sacrifice with him But how After the order of Melchisedech Or by their own Act Priesthood as M. Iewel gathereth Surely except Guerricus him selfe had made it plaine in what sense the Priest and the People do offer no doubt but M. Iewel in this place would outface vs that this Abbat meant that men and women were Priestes after the order of Melchisedech Notwithstanding that it is not saied the cuÌ„pani of the faithful do coÌ„secrate as though they might do it by themselues but they consecrate with him the Priest signifieng the Office to be singular And it foloweth in the Sermon Neither the Carpenter alone doth make a house but one bringeth roddes an other rafters an other postes or beames and other things By which Similitude it is manifest that the people consecrate in this sense that they bring sumwhat to that end And what is that By this that foloweth it wil be vnderstanded For thus he concludeth Therefore the standers by ought to haue of their owne euen as the Priest ought What A Cope trow you M. Iewel vpon their backes or a Surplesse like Ministers or power and Authoritie of Priesthod No. but a sure faith a pure prayer a godly deuotiâ—n Where then is the Breade and Wine or the Order of Melchisedech which you would proue to perâ—eine to the common people with Therfore S. Bernard saith or Otherwise called Guerricus Here is a Conclusion without Premisses And a comparison without any likelyhoode And A falsification without truth or honestie Alexander of Hales abused The people taking but one kind only receiueth iniurie as M. Harding may see by Alexander de Hales and Durandus other of his owne Doctours Alexanders wordes be these Licèt illa Sumptio c. Although that Order of Receiuing the Sacrâ—ment â–ª which is vnder one kinde be sufficient yet the other which is vnder both kindes is of greater merite Al this M. Iewel is true but this proueth not that the people haue any iniury done vnto them For to Receiue â—nder one kinde it is sufficient by Alexanders expresse wordes but vndoubtedly if any thing lacked of that which were dâ—e â–ª there wer not sufficieÌ„cy Ergo how proue you by Alexander that the people are Iâ—iuried in receiuing vnder one kinde You wil Replie out of him that it is of greater merite to receiue in both kinds than one And what of â—hat It is a greater merite to Celebrate thrise a day as at Christmasse then once as Ordinarily Priestes do vse Do ye thinke then that any Priestes haue Iniury don vnto them because the Order is otherwise that they say but one Masse in one daie except one daie onely in the yeare Againe I say that Alexander noteth a greater merite to be in Receiuing vnder both than one kind not in respect of the Sacramente which is as perfite in one as both and in the least part of one as the whole but in respect of the Receiuers because their deuotion is encreased and their Faith dilated by longer coÌ„tinuing in thâ— Act of Receiuing and their Receiuing is more Complete as being ministred in both kindes And as the causes on the behalfe of the Receiuer do make it to a person so disposed more effectual to Receiue in both than one So other causes there be which doe make y â— Receiuing vnder one kinde to be to the party so affected more fruietful and meritorious than if he tooke both For he that would say vnto him self I wil content my selfe with the common Order of the Church I wil not make any Sturre about both kindes knowing y â— as much is vnder one as both vndoubtedly such a man should both for his Humilitie and for his Faith deserue more a great deale then if he should Receiue in both kindes and find a certaine sense and tast of Denotion The strength therefore and efficatie which Alexander speaketh of depending vpon the Act of the Receiuer and not vpon the Uertue of y â— Sacrament which is al one in effect whether it be ministred in one or both kindes M. Iewel doth very iniuriously to put a fault herein y â— they Receiue not vnder both to make Alexander of this opinion that to minister in one kinde were an Iniurie vnto the people For this I would aske further of him whether the simple and deuout people are not more stirred vp to remember the Death and Bloâ—d of Christe if they should Receiue in Claret or Red Wine than in White No doubt but the imaginatioÌ„ would be more affected and moued by seeing a like colour vnto y â— which it would conceiue than a contrary or diuerse colour