine the very order of the Communion For though a number of communicants be mentioned in bothe those masses yet doth al the rest conteine the very order of the Communion as you now vse it M. Iewell Againe your frende Erasmus M. Iewell calleth the lyturgie of S. Chrysostom Masse I trust it shall be no Vntruthe with you M. Iewell to call thinges as Erasmus calleth them Harding Amongest all Cyrillus Hierosoly mitanus is not to be passed ouer lightly who at large expoundeth the whole Masse vsed in Hierusalem in his time the same which now we finde in Clement Iewell The 12. Vntruthe It is the very expresse order of the Communion It is no priuat Masse StapletoÌ„ This is not alleaged for Priuat Masse but to proue a Sacrifice the substaunce of the Masse and the order of the whole Masse in his time concurring with the Masse that nowe is This his owne wordes shall trie which are these Cum hoc sacrificium offerimus postea facimus mentioneÌ„ etiam eorum qui ante nos obdormieruÌ„t Primum patriarcharum Prophetarum Apostolorum Martyrum vt deus orationibus illorum deprecationibus suscipiat preces nostras Deinde pro defunctis sanctis patribus episcopis dâ—nique pro omnibus oramus qui inter nos vita functi sunt maximum esse credentes animarum iuuamen pro quibus offertur obsecratio sancti illius tremendi quod in altari positum est sacrificij When we offer this Sacrifice afterward we make meÌ„tion of them which haue depâ—rted this life before vs. First of the patriarches of the Prophets of the Apostles of the Martyrs that God by their praiers and intercessions may receiue our petitions Then for the holy fathers and bishops departed last of all for all men we pray which amonge vs haue deceased beleuing it to be a great relief of soules for whoÌ„ the intercessioÌ„ of that holy and dreadful sacrifice which is layed vpon the aultar is offred Thus farre Cyrillus Here is a Sacrifice offred and that vpon an Aultar Here is a memory and intercession of Saints Here is prayer for the dead Is this the very expresse order of the Communion M. Iewell Or bicause it maketh nothing for priuat Masse for the which it was not brought in of M.D. harding is it therefore Vntruly brought in for the Masse and Sacrifice therof These V. last Vntruthes were gathered to make a number
vpon this false grounde as though they were all brought to proue Priuat Masse Now M. Iewell knewe well enough that from the first part of this 5. Diuision hetherto profes are brought onely for the Sacrifice and substaunce of the Masse And againe he knew that in the very next Diuisâ—on only he beginneth to speake of Priuat Masse where the wordes of M. D. Harding are these Now this presupposed that the Masse standeth vpon good and sufficient groundes for the stay of all true Christen mens bâ—lefe let vs come to our special purpose and say somewhat of Priuat Masse These words of M. D. Harding do immediatly folow the former allegatyons of Dyonise Basill Chrisostom ClemeÌ„t and Cyrillus Now what Vntrue dealing is this to heape so many Vntruthes vpon one false grounde to euidently appearing God amende you M. Iewell and sende you some shame or honesty that you dissemble no more so impudently Harding The feast is common All be inuited Iewell The 13. Vntruthe They inuite no man StapletoÌ„ Though the priest expressely inuiteth no man by worde or by gesture yet the order of the Church the sermons of the Priest the counsel in Confessions do inuite al men to frequeÌ„t the holy Sacrament In this sence it is true that all be inuited In this sence wrote D. Harding Of any wordes off the Priest or gesture of the Deacon in the seruice of the Masse he meant not nor spake not Now M. Iewell bicause he will imagine no other inuiting but this he calleth it a manifest Vntruthe that all be inuited But to proue an Vntruthe in the Author yow must take the meaning of the Author and not appoint him what meaning yow list So euery foole may comptroll the wise Harding They hauing quite abrogated the other two Consecration and Oblation and not so much as once naming them in their bookes of seruice Iewell The .14 Vntruthe The Sacrifice is specially named in the Communion booke And in the masse it selfe consecration is not named StapletoÌ„ The Sacrifice of Christes body and bloud as in the last Supper our Sauiour first offred it the OblatioÌ„ of the holy Mysteries in the CoÌ„munion booke is neither named nor practised The sacrifice of Christ on the crosse is mentioned The sacrifice of prayse and thankes geuing on Our parte the offring vp of our selues our soules and bodies to be a reasonable holy and liuely sacrifice to God is in the Communion booke wel meÌ„tioned if the Daily Sacrifice of the Church the precious body and bloud of Christ vnder the forme of bread and wine were offred there also By the which we offer in dede a Sacrifice of prayse and thaÌ„kes geuing vnto God by the which we offer vnto God a reasonable holy and liuely Sacrifice not our selues onely but much more the most precious Body and Bloud of our Sauiour and by that and with that our selues also Without this Sacrifice to saye in your Communion booke that ye offer a Sacrifice of thankes geuing to saie that ye offer your selues a liuely Sacrifice vnto God it is but mockery with God and the Church you doe damnably abuse your selues and the people For M. Iewell you omitt the Institution of Christ and make one of your owne Harken to the holy Fathers to whome you offer to yelde and lerne that you do so S. Ciprian sayeth If Iesus Christ our Lorde and God he himselfe be the highe priest of God the Father and he him selfe first offred a Sacrifice to God the Father and CoÌ„maunded the same to be done in the remeÌ„braunce of him surely that Priest doth truly perfourme the office of Christ who foloweth that that Christ dyd and theÌ„ doth offer a full Sacrifice in the Church to God the Father if he so beginne to offer according as he seeth Christ to haue offred What Sacrifice is that M. Iewel which Christ offred to God the Father and commaunded the same to be done in the remembraunce of him Was it the Sacrifice vpon the Crosse Did Christ commaunde the Church to Sacrifice him on the Crosse in the remembraunce of him againe Was it not in his last Supper that he commaunded vs to do in his remembraunce Doth not S. Ciprian dispute there expressely CoÌ„tra Aquarios against such as would CoÌ„secrat the SacrameÌ„t with only Water prouing vnto them that they must vse bothe Wine and Water where you vse Wine only and no Water in your detestable Communion Dothe he not expressely speake of the Sacrifice in the last Supper Can you denie al this M. Iewell Or will you yelde to this one Clere Sentence of so Auncient a Father so longe aboue the compasse of your 600. yeares Againe S. Ciprian saieth That Priest doth truly perfourme the office of Christ who foloweth that that Christ did and then doth offer a full Sacrifice in the Church to God the Father if he so beginne to offer according as he seeth Christ to haue offred But what did Christ offer in the last supper Let S. Cyprian instruct vs. In the same place and epistle he saieth Quis magis sacerdos dei summi quà m dominus noster Iesus Christus qui sacrificium deo patri obtulit obtulit hoc idem quod Melchisedech obâ—ulerat id est panem vinum suam scilicet corpus sanguinem Who is more the priest of God most highe then our Lorde Iesus Christ which offred a sacrifice to God the Father And offred the same which Melchisedech offred that is bread and wine that is to saie his body and bloud This is the Sacrifice which Christ offred in the last Supper This Sacrifice the true Priestes of Christe doe offer in the church and so as Christ himselfe offred This sacrifice the CoÌ„munioÌ„ booke hath not nameth not vseth not This sacrifice this Oblation of the holy mysteries of Christes body and bloud S. Ciprian speaketh of This Sacrifice M.D. Harding most truly saied that you haue abrogated This Sacrifice most truly he saied that not ones you haue named it in your bookes of seruice Goe now M. Iewell and if ye wil note an Vntruth in M.D. Har. note not as here you note The Sacrifice is expressely named in the Communion booke but note This sacrifice is expressely named in the Communion booke And so shall yow in dede make a great manifest Lie on your owne part and finde no Vntruthe at al in M.D. Harding For alas it is to true that you haue not the Sacrifice of the church in your CommunioÌ„ booke Alas it is to true that damnably yow haue omitted Christes Institution Cursedly you deceaue the people and most miserably â—yow condemne your owne selues Other Fathers that doe witnesse an externall Sacrifice which in the Communion booke is vtterly lefte out and omitted when I come to the 34. Vntruthe I shall haue more occasion to recite As touching Consecration S. Augustin saieth speaking of the blessed Sacrament Certa Consecratione fit nobis Mysticus panis
