accedat Caluin acknovvlegeth the Sacrifice vvas in the ancieÌ„t Churche M. Ievvel denieth nec Domini institutioni consentaneum sit minimè probo That the olde Fathers called the Supper a Sacrifice it is knowenâ— neither can I excuse the custome of the auncient Churche for that with gesture and outward rite they did set forth a certaine fourme of a Sacrifice with the same Ceremonies in a manner Caluin alloweth not the olde Churche yet must vve needes allovv Caluin that were in vse in the olde Testament saue that they vsed the hoste of Bread in place of a beast Whiche thing sith it commeth to nigh to Iewishnes neither is agreable vnto the Institution of the Lorde I doo not allow Thus M. Iewel should haue tolde his tale if he had folowed the chiefe Inuentour and founder of his Geneuian Gospel for so besides heresie he had offended but in pride But now he hath so proclaimed his Chalenge that besides heresie and pride he hath also proued him selfe ignorant rash and impudent And thus is he confuted by his owne chiefe Doctor who being conuicte with euident truth with some modestie confesseth that he could not denie though with intolerable pride he disallowed that whiche he was not hable to disproue So Lucifer knew that his Creator was aboue him yet not lyking wel of it Esai 14. he said I wil be like vnto the highest As concerning the Institution of Christe that by a cleare declaration of it The institution of Christe declared it may appeare by the acte of Christe that at his Supper he offered vp to his Father his body and bloude it is to be considered what he did Doo ye this said he in my remembrance What this This very thing that I now haue done He tooke bread into his handes and lifting vp his eyes vnto heauen as by assured tradition the Churche hath receiued Ambrosius De sacrament li. 4. cap. 5. and S. Ambrose reporteth it as a thing vndoubted and shewing it vnto the Father as we read in S. Iames Masse he gaue thankes vnto him as being the author almighty of al thinges Iacobus in Liturgia from whom al that good is procedeth and as it was accustomed to be done in Sacrifices with a certaine rite of Religion he consecrated the bread blessing it he brake it and gaue it vnto his Disciples to eate saying This is my Body that is geuen for you To whom is it geuen To my Father almighty to whom as being Lorde of al I haue geuen thankes It is geuen I say to my Father presently without bloudshed and in a Mysterie but anonne for his willes sake to be rent and torne and to be put to death Euen so a litle after he said lifting vp his eyes also into Heauen as it is in S. Iohn Iohan. 17. Pro illis ego sanctisico meipsum I sanctifie my selfe for them fulfilling that olde Lawe in deede it selfe Exod. 13. whiche required Num. 8. that euery first begoten should be sanctified vnto our Lorde Luc. 2. that is to say be offered and appointed vnto Gods holy seruice Likewise he tooke the Cuppe after that he had supped saying Mat. 26. This is my bloude of the new Testament that for you and for many is shed Luc. 22. in remission of sinnes This is the visible worke whiche we doo according to the instruction of Christe with which by publique auctoritie bicause Christe so ordeined and commaunded we professe God to be not onely the beginning and end of al thinges the founteine of al felicitie and ende of our desires but also through the Death of his owne Sonne the redemer of al men and the repairer of al thinges which through sinne we had lost That this commemoration ought to be celebrated externally with outward worke S. Paule plainely signifieth saying to the Corinthians So ofte as ye eate this bread 1. Cor. 1â— and drinke of this Cuppe ye doo shew forth the Death of our Lorde vntil he come For that shewing forth can not be made with the internal commemoration of the minde Whiche sense is also signified by the verbe of the present tense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ye doo shew forth our Lordes death for so in the Greke S. Paule speaketh Touching testimonies that may be alleged for further proufe of this Sacrifice bicause it is declared and set forth at large bothe in my Answer to M. Iewels 17. Article and in this Reiondre and for so much as the coÌ„uenient breuitie of a Preface wel beareth not so large a treatie as the dew opening of this point requireth and furthermore least by treating of it here I should withdraw thy desire Reader from perusing that wherewith I haue fortified and made good my Answere for these considerations I referre thee vnto my Reioindre it selfe Now let vs see how the foure thinges whiche after the doctrine of S. Augustine be required in euery Sacrifice August de Trinit lib 4. c. 14. be found in the most blessed Sacrifice of the Aulter 1 To whom oblatioÌ„ is made 2 by whom it is made 3 what is that whiche is offered 4 and for whom it is offered To vvhoÌ„ is OblatioÌ„ made in the Sacrifice of the Churche Concerning the first This doctrine of the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe whiche now we are driuen to defende against the Professours of this newe deuised Gospel was so certainely knowen and generally holden of al men in the first times of the Church that the very Arians who were Heretiques and enemies of Christe thought they had founde an inuincible Argument against the Equalitie of the Sonne of God with the Father bicause in this Sacrifice the Sonne is offered vp vnto the Father For it is certaine said they that he which is offered is lesse then he to whom he is offered To whiche Argument that which Fulgentius an auncient Father writeth may serue for answer who sheweth learnedly writing to Monimus that this Sacrifice is not offered to the Father onely but to the whole Trinitie If â—here be any Catholique beleuers saith he that seemed hitherto to be ignorant of this Sacrifice Fulgenâ—tius lib. 2. ad Moninum from hence forth they ought to knowe that al seruice of euery wourship and healthful Sacrifice OblatioÌ„ is made to the most blessed Trinitie is of the Catholique Churche exhibited both to the Father and to the Sonne and to the Holy Ghoste that is to say to the Holy Trinitie in whose onely name it is manifest that the Holy Baptisme also is celebrated Neither is preiudice goten vnto the Sonne or vnto the Holy Ghoste whiles prayer by him that offereth is directed vnto the person of the Father the ending of which prayer whereas it hath in it the name of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghoste sheweth that no * discrimeÌ„ oddes is in the Trinitie bicause whiles the wordes of honour be directed vnto the person
of the Father onely with the Faith of him that wel beleueth the whole Trinitie is honoured and when the intention of him that sacrificeth is directed vnto the Father the gifte of the Sacrifice with one and the same dewtie of the offerer is offered vnto the whole Trinitie Thus Fulgentius When Christe the Sonne of God is offered vp according to his body and bloude that is to say according to his humaine nature according to whiche he is lesse then the Father then him selfe then the holy Ghost he is consecrated vnto the holy Trinitie And so much doth the Churche in the lesser Canon and specially in the ende of the Masse professe August de Ciuit. Dei li. 10. c. 20 with expresse wordes naming the Trinitie it selfe Therefore S. Augustine saithâ— that whereas Christe Iesus in the forme of God taketh sacrifice with the Father Christe is sacrificed in the forme of a seruauÌ„tâ— with whome he is one God yet in the forme of a seruaunt he had rather be a Sacrifice then take Sacrifice least by this occasion some man should thinke that Sacrifice were to be done to any creature By this he is a Priest him selfe both the offerer and him selfe also the offering Of which thing he willed the daily Sacrifice of the Churche to be a Sacrament which Church whereas it is the body of him selfe the head is taught through him to offer vp it selfe Masses in honour and memorie of Sanctes Although sometime the Churche do celebrate certaine Masses in the honour and memorie of Saintes yet it doth not offer Sacrifice vnto them but vnto the Trinitie only that hath crowned them and geuing thankes vnto God for their victories sueth for their aides and desireth to be holpen by their merites and prayers Wherof S. Augustine treateth Lib. 8. De Ciuitate Dei cap. vâ—t lib. 20. Contrà Faustum cap. 21. Concerning the second point which is by whom this Oblation and Sacrifice is made By vvhoÌ„ is this Sacrifice made among some men there is some doubte thereof For some say that Christe offereth not but that we only do offer Others there be that wil Christe here also to be the Priest who wil seme to leane to the authoritie of S. Ambrose Ambr. lib. 1. Officiorum c. 48. De SuÌ„ma Trinit fide Cath. cap. firmiter and of the Laterane Councel Now Christ is offered saith S. Ambrose but he is offred as man as receiuing passion and he offereth him selfe as a Priest to forgeue our sinnes The Councel hath thus There is one vniuersal Churche of the faithful in which the selfe same Priest is the Sacrifice Iesus Christe If our Lorde bicause he is a Priest for euer according to the order of Melchisedeck haue an euerlasting Priesthode Heb. 7. as S. Paul saith although he offered him selfe vnto the Father with death in the Aulter of the Crosse to pay the price of mannes redemption yet his Priesthode was not extinquished by death Wherefore as in the Epistle to the Hebrewes S. Paule concludeth Heb. â— it is necessary that he haue also that which he may offer But whereas it is not Christe him selfe in his owne person but a man Priest that standeth at the Aulter who with the wordes of Christ doth consecrat and offer this Sacrifice as to this purpose he is assumpted the learned Fathers of the Councel of Trent Concil Trident. Sessi 22. cap. 2. haue discussed this controuersie with three wordes For the Hoste say they is one and the selfe same He the same now offereth by the ministerie of Priestes that offered himselfe vpon the Crosse with a diuers way onely of offering Whereof it foloweth that both Christe and also we here are Priestes he bicause he consecrateth by our ministerie we bicause we consecrate in his person and with his woordes For whereas he said to his Apostles Luc. 22. Doo ye this in my remembrance after that he had offered him selfe vnbloudily at the Supper as he is now offered in the Aulter the Apostles so vnderstoode him the Holy Ghost geuing them suche sense or Christe by expresse wordes so teaching them that they should consummate and make perfite this Mysterie in the person of him and with his wordes Which of an assured tradition of the Churche that can not be deceiued the auncient Fathers haue alwaies taught and the Churche to this day obserueth This doctrine S Chrysostome confirmeth with these wordes Chrysost. homil De prodiâ—ione Iudae Now the time inuiteth vs to come vnto that dreadful Table with due reuerence and agreable watchefulnes Let no Iudas there be found let no euil disposed person thither come For it is not man that of the CoÌ„secratioÌ„ of our Lordes Table maketh the thinges set forth the body and bloude of Christâ— The wordes be vttered with the Priestes mouth and with the power of God and his grace they are consecrated This is my body saith Christ with this worde the thinges set forth be consecrated And as that worde Gen. 1. which saith Grow ye and be ye multiplied and fil the earth was once spokeÌ„ but at al time feeleth his effect nature working vnto generation EueÌ„ so that worde was once spoken but it geueth strength vnto the Sacrifice through al the Tables of the Church vntil this day and vntil his comming Againe he saith in an other Homilie Idem Homil 2. I wil tel you further of a maruelous thing and woonder not at it let it not trouble you In 2. ad Timoth. What is that The holy Oblation it selfe be it Peter be it Paule or of what so euer merite the Priest be that offereth it is the very same that Christ him selfe gaue vnto his Disciples and that Priestes now also do consecrate This hath no whit lesse then that Why so Bicause they be not men that sanctifie this but Christe which consecrated that before For as the wordes that Christe spake be the same which the Priestes now also do pronounceâ— so the Oblation is the same Chrysost. Homil. 60 ad popul Antioch Therefore he saith in an other place Ministrorum nos ordinem tenemus qui verò ipsa sanctificat transmutat ipse est We are but in the order of Ministers but he that sanctifieth the thinges brought forth and changeth them into the body and bloude of Christe is he him selfe that is to say Christe Concil Florentinum Hereunto agreeth the Councel of Florence The Priest say those learned Fathers doth consecrate this Sacrament speaking in the person of Christe in the person of Christe they meane sitting and offering vp him selfe at his Supper For the Churchâ— teacheth not that the woordes of consecration be spoken by way of rehersal only and that the body and bloude of Christe is made at euery pronounciation of them as by a couenaunt made by Christe with vs. But as the brothers of Ioseph in Egypte fearing least he would beare in minde the iniuries which he
both tende to one ende that is to celebrate the memorie of Christes death yet be not the actions diuers and may they not be done by diuers persons as it happeth when the people receiueth the body of Christe at the priestes handes This much may serue also for answer to the autoritie brought out of S. Chrysostome For the circumstance of the place declareth euidently that he spake there of the peoples receiuing of the mysteries And so in that place facere signifieth onely to receiue and not to consecrate and minister the Sacrament M. Ievv corrupteth S. Chrysostome And here M. Iewel least he should not be alwaies like vnto him selfe altereth and changeth his authours wordes and maketh S. Chrysostomes wordes to sounde to the aduantage of his owne false purpose For whereas S. Chrysostome saith thus Chrysost. hom 61. ad Pop. Antioch Quotiescunque hoc feceritis mortem Domini annunciabitis hoc est facietis commemorationem salutis vestrae beneficij mei As often as ye shal do this ye shal set forth our Lordes death that is to say ye shal make a commemoration of your saluation being my benefite M. Iewel allegeth him thus Hoc facite in memoriam beneficij mei salutis vestrae Doo ye this in remenbrance of my benefite and of your saluation Wherein he falsifieth the Doctor maketh a false translation of the place and geueth out a sense contrary to S. Chrxsostomes meaning Such aduenturing to alter Modes and Tenses to tel an other tale then the Doctor alleged telleth to leaue out to put in wordes of priuate forgerie is a most certaine argument of vntrue dealing and of guile intended of M. Iewels parte The 5. Diuision The Ansvver THat Christe offred him selfe to his Father in his last Supper and that Priestes by those woordes Doo this in my remeÌ„braunce haue not onely auctoritie but also a special commaundement to doo the same and that the Figure of Melchisedech and the Prophecie of Malachie perteineth to this Sacrifice and maketh proufe of the same let vs see by the testimonies of the Fathers what doctrine th'Apostles haue left to the Church Eusebius Caesariensis hath these woordes Euseb. li. 1 de demoÌ„strat Horrorem afferentia Mensae Christi Sacrificia Supremo Deo offerre per eminentissimum omnium ipsius Pontificem edocti sumus We are taught saith he to offer vnto our Supreme God the Sacrifices of Christes Table which cause vs to tremble and quake for feare by his Bishop highest of al. Here he calleth Christe in respect of his Sacrifice Gods Bishop highest of al Bishoppes the Sacrifices of Christes Table he calleth the Bodie and Bloude of Christe bicause at the Table in his last Supper he Sacrificed and offered the same and for that it is his very Bodie and his very Bloude imagination onely Phantasie and Figure set aparte he termeth these Sacrifices as commonly the auncient Fathers doo horrible causing trembling and feare And whereas he saithe we haue bene taught to offer these Sacrifices to God doubtlesse he meaneth by these woordes of Christe Doo this in my remembraunce This is my Bodie whiche is geuen for you This is my Bloude whiche is shedde for you Clement in his eight Booke often cited speaking of the Sacrifice offered by the Apostles commonly addeth these woordes Secundùm ipsius ordinationem or ipso ordinante whereby he confesseth it to be Christes owne ordinaunce Iewel To proue that the Priest offereth vp the Sonne of God M. Hardinge hath here brought in Euseâ—ius an Ancient Father that neuer once named any suche Oblation of the Sonne of God So much is he opprest and encombred vvith his stoare True it is The Ministration of the Holy Communion is oftentimes of the olde learned Fathers called a Sacrifice not for that they thought the Prieste had Authoritie to Sacrifice the Sonne of God but for that therein vvee offer vp vnto God Thankes and Praises for that greate Sacrifice once made vpon the Crosse. So saithe S. Augustine August ad PetruÌ„ Diaco ca. 19. In isto Sacrificio est gratiarum actio Commemoratio Carnis Christi quam pro nobis obtulit In this Sacrifice is a Thankes geuinge and a remembrance of the flesh of Christe Euseb. De demonstr li. 1. c. 10. whiche he hath offered for vs. Likevvise Eusebius saithe Christe after al other thinges donne made a marueilous Oblation and a passinge Sacrifice vnto his Father vpon his Crosse for the Saluation of vs al Nazian in Apolog. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 geuinge vnto vs to offer continually vnto God a Remembrance in steede of a Sacrifice So Nazianzenus calleth the Holy Communion A Figure of that great Mysterie of the Deathe of Christe This is it that Eusebius calleth The Sacrifice of the Lordes Table VVhiche also he calleth Sacrificium Laudis The Sacrifice of Praise Harding M. Iewels Replye in this Diuision is of smal pith and substance Least he should seme to say nothing whereas in deede he hath nothing to say whereby clearely to auoide the force of Eusebius authoritie by me alleged he darkeneth the mater with many wordes partly of his owne partly of other Doctours to litle purpose rehersed The effect of his whole tale consisteth in these .4 pointes First he denieth that Eusebius euer named any such Sacrifice of the Sonne of God vnto his Father Secondly he adknowlegeth the Ministration of the holy Communion for so he calleth it of the olde learned Fathers to be called a Sacrifice bicause of thankes and praises therein offered vnto God Thirdly he alloweth not the Argumente made out of Eusebius for proufe that Christe is offered vnto his Father Fourthly he pretendeth to shewe causes why the Sacrifice of the Communion is dredful and causeth the harte to tremble Touching the first what meane you M. Iewel by saying that Eusebius neuer once named any suche oblation of the Sonne of God Be you so addicted to the precise termes of your own Chalenge M. Ievvel is driuen from the mater vnto precise vvordes that other wordes of equal force may not be admitted Verely this declareth the weaknesse of your cause and openeth your poore shifte to the worlde which is that whereas you are conuicte by cleare truth of thinges yet you runne for succour vnto the shadowe of wordes You denye by the wordes of your Chalenge that by witnesse of any doctor within the first six hundred yeres after Christe we are hable to shewe that a Priest hath auctoritie to offer vp Christe vnto his Father Now this are we hable to proue as by diuers others so in this place by testimonie of Eusebius though expressely he name it not an oblation of the Sonne of God And for asmuch as you stand vpon your owne precise termes you shal be driuen from your holde by a precise Argument Answer it if you can What so euer we that are Priestes haue ben taught by Christe to doo to doo the same we haue auctoritie But we haue ben
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
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
