seemely to serue him not onely with inward motions of the soule but also with outward thinges that we haue receiued of his goodnes 1. Cor. 11. Therefore S. Paule gaue preceptes vnto them of Corinth men and wemen concerning the head to be vncoouered or coouered when they prayed or prophecied Christ also in the Gospel declaring that internal faith only doth not suffice saith He that confesseth me before men Math. 10. I wil confesse him also before my Father And S. Paule saith Rom. 10. that with the harte a man beleeueth vnto righteousnes but with the mouth confession is made vnto saluation by the mouth vnderstanding euery external worke whereby confession of our faith is made But what shal we say to those places of the Scriptures in whiche it is reported that God hath no liking in the outward Sacrifices Osee. 6. I wil haue mercie saith he and not Sacrifice Math. 9. If thou wouldest haue had Sacrifice I would haue geuen it thee Psalm 50. With burnt offeringes thou wilt not be delited A troubled spirite is a Sacrifice to God the contrite and humbled harte thou wilt not despise I wil not rebuke thee for Sacrifices Psal. 49. Of the like places in the Scriptures of the olde Testament we finde greate numbers To al this S. Augustine answereth August de Ciui Dei lib. 10. c. 5. In vvhat wise doth God refuse the old Sacrifices Sic illa Deum nolle dixit quomodo ab stultis ea velle creditur velut suae gratiae voluptatis The Prophet said that God would not haue those Sacrifices in suche sorte as fooles beleeue he would haue them as for his owne pleasures sake For elles if he would not haue had them at al he would neuer haue commaunded them in the olde Lawe to be offered And therefore they were saith he to be chaunged now in their due and certaine ceason least men should beleeue that they were such as might be desired of Gods parte or be acceptable of them selfe in our behalfe and not rather those other Sacrifices he meaneth internal Sacrifices whiche by them were signified Now therefore that those olde Sacrifices be chaunged and abrogated The Sacrifice of the Eucharist or of the Aulter the time being come when Moyses Lawe should cease and haue an ende Christe in place of them hath substituted the Sacrifice of the Euchariste greater in vertue better in profite easier in doing and incomparably higher in worthinesse So then that there may be a perfit profession of the supreme Maiestie which is to be shewed by very things them selues we offer vnto it a visible gifte of those thinges which we haue receiued of our Lordes hande for our sinnes and for a thankeful recognition A certain change required in the thinges that be sacrificed 2.2 q. 85. art 3. arg 3. Theoph. in cap. 8. ad Heb. Chrysost. in epist. ad Heb. Homil 18. Then is a gifte said properly to be consecrated or halowed vnto God in sacrifice whē it is deputed to diuine seruice with some rite of religion or Ceremonie obserserued whereby some change is made about it For it is not to be thought that euery oblation is a Sacrifice as it is wel noted of S. Thomas Theophylacte and S. Chrysostome For as it appeareth in the booke named Leuiticus In al the Sacrifices some rite was obserued whereby thinges that before were prophane were made sacred and holy to the honour of God For either they were slaine as the Beastes or burnt as the Incense or sprinkled ouer with oile as bread meale and the first fruites and baked in an Ouen or fryed in a panne or rosted on a gredyern Leuit. 2. and al thinges were sauered and ceasoned with salte Marc. 9. A rite and ceremonie of changing we do obserue in our Sacrifice also now the bread beside breaking and eating by vertue of the woordes of consecration being changed into the body and the wine into the bloude of Christe By which rite and ceremonie we confesse that for so much as we are by nature the children of wrath we haue nede of a great chaūge to be made worthy of God that we haue neede to put on the new man that we protest al that is ours to be ready for his sake to be changed to be consumed to be spent and lost right so as it shal be his pleasure For who so euer doth lose his soule for my sake saith our Sauiour he shal finde his soule Math. 16. That to offer Sacrifice is natural Now let vs come vnto the fourth point and declare that God hath both engraffed in the mindes of men the rite of sacrificing and also by Lawe commaunded it and for what cause This is soone done The consideration of nature and general view of the worlde layeth the one before our eyes and the bookes of the olde Testament the other Natural reason telleth man that he is vnder some Superiour for the defectes which he feeleth in him selfe In whiche defectes he hath neede to be holpen and directed of some Superiour And what so euer that is it is that as S. Thomas saith whiche among al is called God And as in natural thinges naturally the inferiour thinges are vnder the superiour thinges euen so natural reason telleth man according vnto natural inclination that he exhibite to that whiche is aboue man subiection and honour according to his manner And the conuenient manner for man is to vse sensible signes to expresse some thinges bicause he taketh his knowledge of sensible thinges And therefore it procedeth of natural reason that man vse certaine sensible thinges offering them to God in signe of due subiection and honour in like sorte as they doo who offer vnto their Lordes certaine thinges in recognition of their Lordship or Dominion This perteineth to the nature of Sacrifice and therefore the offering of Sacrifice perteineth to the Law of nature Sacrifice hath euer ben general to al peoples Cyprian Serm. de ratione Circūcis Wherefore there lyueth no Nation in the worlde altogether without Religion as we may see and heare nor is Religion mainteined without Ceremonies And among Ceremonies the Nations of al ages haue vsed outward Oblation as the chiefe Although for the more parte as S. Cyprian saith they abhorred Circumcision as a thing cruel and vnfrendly to nature yet the other Sacrifices they did not likewise abhorre but folowing the lawe of Nature in many thinges saith he they reteined the custome of making Sacrifices And this was fastened in their myndes by common consent in general that God onely ought to be wourshipped with outward Sacrifice With that kinde of wourship who euer iudged that any should be honoured saith S. Augustine but whom either he knewe August de Ciuit. Dei li. 10. c. 4. or thought or at lest imagined to be God Of what antiquitie this manner of godly wourship is the Sacrifices of the two first brethren Cain and Abel
mysterie and Christe him selfe to be sacrificed in a sacrament doth importe his fleshe to be eaten and him to be sacrificed vnder the formes of bread and wine which be our Sacrament and the eating of Christes body vnder the which is an eating mystical or eating vnder a mysterie or els you must shewe vs some other mater wherein as vnder a mysterie and as in a Sacramente his body is eaten and him selfe is offered De consec Distinct. 2. Hoc est quod dicimus But there is an other more manifest place in S. Augustine where he vseth the very same termes and wordes that you would nedes to be myne only and of my selfe boldely and confidently presumed His woordes be these Caro eius est quam forma panis opertam in Saâ—cramento accipimus sanguis eius quem sub vini specie sapore potamus It is the flesh of Christe which we receiue couered with the forme of bread in the SacrameÌ„t and his bloude which we drinke vnder the shewe and taste of wine You see then M. Iewelâ— these wordes be not onely myne they be S. Augustines whose auctoritie you can not contemne Neither can you reasonably reiecte the booke out of which they be taken bicause your selfe euen in this very place haue alleged it for your helpe If as he saith we eate the flesh of Christe couered with the forme of bread then so is he also offred For before it be receiued of vs it behoueth it be coÌ„secrate and offred Therfore it is true which I said Christ is offered in forme of bread onlesse you make a differeÌ„ce betwen Christes flesh and bloud in formes of bread and wine and Christes flesh and bloude coouered with the formes of bread and wine This is so plaine that you must needes yeelde vnto it As for the answer you make to this place alleged by me in the .12 Article In the Replieâ— Page 471. lin 6. it is such as any man that knoweth your Diuinitie would sone iudge it to be a peece of your owne coyning The whole is fooiled and glafed ouer with a false colour of a phrase of speache As though wordes in al phrases were taken in one and the selfe same â—ignification Your aunswer is this Bicause this worde Forma forme or shape in English doth signifie the substance in S. Paule Phill. 2. where he saith Christus seipsum exinaniuit formam serui accipiens Christe empted him selfe taking the forme of a seruaunt therefore it must signifie the substance in this place of S. Augustine Caro Christi est quam forma panis opertam accipimus It is Christes flesh that we receiue coouered with the forme of bread M. Iewels ignorance or malice In this answer you considered not first that a thing can not in proper speache be said to be coouered with the substance of an other thing bicause the substance of thinges is inuisible Next that in some places this worde Forma 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 forma or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which S. Paule in that place vseth is an Accident and a mere qualitie as in Aristotle in quarta specie Qualitatis and is not alwaies taken for the name of nature as it is taken of Aristotle in 2. Physicorum Againe you looked not vnto the later parte of S. Augustines sentence where it is likewise of the bloud said Sanguis est quem sub vini specie sapore potamus It is bloude that vnder the shew and sauour of wine we drinke By these wordes shew and sauour the accidentes of wine and not the substance must needes be vnderstanded By conference of which two membres of one sentence together you should haue perceiued that S. Augustine speaking of Christes flesh meant by the worde Forma the same that he meant by the other wordes species and sapor where he spake of the bloude If then we drinke the bloude of Christe vnder the accidententes of wine then it is a true construction to say that we receiue his flesh coouered with the forme that is to say with the shew and outward shape which is an Accident of bread operta As for the worde operta which â—ignifieth coouered in the same place you make much a doo and rake together out of your Notebookes a heape of phrases and wordes by which lying priuy hyding coouering keeping priuy representation resemblance and any the like thing is signified And al to an heretical purpose to exclude the true presence of Chistes body and bloude out of the blessed Sacrament and to leaue nothing in it but a bare signification And there in the ende you shutte vp the mater with a false caste of legierdemaine falsifiyng a testimonie of S. Augustine For whereas S. Augustine saith In veteri Testamento occultabatur nouum August de Baptis coÌ„t Dona t ist lib. 1. ca. 15 quia occultè significabatur The newe Testament was hidden in the olde Testament bicause it was secretely signified you haue chaunged S. Augustines worde quia into id est and say that he expoundeth him selfe M. Iewel falsifieth S. Austine changing quia into id est occultabatur id est occultè significabatur It was hidden that is to say it was secretely signified And therefore you would haue the place which I alleged out of S. Angustine thus to be expounded and vnderstanded Caro Christi operta id est occultè significata Christes flesh is priuily hidden that is to say is priuily signified whereby you would exclude the real presence And this you call S. Augustines exposition as though S. Augustine had euer said so or meant so and as though operta had in the place I alleged bene put alone without an Ablatiue case as the verbe occultabatur is in the other sentence Nowe the true woordes of S. Augustine be these Caro eius est quam forma panis opertam in Sacramento accipimus It is his flesh which being coouered with the forme of bread in the Sacrament we receiue And if you would needes haue these wordes Forma panis opertam to be expounded by Forma panis occultè significatam though you haue no warrant for it that we vnderstand the flesh of Christe coouered with the forme of breade to be as much as if we said it to be secretely signified by the forme of bread wherein there is no great cause why we should much contend with you what can you thereof substantially conclude against the real presence Wil you make this wise argument The forme or shape of breade signifieth the body of Christ Ergo the body of Christ is not in deede present If you reason so the Baker must haue you to schole who shewing you a loafe set vpon his stal can tel you that that loafe signifieth breade to be in his howse to be solde One truth put avvay by an other and yet that the same loafe also is breade whiche I tolde you before And yet this is al the issue of your wrested
he had eaten with his Apostles the flesh of the Lambe he tooke vnto him breade that strengtheneth the harte of man and passeth ouer vnto the true Sacrament of Passeouer that like as Melchisedech the Priest of the highest God had done in offering bread and wine in a foregoing figure of him so he him selfe also might represent the truth of his body and bloude Who can more plainely vtter this mater then S. Hierome hath done in these wordes expressely saying that Christ executed in deede at his last Supper that Priesthode which Melchisedech did prefigurate when hauing taken bread he represented that is to say presently exhibited not the figure or signe as Zuinglius and Oecolampadius teach nor the power and vertue as Caluine teacheth but the truth of his body and bloude Cyprian lib. 2. epistola 3. S. Cyprian speaking of that Christe did at his last Supper auoucheth the same thing with woordes of like effecte Qui magis sacerdos Dei summi quà m Dominus noster Iesus Christus qui sacrificiuÌ„ Deo patri obtulit obtulit hec idem quod Melchisedech id est paneÌ„ vinuÌ„ suuÌ„ scilicet corpus sanguinem Who is more a Priest of the highest God then our Lorde Iesus Christe who offered a Sacrifice of God the Father and offered the same that Melchisedech did that is to wit bread and wine as much to say his body and bloude Consider Reader when Saint Cyprian had said that Christe offered the same sacrifice that Melchisedech had offered which was bread and wine least any man shoulde mistake his meaning and thinke that Christe offered none other nor better thing then breade and wine and in so doing should not excel Melchisedech he addeth an interpretation of his owne woordes to wit that although Christes offering appeared to be bread and wine yet in deede it was his body and bloud Wherefore if thou wilt acknowledge Christes excelleÌ„cie aboue Melchisedech and folow the interpretation that S. Cyprian putteth vpon his owne woordes thou must beleue Christe and Melchisedech to offer one and the same thing in outward forme and in mysterie or sacrament but not one in substance and truth The premisses considered it is most certaine that Christ fulfilling the figure of Melchisedech at his Maundie offered his body and bloude that is to say him selâ—e vnto his Father Let vs go a steppe foreward That priestes haue auctoritie to offer vp Christ vnto his Father and consider one circumstance more whereby it may appeare that priestes also haue auctoritie to offer vp Christ vnto his Father How wil that appeare Forsooth bicause Christ after that he had offered his body and bloude him selfe and deliuered the same vnto his Apostles gaue them withal a coÌ„maundement to doo the same Luc. 22. saying Doo ye this in remembrance of me 1. Cor. 1â— No man be he neuer so great an enemie vnto the continual Sacrifice of the Churche wil denie but that the Apostles had a warrant geuen them by this commaundement requiring them to doo that they had sene their Lorde and Maister to haue done before them But it is proued already by sufficient authorities that Christe at his Supper did offer his body and bloud vnto his Father Ergo the Apostles had warrant to offer Christes bodie and bloude vnto God his Father Nowe let vs descende one steppe lower and we shal come vnto the very point at whiche M. Iewel vnlearnedly and wickedly maketh suche a woondering as if it were a monstrous and most dangerous presumption which is that a priest hath auctoritie to offer vp Christe vnto his Father It is therefore to be vnderstanded that Christe gaue not this commaundement and through vertue of the same a warrant to doo the thing he had him selfe done before vnto his Apostles onely but also vnto such as should succede them in office of Priesthode whereunto they were admitted by Christe at the maundie to the worldes ende Which truth S. Paule doth insinuate 1. Cor. 11. where he speaketh of this blessed Sacrament shewing that it must be celebrated in remembrance of his death vntil his last comming Where of this argument is easily gathered Continuance of Priestes necessary Our lordes Supper is to be celebrated vntil his last comming But that can not be performed onlesse some succede the Apostles in the office by vertue whereof it is done Ergo it is necessary that some succede the Apostles in that office The first proposition is proued by S. Paule The second is manifest bicause the Apostles to whom the commaundement was geuen were not to continue a liue in the Church vntil Christes second comming That commaundement therfore was geuen as wel vnto them who should succeede as vnto the Apostles them selues For that any should take vpon them to execute so high an office who haue no commaundement thereto or that the commaundement was geuen to al in general it is to absurde to thinke To whom then hath this office ben coÌ„mitted By what name haue these successours ben called Priestes by special calling succede the Apostles in degree Hieron ad Heliodorum Verely it hath ben coÌ„mitted to the Priestes of the Church and to none els Of this special calling and coÌ„dition of certaine S. Hierome geueth vs an euident witnes saying Absit vt de ijs quicquam sinist rum loquar qui Apostolico gradui succedeÌ„tes Christi corpus sacro ore conficiunt per quos nos Christiani sumus God forbid I should speake ought amisse of them who succeding into the degree of the Apostles with their sacred mouth make the body of Christ by whom also we be made Christians Thus we are taught that it is the office of Priestes to make or consecrate the precious body of Christe by vertue of his woorde by them as Ministers and substitutes of Christe pronounced for which S. Hierome acknowlegeth their mouth to be sacred and holy and for the same dignitie confesseth them to succede the Apostles in that degree To the like effecte we finde in S. Cyprian a testimonie worthy of note Cyprian lib. 2. ep 3. Si Christus summus Sacerdos Sacrificium Deo Patri ipse primus obtulit hoc fieri in sui commemorationem praecepit vtique ille sacerdos vice Christi verè fungitur Priestes substitutes of Christe qui id quod Christus fecit imitatur If Christe the highest priest him self did first offer the sacrifice vnto God his Father and coÌ„maunded the same to be done in remeÌ„brance of him then that Priest doth truely supply the stede of Christ which foloweth that which Christ did This saying of S. Cyprian goeth somwhat hygher then the former of S. Hierome There it was said that Priestes succeded in Apostolike degree Here a Priest folowing the acte of Christ in offering the Sacrifice is said to be the substitute of Christ him selfe By S. Hieromes verdit they may consecrate the body of Christ as the successours of the Apostles by S.
sheadding of his Bloude in remission of sinnes is an Oblation of the same Ergo Christe offered his body and bloud at the Supper And thus datur signifieth here as much as offertur Now this beinge true that our Lorde offered him selfe vnto his Father at his last Supper hauing geuen coÌ„mandement to his Apostles to do the same that he there did whom then he ordeined Priestes of the newe Testament saying Doo this in my remeÌ„brance as ClemeÌ„t doth plainly shew Lib. 8. Apostol CoÌ„stitut cap. vltimo the same charge perteining no lesse to the Priestes that be now the successours of the Apostles in this behalfe then to the Apostles them selues it doth right wel appear howe so euer M. Iuel assureth him selfe of the contrary and what so euer the Diuel hath wrought and by his Ministers taught against the Sacrifice of the Masse that Priestes haue auctoritie to offer vp Christe vnto his Father Iewel Here M. Harding beginneth to scanne his Tenses to rip vp Syllables and to hunte for Letters And in the ende buildeth vp the highest Castle of his Religion vpon a gheasse I maruel that so learned a man vvoulde either vse so vnlearned argumentes or hauing such stoare of Authorities as he pretendeth vvould euer make so simple choise He saith These wordes Is Geuen Is Shead be wordes of Sacrificing though the Terme it self of Oblation and Sacrifice be not expressed Here M. Harding bâ—sides that he hath imagined a straÌ„ge Construction of his ovvne that neuer any learned man knevve before and so straggleth alone and svvarueth from al the Olde Fathers includeth also a repugnance and Contradiction against him selfe For vvhereas vvoordes and termes sound both one thing the one being mere Englishe the other borovved of the Latine M. Harding saith Christe in the Institution of his Supper vsed the VVordes of Sacrificing and yet expressed not the Termes of Sacrificinge Suche Priuilege these menne haue vvith shifte of termes to beguile the vvorlde For if Christe vsed the vvordes of Sacrificing hovv can M. Harding say He vsed not the Termes of Sacrificing and yf he vsed not the Termes vvordes and Termes being one thing hovv can he say He vsed the vvordes Harding Litle regarding what M. Iewel saith in the lying and scoffing entrie that he maketh vnto his Replie in this Diuision The chief pointes of M. Iewels Replie in the 4. Diuision I wil first briefly note vnto thee good Reader the pointes wherein the weight of his whole tale standeth That done I wil answer to them in such order as they shal be proponed First he would prooue that my wordes include a repugnance and contradiction against my selfe Secondly he chargeth me with controlling the Olde common Translation of the Newe Testament Thirdly he would a contradiction to seme to be implyed in my doctrine Fourthly he burtheneth me with the corruption and falsifying of S. Clement Fifthly and lastly he auoucheth that Christe by these woordes Luc. 22. Doo ye this in my remembrance made not the Apostles Priestes nor gaue them nor their Successours auctoritie therby to consecrate and offer vp in Sacrifice his Body and Bloude but that what so euer was by these wordes commaunded to be done it perteined vnto the whole people as wel as vnto the Apostles So he denieth vtterly the singular and external Sacrifice of the Churche confoundeth the order of the Mysteries and referreth al to eating of bread and drinking of wine in remembrance of Christe These be the pointes he treateh of in this Diuision whereby his intent and endeuour is to reproue my Answer vnto his Chalenge But with how substantial and piththy reasons or authorities he performeth it when they shal be examined and disclosed it wil appeare Touching the first the mater is sone answered Lyes make no proufe This is your common grace M. Iewel M. Iewels custome for your aduantage in one place to make me say lesse then I doo in an other place more then I doo in euery place other â—yse then I doo Why do you here by false abbridging of my wordes attribute that vnto two verbes Is geuen and Is shed which I ascribe vnto the whole sentence In my Ansvvere fol. 165. b Lothe I am to fyl vp the paper with repeating that I said before but your impudencie driueth me vnto it Read the place againe There as you knowe I say thus Luc. 22. Whereas the holy Euangelistes reporte that Christe at his last supper tooke Bread gaue thankes brake it and said This is my body wich is geuen for you Againe this is my bloude which is shed for you in remission of synnesâ— By these woordes being woordes of sacrificing and offering they shewe and set forth an Oblation in acte and deede though the terme it selfe of Oblation or Sacrifice be not expressed Vse as much pryieng as you can in these woordes where finde you the Contradiction M. Ievvel â—aineth a lye vpon his aduersary and therevpoÌ„ descaÌ„â—eth I graunt you that woordes and termes sounde both one thing But where said I that Christe in the Institution of his supper vsed the woordes of sacrificing and yet expressed not the termes of sacrificing For thus you make me to speake and therevpon you dally at your pleasure and grounding your selfe vpon a lye you seme to conclude absurditie against me as though I had said that Christe vsed the wordes of sacrificing and yet had denied that he vsed the termes of sacrificing Which had ben very vaine and fonde wordes and termes being one thing Now the truth is I said not the one ne denied not the other Here one of vs both must needes be found a lyer If it be not you tel al the worlde for clearing of your selfe and for sauing your Ministerships honestie where I say that Christ vsed not the termes of sacrificing The woordes by which the Euangelistes do describe what Christe did at his last supper doo importe and implie the signification of sacrificing and offering Christe say they toke bread into his handes gaue thankes brake it and said This is my body whiche is geuen for you Againe This is my bloud which is shed for you in remission of synnes Bicause these wordes do report and set forth an oblation in acte and deede therfore I said and might wel so say they were wordes of sacrificing and offering Yet in al this description there is not founde this expresse terme Sacrifice or Oblation I referred me to the EuaÌ„gelistes description and you referre al to the wordes of Christe If you marke my wordes wel you shal finde therein reported not only woordes but also an acte of Christe and by the Euangelistes who declare the whole an oblation shewed and set forth in acte and deede this very terme it selfe of OblatioÌ„ or Sacrifice not expressed and this to be shewed and set forth whereby I meane the Gospel written not by Christe but by the EuaÌ„gelistes Againe whereas I said of the woordes of the Gospel that they were wordes
to finde your forged worde Dabitur which is not in him to be found what eyes had you that you sawe not in him so plaine and so expresse mention both of the real Presence and of the Sacrifice Els if you saw it why do you dissemble it Yea why do you denie it There demaunding of him selfe Chrysost. in 1. Cor. 11. Homil. 27. wherefore he that eateth this bread and drinketh the cuppe of our Lorde vnworthily shal be gilty of the body and bloude of our Lorde doth he not answer bicause he hath shed the bloud and so hath shewed the thing to be a slaughter and not only a Sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Doth he not compare him that doth communicate vnworthily vnto the tormentours who when they pearsed the body of Christ did not pearse it to thintent to drinke but to shed his bloude Now if there be no real bloude at al in the dredful Mysteries but Symbolical and tokening wine only what reason were it so expressely to charge the vnworthy receiuer with the hainous crime of shedding Christes bloude Were your Sacramentarie doctrine true the vnworthy communicant deserueth otherwise to be reprehended he can not truly be called a shedder of Christes bloude For where no bloud is there can not bloude be shed pardy Yet here to auoid the wicked carping of a Sacramentarie In vvhat sense is slaughter cōmitted by the vnvvorthy receiuer◠where S. Chrysostome termeth the vnworthy receiuing of Christes bloude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say slaughter likewise spilling and shedding of his bloude we knowe that it is not a slaughter in deede concerning Christes parte for Christe can no more be slaine and being now risen from the dead Rom. 6. he dieth no more deah shal no more haue maisterie ouer him as S. Paule saith But it is slaughter on the vnworthy receiuers parte bicause by his vnworthy receiuing he doth as it were shed and spille for so much as in him lyeth and caste away the bloude of Christ. Which thing though he doo it not visibly yet doth he it truly not by sensible way of doing but bicause wickedly he presumeth to abuse that which is the very substance of the precious bloude by vertue of the worde of consecration made really present Sacrifice auouched by Saint Chrysostom To be shorte verely in that .27 Homilie vpon the first epistle to the Corinthians S. Chrysostome calleth the body of Christ present by consecration a Sacrifice sundry times and in the .28 Homilie that foloweth he nameth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illud purū Sacrificium that pure Sacrifice with the pronoune 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which importeth a special notification signifying it to be Singular aboue other Sacrifices Touching the Present Tēse in which the wordes of the Institutiō of the Sacrament be expressed whereof I gathered an Argumēt for the Sacrifice at the Supper for answer therto M. Iewel saith that it is the cōmon Phrase of the Scriptures to vse the present Tēse for the future But this confuse and vncertaine answer putteth not away the force of my Argument For what meaneth he That the present Tense be taken for the Future is it cōmon to the whole Scriptures and to euery parte or to some partes only He wil not affirme it of the whole I trowe For so he should be gilty of denying Christ to be come and of many other great vntruthes and absurdities So whereas the voice of God the Father said of Christ Matth. 3. 17. This is my beloued sonne in whom I am wel pleased we should take it as though God had meāt this is he that is not yet my sonne but that shal be my sonne And where Christ said to the Samaritane woman Ioan. 4. I am Messias or Christe euen I that speake with thee that should we expounde of the time to come that he shal be Messias Which doctrine maketh a right way for Antichrist who is to come If he sooth his saying of some parte of the Scriptures the same I graunt also specially of the olde Testament where prophecies are vttered of thinges to come in the new Testament But it had ben his parte to prooue onlesse his profession be to prooue nothing and to stand only in denials that in the Institution of the Sacrament the Present Tense standeth for the future and that so as the thing signified may not by any conuenient sense be verified in the Present Tense For els if it might how much better were it to expounde it of both Tenses then of one onely that Christes saying might thoroughly and on euery side appeare true And if it may appeare true for the Present Tense then so farre forth standeth my reason in force and is not yet repelled Whereas then I said in my Answer That Christ gaue his body for vs and shed his bloud at the supper affirmed by certaine Fathers that Christ gaue his body for vs and shed his bloude at his supper which againe I affirme to be true in a right sense that I said not the same altogether without the authoritie of certaine olde and learned Fathers and therfore neither strangely nor alone as M. Iewell chargeth me by that whiche here foloweth it shal appeare I reporte me to Gregorie Nyssen S. Basils brother and to Theophylacte Gregor Nyss. De Resurrectione Christi Oratio 1. Gregorie Nyssen saith thus Pro ineffabili arcanóque qui ab hominibus cerni nequit sacrificij modo sua dispositione administratione praeoccupat impetum violentum ac sese Oblationem ac victimam offert pro nobis Sacerdos simul Agnus Dei qui tollit peccatum mundi Quando hoc accidit Quum suum corpus ad comedendum sanguinem suum familiaribus ad bibendum praebuit Cuilibet enim hoc perspicuum est quòd oue vesci homo non possit nisi mactatio comestionem praecesserit Qui igitur dedit discipulis suis corpus suum ad comedendum apertè demonstrat iam perfectam absolutam factam esse immolationem c. Christ after a manner of sacrifice that is vnspeakeable secret and such as can not be sene of men by his owne disposition and administration preuenteth the violent assault that afterward was made and offereth him selfe an Oblation and Sacrifice for vs Christ at the supper both Priest and Lābe being the Priest and also the Lambe of God that taketh away the synne of the worlde When was this done At what time he gaue vnto them of his householde his body to be eaten and his bloude to be droonke For to euery one this is a cleare mater that a man may not eate of the Lambe except killing go before the eating Whereas then he gaue vnto his disciples his body to eate he sheweth euidently that a perfite and absolute immolation or Sacrifice was now made What can M. Iewel require more This learned Father saith that Christ preuented the violence and furie of
to doo and make the thing which he had done that is to say to take bread and wine to geue thankes to blesse to breake the bread and to say in the person of Christe this is my Body this is my Bloude c. Which he calleth offering of spiritual sacrifice bicause that body and bloud of Christe are thus offered vp spiritually and in a Mysterie without bloudshed And also that the Apostles afterward instituted Priestes Deacons Subdeacons and Readers S. Chrysostom excusing him selfe for that he presumed to minister vnto Christe at his holy table and gathering boldnesse of that Christe him selfe had commaunded it saith Chrysost. in Liturgia Sacrificiorum ritum instituisti ac solennis huius immaculati Sacrificij celebrationem nobis tradidisti tanquà m Dominus omnium Thou Christe hast instituted the rite of sacrificing and hast deliuered vnto vs the celebration of this solemne and vnspotted Sacrifice as Lord of al. And afterward he saith moreouer hauing rehearsed what Christ did and said at the Supper memoriam igitur agentes salutaris huius mandati we kepe the memorie of this healthful commaundement meaning the commandement geuen by these wordes Luc. 22. Do ye this in my Remembrance When S. Chrysostome saith Christ deliuered the celebration of this Sacrifice vnto vs it is to be considered vnto which vs and when he did deliuer it S. Chrysostome was a Bishop and therefore a Priest so then naming vs he meant Priestes The time when it was deliuered was at his last Supper For the Scripture geueth no occasion to thinke that Christ leafte to Priestes the celebratiō of this Sacrifice any where els but where he said vnto his Apostles Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11. Doo ye this in my remembrance S. Dionyse the Areopagite S. Paules scholer doth acknowledge and in most plaine wordes confesse that Christe by these woordes gaue commaundement to Priestes to offer vp this diuine Sacrifice Thus he saith Quocirca Antistes reuerenter ex Pontificali officio Dionys. in Ecclesiast Hierarch part 3. c. 3. post sacras diuinorum operum Laudes quòd hostiam salutarem quae supra ipsum est litet se excusat ad ipsum primò decenter exclamans Tu dixisti hoc facite in mei commemorationem The Bishop therfore after he hath praised the workes of God excuseth him selfe reuerently and according to his Bishoply office for that he sacrificeth the heathful hoste which is aboue his worthinesse semely first crying vnto him Thou ô Christ hast said Do ye this in my remēbrance Thus it appeareth clearely by this auncient Bishop and blessed Martyr who is to be thought to haue learned the same of S. Paule him self as also by sundry other Fathers of whome some be already alleged some hereafter shal be alleged that Christe by these woordes Doo ye this in my remembrance gaue to Priestes auctoritie and commission to offer vp the healthful Sacrifice which can be none other but that of his body and bloude and that by the same wordes they vnderstode them selues both charged so to doo and also excused of presumption in doing the doing of it being a thing that so farre passeth the worthinesse of humaine condition But M. Iewel to put away wholly the Sacrifice whereas Christe said doo ye this in my remembrance saith very strangely and boldly M. Ievvel vvold al the people to be Ministers of the Sacrifice that this doing perteineth not only vnto the Apostles and their successours but also vnto the whole people And he beareth the worlde in hande that this is the cleare meaning of Christe bicause of these wordes in my remembrance As though bicause that heauenly Sacrifice is to be offered in remembrance of Christe therefore the common people and euery one of them should haue the handling of the diuine Mysteries and be made the Ministers of them If this be true weemen haue much wrong among whom in so many hundred yeres as haue ben since Christ gaue this commaundement none was yet euer admitted vnto that administration And if it perteine vnto the whole people as M. Iewel saith why should weemen be excluded In dede it were a great ease for these holy Ministers that their good wiues ministred sometimes in the Cōgregations for them whiles they be playing with their children or keeling the potre at home He should haue done wel to haue proued this strange point more substantially sith there by he should do great pleasure to his felow Ministers to many other good felowes and specially to many good sad dames of his owne Gospel whose curiositie would be wel pleased if they were admitted to minister and to doo so much as these wordes of Christe doo importe doo ye this in my remēbrance The deuil hauing sowed hatred in M. Iewels breste against the priesthod and Sacrifice of the newe Testament hath brought him vnto this fowle absurditie Peraduenture to auoide so great an inconuenience he wil say that these wordes doo principally perteine vnto the Ministers who haue succeded the Apostles in this ministerie and secondarily vnto the faithful people If he say so let him withal consider that being so vnderstanded they may wel serue for the Apostles to claime vnto them selues the auctoritie of Priesthod to offer vp the Sacrifice and also to ordeine priestes to succede them For as touching the office of a Priest it is a cōfessed truth that the Priest in offering the body and bloud of Christ is the principal agent concerning outward ministerie and as it were the instrument of the people which by a certaine meane offereth also geuing vnto the Priestes action their assent and applying their deuotion Much like to that we say of a multitude to make a supplication when one man is the speaker and chiefe dooer and the reste only geue their consent to that is said and done And what though S. Paule say vnto the Corinthians 1. Cor. 11. As often as ye shall eate this bread and drinke this Cuppe ye shal shewe forth our Lordes death vntil he come wil it folow thereof that Christe speaking these wordes doo ye this in my remembrance woulde the whole people to doo that he at his supper did That is to say that euery lay person boye and woman for they be of the number of the people shal take bread blesse and geue thankes and vtter the wordes of consecration This is my body and likewise the cuppe saying this is my bloude c Doth he not vnderstand there is great difference betwen this commaundement of Christ and that saying of S. Paule betwen doo this in my remembrance which Christe saith and when so euer ye eate this bread and drinke this cuppe ye shew forth our Lordes death whiche S. Paule saith Seeth he not the one to belong vnto the Priest as he is the pronuncer of the Diuine wordes whereby the holy Euchariste is consecrate and made the other to be referred vnto them that receiue it after it is consecrate And though
not seldom named the sacrifice of praise as your selfe haue in this Diuision alleged a place out of S. Basils Masse where it is so called And that S. Dionyse meant not the Sacrifice of praise and thankes it is cleare in that he speaketh of a Sacrifice to be offered after that praises of Gods woorkes and thankes for the same be geuen How be it what so euer M. Iewel say there can be no doubte what Sacrifice S. Dionyse meant For by alleging this Scripture Doo ye this is my remembrance for his warrant he leadeth vs directly vnto the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe which he offered vp at his last Supper DiuisioÌ„ 6. as it is before proued by S. Ireneus S. Cyprian S. Chrysostome Hesychius Gregorie Nyssen and others Which Sacrifice bicause Christe him selfe both offered and taught his Apostles likewise to offer in remembrance of him for then he taught them the new Testament Iren. li. 4. cap. 32. saith S. Ireneus and deliuered them a forme how they should doo it afterwarde in consideration hereof S. Dionyse who beleued Christe to be God The Tradition of God in this very place calleth it the Tradition of God Againe for further proufe of this most honorable and heauenly Sacrifice this is to be considered in S. Dionyses Treatise That S. Dionyse meaneth the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe So long as the bishop or Priest is attent to geuing praises and thankes for the great workes of God which is also a kinde of sacrifice so long we see none excuse made of any vnworthinesse But the praises being once finished as sone as he commeth vnto the mystical Sacrifice before he dare to aduenture it he premitteth his humble sute for excuse to be obteined What should the cause be why the Bishop or Priest before the offering of the one Sacrifice maketh no excuse of his vnworthinesse and here as he entreth vnto it maketh so humble an excuse but bicause there is a great difference betwen the excellencie of the one and the other In both sacrifices Christes benefites be remembred for how can that be praised that is not remembred The difference must nedes be in the excellencie of the thing offred But what thing can be better and excellenter then the praise of God and thankes geuing but onely the body and bloud of Christ Wherefore it must needes be the body and bloude of Christe which the Bishop or Priest offered premitting so humble an excuse and appealing vnto Christes owne commaundement for his warrant This much with the circumstances of the place duely considered I doubte not but any reasonable man wil sone conceiue S. Dionyse to speake of the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe and so consequently of Christe offered and sacrificed vnto God to whom onely Sacrifice is to be made though M. Iewel be so shamelesse as to say that he hath no token nor inkling of any such Sacrifice and though in very deede the precise termes of Sacrificing Christe or the Sonne of God vnto his Father be not expressely set forth The which termes as to expresse them it was not necessary so of great discretion and wisedome this holy learned Father who liued in the Apostles time eschewed and yet he so signified the thing by other wordes as of the faithful it might be vnderstanded and from the Infidels kept secret Who if our Mysteries had bene with plaine speache made open vnto them through lacke of faith would haue had them in derision and trodden them vnder their feete as swyne doo precious stones and as Heretiques doo at this day August in Psalm 33. epistol 120. For which cause S. Augustine and S Chrysostome and al other in manner the olde learned Fathers speaking of this most reuerent Sacrifice Origen in Leuit. ca. 16. hom 9 doo vse these or the like admonitions The Sacrifice which the faithful knowe and those that haue read the Gospel Againe The which Sacrifice where and when and how it is offred thou shalt knowe At the begiÌ„ning â—ge Fathers spake secâ—etly of the Sacrifice at leÌ„gth vvhen the faith had preuailed generally thei spake more plainely Cassiodor Psal. 109. when thou art baptized c. But in the age that folowed when the faith was generally receiued ouer the worlde the learned Fathers spake more plainely of it As for example Cassiodorus that noble Senatour of Rome and learned writer who liued about the yere of our Lorde 570. in his Commentaries vpon the Psalmes expounding the place of Christes euerlasting Priesthoode in the .109 Psalme saith thus in most plaine wise To whom can this truly and euidently be applied but vnto our Lorde our Sauiour who healthfully in the gifte of bread and wine consecrated his Body aâ—d Bloude As him selfe saith in the Ghospel Except ye eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his bloude ye shal not haue life euerlasting But in this flesh and bloude let mans mynde conceiue nothing that is bloudy nothing that is corruptible least iâ— come to passe which the Apostle saith 1. Cor. 11. he that eateth the body of our Lorde vnworthily eateth to him selfe condemnation the wordes that folowe be these Sed viuificatricem substantiam at que salutarem ipsâ—us verbi propriam factam per quam peccatorum remissio vitae aeternae dona praestantur But let the mynde of man conceiue it to be the quickening the healthful substance and that which was made the worde it selfes owne proper substance by which the remission of sinnes and the giftes of euerlasting life be geuen The which order of Priesthode and Sacrifice by mystical similitude Melchisedech that most iust king did institute Gen. 14. when he offered vp vnto our Lorde the fruites of bread and wine For it is cleare that the sacrifices of beastes are quite gone away which were of the order of Aaron and that Melchisedeks order rather remaineth which in the deliuering forth of the Sacramentes is celebrated in al the worlde Which thing the obstinate Iewes doo not yet vnderstand whereas it is certaine that both their Priest and Sacrifices are taken quite away This learned Father here setteth forth plainely three thinges concerning the Sacrifice we speake of The first is that Christe at his Supper consecrated his body and bloude Pag. 19. which you M. Iewel in your Replie of the first Article doo denie The second is what flesh and what bloude it is that is so consecrated to wit vnbloudy bloude andâ— if it be lawful so to speake vnfleshy flesh and yet true shesh and true bloude euen the quickening substance that which is proper to the Worde it selfe and whereby Mankinde is redemed The thirde is that the Priesthoode after Melchisedeks order remaineth stil doubtelesse bicause as Christe presenteth him selfe continually in heauen vnto the Father for vs so by Priestes of the newe Testament his Vicars he offereth him selfe vnto the Father now also in
it a double oblation and Sacrifice I haue regard to the maÌ„ner of offering which is diuers vpoÌ„ the Crosse and in the Eucharist Otherwise the substance of the Sacrifice and the thing it selfe that is sacrificed is one and the same in either Now it had ben M. Iewels parte to tel vs what Sacrifice is that wherin Christ by the meane of Priestes that be now sacrificeth and is sacrificed and the manner and order whereof he taught the Apostles and consequently Priestes in power and office of sacrificing their Successours in his Mystical Supper What Sacrifice this is Christes most plaine wordes do declare who at his last Supper after he had taken bread and the Cuppe into his handes Luc. 22. geuen thankes broken and blessed said take eate 1. Cor. 11. drinke this is my Body this is my bloud do ye this in my remembrance By doing which thing and saying which wordes he taught them the way and manner how to do such Sacrifice by this he taught as S. Ireneus saith the new Oblation of the new Testament Iren. li. 4. cap. 32. Here M. Iewels Phrases Metaphores Allegories Tropes and Figures wil not serue his turne Therefore he conueyeth him selfe to an other testimonie by me alleged out of S. Chrysostom interpreting the knowen place of Malachie of this Sacrifice Wherevnto he maketh answer of as litle substance as his other is to Oecumenius And here is to be noted that to obscure both the order and force of my Answer he hath caused the Printer coÌ„fusely to set that I bring in touching Malachie together with that goeth before that the Distinction of thinges might not appeare which I by my new beginning of the line caused to be disticted from the former mater Let vs heare what he saith Iewel This vvorde Incruentum that M Harding hath here alleged out so Chrysostom is thought to beare great vveight but being vvel considered of that side it is alleged for as it shal appeare it vveigheth nothing The Holy learned Fathers applie that vvorde sometime to Prater and other deuotion of the minde and somtimes to the Ministration of the holy Communion For the better opening hereof it may please thee good Christian Reader to vnderstande that in the time of Moyses Lavve the Priestes and Leuites offered vp vnto God Oxen Calues Rammes and Goates and vvith the Bloude thereof sprinkled the Booke the instrumentes of the Ministerie the vvhole Tabernacle Heb. 9. and al the People and as S. Paule saith In the Ceremonies of that Lavve vvithout Bloudsheadding there vvas no remission of Sinne. Likevvise the Heathens killed and offered vp their cattaile vnto their Idolles sometimes an hundred sat Oxen in one daie Sometime they proceeded further and made their Sacrifices of Mannes Bloude Clemens in Orat. cont Gentes Erichtheus of Athens and Marius of Rome killed and offered vppe their ovvne Daughters in the honour of Pallas The Nobles of Carthage in honour of their Idole Saturnus killled and offered vp .lxx. of their ovvne male Children in one Sacrifice In respecte of these grosse and Fleashely and Blouddy Sacrifices our Christian Sacrifices in the Gospel Euseb. De Demonst. lib. 1. ca. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bicause thei are mere Spiritual and proceede vvholy from the harte are called Vnblouddy Eusebius saith Incendimus Orationis suffitum Sacrificium quod appellatur Purum non per Cruores facimus sed per puras actiones VVee burne the Incense of Praier and we offer vp the Sacrifice that is called Pure not by sheadding of Bloude but by Pure and godly doinges So Chrysostome Chrysost. cont Iudaeos Ora. 3. Offerimus non per Fumum Nidorem aut Sanguinem sed per Spiritns Gratiam wee make our Sacrifices not by Smoke Smel and Bloude but by the Grace of the Holy Sprite He addeth further For God is Spirite and he that adoureth him must adoure in Sprite and Trueth And this is the Vnbloudy Sacrifice So saithe Eusebius Offerent illi Rationabiles Euseb. De Demonst. lib. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Incruentas Hostias They shal offer vnto him Reasonable or Spritual and Vnbloudy Oblations And the same he expoundeth The Sacrifice of Praise In like sorte S. Hierome seemeth to saie In sinceritate azima epulamur wee feaste in Purenes without leauen In like consideration the Sacrifices that in olde times vvere made vnto Fides and Terminus Hieron in Epist. ad Galat. 4. vvere called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vnblouddy bicause they consisted only in Suffumigations and Odours and vvere not imbrued vvith any Bloude And for the like cause Thucydides calleth certaine of the HeatheÌ„ oblations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pure Sacrifices Cyrillus ad Reginas Likevvise Cyrillus calleth the Praiers and Melodie of the Angels and blissed Spirites in Heauen continually praising and glorifieing the name of God Incruenta Sacrificia Vnbloudy Sacrifices Gyrillus coÌ„tra Iulian li. 10 Againe he saith Nos relicto crasso ministerio Iudaeorum praeceptum habemus vt tenue Spirituale Subtile Sacrificium faciamus Itaque offerimus Deo in odorem suauitatis virtutes omne genus Fidem Spem Charitatem VVe hauing leaâ—te the grosse Ministerie of the Iewes haue a CommauÌ„dement to make a Fine Thinne and Spiritual Sacrifice And therefore we offer vnto God al manner Vertues Faith Hope Charitie as most sweete sauours For this cause the Sacrifices of our Praiers and other like deuotions are called Vnbloudy for that they require no Fleashly Seruice or Sheadding of Bloude as did the Sacrifices of the Ievves and Heathens but are mere Ghostly Euseb. De Demonst. lib. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Spiritual and stand vvholy in the lyfting vp and eleuation of the minde In like maner the Ministration of the Holy Communion is sometimes of the Ancient Fathers called an Vnbloudy Sacrifice not in respect of any Corporal or Fleashely presence that is imagined to be there vvithout Bloudsheaddinge but for that it representeth and reporteth vnto our mindes that One and euerlasting Sacrifice that Christe made in his body vpon the Crosse. Therefore Eusebius saith Excitamus illi Altare Incruentorum Rationabilium Sacrificiorum secundùm Noua Mysteria VVe erecte vnto God an Aultar of vnbloudy and reasonable or Spiritual Sacrifices accordingc to the Newe Mysteries Againe In eodem libro Sacrificium incendimus illi Memoriam magni illius Sacrificij VVe burne a Sacrifice vnto God that is the Remembrance of that greate Sacrifice In eodem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hieron ad Euagrium August de Gratia noui Testa ad Honoratum Iustinus Martyr in Dialogis cum Tryphone Likevvise againe Christus obtulit Mirabile Sacrificium pro salute omnium nostrum iubens nos offerre MemoriaÌ„ pro Sacrificio Christe offered vp that Marueilous Sacrifice for our Saluation commaundinge vs to offer a Remembrance thereof in stede of a Sacrifice So likevvise saith S. Hierome although not altogeather in like respect Pane Vino Puro
was incarnate which is against our Faith Now if Christe touching his Godhead coulde do that which the Father and the Holy Ghoste should not do the Godhead were diuided and peaces or partes were made thereof it being immutable indiuisible one and most excellently perfect so that touching that parte of the Godhead whiche were in Christe Sacrifice might be made but touching that which were in the Father and the Holy Ghoste sacrifice might not be made Here we shal trie how this nowe broched Arian wil purge him selfe Here shal we see whether this Heresie shal also be soothed bolstered and shouldered vp as your other Heresies are or no. Last of al here shal we see whether you wil recant and retract this abominable Heresie as in your Sermon of the .15 of Iune last at Paules Crosse you promised and protested to doo if you could be conuinced of any Of this I say no more But if this blasphemie may be mainteined in this newe English Churche vndoubtedly this English Churche ô pitiful case wil proue a professour of Arianisme yea I feare at length of worse if worse may be Certainely our Christe neuer taught this doctrine neither was euer any such thing attributed vnto Christe by Gods worde nor by the Catholike Churche wherefore you seme not to beleeue in our Christe Christ said of the Spiritual Rewlers Luc. 10. he that heareth you heareth me he that despiseth you despiseth me and so taught obedience vnto his Church and also vnto that chiefe Gouernour whom he instituted Head of the same and appointed to be his Vicare For wheras he said Ioan. 21. feede my shepe he meant that the sheepe should obey him whom he ordeined their feeder or Pastor Whereof it foloweth that who so euer refuseth to be fed that is to say to be gouerned and taught by that general Shepeherd he forsaketh the state and order of a sheepe Math. 25. and becōmeth a Goat and therefore to be placed at the lefte side when the great Shepeherd of al Shepeherdes shal come to sorte his flockes Christ commendeth vnto vs the Sacrament of Penaunce in which if we sinne after Baptisme we are reconciled to God by a Priest whereunto Confession of sinnes belongeth Christ also requireth perfourmance of Vowes This doctrine you receiue not you teache it not You beleeue not our Christe Christ saith S. Irenaeus at his last supper tooke into his handes the creature of bread blessed and gaue thankes Iren. li. 4. cap. 32. saying This is my body and taking the Cuppe likewise he confessed it to be his bloude and taught the nevve Oblation of the nevve Testament vvhich the Churche receiuing it of the Apostles offereth vp to God in the vvhole vvorlde Christian people hath euer bene taught from the Apostles time to this day that to be his true Body and his true Bloude whiche are offered an vppon credit of Christes saying doo adoure and worship the same You teache not this doctrine You beleeue not that Christes wordes do implye this much you teache the contrary Thus you beleeue not in our Christe That Christe sitting at the right hande of his Father in heauen is at the same time in the handes of them who receiue the Sacrament of the Aulter bothe Sacrifice and Sacrificer as S. Chrysostome teacheth and the Church beleeueth you teache not you receiue not you beleeue not Whereas Christ consecrateth the hoste by the ministerie of the Priest saying this is my body this is my bloude his saying being true and you not beleeuing how beleeue you in Christe Christ said Math. 5. A Citie built vpon a hil can not be hidde meaning it of his Church built vpon him selfe You teach that the true Church of Christ hath hen hidde these almost a thousand yeres and so hidde that before Luthers time al Christians were in palpable darknes How then beleue you in Christ Christ said to his Disciples bearing the person of al the Church Math. 28. Behold I am vvith you al daies vntil the end of the vvorld And againe Ioan. 14. I vvil pray my Father and he vvil geue you an other cōforter to remaine vvith you for euer the Spirite of Truth Marke wel good Reader Al daies For euer and The Spirit of Truth But you M. Iewel and your good felowes do teache plainely that the whole Churche of Christ was guided in Truthe by the Holy Ghost only for the space of .600 yeres and therefore you limit and prescribe the trial of Controuersies to that age onely As for these later so many hundred yeres you say the Pope hath blinded the whole worlde You beleue then in a Christe of .600 yeres only not in our Christe and Sauiour which promised to remaine with his Churche Al dayes no daye or yere intermitted euen to the vvorldes ende August in epist. Iohan tractat 6. Nay beleeue you in Christ at al S. Augustine teacheth that Heretikes beleeue not that Christ came in flesh Charitie saith he brought him vnto flesh VVho so euer therefore thus he concludeth hath not Charitie he denieth that Christ came in fleshe And to proue that an Heretike hath not Charitie thus he reasoneth Tu non habes Charitatem quia pro honore tuo diuidis vnitatem Thou hast not Charitie bicause for thine owne honours sake thou diuidest vnitie There for sure trial of Preachers whether they haue the spirite of God or no comparing them as S. Paule doth to earthen pitchers he biddeth men to prooue them by the sounde Pulsate tangite vasa fictilia ne fortè crepuerint male resonent Knocke the earthen pitchers saith he tinke them with your fingers least perhaps they be crackte and geue a broken sounde You are crackte you are crakte M. Iewel We haue knockte you and we finde that your sound is not whole How so Bicause you haue not the Charitie and loue of vnitie You say I knowe wel that you haue Charitie and that ye diuide not the Vnitie but that we the Papistes for so ye cal the Catholiques be they by whom the Vnitie is diuided No no M. Iewel It wil not serue you so to say For when men were once One and in one Auncient felowship or Communion as ye and we were in One Auncient Church before Luther brake the knot he diuideth Vnitie which departeth from his felowes and former godly companie to ioyne him selfe with a newe companie not he who abydeth stil in the former Auncient companie Say therefore what ye wil S. Augustine plainely prooueth that ye are they which haue broken the Vnitie For this can not be denied which by him is spoken as it were to your person Tollis te ab vnitate Orbis terrarum c. Tract 6. in epist. Iohan. You vvithdravv your selfe from the vnitie of the vvhole vvorlde You diuide the Church by Schismes you rent the bodie of Christ. He came to gather together you crie out to the ende to set a sundre It is you M. Iewel
Sacrifices of both testamentes is diuers Secondly touching the substance it is diuers in the Sacrifices of both Testamentes For the substance of the olde Sacrifices was a brute beaste meale cakes oile wine and such the like But the substance of our Sacrifice nowe frequented in the newe Testament is the Body and Bloud of Christ. Luc. 22. So both the Scripture teacheth shewing how Christe hauing at his supper consecrated his body and bloude commaunded his disciples to doe the same that he had done in his remembrance and S. Augustine declareth in these woordes August in lib. senten Prosperi Hoc est quod dicimus quod modis omnibus approbare contendimus Sacrificium Ecclesiae duobus confici duobus constare visibili elemētorum specie inuisibili Domini nostri Iesu Christi corpore sanguine sacramento re Sacramenti This is that we say that by al meanes we ernestly endeuour to approue that the Sacrifice of the Churche is made of two thinges and doth consiste of two thinges of the visible forme of the Elementes and of the inuisible body and bloude of our Lorde Iesus Christ of the Sacrament and of the thing of the Sacrament that is to wit of the body of Christe S. Ireneus agreably to this doctrine Irene lib. 4. ca. 34. saith the Euchariste to consiste of two thinges the one earthly whereby he meaneth the forme of the elementes the other heauenly that is to say the body and bloud of Christe Learne Reader by this doctrine of S. Augustine The substance of bread and vvine hath no place in our Sacrifice that the substance of bread and wine which be called here the Elements hath no place in our Sacrifice which doth consist of two partes the one visible the other inuisible The formes of the Elementes be the visible parte As for the substance of bread and wine it is vtterly inuisible But the inuisible parte of the Sacrifice is the body and Bloud of Christ. And therfore onlesse we appoint two inuisible partes of this Sacrifice that is to say the substance of bread and wine and also the body and bloud of Christe which were absurde to thinke it must nedes be confessed that no place is here lefte for the substāce of bread and wine but that the inuisible thing or substance of the Sacrament and likewise of the Sacrifice is the body and bloud of Christe And thus it is euidēt that the substance of the Sacrifices of the olde Law and of the Sacrifices of the new Law is sundry and diuerse Wherof it is concluded that it is either ignorātly and grossely or heretically said if it be stubbornly mainteined that our Sacrifice is one in substance with the Iewish Sacrifices The effectes of the Sacrifices of both Lawes be differēt and diuers Now thirdly to speake of the effect of the Sacrifices of the olde Lawe and of the Sacrifice of the Churche wherein Christ is offered vp vnto his Father in a Sacrament and mystically to wit vnder the forme of bread and wine certaine it is the effectes be diuers To declare fully the manyfolde and heauenly effectes of our Sacrifice farre surmounting any effecte that euer was ascribed to the Sacrifices of the olde Lawe it would require a long treatise The difference of both may sufficiently appeare by comparing two or three of their effectes together The bloude of the Sacrifices of the olde Lawe confirmed the same Lawe The bloude of our Sacrifice confirmeth the newe Testamente Math. 26. Hic est Sanguis meus noui Testamenti this is my bloude of the newe Testamente saieth our Lorde in the Gospel Howe much diuersitie then is betwene the newe Testament and the olde which is incomparably great the new Law passing in excellencie the olde so much differeth and so far surmounteth the effect of the Sacrifice of Christes Church the effecte of the Sacrifices of the Iewish Synagogue Againe August de fide ad Petrum cap. 19. to vse your owne witnesse against your selfe by reporte of Saint Augustine the olde Sacrifices signified in Figures Christes death to come and to be suffered But the Sacrifice of the Churche representeth with the real presence of that body which hath dyed the death already past and perfited And who knoweth not what difference there is betwene a promise and the performance of the promise Performance I say for although in our Sacrifice the death of Christe be not performed a new and againe suffred yet in the same is the truth of that very body inuisibly present which by suffering death hath payd the price of our Redemption In consideration whereof S. Augustine speaking of this Sacrifice offred vnto God for that blessed woman S. Monica his mother at her burial Augustin Confes. lib. 9. cap. 12. whereby he meaneth the Masse calleth it Sacrificium pretij nostri the Sacrifice of our Price that is to say wherewith our Raunsome was payd S. Ignatius ascribeth to our Sacrifice of a faithful person worthily receiued Ignatius in epist. ad Ephesios a maruelous effecte calling it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a medicine of immortalitie and a preseruatiue whereby we may be kepte from dying Which maruelous benefite who euer attributed to the Sacrifices of the olde Lawe Other the like effectes which the olde learned Fathers haue ascribed vnto the blessed Sacrifice be many in number and great in excellencie of which the olde Sacrifices were neuer hable to worke any Wherefore you ought to recant this your false doctrine M. Iewel that the Sacrifices of both Lawes be of one effecte or which is the same one in effecte No lesse false is that you affirme that as we haue Mysteries so had they Mysteries specially yf your worde of comparison imply a likenes and equalitie of Mysteries as the purport of your other doctrine leadeth vs to iudge of you For although it be true that they had Mysteries and we also haue Mysteries yet had not they the like Mysteries nor equal in dignitie truth and plainesse to our Mysteries and Sacramentes Howe much ours are preferred before theirs in the iudgemente of S. Augustine August in Psal. 73. it is euident by that he saith speaking of bothe Mutata sunt Sacramenta facta sunt faciliora pauciora salubriora feliciora The Sacramentes saith he be chaunged they be made easier fewer healthfuller happier And in the same place Sacramenta noui Testamenti dant Salutem sacramenta veteris Testamenti promiserunt Saluatorem The Sacramentes of the newe Testamente geue saluation the Sacramentes of the olde Testamente promised the Sauiour Wherefore M. Iewel either make vs beleue that you are to be heard before S. Augustine and that better is worse and worse better or reuoke your woordes by which you teache likenes and equalitie betwene the Mysteries and Sacramentes of both Testamentes M. Ievvel vtterly taketh avvay the real Sacrifice of the nevv Testamēt Where you say further that as we Sacrifice Christe so did
they Sacrifice Christe you vtterly take away the Real Sacrifice of the newe Testamente Wherein being a very weighty pointe you dissent from the Catholike Churche for which you and your felowes be condēned of the Churche and holden for Heretiks This haue I auouched and sufficiently proued in myne Aunswere to this 17. Article of your Chalenge What you reply against the same here in the processe of this Reioindre by Gods grace I shal confute To make your vntrue and heretical saying appeare the more tollerable to the vnlearned you ioine vnto it a saying that in a righte construction may be admitted As the Lambe of God is slaine vnto vs say you so was the same Lambe of God slaine vnto them In deede if you meane a newe actual sleying of Christ who is the true Lambe of God he is not now in the daily Sacrifice of the Church slaine no more then he was slaine in the daily sacrifices or in the yerely Passeouer of the Iewes But for asmuch as in our daily Sacrifice we haue the true Body and Bloude of the Lambe of God Ioan. 1. that taketh away the sinnes of the worlde laid vpon the holy table which is the Aulter sacrificed of Priestes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Nicen Councel saith that is to say without killinge and bloudshed In consideration hereof you should not haue saied as we sacrifice Christ so did they sacrifice Christ. For though in our Sacrifice we sley not Christ the true Lambe of God as they slewe the Lambes which prefigured Christ yet so farre as that is true which the Fathers of the Nicen Councel reporte and as by vertue of Christes almighty wordes according to his commaundement and Institution his Body and Bloud are consecrate and really present we offer vp Christe in deede vnto God in the Sacrifice of the Church For proufe of the real presence I referre the Reader who vnderstandeth not the Latine tongue to sundry learned workes written in the Englishe tongue in our time therof In which he shal finde the mater so largely so clearely and so substantially proued that he shal confesse he seeth the same onlesse he wil as some doo wilfully blindefolde him self and say in midday it is darke night Forasmuch then as we sacrifice Christ truely bicause we haue and offer vp in our sacrifice the truth of the body and Bloude of Christ in deede present by th' almighty power of his owne worde after which sorte the Iewes had not Christ present therefore it is not true that you say that as we sacrifice Christe so did they sacrifice Christe Diuersite in the Sacramentes of both Lavves Touching the comparison you make betwen the Sacramentes of both Lawes for now soudeinly you chop from the Sacrifices into the Sacramentes in expressing Christes death then to come and nowe paste whereby you go about to proue the equal valewe of both Sacramentes notwithstanding that both do expresse or signifie though in diuers degree the death of Christ yet doth our Sacrament of the Aulter farre surmount theirs bicause in ours is conteyned the very body and bloude of Christ in theirs was nothing but a figure in theirs the shadow in ours the body The place you allege out of the booke de vtilitate Poenitentiae that you attribute to S. Augustine contrary to the censure of Erasmus serueth you to no purpose We agree vnto it no lesse then your selfe In that place the authour speaketh of the spiritual meate which the Iewes did eate the same as we do And that meate he wil both to be Christ teaching how they did eate Christe Aug. de Vtilitate Poenitentiae whom we do eate The whole processe there is to be vnderstanded of the spiritual eatinge for so he saieth Quicunque in Manna Christum intellexerunt eundem quem nos cibum spiritalem manducauerunt Quicunque autem de Manna solam saturitatem quaesierunt patres infidelium manducauerunt mortui sunt Sic etiam eundem potum Petra enim Christus Eundem ergo potum sed spiritalem id est qui fide capiebatur non qui corpore hauriebatur Who so euer in the Manna vnderstoode Christe they did eate the same spiritual meate that we eate But who so euer sought onely to fil their bellies by eating Manna being the Fathers of the vnfaithful they did eate and dyed So likewise they dranke the same drinke For the Rocke was Christe And therefore the same drinke which we drinke they dranke but spiritual that is to say whiche was receiued by faith not that whiche was taken in by the body Now what though Christe whome both the Iewes and we do eate spiritually be one spiritual meate one Christe and likewise one spiritual drinke as he is eaten and dronken with spiritual eating and drinking Shal that therefore whiche we receiue in our Sacrament by sacramental eating and drinking vnder the formes of bread and wine be no better then that which they did eate and drinke in the ceremonie of their Sacramentes Christe that was to come and Christ that now is come is one Christe thereof who doubteth And though the wordes shal come and is come be sundry yet Christe is one Christe is not sundred with diuision of times And this is al that the auctour meant wherein lyeth no controuersie betwixte vs. But that you woulde proue and can not proue and we vtterly denye is this that the thing and substance of the Sacramentes of both Lawes be not sundry but one and the same and of equal worthines We receiue Christ both sacramentally to wit his true and real body and bloude in the Sacrament of the Aulter vnder the formes of bread and wine and also spiritually that is to say by faith They receiued him only spiritually bicause in Manna they vnderstode Christ. The like is to be sayd of the water that flowed out of the Rocke which they dranke in comparison of the very bloude of Christe which we drinke not onely spiritually but also sacramentally and in deede vnder the forme of wine mingled with water which bloude is the true water of life the same that issued out of our Lordes body the true Rocke after it was striken with the Rodde Exod. 15. Aug. Tractatu de vtilitate Poenitentiae that is to say after that the Crosse came vnto it For in figure thereof the olde Rocke was striken with woodde and not with Iron quia Crux ad Christum accessit vt nobis gratiam propinaret bicause the Crosse came vnto Christ that it might * Propinaret brince his grace vnto vs as saith S. Augustine or who so euer was the author of that booke The other place that you pretende to allege out of S. Augustine M. Ievv forgeth sayinges of his ovvn fathering them vpon the Doctours In Iohannem Tractat. 26. is soone answered where so euer it be it is not there Thus to forge sayinges of your owne and to beare your Reader in hande it is S. Augustines or
