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 Coūcel, 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, [Page] 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 memoriā 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, D [...] fide ad Petrū Dia c [...]nū. c. 19. That in those Fleashly Sacri­fices, there was a Significatiō 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 hī self for vs,Ephes. 5. that he might redeme vs frō 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 [Page 2] 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 māner 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 ād 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 seuētienth Article, you beare [Page] al men in hand, that vntil you came frō the schole of Rhe­torike to reach the world this new Gospel, no priest euer cōsidered, 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 presump­tiō, for making this sacrifice. How cā you seme otherwise to doo? For whereas you say, it may not appeare by any Clause, or sentēce of the olde, or new Testament, that God euer appointed any such Sacrifice to be made by any Mortal mā, 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 cōclude you hereof, but that they haue trāsgressed the Scripture, and presumptuously takē 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 spokē of Isma­el. Manus eius cōtra oēs, [...]n. 16. et manus oīm contra cū? 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? Remēber you not, what is said of the Church,Cant. 6. that it is, terribilis, ut castrorū acies ordinata, terrible, like the foreward of an Armie set in battaile raie?

[Page 3]But leauing to put you in minde of that, which might withdraw you frō your wicked doctrine, either for feare of God, or for shame of mē, hauing litle hope by wordes to do good with you, to th'intent the weakenes of your part laid forth to be cōsidered, 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 examinatiō of your Replie.

You seme to deduce an argumēt against this Sacrifice made by a priest, of the basenes and vilenesse of humaine cōdition, as though mā, who in dede is mortal ād miserable, ād a mortal creature, as you terme him, were not worthy, ne could not be made worthy, to offer vp the Immoral Sōne of God vnto his Father. True it is, Man of him self, is very vnworthy of that high office: neither cā 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 mā 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 cōceiue, and bring forth th'Im­mortal Sōne of God: yet the virgin Marie through grace of him whom she bare, was made worthy to beare him. ād therfor she said, fecit mihi magna (q)qui potēs est, he hath don me great thinges,Luc. 1. that is mighty. Els if cōsideration of the mortal and miserable cōditiō of man, might be brought in argumēt for the cōtrary, what a wide dore were opened vnto the scholers of Marciō, Manichaeus, Apollinaris, and to other Heretikes, to rush in, and to thrust in againe their [Page] 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 vnderstād his purpose touching the destruction of Sodoma. Moyses like wise, though he were but a mortal and miserable man, was ac­cōpted 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 opēly 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 filios Dei fieri: He hath geuen them power to be made the sonnes of God. Vnto which dignitie S. Paul addeth a farther degree, say­ing: Si autem filij, Rom. 8. & haeredes: haeredes quidem Dei, cohaeredes autem Christi. If we be the sonnes of God then we be al­so the heires: the heires of God, and felow heires with Christe. That high degree of honour which S. Peter speaketh of, surmounteth al other, neither can any other [Page 4] vnto it be cōparable. Which is, that God through Christe hath bestowed vpon vs so great giftes,2. Pet. 1. vt efficiamur Di­uinae consortes naturae, that we be made partakers of the Diuine nature.

Verily of the high dignitie that it hath pleased God to admitte man vnto, in these and other the like cases, that may wel be said against M. Iewel,Esther. 6. and all other the ene­mies of this Sacrifice, which King Assuerus commaunded openly to be proclaimed of good Mardochaeus against wicked Aman, Hoc honore dignus est, quemcunque rex vo­luerit honorare. Of this honour is he worthy, whō so euer the King (of al Kings) wil haue honoured. And this is a sufficient answere to M. Iewels secrete obiection against the Sacrifice, taken of the basenesse and miserie of hu­manie condition.

He wil saye perhaps,M. Ievvel denieth the Sacri­fice of the Aulter stoutely. these examples and Scriptures prooue in dede, that God hath aduaūced man vnto high honour, but not that he may offer vp Christ vnto his Fa­ther: For (saieth he) for ought that may appeare by any clause or sentence of the newe Testament, or of the olde, God neuer appointed any such Sacrifice to be made. Such stoute asseue­rations make but weake proufes. Here might be alleged for the Sacrifice, first, out of the olde Lawe the Figures 1 foresignifying, and the Prophecies foretelling, that suche Sacrifice was to be instituted. Secondly, out of the newe 2 Testament, Christes owne facte offering this Sacrifice, and his plaine precepte, commaunding his Apostles, and their successours in the office of Priesthood, to continue the same vntil his comming. Thirdly, the interpretation 3 of the Fathers expounding in that sense, both those figu­res and Prophecies of the olde Testament, and likewise [Page] Christes facte, and precepte in the newe Testament. Last 4 of al, the continual practise of the vniuersal Church, both Greke and Latine, wherein the Priestes in al ages since Christes death, haue made to God, a Sacrifice of our Lordes body and bloude. But because this is done alrea­dy in the discourse of my Answer to this 17. Article of M. Iewels Chalenge, leauing to repeate the same here againe, when orderly proceding I shal come vnto the places by M. Iewels Replie impugned: there (I truste) I shal by disclosing the Repliers false sleightes, and by be­wraying the weakenesse of his Replie, to the indifferent and vnaffectionate Reader euidently shewe, how strong and sound the Catholike doctrine of the Church is in this behalfe, and how inuincibly the testimonies of the Scrip­tures and Fathers which in my Answer I alleged, proue and establish the same.

VVhat may fo­lovv, if al be takē a­vvay, that hath not proufe of Scripture. Anabapti­stes.But touching such kinde of assertions, as this is of M. Iewels, if they may take place, and if it shal be ynough to say, for ought that may appeare: shal it not seme lauful to the Anabaptistes to say, away with the baptizing of infantes, For, for ought that may appeare, the Scriptures geue vs no warrāt so to do? Wil not the blasphemous Ariās say, away with Cōsubstātialitie, and equalitie of Christ with his Fa­ther? For,Arians. for ought that may appeare, it can not be auou­ched by any Clause, or sentēce, either of the new Testa­mēt, or of the olde. Wil not the folowers of Iouinian and Heluidius say,Iouiniani­stes. away with the perpetual Virginitie of our blessed Lady Christes Mother?Heluidiās. For, for ought that may ap­peare, the Scriptures be plaine against it, rather then with it. The Sabbataries,Sabbata­ries. wil not they cry out agaīst keping ho­ly and solēne the Sōday? For, for ought that may appeare [Page 5] (say they) the cōmaundemēt to hallow the Saturday, stā ­deth stil in force, neither is there any clause, or sentēce in the olde, or new Testament, bidding vs to chaunge it into the Sonday. To be short, what Heretike euer was there in olde time, or is at this day, whose turne this kind of as­sertion (for ought that may appeare) may not serue, where­with to mainteine his Heresie?