doinges in flesh is not ynough excepte the faith be kepte orderly and wholly without wicked breache made in any one point Neither can you M. Iewel smoothe the worlde vnder the shewe of this beleefe For were it so that you offended not in Schisme Num. 16. as Chore and his felowes did that you abbridged not the vniuersal Churche as did the Donatistes that you bangored not in the Sacrament of Baptisme as the Pelagians that you denied not the Sacrament of Penaunce as the Nouatians that you bereued not the dead of the Sacrifice of the Church as the Aërians that you prophaned not the blessed Sacrament of the Aulter as the Caluinistes of our time yet could you not say that your onely beleefe in the Trinitie and of Christes chiefe doinges is a sauing beleefe For infidelitie or vnbeleefe about any one pointe of those thinges that are to be beleeued Basil. lib. de Spiritu sancto is an vtter denial of the whole Godhead saith S. Basil. What vntruth you mainteine in many and great pointes of the Faith I may let passe in silence sith your selfe haue in publique audience professed it by open writinges confirmed it and doo stil defend it Some of your erroneous pointes I haue detected and confuted and so other learned men haue confuted many others Let that be iudged by those who can iudge and vnto whom iudgement belongeth Let it be tried how you beleeue not truly and wholly in the Godhead We may beleeue Christe who is our Lorde and God and we may beleeue in Christe To beleeue Christe is to beleeue that Christe is To beleeue in Christe is to beleeue al to be true that Christe spake and taught August in Iohan. Tract 29. De verb. Dom. Ser. 61. in Psal. 77. with beleeuing to loue and with beleeeuing to go into him to cleaue vnto him and to be incorporate in his members as S. Augustine teacheth that is asmuche in effecte as with beleefe to haue Charitie For he that hath Faith without Charitie beleeueth that Christe is◠and yet beleeueth not in Christe If we should here discourse vpon some particulars of your newe deuised Faith and precisely presse what S. Augustine saith is to beleeue in Christe your Faith and doctrine were like to be prooued no faith Christe is true God equal with God the Father and therefore as he is God he is not a Priest no more then his Father is nor as God euer made he any Sacrifice You teache in the .14 M. Ievvel maketh Christe a Priest and to haue made Sacrifice according to his Godhead VVhich is heinous heresie Diuision of your Replie in your .17 Article pag. 578. whereto now I haue made answer in my Reioindre that Christ touching his Godhead vvas the Priest and made the Sacrifice for these be your very wordes Of which you can not excuse your selfe by saying they are the wordes of any Doctor For neuer was there any that so taught or said Which wordes are cleane contrary to the Faith which the holy Scriptures do teache and which hath bene beleued in the Churche euermore And by the same you seme to haue an other Christe then we haue For our Christe in one person hath two natures to wit the Nature of God and the Nature of Man Touching the Godhead or the nature of God he is in no point at al in any one iote lesse then his Father For the Godhead receiueth no degrees Neither can any thing be said deuised or imagined touching the Godhead which is not altogether cōmō with the Father and the Sonne Ioan. 10. as he him selfe said Ego Pater vnum sumus I and the Father are one thing nature or substance And the Apostle saith of Christe that Philip. 2. Being in the forme of God he thought it no robberie to be equal vvith God Yet say you Christe touching his Godhead vvas the Priest and made the Sacrifice Of which these absurdities and most horrible blasphemies do folowe First that whereas to do Sacrifice is cultus Latriae a seruice of worship and a recognizing of superioritie in him to whom the Sacrifice is made Christe making Sacrifice to his Father touching his Godhead as you say is inferiour to his Father and doth seruice to his Father touching his Godhead Secondly seing that Priesthood is a dignitie and an excellencie such as in this worlde none is greater or at the lest a Qualitie if Christ be a Priest touching his Godhead as you M. Iewel do say he is vndoubtedly either God the Father also was a Prieste and had the same Qualitie or els God the Father wanted one dignitie or Qualitie which God the Sonne had touching his Godhead But God the Father neuer was Priest Ergo as before you made Christe inferiour to his Father touching his Godhead for makinge Sacrifice to his Father as beinge God so nowe you make Christe Superiour to his Father for hauing an Excellencie Dignitie or Qualitie touching his Godhead which God the Father had neuer Thirdly you make by this meanes twoo seueral and distincte Godheades of God the Father and God the Sonne For if to be a Prieste belongeth to the Godhead of Christe the same also belongeth to the Godhead of the Father But Priesthood belongeth in no wise to God the Father Ergo the Godhead of the Father and the Godhead of the Sonne are twoo manner of Godheades of seueral and distincte powers not equal and one the one Godheade hauing Priesthoode the other hauing not or whiche is al one the one God beinge a Prieste and the other being no Prieste whereof wil folowe there are twoo Goddes not One onely God O horrible blasphemie After these longe Schismes and multiplying of Heresies our Protestants are nowe come to be right Arians and professed enemies to the most blessed Trinitie If to auoide this most haynous and detestable Heresie you wil say that God the Father also touching his Godhead is a Prieste then tel vs what hath he to sacrifice To whom shal he do that humble seruice and worship Or is he a man also as Christe is and did he suffer death as the olde Heretikes taught called thereof Patropassiani Patropassiani The Truth is Christ touching his Godhead is not a Priest ne made not the Sacrifice touching his Godhead as very blasphemously you haue written but only touching his manhood Marke the point good Reader as being of most weighty importance Christe is both God and Man But what he doth touching the manhoode that doth not the Father nor the Holy Ghoste in the same sorte Marie what he doth touching his Godhead that in al pointes God the Father and God the holy Ghost doth equally with him Which is the cause that forceth vs to beleeue that not the Godhead or whole Trinitie tooke fleshe but only the second person in Trinitie Least if the Godhead had done it or if it had bene done touching the Godhead we should be constrained to say the whole Trinitie
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
be made no where but in the Temple In deede prayer was euermore added vnto the Sacrifices wherwith they asked that of God for which they offered Yet say we not that sacrifice is prayer as the name of prayer is taken properly but that oftentimes it is vnderstanded by the name of prayer bicause in this it is like vnto it for that it offereth a gifte vnto God to thintent to receiue some thing of him wherein it appeareth to be a prayer not in worde but in deede And bicause it geueth to receiue it hath also the nature of a certaine satisfaction as that which geueth one thing for an other The Sacrifice then of the Masse The Sacrifice auailable ex opere operato in vvhat respecte is auailâ—able ex opere operato that is to say in respecte of the vertue and strength of the thing it selfe that is offred of the thing it selfe I meane without consideration had of the priest whether he be good or euil bicause in the person of Christe and by his commission the body and bloude of Christe are offered vp vnto God Whiche oblation it selfe for the worthines and reuerence of Christe as a Prayer of greatest efficacie and moste worthy to be heard the Father beholdeth and in regard of it performeth that for whiche the body and bloude of his Sonne are so offred according to the order of his Diuine disposition and as it shal seme conuenient to him selfe forasmuche as al iudgement is geuen vnto him Iohan. 5. By the same consideration it hath very great force and strength to satisfie for temporal paines that be due vnto sinnes The Sacrifice satisfieth for paines whiche paines oftetimes in Scripture be called by the name of sinnes For if according vnto the counsel of Daniel Daniel 4. sinnes that is to say paines due to sinnes are redemed with almose how muche more with the body and bloude of the Sonne of God offered at the Aulter If paines were loosed by the sacrifices of the olde Lawe shal they not muche more be loosed by the Sacrifice of the newe Lawe For els what shal we say that the bloude of Christe is of lesse price in the sight of God then the bloude of a calfe Although Sacrifices haue their valour by way of Prayer yet when they bring a present that is worthy of Gods fauour to remission of paines and of his giftes they leane to a certaine right and equitie as the Price being exhibited and so they be satisfactorie S. Augustine speaking of this way of working by the name of Christe August coÌ„tra literas Petiliani lib. 2 cap. 54. in Sacrifices and otherwise saith to Petilian the Donatist Gratias Deo quia tandeÌ„ confessus es valere inuocatuÌ„ nomen Christi ad aliorum saluteÌ„ etiaÌ„ si à peccatoribus inuocetur God be thanked for that thou hast at length confessed that the name of Christe called vpon is auaileable vnto the health of others although it be called vpon of sinners If the name of Christe onely called vpon be auaileable vnto health shal not the bloud of Christ be auaileable to procurement of health specially if the person for whom it is offered be through his owne good disposition meete to receiue suche benefite Neither is this Sacrifice auaileable onely ex opere operato of it selfe The Saâ—crifice Auaileable 〈◊〉 opere operantis and of the worke done but also in some degree ex opere operantis for and through the merite of the offerer For in asmuch as the Priest doth offer this holy Sacrifice not as a priuate man and in his owne priuate name but as the publike Minister of the Church and in the name of the Churche assumpted thervnto by publike auctoritie whereas there neuer want great merites in the Churche the merite of the offerer is neuer separated from the vertue of the worke that is wrought that is to say from the body and bloude of Christe so that although the Priest that offereth and they that be present be wicked yet the Sacrifice of the Masse is not void and frustrat but much auaileable to the working of some good effect according to the disposition of Gods merciful prouidence â—ugust câ—â— epist. Parmen lib. 2. And therefore no maruel is it after the teaching of S. Augustin that good wordes which be said in the publike Praiers for the people though they be said of euil Bishops neuerthelesse be heard not according to the peruersitie of the Gouernours but according to the deuotion of the people And yet it skilleth muche what the Gouernours be seing that their godlines through the Sacrifice much helpeth the infirmitie of the people For which coÌ„sideration as S. Cyprian saith Cyprian lib. 1. epist. 4. we ought not to electe any other to be Bishops but suche as be vnspotted and whole who offering vp Sacrifices vnto God worthily and holily may be heard in their Prayers which they make for the safetie of our Lordes people Gregor in Pastorali part 1. ca. 2. For els when he that is sent to make intercession displeaseth the mind of the displeased is more greeuously prouoked saith S. Gregorie speaking of vnworthy Priestes But yet the Priestes impietie can not let but that the Sacrifice The impietie of the Priest is no hinderance to others touching the benefite of thâ— Sacrifice whiche of it selfe and being offred in the name of the Churche is so good and acceptable a thing vnto God shal profite them whiche besides the Priestes with godlines doo offer it according to the deuotion bothe of them that with the Priestes doo offer and of them for whom it is offred For true it is that S. Augustin saith to Petilianus the Donatiste Nos dicimus tale cuique SacrificiuÌ„ fieri qualis accedit vt offerat We say that the Sacrifice to eche man is made suche August contrà lit Petil. lib. 2. c. 52 1. q. 1. cap. Dominus as he is that commeth to offer Whereas then the wel disposed people doth offer vp that same very Sacrifice by deuoute affection whiche the Priest offereth by outward Ministerie the wickednes of the Minister bereueth not any deuoute person of the benefite of the Sacrifice Neither is this so to be taken as though in this case nothing were to be looked for aboue the merite of our deuotion for then to what purpose were the Sacrifice But what so euer benefite redoundeth of the vertue of the Sacrifice ouer and aboue the merite of deuotion the same is so muche the more abundantly of euery one enioyed with how muche more deuotion towardes Christe and his Death he offereth This deuoute disposition of the offerers our Lorde prescribed when consecrating and making his Apostles Priestes Luc. 22. he said Doo ye this in remembrance of me In whiche commaundement 1. Cor. 11. whereas there be two thinges conteined dooing and remembring or commemoration this muche our Lorde therein signified The Sacrifice profiteth in
al forasmuche as we present the body and bloude of Christe vnto the Father in his person and by his commission and beseche his goodnes that in regarde of his body and bloude he wil haue mercie vppon them But we doo not presente these giftes for al as a Price that is exhibited for them whiche thing the propre nature of this oblation comprehendeth in respecte of release of the paines bicause al be not capable that is to say not apte vessels to receiue suche benefite As touching other thinges whiche profitably be asked in the Masse Benifites redounding to vs by the Masse as victorie peace health ceasonable wether and such other the like wherewith mannes miserie is releeued and holpen the Sacrifice of the Masse is auaileable for them according to the order of Gods eternal disposition not onely by reason of the merite of the Priest and of the Churche that offereth but also and that more amply by reason of the qualitie and vertue of the Sacrifice whiche is consecrated in the person of Christe and by his commission But this is by way of Prayer whiche Prayer bicause it is not sitting the wordes of Christe to be frustrate by whiche he committed this Sacrifice vnto vs the Father very oftentimes heareth And whereas he heareth it not the iudgementes of God be secrete For great is the vertue of the signes and Sacramentes of the name of Iesus Christe vnto whose honour the very powers of the Aier are commaunded to yelde and geue place though it be called vppon by euil and for euil persons as S. Augustine very learnedly teacheth in his booke of .83 questions Augu. lib. 83. quaest quaest 79. or who els so euer is author of that booke For in no wise dare any sprites saith he to contemne these signes For they tremble at these where so euer they beholde them but men being vnwitting of it by God an other thing sometime is commaunded For whereas they geue not place vnto these-Signes God him selfe forbiddeth when he iudgeth it iuste and profitable Thus S. Augustine To this very aptly serueth that he writeth in his .22 booke De Ciuitate Dei Where he telleth of a house deliuered from euil Sprites by the Prayers and Sacrifice of the Masse August de Ciuit. Dei lib. 22. c. 8. Hesperius a noble maÌ„ saith he who dwelleth in our countrie hath in the Lordship of Fussala a Ferme called Cubedi Where when he vnderstoode that his house which he hath there susteined great hurte by euil Sprites and that his catail and his Seruauntes were much troubled he besought our Priestes in my absence that one would go thither that by his Prayers they might be driuen away One went and offered vp there the Sacrifice of the body of Christe praying as muche as he was haâ—le that the vexation might ceasse Forthwith by the mercie of God is ceassed S. Gregorie sheweth by many examples that through the Sacrifice of the Masse diuers receiued temporal benefites Grego in Dialogis who neither were present when Masse was said for them nor thought at al of it Also certaine special helpes by this Sacrifice be obteined which of the Diuines are called prima gratia for with these God doth oftentimes helpe them for whom the Sacrifice is offered that the motion of faith and deuotion and desire of the medicine of the Sacramentes be stirred vp in them Thus thou seest Reader what power the Sacrifice of the Masse hath And as this Sacrifice hath vertue to remoue al manner euils from vs so it hath vertue to get and procure al good thinges vnto vs according to the disposition of Gods Prouidence VVhat force the Sacrifice of the Masse hath â—ouching the remissioÌ„ of mortal sinnes Wherefore that also may easily be conceiued which of many men is called in question touching the remission of mortal sinnes Verely the blessed Martyr S. Alexander fifth in the Regester of the Popes saith in his firste epistle that Crimes and sinnes be put out by these Sacrifices offered vp vnto our Lorde And againe that our Lorde is delited and appeased with such Sacrifices and that through them he forgeueth great sinnes Alexander epist. ad oâ—Ì„s orthodoxos For nothing saith he can be greater in Sacrifices then the body and bloud of our Lorde Iulius speaking likewise of the Sacrifices saith that by them offred to God al crime and sinne is quite put out S. Gregorie also saith Iulius De Cons. Distinct. 2. CuÌ„ omne Gregor Dialog 4. Cap. 58. that this Sacrifice singularly saueth the soule from euerlasting destruction Al whiche and sundry other the like sayinges of certaine Fathers are so to be vnderstanded not as though we might obteine remission of such sinnes after Baptisme committed without Absolution of the Priest who is the Ministre of the Sacrament of Penaunce but that this blessed Sacrifice doth geue such grace and worketh so together with the infirmitie of the Penitentes that they may by the Priests be reconciled vnto God And it is so acceptable in the sight of God Sess. 22. Cap. 2. that as the CouÌ„cel of Trent teacheth being appeased by the Oblation of it graunting grace and the gifte of Penaunce he forgeueth Crimes and sinnes yea that be right great As concerning them The Sacrifice of the Masse profitable for the dead 2. Mac. 12 Ioan. 11. August in Enchirid. cap. 110. that with godlinesse are departed this life and haue taken their slepe as the Scripture speaketh and haue not as it behooued them made ful satisfaction whom we beleeue to remaine in Purgatorie although now they be not in state to merite any thing by any operatioÌ„ of their owne wil or to do holesom Penaunce for their sinnes yet bicause they be the members of Christ and felow citizens withal the Saintes felowes and brothers with them the Sacrifice of the Masse profiteth them as it doth the other iuste persons here but that their owne propre deuotioÌ„ caÌ„ helpe them nothing â—s now depending wholly of Christ and of the Church For although God in the day of our departure hence as it is said of the wise man do rendre to euery man according to his waies Eccle. 11. yet after the doctrine of S. Augustin this much by their good workes they haue deserued at Gods hand whiles they lyued here August in Enchirid. ad LaureÌ„ti cap. 11â— that these common dueties of Christian felowship might profit them also after their departure hence For els it should seme very vniuste and iniurious vnto the body of Christe if there were any members of it to which being in distresse it could not procure succour The motion of contrition and charitie with whiche they departed hence for els they remaine not in Purgatorie is a disposition Athanas. in quaest ad AntiochuÌ„ q. 34. Chrysost. ad pop Antioch Homil. 69 Sermo 3. in epist. ad Philip. Damas. in Oratione de ijs qui hinc in fide migraâ—â—nâ— whiche