Crosse against the vnbloudy and mystical Sacrifice of the Aulter By the worde mystical I exclude not the truth of our Lordes body and bloude the substance of this Sacrifice but I signifie the couert manner of their being in the same If S. Augustine had in that place affirmed in the Sacrifice of the Church a thankes geuing and remembrance of Christes death only wherein he should haue said vntruly in some respect then had he serued your turne Now that he saith not so by the vncourteous reproufe of me for leauing the wordes vnrehersed which perteined not to my purpose and helpe your doctrine nothing at al it appeareth how feeble the parte is that with the trompet of your vaine Challenge you woulde needes to be proclaimed and that nowe with your colourable Replie you haue taken in hande to mainteyne S. Augustine contrarywise declaring with what kinde of Sacrifices the Iewes gaue a signification of Christes Sacrifice that was to come and with what kinde of Sacrifice the Christians do kepe the remembrance of Christes Sacrifice now past saith expressely that the substāce of the Iewes sacrifices were brute beasts and that of the Christians Sacrifice is the body and bloude of Christ◠his woordes be these Augu. cōt Faust. lib. 20. ca. 18. Hebraei in victimis pecorum prophetiam celebrabant futurae victimae quam Christus obtulit Vnde iam Christiani per acti eiusdem sacrificij memoriam celebrant oblatione participatione corporis Sanguinis Christi The Hebrewes celebrated a prophecie of the Sacrifice to come which Christe offered Wherevpon the Christians doe now celebrate the memorie of the same Sacrifice already performed by the offering and receiuing of the body and bloud of Christe This Sacrifice was in al times to be recommended vnto the mynde of man bicause thereof onely dependeth the saluation of man Before the Lawe and during the tyme of the Lawe it was prefigured and fore-signified by many and sundry thinges but specially by the sacrifices of beastes In the time of grace wherein we now liue the Christians do preserue kepe celebrate and solemnize the memorie of it by a more liuely and effectual representatiō as to whom more abundāce of grace through Christes Incarnation is dispensed that is as Saint Augustine teacheth by the Oblation and participation of the same body and bloude that was offered and shed for vs. Nowe if it be not the true body and bloude of Christe that we offer and receiue then neither can S. Augustines wordes be duly iustified and the Sacrifice of the Christians shal be lesse liuely lesse euident lesse representatiue as I may so say and of lesse valewe then were the Sacrifices of the Iewes For what comparison is there betwene a Lambe and a piece of bread with a suppe of wine And who iudgeth not the death of Christe to be more expressely represented by a lambe slaine then by bare bread and wine Neither bicause our Sacrifice is done in commemoration or remembrance thereof foloweth it that the presence of Christes body and bloud is not requisite But forasmuch as this is the commemoration which alone maketh God merciful vnto vs Origen in Leuit. Hom. 13. as Origen saith therefore to the working of so great an effecte it is necessary that Christes true body and bloude be really present in our Sacrifice M. Ievvel excludeth one truth by an other And whereas you bring Testimonies of the Fathers to proue that our Sacrifice is a remēbrance an exāple a token or signe of the true Sacrifice that was made vpon the Crosse you tooke more paines then neede required For that no Catholike man denieth But the conclusion which guilefully your endeuour is to inferre thereof which is that therefore Christe is not really present and offered by the Priest we deny vtterly For both be true that Christe is present substantially and in deede and is so offred by the Priest and also that the same is donne in a remembrance And this much is witnessed by S. Chrysostome Chrysost. in epist. ad Heb. Homil 17. where he saith Pontifex noster ille est qui hostiam mundantem nos obtulit Ipsam offerimus nunc quae tunc oblata quidem consumi non potest Hoc autem quod facimus in commemorationē quidem fit eius quod factum est Christ is our Bishop who offered a Sacrifice cleasing vs. We do offer the selfe same now also Which being then offered can not be consumed That which we doo is done in commemoration of that which was done Here we be taught by S. Chrysostom that we offer now the selfe same hoste or Sacrifice that Christe our high Bisshop offered wherewith to cleanse vs from the filth of our sinnes which was none other but his owne body and bloude And neuerthelesse that which we doo is done for a remembraunce of that which Christe did Commemoratiō example ād signe do not exclude the real presence and real oblation So that by Chrysostoms iudgement neither the commemoration nor example nor signe doth exclude the real presence and real oblation of Christes body and bloude But you M. Iewel after your common manner go about to put away one truth by an other truth Which your accustomed shifte is now very stale and moueth fewe that reade your bookes with any meane iudgement For the foolishnes of your argument is laughed at by euery Baker who hauing set forth a loafe of breade vpon his stal can tel you that that loafe signifieth and putteth folke in mynde there is bread to be solde in his house and that the same notwithstanding is breade as other his loaues be and perhaps of the same batche Right so the body of Christe in the Sacrament is both a signe of Christes body and also his very true body in dede And likewise his very flesh and bloude is offered in our dredful mysteries in signe commeration and remembrance of his fleshe and bloude offred and shed vpon the Crosse. YOu finde great fault with that I said Christe is offred vp vnto his Father vnder the formes of breade and wine truly and in dede and to make it seme more odious you affirme these to be myne own only words confidently and boldely presumed of my selfe neuer vsed before by any auncient Father Whiles you take delite in such Rhetorical amplifications you do but increase the number of your vntruthes and make the worlde witnesse of your shamelesse vanitie Though the auncient Fathers that wrote within in the first six hundred yeres after Christe haue not these precise termes yet they haue the self same doctrin and that is ynough Your Sacramētarie heresie is not so auncient the Churche was as it were in quiet possession of the Catholike faith touching this Article for the space of a thousand yeres If the flames of your heresie had flashed abroad out of Hel in their daies there is no doubte they would haue quenched it with streames of holesom doctrine vttered in the
same termes whereof nowe you would faine take some aduauntage These termes Christ is offered vp to his Father vnder the formes of bread and wine truely and in dede proued not to be of my priuate deuise HOw so euer it be concerning the auncient Fathers certaine it is these termes be not of my onely presumption or deuising It is wel knowen to al that reade the later Councels both general and prouincial the Scholastical Doctours and who so euer haue written against Berengarius Wikleff Luther Zuinglius Oecolampadius Caluine and those other late false teachers that these be not wordes of mine owne inuention but common to others that haue written in this mater sithens your Heresie first sprang Christe is in the Sacrifice of the Churche so offered as he is present for there he is made present by vertue of consecration to be offered and to be receiued But he is present vnder the formes of Breade and Wine and that truely and in deede Ergo he is offered vnder the formes of Breade and Wine truly and in deede For proufe of the Minor or second Proposition for els nothing here I suppose you wil denie that it may appeare these wordes not to be of myne owne onely deuising let a fewe testimonies suffice where many might easily be brought In the great Councel of Laterane thus you finde this Article set forth In Actis Conc. Lateran cap. 1. de fid Cat. Verum Christi corpus sanguis in Sacramento Altaris sub speciebus panis vini veraciter continentur transubstantiatis pane in corpus vino in sanguinem potestate Diuina The true Body of Christe and his Bloude are conteined truely and in deede for so much the worde veraciter doth signifie in the Sacrament of the Aulter vnder the formes of breade and wine the breade being transubstantiate into the body and the wine into the bloude by the power of God The Councel of Florence whereat accorde was made betwene the Greke and Latine Churche hath the very like In Decret Con. Flor. super vnio Iacobin Armenior or rather the same wordes touching the point by you denied Sacerdos in persona Christi loqueâ—is hoc conficit SacrameÌ„tum Nam ipsorum verborum virtute substantia panis in corpus Christi substantia vini in sanguinem conuertuntur ita tamen qoòd totus Christus continetur sub specie panis totus sub specie vini sub qualibet quoque parte hostiae consecratae vini coÌ„secrati separatione facta totus est Christus The Priest speaking in the person of Christe coÌ„secrateth this Sacrament For by the vertue of the very wordes the substance of bread is turned into the body of Christe and the substance of wine into his bloude yet so that Christ is conteined whole vnder the forme of bread and whole vnder the forme of wine Also if a diuision be madeâ— Christe is whole vnder euery parte of the consecrate hoste and of the consecrate wine With this agreeth the late learned Councel of Trent whose wordes these be touching both the real presence Concil Trident Sess. 22. cap. 1. and also the real Sacrifice Christus in coena nouissima sacerdotem secundùm ordinem Melchisedech se in aeternum constitutum declarans corpus sanguinem suum sub speciebus panis vini Deo Patri obtulit ac sub earundem rerum symbolis Apostolis quos tunc noui testamenti Sacerdotes coÌ„stituebat vt sumerent tradidit eisdem eoruÌ„que in sacerdotio successoribus vt offerrent praecepit per haec verba Hoc facite in meaÌ„ coÌ„memorationem Christe in his last supper declaring him selfe to be ordeined a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech offered vp vnto God the Father his body and bloud vnder the formes of bread and wine and deliuered them vnder the signes of the same thinges vnto the Apostles whom then he ordeined Priestes of the newe Testament that they should receine and gaue commaundement to them and to their successours in Priesthode that they should offer the â—ame by these wordes Doo ye this in my remembrance Petrus Lombardus saith Sentent lib 4. Distinct 8. Sub specie panis vini corpus sanguinem suum discipulis tradidit Christe gaue his body and his bloude vnto his Disciples vnder the forme of breade and wine S. Thomas also In tertiae parte SuÌ„mae quaestione 75. whom onely I allege among so many Scholastical Doctours saith most plainely Quia non est consuetum hominibus sed horribile carnem hominis comedere sanguinem bibere proponuntur nobis caro sanguis Christi sumenda sub speciebus illorum quae frequentius in vsum hominis veniunt scilicet panis vini Bicause it is not a thing customable for men but a horrible thing to eate mans flesh and drinke mans bloude the flesh and bloude of Christe are set before vs to be receiued vnder the formes of those thinges which man is coÌ„monly vsed vnto to wit of bread and wine There was no neede why I should recite so many testimonies for a thing so cleare An impudent lye that can not be excused and so wel knowen I graunt Yet bicause you are either so ignorant which I beleue not or so shamelesse which semeth as to say these woordes Christe is offred vp vnto his Father vnder the formes of bread and wine truly and in deede to be my woordes onely confidently and boldly presumed of my selfe as though I were the first that deuised them of mine owne head and the first that presumed to vse them I thought good to reherse so much to thintent I might cleare my selfe of such presumption and geue the worlde to vnderstand how litle you regard to vse manifest and impudent lying for maintenance of your doctrine rather then you would seme to be ouercome It is a token ye care litle what ye say when ye feare not to vtter so open vntruth If for this point you require testimonies of auncient Fathers whom you pretende to alowe as the same doctrine is by them most assuredly auouched whiche is ynough as I said before so some of them haue vttered it either with the same wordes or with the very like and such as in signification are equiualent S. Hilary saith Hilar. de Trinit lib. 8. Nos verè sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus We receiue the flesh of his body vnder a mysterie truly or verily Augu. ad BonifaciuÌ„ Epist. 23. S. Augustine saith Nonne semel oblatus est Christus in semetipso Et tamen in SacrameÌ„to non solùm per omnes Paschae solennitates sed omni die populis immolatur Was not Christe once offered vp in him selfe And yet neuerthelesse he is sacrificed in a Sacrament for the people not only through al the solemne feastes of Easter but also euery day Here you must either graunt that the fleshe of Christes body to be receiued of vs in or vnder a
interpretations and heaped phrases Once leaue your bad shifte of putting away one truth by an other truth Howe oftentimes muste we tel you the formes of bread and wine do signifie the body and bloud of Christ present not absent Againe if for proufe that these wordes which reporte Christe to be present in the blessed Sacrament of the Aulter or to be offered in the Sacrifice of the Aulter vnder the formes of bread and wine be not onely my wordes I should here also allege the place of Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus which I alleged in my Answer to the tenth Article of your Chalenge what could you reasonably replye to the contrary That auncient Father saith thus vsing the verie termes of the Scholastical Doctours Cyril Hierosol Catechisi Mystagog Christe once chaunged water into wine which is nye vnto bloude in Chana of Galiley by his onely wil and shal not he be worthy to be beleued of vs that at his last supper he chaunged wine into bloude For if being bidden to a corporal wedding he wrought a woonderous miracle shal we not much more confesse that he gaue his body and bloude vnto the children of the Spouse Wherefore with al assurednesse let vs receiue the body and bloud of Christe Hitherto reason mouing credit now folow the wordes that are specially to be noted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nam sub specie panis datur tibi corpus sub specie vini datur sanguis vt sumpto corpore sanguine Christi efficiaris ei comparticeps corporis sanguinis For vnder the forme shape shew or figure of bread the body of Christe is geuen vnto thee and vnder the shape of wine his bloud is geuen that hauing receiued the body and bloud of Christe thou maist be made coÌ„partener with him of his body and bloude Here haue you the expresse wordes teaching vs the body of Christe to be present in the SacrameÌ„t vnder the forme of bread and his bloude vnder the forme of wine which you report to be wordes of myne owne only inuention neuer vsed by any auncient Father before my tyme. Where you go about to answer to this place of S. Cyrillus in the tenth Article of your Replie to thintent the body and bloud of Christ might not be beleued to be really present in the blessed SacrameÌ„t I wish that al men saw both your weakenes and also your falshod You confesse this lerned Fathers wordes touching this point of the real presence Vvordeâ— in M. Iewels iudgemeÌ„t quicke and violent to be quicke and violent Whereby vnwares as it semeth you confesse him therein to be cleare and resolute as he is in dede To say truly violent he is not but a plaine reporter of the truth But in dede he is to quicke for dul heretikes that beleue their carnal senses rather then Christes owne most plaine wordes In the tenth Article of â—he Replie page 432. Yet he him self in plainest wise say you openeth and cleareth his owne meaning Truth it is he doth so as euery one that readeth the place as the Author reporteth it not as you haue falsified him may easily iudge Now bicause euery man hath not the booke of Cyrillus nor the booke of your Replie at hande for truthes sake and that your impudent falshod may appeare it shal be to good purpose to lay here before the Reader what you make that holy and auncient Father to say and what he saith him selfe Thus then say you falsly M. Ievvel falsifieth S. Cyrillus Hiero solym Cateches Mystagogica 4. For thus he writethâ— Ne consideres tanquam panem nuduÌ„ Panis Eucharistiae non est amplius panis simplex nudus Consider not as if it were bare bread The bread of the Sacrament is no lenger bare and simple breade Which wordes are naturally resolued thus It is bread how be it not only bare bread but bread and some other thing elles beside And there after a few wordes you conclude thus Of these wordes of Cyrillus we may wel reason thus by the way The Sacrament is not onlyâ— or bare bread therefore it is bread albeit not only bare bread And thus the same Cyrillus that is brought to testiâ—ie that there remaineth no bread in the Sacrament testifieth most plainely to the contrary that there is bread remaining in the Sacrament Caâ—echo Myst. 4. On the other side S. Cyrillus truly alleged saith thus Ne consideres tanquà m panem nudum vinum nudum corpus enim est sanguis Christi secundùm ipsius Domini verba Quamuis enim sensus hoc tibi suggesserit tamen fides te confirmet ne ex gusturem iudices quin potius habeas ex fide pro certissimo ita vt nulla subeat dubitatio esse tibi donata corpus sanguinem Doo not consider it as bare breade and bare wine for it is the body and bloude of Christe according vnto the wordes of our Lorde him selfe For although thy sense make that suggestion vnto thee yet let faith strengthen thee that thou iudge not the thing by thy taste but rather that of thy faith thou hold it as a most certaintie so as thou be void of al doubt that the body and bloud are geuen to thee These wordes being truly alleged doo clearely open the meaning of Cyrillus Your false forgeries and corruptions doo vndoubtedly declare that you seeke not the truth but intende deceit False doctrine must be mainteined by false meanes If you had meant good faith and truth you would truly and faithfully haue recited that holy Fathers woordes without such mangling and chaunging Now to vse your owne Rhetorike you haue done him great and open wrong wilfully suppressing and drowning his wordes and vncourteously commaunding him to silence in the middest of his tale Why did you not consider the force of his counsel which is that a Christen man regarde not the suggestion of his senses but stay him selfe vpon his faith not iudging of this high Mysterie what the sense of sight or tast geueth but with a simple faith beleuing the wordes that Christ spake In al S. Cyrillus you find not this order of wordes Panis Eucharistiae non est amplius panis simplex nudus The bread of the Sacrament is no lenger bare and simple breade as you turne it and ascribe it vnto S. Cyrillus By occasion of which wordes you tel vs of your natural resolution and beare vs in hande it is bread how be it not only or bare bread Which is no natural resolution gathered of S. Cyrillus wordes but a crafty collusion wroong out of your owne forged woordes to enuegle the ignorant Now S. Cyrillus wordes be these not in the fourth Catechesis as you haue quoted your booke but in the third where he speaketh of the holy Oile QuemadmoduÌ„ saith he Panis Eucharistiae In cateches 3. My stigogica post sancti spiritus inuocationem non amplius est panis communis sed est corpus Christi sic
sanctum hoc vnguentum non amplius est vnguentum nudum neque si ita quis appellare malit commune post quà m iam consecratum est c. As the bread of the Sacrament after the Holy Ghoste is called vpon it is no lenger common bread but is the body of Christ so this holy ointment also is no lenger a bare ointment nor if any man had rather so to cal it a common ointment after that it is now consecrat The wordes which you abuse to gyle simple bread bare bread only bread be not there vsed of S. Cyrillê° as you of purpose haue falsified him Mary speaking of the holy Oile whose substaÌ„ce is not changed into an other substaÌ„ce and remaineth Oile stil after it is coÌ„secrate he saith it is no lenger after consecration bare Oile But of the breade he saith that after consecration it is not coÌ„mon breade As if it were done of a great foresight and of very purpose to stoppe the wrangling of such false Sacramentaries and corrupte teachers in consideration that after consecration it is no lenger breade that is to say Ioan. 6. common breade but the body of Christe the breade of life M. â—ewels â—alshode plainely detected that came downe from heauen The like is to be iudged of the cup. What wilt thou haue more good Reader Christe faith of the one Math. 26. it is his body of the other it is his bloud Saint Cyrillus here saith Luc. 22. it is not breade it is not wine but the body and bloud of our Lorde And to declare his meaning plainely against al cauillation of heretikes he biddeth vs not to cal our senses as sight taste or any other sense to geue vs accompt what it is but to stay our hartes vpon faith and to beleue the wordes of our Sauiour M. Iewel contrariwise forging a saying of his owne and falsly fathering it vpon S. Cyrillus as though he had said it is not bare simple or only breade which that auncient Father saith not concludeth his Sacramentary doctrine that it is bread If thou hadst rather go out of the way and be deceiued then go right thou hast whome to followe But howe false a guide he is these thinges considered thou canst not be ignorant If after this large proufe of the being of Christes body and bloude in the Sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine whiche forme of wordes you would your Reader thinke to be myne only and neuer to haue ben vsed before by any of the auncient Fathers if I say after al this least you should seme fully confuted you wil yet reply and say that I haue nothing wherby to auouche the true and real Sacrifice of Christe for so much also do your wordes importe then omitting here an infinite number of other testimonies for proufe that Christ is truly That Christe iâ— truly and in deede offered and in deede offered vp of the Priestes in Sacrifice I wil in this place allege onely the testimonie of the first Nicene Councel The auctoritie wherof is and hath euer ben estemed very great as that which declareth not the opinion of one man but the faith of the whole Church of that time vttered by the mouthes and after mature and long deliberation confirmed with the subscription of .318 the best learned and most holy Bishops then lyuing The holy Ghoste by them published to the whole Church of God this doctrine Conc. Nic. Exaltatamente fide consideremus situm esse in illa sancta mensa Agnum Dei qui tollit peccata mundi qui a Sacerdotibus sacrificatur sine â—ruoris effusione Lifting vp our mynde let vs consider by faith the Lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the worlde to be layed vpon that holy table which is of the Priestes sacrificed without the sheddinge of bloude that is to say not after the manner of other sacrifices where the hoste is slain for so signifieth the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Real and true Sacrifice and Sacrifice in deede What other thing doth this addition without the shedding of bloude importe but a true and real sacrificing of one and the same substance that was before sacrificed with bloud shedding For these two contrary Accidentes be referred vnto one substance and haue their being in one substance Seinge then it was the substance of Christes most pretious body and bloude that was offred bloudily truly and in deede vpon the Crosse it wil folow by necessary sequele of reason that it is the same self substance of Christ that is sacrificed vnbloudily onlesse perhaps you wil imagine there be two Christes offered the one bloudily the other vnbloudily If then it be the substance of Christ that is offred it is a true and real Sacrifice For where so euer Christes substance is offred there is a true Sacrifice and a Sacrifice in deede And thus is your vncourteous reproch of my vndue boldenes and presumption in vttering the true doctrine of the Churche with the foresaied woordes answered and clerely discharged Now let vs see what other greater fault or ouersight you finde in my Answer Thus it foloweth in your Replie Iewel But vvhere as he addeth further That Christ is in deede and verily offered by the Priest al be it as he saith not in respecte of the manner of offeringe but onely in respecte of the presence of his Bodie Either he vnderstandeth not vvhat him selfe meaneth or els vvith a vaine distinction of cloudie vvoordes vvithout sense he laboureth to dasle his Readers eies For vvhat a fantasie is this to saie Christ is offred Verily and in deede and yet not in Respecte of the Manner of offeringe VVhat Respecte VVhat Manner is this VVherefore comme these blinde Mysteries abroade vvithout a glose VVhiche of al the Olde Doctours or holy Fathers euer taught vs thus to speake Certainely as he saith Christ is Really offered and yet not in Respect of the Manner of Offering So maie he also saie Christ died vpon the Crosse and yet not in Respect of the manner of dieinge By suche manners and suche Respectes he maie make of Christian Religion vvhat him listeth Yf he thinke Conc. Nic. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 somevvhat to shadovve the mater vvith these vvoordes of the Councel of Nice Sine Sacrificio Oblatus Let him consider a fore hande it vvil not healpe him For the holie Fathers in that Councel neither saie that Christ is Reallie Offered by the Prieste nor seeme to vnderstande these strange Respectes Contra Faustum lib. 20. ca. 21. Chrys. in Epist. ad Hebrae homil 17. and Manners of Offeringe They agree fullie in sense vvith that is before alleged of S. Augustine In this Sacrifice the Death of Christe is solemnized by a Sacramente of Remembrance And vvith that S. Chrysostome saith Hoc Sacrificium Exemplarillius est This Sacrifice is an Example of that Sacrifice Thus the Death of Christe is renued before our eies Yet Christe in deede neither is Crucified
of killed hostes you turne it thus barely sine Sacrificio oblatus offered without sacrifice but vntrulyâ— as I haue said before This place serueth you to no purpose M. Ievv falsifieth S Auguâ—â—ine bicause false translation ought not to make proufe against the truth S. Augustines wordes against Faustus Contra Faustum Manich. lib. 20. cap. 21. you haue also falsified and least you should be taken with the manner you leaue out the Latine and allege them onely in your owne English Whereas he nameth the flesh and bloude of this sacrifice least they might seme to importe a real presence of Cristes body and bloude as they doo in dede you haue put in steede therof the death of Christ. Which declareth your meaning not to be simple and plaine and the same in an other your selfe would not let passe without note of vntrue dealing Chrysost. In epist. ad Heb. Hom. 17. And where S. Chrysostome saith Hoc sacrificium exemplar est illius this Sacrifice is a sampler of that Sacrifice If you had meant good faith and truth you would not so haue nipped that Father and stopped him of his tale For it foloweth in the same sentence immediatly id ipsum semper offerimus M. Ievv falsifieth S. Chrysostome by nipping we offer alwaies that one selfe Sacrifice And that we should knowe certaynely that he meant not a signe or an example of the true sacrifice onely as you doo but the same it self in substance he saith in the same place Pontifex noster ille est qui hostiam mundantem nos obtulit ipsam offerimus nunc quae tunc oblata quidem consumi non potest He is our high Bishop who hath offred vp the Sacrifice or hoste that cleanseth vs the same do we also offer nowe which then being offred can not be consumed Hereupon might a plaine man demaunde of you who is our high Bishop Is it not Christ what is that hoste or sacrifice which purgeth and cleanseth vs from the filth of our synnes Is it any other then the precious body of Christ What can you answer then to S. Chrysostom saying that we now also offer vp the same And this is that for which you make so muche a doo at me for saying that Christ is offered vp in the Sacrifice of the Churche vnder the formes of breade and wine truly and in deede not in respecte of the manner of offering but in respecte of his very body and bloude really present And thus my woordes whiche you would so faine carpe be grounded as you see vpon a truth taught by the Councel of Nice and by S. Chrysostome In the other place of S. Augustine you haue very fowly demeaned your selfe M Ievvel corrupteth S. Augustine You haue snatched a peece of a sentence out of him and hauing framed it to an other sense then he meant by your common sleight of falsifying and vntrue tanslation you set it forth so as to the vnlearned it may make some shew for your side against the Catholike doctrine that we mainteine touching the Sacrifice of the Aulter And some learned also may haply be deceiued if they looke not better to your fingers and by view and confereÌ„ce of the booke espie out your false legierdemaine August de ciuit Dei lib. 10. ca. 5. S. Augustine saith say you Quod ab omnibus appellatur sacrificium signum est veri sacrificij The thing that of al menne is called a sacrifice is a token or signe of the true Sacrifice Who reading these wordes at the first being persuaded you haue plaid a true mans parte in alleging them would not thinke they made much for your negatiue doctrine which denyeth the true and real Sacrifice of the Churche and auoucheth al that is done in the Masse to be but a signe a remembrance and a voide representation Voide I say bicause ye take away the substance of the thing it selfe to wit the body and bloud of Christe Now S. Augustine in that place S. Augustine truly expouÌ„â—ded neither speaketh as you make him speake and much lesse meaneth he as with your falsified allegation you would force vpon him In that chapter he treateth of outward sacrifices and of the inward or spiritual sacrifices And preferring the spiritual sacrifices before the other he sheweth how the outward sacrifices made by the Fathers of the olde Testament with slaughter of beastes were significations of our spiritual sacrifices that is to say of those thinges which be done by vs to this ende that we cleaue vnto God and that vnto the same ende we helpe foreward our neighbour Of these he saith that God requireth them and that he is wel pleased with them Of the other that he requireth not them nor hath great liking in them After certaine places alleged out of the Scriptures for declaration and proufe hereof at length he commeth to the woordes whereof you would take holde against this special and singular Sacrifice of the Churche and saith De ciuit lib. 10. cap. 5. Oseae 6. Per hoc vbi scriptum est misericordiam magis volo quà m Sacrificium nihil aliud quà m Sacrificium Sacrificio praelatum oportet intelligi quoniam illud quod ab homenibus appellatur sacrificium signum est veri sacrificij Porrò autem misericordia verum Sacrificium est vnde dictum est Heb. 13. quod paulò ante commemoraui Talibus enim sacrificijs placatur Deus Whereas it is written I would haue mercie rather then sacrifice hereby we must vnderstand nothing els but that sacrifice is preferred before sacrifice forasmuch as that which is called sacrifice of men is a signe of a true sacrifice And as for mercie it is a true sacrifice In consideration whereof it is said whereof I spake euen now with such sacrifices that is to saye with almose and deedes of charitie God is appeased In the ende of that discourse he concludeth thus Quaecunque igitur c. What so euer thinges therefore we reade to haue bene commaunded by God diuers waies concerning sacrifices in the ministerie of the Tabernacle or of the Temple they are referred to the loue of God and of our neighbour thereby to be signified By due conference and consideration of this whole place and of the discourse there treated thou maist euidently see good Reader how litle M. Iewel is to be trusted when he bringeth ought out of any olde Doctor that semeth not to agree with the doctrine of the Catholike Church He would thee to beleue that S. Augustine spake of the special and singular Sacrifice of the Churche whereof we treate which Sacrifice in dede is of al men called a sacrifice and worthily for so it is But that by verdite of S. Augustine it is a signe of the true Sacrifice as though thereby were meant the same not to be the true Sacrifice and therefore no true and real Sacrifice at al therein lyeth much falshoode For neither speaketh Saint Augustine there of the
and putteth away al mystes and clowdes of any obiection to the contrary For hauing alleged the prophecie of Malachie to proue the New state of the new Testamēt in which prophecie God saith that in euery place Incense shal be offred vp vnto his name and Pure Sacrifice to declare what he vnderstādeth by either of them first he sheweth what is the Pure Sacrifice that we offer next what Incense we burne and what perfume we make Concerning Incense VVhat Eusebius vnderstādeth by Incense in Malachie he maketh it to be Prayer and not only Praier but also other spiritual Sacrifices namely the sweete fruit of our right opinion touching God the sacrificing of our selues vnto God the puritie of our bodies and mindes the worshipping of God with syncere affection Ad finem lib. 1. De Demonst. and with doctrines of truth For these saith he do please him more then the multitude of sacrifices made with bloud smoke and vnsweete sauours Touching the Pure Sacrifice Pure Sacrifice he saith that we sacrifice vnto God the sacrifice of praise And least he shuld seme to meane none other but the mere spiritual sacrifice that is declared by wordes he declareth with very expresse and apt termes what Sacrifice specially he meant saying Lib. 1. De Demonst. in fine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. Sacrificamus Diuinum venerandum sacrosanctum Sacrificium Sacrificamus nouè secundùm Nouum Testamentum Sacrificium purum We sacrifice the Diuine and the reuerend and most holy Sacrifice We sacrifice after a new manner according to the new Testament the Pure Sacrifice In these wordes Eusebius doth as it were with pointing of his finger direct vs vnto the most blessed Sacrifice of the Aulter and withal toucheth the manner how it is offred For what other sacrifice is there in the Church which is set forth with so special and so high titles of honour but the Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ For this aboue al other is Diuine as that wherein Christ God and man but as man vnto God is offred This chiefly is reuerend and honorable and most worthily to be accompted holy wherein is conteined Sanctum sanctorum the holiest of al holy As for the manner of sacrificing what is that we offer vp now in the Church of God after a new manner and according vnto the new Testament but the Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ which Priestes vnder Christ after the order of Melchisedech offer vp vnto God vnder the formes of Bread and Wine This new manner of offering Christ taught his Apostles the Apostles deliuered it vnto the Church to whom after that he had taken bread into his handes geuen thankes broken and blessed saying Luke 22. this is my body and likewise the cuppe saying also this is my bloude he gaue that he professed to be his body and bloude and commaunding them and in them their successours to doo the same in remembrance of him he taught as S. Irenaeas saith the new Oblation of the new Testament Irenaeus lib. 4. capite 32. Let it be remembred now and considered how many properties are attributed vnto this Sacrifice that Malachie speaketh of partely by the other olde learned Fathers but specially by S. Hierome and Eusebius whom M. Iewel hath brought for him First that it succede al the sacrifices of the olde Lawe Hieron in Malachi Cap. 1. Secondly that it be offered in euery place Thirdly that it be pure and cleane Fourthly that it be done in the Ceremonies of the Christians Fifthly to come to Eusebius that it be Diuine Euseb. de Demonst. lib. 1. reuerend and most Holy Sixthly that it be offered after a new manner Seuenthly that it be offered according vnto the Mysteries of the new Testament Eightly that I may adde certaine properties out of Eusebius fifth booke De Demonstratione that it be done according vnto the rules rites and ordinances of the Churche Nienthly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Christe doth performe it after the forme and maner of Melchisedech yet to this day amon gest men by his ministers Tenthly that it be such as was first done by our Lord and Sauiour him selfe and afterward by Priestes that * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 procede from out of him Eleuenthly that the thinges which be offered conteined vnder the formes of bread and wine vsed in this Sacrifice Lib. 1 De Demonst. bee as Eusebius saieth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say the very and true thinges and the principal paternes of the Images by which worde he meaneth the Sacrifices of Moses Law which were Images in respect of this truth Twelfthly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they be the thinges whereof being then to come Melchisech long before vsed the Images as Eusebius speaketh which Images were Breade and Wine wherewith as he saith he blessed Abraham S. Cyprian calleth this Gen. 14. Cyprian lib. 2. epistol 3. veritatem praefiguratae Imaginis the truth of the Image that went before in figure Now let M. Iewel name if he can what sacrifice is that which we offer vp after a newe manner according vnto the newe Testament and hath al these conditions and properties And if he haue none to name besides the blessed Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe whereof we speake as we are assured he hath none then I wish his conscience would ouercome shame lead him to recant and consider of the false doctrine whereby he enuegleth the people of God making them to beleue that this Sacrifice is to be vnderstanded only of Prayer as he him selfe taketh Prayer and that there is no such external Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe at al. This much I thinke to be yenough for answer vnto his .3 Diuision The .4 Diuision The Ansvvere FOr whereas the holy Euangelistes reporte that Christe at his last Supper tooke Breade gaue thankes VVordes of Oblatiō without Termes of Oblatiō brake it and said This is my body which is geuen for you Againe this is my Bloude which is sheadde for you in remission of sinnes By these wordes being wordes of Sacrificing and offering they shewe and set forth an Oblatiō in Acte and deede though the terme it selfe of Oblation or Sacrifice be not expressed Albeit to some of excellent knowledge Datur here soundeth no lesse then offertur or immolatur that is to say is offered or Sacrificed specially the addition pro vobis withal considered For if Christe said truely as he is trueth it selfe 1. Pet. 2. and guile was neuer founde in his mouthe then was his body presently geuen and for vs geuen at the tyme he spake the woordes that is at his Supper For he saide datur is geuen not dabitur shal be geuen And likewise was his Bloud sheadde in remission of sinnes at the tyme of that Supper for the text hath funditur is sheadde But the geuing of his Body for vs and the
offering a spiritual Sacrifice vnto God and his Father before his passion commaunded vs his Apostles alone to do the same albeit there were others present with vs that beleued in him but euery one that beleueth is not forth with a priest nor hath Bishopply honour Here haue we expresse and plaine mention of the Sacrifice which Christe as high Bishop offered vp vnto God his Father and commaunded his Apostles to offer the same before his passion This Sacrifice he calleth Spiritual Spiritual in respecte of the sacrifices of Moyses lawe which were grosse and bodily of brute beastes meaning the sacrifice of his body and bloude spiritually that is to say with spiritual manner and not with visible shedding of bloude offred and that before his passion whereby he signifieth the Sacrifice made at the Supper And that it be not vnderstanded of the Sacrifice of Praise or prayer onely S. Clement saith it was such as the Apostles only were commaunded to offer for that they were Priestes A testimony for the Sacriâ—fice of the Altare Of what other sacrifice can M. Iewel vnderstand this whiche Christe offered before his passion and commaunded his Apostles and Priestes onely to offer but of the Sacrifice of his Body and bloud which there after a fewe wordes is called the pure and vnbloudy Sacrifice Of this Sacrifice he is to be expounded where speaking of S. Steuen in the same chapter he saith thus Whereas he was such and so great a man feruent in spirite and saw Christe on the right hande of God and the gates of heauen open yet it appeareth no where that he exercised those offices which be not conuenient for the degree of Deaconship as that either he offered the Sacrifice or laid handes vpon any but kept the order of a Deacon vnto his ende As for the inward spiritual Sacrifices as praise thankes a contrite harte prayer and such the like I trow M. Iewel wil not deny but that S. Steuen did them before his martyrdom and that the same were not vnconueâ—ient for the order and degree of Deacons And so S. Clement geueth vs a plaine testimonie for the Sacrifice of the Aulter the ministration whereof belongeth to the order of Priesthod only which is aboue the order of Deaconship M. Ievvel taken in a manifest and foule coÌ„tradictâ—oÌ„ But who would thinke that M. Iewel who is so busy to burthen other men with contradiction yea where none is would fal into the ouersight of so foule a Contradiction him selfe For what can be a more open contradiction then to say as he doth that S. ClemeÌ„t is brought in dumme and saying nothing and yet his woordes be misreported If he be brought in dumme if he say nothing then where be his woordes that be misereported If his woordes be misereported how is he brought in dumme how saith he nothing I haue reade where speach hath ben attributed to beastes and Trees but that a dumme maÌ„ and one that saith nothing speaketh and vttereth woordes as it is absurde in nature so no man was euer so mad as once to feine it Thus whiles M. Iewel seeketh to skoffe S. Clement out of credite he hath shewed him selfe worthy of smal prayse and credite As touching the worde Antitypon vsed by S. Clement whereof he taketh holde Antitypon doth not exclude the veritie of the mysteries it maketh litle for his purpose In what Logique learned he to make this Argument By S. Clement Priestes are required to offer vp antitypoÌ„ that is to say the signe figure or sampler of Christes body Ergo they haue no commission nor power to offer vp Christe him selfe Where two thinges go to gether it is a foolish reason that with the affirmation of the one concludeth the denial of the other By suche Logique he may as wel denie Christe to be God bicause he is Man For answer to this and the like cauilles made by the Sacramentaries against the veritie of Christes body and bloude in the blessed Sacrament it shal be necessary to informe the Reader of the doctrine of S. Augustine touching this very point Augu. lib. SenteÌ„tiar Prosperi de Consec Dist 2. Hoc est quod His wordes be these Hoc est quod dicimus quod omnibus modis approbare contendimus Sacrificium Ecclesiae duobus confici duobus constare visibili elementorum specie inuisibili Domini nostri Iesu Christi carne sanguine Sacramento re sacramenti id est corpore Christi c. This is that we say that we go about by al meanes to approue That the Sacrifice of the Church is made of two thinges and consisteth of two thinges the visible forme of the elementes and the inuisible flesh and bloud of our Lorde Iesus Christe both the Sacrament and the thing of the Sacrament that is to say the body of Christe Now where as the Sacrifice consisteth of two things the visible forme of the elementes For what antitypon is taken in S. Clement which are bread and wine and the flesh and bloude of our Lorde S. Clement naming antitypon regalis corporis the signe figure or sampler of Christes roial body meaneth the visible forme of the elementes as vnder them the body and bloude is really conteined And so by this woorde antitypon he vnderstandeth not the outward formes of breade and wine only but as in the same sentence he plainely expoundeth him selfe the whole Sacrament otherwise called the Euchariste Which Sacrament is after consecration not without reason termed antitypon partly in consideration of the outward formes partly bicause the external breaking and diuision of the blessed Sacrament representeth and betokeneth Christes passion and bloude shedding Also bicause we haue not yet the fruition of Christes body after such wise as we shal haue in the life to come Here we haue Christe verily in deede and substantially but as yet couered in a mysterie and hidden vnder the outward formes 1. Cor. 13. But in the life to come we shal see him face to face not as through a glasse or darke contemplation but euen so as he is in truth of his owne Maiestie That the terme antitypon maketh nothing for the Sacramentaries Bicause the Sacramentaries where with al their witte and cunning they impugne the Sacrifice of the Aulter pretend to haue great aduauntage against the Catholikes for that S. Basil and certaine other olde Fathers vse this terme antitypon where they speake of the most blessed Sacrament calling it by that name It shal be good to shew how litle the vse of the same in the Fathers writings maketh for proufe of their heresie which they mainteine against the real presence First it is acknowledged and confessed of the Catholikes that the Sacrament of the Aulter is antitypon that is to say a sampler or signe of Christes roial body otherwise it could not be a Sacrament which is a visible signe of inuisible grace Thus farre we agree on both sides The point wherein
we vary froÌ„ the SacrameÌ„taries is touching the substance of the SacrameÌ„t or which is al one though in diuers respectes the Sacrifice We say that onlesse the flesh and bloude of Christe be the substance of this sampler or signe it can not be a Sacrament meete for the dignitie of the new Testament bicause it must be the truth of al the figuratiue Sacrifices of the olde Lawe according to that S. Augustine teacheth speaking of the Tableâ— Augu. De ciuita Dei lib. 17. ca. 20. which Christe being a Priest aftâ—r the order of Melchisedech doth exhibite and geue Id enim Sacrificium successit omnibus illis Sacrificijs veteris Testamenti quae immolabantur in vmbra futuri For that Sacrifice saith he hath succeded al those Sacrifices of the old Testament which were offered in the shadow of that to come Wherefore this Sacrifice being the body of those shadowes must excel in substance the Sacrifices that were the shadowes But how can that be if the substance of bread be the substance of our Sacrifice for asmuch as the substance of bread is no better if it be so good being an artificial and dead thing then is the substance of a lambe an Oxe or a goat which are natural and lyuing creatures whose substances were substances of the olde Sacrifices that were shadowes S. Alexander therefore the fourth Bisshop of Rome after S. Peter considering the excellency of our Sacrifice aboue the olde Sacrifices Alexand. epist. 1. De CoÌ„sec dist 2. cap. Nihil in saith Nihil in Sacrificiis maius esse potest quà m corpus sanguis Christi nec vlla oblatio hac potior est sed omnes haec praecellit c. Nothing can be greater in Sacrifices then the body and bloude Christe neither is there any oblation better then this but this doth farre excel al others the which ought to be offered vp vnto God with a cleane conscience and to be receiued with a pure mynde and of men to be wourshipped Thus our Sacrifice conteyning really the pretious body and bloude of Christe is a Sacrifice worthy of the newe Testamente most meete and hable to represent vnto vs and preserue in perpetual remembraunce the same body and bloude rent and shed vppon the Crosse and most effectual to deriue and apply vnto vs the merites and fruites of that bloudy Sacrifice And yet neuer the lesse being ministred vnder the outward formes not of the body and bloude it selfe but of bread and wine for our infirmities sake and for the better practise of our faith it is rightly called the sampler of the roial body of Christe so termed by a fitte worde in the greke tongue antitypon which being taken in the best signification Augu. lib. 2. quaest Euangel cap. 3. VVhat properly is signified by antitypoÌ„ as it is reason it should so be taken sith it signifieth a Sacrifice most diuine and as S. Augustine termeth it Sacrificium Sanctum Sanctorum the Sacrifice that is of al holy things the most holy doth import a true and like sampler or counterpane equal in truth and worthinesse with that which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the principal copie For so much doth the greke preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie in composition as for example Homere oftentimes calleth that man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 asmuch to say equal to God who for some excellent qualitie semed to be nothing inferiour at least in that point to them whom he feined to be Gods And in consideration hereof learned men haue translated the Greke worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by this Periprasis or circumlocution examplar similis formae a sampler of like forme Now what thing is there any where that is worthy to be or may be a true patern or sampler of like forme to the body and bloud of Christe crucified and shed and now remaining visibly in heauen but the body and bloud of Christe him selfe which by vertue of his almighty woorde he of his singular mercie so maketh and tempereth for vs in the most holy mysteries geuing them vs vnder the formes of our common foode breade and wine that neither the Maiestie of them should deterre and fray vs from offering them nor any lothsomnes or sight of fleshe and bloude shoulde cause vs to abhorre to eate and drinke them And thus the body of Christ in the Eucharist is antitypon that is to say a signe a sacrament a patern a sampler of his body that hoong vpon the Crosse and of his body that is now in Maiestie at the right hande of God the Father Neither is this a new doctrine of our deuise it was taught in Christes Churche aboue eleuen hundred yeres past Let these woordes of S. Augustine serue to witnesse the same Augu. lib. Sentent Prosperi de Consec Dist. 2. Hoc est Caro eius est quam forma panis opertam in Sacramento accipimus sanguis eius quem sub vini specie sapore potamus Caro videlicet carnis sanguis est Sacramentum Sanguinis vtroque inuisibili Spirituali intelligibili signatur visibile Domini nostri Iesu Christi corpus palpabile plenum gratia omnium virtutum diuina Maiestate The flesh of Christe it is that being couered with the forme of bread we receiue in the Sacrament and his bloud it is which vnder the shape and sauour of wine we drinke soothly flesh is a sacrament of flesh and bloude a sacrament of bloude by both being inuisible spiritual and intelligible the body of Iesus Christe our Lord that is visible and palpable ful of the grace of al vertues and diuine Maiesty is betokened Consider this doctrine wel Christian Reader First that whiche we receiue in the Sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine S. Augustine telleth thee is the flesh and bloude of Christe Next he saith not that the outward formes of bread and wine but that the very flesh and bloude be sacramentes of flesh and bloude Lastly to put al doubte away and to make the mater cleare he sheweth how this is trueâ— and saith that by both flesh and bloude inuisible and intelligible the visible and palpable body of Christe is pointed to notified and signified Which is as much to say briefly as that the body of Christe in the Sacrament inuisible is a signe or sampler of Christes body visible Al this yf thou consider diligently and aduisedly thou maist easily vnderstande what both S. Clement in the place by M. Iewel alleged and other learned Fathers meane by this worde antitypon in the mater of the blessed Sacrament soothly not to exclude the real presence of Christes body but to signifie the secret meane of the presence We graunt therefore the Sacrament of the Aulter to be a signe as S. Clement calleth it antitypoÌ„ But when by any Sacramentarie the denial of the thing it self is inferred of the affirmation of the signe The kindes of Signes significatiue only and exhibitiue we
deny the Argument For there be two kindes of signes One is significatiue onely the other exhibitiue which doth not only betoken or signifie but also exhibiteth and geueth the thing signified In the olde Lawe the vnleuened bread signified onely that the feast of Easter was to be celebrated with sinceritie of harte and life The corporal purgations signified only the cleansing of myndes But Baptisme in the newe Lawe doth not only signifie but also exhibiteth and worketh the Wasshing of synnes and is the ablution it selfe or wasshing away of sinnes Likewise the holy Euchariste doth not onely betoken or signifie the body and bloud of Christe but contineth and exhibiteth it present Signū signatum exhibitiuū and is the very body and bloude of Christ it is signū signatū exhibitiuū Thus it appeareth how the Sacramentaries Argument is naught The Sacrament is a signe ergo it is not the body For it is both a signe and the body it sefe For if any wil say it is a signe significatiue only it is to be denied as false and contrary to the manifest wordes of Scripture and the expositions of al the Fathers Now I reporte me to the iudgement of the discrete Reader what aduauntage M. Iewel hath gotten by the terme antitypon alleged out of S. Clement against the blessed Sacrifice of the Churche S. Clemēt corrupted by M. Ievvel On the other side what aduauntage may iustly be taken against him for that most falsly he hath corrupted his author For looke Reader vpon the shorte testimonie which he allegeth out of S. Clement and thou shal finde that M. Iewel hath cut of out of the middest two wordes of greatest force for the vnderstanding of that goeth there immediatly before that by falshod he might geue at least some colour vnto his Reply where in truth he had none at al. The wordes falsly cut away be these Clemen Constitut. lib. 6. cap. 30. acceptabilemque Eucharistiam So that the whole sentence is this in S. Clement Antitypum regalis corporis Christi acceptabilēque Eucharistiam offerte in Ecclesiis coemeteriis vestris Offer ye vp the sampler of the roial body of Christ and the acceptable Euchariste in your Churches and burying places These two wordes with the sleight of falsifying nipte away by M. Iewel be so requisite to the vnderstanding of the authours meaning that without them mater of cauil by reason of the terme antitypon may be ministred vnto such as be more ready to impugne then to defend the doctrine of the vniuersal Churche touching the substance of the Sacrament and Sacrifice of the Aulter Contrarywise being leaft in the sentence considered and rightly vnderstanded they exclude al occasion of doubte or cauil that might rise through the other terme of more obscuritie For the Euchariste without doubt in that age being taken for the body of Christ how can it be conceiued that the other terme antitypon in the same place ioyned by a copulatiue together with it should importe the contrary That S. Clement meant by the Eucharist the true and real body of Christe it is euident by that we finde in the learned Fathers of that age namely S. Ignatius and S. Ireneus who lyued in or sone after S. Clementes tyme. S. Irenaeus saith Irenaeus lib. 4. ca. 34. that the breade hauing receiued the calling vpon of the name of God whereby he meaneth the Consecration is no more common bread but Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terrena coelesti the Euchariste consisting of two thinges the one earthly whereby he vnderstandeth the forme of bread the other heauenly which is the body of our Sauiour The Euchariste maketh our bodies to be immortal And that it appeare certainely that he thought the Euchariste to be the body and bloude of Christe he proueth that our bodies shal not remaine in corruption but haue the resurrection that is hoped for bicause they receiue the Euchariste and be fed with the flesh and bloude of our Lorde Ignat. ad Smyrnen apud theo dorit li. 3. Dialog S. Ignatius likewise in an Epistle ad Smyrnenses as Theodoritus allegeth him in the third booke of his Dialogues writing against certaine Heretikes that would haue neither Euchariste nor Sacrifice auoucheth the Eucharist to be the flesh of Christe The Eutheriste is the flesh of Christ that suffered for vs. These be his wordes Eucharistias oblationes non admittunt eò quòd non confiteantur Eucharistiā esse carnēseruatoris nostri Iesu Christi quae pro peccatis nostris passa est quam Pater sua benignitate suscitauit Eucharistes and oblations they wil not admit bicause they wil not confesse the Euchariste to be the flesh of our Sauiour Iesus Christe which flesh suffered for our sinnes and which the Father of his goodnes raised vp from death Marke Reader this auncient Father and blessed Martyr saith not the Euchariste signifieth Christes flesh but is Christes flesh yea that flesh which was crucified buried and rose againe And although Theodoritus alleged this authoritie to proue that it was the humaine flesh and not the Godhed of Christe that suffered death and rose againe which he proueth by the later parte of the same yet it principally proueth our purpose that the Euchariste is the true flesh of Christe Againe onlesse the selfe same flesh of Christe be in the Euchariste which died vpon the Crosse and rose againe this authoritie auailed Theodoritus nothing to proue that Christes flesh was crucified and raised vp againe Wherefore for so much as it is cleare by the testimonies of S. Ignatius and S. Irenaeus who liued not long after S. Clements time that the beleefe of their age was the Euchariste to be the flesh and bloude of Christe how can M. Iewel kepe his credite with any man that loueth truth and not seme to haue intended crafte and deceite in that of purpose least the truth should appeare manifest he falsified his auctor by clipping away those two wordes from the middest of the sentence that make directly against him and put away al doubte of contrary sense Thus to mainteine the false doctrine of his arrogant Chalenge he feareth not to violate the Fathers to corrupte their writings to deceiue the worlde to purchase him selfe the most reprocheful name of a falsifier By such champions such quarrels are mainteined Constitut. lib. 8. As for the other place of S. Clement where he saith offerimus hunc panem hoc poculum we offer this breade and this cuppe who nowe a daies knoweth not that the Sacrament sometimes is called by the name of breade and wine not bicause the substance of breade and wine remaineth but bicause the outwarde formes taft and other qualities of breade and wine be sene felt and perceiued bicause before consecration it was breade and wine and bicause it is the true breade and wine that came downe from heauen Neither doth S. Clement which is to be noted
barely cal it bread and a cuppe but this bread This breade◠this Cup. and this Cuppe as S. Paule calleth it likewise this bread and this Cuppe and that bread and the Cuppe of our Lorde 1. Cor. 11. By which manner of speach vttered with the Pronoune Demonstratiue not common bread nor a common cuppe but a singular a diuine a heauenly and the supersubstantial breade and the like cuppe in Saint Clement is signified euen that breade and cuppe which according to Christes Institution was before consecrated with the woordes of our Lorde Math. 26. This is my body This is my bloude Luc. 22. Iewel Neither did Christe by these vvordes Doo ye this in my Remembrance erecte any nevve Succession of Sacrificers to offer him vp Really vnto his Father nor euer did any Auncient learned Father so expounde it Christes meaning is cleare by the vvordes that folovve For he saith not onely Doo yee this but he addeth also In my Remembrance VVhich Doinge perteineth not only vnto the Apostles and their successours as M. Harding imagineth but also to the vvhole people And therefore S. Paule saieth not only to the Ministers but also to the vvhole Congregation of Corinth 1. Cor. 11 As often as ye shal eate this Bread and drinke this Cuppe Ye shal shewe foorthe and publishe the Lordes Deathe vntil he come Likevvise S. Chrysostome applieth the same Chrysost. ad popul Antioch Homil. 61 not onely to the Cleregie but also to the vvhole people of his Churche of Antioche Thus he saith Hoc facite in memoriam Beneficij mei Salutis vestrae Doo ye this in Remembrance of my Benefite and of your Saluation Of these vveake positions M. Harding vvithout the vvarrante or authoritie of any learned Father reasoneth thus Christe saith This is my Bodie that is geuen for you Doo this in my Remembrance Ergo The Prieste hath power to offer vp the Sonne of God vnto his Father Harding What M. Iewel meaneth by erecting a newe succession of Sacrificers Priestes novv b◠made by election and ordinatiō an contine◠not by right of successiō I know not but that he taketh pleasure in his owne skoffing wittte And whereas he was not hable with sounde reasons or good authorities to impugne the Priesthod of the new Testament it liked him to worke his spite against it with scorneful prophane and Iewish vtterance Who euer said that Christe by those wordes erected a new succession of Sacrificers If no man euer said it why chargeth he vs as though it had bene said Aarons Priesthode went by succession and belonged to one Tribe But Priestes of the newe Testamente enter not into their Priesthod by right of succession as they of the Leuitical Tribe did but by election and lawful ordination This Priesthod principally is Christes which continueth without succession for euer as he is a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedek Psal. 109. Neither be we that are Priestes the Successours of Christe and much lesse of Aaron we be the ministers of Christ in the function of this Priesthod and that which we do we do it by vertue and power of Christe and in the person of Christ yea rather Christ is said to doo it through vs. Oecum in epist. ad Heb. ca. 5. For Oecumenius speaking of the daily execution of our Priesthoode and of Priestes that daily do sacrifice saith per quos medios Christus sacrificat sacrificatur Christe by the meanes or mediation of the Priestes that be now of whom there he spake before sacrificeth and is sacrificed Euseb. De Demonst. lib. 5. Eusebius declaring the euerlasting priesthod of Christ after the order of Melchisedek saith likewise Et sanè oraculi exitus admirabilis est ei qui comtempletur quomodo Seruator noster Iesus Christus Dei ipsius Melchisedech ritu ea quae sunt Sacrificij inter homines faciendi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etiam adhuc per suos ministros perficiat And verily the accomplishment of the oracle which is thou art a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedek is maruelous to him that beholdeth Psal. 109. how our Sauiour Iesus the Christ of God doth performe euen vntil this day those thinges that be of the Sacrifice which is to be done amonge men Marke Reader how is that accomplished which the Father in the Psalme is reported to haue said vnto Christ Thou art a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech How remaineth he a Priest for euer sith cōcerning that Oblation and sacrifice which was once offered by him saith Oecumenius meaning the sacrifice of the Crosse he would not haue said in aternum for euer To this question that might be moued both Oecumenius and Eusebius do answer that euen now Christe doth the thinges that belong vnto the Sacrifice which is to be made among men Which is asmuch in sense as Oecumenius saith that now by the mediation of Priestes ministerie Christe sacrificeth and is sacrificed And so he remaineth a Priest for euer But leauing these skorneful termes of erecting a newe succession of Sacrificers to the schoole of Heretiques and vsing the common wordes of the Churche If M. Iewel meane therby to say that Christe speaking these wordes Doo ye this in my remembrance did not ordeine the Apostles Priestes nor therby gaue them auctoritie to ordeine others that for tyme to come should succede them in that order and that so saying he gaue not them power auctoritie and cōmission to offer vp his body and bloud I say his meaning is vtterly vntrue And this also which he saith further that neuer any learned Father so expounded those wordes of Christe I affirme to be very false as here it shal appeare First let S. Clement be heard in this point whom M. Iewel in a false cause doth here take holde of That Christe made the Apostles Priestes Bicause the place is somewhat longe it shal be sufficient to reporte it in English truly translated Thus he saith Of Moyses most derely beloued of God Clemens◠Constitut. Aposto li. 8. cap. vlt. were instituted Bisshops Priestes and Leuites◠Of our Sauiour we thirteen Apostles Of the Apostles I Iames and I Clement and with vs others that we recken not al againe Cōmonly of al vs Priestes Deacons Subdeacons and Readers The first high Bishop then by nature is Christe the only begottē rapuit who caught not honour vnto himselfe but was constituted of his Father Who for our sake being made man and offering spiritual sacrifice to God and his Father before his passion commaunded vs alone to do the same thing albeit others were present with vs that beleued in him But yet not euery one that beleueth is by and by a Priest and promoted vnto Bisshoply honour This testimonie of S. Clement declareth plainely both that Christe made the Apostles Priestes before his Passion geuing charge and commaundement to them onely though others that beleeued were present
the Caluinistes The ministratiō of the nevv holy Cōmunion made a nevv Sacrifice by M. Ievv which they haue set vp like an Idol in their defourmed churches in place of the blessed Masse after a diuers manner in diuers Cities and Countries according to the diuers fantasies of new Ministers who daily please them selues with changing what so euer liketh others in which sorte of Communion there is no substance of any better thing then of bread and wine no due consecration made no oblation no real Sacrifice no participation of the true body and bloude of Christe If this be his meaning as doubtelesse it is most certaine it is those auncient learned Fathers neuer spake of it neuer knewe it much lesse did they any where call the ministration of it a Sacrifice S. Augustine saith not Augustin ad Petrū Diaconū cap. 19. the ministration of the Communion is a Sacrifice which M. Iewel by his wordes taketh vpon him to proue but In this Sacrifice saith he there is a thankesgeuing and a cōmemoration of the flesh of Christe which he offered for vs and of the bloude which the same God did shed for vs. In this Sacrifice saith he he saith not in the ministration of the Cōmunion What he meant by this Sacrifice there he sheweth clearely For hauing said in the beginning of the chapter that beastes were sacrificed vnto Christe with the Father and the holy Ghost by the Patriarkes Prophetes and Priestes of the olde Law forthwith he addeth these wordes Cui nunc id est tempore Noui Testamēti cū Patre Spiritu sancto cū quibus est illi vna Diuinitas sacrificiū Panis vini in fide charitate sancta Ecclesia Catholica per vniuersum orbē terrae offerre nō cessat Vnto whom now that is to say in the time of the Newe Testament with the Father and the Holy Ghoste with whom he hath one Godhed the holy Catholike Church doth not ceasse to offer vp through the whole worlde the Sacrifice of bread and wine in faith and charitie M. Iewel thought to take aduantage of this place The Sacrifice of bread and vvine bicause this Sacrifice is here called the sacrifice of bread and wine and would nedes this to be taken for the ministation of his new Communion as though bicause bread and wine is named which is the substāce of their cōmunion the body and bloud of Christe were excluded But this reason is very weake besides that neither M. Iewel nor any of the Caluinistes doo vse to cal this sacrifice the Sacrifice of bread and wine Neither do they bring their bread and wine to church to make a sacrifice of it to God but to distribute it vnto their Congregations The sacrifice they pretende to make is of thankes and praises any outward thing they sacrifice not at al. True it is this Sacrifice is sometimes called the Sacrifice of bread and wine as in this place De Fide ad Petrum Diaconum either bicause it representeth in outwarde formes bread and wine or bicause bread and wine are the thinges whereof of the change it selfe which perteineth to the nature of a Sacrifice for so much as it requireth that the thing that is offered be sanctified by some change taketh beginning And as in the olde sacrifices of the Iewes the Calfe both being yet aliue was called a Sacrifice bicause it was that thing whiche by killing was to be sanctified and also being killed bicause it was the Hoste now sanctified by sacrificing whiche hoste so many as did eate of were made partakers of the aulter Euen so in the Sacrament of the Euchariste the bread and wine may be called a Sacrifice as being the thinges that by change made of them with consecration are to be sanctified Therefore in the beginning of the Canon of the Masse it is said of them Supplices rogamus ac petimus c. We humbly pray and beseche thee that thou accepte and blesse these giftes these presentes these holy Sacrifices The body it selfe also and bloud of Christe conteined vnder the fourme of bread and wine are called the Sacrifice as being the thinges into which the holy change by vertue of the wordes of Consecration is made of which it is said in the end of the Canon We offer vp vnto thy most honorable Maiestie of thy giftes and benefites a pure Hoste a holy Hoste an vnspotted hoste Thus we say and so the Fathers speake both waies of this Sacrifice that it is the Sacrifice of breade and wine that is to say made of bread and wine bicause that which was breade and wine is now turned and changed into the body and bloude of Christe and the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of our Lorde that is to say the very true hoste it selfe with a certaine diuine change consecrated and made In other places most commonly it is named of the Fathers the Oblation or Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christe in consideration of the inward substance of the Sacrifice vnder the formes of bread and wine conteined As S. Augustine writing against Faustus the Heretique Aug. cont Faust. lib. 20◠ca. 18. hauing spoken of the manifold Sacrifices of the olde law and of the Sacrifice of the Crosse consequently saith whereby he signifieth what he vnderstandeth by this sacrifice of bread and wine I am Christiani peracti eiusdem Sacrificij memoriam celebrant sacrosancta oblatione participatione corporis sanguinis Christi The Christians do nowe celebrate the memorie of the Sacrifice of the Crosse past and done by the holy oblation and participation of the body and bloude of Christe So in diuers considerations both these savinges be true The holy catholike Churche euery where offereth vp to God the sacrifice of bread and wine and it offereth the Sacrifice of the flesh and bloud of Christe And whereas our daily Sacrifice which the Christians doo now euery where offer is the celebration of the memorie of that which was done vpon the Crosse and therefore oftentimes of the Fathers is named a memorie or commemoration as we finde in Eusebius here also alleged by M. Iewel Euseb. in Demonst. lib. 1. the worde Memorie or commemoration excludeth the truth of passion and death for now Christe suffereth Rom. 6. nor dieth no more the truth or real presence of the body which on the Crosse suffered and dyed for vs it excludeth not For with and by the holy Oblation and participation of that flesh and bloude saith S. Augustine we celebrate the memorie of the Sacrifice that was made vpon the Crosse. So that the substance of the Sacrifice of the Crosse and of that of the Aulter is one and the same the flesh and bloude of Christ onely the manner of Oblation is diuers Which if these Gospellers would once confesse as S. Augustine here witnesseth and Christes Church hath euer beleeued and they them selues be not ignorant of we should not haue neede to write so