As touching the saying of Theophylact,M. Ievvel to proue his Nega­tiue, at the first fin­deth no aunciēter Doctour, thē Theophylacte a late vvriter. wherwith this Replier would fortifie his Negatiue, it geueth euidence, how weake his side is, that could not be mainteined by any sentēce of greater force thē this is, nor by any writer of more antiquitie, thē Theophylact is with him. Who re­quireth his cause to be tried by those Fathers only, that li­ued within the first six hūdred yeres. If he were hable to make any mā beleue, that the Priests of the Church haue at any time sacrificed beastes vnto God, or that Theophylact in that saying meant, that now there were neede of nothīg but of prayer only, as prayer is takē in the cōmon significatiō, and that al other meanes to serue God were needelesse: thē might the sentēce be alleged, and seeme to serue his turne so farr forth, as in cōsideratiō of his request the author were to be estemed. But now sith Priestes of the new Testamēt neuer honoured God with bloudy sa­crifices, ād slaughter of beastes, that were foresignified to ceasse by our Lords driuing of the Oxē ād dooues out of the Tēple, ād Theophylact here vseth no exclusiue, wher­by prayer alone, as it cōmōly signifieth, should be appoin­ted a meane wherewith to serue God: the saying was euil chosen, ād with smal iudgmēt put into the Replie, as that which nothing at al maketh agaīst the singuler, external, ād publike Sacrifice of the Church in myne Answer de­fended.

[Page]If M. Iewel would gather arguments out of this place, thus he ought to dispose them.Theophyl. in Matth. cap. 21. In that Christ draue the oxē and dooues out of the Tēple, he foresignified, that there should be no more nede of sacrifices of beastes, or of slaughters, but of prayer. Vvhat argument may be cōclnded out of Theophylact here alleged. So be the very wordes of Theophylacte in Greke, somewhat otherwise, then this Replier hath translated them. Thereof it is concluded, Ergo, nowe in the newe Testament there is neede of prayer. Then further. In the newe Testament there is neede of prayer, But the Masse whereat the priest offereth vp Christ vnto his Father, is no prayer: Ergo, in the new Testament the Masse is need­lesse. This is the best Argument he can make out of Theophylactes wordes. In which, how so euer it be al­lowed for good, or otherwise, the minor or second pro­positiō is euidētly false, and so he is stopped frō his cōclu­sion. Wherfore Theophylact helpeth not the mater at al.

Theo­phylacte maketh for the Sacrifice.Yea rather by the manner of his speach he auoucheth the Sacrifice of the Church, vnderstanding it by the name of prayer. For whereas by his reporte, which is expressed also in the Gospel, Christ dryuing out the oxē ād dooues foresignified the ceassing of the bloudy and vncleane sa­crifices of the olde Lawe:Matt. 21. certainely he shewed thereby, that a newe Sacrifice vnbloudy and pure, should succede in place of the olde, because euery lawe hath a priesthod and a sacrifice peculier vnto it. Which in the newe lawe is none other,Prayer. then the Sacrifice of his body and bloude consecrated with prayer, and offered vp to God with prayer by them, who vnder Christ be priestes after Mel­chisedeks order. And this chiefly is that which Theophy­lacte calleth prayer. For in asmuch as this Sacrifice (due mater presupposed) is cōsecrated by the Priest with the [Page 6] wordes of our Lorde,Matt. 26. this is my body, this is the Cuppe of my bloud, Luke. 22. &c: whiche wordes the Fathers oftentimes name the mystical prayer:1. Cor. 11. he had regarde to the fourme of the Cōsecration, and would speake, as the chiefe of the aun­cient Fathers haue spoken. And so the saying of Theo­phylacte maketh for the Sacrifice, it maketh not against the Sacrifice, as to that purpose of M. Iewel it is alleged.

Furthermore Prayer in this place may be takē not only for that which commonly we vnderstād by the name of praier (that is to say for petitiō made to God with words) but for euery such meane,Vvhat is signified by the name of Prayer. as God is serued withal in his Church, according as it is taken in Esay the prophete al­leged by Christ in the Gospel. Domus mea domus orationis vocabitur, Matt. 21. vos autem fecistis eam speluncam latronum. My howse shall be called the howse of prayer, but ye haue made it a denne of theeues. So that Prayer here being set contrary to the bloudy and vncleane sacrifices of the old Lawe, signifieth al manner of seruice of God that is pure and cleane, without bloudshedding. Ye haue made it a denne of theeues. In dennes of theeues slaughters and bloud­sheddinges are made, saith Theophylacte.

Nicolaus de Lyra writing vpō this place,Lyra in Commēt. in 21. cap. Matt. saith: Non cu­rabāt de cultu Dei, sed magis de excoriatione populi per astu­tias suas exquisitas. They tooke no care for Gods seruice, but rather how by their fyne crafty sleightes they might pille the people.Praier ta­ken ge­nerally for the seruice of God. Here what the prophete calleth orationē prayer, the interpreter nameth it cultum Dei, the seruice or worship of God. And to this agreeth the general defi­nition of Prayer, oratio est mentis eleuatio ad Deum, Prayer is the lifting vp of the mynde vnto God. And because a­mōg al kindes of prayer, that, wherin, and wherby Christ [Page] is offered vp vnto his Father, is the chiefe, therefore may Theophylact reasonably be thought in this place to haue meant that prayer, which the Church calleth the Masse.

So then by Christes driuīg of the Oxē ād dooues out of the Tēple, ād by cōmēdīg vnto his Church the vse of prai­er, this Sacrifice cā not in any wise seeme to be excluded, but rather to be brought in, as that, which beīg vnbloudy ād pure, ought to succede the bloudy ād impure sacrifices of the Iewes. About the administratiō of which Sacrifice (that Theophylact may also the rather seeme to haue vn­derstāded it by the name of praier) after the mind of S. Au­gustin,August. ad Paulinū epist. 59. the request of S. Paule touching sundry kindes of praier is accōplished. Obsecro igitur primū fieri obsecratio­nes, orationes, 1. Tim. 2. postulationes, gratiarū actiones ꝓ oībꝰ hominibꝰ, pro regibus, & oībus, qui in sublimitate constituti sunt. I be­seche you therfore, that aboue al thīgs, supplicatiōs, prai­ers, intercessiōs, and geuing of thākes be made for al men, for Kings, and for al that be placed in high authoritie. To cōclude, al redoundeth to this end, that forasmuch as the special Sacrifice of the Churche is made and celebrated with praier, so as it selfe be included within the general name of Praier: M. Iewel findeth no helpe in this saying of Theophylact towards the maintenāce of his Negatiue, whereby he would vtterly deface and take the Sacrifice away. Which thinge when he sawe him selfe euidently ynough, he deuised other shiftes, and saith.

Iewel.