How then Would M. Iewel thinke it an Iniury to minister in white wine vnto the people though thei would be desirous of Red He should not thinke it if he be wise And why so Mary because they haue as much in the White as the Red and to receiue in Red hangeth vpon their priuate deuotion not vpon any precept of the Churche or doctrine of the Apostles or Institution of Christe to which onely the Priest is bound and which if he obserue he doth his duety Be it so then that many good â—olke for diuerse causes should be exceedingly moued and edified by drinking of the Chalice and contemplating of more then is Ordinarie in their minde should they haue any Iniurie done vnto them if they receiued afterwardes when the Priest should iudge it expedient vnder y â— forme of bread only Neyther doth Alexander de Hales so say neither any reason doth make for it But let vs see an other place of Alexander which M. Iewel hath abused The same Alexander againe saith Totus Christus c. Whole Christ is not conteined vnder ech kind by way of SacrameÌ„t but the fleash onely vnder the fourme of bread and the bloud vnder the fourme of wine The woordes can not be denied to be Alexanders but what seâ—se gathereth M. Iewel of them Here M. Hardinges owne Doctours confesse that the people Receiuing vnder one kinde receiueth not the ful SacrameÌ„t nor the bloud of Christe by way of Sacrament You vnderstand not Alexander or you wil not For whereas he saith Christ is not conteined vnder ech kinde Sacramentally he meaneth not that the people Receiue not the Ful Sacrament and their owne Maker Godde and Manne vnder eche kinde but by this woorde Sacramentally he meaneth that concerning the forme of wordes by which consecration is perfited in eche kinde and by external forme of the Signes vnder which Christ is exhibited the flesh only is conteined vnder the forme of Breade and the bloud vnder the forme of Vvine As when Christ said This is my bloud the woordes which we heare doe signify no more than Bloude to be there present And y â— external Signe and liquor of wine doth represent a presence of bloud onely And this is that â—hich Alexander meaneth by the worde Sacramentally when he
saith Vvhole Christ is not conteined vnder ech kind Sacramentally For he speaketh of the representation only which is made to our senses by exterâ—al words Signes and not of y â— thing it selfe and substance of the Sacrament which is apprehended by Faith Now that Alexander was not of this mind which M. Iew. would make him to be of that whole Christ should not be receaued vnder ech kind though whole Christ were not signified by the sound of the wordes of Consecration in ech kind it is manifest by the next article in him where he concludeth that Christus integer Deus homo est sub specie Panis Vvhole Christ God and Man is vnder the forme of Bread And both sayinges are true that vvhole Christ is not vnder ech kind â–ª if ye consider only the Signe of the wordes that are spoken or the thinges that are shewed for in saying this is my bodie no mention is made of bloud And againe that vvhole Christ God and man is vnder the forme of Bread if ye consider the mater Really Alexander therfore speaketh no otherwise in this point then it becummeth A faithful and Catholike man to do And M. Iewel doth no otherwise than he is wont to do but otherwise surely than becumneth an honest and lerned man specially hauinge no neede to alleage any Scholemen and lesse neede to corrupt them when he allegeth them Polidorus Uergilius abused S. Cyprian calleth the Church of Rome Ecclesiam principalem vnde vnit as Sacerdet alis exorta est the principal Church from vvhence the Vnitie of Priestes hath spronge Out of which testimonie M. Iewel gathereth A force as it were of two Argumentes that might be made the one in that it is called Ecclesia principalis the principal or chief Churche the other because it foloweth vnde vnitas Sacordotalis exorta est whiche words D. Harding doth interpret thus from vvhence the vnitie of Priestes is spronge M. Iewel thus froÌ„ whence the vnitie of the Priesthood first began In which his Interpretation there is a plaine falsehod and craftines For in repeting the wordes and in writing of them so as if they were D. Hardings it becummed hym to deliuer them furth in the same forme as he â—ound them in D. Harding Then whereas it is not al one to say the vnitie of Priesthood sprange