that I denie not and maketh a long needelesse talke of the worde Dreadful shewing sundry thinges to be called Dreadful wherein he telleth some truth pretending to the Reader thereby as though bicause Eusebius is alleged calling this Sacrifice Dreadful thereof specially I had concluded the auctoritie of offering Christe vnto his Father whiche thing in dede I do not And forasmuch as this much is vntruly attributed vnto me and therefore may with like facilitie be denyed as it is without proufe said and the whole processe of the rest of this Diuision is vtterly impertinent and besides the purpose I thinke this much ynough for answer vnto it that it is not worth the answering The .6 Diuision The Ansvvere Hesychius lib. 1. c. 4. THat Christe Sacrificed himselfe at his Supper Hesychius affirmeth with these wordes Quod Dominus iussit Leuit. 4. vt Sacerdos vituluÌ„ pro peccato oblaturus Ioan. 10. ponat manuÌ„ super caput eius iugulet euÌ„ coraÌ„ Domino ChristuÌ„ significat quem nemo obtulit sed nec immolare poterat nisi semetipsum ipse ad patienduÌ„ tradidisset Propter quod non solùm dicebat Potestatem habeo ponendi animan meam potestatem habeo iterum sumeÌ„di eam sed praeueniens semetipsum in Coena ApostoloruÌ„ immolauit quod sciunt qui Mysteriorum percipiunt virtutem That our Lord commaunded saith he the Priest which should offer a calfe for sinne to put his hande vpon his heade and to sticke him before our Lord it signifieth Christ whom noman hath offered neither could any man Sacrifice him excepte he hadde deliuered him selfe to suffer For the which he said not only I haue power to lay downe my Soule and I haue power to take it againe But also preuenting it he offred vp him selfe in Sacrifice in the Supper of the Apostles which they knowe that receiue the vertue of the Mysteries By these wordes of Hesychius we learne that Christ offered and sacrificed his Body and Bloud twise Firste in that Holy Supper vnbloudely when he tooke Bread in his handes and brake it c Without Diuision of the Sacrifice for it is but one and the same Sacrifice And afterwarde on the Crosse with Shedding of his bloud and that is it he meaneth by the woorde Preuenting Iewel VVe denie not but it may vvel be saide Christe at his last Supper offered vp him selfe vnto his Father Albeit not Really and in deede but accordinge to M. Hardinges ovvne Distinction in a Figure Apocal. 13. or in a Mysterie in suche sorte as vve say Christe vvas offered in the Sacrifices of the Olde Lavve and as S. Iohn saieth Agnus Occisus ab Origine Mundi The Lambe was shaine from the beginninge of the VVorlde As Christe vvas slaine at the Table so vvas he Sacrificed at the Table But he vvas not slaine at the Table Verily and in dede but onely in a Mysterie Therefore he vvas not Sacrificed at the Table Really and in deede but onely in a Mysterie So saith S. Augustine Nonne semel immolatus est Christus in sâ—m etipso August Epist. 23. Et tamen in Sacramento non tantùm per omnes Paschae Solennitates sed etiam omni die populis immolatur Nec vtique mentitur qui interrogatus eum responderit immolari Si enim Sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum quarum Sacramenta sunt non haberent omnino Sacramenta non essent VVas not Christe once offered in him selfe And yet in or by vvay of a Sacramente not only at the Solemne Feaste of Easter but euery daye he is offered vnto the people And he saith no vntrueth that being demaunded maketh answeare that Christe is Sacrificed His reason is this For if Sacramentes had not a certaine Likenesse or Resemblance of the thinges wherof they be Sacramentes then should they vtterly be no Sacramentes Harding The contentes of M. Iewels Replie in this Diuision stand in .4 pointes First he graunteth that Christe offered vp him selfe vnto his Father at his last Supper in a figure or in a Mysterie that is to say as he expoundeth himselfe in such sorte as he was offered vp in the Sacrifices of the olde Lawe But that he was there really and in dede offred he vtterly denieth Secondly for answer to the authoritie alleged out of Hesychius he saith that sometimes he was driuen to streatche and straine the Scriptures to his purpose Thirdly he would prooue his Sacramentary opinion touching the difference betwen the Sacrifice of the Table and the Sacrifice of the Crosse by a place of S. Cyprian leauing out the which foloweth in him being such as clearely determineth the point against him Fourthly whereas I say that Christe twise sacrificed him selfe really he auoucheth it to be reproued by plaine wordes of S. Paule Of the falshode of the first point though I haue spoken somewhat already yet because M. Iewel ceasseth not to sing one song and eftsones repeateth the same tale standing vppon his false Negatiue some deale more semeth here necessary to be spoken that it may appeare how cleare the truth is of our side and how weake the stuffe is that he bringeth against vs. Although he tel not his tale in most distincte and plaine wise as this doctrine of the vnbloudy Sacrifice of Christe ought to be vttered vsing the termes of Figure and Mysterie confusely yet his meaning is plaine yenough verely more plaine then true Which is that Christe offered vp him selfe vnto his Father at his laste Supper in Figure onely and that concerning both the thing offered and the manner of offering For adding as it were an exposition of his owne wordes M. Iewels doctrine touching the Sacrifice is only figuratiue In such sorte saith he as we say Christe was offered in the Sacrifice of the olde Lawe Now certaine it is that in the sacrifices of the olde Lawe Christe was offered in Figure onely whether we consider the substance that was offered or the manner of offering The substance of those olde Sacrifices was a brute beast a sheepe a calfe a goat an Oxe Of which euery one was but a figure onely of Christâ— the manner of offering was slaughter with bloudshed which slaughter was also a figure onely of Christes bloudy death to be suffered vppon the Crosse. So M. Iewels doctrine touching this point is figuratiue on euery side that is to say that Christe offered vp him selfe at his supper in Figure onely Yet vnderstanding with him self and as it were beiâ—g gilty in his owne conscience that this doctrine soundeth very strangely and would offend the eares of the learned Catholiques in the conclusion he qualifieth his tale with termes and shunning the odious woorde of a Figure onely guilefully shifteth in the worde Mysterie saying that Christe was not sacrificed at the Table really and in dede but onely in a Mysterie Nowe that our disputation fal not into wrangling and cauilles here he is to be demaunded what he meaneth by this terme onely in
a Mysterie in this Proposition Christe was not sacrificed at the Table really but onely in a Mysterie Onely in a Mysterie If he meane nothing els thereby but to exclude the bloudy manner of sacrificing as in deede properly to speake the sacrificing of lyuing thinges is with bloudeshed and slaughter in that respecte we graunte also that at the Table Christe was not really so sacrificed but in Mysterie only For at the Table we knowe he was not stickte with a knife as the brute beastes in the olde Lawe were nor let bloude with thornes nailes or speare as he was on the nexte morow vppon the Crosse. Mary where the exclusiue particle Onely is added though in a right sense we might beare with it as it is referred to the mystical manner of sacrificing yet we say it is strangely vsed in this place where it may haue relation to two thinges either to the body and bloud of Christe being the substance of the Sacrifice or to the manner of sacrificing But if by his terme Onely in a Mysterie he exclude the Real presence of Christe him selfe and meane that his very body and bloude as muche to say Christe him selfe bicause of the vnitie of the two natures was not in Christes handes and vppon the Table in deede when hauing taken breade he gaue thankes blessed Lucae 22. brake it and said this is my Body and concerning the Cuppe this is my Bloude â—e is not nowe in the Aulter Only when we consecrate doing that Christe did and bad vs to doo but that he was there then and is here now at the Diuine Celebration in a figure signe token signification memorie representation or Mysterie Onely or that a figure signe token or Mysterie Onely is present and sacrificed and not very Christe him selfe If this be his meaning herein we dissent vtterly from him and he dissenteth from the Churche of God from that the holy Ghoste hath taught his Churche from that al faithful Christen people hath euer beleeued from that Christe him selfe professed saying this is my body this is my bloude to be shorte from that which hath bene of late by certaine learned men against him and his felowes sufficiently and substantially prooued But what neede we to demaunde of M. Iewel what he meaneth by his clowdy wordes No clowde can hyde his Sacramentarie heresie it is euident as wel by that he saith here as by that he hath said and writteÌ„ in sundry other places according to the purport of the Caluinists doctrine vnto which sect he hath adioyned him self and by his open profession that he standeth in his Negatiue and holdeth opinion that Christe offered not him selfe really at his last Supper Now the affirmatiue part which is that Christe offered him selfe at that Supper really truly and in dede and made a real Sacrifice though it be in my Answere already proued yet here further for theire sake who breake not out of the Churche by their own stubbornnesse and wilful malice but be lead a syde by simplicitie and ignorance thus we prooue If Christe offered not vp him selfe really and in dede in a Sacrifice at his last Supper he leaft his new Lawe in worse state then was the condition of them who liued in the time of the Lawe of Nature or in the time of the Lawe written But in worse state he leafte it not Ergo he sacrificed him selfe at the Supper truly really and in dede The Minor or second Proposition is such as no Christen man I iudge wil deny or doubte of The first Proposition which is conditional shal sone appeare true to him who considereth that the good and godly people lyuing vnder the Lawe of Nature before any Lawe was written Cyprian Sermone de ratione circuÌ„cisionis by the inspiration of God as S. Cyprian witnesseth offered vp real sacrifices in which they protested their faith and trust in Christe to come by whose Sacrifice to be made vpon the Crosse they looked and hartily desyred to be saued So did Abel offer vp Sacrifice to God of the best of his flocke Gen. 4. Gen. 8. So did Noe offer vp Sacrifice of the cleane beastes that had ben with him in the Arke Gen. 22. So Abraham after that he had for so much as in him was offered vp his onely sonne Isaac did in stede of him sacrifice the Ramme that was tyed by the hornes among the brambles So did other iust and good men of that time offer vp the like sacrifices to the same ende As for the time of the lawe written who is so ignorant that knoweth not that real sacrifices of sundry beastes beside other thinges were commaunded to be offred vp for diuers particular endes yet al to one chiefe ende to foresignifie and prefigurate the most perfite Sacrifice of Christe to come Al these sacrifices although offred in a figure and signification of benefite that then was to come yet were they real and true sacrifices notwithstanding as consisting of real and true substances And thus we see that by Gods prouidence in the time of both Lawes of Nature and of Moyses real sacrifices were offred vp vnto him in figure and token of the Redemption to come Now then if Christe leafte to the newe lawe which he ordeined no real Sacrifice a Sacrifice being the chiefest worship that man can do vnto God but endued it with a sacrifice that is offred onely in a figure how did he not leaue it in worse case then the lawe of nature or the lawe written And certaine it is that he leaft it without any such Sacrifice onlesse he offering him selfe really at his Supper did beginne and institute it after the order of Melchisedek For in any time or place els instituted and commaunded it is not founde Concerning inward and mere spiritual sacrifices they be common to al times and lawes as it is before proued If M. Iewel and the mainteiners of this new Gospel put vs in mynde of bread and wine and tel vs that the substance of bread and wine is our real Sacrifice being the signes and figures of Christes body and bloud in the Lordes Supper to that we answer that bread and wine are not appointed and ordeined by Christe to be the real Sacrifice of the Churche and if they were then were the state of the new Testament no better then that of the olde TestameÌ„t whereas the new farre passing the olde in euery degree of worthinesse as S. Paule in sundry places declareth the Sacrifice frequented in the newe lawe ought to surmount the Sacrifices of the olde lawe Then hath the Churche made a very meane exchange with the Iewish Synagog For if we haue no better substance in our dayly Sacrifice then a peece of bread and a smal portion of wine how was not a goate a lambe an Oxe as good if not better and more worth Christe hath not so solenderly dealt with the heires of the newe Testament as to leaue so base and
euen right now donne In this point therefore this Sacrifice is clearely vnlike the sacrifices of the olde lawe wherein although beastes of one kinde were offered daily as for example this day a lambe and to morow likewise a lambe yet it was not one lambe but diuers lambes And therfore a new killing and shedding of bloude was daily required But we doo not offer this day one lambe to morow an other but alwaies the selfe same as S. Chrysostome saith Chrysost. in epist. ad Heb. Hom. 17. Ibidem Againe this Hoste is suche as can not be consumed though they be neuer so many that be made partakers of it as he also saith Ipsam offerimus nunc quae tunc oblata quidem consumi noÌ„ potest We doo offer vp now also the same hoste which being offered then he meaneth vpon the Crosse can not be consumed Wherfore sith it is continually the selfe same hoste in number with that which was slaine vpon the Crosse albeit it be really againe sacrificed to continue the memorie of the real death of the same and to be the real Sacrifice of the newe Testament M. Iewel going about to abolish the truth of our Sacrifice for that it is not truly againe slaine bewrayeth his owne penurie of better and sounder reasons and semeth to reproue al the olde learned Fathers for calling it the vnbloudy Sacrifice Iewel Notvvitstandinge Hesychius expoundinge the Booke of Leuiticus to the intente he may force the vvhole Storie of the Life and Deathe of Christe to ansvveare euery particulare Ceremonie of the Lavve is sometimes driuen Hesych in Leuit. li. 1 cap. 4. to streatche and straine the Scriptures to his pnrpose So he saithe Christe is the Aultare And Christe Incarnate in the Virgins VVombe is the Sodden Sacrifice Novv as Christe vvas the Aultare Li. 1. ca. 2. SacrificiuÌ„ Coctum and as he vvas Sacrificed in his Mothers VVombe euen so he Sacrificed him selfe at his Supper not in proper or vsual manner of speache but onely in a Mysterie Signifieinge Othervvise S. Cyprian plainely openeth the vvhole difference of these tvvo Sacrifices in this sorte Cyprianus de Vnctione Chrismatis Dedit Dominus noster in mensa in qua Vltimum cum Apostolis participauit Conuiuium proprijs manibus Panem vinum In Cruce verò manibus militum Corpus tradidit vulnerandum Our Lorde at the Table whereat he receiued his laste Supper with his Disciples with his owne handes gaue not his very Bodie and very Bloude Really and in deede but Breade and VVine But vpon the Crosse he gaue his owne Bodie with the Souldiers handes to be VVounded This saithe Sainte Cyprian is the difference bitvvene the Sacrifice of the Table and the Sacrifice of the Crosse At the one Christe gaue Breade and VVine Vpon the other he gaue his Bodie Therefore vvhereaâ— M. Harding saith onely vpon his ovvne vvarrante That Christe Really Sacrificed him selfe at two sundrie times and that he twise Really Shead his Bloude Firste at the Table and Afterwarde vpon the Crosse The vntrueth and folie hereof is easily reproued by these plaine vvordes of S. Paule Hebrae 9. Semel Oblatus est ad multorum exhaurienda peccata He was once offered to take away the sinnes of many Hebrae 10. And againe VVith one Sacrifice he hath made perfite them for euer that be Sanctified These places are cleare and vvithout question onlesse M. Harding vvil say that One and Tvvo and Once and Tvvise be bothe one thing Harding Concerning the wordes of Hesychius they be plaine for the real sacrifice of Christe at the Supper For if he had there offered vp him selfe in a figure or Mysterie only as M. Iewel meaneth by his only mystery he would neuer haue called it a preuention of the bloudy Sacrifice Hesychius In Leuit. li. 1. cap. 4. neither would he haue vsed the terme praeueniens preuenting For Christe to offer vp him selfe at the supper in a figure onely in such sorte as he was offered in the sacrifices of the olde lawe had not ben a preuention of his bloudy Sacrifice vpon the Crosse. Verely if M. Iewels vnderstanding were streatched and strained vnto the obedience of faith he would not say so sawcily of that auncient and learned Father that he is driuen to stretche and straine the Scriptures to his purpose And what if it were graunted that so he did sometimes for more this Replyer saith not him selfe wil it thereof folow that he hath so done in this place As for the streatching and straining of the Scriptures which he layeth to Hesychius charge it is a very simple answer to the authoritie out of him alleged That he calleth Christe the Aulter it is not strange for so S. Paule calleth him as there he allegeth Neither was Christe by his reporte sacrified in his Mothers wombe he was incarnate in the virginis wombe and the same Christes incarnation he calleth the baked Sacrifice for thereof he speaketh and not of a sodden sacrifice as the place is euident The Oouen wherein it was baked was the Virgins wombe Hesychius in Leuit. li. 1. cap. 2. Lucae 1. bicause as he saith shee receiued from aboue the bread of life to wit the worde of God in her wombe and the fire of the presence of the holy Ghoste For the holy Ghoste saith the Angel shal come ouer into thee and thee power of the highest shal ouershadow thee And the same Christe that was incarnate in the Virgins wombe sacrificed him selfe at his Supper although not in such manner as the liue hostes in the olde Testament were sacrificed that is to say with bloudshed and slaughter yet in a mysterie but truly and really and after that manner of speache which is proper and vsual to the Catholique Church speaking of this singular Sacrifice not onely in a mysterie signifying that is to say in a figure or signification onely as M. Iewel meaneth the substance of Christes body and bloud excluded but so in a mystery as that most diuine substance be beleued to be verely present and by vs in remembrance of his death presented to God Touching the place of S. Cyprian S. CypriaÌ„ falsified by M. Ievvels maÌ„gling and hevving de vnctione Chrismatis he is like to haue smal aduantage and lesse honesty by alleging it when it is knowen how falsly he hath done in taking the begynning of the sentence which being set a parte from the rest semeth to geue a sownde of his doâ—ctrine and cutting away the ende that declareth the Doctours meaning and quit ouerthroweth the SacrameÌ„tary heresie For immediatly after the wordes that M. Iewel taketh for his purpose wherby is signified that our Lorde at his last Supper gaue vnto his Apostles bread and wine with his owne handes and vpon the Crosse deliuered his body to be wounded with the handes of the Souldiers this much foloweth in the same senteÌ„ce Vt in Apostolis secretius impressa syncera veritas
Cyprianus De vnctio ne Chrismatis vera synceritas exponeret Gentibus quomodo vinuÌ„ panis caro esset sanguis et quibâ— roÌ„ibus causae effectibus coÌ„uenireÌ„t et diuersa noiÌ„a vel species ad vnaÌ„ reducereÌ„tur essentiaÌ„ et significaÌ„tia et significata eisdeÌ„ nacabulis ceÌ„serentur That the sincere truth and true sinceritie being secretly imprinted in th'Apostles might expouÌ„d vnto the GeÌ„tils how wine and bread should be his flesh and bloud and by what meanes the causes should be agreable to the effectes and diuers names and kindes should be brought vnto one substance and the thinges signifying and the thinges signified should be called by the same names Lo here it is declared what bread and wine it was as much to say the flesh and bloud of Christe which S. Cyprian saith he gaue at his last Supper vnto his Apostles This cleare and syncere truth or true synceritie so he calleth either the true doctrine of this Sacrifice or the Sacrifice it self in respect of the sundry impure and typical sacrifices of Moses Lawe he would secretly that is with th' inward knowledge of these secret mysteries to be imprinted and digested in th'Apostles to thinteÌ„t they should expound vnto the Gentils the Iewes with their olde sacrifices being now reiected how at this heauenly banket the bread and wine is flesh and bloud how the causes and effectes be agreable that is to say how the wordes of CoÌ„secratioÌ„ duely pronouÌ„ced by the Priest and the power of the holy Ghoste which are the causes doo produce and make the body and bloud of our Lord which be the effectes how thinges of diuers names and diuers in nature and therfore diuers kindes be brought vnto one essence or substaÌ„ce to wit bread and wine vnto the substance of Christes flesh and bloude TransubstantiatioÌ„â— whereby Transubstantiation is wrought briefly to conclude how wheras bread signifieth the body and wine the bloud the thinges signifiyng and the thinges signified be called by the same names Which thus appeareth to be true bicause that which before CoÌ„secration was and afterward semeth to be bread is called the flesh and in like case wine is called the bloud and so coÌ„trariwise sometimes the flesh is called the bread and the bloud is called the wine What can be said more directly against M. Iewels Sacramentarie Heresie and more piththily for coÌ„firmation of the Catholike doctrine touching this point And al this M. Iewel hath leaft out The same very thing S. Cyprian doth vtter more plainely in other places Cyprianus De coena Domini In his Treatise of the Supper of our Lorde he hath these most euident wordes Panis iste quem Dominus Discipulis porrigebat non effigie sed natura mutatus Omnipotentia Verbi factus est Caro. This bread Lib. 2. Epiâ—stola 3. which our Lorde gaue vnto his Disciples at his supper being changed not in shape but in nature by the almighty power of the Worde was made flesh Againe writing to Caâ—ilius he saith Qui magis sacerdos â— Dominus noster Iesus Christus qui sacrificiuÌ„ obtulit et obtulit hoc ideÌ„ quod Melchisedech id est paneÌ„ et vinum suuÌ„ scilicet corpus et sanguineÌ„ Who is more a Priest then our Lorde Iesus Christ who offred vp a Sacrifice and offred the very same that Melchisedech did that is to say bread and wine as much to say his owne body and bloude By these places S. Cyprian declareth his minde plainely what he meaneth by the bread and wine that Christe either gaue at the Supper vnto his Disciples or offered vnto his Father to render thankes for the great benefite of his passion soothly none other bread and wine then that which was made by the almighty power of the Woorde his body and bloude And behold Reader how vniforme his vtterance is and how he agreeth with him selfe In the Sermon De vnctione Chrismatis by M. Iewel with false leauing out that whiche made for the truth alleged he saith that diuers kindes are reduced into one substance in his Sermon De coena Domini he saith the bread by the omnipotencie of the Woorde is made flesh so bread and flesh being diuers kindes are brought to one substance There the thinges signifying and the thinges signified saith he be called with the same names as how I haue before declared In his Epistle to Cecilius naming bread and wine he expoundeth him selfe thus suum scilicet corpus sanguinem as much to say his owne body and bloude Where the body and bloude beare the names of bread and wine By this it is clearly seene what an impudent and wicked glose is that which M. Iewel incloseth in his parenthesis added by way of exposition vnto the maimed sentence of S. Cyprian wherewith to exclude the body and bloude of Christe the true bread and wine What haue you wonne here by S. Cyprian M. Iewel Who cutteth and maimeth the Doctours Who is now to be asked whether he haue the chynecoffe M. Ievvels Coffe which in a place of your Reply with out cause you twite me of What kinde of coffe I shal cal this I wote not I feare me the il mater of it lyeth not in your chyne a place so farre from the harte but in the harte it selfe For were not the same by Satans worke festred with the corruption of heresie you had not ben letted as with a coffe from bringing forth the later parte of S. Cyprians saying whose beginning you falsly abuse to obscure the cleare truthe Who so euer thus coffeth I wil not say he hath the chynecoffe as you ieast but verely sauing my charitie that he coffeth as like an heretique as a rotten yew cofâ—eth like a sheepe Laste of al whereas he saith that I am reprooued of vntruth and folie by S. Paule for saying Three lyes made by M. Iewel within three lines that Christe really sacrificed him selfe at two seueral times and twise really shed his bloude only vpon myne owne warrant he maketh no lesse then three lyes within three lines For neither said I in this place that Christe twise really shed his bloude nor onely vpon myne owne warrant said I that Christe sacrificed his body and bloud twise bicause I had the authoritie of Hesychius here as the authoritie of other Fathers before namely Gregorie Nyssen and Theophylacte for my warrant Nor for so saying am I reproued of any vntruth or folie by S. Paule For my assertion is true notwithstanding any thing that S. Paule saith What though S. Paule say Heb. 9. M. Iewel Christus semel oblatus est ad multoruÌ„ exhauriendâ— peccata Christ was once offered Heb. 10â— to take away the synnâ—s of Many Againe with one Sacrifice he hath made perâ—ite for euer them that be sanctified Bicause in these twoo sayinges you finde the termes one and once therefore suppose you that needes they must reprooue my assertion auouching that Christ was twise really
the Sacramentes of the Olde Testament promised the Sauiour Suche signes as geue saluation be meete Sacramentes of the Newe Testament of such kinde of signe or figure speaketh S. Dionyse where he vseth the terme Symbolical speaking of the Sacrifice of the Body and Bloude of Christe Ansvver to Pachymeres As for that M. Iewel allegeth out of Prchymeres the Paraphraste who saith The Priest commeth to the Bread and the Cuppe whereof he would faine conclude that the inuisible substance of the Sacrifice is not the body and bloude of Christe it standeth him in litle stede For in deede it is bread and wine when the Priest first commeth vnto them to celebrate the Sacrifice But when the wordes of Christe be comme vnto them as S. Ambrose saith that is to say Ambros. de Sacramēt lib. 4 cap 5 when the Priest hath duely pronounced the wordes of Consecration then are they made the body and bloude of Christe and so the Sacrifice of Christe And that Pachymeres was of this beleefe it is cleare by his owne woordes whiche M. Iewel either knewe not and so speaketh ignorantly or knewe wel yenough yet dissembled and so doth maliciously Bicause for some credite of his purpose he cited his woordes in Greke though by casting in one woorde of his owne which he founde not in the texte after his common woonte he hath some deale falsified the sentence I wil also here truely cite the woordes in Greke by which Pachymeres sheweth him selfe to be Catholique in this point and quite contrary to M. Iewels Sacramentarie doctrine They be these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pachymee in Dionys. Eccles. Hierarch cap. 3. pag. 136. As muche to say in English There be many that cast their eye vpon the holy signes onely as they who are not hable to conceiue any higher thing But the Bishop him silfe is caried vp vnto those first samplers or natural thinges to wit the pretious body and bloude it selfe of our Lorde beleuing that the thinges which are set forth that is to say the bread and wine be changed into them by the holy and almighty Ghoste Lo M. Iewel here haue you the cleare testimonie of Pachymeres him selfe for his true and Catholique beleefe touching the truth of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament Which beleefe is not onely that the pretious body and bloude of our Lorde are of a right beleeuer beholden and conceiued in the Sacrament verely present which the Lutherans do acknowledge but also that the bread and wine are by the power of the holy Ghoste Transubstātiation into the same conuerted and changed whiche neither ye nor Luthers scholers doo beleeue and so by Pachymeres transubstantion is auouched After al this M. Iewel disposeth him selfe to dally at an Argument of his owne mery heads forging M. Ievvel forgeth Argumēt◠bearing the Reader in hand it is myne And this Argument forsooth is such and so vnskilful as a yong Sophister saith he would neuer haue framed it What any yong Sophister would doo I knowe not But now certaine it is that be it wel or otherwise it is framed by as olde a Sophister as your selfe are M. Iewel If it be vnskilfully framed the blame is yours for yours it is not myne Here that you be so ful of your Argumentes which vntruely you father vpon me and so busy with your Logique I answer you as S. Augustine answered Iulian the Pelagian Heretique dealing with him as you doo with me not onely in this place but in manner in your whole booke Quantùm tibi places tantùm grauibus Lectoribus displices Augustin contra Iulian lib. 3. cap. 7. quod peius est fingis me dicere quod non dico concludere sicut non concludo caet Looke saith he how much you stande in your owne conceite so muche you are out of conceite with the graue Readers and which is worse you feine me to say that which I say not to conclude so as I conclude not If you would needes shewe your cunning in Logique and dispute after the rules of that arte why rehersed you not the whole Antecedent Though in this place I frame no Argume at al but onely recite the saying of S. Dionyse applying it to my purpose yet if the whole should be disposed in fourme of an Argument this is the Argument that thereof might be concluded the circumstance of the place considered The Bishop or Priest by reporte of S. Dionyse standing at the holy Aulter An Argument gathered out of S. Dionyse for the Sacrifice after he hath geuen praises to God for his Diuine workes commeth vnto the mystical Sacrifice excusing him selfe for that he taketh vpon him to offer vp the healthful hoste or Sacrifice that is farre aboue his worthinesse whereof Christe at his last Supper hauing consecrated his body and bloude said by way of commaundement and commission Luc. 22. Doo ye this in my Remembrance But this healthful Sacrifice whereof Christ so said and which he required to be offered is the Sacrifice of his body and bloude vnder the formes of bread and wine Ergo by witnesse of that Auncient and most worthy Father the Bishop or Priest offereth vp Christes body and bloude and consequently Christ him selfe For where the body of Christe is there also is whole Christe bicause of the inseparable vnitie of both natures And if Christe be thus offered to whom is he offred but to the Father Albeit I confesse that Christe is offered to him selfe also as being God and to the holy Ghoste to the whole most blessed Trinitie If you had thus set forth the Argument M. Iewel and dealt simply and truly you should not haue needed to trouble the reader with so much Sophistrie and Logique as here for confutation of your owne forged reason you haue bestowed Bicause you knewe your selfe not hable to auoide the force of the whole Antecedent slyly you answer to that parte of it onely where it is said the Priest excuseth him selfe as though I had layd the chiefe grounde of the authoritie in that clause onely And thereof you take occasion to enter into a needelesse common place proouing by certaine testimonies which no man euer denied that sundry holy thinges are to be done not presumptuously and rashly but reuerently and with feare and trembling as namely when we offer vp the Sacrifice of Praise when we baptise when we preache or heare Gods holy worde when we pray and cal God our Father For the reuerent and hūble demeanour that we ought to shewe in doing these holy thinges you allege S. Basil S. Dionyse S. Paule S. Cyprian But what of al this wil it thereof folowe Ergo though the Priest standing at the Aulter and comming to offer the Mystical Sacrifice excuse him selfe not for praying preaching praising or baptizing but for offering the healthful hoste that farre passeth his degree euen the same that Christe offered at his laste Supper whereof he said This is my Body
wil say perhaps I graunt this much albe it S. Irenaeus referreth this change not to the sacrifices but to the offerers bicause the olde people of the Synagog were bonde men and we of the Churche are free men But let it be as you would haue it Who vnderstandeth not the kinde of sacrifices to be changed for that they killed brute beastes according to Moyses Lawe and we kyl them not as not being vnder that Lawe But what Wil you of this conclude that they offered not vp vnto God the Sacrifices of a contrite harte of prayers of praise and thankesgeuing and such other spiritual sacrifices bicause they offred vp beastes and bicause we now offer these I trowe by that time you haue bethought your selfe you wil not stande in it For be not the Psalmes and the sermons of the Prophetes ful of exhortations to this ende that these spiritual oblations should be made aâ—d the like thinges done that God accepteth for swete smelling sacrifices Would they so haue exhorted the people except these thinges ought to haue ben done And whereas they were to be done wil you say there were none that did them wil you say the holy kinges and Prophetes had not coÌ„trite hartes prayed not nor praised ne thanked God I suppose you wil not say it To what purpose then pyked you out the former saying of S. Irenaeus What maketh it for you what maketh it against vs No more furthereth that your cause which without opening and circumstance you allege out of Angelomus and S. Chrysostome How much better had you done if confessing the truth you had leafte out these obscure and impertinent places and had rehersed vnto your Reader certaine other most plaine sayinges out of S. Irenaeus whereof this is one written in the same chapter out of which you piked the peeces that here you haue patched together Quomodo constabit eis c. How shal they be assuredly certified saith this blessed Martyr that bread whereon thankes be geuen Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34. to be the body of their Lorde and that Cuppe to be the Cuppe of his bloude if they wil not say he is the Sonne of the Creatour of the worlde that is to say his Worde whereby the Vine bringeth forth fruite founteines of wine do runne and which for bread to be had geueth first grasse afterward an eare and then at length ful wheate in the eare Againe how say they that the flesh commeth into corruption and receiueth not life which is fedde of the body and bloude of our Lorde Therefore either let them change their opinion or ceasse from offering vp the thinges that are before said An other like saying there auouching our doctrine is this The Eucharist coÌ„sisteth of tvvo thinges As the bread that is of the earth receiuing the calling vpon of God is not now common bread but the Euchariste consisting of two thinges earthly and heauenly So our bodies receiuing the Euchariste be not now corruptible but haue hope of the Resurrection How plaine and cleare testimonie haue we in these sayinges for the truth and Real presence of our Lordes body and bloude in the blessed Sacrament for the Oblation of the same for the most soueraine effecte that thereby is wrought in our bodies nourrished and fedde therewith At these M. Iewel you closed vp your eyes bicause they confounde the pride and wicked folie of your Chalenge other woordes and patches of sentences you pryed and hunted after by which you might seme to auoid the cleare authoritie in this Diuision alleged against you out of S. Irenaeus yet when you haue al said and shifted your Replie is founde to weake and insufficient Bicause you feele your selfe much pressed and as it were borne downe with the weight of this plaine testimonie of S. Irenaeus Christe hauing confessed of the bread that is was his body and of the cuppe that it was his bloud taught his Apostles the new oblation of the newe Testament faine would you finde some way how to ease your selfe of it and therefore haue you looked ouer as it semeth al your Notebookes and searched the Doctours farre and neare to happen vpon some for your relief but none can you finde And here you shewe your selfe to be graueled with these plaine wordes This sentence of S. Ireneus graueleth M. Ievvel Noui Testamenti nouaÌ„ docuit oblationem Christe taught the newe oblation of the new Testament To auoide this newe oblation that so much combreth you you haue deuised a new policie which would serue you for some shewe and colour were it not altogether stuffe of your owne counterfeyting and forging What is that Beholde Reader and consider of it diligently Thus saith M. Iewel It is called a newe Sacrifice saith Chrysostome now folow the wordes pretended to be S. Chrysostomes in the distinct letter that he putteth the Doctours sayinges in bicause it proceedeth from a new minde and is offered not by fiere and smoke but by Grace and by the Spirite of God But where saith S. Chrysostome this much You haue put it in the letter of the Fathers sayinges tel vs where we may finde the cause thus declared why this oblation of the newe Testament is called Newe By your cotation in the margent you send vs vnto Chrysost. contra Iudaeos lib. 3. but there we finde no such thing at al. Neither be they Bookes but Orations that he wrote against the Iewes and so Erasmus who translated that worke calleth them Mary in the second Oration we haue trakte you M Ievveâ— fouly abuseth S. Chrysost. and founde out the place that you abuse abuse I say for it maketh wholly against you There S. Chrysostom to proue vnto the Iewe to whom he speaketh that both their Lawe and ther Sacrifice is ended and abolished and that an other Sacrifice is come in place of theirs which is pure and is to be offered vp through al the worlde allegeth the prophecie of Malachie from the rising of the Sunne to the going downe Malach. 1. c. a pure Sacrifice shal be offered vnto my name Vpon this prophecie he stayth him selfe and declareth at large how it ought to be vnderstanded and how the Prophete may not seme to be repugnant to Moyses who appointeth the Sacrifice of the Iewes vnto one onely place and how and for what respecte the Sacrifice that Malachie speaketh of is pure whiche S. Chrysostome calleth Sacrificium nostrum our Sacrifice Among other many wordes spoken in praise of this our pure Sacrifice Vvhi our sacrifice iâ— of Malachie called the Pure Sacrifice after the minde of S. Chrysostome thus he saith there If one conferre this Sacrifice with theirs he shal finde an exceding great difference so that according to the proportion of comparison this alone may deserue to be called pure And looke what S. Paule said of the Lawe and Grace that that was not glorified at al which was glorified in comparison of the high Glorie the same here also
iustly we may say 2. Cor. 3. to wit that this Sacrifice compared with that of the Lawe ought alone to be called pure Then folowe the wordes which M. Iewel hath by falsifying and fowle corruption abused to his purpose Non enim per fumum ac nidorem non per sanguinem ac redemptionis precia sed per spiritus gratiam offertur For it is not offered by smoke and gresy sauour Chrysosto oratioee 2 contra Iudaos not by bloude and prices of redemption but by grace of the spirite With these wordes he rendreth the cause why the Sacrifice of the Churche is of Malachie called pure and not why it is called Newe ChrysostoÌ„ misreported by M. Ievvel as M. Iewel hath peruerted the sentence Compare good Reader this Repliers wordes with S. Chrysostomes wordes and thou shalt espye what a corrupter and falsifier he is of the Doctours Wherefore seing he can finde no helpe at S. Chrysostomes handes whom here he hath much iniured and misreported nor at the handes of any other Doctor nor can shewe vs what Sacrifice that is which S. Ireneus calleth the newe Sacrifice or newe Oblation of the newe Testament that Christ taught when he said of the bread and Cuppe this is my body this is my bloude but the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe with right he may be required to subscribe and yeelde Which wil be best for him to doo least the time come when not yeelding he shal be taken prysoner and for his heresie and impenitent harte be caste into the owtward darkenes Matt. 22. where shal be weeping and gnasshing of teeth Bicause M. Iewel harpeth so much vpon the prophecie of Malachie and putteth the confidence of his cause therein and hath taken his aduantage of S. Chrysostome by falsifying his wordes let vs see how litle cause he had so to doo and how muche S. Chrysostome being truly alleged proueth in that very place which M. Iewel bringeth treating of Malachie the Catholique assertion Whereas Moyses forbad sacrifice to be made in any other place Deut. 16. but in that place whiche our Lorde had chosen and Malachie saith that the pure Sacrifice is to be offered vp in euery place from the East to the West that these two should not seme to be repugnant S. Chrysostome saith that Moyses spake of one Sacrifice and Malachie prophecied of an other To prooue this he asketh this question Vnde hoc declaratur Whereby is this declared There for declaration and proufe hereof among other thinges he bringeth the argument of the place For saith he Malachie foretolde that this worship should be celebrated not in one Citie as the Iewish sacrifice was but from the rysing of the Sunne to the going downe Then folowe these woordes CoÌ„clusioÌ„s gathered out of S Chrysost. against M. Ievv Praeterea ex Sacrificij modo siquidem puram illam appellans declarauit de qua loqueretur Furthermore this is declared by the manner of the Sacrifice for in that he calleth that oblation or worship pure he hath declared of what oblation or worship he spake This much S. Chrysostome there Hereof and of that S. Chrysostome saith in that place these Conclusions may be gathered against M. Iewel The First Concusion Malachie in S. Chrysostomes iudgement speaketh of suche a Sacrifice as for commendation whereof he might seme repugnant to Moyses But in respecte of those which are mere spiritual Sacrifices of which onely M. Iewel wil Malachie to be expounded as of a contrite harte of prayer of praise and thankesgeuing Malachie can not seme repugnant to Moyses bicause Moyses neuer forbad them Ergo the Sacrifice that Malachie speaketh of is not to be vnderstanded of mere spiritual sacrifices The .2 Conclusion Malachies prophecie is of such a Sacrifice after the mynde of S. Chrysostome as the celebration whereof should abandon and quite put away the Priesthoode and Sacrifices of the Iewes But the mere spiritual Sacrifices of our deuotion whereto only M. Iewel draweth the prophecie of Malachie haue not that power and effecte For they continued with their Sacrifices as they do with ours Ergo Malachie is not to be vnderstanded of the mere spiritual Sacrifices The .3 Conclusion S. Chrysostome speaking of â—â—e Sacrifice mentioned by Malachie vseth these wordes Praedixit hanc culturam celebrandam he fortolde that this worship should be celebrated not in one citie c. But of any of the mere spiritual sacrifices of our deuotion no learned Father euer said that it is a worship to be celebrated nor are these termes coÌ„uenient for them or for any of them for they are not properly to speake a worship by vs to be celebrated but thereby and therewith we doo celebrate and worship God Ergo Malachie by S. Chrysostomes doctrine speaketh not specially of the mere spiritual sacrifices of mannes harte but of an other Sacrifice outwardly celebrated The .4 Conclusion The Sacrifice that Malachie prophecied of S. Chrysostom saith it is such as is declared what it is by the manner of it But a thing can not be declared what it is by the manner onlesse the manner be external and sensible so as it may be perceiued by sense and the mere spiritual sacrifices of mans inward deuotion be not such Ergo Malachie meant not of them but of an other Sacrifice The .5 Conclusion Malachie by the exposition of S. Chrysostome speaketh of that Sacrifice which properly is Nostrum that is to say ours belonging to vs that be of the newe Testament But the Sacrifice of a contrite harte of Praiers Praise and thankesgeuing be theirs of the olde Testament as wel as ours Ergo of that kinde of Sacrifice he spake not That I make an ende of Conclusions the sixth and last Conclusion may be this By interpretation of S. Chrysostome the Sacrifice that Malachie prophecied of is pure in the most excellent degree of purenesse But the spiritual Sacrifices proceeding from the harte of man be not pure in the highest degree of purenesse Ergo it is an other kinde of Sacrifice which Malachie foretolde So then it is M. Ievvel reasonably required to yeelde if M. Iewel can not declare and clearely prooue vnto vs that Malachie prophecying of a mere spiritual Sacrifice of mans deuotion might reasonably seme to S. Chrysostom to be repugnant to Moyses that such a sacrifice should abolish the Iewes sacrifices that it is called a worship to be celebrated by vs that it is declared what it is by the external manner of it that in proper and right speache it ought to be called our Sacrifice or the Sacrifice of the newe Testament and to conclude that it is most singularly and most excellently pure if I say he can not make good these pointesâ— as to euery man of meane iudgement and learning most certaine it is he can not iudge discrete Reader how good reason we haue to require him to yeelde and to deceiue the worlde no more by alleging the authoritie of
the earth when the body of Christ is offered Lo he saith expressely he is not seene to offer and yet he is offered Your parte is to impugne the offering and bicause you cannot you impugne the seing of him cōming and offering him selfe We see him not and yet he is offered in earth as S. Ambrose saith Now then whereas you are driuen from this if thus you make your Argument as in effecte you doo and as your fetche is to conclude As Christ is seene of vs hanging vpon the Crosse and as his woūdes be touched with our fingers so he is by Priests offred but he is not sene hāging vpō the Crosse really and in dede nor his woūdes be so touched with our fingers Ergo he is not offered really and in dede As I graunt the Argument to be good in forme so I denie the mater to be true For the Maior or first proposition is false For Christes hanging on the Crosse and the print of his woundes is seene and felt of vs by faith or by charitie as I haue now declared but Christe is offered vp in Sacrifice really and in dede bicause his body is really and in dede present in the Sacrament as it hath bene against you M. Iewel by the Catholikes most sufficiently prooued by scriptures Fathers and the faith of the Churche and as you knowe in your owne gilty conscience The saying which you attribute vnto S. Hierom M. Ievvel forgeth vvordes of his ovvne ād attributeth them to S. Hierom. Hierony in Psal. 86. Quod semel natū est ex Maria quotidie in nobis nascitur Christe that was once borne of Marie is borne in vs euery day is an inuētion of your owne S. Hierom hath it not you may sone fil your booke with such authorities being made at home in your owne forge S. Hierome expoūding an obscure place of the .86 Psalme tropologically saith this much I graūt Si volumus quotidie nascitur Christus If we wil Christ is borne daily There he calleth the doing of euery vertue the begeting and bringing forth of Christe bicause Christ is the vertue and wisedome of his Father But what maketh this saying against the real Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe By occasion of these wordes you reason thus as it may be conceiued As S. Hierom saith Christ is borne euery day Euen so ād none otherwise S. Ambros saith Christ is sacrificed euery day But Christe is not borne euery day really Ergo S. Ambrose meaneth not that he is sacrificed euery day really I answer Your Maior is false For there is a manifest dissimilitude betwen the partes compared together When we bring forth good vertues and Christe therefore is said to be borne in vs this is spoken by a Metaphore and is true onely in a tropological or morale sense and not in the litteral sense The other parte of the comparison Christ is offered day when his body is offered as S. Ambrose saith is a proper speache and the same is true in the litteral sense as now we haue prooued Lastly that I let not passe the other place of S. Ambrose where he calleth the myndes of holy virgins Aulters the reason you gather thereof is naught For of the affirmation of an internal Sacrifice Ambros. de Virginib lib. 2. M. Iewels peculiar Sophistrie to put away one truth by an other you inferre the denial of the external Sacrifice and so you would driue out one truth by an other truthe after your common wount Which kinde of reasoning is very fonde and childish For both may and ought to stand together Your Argument if you conclude ought must be this Christe is offered in the myndes of virgins which therefore may be called Aulters internally and spiritually Ergo he is not offered on the true Aulters in the Churche externally and really The Argument is naught as euery yong Sophister knoweth bicause he is offered both waies As wel you might reason thus Christ is God Ergo he is not man◠or contrarywise Christe is man ergo he is not God Thus thou mayst easily perceiue good Reader what guileful Sophistrie M. Iewel vseth putting away the visible and outwarde Sacrifice of the Churche by alleging places of Fathers commending vnto vs the inwarde and mere spiritual Sacrifices of mannes harte Withal thou seest also what so euer M. Iewel saith that I haue founde in S. Chrysostome and S. Ambrose that I sought for The .13 Diuision The Ansvver NOwe for proufe of the Sacrifice and Oblation of Christe by the Doctours mynde vpon the figure of Melchisedech First S. Cyprian saith thus Qui magis Sacerdos Dei summi Lib. 2. Epist. 3. quam Dominus noster Iesus Christus qui Sacrificium Deo patri obtulit obtulit hoc idem quod Melchisedech id est Panem Vinum suum scilicet Corpus Sāguinē Who is more the Priest of the highest God then our Lorde Iesus Christe who offered a Sacrifice to God the Father and offered the selfe same that Melchisedeck did that is Breade and Wine that is to say his owne body and Bloude S. Hierome in an epistle that he wrote for the vertuouse women Paula and Eustochium to Marcella hath these wordes Recurre ad Genesim Melchisedech Regem Salem Huius Principem inuenies ciuitatis qui iam in typo Christi Panem Vinum obtulit Mysterium Christianum in Saluatoris sanguine corpore dedicatrit Retourne to the Booke of Genesis and to Melchisedek the King of Salem And thou shalt finde the Prince of that Citie who euen at that time in the figure of Christe offered Breade and Wine and dedicated the Mysterie of Christians in the Body and Bloude of our Sauiour Here this learned Father maketh a plaine distinction betwene the Oblation of the Figure which was Breade and Wine and the Oblation of the Trueth which is the Mysterie of Christen people the Bloude and Body of Christe our Sauiour Of this S. Augustine speaketh largely in his first Sermon vpon the .33 Psalme and in the .17 booke De Ciuitate Dei cap. 20. Iewel Yf M. Harding meane plainely and vvil haue S. Cyprians vvordes taken as they lie vvithout Figure then must he say That Melschidek offered vp verily and Really◠Christ him selfe For S. Cyprians vvordes be cleare Cyprianus Lib. 2. Epist. 3. Christus obtulit hoc idem quod Melchisedek obtulerat◠Christ offered vp the same thing that Melchisedek had offered Harding Sir I assure you I meane plainely would God you did so too verily if you did we should not thus finde you alwaies starting a side to figures and phrases Folowing my prefixed order in my Answer I come now to proue the Sacrifice by the witnesse of two auncient Fathers S. Cyprian and S. Hierome alleging for it the figure of Melchisedek First touching S. Cyprian let his wordes be taken as they lie without figure folde or wrinckle how therof wil it folow that Melchisedek offered verely and
really Christ him selfe For say you S. Cyprians wordes be cleare Christ offered the same thinge that Melchisedek had offered The clearer the wordes be the lesse they serue your obscure purpose If we graunted your translation to be true who haue turned hoc idem the same thing where it ought rather to be turned the same Sacrifice being referred to Sacrifice that goeth there before immediatly If we wincked at you for this I say Yet I pray you how foloweth this Argument Christ offered the same thing that Melchisedek had offered Ergo Melchisedek offered vp Christ him selfe verily and really If you would haue gonne the right way to worke thus you should haue argued Christe offered the same thing that Melchisedek had offered Melchisedek had offered bread and wine Ergo Christe offered bread and wine But bicause if you had thus rightly framed your Argument you had concluded with vs against your selfe by S. Cyprian by whose interpretation the bread and wine that Christ offered was his body and bloud rather then you would graunt so much it liked you better to vse false Logique then true Diuinitie The wordes then of S. Cyprian taken in their plaine and litteral sense Christe offered the true bread and true wine at his Supper and without any figure doo signifie that Melchisedek offered bread and wine as muche to say a bare figure and that Christe fulfilling that Figure offered also bread and wine But what bread and wine His body and bloude the true bread and the true wine Which body and bloude bicause they feede and susteine both body and soule to life euerlasting the cōmon bread and wine that Melchisedeck offered◠hauing vertue to feede only the body and that but for a final time are for good cause called the true bread and wine But perhaps you sticke to the worde hoc idē the same Sacrifice The Sacrifice of Melchisedek and the Sacrifice of Christe both diuers and the same or the same thing if you wil needes haue it so If Christe offered the same say you whereas Melchisedek offered but bread and wine how offered Christe him selfe truly and really True it is the Sacrifice of either or the thing that either of them offered is both diuers and also the same How diuers And howe the same Diuers in substance the same in Mysterie The diuersitie of substance not only S. Cyprian in the Epistle to Cecilius but also S. Hierome confesseth writing vpō the .109 Psalme Hierony in Psal. 109 Quomodo Melchisedech obtulit panem vinum sic tu offeres corpus tuum sanguinem verum panem verum vinū Like as Melchisedek offered bread and wine so thou shalt offer thy body and bloud the true bread and the true wine What difference then and diuersitie is betwen the figure and the thing forefigured that is to say betwen Melchisedeks bread and wine and the body and bloud of Christe such diuersitie of substāce is there in the thinges which they offered The Christe offered the same that Melchisedek had offered for the vnderstanding of it it may be said both in consideration of the Mysterie and of the thing it selfe in a right sense either bicause the formes of bread and wine remained after consecration or bicause it was bread and wine in dede before Christ had consecrated and offered We read in the Gospel Ioan. 2. that when our Sauiour at the Mariage had turned water into wine he commaunded the waiters to draw and bring it vnto the Vssher of the Haul They brought it and the Vssher tasted water made wine Now true it is to saye that the waiters did drawe and bring and the Vssher tasted the same thing that the waiters had filled the waterpottes withal a litle before that is water But what water Forsooth water made wine Likewise it was truely said of S. Cyprian that Christe offered the same thing that Melchisedech had offered before him that is bread and wine But what bread and wine Forsooth bread and wine made his body and bloude So the Scripture saith that Aarons Rodde deuoured the Roddes of the Enchaunters Exod. 7. What rodde was that It was the Rodde made a serpent By this it appeareth how sclender your Argument is which here you gather against the Real Sacrifice out of S. Cyprians wordes and how you seeke not so much the truth as to gainesay and ouerthwarte the Authorities that for the same I alleged Let vs examine the rest of your Replie Iewel Notvvithstanding it is certaine that the Sacrifice that Melchisedek made if it vvere graunted to be a Sacrifice yet in plaine and Common manner of speache vvas not Christe the Sonne of God but onely material Breade and VVine and other like prouision of Victualles prepared for Abraham and for his menne And therefore the Olde learned Fathers saie not Melchisedek offered the same in Sacrifice vnto God but He brought it foorth as a present as the manner vvas to refreashe them after the pursuitte and chase of their enimies And S. Hierome in his Translation turneth it not Obtulit He Sacrificed but Protulit He brought it foorthe Ioseph Antiquit lib. 1. cap. 11. Iosephus reporteth the mater thus Melchisedek milites Abrahami hospitaliter habuit nihil illis ad victum deesse Passus Simulque ipsum adhibuit Mēsae Melchisedek feasted Abrahams Souldiers and suffered them to wante nothinge that was necessary for their prouision And likewise he receiued Abraham him selfe vnto his Table Chrysost. in Gene. Homil 35. Epiph. cōt Melc lib. 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysostome and Epiphanius say thus He brought foorthe vnto them Breade and VVine Tertullian saithe Abrahamo reuertenti de praelio obtulit Panem Vinum Melschisedek offered Breade and VVine not vnto God but vnto Abraham returninge from the fighte So S. Ambrose Occurrit Melchisedek obtulit Abrahamo Panem Vinum Melchisedek came foorth to meete and offered nor vnto God but vnto Abraham Breade and VVine By these fevve it may appeare that Melchisedek brought foorthe Bread and VVine Tertull. cōtr Iudaeos and other prouision not as a Sacrifice vnto God but as a Reliefe and Susteinance for Abraham and for his Companie Harding It is a worlde to see your doublenes What are ye not resolued whether the Sacrifice that Melchisedek made were a Sacrifice or no Sir the Sacrifice he made that is to say the thing which he offered in Sacrifice was not Christe the Sonne of God pardy Who euer said it was Wel what was it then Mary onely material bread and wine say you So say we too and that by the same the Sacrifice of Christes body and bloud vnder the forme of bread and wine VVhat vvas Melchisedeks Sacrifice by M. Iew was forefigured But was this al that Melchisedek offered Not al by you For you recken vp also the prouision of victuals that were prepared for Abraham and his men that were in number .318 Then of likelyhod this was a
Hieronymi Heb. 5. where beginning to speake of Melchisedek he doth exaggerate and very much coÌ„fesse the difficultie of that high mysterie with this Proâ—me as S. Hierome noteth Super quo multus nobis sermo ininterpretabilis We haue a long processe to vtter touching Melchisedek and such as can not be expounded Not bicause the Apostle could not expounde it but bicause it was not a mater conuenient for that time Hieron ad Euagrium Mysteries kepte secret saith S. Hierome And wherefore Bicause he persuaded with the Hebrewes that is to say the Iewes not yet come to the faith that he might not reuele that sacred and secret Sacrament And whereas the vessel of Election saith he is astoined at that Mysterie and confesseth the mater whereof he disputeth to be vnspeakeable or vndeclarable how much more ought we seely wormes and gnattes confesse the only knowledge of our vnskil c. S. Augustine speaking vnto his hearers August in Psal. 109. of whom some were Cathecumens or learners of the faith thought not good to vtter plainely the doctrine of Melchisedeks Sacrifice Fidelibus loquor c. I speake to the faithful saith he if there be any Catechumens that vnderstand it not let them put away slewth and maketh hast to haue knowlege It is not needeful to open the Mysteries let the Scriptures tel you what the Sacrifice after the order of Melchisedek is If S. Augustine thought it good not to shewe and publish these mysteries abroad at what time almost the whole world professed the faith of Christ what good cause had S. Paule not to open the same vnto such as were yet but babes in the faith and were to be fedde with milke and pappe rather then with sownde meate and were not of capacitie for such Mysteries By consideration of this much it appeareth of what force your Argument is S. Paule speaketh nothing of Melchisedeks Sacrifice of bread and wine Ergo Melchisedek made no such Sacrifice at al. You that so scornefully reiecte other mennes Argumentes should haue taken better aduise of your Logique before you had made such peeuish Arguments your selfe Why S. Paule spake not of the manner of Melchisedeks Sacrifice in bread and wine Thus it may be said and reasonally that the greatnesse of the Mysterie and the vnmeete time and disposition of them to whom S. Paule wrote was the cause why he spake nothing touching the manner and mysterie of Melchisedeks Sacrifice in bread and wine An other cause of as much importance or more was this S. Paules chiefe intent in this place was for better meane to allure the Iewes vnto the faith to shewe the excellencie of Christes Priesthod which is after the order of Melchifedek in coÌ„pariâ—on of the Leuitical Priesthod This to performe Heb. 7. he setteth forth the prerogatiue of the same aboue the Leuitical Priesthood partly on the behalfe of the person of the Priest partly on the behalfe of the exercise of the Priesthod it selfe Touching the one Melchisedek in dignitie aboue Abraham bicause Melchisedek was the type and figure of Christe and bare the person of Christe he doth according to the Scriptures attribute great dignities vnto him as that he was King of Iustice King of Peace the Priest of God the highest without father without mother hauing neither beginning of daies nor ende Which dignities perteined not vnto his owne person in truth but as he bare the person of Christe the true Melchisedek Touching the other he declareth out of the booke of Genesis Gen. 14. how he blessed Abraham and how Abraham gaue vnto him tythes of al thinges in bothe which consisted the exercise of Priesthood and thereby Abraham is proued to be of lower degree then Melchisedek For without controuersie he is lesse which receiueth blessing Heb. 7. and the geuer of blessing is the greater by verdit of S. Paule The priesthod after the order of Melchisedek farâ— passeth the Leuitical Priesthod And as concerning the tythes that Melchisedek receiued of Abraham Leui him selfe also who receiued tythes paid tythes in Abraham for he was yet in the loynes of Abraham as S. Paule saith when Melchisedek met him Now whereas the Leuitical Priestes are coÌ„maunded according to the Iawe to take tythes of the people and haue thereby a Dignitie aboue the people Melchisedeks taking of tythes of Abraham their chiefe Patriarke Prince and head of the whole progenie and consequently of Leui also and his children the Priestes of that order for that they were then in his loynes doth proue the preemineÌ„ce and excellencie of that Priesthod in comparison of the Leuitical Priesthod in so much that in comparison of the same the Leuites be but Lay men and of the popular order By these and certaine other Argumentes S. Paule proueth and setteth forth the excellencie of Christes Priesthod after the order of Melchisedek aboue the Leuitical Priesthod Among which he maketh no mention of the manner of Melchisedeks Sacrifice Bicause if he had alleged that Melchisedek sacrificed in bread and wine the Hebrewes woulde soone haue replied that their sacrifices in that behalfe farre excelled as the which being of lyuing beastes had a more glorious shew and countenance then the Sacrifice of bread and wine Thus you haue two causes declared why S. Paule where he treateth so much of the dignitie of Melchisedek and of the Priesthod that is after his order speaketh nothing at least manifestly of his Sacrifice in bread and wine If the Fathers haue oftentimes resembled this present of Melchisedek vnto the Sacrifice that Christ made vpon the Crosse as you say why do you not shewe vs where we may finde it Wil any wise man trow you beleue it onely vpon your bare worde If it be a thing done oftentimes it was the easier for you to shewe it once But your oftentimes in the ende wil proue neuer That Melchisedek gaue to Abraham a present of bread and wine being returned from the battail it is not denied but that euer any auncient learned Father resembled that present as you cal it abhorring the name of Sacrifice as it had the condition of a present vnto the Sacrifice that Christe made vpon the Crosse I vtterly denie it If any where they resemble the bread and wine that Melchisedek made his Sacrifice of vnto the Sacrifice of the Crosse they doo it in respecte that the thing signified by it that is the body and bloud of Christe was one both in the Sacrifice made at the Supper and also in that which was made vpon the Crosse and not that the manner of Sacrifice made vpon the Crosse which was bloudy was semblable vnto it And so in respecte had to the body and bloud of Christe offered vpon the Crosse and not vnto the manner of offering I graunt the exposition you make of S. Cyprians wordes to be true that is to say that Christe offered the same thing in performance of truth vppon the Crosse that Melchisedek had