Hovv be it, the old learned Fathers, as they oftentimes delited thēselues vvith these vvoordes, Sabbatū, Parasceue, Pascha, Pentecoste, and such other like termes of the old Lavv, notvvithstāding the Obseruatiō, and Ce­remony therof vvere thē abolished, ād out of vse: Euē so likevvise thei delited thēselues oftetimes vvith these vvordes, Sacerdos, Altare, Sacrificiū, the [Page 7] Sacrificer, Pachyme­res. pa 401 [...]. Rom. 15. Origen. in Epist. ad Rom. li. 10. Nazian. in Oratio. ad Plebē. Chryso. in Epist. ad Rom. Ho­mil. 29. the Aultar, the Sacrifice, notvvithstādīg the vse therof vvere thē clearly expired: only for that the eares of the people, as vvel of the Ievves, as of the Gētils, had ben long acquainted vvith the same. Therfore Pachy­meres the Paraphraste vvriting vpō Dionysius, saith thus, Presbyterū ap­pellat Sacerdotē, vt etiā in Coelesti Hierarchia: id (que) vsus iā obti­nuit. Him, that is the Priest, or elder, he calleth the Sacrificer, as he doth also in his Coelestial Hierarchie: And the same word, Sacri­ficer, is now obteined by Custome. In this sense S. Paul saith of him self, Sacrifico Euangeliū Dei: I sacrifice the Gospel of God. And Origē saith, Sacrificale opus est, anūnciare Euāgeliū: It is a work of Sacrifice, to Preach the Gospel. So the learned Bisshop Naziāzenus saith vnto his people, Hostiam vos ipsos obtuli: I haue offred vp you for a Sacrifice. So saith S. Chrysostom, Ipsum mihi Sacerdotium est, Praedicare, & Euāgelizare. Hāc offero oblationē: My whole priest­hod is, to teache, and to preache the Gospel. This is my Oblatiō, This is my Sacrifice. Thus the holy Fathers alluding to the orders, and Ceremonies of Moyses Lavv [...] called the preachīg of the Gospel, a Sacrifice: notvvithstanding in dede it vvere no Sacrifice.

Harding.

The effect of that hath ben said by the Replier hitherto, is this. The Sacrifice wherin Christ is offered vp vnto his Fa­ther, is not appointed by God to be made by mā, for ought that may appere by any Clause, or Sētēce of the Scripture, but yet it is reported, ād oftētymes spokē of by the Olde learned Fathers. What meaneth M. Iewel thus to teach? would he haue mē beleue, that the Holy Ghost the spirite of truth, who vsed the Prophetes, Apostles, and Euangelistes for his Se­cretaries to endite the Scriptures, agreeth not with the Holy Ghoste, that sithens their tyme hath spoken by the mouthes of the holy Doctours? Remembreth he not, they were for the more part such,Act. 20. as by report of S. Paule the Holy Ghost hath made Bishops to gouerne the Churche of God, which he hath purchased with his bloud? If thei haue bē [Page] made gouernours of the Church by the holy Ghost, may we not boldly say, they haue ben taught the truth by the holy Ghost, wherewith they might instruct the Church?

Either the Fathers vvere de­ceiued, or the holy Ghost dis­senteth frō him selfe, by M. IevvelVerily of this doctrine one of these two must folowe. That either al the olde learned Fathers were deceiued, and taught false doctrine, or that the holy Ghost, who ruled the penne of them that endited the Scriptures, dis­sented from himselfe speaking in their Successours the learned Fathers. For that the Fathers either of their own heads, or of priuat inspiratiō, without al warrant of Gods worde instituted this Sacrifice: neither M. Iewel saith it, nor is it so much as to be suspected. The second, that is, that any dissension or contrarietie be ascribed to the ho­ly Ghoste, is hainous blasphemie. The first, that al the learned Fathers should be deceiued, and also deceiue the Churche, is not to be graunted. For in asmuch as they re­ceiued the spirite of truth which Christe promised to the Apostles,Ioan. 14. and were gouerned by the spirite of God, and by the same were lead into al truth: it ought not to be thought of them in general, that they haue inclined vnto falshod, specially in so weighty a mater.

Wherfore it standeth M. Iewel vpon, either to deny, that the olde learned Fathers haue by their ofte mention of Priestes, Aultars, and Sacrifice, acknowleged the sin­guler Sacrifice of the Churche, or recant what he said of the Scriptures, that by any clause, or sentence of them it cannot appeare, where God appointed any such Sacri­fice to be made at al.

If he wil say, as he semeth to say: The Fathers confesse not, ne acknowledge not in dede the Sacrifice it selfe, but yet ofte tymes they vse the woorde of Sacrifice, [Page 8] that is to say, they speake of it, as also of the Priestes, and Aulters: to that may be answered, that by their woordes we vnderstande their meaning. Forasmuch as they con­fesse it with words, and that very oft, how can we iudge otherwise of them, but that they beleued it also in harte? What, maketh he the auncient holy Fathers, Gods dere frendes, placed in authoritie by the holy Ghost to gouer­ne the Church of God, to be double men, such as say one thing, and thinke an other? Why taught they so, but that the Churche should beleue so? If they would al men to beleue it, shal we say, they beleued it not them selues?

When M. Iewel minding to mainteine his Chalenge,A shifte deuised bi the schole of this nevve Gospel, a­gainst the manifold testimo­nies of the Fa­thers, for the Sacri­fice. had with him selfe considered this much, knowing right wel, as thereof he could not be ignorāt, how easy a thing it were for the Catholikes, to allege infinite places out of the olde learned Fathers for witnesse and proufe of their faith, and of the Churches faith cōcerning this Sacrifice: for some shew at least of a colorable answer to be made, he deuised this shift, or rather vseth a shift inuēted by the deuisers of this newe Gospel, in whose schoole he hath learned his newe diuinitie. As the Fathers (saith he) deli­ted themselues with the wordes, Sabbatum, Parasce [...]e, Pas­cha, Pentecoste, and other termes of the olde Lawe, notwith­standing the obseruation and Ceremonie thereof were then abolished: so they delited themselues oftetimes with these wordes, Sacerdos, Altare, Sacrificiū, Sacrificer, Aulter, Sacri­fice, notwithstāding the vse hereof were thē clearly expired.

This great mater is not so lightlye carried awaye M. Iewel. Although with force of your sworde, with your mattockes, and pickaxes, ye haue cut, hewed, and throwē downe al the holy Aulters of the Churches of Englande, [Page] and therefore of the Churches of Christe, haue made the Synagoges of Antichrist: yet with this sclender worde of yours, ye cā not bereue the whole Church of God, of the priesthod, of the Aulters, of the Sacrifice apperteining to the newe Testament.M. Ievvel maketh the Fa­thers to speak one thing, ād to meane an other. If there be no vse of Priestes, Aul­ters, and Sacrifice, is it to be thought, the olde learned Fa­thers hartes could serue them so oftētimes to speake, and write of thē, ād to deceiue the people cōmitted to their charge, for their delite and pleasures sake? Belōged it to their grauitie, holinesse, and loue of truth, to delite and solace them selues with falshod? to vse hypocrisie, and as it were legiérdemaine, by speaking one thing, ād meaning another? to serue Gods people with voide and empty words, as it were with pipt nuttes? Whiles they teach thē a doctrin of great importāce, to vse words that cōtein not the mater which their proper significatiō reporteth? This were crafty cifring, it were not right ād plaine teaching.

