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
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
the Iewes meaning that he did vnto him selfe that at the Supper which was done on the morow with the violence of them that crucified him Wherby neuerthelesse he vnderstandeth the mystical Oblation of him selfe not the manner of his blouddy Oblation For he confesseth it to be secret inuisible and vnspeakeable And that no man should doubte of this Sacrifice he ascribeth vnto him both the office of a Priest and also of the Lambe As a Priest he sacrificed as the Lambe he was sacrificed For the better vnderstanding of this point the Sacrifice at the Supper and that on the morow vppon the Crosse The sacrifice of the supper and the sacrifice of the Crosse one and diuers in diuers respectes may truly be accompted and named one Sacrifice and also diuers Sacrifices Neither is this Sophistrie good Reader as these newe Gospellers wil beare thee in hande by this true distinction sophistical obiections and wranglings of the Gospellers may reasonably be answered How then is it one how be they diuers Learne it once and be no more contentious as they be who hauing heard it so oftentimes by the Catholikes tolde them wil yet seme not to vnderstand it Before I answer to this question Sacrifice taken tvvo vvaies this much is necessarily to be declared that the name of Sacrifice is wont to be taken sometime for the thing that is offred vnto God sometime for the action it selfe of sacrificing Now then it is one Sacrifice in respect of the thing offred and sacrificed which is the body and bloude of Christ. For that is one and the selfe same in both in the Supper and vpon the Crosse. The Action is of two manners bloudy and vnbloudy These Sacrifices be diuers in respect of the manner of the Action and of the offering For in the Supper it was vnbloudy and vpon the Crosse it was bloudy Concerning the former Sacrifice in deede al dependeth of the real presence that is to say vppon the credite of Christes worde whereby his body and bloude is both professed to be present and is made really present Which if it were truly beleued al contention about the Sacrifice were sone ended And yet hath that point of late bene learnedly and substantially entreated by D. Heskins and by D. Saunder who hath clearely answered and refuted the obiections what so euer Maister Iewel in his Replie was hable to bring to the contrary Tertull. In praescript But what shal we say These mennes reasons may sone be answered their pertinacie can neuer be answered Of suche Tertullian saith ouercome they may be persuaded they can not be Theophylact in Matt. capit◠28. Now to come vnto Theophylacte His wordes be these according to the Greke Quinta feria fecit Dominus coenam Discipulis dixit Accipite comedite Corpus meum Itaque quia potestatem ex se habebat ponendi animā suam manifestum est quòd ex eo tempore immolauerit seipsum quando tradidit discipulissuis corpus suum Nemo enim comedit aliquid nisi prius fuerit immolatum Vpon the fifth day our Lorde made his Supper and said vnto his Disciples take ye and eate my body So that bicause he had power of him selfe to put of his soule it is manifest that from that time he sacrificed him selfe when he delyuered his body vnto his Disciples For no man doth eate any thing at the solēnitie of a sacrifice so he meaneth which is not sacrificed before What can be vttered in plainer termes then that we find in these two Fathers The one saith that Christ offered him selfe when he gaue his body and bloude vnto his Disciples The other that he preuented the violence that was done vnto him on the morow and offered vp him selfe an Oblation and Sacrifice performing the parte bothe of a Prieste and of the Lambe And least any man should myssetake them vnderstanding it to haue ben done vpon the Crosse onely with most expresse wordes they referre it vnto the Supper And so by their doctrine be the verbes Datur frāgitur effunditur is geuen is brokē is shed verefied in the present Tense and not only in the future Tense In these testimonies the cause that both Nyssen and Theophylacte geueth why Christe offered his body which he deliuered vnto his Disciples is specially to be noted which is bicause in the solemnitie of Sacrifices no mā eateth that which is not before sacrificed Wherein they allude vnto the olde manner of Sacrifices which alwaies were offered vp before they were eaten And so the body and bloude of our Sauiour Christe our true Paschal Lambe was at his Maundie and now ought to be offered vp before it was then or now is to be eaten and dronke in the blessed Sacrament Hesychius lib. 1. in Leuit. cap. 46. Hesychius vttereth the like doctrine writing vpon the booke of Leuiticus Iewel To be shorte if it be true that Christe shead his bloud at his Last Supper and that Verily Really and in deede as M. Hardinge alone strangely auoucheth and no man els I trovve beside him then can he no more say The same was an vnbloudy Sacrifice And so must he yelde vp the strongest Tovver of al his Holde For yf the Sacrifice that Christe made at his Supper vvere vnbloudy hovv did Christ there shead his bloud Yf Christ as M. Harding saith did there Shead his Bloude hovv can that Sacrifice be called Vnbloudy But to leaue these fantasies and vaine shiftes Christe gaue his Bodie to be broken and his Bloude to be shead not at his Last Supper but only vpō his Crosse and no vvere els There he bare our iniquities there was he rent for our Sinnes Psal. 53. And in that only respect vve receiue his body and embrace it and haue fruit of it In this respect S. Paule saith God forbid Galat. 6. I should reioice in any thing sauing onely in the Crosse of our Lorde Iesus Christe Therefore this nevv Article of the faith of the real sacrificing and Sheadding of Christes bloud at the table neither being true in it self nor hitherto by M. Harding any vvay proued notvvithstāding the great Stoare and choise of his Authorities for asmuch as Christ neuer gaue neither his Apostles nor any their successours Commission to do more in that behalfe then he him selfe had done To say that any mortal man hath povver and authoritie really and in dede to Sacrifice the sonne of God it is a manifest and vvicked blasphemie the great and grosse errours vvherevvith the Diuel and his Disciples in the time of his kingdome of darkenesse haue deceiued the vvorlde notvvithstanding Harding But here M. Iewel replieth and would faine prooue a contradiction to be implyed in this doctrine I omit his falsifying of my Answer affirming me to say that Christe did shed his bloud at his last Supper verily really and in dede which I said not though it may be so said in a right sense and much lesse meant I as thereby
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
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
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
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
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
of their sayinges I wil not here reherse many of good force I wil dissemble and the sayinges of a Li 8â— CoÌ„stitut Apost Epist. 2. S. Clement b Epist. 1 of S. Anacletus c Epist. 1. of S. Alexander d Ecclesiast Hierarch c. 3 part 3. of S. Dionysius and e Epist. ad Smyruen Trallian Iren. li. 4. cap. 32. Infra fol. â—40 b. etc Cyprian Lib. 2. S. Ignatius I wil not touche Who as they were either in the Apostles time or soone after and therefore are the rather to be heaâ—d so of this Sacrifice they haue geuen forth in writing very plaine witnesse Verely S. Irenaeus speaketh so clearely of it in his fourth booke against Valentinus that by no shifte it can be auoided by no myste or clowde it can be darkened M. Iewel hath beaten his wit very muche about it and hath trauailed al that he could to frame an answer to it in his Replie but he laboureth in vaine and sheweth more wilfulnes then reason more talke then learning as by this Reiondre it shal appeare S. Cyprian writing to Caecilius saith that the Priest doth then offer in the Churche a true and ful sacrifice vnto â—od the Father if he beginne so to offer euen as he seeth Christe to haue offered In whiche place he declareth how Christe offering his body and bloude in the forme of bread and wine at his Supper Epist. 3. Ambros. lib. 4.5.6 De Sacrament lib. 5. exercised the office of his Priesthoode after the order of Melchiâ—edech Here I might allege S. Ambrose in sundry places of his bookes De Sacramentis and in his Epistle to the noble woman Marcellina his sister Epist. 33. where expressely he nameth the Masse by the name of Missa and the Oblation that it be not wrested to an other signification S. Hierome in sundry places of his workes but specially in his epistle to Euagrius and to Hedibia quaest 2. hath a manifest testimonie of this sacrifice S. Augustin likewise in many places of his workes De Ciuit. li. 17. c. 20 In the .17 booke De Ciuitate Dei speaking of the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe which he doth exhibite after the order of Melchisedek saith Id sacrificium successit omnibus illis sacrificijs veteris Testamenti quae immolabantur in vmbra futuri This Sacrifice hath come in place of al those sacrifices of the olde Testament whiche were sacrificed in the shadow of the sacrifice to come And to thintent we should vnderstand this not to be the blouddy Sacrifice of the Crosse but the vnblouddy Sacrifice of the Aulter he addeth these wordes to put the Reader out of doubte pro illis omnibus sacrificijs Oblationibus corpus eius offertur participantibus ministratur For al those sacrifices and Oblations of the olde Lawe Christes body is offered and ministred vnto the receiuers In his booke of Confessions he speaketh of this Sacrifice so clearly as it can not be denied shewing how it was offred for his Mother Monica that holy woman at her burial August Confess lib. 9. c. 12 His wordes be plaine Neque in eis precibus quas tibi fudimus cùm offerretur pro eae Sacrificium precij nostri ego fleui Neither wepte I in those praiers whiche we made vnto the he speaketh vnto God at what time the Sacrifice of our Price was offered vp for her