Congregation in One place that M.D. Harding denieth that the Fathers neuer saied that you can neuer proue M. Iewell In that sence the worde Communion is not taken Harding Thus we see S. Hierom and S. Augustine were of one Communion and did communicat together although they were farre asunder Iewell The .20 Vntruthe Rising of the ambiguite or doubtfull taking off this worde Communion Stapleton If this worde Communion be as you confesse ambiguous if it signifie sometime A consent of religion as after in the texte you saie pag. 28. then yet vpon your owne confession it will folowe that saint Hierom and saint Augustine who consented in religion were of one communion together and communicated together in that sence of the worde Communion and so is it by your confession no Vntruthe that in a sence they were of one Communion and Communicated together For as you knowe that saying is not Vntrue which in any one sence or meaning is True You could not therfore iustly note this for an Vntruthe being but of the minde that you are But now D. Hardinges saying is so True that he saieth no more then S. Hierom him selfe saied and professed That is that S. Augustin was Episcopus communionis sua A bishop of his Communion If saint Augustin were a bishop of saint Hieroms Communion which saint Hierom him selfe saieth then were saint Austen and saint Hierom of One communion which D. Harding saieth If then this be an Vntruthe which D. Harding saieth then is it also an Vntruthe that S. Hierom saied Go nowe M. Iewel and note a number of Vntruthes vpo◠saint Hieroms workes and let this stande for one as truly as you haue noted D. Harding therfore Againe as they were of One Communion so they communicated bothe together Wherein M Iewell In religion and faith only If they did so only yet thē were it true that they Communicated together For in this sence they Communicated But nowe not only so For they were saied to be of One Communion bicause they communicated together in the blessed Sacrament All Catholikes in that sence were saied to be of one communion Heretikes M. Iewell in that sence were not of one communion with the Catholike Fathers Heretikes neuer communicated together with the Catholikes in the Churche A clere and moste manifest example of this is the daily Excommunicatian vsed in Christes Churche For what is Excommunication but embarring from communicating in the Churche with other Christians But as one excommunicated in London if he be iustly excommunicated is excommunicated not only in Londō but through all England yea and through all Christendom beside as longe as in Religion Englande ioyneth with the reste of Christendō so he that cōmunicateth in London and is of one communion with the faithfull people of London he communicateth also with al England and all Christendom beside and is of one communion with them all So were saint Hierom and saint Augustin of one communion so they communicated together though they neuer receiued the sacrament together in all their life time but liued in farre distant countries the one from the other the one in Afrike the other in Palestine Harding The priest after that he hath receiued the Sacrament in the Church taketh his naturall sustenance and dineth and then being called vpon carieth the rest a mile or two to the sicke in eche house none being disposed to receiue withe the sicke he doth that he is required 21 doth he not in this case communicat with them and do not they communicat one with an other rather hauing a will to communicat togeather in one place also if oportunite serued Iewell The .21 Vntruthe M. Harding saieth the priest doth communicat and not cōmunicat bothe together Which is a cōtradiction in nature Stapleton D. Harding saieth the priest hauing saied Masse doth Communicat with the sicke persons Receiuing their Housell after his masse bicause they communicat the precious Body and Bloud of Christ whereby they are made one in Christ and betwene them selues Againe he saieth they do not communinicat for all that in One Place together So in the first they haue a Communion In the seconde they haue none In one sence they haue in an other they haue not This is M. Iewell no contradiction in nature nor yet in reason and therfore no Vntruthe at all on D. Hardings parte You know M. Iewell by your logike Omnis Contradictio est ad idem Euery cōtradiction is about one selfe thing Harding If this might not be accompted as a laufull and good Communion either people shoulde be denied that necessary vitaile of life at their departing hence which were a cruel iniury and a thinge contrary to the examples and godly ordonances of the primitiue Church or the priest c. Iewell The 22. Vntruthe This order was taken not for euery sicke party but for persons excommunicat Stapleton Such order was not taken for persons excommunicat but for such as being before excommunicated and after reconciled receiued it being in sickenesse and daunger of death as al other Christen men did as appereth by the Canons made in this behalfe And who doubteth but much more for sicke persons not excommunicate Vnlesse the wisedom of M. Iewell will thinke the primitiue Church to haue graunted that benefitt to excommunicat persons which to other not excommunicated was not graunted Yes he saieth Iewell Such reconciliation was thought necessary at thende for solace of the party Yea truly M. Iewell would haue this Sacrament to be but an outward Solace and Token of his Reconciliation amonge the faithfull But Cum ad hoc fiat Eucharistia vt sit accipientibus tutela seing the Eucharist is therefore made that it might be a sauegarde and protectiō to those which receiued it as S. Cipriā saieth therefore not only to excommunicat persons in time of Sicknesse for their reconciliation or Solace as M. Iewell fancyeth it was graunted but also for their sauegard and protection It was called their Viaticum their Vitail or foode of life not only a Tokē of their reconciliation to the Church This being the reason of the decree it is to be thought the primitiue Church prouided not only for excommunicat persons but also for euery sicke party which though not for the bonde of excōmunication yet for other considerations might stande in nede of this blessed Sacrament no lesse then the other But what nede many wordes M. Iewel him selfe confesseth that Christen folcke in their sickenesse had the Sacrament ordinarely sent home vnto them For the which he alleageth Iustinus Martyr Apolog. 2. If so M. Iewell then to denie to sicke persons their housell is contrary to the example and godly ordonaunce of the primitiue church by your owne Cōfession and the Authorite of Iustinus Martyr Which is the thing that D. Harding saied and you most vntruly and contrary to your selfe haue noted for an Vntruthe Harding Now if we excepte those
M. Iewell in the first 600. yeares remaining yet Catholike and vnder the obedience of the See of Rome vsed this Mingling of Wine and Water as all the west Church did You shall heare the lerned Fathers of the greke Church and of that time to saie so First in the Greke Synods kept about a thousand yeares agoe and gathered by Martinus bishop of Braccara in Spaine within the compasse of M. Iewelles 600. yeares we reade thus Non oportet aliquid aliud in sanctuario offerri praeter panem vinum aquam quae in typum Christi benedicuntur quia de corpore eius dum in cruce penderet sanguis effluxit aqua Nothing must be offered in the holy place beside bread and Wine and Water which are blessed for the remembraunce of Christ bicause while he hanged on the Crosse bloud and Water raÌ„ne out of his Body Iustinus Martyr a greke writer and very nigh the Apostles calleth this part of the SacrameÌ„t as M. Iewell coÌ„fesseth and meÌ„cioneth him selfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Cuppe of water and mixture Why but bicause in the holy ministration Water was mingled in the Cuppe with wine S. Basill in his Liturgie and masse Mingleth Water and wine in the Consecration of the holy mysteries saying at the Consecration time these wordes Similiter calicem de genimine vitis accipiens miscens gratias agens benedicens sanctificans c. Taking in like maner the Cuppe of the frute of the Vine Mingling it geuing thankes blessing it c. S. Iames the Apostle in his Lyturgie or Masse at the Consecration time recording the fact of Christ hath these wordes Similiter post quam caenauit accipiens calicem permiscens ex vino aqua caet In like maner after he had supped taking the Cuppe and Mingling it with Wine and Water caet By the which wordes of S. Iames and S. Basill affirming that Christ him selfe mingled Wine with Water in his blessed Supper we beleue verely he did so though no mention thereof be made in the ghospell Especially considering the consent of the Fathers aboue alleaged S. Cyprian Alexander the fifte Pope after S. Peter the 3. Councell of Carthage wherat S. Augustin was present who al affirme that it came from Christ him selfe that in this blessed Sacrament Water shoulde bê Mingled with Wine Last of all Gregory bishopp of Nissa S. Basill his brother Chrysostom vpon the Ghospell of S. Iohn Homil. 84. and Theophilact repeting the very wordes of Chrysostom in his commentaries vpon S. Iohn do note this maner of Christes Church mingling water with wine in these holy Mysteries Theophilact a greke writer about 800. yeares past in the same place toucheth the Armenians for mingling water with wine in these wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let the ArmeniaÌ„s be here coÌ„founded whiche mingle not water with wine in the Mysteries These ArmeniaÌ„s for this matter also were pronounced heretikes in the sixt generall Councell holden in Trullo By this it appeareth I trust M. Iewell that the mingling of water and wine is allowed for Catholike and therfore necessary If at the lest the diffinitioÌ„ of a generall Councell and the consent of so many fathers from so many places of Christendom may proue any thing to be Catholike To you M. Iewel especially which offer to yelde to the Sentence of any One olde Father or generall Councell in a number of matters of as litle importance as this is By this also it appeareth that you M. Iewell and all the newe clergy of of England by not Mingling water with wine do against the clere and vniuersall Practise of the primitiue Church do holde the heresye of the Armenians and of the late grekes also if you will do also breake a part of Christes Institution as you haue heard Finally by this it appeareth the saying of D. Harding not only to be no Vntruthe but also your opinion to the contrary to be a Clere Heresy Harding And therfore that one may Communicat with an other thoughe they be not together in one place and that it was thought lawfulll and good by the Fathers of the auncient Church neare to the Apostles time it may be well proued by diuerse good Authorities Iewell The .24 Vntruthe There appeareth no such thinge in any auncient Father StapletoÌ„ Howe true this Vntruthe is we shall see by the wordes off the Fathers immediatly folowing alleaged by D. Harding Harding Irenaeus his wordes be these The Priestes by whiche name in this place bishops are vnderstanded that vvere afore thy time though they kept not Easter as they of Asia did yet vvhen the Bishops of the Churche there came to Rome did sende them the Sacrament 25. Thus those Bishops did communicat togeather before their meting in one place Iewel The .25 Vntruthe Ireneus sayeth not they did Communicat togeather StapletoÌ„ No Sir He saieth not so in these wordes alleaged But he meaned euen so and brought it to proue a Communion as by the whole processe it shall nowe appeare Thus was the case The bishoppes of Asia dissented from Victor