Verely we ought to iudge better of the holy Fathers, ād to thinke, that men endued with so great grace, swarued not frō the vpright cōscience, touching the vse of termes, which one of the best lerned of thē speaketh of. Whose words be these, wherby it appereth, how rightly, warely, ād circūspectly they vsed to speake.Aug. de Ciuit. Dei libr. 10. cap. 23. Vse a [...]d obserua­tiō of Sabbatū, Pas­cha, Al­tare etc [...] is double, olde, and nevve. Nobis ad certā regulā loqui fas est, ne verborū licētia etiā de rebꝰ, quae his significā ­tur, impiā gignat opinionē It is right (saith he) that we speak after a certain rule, least the ouermuch libertie of words ingēder an opiniō of the thīgs, which by thē be signified.

But for a ful answer to you M. Iewel, where as you af­firme the Obseruatiō and vse of that is signified by these wordes, Sabbatū, Parasceue, Pascha, Pētecoste, Sacerdos, Al­tare, Sacrificiū, to be vtterly abolished, and clearly expired in the newe Testamēt: you seme either of ignorance not [Page 9] to vnderstand, or of malice to dissēble, that the obserua­tion and vse of these things is of two sortes, old, and new, Legal, and Euangelical: Iewish, and Christian. The olde, Legal or Iewish Obseruation and vse of these, was clear­ly expired in right, by the comming of Christ, specially at what time hanging on the Crosse, and now geuing vp the ghoste,Ioan. 19. he said, Consummatum est, It is finished. The newe, Euangelical, and Christian obseruatiō and vse hereof, re­maineth in the Church, and shall remaine so long as the Church continueth. The Iewish Ceremonie of these is quite abolished, we graūt, neither be they now in Christs Catholike Church vsed, as the Iewes vsed them. But the faithful Christiās now kepe, vse, and celebrate their Sab­both, that is to say, their restingtide, their Parasceue, or preparingtide, cōmonly called Goodfriday, their Pascha, or Easter, their Pentecost, or Whitsontide, their Priest­hod, their Aulter, their Sacrifice, in 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 cederēt corpori, et cessarēt 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 [Page] 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 [Page 10] worlde,Optatus lib. 6. on which the members of Christ be susteined, and in which the body and bloude of Christe Per cer­t [...] momē ­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 solēne feast in remēbrance 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 frō death to life, and hath trāslated ād redemed vs frō death and hel, to be partakers of life, ād glorie euerlasting in his kingdō.

As the Iewes had their Pētecost, so we haue ours. For as when they were deliuered out of Egypte, the Lawe was geuē them in the Mount Sina vpon the Pentecoste,Exod. 20. that is to say, the fiftith day after that the Lambe had bē sacrificed:1. Cor. 5. So vpon the fiftith day after our Passeouer, in which the true Lābe of God was slaine, the holy Ghost came down vpō the Apostles,Act. 2. and the cōpanie of thē that beleued: which holy Ghost frō that day to the end of the world cōtinueth with the Church, ād worketh in the sonnes of God the performāce of Gods holy wil by loue ādMatt. 28. [Page] charitie, as the Lawe wrought it, or rather moued men to it by threates and terrour.

Leo Ser. 1. de Pente­coste.S [...] Leo speaking of this Feast, saith, Hodiernam solenni­tatem in praeci [...] festis esse [...]nd [...]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 nūber 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 cōtrarie: then are you a dānable 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 Sabbatū, 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 obseruatiō of the thinges by these ter­mes [Page 11] signified were quite abolished, whereas wordes and termes serue to thende 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. And so were they by the Fathers inuited either to returne againe to their olde Iewishnes and Paganisme, or at least to conceiue of their manner of speache, they knewe not what, those termes signifying nothing properly, that is extant, or put in practise.

This being supposed, whiche M. Iewel supposeth, that there is no real Priesthoode, no real Sacrifice, no real Aulter proper to the newe Testamente: againe this being graunted, as it is an vndoubted truth, that the Priesthoode, Sacrifice, and Aulters of the olde Lawe be abrogated, and those of the Heathens detested: what thing doth remaine for these termes properly in the newe Testamente to signifie? I say properly, For if any will replye, saying, that euery Christian man and woman is a Priest, and that contrition of harte, thankes geuing, praises, and such other the like be sacrifices, and our hartes be Aulters to offer these sacrifices vpō it may be answered, that these termes applied to such thinges, be not taken in their first and proper signification, but in a second and improper, or rather metaphorical mea­ning. And the thinges be so called more for a similitude, then for any proprietie.

[Page] That the terme Sa­cerdo [...], Priest, is vsed of the Fa­thers in proper significa­tion, for a Priest of the nevv Testamēt. August. de ciuit. Dei. lib. 20. ca. 10.If M. Iewel say, that when so euer the old learned Fa­thers speake of these thinges in expresse termes, they are to be vnderstanded metaphorically onely: he is sone cō ­futed. For auoiding tedious prolixitie, it may suffice here to proue the contrary in the terme Sacerdos, Priest, only. Which being proued, the like may be iudged of the rest, for the mutual respecte and relation, which either of the two other termes hath to the other, For this the au­thoritie of that excellent learned Father S. Augustine may stande vs in stede of many. Thus he saith. Quod autem cùm dixisset, In istis secunda mors non habet pote­statem, adiunxit, atque ait: Sed erunt Sacerdotes Dei & Christi, & regnabunt cum eo mille annis, non vtique de so­lis Episcopis, & Presbyteris dictum est, qui propriè iam vo­cantur in Ecclesia Sacerdotes: Apoc. 20. sed sicut omnes Christianos dicimus propter mysticum Chrisma, sic omnes Sacerdotes, quoniam membra sunt vnius sacerdotis. De quibus Apo­stolus Petrus, 1. Pet. 2. Plebs (inquit) sancta Regale Sacerdotium. As touching that when the Apostle had saied: In these the second death hath not power, he added and saied: But they shalbe the Priestes of God and Christe, and shal reigne with him a thousand yeres: that is not spoken of the Bis­shops and Priests, who properly are nowe called in the Churche Sacerdotes, Priestes: But as we doo cal al men, Christians, for the mystical ointement, likewise al men, Priestes, because they be members of one Priest. Of whome the Apostle S. Peter saith,Real Priesthod is in the Churche novv, er­go, real Sacrifice. a holy people, a kingly Priesthood.