In an other place he telleth what a great desire she had not to haue her body sumptuously and honorably buried but to be remembred at the Aulter of Godâ— Ibid. â— 13 vnde sciret dispensari victimam sanctam qua deletum est Chirographum quod erat contrariumnobis qua triumphatus est hostis computans delicta nostra etc. From whence she knew that holy hoste or sacrifice to be bestowed by which the handwriting that was contrary to vs was blotted out by which the enemie that reckeneth our offenses was ouercomme By these two testimonies bothe the Sacrifice offered at the Aulter and the Oblation of the same for the Dead is auouched If al were laid together that may be alleged out of S. Augustine in witnes of this Sacrifice it would fil a booke 〈◊〉 serm 7. de Passione Domini At what time the matter was treated in Caiphas haul saith S. Leo How Christe should be killed then he ordeined the Sacrament of his body and bloud and taught his Disciples what Sacrifice froÌ„ thenceforth ought to be offered vnto God Against these our Aduersaries can take no exception either for their age or for their auctoritie Masses made by S. Iames S. Basil S. Chrysostom S. Ambros. What shal I speake of the Masse of S. Iames the Apostle and the Masse of S. Basil allowed by the sixth general Councel holden at Constantinople and by al the Greekes of the Masse of S. Chrysostome and of S. Ambrose al whiche the antiquitie acknowleged and now be extant In those Masses this Sacrifice and Oblation is oftentimes spoken of and it is declared how it is offered Councels for vvitnes of this Sacrifice â—â—cil Nicâ—n â—ae 14â— Hereunto may be added the auctoritie of many Councels that conteine most cleare witnes of the Sacrifice of the Aulter Those holy and learned Fathers of the great first General Councel holden at Nice say that it is an vnworthy thing that they which haue not power to offer the Sacrifice that is to say the Deacons should geue the body of Christe to them that offer it The first Councel Ephesine likewise acknowledgeth the Vnblouddy Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe Concil Ephesinâ— in Epistola Cyrill ad NestoriuÌ„ and the true presence of that body whiche is proper vnto the Worde The Testimonies of other Councels that folowed these might easily be alleged for this pointe in great number But these may suffice M. Iewel impudently beareth the world in hande that nothing can be founde in the auncient Doctours or Councels M. Ievvel in his ChaleÌ„ge that maketh clearely for the Sacrifice Yea he pretendeth him selfe to be so sure of it that he offereth freely to yeelde and subscribe which it semeth he mindeth not to doo what so euer be brought if any learned man of his Aduersaries or al the learned men aliue be hable to bring any one sentence out of any one olde Doctour or Councel for it But his Maister Iohn Caluine as wicked an Heretique as he was was neuer so shamelesse as to denie a thing so manifestâ— nor so rash as to graunt so muche And therefore thus he writeth Veteres Coenam Sacrificium vocasse notum est neque possum veteris Ecclesiae consuetudinem excusare Caluinâ—â— de Coena dominiâ— quòd gestu ac ritu suo speciem quandam sacrificij figuraret ijsdem ferè ceremonijs quae sub veteri Testamento in vsuerant eo excepto quod panis hostia animalis loco vtebantur Quod cùm nimis ad Iudaisinum
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
exact rule of truth it is a point of great witte and cunning neither is it lightly perfourmed but of suche as God hath endewed with special giftes And as excellencie of witte is required to vtter them plainely so it behoueth the Readers senses be wel exeâ—cised to vnderstand them fully The doctrine of this Sacrifice in some parte is harde and obscure such as commonly hath rather ben rightly beleeued then by many clearely declared The honour of holy Mysteries is better saued with reuerent silence then with bolde opening Experience teacheth into what danger of contempte they come when they are openly reueled to populare vnderstanding Although bothe in the Scriptures and in the Fathers we haue most sufficient proufes and testimonies for the real presence and for the real Sacrifice yet they that liued within the first six hundred yeres after Christe wrote hereof more secretly then of other pointes of our Religion The cause vvhy the olde Fathers spake so secretly of these mysteries For reuerence of the Mysterie they thought it more conuenient to teache it by mowthe and by tradition then by euident and open declararion to commit muche to publique writing least so to the Infidels occasion should be ministred of despite and villanie As for example notwithstanding that religious warenesse we read in S. Augustine how the Painimes charged the Christians with the wourship of Ceres August coÌ„tra Faust. Manâ—cha lib. 20. cap. 13. and Bacchus their false Goddes bicause of the bread and wine they vsed in the celebration of their mysteries Thereof it is that we finde in the auncient Fathers so often commendation of their silence Chrysost. in Liturg. S. Chyistome saith in his Masse Conuiuij tui mystici hodie fili Dei communio nem assumpsi non tamen hostibus tuis mysterium diâ—â— I haue receiued this day the Communion of thy mystical banquet ô Sonne of God and yet I haue not tolde the Mysterie vnto thine enemies Ambro. â—i De ijs qui initiantur myster c. 1. S. Ambrose maketh it a Treason and betraying of the Mysteries to shewe them vnto those that be not yet baptized The like commendation of silence in this behalfe wee finde in Origen Orige homil 9 in Leuit. c. 16 and in S. Augustines workes not seldom Aurelianus the Emperour when he saw him selfe and the Romaine Empire to be in great peril for that the people named Marcomanni grewe strong ouer him by a great ouerthrowe they had geuen him in bataile wrote to the Senate of Rome that whiche was woont to be done in publique distresse the Sibylles bookes should be looked in Flauius Vopiscus in Diuo Aureliano In his Epistle he hath these woordes Miror vos Patres sancti tam diu de aperiendis Sibyllinis dubitasse libris perinde quasi in Christianorum Ecclesiá non in Templo Deorum omnium tractaretis I maruel at you Reuerend Fathers that ye haue ben afraid to open Sibylles bookes thus long as though ye had to doo in the Churche of Christians and not in the Temple of al the Goddes By this it appeareth what secretnesse and silence was vsed in the Primitiue Churche touching these mysteries and how feareful the holy Fathers were to say write or doo any thing whereby the Miscreantes might come by knowledge of them For which cause it is not to be marueled if they spake not so plainely and so euidently of euery point touching the Sacrifice as the sawcinesse of heretikes requireth in these daies to be answered and satisfied withal Yet they may seme to haue spoken plainly ynough to right beleuers and for the same we haue no smal number of good and cleare testimonies as by this Reioindre it shal appeare to them that be not wilfully bent either to shutte their eyes bicause they would not see or to wrangle contentiously that they â—eeme not to be ouercomme VVhen began the Fathers to speake more plaiÌ„ly of our mysteries or to denie stubbornly what so euer disliketh their phansie be it neuer so sufficiently proued But after that the Faith was once generally receiued of al where it was preached and professed and no Infidels remained among the Christians that durst openly to worke despite against the holy Mysteries whiche in sundry Prouinces came to passe before the first six hundredth yere was determined and thenceforth the learned Fathers that in those times wrote as occasioÌ„ was geueÌ„ spake of the real Presence of the body an bloud of Christe in the blessed SacrameÌ„t and of the oblatioÌ„ of the same no lesse plainly and clearely then the Churche now teacheth Whiche thing they finde to be true that be conuersant in the workes of Cassiodorus S. Gregorie the Romaine Isidorus Gregorius Turonensis Beda Haimo Rabanus and other about that age If then for this Sacrifice we haue as in this Reioindre thou shalt finde the Scriptures the testimonies of the Fathers of the first six hundred yeres of sufficient clearenes and the most manifest testimonies of the writers that immediatly folowed that age besides the authoritie of Councels that were within and soone after that age and so continually vntil the late Councel of Trent the fauourers of M. Iewels side may see his Chalenge fully answered touching this Article And therefore ought they to consider how safe it is for them to contemne so great authoritie and to be persuaded with suche â—clender Argumentes against the blessed Sacrifice of the Masse as M. Iewel setteth forth in his Replie whiche he hath borowed of the Caluinistes they receiued of Luther and Luther learned of Satan when on a night he disputed with him against the Sacrifice of the Masse as he lay waking in his bed as by his owne confession in his booke De Missa priuata he hath witnessed vnto the worlde So then if with Luther Caluine and M. Iewel they professe hatred against the Masse and denie the real Sacrifice of the Churche they shewe whose scholers they be and by whose sprite they are leade vvhether the Masse be to be taken for an euil thing seing Satan disputeth vvith Luther against it But perhappes some here wil say what is that this Reioinderer telleth vs of Satan Did Satan euer dispute with Luter against the Masse Is this credible If it be so then may I soone beleue that the Masse is a godly thing and that it procedeth from the holy Ghoste For if it were an euil thing as by our Preachers we are borne in hande it is we may be sure the Deuil would not moue Luther to leaue it For so he should worke the destruction of his owne kingdom whiche to doo is the office of Christe and most contrary to the malice of Satans condicioÌ„ This Reioinderâ—â— should do wel here to cleare him selfe of the vehement suspicion of an vntruth And in deede shame it were to belye the Deuil as they say The disputation of Satan the Deuil with Luther against the Masse truly reported out of Luthers owne