if it offer ought at al and feedeth the people with figures in steede of the truth Nay this Communion is not by many partes so good as Melchisedeks oblation and blessing of Abraham was For he offered in a figure and blessed according to his Priesthod being in time of figures before the truth was come into the worlde But our prety Cōmunion of England bringeth forth bare shewes of bread and wine now in the time of grace the truth being come and accepted Iewel And least any maen happen of simplicitie to be deceiued thinkinge that S. Hierome hereby meante M. Hardinges Real Presence for that he saith Melchisedek dedicated the Christian Mysterie in the Bodie and Bloude of Christe It may please him to consider that bothe S. Hierome and also other ancient Fathers haue often vsed the same manner of speache in other cases vvherein M. Harding can haue no manner suspicion of Real Presence Hieron aduers Iouin lib. 1. S. Hierome saithe Euangelium Passione Sanguine Domini Dedicatur The Gospel is Dedicated in the Passion and Bloude of Christe S. Augustine saithe Quid est mare Rubrum August in Psal. 80. Sanguine Domini Consecratum VVhat is the Redde sea He ansvveareth Consecrate in the Bloude of Christe Againe he saithe August in Ioan. tractat 11. Vnde rubet Baptismus Christi nisi Christi Sanguine Consecratus VVhereof is Christes Baptisme redde but that it is Dedicate in the Bloude of Christe Thus Melchisedek Dedicated the Christian Mysterie in the Bloude of Christe Harding Al that here foloweth to the ende of the Replie to this Diuision toucheth not at al any thing by me written or faid But it is inferred by M. Iewel vpon occasion of a testimonie of S. Hierom which he him selfe alleged fearing in the conceit of his owne imagination that S. Hierome wil be found against him in the very place where he craued helpe of him as he is directly against him in deede M. Iuels feare least the Eucharist be accompted a better thing thē bread and vvine And here is a great feare conceiued least forsooth the reader should be deceiued and thinke that S. Hierome in this place meant the real Presence Then tel vs good Sir onlesse the body and bloude of Christe be really present in the Mysterie of the Christians how is not the Figure of Melchisedech who dedicated the same as good and as worthy as is the Mysterie it selfe of the Christians which was dedicated But say you where so euer any thing is said to be dedicated in the body and bloude of Christe there his body and bloude are not consequently present as it may appeare by the example aboue alleged and by many other the like I graunt this muche what then Wil it thereof folow by necessary cousequent that in the Mysterie of the Christians whereof Melchisedeks Oblation was a figure and which was by him dedicated in a figure Matt. 26. the body and bloude of Christe is not really present Luc. 22. specially whereas Christe him selfe doth in termes pronounce Marc. 14. This is my body 1. Cor. 11. this is my bloude What neede you here to talke so much of the real presence You know pardy I stay not vpon this saying of S. Hierome for proufe of the real presence as though we had not many other and manifester proufes for it I confesse if Christe had neuer spoken those wordes and had neuer made promise that he would geue vs in our Mysterie the selfe same flesh Ioan. 6. that he would geue for the life of the worlde S. Hieromes testimonie of it selfe were not a sufficient proufe like as neither his saying that the Ghospel is dedicated by the Passion and bloude of Christe doth force vs to graunt that the Ghospel is the real bloude of Christe for lacke of Christes owne worde pronouncing that the Ghospel is his bloude And likewise for lacke of the worde of Christe saying that Baptisme is his very bloude which is shed for remission of sinne although it be said by S. Augustine not onely of Baptisme it selfe but also of the Read Sea which was a figure of it that they were redde as being consecrate in the bloude of Christe yet neither of them is in deede Christes bloude Concerning your phrase of dedicating VVhat S. Hierom vnderstode by the terme of dedication alleged out of S. Hierome I see not to what purpose it serueth you but to dazel the eyes of the vnlearned The circumstance of the place doth easily shewe what he meant by saying The Gospel is dedicated by the Passion and bloude of Christe for so it is to be turned Bicause Iouinian the heretique against whom he wrote making mariage equal with virginitie Hieron lib. 1. aduersus Iouinianū after that he had in his booke alleged examples of the olde testament folowing his order pretented to come to the Gospel and then in commendation of Mariage brought forth Zacharie Elizabeth and Peter with his wiues mother as perteining to the time of the new Testament and to the Gospel S. Hierome taketh him vp roundly and twiteth him of ignorance saying Consueta Vecordia non intelligit istos quoque inter eos qui legi seruierint debuisse numerari Neque enim Euangelium ante Crucem Christi est quod Passione sanguine ipsius dedicatur Thorough his accustomed doltishnes he vnderstandeth not that they also ought to haue ben numbred among them that were vnder the lawe For the Gospel is not before the Crosse of Christe that is to say before Christe was crucified whiche is dedicated by his Passion and bloude S. Hierome meaneth by these last wordes that the time of the Gospel beganne when Christe had suffered his Passion and shed his bloude and not before And here this worde◠Gospel Gospel signifieth not the booke written by the Euangelistes but the state and 〈◊〉 of the newe Testament Whiche tooke force and was dedicated that is to say was consecrated and made holy to the seruice and honour of God by the Passion and bloude of Christe Therefore he noteth Iouinian to be but a dolte in that he did attribute the Mariages of Zacharie and Elizabeth and Peter to the Gospel whiche in deed belonged vnto the lawe of the olde Testament bicause the lawe continewed til Christe had suffered his Passion Iohan. 19. as he said him selfe Consummatum est it is ended In like sense S. Hierome vseth the worde of Dedicating in the same booke a litle before saying Virginitatem à Saluatore virgine dedicari that virginitie is dedicated by our Sauiour being a virgin for that now it is otherwise with vs then it was with them of the olde lawe and with those to whom it was said Gen. 1. Grow ye and be ye multiplied and that virginitie is now sithens our Sauiour came in fleshe more generally commended then it was before among them who as there S. Hierome saith haue geuen vs types and figures
Simplici Sacrificio Christi dedicauit Sacramentum He dedicated the Sacramente of Christe in Breade and VVine which is not a Bloudy or loathsome but a Pure and a Simple Sacrifice This Remembrance and Oblation of praises and Rendring of thankes vnto God for our Redemption in the Bloud of Christe is called of the olde Fathers An Vnbloudy Sacrifice and of S. Augustine The Sacrifice of the Newe Testament Iustinus Martyr saith Esaias non pollicetur Cruentarum Victimarum instaurationem sed veras Spirituales Oblationes laudis Gratiarum actionis Esaias promiseth not the restoaringe of Blouddy Sacrifices but True and Spiritual Oblations of Praises and Thankesgeuing S. Chrysostome saith Non iam Sanguinem aut adipem offerimus c. VVe offer not now the fatte Chrysos in Epist. ad Hebr. Homil 11. or Bloude of Beastes Al these thinges are abolished And in steede thereof there is brought in a Reasonable or Spiritual dewtie But what is this dewtie that we cal Reasonable or Spiritual That it is that is offered by the Soule and Sprite Harding What needeth al this longe processe vppon the woorde Incruentum Vnbloudy Go to the purpose M. Iewel By the place alleged out of S. Chrysostome it is euident that he vnderstandeth Malachies prophecie of the vnbloudy Sacrifice which Christ offered at his Mystical Table in his Last Supper and is now daily offered by Priestes according to his Institution Examin the woordes wel See how plainely and clearely saith he the Prophete hath interpreted the Mystical Table Chrysos in Psal. 55. which is the vnblouddy Sacrifice Yet so plaine and cleare as it is you can not see or rather you wil not see it And by al your witte and cunning you endeuour so to dasel the eyes of others that they may not see it But why doo you turne al your long talke onely to the woorde M. Ievvel turneth al his Reply to the vvorde vnbloudy leauing other mater that he is not wel hable to answer Vnbloudy Why doo you not aswel speake of the Mystical Table Can ye not away to heare thereof Say what you liste of the terme Vnblouddy and allege so many sentences of Doctours as woulde fil a whole booke yet must S. Chrysostome to al men of learning appeare to expounde the Prophecie of Malachie of that whiche is vnbloudily sacrificed at the Mystical Table What Mystical Table can ye name vs now in the Churche but that whereon the Body and Bloude of Christe are sacrificed whereof it is named an Aulter Aulter Table and from whens they are of the faithful receiued for whiche it is named a Table Verily this place presseth you so that you are faine to flee as it were out of the feelde And yet least you should seme to flee away cowardly by long needeles talke vpon the woorde Vnbloudy as it were by holding vp your shilde you make a shewe as though you faught stil. In effecte two thinges you go about to prooue The first is that the Sacrifice of our Prayers and deuotion of mynde is called of the Fathers Vnbloudy The second is that the Ministration of the holy Communion which terme is very common with you is called also an vnbloudy Sacrifice Touching the first you haue taken great paines to litle purpose For it is by noman denied Touching the second what so euer you meane by your Ministring terme of the Ministration of the Holy Communion we say that the Hoste of the Mystical Table whiche is none other but the body and bloude of Christe is both of S. Chrysostome here and otherwheres of the learned Fathers called the vnbloudy Sacrifice not for that it representeth and reporteth vnto our myndes the Sacrifice of the Crosse as you say for in that respect it ought rather to be called representatiue or commemoratiue but for that being the same in substance with that whiche was offered vppon the Crosse with shedding of bloude Bloudy and vnbloudy referred to one subiecte it is here offered vnbloudily And so both these termes Bloudy and Vnbloudy be referred to one subiect or thing offered whereby the diuersitie of the manner of offering is signified Furthermore whereas you say that the Christians Sacrifices be mere spiritual and procede wholy from the harte if you meane that al our Sacrifices be such and that no external thing is offered in any of them it is vntruely spoken For the Sacrifice of Christes body and Bloude is not so mere spiritual that it may be said to proceede onely from the harte of the offerer but it requireth an external action of the Minister to wit an external pronouncing of the sacramental woordes This is my body c. Besides this external breade and wine be also necessary without the which this Sacrifice can not be made And herein after that by the power of the wordes of our Lorde by the Priest pronounced there is made the Diuine chaunge of the substāce of the bread and wine into the body and bloude of Christe August de ciuita Dei li. 10. c. 20 then is there as S. Augustine calleth it the true Sacrifice as S. Gregorie Nazianzen termeth it Nazian in Apologetico 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the external Sacrifice of the newe Testament Consider wisely with thy selfe good Christian Reader whether M. Iewel be to trusted or no in that he traueleth so much to abolish the mystical Table the vnbloudy Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ vvhether M. Ievvel be to be trusted which is the most honorable and the chiefe Sacrifice of the Church Whereas S. Chrysostom declareth diuers kindes of Sacrifices to be among the Christians as there were in olde time among the Iewes M. Iewel acknowlegeth al saue that which is most worthy and chiefe In an Homilie that he wrote vpon the .95 Psalme he reckeneth in order ten kindes of Sacrifices Ten kīdes of Sacrifices which be sitting saith he for the grace of the Gospel That I may speake of the first and chiefe after that the others be accompted the second is Martyrdom the thirde is the Sacrifice of Prayer the fourth is of Iubilation or ioyful synging out a loude the fifth of Iustice the sixth of Almose geuing the seuenth of Praise the eighth of Compunction the ninth of Humilitie the tenth of Preaching eche one of these there he prooueth by Scripture These nyne M. Iewel can finde in his harte to confesse But the first Satan and he may not abyde And that is the Sacrifice wherein Christe him selfe is offered Which Sacrifice of S. Chrysostom in that Homilie is called by these names Chrysost. in Psalm 95. Tom. 1 Mystica mensa coeleste summeque venerandum Sacrificium Spirituale illud mysticum donum hostia salutaris salutare donum The mystical Table the heauenly and most honorable Sacrifice That spiritual and Mystical gifte The healthful hoste the healthful gifte And we that should not doubte what thing this first and chiefe Sacrifice is with
vnderstandeth August ad Hieronym epist. 19. where he writeth thus vnto S. Hierome a Priest him selfe being a Bisshop Quanquam secundùm honorum vocabula quae iam vsus Ecclesiae obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio maior sit tamen Augustinus Hieronymo minor est Albe it after the rate of wordes of Dignities which the custome of the Churche hath now obteined Bisshoprike is greater then Priesthode yet is Augustine lesse then Hierome S. Ambrose expounding the place of the Epistle to the Ephesians Ambros. in Epist. ad Ephes. 4. where S. Paule speaketh of Apostles Prophetes Euangelistes Pastours and Doctours by Christe placed in the Churche by Apostles vnderstandeth Bisshops and by Prophetes he vnderstandeth them that be first in degree after Bishops whiche Order may now be the Order of a Priest qui ordo nunc potest esse Presbyteri saith he meaning the Special Priesthoode geuen by Consecration of a Bishop Of this Priesthode is to be vnderstanded the .3 Canon of the .4 Councel of Carthage in which those two hundred and fourteen Bishops Concil Carthag 4. Can. 3. among whom S. Augustine was one as it is certaine by his owne subscription describe a fourme how a Priest ought to be ordered that is consecrated into that holy Order Of this Priesthode speaketh S. Augustine writing Against the Epistle of Permenian Augustin lib. 2. cōtra epist. Parmen c. 13. where making mention of Baptisme and of power to baptise he saith thus Vtrumque Sacramentum est quadam consecratione vtrumque homini datur illud cùm baptizatur istud cùm ordinatur Ideoque in Catholica vtrumque non licet iterari Either of them is a Sacrament and by a certaine Consecration either is geuen vnto a man that when he is baptized this when he is ordered And therefore in the Catholike Churche either may not be iterated or taken twise For the outward and special Priesthod these fewe may suffice That the Sacrifice is not to be consecrate and made but onely by the Special Priestes NOW touching that this Sacrifice is to be consecrated and made not by euery faithful Christian person but by those that by special consecration be ordered Priestes let vs allege the testimonies of some Fathers What force is in the worde of our Sauiour Doo ye this in my remembrance Luc. 22. spoken to none but to the Apostles 1. Cor. 11. for they onely were present at the Supper if it were ernestly vrged the learned do wel conceiue But bicause these men wil not soone be confuted by Scripture for that they can not be brought to take it in that sense in which the Churche hath alwaies bene taught by the holy Ghoste to vnderstand it let vs heare the voice of the Churche vttered by some learned and auncient Father The Bishop saith S. Dionyse the Areopagite S. Paules scholer of reuerence and Bisshoply dutie Dionysius in Ecclesiastic Hierar cap. 3. part 3. that he offereth vp the healthful Sacrifice which passeth his worthines excuseth him selfe in seemely wise first crying out vnto him Thou ô Lorde hast spoken the worde Doo ye this in my remembrance If it were lauful for euery Christian to performe this dutie Bisshoply dutie what needed S. Dionyse to speake of Bishoply dutie Againe in that he allegeth the worde of Christe Doo ye this in my remembrance for excuse of his boldnesse he signifieth this office to apperteine not to euery faithful person but to that special order of men who haue succeded the Apostles to whom onely that worde was first spoken that is to say to them that be called to the special Priesthode wherevnto Christe then promoted his Apostles by that worde geuing power office and commission S. Iustine Philosopher and Martyr saith likewise Iustinus Martyr The Apostles in their Commentaries or bookes which are called Euangelia Gospels haue recorded that Christe gaue commaundement vnto them so that they should consecrate this meate by the prayers of the woorde of him selfe that he tooke bread and after he had geuen thankes said Do ye this in remēbrance of me This is my body Item that he said hauing taken the Cuppe after he had geuen thankes This is my bloude and that he gaue it to them alone Marke here good Rearde by witnesse of this blessed Martyr who was so nygh vnto the Apostles time the commaundement to do that whiche Christe did at his supper that is to say to consecrate and offer the body and bloude of Christe was geuen to the Apostles and consequently to their successours for he bad them so to doo vntil he come and to none elles Of his wordes this Argument may wel be gathered They onely haue commaundement to doo that Christe did at the Supper to whom he gaue the Sacrament but by reporte of S. Iustine he gaue the Sacrament to the Apostles onely Ergo the Apostles onely and suche as in the function of Priesthod there instituted doo succede them haue auctorite to doo that whiche Christe did Now Christe consecrated his body and bloude and offered the same and made this Sacrifice after the order of Melchisedek Therefore they be Priestes onely Priestes I meane Hierarchical that be appointed by Christe and haue auctoritie to consecrate and make this Sacrifice whiche is the point that M. Iewel here denieth but how impudently he denieth it any man may see that hath eyes to see That this auctoritie and ministerie perteineth not to euery faithful Christian man as M. Iewel holdeth opinion but to Priestes onely the olde learned writer Tertullian acknowlegeth with these wordes Eucharistiae Sacramentum nec de aliorum manu Tertulliā lib. de Corona militis quà m Praesidentium sumimus We receiue not the Sacrament of the Eucharist of the hande of others then of the Rulers by that he vnderstanded Priestes Of this auctoritie speaketh S. Ambrose expounding this place of S. Paule to Timothe 1. Tim. 4. Despise not the grace which hath ben geuen vnto thee through prophecie with laying on of handes of Priesthode These be his wordes Prophetia est Ambros. in 1. Tim. 4. qua eligitur quasi Doctor futurus idoneus manus verò impositiones verba sunt mystica quibus confirmatur ad opus electus accipiens auctoritatem teste conscientia sua vt audeat vice Domini sacrificium Deo offerre Prophecie is saith he by which is chosen as a man would say one that shal proue a fitte teacher but the layinges on of hande are wordes mystical by whiche he that is chosen is confirmed vnto the worke receiuing auctoritie his owne conscience being witnesse that he may be so bolde as in the stede of our Lorde to offer vp the Sacrifice vnto God This place of S. Paule and the witnesse of conscience as he saith telleth them who be made Priestes by lawful imposition of handes what auctoritie they haue and how litle they ought to be a fearde being in them selues duly examined and approued to offer vp
Priestes but also the faithful Christian people doo offer vp this Sacrifice whiche here M. Iewel calleth the vnbloudy and Daily Sacrifice of the newe Testament meaning notwithstanding thereby not the body and bloude of Christe but a mere spiritual Sacrifice of Praise thinking by the name of the Sacrifice of Praise to exclude the Real Sacrifice of Christes body and bloude whereas none other is so muche a Sacrifice of praise and thankes as this Sacrifice is Touching the Priestes and the peoples parte in this behalfe looke what the people doth in good affection and vowe the same doo the Priestes in Ministerie saith the learned Pope Innocentius Tertius Innocentius 3. De officio Missae li. â— cap. 20. As for the Argument which M. Iewel saith I conclude out of S. Augustines wordes he may scoffe at it as he liste being the inuention of his owne meery head by me not so muche as once dreamed of It is not so harde to tel how the Antecedent and Consequent of it came together as it is for him to shewe how I haue so concluded out of S. Augustines wordes For in this place as S. Augustine alludeth to the Prophecie of Malachie so of Melchisedek he speaketh not so muche as one worde No man hath a grace to fight with his owne shadow in stede of his aduersarie but M. Iewel What he meaneth by mincing of my Logique I wote not But verely by this and a thousand mo places it is now wel knowen what a number of lyes and corruptions he hath minced and shrid together to fil vp the Hotchepotte of his Replie Iewel Christe onely is that Priest for euer accordinge to the order of Melchisedek He hath made an endles Sacrifice He him selfe hath offered vp him selfe vnto God his Father vpon the Crosse. Therefore God the Father saithe vnto him Thou art that Priest foreuer not any mortal Creature Hebrae 7. 9. or vvorldly vvight but thou onely beinge bothe God and man Psal. 110. art that Priest for euer S. Paule saithe VVee ar made perfite and Sanctified by that one Sacrifice once made vpon the Crosse. Hebrae 9. 1. Ioan. 2. S. Ihon the Euangelist saithe He is the propitiaton and Sacrifice for our sinnes 1. Pet. 2. S. Peter saithe He carried our sinnes in his Bodie vpon the Tree 2. Cor. 5. S. Paul saithe God was in Christ reconcilinge the worlde vnto him selfe Therefore S. Iohn the Baptiste saithe Iohan. 1. Beholdâ— that Lambe of God that taketh awaie the sinnes of the worlde Yf M. Hardinge and his felovves doubte hereof as they seeme to doo let Ceriste him selfe beare vvitnesse to the price of his ovvne Bloude Hanging vpon the Crosse and yeldinge vp the Sprite he sealed vp al vvith these vvordes Consummatum est That is to say This is the Sacrifice for sinne Hereby my Fathers wrathe is paciâ—ied hereby al thinges are made perfite Thus Sacrifice is but one wee maie looke for none other It is ful and perfite wee maie looke for no better Harding What neede so many wordes in a mater confessed Who denieth but Christe is a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedek Yea he is not That Priest so onely vpon which worde you harpe much but that men may be Priestes vnder him and Ministers of the same Priesthode as before I haue proued by witnesse of Eusebius and of Oecumenius And S. Augustine also saith August de Ciuit. Dei lib. 17. cap. 17. Iam vbique offertur sub Sacerdote Christo quod protulit Melchisedech quando benedixit Abraham Now is that offered vp euery where vnder the Priest Christ which Melchisedek brought forth when he blessed AbrahaÌ„ whereby he vnderstandeth not only the bare figure bread and wine but more specially the body and bloude of Christe now really conteined vnder the formes of bread and wine after consecration and then signified and forefigured by bread and wine True it is no mortal Creature or worldly wight as you speake is that Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedek To what ende bring you this in Christe also is the Lambe of God Ioan. 1. that taketh away the sinnes of the worlde He is the propiciation and Sacrifice for our sinnes What conclude you of al your needeles number of allegations Whereas you say that I and my felowes seme to doubte hereof you say like your selfe The wordes of Dronckerdes of Skoldes and of Common Lyers must not alwaies be taken for a sclaunder This Sacrifice is but one say you we may looke for none other it is ful and perfite we may looke for no better Is this the mater for which you haue spent so many wordes and textes Why sir I pray you is there any man so farre an ennemie to Christe and to his Death that now telleth you of mo redemptions then one of an other Redeming Sacrifice besides that of the Crosse of any perfiter and better then that If there be any suche let him be punished in Gods name to the example of al blasphemers yea if ye wil let him be handled as il as ye would longer this haue handled Bishop Boner that constant Confessour of God if ye could haue had so much lawe thereto as ye had malice Or as ye would haue handled me when M. Grindal procured some of the Quenes Garde with his owne men to be sent out by nyght in al haste vnto a place in Essex I knowe not where to take me and bring me prisoner to London being at good reste in my bed at Louaine Touching this point we tel you and this is not the first time we haue tolde it you There is but one Sacrifice of it selfe sufficient for the Redemption of Mankind There is but one Lambe that taketh away the synnes of the worlde Ioan. 1. and that one Lambe was neuer but once killed for taking away synnes The Sacrifice that now is daily offered in the Churche is done in remembrance of that was once done for our Redemption vpon the Crosse. We pretende not to make a newe worke of Redemption as though that whiche Christe wrought vpon the Crosse were insufficieÌ„t and vnperfite For better declaration of that whiche we doo Chrysost. in Epist. ad Hebr. Homil. 17 S. Chrysostome demaundeth Do we not offer euery day Yeas saith he we do offer but we doo it for remembrance of his death And this Sacrifice is one not many How one and not many In asmuche as it was once offered it was offered vp into the most holy of al holy But this Sacrifice is a sampler of that we offer vp alwaies the selfe same thing August coÌ„tra Faust. lib. 6. c. 5. Ibid. lib. 20. ca. 21. August li. De fide ad Petrum cap. 19. Al the Iewes sacrifices by many and diuers wayes signified the one Sacrifice the memorie of which now we celebrate saith S. Augustine After Christes Ascension it is celebrated by the Sacrament of memorie saith he in
Priesthod 209. a The Priesthod of Christe continueth stil both in heauen and in the Churche 235. b Internal Priesthod 241. b External Priesthod 242. a. Authoritie to create Priestes leafte to the Churche 242. b Deriuation of Priestly duetie 243. a Special Priesthod 244. b. seq Priestes Christes vicars and substitutes in making this Sacrifice 50. a. 247. a. Both Priest and people offereth and howe eche 25â— a The people offer by geuing assent to the Priestes action and applying their deuotion Ibid. Real Priesthod in the Church now ergo real Sacrifice 11. b Christen men how they be Priestes in general and also kinges 12. b. Priest in english a name common to Presbyter and Sacerdos 13. a. VVhy S. Paule calleth rather Priests then Sacrificers 14. a. Priestes haue authoritie to offer vp Christe vnto his Father 49. a. 50. a. b. 90. a. b. 143. b. 144. a. 190. b. 216â— a. Continuance of Priestes necessary 49. b. Priestes succede the Apostles in degree 49. b. 64. a. Iust punishment merciful 179. b R. REal presence 42. a. 72. a. 92. b. 105. b. 107. b. 111. b. 112. a. Real presence and Sacrifice auouched by S. Chrysostom dissembled by M. Ievvel 72. a Real Sacrifice 35. b. 42. a. 253. a The name of a Renegate ansvvered 182. a. VVho is a Renegate Ibid. b ReparatioÌ„ repairing or renuing and RepresentatioÌ„ of Christes Death 219. a. Robert King of Dednam and Robert Debnam of Elsbergholt haÌ„ged for felonie Foxes Martyrs 181. a. S SAbbatum olde and nevv 8. b. 9. a Real Sacrifice in the Churche 11. b. 105. b The substance of the Sacrifice in both Testamentes diuers 20. b The substance of bread and vvine hath no place in our Sacrifice 21. a The effectes of the Sacrifices of both Lavves diuers Ibi. b. seq Real and true Sacrifice and Sacrifice in dede 35. b The Sacrifice of the Aulter a true and real Sacrifice 36. b. 80. a. 98. b Difference betvvene a true and the true Sacrifice 40. b The Sacrifice that vve offer is the PassioÌ„ of Christ and why 41. b. Christes body neuer ceassed nor shal ceasse to be a Sacrifice 42. a The fruictes of this Sacrifice 44. b. 45. a. The Sacrifice of Christe auouched in the Gospel by S. Augustines iudgement 45. b Sacrifice spred ouer the vvorlde Ibi. In the Sacrifice of the Aulter al the conditions of Malachies prophecie are founde 51. a Sacrifices common to both Testamentes 51. a The Sacrifice of the Aulter succede al the Sacrifices of the olde Lavv. 51. b. The properties attributed to this Sacrifice by Malachie 63. a Sacrifice auouched by S. Chrysostome 72. b. 78. b. 105. b. 114. b. 119. b. 189. a. 192. a. 214. b. 226. b. The Sacrifice of the Supper and the Sacrifice of the Crosse one and diuers in diuers respectes 74. a. 78. b. This Sacrifice auouched by the Nicâ—n Councel 217. a. Hovv Christe sacrificeth 221. b Ten kindes of Sacrifices 226. b Three Sacrifices noted by S. Augustine 237. b Sacrifices of tvvo sortes invvarde and outvvard 239. b This Sacrifice is external 241. a Sacrifice taken tvvo vvaies 74. a This Sacrifice called Spiritual and vvhy 79. a Three kinds of Sacrifices of the new Testament by Eusebius 93. a A memorie of the Sacrifice of the Crosse excludeth not the Sacrifice of the Aulter 98. a Reasons for this Sacrifice 108. a. 137. b. 190. b. This Sacrifice is a meane to deriue the effect of Christes Death vnto vs. 121. a. This Sacrifice called the tradition of God 131. b. sequent VVhy the Fathers spake at the beginning secretly of this Sacrifice 132. b. And in the Preface 33. a In what sense the Sacrifice is Symbolical or Figuratiue 135. a S. Dionyse for the Sacrifice 137. a S. Gregorie Nazianzene for the external Sacrifice 138. a The Sacrifice of the Aulter the Sacrifice of Praise 145. a The Singular Sacrifice 145. a. 236. b. 237. a Our Sacrifice is the pure Sacrifice and why 151. a S. Cyprian euident for the Sacrifice 156. a The Sacrifice after Melchisedeks order both on the Crosse and also at the Supper 157. b A plaine argument for the Sacrifice out of S. ChrysostoÌ„ 190. b. seq The ende of Christes Sacrifice and of ours 192. b Yf Christ leaft no real Sacrifice to his people the new Law was left in worse case then the olde c. 104. b. 105. a Our Sacrifice a much more maruelous and honorable sacrifice then al other 105. b The substance of the Sacrifice on the Crosse and Sacrifice on the Aulter al one 113. b The Sacrifice why of Malachie called the pure Sacrifice 151. a The Sacrifice of Prayse how general it is 144. b Sacrifice Priesthod Law go so together that the bettering of either of them doth infer the bettering of the other 197. a The differeÌ„ce of Christ being in the Sacrament and in the reading of the storie of the Gospel 199. a The Sacrifice not to be consecrate but only by the Special Priestes 245. b. seq 248. a. In this Sacrifice what is Christe what are we 247. a This Sacrifice both Commemoratiue and real 253. a In this Sacrifice the Churche is offred 257. a Spiritual Sacrifice as a contrite hart and such like not the proper Sacrifice of the new testameÌ„t 140. b Sacerdotes that is Sacrificers be now properly in the Churche 13. b The terme Sacerdos Priest vsed of the Fathers and how 7. a. seq 11. b. The olde terme Sacrificer vsed after the destruction of Ierusalem 14. a. The terme Sacrificer vsed by S. Dionyse 15. a. VVhy S. Paule calleth the publike persones of the Churche Priestes rather then sacrificers 14. a Sacrament and Mysterie do not importe a signification of absence of the thing reported to be sacrificed c. but the secret maÌ„ner of sacrificing c. 77. b. VVhy the Sacrament is geuen vs in forme of bread and wine 82. b. 83 a. The Sacrament called by the name of bread and vvine 85. b The Sacramentaries Argument It is a signe of the bodie ergo not Christes true bodie stark naught 83. b. The true and real bloude of Christe in the Sacrament 107. a Sacrament of Remembrance 239. a If al be taken away that hath no proufe of Scripture what inconuenience vvil folovve 4. b. A Shifte of the newe Gospellers against the Fathers testimonies for the Sacrifice 8. a. 218. a Sicuti as in the CanoÌ„ reporteth not equalitie but likenes 124. b. 258. b Signes of two sortes significatiue onely and exhibitiue 83. b. A Syster woman vvhat it meaneth in S. Paule 166. b. seq Spiridion made bishop after he had ben married 171. b Spiridion not proued by Sozomenus to be a married Bishop 172. a. Spiritual Sacrifices Spiritual Priesthod 250. a. The reproche of Straggling alone answered 67. a. sequent T. TAble 225. b. 230. a Temple 9. b Thinges signifying and thinges signified called by the same names and hovv 111. b. 112. a. b Thinges implied though not vttered in expresse Termes 66. b. Thraso his parte played by the Chalenger rather then by the defender 261. b. The olde translation of the testament not controlled by Catholikes 70. a Translatours of the Bible into English false harlots 167. b Tertullian no martyr 172. b How the Churche speaketh vvith al tongues 200. b Transsubstantiation 29. a. b. 33. a. 84â— b. 92â— b. 112. a. 136. a. â—ne Truth put away by an other truth M. Iewels common custome 16. b. 17. b. 26. b. 27. b. 32. b. 59. a. 98. b. 165. a. 195. a. 198. b. 202 b. 223. a. 227. b. 233 a. 239. b. Truth not excluded by Image 161. a V. VNbloudy Sacrifice 37. a. b. 41. a. 52. a. 77. a. b. 78. a. 102. a. 214. a. b. 227. a. b. Vnbloudy shedding of bloude 76. b 77. a. b. Vnblouddy Death 16â— b. Vnbloudy spoken of the Sacrifice of the Aulter 247. b Christe offered his ovvne body vnblouddily 215. b Blouddy and vnblouddy referred to one subiecte 226. a. Vntruthes vttered by M. Ievvel three at once 20. b. 113. a. 147. a. An impudent vntruth and lye that can not be excused 30. aâ— 34. b. 171. a. 177. a. Vse and obseruation of of Sabbatum Pascha Altare c. double olde and nevve 8. b. 9. a W. VVHy Christ gaue his body and bloud vnder the formes of bread and vvine 30. a. VViat beheadded 183. b. VViued Apostares and their vvysedom 168. a. VViclef 242. b. VVordes vsed of the Fathers to expresse the manner of this blouddy Sacrifice 77. a. VVilliam Cowbridge Foxes Martyr 181. a VVilliam Flovver Foxes Martyr Ibid. a. Y. Yoke fellovve man 168. a. Liber iste lectus est approbatus à viris sacrae Theologiae Angâ—ici Idiomatis peritissimis quibus sicut ipsi Authori M. N. Thomae Hardingo tutò credendum iudico Quâ—re sine scrupulo edendâ—n esse existimo magnam ex hoc argumento vtilitatem spero Cunerus Petri Pastor S. Peâ—â—i Louanij 23. Augusts An. 1567.
of the new TestameÌ„t to be without external Sacrifice and Priesthod propre to that state he should seme to haue deliuered vnto his people not the Testament of grace but a state of ire and wrath yea of more wrath then was the state of the Iewish people But whereas he saith him selfe Esai 61. that he came praedicare annuÌ„ Domini acceptuÌ„ to preache the acceptable yeare of our Lorde Luc. 4. that is to say the time of grace mercie and saluation and sith that S. Paul saith 2. Cor. 6. Behold now is the acceptable time beholde now is the day of saluation verely assured we are forasmuch as to euery lawe ordeined by God Sacrifice and Priesthod belongeth propre and conuenient to the same that God would not suffer his most deare people of the newe TestameÌ„t his best beloued spouse the Church to be without external Sacrifice and Priesthod the lacke whereof was sometimes threatened to the Iewes for a greuous plague Neither to say the trouth could it in any wise seme conuenieÌ„t that that ReligioÌ„ which of al that euer haue ben is most absolute should lâ—cke that Seruice and wourship wherby the external and propitiatorie sacrifice is offred which Seruice hath alwaies ben most highly estemed in euery ReligioÌ„ not only in that which is true and instituted of God but also in that which is false and deuised by the enuie and suggestion of the Deuil wherein he endeuoureth al that he can that the Image of the true Religion as muche as may be be expressed and liuely set forth Forasmuche then as in the olde Testament The Sacrifice of the Churche as S. Paule witnesseth there wanted perfection by reason of the weakenes and vnhablenes of the Leuitical Priesthoode for the lawe brought nothing to perfection it behoued Heb. 7. God the Father of mercie so disposing that an other Priest after the order of Melchisedek should rise who might make perfite al that were to be sanctified This Priest was Iesus Christe our Lorde and God Who whereas he came not to loose the Lawe in asmuch as it was Natural Mat. 5. or Moral but rather to fulfil the Law when he brought his new Lawe into the worlde so much promised before in Ieremie Ierem. 31. and th' other Prophetes least he should haue least it maimed and vnperfit in this behalfe coÌ„trarywise then the manner of the former lawes of nature and of Moyses was either of which had outward sacrifice furnished it with a peculiar Sacrifice and Priesthod For it could not otherwise be but that when a new Lawe tooke place Sacrifice propre to that Lawe should go with it and Priestes likewise as Ministers of the same Sacrifice For according to the Doctrine of S. Paule Lawe Sacrifice and Priesthode go euer together Therefore though he would once offer him selfe Heb. 7. vnto God the Father vppon the Aulter of the Crosse with Death that he might there pay the price of the raunsom of the worlde and worke euerlasting Redemption yet bicause his Priesthod was not to be extinguished and ended by Death and euery Priesthod requireth a proper Sacrifice at his last Supper in the night that he was betrayed that he might leaue vnto his Deare Spouse the Churche a visible Sacrifice as the nature of men required whereby that blouddy Sacrifice once to be made vpon the Crosse might be represented and the Memorie of it kepte and the healthful Vertue of it appyled vnto vs and God duely recognized at the same Supper declaring him selfe to be constituted a Priest after the order of Melchisedek according to the dutie of Priesthoode he offered vp vnto God the Father his body and bloude vnder the formes of bread and wine and deliuered the same vnto the Apostles whom then he made Priestes of the newe Testament that they should receiue them and by these wordes Hoe facite in meam coÌ„memorationem Luc. 12. Doo ye this in my remembrance 1. Cor. 11. vnder whiche request that his whole action is comprehended he gaue commaundement to them and to their Successours in Priesthoode to offer vp the same Thus the Churche hath alwaies vnderstanded thus it hath taught thus it hath beleued In witnesse hereof S. Ireneus speaking of that which Christe did at his Supper Iren. lib. 4. cap. 32. saith Noui Testamenti nouam docuit oblationem He taught the new oblation of the newe testament And this is the doctrine of the Catholike Churche touching the Sacrifice of the newe Testament simply declared which Sacrifice is now according to our Lordes Institution and commaundement offered daily by Priestes in this office the Apostles successours Neither saith S. Irenaeus of this Oblation onely that it is the newe Oblation of the newe Testament Ibidem and that Christe taught it but also that the Churche receiuing it of the Apostles doth offer this Sacrifice to God in vniuerso mundo in the whole worlde Wherefore it is mere madnesse yea if we would speake as S. Augustine speaketh in euery the like case it is most insolent madnesse August Epist. 118. ad Ianuar. to dispute whether in the Masse there be a Sacrifice and oblation or no and whether the same ought to be continued seing that the whole Churche through the worlde doth celebrate and frequent it For good proufe of it we haue the Scriptures Auctorities for the sacrifice of the Aulter the Doctours of al ages the auncient Councels the sense practise and vse of the vniuersal Churche As for the Scriptures I thinke it ynough here only to note certaine places Scripturâ— for the Sacrifice that be alleged for it They are these the Institution of Christe described in the Ghospel the prophecie of Malachie the Fignre of Melchisedek Vnto whiche may be added the manifest place of the first Epistle to the Corinthians Luc. 22. where S. Paule saith Malach. 1. they could not be made partakers of the Table of our Lorde Gen. 14. who had defiled them selues with taking parte of the Table of Deuils 1. Cor. 10. where by Table he vnderstandeth in bothe places the Aulter whereon the prophane meates were offered to Deuils among the Gentiles and the Euchariste is consecrated and offered vp vnto God among the true beleeuers whereof Sacrifice is concluded For by those woordes it is manifest that S. Paule doth compare our Euchariste in respecte of Sacrifice to the Sacrifices of the olde lawe and to the Sacrifices of the Deuils Whiche thing he would not haue done onlesse he had ben assured and onlesse it had ben wel knowen to the ChristiaÌ„ people that the Euchariste is so a true Sacrifice as those that were offered to God in the olde Testament and as those that of thâ— Gentiles were offred to Deuils Doctours for prouf of the Sacrifice As for the Doctours their witnesses for proufe hereof be in manner infinite In al their writinges whereof speake they so often as of this Sacrifice Many
of the Father onely with the Faith of him that wel beleueth the whole Trinitie is honoured and when the intention of him that sacrificeth is directed vnto the Father the gifte of the Sacrifice with one and the same dewtie of the offerer is offered vnto the whole Trinitie Thus Fulgentius When Christe the Sonne of God is offered vp according to his body and bloude that is to say according to his humaine nature according to whiche he is lesse then the Father then him selfe then the holy Ghost he is consecrated vnto the holy Trinitie And so much doth the Churche in the lesser Canon and specially in the ende of the Masse professe August de Ciuit. Dei li. 10. c. 20 with expresse wordes naming the Trinitie it selfe Therefore S. Augustine saithâ— that whereas Christe Iesus in the forme of God taketh sacrifice with the Father Christe is sacrificed in the forme of a seruauÌ„tâ— with whome he is one God yet in the forme of a seruaunt he had rather be a Sacrifice then take Sacrifice least by this occasion some man should thinke that Sacrifice were to be done to any creature By this he is a Priest him selfe both the offerer and him selfe also the offering Of which thing he willed the daily Sacrifice of the Churche to be a Sacrament which Church whereas it is the body of him selfe the head is taught through him to offer vp it selfe Masses in honour and memorie of Sanctes Although sometime the Churche do celebrate certaine Masses in the honour and memorie of Saintes yet it doth not offer Sacrifice vnto them but vnto the Trinitie only that hath crowned them and geuing thankes vnto God for their victories sueth for their aides and desireth to be holpen by their merites and prayers Wherof S. Augustine treateth Lib. 8. De Ciuitate Dei cap. vâ—t lib. 20. Contrà Faustum cap. 21. Concerning the second point which is by whom this Oblation and Sacrifice is made By vvhoÌ„ is this Sacrifice made among some men there is some doubte thereof For some say that Christe offereth not but that we only do offer Others there be that wil Christe here also to be the Priest who wil seme to leane to the authoritie of S. Ambrose Ambr. lib. 1. Officiorum c. 48. De SuÌ„ma Trinit fide Cath. cap. firmiter and of the Laterane Councel Now Christ is offered saith S. Ambrose but he is offred as man as receiuing passion and he offereth him selfe as a Priest to forgeue our sinnes The Councel hath thus There is one vniuersal Churche of the faithful in which the selfe same Priest is the Sacrifice Iesus Christe If our Lorde bicause he is a Priest for euer according to the order of Melchisedeck haue an euerlasting Priesthode Heb. 7. as S. Paul saith although he offered him selfe vnto the Father with death in the Aulter of the Crosse to pay the price of mannes redemption yet his Priesthode was not extinquished by death Wherefore as in the Epistle to the Hebrewes S. Paule concludeth Heb. â— it is necessary that he haue also that which he may offer But whereas it is not Christe him selfe in his owne person but a man Priest that standeth at the Aulter who with the wordes of Christ doth consecrat and offer this Sacrifice as to this purpose he is assumpted the learned Fathers of the Councel of Trent Concil Trident. Sessi 22. cap. 2. haue discussed this controuersie with three wordes For the Hoste say they is one and the selfe same He the same now offereth by the ministerie of Priestes that offered himselfe vpon the Crosse with a diuers way onely of offering Whereof it foloweth that both Christe and also we here are Priestes he bicause he consecrateth by our ministerie we bicause we consecrate in his person and with his woordes For whereas he said to his Apostles Luc. 22. Doo ye this in my remembrance after that he had offered him selfe vnbloudily at the Supper as he is now offered in the Aulter the Apostles so vnderstoode him the Holy Ghost geuing them suche sense or Christe by expresse wordes so teaching them that they should consummate and make perfite this Mysterie in the person of him and with his wordes Which of an assured tradition of the Churche that can not be deceiued the auncient Fathers haue alwaies taught and the Churche to this day obserueth This doctrine S Chrysostome confirmeth with these wordes Chrysost. homil De prodiâ—ione Iudae Now the time inuiteth vs to come vnto that dreadful Table with due reuerence and agreable watchefulnes Let no Iudas there be found let no euil disposed person thither come For it is not man that of the CoÌ„secratioÌ„ of our Lordes Table maketh the thinges set forth the body and bloude of Christâ— The wordes be vttered with the Priestes mouth and with the power of God and his grace they are consecrated This is my body saith Christ with this worde the thinges set forth be consecrated And as that worde Gen. 1. which saith Grow ye and be ye multiplied and fil the earth was once spokeÌ„ but at al time feeleth his effect nature working vnto generation EueÌ„ so that worde was once spoken but it geueth strength vnto the Sacrifice through al the Tables of the Church vntil this day and vntil his comming Againe he saith in an other Homilie Idem Homil 2. I wil tel you further of a maruelous thing and woonder not at it let it not trouble you In 2. ad Timoth. What is that The holy Oblation it selfe be it Peter be it Paule or of what so euer merite the Priest be that offereth it is the very same that Christ him selfe gaue vnto his Disciples and that Priestes now also do consecrate This hath no whit lesse then that Why so Bicause they be not men that sanctifie this but Christe which consecrated that before For as the wordes that Christe spake be the same which the Priestes now also do pronounceâ— so the Oblation is the same Chrysost. Homil. 60 ad popul Antioch Therefore he saith in an other place Ministrorum nos ordinem tenemus qui verò ipsa sanctificat transmutat ipse est We are but in the order of Ministers but he that sanctifieth the thinges brought forth and changeth them into the body and bloude of Christe is he him selfe that is to say Christe Concil Florentinum Hereunto agreeth the Councel of Florence The Priest say those learned Fathers doth consecrate this Sacrament speaking in the person of Christe in the person of Christe they meane sitting and offering vp him selfe at his Supper For the Churchâ— teacheth not that the woordes of consecration be spoken by way of rehersal only and that the body and bloude of Christe is made at euery pronounciation of them as by a couenaunt made by Christe with vs. But as the brothers of Ioseph in Egypte fearing least he would beare in minde the iniuries which he
had suffered at their handes caused this much to be said vnto him Gen. vltimo Thy Father gaue vs in commaundement before he died that we should say these vnto thee with his wordes I beseche thee to forgete the wicked deede of thy brothers the sinne and malice whiche they wrought against thee And we also on our owne behalfe pray thee to forgeue the seruauntes of thy Father this iniquitie Euen so the Church first with the wordes of Christ recording his commaundement offereth vp vnto the Father his body and bloud After that the Priestes in the person of the Church whose publique ministers they are in this behalfe adde further their owne duetie of offering with their owne wordes These thinges being considered In vvhat parte of the Masse is the holy OblatioÌ„ made Vide Tho 3 part q. 82 art 4. ad primum Homil dâ— proditione Iudâ— that question is soone answered that of some is demaunded where and in what parte of the Masse is this most holy Oblation made For although from the lesser Canon vnto the Communion it be with wordes and intention presented vnto the Father yet forasmuch as the wordes of Christe as S. Chrysostome speaketh geue strength vnto the Sacrifice and they are no where els pronouÌ„ced properly and in deede then it is made when the Priest speaking in the person of Christe saith this is my body to wit whiche for you is geuen and broken which is added in the Canon of S. Iames and in S. Ambroses Masse and This is my bloude which is shed for you For then doo we that which our Lorde commaunded to be done in remembrance of him saying Doo ye this in remembrance of me As for the thinges that be spoken before and after they are to be referred vnto that time For albeit al manner Consecration coÌ„sidered by it selfe includeth not Oblation yet considered as it procedeth of the Priestes Intention to offer vnto God by Consecration it selfe the thing consecrated bicause vnto God and vnto the honour of him he consecrateth it hath the true nature of Oblation and Sacrifice Remembrance distinct from Sacrifice Although therefore our Lorde commaunded vs to doo this in remembrance of him yet is this Sacrifice a farre other thing then the remembraunce it selfe or the praise of God or thankes geuing sith that the thing it selfe whiche is commaunded to be made is in the very woordes of Christe distincted from the remembrance For he said not remember ye this but Doâ— ye this or make this in remembrance of me The Sacrifice and the Oblation ought to be made in the remembrance of Christe so that the remembrance it selfe is not the Sacrifice but the vse and ende of the Sacrifice for whiche it ought to be offered for by this vnbloudy Sacrifice a commemoration of the Blouddy Sacrifice that was offered vpon the Crosse is made vnto the Father And so saith S. Augustine Augu. lib. 20. contra Faustum cap. 18. Christiani per acti Sacrificij memoriam celebrant sacrosancta Oblatione participatione corporis sanguinis Christi The Christians doo celebrate the memorie of the Sacrifice already done vpon the Crosse by the holy Oblation and participation of the body and bloude of Christe Whereof it is euidently gathered also that Oblation is distincted from Participation although Participation perteine to the perfection and ful complement of the Sacrifice So here thou hast Reader that whiche was required in the second place By whom this holy Sacrifice is offered to wit In this sacrifice the Churche offereth and is offered by Christ through the Ministerie of the Priest and by the Priest in the person of Christ. Where also we ought to ioine the Church withal bicause of the vnitie of Christ and the Church and so we vnderstand the Churche also to offer August de Ciuit. Dei li. 10. cap. 6. by the ministerie of the Prieste For so S. Augustine teacheth vs with plaine wordes In that Sacrament saith he it is shewed vnto the Churche that in that Oblation which it offereth it selfe is offered Concerning the third point required by S. Augustine which was promised to be declared VVhat is the thing that is offeredâ— that is to say what is the thing that is offered if we wil admit the godly exposition of the Church the Prophet teacheth vs what it is Psal. 115. where he saith what shal I geue againe vnto our Lorde for al that he hath geueÌ„ vnto me I wil take the Cuppe of our Sauiour and cal vpon the name of our Lorde meaning by the Cuppe his precious bloud that vpon the Crosse was shed for vs and is the price of our Redemption Which bloud together with the body by vertue of Christes worde in the Euchariste is made present Who refuseth this exposition of the Prophete if he wil beleeue Christe him selfe Luc. 22. who said This is my body which is geuen for you Math. 26. This is my bloude which is shed for you he can not be ignorant what it is that is offered in this Sacrifice Whereas then God hath so loued the worlde Iohan. 3. that he hath geuen his onely begoten Sonne Rom. 8. and hath geuen vnto vs with him al thinges for a Babe is borne to vs Esai 9. a Sonne is geuen to vs saith Esaie the whole merite of Christe and the price of the Redemption which he gote vpon the Crosse is ours And therefore in this Oblation the thing offered being the body and bloude of Christe which as a most sufficient price he gaue vppon the Crosse for Redemption of mankinde and which of gifte we haue receiued of God we present and geue vnto God in the person of Christe that same true body and bloud that is to say Christe him selfe together with that great price and merite not to purchace a new Redemption but in commemoration of his death wherby the redemption is already purchaced in rendring of thankes for his benefites in a certaine satisfaction for our sinnes and defectes and for the temporal paines that be due vnto our sinnes mortal sinnes and paines euerlasting being forgeuen either in Baptisme Cyprian ad CeciliuÌ„ epist. 3. lib. 2. or through the Sacrament of Penaunce humbly beseching and as king in the person of Christe that so it be accepted In consideration wherof S. Cyprian calleth it the Passion of our Lorde that we offer And S. Augustine calleth it Aug. Confess lib. 9. cap. 12. Sacrificium prâ—tij nostri the Sacrifice of our Price wherewith our Raunsom is paid And hereof Reader thou maist conceiue what answere is to be made vnto them that moue this question which to some though without iust cause semeth to be of great difficultie whether the Sacrifices of the olde Testament the Sacrifice that our Lorde offered at his Supper the Sacrifice of the Crosse and that Sacrifice which is daily made in the Churche whether al these haue a like and the selfe same
Christ is offered vp to his Father in the daily Sacrifice of the Churche vnder the Forme of Bread and Wine truely and in deede not in respect of the maÌ„ner of offering but in respect of his very Bodie and Bloude really that is in deede present as it hath ben sufficiently proued here before M. Iewels Replie The greatter and vvoorthier the vvork is that our Aduersaries haue imagined that is for a Mortal and a Miserable man to offer vp the Immortal Sonne of God vnto his Father and that Really and in deede the more ought the same either by manifest vvoordes or by necessarie collection expressely and plainely to be prooued Hebr. 5. For noman taketh honour and office vnto him self but he that is called and appointed thereto by God But for ought that may appeare by anie clause or sentence either of the nevve Testament or of the olde God neuer appointed anie such Sacrifice to be made by anie Mortal Creature And Theophylacte saith Iesus eiiciendo boues columbas Theophyl in Matt. cap. 21. praesignauit non vltra opus esse animalium Sacrificio sed Oratione Iesus throvving the Oxen aÌ„d Dooues out of the Temple signified that they should no lenger haue nede of the Sacrifice of beastes but of prayer Harding WOVLD God M. Iewel that either your modestie were more or that you had the grace to see howe euil your saucinesse becommeth you As at the first by open Chalenge you prouoked all the learned men that be alyue as it were to trye maisterie with you so in the entrie of your Replie against my Answer to your seueÌ„tienth Article you beare al men in hand that vntil you came froÌ„ the schole of Rhetorike to reach the world this new Gospel no priest euer coÌ„sidered how great and worthy a worke it is to offer vp Christe vnto his Father which apperteineth to Priestly office Wherein you charge the blessed Apostles their successours al the holy Fathers of the Church so many as were Priestes al that haue ben to your time briefly the whole Church it self with the crime of wicked presumptioÌ„ for making this sacrifice How caÌ„ you seme otherwise to doo For whereas you say it may not appeare by any Clause or senteÌ„ce of the olde or new Testament that God euer appointed any such Sacrifice to be made by any Mortal maÌ„ and most certaine it is that by the Apostles and the holy Fathers of the Church and by the priestes of God in euery age it hath ben made what coÌ„clude you hereof but that they haue traÌ„sgressed the Scripture and presumptuously takeÌ„ honour and office vnto them selues Hebr. 5. not being called nor appointed thereto by God And so what may Christ be thought to haue meant in suffering such a heinous errour so long to continue in his Church Esai 59. which he loueth so derely Iohan. 14. to which he promised the assistance of the holy Ghoste the spirite of truth for euer Matt. 28. But consider M. Iewel against whom and how many you striue Wil it do your hart good to heare that spoken of Iewel which by the Angel of God was spokeÌ„ of Ismael Manus eius coÌ„tra oeÌ„s â—â—n 16. et manus oiÌ„m contra cuÌ„ The hand of him against al and the hand of al against him Stande you so farre in your owne conceite as to thinke you shal be able to stand against al RemeÌ„ber you not what is said of the Church Cant. 6. that it is terribilis ut castroruÌ„ acies ordinata terrible like the foreward of an Armie set in battaile raie But leauing to put you in minde of that which might withdraw you froÌ„ your wicked doctrine either for feare of God or for shame of meÌ„ hauing litle hope by wordes to do good with you to th' intent the weakenes of your part laid forth to be coÌ„sidered the vnlerned Reader that perhaps is seduced by you may be admonished to beware of you and to geue no more credite vnto you then a professed enemie of the Church and a teacher of falshod deserueth I wil come to the examinatioÌ„ of your Replie You seme to deduce an argumeÌ„t against this Sacrifice made by a priest of the basenes and vilenesse of humaine coÌ„dition as though maÌ„ who in dede is mortal aÌ„d miserable aÌ„d a mortal creature as you terme him were not worthy ne could not be made worthy to offer vp the Immoral SoÌ„ne of God vnto his Father True it is Man of him self is very vnworthy of that high office neither caÌ„ he by any his owne power or vertue reache vnto the worthines of that soueraine honour But if it please God of his great loue towards his owne dere creature to admit maÌ„ to that dignitie notwitstanding he be neuer so vnworthy of him self so he is made worthy Neither Anna nor Elizabeth nor blessed Marie her selfe nor any other woman was euer worthy of her self to coÌ„ceiue and bring forth th' Immortal SoÌ„ne of God yet the virgin Marie through grace of him whom she bare was made worthy to beare him aÌ„d therfor she said fecit mihi magna q poteÌ„s est he hath don me great thinges Luc. 1. that is mighty Els if coÌ„sideration of the mortal and miserable coÌ„ditioÌ„ of man might be brought in argumeÌ„t for the coÌ„trary what a wide dore were opened vnto the scholers of MarcioÌ„ Manichaeus Apollinaris and to other Heretikes to rush in and to thrust in againe their old heresies against the truth of the Flesh assumpted and the Incarnation of Christe Gene. 18. Abraham was a man mortal and miserable as we are dust and asshes To hovv great dignity a man mortal and miserable hath ben admitted by God as he said himselfe yet was he made worthy to haue talke with God and to vnderstaÌ„d his purpose touching the destruction of Sodoma Moyses like wise though he were but a mortal and miserable man was accoÌ„pted worthy with whom God spake mouth to mouth and as the Scripture saith face to face as a man is woont to speake vnto his frend to see our Lorde opeÌ„ly without obscure signes and figures Num. 12. to be Gods Ambassadour vnto Pharao Exod. 33. Exodi 3. Exod. 19. and the people of Israel to enter into the Cloude vpon the hill where God was and there to receiue the Lawe written with Gods owne finger And to come againe vnto the newe Testament what a dignitie is it for Iohn the Baptist to baptise Christe Mat. 3. Mat. 28. for the Apostles and their successours to carrie his name Ioan. 20. and his worde through out the whole worlde to remit and retaine sinnes Shal we denye or so much as cal in question these great thinges because they be mortal and miserable men to whom they are committed Notwithstanding the mortalitie and miserie of mankinde yet beholde what a high dignitie men are called vnto by testimony of S. Iohn Ioan. 1. Dedit eis potestatem
Wherfore Theophylact helpeth not the mater at al. Theophylacte maketh for the Sacrifice Yea rather by the manner of his speach he auoucheth the Sacrifice of the Church vnderstanding it by the name of prayer For whereas by his reporte which is expressed also in the Gospel Christ dryuing out the oxeÌ„ aÌ„d dooues foresignified the ceassing of the bloudy and vncleane sacrifices of the olde Lawe Matt. 21. certainely he shewed thereby that a newe Sacrifice vnbloudy and pure should succede in place of the olde because euery lawe hath a priesthod and a sacrifice peculier vnto it Which in the newe lawe is none other Prayer then the Sacrifice of his body and bloude consecrated with prayer and offered vp to God with prayer by them who vnder Christ be priestes after Melchisedeks order And this chiefly is that which Theophylacte calleth prayer For in asmuch as this Sacrifice due mater presupposed is coÌ„secrated by the Priest with the wordes of our Lorde Matt. 26. this is my body this is the Cuppe of my bloud Luke 22. c whiche wordes the Fathers oftentimes name the mystical prayer 1. Cor. 11. he had regarde to the fourme of the CoÌ„secration and would speake as the chiefe of the auncient Fathers haue spoken And so the saying of Theophylacte maketh for the Sacrifice it maketh not against the Sacrifice as to that purpose of M. Iewel it is alleged Furthermore Prayer in this place may be takeÌ„ not only for that which commonly we vnderstaÌ„d by the name of praier that is to say for petitioÌ„ made to God with words but for euery such meane Vvhat is signified by the name of Prayer as God is serued withal in his Church according as it is taken in Esay the prophete alleged by Christ in the Gospel Domus mea domus orationis vocabitur Matt. 21. vos autem fecistis eam speluncam latronum My howse shall be called the howse of prayer but ye haue made it a denne of theeues So that Prayer here being set contrary to the bloudy and vncleane sacrifices of the old Lawe signifieth al manner of seruice of God that is pure and cleane without bloudshedding Ye haue made it a denne of theeues In dennes of theeues slaughters and bloudsheddinges are made saith Theophylacte Nicolaus de Lyra writing vpoÌ„ this place Lyra in CommeÌ„t in 21. cap. Matt. saith Non curabaÌ„t de cultu Dei sed magis de excoriatione populi per astutias suas exquisitas They tooke no care for Gods seruice but rather how by their fyne crafty sleightes they might pille the people Praier taken generally for the seruice of God Here what the prophete calleth orationeÌ„ prayer the interpreter nameth it cultum Dei the seruice or worship of God And to this agreeth the general definition of Prayer oratio est mentis eleuatio ad Deum Prayer is the lifting vp of the mynde vnto God And because amoÌ„g al kindes of prayer that wherin and wherby Christ is offered vp vnto his Father is the chiefe therefore may Theophylact reasonably be thought in this place to haue meant that prayer which the Church calleth the Masse So then by Christes driuiÌ„g of the OxeÌ„ aÌ„d dooues out of the TeÌ„ple aÌ„d by coÌ„meÌ„diÌ„g vnto his Church the vse of praier this Sacrifice caÌ„ not in any wise seeme to be excluded but rather to be brought in as that which beiÌ„g vnbloudy aÌ„d pure ought to succede the bloudy aÌ„d impure sacrifices of the Iewes About the administratioÌ„ of which Sacrifice that Theophylact may also the rather seeme to haue vnderstaÌ„ded it by the name of praier after the mind of S. Augustin August ad PaulinuÌ„ epist. 59. the request of S. Paule touching sundry kindes of praier is accoÌ„plished Obsecro igitur primuÌ„ fieri obsecrationes orationes 1. Tim. 2. postulationes gratiaruÌ„ actiones ê“ oiÌ„bê° hominibê° pro regibus oiÌ„bus qui in sublimitate constituti sunt I beseche you therfore that aboue al thiÌ„gs supplicatioÌ„s praiers intercessioÌ„s and geuing of thaÌ„kes be made for al men for Kings and for al that be placed in high authoritie To coÌ„clude al redoundeth to this end that forasmuch as the special Sacrifice of the Churche is made and celebrated with praier so as it selfe be included within the general name of Praier M. Iewel findeth no helpe in this saying of Theophylact towards the maintenaÌ„ce of his Negatiue whereby he would vtterly deface and take the Sacrifice away Which thinge when he sawe him selfe euidently ynough he deuised other shiftes and saith Iewel Hovv be it the old learned Fathers as they oftentimes delited theÌ„selues vvith these vvoordes SabbatuÌ„ Parasceue Pascha Pentecoste and such other like termes of the old Lavv notvvithstaÌ„ding the ObseruatioÌ„ and Ceremony therof vvere theÌ„ abolished aÌ„d out of vse EueÌ„ so likevvise thei delited theÌ„selues oftetimes vvith these vvordes Sacerdos Altare SacrificiuÌ„ the Sacrificer Pachymeres pa 401 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 15. Origen in Epist. ad Rom. li. 10. Nazian in Oratio ad PlebeÌ„ Chryso in Epist. ad Rom. Homil 29. the Aultar the Sacrifice notvvithstaÌ„diÌ„g the vse therof vvere theÌ„ clearly expired only for that the eares of the people as vvel of the Ievves as of the GeÌ„tils had ben long acquainted vvith the same Therfore Pachymeres the Paraphraste vvriting vpoÌ„ Dionysius saith thus PresbyteruÌ„ appellat SacerdoteÌ„ vt etiaÌ„ in Coelesti Hierarchia idque vsus iaÌ„ obtinuit Him that is the Priest or elder he calleth the Sacrificer as he doth also in his Coelestial Hierarchie And the same word Sacrificer is now obteined by Custome In this sense S. Paul saith of him self Sacrifico EuangeliuÌ„ Dei I sacrifice the Gospel of God And OrigeÌ„ saith Sacrificale opus est anuÌ„nciare EuaÌ„geliuÌ„ It is a work of Sacrifice to Preach the Gospel So the learned Bisshop NaziaÌ„zenus saith vnto his people Hostiam vos ipsos obtuli I haue offred vp you for a Sacrifice So saith S. Chrysostom Ipsum mihi Sacerdotium est Praedicare EuaÌ„gelizare HaÌ„c offero oblationeÌ„ My whole priesthod is to teache and to preache the Gospel This is my OblatioÌ„ This is my Sacrifice Thus the holy Fathers alluding to the orders and Ceremonies of Moyses Lavvâ— called the preachiÌ„g of the Gospel a Sacrifice notvvithstanding in dede it vvere no Sacrifice Harding The effect of that hath ben said by the Replier hitherto is this The Sacrifice wherin Christ is offered vp vnto his Father is not appointed by God to be made by maÌ„ for ought that may appere by any Clause or SeÌ„teÌ„ce of the Scripture but yet it is reported aÌ„d ofteÌ„tymes spokeÌ„ of by the Olde learned Fathers What meaneth M. Iewel thus to teach would he haue meÌ„ beleue that the Holy Ghost the spirite of truth who vsed the Prophetes Apostles and Euangelistes for his Secretaries to endite the Scriptures agreeth not with the Holy Ghoste that sithens their tyme hath spoken by the mouthes of the
healthful Sacrifice of Christes body and bloude and to persuade vnlearned soules there is no such Sacrifice really offered vnto God by Priestes of the newe Testament The summe of M. Ievvels shiftes against the Sacrifice Wherevpon I haue stayd somewhat the lenger because I sawe how by guileful persuasions he went about to engraffe at the beginning in the myndes of the vnlearned First that man for cause of his miserable and mortal condition ought not to presume to offer vp the Immortal Sonne of God in a real Sacrifice vnto his Father nexte that by Scripture there appeareth no graunt af auctoritie or warrant so to doo lastly that the termes Sacrificer Sacrifice and Aulter be onely naked and empty termes void of any substance signified that is in the Churche as deriued out of the Lawe of Moyses and vsed by the olde learned Fathers for their delite Al which three pointes how farre wyde they be from truth it may partely appeare by that I haue already said and shal more fully appeare in the processe of this Reioindre Now let vs heare M. Iewel Iewel Novve to comme to M. Hardinges vvoordes Three waies saith he Christ is offered vp vnto his Father In a Figure as in the Olde Lawe In Deede and Blouddily as vpon the Crosse In a Sacrament or Mysterie as in the Newe Testament Of vvhiche three vvaies the Blouddy Oblation of Christe vpon the Crosse is the very true and onely Propitiatorie Sacrifice for the Sinnes of the vvorlde The other tvvo as in respecte and manner of Signifieing they are sundrie so in effecte and substance they are al one For like as in the Sacramentes of the olde Lavve vvas expressed the Death of Christe that vvas to comme Euen so in the Sacramentes of the nevve Lavve of the Ghospel is expressed the same Death of Christe already paste As vvee haue Mysteries so had they Mysteries As vvee Sacrifice Christe so did they Sacrifice Christe As the Lambe of God is slaiue vnto vs So vvas the same Lambe of God slaine vnto them S. Augustine saithe August De vtilitate poenitent cap. 1. Tunc Christus Venturus modò Christus Venit Venturus Venit diuersa verba sunt sed idem Christus Then was Christe shal comme Nowe is Christe Is comme Shall comme and Is comme are sundrye woordes But Christe is al one Againe in like comparison bytvveene the Lavve of Moyses and the Gospel of Christe he saith thus August in Ioannem tract 26. Videte Fide manente Signa variata In Signis diuersis eadem Fides Beholde the Faith remaininge the Sacramentes or Signes are changed The Signes or Sacramentes beinge diuers the Faith is one Harding Now then that after your Preface you come to my woordes M. Iewell what haue you to replye against them that to any learned man may seeme to be to the purpose I said Christe is offered after three manners figuratiuely truely with bloudshedding and sacramentally or in Mysterie With which parte of this threefold Diuision finde you fault As for the two first partes they be clearely proued by the Scriptures The third is that ye call in question and whiche you impugne Bicause you had nothing to say against the two first least your mater should seeme to haue a foile if you yelded to any thing that were by me saied were it neuer so true you goe from the purpose and enter into other talke M. Ievvel diuerteth from the purpose to impertinēt mater Whereof as parte is false so the whole is impertinent What nede was there to tel vs that the bloudy Oblation of Christe vpon the Crosse is the Propitiatorie Sacrifice for the sinnes of the worlde As thereof no man doubted so no man spake of it The point now treated is not whether the Sacrifice of the Crosse be Propitiatorie for it were superfluous thereof to dispute but whether Christe be now offered vp in Mysterie Graunt that first and afterward we may procede further to discusse whether the Sacrifice of the Aulter be Propitiatorie and in what sense it be Propitiatorie Of what effecte and substance so euer the Sacrifices of both Lawes be how so euer the Death of Christe to come or past be expressed in the olde and newe Sacramentes that they of the olde Testament as wel as we had Mysteries of the equalitie and likenesse of Sacrifices and of like slaiyng of the Lambe of God on their parte and ours of all these thinges so particularly to speake the Diuision by me declared ministred you no iuste occasion And al this might wel be suffred to go vnanswered as impertinent had you not by the way as it were spitten forth some poison of erroneous doctrine to the infection of the vnlearned and vnware Readers For by calling the bloudy Oblation of Christe vpon the Crosse the very true and onely Sacrifice Propitiatorie for the synnes of the worlde which no man denieth your meaning is to insinuate that the vnbloudy Sacrifice which Christe instituted at his last Supper of his body and bloude were not in dede a Sacrifice in any sense or respecte Propitiatorie Whereas if that of the Crosse was Propitiatorie the other must nedes be Propitiatorie though in a diuers degree of Propitiation bicause in substance of the thing offered it is one with the other but diuers in the manner of offering as being vnbloudy and done in a mysterie and the other bloudy and don in the forme of a visible body And the force and vertue of Propitiation of the one issueth not from the Priest but from the Propitiation of the other in whose cōmemoration it is offered Cyprianus de coe Do. Verely S. Cyprian sticketh not to cal the holy Euchariste Medicamentum ad sanandas infirmitates holocaustum ad purgandas iniquitates A medicine to heale sickenesses and a wholeburnt Sacrifice to cleanse iniquities Baesilius in Liturg. S. Basile also in his Liturgie making his supplication saith thus Da Domine vt pro nostris peccatis populi ignorantijs acceptum sit Sacrificium nostrum Graunt Lorde that our Sacrifice may be acceptable for our sinnes and for the ignorances of the people Whereas you affirme the other two waies after which Christe is offered that is to say the Sacrifices of the olde Lawe and the singular Sacrifice of the Church now to be one in effecte and substance as they are sundrye in respecte Three vntruthes vttered at once by M. Ievvel and manner of signifiyng you vtter three greate vntruthes at once For first as concerning the respecte of signifiyng in our Sacrifice the formes of Breade and Wine doo signifie the Bodie and Bloude of Christe as the Sacrifices of the olde Lawe signified Christe And although they signifie Christ present and the other absent yet in respecte of signifiyng they agree and therfore are not sundry therin The respect of signifiyng is one and the thing signified is one though the manner of signifiyng be diuers That the substāce of the