Beholde Reader, S. Aug [...]stine by expresse terme auou­cheth, that Bishops and Priests are they, who be proper­ly now in the Church of God called Sacerdotes, Priestes, [Page 12] or as M. Iewel commonly for spite translateth, Sacrificers. Whereby it foloweth clearely, that the terme Priest, be­ing applied to al men and wemen, who be not by a so­lemne sacrament ordered, not specially called and cho­sen to the office of a Bishop, or Priest, is taken in an im­proper or mystical signification. In that S. Augustin ac­knowlegeth the order of those to remaine nowe in the Churche, which be called Sacerdotes, Priestes, proper­ly: he excludeth al metophorical, metonymical, and my­stical signification of the woorde. So then folowing the doctrine of S. Augustine, a very sufficient wit­nesse of the saith of Christes Church, of, and before his tyme, we may boldly say: that in the Churche we haue Priestes, and Priesthood, speaking properly, that is to say, a real Priesthoode, and therefore a real Sacrifice, which M. Iewel denieth.

This then being proued, that in the state of the newe Testamente there be Priestes in the proper signification of the terme beside that mystical signification, where­by al Christians be termed Priestes: this also is clearely prooued withal, that the other two termes, Sacrifice, and Aulter, properlye taken, muste remaine in the Churche of Christe, and not be construed, where so euer the Fathers make mention of them, by a me­taphorical or mystical vnderstanding, as though there were neither real Sacrifice, nor material Aulter. For a Priest properly taken, requireth a Sacrifice properly taken, whiche he may offer: and an Aulter properly taken, wherevppon he maye make his Sacrifice. Like as a Prieste metaphorically taken, requireth onely Sa­crifice, and Aulter of like signification.

[Page] Christian mē in ge­neral be Priests af­ter a me­taphori­cal mea­ning, not in proper speache, as like­vvise thei be Kings.That this mater be made more manifest, if it shal like thee Reader to returne againe to the place of S. Peter forementioned by S. Augustine, wherein al faithful bele­uers haue the name and title of Priestes ascribed vnto them: in the same sentence shalt thou finde them called Kinges, no lesse then Priestes. But how are they called Kinges? By a proper kinde of speache? Not so, but by a similitude, or Metaphore. And by the same kinde of speache euery Christian persons owne body and soule, may be called his kingdom appointed him of God king of kinges to gouerne. The iurisdiction and dominion of infinite such kinges, we conceiue to be bordered and inclosed within the narrow limites of eche one person, and the subiectes to be fewer then may make a perfite number. Shal we hereof inferre, that there is nothing els in the worlde, that these termes kinge and kingdom, may and do properly signifie? Shal we hereupon dissolue Monarchies, and plainely tell such whom the worlde calleth kinges, that they haue but the Metaphoricall name of kinges, and be no kinges in deede, bereuing them of all auctoritie to rule their Subiectes, and bid­ding them to be content, as other meaner persons are, with their Metaphorical kingdom?

In dede this were the rediest way to bring al to con­fusion, and beastly enormitie, in whiche state this new Gospel might sone be set vp, or any other religion be­sides that the holy Ghost hath plāted in the Church hi­therto. And this is that state, that Luthers holy sprite would haue brought Germany vnto, and had preuailed, had not the Nobilitie resisted with al their force, the rash and wiked stourdinesse of the vulgare people. We might [Page 13] say, and easy it were to proue, that the like confusion must ensue in the Church, if this opinion be once plan­ted, and rooted in the hartes of the Laitie, that ech of thē is as truly, and as properly a Priest, as is his Curate, his vi­car, his Person, or his Bishop. But bicause this perteineth not chiefly to the present purpose, I wil not stand about it. This which is now made euident by that is already saied, may boldly be auouched: That, as there be 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 [Page] 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 frō whēce I haue thus digressed.

If for the force of the former cōparison, M. Iewel wil cōfesse, that there be certaine special persons chosen and sent to beare in the congregatiō certaine offices, which euery man vpon the cōmission of their general Priesthod may not aduēture vpon without a special cōmission 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 cōfessing that such persons called to these special fun­ctions, were at the beginning, and may now also be cal­led Priests ād 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 thē, thē 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 significatiō is such, as may be applied as wel vnto Maiors of Cities, and temporal Iudges mini­string Iustice, as vnto those persons, that minister and dis­pēse the mysteries of God. But the terme Sacrificer doth properly extend only to those, who haue auctoritie to cō ­secrat the Body and Bloud of Christ, ād be by special vo­catiō ministers and dispensers of most holy things, which ministratiō ād dispēsatiō is to be foūd in the Church only.

[Page 14]To him that perhaps wil reply,VVhy S. Paule cal­leth them Priestes, rather then Sa [...]crificers. and demaunde, why then did S. Paule, as it were of purpose shūning 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 amōg the Iewes fresh in estimatiō, and stickte so in their cōscience, as they could not vpon the soudaine be remoued from the obser­uation of their accustomed Religiō, 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 cōtinually of the end of the old Law, ād of the ceassing ād abrogatiō of the Sacrifices: thought it cō ­uenient for a time to forbeare the name of Sacrificer, and to cal the spiritual officers, by the name of Priests ād Mi­nisters, least the Iewes hearing the termes of their owne Religiō, might falsly suppose, no differēce, or preeminēce to be betwen the office ād officers of the new, and their Religiō, that is to say, of the new, and old Testamēt. And this warenesse of speaking cōtinued vntil Ierusalē,After the destru­ction of Ierusalē, the olde terme Sacrificer, vvas re­sumed and vsed [...] and the Tēple 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 takē away. Frō thēce forth to this time, the learned Fa­thers haue cōmōly without feare or doubte, resumed the termes of Priesthod, and Sacrificers, and applied thē to the spiritual ministerie administers of the Church. This cause being knowen and wel weighed, bewrayeth M. Iewels ignorāce, or folie [...] affirmīg, the Fathers to haue vsed the termes Sacrifice, Sacrificer, ād Aulter for that the Iewes ād the Gētils eares were wel acquainted with these termes. Where as contrary wise the first Preachers of Christian Religion [Page] absteined from those woordes, bicause the same were vnto them vsual and familiar, least by the vse of thē, 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 forgottē. After which [Page 15] 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 vvri [...]ting to Sopater a Priest, calleth hī [...]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 Dorotheꝰ a [...]. Minister, or Deacon by interpretation of Pachymeres, To Polycarpus a [...]. Bisshop, To Iohn the Diuine, Apostle, and Euāgelist: 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 [Page] knowledge, and in the iudgemēt 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 cōmōly 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 strāge. S. Paul, S. Chrysostome, and Origē doe cal preaching a Sacrifice, [Page 16] 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 saluatiō stay­eth, were like to be remoued and displaced.