Workes In the Replieâ— Diuision 2. Pag. 2. FOr asmuch then as I vnderstand many doubte hereof and M. Iewel calleth it a scorneful and slaunderous tale blased abroade by Pighius Hosius and Staphylus of malice and hatred of the truth to thintent the truth be knowen and that it be considered what Captaine they folowe who make warre against the Sacrifice of the Masse and that the memorie of this thing remaine to our posteritie I wil here truly and faithfully set forth the disputation that was betwixt Frier Lutheâ— the first author and founder of the Protestantes Religion and Satan the Deuil as Luther him selfe reporteth it in the seueÌ„th Tome of his workes in a booke intituled De Missa priuata Vnctione Sacerdotum Who soeuer is desirous to see the place it is to be founde in the seuenth Tome printed at WitteÌ„berg by one Thomas Klug in the yere of our Lorde 1557. Folio 228. There thus writeth Luther Luthers report of his Conference vvith the Deuil COntigit me semel c. It befel me on a time that after midnight suddainly I awooke Then Satan began disputation with me after this manner Audi inquit Luthere Doctor perdocte Listen ê™ he â— right learned M. Doctor Luther 2 Thou knowest thou hast celebrated priuate Masses these fiften yeres almost euery day 3 What if suche priuate Masses were horrible Idolatrie Denial of AdoratioÌ„ of Christs body the Deuils Doctrine 4 What if it were so that the body and bloud of Christe were not present but that thou didst adoure bread and wine onely and shewedst the same to be adoured of others To whom I answered I am an annointed Priest I haue receiâ—ed vnction and consecration of a Bishop and al these thinges haue I done 5 by coÌ„maundement of my Superiours Why should I not haue coÌ„secrated sith that I pronounced the wordes of Christe seriously and celebrated Masses in great earnest The Deuil coÌ„fesseth outvvard Priesthod M. Ievvel deneeth This muche thou knowest 6 Al this ê™ Satan is true 7 But the Turkes and the Gentiles also doo al thinges in their temples vpon obedieÌ„ce and make their sacrifices in ernest The Priestes of IeroboaÌ„ also did al thinges with a certaine zeale and desire contrary to the true Priestes that were in Ierusalem 8 And what if thy taking of Orders and consecration were also false as the Turkes and Samaritanes Priestes are false Priestes and their worship is false and wicked worship First thou knowest ê™ he 9 At that time thou hadst no knowledge of Christe nor true faith and as touching faith thou wast no better then any Turke For the Turke yea al the Deuils also doo beleue the storie of Christe that he was borne that he was orucified that he died c. But the Turke and we reiected sprites doo not truste in his mercie neither haue we him for a mediatour and Sauiour but feare him as a cruel Iudge This manner of faith and none other thou hadst when thou tokest vnctioÌ„ of a Bishop and 10 al others bothe the annointers and the aÌ„nointed so thought of Christ and none otherwise For that cause ye fled 11 from Christ as from a cruel Iudge to S. Marie and the Saintes They were your mediatours betwene you and Christe 12 so the glorie was taken from Christe 13 This neither thou nor any other Papist can denie The Deuil calleth vs Papisteâ— Therefore ye are annointed consecrated and shauen and haue sacrificed in the Masse as Gentiles and Heathens and not as Christians 14 How then could ye consecrate in the Masse and celebrate a true Masse sith that which thing after your owne doctrine marreth altogether there wanteth a person hauing power to consecrate c. A briefe Reproufe of these Diuelish Blasphemies 1 In this insinuation the Deuil claweth the vaine glorious Frier by the backe as it were where he knew him to itche Right learned M. Doctor Luther ê™ he 2 Thou liest Satan as thy woont is Luther knew not ne could not know that which is false For in that which is chiefly to be accompted of the Masse is publlque and coÌ„mon Out of thy scoole the name of Priuate Masse in the sense that Luther conceiueth Priâ—at Masse the Deuils terme first proceded 3 VVhat if they were not as this Sacrifice is the highest honour that can be done vnto God being done as it ought to be 4 VVhat if it were present as it is present consecration duly made And so Luther him selfe teacheth against the Sacramentaries as it is knowen Marcke Reader from whose schoole the doctrine coÌ„meth that teacheth the body and bloud not to be adoured in the blessed Sacrament 5 Not only of them but rather by coÌ„maundement of Christe who said do this in my remeÌ„braÌ„ce 6 Ergo Luther was a Priest specially and properly not as euery faithful is Then had he auctoritie and povver to offer the Sacrifice This muche thou coÌ„fessest vnvvares as it semeth M. Ievv denieth VVhat is he vvorse then thee selfe 7 Such obedience of Turkes and Gentiles is not for Gods sake And therefore it is not obedience as it is a vertue and a seruice of God It is the seruitude of thee Satan VVherefore therein the more earnest the more sinneful The Zeale likevvise thou speakest of vvas vvicked therfore the case is not like aÌ„d so thy reason is naught 8 But vvhat if it vvere true as it vvas true 9 Here thou lyest Satan doune right 10 Auaunt Satan thou beliest Gods seruauntes It is not so thou enemie VVhen we beseche S. Marie and the other Sainctes to pray for vs we flee not froÌ„ Christe no more then S. Paule did wheÌ„ he desired the Romains the EphesiaÌ„s and the ThessaloniaÌ„s to pray for him Rom. 15. Ephes. 6. 2. Thess 3. but vve go to Christ with other helpers and suters as if hauing a sute to an earthly Prince I make his mother and his dearest frendes to go vnto him with me aÌ„d speake for me 12 By making the Saintes intercessours for vs to Christe no part of his glorie is taken from him Marke Reader who it is that teacheth thee not to câ—â— to the Sainctes for their aides and prayers 13 This we al doo denie and know it to be false It pleaseth vs to be called Papistes of thee Satan Auaunt blasphemous Sprite In the blessed Masse wee present and offer to God that bodyâ— that suffered vpon the Crosse and that bloude that was shed for vs whereby we are redemed from thee and froÌ„ thy most grisly miserie By this tale we are faught to esteme annointing consecration and â—haning beâ—â—oâ— bicause the Deuil liketh it not 14 The Deuil procedeth to his Conclusion as though his premisses vvere true VVherein M. Ievv folovveth him as the scholer the Maister and so doo al other the Sacramentaries and Protestantes And there afterward Folio 229. b. it foloweth In his angustijs c. Being in these 15 straightes and in this conflicte against the Deuil my wil was
suche manner order sense and meaning as the new state and condition of the Church succeding the Iewish Synagoge requireth that is not according to the figure shadow letter or signification but according to the truth the body the spirite and the very thinges Iesus vetus testamentum consummabat Ser. 7. de pass Domini nouum Pascha condebat saieth the auncient and learned Father S. Leo. Iesus made an ende of the olde Testament and did set vp the newe Easter or Passeouer And this new Easter doe we kepe and celebrate The same Father saith also Vt vmbrae cedereÌ„t corpori et cessareÌ„t imagines sub praesentia veritatis antiqua obseruantia nouo tollitur Sacramento hostia in hostiam transit sanguinem sanguis excludit legalis festiuitas dum mutatur impletur That the shadowes should geue place to the Body and the Images ceasse in presence of the Truth the Olde Obseruance is taken away by the newe sacrament hoste passeth ouer into hoste bloude putteth out bloude and the holy solemnitie of the Lawe whiles it is chaunged is fulfilled Againe more plainely to this purpose in an other place Leo. Ser. 13 de Pass Domini Nihil legalium instructionum nihil propheticarum recedit figurarum quod non tatum in Christi sacramenta transierit Nobiscum est Signaculum Circumcisionis sanctificatio Chrismatum consecratio Sacerdotum Nobiscum puritas Sacrificij Baptismi veritas honor Templi vt meritò cessarint nuncij postquam nunciata venerunt What so euer instructions be in the Lawe what figures so euer be in the Prophetes no iote of it departeth quite away but is gone ouer altogether into the Sacramentes of Christe With vs is the signet of Circumcision the hallowing of the holy Ointements Priestes the Consecration of Priestes With vs is the purenesse of Sacrifice Sacrifice the truth of Baptisme Baptisme the honour of the Temple Temple that for good cause the Messangers that is to saie the olde lawe ceassed after that their tidinges came Were it not tedious easily might a hundred such places be alleged out of the Fathers by testimonie of which the obseruation and vse of these thinges of the olde Testament Pascha Easter Pentecoste Priest or Sacrificer Hoste Aulter and Sacrifice is acknowleged as of thinges translated established and hauing place in the newe Testament The olde Obseruation is taken away by the newe Obseruation For the olde Aulter that was in Salomons Temple at Ierusalem we haue newe Aulters in the Churches of Christians thoroughe out the whole worlde Optatus lib. 6. on which the members of Christ be susteined and in which the body and bloude of Christe * Per certâ— momeÌ„ta at certaine times do dwel as the auncient Father Optatus writeth Newe Aulters I say bicause they serue to a new purpose and to a newe kind of Sacrifice in respect of the olde Sacrifices Concerning the hoste for Oxen sheepe goates and dooues we haue the body and bloude of Christ. For the figuratiue Lambe we haue the true Lambe of God that taketh away the synnes of the worlde Ioan. 1. For the feast of the Olde Passeouer Exod. 12. wherein the Iewes solemnized the memorie of the Striking Angels passing ouer them or beside them when he destroyed al the first begoten of the Egyptians and of their owne safe passing ouer the redde Sea out of Egypte 1. Cor. 5. we haue our Passeouer or Easter wherein we kepe a holy and soleÌ„ne feast in remeÌ„brance that by the merite of Christes bloude who is the true Lambe the plague of euerlasting death is past ouer and quite beside vs 1. Pet. 3. that for our sake he hath conquered al power that was against vs I. Ioan. 3. that he is