Gospel wherewith he impugned the blessed Masse disputing with Luther as he witnesseth of him selfe if I say after al this he be hable to bring nothing whereby this Sacrifice to any learned man may seeme clearely disprooued hereof thou maist soone conceiue good Reader how assured and certaine the doctrine of the Catholike Churche is that teacheth the Body and Bloud of Christ to be offered vp vnto God vnder the formes of breade and wine by Priestes and the same to be the Sacrifice propre to the new Testament and how litle there is to be said against it Bicause in this treatise I do mainteine my Answere and disprooue what M. Iewel hath replied against it that the whole processe may seeme the plainer and for that oftentimes I am driuen by him falsly reporting my woordes to referre the Reader to that I said before I haue thought it necessary to set foorth my Answere with his Replie and my Reioindre together the order of his Diuisions truly kepte Wherefore when M. Iewel beareth thee in hande that I speake either absurdly or vntruly or that I make a fonde Argument it may please thee to returne backe vnto the Answere and vewing the place diligently to consider whether thou finde as he reporteth If this be done I doubte not but the chiefe aduantage he seemeth to take against me shal in thy iudgement appeare to stand altogether vpon manifest vntruthes Yea if thou wilt not be deceiued by M. Iewel How M. levvels vvritings are to be read beleeue not at the firste what in proufe or disproufe of any thing he reporteth as out of others Examine the places from whence he bringeth his testimonies beleeue not his shewes beleeue thine owne eyes Compare the authours texte The sleightes he vseth in vvriting against the Catholikes and his reportes together And doubtelesse wheresoeuer he allegeth ought that disagreeth with the doctrine of the Catholique Churche thou maist be assured by diligent searche to finde that he hath corrupted and falsified the Doctor either by taking away or by adding vnto by exchange of wordes or by peruerting the order of the sentence by conceeling the Circumstance of the place or by applying it to a sense contrary to the writers meaning briefly by one false meane or other as al merchantes of such false wares lacke not craftes and sleightes to helpe their vtterance And as his sleightes of corrupting the Doctours be sundry and many The sleightes he vseth in ansvvering to the Catholiques so be the meanes also many and of no lesse crafte whiche he vseth in answering to certaine their most plaine testimonies with which oftentimes he is pressed Some Doctours with him be vtterly refused some be of doubteful authoritie some be disliked for their age some be auoided by a crafty vnderstanding some that speake plainely be tolde they speake violently Whiche is a very poore shifte and seemeth to haue least weight of Learning or Reason When al other sleightes be spent yet this serueth him for the last refuge He draweth this mater of the Sacrifice to Phrases of speache Tropes and Metaphores and alleging some Tropical speache that receiueth a reasonable vnderstanding somewhat diuers from the literal sownde of the naked woordes he requireth the place that maketh for the truth of the Sacrifice to be in like sorte vnderstanded This is a way whereby one may seme to say somewhat when in deede he saith nothing By suche meane the truthe in any controuersie is darkened it is not discussed and in the iudgement of the vnlearned confusion is wrought M. Iewels common Argumentes What shal I speake of the force of his Argumentes Certainely they be suche as very Boyes that learne their Sophistrie may be a shamed to make In manner he neuer maketh Argument against the Sacrifice but wherein with one truth he excludeth an other truth whiche kinde of reason of al other is the most childish and fondest As for example Bicause the Fathers sometimes cal the Euchariste an Image a Figure a memorie a sampler of the Sacrifice that was made vpon the Crosse thereof alwaies he concludeth that it is not a true Sacrifice As thoughe one might not by suche Logique conclude that the Sacrifices of the olde Lawe were not truely and properly Sacrifices bicause they were al a Figure of that great Sacrifice whiche Christe offered when he died Both Sacrifices are a signe of that one and the selfe same hoste that of the Lawe was a signe of the hoste to come ours of that is paste Yet either is a true Sacrifice Likewise of the affirmation of the Sacrifice of Praise and Thankesgeuing he induceth the denial of the true and real Sacrifice of Christes Body and Bloude in the Euchariste as thoughe it were not bothe But what neede I here Reader to tel thee of M. Iewels manyfold shiftes and sleightes See the Preface before my first Reioindre sith I haue spoken thereof otherwheres and other men haue detected them at large And in deede what elles is conteined in our bookes but a discouering of his Legierdemaine For how could the truthe haue bene set forth excepte his lies had ben discried and his falshoode confuted As for the Vntruthes that be in his Replie to this parte of my Answere I haue not curiously noted the number of them for so muche as that hath bene once doone by D. Sander and me in parte and by M. Stapleton more copiously whereas the number of his Vntruthes founde in foure Articles onely of six and twenty amount to a Thousand and odde and the same are not yet discharged of M. Iewels parte I intend not to bestow muche time about such a lothsome worke It is more meete for Pinners Pointers and Nailesellers to spende their tyme about telling and making such accomptes And though I had liked to haue kepte tale of them yet the Margent of my booke would not haue sufficed to conteine them the number is so great Yet that his lyes falsifyinges corruptions and vntruthes appeare to be of smal number and that the shame whiche would growe in respecte of the multitude if al were seuerally tolde be not to the hinderance of his estimation discoouered I am content his whole Replie touching this article be taken as it is in deede fewe thinges excepted wherein gladly I agree with him but for one Vntruth Touching this Reioindre I haue here defended and confirmed my Answere to his 17. Article whiche is of the Sacrifice and al that he hath replied against it I haue fully refelled God geue thee iudgement good Reader to discerne truth from vntruth If perhaps I shal seme in some places ouer obscure and tedious and not to haue framed my writing meete for al mennes capacities thou maist thinke that either learning failed or that the mater would not suffer verely good wil wanted not To make harde thinges easy to be vnderstanded and to geue light to thinges that of them selfe be darke and not to swarue from the
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
Sacrifices they thought them selues to be destitute of the benefites of the Lawe and remedies for sinne Herevnto the Apostle maketh answere and in effect teacheth That of such Sacrifices as the Lawe ordeined now we haue no neede for so much as the Priesthood of Christ who hath once offred him selfe with sheadding of his bloude vpon the Aulter of the Crosse hauing thereby fulfilled them remaineth and continueth stil with vs whiche is sufficient We haue saith he to them an Aulter whereof it is not lawful for them to eate whiche doo serue the Tabernacle Heb. 13. And that ye see not hostes to bâ— killed and the bloude of Calues to be shed of vs the cause is for that the onely blouddy hoste of Christe hath sufficed that now we haue neede of no other but of that That hoste is the founteine and endlesse treasure whiche conteineth the sufficient price of our Redemption onely it is neede that wee be made partakers of it Neither were those Sacrifices of Moyses lawe suche that by vertue and power of them being but signes and figures of Christ Heb. 9. synnes were remitted in conscience but by them synnes were brought to remembrance and signification was geuen out that there was neede of an other blouddy Sacrifice by whose vertue men in conscience should be made perfite And so the Apostle treateth of the thing it selfe that was shadowed in al the Sacrifices of the Law and is so acceptable vnto the Father that by his owne propre vertue and merite it sanctifieth men and remitteth sinnes whereunto by the ordinance of Gods iustice the Bloude of the Sonne of God was Requisite Suche is the Hoste or Sacrifice of the Crosse onely by whose vertue and merite they be sanctified whosoeuer from the beginning either by the Sacrifices of the former times or by the daily Sacrifice of the Churche are sanctified By whiche onely for this cause al be said to be sanctified bicause who so euer be sanctified be by that and by the vertue of that made cleane In case the olde Sacrifices or the Sacrifice of the Masse also were suche sufficient prices of our redeÌ„ption without doubte bothe those and this had long sithens ceassed to be offered For suche a Sacrifice whiche by his owne proper merite geteth sufficient price for sinnes ought to be great in deede soothly by the Death of the Sonne of God but one onely sufficeth Heb. 10. Wherefore of a blouddy Sacrifice there is no more neede but of suche a one as by which we may be made partakers of that great and most worthy Sacrifice Of whiche sorte the Sacrifice of the Masse is where in the person of Christe that Death is presented for vs vnto the Father And what Hoste or thing mystically offered could either better set Christes Death before his Fathers sight or more effectually deriue the merites of his Death vnto vs then that very body wherein he suffered For which cause when he deliuered the Sacrament of his Possion vnto vs Lucae 22. he said Doo ye this in remembrance of me So that this Sacrifice of the Masse although it be in his kinde a true Sacrifice as it shal be proued here after in this Reioindre yet it taketh his whole vertue and power of the Sacrifice of the Crosse which is of it selfe the whole price of our Redemption Now S. Paul disputeth with the Hebrewes of that whiche with bloudshed redemed vs and not of that whiche without bloudshed applieh the Redemption vnto vs. That was but once offered this is and must be ofte repeated Faultes escaped in printing Faâ—lte leafe line Correction Accidententes 31. b. 24. Accidentes Sigular 47. a 11. Singular â—nd 56. b. 20. and in here 79. a. 4. is here the termeth 94. a. 21. be termeth end 108. b. 5. and sacrified 111. a. 3. sacrificed iam num 117. b. 25. iam nunc the vnbloudy 119. b. 33. the bloudy taught them the nevv test 131. b. 26. taught them the nevve Oblation of the nevv Testament argume 136. b. 30. argument neither he they 140. b. 13. neither be they and circumstance 149. b. 23. any circumstance is the Masse in one 195. b. 10. in the Masse is one and maketh haste 208 a. 10. and make hast he briefly examined 215. b. 15. be briefly examined In the Epistle to M. Iew. Page 1. In the margent read Math. 5. Item there pag. 11. Lin. 2. for novv broched read nevv broched Item there pag. 13. Lin. 11. for hen read ben Item there Pag. 15. Lin. 14. for him reade him A REIOINDRE TO M. IEWELS REPLIE AGAINST THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASSE The wordes of M. Iewels Chalenge IF any learned man of our Aduersaries or if al the learned men that be alyue be hable to bring any one sufficient sentence out of any olde Catholike Doctour or Father or out of any olde general CouÌ„cel or out of the holy Scriptures of God or any one example of the Primitiue Churche wherby it may clearely and plainly be proued that for the space of sixe hundred yeres after Christe the Priest had authoritie to offer vp Christe vnto his Father I am content to yeelde and to subscribe The wordes of the Answer first made to this Chalenge Of the Priestes auctoritie to offer vp Christe to his Father CHrist is offered vp to his Father after three manners Figuratiuely Truely with Bloudshedding and Sacramentally or Mystically In Figure or Signification he was offered in the Sacrifice made to GOD bothe in the time of the Lawe of Nature and also in the time of the lawe written And therefore S. Iohn calleth Christe the Lambe Agnus occisus est ab origine mundi Apoc. 13. Heb. 10. Lib. 6. c. 5. which was killed from the beginning of the world meaning in figure The Sacrifices of Abel Noe and Abraham and al those of the people of Israel commaunded by the Lawe of Moses figured and signified Christe For whiche respecte chiefly the lawe is reported of S. Paule to haue the shadowe of the good thinges to come S. Augustine writing against Faustus the Heretike saieth Testamenti Veteris Sacrificia omnia multis varijs modis vnum Sacrificium cuius nunc memoriaÌ„ celebramus significauerunt All the Sacrifices of the olde Testament signified by manie and sundrie waies this one Sacrifice whose memorie we doo nowe celebrate And in an other place he saieth Dâ— fide ad PetruÌ„ Dia câ—nuÌ„ c. 19. That in those Fleashly Sacrifices there was a SignificatioÌ„ of Christes Fleash which he shoulde offer for sinnes and of his Bloud which he should sheadde for the remission of our sinnes Truely and with Bloudsheadding Christ is offered on the Crosse in his owne person wherof S. Paule saith Tit. 2. Christ gaue hiÌ„ self for vs Ephes. 5. that he might redeme vs froÌ„ al iniquitie And againe Christ hath loued vs and hath deliuered him selfe for vs an Oblation and Sacrifice to God into a svvete sauour Sacramentally or in Mysterie
Christ is offered vp to his Father in the daily Sacrifice of the Churche vnder the Forme of Bread and Wine truely and in deede not in respect of the maÌ„ner of offering but in respect of his very Bodie and Bloude really that is in deede present as it hath ben sufficiently proued here before M. Iewels Replie The greatter and vvoorthier the vvork is that our Aduersaries haue imagined that is for a Mortal and a Miserable man to offer vp the Immortal Sonne of God vnto his Father and that Really and in deede the more ought the same either by manifest vvoordes or by necessarie collection expressely and plainely to be prooued Hebr. 5. For noman taketh honour and office vnto him self but he that is called and appointed thereto by God But for ought that may appeare by anie clause or sentence either of the nevve Testament or of the olde God neuer appointed anie such Sacrifice to be made by anie Mortal Creature And Theophylacte saith Iesus eiiciendo boues columbas Theophyl in Matt. cap. 21. praesignauit non vltra opus esse animalium Sacrificio sed Oratione Iesus throvving the Oxen aÌ„d Dooues out of the Temple signified that they should no lenger haue nede of the Sacrifice of beastes but of prayer Harding WOVLD God M. Iewel that either your modestie were more or that you had the grace to see howe euil your saucinesse becommeth you As at the first by open Chalenge you prouoked all the learned men that be alyue as it were to trye maisterie with you so in the entrie of your Replie against my Answer to your seueÌ„tienth Article you beare al men in hand that vntil you came froÌ„ the schole of Rhetorike to reach the world this new Gospel no priest euer coÌ„sidered how great and worthy a worke it is to offer vp Christe vnto his Father which apperteineth to Priestly office Wherein you charge the blessed Apostles their successours al the holy Fathers of the Church so many as were Priestes al that haue ben to your time briefly the whole Church it self with the crime of wicked presumptioÌ„ for making this sacrifice How caÌ„ you seme otherwise to doo For whereas you say it may not appeare by any Clause or senteÌ„ce of the olde or new Testament that God euer appointed any such Sacrifice to be made by any Mortal maÌ„ and most certaine it is that by the Apostles and the holy Fathers of the Church and by the priestes of God in euery age it hath ben made what coÌ„clude you hereof but that they haue traÌ„sgressed the Scripture and presumptuously takeÌ„ honour and office vnto them selues Hebr. 5. not being called nor appointed thereto by God And so what may Christ be thought to haue meant in suffering such a heinous errour so long to continue in his Church Esai 59. which he loueth so derely Iohan. 14. to which he promised the assistance of the holy Ghoste the spirite of truth for euer Matt. 28. But consider M. Iewel against whom and how many you striue Wil it do your hart good to heare that spoken of Iewel which by the Angel of God was spokeÌ„ of Ismael Manus eius coÌ„tra oeÌ„s â—â—n 16. et manus oiÌ„m contra cuÌ„ The hand of him against al and the hand of al against him Stande you so farre in your owne conceite as to thinke you shal be able to stand against al RemeÌ„ber you not what is said of the Church Cant. 6. that it is terribilis ut castroruÌ„ acies ordinata terrible like the foreward of an Armie set in battaile raie But leauing to put you in minde of that which might withdraw you froÌ„ your wicked doctrine either for feare of God or for shame of meÌ„ hauing litle hope by wordes to do good with you to th' intent the weakenes of your part laid forth to be coÌ„sidered the vnlerned Reader that perhaps is seduced by you may be admonished to beware of you and to geue no more credite vnto you then a professed enemie of the Church and a teacher of falshod deserueth I wil come to the examinatioÌ„ of your Replie You seme to deduce an argumeÌ„t against this Sacrifice made by a priest of the basenes and vilenesse of humaine coÌ„dition as though maÌ„ who in dede is mortal aÌ„d miserable aÌ„d a mortal creature as you terme him were not worthy ne could not be made worthy to offer vp the Immoral SoÌ„ne of God vnto his Father True it is Man of him self is very vnworthy of that high office neither caÌ„ he by any his owne power or vertue reache vnto the worthines of that soueraine honour But if it please God of his great loue towards his owne dere creature to admit maÌ„ to that dignitie notwitstanding he be neuer so vnworthy of him self so he is made worthy Neither Anna nor Elizabeth nor blessed Marie her selfe nor any other woman was euer worthy of her self to coÌ„ceiue and bring forth th' Immortal SoÌ„ne of God yet the virgin Marie through grace of him whom she bare was made worthy to beare him aÌ„d therfor she said fecit mihi magna q poteÌ„s est he hath don me great thinges Luc. 1. that is mighty Els if coÌ„sideration of the mortal and miserable coÌ„ditioÌ„ of man might be brought in argumeÌ„t for the coÌ„trary what a wide dore were opened vnto the scholers of MarcioÌ„ Manichaeus Apollinaris and to other Heretikes to rush in and to thrust in againe their old heresies against the truth of the Flesh assumpted and the Incarnation of Christe Gene. 18. Abraham was a man mortal and miserable as we are dust and asshes To hovv great dignity a man mortal and miserable hath ben admitted by God as he said himselfe yet was he made worthy to haue talke with God and to vnderstaÌ„d his purpose touching the destruction of Sodoma Moyses like wise though he were but a mortal and miserable man was accoÌ„pted worthy with whom God spake mouth to mouth and as the Scripture saith face to face as a man is woont to speake vnto his frend to see our Lorde opeÌ„ly without obscure signes and figures Num. 12. to be Gods Ambassadour vnto Pharao Exod. 33. Exodi 3. Exod. 19. and the people of Israel to enter into the Cloude vpon the hill where God was and there to receiue the Lawe written with Gods owne finger And to come againe vnto the newe Testament what a dignitie is it for Iohn the Baptist to baptise Christe Mat. 3. Mat. 28. for the Apostles and their successours to carrie his name Ioan. 20. and his worde through out the whole worlde to remit and retaine sinnes Shal we denye or so much as cal in question these great thinges because they be mortal and miserable men to whom they are committed Notwithstanding the mortalitie and miserie of mankinde yet beholde what a high dignitie men are called vnto by testimony of S. Iohn Ioan. 1. Dedit eis potestatem
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