What a fond kind of arguing is this?The ab­surdity of M. Iewels argumēt. 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 argumēt may easily appeare in the like. As for example. Baptisme is somtime taken in the Scripture by a figuratiue speach, for tribulatiō and suffering of death, as when Christ said, Baptismo habeo baptizari, Luc. 21. et quomodo coartor, vsque dū per­ficiatur? I haue a Baptisme to be baptized withal, and how am I straighted, vntil it be accomplished? Ergo Baptisme hath no proper significatiō in the last chapter of S. Ma­thew, where Christ gaue cōmandemēt vnto his disciples,Mat. 28. saying, Go ye and teach al natiōs, 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 obseruāce 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 comō 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 [Page] 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 cōmonly 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 [Page 17] 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 [Page] 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 [Page 18] 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 [Page] 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 [Page 19] 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 [Page] 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 [Page 20] 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 [Page] 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 Sacri­fices of both testamentes is diuers.Secondly, touching the substance, it is diuers in the Sacrifices of both Testamentes. For the substance of the olde Sacrifices was a brute beaste, meale, cakes, oile, wine, and such the like. But the substance of our Sacri­fice nowe frequented in the newe Testament, is the [Page 21] Body and Bloud of Christ.Luc. 22. So both the Scripture tea­cheth, shewing how Christe hauing at his supper conse­crated his body and bloude, commaunded his disciples to doe the same that he had done in his remembrance, and S. Augustine declareth in these woordes.August. in lib. senten. Prosperi. Hoc est quod dicimus, quod modis omnibus approbare contendimus, Sacri­ficium Ecclesiae duobus confici, duobus constare, visibili elemē ­torum specie, & inuisibili Domini nostri Iesu Christi corpore & sanguine, & sacramento, & re Sacramenti. This is that we say, that by al meanes we ernestly endeuour to ap­proue, that the Sacrifice of the Churche is made of two thinges, and doth consiste of two thinges, of the visible forme of the Elementes, and of the inuisible body and bloude of our Lorde Iesus Christ, of the Sacrament, and of the thing of the Sacrament (that is to wit, of the body of Christe).

S. Ireneus agreably to this doctrine,Irene. lib. 4. ca. 34. saith, the Eucha­riste to consiste of two thinges, the one earthly, where­by he meaneth the forme of the elementes, the other heauenly, that is to say, the body and bloud of Christe.

Learne Reader by this doctrine of S. Augustine,The sub­stance of bread and vvine hath no place in our Sa­crifice. that the substance of bread and wine, which be called here the Elements, hath no place in our Sacrifice, which doth consist of two partes, the one visible, the other inuisible. The formes of the Elementes be the visible parte. As for the substance of bread and wine, it is vtterly inuisible. But the inuisible parte of the Sacrifice, is the body and Bloud of Christ. And therfore onlesse we appoint two inuisible partes of this Sacrifice, that is to say, the substance of bread and wine, and also the body and bloud of Christe, (which were absurde to thinke) it must nedes be con­fessed, [Page] that no place is here lefte for the substāce of bread and wine: but that the inuisible thing or substance of the Sacrament and likewise of the Sacrifice is the body and bloud of Christe. And thus it is euidēt, that the substance of the Sacrifices of the olde Law, and of the Sacrifices of the new Law is sundry and diuerse. Wherof it is conclu­ded, that it is either ignorātly and grossely, or heretically said if it be stubbornly mainteined, that our Sacrifice is one in substance with the Iewish Sacrifices.

The ef­fectes of the Sacri­fices of both Lawes be dif­ferēt and diuers.Now thirdly to speake of the effect of the Sacrifices of the olde Lawe, and of the Sacrifice of the Churche, wherein Christ is offered vp vnto his Father in a Sacra­ment and mystically, to wit vnder the forme of bread and wine: certaine it is, the effectes be diuers. To declare fully the manyfolde and heauenly effectes of our Sa­crifice, farre surmounting any effecte that euer was ascribed to the Sacrifices of the olde Lawe, it would require a long treatise. The difference of both may suf­ficiently appeare by comparing two or three of their ef­fectes together.

The bloude of the Sacrifices of the olde Lawe con­firmed the same Lawe. The bloude of our Sacrifice confirmeth the newe Testamente.Math. 26. Hic est Sanguis meus noui Testamenti, this is my bloude of the newe Testamente, saieth our Lorde in the Gospel. Howe much diuersitie then is betwene the newe Testament and the olde (which is incomparably great, the new Law passing in excellencie the olde) so much differeth, and so far surmounteth the effect of the Sacrifice of Christes Church, the effecte of the Sacrifices of the Iewish Syna­gogue.

[Page 22]Againe,August. de fide ad Petrum cap. 19. to vse your owne witnesse against your selfe, by reporte of Saint Augustine, the olde Sacri­fices signified in Figures Christes death to come, and to be suffered. But the Sacrifice of the Churche, re­presenteth with the real presence of that body which hath dyed, the death already past and perfited. And who knoweth not, what difference there is betwene a promise, and the performance of the promise? Perfor­mance I say, for although in our Sacrifice the death of Christe be not performed a new, and againe suffred: yet in the same is the truth of that very body inuisibly pre­sent, which by suffering death hath payd the price of our Redemption. In consideration whereof S. Augustine speaking of this Sacrifice offred vnto God for that blessed woman S. Monica his mother at her burial,Augustin. Confes. lib. 9. cap. 12. whereby he meaneth the Masse, calleth it Sacrificium pretij nostri, the Sacrifice of our Price, that is to say, wherewith our Raunsome was payd.

S. Ignatius ascribeth to our Sacrifice of a faithful per­son worthily receiued,Ignatius in epist. ad Ephesios. a maruelous effecte, calling it [...], a medicine of immortalitie, and a preseruatiue whereby we may be kepte from dying. Which maruelous benefite who e­uer attributed to the Sacrifices of the olde Lawe? O­ther the like effectes which the olde learned Fathers haue ascribed vnto the blessed Sacrifice, be many in number, and great in excellencie, of which the olde Sa­crifices were neuer hable to worke any. Wherefore you ought to recant this your false doctrine M. Iewel, that the Sacrifices of both Lawes be of one effecte, or which is the same, one in effecte.

[Page]No lesse false is that you affirme, that as we haue My­steries, so had they Mysteries, specially yf your worde of comparison imply a likenes and equalitie of Myste­ries, as the purport of your other doctrine leadeth vs to iudge of you. For although it be true, that they had Mysteries, and we also haue Mysteries: yet had not they the like Mysteries, nor equal in dignitie, truth, and plainesse, to our Mysteries and Sacramentes. Howe much ours are preferred before theirs in the iudgemente of S. Augustine,August. in Psal. 73. it is euident by that he saith speaking of bothe. Mutata sunt Sacramenta, facta sunt faciliora, pauciora, salubriora, feliciora. The Sacramentes (saith he) be chaunged, they be made easier, fewer, healthfuller, happier. And in the same place: Sacramenta noui Te­stamenti dant Salutem, sacramenta veteris Testamen­ti promiserunt Saluatorem. The Sacramentes of the newe Testamente geue saluation, the Sacramentes of the olde Testamente promised the Sauiour. Where­fore M. Iewel either make vs beleue, that you are to be heard before S. Augustine, and that better is worse, and worse better: or reuoke your woordes, by which you teache likenes and equalitie betwene the Mysteries and Sacramentes of both Testamentes.