from Rome and the vnitie of Priesthod began first at Rome for there may be springs two or three in one place and although the water issue not out first at the lowest yet the lowest of the three maie be the chiefe head vnto al the riuers beneth M. Iewels intent was not simple to cast in this word first into the sentence as though the question were not whether the Chife Prieste in all the world were at Rome but whether the first Priest in al the world began at Rome Betwene which two propositions there is a great difference But what sayth M. Iewel to these wordes Vnde vnitas Sacerdotalis exorta est from whence the vnitie of Priesthoode first begaÌ„ as he englisheth it for a vaÌ„tage For that these words seme for to weigh much I thinke it good herein to heare the Iudgement of some other man that may seeme Indifferent Why should Polidore Uergile be Indifferent He lyued not fiftie yeres sens he was a Collectour to y â— Bishop of Rome and therefore to you not Indifferent And to vs on the other side not Indifferent because this very booke de Inuenâ—orâ—â—â—s rerum is condemned by the General Councel at Trent But you haâ—e fouÌ„d somewhat in him by likelihod which maketh for you that you esteeme of hym so wel And what is that I praie you We aske you for the Answer to S. Cyprians words you bring in Polidore to expound them but what wil ye conclude of Polidore That This commendation of which S. CypriaÌ„ speaketh was geauen by S. Cyprian to the Church of Rome in respect of Italie and not in respect of the whole world Whether this be so or no Polidors owne wordes shal trie it In his fourth booke the sâ—xth Chapiter his purpose was to shew of whom first the Order of Priesthood was Instituted And he proueth that Christ hym selfe was the first maker of Priestes Then both it folowe in hym Aâ— posâ— Chrisâ—um Petrus in Sacerdotio praerâ—gatiuaâ— habuisâ—e dicitur quòd primus in Apostolorum ordine eius Sacrosancti Collegij Caput fuisset â–ª Quapropter D. Cyprianus epist. 3. aâ— CorneliuÌ„ Cathedram Petri PrincipaleÌ„ vocat But after Christ Peter is said to haue had the prerogâ—â—iue in priesthood because he vvas the first in the revv of the Apostles and head of that holy College â—herefore S. Cyprian in his third epistle to Cornelius calleth the Chaire or Sec of S. Peter the 〈◊〉 or principal 〈◊〉 then this touching any woâ—ds of S. Câ—prian if any man can there find iâ— Polidore I wil leâ—se my right hand for 〈◊〉 and neuer write hereafter against any heretiâ—e but the Booke is common the place is intelligible and my eyes and vnderstanding serueth me so wel that I am sure Polidore in that place expoundeth not these wordes of S. Cyprian â—nde â—nitas Sacerdot alis exorta est What Impudencie then is it in M. Iewel for that these words seme to weigh much to bring furth the Iudgement of Polidore a man that may seme to be Indifferent whereas they are not at all in Polidore Polidorus Virgilius saieth he expouÌ„deth the same words of S. Cyprian Dare ye say he expoundeth them whereas he hath not them He bringeth in S. Cyprian to proue that the See of S. Peter was principal but of Vnitas Sacerdotalis the vnitie of Priesthood Upon which wordes you made hast to shewe his exposition he maketh no mention He saieth in his owne wordes not in S. Cyprians that the order of Priesthood can not be sated to haue grovven first from the Bishope of Rome onlesse vve vnderstand it only by Italie for Priesthood was rightly instituted at Hierusalem but that the Commendation geauen by S. Cyprian to the Church of Rome was geauen in respect only of Italy and not in respect of the whole world he saied it not nor intended it The Order also of Priesthood and vnitie of Priesthood are two thinges In the Order is considered the Author and effect of that Sacrament In the Unitie is considered the preseruation and Gouernement of that Order Of the Order it selfe and where Priesthod first began Polidore doth speake Of the vnity and of the Relation which all Priestes should haue to their chiefe head and Gouernour S. Cyprian doth speake and Polidore saieth nothing The Order began at Dierusalem and not at Rome The vnity I wil not say begaÌ„ at Rome but after y â— s. Peter had by his martyrdoÌ„ there takeÌ„ ful possession of that See then was it seen where the Principal Church in al the world was and to