pope of Rome in obseruing the feast of Easter The pope sayeth Eusebius who writeth this historye and out of whom the wordes off Ireneus are taken totius Asiae ac vicinarum prouinciarum Ecclesias à Communionis societate abscindere nititur Goeth aboute to excommunicat the Churches of all Asia and the prouinces adioyning This seuerite of the Pope liked not other bishops saieth Eusebius and amonge the rest Irenaeus a vertuous bishop then of Lyons in Fraunce writeth to Victor the Pope thereof and complaineth of his seuerite Amonge other reasons whereby he persuadeth the Pope not to excommunicat those bishops of Asia but to admitt them to his Communion he bringeth in the Examples of his Predecessours the Popes before him who all notwithstanding that diuersite did yet Communicat with them For proufe whereof he saieth when such came â—o Rome the Pope sent vnto them the blessed Sacrament whereby he declared to all the worlde that he communicated with theÌ„ This was the Reason of Irenaeus to Victor the Pope persuading him to communicat with the bishoppes of Asia as his predecessours had done before him For thus he reasoned Your predecessours Anicetus Pius Hyginus Telesphorus and Xystus did communicat with forrain bishops notwithstanding this diuersite of opinion in obseruing the feast of Easter Therefore you ought not now so sharpely to excommunicat them They dissented from your predecessours in this opinion Nunquam tamen ob hoc repulsi-sunt ab-ecclesiae societate Yet they were neuer for that matter remoued from the felowship of the Church How shew you that Ireneus How proue you they were neuer remoued or repelled from the felowship of the Church It foloweth immediatly Eucharistiam illis mittebant They sent vnto them the Sacrament What Was this sending of the Sacrament any Token or ArgumeÌ„t of
by the greate whore of Babylon Rome shoulde be meaned Yea yea proue this Master Iewell by the Fathers of the firste 600. yeares by the Scriptures or any generall Councell of that tyme and then we will beleue yelde and Subscribe to yow in that pointe Harding And from whence he meaneth Rome all the Churches of the VVest haue taken their light As the Bishoppes off Gallia that nowe is called Fraunce doo acknowleadge in an Epistle sent to Leo the Pope in these wordes Vnde Religionis nostrae propitio Christo Fons Origo manauit From the Apostolike See by the Mercye off Christe the Fountaine and Spring of oure Religion hathe come Iewell The 32. Vntruthe The Faithe of the West Church came not first from Rome D. Harding saieth not so muche But that the West Churche toke their Light from Rome Whereby he meaned that all the West Churches haue had from Rome thoughe not their verye Apostles and first Preachers yet whiche you your selfe Confesse in the Texte M. Iewel the Cōfirmation of Doctrine and also other great conference and comfort For all this M. Iewell is it not a light and helpe to Religion This D. Harding saiyeth the West Churches had from Rome This you confesse they had and that you saye at the beginning Why then note you D. Harding for Vntruthe in the Margin which youre selfe saieth and confesseth for Truthe in the Text But the Faithe off the VVest Church saye you adding it in the margin for a reason of the Vntruthe came not first from Rome First they toke their light though not their first faith And therfore youre Vntruthe is no Vntruthe on D. Hardinges parte But on your part how Vntrue it is you shall see First for Fraunce one of the greatest pillers of the West Churche you haue in D. Harding his wordes a Confession of the Frenche bishoppes them selues aboue xj C. yeares past that the Fountaine and Springe of their Religion came from the See Apostolike recorded in the vndoubted and Authentike workes of Leo. Therefore that you bringe to the contrarye in the text off Nathanael off Lazarus whom Christe raised and of Saturninus that they should first preache the faith in Fraunce and yet as you saye no Commission from Rome appearing whereby they shoulde be sent thither it is a Vaine Gheasse against the expresse Testimonye and Confession of the Frenche bishoppes them selues aboue vnleuen hundred yeares paste that whether by Commission from Rome by the Mouthe of those that yow name or whether by Romanes them selues or other sent from Rome and not these whiche withoute any Author or Writer M. Iewel bringeth in here vpō his Owne Credit whiche waie so euer it came I saye that from Rome it came Nowe not only Fraunce receiued their very first faithe from Rome as by the testimonye of the Frenche bishoppes them selues appeareth but many other principall countres of the Weste Churche also Our owne countre being first called Britanny and possessed of the Britons whose posterite now only remaineth in Wales receiued the faith from Eleutherius Pope of Rome about the yeare of our Lorde 156. as Venerable Bede in the history of our Church of Englande recordeth In the yeare of our Lorde 411. The Scottishmen receiued their first bishop Palladius from Celestinus then Pope of Rome as witnesseth Bede also Shortly after this time the Britains being forsaken of the Romains oppressed with the Peightes and Scottes their euill neighbours and last of all so ouerronne with the Saxons and English people sent for in to ayde them that with in lesse then ij hundred yeares all that is now called England was brought vnder the dominion of the Saxons and English people the olde Brittons beinge driuē to the straightes which they yet kepe being all heathen and infidels then to our countre of England and to vs Englishmen liuing in paganisme and idolatry that holy and blessed bishop of Rome S. Gregory directed the holy and vertuous Monke S. Augustin our Apostle who in his time conuerted Kent and Essex to the faith whose felowes and Scholers conuerted in short space all the realme of England that is all the English people to the faith of Christ. So that as the olde Brittons from Eleutherius the Schottishmen from Celestinus bothe holy Popes of Rome so we Englishmen from S. Gregory a blessed and lerned Pope also receiued not only the Light of our religion but also our very first Faith and belefe in Christ Iesus All which may furder appeare to him that will peruse the History of Venerable Bede lately sett forthe in English Not only England Fraunce and Scotland but the most part of Germany receiued euen from Rome their very first faith and knowleadg off Christ. For as Saxony had their first faith of Sergius the Pope about the yeare of our Lorde 690. so shortly after an 716. all the inwarde partes of Germany receiued the faith from Gregory the second a vertuous Pope also by the preaching of Bonifacius a Schottishman borne directed thither frō Rome Friselande in like maner conuerted to the faith by Willebrorde an English monke had him their first byshop confirmed from Rome So Norwaie by the preaching of Adrian the fourth Pope of Rome Bulgaria by Nicolaus the first Dalmatia and Sclauony all much about a time from the Church of Rome also receiued the faith Socrates writeth that the Burgunyons came to the faith of Christ perceauing by them selues 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the God of the Romains did mightely helpe such as feared him How thinke you now M. Iewell Had not D. Harding good cause to saie and truly to saye that the west Church toke their light from the Church of Rome yea and to saye that the faith of it came first from Rome which is more then D. Harding saied and yet no Vntruthe neither as the lerned do knowe Harding As touching that the Oblation of the Body and bloud of Christ done in the Masse is the Sacrifice of the Church and proper to the newe Testament 33 Commaunded by Christ to be frequented according to his Institution c. Iewell The .33 Vntruthe Christ neuer commaunded or named any such sacrifice Stapleton This Vntruthe doth but serue to make vp a number It is the same in effect with the fifte Vntruthe There it is answered There it is proued that Christ Commaunded a Sacrifice though he named none And D. Harding saieth it was Commaūded by Christ not named I referre the Reader to the next Vntruthe folowing Though M. Iewell may repete Vntruthes to make vp a number yet it is not our ease nor the profit of the Reader to repete idely one thinge being ones thouroughly proued Harding The opinion of the Fathers is that the daily and continuall Sacrifice ought 34 Daily to be Sacrificed that the death of our Lorde and the worke of our redemption might alwaies be celebrated and had in memory Iewell The .34 Vntruthe
The Fathers say not so but plainely the contrary This Vntruthe emplieth two Notorious and manifest Vntruthes on M. Iewelles part First by denying the saying of D. Harding Secondarely by auouching the contrary to be plaine in the Fathers This second point M. Iewell should not only haue auoutched but haue proued it also in his text by the testimony at the lest of some one Father Now as it is a manifest lie and can neuer be proued so no maruail if he brought nothinge for proufe thereof As touching the first point because he saieth The Fathers say not so I will now bringe him the Fathers which say so M. Iewell in denying the Fathers to saye that the Daily Sacrifice ought to be celebrated denyeth it in the externall Sacrifice done on our part For saieth he Iewell the strength and vertu of Christes Sacrifice resteth in it self and not in any diligēce or doing of oures And for proufe hereof he allegeth S. Paul to the Hebrewes That Christ Iewell hath offred vpō the crosse one sacrifice for al. Ful and perfit Therfor we nede none other One and euerlasting Therefore it nedeth no renewing By priuilege geuen to him selfe only Therefore it can not be wrought by any other These are M. Iewelles gloses vpon S. Paule These are his reasons that the Sacrifice of Christes Crosse is called the daily Sacrifice Not for that it must be renewed euery daie but for that being once done it standeth good for all daies and for euer For these are his owne very wordes It shall be now proued against him out of the fathers that not withstāding the wordes of S. Paul the Church yet offreth a Daily Sacrifice not as vpō the Crosse but the selfe same thing which was offred on the crosse nor to the derogatiō of that but for the remēbraunce of that which is the thing that