M. Ievvel vtterly taketh a­vvay the real Sa­crifice of the nevv Testamēt.Where you say further, that as we Sacrifice Christe, so did they Sacrifice Christe: you vtterly take away the Real Sacrifice of the newe Testamente. Wherein being a very weighty pointe, you dissent from the Catholike Churche, for which you and your felowes be condēned of the Churche, and holden for Heretiks. This haue I a­uouched, and sufficiently proued in myne Aunswere to this. 17. Article of your Chalenge. What you reply [Page 23] against the same, here in the processe of this Reioindre by Gods grace I shal confute. To make your vntrue and heretical saying appeare the more tollerable to the vnlearned, you ioine vnto it a saying, that in a righte construction may be admitted. As the Lambe of God is slaine vnto vs (say you) so was the same Lambe of God slaine vnto them. In deede if you meane a newe actual sleying of Christ, who is the true Lambe of God, he is not now in the daily Sacrifice of the Church slaine, no more then he was slaine in the daily sacrifices, or in the yerely Passeouer of the Iewes. But for asmuch as in our daily Sacrifice we haue the true Body and Bloude of the Lambe of God,Ioan. 1. that taketh away the sinnes of the worlde, laid vpon the holy table (which is the Aul­ter) sacrificed of Priestes [...], as the Nicen Councel saith, that is to say, without killinge and bloudshed. In consideration hereof, you should not haue saied, as we sacrifice Christ, so did they sacrifice Christ. For though in our Sacrifice we sley not Christ, the true Lambe of God, as they slewe the Lambes, which prefigured Christ: yet so farre as that is true, which the Fathers of the Nicen Councel reporte, and as by vertue of Christes almighty wordes according to his commaundement and Institu­tion his Body and Bloud are consecrate, and really pre­sent: we offer vp Christe in deede vnto God in the Sa­crifice of the Church.

For proufe of the real presence, I referre the Reader, who vnderstandeth not the Latine tongue, to sundry learned workes written in the Englishe tongue in our time therof. In which he shal finde the mater so large­ly, so clearely, and so substantially proued, that he shal [Page] confesse he seeth the same, onlesse he wil as some doo, wilfully blindefolde him self, and say in midday, it is darke night. Forasmuch then as we sacrifice Christ truely, bicause we haue and offer vp in our sacrifice the truth of the body and Bloude of Christ in deede present by th'al­mighty power of his owne worde, after which sorte the Iewes had not Christ present: therefore it is not true that you say, that as we sacrifice Christe, so did they sacrifice Christe.

Diuer­site in the Sacra­mentes of both Lavves.Touching the comparison you make betwen the Sa­cramentes of both Lawes (for now soudeinly you chop from the Sacrifices into the Sacramentes) in expressing Christes death then to come, and nowe paste, where­by you go about to proue the equal valewe of both Sa­cramentes: notwithstanding that both do expresse or si­gnifie (though in diuers degree) the death of Christ, yet doth our Sacrament of the Aulter farre surmount theirs, bicause in ours is conteyned the very body and bloude of Christ, in theirs was nothing but a figure, in theirs the shadow, in ours the body.

The place you allege out of the booke de vtilitate Poenitentiae, that you attribute to S. Augustine contrary to the censure of Erasmus, serueth you to no purpose. We agree vnto it no lesse then your selfe. In that place the authour speaketh of the spiritual meate, which the Iewes did eate, the same as we do. And that meate he wil both to be Christ, teaching how they did eate Christe,Aug. de Vtilitate Poeniten­tiae. whom we do eate. The whole processe there is to be vnderstanded of the spiritual eatinge, for so he saieth. Quicunque in Manna Christum intellexe­runt, eundem quem nos cibum spiritalem manducauerunt. [Page 24] Quicunque autem de Manna solam saturitatem quaesie­runt, patres infidelium, manducauerunt & mortui sunt. Sic etiam eundem potum: Petra enim Christus. Eundem ergo potum, sed spiritalem, id est, qui fide capiebatur, non qui corpore hauriebatur. Who so euer in the Manna vnder­stoode Christe, they did eate the same spiritual meate that we eate. But who so euer sought onely to fil their bellies by eating Manna, being the Fathers of the vn­faithful, they did eate, and dyed. So likewise they dranke the same drinke. For the Rocke was Christe. And therefore the same drinke which we drinke, they dranke, but spiritual, that is to say, whiche was re­ceiued by faith, not that whiche was taken in by the body.

Now what though Christe, whome both the Iewes and we do eate spiritually, be one spiritual meate, one Christe, and likewise one spiritual drinke, as he is eaten and dronken with spiritual eating and drinking? Shal that therefore whiche, we receiue in our Sacrament by sacramental eating and drinking vnder the formes of bread and wine, be no better, then that which they did eate and drinke in the ceremonie of their Sacramentes? Christe that was to come, and Christ that now is come, is one Christe, thereof who doubteth? And though the wordes shal come, and is come, be sundry, yet Christe is one, Christe is not sundred with diuision of times.

And this is al that the auctour meant, wherein lyeth no controuersie betwixte vs. But that you woulde proue, and can not proue, and we vtterly denye, is this, that the thing and substance of the Sacramentes of [Page] both Lawes be not sundry, but one and the same, and of equal worthines. We receiue Christ both sacramen­tally, to wit, his true and real body and bloude in the Sacrament of the Aulter vnder the formes of bread and wine, and also spiritually, that is to say, by faith. They re­ceiued him only spiritually, bicause in Manna they vn­derstode Christ. The like is to be sayd of the water, that flowed out of the Rocke which they dranke, in compa­rison of the very bloude of Christe, which we drinke, not onely spiritually, but also sacramentally, and in deede vnder the forme of wine mingled with water, which bloude is the true water of life, the same that issued out of our Lordes body the true Rocke, after it was striken with the Rodde,Exod. 15. Aug. Tra­ctatu de vtilitate Poeniten­tiae. that is to say, after that the Crosse came vnto it. For in figure thereof the olde Rocke was stri­ken with woodde, and not with Iron, quia Crux ad Chri­stum accessit, vt nobis gratiam propinaret, bicause the Crosse came vnto Christ, that it might Propi­naret. brince his grace vnto vs, as saith S. Augustine, or who so euer was the au­thor of that booke.