any other learned Fathers is a very false parte and such as must nedes much discredit you when it is detected against you And yet by such false dealing you and your felowes haue begyled many vnlearned and vnstable soules How be it if it were S. Augustines or any other auncient Doctours saying it forced nothing For true it is the signes or sacramentes of the newe Testament be diuerse from the sacramentes of the olde Testament the faith notwithstandinge is not changed bicause Christ signified by the signes or sacramentes of both being that which faith reacheth vnto remaineth one and the same Let vs see whether your other stuffe be any better Iewel But here hath M. Hardinge donne greatte and open vvronge vnto S. Augustine vvilfully suppressing and drovvning his vvoordes and vncourteousely commaunding him to silence in the middest of his tale VVherein also appeareth some suspicion of no simple dealing S. Augustines vvoordes touchinge this vvhole mater Aug. De Fide ad Petrum Diacon cap. 19. are these In illis carnalibus Victimis Figuratio fuit Carnis Christi quam pro nobis fuerat oblaturus Sanguinis quem erat effusurus in Remissionem peccatorum In isto autem Sacrificio Gratiarum actio est Commemoratio Carnis Christi quam pro nobis obtulit Sanguinis quem pro nobis idem Deus effudit In illis Sacrificijs quid nobis esset donandum Figurate significabatur In hoc autem Sacrificio quid nobis iam donatum sit euidenter oftenditur In illis Sacrificijs praenunciabatur Filius Dei pro impijs occidendus in hoc autem pro impijs annuntiatur occisus In those Fleashly Sacrifices of the Ievves there was a Figure of the Fleashe of Christ whiche he woulde afterwarde offer for vs and of the Bloude whiche he would afterwarde shead for the Remission of Sinne But in this Sacrifice of the nevve Testament there is a Thankesgeuinge and a Remembrance of the Fleashe which he hath already offered for vs and of the Bloud which he being God hath already shead for vs. In those Sacrifices it was represented vnto vs vnder a Figure what thing should be geuen vnto vs But in this Sacâ—ifice it is plainely set foorth what thing is already geuen vs. In those Sacrifices it was declared that the Sonne of God should be slaine for the wicked But in this Sacrifice it is plainely preached vnto vs that the same Sonne of God hath already benne slaine for the wicked Likevvise againe be saith Huius Sacrificij Caro Sanguis ante Aduentum Christi per Victimas Similitudinum promittebatur Aug. Contrae Faustum lib. 20. ca. 21. in Passione per ipsam Veritatem reddebatur Post Ascensum verò Christi per Sacramentum Memoriae celebratur The fleashe and Bloude of this Sacrifice before the comming of Christ was promised by Sacrifices of Resemblance The same in his Passion vpon the Crosse was geuen in Truth and in deede But after his Ascension it is solemnized by a Sacramente of Remembrance This is the Difference that S. Augustine noteth bitvvene the SacrameÌ„tes of the Olde Lavve and the Sacramentes of the Nevve Therefore the vvoordes that M. Harding hath herevnto added Christe is offered vp vnto his Father and that vnder the Formes of Bread and VVine yea and that truely and in deede are his ovvne onely vvoordes confidently and boldely presumed of him selfe neuer vsed neither by S. Augustine nor by any other Ancient godly Father Harding Ful euil doth it become you to charge me with wrong done vnto S. Augustine wheras in the very next sentence before your self did him so much wrong as to father a saying vpon him in that place where he hath none such at al. If he be to be burthened with doing wrong vnto the Doctours that in alleging their sayinges doth not with al circumstances of the place that serueth to the present purpose set them forth then is there no man so much to be reproued as your selfe M. Iewel For of al that euer wrote we finde none that so much and with like falshode and to so euil meaning cutteth pareth and nippeth their sentences as you commonly doo Truly in laying this to my charge you haue not so clearly proued me to haue donne wrong vnto S. Augustine as you haue with the scornful vtterance of your wordes declared your owne spite Concerning the thing it selfe I haue donne S. Augustine no wrong at al. For what needed me to reherse his whole processe to the ende of the Chapter M. Iewels charge discharged I recited faithfully so muche as apperteined to the proufe of the mater for which I alleged his authoritie The sentence that foloweth belongeth to an other mater whereby is declared which no catholike man euer denied that the Sacrifice of the newe Testament is a thankes geuing and a commemoration of Christes flesh and bloude which he hath offered for vs. But that member of the diuision which I went about to establish by S. Augustines authoritie speaketh onely of the Sacrifices of the olde Lawe that they prefigured the flesh of Christ which he would afterward offer and the bloude that he would shed for remission of sinnes If I had rehersed al that you blame me for leauing it out I had but made the booke bigger and wearied the reader with a long superfluous saying superfluous I say bicause the same was in effect vttered in the next sentence before taken out also of the same S. Augustine For al that you force out of the longe processe there folowing is only the coÌ„memoration of Christes flesh and bloud offred and shed which though in fewer wordes was expressed in the former sentence out of the bookes against Faustus the Manichey as the reader by conference may sone perceiue The place of S. Augustine for leauing out whereof you so much reproue me and wherein you repose the coÌ„fidence of your doctrin helpeth you nothing at al. For there he saith not what is the substance of our Sacrifice wherein lyeth the questioÌ„ but what thing is done in our Sacrifice to wit geuing of thankes and the coÌ„memoratioÌ„ of our Lordes flesh and bloude which he offred and shed for vs and likewise what thing is shewed and declared in the same that is to say his death and passion Al which we denye not But that S. Augustine ascribing vnto the Sacrifice of the Church thankes geuing and commemoration of the flesh and bloude of Christ doth exclude the real Sacrifice of his fleshe and bloude by vertue of his woorde through the holy Ghost made substantially present that we denie vtterly And that was your parte to proue els you proue nothing againste the auncient doctrine of the Church M. Ievvel citeth one truth against an other truth But seing your selfe not hable to performe so muche you thought it an easier mater after your common woonte to set one truth against an other truth to wit the commemoration or memorie of the bloudy Sacrifice of the
and to confirme that most manifest truth by this other Sacrifice which you and they of your side denie By what one woorde can you gather that to haue bene myne intent If it were not as most certainely it was not for what neede was there to bring any proufe for the Sacrifice of Christe vpon the Crosse why bestow you so many wordes to prooue your beleefe touching that Sacrifice I said not that ye robbed the Churche of the Sacrifice done vpon the Crosse For of that being now paste how can ye robbe the Churche But of the body and bloude of Christe as it is daily offered at the Aulter in remembrance of his Death and Passion of the Presence of the body and bloud and of the Sacrifice of the same in mysterie which the Churche from the Apostles time hitherto hath euer celebrated you robbe the Churche and of that spake I expressely as my wordes be plaine and thereof your selfe could not be ignorant Whether the Sacramentaries rob the Churche of her greatest treasure But how doo you auoide the crime of spoiling the Churche of her greatest treasure Bicause forsooth ye know and teach that Christe suffered death for vs vpon the Crosse. As though the Heretikes haue not alwaies acknowledged and confessed the same Arius confessed Christe was God and the Sonne of God yet he robbed him of his equalitie of Godhed of his coeternitie and of his consubstantialitie with God his Father In like sorte although ye beleue neuer so constantly and preach neuer so ernestly that Christe shed his bloude and died for vs vpon the Crosse yet shal ye be accompted to robbe the Chruche of her chiefe treasure onlesse ye leaue vnto her the real flesh and bloude of Christe by oblation and participation whereof the effect of the Sacrifice made vpon the Crosse is transferred vnto vs. Cyprian de coena Domini Origen in Lucam Hom. 38. Concilium Nicenum Concilium Ephesin Ye shal defraude her touching foode Alimonia immortalitatis portione vitae aeternae of the foode of immortalitie and of the portion of life euerlasting as S. Cyprian saith Pane vitae epulo incorrupto of the bread of life of the banket that is incorruptible as Origen writeth Of the Pledges of our Resurrection as the Nicen Councel determineth Of the flesh verely geuing life and proper to the Worde it selfe as the Councel of Ephesus declareth to be shorte of the meate of Angels as S. Ambros testifieth Ye shal rob her touching the Sacrifice Diony Ecclesia Hiâ—rarch c. 3. Augu. lib. 9. Confess cap. 12. Concil Nicen. Hostia salutari of the healthful Hoste as S. Dionyse calleth it of the permanent and alwaies continuing burnt offering as S. Cyprian esteemeth it of the Sacrifice of our Raunsome as S. Augustine termeth it Finally of the Lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the worlde as the Councel of Nice teacheth What iudge you They that violently take from the Churche of Christe these thinges seme they not to rob her of the gratest treasure she hath though they preach that Christe died vpon the Crosse for vs neuer so busily Doo they not leaue her without a Sacrifice and therefore without a Religion according vnto S. Cyprians mynde Doo not they take the next way to abolishe that which faith and coÌ„trition presupposed is the chiefest meane to apply vnto vs the benefite of Christes death by abolishing the daily Sacrifice S. Gregorie saith Gregor Hom. 37. Dialog 4. cap. 58. Quoties ei hostiam suae passionis offerimus toties nobiâ— ad absolutionem nostram ipsius passionem reparamus As often as we offer vnto him the Sacrifice of his passion so ofte doo we repaire and renew vnto our selfe his passion to our absolution Al this notwithstanding touching the Oblation of Christes body you saye that ye beleue and confesse as much as the Holy Ghoste hath opened in the Scriptures That Christ offered vp his body at his last Supper But how vntruly this is spoken who vnderstandeth not For the holy Ghost hath opened in the Gospel that Christe made an Oblation of his body and bloude at his last Supper which you M. Iewel and your felowes wil not beleue That Christe made such a Sacrifice and that the same is reueled in the Gospel if you wil not beleue the Catholike Church that is to be beleued before any one man August in Psalm 33. Concio 1. yet may it please you to beleue S. Augustine with these woordes recording the same Erat vt nostis Sacrificium Iudaeorum anteà secundùm ordinem Aaron in victimis pecorum hoc in mysterio Nondum enim erat sacrificium corporis sanguinis quod fideles nôrunt qui Euangelium legerunt quod sacrificium nunc diffusum est toto orbe terrarum The sacrifice of the Iewes was as ye knowe before after the order of Aaron in Sacrifices of brute beastes and that in mysterie For the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe which the faithful and they that haue read the Gospel do know was not as yet The which Sacrifice is now dispersed abroade in the whole worlde The Sacrifice of Christe auouched in the Gospel in the iudgement of S. Augustine Now marke good Reader S. Augustine saith that the faithful and so many as haue perused the Gospel doo knowe the Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christe What shal we say then Is not that Sacrifice opened by the holy Ghoste in the Scriptures And least any man should mystake him and thinke him to speake of the Sacrifice of Christes body and bloud made vpoÌ„ the Crosse on the mounte of Caluarie without the gates of Ierusalem he declareth his meaning Sacrifice spred ouer the worlde and nameth plainely the Sacrifice which is now spred and made thorough out the whole worlde Which Sacrifice of Christes body and bloude can be none other but that which the Church hath ben accustomed to offer vp to God in the Masse vnder the visible formes of bread and wine in remembrance of Christes Passion Resurrection Ascension and other his great benefites Cauil not M. Iewel vpon wordes commonly vsed by the Churche for a more certaine explication and the better to repel the wrangling obiections of the Sacramentarie Heretikes sithens the tyme of BereÌ„garius The Sacrifice that we defende is which S. Augustine confesseth the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe which succeded the Sacrifices of the Iewes that were of brute beastes which al Christian people and the faithful that read the newe Testamente doo acknowledge and confesse which is nowe frequented and celebrated in al partes of the worlde where so euer the voice of the Gospel hath bene sounded and receiued Touching the stoare of auctorities that may be alleged for good witnesse of this Sacrifice though your sprite stirreth you to scoffe at it how great it is and of what number they are vnto the learned it is not vnknowen And suche witnesses
as I brought how aptely they serue to this purpose and how directely thei strike the marke it doth already I doubt not appeare to such as with an indifferent eye haue perused myne Aunswere to this your seuenteenth Article And more euidently it shal appeare with Gods grace by this processe when the weakenes and falshoode of your Replie shal be detected and thereby it shal be prooued that your vaine Chalenge being too malepertly and presumptuously made standeth neither vpon good nor conuenient termes but vpon a deuilish denial vnmeete to procede out of any Christian mans mouth The .3 Diuision The Ansvvere THe Scripture it selfe ministring euideÌ„t proufe for the OblatioÌ„ of Christ to his Father by the Priestes of the New Testament in the Institution of this Holy Sacrament in the figure of Melchisedech and in the Prophecie of Malachie the Prophete the authorities of the Fathers needed not to be alleaged were not the same Scripture by the ouerthwarte and false interpretations of our aduersaries wrested and tourned to a coÌ„trary sense to the horrible seducing of the vnlearned Iewel Alas vvhat toole is there so vveake that M. Harding vvil refuse to strike vvithal To prooue his imagined Kind of Sacrifice he hath brought vs forth out of his great stoare the example of Melchisedeck and the Prophecie of Malachie As if he vvould reason thus God saith vnto Christ Thou arte a Priest for euer according to the order of Melchisedek Psal. 110. Or God saith by the Prophete Malachie Malac. 1. A pure Oblation shal be offred vnto me in euery place Ergo The Priest hath Authoritie and power to offer vp the Sonne of God vnto his Father If he had not had good choise and stoare of Authorities he vvould neuer haue begonne vvith these But he addeth further as mater of greeuance That these plaine Scriptures by the ouerthwarte and false Interpretations of his Aduersaries are wreasted and turned to a contrary sense and that as he saith to the horrible seducing of the vnlearned Doubtlesse here is a very horrible accusation Hovv be it if vve happely had mistaken these places and our errour therein vvere fully prooued yet should not M. Harding in such horrible termes reprooue vs for doing that thing once that he and his felovves doo so often But by vvhat vvordes by vvhat false Interpretation into vvhat peruerse or Heretical Sense haue vve so horribly vvreasted these Scriptures M. Harding is vvise is eloquente is vvatcheful is circumspecte is fast addicted vnto his cause he dissembleth and leaueth nothing that any vvay may sexue his purpose If our Errours be so horrible he should not haue spared them If there be none he should not thus haue touched them If M. Hardinge vvinke at them vvho can see them If M. Hardinge knovv them not vvho can knovv them Harding Whether my tooles be weake as you ieast or of good strength let it be iudged by the strokes they geue with which doubteles the heresie that ye sustaine aganst the outward and sigular Sacrifice of the Churche is striken downe and quite ouerthrowen And the same tooles haue the chiefe Doctours and auncient Fathers of the Church vsed before me By the tooles I meane as you doo the Figure of Melchisedech and the Prophecie of Malachie by which the doctrine of the Church concerning the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe is auouched And here to enter into that special point litle esteming your other impertinent talke which you thinke toucheth my person and wise men see helpeth not your cause directing my wordes to the Reader of whom I may conceiue better hope then I doo of you thus I say The Argument which M. Iewel here maketh as on my behalfe albeit to the learned who knowe and vnderstand the circumstances of the figure of Melchisedech and of the prophecie of Malachie concludeth sufficiently and fully yet thou maist be wel assured good Reader I would neuer my selfe haue proponed it so nakedly and without any declaration of the necessary circumstances Although there folow hereafter more proper placâ—s to open the figure of Melchisedech and the prophecie of Malachie where I bring them in for proufe of this intent yet bicause M. Iewel hath by preuention abruptly fallen into them and to the ende noman be deceiued by his cutted argument which in deede is good if the circumstances were not guilefully conceeled here I thinke good to vtter some of those circumstances To beginne therfore with Melchisedech It may please thee Reader to vnderstand that he is recorded in the Scripture to be a Priest of God the highest Gen. 14. Then being a Priest it behoued him to offer Sacrifice according vnto S. Paules doctrine Heb. 5. Euery Bishop or Priest taken from among men is for men appointed in those thinges that belong to God to offer vp giftes and sacrifices for sinnes What sacrifice then did he offer He offered vp bread and wine as Arnobius that auncient Father That Melchisedek offered bread and vvine beside sundry other Doctours doth witnesse notwithstanding the Scripture make plaine and expresse mention only of bringing forth bread and wine His wordes be these Christus per mysterium panis vinisacerdos sactus est secundùm ordineÌ„ Melchisedech Arnob. in Psal. 109. qui panem vinum solus obtalit in sacerdotibus dum Abraham Victor reuerteretur de praelio By the mysterie of bread and wine Christ became a Priest after the order of Melchisedech who onely among the Priestes offered bread and wine when Abraham returned conquerour from bataile Cyprian epist. ad Cecilium lib. 2. epistola 3. This order saith S. Cyprian speaking of the order of Melchisedech is here comming of that sacrifice he meaneth Melchisedeks sacrifice and descending from thens that Melchisedech was the priest of the highest God that he offered bread and wine that he blessed AbrahaÌ„ Here it is expressely affirmed that Melchisedech offered bread and wine and moreouer that Christ by doing the like was made a Priest according to the order of the same Melchisedek That Christe at his Supper shewed him selfe a priest after the order of Melchisedek But when and where did Christe beginne to shewe him selfe a Prieste in offering sacrifice after that Order Verely at his last Supper For of that he did vppon the Crosse whereof the Sacrifice of the Supper taketh his merite now I speake not And that he did so at his laste Supper S. Hierome in his Commentaries vpon the .26 chapter of S. Matthew is an euident witnesse where he saith thus Hieron in Mat. 26. Post quam typicum Pascha fuerat impletum Agni carnes cum Apostolis comederat assumit panem qui confortat cor hominis ad verum Paschae transgreditur sacramentum vt quomodo in praefiguratione eius Melchisedech summi Dei sacerdos panem vinum offerens fecerat ipse quoque veritatem sui corporis sanguinis repraesentaret After that the figuratiue Passeouer had ben fulfilled and
Cyprians doctrine they may offer the Sacrifice as the Vicars of Christ. What thinke we then May any Christian man sauing his profession imagine yea beleue and openly by preaching and writing publish vnto the worlde that the Apostles successours and Christes substitutes want auctoritie and commission to doo that vnto thoffice whereof they succede and be substitutes Now let these circumstances be gathered and set together in fewer wordes so shal the necessary sequele the better be perceiued Melchisedech was a priest and figure of Christ by offering bread and wine Christ fulfilled this figure at his Maundie by consecrating and offering his bodie and bloude vnder the formes of Breade and Wine vnto his Father him selfe being the true bread of life that came downe from heauen and gaue commaundement and auctoritie to his Apostles and to their successours to do the same in remeÌ„brance of him The successours of the Apostles in this behalfe be the Priestes of the newe Testament Ergo the Priestes haue a commaundement and thereby sufficient auctority to doo that Christe did at his Maundie that is to coÌ„secrate and offer the body and bloud of Christ vnto his Father And so to conclude these circumstances thus considered doo clearely prooue to the detection of M. Iewels either blinde ignorance or cankred malice against the Churche this to be a good and true consequent which he proponed as absurde and ridiculous God the Father saith vnto Christe Thou arte a priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech Ergo the Priest hath auctoritie and power to offer vp Christ vnto his Father That the Prophecie of Malachie foresignifieth the Sacrifice of the Masse Touching the prophecie of Malachie it doth in conclusion importe as much as the figure of Melchisedech if the circumstances be wel weighed and coÌ„sidered This Prophet enspired with the holy Ghoste forsaw that the sacrifices of the Iewes which were grosse and in sundry respectes vncleane yet for a time allowable should ceasse and haue an ende Malach. 1. And that in stede of them God would be honoured with a pure and cleane Sacrifice which should be offred vnto his name not only in Iewrie but also among the Gentiles froÌ„ the rising to the going downe of the sunne This is the effecte of that Prophecie Now if we serch neuer so exactly and seeke for that Sacrifice which was not vsed in the olde Lawe but succeded in the roome of al them of the olde Law and hath ben frequented thorough out al nations what other can we finde but the Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christe In this Sacrifice we perceiue most clearely al the conditions of that Prophecie fulfilled Al the conditioÌ„s of Malachies prophecie founde in the Sacrifice of the Aulter First it is in stede of many Next it is offered vnto Gods most holy name Thirdly it is celebrated and solemnized among the Gentiles and thereby Gods name is magnified Fourthly it is a most pure and syncere Sacrifice bicause the thing that is offered is the immaculate Lambe of God the body and bloud of him 1. Pet. 2. that was conceiued of the holy Ghost borne of the pure virgin who neuer committed synne nor was any guyle founde in his mouth Fiftly it is offered through out al the worlde from East to West Sixthly it had beginning in the newe Testament and was not vsed in the olde Testament but only by figures foresignified Sure it is that none can be named beside this in which al these conditions by the Prophete specified be accomplished As for the Sacrifice of Christes body vpoÌ„ the Crosse it was offered in one special place Sacrifices common to bâ—â—h â—estaments in Golgoltha without the gates of Ierusalem The sacrifices of thankes geuing of praise of almose dedes of mercie of a contrite harte of preaching Gods wordes these and such like succeded not in the roome of al the olde sacrifices nor beganne they in the newe Testament but were vsed in the tyme of the Law as wel as they be now in these daies as they which be common to bothe Testamentes That this Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christe That this Sacrifice succeded al the Sacrifices of the olde Lavve succeded al the Sacrifices of the olde Law which of the Fathers in their learned treatises haue not reported It is needelesse to reherse many testimonies The witnesse of S. Augustine alone for the plainenesse and auctoritie of it might suffice He writeth thus Vbi ait Ecclesiastes non est bonum homini August de ciuita lib. 17. ca. 20. nisi quod manducabit bibet quid credibilius dicere intelligitur quà m quod ad participationem mensae huius pertinet quam sacerdos ipse mediator Testamenti noui exhibet secundùm ordineÌ„ Melchisedech de corpore sanguine suo Id enim Sacrificium successit omnibus illis Sacrificijs veteris Testamenti quae immolabantur in vmbra futuri Propter quod etiaÌ„ voceÌ„ illam in Psalmo tricesimo nono eiusdem mediatoris per Prophetiam loquentis agnoscimus Sacrificium oblationem noluisti corpus autem perfecisti mihi quia pro illis omnibus sacrificijs oblationibus corpus eius offertur participantibus ministratur Whereas Salomon saith Eccles. 3. a man hath no good thing but that he shal eate and drinke what thing is more credible that he vnderstandeth in so saying then that appertaineth vnto the partaking of this table which the Priest him selfe the mediatour of the newe Testament doth exhibit according to the order of Melchisedech of his owne body and bloude For that Sacrifice hath succeded al those sacrifices of the olde Testament which were sacrificed in shadow of that which was to come For whiche cause we doo acknowledge that same voice of the selfe same Mediatour speaking by prophecie in the nyne and thirteth Psalme Sacrifice and Oblation thou refusedst but a body thou madest perfite for me bicause for al those sacrifices and oblations his body is offered and ministred vnto the partakers The last cause of this testimonie declareth plainely that S. Augustine meant not the bloudy Sacrifice made vpon the Crosse but the vnbloudy Sacrifice offered by the Priestes in remembraunce of the same as the which is not only offered vp but also ministred vnto the partakers If this notwithstanding any yet remaine in doubte whether the Prophecie of Malachie be to be vnderstanded of this vnbloudy Sacrifice it may please him to heare other olde learned Fathers teaching the same doctrine S. Chrysostome writing vpon the .95 Psalme alleging this very Prophecie Chrysost. in Psalm 95. In omni loco Sacrificium offeretur nomini meo Sacrificium purum In euery place a Sacrifice shal be offered vnto my name and that a pure Sacrifice saith forthwith Malac. 1. Vide quà m luculenter quámque dilucidè mysticam interpretatus est mensam quae est incruenta hostia See how plainely and how clearely he hath declared the mystical Table
you swarue very much from the meaning and purpose of Tertullian For he saith not that the Preaching of the Ghospel is that cleane Sacrifice which Malachie prophecied of but farre otherwise Tertullian hauing spoken of the two kindes of Sacrifices of the two peoples the Iewes and the Gentiles foreshewed at the beginning in th' oblations of Cain Genes 4. and Abel demaundeth whereas Gods law geuen by Moyses required the carnal sacrifices to be made by the people of Israel in the land of promise and nowher els why the holy Ghost afterward notwithstanding by Malachie Psal. 95. and also by Dauid fortelleth that the Iewes earthly and fleshly sacrifices should ceasse and that spiritual Sacrifices should be offered vp to God ouer the whole world Vnto this question he answereth him selfe Tertulliae contra Iudaeos and saith Indubitatè quòd in omni terra exire habebat praedicatio ApostoloruÌ„ that is to say Vndoubtedly bicause the preaching of th'Apostles was to come forth ouer al the world This assuredly is the true abbrigement and meaning of Tertullians woordes there TertuliaÌ„s place truly declared And cleare it is he saith not that the Preaching of the Ghospell is the pure Sacrifice that Malachie speaketh of as you vntruly reporte of him but onely that the holy Ghoste foresignified by Malachie and by Dauid that the Iewes sacrifices being abolished pure sacrifices should be offered among al Nations of the earth bicause it should come to passe that the Apostles should preach ouer the whole worlde So that by Tertullians verdite the preaching of the Gospel was not that pure Sacrifice it selfe spoken of by Malachie but the Apostles preaching that then was to come was the cause why Malachie and Dauid enspired of the holy Ghoste fortolde the ceassing of the Iewes carnal sacrifices and the setting vp or vse of the Gentiles spiritual Sacrifices More then this which is nothing at al TertulliaÌ„ in that place maketh not for you Leaue leaue M. Iewel for your credites sake if nothing els can moue you to deceiue vnlearned soules whom Christe hath so derely bought with sayinges of your owne forging fathering them vpon the auncient Doctours It is a manifest token what litle good stuffe ye haue to defend your new ghospel withal whereas ye set forth your owne pelfe vnder the name of the auncient writer Tertullian Wherein ye folow false Lapidanies and Goldsmithes who sel Cristal and glasse for true pretious stoanes and gilted copper for pure golde Your other three places which you pretend to allege out of Tertullian S. Hierome and Eusebius be not with such forme of wordes by those Fathers set forth as you here reporte them The sleight of falsifiyng that you so coÌ„monly vse in this place for your purpose maketh but only a colourable shew to the ignoraÌ„t who beleue what so euer you say to the learned who by diligent examition wil serch what you say a substantial proufe in dede it maketh not Thymiama oblatio munda Al be it I graunt wheras the Prophecie of Malachie speaketh of two thinges thymiama incense and Oblatio munda the cleane Oblation or Sacriâ—ice that the best learned Fathers haue expounded the Incense of Prayer and the cleane Oblation of the Sacrifice of the Aulter that is now offered in the Churche through the whole worlde Where Tertullian disputing with Marcion the heretike expoundeth it of Prayer Contra MarcioneÌ„ lib. 4. either it is his priuate sense which bringeth no preiudice vnto the doctrine of the Catholike Churche VVhat Tertullian meant by pure praier or he meaneth it as the other Fathers doo of the Sacrifice of the Aulter which is coÌ„secrate with prayer For so the olde learned Fathers cal the wordes of Consecration Els if it should be expounded of al manner of prayer or of prayer in general as it is made of ech priuate man it can not alwaies seme to be the cleane Sacrifice prophecied of by Malachie bicause the same is made by those that be not altogether pure Prouerbior 20. and without spot of sinne For so the Scripture witnesseth who can say my hart is cleane I am cleane froÌ„ sinne But the Prayer wherewith the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe is consecrate 1. Pet. 2. being the wordes of our Lorde Esai 53. who neuer did synne nor was guile found in his mouth is both in that respect pure and cleane and also for that it is pronounced by the Priest as the publike minister of the Churche whose priuate vncleannes what so euer it be in that behalfe impaireth not the worthinesse of the sacrifice nor of the prayer wherewith it is conâ—ecrate Who also at what time he offered that Sacrifice ought specially to be of a pure coÌ„science And therefore Tertullian hauing rehersed the woordes of Malachie though some what otherwise then either the seuenty Interpretours or the Hebrue bookes haue and otherwise then he him selfe rehersed them writing against the Iewes in euery place shal be offered vp in my name sacrifice Tertullia aduersus Marcion lib. 4. and the cleane Sacrifice might wel adde further by way of exposition scilicet simplex oratio de conscientia pura to wit simple or pure prayer from a cleane conscience In which prophecie the prophete fortelleth that God hath disposed a better Sacrifice to be offered vp vnto his name then the sacrifices were which the Iewes offered Simple Prayer By simple prayer he meaneth such as is not tempered and mingled with any sinneful infection of humane affections of which sorte is the prayer of coÌ„secration of this Sacrifice as that which is the worde of our Lorde and not the worde of man Whose prayer as al other his actions proceding out of his corrupte harte is steined with some spotte of synne wereunto oure nature corrupted in Adam is thral and subiecte The wordes of Consecration of the Sacrament called by the name of prayer If to any it seme strange the wordes wherewith the body and bloude of Christe are consecrate to be called a prayer by reading the olde learned Fathers he shal finde it so termed in sundry places Instinus martyr in 2. Apolog. S. Iustine the Martyr speaking of the blessed Sacrament nameth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the foode which is made the Eucharist through the prayer of the worde that we haue of him he meaneth Christe Loe he calleth the consecration the Prayer of the woorde that Christ deliuered vnto his Apostles and consequently to their successours Priestes of the new Testament S. Augustine writing vnto Paulinus saith Precationes accipimus dictas Augustin ad Paulinum Epistol 59. quas facimus in celebratione SacramentoruÌ„ antequam illud quod est in Domini mensa incipiat benedici Orationes cuÌ„ benedicitur sanctificatur ad distribuenduÌ„ coÌ„minuitur We take PrecatioÌ„es to be called those praiers which we make in the celebratioÌ„ of the sacramentes before that which is on our Lordes table beginne to
be blessed and OratioÌ„es we take for the praiers that be said when that which is on our Lordes table is blessed and sanctified or consecrated and broken to be distributed Againe he saith there excepto nomine generali orationis ea propriè intelligenda est Oratio quaÌ„ facimus ad votum id est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vouentur auteÌ„ omnia quae offeruntur Deo maximè sancti Altaris Oblatio c. Beside the general name of Praier that properly is to be vnderstaÌ„ded praier which we make at vowe And al thinges are vowed which be offred vnto God chiefly the OblatioÌ„ of the holy Aulter Sith then that is properly a praier which is made at vow that is to say when we vow ought vnto God and what thinges so euer we offer vnto God the same be vowed that is to wit by the seruice of our harte be geueÌ„ dedicated and rendred vnto God thereby to protest our faith in him to thanke him to praise him to honour him to shewe ourselues myndeful of his benefites among al thinges the Oblation of the Aulter being that which is chiefly vowed it foloweth that the Consecration is specially to be called and accompted prayer S. Hierome likewise called the wordes of Consecration by the name of Praier Hierony ad Euâ—grium where he saith in his Epistle to Euagrius Quid patitur mensarum minister vt super eos se tumidus efferat ad quorum preces Christi corpus sanguisque conficitur What aileth the minister of tables wherby he meanetha DeacoÌ„ to swel and aduaunce him selfe ouer them he speaketh there of Priestes at whose Prayers the body and bloude of Christe is consecrated What shal I neede to allege mo Fathers for proufe of a thing so wel knowen to them that be conuersant in their bookes Wherefore seing the worde of Consecration is the woorde of prayer whereby the body and bloude of Christe the Sacrifice of our Raunsom as S. Augustine calleth it Augustin Confess libro 9. cap. 12. is by vs offered vp and vowed vnto God that a remembrance of his death be celebrated of our parte and that mercie be extended vnto vs of Gods parte for that bodies sake represented and offered vp which hath dyed for vs and seing in the same we our selues are also offered vp dedicated vowed and rendred vnto God bicause therein Christe our head whereof we be members is offered the worde of Consecration in this consideration being most properly ond truly a prayer yea if I may so terme it an actual prayer bicause it is such a woorde as fulfilleth the acte of the Sacrifice it standeth with good reason and learning that Tertullian expounding the cleane Sacrifice wherof Malachie speaketh of prayer be vnderstanded to meane the oblation and Sacrifice of the Aulter as being that which is the highest kinde of prayer and of worshipping God that can be Thus that you bring out of TertulliaÌ„ maketh nothing for excuse of them of your side whom I noted for wresting the place of Malachie for that by their ouerthwart and false interpretations they racke it from the meaning of the Sacrifice of the Aulter offered vp vnto God in the new Testament in al places among the Gentiles by Priestes after the order of Melchisedek vnder Christe TOuching the two other Doctours S. Hierome and Eusebius whom you allege for you as expounding this place of Malachie of praier whereby though they so did you see the Sacrifice of the Aulter is not excluded let vs see whether in them you haue vsed a more truth and fidelitie then you haue in Tertullian Verily were you myne Aduersarie neuer so much yet for truthes sake I can not but geue you this commendation You shewe your selfe alwaies in your writing one manner a man which is a token of great constancie I meane that lightly you neuer recite any Doctour but you falsifie him The practise of falsifiers and corrupte his meaning by clipping away of parte or by changing of woordes or by adding of your owne or by keeping close some what that goeth before or commeth after or by conceeling the circumstances of the places alleged by one way or other He knoweth say you meaning of me that Saint Hierome expoundeth the same woordes in this wise Dicit orationes sanctorum Domino offerendas esse non in vna orbis prouincia Iudaea sed in omni loco The Prophete Malachie meaneth hereby so you interprete that the praiers of holy people should be offered vnto God not onely in Iewrie that was but one prouince of the worlde but also in al places For the right vnderstanding of this point I pray thee Reader peruse the place of S. Hierome thy selfe beleue thine owne eyes beleue not such false iugglers Which counsel I aduise thee to obserue not onely for trial of this one place but also for trial of other places which M. Iewel bringeth in defence of any his negatiue Articles Verily neither hath S. Hierom these very wordes in such order M. Ievvel falsifieth S. Hierome as they be here laid forth and the whole sentence vewed and considered together maketh directly for the Catholike doctrine which I defend and quite against that M. Iewel saith To thintent I be plainer though longer here I wil reherse the whole place as we finde it written in S. Hierome Thus he saith Hieron in Commen in Malac. cap. 1. Propriè ad Sacerdotes Iudaeorum sermo fit Domini qui offerunt coecum claudum languidum ad immolandum vt sciant carnalibus victimis spirituales victimas successur as Et nequaquam taurorum hircorumque sanguinem sed thymiama hoc est Sanctorum Orationes Domino offerendas non in vna orbis prouincia Iudaea nec in vna Iudaeae vrbe HierusaleÌ„ sed in omni loco offerri oblationem nequaquaÌ„ immundaÌ„ vt à populo Israel sed mundaÌ„ vt in Ceremoniis Christianorum Ab ortu enim solis vsque ad occasum magnum est nomen Domini in gentibus c. The worde of our Lord is nowe properly vttered vnto the Priestes of the Iewes who do offer that which is blind lame and sickely to be sacrificed to thintent they might know that spiritual sacrifices should succede their carnal Sacrifices And that the bloude of bulles and goates should no more be offered vnto our Lorde but Incense that is to say the Prayers of Holy men and that not in Iewrie only which is but one prouince of the world nor in Ierusalem only which is but one Citie of Iewrie but in euery place there is offered an Oblation not an vncleane one as was offered of the people of Israel but a cleane one as is offred vp in the Ceremonies of the Christians For from the rising of the sunne to the setting the name of our Lorde is greate among the Gentiles This Prophet speaketh of two things Tvvo thinges spoken of by Malachie the one don amoÌ„g the Iewes and now to be leafte of the
other to be done among the Gentils Of ech he hath a double coÌ„sideration Concerning the first which is the sacrifice of brute beastes that it was done but in one prouince of the worlde in Iewrie and only in Hierusalem a Citie of that Prouince Againe that the same thing was vncleane and filthy For how filthy a thing the bloude of Bulles goates rammes and other beastes the smoke and sauour of their grese burnt in Sacrifice was it is sone conceiued Concerning the second which is Sacrifice to be done among the Gentiles the consideration thereof is also double for that it is pure and cleane and also for that it is frequented in euery place This Sacrifice is of two sortes the one mere spiritual and internal the orher external as touching the Ceremonie of doing it Prayer signified by Incense Apoc. 5. Lib. 4. ca. 33. Augu. contra aduersar legis et Prophetarum lib. 1. c. 20 spiritual also notwithstanding The one after the maner of the Prophetes who be wont to expresse thinges of the new Testament with wordes of the olde Testament he calleth Incense and S. Hierome expoundeth it of praier which ascendeth froÌ„ our hartes vnto the heauenly throne of mercie like a swete perfume of Incense And so S. Iohn in his reuelation as S. Irenaeus writeth calleth the swete perfumes the prayers of Sainctes The other he termeth a pure Oblation the which S. Hierom expouÌ„deth of that pure Oblation which is offred euery where in the Ceremonies of the Christians Which can be vnderstanded of none other but of the Sacrifice of the Body and Bloude of Christe offered vp vnto God by Priestes of the newe Testament For what other Oblation or sacrifice can be named Foure conditioÌ„s of the Mystical OblatioÌ„ that hath these foure conditions which S. Hierome here toucheth but the Oblation of the Aulter The conditions be these That it succede the Sacrifices of the olde Law that it be pure and cleane that it be made in al places and that it be celebrated and solemnized in the Ceremonies of the Christians Of what so euer spiritual and internal Sacrifice the Gospellers wil vnderstand this place be it laude and praise In his booke Against the B. of VVinchester li. 3. fol 425. 443. thankes geuing prayer a contrite harte mercie or any suche other as Cranmare vnderstandeth it of laude praise and thankes and M. Iewel of prayer it shal quite be auoided by one or other of these conditions specially by the first and the fourth For how can laude and praise or praier ar any other mere spiritual sacrifice vâ—ed in the newe Testament seme to succede the Sacrifices of the olde Testament seing al suche spiritual Sacrifices be coÌ„monÌ„ to both Testaments and that thing can not be said to succede that had place before And if our Aduersaries wil cauil neuer so much expounding the pure Oblation that Malachie speaketh of Against the B. of Vvinster lib. 3. fol. 99. of some other thinge as Cranmare in one place expoundeth it in general of al the workes that Christian people doo to the glorie of God the same shal be auoided by that it is restrained vnto that Oblation which is made as S. Hierom declareth in Ceremonijs ChristianoruÌ„ in the Ceremonies of the Christians For al these spiritual and internal sacrifices be done inwardly in the harte of man and what other workes can they name done to the glorie of God in the publike Ceremonies of the Christians Ceremonies of the Christians which the prophete may reasonably seme to haue meant And what meaneth S. Hierome by the Ceremonies of the Christians but the Ceremonies of the Church vsed through al the worlde in the celebration and solemnitie of the Masse wherein the Sacrifice of the Body and bloud of Christ is made and offered by the Priestes touching ministerie by the faithful people also touching vowe Which Ceremonies be the chiefe the most auncient the most reuerent the most mystical and most holy Ceremonies that Christians haue Wherefore whereas Malachie and likewise S. Hierome expounding his wordes speake of two thinges of prayer and of the pure OblatioÌ„ the same being that Oblation which is offred euery where from the East to the west in the Ceremonies of the Christians by his interpretation now it appeareth how falsly M. Iuel demeaneth him selfe in this point who maketh S. Hierome so to vnderstand the place of Praier as though he vnderstode the whole saying of Prayer only and not one parte of it of Prayer and an other parte also of the Sacrifice of the Church whereas in deede he vnderstandeth it of both and most expressely speaketh of both as I haue now declared Thus he neuer leaueth to iustle away one truth with an other truth NOw to come to Eusebius let vs see whether you entreate him with more truth then you haue entreated Tertullian and S. Hierom. He knoweth say you likewise of me that Eusebius calleth the same sacrifice of Malachie the sacrifice and the Incence of prayer And for some shewe of proufe for that you say you put in the margent of your booke this peece of a Greke senteÌ„ce out of Eusebius Euseb. De Demonst. lib. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as much to say the incense or perfume that is made through prayers For answer here vnto It is to be remembred as I said before that Malachie speaketh of two thinges to be offred vp vnto God in al nations from the East to the west Incense Incense Pure Sacrifice and the pure Sacrifice Eusebius where he allegeth this place of Malachie to proue that Moses Lawe is ended and that the new Lawe of the new Testament is come in place by Incense vnderstandeth Prayer as S. Hierome M. Ievvel falsifieth Eusebius and other olde learned Fathers doo As for the Pure Sacrifice whereof now we speake that he calleth it the Sacrifice and the Incense of Prayer it is vtterly false In that very place which you allege Eusebius doth so expounde Malachie as to any man of iudgement it shal euidently appeare how vntruly you reporte of him and how aptly he maketh for the catholike doctrine and against you Euseb. De Demonst. lib. 1. The beginning of the sentence is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. In English the whole truely turned worde for worde soundeth thus That in euery place Incense and Sacrifice is offred vp vnto God what other thing doth it signifie then that the time shal come when they shal offer vp vnto God that is aboue al the Incense which is made by Prayers and that which is called the Pure Sacrifice that is made not by bloude but by Godly actions not in Ierusalem neither in this or that determinate place but in euery countrie and in al nations Beholde Reader how he expoundeth the Incense or perfume whereof Malachie speaketh of the Incense that is made by Prayer as afterward in the ende of that first booke to that meaning he allegeth
the wordes of the Psalme Psal. 140. Dirigatur Oratio mea sicut Incensum in conspectu tuo Domine Let my Prayer ô Lorde like a perfume be brought vp into thy â—ight Touching the Pure Sacrifice which is offred vp vnto God by pure and godly actions that thereby he vnderstandeth most specially the External Sacrifice of the Church which is offred vpon an Aulter the wordes folowing do manifestly declare For immediatly to shew what he vnderstode by the Pure Sacrifice he bringeth forth a prophecie of Esay foreshewing the same There shal be an Aulter saith the Prophet Esay as Eusebius reciteth to our Lorde in the countrie of Egypte Esai 19. and our Lord shal be knowen vnto the EgyptiaÌ„s and God shal send them a man who shal saue them and the Egyptians shal know our Lorde in that day and they shal offer vp sacrifices and make vowes vnto our Lord and shal performe the same and they shal be conuerted vnto our Lorde and he shal heare them and heale them For the better vnderstanding of this place by the Egyptians Esay meaneth as Eusebius there afterward expouÌ„deth al kind of meÌ„ that before the coÌ„ming of Christ were Idolatours as the Egyptians were Now if Eusebius had vnderstaÌ„ded the Pure Sacrifice meÌ„tioned by Malachie of prayer or only of mere spiritual and internal sacrifices he wold not haue alleged for further prouf and declaratioÌ„ of it that place of Esay wher he maketh expres mentioÌ„ of an Aulter to be set vp among the EgyptiaÌ„s that is amoÌ„g al the Gentiles who were before geuen to Idolatrie The external Aulter argueth and presupposeth an external sacrifice For els if the Sacrifice be inward onely and spiritual to the doing of it the building of an Aulter is void and to no purpose If M. Iewel to auoide the force of this place alleged by Eusebius wil bring phrases as his manner is whereby to declare that Aulters oftentimes be vnderstanded to be spiritual which I acknowledge and confesse that the Aulters of our hartes be of the Fathers not seldom spoken of and therfore wil say that Eusebius vnderstode this prophecie of Esay of such a spiritual Aulter to this I answer Eusebius vnderstandeth Esay to meane such an Aulter as Moses lawe forbad any where els to be set vp then in Iewrie and that only in one citie of Iewrie But it was neuer forbidden by Moses Lawe but that the spiritual Aulters of meÌ„nes hartes might be prepared in moe places then in one onely Citie of Iewrie for Ieremie Ezechiel Daniel Ezdras Tobias and many other holy Iewes and Israelites had such spiritual Aulters and theron offered acceptable spiritual sacrifices vnto God in other Countries besides Iewrie and in Cities farre distaÌ„t from Ierusalem wherefore he meant of such Aulters as Christians haue euer had in their Churches which be made after the manner of the Aulter appointed by Moses though the Sacrifice be of a farre diners manner Visible and external Aulter Eusebius wordes be these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Moses ordeined Aulter and sacrifices to be made in no Land elswhere but in Iewrie only and that in one only Citie therof But this prophecie of Esay saith that an Aulter shal be set vp vnto our Lorde in the Land of Egypte and that the Egyptians them selues shal offer vp the Sacrifices vnto the Lorde of the Prophetes and no lenger vnto their Countrie Goddes After that he hath spoken what he thought good of this new manner of Aulter and Sacrifice of the translation of the Aulter and priesthod appointed by Moses and therefore consequently of the translatioÌ„ of the Law it selfe in conclusion thus he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As much to say Now then is the time come that there is neede of a new lawe to be made that the foresaid thinges may take place But as for the spiritual Aulter of mennes hartes and the mere spiritual and inward sacrifices as the sacrifices of prayer of laude and praise of thankes geuing and such other who vnderstandeth not that they might wel take place and be frequented without necessitie of any newe Lawe to be made and that other wheres then onely in one Citie of Iewrie Verely the vse of such Aulters requireth not a change of Moses lawe and priesthode For such Aulters and such sacrifices were in Egypte and Chaldaea among many thousandes of Iewes who lyued in those Landes long before Moses law was dissolued The Aulter therfor and Sacrifice that Eusebius meaneth in that place for declaratioÌ„ of Malachies Prophecie is the Aulter and Sacrifice wherevpon and which the faithful people by ministerie of Priestes of the new TestameÌ„t doth continually offer vnto God to wit the body and bloude of Christ in remembrance of his death after the new Decrees and ordinances of the new Testament as he saith in * Lib. 1. De Demonstrat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one place after the Decrees and ordinances of the Church as he saith in an * Lib. 5. De Demonstrat other place That no man should doubte of what Aulter he meant thus there he speaketh of it Lib. 1. De Demonst. To our one onely Lorde an Aulter of vnbloudy and reasonable hostes after the new mysteries of the new Testament throughout the whole worlde hath ben erected both in Egypt it selfe and in the other nations being of like conditions vnto the Egyptians as touching wicked errour Verely these wordes can not with any reason seme to be meant of the spiritual Aulter of our hartes For though on the same we offer vp vnbloudy and reasonable hostes yet that is not done after the new Mysteries of the new Testament For in the olde Testament also no lesse then in the new such mere spiritual and internal sacrifices were offered vp vpon the spiritual Aulters of good mennes hartes Luc. 22. And what other be these new Mysteries of the new Testament whereof this doctor speaketh 1. Cor. 11. but those that Christ taught the Apostles and deliuered vnto them at his last Supper where he conuerted bread and wine into his body and bloud whom as S. Irenaeus saith Iren. lib. 4. cap. 32. he taught the new Oblation of the new Testament which the Church receiuing of the Apostles offereth vp vnto God throughout the whole worlde Whereas then Eusebius expounding the prophecie of Malachie speaking of Incense and pure Sacrifice vnderstandeth it to speake of two distinct sortes of Oblations therein appeareth either the ignorance or the wilful malice of M. Iewel who referreth al to one that is to say to Prayer to thintent the Mystical Oblation and Sacrifice of the body aud bloude of Christ be quite excluded But as the weighing of that which is already alleged out of the myddest of Eusebius first booke De Demonstratione Euangelica detecteth M. Iewels falshod not obscurely so the due coÌ„sideration of that he writeth vpon the same place of Malachie in the ende of that booke doth the same most clearely
of sacrificing and offring M. Iewel falsifieth the vvordes of the Ansvver and that the terme it selfe Oblation or Sacrifice was not expressed to make my saying seme more absurde you falsifie my saying reporting me to haue spoken of the termes of sacrificing as though I had acknowledged the wordes of sacrificing and denied the termes of sacrificing But sir what meane you Hath the long studie of Rhetorique driuen out of your head the remembrance of Logique Haue you quite forgoten the olde Distinction of implicitè and explicitè so much tossed in our Sophismes when we were yong Sophisters at Oxforde Thinges implied though not vttered red in expresse termes Remember you not that a thing may be implyed in wordes albeit the very termes signifying that thing be not expressed As for example where it is written in the Psalme Dixit Dominus Domino meo sede à dextris meis Our Lorde the Father said to my Lorde the Sonne sit at my right hand Psal. 109. is not the Omnipotencie of God the Sonne and his Equalitie with the Father in these woordes signified though the terme it selfe of imnipotencie or equalitie be not expressed It is written of kinge Saules wicked and miserable ende â— Reg. 31. Arripuit Saul galdium suum irruit super eum Saul caught his owne sworde and ranne vpon it doth not the Scripture by those woordes shewe and set forth his murthering and kylling of him selfe though the terme it selfe of murdering or killing be not expressely vttered Likewise the Scripture signifieth with very plaine woordes the Aduoutrie that Dauid committed with Bethsabee 2. Reg. 11. and his murdering of Vrias her husband and yet in what place these actes be described there is not at al expressed the terme of Aduoutrie nor of Murder In the whole storie of Christes passion written by the Euangelistes it is not with any expresse terme of killing said that the Iewes or Souldiers killed him Yet I trowe ye wil not denie but that in woordes it is implied Actor 2. If you denie it S. Peter shal control you who said to the Iewes Hunc interemistis this man ye haue killed Actor 7. S. Steuen also who said vnto them cuius vos nunc proditores homicidae fuistis ye haue now ben the traitours and murderers of Iesus But what neede we to vse so many examples in a mater that may be declared by infinite examples Right so to be shorre the wordes which the Euangelistes No coÌ„tâ—adictioÌ„â—roued by M. Ievvel to be in the Ansvver and S. Paule vse in the Description of the Institution of the blessed Sacrament at Christes last supper be wordes implying and importing a Sacrifice al be it this terme it selfe of Oblation or Sacrifice be not expressed And who so euer affirmeth him that so saith to include a Contradiction is either a wrangler hunting for termes not regarding the thing implyed or very ignorant not knowing the nature of a Contradiction But besides al this The reproche of straggling alone anâ—vvered as M. Iewel hath founde in my wordes a Contradiction where none is so doth he also with like truth and like proufe charge me with as it pleaseth him to terme it straggling alone and swaruing from al the olde Fathers by a strange construction of myne owne for that I haue so construed the wordes vsed in the Scripture to declare the Institution of the Eucharist as to include and implie a Sacrifice For verely I haue learned this construction of the olde learned Fathers and haue not bene so presumptuous as in so weighty a mater to trust the deuise of myne owne head Which Fathers doo not onely in equiualent but in expresse termes declare that Christe offered a Sacrifice at his last supper Hesychius an olde Father maketh mention of three sundry Sacrifices Three sacrifices offered by Christeâ— Hesychius in Leuit. lib. 2. cap. 8 that Christe offered two at his Maundie and the thirde vpon the Crosse. His wordes be plaine Prius figur atam Ouem coenans cum Apostolis postea suum obtulit Sacrificium deinde sicut ouem seipsum occidit That Christe sacrificed hiÌ„ selfe at his last supper Christe supping with his Apostles first offered the figuratiue Lambe afterward he offered his owne Sacrifice and then after that he killed him selfe that is to say deliuered vp him selfe to be killed like a Lambe S. Cyprian one of the most auncient Fathers of the Churche speaking of the Figure of Melchisedech geueth most iust occasion of this construction Cyprian lib. 2. epist. 3. where he saith Quam rem perficiens adimplens Dominus panem calicem mixtum vino obtulit qui est plenitudo Veritatem praefiguratae Imaginis adimpleuit Which thing our Lorde perfourming and fulfylling he meaneth the perfourmance of that which Melchisedeks Sacrifice did foresignifie offered bread and the cuppe mingled with wine and he who is the fulnesse did fulfil the Truth of the forefigured Image Theophylacte although not so olde as the others yet a schoolemaister olde yenough to teach a Christian man this construction expounding the later wordes of the Institution of the Sacrament and speaking of the Sacrifice saith Theophylactus in Matt. 26. Sicut Vetus Testamentum immolationem habebat sanguinem ita Nouum Testamentum sanguinem habet ac immolationeÌ„ Like as the Olde Testament had sacrifice and bloude euen so the Newe Testament hath bloude and Sacrifice Here is to be considered that if the wine by th' almighty power of the Worde be not coÌ„uerted into the bloud of Christe but remaine stil wine as before consecration which doctrine our Caluinistes teach and the Lutherans impugne then wil not this comparison of Theophylacte holde neither is it true at al that now the Newe Testament hath bloude Euthymius also a Father of the Greke Churche Euthym. in Matt. construed the same wordes of Christe in like sense saying Sicut Vetus Testamentum hostias sanguinem habebat ita sanè Nouum Corpus videlicet sanguineÌ„ Domini Non dixit autem haec sunt signa corporis mei sanguinis mei sed haec sunt corpus meum sanguis meus As the Olde Testament had sacrifices and bloude euen so truly hath the New Testament also to wit the Body and Bloud of our Lorde He said not these be the signes of my body and of my bloud but these be my Body and my Bloude These Fathers and sundry others whose â—ayinges here to reherse I omit that I be not tedious auouching so plainely that a Sacrifice was offered by Christe at his Maundie I maruel at the impudencie of M. Iewel It is M. Ievv that in deede straggleth alone who solacing him selfe with the terme of straggling alone reporteth me in this point to swarue from al the olde Fathers as though I had deuised a newe construction that any learned man neuer knewe before Verely in deniyng this Sacrifice he sheweth him selfe to be departed
his intent is to report vnto the simple to wit an external and sensible shedding which was done only at the tyme of his Passiō That the mater might seme the more absurde and vnreasonable If saith he Christes Sacrifice made at the Supper were vnbloudy how then did he there shed his bloud If he did shed his bloud how can that Sacrifice be called vnbloudy Why Sir wil you nedes haue the Mysteries of this Singular and peerlesse Sacrifice to be discussed by reason and not to be conceiued only by faith Wil you require the meane of this Sacrifice to be set forth euidently vnto you which is secret as Nyssen before mentioned saith inuisible and vnspeakeable S. Paule him selfe where he speaketh of the Priesthoode of Christe after the order of Melchisedek Heb. 5. saith he not that thereof he hath much to say and that the things be hard to expound These howe 's and questions M. Iewel become Iewes Infidels and Heretikes much better then a true Christian man Christes bloud was shed at his Supper so as it is now shed in the daily Sacrifice of the Aulter that is to say in a mysterie and in a Sacrament by a meane to man inuisible and vnspeakeable Bicause his bloud is beneficial vnto vs to redemption in that it was once actually externally and with death drawen forth of his body In cōsideration thereof where so euer that bloud is by the almighty power of our Lords worde in the Sacrifice made and exhibited we thinke it no absurditie nor inconuenience to say that his bloude is shed in a mysterie and vnbloudily Whereby we meane that not only his memorie is celebrated but also that the effecte of the bloudy shedding of his bloude that is to say the effect of his death is thereby applied vnto vs hauing faith and being disposed as we ought to be as if he were now hanging on the Crosse and presently bleeding before our eyes For to shew this and that of the Crosse to be one and the selfe Sacrifice we offer him saith Theophylact perinde ac si esset hoc tempore immolatus Theophylact in cap. 10. ad Heb. as if he were at this very time sacrificed Againe hanc hostiam semper vt praesentem offerimus we offer vp this hoste alwaies as if it were present saith he meaning the visible presence vpon the Crosse for otherwise it is present And therefore it may truly be termed an vnbloudy shedding of bloude the terme of shedding being referred to the bloude by the power of the worde of consecration made present offered presented and verily exhibited the terme vnbloudy referred to the manner of offering and exhibiting it without any such violence as was done vnto the person of Christe by the Souldiers who with thornes nailes and speare drew bloud of him when he hong on the Crosse. That no doubte remaine to speake so plainely as I can of this high Mysterie thus it is The bloude of Christe we confesse is the price of our Redemption in that it was once shed vpon the Crosse. That bloude and body whereof it issued out is the Hoste of our Saluation That very bloude is here made present in the Sacrifice of the Aulter by vertue of Christes worde and is said presently to be shed whiche neuer the lesse we vnderstand to be done in mysterie and in remēbrance of that which was shed vpon the Crosse bicause the effecte of that external shedding by this is applied vnto vs as if it were now in our sight offered and shed The vnbloudy shedding of bloud This shedding may be and is called vnbloudy as the offering and the Sacrificing of Christ and as the death is called vnbloudy For like as is the Sacrifice such is the Death Where is bloudy Sacrifice there is bloudy Death Where is the vnbloudy Sacrifice there is the vnbloudy Death and consequently the mystical and vnbloudy Sheddding of bloude But for better credite and that it seme not strange let vs confirme this pointe with some testimonies of Ancient Faters where the like speaches are vttered S. Gregorie saith Gregorius Dialog 4. cap. 58. De consec di 2. Quid sit Christus in seipso immortaliter viuens iterum in hoc mysterio moritur ◠Christe who liueth immortally in him selfe in this Mysterie dieth againe S. Augustine likewise Semel immolatus est in semetipso Christus tamen quotidie immolatur in Sacramento Christe was sacrificed in him selfe once August epist 23. De Conse dist 2. Semel De Conse dist 2. Iteratur and yet is he sacrificed daily in a Sacrament Paschasius saith in like manner Quotidie Christus mysticè pro nobis immolatur Passio Christi in Mysterio traditur c. Christe is daily sacrificed for vs mystically and the Passion of Christe is in a mysterie deliuered To be shorte Eusebius Caesarienses Cyrillus S. Chrysostome Theophylacte Euthymius S. Gregorie Nazianzen and in manner all the other Fathers doo cal this Incruentam immolationem the vnbloudy sacrificing and vnbloudy Hoste By the whiche Christe to effecte is so sacrificed for vs as to them who were present when he offered him selfe on the Crosse yet so as this Sacrifice take effecte of that And that there be truely and properly a Sacrifice it is yenough that Christes death be so now applyed to remission of synne as if he him selfe now dyed In these former and the like sayinges the Fathers doo set forth the way and meane of this Sacrifice of this Death and consequently of this shedding of Christes bloude as they may seeme to signifie not obscurely their vnablenesse to expresse the same terming it Sacrifice in a Sacrament Death in a Mysterie Sacrificing mystical The whiche wordes Sacrament and Mysterie doo not importe a signification of absence of the thing reported to be sacrificed to be shed and to dye but the secrete manner of sacrificing shedding and dying And bicause this oblation is not with shedding of bloude whiche bloude may presently be sene but by application of the bloude already shed it is of the auncient Fathers rightly called an vnbloudy Sacrifice S. Chrysostome ioyning Hostiam an Hoste and Incruentam Chrysost. in Psal. 95. Vnbloudy together could vnderstand an vnbloudy shedding of bloude in a Mysterie and thought it not absurde Yet neuerthelesse a man that standeth wel in his owne conceite and skanneth al Diuinitie by Phrases as M. Iewel doth might finde mater in it to vtter a scoffe or two and demaunde of Chrysostome if it be an Hoste how is it vnbloudy If it be vnbloudy how can it be an Hoste seing that an Hoste hath not bene woont to be offered without bloudshedding Likewise S. Gregorie Nazianzen that great Diuine hauing respect vnto the body and bloude of Christe offred by the Priestes in the Sacrament feared not to set together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gregor Nazian in Carminibus ad Episcopos sacrifices and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnbloudy saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O
ye Priestes that offer vp vnbloudy Sacrifices And to put al out of doubte that he meant it of the Sacrifice of the Body and Bloude of Christe he addeth further in the same place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O yee that beare the wrought worke of Greate GOD in your handes Whereby he meaneth the true and real Body of Christe in the Sacrament Theophylacte also among other is very plaine where he saith thus Theophylactus in 10. cap. ad Hebr. Num ipsi sine sanguine immolamus Omnimo Sed nunc reminiscimur mortis Domini Do we also sacrifice without bloude Yea verely But now in our Sacrifice we remember the death of our Lorde The Greke woorde which Theophylacte vseth is such as properly signifieth the killing of a lyuing thing Here is a woorde alone for M. Iewel to vtter his scoffing eloquence vpon Do we kill Then how without bloude If without bloude how then do we kill Thus the learned Fathers being persuaded that through the almighty power of Christes woordes his flesh and bloude are really exhibited and made present in the Sacrament thought it no absurditie in this singular Sacrifice to ioyne those termes together which in no truth could stand together in the order and manner of offering the olde sacrifices or Christes Sacrifice vpon the Crosse. If M. Iewel wil here replie and say that the ioyning of these vnagreeing termes together is an Argument that the Fathers meant not to auouche a true and Real Sacrifice but a figuratiue Sacrifice onely how can it not appeare most absurde to thinke that whereas they affirme Christes Real flesh and bloude to be made present by vertue of his woorde to th ende it be the Sacrifice of the newe Testament and likewise where as they teache this Sacrifice and this hoste to be one with that of the Crosse they should meane no true and Real Sacrifice but onely a Figuratiue Sacrifice And wilt thou vnderstand Christian Reader how the olde Fathers of the Churche meane where they reporte the Sacrifice of the Aulter to be one with the Sacrifice of the Crosse In vvhat sense the Fathers make the sacrifice of the Aulter and of the Crosse one Sacrifice Verely they meane as euery where we teache the Hoste or the thinge sacrificed to be one and the very selfe same vpon the Aulter and vpon the Crosse. For witnesse hereof heare S. Chrysostome Hauing asked this question Quomodo vna est Hostia non multae How is it one Hoste and not many After a few wordes he saith Id ipsum semper offerimus Nec nunc quidem alium agnum â—rastina alium Chrysost. homil 17. in Epist. ad Heb. sed semper eundem ipsum Proinde vnum est hoc Sacrificium hac ratione We offer vp alwaies the selfe same thing Neither doo we offer one Lambe to day an other to morow but alwaies one the selfe same Therefore this is but one Sacrifice by this reason Hacratione or in consideration hereof that is to say bicause the thinge whiche is offered is one Christe is our high Bishop there saith he further which hath offered vp the hoste that cleanseth vs of our sinnes the same offer we now also which being then offered can not be consumed If we offer the same hoste and sacrifice that Christe offered whereby we are made cleane from our sinnes whiche is the sacrifice of the Crosse it foloweth that this be a true and real sacrifice in respecte of the thing sacrificed as that was By this M. Iewel may vnderstand how lawful it is for me to speake as the catholique Churche speaketh that Christe is offered vp vnto his Father by the Priestes of the new Testament verely really and in deede Now let vs see what substance there is in al that wherewith he burdeneth me touching S. Clement Iewel As for Clemens vvhom M. Harding so often calleth the Apostles felovve as he is but lately start vp and comme abroade and therefore hath not yet gotten sufficient credit and in here brought in dumme and saieing nothing so is he not vvorthy of further ansvveare Hovve be it M. Harding dooth greate vvrong othervvise to report his Authours vvordes then he findeth them Truely his Clemens vvhat so euer he vvere saith not The Priest hath CommissioÌ„ or Power to offer vp the Sonne of God Clemens Constit. Apostoli lib. 6. cap. 30. Clemens Constit. Apostol lib. 8. His vvordes are plaine to the contrary Antytipon Regalis Corporis Christi offerte Offer ye vp not the Bodie of Christe but the Signe or Sacramente of the Roial Bodie of Christe Likevvise againe he saith Offerimus tibi Regi Deo iuxta Institutionem Christi Hunc Panem hoc Poculum VVee offer vp vnto thee our Kinge and God not the very Bodie of thy Sonne Really and in dede but This Breade and this Cuppe accordinge to Christes Institution It is a greate Prerogatiue for M. Hardinge both to make Doctours of his ovvne and also to geue them his ovvne Constructions Harding First Philip. 4. Hierony in peroratione traÌ„slatoris ad finem CoÌ„meÌ„tariorum Origenis in epist ad Romanos he laboureth to put him out of credite to that ende vsing prety light termes but neuer a weighty reason He is but lately start vp and come abroad saith he For whereas I cal him the Apostles felow and that not often as he saith he should be offended with the Apostles who so vsed him and with S. Hierome who so calleth him Next he reproueth me after his scoffing manner for that I bring him in dumme and saying nothing Lastly he chargeth me with reporting my authours wordes otherwise then I finde them That S. Clement can not truly be said lately to haue started vp as it pleaseth M. Iewel to speake I haue in my Reioindre to his first Article sufficiently proued his Antiquitie Page .29 b and authoritie as there the Reader may see S. ClemeÌ„t not brought in duÌ„me I do not bring him in dumme To referre the Reader vnto a special place of a writer is not to bring him in dumme So I in my Answer referred the Reader to the eight booke and last chapter of S. Clements Constitutions There shal he finde a cleare testimonie for the vnbloudy Sacrifice for the Priesthod and for the Institution and commaundement of the exercise of the same al which M. Iewel denieth The wordes for breuities sake I rehersed not To aduertise the Reader of the place I thought it yenough Least M. Iewel charge me againe with S. Clements dumnesse Clemens in Constitut li. 8 cap. vlt. certaine of his wordes here briefly to satisfie the man I am content to allege Thus then he saith Christe the only begoten sonne of God by nature is the first high Bishop who tooke not honour vnto him selfe but was ordeined of his Father Christe made Sacrifice before his Passion and commaunded the same to be coÌ„tinued who for our sake being made man and