D. Harding saied that the Church teacheth that Christ him self in his last Supper commaunded The Doctours expounding these wordes of S. Paule to the Hebrewes of one euerlasting Sacrifice ones done for all full and perfyt c. do make thereupon them selues a doubte of the daily Sacrifice of Christes Church How that may stande with the one Sacrifice of Christ vpon the Crosse ones offred for all This doubt if no such Sacrifice had ben they woulde neuer haue moued If there had ben only a remembraunce of that Sacrifice by the holy Ministration as M. Iewell saieth there had ben no cause of doubte how that remembrance might stande with the one Oblatiō of Christ. For one thinge may be a thousand times remembred and yet the thinge remaine One still If none other had Offred as M. Iewell saieth but Christ Ones for all then had not the doctours neded to moue this question how Christ alone Offred Once for all and yet how the Priestes in the Church do offer daily Now the doctours do moue all these doubtes and questions which M. Iewell bringeth as a plaine and clere doctrine and do also resolue the same writing their lerned commentaries vpon S. Paule to the Hebrewes I will now bringe their owne wordes truly translated in to English First Chrysostom after he had declared according to the minde of S. Paule that the Sacrifices of the olde lawe were ofte repeted as being weake and vnsufficient to purge sinne but the Sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse was a Full and Perfitte oblation for all Mankinde and therefore but Ones offred for all mouing this doubt of the Daily Sacrifice of the Church which M. Iewel denieth he sayth Quid ergo nos Nōne per singulos dies offerimus What thē do we Do we not Offer euery daie Lo M. Iewell Notwithstanding the One oblation of Christ yet we we bishops and Priestes as Chrisostom was do offer daily For it foloweth Offerimus quidē sed ad recordationem facientes mortis eius We offer in dede But making that oblation for the remembraunce of his Death Lo againe M. Iewell not only a remembrāce but an oblation is made for that remembraūce But how then is it One oblation How One Sacrifice Chrisostom goeth forthe and telleth you Et vna est haec hostia non multae And this is One Hoste One Sacrifice not many Yea One Sacrifice done by vs Daily and yet One vpon the Crosse done Ones for all How can that be Chrisostom will teache vs this also For he saieth yet farder Quomodo vna est non multae Quia semel oblata est insancta sanctorum Hoc autem sacrificium exemplar est illius Id ipsum semper offerimus Nec nunc quidem alium agnum crastina alium sed semper eundem ipsum Proinde vnum est hoc Sacrificium haec ratione How is it One Hoste One Sacrifice and not many Bicause it was ones offered in to the holy of holyes But this Sacrifice which we daily offer is a paterne of that And why or how we Offer allwaies the selfe same thinge Not now One Lambe to morowe an other but euery daie the selfe same Therefore it is One Sacrifice by this reason Vnderstande you this reason M. Iewell how and why it is One Sacrifice Chrisostom saieth it is one Sacrifice bicause the Hoste that is the thinge Sacrificed the thinge Offred now is but One with that which was Offred on the crosse It is one and the self Lābe which was thē offred and which is euery daie offred What is the lābe M. Iewell that Chrisostom speaketh of but the Body and bloud of Christ This sayeth Chrisostom is One and the selfe same eundem ipsum But how doth Chrisostom proue it is One Lambe which we do offer now to morowe and euery daye He saieth in the wordes immediatly folowing Alioquin quoniam in multis locis offertur multi Christi sunt Nequaquam Sed vnus vbique est Christus hic plenus existens illic plenus Vnum corpus Sicut enim qui vbique offertur vnum Corpus est non multa Corpora ita etiam vnū sacrificium Or els bicause it is offred in many places are there many Christes Not so But there is one Christ euery where being Full and perfitt here and full and perfitt there One Body For as he which is Offred euery where is One Body and not Many Bodies so also this is One Sacrifice Lo vpon the reall presence of Christes body which is but One Chrisostom defendeth the daily Sacrifice of Christes Church to be but One and the One Sacrifice vppon the Crosse not to exclude the Daily Sacrifice of the Church which in the Hoste that is in the thing offred is One Selfe Same Sacrifice With the other but in the maner of doing bicause it is Vnbloudy it is in recordationem eius in the remēbrance of that But you M. Iewel do denie the real presence bicause you can abide no externall Sacrifice offred by vs. And you denie the externall Sacrifice bicause you will haue no reall presence Here
then is one Father whiche sayeth Wee doo offer euery daie and that Christe him selfe in the remembraunce off his Passion And how many Fathers do saye the like Theodoret a Greke Writer also in his Commentaries vpon this place of Saint Paule hath these wordes If bothe the Priesthood that is of the Law be ended and the Priest according to the Order of Melchisedech hath offred a Sacrifice and hath made that other Sacrifices be not necessary whye do the Priestes off the newe Testament celebrate the Mysticall Sacrifice or Liturgie It is manifeste to those whiche are instructed in the matters of God that we Offer not an other Sacrifice but do celebrate the memoriall of that One and holsome Sacrifice For this our Lorde hath commaunded vs saying Doo this in Remembraunce of me Hetherto Theodorett Where you see he teacheth vs that we do celebrat in dede a Sacrifice and that as Christe commaunded vs in his Last Supper and yet no other Sacrifice as touching the thinge Sacrificed then that one Sacrifice on the Crosse. Primasius a lerned scholer of S. Augustine writing vppon this place of Saint Paule is for the daily Sacrifice moste euident I will alleage his wordes in English truly and sincerely VVhy did God commaunde saieth Primasius the olde Sacrifices to be daily offred For the weakenesse of it Bicause it coulde not perfectly cleanse To the entent by that meanes their sinnes might be remembred and rebuked VVhat shall we saye then Do not oure Priestes doo the very same daily Do they not offer a Sacrifice daily They do offer truly but for the Remembraunce of that deathe And bicause we sinne daily and haue nede daily to be clensed bicause Christe can no more dye he hathe geuen vs the Sacrament of his Body and Bloude that â—uen as his Passion was the Redemption and Cleansing of the worlde so this Oblation also might be a Redemption and cleansing for all such as Offer it in the true Faith and haue a good Intention For herein doth our Sacrifice whiche is also repeted differ from that olde Sacrifice oftentimes repeted bicause this is the Truthe that a Figure This maketh a man perfit that not so And this is repeted not bicause of any weakenes in it as not being able to geue perfit saluation but for the Remembraunce of Christes Passion euen as he him selfe saied Do this in my Remembraunce Here M. Iewell we haue an other Father which affirmeth that the daily Sacrifice ought to be celebrated nothwithstanding the One Sacrifice on the Crosse and that for two causes First bicause we sinne daily and haue daily nede thereof SecoÌ„darely bicause Christ commaunded it so to be done for his Remembraunce The like cause geueth Eusebius Emissenus in these wordes Colitur iugiter per Mysterium ce It is daily celebrated in a Mystery which was ones offred for oure Redemption To the entent that bicause the Redemption for Mankinde was Daily and neuer Ceasing the Oblation also of thâ—t Redemption might be Continuall An Oblation rightly One and perfit to be estemed by Faith not by outwarde shape and not to be iudged by externall Appearance but by inwarde Affection Thus we haue three Fathers affirming not only a daily Oblation but also that there ought so to be partly for oure comfort and reliefe partly for the Remembraunce of Christes death and Passion the only comforte of al our faith in Christ Iesus Againe this Sacrifice is a daily Sacrifice and neuer ceaseth bicause the Priesthood of Melchisedech of whiche Priesthood this is the Sacrifice is euerlasting and neuer ceaseh This the Holy Fathers do teache vs. Oecumenius expounding how Christe is a Priest according to the Order of Melchisedech for euer saieth Allthough Christ offred not an vnbloudy Hoste for he Offred his owne bodye yet those whiche by him are made Priestes whose high bishop being God him selfe he hath vouchesâ—fed to be shal offer an vnbloudy Sacrifice For this the worde In aeternum For euer doth signifie For the Sripture would neuer haue saied he is a Priest For euer hauing respect to that Oblation and Sacrifice Ones made off God vpon the Crosse but hauing respect to the Priestes that now are by whom as meanes Christ dothe Sacrifice and is Sacrificed VVho also in that Mysticall Supper deliuered vnto them the maner of this Sacrifice Hetherto Oecumenius Lo M. Iewell yet an other Father of the greke Churche which confesseth an Euerlasting and Neuer Ceasing Sacrifice not that only which Christe made Ones for all in the Crosse as you saie but that also whiche the Priestes of Christes Church do nowe Offer That I saie which in the last Supper was taught vs and deliuered vs by Christ him selfe for a liuely remembraunce of his death and Passion In this sence as doth Oecumenius speaketh also S. Augustine when he saieth that Christ semel immolatus in seipso Ones being Offred in him selfe whiche was vppon the Crosse tamen in sacramento non solum per omnes Paschae solemnitates sed omni die populis immolatur Yet in a Sacrament not onely in euery solemnite of Easter but euery daye he is offred for the people This Sacrament he callethe in an other place Sacrificij in Cruce pâ—racti Sacramentum id est sacrum signum The Sacrament or holy signe of the Sacrifice done in the Crosse But what No Sacrifice therfore it selfe Yes he câ—lleth it euen there Quotidianum Ecclesiae Sacrificium The daily Sacrifice of the Churche This daily Sacrifice of the Church is a SacrameÌ„t or holy Signe of that excelling Sacrifice on the Crosse. In this Sacrament Christ him selfe is offred not only in principal feastes but Omni die euery day and that not to the people as you turne populis immolari M. Iewell but for the people For immolari doth not signifie to be offred as offring or profering a thinge in to a maÌ„s hande but immolari signifieth to be offred vp to be Sacrificed to haue that seruice which appertaineth neither to man nor to Angels nor to diuels but to God only as S. Austen at large disputeth in his bookes de Ciuitate dei But you M. Iewell making the people your God and drawing the blessed Sacrifice of Christ him selfe to the offring of your pece of bread in to the peoples handes you turne Immolari populis to be offred vnto the people which by the rules of all grammer not of diuinitie only doth signifie to immolat or Sacrifice for the people For euen as S. Austen saied before semelimmolatus est He was ones offred vp meaning in the Crosse so now he saieth omni die immolatur populis in Sacramento He is offred vp for the people euery day in a Sacrament Immolari in bothe places must haue one sence and meaning Els the CoÌ„parison and reason of S. AusteÌ„ had beÌ„ fonde and foolish O M. Iewell leaue ones for gods loue and your owne