passed ouer froÌ„ death to life and hath traÌ„slated aÌ„d redemed vs froÌ„ death and hel to be partakers of life aÌ„d glorie euerlasting in his kingdoÌ„ As the Iewes had their PeÌ„tecost so we haue ours For as when they were deliuered out of Egypte the Lawe was geueÌ„ them in the Mount Sina vpon the Pentecoste Exod. 20. that is to say the fiftith day after that the Lambe had beÌ„ sacrificed 1. Cor. 5. So vpon the fiftith day after our Passeouer in which the true LaÌ„be of God was slaine the holy Ghost came down vpoÌ„ the Apostles Act. 2. and the coÌ„panie of theÌ„ that beleued which holy Ghost froÌ„ that day to the end of the world coÌ„tinueth with the Church aÌ„d worketh in the sonnes of God the performaÌ„ce of Gods holy wil by loue aÌ„d Matt. 28. charitie as the Lawe wrought it or rather moued men to it by threates and terrour Leo Ser. 1. de Pentecoste Sâ— Leo speaking of this Feast saith Hodiernam solennitatem in praeciâ—â—â—â— festis esse â—â—â—â—â—â—ndâ—m omnium Catholicorum corda cognoscunt The hartes of al Catholike men knowe that the solemnitie of this day of Pentecoste ought to be had in honour among the chiefe feastes Remember M. Iewel if your hart geue you that there is no such feast of Pentecost to be obserued in Christes Churche because the vse of it is expired VVhat ansvver you M. Ievvel as you say by whose verdite you are excluded out of the nuÌ„ber of Catholike men and so pronounced gilty To whether parte wil you answer Doth your harte know it or know it not If your harte know it not then you are not Catholike and therfore you ought not to be admitted to teach Gods people If your harte knowe it and yet ceasse not to teache the coÌ„trarie then are you a daÌ„nable dissembler and a false deceiuer So touching this point euery way your doctrin is to be shunned Thus then it is made cleare the olde learned Fathers folowed not their pleasure or vaine delite when they spake of SabbatuÌ„ Parasceue Pascha Pentecoste Priest Aulter Sacrifice But vttered the truth seriously as men ready to geue accompte of their doctrine before God and man and as speaking of things that haue vse and place in Christes Churche though the Iewish obseruation and Ceremonie of them be abolished M. Iewels reason reproued The reason why the Fathers vsed these termes is as M. Iewel saith onely for that the eares of the people as well of the Iewes as of the Gentiles had ben long acquainted with the same This reason is altogether without fauour For if al manner vse and obseruatioÌ„ of the thinges by these termes signified were quite abolished whereas wordes and termes serue to th ende the hearers and readers by them be taught and the Fathers in al their writings intended to teache Christe and his Lawe what could the Iewes or Gentils learne touching the faith of Christe hearing and reading these termes not signifying to them the thinges which they did before their conuersion The more acquainted their eares wer with them before the more by hearing the same nowe were they put in minde of that they once signified
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
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
nor dieth nor sheaddeth his bloude nor is Substantiallie Presente August De Ciuit. Dei lib. 10 cap. 5. nor Reallie Offered by the Prieste In this sorte the Councel saith Christ is offered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without Sacrifice So Saint Augustine saithe Quod ab omnibus appellatur Sacrificium Signum est Veri Sacrificij The thinge that of al menne is called a Sacrifice is a Token or a Signe of the True Sacrifice Likevvise againe he saith Vocatur ipsa Immolatio quae Sacerdotis manibus fit De Conse Dis. 2. Hoc est Christi Passio Mors Crucifixio non rei veritate sed Significante Mysterio The Sacrifice that is wrought by the handes of the Priest is called the Passion the Death the Crucifieinge of Christ not in deede but by a Mysterie Signifieinge And vvhere as M. Hardinge saith further Christ is offered onely in respecte of the presence of his Bodie Neither vvould the Real Presence beinge graunted importe the Sacrifice for Christ vvas Really Presente in his Mothers VVombe and in the Cribbe vvhere notvvithstanding he vvas no Sacrifice nor hath M. Harding hitherto any vvaie prooued his Real Presence Hardinge That the Sacrifice of the Aulter is a true and real Sacrifice The witnesse which I alleged out of the Nicen Councel doth declare sufficieÌ„tly what I meant by saying that Christ is sacrificed in the daily Sacrifice of the Church truly and in deede not in respecte of the manner of offering but in respect of his very body and bloude really that is in deede present For the Sacrifice that was true and real in al respectes both of the inward substance and also of the outward manner was not made without bloudshed and killing This Sacrifice therefore of the Church being made without shedding of bloude or killing lacketh that one point of that most perfite and true Sacrifice Neuerthelesse for that it hath the substance of the bloudy and moste absolutely perâ—ite Sacrifice that was offred vpon the Crosse it is in that consideration a true and real Sacrifice And right wel did I vnderstand what I meant by these wordes M. Iewel and so do you too what so euer you say but of a wilful and peruerse frowardnesse you would seme not to vnderstand them that in worde you might reproue me where in dede you found nothing to be reproued Yet who marketh you shal perceiue how you bewray your owne knowledge by thobiection you make against yourself of the wordes of the Nicen CouÌ„cel M. Iewel falsifieth the CouÌ„cel of Nice which you translate falsely into Latin not englishing them least they should seme to make as they doo for the Sacrifice which ye denie The Greke wordes be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Your vntrue translation hath for them thus sine sacrificio oblatus as much to say offred vp without a Sacrifice Which translation conteineth in it a contradiction For if Christ the true Lambe of God as the Councel calleth him be offered vp how is there not a Sacrifice Therfore the true translation of these woordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had ben incruentè sacrificatus sacrificed vnbloudily or without bloude shedding Oecolampadius or as a chiefe founder and mainteiner of your Sacramentarie doctrine hath turned non victimarum more sacrificatus sacrificed not after the manner of hostes which be sacrificed with killing And thus the place hath ben of learned men hitherto translated neither was there euer any so shamelesse as to swarue so farre from the right and natural sense of the wordes as you doo were he neuer so spiteful an enemie to that blessed Sacrifice This terme of the Nicen Councel doth expresse the respect of the manner of offering which I spake of to put a difference betwene the Sacrifice of the Crosse and the daily Sacrifice of the Church bicause the one was with shedding of bloud and with death the other without shedding of bloude or death The same respecte of the manner of offering is vttered by the first Councel of Ephesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Incruentum celebramus in Ecclesiis sacrificij cultum we doo celebrate in our Churches the vnbloudy seruice of the Sacrifice Concil Ephes. in Epist. ad NestoriuÌ„ Aug. CoÌ„t Faustum Manich. lib. 20. ca. 21. The same doth Saint Augustine meane writing that the flesh and bloude of the Sacrifice is celebrated by a Sacrament of remembrance The same doth S. Chrysostome vnderstand where he saith Chrysost. in epist. ad Heb. Homil 17. Non aliud Sacrificium sicut pontifex sed id ipsum semper facimus magis autem recordationem sacrificij facimus We make not a diuers sacrifice as the high bishop did but alwaies the selfe same yea rather we celebrate a memorial of the Sacrifice Here is plainely expressed both the truth and realitie if I may so cal it of the Sacrifice alwaies and continually offered and also the manner of offering bicause it is done in remembrance of the Sacrifice that was made vppon the Crosse. To be shorte these termes remembrance token signe sampler mysterie sacrament and suche like be oftentimes vsed of the Fathers to expresse this manner of offering and in no wise to exclude the truth of the substance of the thinge offered This notwithstanding M. Iewel you are not ashamed to pronounce that the Councell of Nice and the olde Doctours or holy Fathers neuer vnderstode these respectes and manners And whereas you charge me with dazeling the Readers eyes with a vaine distinction of clowdy wordes so it liketh you to control the doctrine of Christes Churche it is you that employe your whole witte and cunning to enuegle and blinde Gods people and to bereue them wandering in the wildernes of this world of the true Manna that came downe from aboue al the clowdes and to dazel their vnderstandinges so that they may not discerne the true body of our Lorde from bare bread and by your phantastical and vncertaine phrases applied out of place to vndermine and shake no smal number of great and necessarie truthes by the Holy Ghoste founded and so many hundred yeres susteined in Christes Churche As for the authorities which you bring either to weaken the doctrine of the Church touching the Sacrifice of the Aulter M. Ievv taketh aduantage of his ovvne false traÌ„slation or to strengthen your owne contrary opinion of how litle force they are it is sone opened First the Councel of Nice maketh clearely for vs which reporteth the Lambe of God that taketh away the synnes of the worlde to be situate vpon the holy table whereby is meant the Aulter and of the Priestes to be sacrificed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say without bloudshed and not after the manner of beastes appointed to be killed in Sacrifice Of these wordes you take a smal aduauntage and that only by false translation For whereas the Councel hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lambe is sacrificed of the Priestes vnbloudily or not after the manner