both tende to one ende that is to celebrate the memorie of Christes death yet be not the actions diuers and may they not be done by diuers persons as it happeth when the people receiueth the body of Christe at the priestes handes This much may serue also for answer to the autoritie brought out of S. Chrysostome For the circumstance of the place declareth euidently that he spake there of the peoples receiuing of the mysteries And so in that place facere signifieth onely to receiue and not to consecrate and minister the Sacrament M. Ievv corrupteth S. Chrysostome And here M. Iewel least he should not be alwaies like vnto him selfe altereth and changeth his authours wordes and maketh S. Chrysostomes wordes to sounde to the aduantage of his owne false purpose For whereas S. Chrysostome saith thus Chrysost. hom 61. ad Pop. Antioch Quotiescunque hoc feceritis mortem Domini annunciabitis hoc est facietis commemorationem salutis vestrae beneficij mei As often as ye shal do this ye shal set forth our Lordes death that is to say ye shal make a commemoration of your saluation being my benefite M. Iewel allegeth him thus Hoc facite in memoriam beneficij mei salutis vestrae Doo ye this in remenbrance of my benefite and of your saluation Wherein he falsifieth the Doctor maketh a false translation of the place and geueth out a sense contrary to S. Chrxsostomes meaning Such aduenturing to alter Modes and Tenses to tel an other tale then the Doctor alleged telleth to leaue out to put in wordes of priuate forgerie is a most certaine argument of vntrue dealing and of guile intended of M. Iewels parte The 5. Diuision The Ansvver THat Christe offred him selfe to his Father in his last Supper and that Priestes by those woordes Doo this in my remeÌ„braunce haue not onely auctoritie but also a special commaundement to doo the same and that the Figure of Melchisedech and the Prophecie of Malachie perteineth to this Sacrifice and maketh proufe of the same let vs see by the testimonies of the Fathers what doctrine th'Apostles haue left to the Church Eusebius Caesariensis hath these woordes Euseb. li. 1 de demoÌ„strat Horrorem afferentia Mensae Christi Sacrificia Supremo Deo offerre per eminentissimum omnium ipsius Pontificem edocti sumus We are taught saith he to offer vnto our Supreme God the Sacrifices of Christes Table which cause vs to tremble and quake for feare by his Bishop highest of al. Here he calleth Christe in respect of his Sacrifice Gods Bishop highest of al Bishoppes the Sacrifices of Christes Table he calleth the Bodie and Bloude of Christe bicause at the Table in his last Supper he Sacrificed and offered the same and for that it is his very Bodie and his very Bloude imagination onely Phantasie and Figure set aparte he termeth these Sacrifices as commonly the auncient Fathers doo horrible causing trembling and feare And whereas he saithe we haue bene taught to offer these Sacrifices to God doubtlesse he meaneth by these woordes of Christe Doo this in my remembraunce This is my Bodie whiche is geuen for you This is my Bloude whiche is shedde for you Clement in his eight Booke often cited speaking of the Sacrifice offered by the Apostles commonly addeth these woordes Secundùm ipsius ordinationem or ipso ordinante whereby he confesseth it to be Christes owne ordinaunce Iewel To proue that the Priest offereth vp the Sonne of God M. Hardinge hath here brought in Euseâ—ius an Ancient Father that neuer once named any suche Oblation of the Sonne of God So much is he opprest and encombred vvith his stoare True it is The Ministration of the Holy Communion is oftentimes of the olde learned Fathers called a Sacrifice not for that they thought the Prieste had Authoritie to Sacrifice the Sonne of God but for that therein vvee offer vp vnto God Thankes and Praises for that greate Sacrifice once made vpon the Crosse. So saithe S. Augustine August ad PetruÌ„ Diaco ca. 19. In isto Sacrificio est gratiarum actio Commemoratio Carnis Christi quam pro nobis obtulit In this Sacrifice is a Thankes geuinge and a remembrance of the flesh of Christe Euseb. De demonstr li. 1. c. 10. whiche he hath offered for vs. Likevvise Eusebius saithe Christe after al other thinges donne made a marueilous Oblation and a passinge Sacrifice vnto his Father vpon his Crosse for the Saluation of vs al Nazian in Apolog. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 geuinge vnto vs to offer continually vnto God a Remembrance in steede of a Sacrifice So Nazianzenus calleth the Holy Communion A Figure of that great Mysterie of the Deathe of Christe This is it that Eusebius calleth The Sacrifice of the Lordes Table VVhiche also he calleth Sacrificium Laudis The Sacrifice of Praise Harding M. Iewels Replye in this Diuision is of smal pith and substance Least he should seme to say nothing whereas in deede he hath nothing to say whereby clearely to auoide the force of Eusebius authoritie by me alleged he darkeneth the mater with many wordes partly of his owne partly of other Doctours to litle purpose rehersed The effect of his whole tale consisteth in these .4 pointes First he denieth that Eusebius euer named any such Sacrifice of the Sonne of God vnto his Father Secondly he adknowlegeth the Ministration of the holy Communion for so he calleth it of the olde learned Fathers to be called a Sacrifice bicause of thankes and praises therein offered vnto God Thirdly he alloweth not the Argumente made out of Eusebius for proufe that Christe is offered vnto his Father Fourthly he pretendeth to shewe causes why the Sacrifice of the Communion is dredful and causeth the harte to tremble Touching the first what meane you M. Iewel by saying that Eusebius neuer once named any suche oblation of the Sonne of God Be you so addicted to the precise termes of your own Chalenge M. Ievvel is driuen from the mater vnto precise vvordes that other wordes of equal force may not be admitted Verely this declareth the weaknesse of your cause and openeth your poore shifte to the worlde which is that whereas you are conuicte by cleare truth of thinges yet you runne for succour vnto the shadowe of wordes You denye by the wordes of your Chalenge that by witnesse of any doctor within the first six hundred yeres after Christe we are hable to shewe that a Priest hath auctoritie to offer vp Christe vnto his Father Now this are we hable to proue as by diuers others so in this place by testimonie of Eusebius though expressely he name it not an oblation of the Sonne of God And for asmuch as you stand vpon your owne precise termes you shal be driuen from your holde by a precise Argument Answer it if you can What so euer we that are Priestes haue ben taught by Christe to doo to doo the same we haue auctoritie But we haue ben
taught by Christe to offer vp Christe vnto his Father Ergo to offer vp Christe vnto his Father we haue auctoritie Ergo the Priest hath auctoritie c. The Minor or second proposition of this Syllogisme you denye I doubte not For nought els with reason is here to be stickt at 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb. de DemoÌ„str EuaÌ„g lib. 1. That proposition then thus I proue by Eusebius whom I alleged in my Answer We haue ben taught saith he to offer vp vnto our Supreme God the dredful Sacrifices of Christes table by his Bishop highest of al. Whereat doo you cauill The proposition that you denye and we affirme being this The Priest hath auctoritie to offer vp Christe vnto his Father what lacketh here that answereth not the purport of your owne precise termes We haue ben taught by Gods bishop highest of al saith Eusebius Ergo The Priest hath auctoritie Require you the worde to offer Beholde here it is put expressely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 .i. offerre Cal you for the name of the Father Looke in Eusebius and you shal finde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as much to say vnto God that is ouer al. there haue you the Father of Christe plainely yenough expressed onlesse you denie that the Father of Iesus Christe is God ouer al. How be it we acknowledge this sacrifice to be offered not only vnto the Father but also vnto the Sonne in as much as he is God and vnto the holy Ghoste Now for Christe you haue here expressed the dreadful or honorable Sarifices of Christes table But you wil say I heare the dreadful sacrifices of Christes table but Christe him selfe I heare not Truth it is Christe him selfe to be offered you heare not in expresse termes but those termes which to our vnderstanding do import Christes body and bloud you heare and therfore Christ him selfe bicause of the vnioÌ„ of both persons For what other thing may we with any reason vnderstand by the dreadful Sacrifices of Christes table but the body and bloude of Christe What cause had Eusebius to make mention of Christes table Math. 26. but to put vs in mynd of that table Lucae 2â— wherevpon Christe at his last Supper consecrated and offered his pretious body and bloud 1. Cor. 11. saying this is my bodie which is geuen for you this is my bloude whiche is shed for you as the Scripture teacheth vs Wherevpon the bread Cyprian de coenae Domini that Christe gaue vnto his disciples changed not in shape but in nature by the omnipotencie of the worde is made flesh as S. Cyprian writeth Wherevpon is laid the lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the worlde Concil Nicen. Optatus lib. 6. Iren. lib. 5 as we finde it reported by the Fathers of the first Nicen Councel Wherevpon the vowes of the people and the members of Christ be borne as the Ancient Father Optatus speaketh From whence our flesh is nourrished with the bloude and body of Christe as S. Ireneus saith Chrysost. in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. From whence Christe hath geuen vs his flâ—sh to fil vs withal as S. Chrysostome preacheth But M. Iewel vnderstandeth by the Sacrifices of Christes table spoken of in Eusebius the Sacrifice of thankes geuing For whereas I say in my Answer that the Body and bloude of Christe are called of Eusebius the Sacrifices of Christes table bicause at the table in his last Supper he sacrificed and offered the same he controlleth me for so saying and skoreth it vp in the margent for his 222. Vntruth shewing this cause why For saith he Eusebius calleth it the sacrifice of thankes geuing M. Ievvel belyeth Eusebius wherein he deserueth an vntruth or rather a manifest lie to be scored vp vpon him selfe For neither nameth Eusebius a sacrifice in that place which he would if he had meant the sacrifice of thankes geuing but sacrifices in the plural number yea expressely the dreadful or honorable Sacrifices of Christes table neither nameth he there expressely the sacrifice of thankes geuing at al And neuer was it heard before that any olde or late learned catholike writer called thankes geuing indefinitely the dreadful Sacrifices of Christes table For to geue thankes it is not dredful neither is it peculiar to the mystical table but common in respect of al times places and seruices Certaine it is as it shal be euident to al that wil peruse that place of Eusebius that by the dreadful Sacrifices of Christes table he meant the body and bloud of Christe How be it he speaketh so thereof vsing the termes of memorie signes and tokens as it was most conuenient for that time when the Christians lyued among the Painimes and Infidels to whom those secretes were not to be reueled Math. 7. accordingly as Christe forebad a holy thing to be geuen to dogges and precious stones to be caste before swyne By which way of vtterance the olde learned Fathers intent was not to exclude the true presence of the most holy thinges but to coouer them from the vnworthy Painimes prophane vnderstanding and to insinuate vnto the beleuers the mystical and secret manner of their presense To returne to Eusebius In the later parte of his first booke De demonstratione Euangelica discoursing vpon the excellencie of the newe Testament in comparison of the olde hauing declared the figuratiue sacrifices of Moyses lawe to be abolished Three kindes of Sacrifices of the nevv Testament mencioned by Eusebius Euseb. li. 1 de demoÌ„strat and that lawe it selfe to haue his ende by the comming of Christe into flesh at length he speaketh of three kindes of Sacrifices of the new TestameÌ„t prouing ech one to haue ben forespoken of by the Prophetes They are the Sacrifice of the Crosse the Sacrifice of the Aulter and the mere spiritual Sacrifices The which we cal the Sacrifice of the Crosse he nameth the maruelous oblation and passing Sacrifice which Christe offered vnto his Father for the saluation of vs al. He termeth it also in respcte of the thing sacrificed the * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fleshly presence of Christ and his framed body that God fitted for him alluding to the woordes of the Psalme * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Corpus aptasti mihi thou ô God hast framed or fitted to me a bodye That which of vs is commonly called the Sacrifice of the Aulter Psal. 39. he calleth in respect of the action of offering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The memorie of this Sacrifice of the Crosse celebrated vpon a table He calleth it also in respect of the thing offered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Diuine honorable and holy Sacrifice And terming it also the pure Sacrifice alluding to the Prophecie of Malachie he saith that we sacrifice it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after a new manner according to the new Testament Which can not be vnderstand of any other then of the Sacrifices of the Aulter Furthermore in respect
of the body and bloude being two thinges that are offered he calleth it the Sacrifices of Christes table as now the Churche coÌ„monly calleth it the Sacrifice of the Aulter Touching the third kinde of sacrifices he nameth them first in general by the terme of vnbodyly and spiritual sacrifices Afterward particularly he calleth them the sacrifice of praise of praiers of lifting vp the haÌ„des of a contrite harte The sacrifice of thankes geuing by these very termes he nameth not In dede I confesse that where he saith we sacrifice the memorie of the great Sacrifice meaning that of the Crosse celebrating it according to the mysteries deliuered vnto vs by Christe There he saith further that we offer vp vnto God by godly hymnes and prayers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eucharistiam pro salute nostra the Euchariste for our saluation whiche peraduenture M. Iewel had rather to cal the thankes geuing for our saluation To shewe that the first and chiefe kinde of sacrifice was prophecied of in the time of the olde Testament he allegeth the Prophete Dauid Psal. 39. saying Oblationem sacrificium noluisti corpus autem aptasti mihi Oblation and sacrifice thou refusedst and had framed me a body For the sacrifices of the third kinde Psal. 49. he allegeth the knowen scriptures offer vnto God the sacrifice of praise and render vnto the highest thy vowes and cal vpon me in the day of â—ribulation Psal. 140. Psal. 50. and I wil deliuer thee Againe The lifâ—ing vp of my handes is an euening sacrifice Item A contrite spirite is a sacrifice to God c. In this order is to be placed the sacrifice of thankes geuing which M. Iewel strangely and absurdly auoucheth to be that whiche Eusebius calleth by the name of the Sacrifices of Christes table Now concerning the second kinde of Sacrifice The Sacrifices of Christes table vvhat they are that Eusebius speaketh of which is the sacrifice of th'Aulter or as the termeth it the dreadful Sacrifices of Christes table whiles he allegeth the prophecies of Dauid and of Esay for it he sheweth clearely that he meant not thereby the sacrifice of thankes principally or praise for the Sacrifice once made vpon the Crosse nor the Ministration of the holy Communion of which M. Iewel confusely expoundeth Eusebius but the holy Mysteries of Christes table to wit the Body and Blounde of Christe vnder the formes of bread and wine offered at the table in remembrance of Christes death Which I confesse neuer the lesse alwaies to be offered not without the Sacrifice of thankes and praise and with that Sacrifice we doo thanke and praise God most principally The saying of Dauid propheciyng of the Sacrifices of this table Psal. 22. as Eusebius allegeth is this Parasti in conspectu meomensam aduersus eos qui tribulant me Impinguasti in oleo caput meum calix tuus inebrians me quà m fortissimè Thou hast prepared before mine eyes a table against those that trouble me thou hast anointed my head with oile and thy Cuppe maketh me dronke after a most stroÌ„g wise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Expressely and manifestly in these wordes saith Eusebius is signified the mystical Chrisme or ointment and the dreadful or honorable Sacrifices of Christes table Verely this soueraigne praise that Dauid after the mynde of Eusebius geueth vnto the mystical Cuppe of our Lordes table can not seme to be attributed vnto the Cuppe of the Sacramentarie Suppers which conteineth in it no better thing then common wine It is the bloud of Christe not a suppe of common wine that doth moist and inebriate a man in that most strong wise wherof Dauid prophecied The Hebrew worde importing signification of great abundance maketh muche for this sense and quite contrary to the Sacramentarie doctrine From Dauid he goeth to Esay the Prophete alleging among other thinges a saying out of him signifiyng that the Lorde of bostes should do maruelous thinges in al nations What those thinges are the prophete declareth They shal haue pleasant drinke saith he they shal drinke wine They shal be annointed with an ointment in this hil Vpon these wordes of Esay thus saith Eusebius These maruelous thinges that Esay speaketh of did promise not to Israel but to al nations the annointing of a good sweete smelle and of ointmeÌ„tes by reason whereof bicause of the annointing of the ointment they obteined to be called Christians that is to say the annointed Then folow the wordes which declare what he meant by the Sacrifices of Christes table Furthermore saith he this prophete prophecieth vnto the Gentiles of the pleasantnes of wine secretly signifying the Mysterie of the new Testament of Christe which is manifestly celebrated at this time among al nations Thus Eusebius in that place expounding the prophecies of Dauid and of Esay promising the inebriating Cuppe and gifte of wine vnto the Gentiles of the blessed Sacrifice of Christes table which as it is called a table for that the heauenly foode is thence ministred vnto vs so it is called also an Aulter in respect of the oblation and Sacrifice there made and solemnized doth plainely signifie what he vnderstode by the Sacrifices of Christes table soothly not the sacrifice of thankes geuing principally which semeth to the vnlearned to consist onely in wordes but the Sacrifices of the body and bloude of Christe and consequently Christe him selfe And therfore that place of Eusebius is in my Answer to the Chalenge rightly and aptly to my purpose alleged as the whiche proueth against M. Iewel that the Priest hath auctoritie to offer vp Christe vnto his Father Yet if M. Iewel wil not ceasse to cal for his owne termes August Epist. 174. not being content with termes equiualent I thinke good to answer him as S. Augustine answered Pascentius the Arian crying importunatly for the terme Homusion to be shewed him in the Scriptures Quid est contentiosius quà m vbi de re constat certare de nomine What is a more contentious parte then to striue about the name when the thing it selfe is certainely knowen But now M. Iewel bringeth in S. Augustine Eusebius and S. Gregorie Nazianzen to witnesse with him that the ministration of the holy Communion is called a Sacrifice bicause therein thankes and Praises be offered vp vnto God for the Sacrifice made vpon the Crosse. To this I answer that these Fathers can not be shewed so much as once to haue named the Sacrifice of the Ministration of the Communion nor that this Ministration of the CommunioÌ„ is in any of their workes expressely called a Sacrifice He should haue done wel if he had made it cleare what he meaneth by this holy CommunioÌ„ and what by the Ministration of the same That the Ministration of the Communion is a Sacrifice I trowe it is a speache neuer heard of in the Churche of God before these Ministring prelates came to teache vs a new faith If he vnderstand by the holy Communion the new deuise of
many bookes and the worlde should sone drawe to a better quiet As for the two other testimonies alleged out of Eusebius and S. Gregorie Nazianzen they prooue not that for which they be alleged which is that the Ministration of the Communion is of them called a sacrifice wherby M. Iewel would exclude the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe For first as touching Nazianzen by what Logique maketh he this Argument good He calleth the holy Communion * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exemplar magnorum Mysteriorum the Figure or sampler of the great Mysteries Ergo the Ministration of the Communion is called a Sacrifice Verily in this Argument is neither reason nor good Logique What though Eusebius say thus being truly translated Christe after al the Sacrifices of Moses Lawe hauing sacrificed a maruelous sacrifice and a passing Hoste vnto his Father offred it vp for al our saluatioÌ„ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hauing deliuered vnto vs also a memorie to offer it vp continually vnto God * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a Sacrifice so it is to be translated not in stede of a Sacrifice as Maister Iewel hath turned it Wil he conclude of this that Eusebius calleth the Ministration of his Communion a Sacrifice No no his purpose was not so much to proue the ministration of their Communion to be called a sacrifice as to disproue the Sacrifice of the Aulter which Eusebius in my Answer alleged calleth in respect of Christes body and bloude offered in the same the Sacrifices of Christes table To that ende he semeth to haue alleged Eusebius A memorie of the Sacrifice of the Crosse excludeth not the Sacrifice of the Aulter bicause he nameth that which Christ deliuered vnto vs to offer vp daily vnto God a memorie As though Christes body and bloud could not be really present in these holy Mysteries if that which we doo be a memorie or coÌ„memoratioÌ„ of that which Christ did Yeas forsoth M. Iewel The Sacrifice that we offer when we doo that which Christ at his last Supper coÌ„mauÌ„ded vs to do is the memorie of the body and bloud of Christ and in respect of the thing offered and sacrificed the very and true body and bloud of Christ it self And this is accordiÌ„g to the doctrine of S. Augustin Aug. cont Faust. lib. 20. cap. â—â— who saith as is afore rehersed The Christians do celebrate the memorie of the Sacrifice of the Crosse now performed which Eusebius in respect of the thing offered calleth the maruelous Sacrifice and passing hoste with the holy Oblation and Participation of the body and bloude of Christe If they doo it with the Oblation and participation of the body and bloude of Christe then is the body and bloud of Christe present then is it offered and participated which Eusebius for that cause calleth theâ— Sacrifices of Christes Table Eusebius also saith M. Iewel calleth this a Sacrifice of praise In deee as I declared before Eusebius speaketh of diuers Sacrifices Of the Sacrifice of the Crosse of the sacrifices of the table of Christ of the Sacrifice of praise of prayers of a contrite harte And what if he speake of the Sacrifice of praise wil it thereof folow M. Iewel by your new Logique that the Sacrifices of Christes table be not taken in Eusebius for the body and bloude of Christ And I pray you may not the selfe same in one respect be a Sacrifice of Praise M. Iewels common custom to disproue one truth by an other truth and also in an other respect the Sacrifice of Christes body and bloud When wil you leaue your common woont to disproue one truth by an other truth If one should say vnto you concerning a sorte of your Ministers standing before you at a visitatioÌ„ Sir these felowes be no Ministers of Gods worde and holy SacrameÌ„tes for they be handy Craftesmen would you not answer him Sir your reason is naught for they be Ministers and honest Craftesmen both No better is your reason where you say This Sacrifice is a Sacrifice of Praise and of thankes geuing or it is a memorie and a sampler of the bloudy Sacrifice ergo it is not the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe it is not a true and a very Sacrifice For there is no inconuenience in attributing these names and termes vnto the most blessed Sacrament and Sacrifice of the Aulter diuers respectes being considered A plaine testimonie for the Sacrifice of the Aulter But M. Iewel how happed it that where you founde in Eusebius Sacrificium laudis the Sacrifice of Praise the Greeke whereof also you would needes to be noted in the margent of your booke though with addition of an article more then is in the Doctour you saw not among the manifold sacrifices there reckened this Sacrifice so expressely set foorth and coÌ„mended with these wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb. lib. 1. de Demonst in fine That is to say we sacrifice the diuine and honorable and most holy Sacrifice We sacrifice the pure Sacrifice after a new manner according to the newe Testament By which description that which we cal the Sacrifice of the Aulter is plainely signified Againe how could you not see the manifest mention of the Aulter A testimonie for material Aulters whereon this Sacrifice is offred there a litle before expressed And least you might auoide the force of that cleare testimonie by expounding it of the spiritual Aulter of mans harte remember that he speaketh of such an Aulter as might not by Moses lawe be set vp but onely in Iewrie and that as there he saith in one only Citie of that Prouince As for the spiritual Aulters of mens hartes Moses Lawe did neuer forbid An Aulter saith Eusebius of vnbloudy and reasonable sacrifices 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is now erected according to the new Mysteries of the new Testament ouer al the worlde both in Egypte and in other nations c. What can be vnderstanded by this Aulter builded in witnesse of the abrogation of Moses Lawe of his Aulter at Hierusalem and of his vncleane Sacrifices as there Eusebius discourseth and that according to the new Mysteries of the newe Testament but the external Aulter of the Church whereupon the body and bloud of Christe In Apologetico in forme of bread and wine the external Sacriâ—fice as S. Gregorie Nazianzen calleth it is offered and the most holy and dreadful Mysteries are celebrated Hath Satan the enemie of this Sacrifice so blinded your harte with malice against the same that you saw the sacrifice of Praise of Praiers and other mere spiritual Sacrifices and this most Diuine most high and most special Sacrifice of the Churche could not see so euidently and with so expresse colours set forth in the same place What can be said in your excuse Either you saw this much in Eusebius your selfe or you trusted your Greeke frende of Oxford whose helpe for the fuller stuffing of your great
booke you vsed as it is knowen If you saw it and of purpose would concele it and by rehersing other Sacrifices thought so to coouer this Sacrifice then great was your malice If you sawe it not but trusted your Grecian and such other slipper Merchantes who knewe wel your humour and perceiued what shoulde please your appetite then were you very rash and vnwise and thereby haue geuen occasion to al wise men to take good aduise how they beleue you in so weighty maters Hitherto M. Iewel as now vnto the learned it is made cleare hath said litle for good Answere to the testimonie for the Sacrifice of the Aulter brought out of Eusebius But what falshoode he hathe vsed it is partely disclosed If thou marke him wel Reader thou shalt perceiue this sleight in him that he neuer reherseth the woordes of Eusebius as I haue alleged them For in dede they seme to grauel him and to be so plaine as with plainenesse he seeth no way how to answer them Craftily he dissembleth the Sacrifices of Christes table spoken of by Eusebius in the plural number whereby he vnderstandeth the body bloude of Christe of which eche one is a Sacrifice that is to say M. Iewels guileful dealing the thinge sacrificed and consecrated seuerally in the seueral fourmes of breade and wine in Commemoration and Remembraunce of the Body and Bloude whiche were seuered the one from the other by violence of the souldiers vppon the Crosse and nameth the Sacrifice of the Lordes Table in the singular number for the better oportunitie to deceiue the vnlearned Reader Iewel But Eusebius saith further This Sacrifice is dreadful and causeth the harte to quake M. Harding may not vvel geather by any force of these vvordes that the Sonne of God is Really offered vp by the Priest vnto his Father For al thinges vvhat so euer that put vs in remembrance of the Maiestie and Iudgementes of God of the Holy Fathers are called Dreadful S. Cyril saith Cyril in Apol. Chrysost 1. Cor. Hom. 49. Lectio Diuinarum Terribilium Scripturarum The reading of the Diuine and Terrible Scriptures S. Chrysostome calleth the vvordes of Baptisme Verba arcana metueÌ„da horribiles Canones dogmatum de Coelo transmissorum The Secrete and Dreadful wordes and Terrible Rules of the doctrine that came from Heauen And speaking of the Hande and voice of the Deacon he saith thus Manu illa Tremenda continua Voce clamans alios vocat alios arcet VVith that Terrible Hand and continual Voice crieinge somme he calleth in and somme he putteth of This Sacrifice maketh the Harte to tremble for that therein is laide forth the Mysterie that vvas hidden from vvorlds and Generations The horrour of Sinne The Death of the Sonne of God That he tooke our heauinesse and bare our sorovves and vvas vvounded for our offenses and vvas Rente and Tormented for our VVickednesse That he vvas carried like an innocent Lambe vnto the Slaughter that be cried vnto his Father O God O my God vvhy haste thou thus forsaken mee There vve cal to Remembrance al the causes and circumstances of Christs Death The Shame of the Crosse The Darkening of the Aire The Shaking of the Earth The renting of the Vele The cleauing of the Rocks The opening of the Graues The Descending into Hel and the CoÌ„quering of the Diuel Therefore Chrysostome saith QuaÌ„uis quis lapis esset illa nocte audita Chrysost. in 1. ad Corinth Hom. 17. quomodò cuÌ„ Discipulis tristis fueâ—it quomodò traditus quomodò ligatus quomodò abductus quomodò iudicatus quomodò denique oiÌ„a Passus cera mollior fiet terraÌ„ omneÌ„ terrae cogitationem abijciet Any man hearing of the order of that night how Christe was moorneful emonge his Disciples howe he was deliuered how he was bound how he was leadde away how he was arreigned and how meekely he suffered al that was donne vnto him were he as harde as a Stoane yet woulde he be as softe as VVaxe and would throwe both the Earth and al Earthely Cogitations away from him Thus saith Nicolaus Cabasilas one of M. Hardings late Greeke Doctours Hoc facite in meaÌ„ Commemorationem Sed quaenam est haec Commemoratio c. Doo ye this in Remembrance of me But what is this Remembrance Hovv doo we consider Our Lorde in the Holy Ministration VVhat doo we conceiue him doing Hovv dealing vvhat suffering vvhat thinke vve vvhat speake vve of him Do vve imagin of him in that time of the Holy Mysteries that he healed the Blinde That he raised the Dead That he staied the VVindes Or that vvith a fewe loaues he fead thousandes which are tokens that he was God Omnipotent No not so But rather we cal to remembrance such thinges as declared his weakenesse his Crosse his Passion his Deathe In respect of those thinges he said Doo yee this in my Remembrance The Priest both by his wordes and also by the vvhole Circumstance of doinge seemeth to say Thus Christe came to his Passion Thus he vvas vvounded in the side Thus he died Thus Bloud and VVater issued and streamed from his vvounde These considerations thus laide before our eies are hable to cause any godly harte to quake and tremble As for the Real offeringe vp of Christe in Sacrifice that learned Father Eusebius saith nothing Verily it is but a simple Sophisme to say This Sacrifice is Dreadful and causeth vs to quake Ergo The Priest offereth vp the Sonne of God vnto his Father Harding Whereas I gather an Argument of a plaine testimonie for the Sacrifice of the Aulter out of the whole senteÌ„ce alleged M. Iewel pretendeth to his Reader as though I tooke my chiefe and onely holde of this one worde Dreadful Dreadful which being but one worde in Eusebius he maketh to sounde many wordes and saith that I may not gather by any force of these wordes that the Sonne of God is really offered vp by the Priest vnto his Father Whereas in deed I gather it not by force of that woorde Dreadful whereof for his aduantage he maketh diuers woordes onely nor chiefly but of the whole saying and specially of the very expresse name of the Sacrifice of Christes table and also of that Eusebius saith we haue bene taught by Christe him selfe to offer them vnto God Which I expounde as they are to be expounded of these woordes spoken by Christe at his Supper Luc. 22. Hoc facite in meam commemorationeÌ„ doo ye this in my remembrance as it is to be sene in my Answere and he dissembled to haue sene it As for the Sonne of God really offered vp they be not my wordes as the booke is witnesse they be his whereby he thought to take aduantage though the Proposition in those termes also be true in a right and due sense Bicause therefore he groundeth his Replie vpon that which I say not and bestoweth many wordes in disprouing that I affirme not and prouing
vnworthy a sacrifice vnto them base and vnworthy I say in comparison of the high dignitie that God through his sonnes death hath called them vnto but by his almighty power and according to his passing great mercy and loue hath geuen no worse thing then him selfe to be their true and real Sacrifice Some one wil say perhappes I woulde beleue this doctrine the rather if it were confirmed with the testimonie of an Auncient learned Father Let vs heare then what S. Chrysostome saith touching this point Chrysost. in 1. Cor. 10. Ho. 24 A cleare testimony for the Sacrifice of Christe in the Churche His wordes be these In veteri quidem Testamento cùm imperfectiores essent quem Idolis offerebant sanguinem cum ipse accipere volait vt ab Idolis nos auerteret Quod etiam inenarrabilis amoris signum erat Hic autem multò admirabilius magnificentius facrificium praeparauit quum sacrificium commutaret pro brutorum caede se ipsum offerendum praciperet In the olde Testament when men were more vnperfecte Christe him selfe would take that bloude which they offered vp vnto Idols to th ende to turne them from Idolatrie Which thing was a signe of an vnspeakeable loue But here in the newe Testament he hath prepared a much more maruelous and honorable Sacrifice both in that he changed the Sacrifice and also for that in stede of the slaughter of brute beastes he commaunded his owne selfe to be offered Here we haue by testimony of this auncient Father the abolishing of the worse sacrifice and the appointment of a better That was made of brute beastes this of Christe him selfe Now consider good Reader whether reason wil beare it that the worse and baser sacrifice should be both real and also in figure and signification for so were al the Iewes sacrifices and the better be in figure or mysterie onely and not real as M. Iewel wil haue the Sacrifice of the Churche to be But that our Sacrifice is real and that it is Christe him selfe and that he is really and in deede sacrificed the woordes aboue rehersed and others of the like force in that place of S. Chrysostome doo plainely auouche For first let this be examined that as he saith Christe commaunded for the slaughter of brute beastes now in the new Testament him selfe to be offered Of what Sacrifice can this be meant but of that which he both made and instituted him selfe at his last Supper and gaue charge to be frequented and done vntil he come For as touching the Sacrifice of the Crosse though he suffered him selfe to be taken and to be crucified and to be offred vp with shedding of bloude vnto death yet he commaunded not so muche to be done for then had the wicked workers of his death ben giltlesse Lucae 22. This commaundement then of offering vp Christe him selfe 1. Cor. â—1 is vnderstanded to haue ben geuen at the Supper when after that he had consecrated his body and bloude he said doo ye this in my remembrance And therefore S. Chrysostom speaketh thus vnto Christe in his Liturgie or Masse Chrysost. in Liturgia Memoriam igitur agentes huius salutaris mandati c. We kepe the memorie of this healthful commaundement If M. Iewel replye and say that Christe commaunded at the supper a memory onely to be celebrate of the true and real Sacrifice vpon the Crosse to that we answer That this Sacrifice whereof we speake is a memorie of that we confesse but that it is a memorie onely so as the real presence of Christ be excluded that we deny and to the contrary S. Chrysostome saith that he commaunded se ipsum him selfe to be offred vp Christe coÌ„maunded him selfe to be offred vp Neither can M. Iewel shifte the mater from him by expounding this worde him selfe of the signe or figure of him selfe meaning the bread and wine as the Sacramentaries doo For if that which is now daily in the Churche offered vp at the Aulter were but bread and wine the signes of Christes body and bloude S. Chrysostome woulde not ne could not iustly haue said that Christe hath prepared for vs of the newe Testament multò admirabilius magnificentius Sacrificium a much more maruelous and honorable Sacrifice For how can we conceiue a peece of bread and a cuppe of wine to be in respecte of sacrifice a thing muche more maruelous and magnificent or honourable then a shepe a goate and an Oxe bothe these and those signifying al one thinge that is Christe him selfe Nay thinges compared with thinges are not the beastes of a farre more price I trow M. Iewel wil not set a greater price vpon the bread and wine vsed in this Sacrifice for that they signifie a more pretious thing then the brute beastes did in the sacrifices of the olde lawe to wit Christe already come whereas they signified Christe to come For so he should diuide Christe and imagine him to be better and worthier in the newe Testament then he was in the olde Verely though redemption perfourmed be to vs better then redemption promised yet Christe before and after the perfourmance that is to say Christe now come and then to come is one Christe and of one worthinesse It foloweth therefore by al meanes that either S. Chrysostome said vntruly affirming Christe to haue prepared for the new Testament a farre more wonderful and magnificent Sacrifice then were the sacrifices of the Iewes whiche I suppose M. Iewel wil not be so shamelesse as to say what so euer he thinke or that we haue now in the Sacrifice of the Churche Christe him selfe truly really and in deede and that he him selfe is really offred vp vnto his Father by Priestes of the new Testament VVitnes for the true and real bloud of Christ in the Sacrament according to the commaundement he gaue at his supper saying doo ye this in my remembrance And that it is the real and true bloude of Christe which we haue in the Sacrifice of the Aulter whereby the real Sacrifice touching the thing sacrificed is proued it is most clearely affirmed by S. Chrysostome in the place before alleged For thus he speaketh there Quid hoc admirabilius Chrysost. in prior ad Cor. Hom. 24. dic quaeso quid amabilius Hoc amantes faciunt cùm amatos intuentur alienorum cupiditate allectos suae verò contemnentes proprijs elargitis suadent vt ab illis abstineant Sed amantes quidem in pecunijs vestibus possessionibus hanc ostendunt cupiditatem in proprio sanguine nemo vnquam What thing I pray thee is more maruelous then this What more louing He speaketh of the bloud that is in the chalice which he saith to be the same that ranne out of Christes syde This is a thing that louers doo when they beholde them whom they loue to be allured with the desire of other mens thinges and to set litle by theirs they geue them their owne
damnation Like as it happeth sometimes a Prince to reiecte a very pretious Iuel offered by his enemie or one that he fauoureth not not bicause the Iuel misliketh him but bicause the partie that offered it was his foe or out of his fauour And whereas M. Iewel would haue it seme absurde that the Father should be entreated with his merciful and fauourable countenance to looke vpon the holy bread of life euerlasting In Canone Missae and the cuppe of perpetual saluation and to accepte the same as he vouchesaued to accepte the giftes and Sacrifices of Abel Abraham and Melchisedech for so the Priest prayeth at the Masse and not as M. Iewel to colourable aduantage falsly reporteth it I answer that happy be we if for our behalfe he wil so accepte that our Sacrifice as he did the Sacrifices of those holy men his dere frendes Furthermore M. Iewel is not ignorant if he be so wel learned as he is thought to be that the aduerbe of simimilitude Sicuti As Sicuti doth not alwaies signifie a ful equalitie but onely a likenesse in some parte and degree As for example it doth in that prayer which Christe made vnto his Father for his chosen Iohan. 1◠Pater sancte serua eos in nomine tuo quos dedisti mihi vt sint vnum sicut nos O Holy Father keepe them in thy name whom thou hast geuen vnto me that they may be one as wee are In this Prayer Christes meaninge was not that the electe shoulde be thoroughly in substance al one as God the Father and God the Sonne be but one in charitie wil and concorde thinking al one thing and willing al one thing Theophyl in Iohan. cap. 17. as Theophilacte with other Doctours expoundeth the place And whereas the Scripture saith in the person of God speaking vnto Iosue Sicut cum Moyse fui Iosue 3. ita tecum sum As I was with Moyses euen so I am with the also It is not meant that God was with Moyses in no greater an higher degree of power and vertue then he was with Iosue For Moyses was admitted vnto a peerlesse frendship with God and endewed with more special auctoritie then euer Iosue was as the Scriptures doo euidently witnesse So doth the Churche besech the Father to looke vpō that holy bread and cuppe of life and health euerlasting that is to say the body and bloude of his Sonne Iesus Christ with a merciful and cleare countenance as he did vpō the sacrifices of Abel Abrahā and Melchisede◠not that it is mistrusted least God be lesse or not infinitely more pleased with the one Sacrifice then with the other but that humbly we thinke it shal be wel with vs if he respecte See what I say touching this Prayer of the Canon in the last Diuision beholde and allowe the ministerie and deuotion of vs as farre forth as he did the deuotion of the others Of this M. Iewel geueth me occasion to speake more in the last Diuision of this Article If M. Iewel had in his harte so much deuoute humilitie or humble deuotion as he seemeth to haue deuilish arrogancie or arrogant deuilishnesse he would neuer haue accused me or rather the Churche for vsing this humble and deuoute Prayer in the Masse which in spite he calleth my Masse being the common Seruice and Sacrifice of the whole Churche of Christ. But bicause like an vnkinde and degenerate or rather a rebellious sonne he despiseth the auctoritie of his Mother the Church I wil put him in minde of S. Ambrose that holy and learned Bisshop and excellent member of the Churche yet doubting whether he wil ought reuerence one after he hath so insolently contemned them al. Fayne would I vnderstand with what sope or lye he is hable to scoure out the spotte of so vaine wicked and foolish an opinion so contrary to that S. Ambrose writeth Who to prooue that this is the Sacrament the figure whereof went before and to shewe how great a Sacrament it is bringeth in this Prayer vsed in the Masse and wherein M. Iewel findeth so great beguyling of the simple mocking of the worlde and open wickednesse as a most strong argument His wordes be these the same very few wordes excepted that be in Canon of the Masse that so confidently he reproueth both here and also in the Sermon wherein he made the first proclamation of his vaine Chalenge Sacerdos dicit Ambrosius de sacram lib. 4. cap. 6. Ergo memores gloriosissimae eius Passionis ab inferis Resurrectionis in coelum Ascensionis offerimus tibi hanc immaculatam hostiam rationabilem hostiam incruentam hostiam hunc panem sanctum calicem vitae aeternae petimus precamur vt hanc oblationē suscipias in sublimi altari tuo per manus Angelorum tuorum sicut suscipere dignatus es munera pueri tui iusti Abel sacrificium Patriarchae nostri Abrahae quod tibi obtulit summus sacerdos Melchisedech The priest saith Therefore being myndeful of his most glorious Passion and Resurrection from hell and of his Ascension into heauen we offer vp vnto thee this vnspotted hoste this reasonable hoste this vnbloudy hoste this holy bread and cuppe of life euerlasting And we beseeche and pray thee that thou receiue this Oblation in thy Aulter on high by the handes of thy Angels as thou vouchesauedst to receiue the giftes of thy childe Iuste Abel and the sacrifice of Abraham our Patriarke and that which Melchisedech the higest Priest offered vp vnto thee Lo good Reader thus prayed S. Ambrose in his Masse nor for so doing was he euer thought to haue begyled the simple nor to haue mocked the worlde And the whole Catholique Churche hath euer so farre cleared him of al wickednesse not onely open but also priuy that he is holden for a holy Confessour vncontrolled Doctour and strong pillour of the Churche vntil M. Iewel a very begyler of the simple and mocker of the worlde in deede came to prie out in his doctrine and prayer being also the cōmon prayer of the Church a heinous wickednesse Iewel Notvvitstandinge this matter is easily ansvveared For saith he we Sacrifice not Christe againe The Oblation that Christe made vpon the Crosse and ours in the Masse is al one And this Sacrifice Christe hath commaunded vs to continew vntil his comminge If M. Harding make the selfe same Sacrifice that Christe made vpon the Crosse then is he A Priest ofter the order of Melchisedeck And so The king of Iustice The Prince of Peace and a Prieste for euer without Successour For these titles be incident to the Priesthoode of Melchisedeck vvhiche neuerthelesse I thinke M. Hardinge of his modestie vvil not acknovvledge And vvithout the same he can not offer vp to God the same Sacrifice that Christe offered vpon the Crosse. And vvhere he saithe Christe hath commaunded him and his Felowes to make and continew this Sacrifice vntil his
comminge If he had meante simply and plainely he vvould haue shevved either vvhen or vvhere or by vvhat vvordes Christe gaue him this Commaundement For so large a Commission is vvoorthy the shevving And it vvere greate boldenesse to attempte suche a mater vvithout Commission Harding Last of al commeth M. Iewel to declare the titles and dignities of Melchisedech and saith that M. Harding that is to say any Priest of the Catholique Churche can not offer vp the same Sacrifice that Christe offered vpon the Crosse bicause he is not a king of Iustice a Prince of peace and a Priest for euer without Successour For these titles saith he belong to Melchisedeks Priesthode Here I must againe warne the Reader to haue a good eye to M. Iewel and to consider first that now as oftentimes before he frameth an Obiection with his owne wordes whiche I make not and replyeth against it as if it were myne Nexte that in case I had said as he pretendeth I said neuerthelesse when we say the Priest offereth the same Sacrifice which Christe offered vpon the Crosse the substance of the Sacrifice it selfe that is the thing sacrificed which is the body and bloude of Christe is meant thereby and not the manner of sacrificing Of this M. Iewel and his felowes be not ne can not be ignorant being by the Catholiques so oftentimes tolde of it Yet euer they wil seeme not to knowe it least their common obiection against the Sacrifice of the Aulter wherewith they haue neuer done should appeare friuolous For they iarre alwaies vpon the false string of the manner of sacrificing which we touche not but auouche the same substance of the Sacrifice that was offered vp vpon the Crosse. If I had swarued so farre from truth and reason as to say that I being a Priest do offer vp to God the same Sacrifice which Christe offered vpon the Crosse and that in the same manner and to the same effecte and merite which is to vsurpe the office that is proper to Christe onely then with some reason he might haue replied as he doth that I were a Priest after the order of Melchisedech and so the king of Iustice the Prince of peace and a Priest for euer without Successour Which titles of right belong to Christe onely But now wheras I am farre froÌ„ saying yea also froÌ„ thinking any such thing he replieth with asmuch reason as if he should tel one of the Iudges of the Realme who executeth his office vnder the Prince and by CoÌ„mission froÌ„ the Prince Sir if you acquit men in EnglaÌ„d and condeÌ„ne meÌ„ to die then are you a King of England for what greater thing can a King doo then to saue and condemne men And if you be King of England then of Fraunce also and of Ireland and so defendour of the Faith for these titles belong to the king of England or who so euer els succedeth in the kingly right In this case might not that Iudge answer you againe and say M. Superintendent you may talke of your Ministers and your Ministring matters You speake ye wote not what I tel you I neither acquitte nor condemne men to die of myne owne power or auctoritie but vnder the Prince and by vertue of my Commission from the Prince And therefore you may go to schoole againe to learne your Logique better and to make a wiser Argument The case betwen Christe and those that execute the office of Priesthode vnder Christe standeth in like condition Albeit in Christe being Cod Psal. 44. and man annoinâ—ted of God him selfe with the oile of gladnesse aboue his comparteners MeÌ„ offer this Sacrifice and be Priestes after the order of Melchiseâ—dek vnder Christ as in the Psalme it is of him prophecied and being the highest Priest the foresaid conditions be most perfitely accomplished that is to say though by nature he be the King of Iustice the Prince of Peace and the most true Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech without any other to succede him Yet it is not necessary the same soueraine conditions in al pointes be required in those that be made Priestes from among men and be Priestes vnder Christe or as Eusebius speaketh Euseb. de demonstr lib. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Priestes out of him For whom it is sufficieÌ„t they be laufully chosen and ordered to be Ministers vnder Christ of his Mysteries and of his Priesthood by meane of whom and through whom Christe doth celebrate after the manner of Melchisehech the thinges that apperteine vnto the Sacrifice that is among men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 euen vnto this day as Eusebius saith Marke Reader Eusebius saith after the manner of Melchisedech expounding the meaning of the worde Order where it is said of Christe that he is a Prieste after the Order of Melchisedek Whereby we vnderstand that he was a Priest not onely after the dignitie of Melchisedek that is to say bicause he was a King of peace and of iustice without father without mother without Genealogie neither hauing beginning of daies nor ending of life but also after the rite and manner of Melchisedek whose Sacrifice was in bread and wine After whiche manner Christe did at the Supper and we doo now at the Aulter offer his body and bloud vnder the formes of bread and wine And this much that auncient and learned Doctour would to be considered Psal. 109. as the wonderful ende and performance of the Oracle pronounced of Christe Thou art a Priest for euer after the Order of Melchisedek Theophylactus bicause he coÌ„tinueth his Priesthood by the ministerie of Priestes Theophylacte expoundeth it likewise In epist. ad Heb. cap. 5. Oecumenius also hauing conceiued thereof the same sense saith He would neuer haue said In aeternum for euer hauing respect vnto the oblation that was but once offred vpon the Crosse but referring consideration vnto the Priestes Qui quotidie offertur per Dei Ministros that be at this present by whom as by meanes Christe doth sacrifice and is sacrificed who also in his Mystical Supper deliuered vnto them the manner of such Sacrifice Ibidem And the later parte of this Testimonie doth make answer in my behalfe vnto you M. Iewel burthening me with no simple and plaine dealing for that I haue not shewed when and where or by what woordes Christe gaue commaundement to make and continue this Sacrifice By OEcumenius you haue heard it tolde that Christe deliuered vnto Priestes at his last Supper the manner of this Sacrifice And if it had liked you to haue looked backe or to haue remembred what I had said in the 5. Diuision you would neuer so without cause haue reprehended me for not telling when and where and by what wordes Christe gaue commaundement to make and continue this Sacrifice For there euen in the beginning the time when the place where and the woordes by which this Sacrifice was instituded and commaunded be plainely expressed Now
Dionysius had put such a difference as you imagin wil it necessarily folowe that in the place alleged in my Answer he maketh not mention of offering Christe vnto his Father This kinde of reason in any mater is faulty but in this mater it is most faulty For albeit the manner of the oblatiō or Sacrifice made vpon the Crosse be diuers from that which Christe made at his Supper and is now continued by the Priestes in the Masse yet the thing it selfe offred and substance is al one in both Sacrifices In epistol ad Hebr. Hom. 17. as it hath ben clearely proued before by testimonie of S. Chrysostom and others So that the shewing of some difference betwene them doth not exclude the thing or substance of either of them nor concludeth them so to be diuers but the one may wel stande with the other Touching the mater of the former Argument it is euidently false For S. Dionyse in that place treateth not of difference betwene this and that Sacrifice as you M. Iewel would haue him appeare to doo by wilful falsifying of the place by putting in woordes of your owne and by clipping away wordes of that holy Doctour These be S. Dionyses wordes Dionys. eccles Hierarc Cap. 3. p. 3. as they lye in the Greeke faithfully englished Wherefore the Diuine Bishop standing at the Diuine Aulter doth praise the said holy and godly actions of IESVS for his heauenly prouidence towardes vs whiche actions he according to the Scripture perfited for the saluation of Mankinde through the good pleasure of his most holy Father in the Holy Ghoste And after that he hath ended the praises and beholden the reuerent and spiritual contemplation of those thinges with the eyes of vnderstanding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he commeth vnto the Mystical Sacrifice of them and that according to Gods tradition By Gods tradition he meaneth that which Christe taught his Disciples at the Supper how and after what manner Luc. 22. they should offer this Sacrifice in remembrance of his death Now gentle Reader conferre this testimonie of S. Dionyse and M. Iewels falsified allegation together Note first that the Bisshop or Priest is said to stand at the holy Aulter Aulter That clause M. Iewel hath quite cutte of And by the way consider to what purpose serueth an Aulther M. Ievvel falsifieth S Dionyse onlesse there be a Real and outwarde Sacrifice to be made Nexte that there is no mention at al made of the flesh or Crosse of Christe which termes he hath patched in of his owne Thirdly the good pleasure of the Father and holy Ghoste is leafte out To be shorte whereas the praises be rendred not onely for Christes passion wrought in his flesh vpon the Crosse albe it◠specially for that but also for the doinges of his whole life as for his birth his fasting his praying his preaching and the reste he to make his fained differēce to appeare hath drawen them vnto the thinges onely wrought by Christe vpon the Crosse. Such a licentious priuilege this man taketh vnto him selfe to pare and hew lesse and to enlarge at his owne pleasure the saynges of the most auncient and learned Fathers Againe whereas the Greeke hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for which the Latine translation vseth this circumlocution sacra mysteria in signis celebranda the holy Mysteries that are to be celebrated in or vnder signes he translateth it by the basest worde that he coulde inuent of that signification calling it Figuratiue sacrifice craftily intending to bring into the Readers mynde and conceit thereby that this Sacrifice wherein after praises in manner for al the actions of Christes life the body and bloude of Christe are offred vp should appeare to be no better then a bare figure or then the figuratiue sacrifices of the olde lawe The premisses considered what man but M. Iewel would haue presumed to set abroad to the worlde in printe a sentence of an olde writer so hewed and hackled so bodged and peeced so corruptly translated And who but he could espie in that saying any cleare and plaine difference betwen the Sacrifice of the Crosse and the Sacrifice of the Aulter which guilefully he calleth the Sacrifice of the holy Communion such a one as he impudently auoucheth to be But here S. Dionyse saith he calleth not the Ministration of the holy Mysteries the sacrificing of Christe I graunt How could he so cal it here that is to say in this your falsified sentence which S. Dionyse neuer vttered And sir what if S. Dionyse do not so cal it What maketh that to the point that presently we treate of Mine endeuour was not to shewe that S. Dionyse calleth the Ministration of the Mysteries the sacrificing of Christe but that in deede he sacrificed the body and bloude of Christe and consequently Christe him selfe And bicause it semed to him very much a mortal man to offer vp the body and bloude of his Lorde reuerently and in seemely wise he maketh his excuse saying Lorde thou hast said Doo ye this in my remembrance As who should say Lorde hadst thou not by thine expresse worde commaunded vs so to doo I would not be so bolde as to take that vpon me which so farre passeth my worthinesse Hunt not after wordes and syllables M. Iewel When ye haue the thing it selfe whereof ye contende what a vaine wrangling is it to require certaine precise termes So when somtimes we bring you forth your owne very wordes then you make a brabbling about the meaning These be the poore shiftes of such as being ouercomme that by the confession of their silence they might not seme ouercomme wil not holde their peace This is that S. Augustine reproued in Pascentius the Arian whereof you were tolde before August epist. 174. What is a more contentious parte saith he then to striue about the name of Homusion he meaneth where the thing it selfe is certainely knowen What can you demaunde more Haue you not here a manifest witnesse of sacrificing the healthful Sacrifice which S. Dionyse acknowlegeth to be aboue his degree and worthinesse What other is that then the body and bloude of Christe What is to be accompted healthful in comparison of that which is as S. Augustine calleth it August Confess lib. 9. ca. 12. the Sacrifice of our Raunsom That is to say of that thing whereby we haue ben bought from the Deuil from hel and euerlasting damnation If you say this saying is to be expounded of the sacrifice of praise and thankes geuing tel vs who euer gaue the title of so soueraine honour vnto such kinde of Sacrifice Though it be our duetie and also healthful for vs to offer vp the sacrifice of praise and thankes yet who euer called it hostiam salutarem the healthful hoste The sacrifice of praise here I meane as it is our owne spiritual worke for otherwise I confesse the blessed Sacrifice it selfe of the body and bloude of Christe is also
earth vnder the formes of bread and wine after the order of Melchisedek Which Sacrifice is now frequented ouer al the world the Iewes sacrifices being vtterly abandoned A cleare testimony agaīst those that make this only a figuratiue Sacrifice Isidorus that holy and learned Bishop of Hispalis now called Siuile in Spaine hauing declared out of the Scripture that in the time of Sacrifices in the olde Lawe the Leuites sownded their trumpets by way of comparison speaking of the Offertories soong in the Churche saith that now we likewise doo sing with deede and harte vttering forth praises to our Lorde in the time of our Sacrifice In illo vero Sacrificio cuius sanguine saluatus est mundus Isidorus de Eccles. Officijs li. 1. ca. 14 be his wordes that is to say In that true Sacrifice by the bloude whereof the worlde is saued Here he calleth it the true Sacrifice whereby M. Iewels wicked assertion of his only figuratiue Sacrifice is quite dasshed and ouerthrowen Ibidem cap. 18. Againe in an other place The Sacrifice saith he which is offered vp vnto God by the Christians Christe our Lorde and Maister did first institute it when he gaue vnto the Apostles his body and his bloude before he was betrayed as it is read in the Gospel Iesus saith the Euangelist tooke bread and the Cuppe and hauing blessed Math. 26. gaue to them The which Sacrament Melchisedech King of Salem first offered vp figuratiuely in type or token of the body and bloude of Christe and the same man first of al expressed imaginarily or in image the Mysterie of this so great a Sacrifice foreshewing the likenesse of our Lorde and Sauiour Iesus Christe the euerlasting Priest Imaginariè Psal. 109. To whom it is said Thou arte a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech This Sacrifice the Christians haue bene commaunded to celebrate the Iewish sacrifices leafte of and ended which were commaunded to be celebrated when the people of the olde Lawe were vnder seruitude And so then this thing is done of vs which our Lorde him selfe did for vs whiche he offered not in the morning but afterward for he did it in the euening By this it is cleare that Christe offered vp his body and bloude before he was betrayd that is to say at his last Supper when he gaue the same to his Apostles that he instituted and commaunded the same Sacrifice to be celebrated of vs That this is the true Sacrifice whereof Melchisedech in his sacrifice expressed the Image figure and type Whereby M. Iewels onely imaginatiue figuratiue and typical Imagination to exclude the real presence and substance of Christes Flesh and Bloude is vtterly condemned For the truth of the Real presence and of this Sacrifice he speaketh afterwarde in the same place more plainely if any thing may more plainely he spoken Exhorting maried persons to absteine certaine daies from their carnal imbracinges and to geue them selues to prayer before they come to receiue the body of Christe thus he saith Ibidem Let vs peruse the bookes of the Kinges and we shal finde that Abimelech the Priest would not geue to Dauid and his men any of the Shewbreades 1. Reg. 21. before he asked them whether they were pure from wemen not from strange wemen but from their owne wiues And except he had heard that they had absteined from the wedlocke worcke from the time of yesterday and the day before he would neuer haue graunted them the breades which before he had denyed to them Now so great difference there is betwen the Shewbreades and the body of Christe how much difference there is betwen the body and the shadow betwen the Image and the truth betwen the samplers of thinges to come and the thinges them selues which were figured by the samplers Thus Isidorus If the thing we haue in the Sacrament of the Aulter were but a signe figure or token of Christes body then would not this holy and learned Father as sundry other Fathers haue done so earnestly haue exhorted maried persons to forebeare their wedlocke-worke before the receiuing of it yea specially then would not he by comparing this with the Shewbread so much haue preferred this before that For that was also a figure of the body of Christe And if that whiche we haue be no more but a figure then was that as good as this Now Isidorus preferreth this before that as being the body it selfe whereof that was the shadow the truth whereof that was the Image the thing it selfe whereof that was a sampler Wherefore to conclude this being the true and real Body of Christe whereas Priestes offer vp and sacrifice the same as we must graunt they doo or denie the Fathers it foloweth that they offer vp and sacrifice Christe the Sonne of God vnto his Father The like and plainer sayinges for the truth of this Sacrifice if neede were might in great number sone be recited out of the other Fathers that wrote sithens the faith of Christ was generally receiued where it was preached and al superstition of Gentilitie quite abolished◠but these may suffice Now whereas S. Dionyse calleth this our Sacrifice of the Aulter In vvhat sense is the Sacrifice symbolical or figuratiue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a sacrifice symbolical or done in signes or figure we also graunt it to be symbolical for vnder the signes that are visible and familiar to our senses the heauenly Mysteries to wit the body and bloude of Christe the substance of our Sacrifice are inuisibly conteined And we say that S. Dionyse is here to be vnderstanded to speake of a signe or figure as proper to the newe and not to the olde Lawe Gregor Nazian Hom. 4. de Pasch. euen so as S. Gregorie Nazianzen meaneth by a figure when he saith Iam Pascha fiamus participes figuraliter tamen adhuc si Pascha hoc veteri sit manifestius Si quidem Pascha legale audenter dico figura figurae erat obscurior Let vs now be partakers of the Passeouer but yet figuratiuely as yet albeit this Passeouer be more manifest then the Olde was For the Passeouer of the Lawe was I am bolde thus to say a darcke figure of a figure Here is our Passeouer that is to say our Sacrament called a figure but yet much more manifest then the olde figures were for they were but figures of figures And why is our most blessed Sacrament a figure S. Gregorie euen there sheweth it to be so called in respecte of the fruition of the same whiche we shal enioye in Heauen where we shal after an heauenly manner eate and drinke it without any Fgure or coouer Such a Figure or signe doth not onely signifie but conteineth also the thing signified In consideration whereof S. Augustine putting a difference betwene the Sacramentes of the Newe and of the olde Testament saith that The Sacramentes of the Newe Testament geue Saluation August in Psal. 73. and