wordes and to the whole doctrine of the Schoolemen Alexander de Hales and Durandus whom he alleageth very sadly in this place But to be shorte I proue Transubstantiation by Scripture and by authorite of the Fathers If they teache vs grosse errours for such let it be taken The Scripture saieth Hoc est Corpus meum This is my Body Which this M. Iewell Can you saie This bread is my Body You knowe Hoc this is the neuter gendre Panis Bread is the masculin Then what this This forsothe which Christ had blessed and made saying This is my Body For the saying of God is making God maketh with his worde The worde saied Let light be made and light was made The word saied This is my Body And we beleue in so saying bicause it was not so before he made it so euen then For Sine paenitentia sunt donae Dei vocatio God repeÌ„teth him not of his giftes and calling If then that which God hath saied can not be reuoked and Christ true God saied holding in his hand which before he spake was but bread that it was his Body vndoubtedly as he was true God so by saying he made it his Body Now bicause if Christes true Body were ioyned with the nature of Bread as his true Godhead was with the Nature of Fleshe then the nature of Bread should be assumpted and ioyned in one person with the body of Christ as his flesh and Humanite was ioyned in one person with his Godhead which to saie is a most wicked and blasphemous heresy therefore it must of necessite folow that the nature of Bread be vtterly changed in to the Body of Christ and not to remaine with it This if it be so then is it a clere and vndoubted TraÌ„substantiation of the whole nature of Bread in to the whole and perfit Body of Christ. Neither is it any grosse errour but a clere doctrine euidently gathered out of holy Scripture By authorite of the Fathers thus I proue Transubstantiation S. Ambrose saieth speaking of the Sacrament Forte dices Aliud video Quomodo tu mihi asseris quod Christi corpus accipiam Et hoc nobis adhuc superest vt probemus Quantis igitur vtimur exemplis vt probemus non hoc esse quod natura formauit sed quod benedictio consecrauit maioremque vim esse benedictionis quà m naturae quia benedictione etiam ipsa natura mutatur Thou saiest perhaps vnto me I see an other maner of thinge How then do you tell me that I receiue Christes body Then this yet remaineth for vs to proue And how many examples may we vse to proue that it is not that which Nature fashioned but that which the Blessing CoÌ„secrated and that the Power of Blessing ouercometh Nature bicause by Blessing euen very Nature is chaunged Thus farre S Ambrose In the Sacrament that which Nature made is bread This Nature saieth S. Ambrose is chaunged And how By Blessing Into what is it chauÌ„ged In to that which Blessing Consecrated Nowe what dothe Blessing Consecrate what is the ende of the Consecration made by Blessing What els but the Body of Christ Therefore by S. Ambrose his iudgement the nature of bread is chaunged in to the body of Christ. This is a Clere Transubstantiation by the verdit of S. Ambrose Eusebius Emissenus an other auncient and lerned Father speaketh of this chaunging of Breade in to Christes body more euidently His wordes are Inuisibilis Sacerdos visibiles creaturas in substantiam corporis sanguinis sui verbo suo secreta potestate conuertit ita dicens Accipite edite hoc est enim Corpus meum The inuisible Prieste Christe turneth by his worde with a secrete power the visible creatures in to the substance of his Body and Bloude saying Take and eate For this is my bodye What are here the visible Creatures turned into the Body and Bloude of Christ but the Breade and Wine whiche he toke in his handes at the last Supper What is Transubstantiation iff this be not Go nowe M. Iewell and against the holy Scripture and such lerned Fathers call it a grosse errour if ye list Truly none but grosse Capharnaites can call this Doctrine grosse which in dede is the kaye of all our Coniunction with Christ the assured warrant of oure Resurrection the continuall Miracle of the Sonne of God the most heauenly and dreadfull Mystery that Christ left to his Churche Of this moste assured Doctrine bicause Christe is no more any deade body for death shall no more preuaile ouer him it foloweth euidently that his body is not withoute Bloude M. Iewell requireth some auncient Doctour to saye so Yea truly he is full of his demaundes But when all is saied and a number of Doctours brought it nothing moueth him Touching this pointe iff either Doctours or Scripture can persuade him that Christes whole Humanite is really in the SacrameÌ„t whereof he saieth Iewell Bolde Vauntes haue ben made but was neuer yet proued Let him reade the booke lately sett foorth of our Lordes Supper and the CoÌ„futation of the Fifte Article of his Replie therein he shal finde Doctours and Scriptures abundaÌ„tly to auouche the same Wherein being ones persuaded he wil neuer aske what Doctour in expresse wordes saied that whole Christ is vnder one kinde Or iff he be so Franticke and wilful as alwayes to striue vpon Termes when the Thinge is euident yet all wel meaning folcke wil soone be persuaded that receiuing Christ really present vnder the forme of Breade they receiue not onely his blessed Flesh but Bloude also without the which the Flesh of Christ is not Wherein they shall see there is no iniury done vnto them as M. Iewel declaimeth hauing it vnder one kynde Nay rather which I beseche al good Readers to Marke M. Iewell and his felowes doth most open and cruell iniurye to al good Christen people of Englande geuing them but Bread and Wine in the Remembraunce of Christes deathe whereas the Catholike Churche beside the true Body of Christe really present vnder fourme of Breade geueth also to the people a cuppe of Wine and so geuâ—th the other kinde as muche as they do geuing no more but mere wine at their Communion table Thus if we esteme the outward formes Catholikes geue as muche If we esteme the thinge it selfe Catholikes geue the very true Body of Christ really present which Protestants geue not and Wine also no lesse then the protestants Harding Nowe concerning the outewarde formes of Breade and VVine 47 their vse is imployed in signification onely And be not off Necessite so as Grace may not be obtayned by worthy receiuing of the Sacrament vnlesse bothe kindes be Ministred Iewell The .47 Vntruthe For the Breade and Wine signifie the Body and Bloud of Christ. The whitenes the roundnesse and other outward formes signifie nothing Stapleton D. Harding saieth the outwarde formes of bread and wine
hereof confessed by your selfe In the primitiue Churche certain hundred yeares the Sacrament was ministred to infants and sucking Children being Christened yea euen ioyntly with their baptim The Church of many hundred yeares folowing altered this custome and admitted only Christen folcke of ripe yeares and discretion vnto this holy Sacrament as we see it in our daies practised This custome you haue not altered but kepe it still and thinke it no offence either against Christes literall wordes Drinke ye all of this either against the meaning of the wordes interpreted by the custome of the primitiue Church Now as you would thinke him vnreasonable M. Iewell which would say to you Sir Christ saied drinke ye all of this The wordes be plaine and excludeth none VVerefore then do ye not admitt babes and infants to drinke thereof If ye will not folowe the letter yet the very practise and continuall order of the primitiue Church at what time Babes did Communicat fully declareth what Christ meante· Therefore if you will take neither the wordes of Christ nor Christes meaning then I knowe to not how deale with you As I saie you would and might well thinke him very vnreasonable specially if he were instructed by you that the vniuersall Churche of Christ vsed the contrary order many hundred yeares after whereby he might lerne neither the wordes nor the meaning of Christ to touche precisely infants or Babes so truly are you M. Iewel very vnreasonable and a trifling wrangler to presse the literall wordes of Christ which your selfe must nedes limit and so to vrge the meaning of Christ vpon the practise of S. Paule and the primitiue Church dissembling the contrary practise of the Church these many hundred yeres whereby you knowe your selfe that neither the letter nor the meaning of Christes wordes do of necessite touche the laye people to do I saie all this and then to conclude If he will take neither the wordes of Christ nor the meaning I knowe not how to deale with him Truly with such a wrangler and Childish quareller as you be with such a dissembler and deceiuer of Gods people I knowe not in the worlde how to deale Harding Aboue one hundred yeres past 50 chaunging the olde custome of the Church of receiuing the Communion vnder one kinde by their priuat authorite Iewell The .50 Vntruthe They chaunged not but restored the olde custome Stapleton The schismatikes of Bohem of whom D. Harding speaketh chaunged that olde custome which the Church then vsed and had before many hundred yeres vsed This was true And therefore no vntruthe of D. Harding to saie it But they restored the olde saieth M. Iewel What then Ergo they chaūged not This fonde