special kings bearing rule not only ouer them selues yea though perhaps not ouer them selues sometimes which may be said for some parte of them but at the least ouer their Subiectes notwithstandinge that al the faithful people through Christ whose members thei are be made by Baptisme kinges ouer their own soules and bodies So there be special Priestes in the newe Testament called and appointed to that function albeit al Christians be spiritual Priestes as being the membres of the highest Priest Iesus Christe Here I thinke good to fore warne the Reader that bicause I am constrained by the Replie to make a distinction betwen these two termes Sacerdos and Presbyter Presbyter Sacerdos Priest Sacrificer by which the persons of the highest order in the Church be called and in our English tongue there want two distinct termes correspondent to them the name of Priest seruing to both as the common vse hath receiued I wil for a fewe leaues that my talke may be more distincte and better perceiued vse the terme Sacrificer for the Latine worde Sacerdos and the terme Priest for the worde Presbyter When therfore I shal name a Sacrificer that is to be vnderstanded which this worde Sacerdos signifieth and likewise Priest shal be that which is signified by the worde Presbyter Thus I require the vse of an vnwoont terme to be taken in good part for so good and profitable a cause After a fewe leaues I wil returne to the vse of the accustomed terme Priest whether the Latine where vnto it shal answer be Sacerdos or Presbyter And now to come againe froÌ„ wheÌ„ce I haue thus digressed If for the force of the former coÌ„parison M. Iewel wil coÌ„fesse that there be certaine special persons chosen and sent to beare in the congregatioÌ„ certaine offices which euery man vpon the coÌ„mission of their general Priesthod may not adueÌ„ture vpon without a special coÌ„mission and appointement and those persons be of the Fathers by an abuse of the worde called Sacerdotes Sacrificers wheras in deede and properly they are to be called Presbyteri Priestes Elders or Ministers to this I reply graunting and coÌ„fessing that such persons called to these special functions were at the beginning and may now also be called Priests aÌ„d Ministers That there be novve in the Churche vvho ought properly to be called Sacerdotes that is Sacrificers But I deny vtterly that the same may not ne ought not properly to be called Sacrificers Yea doubtlesse the name of a Sacrificer doth more aptly and properly agree vnto theÌ„ theÌ„ doth the terme Priest or Minister For of these termes the one rather declareth the age or auncient grauitie which is most seemely in these persons then expresseth their office The other through the largenes of the significatioÌ„ is such as may be applied as wel vnto Maiors of Cities and temporal Iudges ministring Iustice as vnto those persons that minister and dispeÌ„se the mysteries of God But the terme Sacrificer doth properly extend only to those who haue auctoritie to coÌ„secrat the Body and Bloud of Christ aÌ„d be by special vocatioÌ„ ministers and dispensers of most holy things which ministratioÌ„ aÌ„d dispeÌ„satioÌ„ is to be fouÌ„d in the Church only To him that perhaps wil reply VVhy S. Paule calleth them Priestes rather then Saâ—crificers and demaunde why then did S. Paule as it were of purpose shuÌ„ning the terme Sacrificer alwaies cal them Priestes or Ministers I answer S. Paule had iust cause so to doe The which cause learned men shewe to be for that in his time the olde Law and Priesthod of the same was yet amoÌ„g the Iewes fresh in estimatioÌ„ and stickte so in their coÌ„science as they could not vpon the soudaine be remoued from the obseruation of their accustomed ReligioÌ„ deliuered vnto them of God by Moyses his special prophete S. Paule therfore with other the first setters forth of Christes Law the Gospel preaching coÌ„tinually of the end of the old Law aÌ„d of the ceassing aÌ„d abrogatioÌ„ of the Sacrifices thought it coÌ„uenient for a time to forbeare the name of Sacrificer and to cal the spiritual officers by the name of Priests aÌ„d Ministers least the Iewes hearing the termes of their owne ReligioÌ„ might falsly suppose no differeÌ„ce or preemineÌ„ce to be betwen the office aÌ„d officers of the new and their ReligioÌ„ that is to say of the new and old TestameÌ„t And this warenesse of speaking coÌ„tinued vntil IerusaleÌ„ After the destruction of IerusaleÌ„ the olde terme Sacrificer vvas resumed and vsedâ— and the TeÌ„ple it self wher only their Sacrifices were to be made were destroyed at what time the kingdom Priesthode and rite of Sacrificing of the Iewes was quite ended and takeÌ„ away FroÌ„ theÌ„ce forth to this time the learned Fathers haue coÌ„moÌ„ly without feare or doubte resumed the termes of Priesthod and Sacrificers and applied theÌ„ to the spiritual ministerie administers of the Church This cause being knowen and wel weighed bewrayeth M. Iewels ignoraÌ„ce or folieâ— affirmiÌ„g the Fathers to haue vsed the termes Sacrifice Sacrificer aÌ„d Aulter for that the Iewes aÌ„d the GeÌ„tils eares were wel acquainted with these termes Where as contrary wise the first Preachers of Christian Religion absteined from those woordes bicause the same were vnto them vsual and familiar least by the vse of theÌ„ some errour or inconuenience might chaunce to growe Ansvvere to M. Ievvels authorities Now to answer the authorities first whereas Pachymeres is haled in whether he wil or no to be a witnesse in this wrong cause let it be considered how iniurious M. Iewel is in that he bindeth other men to Doctours and Councels of the first six hundred yeres after Christe only and here vseth him selfe the auctoritie of so late a writer as Pachymeres is And therefore sith that he hath first broken his owne Lawe and the bonde of the couenances we thinke it right he beare with vs if sometime we allege Doctours and Councels though some deale beneath the first sixe hundred yeres yet auncienter and of farre better auctoritie then Pachymeres a writer of Notes vpon S. Dionyse hath euer ben accompted of Next how proueth Pachymeres the purpose for which he is brought in Be it graunted that S. Dionyse writing to Sopater being a Priest calleth him a Sacrificer and that custome hath now obteined a Priest or Elder to be named a Sacrificer as Pachymeres saith what can be concluded of al this Wil it folow hereof that Sopater was no true Sacrificer but onely a figuratiue Sacrificer And that the name of a Priest doth more aptlye expresse the office of the stewardes of Gods Mysteries in the Churche then doth the terme Sacrificer Nothing lesse This is it only that wil folow that the dispensatours of those spiritual treasures were called by both the names of a Priest and of a Sacrificer euen from the beginning of the Churche a shorte time only excepted vntil the Iewish Synagogue was buried and almost forgotteÌ„ After which time the
Ecclesiastical writers were accustomed to attribute vnto the chiefe ministers of Gods mysteries as oft or oftener the title of Sacrificers as of Priests or Elders as it may be tried by vewe of the workes written by S. Dionyse Tertullian S. Cyprian S. Chrysostom S. Ambrose S. Hierome S. Augustine S. Leo S. Gregorie and briefly by the writinges of al others from age to age vnto these wretched times when the name and person of a Sacrificer which al good men of times past euer reuerenced and honoured is despised accompted Iewish or Heathenish hated and detested So that the custome which Pachymeres speaketh of to cal a Priest a Sacrificer is now toward the ende of the worlde when Antichrist shal come by the worst sort of men his foreronners interrupted and broken How be it I maruel that M. Iewel who hath so great stoare of phrases wherewith to make shew of somewhat against the Catholiks S. Dionyse vvriâ—ting to Sopater a Priest calleth hiÌ„â—acrificer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to bleare the eyes of the vnlerned had no better phrase then this of S. Dionyse against the Sacrifice of the Churche Wil it seme likely to any wise man that S. Dionysius was so farre ouerseene as to vse one word for an other specially in that place where he so ernestly aduertiseth one to vtter nothing that may be reproued For that special counsel he geueth Sopater in that Epistle And whereas writing Epistles to others he geueth to ech one his due title of honour and calling as To Gaius a * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Moonke To Dorotheê° a * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Minister or Deacon by interpretation of Pachymeres To Polycarpus a * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bisshop To Iohn the Diuine Apostle and EuaÌ„gelist how shal we think he failed only of the true name that Sopaters vocation was called by Verily had not a Priest in his certaine knowledge and in the iudgemeÌ„t of the learned Fathers of that time the Apostles scholers don true Sacrifice in dede by offering vp the body and bloud of Christe vnto God he wold not haue called Sopater the Priest a Sacrificer But bicause they had the same faith concerning this Sacrifice that the Churche euer sithens had and we nowe haue he doubted not to cal a Priest a Sacrificer as now he is coÌ„moÌ„ly called Neither vsed he that terme only in his Epistle to Sopater but also in his Ecclesiastical Hierarchie where he declared the maner how the Sacrifice was to be celebrated And the custome hath now so preuailed saith Pachymeres Which custome should neuer so haue preuailed in the vniuersal Churche of Christe had not the terme in so weighty a mater bene agreable vnto the truth Thus S. Dionyse whom M. Iewel allegeth for him selfe maketh clearely against M. Iewel Vnto Pachymeres M. Iewel adioineth S. Paule Origen S. Chrysostome to proue that preaching of the Gospel is called a Sacrifice being none in dede and also S. Gregorie Nazianzene calling the people his Sacrifice These authorities might as wel haue ben brought in to proue that Christe offered no true and real Sacrifice vpon the Crosse as that there is no external Sacrifice in the Churche but only a reported Sacrifice by a metaphore For if any man allege to the contrarie the testimonies of the Scripture and Doctors wher they cal Christes death a Sacrifice folowing M. Iewel one may easily answere that both the Scripture and Doctours vsed the word improperly alluding for their delite vnto the Sacrifices of the old Law For behold saith he this is not straÌ„ge S. Paul S. Chrysostome and OrigeÌ„ doe cal preaching a Sacrifice whereas in dede preaching is no Sacrifice And so by a phrase of speache the Sacrifice of Christes death whereon our faith and hope as the ground of our saluatioÌ„ stayeth were like to be remoued and displaced What a fond kind of arguing is this The absurdity of M. Iewels argumeÌ„t The terme Sacrifice is sometimes vsed of the Fathers speaking metaphorically Ergo it is so to be taken when thei speake of the Sacrifice of the Aulter The great absurditie of this argumeÌ„t may easily appeare in the like As for example Baptisme is somtime taken in the Scripture by a figuratiue speach for tribulatioÌ„ and suffering of death as when Christ said Baptismo habeo baptizari Luc. 21. et quomodo coartor vsque duÌ„ perficiatur I haue a Baptisme to be baptized withal and how am I straighted vntil it be accomplished Ergo Baptisme hath no proper significatioÌ„ in the last chapter of S. Mathew where Christ gaue coÌ„mandemeÌ„t vnto his disciples Mat. 28. saying Go ye and teach al natioÌ„s baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost But Christ pronouncing the terme of Baptisme Mar. 7. alluded only vnto the obseruaÌ„ce and Ceremonie of the Iewes whose custome was to baptize and washe them selues when they returned home from the market or common place For thy better instruction herein Reader M. Iewels comoÌ„ Arguments deduced from like to like thou maist be aduertised that these Argumentes à Simili from one like thing to an other be the weakest of al others and most deceiueable and are fitter for a Rhetorical declamation then for a probation of truth called in controuersie And therefore it is a kinde of Argument attributed vnto the Rhetorician to explicate and make plaine a mater and not to the Logician strongly to conuince and piththily to proue a veritie Yet M. Iewel notwithstanding is so in loue with this kinde of prouing in his whole booke of Replie that if his comparisons of one phrase with an other were cut of which he woulde haue seme to be like the rest of his booke should appeare of smal quantitie How be it though it be the slipperest way in reasoning yet if M. Iewel had compared phrases together that were like in dede al circumstances obserued he were the more to be borne withal But most coÌ„monly he maketh his comparisons betwixt those phrases that haue litle or none affinitie at al either for that the one is spoken by a Metaphore and the other properly or the one of one mater and the other of an other or the one in one respect the other in an other And by that meanes he confoundeth the Doctours sayinges M. Iewels custome to put avvay one truth by an other and thinketh he hath done the parte of a lerned man if he may seme to foile and desplace one truth by an other truth As for example In our present case bicause S. Paule and certaine Doctours by a Figure do take Preaching for a Sacrifice which is a truth denyed by no man for it is in deede a kinde of spiritual Sacrifice therefore he woulde haue it seme that the same Doctours neuer speake of any real Sacrifice of Christes body and bloude whereas it is most manifest as it shal hereafter be proued that they speake of both kindes
of these Sacrifices and both may wel stand together Rom. 15. Origen in Epist. ad Ro. lib. 10. Where he saith S. Paule speaketh of him self in this sense saying Sacrifico Euangelium Dei I sacrifice the Ghospel of God and Origen Sacrificale opus est annunciare Euangelium It is a worke of Sacrifice to preach the Gospel What sense meaneth he or what sense would he his Reader to conceiue sith that he spake no worde of any sense before He spake onely of a certaine delite that the olde learned Fathers had in vsing wordes which after the promulgation of the Gospel signified nothing extant nor practised I trow therefore he meant that S. Paule had also that delite which he pretendeth Now true it is that S. Paule hath nowhere these very wordes Sacrifico Euangelium Dei I sacrifice the Gospel of God Neither be the woordes Origens that he ascribeth to Origen but S. Hieromes who added vnto and tooke from Origens fifteen vnperfite bookes vpon the Epistle to the Romains and disposed that whole worke as he thought best as it appeareth by his Epistle to Heraclius The place which he meaneth Rom. 15. is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for which the common Latine bookes haue sanctificans Euangelium Dei Erasmus administrans S. Augustine consecrans which worde liketh Caluine and the same he pteferreth before Erasmus worde whiche notwithstanding the translatours of the Englishe newe Testament folowed Al which interpretations be too obscure Beza in Annot. in no. test as Beza iudgeth and therefore he liketh his owne best Operans Euangelio Dei as his Maister Caluine liked his owne better then that of Erasmus S. Hierome confesseth it to be more highly and with a more magnificēce spoken in Greke then he was hable fully to expresse in Latine Yet as being destitute of a fuller and perfiter worde he turneth the Greke worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into sacrificans and saith that to preach the Gospel is a sacrificing worke and there plainely declareth how Now though it be graunted that both S. Paule alluded to the manner and condition of the Sacrifices of Moyses lawe and S. Hierome consydered the same in his exposition of that place yet thereof it wil not folowe that when so euer the olde Learned Fathers speake of the external visible and singular Sacrifice of the Churche they meane that there is no real Sacrifice in deede but onely in a figuratiue speache M Ievvel for the most part so argueth that he impugneth one truth by an other truth This Argument is naught pardy as M. Iewel knoweth him selfe S. Paule saith he consecrated the Gospel as it were a Sacrifice throughe preaching of the same offering vp the beleeuers as Hostes vnto God Item Saint Hierome for that respecte calleth preaching of the Ghospel a sacrificing worke Ergo the Fathers woordes spoken of the daily Sacrifice of the Churche are to be taken metaphorically onely and not properly Bothe manners of sayinges be true in their right sense the one in figuratiue the other in proper sense Who so euer aunswereth M. Iewel he must alwaies sing one song vnto him that his continual shift is to impugne one truth by an other truth The same answer serueth to the places by him alleged out of S. Gregorie Nazianzen and S. Chrysostome if S. Nazianzen haue any such wordes at al. For amongst al his Orations that be extant none beareth the title that is here noted in the margent Yet I acknowledge them to be such as he might wel haue spoken them by a metaphore M. Ievvel falsifieth S. Chrysostome The Testimonie of S. Chrysostome he hath fouly falsified with vntrue translation For whereas he found these wordes in S. Chrysostome Ipsum mihi Sacerdotium est praedicare Euagnelizare he hath thus translated it into English My whole priesthoode is to teach and to preach the Ghospel As though ipsum in Latine signified whole in English and as though it were true that S. Paules Priesthode consisted wholy and altogether in preaching the Ghospel whereas he confesseth him selfe to haue baptized Crispus 1. Cor. 1. and Caius and the householde of Stephana and it is not to be doubted but he consecrated and ministred also the blessed Sacrament of Christes body and bloude and where occasion so required loosed and retained synnes Which three functions be diuerse from the preaching of the Ghospel Whereby it is cleare that S. Paules whole Priesthode consisted not in preaching But these men would faine inclose al Priestly office within the limittes of preaching For so should our whole Religion consiste in prating so few Sacramentes would serue so the continual Sacrifice should ceasse so should Hostlers and Tapsters occupie the Pulpittes and what other so euer lewd Iackes could chatte and chapter their matters they should be admitted to the gouernement of soules And thus thinke they Papistrie should quit be throwen doune and their glorious Ghospel be set vp But S. Chrysostomes meaning was vpon occasion of S. Paules worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 15. whereby he signified the excellencie of his Office deducing his talke from the inferiour and common terme Latria that apperteineth to al whereof he spake in the beginning to termes of an higher and more speciall dignitie to wit Liturgia and Hierurgia which import Priestly Office his meaning I say was partely to declare that S. Paules preaching was a certaine Priesthode forasmuche as by the same he offered vp those that beleued as a sacrifice vnto God their outwarde man killed and carnal affections quite mortified for which cause he calleth the Gospel his sworde Machaera mea Euangelium est the Gospel which is the worde of preaching Chrysosto in epist. ad Romanos homil 29. is my sworde partely also to signifie that of al other offices and dueties the chiefe function of S. Paules Priesthode was to preach the Gospel according to that him selfe witnesseth Non misit me Christus baptizare sed euangelizare Christe sent me not to baptize 1. Cor. 1. but to preache Which wordes Thephylacte expounding wherein he foloweth the vaine of S. Chrysostome saith expressely that although the Apostle were not sent specially to baptize yet he was not forebidden to take that office vpon him M. Iewel not being ignorant of al this I see not what he can pretend for any colorable excuse of his false translation specially directed to so wicked an ende as of him it is which is either quit to abolish the external and true Priesthode of the newe Testament or to abridge it onely to a bare preaching of Gods wordes al other functions therevnto belonging as to baptize to loose and binde synnes to consecrate and offer vp to God the body and bloude of Christe to minister the other Sacramentes and the like clearely excluded Thus I hope thou perceiuest Reader what miserable and shameful an entrie M. Iewel hath ben driuē to make to come to his purpose whiche was to impugne the most worthy and