the Euangelist by Polycarpus S. Iohns scholar He declareth it with these wordes Eum qui ex creatura Panis est Lib. 4. cap. â—3 accepit gratias egit dicens Hoc est Corpus meum Et Calicem similiter qui est ex creatura quae est secundùm nos suum Sanguinem confessus est Noui Testamenti nouam docuit Oblationem quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens in vniuerso mundo offert Deo De quo in duodecim Prophetis Malachias sic presignificauit Malac. 1. Non est mihi voluntas in vobis dicit DOMINVS exercituum munus non suscipiam de manu vestra He tooke that which by creation is breade and gaue thankes sayinge This is my Body And likewise the Cuppe ful of that Creature whiche is here with vs and confessed it to be his Bloude and thus taught the newe Oblation of the Nwe Testamente whiche the Churche receiuinge of the Apostles dooth offer to God through the whole worlde whereof Malachie one of the twelue Prophetes did prophecie thus I haue no likinge in you saith our Lord almightie neither wil I take Sacrifice of your handes bicause from the risinge of the Sunne to the going downe of the same my name is glorified amonge the Nations and Incense is offered to my name in euery place and pure Sacrifice for that my name is greate amonge Nations What can be vnderstanded by this newe Oblation of the Newe Testamente other then the Oblation of that which he saide to be his Body and confessed to be his Bloude And if he had offered Breade and Wine onely or the Figure of his Body and Bloude in Bread and Wine it had beene no Newe Oblation for suche had beene made by Melchisedech longe before Neither can the Prophecie of Malachie be vnderstanded of the Oblation of Christe vppon the Crosse forasmuche as that was doone but at one time onely and in one certaine place of the worlde in Golgoltha a place without the gates of Hierusalem neare to the walles of that Citie Concerninge the Sacrifice of a contrite and an humbled harte and al other Sacrifices of our deuotion that be mere Spiritual they can not be called the Newe Oblation of the newe Testament forasmuche as they were doone as wel in the Olde Testamente as in the Newe neither be they altogeather pure Wherefore this place of Ireneus and also the Prophecie of Malachie wherewith it is confirmed must needes be referred to the Sacrifice and Oblation of the Bodie and Bloude of Christe daily throughout the whole worlde offered to God in the Masse which is the external Sacrifice of the Churche and proper to the Newe Testament which as Ireneus saith the Churche receiued of the Apostles and the Apostles of Christe Iewel Here at laste M. Harding hath founde out the name of a Sacrifice that vvas not denied him But the Sacrifice that he hath so long sought for and hath so assuredly promised to finde hitherto he hath not founde For Ireneus not once nameth neither the Masse nor this Real Oblation of the Sonne of God vnto his Father Malac. 1. Thus onely he saith God hath vtterly misliked Martialis ad Burdegalenses and refused the olde Carnal Sacrifices of the Iewes and hath taught vs to offer vp the New Sacrifice of the new Testamente according to the Prophecie of Malachie This Sacrifice M. Harding imagineth Tertul. contra Iudaeos can be none other but the offering vp of Christ in the Masse These Conclusions be very suddaine The Olde learned Fathers could neuer vnderstande so much One of M. Hardings ovvne Nevve founde Doctours Tertul. contra Marcio lib. 4. Martialis saith thus Oblatio munda non tantùm in Ara Sanctificata offertur sed etiam vbique The pure Sacrjfice which Malachie meaneth is offered not only vppon the Holy Aultare or Communion Table but also euery where M. Harding saith Hieron in 1. cap. Malach It is offered onely vppon the Aulter Martialis saith It is offered euerywhere and not onely vpon the Aultare Certainely if Malachie meante the Sacrifice that may be offered in al places Hieron in Zacha. li. 2. cap. 8. and vvithout an Aultare as Martialis saith then he meante not the Sacrifice of the Masse Tertullian saith That the Prophete Malachie by that pure Sacrifice meant the Preaching of the Gospel the offering vp of a Contrite Harte Aug. contra aduer Legis Prophet cap. 20. and praier proceeding from a pure Conscience S. Hierom likevvise expoundeth the same of the Sacrifice of Praier and openeth it by these VVordes of the Prophete Dauid Let my Praier be directed as incense before thy sight S. Augustine calleth the same Sacrificium Laudis Gratiarum actionis The Sacrifice of Praise Contra Liter Petilian lib. 2. cap. 86. and of Thankesgeuinge Harding What truth thou arte like to find in M. Iewels Reply to the rest of this Diuision thou maist sone coÌ„ceiue Reader seing he maketh his entrie with so shamelesse and so open a lye Here at the last saith he M. Harding hath found the name of Sacrifice And but here at the laste good Sir As though expresse mention of Sacrifice were not conteined in sundry testimonies before alleged Where be your eyes Nay where is your fidelitie Where is your sinceritie Where is your honestie Where is your shamefastnesse Doth not S. Dionyse in the last Diuision before this name the Sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hesych li. 1. cap. 4. that is aboue his worthynesse Doth not Hesychius say that Christe at his Supper sacrificed him selfe Doth not Eusebius reporte vnto you the dreadful Sacrifices of Christes Table I leaue the reste Diony Ecclesiast Hierarch c. 1. p. 3. For shame M. Iewel if you haue no way to escape the iust request of your promised Subscription but by lying yet haue some regarde of your estimation that the very simplest of the worlde espye not out your so grosse lying And now touching the chiefe point of this Diuision what thinke you to auoide the strength of S. Irenaeus testimonie for the Sacrifice bicause he nameth not the Masse expressely nor the real Oblation of the Sonne of God vnto his Fatherâ— Why Sir then wil you not staÌ„d to the mater but cowardly flie away and lurke in termes How be it the real Oblation of the Sonne of God vnto his Father if you wil needes put the trust of your cause in termes if you remember be not the wordes of your owne Chalenge If this Argument be good that here you make S. Irenaeus not once nameth the Masse nor real Oblation of the Sonne of God vnto his Father Ergo by him the Sacrifice of the Churche can not be auouched why may not this also be as good Not one of the foure Euangelistes saith expressely that Christe offered or sacrificed him selfe vpon the Crosse nor once nameth that Sacrifice of Christe Ergo Christe was not sacrificed for vs vpon the Crosse If this Argument
sacrificed on the Aulter of the Crosse. And the same thing which the Iewes sacrificed through enuie thinking so they should abolish his name quite out of the earth we set forth vppon the halowed Aulter for cause of our health knowing that by this onely remedie life is to be geuen vnto vs and death to be driuen away For our Lorde him selfe commaunded vs to doo this in remembraunce of him By this it is made cleare that if you wil stand to the authoritie of S. Martialis you must recant your Chalenge denying the Priestes to haue power and cōmission to offer vp Christe vnto his Father Vpon the false construction you make of S. Martialis you procede as if it were the Gospel that you said But your grounde being false for neither once there nameth he Malachie and of the Sacrifice he speaketh plainely al likewise is false that you buylde thereon or conclude thereof S. Augustine say you calleth the same Sacrifice whereof Malachie speaketh Sacrificiū Laudis Aug. cōtra Aduers Legis Prophetarum c. 20. Cont. lit Petiliani li. 2. c. 86. gratiarū actionis The Sacrifice of Praise and of thankesgeuing And that it should appeare you allege him truly you haue by your cotation in the margent directed your reader vnto two places But in those places S. Augustine calleth it Sacrificium Laudis the Sacrifice of praise onely as for the Sacrifice of thankesgeuing it is of your owne putting in S. Augustine there doth not once name it The mater is not great yet your vntruth is to be noted How be it what should I note this There is in manner nothing by you in any place alleged which more or lesse by your crafte of falsifying you haue not altered and corrupted And though S. Augustine cal the pure Sacrifice prophecied of by Malachie the Sacrifice of Praise what conclude you thereof Ergo it is not the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe Thus you must conclude for els it serueth you to no purpose This being your argument you shew vs as good Logique as if one shoulde thus prooue your ring not to be golde This ring is metal ergo it is not golde For as metal is general to gold syluer brasse and to other thinges of that kinde and compriseth them within his generalitie so as the Argument is foolish which from the affirmation of the general deduceth the denial of the special No whit wiser nor of better force is your reason This Sacrifice by reporte of S. Augustin is the Sacrifice of Praise Ergo it is not the Sacrifice of the Body and bloud of Christe For the Sacrifice of Praise is general to al those Sacrifices The Sacrifice of Praise hovv general it is by which the name of God is praised and is not only the Praise of God that is vttered by wordes proceeding out of our mouthe And God is praised by no other thing so much as by this vnbloudy Sacrifice representing the oblation of Christe vpon the Crosse. And S. Augustine him selfe writing vpon the .49 Psalme calleth the liberal almose of Zachaeus who said Luc. 19. I geue the halfe of my goodes to the poore and the two Mites Mat. 12. Math. 10. that the poore widow gaue to the common Boxe and the Cuppe of colde water that the poore hoste gaue as it is tolde in the Gospel eche of these I say he calleth Sacrificium Laudis a Sacrifice of praise This Sacrifice of Praise saith he had Zachaeus in his Patrimonie August in Psal. 49. had the wydow in her purse had the poore hoste in his tubbe So then M. Iewel what you bring here out of S. Augustine disprooueth nothing at al the Doctrine of the Catholique Churche concerning that we cal the Sacrifice of the Body and Bloude of Christe celebrated in the Masse whereof Saint Irenaeus so plainely speaketh that you not beinge hable to auoide the force of his cleare woordes are fayne to shifte your handes of it The Sacrifice of the Aulter is th◠Sacrifice of praise and turne away al your talke vnto Malachie Neither is it strange that S. Augustine calleth it the sacrifice of praise For whereby is the mercie of God so much praised as by the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of his Sonne which we offer vp in remembrnce of his Death But Sir why haue you dissembled and conceeled these other woordes with which S. Augustine in the very booke and chapter that you allege confirmeth the Catholique doctrine on our behalfe against you and auoucheth that Sacrifice which most wickedly you denie his woordes be these Augustin cōtra Aduers legis proph li. 1. c. 20. This Churche is Israel according to the spirite from which that Israel according to the flesh is distincted which serued in the shadowes of sacrifices by which the Singular Sacrifice was signified that now Israel according to the spirite offereth vp Againe a litle after in the same place They that reade do knowe what Melchisedech brought forth when be blessed Abraham And now they are partakers of it Ibidem Gen. 14. they see that kinde of Sacrifice now to be offred vp vnto God ouer al the worlde What is this Singular Sacrifice The Singular Sacrifice which the Churche offereth vp but the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe For what so euer els you recken it shal appeare common as wel to Israel according to the flesh as to Israel according to the spirite And what sacrifice can you name vs like vnto that which Melchisedek brought forth when he blessed Abraham which they that reade do knowe by which manner of speache as by holding vp a finger S. Augustin is woont to point the Reader vnto the Sacrifice of the Aulter and which is now offred vp vnto God ouer al the worlde but the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe vnder the formes of bread and wine Thus we thanke you M. Iewel for leading vs vnto those places in S. Augustine where our Doctrine is so substantially auouched and your heresie so plainely confuted Iewel In like sorte Irenaeus also expoundeth his ovvne meaninge Ecclesia offert Deo cum Gratiarum actione ex Creatura eius Est ergo Altare in Coelo Iren. lib. 4 cap. 34. illuc Preces Oblationes nostrae diriguntur The Churche offereth vp to God not his ovvne and onely Sonne but a natural thinge of Goddes Creation Neither is our Aultare here in earthe but in heauen Thither our Praiers and Sacrifices be directed Euseb. de Demōstr lib. 1. c. 10. So likevvise Eusebius saith Sacrificamus incendimus Memoriam Magni illius Sacrificij secundùm ea quae ab ipso tradita sunt Mysteria celebrantes gratias Deo pro salute nostra agentes wee Sacrifice and offer vp vnto God the Remembrance of that Greate Sacrifice vsinge the Holy Mysteries accordingly as Christe hath deliuered them and geuinge God Thankes for our Saluation And that Irenaeus meante
not any such Real Sacrifice of the Sonne of God nor may not in any vvise so be taken it is euidente by the plaine vvoordes that folovve touching the same For thus he saith speaking of the very same Sacrifice of the Nevve Testamente that is mentioned by Malachie Sacrificia non sanctificant hominem sed conscientia eius qui offert existens pura sanctificat Sacrificium The Sacrifice dooth not Sanctifie the Man but the Conscience of the offerer being pure sanctifieth the Sacrifice I trovve M. Harding vvil not saie The Prieste is not sanctified by the Sonne of God but the Sonne of God is sanctified by the Conscience of the Priest For that vvere Blasphemie And yet thus must he needes saie if Irenaeus meante the Real Sacrificinge of the Sonne of God Harding After al these allegations brought by M. Iewel against the Sacrifice of the Churche whereof not one ought at al helpeth his cause VVith vvhat sinceritie aÌ„d truth M. Ievv haÌ„dleth S. Irenaeus as I haue now proued he returneth vnto S. Irenaeus againe and by his accustomed craft of falsifying he would make his Reader beleue that S. Irenaeus expoundeth his owne meaning so as the Sacrifice of Christes body and bloude be quite excluded To bring this to passe it is a woonder to see what fowle shiftes he maketh Of this blessed Fathes sentences he snatcheth here a peece and there a peece taking the head without the taile the body without either dismembring the whole He ioyneth together wordes that be aboue thirty lines a sundâ—r and thereof frameth a sense sounding to his false purpose cleane contrary to the holy Doctors meaning What shal I say of his owne false gloses and additions set forth with that letter in which the Doctours sayinges be printed of corrupting the Latine of making his translation muche worse Briefly he demeaneth him selfe so as who so euer considereth and weigheth the wordes of S. Irenaeus and M. Iewels false sleightes together he wil thinke that he hath vtterly abandoned al truth simplicitie and shamefastnesse and putteth his whole truste in lying Touching then that he first bringeth out of S. Irenaeus I maruel what he meant here to recite it M. Ievvel Fovvly corrupteth S. Irenaeus If he had set forth the whole sentence as it lyeth in the Doctour euery simple man would soone haue perceiued that it furthereth his Chalenge nothing at al. Hauing spoken in the foreparte of the sentence of Oblation that we must offer vp vnto the Creator in pure meaning in faith without Hypocrisie infirme hope inferuent loue he commeth to the later parte whereof M. Iewel hath pyked out a litle peece with wyly falshod turning it to his purpose This it is Et hanc oblationem Ecclesia sola pura offert Fabricatori Iren. li. 4. cap. 34. offerens ei cum gratiarum actione ex creatura eius And this oblation the Churche onely offereth vp pure vnto our Creator offering vnto him with geuing thankes out of his creature that is to say out of that he hath created There it foloweth immediatly Iudaei autem non offerunt c. But the Iewes do not so offer for their handes be ful of bloude c. What maketh this for M. Iewel Mary were al true that he addeth to his Doctors text and in case that folowed immediatly which he adioineth hereunto and with such termes as he hath deuised of his owne and be not in S. Ireneus that is to say if blacke were white it were somewhat perhaps to his purpose But now he hath falsified altogether Fovvle corruption with these wordes falsly infarced into the sentence not his owne and onely Sonne but a natural thing Also by putting these wordes Est ergo Altare in coelo Illuc preces oblationes nostrae diriguntur next after the other as though euen there they folowed which do not folow but be found at the ende of the chapter 36. lines after Which neuerthelesse he traÌ„slateth also very falsly as the Reader may see For these wordes Neither is our Aulter here in earth be of his owne false addition and be not at al in the Doctourâ— and most true it is that we haue Aulters in the Churche to offer the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christâ— vpon which by vertue of his worde be made really present though we haue an Aulter also in heauen Where as S. Ireneus is brought in by M. Iewel in the next paragraph saying Sacrificia The sacrifices doo not sanctifie the man but the conscience of the offerer being pure sanctifieth the sacrifice in that place he speaketh not of the Sacrifice of the Aulter at al but of the Sacrifices of the olde Testament What so euer is offered vnto God it is not the thing offered that of it selfe sanctifieth him that offereth But the pure and cleane harte of the party that offereth sanctifieth the sacrifice that is to say as S. Ireneus expoundeth him selfe praestat acceptare Deum quasi ab amico causeth God to accept it as at the hand of a frend Els if a wicked synner saith the Scripture there also alleged kil me a calfe Esai 66. I had as leaue he killed me a dogge In that place therefore he speaketh against them onely that thought to please God with their outward Sacrifices whereof he hath no neede them selues inwardly being wicked and hauing impure consciences To make this clearer by examples and testimonies of Scripture he allegeth the example of Cain of the Scribes and Pharisees and certaine sayinges out of Ieremie and Esaye Now in the setting forth of this saying Tvvo lieâ— of M. Ievvel M. Iewel deceiueth his Reader but with two lyes at once The one is in that he saith it foloweth after the other before alleged For it foloweth not but goeth before it as it may be sene in the booke The other lye is in that he auoucheth this holy Father to speake this much of the newe oblation of the newe Testament which is vtterly false as I haue now declared Iewel But M. Harding hath diuised a greate many replies to the contrary First he saithe The offering vp of praier Praises and Thankesgeuinge can not be called a Newe Sacrifice for the same was made by Moses Aaron the Prophetes and other holy menne in the Olde Lawe This obiection serueth vvel to control Tertullian S. Augustine and S. Hierome and other learned Fathers that thus haue taken it vvho by M. Hardinges iudgemente vvrote vnaduisedly they knevve not vvhat Hereunto Irenaeus him selfe ansvveareth thus Irenae li. 4. c. 34 Oblationes hîc Oblationes illic Sacrificia in Populo Israel Sacrificia in Ecclesia Sed species immutata est tantùm Quippe cùm iam non à Seruis sed à Liberis offeruntur There were Sacrifiees in the Olde Testament There be Sacrifices in the newe There were Sacrifices in the People of Israel there be Sacrifices in the Church Onely the manner or forme is changed For nowe they
Christe is wrought in the Mysteries Hieron in Psalm 97 So saith Beda Exaltatio Serpentis Aenei Passio Redemptoris nostri in Cruce The lifting vp of the Brasen Serpent is the Passion of our Redeemer vpon the Crosse. Ambro. dâ— Virginib So saith S. Hierome Quotidiè nobis Christus Crucifigitur August Quaest. Eâ—uaÌ„ge lib. 2. Vnto vs Christe is daily Crucified So S. Ambrose Christus quotidiè immolatur Christe is daily sacrificed So S. Augustine Tunc vnicuique Christus occiditur cùm credit occisum Then is Christe slaine to euery man Hieron ad Damas. when he beleeueth that Christe was slaine To conclude so S. Hierome â—aith Semper Christus credentibus immolatur Vnto the faithfâ—l Christe is euermore sacrificed Thus may the Sacrifice of the Holy Communion be called Christe to vvitte euen so as the ministration of the same is called the Passion or the Death of Christe Harding The first sentence of your Replie in this Diuision M. Iewel consisteth of .4 particles and eche of them is an impudent lye By the spiteful woordes you vtter against the most holy Masse you shewe vs with what stampe you are coined As for S. Cyprian neither doth he in this place condemne the Churche for ministring the Communion vnder one kinde nor for hauing the publike Churche seruice in the Latine tongue Which in these Westerne partes of Christendome is not as you cal it a strange vnknowen tongue but contrarywise a tongue among al other best knowen in general and common to al nations of the West Touching the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe so clearely by S. Cyprian here auouched that so it is you woulde neuer haue denyed had not you put the whole confidence of your cause in lying and denying most euident truthes And now therefore I must prooue against such a cauiller and wrangler as you are M. Ievvel standeth altogether vpoÌ„ certaine precise termes that there is light where the Sunne shyneth And here once againe you thinke to finde a lurking corner in your precise termes of the real sacrificing of Christe vnto his Father as though I prooued not that which in this Article you denie except the truth be affirmed in the same forme of wordes which your selfe haue deuised If you had good mater I trow you would not thus stand only vpon termes But let vs pul you out of your lurking corner An euideÌ„t place of S. CypriaÌ„ for the Sacrifice of the Aulter Cyprian lib. 2. epistol 3. as it were out of Cacus Denne and bring you abroade into the light Answer me Sir Wil it not appeare by this place of S. Cyprian that Christe offered him selfe vnto his Father at his laste Supper Be not these his very wordes Iesus Christe our Lorde and God first offered a Sacrifice to God the Father and commaunded the same to be done in his Remembraunce What Sacrifice was this It was not the Sacrifice of the Crosse pardy For that very same Sacrifice was not commaunded to be made againe it was once made for euer by Christe him selfe What can you name but the vnbloudy Sacrifice of his body and bloude For if you name vs the mere spiritual sacrifices of deuotion as Prayer Praise Thankesgeuing or any such other the like you must remember Christe did not first of al sacrifice the same For the Patriarkes and Prophetes did so long before Christe was incarnate What is it then S. Cyprian telleth it him selfe expressely saying Christe is the Sacrifice In Sacrificio quod Christus est He speaketh of such a Sacrifice in which the Priest occupieth the roome and doth the office of Christ truly and in doing whiche the Prieste by imitation doth the same thing that Christe did Then what did Christe and where did he that the Prieste is commaunded to folowe What neede I to stande vppon it Who knoweth not Cyprian ad CeciliuÌ„â— whereof S. Cyprian treateth in that Epistle to Caecilius and what Christe did at his Supper He tooke bread Math. 26 and then the Cuppe he gaue thankes blessed Luc. 22. and consecrated his body and bloud sayinge this is my Body 1. Cor. 11. Cyprian lib. 2. epistol 3. this is my Bloud and so offered vp as S. Cyprian saith the same thing which Melchisedech had offered that is to sayâ— bread and wine to wit his owne body and bloude Which Body and Bloude bicause both natures be inseparably vnited together in one person he calleth also by the name of Christe In Sacrificio quod Christus est in the Sacrifice which Christ is for here Christus is the nominatiue case to the verbe est Whereas then Christe offered Christe to his Father at his Supper and coÌ„maunded Priestes to doo the same in Remembrance of him vntil he come that being in euery respecte lawful which he commaundeth it foloweth that Priestes haue authoritie to offer vp Christe who is the Sonne of God vnto his Father which is the pointe of this Article that M. Iewel denieth And thus is the real sacrificing of Christe vnto his Father prooued by S. Cyprian real I say not in respecte of the manner of sacrificinge that was vppon the Crosse but of the Body and Bloude really present and being the real substance of this commemoratiue Sacrifice Here I needed not to procede further in this Diuision my Answer to the Chalenge being so sufficiently iustified touching the vnbloudy Sacrifice and this being prooued by S. Cyprians testimonie as it was prooued before by testimonie of S. Irenaeus that it is not onely lawful but also dutiful for Priestes to offer vp Christe vnto his Father Yet bicause M. Iewel who from the beginning neuer intended to yeelde how plaine mater so euer were prooued against him commeth now in with his Phrases hauing no plaine and directe authoritie whereby to prooue his negatiue doctrine Let vs see what pith his obscure phrases and tropical speaches do conteine Where as S. Cyprian saith plainely Christe is the Sacrifice meaning the substance of the Sacrifice celebrated at the Supper and now at the Aulter he willeth me to remember August in Ioan. tractat 26. that S. Augustine saith Petra erat Christus the Rocke was Christe For that he putteth vnto S. Augustine this worde illis interpreting it of the Iewes it is his owne addition S. Augustine hath it not But what concludeth he of this Not onely S. Augustine but S. Cyprian also in this very Epistle and first of al S. Paule saith 1. Cor. 1â— the Rocke was Christe I say to M. Iewel eftsones it may please him to remember that S. Augustine expoundeth him selfe immediatly in the next sentence saying Petra Christus in signo The Rocke vvas Christe The Rocke was Christe in a signe that is to say the Rocke was not Christe in substance and in deede but signified Christe If he intende thus to conclude as the Replie semeth to reporte As the Rocke was Christe so Christe is the Sacrifice but the
Rocke was not Christe in deede Ergo Neither Christe is the Sacrifice If he make this Argument I denie his Maior or first Proposition For the Rocke was Christe in signe onely but Christes body and bloud Really made present by the almighty power of the Worde is in deede the substance of the commemoratiue Sacrifice Wherefore no likenesse touching the Phrase being betwen these two Propositions the Rocke was Christe and Christe is the Sacrifice the one can not rightly be applyed to ouerthrowe the other And whereas M. Iewel maketh his colourable aduantage by making Sacrifice the nominatiue case to the verbe in this saing of S. Cyprian In Sacrificio quod Christus est he is to be tolde that he misconstrueth it and that false coÌ„structioÌ„ maketh no proufe For S. Cyprian saith not the Sacrifice is Christ which also is true and that taketh M. Iewel for his purpose but Christe is the Sacrifice In coÌ„sideratioÌ„ wherof the figuratiue saying and the Phrase of the Rock and the great number of his other phrases serueth not his turne That the Sacrifice after the order of Melchisedech was not onely vpon the Crosse but also at the Supper Vpon this false constructioÌ„ of S. Cyprians saying how so euer he procedeth speaking coÌ„fusely of the sacrifice which is after the order of Melchisedek and of the propitiation for the synnes of the worlde this I acknowledge that onely Iesus Christe the Sonne of God is the propitiatorie Sacrifice for the synnes of the worlde and that such a Sacrifice in most perfit wise he was vpoÌ„ the Crosse yea also after th' order of Melchisedek wher as Melchisedek offred bread and wine so he offered vp his body and bloud Hieronym in Psalm 109. the true bread and the true wine as s. Ierom saith For al though he expressed the shadowes of al Aarons sacrifices vpon the Crosse yet ther he was a Priest after the order of Melchisedek For so S. Paule in th'Epistle to the Hebrues sheweth by the dissimilitude of both Priesthods But that he was a sacrifice after th' order of Melchisedek only when he hoong vpoÌ„ the Crosse that I denie For he was a Priest and also a sacrifice after th' order of Melchisedek at his last supper at what time offring vp his body and bloud vnder the formes of bread and wine he began to execute th' office of the Priesthod after th' order of Melchisedek and taught his Disciples the way Theophyl in Matth. cap. 28. how after his death to make the same oblatioÌ„ Vpon which coÌ„sideratioÌ„ Theophylact as it is before rehersed saith Tunc iÌ„molauit seipsuÌ„ ex quo tradidiâ— Discipulis corpus suuÌ„ he sacrificed him selfe at the time he deliuered his body to his Disciples And S. Austine more plainly August de ciuit Dei lib. 17. capit 20. expounding this place of Ecclesiastes Non est bonuÌ„ homini nisi quod maÌ„ducabit et bibet wher he saith thus Quid credibilius etc. What is more credible we should thinke SalomoÌ„ meant by those wordes then that perteineth to the participatioÌ„ of this table which Christ him selfe a Priest and mediator of the new TestameÌ„t doth exhibit after the order of Melchisedek of his body and bloud For that sacrifice did succede al other sacrifices of the olde Testament which were offred in the shadow of this to come A litle before in the same chapter speaking of the Table which Christe prepared with bread and wine he geueth an euideÌ„t testimonie for the Sacrifice and Priesthod after th' order of Melchisedek where he saith thus Vbi apparet etiaÌ„ fâ—cerdotiuÌ„ secunduÌ„ ordineÌ„ Melchisedech that is to say where also appeareth the priesthod after the order of Melchisedek By this authoritie it is cleare that Christ at the table wher the blessed SacrameÌ„t was first instituted and is now daily celebrated in memorie of his Passion doth exhibite that which is a sacrifice after the order of Melchisedech which can be nothing els but the Sacrifice of his body and bloude vnder the formes of bread and wine That Christ merited the forgeuenes and propitiatioÌ„ of the sinnes of the world vpoÌ„ the Crosse only that I gladly graunt As for the Sacrifice and Priesthode after the order of Melchisedech S. Augustine in an other place saith August in Psalm 33. concion 2. that Christe at his Supper instituted a Sacrifice of his body and bloude according to the order of Melchisedech De corpore et saÌ„guine suo of his body and bloud saith he signifying his body and bloud to be the mater of the Sacrifice Lo here againe it is plainely auouched that Christe instituted a Sacrifice after the order of Melchisedech before he was nayled vpon the Crosse yea the Sacrifice of his body and bloude For to the time of the Supper this is to be referred when both he taught them how and commaunded them to sacrifice Of this Sacrifice S. Augustine in the sermon there nexte before geueth vs a manifest testimonie where he saith Nondum erat Sacrificium corporis sanguinis Domini quod fideles norunt Ibidem in Psal. 33. CoÌ„cion 1. qui Euangelium legerunt quod sacrificium nunc diffusum est toto orbe terrarum The Sacrifice of the body and bloude of our Lorde was not yet in place he speaketh of the time when beastes were sacrificed which the faithful do knowe and they that haue reade the Gospel Which Sacrifice is now spreade abroade in al the worlde Let M. Iewel tel vs what iâ— this Sacrifice of the body and bloude of our Lorde that is diffused and spread ouer al the worlde besides that is celebrated in the Masse and then we wil say he saith somewhat to his purpose NOw M. Iewel departeth from our special point which is as it is auouched by S. Ireneus S. Cyprian and others that Christe offered his body and bloude vnto God at his Supper and commaunded the same sacrifice to be offered by Priestes of the newe Testament in remembrance of his death and commeth to proue that whereof no question was moued That the Ministration of the holy Mysteries in a phrase and manner of speach is the same Sacrifice How be it what he meaneth by his ministerlike termes wel I wote not He sheweth him selfe inconstant in the vse of them In this one Diuision he calleth it first The ministration of the holy Mysteries Nexte the Ministration of the holy Communion Thirdly the Sacrifice of the holy Communion For the same he allegeth a certaine saying as he telleth vs out of S. Augustine vpon the .20 Psalme where he hath no such saying at al. The place he meaneth is in Gratian. Where it speaketh not of M. Iewels Ministration of the holy Mysteries which I trow in his meaning is the Ministration of bread and wine at the Geuenian Communion for what other holy Mysteries they haue I knowe not nor of the Sacrifice that is daily celebrated in the Churche but of the solemnitie which once in
shadow of thinges and to the newe Testament Imaginem rerum an Image of thinges If of the affirmation of the Image you wil inferre as your manner is the negation of the thing it selfe shal you not so prepare a way for the heinous heresie of the Arians who denyed the Sonne of God to be of one substance with God the Father For though it be most true that he is so yet doth not the Scripture cal him the Image of the inuisible God Coloss. â— Doth not S. Ambrose speaking of the bloudy oblation of Christe vpon the Crosse cal it an Image in comparison of the true and euerlasting Oblation that is in heauen Ambros. of ficiorum libr 1. c. 48. Hîc vmbra hîc Imago illic veritas caet Here saith he that is to say in this worlde there is a shadow here there is an Image there in heauen is the truth The shadow in the Lawe the image in the Gospel the truth in heauen Before a lambe was offered and a Calfe now Christe is offered But he is offred as man as receiuing Passion and he offereth him selfe as being a Priest to remit our synnes here in Image there in truth where with the Father as an Aduocate he maketh intercession for vs. How say you Sir if a man would folow the veine of your Logique whereby you conclude the denial of a real and true Sacrifice in the Masse bicause you can bring certaine peeces of Doctours sayinges reporting a representation commemoration and image of it might he not of this place of S. Ambrose denie that Christe was euer offered vp and sacrificed vpon the Crosse truly and in deede bicause he saith he was offered here in Image And so should not the Deuil haue a prety deuise to shake the foundation of our faith and put the simple in doubte whether the worke of our Redemption be yet truly performed or no That S. Cyprian saith the Sacrifice which we offer is the Passion of our Lorde August libro senâ—ent Prosperi S. Augustine declareth how such sayinges are to be vnderstanded Vocatur ipsa immolatio carnis quae sacerdotis manibus fit Christi passio mors Crucifixio non rei veritate sed significante Mysterio The oblation saith he of Christes flesh which is made in the handes of a Priest is called the Passion Death and crucifying of Christe not in truth of the thing but in a Mysterie signifying Which is as muche as if he should say it is not called passion death and crucifying for that Christ dieth or suffereth againe but for that in mysterie it renueth representeth signifieth and putteth vs in mynde againe of his Death and Passion Hovv Christe dieth againe in this Mysterie Where S. Gregorie saith after that he hath taken away al occasion of grosse imaginations that Christe who dyeth no more but lyueth immortally in him selfe dyeth againe in this Mysterie and that his flesh suffereth againe for the peoples health De Consecrat Distin. 2. Quid sit August Epist. 23. ad Bonifacium it is the sooner vnderstanded what he meaneth if his Antithesis be considered which consisteth in these wordes in seipso in hoc Mysterio in him selfe and in this Mysterie The like whereof we finde in S. Augustine before alleged Christe was once sacrificed in seipso in him selfe and yet he is daily sacrificed in sacramento in a Sacrament In him selfe that is to say in his visible person and in the forme of man he dyeth no more yet in this Mysterie he dieth againe that is to say his death is so for our behoofe by vs to the Father represented and to vs renued and the vertue and effect of it is so applied and transferred vnto vs as if he were now presently hanging vpon the Crosse. De Consecrat Dist. 2. Quid sit Haec salutaris victima illam nobis mortem vnigeniti per Mysterium reparat This healthful sacrifice doth renue vnto vs the Death of the only begoteÌ„ by this Mysterie saith S. Gregorie in the same place doth any man aske wherewithal and whereby this is done Verely as it is said before touching the memorie out of S. Augustine by the Oblation and participation of the same body that suffered and died vpoÌ„ the Crosse. For though the paines and violeÌ„ce of Death be not here presently suffered yet the body that once suffered Ibidem is present and the bloude that was shed on the handes of infidels is now shed into the mouthes of the faithful as S. Gregorie him selfe here saith And to the working of such a death of Christe againe and of his Passion to our saluatioÌ„ in this Mysterie that is to say to the repairing and renuing and applying of the effecte of his death vnto vs that which is done in this Mysterie without violent shedding of bloude is sufficient This doctrine S. Gregorie teacheth in other places wherby he both declareth the vertue of the Mystical Sacrifice and also expoundeth him selfe how that strange Phrase may be vnderstanded which M. Iewel bringeth against the Real and true Sacrifice Gregor lib. 4. Dialog cap. 58. Thus he saith in one place Haec victima singulariter ab aeterno interitu animam sâ—lâ—at quae illaÌ„ nobis morteÌ„ vnigeniti per Mysterium reparat This Sacrifice doth singularly saue the soule froÌ„ euerlasting destructioÌ„ which by Mysterie renueth vnto vs the. Death of Gods onely begoten Sonne Againe in an other place Idem homil 37. Quoties ei hostiam suae Passionis offerimus toties nobis ad absolutionem nostram passionem illius reparamus As often as we offer vp vnto him the hoste or sacrifice of his Passion so often we renue and repaire his Passion vnto vs for our absolution Now then bicause by this Sacrifice the Death of Christe is renued and applied vnto vs for our absolution and remission of synne which is the effecte of his Death as if we had ben present at the Crosse when he was crucified therefore S. Gregorie was so bolde as to say that Christe lyuing immortally in him selfe in this Mysterie dyeth againe Such Sacrifice such Death If the Sacrifice be bloudy then the Death must be bloudy or with shedding of bloude If the Sacrifice be vnbloudy Vnbloudy Death then is the Death also vnbloudy and mystical that is to say the effecte of his death as if it were now present And that there be truly and in proper speach a Sacrifice it is ynough that the body and bloude of Christe being made present by vertue of his worde his Death be so applied vnto vs to remission of synne as if he were now a dying And this muche may serue for Answer to the heape of your mangled and maimed allegations that here you haue laid so thicke together Whereof not one proueth your purpose which is that in S. Cyprians iudgement Christe in the celebration of the Supper is not a Sacrifice in true and proper speache and in deede but
by a figuratiue speache onely as it is said the rocke was Christe For though the Fathers vse sometimes figuratine speaches yet thereof it foloweth not that S. Cyprian in this place of his Epistle to Cecilius spake figuratiuely in saying that Christe is the Sacrifice That he spake truly and meant according to the proprietie of the speach it is cleare by his owne wordes in the same Epistle For els hauing mencioned the Sacrifice of Melchisedech which consisted of bread and wine he would neuer haue said these wordes Quam rem perficiens adimplens Dominus panem calicem mixtum vino obtulit Cypria ad Cecil lib. 2. epâ—â—stola 3. qui est plenitudo veritatem praefiguratae Imaginis adimpleuit Our Lorde offered bread and cuppe mixte with wine perfiting and fulfilling the thing that Melchisedech did Christe his suppâ—â— fulfilled the figuâ—â— of Melchisedeâ—â— and he that is the fulnes fulfilled the truth of the forefigured Image Now if Christe at his Supper for thereof S. Cyprian speaketh offered not a true Sacrifice of his body and bloude in deede and therefore a true and real Sacrifice vnder the formes of bread and wine but onely a signe and figure or an Image representing his body and bloude How then was he the fulnesse How did he fulfil the truth of the forefigured Image For if al were but a signe and token Fulnes 〈◊〉 perfourmance memorie or representation that he offered then was not he the fulnesse neither fulfilled the truth For signes if they be onely signes be empty and void of the truth neither is fulnesse but where the very thinges be present And by such interpretation S. Cyprian should make the Sacrifice of Christe at his Supper no better then that of Melchisedech was and which is absurde the truth of a forefigured image should be but a figure and fulnesse should be voide of the thing fulfilled How be it to proue the Sacrifice by witnesse of S. Cyprian I stayed not my selfe vpon these wordes In Sacrificio quod Christus est M. Ievvel aÌ„svvereth as he thinketh good to a word or tvvo aÌ„d leaueth the chiefe substance vnaÌ„svvered specially but vpon the large processe of that whole Epistle Whereof I tooke what seemed to make good proufe of that I entended And I pray you Sir why answer you not to the other manifest wordes What Sacrifice is that which as S. Cyprian saith Christe first of al offered vp vnto his Father and coÌ„maunded the same to be offered in his remembrance What Sacrifice is that in doing whereof the Priest doth the office of Christe truly What Sacrifice is that in offring vp whereof the Priest doth by imitation the same thing that Christe did What is that true and perfite Sacrifice that he offreth vp to God if he beginne to offer right so as he seeth Christe him selfe to haue offered If you could haue named vs any other besides the Satrifice of the body and bloud of Christe is it to be thought you would haue conceeled it to so great hinderance of your cause That whereby your Chalenge is fully answered and the Catholique Doctrine plainely auouched you ouerhippe and dissemble and vppon a peece of a sentence by your selfe falsified and by your wrong translation wreathed from S. Cyprians meaning you bestowe many woordes and muche of your common stuffe which consisteth of your Phrases pyked out of your Notebookes and here without trueth or iudgement shuffled together Iewel And that the vveaknes of M. Hardinges gheasses may the better appeare vnderstande thou good Christian Reader that the Holy Catholique Fathers haue vsed to say that Christe is Sacrificed not only in the Holy Supper but also in the Sacrament of Baptisme S. Augustine saithe August expositioÌ„ inchoatâ— ad Rom. Holocaustum Dominicae Passionis eo tempore pro se quisque offert qno eiusdem Passionis Fide dedicatur The Sacrifice of our Lordes Passion euery man then offereth for him selfe when he is Confirmed in the Faithe of his Passion And againe Holocaustum Domini tunc pro vnoquoque offertur quodammodo In eod cùm eius nomine Baptizando signatur Then is the Sacrifice of our Lorde In a Manner offered for eche man In eod when in Baptisme he is marked with the name of Christe And againe Non relinquitur Sacrificium pro peccatis Chrysost in epist. a Hebraeos hom 16 Ambros. de poeniâ— li. 2. ca. 2 id est non potest denuo Baptizari There is leafte no Sacrifice for Sinne that is to say He can be no more Baptized And in this consideration Chrysostome saithe Baptisma Christi Sanguis Christi est Christes Baptisme is Chtistes Bloude And likevvise S. Ambrose In Baptismo Crucifigimus in nobis Filium Dei In Baptisme wee Crucifie in our selues the Sonne of God Harding Concerning the Sacrifice made in Baptisme August iâ— expositioÌ„e inchoatae in epistol ad Rom. whereof you tel vs out of the Auncient Fathers That euery one at that time for his synnes offereth vp the Burnt sacrifice of our Lordes Passion when in the faith of the same Passion he is dedicated as S. Augustine saith and that in Baptisme we crucifie in vs the Sonne of God as S. Ambrose saith Ambros. de poenit li. 2. ca. 2. by their owne woordes they teache vs to vnderstande this spiritually and not as the woordes sounde in proper speache For S. Augustine in that place qualifieth the manner of his vtterance and calleth his reader backe from absurde imagination by this woorde quodammodo Quodammodo asmuch to say in a manner And S. Ambrose likewise saith not simply that in Baptisme we crucifie Christe but that we crucifie him in vs. Crucifigimus in nobis Filium Dei We crucifie in vs the Sonne of God saith he Whereby they meane that in Baptisme we put on Christe that to sinne we die with Christe and are buried with him into death and are made conformable to the similitude of his death and that the effecte vertue and benefite of his Passion by Baptisme is applyed vnto vs. And bicause as Moyses sprinckled with bloude the booke of the Olde Testament Leuit. 4. the Tabernacle Hebr. 9. and the Vessels of Ministerie right so Christe with his owne Bloude cleanseth our myndes which be the bookes of the Newe Testament by interpretation of S. Chrysostome Chrysosto in epist. ad Hebraeos Homi. 16. and with the same bloude sprinckleth vs who are his Tabernacle for him to dwel in and to walke in as he saith him selfe and his Vessels to serue him in holy Ministeries which great benefite is chiefly deriued vnto vs in Baptisme In consideration hereof forasmuch as vpon the Crosse onely his pretious bloud ranne out of his body and then was he in him selfe sacrificed these Fathers feared not to say * Ambros. the one that in Baptisme we crucifie in vs the Sonne of God * August the other that when we are baptized we offer
Commissioners in London vpon a complaint examined the mater that it was founde but probable And probable he meaneth in the iudgement of them who gladly finde fault with al that was done touching the punishment of heresie in Queene Maries reigne Now the thing if any such thing were done at al being so Notorious so openly executed so fewe yeres then past since it was doone so many men yet lyuing that would haue ben present at the examination in case they had bene commaunded the charges of the iourney from Garnesey where it is said to haue bene done to London being borne and could haue brought true witnesse neuerthelesse to be founde but probable I weene it wil not to any wise man appeare very probable How be it let the Fable be a Storie and the same be taken for true Of the vvoman of Garnseis childe falliÌ„g out of her bely into the fire according as Foxe doth describe it to the aduantage and as you M. Iewel report it That in Garnesey three wemen that is the mother and her twoo daughters were burnt and that one of the Daughters was with childe and the childe issued from her wombe being riued with the fier and was consumed together with the fier What of al this In whom was the faulte in the officer that tooke not the childe out of the fier or in the vnnatural mother that brought it into the fier In the Storie there is mention made of a childe and of the mother but of the childes Father there is no woorde spoken It appeareth very credible that the historiographer was a shamed to name the childes Father least so he should haue defaced the glorie of the mothers Martyrdom For I would faine know who was the husband to the daughter M. Fox doth not expresse it But you wil say how so euer the childe was begotten the mother being in that case should haue bene by no Law iustice or reason committed vnto the fier True it is a woman in that case may for once claime the benefite of her belly Mary I haue heard Lawiers say that if whiles she is in prison she play the strompet againe by Lawe the iudge may denie her the benefite of her belly and geue sentence of death vpon her But as for your pratteling parrat Paratine for so was her name as M. Fox registreth her it was not knowen to the Iudge Paratine of Garnesey that she was with childe Had it bene knowen doubtelesse her death had bene differred vntil she had ben brought on bed But the honest woman bicause she would not shame the Gospel keping it priuy from the Magistrates claimed not the benefite of the Lawe and so now not only like an harlot or Heretique but like a Murtherer went desperatly to the fier and murdered bothe her selfe and her childe conceiued within her So farre the Deuil carrieth them whom he possesseth and leadeth at his wil. This abominable facte God by his most iust iudgement reueled to the condemnation bothe of her and of the cause for which she dyed by suffering the childe to fal from her wombe in the sight of al that stoode by Iudge now discrete Reader to whom redoundeth the blame of the crime whether to the Ministers of Iustice who not knowing the thing executed the Lawe or to the woman that for auoiding a worldly shame conceeling her owne turpitude became a murtherer of her owne babe before it came to perfection So that she died gilty of three heinous crimes of heresie lecherie and murther And to these thefte may be added for the fourth For it appeareth by the tale that Foxe him selfe to her best estimation telleth of her that she was a thefe as being accessorie to the honest woman Vincent Gosser that stole a siluer gobblet If the mater were wel examined I doubte not she would be tried an honest woman and a fitte vessel to receiue the glorie of these newe inuented Martyrdomes Here I appeale vnto your owne wisedome M. Iewel Vvhat vvas to be don vvith the dead and demaunde of you what you could or would haue done for that vnperfite and dead childe in that case better then was done Carcasse of Paratines babe If they had taken it out of the fyer what should that haue auailed Life it had none and therfore was it not to be baptized Sense it had none and therfore had it not ben holpen by sauing it from burning As for burial sith it was neither Christened nor come to be perfite man it was aswel burnt and buried in earth yea in some respecte better bicause being burnt with the wicked mother besides the more detestation of the horrible crime to the example of others it was a testimonie against the mothers vnnaturalnes Neither in deede truly to speake was it a poore innocent Babe as to aggrauate the facte more rhetorically then truly you reporte For being a dead thing as it could not be riche or hurtful so neither properly ought it to be called poore or innocent This much considered you haue gotten litle honestie to your Gospel M. Iewel by rehersal of casting this poore innocent Babe into the fyer And the mother your Syster in the Lorde is fownd but a meane Martyr and witnesse of the truth Tybourn Martyrs Of the fruite of such Martyrdome the famous Tree of Tybourne bringeth forth good stoare Iewel The vvorste vvoorde that proceeded from them vvas this O Lord forgeue them They knovve not vvhat they doo O Lorde Iesu receiue my Spirite In the meane vvhile ye stoode by and delited your eies vvith the sight Ye digged vp the poore carkasses of Goddes Sainctes that had beene buried longe before ye serued them solemnely vvith processe and ascited them to appeare at your Consistories and by Publique sentence adiudged them to die the second death and so to the perpetual shame of your cruel folie ye vvreakâ—e your anger vpon the dead O M. Hardingeâ— your conscience knovveth these are no lies They are vvriten in the eies and hartes of many thousandes These be the markes of your Religion O vvhat reckeninge vvil you yeelde vvhen so muche innocent Bloud shal be required at your handes And vvhere you say VVee must pulle the Olde Martyrs out of Heauen to place our ovvne for that our Doctrine and theirs as you beare vs in hande is quite contrary al this is but a needeles ostentation of idle vvordes Yf vauntes vvere proufes then vvere this mater fully ended But vve say that in these cases that I haue mooued you are not hable to allege one sufficient Clause or Sentence of your side out of any of al the Olde learned Fathers And hitherto your muster appeareth but very simple notvvithstaÌ„ding the great promise of your Stoare Harding The pacience of your stincking Martyrs who say you vttered no worse worde then ô Lorde forgeue them ô Lorde Iesu receiue my spirite is by you hyely commended Pacience in an euil cause is no sufficient trial of a true Martyr It
Nettes neither forsake the great House that is to say the Churche for their sakes who be Vessels made to dishonour Now in case ye also by like rule wil say that they at whose handes the Catholique Churche suffereth suche thinges be not of your side then trie your owne mynde amend your errour imbrace vnitie of sprite in the band of peace Iewel Certainely the holy Fathers and Martyrs of God vvil say unto you VVee knovve not your Priuate Masses vvee knovve not your Halfe Communion vvee knovv not your Strange Vnknovven Praiers vvee knovve not your Adoration of Gorruptible Creatures vve knovve not this Sacrificing of the Sonne of God vvee knovve not your Nevve Religion vvee knovve not you God open the eyes of your Hartes that ye may see the miserable state ye stande in and recouer the place that ye haue loste and finde your Names vvritten in the Booke of Life Harding In the ende of this Diuision by a Rhetorical fiction you make the holy Fathers The holy lerned Fathers tale to M. Ievv and hi◠Cōpanion◠and Martyrs of God to say vnto vs as your blasphmous harte doth phontasie But as we feare not that any suche thing by them shal be tolde vs so were they now lyuing doubtelesse thus would they saye vnto you and them of your sectes as neuerthelesse in their bookes and learned workes they also doo now in effecte say vnto you daily We knowe not your strange state that is without external Sacrifice and Priesthod and consequently without a Lawe We knowe not your eating of common bread and drinking of common wine at your newe founde Suppers in steede of receiuing the true body and bloude of Christe We knowe not your Iustification by your special Faith onely We knowe not your perilous doctrine of Predestination We knowe not your new manner of baptizing without holy oile and other auncient rites and Ceremonies We knowe not your chaungeable new deuised Cōmunions We knouwe not your monstrous Supremacie of Princes in Ecclesiastical maters that is to say the keyes of the kingdom of heauen the supreme Cōmission to feede Christes lambes and shepe and the whole auctoritie that Christe gaue to S. Peter and his Successours so to be vnited by a forced Parlament to the Crowne of a laye Prince that it be made a mater of inheritaunce so that the Prince for the time being be head of the Churche and supreme gouernour in al thinges and causes as wel spiritual as temporal be it man or woman or childe sucking at the Nourses breste We condemne your negatiue Diuinitie which denieth mannes freewil merites of good workes done in grace Prayers made to our blessed lady the Apostles Martyrs and other Saintes to be intercessours for vs to God Prayers for the dead We deteste your wicked and incestuous mariages of Priestes Monkes Friers and Nonnes and of al such as haue made solemne vowe to liue without the vse of wedlocke We deteste your impietie in that ye refuse to adore and doo godly honour to the body and bloude of your Creator in the Sacrament of the Aulter We detest your pulling downe of Aulters your robbing of Churches your schismes and heresies and rebellion against your lawful Princes we detest your prophane contempte of al good religion and godlynes we detest your wickednes we detest you As for you M. Iewel I pray God to touche your harte so as you may be induced rather with some shame of the worlde to recant your heresies and repent to saue your soule then with desperat continuing in that you haue taken vppon you by your foolish and arrogant Chalenge to keepe the vaine estimation of deceiued men and finally to lose your foule for euer The .12 Diuision The Ansvver LEauing no smal number of places that might be recited out of diuerse other Doctours I wil bring two of two woorthy Bishops one of Chrysostom the other of S. Ambrose confirming this Trueth S. Chrysostomes woordes be these Chrysosto in epist. ad Heb. homi 17. Pontifex noster ille est qui hostiam mundantem nos obtulit ipsam offerimus nunc quae tunc oblata quidem consumi non potest Hoc autem quod nos facimus in commemorationem fit eius quod factum est Hoc enim facite inquit in mei commemorationem He is our Bishop that hath offered vp the Hoste whiche cleanseth vs. The same doo we offer also nowe whiche though it were then offered yet can not be consumed But this that we doo is done in Remembraunce of that whiche is done For doo ye this saith he in my Remembraunce S. Ambrose saith thus Ambros. In Psal. 38. Vidimus Principem Sacerdotum ad nos venientem vidimus audiuimus offerentem pro nobis sanguinem suum sequamur vt possumus sacerdotes vt offeramus pro populo sacrificium etsi infirmi merito tamen honorabiles Sacrificio Quia etsi Christus non videtur offerre tamen ipse offertur in terris quando Christi Corpus offertur We haue seene the Prince of Priestes come to vs we haue seene and hearde him offer for vs his Bloude Let vs that be Priestes folow him as we may that we may offer Sacrifice for the people being though weake in merite yet honourable for the Sacrifice Because al be it Christe be not seene to offer yet he is offered in earth when the Body of Christe is offered Of these our Lordes woordes which is geuen for you and which is shedde for you and for many here S. Ambrose exhorteth the Priestes to offer the Body and Bloud of Christe for the people and willeth them to be more regarded then cōmonly they be now a daies for this Sacrifice sake though otherwise they be of lesse desert Iewel This allegation argueth no greate abundance of stoare For Chrysostome in these vvoordes bothe openeth him selfe and shevveth in vvhat sense other Ancient Fathers vsed this vvorde Sacrifice and also vtterly ouerthrovveth M. Hardinges vvhole purpose touching the same For as he saithe wee offer vp the same Sacrifice that Christe offered so in most plaine vvise and by sundrie vvordes he remooueth al doubte and declareth in vvhat sorte and meaning vvee offer it He saithe not as M. Hardinge saithe wee offer vp the Sōne of God vnto his Father and that verily and in deede but contrary vvise thus he saithe Chrysost. in Epist. ad Hebr. Hom. 17. Offerimus quidem sed ad Recordationem facientes Mortis eius Hoc Sacrificium Exemplarillius est Hoc quod nos facimus in commemorationem fit eius quod factum est Id ipsum semper offerimus Magis autem Recordationem Sacrificij operamur VVe offer in deede but in remembrance of his Death This Sacrifice is an Examlpe of that Sacrifice This that we doo is donne in remembrannce of that that was done VVee offer vp the same that Christe offered Or rather wee worcke the Remembrance of that Sacrifice Thus vvee offer vp Christe That is to say an
other man I am sure S. Chrysostome maketh directly for the real Sacrifice can perceiue In these wordes I say whiche be here alleged in my Answer to the Chalenge Nay how can they not seme most plainely and directly to auouche our doctrine touching the Sacrifice Doth he not set Christe and Priestes that be now together in the office of offering He hath offered we offer also now saith he Doth he not auouche the hoste that Christ offered and the hoste that Priestes now offer for thereof he speaketh to be one and the selfe same hoste And that no man should doubte what hoste he meant saith he not it is that which cleanseth our sinnes that which then being offered to witte vpon the Crosse with shedding of bloude with death to cleanse synnes and to redeme the worlde can not be consumed What hoste can this be but the body of Christ but Christe him selfe For nothing could cleanse our synnes but he who onely is the Lambe of God Ioan. 1. that taketh a way the synnes of the worlde Thus then the substance of the hoste that Christe our Bishop offered and of that we offer is one and the selfe same So it is clearely proued by these wordes of S. Chrysostome that it is not onely a memorie an example a similitude a figure or resemblance of Christes body that we offer in our daily Sacrifice but the selfe same hoste in substance that Christe offered to cleanse vs which is the substance of his owne body and bloud for it was not a figure that he offered for vs but his true and real bodye But as the substance of his and our Sacrifice is one so the ende and effecte by S. Chrysostome in this place The ende of Christes Sacrifice and of ours is diuers He offered him selfe to death to cleanse the synnes of the worlde to redeme mankinde We offer him in remembrance of that his death to be partakers of his redemption But hereof I speake more particularly in my preface before this Roioindre S. Chrysostome say you remoueth al doubte and declareth in what sorte and meaning we offer the Sacrifice How so good sir tel it vs I pray you for I accompt it wel worth the learning Mary say you he saith not as M. Harding saith we offer vp the Sonne of God vnto his Father and that verely and in deede First it is a strange thing to me that a man should remoue al doubtes and declare the certaintie of thinges by not saying as you replye Nexte what if he say not in expresse termes that we offer vp the Sonne of God vnto his Father Wil you now go from the matter and flie for refuge to your owne precise termes Consider I praye you how this vaine wrangling becommeth the Person of the Great Minister of Sarisburie M. Iewels obiection is but a vaine vvrangling Whereas S. Chrysostome saith that we offer vp the selfe same Hoste that Christe our Bisshop hath offered which cleanseth vs from our synnes is it not as muche as if he had said we offer vp the Sonne of God What hoste is that which cleanseth vs Is it not Christe onely Who is Christe Is he not the Sonne of God And to whom is Sacrifice done but to God Al this set together how much varieth he from S. Chrysostome who saith that we offer vp the Sonne of God vnto his Father If you sticke to that other worde verely and in deede remember you haue by your translation made S. Chrysostome in this very place so to speake your selfe We offer in deede be the wordes Now that you haue tolde vs what S. Chrysostome saith not which helpeth your cause nothing at al you shewe vs what he saith And here you bring in certaine peeces and maimed sayinges out of him being a fraid to allege the whole sentences as they lye in that learned Doctor least you should marre altogether as you should haue done if you had suffered him to tel his owne tale Bicause the place is somewhat long I had rather referre the Reader vnto the .17 Homilie vpon the Epistle to the Hebrewes where it is written then here to reherse the whole But let vs see what you pike out of that Homilie for your purpose M. Iuels promise vpon S. Chrysost. hovv it is ê‘formed and how much it relieueth your cause Remember what you haue promised to shewe out of S. Chrysostome that he remoueth al doubte and declareth in what sorte and meaning we offer the Sacrifice You allege out of the said Homilie foure sentences or rather foure peeces of sentences The first is this Offerimus quidem c. We offer in deede Chrysost. Hom. 17. in epist. ad Heb. but in remembrance of his Death These wordes by your interpretation declare in what sorte we offer the Sacrifice Wel be it so I wil not muche contende with you so that you meane by this sorte the excluding of the bloudy manner of oblatioÌ„ But here I must put the reader in mynde what foloweth immediatly in that auncient Father Whiche you haue vntruly conceeled Vna est hostia non multae The hoste that we offer daily for there he speaketh of the dayly Oblation is one it is not many If it be bread made by the handes of a man that we offer and wine pressed out of the grape for the Real Oblation of the body and bloud of Christe ye denie albe it the same properly can not be called an Hoste how can you say it is one Hoste that we offer daily and not many Hostes seing that euery day we take newe bread and newe wine for our Sacrifice In our Sacrifice vve haue the sampler and the true thing it selfe vvhich Christe offered Your second peece of a sentence is this Hoc Sacrificium exemplar illius est This Sacrifice is an example of that Sacrifice But what foloweth Id ipsum semper offerimus We offer alwaies the selfe same thing And what thing is that There he sheweth It is the Hoste that cleanseth vs which Christe our Bisshop hath offered So then we see it called both the real thing it selfe that was offered and the sampler of the thing In that he calleth it a sampler thereby he putteth vs in minde the order and manner of offering it now to be different from the manner of the oblation of the Crosse. For there it was bloudy here vnbloudy there with suffering the tourments of death here with commemoration representation and application of his death there the thing offered visible in proper forme here inuisible vnder the forme of bread and wine Your thirde peece of a sentence taken out of S. Chrysostome is this This that we doo is done in remembrance of that that was done Which wordes declare the thing that we doo to be donne in remembrance of the Death of Christe And they folow immediatly vpon that he said of the cleansing Hoste whiche our Bishop Christe offered and we also offer the same So that
the difference betwene this and that is this That was the Sacrifice that cleanseth our synnes with his bloude actually shed and redemed vs by vertue of it selfe This is the Commemoratiue Sacrifice which is offered in commemoration of that hauing for the substance of it the same body and bloude of Christe that was offered vpon the Crosse by vertue of Consecration made really present and applieth vnto vs the merite and effecte of the cleansing and redemption wrought and perfourmed vpon the Crosse. Then immediatly foloweth the last sentence of the Homilie a parte whereof you haue taken for your purpose Non aliud Sacrificiū sicut Pontifex sed idipsum semper offerimus caet we offer not an other Sacrifice as the Bishop of the olde lawe did but alwayes we offer the very same that Christe offered or rather we worke the remembrance of the Sacrifice In the Discourse of S Chrysostom out of whiche M. Iewel hath piked and culled out certaine peeces three thinges in effect are declared First that we offer secondly that our manner of offering is other then Christes was therefore ours is called a sampler of that and it is donne in commemoration of his Death Thirdly that the Hoste or thing offered in either Sacrifice is one and the same in substance which is the true body of Christe Graunt vs the first and the last that is to say that we offer in deede yea and that the same Hoste which Christe offered and to al men of reason and iudgement though our Sacrifice be a sampler of Christes Sacrifice vpō the Crosse and though it be done for commemoration of that shal our Real Sacrifice be sufficiently proued For what is our endeuour in this Article but to proue that we offer vnto God that which Christo our Bishop hath offered which is Christe him selfe And whereas making vp your Epiphonema you say with more brauarie then truth Thus we offer vp Christe that is to say an example a commemoration a remembrāce of the Death of Christe I neuer heard of such a that is to say before specially if the real presence by these wordes be excluded as your meaning is O what impudencie is this Differēce betvven the hoste and the commemoratiō Doth not S. Chrysostom by your selfe alleged make a plaine distinction and difference betwen the hoste offered and the remembrance saying that which we doo is done for a commemoration Doth it not therby appeare that somewhat must be done before and besides the Commemoration Who euer so confounded thinges as as by your absurde and false interpretation you doo making the body and bloude of Christe or Christe him selfe and the remembrance of Christes death one thing What is this your meaning as though the substance of the Sacrifice were nothing els but the remembrance of Christes death Let this once be graunted and why may not any man or woman make vs as good a Sacrifice at their table at home in their owne howse as your selfe can at the Communion table in our Ladies Churche at Sarisburie For at that homely table may Christes death be remembred aswel as at your Communion table This kinde of Sacrifice say you speaking of the commemoration of Christes Death was neuer denied As in a right sense it is very true and was neuer by vs denied for the deuoute remembrance of Christes Death by it selfe considered is a kinde of spiritual Sacrifice so if you meane thereby to exclude the truth of the thing offered whiche is the body and bloud of Christe M. Ievvel alvvaies cōcludeth the denial of one truth by thaffirmation of an other truth and serue vs with a shewe and a remembrance onely distinct from the true thing it selfe that is offered which seemeth to be your whole drifte this parte of your doctrine we vtterly denie and tel you that for maintenance of the same you vse a fond and vaine reason For what an Argument is it when two thinges be bothe true by the affirmation of the one to conclude the denial of the other As for example what witte wil allowe this Argument The Sunne shineth Ergo it raineth not or Ergo it is not colde whereas many times we see it raine and feele it colde when the Sunne shyneth cleare and bright Right so we tel you and neuer stint telling you which neuerthelesse ye dissemble to vnderstand that this your common Argument is naught the Sacrifice which we offer is a sampler or a commemoration of that which Christe offered Ergo it is not the same which Christe offered For in diuers respectes it is bothe as now we haue proued by S. Chrysostome It is the same in substance that is to say the substance of that was offered vpon the Crosse and of that is offered by Priestes is the Masse in one and the same but it is diuers in the manner of offering For that was offered bloudily this vnbloudily in mysterie and by way of commemoration So it is the body and Bloud of Christe offered and also a commemoration of the bloudy offering The testimonie of S. Augustine I maruel what you meant to allege it maketh quite against you For both it reporteth the real presence which you denie and sheweth a difference betwixt the thing which is offered and Christes Death by the same signified which you cōfounde We graunt with S. Augustin when the hoste is broken De Consec Dict. 2. Cum frangitur and the bloude is powred into the mouthes of the faithful the Sacrificing of our Lordes body is signified It is not your false translation of the Oblation for the hoste nor your Sacramentarie exposition of the Sacrament of the bloude for the bloude that can racke S. Augustine to the defence of your doctrine If you grate vpon the worde Significatur and therefore wil needes haue it to be a signification of Christes Sacrifice as we denie not the signification so we require you to acknowlege the real body and bloude of Christe by breaking whereof vnder the forme of bread and powring whereof into the mowthes of the faithful vnder the forme of wine the same signification and commemoration of Christes Death is made You handle this place of S. Augustine as it semeth as you handled the place of S. Chrysostome before Sweeping cleane away the hoste and wyping away the bloude you leaue remaining onely a signification or token And thus you feede your people with signes and tokens in steede of the most holesome and substantial meate and drinke Thus haue you not weakened the strength of S. Chrysostomes testimonie by your feeble answer thus it remaineth stil in good force against your Chalenge thus by your sclender Replie you haue geuen al men occasion to thinke how good and sufficient our Stoare is for the proufe of the external Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christe in scoffing whereat you take so muche pleasure It remaineth that we trie of what substance and pith your Replie is to the place by me alleged