peuish argument will the better appeare by the like The Apostatas and rēnagat Sacramentaries of Lithuania playing now the Iewes and vsing Circūcision are charged of the Catholikes to breake the accustomed lawe of the Church of God They answer and reason thus We restore the olde lawe of God testified in holy Scripture Ergo we chaunge not the lawe of God Who seeth not the Fallacy of this lewde Argument by the aequiuocation or similitude in termes of the two olde and accustomed lawes of God Howbeit those schismatikes of Bohem are not so much charged by D. Harding for chaunging the olde custome as for doing it by their priuat authorite This was the cause of their schisme Not the change it selfe Harding Luther instructed of the Diuell with arguments against the Sacrifice of the Masse 51 that the memorie of our redemption by Christ wrought on the Crosse might vtterly be abolished Iewell The .51 Vntruthe ioyned with a slaunder Neuer man spake more reuerently of the oblation of Christ vpon the Crosse. Stapleton What is the Vntruthe M. Iewell Is it not true that Luther had argumentes geuen him of the Diuell against the Sacrifice of the Masse Then let the shame be Luthers who made such a lye of him selfe For he writeth so him selfe in his booke De Missa angulari Which booke also D. Harding alleaged in the margent of this place in his owne booke though it be here by you or your printer omitted You put to the Vntruthe a slaunder And why Forsothe bicause Luther spake reuerently of the oblation of Christ vpon the Crosse. So the Arrians spake reuerently of Christes Humanite but yet denied his Diuinite And the Manichees spake reuerenly of Christes Diuinite But yet denied his true flesh and humanite Heretikes speake allwaies some thinges well and truly Els they should be infidels not heretikes That the Masse and daily Sacrifice of Christes Churche is a clere memory of our redemption wrought vpon the Crosse it may appeare by the testimonies of the Fathers brought in the former Article to proue a Daily Sacrifice Therefore to abolish the Masse and the Daily Sacrifice of Christes Church whether it were Luthers intent or the Diuells that instructed him certaine it is the ende thereof was to abolish the memory of our redemption And how well you kepe that memory in your bread and wine it shall appeare by the Confutation of M. Iewelles xvij Article Harding A canon alleaged for receiuing vnder one kinde out of the first Councell of Ephesus Taken out of Vrbanus Regius a Doctour of Luthers schoole in his booke De locis communibus Iewell The .52 Vntruthe There was no such Canon touched or once moued in that Councell Stapleton Then it is an Vntruthe of Vrbanus Regius youre owne pewfelowe not off D. Harding Let the shame be his if it were not true And yet it is not proued false but only bicause M. Iewel neuer sawe it Harding Nestorius amongest other Errours helde opinion 53. that vnder the Forme off Breade in the Sacrament is contayned the Bodye off Christe withoute hys Bloude Iewell The .53 Vntruthe Nestorius neuer dreamed of anye suche folye Stapleton If Nestorius neuer dreamed any such thinge as M. Iewell maketh him selfe sure then Vrbanus Regius Alardus Michael Veh Hosius and other Writers oute of whom D. Harding toke this saying as also the Canon that shoulde be made in the Ephesine Councell were deceiued It is no Vntruthe of D. Hardinge to Reporte that he findeth writen in good Authors Vnlesse also by M. Iewelles diuinite we maye saye Saint Ambrose and S. Augustine wrote Vntruly alleaging certain Canons of the Nicene Councell which yet nowe in that Councel are not to be founde M. Iewell is so at square with all Writers and lerned men that haue ben these ix hundred yeares excepte a fewe sence Luthers tyme whiche wil saye as he sayeth that he will beleue nothinge at their Reporte vnlesse he finde it recorded in the first 600. yeares also And then I maruail why he beleueth the very Writers of the firste 600. yeares seing he can not knowe that those Writers wrote in that age but by the Historyes Chronicles and Testimonies of these later writers as by Thrithemius Gennadius
had ben a sobre writer and not a quarelling wrangler you might iustly haue saied Sir I finde no such thinge in Chrysostom vpon that place and therefore vnlesse you name vs where Chrysostom so saied it may be thought you haue missereported him Thus or in some like maner as you knowe best your selfe M. Iewell had not this willfull heresy taken awaye all modesty you might haue laied to D. Hardinges charge Now you first put it for an Vntruthe in the margin yea and repete it againe in the next Vntruthe folowing then you charge him in your text for an Vntrue Reporter of his doctour and al most Vntruly and SlauÌ„derously on your parte For these are the wordes of Chrysostom or as M. Nowell speaketh of an auncient writer printed with Chrysostom and longe taken for him Sed quia de sanctis caepimus dicere c. Bicause we haue begonne to speake of holy thinges it is not to be left vnspoken that sanctification is one thinge and that which is sanctified an other For Sanctification is that which sanctifieth an other But that which is sanctified can not sanctifie an other though it selfe be holy As for example Thou makest the signe of the Crosse ouer thy bread right so as S. Paule saieth For it is made holy by the worde of God and praier Thou hast sanctified it thou hast not made it Sanctification But that which the priest geueth with his hand is not only a thinge sanctified but also Sanctification For as much as not only that is geuen which is sene but also which is vnderstanded And so it is laufull to cast of the sanctified bread to beastes and to infidels bicause it doth not sanctifie the receiuer But if that which is takâ—n of the hande of the priest were such a thinge as that which is eaten from of the borde all would eate from of the borde and no man would eate of the priestes hande VVherefore our Lorde also did not only blesse the bread in the waye he meaneth at Emaus but gaue it also with his hande vnto Cleophas and his fellowe And Paule as he was vnder saile did not only blesse the bread but also gaue it to Luke and to his other disciples Now that which is geuen with the hande is not to be geuen to beastes nor to infidels for that is not only Sanctified but also Sanctification and sanctifieth the receiuer Thus farre Chrysostom In which wordes he doth bothe expounde the place of the 24. of S. Luke whereof I spake a litle before for the Sacrament and also saieth expressely touching this place which we now talke of the 27. of the Actes that S. Paule in the ship gaue the bread with his hande to Luke and to the rest of his disciples not to infidels M. Iewel and that the same was not only a holy Thinge more then Common Meate sanctified by praier and the worde of God but also Sanctification which Sanctifieth and maketh Holy the Receiuer which is the Blessed Sacrament M. Iewell not Common Meate And thus M. Iewell Chrysostom is not missereported of D. Harding but D. Harding is Slaundered by M. Iewell Harding It is not to be maruailed at albeit S. Paule deliuered to the Corinthians thinstitution of our Lordes Supper vnder bothe kindes that yet vpon occasion geuen and when condition of time so required 58 he ministred the Communion vnder one kinde c. Iewell The 58. Vntruthe S. Paule neuer ministred the Communion so This dependeth vpon the other Vntruthe that went before which being by Chrysostom iustified appeareth now no Vntruth on D. Hardinges part but on Chrysostoms part who reporteth that S. Paule in the shipp gaue to Luke and his other disciples that Sanctification which sanctifieth the receiuer which is the blissed Sacrement And in that place no mention is made of the Cuppe and therefore by M. Iewelles owne rule whereof I tolde you before it may be well gathered that he ministred vnder one Kinde Harding S. Paule toke that holy mystery vnder one kinde for the whole Sacrament as we perceiue by his wordes where he saieth One Bread and one Body vve being many are all that doo participat of one Bread 59 where he speaketh nothing of the Cuppe Iewell The .59 Vntruthe For immediatly before he saieth The Cuppe of blâ—ssing which we blesse is it not the Communion of Christes bloud To this M. Iewell you haue the answer of D. Harding already in his Briefe answer touching certain Vntruthes with which you charged him at Paules Crosse the viij Day of Iuly last Yet bicause you vaunte here as though you had neuer heard of it and prouoke your Reader by your wonte repetitions and hypocriticall exclamations which it nedeth not here to insert to take him for a Deceiuer c. I will repete the very wordes of D. Harding as they lie in his Answer These are his wordes after his other wordes aboue alleaged Harding Nowe iudge who list whether in respect of those wordes of S. Paule One Bread and one Body c. I might not saie as I did VVhere he speaketh nothing of the Cuppe And that my worde vvhere hath relation to that sentence of S. Paule Only not to the whole Chapter For neither coulde I be so blinde as not to so see mention of the Cuppe made Next Sentence before and how absurde had it bene by denying so knowen a trouth to haue geuen such aduantage to the aduersarie Now that S. Paule in that sentence speaketh nothinge of the Cuppe I will be tried by the most auncient and truest copies bothe Greke and Latine and by iudgement of them of M. Iewelles own secte them selues yea by the English Bibles and newe Testaments of best authorite This was D. Hardinges Answer then and this it is nowe Harding VVill not thy husband knowe saieth Tertullian what thou eatest secretly before all other meate And in case he do knowe it he will beleue it to be Bread not him who it is called Iewell The .60 Vntruthe Standing in the false translating of Tertullian Stapleton This Vntruthe was noted before in the first Article and is in number the xxvij There it is answered Yet here it is repeted to make vp a number Harding It hath ben a 61 custome in the Latin Church from the Apostles time to our daies that on Good Friday as well Priestes as other Christen people receiue the Sacrament vnder the forme of bread Onely consecrated the day before not without signification of a singular mysterie Iewell The .61 Vntruthe VVithout any colour or shew of truthe Be bolde and blushe not M. Iewell It may well become a bishop of your religion to scoffe at the Mysteries of Christes Church and to saie they haue no Colour or shewe of Truthe in them Truly as you haue in the whole processe of this your Replie rather moued your reader to Laughter and Contempt of the Catholike faithe by making a sorte of