Sacrifice of the Churche neither vnderstandeth he by a true sacrifice the chiefe and most true Sacrifice which is that of the Crosse but any spiritual sacrifice in general wherein the effect of loue toward God or our neighbour is performed And therefore he much abuseth the simplicitie of the vnlearned Reader by his futtel and false translation turning illud quod ab hominibus appellatur Sacrificium that which of men is called a sacrifice wherby S. Augustine vnderstandeth any of the Sacrifices of the olde Law into illud quod ab omnibus appellatur Sacrificiū c. The thing that of al men is called a sacrifice is a tokē or a signe of the true Sacrifice whereby he induceth the Reader to conceiue the Sacrifice of the Churche and to beleue the same not to be a true and real Sacrifice but only a signe of the true Sacrifice And in that he turneth signum veri Sacrificij a signe or token of the true Sacrifice he meaneth Christe offered vpon the Crosse otherwise then S. Augustine did whereas he should haue trāslated it thus A signe of a true sacrifice And what is there meant by a true sacrifice he could not be ignorant For it foloweth immediatly Porrò autem misericordia verum sacrificium est mercie is a true sacrifice Differēce betvvene a true ād the True Sacrifice And who perceiueth not a difference betwene these two whether we say a True Sacrifice or the True Sacrifice Any spiritual sacrifice is a true Sacrifice The true Sacrifice properly to speake is Christe him selfe Which S. Augustine after that he hath treated of Sacrifices at large calleth Summum verum Sacrificium the highest principal August de ciuit Dei lib. 10. cap. 20. or chiefe and the True Sacrifice whereof the Sacrifice of the Churche saith he is a sacrament The same Sacrifice of the Churche may also be called the True Sacrifice though not in respect of the olde commō maner of offering which was by killing the hoste offred yet in respecte of the thing offred which by vertue of the woorde is made really present which is the same flesh and bloude that was offered and shed vpon the Crosse. Here it is not so offred nor shed but that offering and bloud shedding that is to say the death of Christ is represented and recorded The Sacrifice of the Crosse is the True Sacrifice in respect both of the thing offered and of the common manner of offering for there Christ was killed the Sacrifice of the Aulter which is the Sacrifice of the Churche is also the True Sacrifice in respect of the thing offered which is the body and bloude of Christe as truly present in the Sacrament though inuisibly as vpon the Crosse where it was visibly albe it in respect of the olde common manner of sacrificing it is not a Sacrifice after that manner and therefore is it called sacrificium incruentum the vnbloudy Sacrifice An other manner there is singuler special and proper to this mystical Sacrifice after whiche it is made sacrificed and offered so as the Mysterie that Christ instituted requireth which they knowe that haue grace rightly to beleue Of which manner Oecumenius saith Oecum in Epist. ad Heb. ca. 5. Christus in Mystica coena modum illis tradidit huiusmodi Sacrificij Christe deliuered vnto Priestes the manner of such a Sacrifice This manner hath euer ben and is to this day obserued euen as the Apostles were taught it of Christe and as the Churche hath receiued it of the Apostles and offereth the new Oblation of the newe Testament in the whole worlde as S. Ireneus writeth Iren. lib. 4. cap. 32. Euseb. de demonst lib. 1. lib. 5. Eusebius speaking of the manner of this sacrifice calleth it Melchisedeks manner and saith in one place it is offered after the newe Mysteries of the newe Testament in an other place after the Ecclesiasticall ordinances As for that S. Augustine saith The Sacrifice that is made by the handes that is to say De Conse Dist. 2. Hoc est ministerie of the Priest is called the Passion the death the Crucifying not in truth of the thing but in Mysterie signifying I graunt it to be true and such as may wel serue for answer to certaine blasphemous obiections made by the Sacramentaries against this Sacrifice How this maketh any proufe for your doctrine I see not For though the Sacrifice be called sometimes by the name of the Passion the Death and crucifying of Christe as S. Cyprian saith Cyprian lib. 2. epist. 3. Passio est Domini sacrificium quod offerimus The Sacrifice that we offer is the Passion of our lorde bicause it representeth and renueth the memorie of the Passion once performed and done whereas in deede it is not the sensible Passion death or Crucifying but the same is signified in mysterie for that the body which suffred died and was crucified is truly exhibited yet this taketh not away the truth of a Sacrifice Such a great Logician as you would seme to be wil not make this childish Argument I dare say That whiche the Priest maketh signifieth the Passion and Death of Christe and is not the Passion and Death in deede Ergo it is not a Sacrifice That it be a true and real Sacrifice it is not necessary that Christe suffer againe and be slaine it is yenough the body of Christe that once suffred and was slaine be truly exhibited and offered vnto God Which is done in our Mysterie by them who haue commaundement to doo that Christe did when he said Doo this in my remembrance In the ende of this your first Diuision you say that Neither would the Real presence being graunted importe the Sacrifice nor that I haue hitherto any waie prooued the Real presence which after your scoffing custome you cal my Real presence as though it had not ben taught by the cleare scriptures by al the olde learned Fathers and vniuersally beleued of Christen people til the wicked generation of the Sacramentaries came But sir whether the Real presence of Christe where so euer it be do importe a sacrifice or no it is impertinent to our purpose here to dispute How be it I am not ignorant that there want not learned men who holde that Christes body from the time it was first fourmed in and of the body of the blessed virgin his mother neuer ceassed nor shal ceasse to be a sacrifice according as S. Paule to the Hebrewes alleging the prophecie vttered in the Psalme Hebr. 10. teacheth Ingrediens mundum dicit hostiam oblationem noluisti Psalm 39. corpus autem aptasti mihi Christe entring into the worlde saith Sacrifice and oblation thou wouldest not haue but a body thou hast made fitte for me To your position briefly I answer that although the Real presence of Christe in other places and times imported not a sacrifice yet the same in the Sacrament doth necessarily inferre a sacrifice bicause according to
which is the vnbloudy Sacrifice S. Irenaeus likewise writing against Valentinus the Heretike Irene lib. 4. ca. 32. Aug. cōtra◠Aduersar leg et prophet lib. 1. cap. 20. Iustmusin Dialog ad Tryphonē S. Augustine also and S. Iustinus the martyr do expounde the prophecie for the same Sacrifice Whose sayinges here to reherse to the proufe of so certaine a doctrine it were more tedious then needeful Wherefore this being so sufficiently witnessed by the Auncient Doctours of the Churche against whose auctoritie no noueltie is to be heard as a most vndoubted truth that the sacrifice which Christe made of his body and bloude at his last supper is that pure and Vnbloudy Sacrifice whiche Malachie prophecied should be offered vp vnto God from the Easte to the west this also being no lesse true that Christe appointed and auctorized some to offer the same otherwise to what purpose was it instituted and sith that we reade of none other appointed and auctorized thereto but the Apostles and their successours Priestes of the newe Testament nor haue we heard of any that lawfully euer tooke vpon them to offer the same that were not Priestes with what impudencie is it denyed that the Apostles had and Priestes now haue auctoritie to offer vp this pure Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christe vnto his Father Thus thou maist perceiue good reader the argument which M. Iewel here ascribeth vnto me and would to seeme ridiculous to conclude rightly for the truth if the due consideration of the circumstances be not omitted Withal thou vnderstandest that who so euer allegeth the figure of Melchisedech and the Prophecie of Malachie to prooue that the Priestes of the new Testament haue auctoritie and power to offer vp Christe vnto his Father he maketh no euil choise of the stoare of authorities by witnesse of which that point is prooued and confirmed As for the mater of greeuance M. Iewel where of you complaine so greeuously which is that I charge them of your syde with wresting by ouerthwart and false interpretation the wordes of the Institution of this Sacrifice the figure of Melchisedech and the Prophecie of Malachie I vttered it vpon very iust occasion as the learned do knowe The same ought to be greuous in dede vnto you not bicause ye are tolde of it by me but bicause it is true Neither thought I it good to exemplifie the mater staying the course of my briefe Answer to your Chalenge by descending vnto the particulars for that my scope and chiefe intent was not to confute the contrary Doctrine but to prooue and establish the truth of this Article by you most wickedly denied If it be pleasure vnto you to beholde paricular places and pointes of your false Legierdemaine disclosed by reading ouer my Confutatiō of your lying Apologie my Reioindre to your Replie that also which M. D. Sander D. Heskins M. Rastel M. Dorman and M. Stapleton haue written against you your luste may happely be satisfied Take your fyl of that vntil more come Iewel Perhappes he vvil say Yee expounde the Prophecie of Malachie sometimes of Praier and sometimes of the Preachinge of the Gospel This vvas neuer the Prophetes meaninge This is an horrible vvreasting of the Scriptures Thus no doubte M. Harding vvil say for othervvise he can say nothinge And yet he knovveth and beinge learned can not choose but knovv that this is the Olde learned Catholique Fathers Exposition touchinge these vvoordes of the Prophete Malachie and not ours He knovveth that the Ancient Father Tertullian saith thus Tertull. contrae Iudaeos Tertull. contra Marcion lib. 4. Hieron in 1. Caput Malach. The pure Sacrifice that Malachias speaketh of that should be offered vp in euery place Est Praedicatio Euangelij vsque ad finem Mundi Is the Preachinge of the Gospel vntil the ende of the worlde And in an other place Simplex Oratio de Conscientia pura The Sacrifice that Malachie meante is a deuoute Praier proceedinge from a pure Conscience He knovveth that S. Hierome expoundeth the same vvoordes in this vvise Dicit Orationes Sanctorum Domino offerendas esse non in vna Orbis Prouincia Iudaea sed in omni loco The Prophete Malachie meaneth hereby That the Praiers of Holy people shoulde be offered vnto God not onely in Iewrie that was one prouince of the worlde but also in al places He knovveth that Eusebius calleth the same Sacrifice of Malachie Euseb. De Demonst. li. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Sacrifice and the Incense of Praier Thus the Holie Catholique Fathers expounded these vvoordes of the Prophete Malachie and yet vvere they not therefore iuaged either ouerthvvarte vvreasters of the Scriptures or horrible deceiuers of the people Novv of the other side if it may please M. Harding to shevvfoorth but one Anciēt Doctour or Father that either by the Exāple of Melchisedech or by force of these vvordes of Malachie vvil conclude that the Priest hath Authoritie and Povver to offer vp Verelie and in dede the Sonne of God vnto his Father he may happily vvinne some credit Harding In defence of your felowes and of your selfe you say that wheras ye expound the prophecie of Malachie somtimes of Praier and sometimes of the preaching of the Ghospel therin ye vse no wreasting of the Scripture nor falshod bicause the old lerned Catholike Fathers haue so expounded the place And here you name Tertullian S. Hierome and Eusebius That the Preaching of the Gospel may be and is called a Sacrifice I denie not Mary that by th'auctoritie which here you pretend to allege out of Tertulliā it is proued and that by the same the meaning of Malachies prophecie is to be drawen quit frō the Sacrifice of th'Aulter this I deny vtterly And how farre your dealīg in these weighty maters cōcerning the faith of a Christē man is to be trusted by this to al it may appere M. Ievvel forgeth a saiyng of his ovvne ād putteth it vpon Tertullian First wheras you beare al men in hand that I know that the Ancient Father Tertullian saith as here you reporte it is very false for how can I know the thing that is not at al Tertullian saith not so These wordes The pure Sacrifice that Malachias speaketh of that should be offered vp in euery place est Praedicatio Euangelij vsque ad finē mundi be not to be found in al Tertullians booke Cōtra Iudaeos Yet you haue put them in a distinct letter in which the sayinges of the Doctors be printed that your Reader should beleue they were the wordes of Tertulliā This is a forgerie wrought in your owne shoppe fathered vpon Tertullian Phy M. Iewel can neither shame nor the feare of God withdraw you from vsing such forged sayinges of your owne with which being by you fathered vpon som Ancient Doctor of the Church your common manner is to face out an vntrue mater as crafty players at Cardes doo as they say with a Carde of ten Nexte
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
thinges and intreate them to absteine from others But louers shewe this their desire in money in garmentes in possessions in his owne bloude no man euer shewed it Figure only excluded To proue that Christe loueth vs more then euer any man loued an other he saith that he geueth vs his owne bloude Which in this place of S. Chrysostome can in no wise be expounded of the Figure and token of his bloude For worldly louers geue vnto their beloued as much and as good a thing as that namely money garmentes their possessions As for a token or signe of their bloude or of their persons it were easy for them to geue But Christ saith he sheweth his loue toward vs by that whereby no man euer shewed his loue to an other If the onely token of bloude might at any time haue declared so certaine and assured loue louers would oftentimes haue spared their money their garmentes and their possessions and would haue geuen vnto their dere beloued the figure of their bloude or of their whole persons Thus is the true and real presence of Christes bloud and consequently of his flesh prooued by witnesse of S. Chysostome And by the same is that prooued which we cal the real Sacrifice of the Church For by that we say Christe to be really offered vp vnto his Father we meane none other thing but that the substance which we offer and sacrifice is the real body and bloude of Christe This much therefore may stande for answer to M. Iewels Reply in this place Christe in the Sacrifices of the olde Lawe was so offred in a Figure as he was not the substance of them In the Supper he was and in the Masse he is so offered as he is the substance present And bicause this real Sacrifice of Christe being the Sacrifice of the New Testament and the worthinesse of it is much impugned by the enemies of the Churche in our time yea villanously mocked skoffed and railed at by Antichristes wicked broode Reasons vvhereby the Catholikes may be armed agaiÌ„st the SacrameÌ„taries for defense of this Sacrifice the godly Catholiques may by these reasons be sufficiently armed against them If it were necessary for the people of the olde Lawe to haue real sacrifices to protest and to mainteine their beleefe in Christes Death to come why is it not as necessary that the faithful people of the Newe Lawe haue also a real Sacrifice to protest and keepe in memorie their beleefe in Christes Death already past Againe as the newe Lawe is better and excellenter then the olde so is it necessary it haue a better and excellenter Sacrifice But if we take away the Sacrifice of the Reall flesh and bloude of Christe and leaue onely bread end wine to be offred vp in a figure or mysterie then haue we not a Sacrifice proper vnto the new Law that in worthinesse passeth and excelleth the Sacrifices of the olde Lawe as the which consisted of as good a substance as the other and signified as good a thing as the other and expressed it by slaughter and shedding of pure and innocent beastes bloude more liuely then the other Contrarywise let the real body and bloude of Christe be the substanee of the Sacrifice of the new Law as the truth teacheth saying Lucae 22. this is my body which is geueÌ„ for you this is my bloud which is shed for you Math 26 c. and the Church beleueth then doth it infinitely excel al the Sacrifices offered in the Lawe of Nature or in the Lawe written And then shal the New Lawe as in greatenesse of graces and promises and plainenesse of Scripture so surmount and passe also the olde Lawe in Maiestie of the Sacrifice and of Priesthode which haue euer in al Lawes ben accompted the two principal pointes of the same To be shorte how can it be conceiued that our Sacrifice should be but a figure a signe or a mysterie onely and no true and real Sacrifice better then the olde sacrifices sith that by the teaching of al the auncient learned Fathers it is the truth and perfourmance of al the olde sacrifices Hauing said this much for the real offering of Christe let vs now examine M. Iewels argument Examination of M. Iuels Argument As Christe was slaine at the Table saith he so was he sacrificed at the Table But he was not slaine at the Table verely and in dede but onely in a Mysterie Therefore he was not sacrificed at the Table really and in deede but onely in a Mysterie Christe was then and is now also at the holy Table both really sacrificed in respect of his real and true body and bloude by vertue of the Worde made present and also in a Mysterie in respect of the outward formes of bread and wine vnder which they are present and of the mystical manner of sacrificing This being true as before we haue declared and therefore the Conclusion being false let vs see which of the Premisses of M. Iewels Argument is false It is the Maior or first Proposition If the same be resolued into the partes whereof it consisteth the vntruth wil soone appeare The first parte is this Christe was slaine at the Table That is false The second is this Christe was sacrificed at the Table That is true So that one parte is false and the other true And so by this trial which is the surest way to trie such kinde of Propositions the whole Proposition in it selfe is found false and therefore the Conclusion foloweth not For the better euidence of the thing it selfe we most gladly acknowledge and protest to the worlde that Christe was really and in deede slaine and put to death once for euer and neuer shal againe suffer the paines of Death Yet neuerthelesse he is and shal to the worldes ende continue the real and true Sacrifice of the newe Testament according to his owne merciful Institution at his last Supper As for the lacke of any slaying and shedding of bloude it is no cause at al why it was not at the Supper is not now or may not be a true and real Sacrifice For it is sufficient that is was once offered vp with slaying and bloudeshedding to pay the raunsom of our synnes He did then and we de now offer the same body and bloude in consideration and remembrance of that slaying and shedding He offered at the Supper his body and bloud that on the morow was to be slaine and shed we at the Aulter do stil offer that body and bloude that was slaine and shed euen the same selfe body and bloude in number For as Theophylacte folowing S. Chrysostome saith Theophylact in â—0 c. ad Heb. Eundem semper offerimus Imò potius memoriam illius oblationis qua seipâ— sum obtulit facimus ceu nunc iam facta sit we offer vp alwaies the selfe same Christe or rather we kepe the memorie of that oblation whereby he offered him selfe as though it were
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
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 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
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
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