factes are put furth in writing they are for this end put furth to be abhorred and not to be folowed As Cains murdering of his brother or Iudas betrayinge of his Master Yet when the persons are notorious as Cain and Iâ—das Or the factes them selues are euidently naught as to kyll or berray Innoâ—entes he should not doe much harme which would desperatly goe about to perswade any to folowe such Examples But here is the mischief when Historiographers are brought in as alowing thaâ— whiche they condemne in deede Or whâ—â— heretikes are made to go for catholike Bishops And when y â— is put furth as an Example to be folowed which serued rather to dehort men from resisting Trueth and Authoritie And when by natural reason the mater is not so euident but examples of former times in the one siâ—e or other maie wel moue the vnleaâ—neâ— to folowe them And in this arte M. Iewel is a doctor For if he would haue expressely said The Arrians and Heretikes of the Easte Church wheÌ„ they had wrongfully expelled the catholikes and good Bispopes Paulus Athanasius c. out of their sees they contemned the Bishope of Romes letters by which they were required to receiue them againe and to set aside al Iniurie and newâ—anglenes Ergo the Bishope of Rome is supreame head of the Church If M. Iewel would after this open and plainâ— manner haue vsed hymselfe there is not I suppose so vnsensible A Protestant which would not haue iudged hym to haue reasoned very folishly But now whiles he geueth them no worse name than the Bishops of the East and kepeth frome the knowlege of his Readers that they were Heretikes and Arrians he maketh them to thinke that al is wel And that these Bishopes were men of much credite and worthines and that not only late Gospellers but old Catholique Fathers also haue denied Obedience to the Bishoppe of Rome Whiche thinges being altogether otherwise the Readers are driuen into perdition And M. Iewel either seeth not that an Argument brought from the Authoritie of blasphemous heretikes is nothing worth which is incredible in him that hath so greate insighâ—e in the true Logykâ— and Diuinitie either seinge it he maketh no conscience of it to bring his purposes to an end by what meanes soeuer he maie this is so credible that it agreeth very wel both with the desperatnes of his cause and of his stomake BEVVARE therefore Indifferent Reader of M. Iewel and knowe this for most certeine that as I haue declared by a few Examples in this Chapiter that he allegeth the condemned sayinges and doings of Heretikes vnder the colour 〈◊〉 Catholike and approued witnesses so in many moe places of his Replie he doth in like maner abuse them most shamfully But of them thou shalt reade in other Bookes And what now is there more M. Iewel that ye wil require or vse against vs To the first six hundred yeres only you haue appealed your selfe yet do vse the testimonies of al ages To the first six hundred only you haue appealed and yet against the approued writers of that selfe tyme you haue excepted Besydes this as though ther were not to be found Catholike witnesses inough in the cause of the catholike Faith you couertly bring in against vs the accursed sayinges and doâ—inges of Heretikes Which one point excepted that you shal not in question of the Catholyke Faith and Tradition â–ª make any old Heretikes Iudges in the cause Or witnesses for the reste I dare graunt vnto you to take your vantage where you can finde it But hauing so large cumpasse graunted vnto you against the expresse reason Equitie which should be in your Chalenge shal it not become you to vse this priuilege discreetly and truly And so to allege your witnesses as in deede they meane in their owne sense without false applying thereof And as they speake in their owne tongue without adding vnto their say inges or taking awaie from them any thing that is of the substance of their verdicte Thus whether you doe obserue or no let it be tried And that it maie be tried the better I wil briefely and plainely proue against you M. Iewel before any indifferent Reader First y â— you haue abused Councels then Lawes Canon and Ciuil Thirdly Fathers and Doctours Auncient and Late And that ye haue spared no kind of writer that came in your way How M. Iewel hath abused Councels COuncels in one sense are abused when that which is found in them to be condemned is brought furth by any Protestant as though it were approued As in example wheras D. Harding concluded