Lewde ArgumeÌ„tes such as you knowe D. Harding did neuer make then by reason persuaded him the Truthe of the Cause so haue you in this point plaied the right Hicke Scorner But please not your selfe herein to much M. Iewell Porphyrius Lucian Iulian the Apostata and Celsus haue farre passed you in this Arte though they were neuer takeÌ„ for bishops of Christes Church But to omitte all your scoffing toyes alleaged out of Innocentius Thomas Aquinas Gerson and other which they writing onely to the Lerned Deuoute Reader thought it no such childishnes as you make it to Deuise of a good and Godly vsage Causes not euill nor vngodly though not so proper and waighty to omitt those I say I wil rest vpon that Cause which Hugo Cardinalis by you alleaged reciteth Whiche is this that whereas the daily Sacrifice of Christes Churche is a Memoriall and Remembraunce of Christes death on the Crosse as it hath before out of no childishe fathers ben proued vppon good Fridaye being the daye it selfe in which our Sauiour suffred the Churche M. Iewel which you ought not to scoffe at were you a Childe of that Mother thought good that day for the better expressing of the thinge it selfe to omitt the Accustomed remembraunce thereof Whiche omitting being Rare and Singular did more liuely strike the Affection of Christen folcke then the Accustomed Solemnities woulde haue done For this cause also that daye we see the Churche withoute all pompe or Solemnitie as though it were in heauinesse and lamentation to expresse the greate sorowe and desolation off our Lady and the blessed Apostles which then at that time being the onely Churche of Christ suffred by the death of their dere Master whom they loued so tenderly and of whose Resurrection they were not then persuaded thouroughly This is M. Iewell in fewe wordes a parte of the singular mysterie whiche the Church of God vseth in omitting the daily Sacrifice on good Friday If this do not satisfie you I maruail not Animalis homo non percipit ea quae Dei sunt The Sensuall man perceiueth not those thinges which are of God Only this maye suffise to proue that this custome which D. Harding speaketh of is not as you Vntruly charge him voide off all Colour or Shewe of Truthe Harding Christ gaue no necessary Commaundement either for the one or for bothe kindes beside and without the Celebration of the Sacrifice but lefte that to the Determination of the Church Iewell The .62 Vntruthe Christes Institution perteineth as well to the people as to the priest This Vntruthe hath before at large ben answered in this very article being before noted by M. Iewell and now againe repeted to make vp a number It was before the 49. Vntruthe Harding VVe beleue stedfastly with harte and confesse openly with mouthe that vnder eache kinde the very flesh and Bloud off Christ and whole Christ him self is present in the Sacrament 63 euen as Gelasius beleued Iewell The .63 Vntruthe Gelasius neuer beleued so Stapleton How are you sure of that M. Iewell You are very bolde and peremptory in all your assertions But you proue as litle as he that saieth nothing For notwithstanding his wordes which here you alleage he beleued as al other bishoppes of Rome beleued he beleued the reall presence of Christe in the Sacrament as it is at large proued againste yow M. Iewell in the Confutation of your Apologye fol. 98. To that place I referre you for better vnderstandinge off Gelasius his belefe herein Harding VVhereas before 64. off some the Sacrament was receiued vnder one Kinde and off some vnder bothe Kindes Iewell The .64 Vntruthe No Catholike congregation euer receiued the Sacrament in one kinde D. Harding saieth not so much but that some haue so receiued it which he saied truly and proued it before in the Article abundantly Whereby your challenge is also in this pointe answered The tenour whereof was that within the compasse of .600 yeares the Communion was neuer Ministred to the people vnder One kinde Now that you adde before Openly in the Church and then againe The whole people and nowe a Catholike Congregation this ofte Altering of the Question M. Iewel is but a mere wrangling and a plaine proclaiming of your selfe Guilty For had you ben able to haue auouched your first assertion you would neuer haue added so many newe Conditions vnto it And had not D. Harding vtterly ouerthrowen the same you woulde not haue sought such shamelesse shiftes as to make a newe Question of the whole matter and to require a proofe of that which you had not yet denied and whiche D. Harding vnlesse he had had the Sprit of prophecye to foresee these your alterations and extensions of the question was in no wise bounde to proue But M. Iewell to knitt vp this mattter to let passe your slaunderous charging of D. Harding with so many Vntruthes and not one yet found to be such finally to speake one worde shortly of this whole matter thus you shall vnderstande It hath sufficieÌ„tly appeared both by the treatise of D. Hardinge and by the Iustifiyng of these Vntruthes that the InstitutioÌ„ of Christ in the last Supper bindeth not all laye personnes or other to communicat vnder both kindes Also that within the space of the first 600. yeares thâ— Church of God of that tyme ministred vnto diuerse of Gods people the blessed Sacrament vnder one kind This being so proued this de Iure and also De facto both by Right and by Practise appearing euidently now for you M. Iewel to quarel De facto alterius generis of a practise more general for you to require proofes in Churches in OpeÌ„ Assemblies in an Open Order and Vsage off the Church it is the part of a quareller and wraÌ„gler It is not the part of one that seketh vnite It is no Bishoplike demeanour no charitable dealing no ChristiaÌ„ or Catholiâ—e vsage This is a SacrameÌ„t of vnite The Church of God hath vsed it bothe waies and hath by that double vsage interpreted vs the meaning of Christes institutioÌ„ touching the people to be indiffereÌ„t For we beleue M. Iewell and let this be the ende of al that the knowen Church of Christ not only of the first 600. yeares but also of these later 900. yeares is and hath ben alwaies so guided and preserued of almighty God according to the Clere Promises of God in the psalmes the prophets and the ghospel that neither in Doctrine of faith neither in Practise of seruing him it caÌ„ or hath at any time swarued much lesse broken his owne InstitutioÌ„ and ordonaÌ„ce in so weighty and daily a matter as the Ministration of his holy SacrameÌ„tes is This is our faith grounded vpoÌ„ holy Scripture and the worde of God By thiâ— faith we beleue and doo as the church beleueth and doth though we had no one testimonie of the ancieÌ„t primitiue Church to coÌ„firme and witnesse the
against the Popes primacy and wondereth that D. Harding will maintayne the same by this holy fathers authorite vsed and practised him selfe it shall nowe in like maner as before by his owne epistles commonly extant in his workes appeare To all the Bishops of Dalmatia S. Gregory writeth concerning the disobedience of one Natalis a Bishop there in promoting one Honoratus an Archedeacon to the Order of priesthood contrary to his minde and pleasure For the which disobedience in his letters to the saied Bishops S. Gregory pronounceth this sentence against Natalis the disobedient bishopp in these wordes We therefore haue thought good by the bearer of these presents to warne ones againe the saide Natalis bishop being with so many letters warned allready and yet persisting obstinat that he restore againe Honoratus the Archedeacon to his former roome at the presence of the bringer hereof Whom if he restore not continuing in his contumacie first we depriue him of the vse of the Palle which by the graunte of this See he obtayned for his former contumacie paste But if after the losse of this dignite he continewe yet in the same coÌ„â—umacie we commaunde him to be remoued from the Communion of oure Lordâ—s Body and bloude The whiche his sentence in effecte he writeth to Natalis him selfe threatning him farder a depriuation from his Bishoprike if he obeyed not By this one example it maie appeare what authorite S. Gregory being pope of Rome had and vsed ouer the Bishops of Dalmatia To all the Bishops of the coaste of IllyricuÌ„ he writeth sondry letters in whiche his Authorite ouer them is most clere and euident Whereas aboute those partes certaine bishops by forrain inuasions of the Enemye had benespoyled of their Churches and all other liuelyhoods he writeth to the Bishops of Illyricum being commaunded by the Emperour to receiue and harbour those desolat bishops prouiding them victuals and all thinges necessarye that yet they shoulde haue no Authoryte in their dyoceses and saieth Nullam eis nos in vestris ecclesijs Authoritatem tribuimus sed tamen eos vestris solatijs coÌ„tineri summopere hortamur We geue them no Authorite in your Churches But yet we greatly exhorte you to relieue them This had bene a very fonde fauour of S. Gregory if he had had no power ouer them But what the Authorite of S. Gregory was ouer the bisshops of Illyricum it may wel appeare by the cause of Maximus bishop of Salona whom for his disobedieÌ„ce S. Gregory suspended and excommunicated Aboute whose excommunication when certaine of his Citye had communicated with him S. Gregory blaming them therefore saieth Debuistis filij charissimi pensare ordines quem sedes Apostolica repellebat repulsum iri cognoscere You ought derely beloued children consider the orders of the Churche You ought to knowe that whom the See Apostolike repelleth he shal be repelled But for most euident proufes of his practised Authorite ouer the whole prouinces of Illyricum Slauony Dalmatia Pannonia Mysia and all the rest it is to be considered howe farre the Archebishop of Iustinianea prima the Metropolitane and primat of all those countres according to the appoyntment of Pope Vigilius in the dayes of Iustinian the Emperour was