healthful Sacrifice of Christes body and bloude and to persuade vnlearned soules there is no such Sacrifice really offered vnto God by Priestes of the newe Testament The summe of M. Ievvels shiftes against the Sacrifice Wherevpon I haue stayd somewhat the lenger because I sawe how by guileful persuasions he went about to engraffe at the beginning in the myndes of the vnlearned First that man for cause of his miserable and mortal condition ought not to presume to offer vp the Immortal Sonne of God in a real Sacrifice vnto his Father nexte that by Scripture there appeareth no graunt af auctoritie or warrant so to doo lastly that the termes Sacrificer Sacrifice and Aulter be onely naked and empty termes void of any substance signified that is in the Churche as deriued out of the Lawe of Moyses and vsed by the olde learned Fathers for their delite Al which three pointes how farre wyde they be from truth it may partely appeare by that I haue already said and shal more fully appeare in the processe of this Reioindre Now let vs heare M. Iewel Iewel Novve to comme to M. Hardinges vvoordes Three waies saith he Christ is offered vp vnto his Father In a Figure as in the Olde Lawe In Deede and Blouddily as vpon the Crosse In a Sacrament or Mysterie as in the Newe Testament Of vvhiche three vvaies the Blouddy Oblation of Christe vpon the Crosse is the very true and onely Propitiatorie Sacrifice for the Sinnes of the vvorlde The other tvvo as in respecte and manner of Signifieing they are sundrie so in effecte and substance they are al one For like as in the Sacramentes of the olde Lavve vvas expressed the Death of Christe that vvas to comme Euen so in the Sacramentes of the nevve Lavve of the Ghospel is expressed the same Death of Christe already paste As vvee haue Mysteries so had they Mysteries As vvee Sacrifice Christe so did they Sacrifice Christe As the Lambe of God is slaiue vnto vs So vvas the same Lambe of God slaine vnto them S. Augustine saithe August De vtilitate poenitent cap. 1. Tunc Christus Venturus modò Christus Venit Venturus Venit diuersa verba sunt sed idem Christus Then was Christe shal comme Nowe is Christe Is comme Shall comme and Is comme are sundrye woordes But Christe is al one Againe in like comparison bytvveene the Lavve of Moyses and the Gospel of Christe he saith thus August in Ioannem tract 26. Videte Fide manente Signa variata In Signis diuersis eadem Fides Beholde the Faith remaininge the Sacramentes or Signes are changed The Signes or Sacramentes beinge diuers the Faith is one Harding Now then that after your Preface you come to my woordes M. Iewell what haue you to replye against them that to any learned man may seeme to be to the purpose I said Christe is offered after three manners figuratiuely truely with bloudshedding and sacramentally or in Mysterie With which parte of this threefold Diuision finde you fault As for the two first partes they be clearely proued by the Scriptures The third is that ye call in question and whiche you impugne Bicause you had nothing to say against the two first least your mater should seeme to haue a foile if you yelded to any thing that were by me saied were it neuer so true you goe from the purpose and enter into other talke M. Ievvel diuerteth from the purpose to impertinēt mater Whereof as parte is false so the whole is impertinent What nede was there to tel vs that the bloudy Oblation of Christe vpon the Crosse is the Propitiatorie Sacrifice for the sinnes of the worlde As thereof no man doubted so no man spake of it The point now treated is not whether the Sacrifice of the Crosse be Propitiatorie for it were superfluous thereof to dispute but whether Christe be now offered vp in Mysterie Graunt that first and afterward we may procede further to discusse whether the Sacrifice of the Aulter be Propitiatorie and in what sense it be Propitiatorie Of what effecte and substance so euer the Sacrifices of both Lawes be how so euer the Death of Christe to come or past be expressed in the olde and newe Sacramentes that they of the olde Testament as wel as we had Mysteries of the equalitie and likenesse of Sacrifices and of like slaiyng of the Lambe of God on their parte and ours of all these thinges so particularly to speake the Diuision by me declared ministred you no iuste occasion And al this might wel be suffred to go vnanswered as impertinent had you not by the way as it were spitten forth some poison of erroneous doctrine to the infection of the vnlearned and vnware Readers For by calling the bloudy Oblation of Christe vpon the Crosse the very true and onely Sacrifice Propitiatorie for the synnes of the worlde which no man denieth your meaning is to insinuate that the vnbloudy Sacrifice which Christe instituted at his last Supper of his body and bloude were not in dede a Sacrifice in any sense or respecte Propitiatorie Whereas if that of the Crosse was Propitiatorie the other must nedes be Propitiatorie though in a diuers degree of Propitiation bicause in substance of the thing offered it is one with the other but diuers in the manner of offering as being vnbloudy and done in a mysterie and the other bloudy and don in the forme of a visible body And the force and vertue of Propitiation of the one issueth not from the Priest but from the Propitiation of the other in whose cōmemoration it is offered Cyprianus de coe Do. Verely S. Cyprian sticketh not to cal the holy Euchariste Medicamentum ad sanandas infirmitates holocaustum ad purgandas iniquitates A medicine to heale sickenesses and a wholeburnt Sacrifice to cleanse iniquities Baesilius in Liturg. S. Basile also in his Liturgie making his supplication saith thus Da Domine vt pro nostris peccatis populi ignorantijs acceptum sit Sacrificium nostrum Graunt Lorde that our Sacrifice may be acceptable for our sinnes and for the ignorances of the people Whereas you affirme the other two waies after which Christe is offered that is to say the Sacrifices of the olde Lawe and the singular Sacrifice of the Church now to be one in effecte and substance as they are sundrye in respecte Three vntruthes vttered at once by M. Ievvel and manner of signifiyng you vtter three greate vntruthes at once For first as concerning the respecte of signifiyng in our Sacrifice the formes of Breade and Wine doo signifie the Bodie and Bloude of Christe as the Sacrifices of the olde Lawe signified Christe And although they signifie Christ present and the other absent yet in respecte of signifiyng they agree and therfore are not sundry therin The respect of signifiyng is one and the thing signified is one though the manner of signifiyng be diuers That the substāce of the
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
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
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
taught by Christe to offer vp Christe vnto his Father Ergo to offer vp Christe vnto his Father we haue auctoritie Ergo the Priest hath auctoritie c. The Minor or second proposition of this Syllogisme you denye I doubte not For nought els with reason is here to be stickt at 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb. de DemoÌ„str EuaÌ„g lib. 1. That proposition then thus I proue by Eusebius whom I alleged in my Answer We haue ben taught saith he to offer vp vnto our Supreme God the dredful Sacrifices of Christes table by his Bishop highest of al. Whereat doo you cauill The proposition that you denye and we affirme being this The Priest hath auctoritie to offer vp Christe vnto his Father what lacketh here that answereth not the purport of your owne precise termes We haue ben taught by Gods bishop highest of al saith Eusebius Ergo The Priest hath auctoritie Require you the worde to offer Beholde here it is put expressely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 .i. offerre Cal you for the name of the Father Looke in Eusebius and you shal finde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as much to say vnto God that is ouer al. there haue you the Father of Christe plainely yenough expressed onlesse you denie that the Father of Iesus Christe is God ouer al. How be it we acknowledge this sacrifice to be offered not only vnto the Father but also vnto the Sonne in as much as he is God and vnto the holy Ghoste Now for Christe you haue here expressed the dreadful or honorable Sarifices of Christes table But you wil say I heare the dreadful sacrifices of Christes table but Christe him selfe I heare not Truth it is Christe him selfe to be offered you heare not in expresse termes but those termes which to our vnderstanding do import Christes body and bloud you heare and therfore Christ him selfe bicause of the vnioÌ„ of both persons For what other thing may we with any reason vnderstand by the dreadful Sacrifices of Christes table but the body and bloude of Christe What cause had Eusebius to make mention of Christes table Math. 26. but to put vs in mynd of that table Lucae 2â— wherevpon Christe at his last Supper consecrated and offered his pretious body and bloud 1. Cor. 11. saying this is my bodie which is geuen for you this is my bloude whiche is shed for you as the Scripture teacheth vs Wherevpon the bread Cyprian de coenae Domini that Christe gaue vnto his disciples changed not in shape but in nature by the omnipotencie of the worde is made flesh as S. Cyprian writeth Wherevpon is laid the lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the worlde Concil Nicen. Optatus lib. 6. Iren. lib. 5 as we finde it reported by the Fathers of the first Nicen Councel Wherevpon the vowes of the people and the members of Christ be borne as the Ancient Father Optatus speaketh From whence our flesh is nourrished with the bloude and body of Christe as S. Ireneus saith Chrysost. in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. From whence Christe hath geuen vs his flâ—sh to fil vs withal as S. Chrysostome preacheth But M. Iewel vnderstandeth by the Sacrifices of Christes table spoken of in Eusebius the Sacrifice of thankes geuing For whereas I say in my Answer that the Body and bloude of Christe are called of Eusebius the Sacrifices of Christes table bicause at the table in his last Supper he sacrificed and offered the same he controlleth me for so saying and skoreth it vp in the margent for his 222. Vntruth shewing this cause why For saith he Eusebius calleth it the sacrifice of thankes geuing M. Ievvel belyeth Eusebius wherein he deserueth an vntruth or rather a manifest lie to be scored vp vpon him selfe For neither nameth Eusebius a sacrifice in that place which he would if he had meant the sacrifice of thankes geuing but sacrifices in the plural number yea expressely the dreadful or honorable Sacrifices of Christes table neither nameth he there expressely the sacrifice of thankes geuing at al And neuer was it heard before that any olde or late learned catholike writer called thankes geuing indefinitely the dreadful Sacrifices of Christes table For to geue thankes it is not dredful neither is it peculiar to the mystical table but common in respect of al times places and seruices Certaine it is as it shal be euident to al that wil peruse that place of Eusebius that by the dreadful Sacrifices of Christes table he meant the body and bloud of Christe How be it he speaketh so thereof vsing the termes of memorie signes and tokens as it was most conuenient for that time when the Christians lyued among the Painimes and Infidels to whom those secretes were not to be reueled Math. 7. accordingly as Christe forebad a holy thing to be geuen to dogges and precious stones to be caste before swyne By which way of vtterance the olde learned Fathers intent was not to exclude the true presence of the most holy thinges but to coouer them from the vnworthy Painimes prophane vnderstanding and to insinuate vnto the beleuers the mystical and secret manner of their presense To returne to Eusebius In the later parte of his first booke De demonstratione Euangelica discoursing vpon the excellencie of the newe Testament in comparison of the olde hauing declared the figuratiue sacrifices of Moyses lawe to be abolished Three kindes of Sacrifices of the nevv Testament mencioned by Eusebius Euseb. li. 1 de demoÌ„strat and that lawe it selfe to haue his ende by the comming of Christe into flesh at length he speaketh of three kindes of Sacrifices of the new TestameÌ„t prouing ech one to haue ben forespoken of by the Prophetes They are the Sacrifice of the Crosse the Sacrifice of the Aulter and the mere spiritual Sacrifices The which we cal the Sacrifice of the Crosse he nameth the maruelous oblation and passing Sacrifice which Christe offered vnto his Father for the saluation of vs al. He termeth it also in respcte of the thing sacrificed the * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fleshly presence of Christ and his framed body that God fitted for him alluding to the woordes of the Psalme * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Corpus aptasti mihi thou ô God hast framed or fitted to me a bodye That which of vs is commonly called the Sacrifice of the Aulter Psal. 39. he calleth in respect of the action of offering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The memorie of this Sacrifice of the Crosse celebrated vpon a table He calleth it also in respect of the thing offered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Diuine honorable and holy Sacrifice And terming it also the pure Sacrifice alluding to the Prophecie of Malachie he saith that we sacrifice it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after a new manner according to the new Testament Which can not be vnderstand of any other then of the Sacrifices of the Aulter Furthermore in respect
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
therefore that our Commission may so easily be shewed twite vs no more of great boldenesse as though we attempted to celebrate so high and so diuine Mysteries without Commission The .8 Diuision The Ansvvere NOwe for further proufe of the offering and Sacrificing of Christe of those wordes of our Lord Doo this in my remembraunce to recite some testimonies of the Fathers First Dionysius S. Paules scholar Dionys. eccles Hier. p. 1. cap. 3. and Bishop of Athenes writeth thus Quocirca reuerenter simul ex Pontificali officio post sacras diuinorum operum laudes quòd hostiam salutarem quae super ipsum est litet se excusat ad ipsum primò decenter exclamans Tu dixisti Hoc facite in meam coÌ„memorationem Wherefore the Bishop saith he reuerently and according to his Bishoply office after the holy prayses of Gods workes excuseth himselfe that he taketh vpon him to offer that healthful Sacrifice whiche is aboue his degree and worthinesse crying out first vnto him in seemely wise Lorde thou hast commaunded thus sayinge Doo this in my remembraunce By these wordes he confesseth that he coulde not be so hardy as to offer vp Christe vnto his Father had not Christe him selfe so commaunded when he said Doo this in my remembraunce This is the doctrine touching this Article that S. Paule taught his Scholars which M. Iewel denieth Iewel Here maist thou gentle Reader easily see that M. Hardinge either had not that abundance of Stoare vvhereof notvvitstandinge he hath made vs so large a promise or els had no greate regard vnto his choise For Dionysius hath no tokeÌ„ or inkling of any such sacrificing of the Sonne of God vnto his Father But clearely in most plaine vvise he shevveth the differeÌ„ce Dionys. ecclesiast Hierar cap. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is bitvvene the Sacrifice of the Crosse and the Sacrifice of the holy Communion These be his vvordes The priest extolleth those thinges that Christe wrought in his Fleashe vpon the crosse for the saluation of mankinde and with Spiritual eies beholding the Spiritual vnderstandinge thereof draweth neare to the Figuratiue Sacrifice of the same Here Dionysius calleth not the Ministration of the Holy Mysteries the Sacrificinge of Christe vnto his Father as M. Hardinge vvoulde force vs to beleeue but a Figuratiue Sacrifice that is a Figure or a Signe of that greate Sacrifice Pachymer in .3 cap. Ecclesiast Hierarch And Pachymeres the Paraphrast expoundeth the same vvordes in this vvise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He commeth to the Breade and the Cuppe Then the Prieste saith Dionysius after certaine Praiers and Holy Songes excuseth him selfe as not vvorthy to make that Sacrifice and pronounceth these vvordes out vvith a lovvde voice Tu dixisti c. Thow hast saide Doo this in my remembrance Hereof M. Hardinge concludeth thus The Priest excuseth him selfe Ergo He Offereth vp the Sonne of God vnto his Father A yonge Sophister vvould neuer so vnskilfully frame his argumentes Othervvise the RespondeÌ„t might easily saie Nego Consequentiam Consequens For vvhat order or sequele is there in this Reason Hovve may this Antecedente and this Consequente agree togeather M. Harding knovveth there he other sundrie causes vvherefore the Prieste shoulde excuse his vnvvoorthinesse and not this onely that he imagineth The Prieste in the Liturgie or Communion that beareth the name of S. Basile Liturgia Basilij praieth thus Fac nos idoneos vt tibi offeramus Sacrificium Laudis Make vs meete to offer vnto thee not Christe thine onely Sonne but the Sacrifice of praise Nazian in Apologet. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In like manner Nazianzene saithe Howe can they or dare they offer vnto God he saith not The Bodie of Christe Really and in deede but the Figure of these greate Mysteries But M. Hardinge beinge vtterly voide of other reasons prooueth his imagined Sacrifice of the Sonne of God Ecclesiast Hierar ca. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 onely by the vnvvorthinesse of the Priest This is the Iust Iudgement of God that vvho so endeuoureth him selfe to deceiue and blinde others shal be deceuied and blinde him selfe For Dionysius vseth the very like vvordes speakinge of the Sacramente of Baptisme Sacerdos cogitans negotij magnitudinem horret atque haesitat The Prieste consideringe the weight of the mater is in an horrour and in an agonie Likevvise S. Basile excuseth his ovvne vnvvorthinesse of hearinge the VVoorde of God Quae auris digna est magnitudine earum rerum quae dicuntur Cogitemus quisnam ille sit qni nos affatur what eare is worthy to heare the Maiestie of these thinges Basil. Heâ—amer 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. Cor. 2. CypriaÌ„ in Oration DominicaÌ„ Let vs consider who it is that speaketh to vs S. Paule speakinge of the glorie puisance of the Gospel in the ende in respecte of his ovvne vnvvorthinesse vseth this exclamation Et ad haec quis idoneus And who is meeâ—e to publishe and to speake these thinges S. Cyprian saithe VVee are not woorthy to looke vp into Heauen and to speake vnto God O saithe he what merciful fauoure of our Lorde is this that wee maie call God our Father and euen as Christe is Goddes Sonne so maie wee be called the children of God Quod nomeÌ„ nemo nostrum in oratione auderet attingere nisi ipse nobis sic permisisset orare VVhiche Name of Father none of vs in our praiers woulde dare to vtter sauinge that he hath geuen vs leaue so to praie By these the sâ—lendernes of M. Hardinges reason maie soone appeare The prieste excuseth his ovvne vnVVorthines Ergo he offereth vp the Sonne of God It is a Fallax Ex meris particularibus or A non distributo ad distributum and concludeth in Secunda Figura affirmatiuè An erroure knovven vnto Children Harding Among other shiftes of M. Iewels Rhetorique this is very common A CommoÌ„ shifte of M. Ievvels Rhetorique where in deede he is most pressed with weight of good authoritie or reason there in woorde he sheweth forth greatest courage and maketh resemblance as al were nought that is brought against him But what say you good Sir Hath not S. Dionysius in the place by me alleged no token at al nor so much as an inkling of our offering vp of Christe vnto his Father what creame is growen ouer your eyes that you see not this truth in so cleare a light what moueth you so to say what proufe what argument haue you Mary say you Dionysius clearely sheweth the difference that is betwene the Sacrifice of the Crosse and the Sacrifice of the holy Communion What conclude you Ergo he hath no token nor inkling of sacrificing Christ vnto his Father O valiant Argument O cunning Logician May not this man be allowed to finde fault with other mennes Argumentes that thus maketh an ArgumeÌ„t him selfe without either good forme or true mater For touching the forme let it be graunted that S.