vp the Burnt sacrifice of his Passion To conclude then if certaine Fathers in a figuratiue speache and with a qualification say that when one is baptized he offereth vp the Sacrifice of Christes Passion or that in him selfe he crucifieth Christe which is true in a right sense M. Iewel may not thereof conclude that Christe at the celebration of the Supper is not truly offered For if he reason thus Christe is after a manner offered of vs when we are baptized Ergo he is not offered of the Priest in the Sacrament of the Aulter M. Ievv setteth one tru◠against a◠other Forasmuch as in Baptisme he is onely by grace and in the blessed Sacrament really and in substance Euery man of meane vnderstanding may soone espy the fondnesse of the Argument But not being hable directly to impugne this assured truth he maketh such a proffer towardes it as he can by setting one truth against an other truth The .11 Diuision The Ansvver OVR aduersaries crake much of the sealing vp of their newe Doctrine with the Bloud of such and such who be written in the booke of lyes not in the booke of life whome they wil needes to be called Martyrs Verily if those Mounkes and Friers Apostates and renegates wedded to wiues or rather to vse their owne terme yoked to Sisters be true Martyrs then must our Newe Gospellers pul these Holy Fathers and many Thousandes moe out of Heauen For certainly the Faith in Defence of whiche either sorte died is vtterly contrary The worst that I wishe to them is that God geue them eies to see and eares to heare and that he shutte not vp their hartes so as they see not the light here Math. 25 vntil they be throwen away into the outwarde darkenes where shal be weeping and grintinge of teeth Iewel This talke vvas vtterly out of season sauing that it liked vvel M. Harding to sporte him selfe vvith the Scriptures of God and a litle to scoffe at the vvordes of S. Paule 1. Cor. 9. VVhich thing becomming him so vvel may be the better borne vvithal Philip. 4. vvhen it shal please him likevvise to scoffe at others S. Paule calleth vviues Heb. 13. sometimes Sisters sometimes Yokefellows and thinketh Matrimonie to be Honorable in al Personnes 1. Timo. 4. and the forbidding of the same to be the Doctrine of Diuels Neither doth it any vvay appeare that euer honest godly Matrimonie either displeased God or vvas thought vncomely for a Martyr and vvitnesse of Gods Truth Harding Here M. Iewel you leaue my Conclusion and being grieued with certaine termes you shew your selfe much offended and fare as if your soare were touched in the quicke But sir what neede you of al the Gospellers to take this mater so hote You are not yet married pardye Marye if perhaps your fansie lye to a woman and you determine to take her to your wife wel mote you doo God send you good lucke I intende not to forbyd your Banes M Ievvel here digresseth from the purpose into a cōmō place to defend Priestes Mariages But what meant you in this place to vnlade your common stuffe that you haue gathered together in defence of Priestes marriage What iust occasion had you to treate thereof What feared you that the bulke of your booke would not arise huge ynough vnlesse you brought vnto it such heapes of vnnecessary common places Or thought you rather that your companions marriages should be taken as they be in deede for detestable horedome and abominable Inceste except they were by you defended Or brought you in al this vnceasonable talke only to please your felowes the Apostates and their strompets Verily the terme yoked to Sisters which is a badge of your owne liuerie vsed by me as it were by the way speaking of an other mater ministred not sufficient occasion to enter into so large a discourse in defence of your filthy yokinges Why did you not rather reprooue me for calling the Registre of your stincking Martyrs the booke of lyes Why did you not proue your Lecherours married Monkes and Friers the chiefe Apostles of your Synagogue not to be Apostates Why answered you not the point that if they be true Martyrs then must you pul those holy Fathers whom I alleged for the Sacrifice out of heauen For both can not be placed there the faith in defence whereof either sorte dyed being quite contrary This parte of my talke was not al together out of ceason And wherein I pray you do I sporte with the Scriptures and scoffe at the woordes of S. Paule for therewith you burthen me What bicause hauing said of your Monkes and Friers that they were wedded to wiues I corrected my terme saying rather to vse your owne māner of speach that they were yoked to sisters is this sporting with the Scriptures of God Is this scoffing at S. Paules wordes You should first haue proued your Apostates strompettes to be their lawful wiues and then might you better haue framed an obiection against me Now that practise being cōtrary to the Scripture which commaundeth vowes to be kepte and performed Psal. 75. what Scripture haue ye for such yoking What reliefe haue ye for it of S. Paule Though in dede faithful and godly wiues be together with vs that beleeue the children of God and in the primitiue Churche the name of Brother and Sister was cōmon among the beleuers yet how prooue you that S. Paule calleth wyues sometimes Sisters sometimes yoke-fellowes Is it not shame for you who professe so great skil in the Latine tongue and haue such a helper at hand for the Greeke tongue to grounde your selfe vpon the corrupte translation of your English Bible Were it true that S. Paule called wyues sometimes Sisters sometimes Yokefelowes for which ye haue nothing to allege but the English Bibles translation yet how are ye hable to prooue the yoking that is betwene your blessed Brothers and Sisters that is to say betwen your holy Prelates Priests Monkes Friers and Nonnes who haue bounde them selues by solemne vowe to the contrary to be true wedloke VVhat meant S. Paule by A sister vvoman 1. Cor. 9. By you quotation you appoint your Reader to the .9 Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians What is there that maketh for you S. Paule saith Haue not we power to leade about a sister woman with vs as the other Apostles and the brethren of our Lorde and Cephas What meaneth he by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 August li. de opere Monachorū cap. 4. Ambro. in Commen Theophyl in Cōmen Hiero. cōtra Iouin lib. 1. sororem mulierem a Sister woman but a faithful or a Christian woman For as the men that beleued were called Brothers so the wemen were called Sisters As for your Translatour who turneth it a Sister to Wife whether for the Greeke he haue deliuered true English or no let other iudge certainly he hath deliuered vs a false sense For as S.
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
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
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
of Praise A Similitude a Resemblance a Likenes an Image a Remembrance a Token a Signe a Representation of a Sacrifice So Nazianzene calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Figure or Token of the Greate Mysteries To conclude S. Hierome saithe thus Hieron in Psalm 51. Tunc acceptabis Sacrificium vel cum te pro nobis offers Patri vel cum à nobis Laudes Gratiarum actiones accipis Then shalt thou receiue Sacrifice either when thou offerest thee selfe vpon thy Crosse for vs vnto thy Father or when thou receiuest of vs Praises and Thankesgeuinge Harding What this man lacketh in weight he maketh vp in nuÌ„ber If a controuersie might be decided by a multitude of forged peeced maimed corrupte and impertinent sentences shuffled together this mater were fully coÌ„cluded The Prentises the coÌ„mon deceiued people the Ministers comen of late from their shoppes and handy craftes and others that can not iudge of these pointes thinke perhaps that he hath acquitted him selfe like a great Clerke bicause they see such a number of authorities heaped together and beholde the Margent of his booke so painted with quotations But the wise who haue skil hereof whereas among so many places alleged out of the Fathers neuer a one proueth his purpose see wel ynough that he is vtterly destitute of good mater and that he onely setteth foorth an ydle shewe of wordes The two first authorities be not founde in the places by him quoted which causeth suspicion Notwithstanding the mater is not of great importance First what if S. Augustine say as here he is made to speake The Priesthod of Aaron is now to be founde in no temple The Priesthod of Christ coÌ„tinueth stil bothe in heaueÌ„ and in the Churche but the Priesthod of Christe continueth stil in heauen If he reason thus The Priesthod of Christe continueth stil in Heauen Ergo it continueth not in the Churche I denie the Argument For it continueth both in heauen and also in the Church though otherwise there otherwise here In heauen it continueth bicause he is a Priest by nature And what dignitie he hath by nature that hath he not loste ne put of by his entring into heaueÌ„ And therfore he coÌ„tinueth a Priest there not by passible renuing of his Sacrifice but by presenting him selfe to God and by his merciful interpellation and appearing for vs before God with that body that was once sacrificed for vs Heb 9. as S. Paule saith Christe is entred into heauen for to appeare now in the sight of God for vs. Againe Heb. 7 Euermore he liueth to make sute vnto God for vs. His Priesthod continueth in the Churche that is in earth by the ministerie of men that vnder him be Priestes of the newe Testament by meane of whom as Oecumenius before allegeth saith he sacrificeth and is sacrificed Eusebius declaring the Prophecie of Christes euerlasting Priestod after the order of Melchisedek saith The euent or ende of that Prophecie is maruelous to one that considereth Euseb. de Demonst. EuaÌ„g lib. 5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how our Sauiour Iesus Christe after the manner of Melchisedek doth by his Ministers euen to this time celebrate those thinges that apperteine to the Sacrifice which is among men And thus your false interlined glose denying Sacrifice to be done vpon an earthly Aulter which you haue impudently added by a parenthesis vnto your Doctour is controlled and confuted The second authoritie falsly quoted is this The Priest offereth vp the Sacrifice of praise not after the order of Aaron but