subiect to S. Gregory First whereas all the bishops of Illyricum had elected Iohn to be their Archebishop and Metropolitane of Iustinianea prima he confirmeth their election writing vnto them in these wordes Iuxta postulationis vestrae desiderium praedictum fratrem coepiscopum nostrum in eo in quo est sacerdotij ordine constitutus nostri assensus authoritate firmamus ratamque nos eius consecrationem habere dirigentes pallium indicamus According to your request we do Confirme by the Authorite of our Consent oure foresaied brother and felowe bisshopp Iohn in the order of priesthood in whiche he is placed and sending vnto him the palle we declare that we do ratefie and â—llowe his Consecration To the same Iohn also he writeth sending him the Palle and making him his legat in those countres as his predecessours had bene before made of other Popes Pallium ex more transmisimus vices vos Apostolicae sedis agere iterata innouatione decernimus We haue sent you the palle after the Custome And we decree againe of newe that you shall occupie the roome of the See Apostolike And whereas the same Iohn had vniustly deposed Adrianus a bishop of those quarters Pope Gregory restored him as he witnesseth in his epistles where thus he writeth Quia ab antefato Ioanne primae Iustinianeae Episcopo contra ius canonesqúe depositus honoris sui gradu carere non potuit in sua eum reformari ecclesia atque in propriae dignitatis ordine decreuimus reuocari Bicause this Adrian being against right and order deposed of Iohn the Bishop of Iustinianaea coulde not so lese his degree we haue decreed that he be restored to his Church and to the degree of his former dignitie In the same letter he willeth that if any other matter can be layed against Adrian the Bishop accused it be either tried by his Officers or sent ouer to him saying Vel per eos qui nostri sunt vel fuerint in vrbe regia responsales si mediocris est questio cognoscatur vel huc ad Apostolicam sedem si ardua est deducatur quatenus nostrae audienciae sententia decidatur Either let it be tried by our Officers that are or that shal here after be in the Cyte if it be a meane question or els if it be of some difficulty let it be brought hither to the see Apostolike by our Audience and Sentence to be decided Thus all maner of waies in Confirming of bishops newly elected in restoring of bishops vniustly depriued and in finall decision of matters of controuersie the Authorite and Supreme Iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome whiche nowe is so muche abhorred of the disobedient children of Gods Churche is by S. Gregory in all Countres practised And yet will M. Iewell and his felowes by this holy Father goe aboute to ouerthrowe the Popes Primacy Hetherto of the West Churche and of the Prouinces and Countres thereof Fraunce Spayne Afrike Illyricum the Ilandes of Britanny Corsica and Sardinia we haue out of the Epistles of S. Gregory treated and declared the Supreme Authorite by him practised ouer them in Matters Ecclesiasticall Now of the East Churche and of some partes thereof for examples sake I purpose to doe the like as farre as by the Registre of his Epistles I shal for this present be informed S. Gregory writing to all the Bishops of Corinthe touching Adrian a Bishop accused of certain Crimes and sodenly dismissed by an agreement made with the party playntif shewing him selfe nothinge pleased with that soddain Agreement commandeth the Matter to be farder examined and sayeth in his letters vnto them these wordes Quoniam ea quae dicta sunt indiscussa remanere
assertion of M. Iewell ouerthrowen and proued vtterly Vntrue where he sayd that Christ had neuer appointed any such Vicaire Last of al thus farre a Truth is proued sufficieÌ„t to destroie the principall assertioÌ„ of M. Iewell in this Article fighting against the vniuersal and Supreme authorite of the bishop of Rome S. Peters successour For Christ leauing Peter his Vicaire committed not only to him but to his Successours also as Chrysostom expressely saieth the shepe which he had redemed with his bloud the Vniuersall Churche through out the worlde as you haue heard also Chrysostom to affirme Harding But because our aduersaries do wrethe and wrest the Scriptures be they neuer so plaine by their priuat and strange constructions to an vnderstanding quite contrary to the sense of the Catholike Churche c. The 105. Vntruthe ioyned with a slaunder Stapleton By such slaunders robbers are called theues and protestants are called heretikes For how large a scope M. Iewell might I here take to proue you wresters and wrethers of Gods holy worde as it is here most truly noted of you I will note a fewe in stede of many sufficient to iustifie this Vntruthe and to clere the slaunder What is more plaine in holy Scripture then the wordes of Christ in his last Supper Take and eate This is my Body And againe Drinke ye all of this This is my my bloud of the newe testament And yet how is it wrested and wrethed off you The Lutheran saieth This Bread is my Body and maketh Hoc this the neuter gender to agree with Panis bread the Masculin gender confessing yet a reall presence The Sacramentary of Zurich will haue est is to stande for significat Dothe signifiee Bicause he will haue a signe only off the Body in Sacrament The Sacramentatary off Geneua will haue the verbe est is to stand for is in value not is in substance and so est must not be a verbe substantiue but a verbe valuatiue inuenting a newe grammer to maintaine their newe diuinite Likewise in the wordes of Christ. This is my bloud they make false greke ioyning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 false latin ioyning hic with vinum to make at the length false english and to driue Christ to saie This wine is my Bloud which were a repugnaunce in nature as M. Iewell him selfe confesseth Againe to speake of M. Iewelles dealing herein first he saieth we construe datuâ— for dabitur is geuen for shall be geuen and yet afterwarde quite contrary to him selfe crieth out at D. Harding for pressing the worde datur is geuen calling it scanning of tenses ripping vp of syllables and hunting after letters and goeth aboute to proue that it shoulde be dabitur not datur the future tense not the present tense Thus he choppeth and changeth his minde to wreste and wrethe Scriptures at his pleasure But to procede to other examples what is more plaine for the Sacrament of extreme Vnction then the wordes of S. Iames. Is any sicke amonge You Let him cause the priestes of the Churche to come in to him annoynting him with oyle in the name of our Lorde What is more plaine for absolution of the priest in the Sacrament of penaoÌ„ce then the wordes of Christ in the ghospel whose sinnes ye forgeue they are forgeuen to them whose ye retayne thâ—y are reteyned What can be writen more plainely against the Iustification which you teache by faithe only then the saying of S. Iames Man is iustified by workes not by faith only What can more plainely ouerthrowe the certainty of grace and saluation which you teache euery Christen man to haue then that which S. Paule saieth With feare and trembling worke your saluation What doth more manifestly proue that by the Sacrament of baptim sinnes are taken away which Caluin and his scholers expressely denie then the wordes of S. Peter in holy Scripture Let euery one of you be baptised in the name of Iesus Christ to remission of sinnes What can be more expressely spoken for the authorite of vnwriten traditions then the coÌ„maundement of S. Paule kepe ye the traditions which ye haue receiued either by mouthe or by lettre What can more plainely proue the Sacrament of holy Order that is that in geuing holy Orders to the signe of imposition of handes grace is annexed which thinges the signe and the grace make a Sacrament then the wordes of S. Paule Neglect not the grace which is in thee which was geueÌ„ thee through prophecy with the laying on of haÌ„des of priesthood What other thinge meaneth the Apostle when he saieth Charite couereth the multitude of sinnes theÌ„ to teache vs that good workes done by Charite do redeme sinne and are meritorious And yet M. Iewel haue not you and your felowes abolished Extreme Vnction Do you not vtterly denie the Absolution by the priest Teache you not Only faithe to iustifie Preache you not that a maÌ„ may be assured without al doubte of his saluatioÌ„ CoÌ„mende you not the blasphemous doctrine of Caluin touching Baptim setting forthe his Institutions in the english tounge by publike authorite wherein this pestilent doctrine against the necessite of baptim is maintayned and sett forthe Refuse you not vnwriten traditions cleauing onely as you protest to the writen text of Gods worde Doe you not vtterly denie the Sacrament of holy Orders publishing in your last Conuocation only two Sacramentes Baptisme and the Supper of our Lorde Last of al doe you not impudently declaime against the doctrine of Merit calling it a Pelagian heresy And howe doe you all these thinges so expressely and directly against holy Scripture but by manifest wrething and wresting of holy Scripture to your owne priuat Interpretation from the Catholike sence and meaning If I woulde procede after this maner in the rest of your manifolde absurde and wicked heresies what a large scope might I here take to discourse vpoÌ„ the whole rable of your ragged and wretched wrestinges of Gods holy worde But good Sir you that so facingly vpholde the matter noting it so solemnely for an Vntruthe that you shoulde be called the wresters of holy Scripture you that startle and wince so at it was your kybed hele touched or are your selfe cleane and not guilty of any such matter I assure thee good Reader it woulde make a iust treatise it selfe alone the only discouering of such infamous wrestinges of holy Scripture as this honest man innocent forsothe and true in all pointes hath vsed And that I maye not seme to saie this only of affection or otherwise then truthe beholde gentle Reader for a taste of his whole lewde Replie what a number of textes of holy Scripture in this one Article which we nowe haue in hande M. Iewel hath wrested and wrethed by his priuat and strange Construction to an vnderstanding quite contrary to the Catholike Churche There is no greate occasion in this question of