this is my Bloud and gaue commission to doo the same yet he offereth not Christe vnto his Father This is the iust iudgement of God M. Iewel that you where you be so busy in scorning at other mens good Argumentes be founde your selfe to frame most fonde and childishe Argumentes by certaine phrases eluding weighty pointes of Christian Religion and alwaies impugning one truthe by an other truthe which way of reasoning is of al other the weakest Thus you see good Sir that I haue not prooued this Sacrifice only by the vnworthinesse of the Priest as you say but by other force clearly appearing in the foresaid testimonie of S. Dionyse Of al the authorities that here to litle purpose you haue alleged I had thought to touche neuer a one forasmuche as I yeelde to tbat by the same is reported had you not too shamefully falsified and corrupted a sentence of S. Gregorie Nazianzen M. Ievvel falsifieth and fowly corrupted S. Gregorie Nazianzene bothe with your false interlaced glose and by changing the whole purporte thereof Thus you make that learned Father to speake How can they or dare they offer vnto God he saith not the body of Christe really and in deede but the figure of these great Mysteries Gregor Nazian in Apologetico Nowe let vs see S. Gregorie Nazianzens owne woordes The whole sentence being long I wil recite onely the later ende of it which aunswereth to your allegation S. Gregorie Nazianzen acknovvledgeth the external Sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As much to say Howe shoulde I dare to offer vp vnto him he meaneth God the external Sacrifice that is the sampler of the great Mysteries Compare this and your owne allegation together and you shal perceiue your vntrue dealinge and corruption of the sentence to be espied You haue changed the firste person singuler into the thirde person plural Whiche is an argument that your selfe neuer saw the place it selfe in the Author but receiued it of some that was appointed to gather notes for you such as you might frame to your purpose Your Note-gatherer espying as he thought some vantage in the later woordes of the Sentence wrote them out onely leauing out the beginning where the pronoune 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is expressely founde And so both you and he were deceiued in the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which serueth indifferently to the first person singuler or to the third person plural you of ignorance as I suppose he of malice specially if he were learned Although this be no litle faulte yet is it not the greatest by many partes For you haue quite hewed away a principal member of the sentence to wit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say the external Sacrifice for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Sacrifice is there to be supplied Whereby you shewe vnto vs that as you and your companions haue bannished the thing it selfe already out of the Churches of Englād so would you gladly also skrape the name and terme out of the bookes of the auncient writers if by any meanes ye could For this one clause the external Sacrifice External Sacrifice ouerthroweth al your doctrine against the Sacrifice of the Aulter and proueth your interlined Glose to be false and heretical For if it be an external Sacrifice it can not be but real and true and a Sacrifice in dede The addition that foloweth in S. Gregorie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is nothing els but a declaration of what external Sacrifice he spake to wit not of that great external and open Sacrifice which Christe offered vpon the Crosse but of the true sampler of the same Which is the external Sacrifice of the Churche made by the ministerie of the Priest vpon the Aulter one with the other in substance but diuers in the manner of offering as we are driuen by your affectate and dissembled ignorance oftentimes to say Antitypō Fol. 82. b. 83. Of this terme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sampler how it is to be taken I haue already declared before in the .4 Diuision Here to reherse the same againe it were superfluous Now I require thee to iudge indifferently gentle Reader whether M. Iewel be to be accompted a true and a faithful dealer in these weighty causes concerning our faith and whether he be not worthy to be suspected who hath so fowly falsified and corrupted this auncient and learned Father by changing one person into an other one number into an other by altering the true sense with his heretical parenthesis and by maiming the whole sentence with his cutting away of a principal member In the ende M. Iewel to leaue in the Readers mynde an opinion of his skil in Logique A nevv fallacie diuised by M. Iewel which is knowen to be very smal repeating againe the former Argument of his owne forging and falsly ascribed vnto me saith It is a fallax à meris particularibus a kind of fallacie of his owne inuention vnknowen to Aristotle and to al that haue writtē since of deceitful Argumentes For al skilful Logicians do knowe that of two premisses being both particular a good argument may be concluded although it be not directly in any of the three perfite Figures And if the Argument be not faulty for this cause yet it procedeth saith he A non distributo ad distributū Wel if it so procede and therefore be naught let him selfe amende it that made it As for my grounde it resteth vpon the authoritie of S. Dionyse the blessed Apostle S. Paules scholer An other faulte in this Argument is founde contrary to the rules of Logique Beholde reader the rare cunning this man hath in Logique for that it concludeth saith this great Logician affirmatiuely in the second Figure What Sir Haue you forgoten your selfe so quickly Said you not in the line before it was ex meris particularibus If it be so then is it neither in the first nor second nor third Figure So that either the first faulte is none and this later one or this later none and the first one or rather neither this nor that any at al. Beside this it is an Enthymema consisting onely of two propositions And then if it were myne Argument how knowe you to what Mode and Figure by a litle displacing of the termes I were hable to reduce it vnto if it should be denyed Thus I abuse thy leisure gentle Reader with standing vppon these trifles But I trust thou wilt consider how farre I was enforced thereunto by M. Iewels trifling in an ernest mater Prouer. 26 And as by the aduise of the wise man we may aunswere a foole according to his foolishnes least he seme wise in his owne conceit so sometimes it is profitable to answer a trifler according to his trifles that he may beholde his owne vanitie and trifling witte And thus standeth S. Dionyses saying in his ful force The .9 Diuision The Ansvvere IRenaeus receiued the same from S. Iohn
S. Chrysostome as though he so vnderstoode Malachies Prophecie and consequently were contrary to S. Irenaeus That S. Chrysostom is to be vnderstanded of the Sacrifice of the Aulter And on the other side who is so wilfully blinde that seeth not al these properties to be agreeable vnto the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe For this is not contrary to Moyses but it is the perfection of Moyses the truth of the figure the body of the shadow the comming of this hath abolished the Iewish Sacrifices by this God is most highly praised thanked and honored and this it selfe is a worship most holyly to be celebrated In â—rat 2. contra Iudaeos This what it is most plainely by the manner of offering is declared for the Priest saith in the person of Christ as by him he is taught to do this is my body which is geuen for you Luc. 22. this is my bloud which is shed for you and for many Math. 26. This by al right is our Sacrifice in so much that if this be not ours I meane of the new Testament whereas besides this ther is none other external and real sacrifice then haue we none at al that is external and real Which if it were true then neither had we a Priesthoode nor Laweâ— and so then were we a people neither of the one Testament nor of the other To conclude this and none other but this is touching the substaÌ„ce of it the pure Sacrifice in highest and supreme degree of purenesse For what caÌ„ be thought purer then that body which was coÌ„ceiued of the holy Ghost and borne of the most pure Virgin which is the proper body of the Worde To the heape of Allegations which M. Iewel in the ende of this Diuision hath as it weâ—e with scoopes castâ— together bicause they importe litle substance and be some vntruly and al without sinceritie brought in the circumstance of the places whens they be taken out not declared the opening whereof would require many wordes which should weary rather then profite the reader I esteme a iuste and particuler Answer vtterly nedelesse specially what so euer is of any importance being already sufficiently answered The .10 Diuision The Ansvver NOw let vs heare what S. Cyprian hath written to this purpose Bicause his workes he common to be shorter I wil rehearse his woordes in Englishe If in the Sacrifice which is Christe none but Christe is to be folowed soothly it behooued vs to obey and doo that which Christe did and commaunded to be done For if Iesus Christe our Lorde and God very he him selfe be the high Priest of God the Father and him selfe first offered Sacrifice to God the Father and commaunded the same to be doone in his RemembraÌ„ce Verily that Prieste dooth occupie the office of Christe truely who dooth by imitation the same thing that Christe did And then he offereth to God the Father in the Churche a true and a perfite Sacrifice yf he beginne to offer right so as he seeth Christe him selfe to haue offered This farre S. Cyprian Howe can this Article be auouched in more plaine woordes he saith that Christe offered him selfe to his Father in his Supper and likewise commaunded vs to doo the same Here wee haue prooued that it is lawful and hath alwaies from the beginning of the Newe Testamente bene lawful for the Priestes to offer vp Christe vnto his Father by the testimonies of three holy Martyrs two Greekes and one Latine most notable in sundry respectes of antiquitie of the roume they bare in Christes Churche of Learninge of Constancie of Faith stedfastly keapte to Death suffered in places of same and knowledge at Paris at Lions at Carthage Iewel This place of S. Cyprian as it not once toucheth the real Sacrificinge of Christ vnto his Father so it vtterly condemneth the Communion vnder One Kinde the Common Praiers in a strange vnknowen tongue and briefly the vvhole disorder and abuse of M. Hardinges Masse But S. Cyprian saith In Sacrificio quod Christus est In the Sacrifice that is Christe Yf M. Harding thinke to finde great aduantage in these vvoordes August in Iohan. tract 26. it may please him to Remember that S. Augustin saith Illis Petra erat Christus Vnto the Iewes the Rocke was Christ. Verily the Sacrifice after the order of Melchisedek vvhich is the Propitiation for the Sinnes of the vvorld is onely Iesus Christ the Sonne of God vpon the Crosse. And the ministration of the Holy Mysteries in a phrase and manner of speache is also the same Sacrifice bicause it laieth foorthe the Death and bloud of Christ so plainely and so euidently before our eies So saith S. Augustine August in Psalm 20 The very Remembrance of Christes Passion sturreth vp such motions within vs as if we sawe Christ presently hauing vpon the Crosse. Vpon vvhich vvoordes the Common Glose noteth thus De Conse Dis. 2. Semel Christus immolatur id est Christi immolatio repraesentatur fit memoria passionis Christe is sacrificed that is to say The Sacrifice of Christe is represented and there is made a Remembrance of his passion So S. Cyprian saith Vinum exprimit sanguinem Cypri lib. 2. epist. 3. In Aqua populus intelligitur In Vino sanguis ostenditur Itaque passionis eius mentionem in Sacrificijs facimus Passio enim Domini est Sacrificium quod offerimus The VVine sheweth the Bloude in the VVater we vnderstande the people The Bloude is expressed in the VVine And therefore in our sacrifices we make mention of Christes passion For the Sacrifice that we offer De Conse Distinct. 2. Quid sit is the passion of Christe As the ministration of the holy CoÌ„munion is the Death and Passion of Christ euen so and in like sort and sense may the Sacrifice thereof be called Christe Therefore S. Gregorie saith Christus in seipso immortaliter viuens iterum in hoc Mysterio moritur De Cons. Dist. 2. Quid sit Eius Caro in populi SaluteÌ„ patitur Christ liuiÌ„g immortally in him selfe dieth againe in this Mysterie His Fleash suffereth in the Mysterie for the Saluation of the people I recken M. Harding vvil not say In Glosa Chryso in Acta Homil 21. that Christe Dieth in deede according to the force and sounde of these vvordes or that his Fleashe verily and in dede as tormented and suffereth in the Sacrament S. Gregorie better expoundeth him selfe in this vvise Hoc Sacramentum Passionem Vnigeniti Filij imitatur Beda expoâ—nens illudâ— Sicut Moses exalta uit c. This Sacrament expresseth or representeth the Passion of the Onely begotten Sonne And the very Barbarous Glose touching the same saith Christus Moritur Patitur id est Mors Passio Christi repraesentatur Christ Dieth and Suffereth that is to say Christes Death and Passion is represented So S. Chrysostom saith Iohan. 3. In Mysterijs mors Christi perficitur The Death of
Christe is wrought in the Mysteries Hieron in Psalm 97 So saith Beda Exaltatio Serpentis Aenei Passio Redemptoris nostri in Cruce The lifting vp of the Brasen Serpent is the Passion of our Redeemer vpon the Crosse. Ambro. dâ— Virginib So saith S. Hierome Quotidiè nobis Christus Crucifigitur August Quaest. Eâ—uaÌ„ge lib. 2. Vnto vs Christe is daily Crucified So S. Ambrose Christus quotidiè immolatur Christe is daily sacrificed So S. Augustine Tunc vnicuique Christus occiditur cùm credit occisum Then is Christe slaine to euery man Hieron ad Damas. when he beleeueth that Christe was slaine To conclude so S. Hierome â—aith Semper Christus credentibus immolatur Vnto the faithfâ—l Christe is euermore sacrificed Thus may the Sacrifice of the Holy Communion be called Christe to vvitte euen so as the ministration of the same is called the Passion or the Death of Christe Harding The first sentence of your Replie in this Diuision M. Iewel consisteth of .4 particles and eche of them is an impudent lye By the spiteful woordes you vtter against the most holy Masse you shewe vs with what stampe you are coined As for S. Cyprian neither doth he in this place condemne the Churche for ministring the Communion vnder one kinde nor for hauing the publike Churche seruice in the Latine tongue Which in these Westerne partes of Christendome is not as you cal it a strange vnknowen tongue but contrarywise a tongue among al other best knowen in general and common to al nations of the West Touching the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe so clearely by S. Cyprian here auouched that so it is you woulde neuer haue denyed had not you put the whole confidence of your cause in lying and denying most euident truthes And now therefore I must prooue against such a cauiller and wrangler as you are M. Ievvel standeth altogether vpoÌ„ certaine precise termes that there is light where the Sunne shyneth And here once againe you thinke to finde a lurking corner in your precise termes of the real sacrificing of Christe vnto his Father as though I prooued not that which in this Article you denie except the truth be affirmed in the same forme of wordes which your selfe haue deuised If you had good mater I trow you would not thus stand only vpon termes But let vs pul you out of your lurking corner An euideÌ„t place of S. CypriaÌ„ for the Sacrifice of the Aulter Cyprian lib. 2. epistol 3. as it were out of Cacus Denne and bring you abroade into the light Answer me Sir Wil it not appeare by this place of S. Cyprian that Christe offered him selfe vnto his Father at his laste Supper Be not these his very wordes Iesus Christe our Lorde and God first offered a Sacrifice to God the Father and commaunded the same to be done in his Remembraunce What Sacrifice was this It was not the Sacrifice of the Crosse pardy For that very same Sacrifice was not commaunded to be made againe it was once made for euer by Christe him selfe What can you name but the vnbloudy Sacrifice of his body and bloude For if you name vs the mere spiritual sacrifices of deuotion as Prayer Praise Thankesgeuing or any such other the like you must remember Christe did not first of al sacrifice the same For the Patriarkes and Prophetes did so long before Christe was incarnate What is it then S. Cyprian telleth it him selfe expressely saying Christe is the Sacrifice In Sacrificio quod Christus est He speaketh of such a Sacrifice in which the Priest occupieth the roome and doth the office of Christ truly and in doing whiche the Prieste by imitation doth the same thing that Christe did Then what did Christe and where did he that the Prieste is commaunded to folowe What neede I to stande vppon it Who knoweth not Cyprian ad CeciliuÌ„â— whereof S. Cyprian treateth in that Epistle to Caecilius and what Christe did at his Supper He tooke bread Math. 26 and then the Cuppe he gaue thankes blessed Luc. 22. and consecrated his body and bloud sayinge this is my Body 1. Cor. 11. Cyprian lib. 2. epistol 3. this is my Bloud and so offered vp as S. Cyprian saith the same thing which Melchisedech had offered that is to sayâ— bread and wine to wit his owne body and bloude Which Body and Bloude bicause both natures be inseparably vnited together in one person he calleth also by the name of Christe In Sacrificio quod Christus est in the Sacrifice which Christ is for here Christus is the nominatiue case to the verbe est Whereas then Christe offered Christe to his Father at his Supper and coÌ„maunded Priestes to doo the same in Remembrance of him vntil he come that being in euery respecte lawful which he commaundeth it foloweth that Priestes haue authoritie to offer vp Christe who is the Sonne of God vnto his Father which is the pointe of this Article that M. Iewel denieth And thus is the real sacrificing of Christe vnto his Father prooued by S. Cyprian real I say not in respecte of the manner of sacrificinge that was vppon the Crosse but of the Body and Bloude really present and being the real substance of this commemoratiue Sacrifice Here I needed not to procede further in this Diuision my Answer to the Chalenge being so sufficiently iustified touching the vnbloudy Sacrifice and this being prooued by S. Cyprians testimonie as it was prooued before by testimonie of S. Irenaeus that it is not onely lawful but also dutiful for Priestes to offer vp Christe vnto his Father Yet bicause M. Iewel who from the beginning neuer intended to yeelde how plaine mater so euer were prooued against him commeth now in with his Phrases hauing no plaine and directe authoritie whereby to prooue his negatiue doctrine Let vs see what pith his obscure phrases and tropical speaches do conteine Where as S. Cyprian saith plainely Christe is the Sacrifice meaning the substance of the Sacrifice celebrated at the Supper and now at the Aulter he willeth me to remember August in Ioan. tractat 26. that S. Augustine saith Petra erat Christus the Rocke was Christe For that he putteth vnto S. Augustine this worde illis interpreting it of the Iewes it is his owne addition S. Augustine hath it not But what concludeth he of this Not onely S. Augustine but S. Cyprian also in this very Epistle and first of al S. Paule saith 1. Cor. 1â— the Rocke was Christe I say to M. Iewel eftsones it may please him to remember that S. Augustine expoundeth him selfe immediatly in the next sentence saying Petra Christus in signo The Rocke vvas Christe The Rocke was Christe in a signe that is to say the Rocke was not Christe in substance and in deede but signified Christe If he intende thus to conclude as the Replie semeth to reporte As the Rocke was Christe so Christe is the Sacrifice but the
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.