he sheweth his meaning clearly in an other place Which is by the terme Image in respect of the state of the Gospel not to exclude the Truth of thinges but to insinuat an obscurer manner of exhibeting the truth in comparison of the state of heauen Ambro. de interpellatione Dauid His wordes be these Ecclesia est imago coelestiū etenim postquā vmbra praeterijt imago successit Vmbra synagoga est In vmbra lex in Euangelio veritas The Church is an image of heauen or of heauenly thinges for after that the shadowe was gone away the Image succeded The shadow is the Synagogue In the shadowe was the Lawe in the Gospel is the Truth Lo wheras he said in the place by you alleged the image is in the Gospel here expounding his minde more plainely he faith in the Gospel is Truth calling that Truth here which he called Image there But sir with what face M. Ievvel falsifieth S. Ambrose I say not with what cōscience durst you so fowly in translating this place of S. Ambrose to falsifie his wordes and sense Why did you trāspose his wordes setting the former word in the second place and why did you turne and for or The later sentence truly translated is this O man go vp into heauen and thou shalt see those thinges whereof here was a shadow or an Image Which last wordes you falsified thus whereof here was an Image and a shadowe By this chopping and chaunging of woordes your euil intent was to bring your reader in beleefe that the Sacramentes of the olde Law be of equal worthines with the Sacramentes of the newe Lawe By your sclender Replie and by such false legierdemaine I doubte not but the wiser sorte wil be moued to trie your strange doctrine better then heretofore of many it hath ben tryed before they beleeue it M. Ievvel confoundeth one truthe vvith an other truth Lib. 5. Commēt in Luc. cap. 7. From this place to the ende of the Diuision this Replier doth nothing els but endeuour to confound thinges that in them selues be distinct that so at least he might cast some myste as it were before the readers eyes As for example bicause the reading of the storie of the Gospel sheweth vnto our vnderstāding and faith Christ hanging vpon the Crosse as S. Ambrose saith his syde opened with the souldiours speare his handes and feete pearced through with the nayles and the Sacrament also of Christes body and bloud doth represent and commend vnto our memories the same Hieron in Psal. 86. Againe bicause Christe being virtus Patris the vertue of his Father is borne in vs euery daye when any vertue is wrought by vs as S. Hierome saith Therefore by this mannes Logique Christe is not really but by a similitude or figure only sacrificed of Priestes euery day Furthermore bicause the myndes of holy virgins be meete Aulters for Christ daily to be offered vpon to wit by daily meditation of his Passion as S. Ambrose sticketh not to say Ambro. de Virginib lib. 2. therefore Christe is no more really present vppon the real Aulters of the Churche when the Sacrifice of his body and bloude is offered by the Priest then he is in the mynde of a pure and holy virgine deuoutly thinking of his death Seme not these reasons to procede from a profounde Diuinitie What is this but to confounde one truth with an other truth and to vndoo al proper speaches by figuratiue and metaphorical Phrases He should haue remembred that euen they of his owne side doo teache that we ought not to ronne vnto tropes for the vnderstanding of any point onlesse there felowe a great absurditie if the wordes be taken in their proper signification That this myste of M. Iewels confusion be discussed and put a waye who is so vnskilful in maters of our faith that putteth not a manifest difference betwen the setting forth of Christes death vnto our vnderstanding by reading the Scriptures and the representation and cōmemoration of the same vnto our faith by the Sacramēt of his body and bloude The difference of Christes being in the Sacrifice and in the reading of the storie of the Gospel In that a Description only by wordes is made of the order and manner of putting Christ to death whereby an Image thereof is imprinted in our vnderstanding and memorie In this the body of Christe that was put to death is present layd before vs according to his worde This is my body which is geuen for you That is a general meane to come to the knowledge of Christes death This is a special meane to remember his death Luc. 22. That is common vnto the Infidel reading the storie of the Gospel as wel as vnto the faithful This is proper to the true Christiā geuing credit to Gods worde That may be conueniently reade by euery priuate man at al times and in al places This can not duely be consecrate and ministred but by a Priest lawfully ordered and that in time and place appointed That may be read by a wicked man without increase of his sinne This can not be consecrate nor receiued of any being in deadly sinne without increase of his farther damnation This is and euer hath bene by the Churche called and taken for the very body and bloud of Christe That neither is nor euer hath ben commonly so called or taken This is a Sacrament and the Sacrifice of the new Lawe That is neither of them both Finally that feedeth the vnderstanding onely This is the foode both of soule and body to life euerlasting These differences being so apparent so greate and of such importance who can otherwise iudge but that Christes presence in the Sacrifice of the Churche must be after a more substantial and real manner then in the letter of the Gospel or in the reading thereof Moreouer if he be present in the Sacrament and Sacrifice none otherwise then he is at the reading of the Gospel then is the Sacrifice and Sacrament superfluous For to stirre vp in our myndes the remembraunce of Christes Death it should suffice to reade or to heare readen daily the storie of the Passion without any celebration of the Sacrament But Christe knowing the dulnesse of our hartes to be such M. Ievvel acknovvledgeth Christes presence in the Bless Sacrament no othervvise thē in the storie of the Gospel vvhen it is read ād heard that woordes be not sufficient to repaire our memorie and to stirre vp our affection without the presence of some thing of more Maiestie then woordes be of his tender loue leafte to his dere spouse the Churche besides his Gospel a thing of most excellent Maiestie his owne flesh and bloude that we being assured through faith of his real presence in our Mysteries should more dreadfully reuerence him more expressely remember him more affectuously loue him and by the worthy receiuing of it be made partakers of the fruit of his Passion Of this
ioyly Sacrifice For Melchisedek being a King as he was like it is that he prouided biefe veale and mutton pigge goose and capon baakte boiled and roste For such victuals are mete for the prouision of an Armie And did Melchisedek sacrifice al these thinges This is more then euer I read or heard of before or you either I am bold to say For your credites sake you should haue alleged but one Doctor of good same olde or new that so writeth Bicause ye haue none to allege we take it for a forgerie of your owne shoppe set out to thintent bread and wine only named should not represent to the memorie of men the body and bloud of Christe whereof the bread and wine were figures Verely Eusebius writeth lib. 5. De Demonstrat that he neuer offered bodyly Sacrifices that is to say thinges that had liuing bodies but only bread and wine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The like is reported in S. Hierome Epist. ad Euagrium As for Iosephus that learned Iewe Iosephus we admit him for an eloquent writer of a storie not for an assured teacher of Diuinitie And yet his authoritie being admitted Melchisedeks feasting of Abrahams people inferreth no Argument against his Sacrifice in bread and wine For why might he not do the duetie of a Priest first satisfying the mysterie and the duetie of a liberal Prince afterward in refresshing that weary and hungry cōpanie And therefore touching the worde Protulit Protulit whereby you would proue that Melchisedek brought forth bread and wine and your other prouision of victuals I can not tel what for Abrahams menne you take great paines in vaine As we are wel hable to proue obtulit I meane that Melchisek offered to with bread and wine so we denie not protulit that is to say that he brought those thinges forth But good sir I pray you in what schoole learned you to make this Argumēt Melchisedek brought forth bread and wine to refresh Abrahā and his men ergo he offered not bread and wine to God in sacrifice Whereas the scripture after mētion made of bred and wine Genes 14. forthwith addeth erat enī Sacerdos Dei altissimi for he was the Priest of God the highest onlesse that cause be vnaptly applied we must vnderstand that he was wont to offer vp those thinges to God which then he brought forth vnto Abraham geuing the same to him for meate to God for Sacrifice That Melchisedeck offered and made his sacrifice in bread and wine Bicause you seme coouertly to denie that Melchisedeck offered bread and wine in Sacrifice which some of your syde let not openly to denie which you also would doo but that by your Chalenge you haue bounde your selfe to admitte the olde Doctours for that the worde of the texte is protulit and not obtulit I thinke it good to put you in mynde of learned Fathers two or three by whom it is auouched that he offered and that he made his Sacrifice in bread and wine Arnobius In Psal. 109. Arnobius who lyued aboue thirtien hundred yeres past saith Panem vinum solus obtulit in sacerdotibus Melchisedech alone among Priestes offered bread and wine S. Cyprian saith Cyprian lib. 2. Epist. 3. Melchisedeck was the Priest of the highest God and panem vinum obtulit offered bread and wine S. Hierome saith Hieron in Psal. 109. that he offered bread and wine Melchisedech obtulit panem vinnm be his wordes The same he hath in his epistle written for Paula to Marcella S. Ambrose saith it with the same wordes expressely in two places De Sacramentis lib. 4. cap. 3. lib. 5. cap. 1. And al these vse the worde obtulit which you can not away with in the sense of sacrificing If you demaunde for other witnesses of Melchisedecks Sacrifice in bread and wine it may please you to reade Eusebius lib. 5. De Demonstratione Euangelica S. Augustine in Psal. 33. Concione 1. and in many other places S. Chrysostome in the Homilie de Proditione Iudae Damascen lib 4. cap. 14. Cassiodorus in Psal. 109. To be short few Doctors can be named in whom this Sacrifice is not most plainly auouched So that you would neuer haue douted of it had you ben learned much lesse denied it had you not ben impudent As for that you allege out of Tertullian and S. Ambros who say that Melchisedek obtulit Abrahamo panem vinum offered to Abraham bread and wine Obtulit for dedit it relieueth your cause neuer a whit For there the worde obtulit signifieth as much as exhibuit or dedit gaue or presented and thereof your selfe being so good a Grammarian as you are could not be ignorant So much the more you shewe your selfe a false handler of this high Mysterie in twise putting in your false parenthesis not to God but as though Melchisedek had not offered to God any Sacrifice at al. Iewel S. Paule compareth Christe vvith Melchisedek Ambros. de Sacrament li. 4. cap. 3. In that like vnto Melchisedeck he was the kinge of Iustice In that he was the Prince of peace◠as Melchisedek was And in that he had neither Father nor Mother For so is it likewise writtē of Melchisedeck But of the Sacrifice of Breade Hebrae 7. and VVine he speaketh nothing Yet notvvithstandinge the Auncient holy Faethers oftentimes resemble the same presente of Melchisedek vnto the Sacrifice that Christe made vpon the Crosse. And in that respecte S. Cyprian saithe Christe offered the same thinge that Melchisedek offered That is to say as M. Hardinge him selfe must needes expounde it The same thinge in perfourmance of Trueth vpon the Crosse that Melchisedeck had before offered in a Figure So saith S. Augustine Illis Petra Christus Vnto them the Rocke was Christe August in Ioan. tractat 26. And yet not Really and in deede but onely by vvay of Signification bicause it Signified and Represented Christe Harding S. Paule speaketh not of it ergo it is not a cōmon Argument vvith the Ministers and here vsed by M. Iewel I graunt that whereas S Paule extolleth the Priesthod of Christ which is after the order of Melchisedek aboue the Leuitical Priesthod speaking of certaine thinges wherin Christe and Melchisedek were like speaketh nothing of the Sacrifice of bread and wine What of that Wil ye thereof conclude that Melchisedek did not offer vnto God bread and wine What a fond and Ministerlike kinde of Argument is this S. Paule spake it not Ergo it is not S. Paule saith not in al that Epistle that Christe was conceiued of the holy Ghoste borne of the virgin Marie shal it be lawful for vs therefore to denie it We may wel thinke that therein S. Paule vsed the counsel Ioan. 16. that Christ once vsed when he said I haue many thinges to tel you that ye can not beare away now S. Paule sheweth so much him selfe Epistola ad Euagrium In principio To. 3. operum
before offered in figure But that performance of truth is by the learned Fathers commonly acknowleged in the Sacrifice of the Supper In which Christe offered his body and bloude vnder the formes of bread and wine after the order of Melchisedek for thankesgeuing which he offered vpon the Crosse for redemption August in Ioan. Tract 26. Your common figuratiue saying taken out of S. Augustine Illis Petra Christus vnto them the Rocke was Christe though it be not altogether so reported of S. Augustin in the place by you coted is abruptely brought in to what purpose I see not but to beguile the vnlerned as I suppose who therby may be moued to thinke that our Sacrifice is as mere a figure as the figures of the olde lawe were To this I haue answered once or twise before In al the frayes ye make against the most holy Mysteries this bad toole is euer at hand with you to strik withal Iewel Sometimes they compare it vvith the Sacrifice of Thankesgeuinge and vvith the Ministration of the holy Communion and make it equal vvith the same S. Augustine saithe August in quaest Noui Veter Testamēt quaest 109. Melchisedek Abrahae primum quasi Patri fidelium tradidit Eucharistiam Corporis Sanguinis Domini Melchisedek gaue first vnto Abraham as vnto the Father of the Faithful the Sacramente of the Bodie and Bloud of Christe So S. Hierome saithe Melchisedek in typo Christi Panem Vinum obtulit Mysterium Christianorum in Saluatoris Corpore Hierō ad Marcellā Sanguine dedicauit Melchisedek in the Figure of Christe offered Breade and VVine and dedicated the Mysterie of Christians in the Bodie and Bloude of Christe These Authorities might serue to make some shevv that Melchisedeck saide Masse and Consecrated the Sacrament of the Bodie and Bloude of Christe and offered vp Christe in Sacrifice vnto his Father But of M. Hardinge or any other suche Prieste they touche nothinge Harding You shal neuer shewe vs where either the Present that Melchisedek gaue to Abraham by which terme you would abolish the Sacrifice or the Sacrifice which he made in bread and wine was cōpared with the Sacrifice of thankesgeuing onlesse it be the Euchariste which also beareth that name wherein the real body and bloud of Christe is present As for the ministration of the holy Communion it is false to say It is compared with the ministration that is to say with the acte of the ministring the Communion But I graunt it is compared to the thing it selfe that is to say to the body and bloud of Christe consecrated offered and receiued in the holy Communion Prouided alwaies that by the holy Communion we meane not your newe toye now practized in England by your Ministers that be no Priestes where there is no holy thing consecrated to make it holy Dionys. in Ecclesiast Hierarchia but the holy Communion of the Catholike Churche which S. Dionyse calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The authoritie you allege vnder the name of S. Augustine is not S. Augustines If I had alleged it against you a great deale of your scoffing Rhetorike should haue ben bestowed both to reproue the booke and also me for alleging the same I am sure if you haue read either the worke it selfe with any iudgement or the Censure of Erasmus vpon it you are persuaded it is an vnworthy peece of worke to be fathered vpō so worthy a Doctor As for the very Question it selfe out of which you bring your authoritie I maruel you considered not what Erasmus saith of it Quaestione CIX multa garrit vt ostendat Melchisedek non fuisse hominem In the CIX question saith he this author maketh a great bible bable to shewe that Melchisedeck was not a man In the same line there he speaketh of him as it were of your selfe saying Quaest. 125. scurram agit But who soeuer and what so euer the author of that worke be the place is alleged without any dependence or coherence as though you cared not in what order you allege testimonies so you make vp a heape Either for haste or which is more likely for guile you leafte out both the beginning and the ende of it whereby the meaning is clearely declared Melchisedek saith the author gaue vnto Abraham Quaest. Veteris noui testament q. 109. as vnto the Father of the faithful the Eucharist or Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ. But what was it that he gaue It foloweth in the same sentence Vt praefiguraretur in Patre quae in filijs futura erat veritas That the truth which was to come in the children might be foreshewed by a figure in the Father Doo not these later wordes most euidently declare that Melchisedek gaue onely the figure of the Sacrament of Christes body and bloude to Abraham the Father of the faithful and that the truth of that figure which is the body and bloude of Christe is amongst vs that are in respecte of faith his children That he calleth the thinge which Melchisedek gaue to Abraham by the name of the Eucharist it is no great maruel Whether S. Augustine him selfe would so haue spoken it may be doubted Verely it is no straunge thing in the olde learned Fathers to geue the name of the thing signified vnto the figure that signifieth and contrariwise This nipping of sentences M. Iewels Nipping of sentences specially of such as wordes as open the truth and ouerthrow your doctrine doth euerywhere bewray your guileful intent The whole sentence considered as it is vttered by the author doth so clearely serue for confirmation of the real Sacrifices of Christes body and bloude in the newe Testament as a more clearer any faithful man would not desire The saying you take out of S. Hierome I maruel what you meant to allege it It maketh fully for our parte that is to say for establishing of the Catholike beleefe There is mention made bothe of the Figure bread and wine offered by Melchisedek and of the veritie the body and bloude of Christe offered by the Christians in their Mysteries God be praised through whose power his truth is vttered by the mouthes of his enemies As for your pleasant collection and scorneful ieasting howe much it pleaseth you or becommeth the person you haue taken vpon you I knowe not Sure I am the holy mysteries of Christian religiō should with more feare of God be treated of The roome you occupie is to reuerent the mater we handle too holy the daies ye ruffle in too lamentable the stage you play this parte on too sad M. Iewel for you thus to play Hick scorner I should haue said Iacke scorner But what may we say Kinde wil shewe it selfe The English cōmunion cōpared vvith Melchisedeks Sacrifice vvhiche M. Ievv calleth Melchisedeks Masse If Melchisedek said any Masse it was like vnto the English Communion that offereth nothing els but bare bread and wine
of thinges to come August in Psal. 80. The redde Sea is consecrate in the bloude of our Lorde faith S. Augustin Againe Baptisme saith he is redde being consecrate in the bloude of Christe August in Ioan. Tract 11. The meaning hereof is As our sinnes be taken away and cleansed in baptisme taking vertue and effect of the bloud of Christ through faith So to the Iewes was forefigured the bloude of Christe in the redde Sea Baptisme is redde with the bloude of Christe and is consecrate by the same Thus it is said bicause it is ordeined by Christe to be a meane whereby the effecte and merite of his bloud is through â—aith imparted into vs. This much weighed and considered it may soone to any man appeare how litle reliefe M. Iewel shal finde in these pharses The .14 Diuision The Ansvver OF al other Oecumenius speaketh most plainely to this purpose vpon this place of S. Paule alleged out of the Psalme Oecumen in Epist. ad Heb. cap. 5. Psal. 119. Tu es Sacerdos in aeternum secundùm Ordinem Melchisedech Thou arte a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedek His wordes be these Significat sermo quod non solùm Christus obtulit incruentam hostiam siquidem suum ipsius corpus obtulit verùm etiam qui ab ipso fungentur Sacerdotio quorum Deus Pontifex esse dignatus est sine sanguinis effusione offerent Nam hoc significat in aeternum Neque enim de ea quae semel à Deo facta est Oblatio Hostia dixisset in aeternum sed respiciens ad praesentes Sacrificos per quos medios Christus sacrificat sacrificatur qui etiam in Mystica Coena modum illis tradidit huiusmodi Sacrificij The meaninge of this place is saithe he that not onely Christe offered an Vnblouddy Sacrifice for he offered his owne Bodie but also that they which after him shal doo the office of a Priest whose Bishop he vouchesaueth to be shal offer without shedding of Bloud For that signifieth the worde For euer For coÌ„cerning that Oblation and Sacrifice which was once made by God he would neuer saye In aeternum for euer But he saide so hauing an eye to those Priestes that be nowe by the mediation of whom Christe sacrificeth and is sacrificed who also in his Mystical Supper taught by tradition the manner of suche a Sacrifice Concerning the Prophecie of Malachie for proufe of this Oblation though the place of Irenaeus aboue recited may stande in steede of many auctorities yet I wil not let to rehearse the sayinges of a Father or two for confirmation of this Article Chrysostome saith very plainely In omni loco Sacrificium offertur nomini meo In Psal. 95. SacrificiuÌ„ purum Vide quà m luculenter quámque dilucidè Mysticam interpretatus est Mensam quae est Incruenta hostia In euery place a Sacrifice shal be offered to my name and that a pure Sacrifice See how plainely and clearely he interpreted the Mystical Table which is the Vnbloudy Sacrifice Iewel Here mighte I iustly take exception against this Doctour as findinge him vvithout the compasse of the firste sixe hundred yeeres Hovv be it He saithe not That the Prieste hath power or Authoritie to Sacrifice the Sonne of God nor seemeth any vvaie to fauer M. Hardinges purpose Therefore vve shal not neede to touche his credite Harding In this Diuision M. Iewel you set forth as it were in a moustre a number of authorities and not one to the purpose Yet fewe thinges excepted you tel vs litle here that you haue not tolde vs before One apte and plaine testimonie would haue holpen your cause more then al this impertinent and confuse number It is not harde for one that is furnished with stoare of Notebookes of common places as you are to fil the paper with heapes of allegations This kinde of writing as to the ignorant it maketh a false shewe of stoare of learning so to the learned bringeth assured euidence of lacke bothe of truth and iudgement You are much beholding to your Phrases and metaphorical speaches For in them at least as in a smooddering smoke you trust to conuey your selfe away that the weakenesse of your parte appeare not openly as it should if you would directly answer to the pointes wherewith the truth of our syde is confirmed By this you shewe your selfe to be mynded not to yeelde and to subscribe according to your promise what so euer and how muche so euer be proued against you Concering Oecumenius in my Answer alleged Oecumenius you might iustly take exception against him you say for that he falleth without the compasse of the first six hundered yeres As though an Author allowed by the best learned of the Churche for the speace of an vnknowen time should be of lesse credite then an other that wrote one hundred yeres before him As though also after the first six hundred yeres the holy Ghoste forsooke the Churche and therefore least it vnfurnished of good and learned teachers Of what age he was I trowe it is not certainely knowen but that he is of great antiquitie it is certaine Neither can ye refuse him for a Papist bicause he was of the Greke Churche which your selfe haue cleared of Papistrie Wel touching his credite forasmuch as vpon a braue shewe of a confidence in your cause you are so good Mayster vnto him as not to take exception against him we take that ye geue Let it then stand for good and allowed as in deede M. Ievvel speaketh directly against his ovvn knovvledge touching Oecumenius there is no cause but so it should Bicause you pretend in worde knowing the contrary in harte that this testimonie of Oecumenius maketh no proufe for the Sacrifice against your Chalenge whether it be so or no let it he briefly examined First saith he not that Christe him selfe offered an vnbloudy Sacrifice By the epipheton Vnbloudy added to Sacrifice is it not manifest that this Sacrifice was distincte and diuers from the Sacrifice that he made vpon the Crosse which was bloudy Nexte least any man might happen to doubte what the substance was which was offered vnbloudily by Christe doth not this Author declare it by his plaine Parenthesis saying for he offered his owne body That Christ offered his ovvne body vnblouddily Is it not cleare then that Christes body was the substance which he offered vnbloudily Note then good Reader that the substance which was offered bloudily vpon the Crosse and vnbloudily at the Supper for that was the time when the vnbloudy Sacrifice was made by this testimonie is al one to wit the body of Christe the body of Christe I say and not onely thankes geuing praises and remembrance of his Death whereunto onely you M. Iewel would draw it Thus it is euident that Christe him selfe offered to his Father not onely a bloudy but also an vnbloudy Sacrifice Let vs see whether by Oecumenius it may appeare
the Sacrifice of the Churche whereof we treate were nothing elles but Prayers Praises thankes geuing and a remembrance and had no substance at al which consisteth without and besides the minde of man then might we graunt that al Aulters of Stoane or Timber were needelesse But seing that the Auncient learned Fathers make often mention of Aulters in their Churches and of their Sacrifices thereon it foloweth necessarily that their Sacrifices consisted not wholly of Prayers Material Aulters thankes and of suche other deuotion of the minde but of some such thing also which required a place wherevpon it may be laid What that thing is Optatus that auncient and learned Bishop of Mileuitum in Afrik doth declare Optatus libro 6. geuing withal an euident recorde for the vse of Aulters Thus he saith writing against the Donatistes Quid tam sacrilegum quà m Altaria Dei in quibus vos aliquando obtulistis An external Aulter argueth the real presence and an external Sacrifice frangere radere remouere Quid enim est Altare Dei nisi sedes Corporis Sanguinis Christis What greater Sacriledge can there be then to breake rase and quite remoue away the Aulters of God vpon which your selues once offered For what other thing is an Aulter then a seate both of the Body and of the Bloude of Christe These termes of breaking rasing and remouing do conuince the Aulters were material as made of Stoane or Timber The vse also is expressed manifestly which is to be a seate for the body and bloude of Christe to be laid vpon when they be consecrate and sacrificed Whereof may be gathered an Argument of the real presence and of the external Sacrifice For a seate serueth to place real and external substances and not mere spiritual thinges of which sorte contrition of harte Praiers thankes and praises are If I thought it needeful in this place to allege auctorities for proufe of this vse of material Aulters it were easy to allege no smal number for the same out of the most auncient Fathers and Councels The thing being so cleare and so wel knowen of al that haue any skil of antiquitie it may suffice to ioyne the testimonie of S. Augustine with that of Optatus Who speaketh bothe of building of Aulters in Churches whereby it is certaine they were material and also of sacrificing vpon them August de Ciuitat Dei li. 22. cap. 10. His wordes be plaine Nos autem Martyribus nostris non Templa sicut Dijs sed memorias sicut hominibus mortuis quorum apud Deum viuunt spiritus fabricamus Nec ibi erigimus Altaria in quibus sacrificemuâ— Martyribus sed vni Deo Martyrum nostro sacrificium immolamus As for vs saith he we buylde for our Martyrs not Temples as for Goddes but Memories by Memories he meaneth Chappels or Churches builded in the memorie of Martyrs as for dead men whose Spirites be lyuing with God Neither do we there set vp Aulters that on them we may sacrifice to Martyrs but to God onely we offer Sacrifice Aulters auouched who is the God bothe of Martyrs and of vs also By this saying it is witnessed vnto vs that the Aulters erected in Martyrs Churches were material as the Churches were and that on them Priestes made Sacrifice vnto God Whereas then M. Iewel admitteth none other kinde of Sacrifice in the newe Testament than such as for offering whereof any material Aulter is not required and S. Augustine speaketh of a Sacrifice that is offered vnto God vpon the material Aulters by this we vnderstand this newe doctrine of M. Iewel touching the Sacrifice to dissent from the olde Doctrine of S. Augustin Consider wel of it Christian Reader how safe it is for thee to forsake the Churche to contemne S. Augustine Optatus and al other the olde learned Fathers in whose workes we finde often mention of material Aulters and the Sacrifice therevpon daily offered and to pinne thy faith on M. Iewels sleeue who as thou seest hath no sure grounde but onely denieth al and for colour of some defence shuffleth together by heapes patches and peeces of the Fathers sayinges whereby a confusion is sought no certaintie is taught If he wil replye against this Table and Aulter saying that the Fathers cal the Aulter a table as to gete some auctoritie vnto his remoueable Communion Table he is wont commonly to translate a Table for an Aulter it may please him to vnderstand that the Fathers do truely cal it by bothe names according to the double vse of the Euchariste which is ministred vpon the same For the Euchariste is bothe a Sacrament and a Sacrifice As it is a Sacrament so is it our heauenly foode and sustenance As it is a Sacrifice so is it our daily offering Vnto the which two vses S. Cyprian hauing respecte saith of the bread and Chalice consecrated by solemne blessing Cyprian De Coena Domini that it is bothe a medicine and also a Sacrifice to heale our infirmities and to purge our iniquities Therefore the Fathers cal it a Table in consideration we receiue from thens our substantial foode And for that cause it is alwaies couered with a white linnen cloth They cal it an Aulter for that we offer vpon it the heauenly Sacrifice of Christes body and bloude and for that cause also it is fastened to the place where it standeth Wherefore the Table doth not exclude the Aulter nor doth the Aulter exclude the Table But bothe are one in deede and yet double in respecte of the double vse of the thing wrought vpon it So that to turne the Aulter into a Table is but a seely shifte and a poore refuge This muche being now knowen it wil be easy to perceiue that the authorities by him alleged be to be vnderstanded either of the Aulters Sacrifices smoke and other Ceremonies vsed in the olde lawe or of mere spiritual Sacrifices which require none other Aulter than the harte of man Chrysost. Homil. in Psal. 95. So is the saying of S. Chrysostome here to be taken The gifte of the Gospel whereby is meant what so euer man offereth to God now in the state of the new Testament ascendeth vp vnto God without bloude without smoke without Aulter and without the other Ceremonies for so is it in the author Who seeth not by these wordes the filthy shedding of bloude the stincking smoke and therefore also the Aulter of the Iewes in the olde lawe to be signified Our Sacrifice is pure and cleane without the smoke of burnt grease and fleshe and so without that Aulter whereon such thinges were burnt BVt what is to be said vnto the autoritie alleged out of the second Councel of Nice M. Iewel here craueth help at the second NiceÌ„ Councel vvhich otherâ—wheres he despiseth what Sacrifice or Aulter meaneth we Christians in a manner can not tel saith Leontius cited in that Councel What M. Iewel wil you craue helpe to
time ye shal not be angry with vs but with that holy learned Father S. Augustine if we accompte your scattered troupes not for the Churche of Christe nor any parte thereof but for Dennes of theeues and Synagogues of Antichriste Neither doo ye sacrifice vnto God the Sacrifice of Praise in the body of Christe which the Churche doth as S. Augustine saith for ye acknowledge no Sacrifice of the body of Christe at al in whiche God is chiefly praised and thanked for his benefites The Singular Sacrifice that S. Austine speaketh of is the Sacrifice of the Eucharist Furthermore what Sacrifice is that whereof the sacrifices of Israel according to the flesh were significations which S. Augustine here calleth the Singuler Sacrifice that Israel after the spirite offereth vp now What other is it then the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe after an vnbloudy manner daily offered in the Churche For of the Sacrifice of the Crosse ye can not expounde it bicause the same is done once already and is not now offered vp Neither can ye vnderstande it of mere spiritual Sacrifices for they are not Singuler neither offered onely now that is to say in the time of the newe Testament but are common to the faithful personnes and times of bothe Testamentes By this it is euident that the Sacrifice of Praise which Israel after the spirite that is to say the Churche offereth vp vnto God not after the order of Aaron but after the order of Melchisedek as S. Augustine writeth is the Sacrifice of the Euchariste in whiche the body and bloude of Christe is offered vp vnder the fourmes of bread and wine Genes 14. in which Melchisedek made his Sacrifice forefiguring this Your thirde authoritie which you haue somedeale corrupted by nipping away certaine wordes and by false translation maketh for proufe of our Sacrifice it helpeth your Negatiue nothing at al. The whole sentence truly translated August li. 83. quaestion q. 61 is this Christe hath commended vnto vs a likenes of his bloudy Sacrifice for of that he speaketh there to be celebrated in remembrance of his Passion to the ende we may see now that which Melchisedek offered vnto God to be offered in the Churche of Christe through the whole worlde Here are touched three Sacrifices the Sacrifice of the Crosse Three Sacrifices the Sacrifice of the Aulter the Sacrifice of Melchisedek On the Crosse Christe was sacrificed truly according to the truth of substance of the thing sacrificed and of the manner of sacrificing which was by shedding of bloude and killing the hoste that was to be sacrificed In the Supper then and in the Aulter now he is truly sacrificed as touching the truth of the substance of the thing that is offered that is to say the body and bloude of Christe For he said Luc. 22. This is my body this is my bloude doo ye this in remembraÌ„ce of me 1. Cor. 11. But not according to the truth of such manner of sacrificing For he is sacrificed vnbloudily and in Mysterie The body that now is offered is a liue body For it is the same in the Sacrament that hong vpon the Crosse and that is now in heauen But though Christes body be now a lyue in the Sacrament and the bloud in the Body yet neither is the body of vs offered bicause it is a lyue and now to be killed nor the bloude bicause it is in the body as againe to be shed but bicause the body was once killed and the bloude once shed that which is now done is done in remembrance of that And hereof it commeth that this Sacrifice is oftentimes called of the Fathers in respecte of the bloudy Sacrifice of the Crosse as it is in the thirde fourth and fifth testimonie of S Augustine here alleged to be sene a likenes an Image of that Sacrifice a memorie or Sacrament of memorie From the affirmation of which likenes Imageâ— memorie SacrameÌ„t representation or figure to inferre the denial of a true presence and Sacrifice is besides al rules of Logique and reason sithens both stand wel together And yet this is in maÌ„ner the only kinde of reason and Argument that M. Iewel vseth through his whole Reply and otherwheres Which kind of ArgumeÌ„tes they must needes vse if they wil vse any at al who by opening the truth of any question by due distinctions see their false doctrine confuted and therfore make their apparent aduantage of confusion Which Confusion is soonest wrought by heapes of vndiscussed authorities without declaration of the circumstances patchedly and by peece meale alleged and iumbled together as M. Iewel is woont to doo Likenes aÌ„d Image how they signifie in the nevv testameÌ„t being spoken of the sacrament And remember good Reader that whereas S. Augustine here alleged speaketh of a Similitude or likenes he meaneth not euery common kinde of likenes but a likenes that is a Sacrament of the newe Testament Which is a holy effectual and visible signe of inuisible grace If thou take away the body and bloude of Christe from this likenes it shal lacke the inuisible grace and so shal it not be such a likenes as S. Augustine here speaketh of Image An Image also which terme he vseth likewise in the newe Testament considered in Christe or his Sacramentes doth not signifie a bare figure voide of the thing whose Image it is But rather signifieth the true thing it selfe exhibited in the fourme of an other thing and not in proper shape De Cons. Dist. 2. Hoc est quod dicimus So is Christe Imago Patris the Image of his Father appearing in the fourme of man So is the Sacrament of Christes body the Image of the same body crucified yea the body of Christe in the Sacrament inuisible is a Sacrament and sampler of the same body visible For so S. Augustine speaketh Caro videlicet carnis sanguis est sacramentum Sanguinis carne sanguine vtroque inuisibili spirituali intelligibili signatur visibile Domini nostri Iesu Christi corpus palpabile plenum gratiae omnium virtutum diuina Maiestate The flesh of Christe in the Sacrament is the sacrament of his flesh and the bloude is a sacrament of his bloude By his flesh and bloude bothe inuisible spiritual intelligible is betokened the body of our Lorde Iesus Christ that is visible palpable ful of the grace of al vertues and diuine Maiestie Neither maketh it ought for M. Iewel that S. Augustine calleth this Sacrament a Sacrament of remembrance SacrameÌ„t of remeÌ„â—brance Bicause it were not a Sacrament of remembrance fitte for the newe Testament onlesse the body and bloude of Christe were really conteined therein according to the saying of Christe Lucae 22. this is my body this is my bloude For we haue no warrant of the Scripture that bread and wine is the Sacrament of remembrance The .6 authoritie taken out of S. Augustine de Ciuitate
Christian man is bounde to offer vp the Vnblouddy and Daily Sacrifice of the Nevve Testamente and that in as ful and ample sorte as is the Priest And therefore M. Hardinge him selfe saithe euen in the very Canon of his Masse Memento Domine famulorum famularumque tuarum omnium Circumstantium pro quibus tibi offerimus vel qui tibi offerunt hoc Sacrificium Laudis Remember ô Lorde thy Seruantes and al them that stande aboute for whom wee offer vnto thee or els whiche doo offer vnto the this Sacrifice of Praises Out of S. Augustines vvordes M. Hardinge in the ende concludeth thus Christe is a Prieste after the order of melchisedek Ergo The Priest hath Authoritie to offer vp the Sonne of God in Sacrifice vnto his Father It vvere harde to tel vs hovv this Antecedente and this Consequente came togeather No man hath Authoritie thus to mince his Logique but M. Harding Harding If the Sacrifice be external That this sacrifice is external it behoueth the Priesthode also be external That this Sacrifice is external it is cleare For to the making of this Sacrifice external thinges be requisite as bread and wine mixte with water for the mater the wordes of our Lorde outwardly pronouÌ„ced for the fourme a Man ordered and consecrated into a Priest for the Minister The body also and bloude of Christe it selfe which is the substance offered though it be spiritually vnderstanded and not with any outward sense of man perceiued is a real thing of it selfe consisting besides and without the soule spirite or mynde of man and may be receiued of mannes body by the office of the mouth and is not a mere spiritual thing as loue mercie faith hope ioye sorowe contrition of harte and such other thinges that haue their being onely in the mynde and spirite For proufe that it is external by witnesses no testimonie can be plainer then that of S. Gregorie Nazianzen whereof the three onely later wordes M Iewel hath three times in this Article alleged suppressing the other with crafty silence bicause he sawe they made directly against him Nazianzâ— in Apologetico Thus he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How should I be so bolde as to offer vp vnto him the external Sacrifice the whiche is the true sampler of the great Mysteries Let no man charge me with falsifying this Father by adding this worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnto the sentence the same is in that place necessarily to be vnderstanded and there it should haue bene placed expressely by the Author but that he thought it better the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to haue relation vnto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thrise put before in the same sentence then by â—o ofte repetition of one worde as with an vnpleasant sound to offende learned eares to whose good liking in that Oration as also coÌ„monly in al his other exacte writinges folowing Polemon in his manner of writing as it is reported of him he muche attempered his stile Double Priesthod double Sacrifice in the nevve TestameÌ„t Now as touching Priesthode in the newe Testament it is double internal or spiritual and external as our Sacrifices also be double internal and mere spiritual and this the chiefe and singuler Sacrifice of the Church external The Internal Priesthode is common to al godly persons Internal Priesthod bicause they be membres of Christe the high King and Priest and the members be partakers of what good thinkes so euer the head hath God endeweth al with this Priesthode whom he washeth cleane from their sinnes in the bloude of Christe consecrating and annointing them with none other oile then with the oile of his Grace Of this Kinde of Priesthode speaketh S. Peter and S. Ihon the Apostle 2 Pet i. 2. This Pristhode as we acknowlege Apoc. 1.5 so do our Aduersaries not denie For it is neither a degree nor order nor office nor ministerie in the Churche And verely this Priesthode sometimes is worthier and of more excellencie in a woman or a childe then in a Bishop yea perhaps then in the Pope him selfe For in him it is none at al if he happe to fal into mortal sinne Whereas then al Christian persons be Priestes annointed with that Ointment 1. Ioan. 2. of whiche S. Iohn speaketh Vos vnctionem habetis à Sancto ye haue the ointment of the Holy they ought to offer vp and sacrifice somewhat vnto God soothly them selues and their bodies Rom. 12. a liuely holy and acceptable hoste to God as S. Paul admonished 1. Pet. 2. And S. Peter calleth the faithful a holy Priesthode offering spiritual and acceptable sacrifices vnto God through Iesus Christe The other Priesthode is external or owtwarde in the Churche External Priesthod which is coÌ„municated vnto certaine persons by Consecration and by Imposition of handes of Bishops Character indelebilis imprinting into the soule of him that is made a Priest a marke or Printe that can not be put out the like whereof is imprinted in them that receiue the Sacramentes of Baptisme and Confirmation Of this Priesthode so communicated by Imposition of handes and ordination of a Bishop speaketh S. Paule to Timothe â— Tim. 4. Noli negligere Gratiam quae in te est quae data est tibi per prophetiam cum impositione manuum Presbyterij Despise not the gifte whiche is in thee that was geuen thee through Prophecie with the laying on of the haÌ„des of Priesthode 2. Tim. 1. Againe to him Stirre vp the grace of God that is in thee through the laying on of my handes And in the Epistle to Tite Tit. 2. For this intent I leafte thee in Crete that thou shouldest amende the thinges that want and ordeine Priestes in euery Citie euen so as I tooke order with thee Act. 14. S. Paule also and S. Barnabas did ordeine Priestes in euery Churche in Prayer and fasting as now a daies the custome is obserued when holy orders be geuen This outward Priesthode and the ministerie of it is very necessary in the Churche militant Neither be the Priestes depriued of it if at any time they fal into mortal sinne as Wiclef helde opinion VViclef and was condemned for it in the Councel of Constantia For this Priesthode is not such a grace geuen as maketh one acceptable called of the Diuines Gratia gratum faciens It is an office a dignitie a Degree and a grace freely geuen Gratia gratis data as the Diuines terme it Neither can the prinâ—e that is imprinted in a Priest euer be put out by any mortal sinne Auctoritie to create Priestes leaste to the Churche That the Churche hath auctoritie and power to create and ordeine Priestes of the Apostles and that the Apostles receiued the same of Christe it may be proued by that Christe said at his last Supper hoc facite in meam commemorationem Luca. 22. 1. Cor. 11. Doo ye this in my remembrance For
this Sacrifice he maketh this Prouiso M. Ievvels prouiso and putteth in as it were a Caueat that it be not vnderstanded of the Ministration of the Sacramentes For that perteineth saith he onely to the Minister but onely of the Oblation and making of this Spiritual Sacrifice Verely I doubte whether this Minister vnderstandeth what he speaketh 1. Tim. 1. and whereof he affirmeth So confuse is his tale Euery Christian man by him may make this Sacrifice But none can minister the Sacramentes but a Minister I can not wel reason with him onlesse I knewe where to haue him what he meaneth by This Sacrifice what by making what by his Minister what by Ministration what by Sacramentes For our whole Religion by these men now turned vpside doune and the olde termes being of them abused to signifie other thinges then before they did al Disputation with them must needes be obscure Concerning the Sacrifice he nameth it This Spiritual Sacrifice If he had spoken indefinitely of Spiritual Sacrifice euery Lay faithful person may I graunt and ought to make and offer vp vnto God Spiritual Sacrifice For besides other Contrite harte a Contrite hart by report of Scripture is such a Sacrifice that al are bounde to offer vp vnto God But calling this Sacrifice whereof our controuersie is spiritual he semeth to vse sutteltie and to prouide him selfe a starting hole if he happen to be chafed and pursued In respecte of vnderstanding it is spiritual for that whiche is hid vnder the formes of bread and wine with vnderstanding it is conceiued and is not with bodily sense perceiued But in respecte of the substance of it whiche is the Real body and bloude of Christe it is not properly and altogether spiritual specially as Spirite doth exclude the vetitie of Body Affirming then that euery faithful man hath authoritie to make and offer this Sacrifice what sowndeth this tale but that euery suche hath authoritie to make and consecaate and offer vp the body and bloude of our Lorde whiche belongeth onely to them that properly be Priestes as now I haue proued This is bothe a Sacrament and a Sacrifice If none may minister this Secrament but the Minister for he speaketh of Sacramentes generally how muche lesse may any make that is to say consecrate or outwardly offer this Sacrifice but he that is duely made Priest by Bishoply Consecration External oblation propre to Priestes internal ê‘teineth also to the faithful peple and laying on of handes Outwardly offer I say whereby I meane the actual external and ministerial offering For els I acknowledge that by vowe affection and deuotion of harte the faithful and godly people doth also offer vp vnto God this Sacrifice Touchinge the testimonies here alleged where S. Cyprian saith Cyprian de vnct Crismat Al that of Christe be called Christians doo offer vnto God Daily Sacrifice ordeined of God Priestes of holines he meaneth it of the common spiritual sacrifices of our deuotion whiche of bounden duetie we offer vp daily and not of this Singuler Sacrifice whiche bicause it is daily offered for that we daily sinne that a remembrance of Christes Death be renued being the chiefe of al the Sacrifices that we daily offer vp vnto God the learned Fathers oftentimes haue called Quotidianum Sacrificium the daily Sacrifice Wherefore M. Iewel doth very vntruly The daily Sacrifice and A daily Sacrifice and contrary to his owne knowledge in this place to turne it The Daily Sacrifice as though S. Cyprian had meant of this Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe Of what Sacrifice it is to be vnderstanded it is soone iudged by that he maketh al Christians the offerers of the same Therefore in his translation he shoulde haue called it not The daily Sacrifice but a daily Sacrifice That he allegeth here out of Origen Origen in Leuit. Homil. 9. maketh nothing against the Catholique Doctrine touching this Sacrifice Origen onely teacheth whiche we also doo teache that al good Christian folke are spiritual Priestes Suche Sacrifices Spiritual sacrifices spiritual Priesthod suche Priesthode and suche Priestes The Christians common sacrifices be mere spiritual for they offer vp them selues Praises thankes Confession a contrite harte a troubled spirite and suche other the like whiche are mere spiritual Of the same rate is their Priesthode The peeces of sentences cut out of S. Augustine S. Ambrose and S. Chrysostome as they doo nothing relieue M. Iewels cause so doo they nothing hinder ours And bicause they be idlely and to no directe purpose alleged but as it seemeth onely to increase the heape it is not worth labour in setting forth the large circumstance of them to spende time and to answer vnto them Yet be the two last in my Reioindre to the first Article of M. Iewels Chalenge sufficiently answered Chrysost. in 2. Cor. Hom. 18. But as for S. Chrysostome he is by M. Iewel so impudently falsified in this place that I should iniurie the Truth if I dissembled it He maketh S. Chrysostome thus to say In Mysterijs nihil differt Sacerdos à Subdito In the holy Mysteries the Priest differeth nothing from the people whereby he would persuade M. Ievv fovvly falsifieth S. Chrysostom that touching the Sacrifice duly to be made beside the Ministration by which he meaneth only his Ministers geuing of bread and wine at the newe found communion the priest doth no more then the people whereas S. Chrysostome saith farre otherwise Est vbi nihil differt Sacerdos a subdito vt quando fruendum est horrendis Mysterijs There is a time saith he when the Priest differeth nothing from the subiecte that is from one of the Laietie as when they must receiue the dreadful Mysteries Is there no difference whether one say there is a time or place where the Priest differeth not from the people whiche exception negatiue manifestly includeth an affirmation of a differeÌ„ce in a certaine time or place or generally the Priest differeth nothing from the people Out vpon suche shamelesse corruption Touching the true vnderstanding of the place when the Sacrifice is to be receiued whiche is the body and bloude of Christe the subiecte that is any Laye person what so euer Leuit. â—â— 22. hath as good parte and receiueth as worthy a thing as the Priest For it is not now as it was in the olde Lawe so muche S. Chrysostome saith there when the Prieste receiued one peece of the Beastes sacrificed and the people an other peece but when we come to receiue the Mysteries we al participate of one heauenly breade to al is proponed saith he one body and one cuppe Bothe Priest and people offereth and how eche That thus we pray in the Canon of the Masse Remember ô Lorde thy Seruauntes and al them that stande aboute for whom we offer vnto thee or elles who doo offer vnto thee this Sacrifice of praise al this gladly we graunt For not onely the
also against al the Priestes of Christes Churche that be or haue ben sithens the Apostles yea against that learned and auncient Bishop S. Ambrose who hath and alloweth the same prayer in his booke de Sacramentis And furthermore against al the holy people of God for they specially bid that prayer as it is expressed in the Canon sed plebs tua sancta though the wordes be pronunced by a Priest For answer this we say The Priest in the Canon of the Masse praieth not for Christe the natural Sonne of God that God be fauourable vnto him who can not but infinitely aboue the reache of mannes vnderstanding fauer and loue him of whom he said This is my derely beloued Sonne Matth. 3. in whom I am wel pleased But humbly he besecheth God that he vouchesafe fauourably to looke vpon the giftes whiche the Canon nameth the holy Bread of eternal life and Cuppe of euerlasting saluation and to accepte them to our behoofe And though Gabriel Biel by the same vnderstand as true it is the Body and bloude of Christe yet he expoundeth the place in suche wise that had you euer read it shame if any were in you should haue withdrawen you from making mention of his name Whereas the Priest besecheth God that he with his merciful countenance vouchesafe to beholde those giftes and take them in good worthe as in olde time he toke the sacrifices of Abel Abraham and Melchisedek the whiche were figures of this Sacrifice by this it is not meant that the Sonne of God be receiued into fauour and be accepted of God but that he vouchesafe to accepte and take in good worth the Action of the Priest whereby he offereth vp vnto him in Mysterie Christe the pure Lambe vnder the formes of bread and wine Basil. in Liturgia In this sense S. Basil prayeth in the Canon of his Masse where he saith thus Respice super nos Deus super hanc nostram Latriam suscipe eam sicuti suscepisti munera Abel sacrificium Noe holocaustum Abrahae c. Looke vpon vs ô God and vpon this our worship and receiue it as thou diddest receiue the giftes of Abel A true expositiō of the prayer that M. Ievvel reproueth out of Gabriel Biel. Lectione 55. the sacrifice of Noe the burnt offering of Abraham c. This prayer of the Canon saith Gabriel Biel whereby God is besought to accepte and mercifully to fauer perteineth to the offerers For they being afraid of their sinnes and distrusting their owne vertue offer vp an acceptable Sacrifice and beseche God that through the same they may be accepted whiche they doubte not of but that it is accepted Wherefore they pray that he wil accepte it as touching the behalfe of them that offer S. Chrysostom in his Masse prayeth for the precious giftes Chrysost. in Liturgia That this manner of prayer seme the lesse strange and the lesse subiecte to the reproche and spite of Heretiques it is to be considered that S. Chrysostome in his Masse hath the like Where he prayeth for these most holy and precious giftes His wordes be these Pro oblatis sanctificatis preciosis Donis Dominum deprecemur For the precious giftes offered and sanctified let vs pray vnto our Lorde Go your way nowe M. Iewel and like an Hicke Scorner aske of S. Chrysostome how he dareth to pray to God for the Sonne of God For these giftes being duly sanctified and cōsecrated by the Priest he taketh for the body and bloud of Christ and therefore for Christe him selfe the Sonne of God Vpon this place of S. Chrysostomes Masse thus writeth Nicolaus Cabasilas the Grecian in his exposition Cabasilas in expositione Liturgiae Let vs pray to our Lorde for the sanctified giftes not that they receiue sanctification for to that ende he named them sanctified that thou shouldest not so thinke but that they imparte him vnto vs that is to say his grace Againe he saith there Oremus inquit pro Donis vt in nos operentur ne ad hanc gratiam non sit potens sicuti quando cum hominibus versabatur hoc omnipotens corpus in nonnullis Ciuitatibus non potuit signa facere propter eorùm incredulitatem Let vs pray saith Chrysostome for the Giftes that they may worke vpon vs least he be not of power to the working of this grace as this almighty Body when it was conuersant with men in certaine Cities Marc. 6. was not hable to worke Miracles for their vnbeleefe Beware Reader thou vnderstand not this of Christes absolute power but of the dispensation then taken in hande For of his absolute power he was hable to worke Miracles whether they beleued or otherwise Though he be hable alwaies to heale vs and to worke miraculously with vs yet oftentimes the riuer of his Diuine vertue by our ingratitude and incredulitie is so stopped from his course that it is not powred vpon vs. Whiche I thought good to note that thou be not deceiued According to this former meaning the Priest may wel pray in his Masse that God wol vouchesafe mercifully to looke vpon and to accepte those giftes to wit the body and bloude of Christe that they may haue vertue to worke the effecte of grace in vs that is to say that the course of grace whiche their vertue is to worke on their behalfe be not stopped from vs by our vnworthinesse And here it is to be considered that when a condition of a sute is by secrete meaning annexed vnto a gifte presented which most commonly happeth the partie that presenteth it besecheth him to whom it is presented to receiue it with good wil and take it in good woorth Whiche if he professe to doo then the presentour trusteth to obteine his sute secretly conteined in the condition of the gifte Now as when either by him selfe or by an other he desireth that his gifte may be accepted his meaning is specially that he him selfe making sute or that his requeste be accepted so in the Canon of the Masse the Priest and in him Gods holy people prayeth that God fauourably receiue those giftes meaning that they them selues and their sute be fauourably receiued as being a condicion annexed by inward intention to their offering of the giftes So that in this sense al hath relation to them that present and offer Chysost in Liturgia And therefore S. Chysostome after that he hath said Let vs pray to our Lorde for the precious giftes offered and sanctified forthwith addeth vt clemens Deus qui suscepit ea in sancto coelesti intelligibili Altari suo mittat nobis propterea gratiam donum sancti Spiritus That our merciful God who hath receiued them in his holy and heauenly intelligible Aulter vouchesafe to sende vs for the same the grace and gifte of the Holy Ghoste Beholde Reader he prayeth for the pretious giftes that for them God sende his grace What is this to say but that he
the people Your selfe also now doutlesse do see it Yet for your worldly estimations sake hauing made suche an Arrogant Chalenge you may not seeme to see it At least what so euer you see you wil not confesse your errrour Thus in ouersight to boast of sight in darkenes to crake of light VVho playeth Thraso his parte the Chalenger or Defender in weakenesse to speake of strength in maters for whiche of your side no learning can be shewed to chalenge al men aliue this is the parte of Thraso But in this Article of the Sacrifice for which we haue so manifest Scripture so many Doctours so many Councels so common and so long continued custome and faith of the Churche for proufe thereof to auouche stoare of testimonies it is not the parte of Thraso it is the confidence of him that knowethâ— how sufficiently the Catholike Religion may be defended against heretiks This serueth not to fray the simple as you say it serueth to cal backe the presumptuous rashnes of a newe Gospeller to animate right beleeuers and to stay the simple As for the wise whether they wil more condemne of folie me for shewing iust confidence in defence of the truthe or you for making suche a proude Chalenge against the truth I leaue it to their secrete iudgementes Bring vs but one plaine sentence of any Scripture auncient Doctor or Councel making clearely for you that a Priest hath not auctoritie and therefore may not offer vp Christe in the Euchariste as I haue brought many for proufe of the contrary and I wil be contente the name of Thraso be not returned vpon you If ye haue none to bring as sure I am ye haue not for your Thrafonical Chalenge that name wil become you better then me that how so euer you wrangle promise no more then I performe That the Reader go not farre for one suche sentence among many of our parte let the very laste alleged out of S. Chrysostome be considered In whiche he saith plainely Châ—ysost in 1. Cor. Hâ—st 24. that Christe commaunded him selfe to be offered Whiche can not be referred to the Sacrifice of the Crosse. For if he had commaunded the Iewes to Crucifie him they had not bene gilty of his Death Neither permitteth the circumstance of the place any other to be vnderstanded then the Sacrifice of the Aulter in whiche Christe him selfe according to his commaundement Doo ye this in my remembrance is as I haue now proued really offered If in defence of your side you can not shew vs so muche as one sentence of like clearenes you must beare with wise men if they thinke the great sturre you haue made with your Chalenge to be great folie And likewise must you beare with your Aduersaries if they reporte you haue more shew of wordes then substance of mater To conclude go plainely to worke M. Iewel The handling of these maters requireth honestie sinceritie fidelitie truth conscience and the feare of God Set vs forth the light of true thinges if ye haue any leaue the darke clowdes of youy Phrases and Figures Conclude your Doctrine with some firme Argumentes confirme it with good and sufficient authorities Be ashamed of your loose and childish Argumentes by whiche in manner alwaies you inferre the denial of one truth by the affirmation of an other truth Let the world see that you allege your testimonies truly iointly and wholly that you falsifie them not by your diuisions taking one peece here and an other peece there by nipping of by adding vnto by hewing mangling and when you doo least by wrong and wrested vnderstanding Otherwise if you shal continue to set maters of Faith vpon vncertaine Phrases and Figures and Tropical speaches to confounde one truth with an other to corrupte to patche together to mangle and by other waies to falsifie as hitherto you haue done be the cotations of your Bookes Margent neuer so thicke be the number of your vnlearned and partial Fauourers neuer so great the wise the godly the learned shal iudge you as they finde you to be but a Maister of Phrases a confounder of Truthes a patcher a mangler a shifter a Falsifier THE TABLE A ABra by M. Iewel reported to be S. Hilaries daughter 172. b This worde Al in Scripture oft-times admitteth exception of many 168. a. b. Amalricus his carkasse digged vp and burnt in Paris 187. a. Anathema pronounced against the dead 186. b. Antitypon excludeth not the veritie of the Mysteries 80. b. Antitypon howe it is taken in S. Clement 81. a. The terme Antitypon maketh not for the Sacramentaries 81. b. Antitypon what it signifieth properly 82. b Apostles made Priestes by Christ at the last Supper 87. a. b. in sequent The Apostles made vowe to forsake al thinges 171. b. The Apostles forsoke the companie of their wiues Ibidem Application of Christes Death no strange Doctrine 219. a. Application of this Sacrifice prooued 114. b. 121. a. 162. a. b. 219. a. Aulters vsed of the Christians 9. a. b. 99. a. Aulter 61. a. 130. a. 225. b. 230. a. Aulter visible and external 60. b. 130. a. 143. a. 229. a. b. Aulters material 99. a. 229. a. sequent External Aulter argueth external Sacrifice 229. a. Authoritie geuen to Priests to offer vp the dreadful Sacrifice 88. a. 128. a. B. Baptisme 9. b. Baptisme doth not only signifie but also exhibit wasshing of sinnes 83. b. Beza 17. a. Beza defendeth it to be lawful to put Heretiques to death 179. a. The Bible corrupted by the Protestantes 167. a. b. Bishoply duetie 246. a. Blouddy and vnbloudy referred to one subiecte 226. a Burning of Heretiques Dead carcasses no newe thing .186 b. sequent C. CAluine defendeth it lawful to put Heretiques to Death 197. a The Canon of the Masse defended against M. Iewels scoffes 123. b. 254. b. 257. a. The prayer of the holy CanoÌ„ found in S. Ambrose 258. a. Ceremonies of the Iewes changed 9. a. sequent Ceremonies of the Christians 59. a. The Chalenger playeth Thraso his parte 261. b. How we see Christe suffering by Charitie 200. b. Christe truly and in in deede offered 35. a. Christ offered vp his body at his last Supper 45. a. 48. a. Christ sacrificed him selfe at his Supper 67. b. 79. b. sequent Christe gaue his body and shed his bloud at the Supper affirmed by certaine Fathers 73. a. Christe sacrificeth and is sacrificed by the meanes or mediation of Priestes 86. a. 127. a. Christe dieth againe in this Mysterie and how 161. b. 162. a. Christ at the Supper both Priest and Lambe 73. b. Christ commaunded him selfe to be offered 79. b. 106. b. 259. b. Christe appeareth before the Father in heauen with his wounded body 117. a. 118. a. The Rocke was Christe and how 1â—7 a. Christes being in the Sacrifice and in reading of the Storie of the Gospel is different 199. a. Christe offred the true bread and the true wine at his Supper 48. a. 204. a.
Christe consecrated his body and bloud at his Supper 133. a. The Churche speaketh with al tongues 200. b. The Churche beholdeth Christ and toucheth his woundes 200. b. A marke to know the true Church which the Gospellers lacke 237. a. The Churche hath authoritie to create Priestes 242. b. The Churches determination touching the consecration of the Sacrament 248. a. Most insolent madnes to cal in question thinges generally receiued in the Catholike Churche 122. a. Commemoration example and signe exclude not the real presence and real oblation 28. a. 97. b. 98. a. 253. a. Commemoration and the hoste different 194. b. Communion of England compared with Melchisedeks Sacrifice which M. Iew. calleth Melchisedeks Masse 211. b. Conclusions out of S. Chrysostome against M. Iewel 152. a. b. 153. b Contrite harte a Sacrifice 249. a. Cranmere and his subscriptions 183. a. Crucifying of Christe considered two waies 259. a. D Dare vsed for offerre 69. a. The Daily Sacrifice and a Daily Sacrifice 250. a. Dauid Georges carkasse digged vp and burnt with his image at Basile 187. a. Dedication what thereby is meant in S. Hierome 213. a. Dicke Adams hanged at Bristowe for felonie Foxes Martyr 181. a. E. EMamuel the Iewes euangelical wedlocke to an other mans wyfe 175. a The Euchariste maketh our bodies immortal 84. b. 150. a. The Euchariste what it is 83. b. sequent The Euchariste consisteth of two thinges 150. a. The Eucharist is the Singular Sacrifice 237. a. External Sacrifice 138. a. b. 229. a. 241. a. External Priesthod 242. a. External Oblation proper to Priestes 249. b F. Howe vve see Christes woundes by Faith 200. a. The Faith of the Fathers of the old Testament and ours remaineth one and the same 25. a. Either the Fathers were deceiued or the holy Ghoste dissenteth froÌ„ him selfe 7. b Falsifiers practise 57. a The holy learned Fathers tale to M. Iewel and his felowes 188. a Figure onely excluded 107. b. Foxes holy Martyrs 181. a G. The fable of the Garnsey woman burnt for heresie 184. a. Of the woman of Garneseys childe falling out of her bely into the fier 184. b. Germane Compar what thereby is meant in S. Paule 167. b. Gospel what it signifieth sometimes 213. a. H. HEretiques robbe the Church of the greatest Treasure 44. a. b Heretikes punished by death 178. b sequent Heretikes scourged with roddes an olde punishment 183. a Heretikes tongues cut out an olde punishment 183. b Hoste and vnblouddy ioyned together 77. b. I M. Iewels obiectioÌ„ against the sacrifice taken of the basenesse of maÌ„kinde answered 4. a M. Iewel to proue his Negatiue at the first findeth no auncienter doctour then Theophylacte a late writen 5. a M. Iewel maketh the Fathers to speake one thing and thinke an other 8. b M. Iewel excluded out of the number of Catholiques by Leo his iudgement 10. b M. Iewels reason vvhy Priesthood Aulters sacrifice and such other termes were vsed of the Fathers reproued 10. b. 11. a M. Iewel vtterly taketh away the real sacrifice of the new testameÌ„t 22. b M. Iewel maketh it a daÌ„gerous presuÌ„ptioÌ„ that a Priest hath auctoritie to offer vp Christ vnto his Father 49. a M. Iewel like to false Lapidaries and goldsmithes 54. b. M. Iewels Custome for aduantage against his Aduersarie 65. a M. Iewel straggleth alone like a lost sheepe 68. a That absurde to M. Iewel which S. Chrysostome Gregorie Nazianzen Theophylact and the holy Fathers alowe 77. b. 78. a M. Ievvel skanneth Diuinitie by Phrases 77. b Scorneful termes vsed by M. Iewel 86.87 M. Iewels Greeke frend of Oxford trusted of him to much 99. b M. Iewels scorneful absurditie of one and two once and tvvise answered 115. a M. Iewels argument absurd 16. a. 228. a. 254. a. fonde 136. b. forged 68. b. 207. b. M. Iew. falsifieth S. Chrysostom 17. b. 38. b. 70. b. 89. b. 151. a. b. 250. b M. Iewels shiftes against the Sacrifice 19. b. 155. b. M. Iewels diuerting from the purpose to impertinent matter 19. b. 137. b. 142. a. 165. b. 166. b. 176. b. 225. b. M. Iew. forgeth sayings of his own fathering theÌ„ vpon the Doctours 24. b. 34. a. 53. b. 54. b. 142. a. 200. a. 202. a. M. Iew. laboureth to proue that the thing and substance of the Sacramentes of both Testamentes be not sundry but one 24. a. b. M. Iewel changeth the Doctours wordes 32. a. 111. a. 239. b. M. Iewel taketh aduantage of his owne false translation 38. a. M. Iew. faineth his Aduersarie to say that he saith not and therto directeth his Replie 43. b. 101. a. 126. a M. Iew. falsifieth S. Augustine 32. a. 38. a. 39. a. 239. a. M. Ievvel falsifieth S. Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus 33. b. M. Iewels falshod plainly detected 34. b. 71. b. 232. a. M. I. falsifieth the couÌ„cel of Nice 37. a M. Iewel forgeth a saying of his owne and putteth it vpon Tertullian 53. b. M. Iewel falsifieth S. Hierom. 57. b. M. Iewel falsifieth Eusebius 59. b. 92. b. M. Iewel falsifieth S. Thomas in Catena Aurea 71. a. b. M. Iewel taken in a foule contradiction 80. b. M. Iewel corrupteth S. Clement 48. a. M. Iewels guileful dealing 100. a. 139. a. 150. b. 163. b. M. Iewels howe 's and Ifs whome they become 76. a. M. Iew. falsifieth the woordes of the answer 66. a. 75. b. 118. a M. Iewel addeth of his owne 57. a M. Iewel falsly reporteth the Aunswer where it is said inuisibly offered he saieth inuisibly sacrificed 116. a. 118. b M. Iewel a begyler of the simple a mocker of the world a controller of S. Ambrose and a condemner of the whole Churche 1â—5 a M. Iew. allegeth the wordes of the Authours of which none be extant bearing the same title 17. b M. Iewel vseth false translation 17. b 18. a. 37. a. 40. a. 98. a. 114. b. 177. b 195. b. 204. a. M. Iewel swarueth from the meaning of the Fathers 54. a. 90. a. M. Iewel conceeleth the circumstances of places alleged 57. a. 102. b. 145. a. 149. b. 193. b. 211. a. 227. a. b. 231. b. 241. b. M. Iewel findeth contradiction where none is 67. a. M. Iewel dissembleth truthes as the Real presence found in the Authours 72. a M. Ievvel laboureth to put the Fathers out of credit and to that end vseth light termes 79. a. 110. a. b M. Ievvel taketh the beginning of a Sentence and cutteth away the ende 111. a. b. M. Ievvel deuiseth impudent gloses and setteth them in by way of a Parenthesis 112. b. M. Iewel reporteth the Canon of the Masse falsly to colourable aduantage 123. a. â— M. Iewels doctrine only figuratiue 103. a. 218. a. M. Iewel falsifieth S. Cyprian 111. a M. Iewels coffe 112. b A Common shifte of M. Iewels Rhetorique 129. a M. Iewel falsifieth S. Dionyse 130. a M. Iew. falsifieth Pachymeres 136. a M. Iewel falsifieth S. Gregorie Nazianzene 138. a. 240. a M. Ievvels Logique 139. a. 239. b. M. Iewel