after the order of Melchisedek What conclude you hereof Ergo he offereth not the real Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe The Argument is naught For he offereth vp bothe the Sacrifice of praise and also the body and bloude of Christe vnder the formes of bread and wine and therefore after the order and manner of Melchisedek This is very simple Logique If you had directed the Reader by a true quotation vnto the place where this authoritne is written you should haue sent him thither where S. Augustine maketh clearely against you And therefore of very falshod by wrong quotation you thought it policie to deceiue your Reader The testimonie is to be founde contra aduersarâ— legis Prophet lib. 1. cap. 20. Per Episcoâ—porum successiones certisâ—maâ— Where he saith thus The Churche coÌ„tinueth from the Apostles time to our time and so foreward by most certaine successions of Bishoppes and sacrificeth vnto God in the body of Christe the Sacrifice of Praise c. For this Churche is Israel after the spirite from whom that Israel after the flesh is distincted which serued in the shadowes of Sacrifices by the which was signified THE SINGVLAR SACRIFICE that Israel after the Spirite doth now offer vp The singular Sacrifice c. Out of this Israels House God taketh not Calues neither Goates from his heardes This Israel sacrificeth vnto God the Sacrifice of Praise not after the order of Aaron but after the order of Melchisedek Yet a litle after in the same place speaketh S. Augustine more plainely of this Sacrifice They whiche reade doo knowe saith he what Melchisedek brought forth when he blessed Abraham And now they be partakers of it and they see such a Sacifice now to be offered vp vnto God in the whole world He speaketh thereof as he is woont to speake when he commeth to this Mysterie making this preface before They knowe that reade As who should say This Mysterie is not to be reueled in open writing least the despite of Infidels and Heretikes reache vnto it but the beleuers that reade the place of Genesis where it is spoken of knowe what it meaneth And they are partakers of it by receiuing the Sacrament and see such kinde of Sacrifice to be offered now through the whole Churche that now is dispersed ouer the whole worlde Beholde he speaketh of a Sacrifice that is receiued of the faithful and seene euerywhere to be offered Which argueth the same to be an external and visible Sacrifice Al these properties can not reasonably seme to perteine to a mere spiritual Sacrifice but onely to the Sacrifice of the Euchariste Thus teacheth S. Augustine there Touching the first sentence if it be true that S. Augustine saith A marke to knovv the true Churche vvhiche these Gospellers do lackâ— in what ranke shal we place you and your felowes M. Iewel If ye wil chalenge vnto you the name and estimation of the Churche by S. Augustines doctrine ye must shewe vs your continuance from the Apostles time to these dayes and so foreward to the ende not by a fewe wrested falsified and misconstrued places of writers seming to blame thinges that ye like not but by most certaine Successions of Bishoppes But bicause ye shal neuer be hable to shewe vs Bishops that haue succeeded one after an other in profession of your strange Doctrines from the Apostles age to this present
Dei S. Augustine falsified by M. Ievv is falsified by casting vnto it this Pronoune hoc this Whereby M. Iewel deceiueth the vnlearned Reader and such as doo not examine his allegations causing them to thinke that S. Augustine spake specially of the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe whereof now we treate whereas he spake in that place of the Sacrifices of the olde lawe in which brute beastes were slaine Albeit true it is generally that visible Sacrifice is a Sacrament that is to say a holy signe of inuisible Sacrifice If of this place of S. Augustine M. Iewel wil thus frame an Argument against the real Sacrifice of the Churche August de ciuita Dei li. 10. c. 5. The external and visible Sacrifice of the Churche is a Sacrament that is a signe of the inuisible Sacrifice Ergo it is not a true and real Sacrifice The Argument is to be denied For by like reason he should proue that al the Sacrifices of the olde lawe were no Sacrifices at al bicause they were as S. Augustine in the place before mencioned saith Sacramentes and signes of internal inuisible and spiritual Sacrifices Sacrifice of tvvo sortes invvard ād outvvard The .7 authoritie is with other wordes reported then S. Augustine wrote Wherein was false meaning The same helpeth his cause nothing at al. For Answer this muche may be said We are taught by S. Augustine in that place that Sacrifice is of two sortes the one in the reputation of man August de ciuita Dei li. 10. c. 5. the other in the sight of God whiche in comparison of that other he calleth verum Sacrificium true Sacrifice Whereas it is written saith he I had rather haue mercie then Sacrifice none other thing is to be vnderstanded Osee. 6. but that Sacrifice is preferred before Sacrifice in asmuche as that which of men is called Sacrifice is a signe of true Sacrifice And as for mercie it is a true Sacrifice Of al this nothing can be concluded but that an outward Sacrifice is a signe and token of an inward Sacrifice Whereby it is euident that one and the same thing is a Sacrifice and the signe of a Sacrifice Wherefore of the affirmation of a signe or token by good Argument the Denial of the thing can not be inferred Al M. Ievvels Arguments faile for lacke of good logique for stil he inferreth the denial of one truth of thaffirmatiō of an other truth Whereas then M. Iewel impugneth the Sacrifice with this common Argument The Sacrifice of the Churche is a similitude a likenes an Image a remembrance a Sacrament of remembrance a signe a token of a Sacrifice and a figure or a sampler of great Mysteries as S. Nazianzen calleth it Ergo it is not a true Sacrifice we tel him his cause must needes haue a fall for lacke of a good Argument and we counsel him to go to schoole againe to learne better Logique How be it more profitable it were for him to learne better Diuinite By an example it may be made manifest how it is both a memorie and neuerthelesse the thing it selfe Paulus Aemylius that noble man of Rome and C. Iulius Caesar and many other noble Romains after they had acheued great victories in warre and conquestes were receiued into the Citie of Rome with Triumphe Euery triumphe was a memorie and solemne celebration of the memorie of victories by them obteined and for memories sake of worthy and famous deedes eche Triumphe was kept Now what a folish Argument were this if one had then said This triumphe is celebrated and kepte in memorie of the great Conquest and of the Conquerour Ergo the Conquerour him selfe is not present For at suche Triumphes the Conquerours were present riding most gloriously in their chariotes And euery one at suche a solemnitie was bothe the Conquerour him selfe and was there in memorie of him selfe hauing done the worthy Actes for which he deserued the honour of a Triumph So in this Mysterie the memorie of Christes Passion and Death is celebrated and Christe him selfe neuerthelesse is present and by the Prieste offered vp to his Father Alleging the authoritie of S. Gregorie Nazianzen Gregorie Nazianzen falsified by M. Ievv calling the blessed Sacrament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a paterne or sampler of great Mysteries he hath done very falsly in that he leaueth out of the sentence those other wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 asmuche to say the external Sacrifice for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be vnderstanded Of which wordes it foloweth necessarily that it is a real and true Sacrifice It is a signe he regardeth not so muche the truth as he seeketh how by some crafte or shifte he may make an apparēt defence of his vaine Chalenge Last of al the place of S. Hierome semeth to haue ben thrust in to make vp the number and increase the heape How it relieueth his side I see not onlesse he wil beare men in hande that the Sacrifice of Praises and thankesgeuing must in any wise exclude the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe Which thing when he shal make men beleeue then and not elles may this place of S. Hierome serue his purpose Hitherto he hath said litle to any purpose Now commeth he in with newe Diuinitie and vttereth plaine heresie Iewel Neither hath God appointed any certaine order of outvvarde Priesthode to make this Sacrifice Euery Faitheful Christian man hath Authoritie to offer vp and to make the same Hovve be it this I meane not of the Ministration of the holy Sacraments vvhiche onely perteineth vnto the Minister but onely of the Oblation and makinge of this Spiritual Sacrifice Cypria De vnctione Chrsyma Thus muche I saie least any man either of malice take occasion or of ignorance be deceiued S. Cyprian saithe Omnes qui à Christi nomine dicuntur Christiani offerunt Deo Quotidianum Sacrificium ordinati à Deo Sanctimoniae Sacerdotes Al Orig. in Leuit hom 9 1. Pet. 2. that of Christe be called Christians offer vp vnto God the daily Sacrifice being ordeined of God Priestes of holines Origen saithe Omnes quicunque caet Al that are bathed with the holy ointement August in Expositiōe inchoata ad Rom. Ambros. in 1. Cor. 11. Chrysost. ī 2. Corint Homi. 18. are made Priestes euen as Peter saithe vnto the whole Churche yowe are the Chosen Stocke and kingely Priesthode S. Augustine saithe Holocaustum Dominicae Passionis offert quisque pro peccatis suis Euery man offereth vp the Sacrifice of our Lordes Passion for his owne sinnes S. Ambrose saithe Inuicem expectate vt multorum Oblatio simul celebretur VVaite ye one for an other that the Sacrifice of many maie be offered togeather S. Chrysostome saithe In Mysterijs nihil differt Sacerdos à Subdito In the holy Mysteries the Ministration onely excepted the Priest differeth nothing from the People It appeareth by these Ancient Learned Fathers that euery
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
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