exhortation the saying is not to be pronounced indicatiuely but exhortatiuely Let wedlocke be honorable in al maried persons and let their bedde be vndefiled Heb. 13. Thus it is made cleare how litle reliefe S. Paule by this sentence bringeth to the defence of your sacrilegious Apostates incestuous and abominable yokingesâ— beare with your owne terme for Matrimonie or wedlocke it is not neither is the same a conuenient terme for such filth But S. Paule say you 1. Tim. 4. calleth the forbidding of Matrimonie the doctrine of Diuels I answer To forbid Matrimonie in general In vvhat sense S. Paule calleth the forbiddiÌ„g of Mariage the doctrine of Deuils and to condemne mariage in al persons of what estate or degree so euer they be as Tatianus the Heretique did and the Eucratites that folowed him who said that Mariages were of the Diuel and were no better then fornications and therefore admitted none to their Communion that were maried men or wemen this is the doctrine of Diuels Of these and such others as the Manichees and Marcionites S. Paule is to be vnderstanded To forbyd the Mariages of Votaries as Monkes Friers Priestes and Nonnes who by solemne vowe for Gods sake haue bereued them selues of the common libertie this is not the doctrine of Diuels but of God and the permitting of Mariage to such persons is the doctrine of Beelzebub the Prince of Diuels Lastely if no man euer sayd that honest and godly Matrimonie displeased God if the same were neuer thought vncomely for a Martyr whome charge you with that odious saying As certaine it is that many a good maried man and woman is a holy Saint in heauen so ye wil neuer be hable to shewe vs that your yoking of Votaries vnto such as ye cal Sisters was euer in Christes Churche accompted for godly or honest Matrimonie or that a Vowebreaker was euer taken before God or good man for a comely Martyr or witnesse of Gods truth onlesse hauing loosed him selfe from his vnlauful yokefellow he repented truely of his synne and so by penance were restored vnto the state of grace Iewel Ignat. ad Philadelp Euseb. lib. 3. cap. 30. Clemens Stromat lib. 7. S. Paule vvas Maried as it appeareth by Ignatius Clemens Eusebius and yet neuerthelesse vvas a martyr S. Peter the chiefe of the Apostles had a vvife and yet neuerthelesse stoode by and gaue her comforte and constancie at her Martyrdome The tvvelue Apostles saith S. Ambrose onely S. Iohn excepted vvere al married and yet neuerthlesse the same S. Iohn onely excepted as it is thought vvere al Martyrs Spiridion vvas a married Bishop and yet as Sozomenus vvriteth he vvas thereby nothing hindered Euseb. liâ— 3. cap. 30. Ambros. in 2. ad Cor. ca. 11. Sozomen lib. 1. ca. 11 Ad res diuinas nibilo deterior neither to discharge his duetie nor to any other godly purpose Tertullian vvas a Prieste as appeareth by S. Hierome and Married as appeareth by his ovvne Booke vvritten to his VVyfe and yet notvvithstanding as some reporte vvas a Martyr S. Hilarie vvas a Reuerende Father and Bishop of Poitiers aud yet Married as may be gathered by his Epistle vvritten to his daughter Abra. Harding Softe M. Iewel doubteful pointes flatte lyes and true tales must not be so shuffled together First touching S. Paule that he was a Martyr true it is but that he was married if it be not vtterly false yet it is very vncertaine vvhether S. Paule were maried and more then vnlikely Very probable it is that he was not married for so to thinke of him his owne wordes doo leade vs where he saith Volo omnes homines esse sicut meipsum 1. Cor. 7. My wil is that al men were Ibidem as I am my selfe And againe I say vnto the vnmarried and vnto the widowes it is good for them if they continue so as I doo Of these later wordes how can you make any literal sense probable Epiphan coÌ„tra Valesios haere si 58. except S. Paule absteined from marriage or els were a wydower Truly Epiphanius allegeth them for proufe that S. Paule was a Virgin It is cleare by S. Ambrose Ambros. in exhortatione advirgines that he was neuer married For thus he saith speaking to virgins and exhorting them to the continencie of S. Paule Volo vos imitatrices esse tanti Apostoli vt vitam eius sequamini qui coniugij vinculum refugit vt vinctus esset Christi Iesu. Non potuisset ad tantam Apostolatus sui peruenire gratiam si fuisset alligatus coniugij contubernio I wil you to be the folowers of so great an Apostle that ye folow his life who eschewed the band of wedlocke that he might be the bounde prisoner of Christe Iesus He could not haue come vnto so great grace of his Apostleship if he had ben tyed vnto the felowship of wedlocke S. Augustine semeth to be of the same opinion August de gratia lib. arbit cap. 4. whose woordes these be Doctor Gentium pudicitiam coniugalem per quam non fiunt adulteria perfectioreÌ„ coÌ„tinentiam per quam nullus concubitus quaeritur sermone suo commendans hoc donum Dei esse monstrat scribens ad Corinthios admonens coniuges 1. Cor. 7. ne se inuicem fraudent quos cùm admonuisset adiecit Vellem autem omnes homines esse sicut meipsum quia vtique ipse ab omni concubitu continebat S. Paule the Doctor of the Gentiles coÌ„mending with his worde both the chastitie of wedlocke through whiche aduoutries be not done and the perfiter continencie by whiche no carnal acte is sought sheweth this also to be the gifte of God writing to the Corinthians Vide Augustin in lib. De bono coÌ„iug ca. 10. and admonishing maried persons that they withdrawe not dewtie the one from the other And hauing admonished them he saith further but I would faine al men were as I my selfe am Ambros. de virgin lib. 3. ad fineÌ„ bicause certainely he absteined from al carnal acte S. Ambrose in an other place acknowlegeth S. Paules virginitie saying thus vnto Virgins Viuificet vos Paulus qui vos praecepit honorari qui ait bonum est si sic maneant sicut ego honore prouocat magisterio docet inuitat exâ—emplo Let Paule quicken you who commaunded you to be honoured who saith It is good if they contitinue so as I doo He stirreth you thereto with honour he teacheth with his doctorship he inuiteth you by his example What shal we say then to S. Ignatius Eusebius and Clemens Alexandrinus by whom it appeareth that S. Paule was maried S. Ignatius is corrupted by them that would al votaries and religious persons to marie For the olde written copies haue not S. Paules name in the Epistle ad Philadelphienses which for that purpose is alleged For sufficieÌ„t credite hereof I report me to the auncient copies that be in sundry places and specially
to that of Maudelen Colleges librarie in Oxford in my time much vewed of learned men for trial of the same point As for Eusebius Euseb. hist. Eccles lib. 3. cap. 30. he doth but recite the wordes of Clemens that he so thought him selfe of S. Paule it doth not any way appeare Onely then Clemens remaineth of al the Antiquitie that saith S. Paule had a wife And the same he gathereth of the vncertaine place that is in the Epistle to the Philippians Philip. 4. rogo te germane compar where the Greke hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and of the .9 chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians wherein he is not allowed of the best learned Fathers Epiphan contra Valesios Haeres 58. If this mater should be weighed by the auctoritie of the Fathers how shal Clemens alone stand in balance against S. Chrysostom Epiphanius S. Ambrose S Hierome S. Augustine and Theophilacte which al except Epiphanius and Theophylact by verdite of your owne great Rabbi Peter Martyr him selfe Pet. Martyr in CoÌ„ment in 1. Epist. ad Cor. cap. 9 be touching this point contrary to Clemens S. Hierome saith Non sunt audiendi qui eum vxorem habuisse confingunt They are not to be heard which feine of their owne head that S. Paule had a wife Theophylacte is not a feard to say those which said that S. Paule exhorted his wife Hieron ad Eust. de Virg. Theophilact In Epist. ad Philip. cap. 4. when he wrote those wordes I beseche thee also my faithful yoke-fellowe c. to be deceiued his wordes be these Some who be deceiued saye that Paule exhorteth his wife But it is farre otherwise S. Chrysostom vpon the same place saith much like That S. Peter whom you cal the Chiefe of the Apostles whereat I maruel had ones a wife A â—laâ—te and an impudeÌ„tlye of M. Ievvels it is cleare by the Scripture in which mention is made of his mother in lawe But that you reporte of S. Ambrose that he should say that the twelue Apostles onely S. Iohn excepted were al married Lucae 4. it is a flatte and an impudeÌ„t lye Whether it be a lye or no let the booke be a trial S. Ambroses very wordes be these Omnes Apostoli exceptis Ioanne Paulo vxores habueruÌ„t What is that in plaine english but this Al the Apostles had wiues except Iohn and Paule Is it one thing M. Iewel to say onely Iohn excepted and except Iohn and Paule S. Paules name you thought best to nippe away least you should destroy that you builded vp a litle before out of Clemens But although S. Peter and other Apostles had once wiues yet S. Hierome of the Scripture gathereth that after they were called to Apostleship they forsooke the companie of their wiues Hierony coÌ„tra Iouin lib. 1. and lyued the single life Thus he saith Petrus caeteri Apostoli c. Peter and the other Apostles had wiues I graunte but suche as they had taken at that time when they knewe not the Gospel Afterward being assumpted vnto the Apostleship they leafte the office of wedlocke For whereas Peter said to our Lorde in the person of the Apostles Math. 19. Beholde we forsake al thinges and haue folowed thee our Lorde answered him Verely I say vnto you that there is no man that hath forsaken howse Father and Mother or brothers or wife or children for the kingdom of heauens sake but he shal receiue muche more in this worlde and in the world to come life euerlasting It appeareth by the answer of our Lorde that S. Peter saying he and the rest of the Apostles had forsaken al thinges meant that they had forsaken and geuen ouer the companie of their wiues Whiche maketh altogether against M. Iewels carnal Doctrine vttered here in fauour of his fleshly companions our Apostates the chiefe Prelates of their new Synagogue S. Augustine saith that the Apostles made this vowe to forsake wiues and altogether August de ciuita Dei li. 17. c. 4. Hoc votum potentissimi vouerant They mightiest of al so there he calleth the Apostles had vowed this vowe Spiridion Spiridion was a married Bishop that is to say made a Bishop after that he had ben married but neither he nor any els was euer lawfully married after that he had ben Bishop or Priest That he was thereby made neuer the worse touching gods seruice so saith Sozomenus of him it is reported for a straunge thing As though a Bishop to haue a wife and children Sozomenê° li. 1. ca. 11. as of Spiridion it is written and yet to doo his dutie to Godwarde neuerthelesse it were in manner to be holden for a miracle or at least for a special grace of God How be it I trow if Sozomenus wordes be exactly construed they shal not seme so muche to importe that Spiridion was a married Bishop which you say of him as that he had ben a married man and had once had wife and children For the Greke worde is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereby may be signified indeterminately that he had ben and not onely that he was so being a Bishop That he had his wife lyuing when he was a Bishop sure I am Sozomenus saith it not And though he said it yet maketh it nothing for your mariage of Priestes and votaries He saith that Spiridion had ben a man that * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lyued by husbaÌ„dry hauing wife and children Now as wisemen thinke not that he continued his tillage of grownde and feeding of catail after that he was called to be Bishop of Trimythus a Citie of Cyprus but that he came into the Citie and there attended his spiritual charge in tilling and feeding soules committed to his gouernement so there is nothing spoken by Sozomenus that forceth this opinion that he had his wife being Bishop Which being so it was more boldely then assuredly by learning of you said that Spiridion was a married Bishop By this place of Sozomenus you may as wel proue that ploughmen and shepeherds may be Bishops wherein I wil not greatly striue with you if you commend vnto vs such as Spiridion was or that Bishops may be ploughmen and shepherds as that Bishops may be married men Yet I wish ye would not forgete that we denye not but that in the Primitiue Churche Married men were made Bishops but that euer in the Catholike Churche any man after he was made Bishop was married that doo we vtterly denye And whereas Sozomenus saith of Spiridion by way of correction tameÌ„ ad res diuinas nihilo deterior erat and yet for al that he was neuer a whit the worse disposed toward the seruice of God which you haue noted the same may be spoken as wel in respect that he was a man that exercised HusbaÌ„dry as that he was maried For both the toile of Husbandry and the care of wife and children and specially both these together be some
Example a Commemoration a Remembrance of the Deathe of Christe This kinde of Sacrifice vvas neuer denied but M. Hardinges Real Sacrifice vvas yet neuer proued De Consecat Distin 2. CuÌ„ fraÌ„gitur So saithe S. Augustine Cùm hostia frangitur sanguis in ora Fidelium funditur quid aliud quà m Dominici Corporis in Cruce Immolatio significatur VVen the Oblation is broken and the Bloude that is to say The Sacrament of the Bloude is powred into the mouthes of the Faitheful what other thinge is there signified but the Sacrifice of Our Lordes Bodye vpon the Chrosse Harding How so euer it like you to scorne at our stoare the multitude of cleare testimonies for proufe of the Sacrifice to the learned can not be vnknowen Were it so that ye had but one making so directly against it as these two here and sundry others in this Article by me alleged make for it ye would haue made no smal stoare of it In bookes and pulpites in tauernes and alebenches your trompettes long er this should haue proclaimed it As for these two places let vs see how your sclender Replie is farre to light so to carry away the weight of them First touching S. Chrysostome with what plainer termes with what more effectual wordes could any man haue expressed the truth of our Sacrifice That Priestes haue auctoritie to offer vp Christ vnto his Father If we that be Priestes offer vp now also the selfe same hoste which our Bishop Christe hath offered vpon the Crosse euen that hoste which cleanseth vs from our sinnes as S. Chrysostome saith that being none other but the precious flesh and bloud of Christ that is to say Christe him selfe for he offered him selfe to his Father to cleanse vs how haue not Priestes auctoritie to offer vp Christ vnto his Father which is the expresse Article that you denye That euery simple man may haue in readinesse an Argument against such false teachers for the Sacrifice An Arment for the vnlearned to prooue the Sacrifice thus for their sake it may be framed Who so euer do offer vp the selfe same hoste which Christ hath offered they offer vp Christe The Priestes offer the same that Christe offered Ergo they offer vp Christe The Maior is euident in it selfe the Minor is S. Chrysostomes the Argument being good the Conclusion must needes be true That it may the better appeare of what force M. Iewels Replie is S. Chrysostomes place examined vvith the Replie of M. Ievv this much is to be considered That in this place of S. Chrysostome consisting of two partes two thinges are auouched In the first parte he geueth vs his witnesse for the substaÌ„ce of this Sacrifice which Priestes do now offer in the Churche In the second parte he declareth one ende wherein the Sacrifice offered by Priestes doth differ from the Sacrifice offered by Christ him selfe Christ our Bishop saith he offered the cleansing hoste Ad Heb. Hom. 17. But we offer that â—oste in commemoration Which is as much to say The ende of the Sacrifice that Christe offered was to cleanse vs from our synnes The ende of the Sacrifice that is done by Priestes is to renewe daily the memorie of this cleansing Sacrifice and so consequently to deriue and apply vnto the deuoute and faithful people as also vnto them selues the fruit and effecte of it In Epist. ad Heb. Hom. 17. The identitie of the substance of either Sacrifice and the diuersitie of the ende of either Sacrifice is plainely taught by S. Chrysostome in that Homilie Now let vs examine your Replie Three thinges attributed to this saying of S. Chrysostâ— by M. Ievv You attribute vnto S. Chrysostome for hauing vttered the saying that I here allege three thinges The first is that in these wordes marke Reader what this man saith He openeth him selfe The second is that he sheweth in what sense other auncient Fathers vsed this worde Sacrifice The third is that he ouerthroweth M. Hardings whole purpose touching the Sacrifice Surely this is very much and were it also true I maruel why neither your selfe nor any of your felowes euer heretofore alleged it against the Sacrifice But certaine we are ye shal wring hard before ye wring this muche out of these wordes Hovv S. ChrysostoÌ„ openeth him selfe against M. Iewel That in these wordes he openeth him selfe I may easily graunt you But that opening is openly against your open Sacramentarie heresie For whereas you denie the oblation and Sacrifice of the Church he saith that now also we offer whereas you denie that we offer Christe to the Father he saith we offer now also the selfe same hoste which our high Bishop Christe hath offered And to put it out of doubte what hoste he meaneth he openeth him selfe as you say calling it hostiam mundantem nos the hoste that cleanseth vs which can be none other but Christe him selfe And bicause the hostes that were offered in sacrifice in the olde lawe were forthwith consumed to shewe the excellencie of this hoste he saith of it that being then that is to say vpon the Crosse offered it can not be consumed And therefore in the same Homilie he saith that it is otherwise with vs now then it was with the Iewes For they on diuers daies offered diuers lambes but we saith he offer not one lambe to day and an other lambe to morowe but alwaies we offer one and the same lambe S. Chrysostom returned vpon M. Ievvel Touching the second point if in these wordes let them be consideratly perused S. Chrysostome shewe in what sense other auncient Fathers haue vsed this woorde Sacrifice then by the auncient Fathers your doctrine touching the truth of Christes body in the blessed Sacrament M. Ievv ouershot him selfe in alleging this place of S. Chrysostom is quite ouerthrowen For he calleth it most expressely the Hoste that cleanseth vs from our sinnes which Christe our high Bishop offered vp for vs vppon the Crosse. If the auncient Fathers when so euer they speake of the hoste that is offered vp by Priestes in the Sacrifice of the Churche meane thus as S. Chrysostome speaketh then are they of our side by your owne confession then is the Catholike Doctrine concerning the Sacrament and the Sacrifice by them against your heresie confirmed and mainteined God be praised by whose prouidence the Truth is confessed by the ennemies of Truth Certainely here you ouershote your selfe in telling the truth against your selfe vnwares Here then I shal aduertise the Christian Reader to beare these wordes of S. Chrysostome in memorie and to consider wel of them for so much as in them he openeth him selfe as Mayster Iewel confesseth and sheweth what meaning the auncient Fathers had when they spake of the Sacrifice of the Churche But how in these wordes he ouerthroweth my purpose touching the Sacrifice or rather the vniuersal Doctrine of the whole Churche that neither I nor M. Iewel him selfe nor any
of his owne body Which can not be otherwise vnderstanded then of the Oblation made at the Supper as onely being vnbloudy for the Oblation made vpon the Crosse was bloudy as you konwe Againe he saith that Christes Priesthod after the order of Melchisedek endureth for euer for that euen to this day he sacrificeth and is sacrificed by the meane of Priestes now being Furthermore that Christe in his last Supper deliuered to them the manner of such a Sacrifice These be pointes conteined in this testimonie of Oecumenius besides those which you haue noted and be such as you and your felowes can not wel brooke and therfore your policie was to dissemble them To the whole place you answer by comparing it as your manner is to doo vnto certaine phrases M. Iew. roÌ„neth to his phrases and figuratiue speaches for aÌ„swer to that vvhich is spoken in ê“per speache and literally and figuratiue speaches of the Fathers in which they say one thing in sounde of worde and meane an other or at least in which their meaning is to be vnderstanded Mystically and not exactly to be construed after the rigour of the precise termes Six sentences or rather peeces of sentences you pretend to allege which you wil nedes haue to be like vnto this testimonie of Oecumenius Of which six the first is your owne and not S. Hieromes at al Shiftes not to be borne vvith in a preacher as you vtter it As for the second there is no such thing in his Commentaries vpon the Psalme 97. as your cotation directeth the fourth is not to be founde in the .38 Sermon of S. Augustine De verbis Domini secuÌ„dum LucaÌ„ as you note bicause he neuer made of that mater but .37 Sermons The fifth is falsified S. Chrysostom vttereth it otherwise The third and the sixth if you had alleged them whole Ansvver to the first autoritie alleged out of S. Hierom. as they lye in the authours would seme to make nothing for you as here it shal be declared If humanitie required me not to deale rigorously with you but gentilly to beare with you not to reuele your false sleightes to your discredite but for your honesties sake to winke at them then thus should you be answered 1. Where S. Hierome saith Si volumus quotidie nascitur Christus Hieron in Psal. 86. If we wil Christ is borne euery day the worde Christe is not taken in proper signification for the second person but for any vertue that man may worke 1. Cor. 1. bicause it is said of him that he is the vertue and wisedom of his Father as I haue before declared Now where Oecumenius saith Christe hath offered an vnbloudy Sacrifice for he hath offered his owne body Christe hath vouchesaued to be our Bishop Christe sacrificeth and is sacrificed by meanes of the Priestes that now be Christe deliuered vnto them the way and manner of such Sacrifice in his mystical Supper in al these speaches Christ is the name not of vertue and power indefinitely but of the only begoten Sonne of God the second Person in Trinitie that was conceiued by the holy Ghoste and borne of the virgin Marie Therfore there is no similitude or likenesse betwen the Phrase of S. Hierome which in truth is as here I allege and not as you forge it and this saying of Oecumenius Whereas then your Argument is this As Christ is borne euery day so is he offered by Priestes euery day But he is not really and in deede borne euery day Ergo neither is he offered by Priestes euery day If this be your Argument your Maior or first proposition is false bicause as I haue shewed the similitude holdeth not and the case is not like And so S. Hierome doth nothing helpe your cause Crucifying of Christe considered tvvo vvaies Touching your other places one Answer in manner may serue for them al. 2. Christe vnto vs is daily crucified saith S. Hierome perhaps some where or some other Father for your cotation is false This much is to be considered The crucifying of Christe is of two sortes The one external and bloudy The other mystical and vnbloudy In that Christes bloude was shed to be the general redemption In this the bloude of Christe already shed is applyed vnto vs that is to say the effecte of his bloude to particuler remission of synnes and paines dew to sinnes as if he were now hanging vpon the Crosse. This application of Christes death vnto vs is sometimes of the Fathers called his Crucifying sacrificing Death and killing After the first way he was neuer crucified but once After the second way he is crucified daily and so often as the Death of him that was crucified is the sacrament of Reconciliation presupposed applied vnto vs to effecte Neither is the doctrine of Application of Christes Death strange Application The substance of it hath ben taught in diuers respectes by the learned Fathers of the Churche bothe olde and newe Albeit the terme of Application be more common in the Scholastical Doctours Tertul. lib. 1. aduersus Marcion Hierony in Matth. cap. 26. who haue treated most exactly of these pointes then in the most Auncient writers Tertullian writing against Marcion and S. Hierom vpon S. Mathew to signifie the real presence vse the terme of Representation whereby is signified in Latin the exhibiting of a thing present Representation S. Gregorie expresseth the same meaning that Application conteneth Gregorius Homi. 37. by the terme of Repairing or renuing So often as we offer vp vnto him saith he the hoste of his Passion Reparation or repairing so often we renue and repaire his Passion vnto vs for absolution Dialog 4. cap. 58. Againe in an other place This hoste or Sacrifice saith he doth singularly saue the soule from damnation which by Mysterie renueth vnto vs the Death of the only begoten Sonne of God S. Augustine signifieth this muche by the worde of Insinuation Insinuation Now who so euer doth insinuate a thing to an other that is to say putteth it in his bosome for so muche the worde signifieth the same doth also applie it vnto him For declaration hereof S. Augustines testimonie by your selfe here alleged serueth very aptly Which if you had with more sinceritie and truth alleged you had dealt more like a true man but then had you hindered your euil cause His wordes be these where he expoundeth the Parable of the Riotous Sonne written by S. Luke Lucae 15. August Quaestion Euangel lib. 2.33 making Vitulum saginatum the fatted calfe to be Christe Our Lorde saith he was this fatted Calfe who according to flesh was filled with reproches Quòd autem imperat vt adducant eum quid aliud est nisi vt praedicent eum annunciando venire faciant in exhausta fame viscera filij esurientis S. Augustine vnderstandeth by the killing of Christe novv the insinuatioÌ„ of his death Nam etiam vt occidant