vpon the profite which cometh of celebrating the memorie of our Lords Passion that the Sacrifice of the Aultar which is made in remembrance therof shuld not be intermitted although the people would not communicate M. Iewel To adde a lytle more weighte to this seely reason saieth further in D. Hardings behalfe If this Sacrifice be so necessarie as it is supposed then is the Priest bound to Sacrifice euery daie yea although he him selfe Receaue not But howe proueth he this it foloweth For the Sacrifice and the receauing are sundrie thinges And what of that For although Communion bread and wine be sundrie thinges yet you wil not permit the Receiuing of the Lords supper in one kinde oâ—ly And so although Sacrifice and Receiuing be distinct yet doth it not folow that a Priest maie offer and not receaue But you wil proue it by better Authoritie then your owne for thus you saie As it is also noted in a late Councel holden at â—oledo in Spaine Quidam Sacerdotes caet Certaine Priestes there be that euery day offer many Sacrifices and yet in euery Sacrifice withhold themselfe from the Communion What is your Ergo then vpon this place Your Conclusion should be Ergo A Priest maie Sacrifice although he himselfe doe not Receaue But can you gather this out of the Councel Doth it not rather make expressely to the contrarie Doth it not reproue the Priestes which Sacrifice Receue not Let the place be considered then conferred with M. Iewels collection The whole place is this Relatum est caet It is tolde vs that certaine emonge the Priestes doe not so manie tymes Receaue the grace of the holy Communion as they seeme to offer Sacrificies in one daie but if they Offer moe Sacrificies in one daie they vvithhold themselues in euerie offering from the Communion and they take the grace of the holie Communion only iâ— the lasâ—e offering of the Sacrifice Aâ— though that they should not so ofte participate the true singular Sacrifice as oft as the offering of the body and bloud of our Sauiour Iesus Christ shal be sure to haue ben made For behold the Apostle saieth doe not they eate the Sacrificies vvhich are partakers of the Aultar Certaine it is that they vvhich doe Sacrifice and doe not eate are giltie of the
Sacrament of our â—ord From henceforth therefore vvhatsoeuer Priest shal come to the Diuine Aultar to offer vp Sacrifice and vvithhold himselfe from the Communion let him knovv that for one yeres space he 〈◊〉 repelled froÌ„ the grace of the Câ—Ì„munioÌ„ of vvhich he hath vnsemely depriued him selfe For vvhat maner of sacrifice shal that be of vvhich no not he that doth Sacrifice is knovven to be partaker Therefore by all meanes it must be obserued that as oft as the Sacrificer doth offer and Sacrifice vpon the Aultar the bodie and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ so ofte he geue himselfe to be partaker of the bodie bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ. Hitherto the Councel of Toledo How thinke we then Hath not M. Iewel properly alleged it for his purpose could he haue brought a place more plaine against himselfe M. Iewel saieth that Sacrifice and Receiuing are sundrie thinges And meaneth thereby that the priest may do y â— one leaue the other that is Offer and not Receiue the Councel defineth that what so euer Priest do Offer and not Receiue he shal be kept away from the Communion a tweluemonth togeather And what other thing is this to say then that Sacrifice and Communion are so sundrie that the Priest for al that can not put them a sunder Or do one without the other Thus hath M. Iewel to put more weight to his seely reason confirmed it by a fact condemned by the same Councel in which it is fouÌ„d reported And this is one way of Abusing of Councels In an other kinde it is an abusing of Councels when that is Attributed vnto them which at al is not in them As in Example The Intention saith M. Iewel of the Churche of Rome is to woorke the Transubstantiation of bread and wine The Grek church had neuer that IntentioÌ„ as it is plaine by the CouÌ„cel of Florence Thus you say M. Iewel and in the Margin you referre vs to the last session of the Councel of Florence but in that Session there is no mention at al of TraÌ„substantiation Or Intention The greatest and the only mater therein Discussed and defined was concerning the Prâ—ceding of God the Holyghost from the Father and the Sonne in which