eum iubet hoc est vt mortem eius insinuent Tunc enim cuique occiditur cùm credit occisum Whereas he commaundeth them to bring him what is that to say els but that they preache him and by telling of him cause him to come into the bowels quite famished for hunger of the hungry sonne For he commaundeth also that they kill him that is to say that they insinuate and shewe his Death For then he is slaine to euery man when he beleueth that he was slaine 3. Thus S. Augustine expounded him selfe who maketh the killing of Christe now to be none other but the insinuation of his Death vnto vs by preaching Christ was once killed corporally and in deede And now he is killed as concerning the Application of the benefite of his Death that is to say his death is insinuate and applied vnto vs when we beleue hat he was killed for vs. Which Death neuerthelesse to wit the effect of his Death is applied vnto vs not by faith only but also faith presupposed by meane of the Sacraments So Christe is said by S. Augustine to rise againe to vs euery day In vvhat sense M. Ievvels mystical speaches alleged out of the Fathers be true bicause we beleue that he rose againe S. Chrysostom saith not simply as you reporte the Death of Christe is wrought and perfited in the holy Mysteries but illa mors perficitur that Death is perfited asmuch to say the vnbloudy and Mystical Death that is the vertue and effect of his Death is applied vnto vs in these Mysteries So meant S. Gregorie saying Dum illa mors perficitur that Christe lyuing immortally in him selfe dieth againe in this Mysterie That is to say as there he expoundeth him selfe this healthful Sacrifice repaireth and renueth vnto vs and applyeth vnto vs by mysterie the Death of Gods onely begoten Sonne Whereas then the learned Fathers speake thus of Christes daily birth De Consecrat dist 2. Quid sit of his daily crucifying his daily killing and his daily resurrection they meane not a real and a carnal presence of his body to be borne to be crucified to be slaine and to rise againe from the Dead but al is spoken mystically and the same is true in a manner of speache and in a mystical sense as now I haue declared But where they speake as Oecumenius here speaketh of th'vnbloudy host or Sacrifice naming it by way of expositioÌ„ Christes own body saying of it that they who haue Priesthod from him do offer it vp in Sacrifice without shedding of bloude and that for their continual offering of the same Psal. 109. Christe is called a Priest for euer by whom he sacrificeth and is sacrificed to whom also at his Mystical Supper he deliuered the manner of such Sacrifice where so euer they speake of this Sacrifice and after this manner there they meane a true and real Sacrifice and thereby signifie that Christe is sacrificed verely really and in deede Whiche notwithstanding is to be vnderstanded in respecte of the body of Christe really and in deede by vertue of Christes wordes made present in the Sacrament being the thing sacrificed and not in respecte of the common blouddy manner of sacrificing Whiche manner vntil Christe was sacrificed vpon the Crosse who is the truth and ende of al Sacrifices that were before was for the most parte with shedding of bloude and with slaughter of lyuing thinges In vvhat sense and respect is Christe novv Srcrificed and not sacrificed Rom. 6. To be plaine and shorte in respecte of that olde and common manner of sacrificing we denie as you doo that Christe is now really verely and in deede sacrificed For hauing bene once dead he dieth no more as S. Paule saith But in respecte of the substance of the Sacrifice which thing the olde leraned Fathers haue euer taught and the Churche practiseth as deliuered commaunded and taught by Christe at his last Supper as S. Irenaeus saith whiche substance is the body of Christe Irenaeus li. 4. cap. 32. and consequently Christe him â—elfe the Sonne of God We affirme and beleue and promise to defend with our bloude that Christe in our Mysterie is most truly really verely and in deede sacrificed Iewel The reste that follovveth in Oecumenius onely expresseth the tvvo seueral Natures in Christe the Godheade and the Manheade That touchinge his Manheade he was Sacrificed touching his Godheade he was the Prieste and made the Sacrifice And further to M. Hardinges purpose it maketh no thinge So Beda saithe although somevvhat othervvise Beda in Episto ad Ephes. c. 2. Filius Dei Orat pro nobis Orat in nobis Oratur à nobis Orat pro nobis vt Sacerdos Orat in nobis vt caput Oratur à nobis vt Deus The Sonne of God both Praieth for vs and Praieth in vs and is Praied of vs. He Praieth for vs as our Prieste He Praieth in vs as our Heade He is praied of vs as our God Epiphanius saith Epipha de Melchisedechian lib. 2. Christus est Victima Sacerdos Altare Deus Homo Rex Pontifex Ouis Agnus omnia in omnibus pro nobis factus Christ is our Sacrifice our Priest our Aultar God MaÌ„ King Bishop Sheepe LaÌ„me made for oursakes al in al. Thus is Christ our Sacrifice thus is Christ our Sacrificer not to be offered by the Priest as M. Harding imagineth but as the olde Maisters and Fathers of the Church haue taught vs. offered by him selfe vpoÌ„ the Crosse. Augu. Dâ— Tempore Serm. 13â— S. Augustin saith Ecce illic oblatus est Ibi seipsum obtulit Simul Hostia Sacerdos Et altare erat Crux Beholde there was he offered There he offered him selfe He was both the Priest and the Sacrifice And his Crosse was the Aultare Harding This answer is farre fetched and proceedeth from a great insight Fewe men but M. Iewel could haue seene so farre in Ocumenius woordes as to see in them that which by him was neuer meant nor so much as dreamed of M. Ievvel either of ignoraÌ„ce or of Malice vttereth manifest heresie yea that which also is very false and an heynous heresie if it be obstinatly mainteined But Sir wote ye what ye speake or speake you at al aduenture Surely here you are taken Neither can you escape but must needes confesse your errour and yeeld Was Christ touching his Godhead a Priest and touching the same made he Sacrifice Who euer said so but you What M. Iewel besides other heresies shal we haue an AriaÌ„ of you Wil you take that name vpoÌ„ you or coÌ„fesse that you lacke the principles of Diuinitie Aug. cont Faust. lib. 20. ca. 21. To offer Sacrifice is it not a kinde of worship called Latria that is due vnto God onely and to no creature Now shal we make Christe as he is God to doo worship and not to receiue worship onely done to him by others Is not God
vnderstandeth August ad Hieronym epist. 19. where he writeth thus vnto S. Hierome a Priest him selfe being a Bisshop Quanquam secundùm honorum vocabula quae iam vsus Ecclesiae obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio maior sit tamen Augustinus Hieronymo minor est Albe it after the rate of wordes of Dignities which the custome of the Churche hath now obteined Bisshoprike is greater then Priesthode yet is Augustine lesse then Hierome S. Ambrose expounding the place of the Epistle to the Ephesians Ambros. in Epist. ad Ephes. 4. where S. Paule speaketh of Apostles Prophetes Euangelistes Pastours and Doctours by Christe placed in the Churche by Apostles vnderstandeth Bisshops and by Prophetes he vnderstandeth them that be first in degree after Bishops whiche Order may now be the Order of a Priest qui ordo nunc potest esse Presbyteri saith he meaning the Special Priesthoode geuen by Consecration of a Bishop Of this Priesthode is to be vnderstanded the .3 Canon of the .4 Councel of Carthage in which those two hundred and fourteen Bishops Concil Carthag 4. Can. 3. among whom S. Augustine was one as it is certaine by his owne subscription describe a fourme how a Priest ought to be ordered that is consecrated into that holy Order Of this Priesthode speaketh S. Augustine writing Against the Epistle of Permenian Augustin lib. 2. cōtra epist. Parmen c. 13. where making mention of Baptisme and of power to baptise he saith thus Vtrumque Sacramentum est quadam consecratione vtrumque homini datur illud cùm baptizatur istud cùm ordinatur Ideoque in Catholica vtrumque non licet iterari Either of them is a Sacrament and by a certaine Consecration either is geuen vnto a man that when he is baptized this when he is ordered And therefore in the Catholike Churche either may not be iterated or taken twise For the outward and special Priesthod these fewe may suffice That the Sacrifice is not to be consecrate and made but onely by the Special Priestes NOW touching that this Sacrifice is to be consecrated and made not by euery faithful Christian person but by those that by special consecration be ordered Priestes let vs allege the testimonies of some Fathers What force is in the worde of our Sauiour Doo ye this in my remembrance Luc. 22. spoken to none but to the Apostles 1. Cor. 11. for they onely were present at the Supper if it were ernestly vrged the learned do wel conceiue But bicause these men wil not soone be confuted by Scripture for that they can not be brought to take it in that sense in which the Churche hath alwaies bene taught by the holy Ghoste to vnderstand it let vs heare the voice of the Churche vttered by some learned and auncient Father The Bishop saith S. Dionyse the Areopagite S. Paules scholer of reuerence and Bisshoply dutie Dionysius in Ecclesiastic Hierar cap. 3. part 3. that he offereth vp the healthful Sacrifice which passeth his worthines excuseth him selfe in seemely wise first crying out vnto him Thou ô Lorde hast spoken the worde Doo ye this in my remembrance If it were lauful for euery Christian to performe this dutie Bisshoply dutie what needed S. Dionyse to speake of Bishoply dutie Againe in that he allegeth the worde of Christe Doo ye this in my remembrance for excuse of his boldnesse he signifieth this office to apperteine not to euery faithful person but to that special order of men who haue succeded the Apostles to whom onely that worde was first spoken that is to say to them that be called to the special Priesthode wherevnto Christe then promoted his Apostles by that worde geuing power office and commission S. Iustine Philosopher and Martyr saith likewise Iustinus Martyr The Apostles in their Commentaries or bookes which are called Euangelia Gospels haue recorded that Christe gaue commaundement vnto them so that they should consecrate this meate by the prayers of the woorde of him selfe that he tooke bread and after he had geuen thankes said Do ye this in remēbrance of me This is my body Item that he said hauing taken the Cuppe after he had geuen thankes This is my bloude and that he gaue it to them alone Marke here good Rearde by witnesse of this blessed Martyr who was so nygh vnto the Apostles time the commaundement to do that whiche Christe did at his supper that is to say to consecrate and offer the body and bloude of Christe was geuen to the Apostles and consequently to their successours for he bad them so to doo vntil he come and to none elles Of his wordes this Argument may wel be gathered They onely haue commaundement to doo that Christe did at the Supper to whom he gaue the Sacrament but by reporte of S. Iustine he gaue the Sacrament to the Apostles onely Ergo the Apostles onely and suche as in the function of Priesthod there instituted doo succede them haue auctorite to doo that whiche Christe did Now Christe consecrated his body and bloude and offered the same and made this Sacrifice after the order of Melchisedek Therefore they be Priestes onely Priestes I meane Hierarchical that be appointed by Christe and haue auctoritie to consecrate and make this Sacrifice whiche is the point that M. Iewel here denieth but how impudently he denieth it any man may see that hath eyes to see That this auctoritie and ministerie perteineth not to euery faithful Christian man as M. Iewel holdeth opinion but to Priestes onely the olde learned writer Tertullian acknowlegeth with these wordes Eucharistiae Sacramentum nec de aliorum manu Tertulliā lib. de Corona militis quà m Praesidentium sumimus We receiue not the Sacrament of the Eucharist of the hande of others then of the Rulers by that he vnderstanded Priestes Of this auctoritie speaketh S. Ambrose expounding this place of S. Paule to Timothe 1. Tim. 4. Despise not the grace which hath ben geuen vnto thee through prophecie with laying on of handes of Priesthode These be his wordes Prophetia est Ambros. in 1. Tim. 4. qua eligitur quasi Doctor futurus idoneus manus verò impositiones verba sunt mystica quibus confirmatur ad opus electus accipiens auctoritatem teste conscientia sua vt audeat vice Domini sacrificium Deo offerre Prophecie is saith he by which is chosen as a man would say one that shal proue a fitte teacher but the layinges on of hande are wordes mystical by whiche he that is chosen is confirmed vnto the worke receiuing auctoritie his owne conscience being witnesse that he may be so bolde as in the stede of our Lorde to offer vp the Sacrifice vnto God This place of S. Paule and the witnesse of conscience as he saith telleth them who be made Priestes by lawful imposition of handes what auctoritie they haue and how litle they ought to be a fearde being in them selues duly examined and approued to offer vp
the people Your selfe also now doutlesse do see it Yet for your worldly estimations sake hauing made suche an Arrogant Chalenge you may not seeme to see it At least what so euer you see you wil not confesse your errrour Thus in ouersight to boast of sight in darkenes to crake of light VVho playeth Thraso his parte the Chalenger or Defender in weakenesse to speake of strength in maters for whiche of your side no learning can be shewed to chalenge al men aliue this is the parte of Thraso But in this Article of the Sacrifice for which we haue so manifest Scripture so many Doctours so many Councels so common and so long continued custome and faith of the Churche for proufe thereof to auouche stoare of testimonies it is not the parte of Thraso it is the confidence of him that knowethâ— how sufficiently the Catholike Religion may be defended against heretiks This serueth not to fray the simple as you say it serueth to cal backe the presumptuous rashnes of a newe Gospeller to animate right beleeuers and to stay the simple As for the wise whether they wil more condemne of folie me for shewing iust confidence in defence of the truthe or you for making suche a proude Chalenge against the truth I leaue it to their secrete iudgementes Bring vs but one plaine sentence of any Scripture auncient Doctor or Councel making clearely for you that a Priest hath not auctoritie and therefore may not offer vp Christe in the Euchariste as I haue brought many for proufe of the contrary and I wil be contente the name of Thraso be not returned vpon you If ye haue none to bring as sure I am ye haue not for your Thrafonical Chalenge that name wil become you better then me that how so euer you wrangle promise no more then I performe That the Reader go not farre for one suche sentence among many of our parte let the very laste alleged out of S. Chrysostome be considered In whiche he saith plainely Châ—ysost in 1. Cor. Hâ—st 24. that Christe commaunded him selfe to be offered Whiche can not be referred to the Sacrifice of the Crosse. For if he had commaunded the Iewes to Crucifie him they had not bene gilty of his Death Neither permitteth the circumstance of the place any other to be vnderstanded then the Sacrifice of the Aulter in whiche Christe him selfe according to his commaundement Doo ye this in my remembrance is as I haue now proued really offered If in defence of your side you can not shew vs so muche as one sentence of like clearenes you must beare with wise men if they thinke the great sturre you haue made with your Chalenge to be great folie And likewise must you beare with your Aduersaries if they reporte you haue more shew of wordes then substance of mater To conclude go plainely to worke M. Iewel The handling of these maters requireth honestie sinceritie fidelitie truth conscience and the feare of God Set vs forth the light of true thinges if ye haue any leaue the darke clowdes of youy Phrases and Figures Conclude your Doctrine with some firme Argumentes confirme it with good and sufficient authorities Be ashamed of your loose and childish Argumentes by whiche in manner alwaies you inferre the denial of one truth by the affirmation of an other truth Let the world see that you allege your testimonies truly iointly and wholly that you falsifie them not by your diuisions taking one peece here and an other peece there by nipping of by adding vnto by hewing mangling and when you doo least by wrong and wrested vnderstanding Otherwise if you shal continue to set maters of Faith vpon vncertaine Phrases and Figures and Tropical speaches to confounde one truth with an other to corrupte to patche together to mangle and by other waies to falsifie as hitherto you haue done be the cotations of your Bookes Margent neuer so thicke be the number of your vnlearned and partial Fauourers neuer so great the wise the godly the learned shal iudge you as they finde you to be but a Maister of Phrases a confounder of Truthes a patcher a mangler a shifter a Falsifier THE TABLE A ABra by M. Iewel reported to be S. Hilaries daughter 172. b This worde Al in Scripture oft-times admitteth exception of many 168. a. b. Amalricus his carkasse digged vp and burnt in Paris 187. a. Anathema pronounced against the dead 186. b. Antitypon excludeth not the veritie of the Mysteries 80. b. Antitypon howe it is taken in S. Clement 81. a. The terme Antitypon maketh not for the Sacramentaries 81. b. Antitypon what it signifieth properly 82. b Apostles made Priestes by Christ at the last Supper 87. a. b. in sequent The Apostles made vowe to forsake al thinges 171. b. The Apostles forsoke the companie of their wiues Ibidem Application of Christes Death no strange Doctrine 219. a. Application of this Sacrifice prooued 114. b. 121. a. 162. a. b. 219. a. Aulters vsed of the Christians 9. a. b. 99. a. Aulter 61. a. 130. a. 225. b. 230. a. Aulter visible and external 60. b. 130. a. 143. a. 229. a. b. Aulters material 99. a. 229. a. sequent External Aulter argueth external Sacrifice 229. a. Authoritie geuen to Priests to offer vp the dreadful Sacrifice 88. a. 128. a. B. Baptisme 9. b. Baptisme doth not only signifie but also exhibit wasshing of sinnes 83. b. Beza 17. a. Beza defendeth it to be lawful to put Heretiques to death 179. a. The Bible corrupted by the Protestantes 167. a. b. Bishoply duetie 246. a. Blouddy and vnbloudy referred to one subiecte 226. a Burning of Heretiques Dead carcasses no newe thing .186 b. sequent C. CAluine defendeth it lawful to put Heretiques to Death 197. a The Canon of the Masse defended against M. Iewels scoffes 123. b. 254. b. 257. a. The prayer of the holy CanoÌ„ found in S. Ambrose 258. a. Ceremonies of the Iewes changed 9. a. sequent Ceremonies of the Christians 59. a. The Chalenger playeth Thraso his parte 261. b. How we see Christe suffering by Charitie 200. b. Christe truly and in in deede offered 35. a. Christ offered vp his body at his last Supper 45. a. 48. a. Christ sacrificed him selfe at his Supper 67. b. 79. b. sequent Christe gaue his body and shed his bloud at the Supper affirmed by certaine Fathers 73. a. Christe sacrificeth and is sacrificed by the meanes or mediation of Priestes 86. a. 127. a. Christe dieth againe in this Mysterie and how 161. b. 162. a. Christ at the Supper both Priest and Lambe 73. b. Christ commaunded him selfe to be offered 79. b. 106. b. 259. b. Christe appeareth before the Father in heauen with his wounded body 117. a. 118. a. The Rocke was Christe and how 1â—7 a. Christes being in the Sacrifice and in reading of the Storie of the Gospel is different 199. a. Christe offred the true bread and the true wine at his Supper 48. a. 204. a.