point the Grecians then were at one w t the Latines It folowed then after a few dayes that the vnion was made that the Bishop of Rome sent for the Grecians and asked of them certaine questions concerning their Priestes and Bishopes and Anoynting of their dead Praiers in theâ—â— Liturgie and choosing of their Patriarches But it was neither Demaunded of them what Intention they had in Consecrating Neither Aunswered they any thing to any such effect Neither did the Bishop open vnto them his Faith and beliefe therein So that altogether it is a very flat lye that M. Iewel here maketh vpon that Councel Except he meane the Doctrine that there foloweth geauen to the Armenians in which TraÌ„substantiation and Intention both is coÌ„prehended whâ—revnto the Sacred CouÌ„cel wheâ—â—of the Grecians were a parte gaue their consent A third maner of Abusing Councels is to allege them truely in dede as they say but yet to allege them to no purpose As in example The fourth Councel of Carthage decreed that in certaine cases the Sacrament should be powred into the sicke mans mouth of which worde powred being proper only to thinges that are fluent and liquide D. Harding gathereth that the Sacrament whiche they receaued was in the forme of winâ— and not of bread Herevpon M. Iewel commeth against him and he calleth it a Gheasse that the bread can not be powred into a sicke mans mouth But howe proueth he it to be but a Gheasse Or what sayeth he to the contrarie It foloweth And yet he maie learne by the thirde Councel of Carthage and by the abridgement of the Councel of Hippo that the Sacrament was then put into dead mens mouthes Your Argument then is this One y â— is so foolish or superstitious may put the Sacrament into a dead mans mouth Ergo D. Harding doth not gheasse wel that bread can not be powred into a sicke mans mouth But al thinges are here vnlike both Persons and Actes and Termes First of al dead men are distincted from Sicke men and the dead you may order violentlie but the sicke wil be vsed Reasonablie except none but Enemies be about them Then in the one side the Act is vnlauful to put the Sacrament in a dead mans mouth On the other it is lauful to power it into a sicke mans mouth Beside this Putting is one thing and Pouring is an other and whether it be bread or wine you may be suffered to say that they are put into the mouth but how bread should be poured into ones mouth except in al haste you minded to choke him or fil him I can not tel Last of al the terme Sacrament which is forbidden to be put in the dead mans mouth may signifie any of the two kindes That is either of Bread or wine â–ª but in naming the Bread you are bound to that one kinde only of the Sacrament and must not meane thereby wine So that there is neither Rime nor Reason in it to tel vs ful solemlie that the Sacrament was put in dead mens mouthes the PropositioÌ„ which you therby would disproue being onely this that Bread can not be poured into sicke mens mouthes And therefore to speake the least and best of it this is a very vain and idle Abusing of the Authorities of Councels But of al other it passeth when M. Iewel taketh as much as pleaseth him of any Canon of Councel and maketh a ful point before he come to the end of the Sentence Mainteining his Heresie by that Peece which he pulleth away And dissembling that which remaineth by which his Obiection should be straitwaies refelled For otherwise to reherse no more of a Canon than serueth our purpose it is coÌ„mon and tolerable But when that point which an Heretike leaueth out pertaineth to the qualifying of that other Peece which he would haue to be vnderstand absolutely that is such a point of an Heretike as may wel cause any reasonable maÌ„ to BEVVARE of him But is it possible that M. Iewel maie be taken in this fault If he be not then wil I graunt that he hath not in as Ample and Shamfull maner abused Councels as any of the most Desperate of all that euer wrote And if he be I aske nomore but that he may goe for such as he is The Example shal make this plaine In the Councel of Laodicea it is decreed like as also in the Councell of Carthage that nothing be readde in the Church vnto the people sauing only the Canonical Scriptures I wonder then what your Homelies doe in the Church except you thinke that they be Canonical Scriptures Or els that you so precise folowers of Antiquitie are not bound to