The other place that you pretende to allege out of S. Augustine,M. Ievv. forgeth sayinges of his ovvn, fa­thering them v­pon the Doctours In Iohannem Tractat. 26. is soone answered: where so euer it be, it is not there. Thus to forge say­inges of your owne, and to beare your Reader in hande, it is S. Augustines, or any other learned Fathers, is a very false parte, and such as must nedes much discredit you, when it is detected against you. And yet by such false: dealing you, and your felowes haue begyled many vn­learned and vnstable soules. How be it if it were S. Au­gustines, or any other auncient Doctours saying, it for­ced nothing. For true it is, the signes or sacramentes of [Page 25] the newe Testament, be diuerse from the sacramentes of the olde Testament: the faith notwithstandinge is not changed, bicause Christ signified by the signes or sacra­mentes of both, being that which faith reacheth vnto, remaineth one and the same. Let vs see whether your other stuffe be any better.

Iewel.

But here hath M. Hardinge donne greatte, and open vvronge vnto S. Augustine, vvilfully suppressing, and drovvning his vvoordes, and vncour­teousely commaunding him to silence in the middest of his tale. VVherein also appeareth some suspicion of no simple dealing. S. Augustines vvoordes touchinge this vvhole mater, Aug. De Fide ad Petrum Diacon. cap. 19. are these: In illis carnalibus Victimis Fi­guratio fuit Carnis Christi, quam pro nobis fuerat oblaturus, & Sanguinis, quem erat effusurus in Remissionem peccatorum: In isto autem Sacrificio Gratiarum actio est, & Commemoratio Carnis Christi, quam pro nobis obtulit, & Sanguinis, quem pro nobis idem Deus effudit. In illis Sacrificijs, quid nobis esset do­nandum, Figurate significabatur: In hoc autem Sacrificio, quid nobis iam donatum sit, euidenter oftenditur. In illis Sacrificijs praenunciabatur Filius Dei pro impijs occidendus: in hoc autem, pro impijs annuntiatur occisus. In those Fleashly Sacrifices (of the Ievves) there was a Figure of the Fleashe of Christ, whiche he woulde afterwarde offer for vs, and of the Bloude, whiche he would afterwarde shead for the Remission of Sinne: But in this Sacrifice (of the nevve Testament) there is a Thankesgeuinge, and a Remembrance of the Fleashe, which he hath already offered for vs, and of the Bloud, which he being God, hath already shead for vs. In those Sacrifices it was represented vnto vs vnder a Fi­gure, what thing should be geuen vnto vs: But in this Sac [...]ifice it is plainely set foorth, what thing is already geuen vs. In those Sa­crifices it was declared, that the Sonne of God should be slaine for the wicked: But in this Sacrifice it is plainely preached vnto vs, that the same Sonne of God hath already benne slaine for the wicked.

[Page] Likevvise againe be saith: Huius Sacrificij Caro, & Sanguis ante Aduentum Christi per Victimas Similitudinum promittebatur:Aug. Con­trae Fau­stum. lib. 20. ca. 21. in Passione per ipsam Veritatem reddebatur: Post Ascensum ve­rò Christi per Sacramentum Memoriae celebratur. The fleashe, and Bloude of this Sacrifice, before the comming of Christ, was promised by Sacrifices of Resemblance: The same in his Passion (vpon the Crosse) was geuen in Truth, and in deede: But after his Ascension it is solemnized by a Sacramente of Remembrance.

This is the Difference that S. Augustine noteth bitvvene the Sacramētes of the Olde Lavve, and the Sacramentes of the Nevve. Therefore, the vvoordes, that M. Harding hath herevnto added, Christe is offered vp vnto his Father, and that vnder the Formes of Bread, and VVine, yea and that truely, and in deede, are his ovvne onely vvoordes, confi­dently, and boldely presumed of him selfe, neuer vsed, neither by S. Augu­stine, nor by any other Ancient godly Father.

Harding.

Ful euil doth it become you to charge me with wrong done vnto S. Augustine, wheras in the very next sen­tence before, your self did him so much wrong, as to fa­ther a saying vpon him in that place, where he hath none such at al. If he be to be burthened with doing wrong vnto the Doctours, that in alleging their sayinges doth not with al circumstances of the place that serueth to the present purpose set them forth: then is there no man so much to be reproued, as your selfe M. Iewel. For of al that euer wrote, we finde none, that so much, and with like falshode, and to so euil meaning, cutteth, pa­reth, and nippeth their sentences, as you commonly doo. Truly in laying this to my charge, you haue not so clear­ly proued me to haue donne wrong vnto S. Augustine: as you haue with the scornful vtterance of your wordes declared your owne spite.

[Page 26]Concerning the thing it selfe, I haue donne S. Augu­stine no wrong at al. For what needed me to reherse his whole processe to the ende of the Chapter?M. Iewels charge dischar­ged. I recited faithfully so muche as apperteined to the proufe of the mater for which I alleged his authoritie. The sentence that foloweth belongeth to an other mater, whereby is declared (which no catholike man euer denied) that the Sacrifice of the newe Testament is a thankes geuing, and a commemoration of Christes flesh and bloude, which he hath offered for vs. But that member of the diuision, which I went about to establish by S. Augustines autho­ritie, speaketh onely of the Sacrifices of the olde Lawe, that they prefigured the flesh of Christ, which he would afterward offer, and the bloude, that he would shed for remission of sinnes. If I had rehersed al that you blame me for leauing it out, I had but made the booke bigger, and wearied the reader with a long superfluous saying, superfluous I say, bicause the same was in effect vttered in the next sentence before, taken out also of the same S. Augustine. For al that you force out of the longe pro­cesse there folowing, is only the cōmemoration of Chri­stes flesh and bloud offred and shed, which (though in fewer wordes) was expressed in the former sentence out of the bookes against Faustus the Manichey, as the rea­der by conference may sone perceiue.

The place of S. Augustine, for leauing out whereof you so much reproue me, and wherein you repose the cōfidence of your doctrin, helpeth you nothing at al. For there he saith, not what is the substance of our Sacrifice, wherein lyeth the questiō: but what thing is done in our Sacrifice, to wit, geuing of thankes, and the cōmemoratiō [Page] of our Lordes flesh and bloude, which he offred and shed for vs, and likewise what thing is shewed and declared in the same, that is to say, his death and passion. Al which we denye not. But that S. Augustine ascribing vnto the Sacrifice of the Church thankes geuing, and commemo­ration of the flesh and bloude of Christ, doth exclude the real Sacrifice of his fleshe and bloude, by vertue of his woorde through the holy Ghost made substantially pre­sent: that we denie vtterly. And that was your parte to proue, els you proue nothing againste the auncient do­ctrine of the Church.

M. Ievvel citeth one truth against an other truth.But seing your selfe not hable to performe so muche, you thought it an easier mater, after your common woonte, to set one truth against an other truth, to wit, the commemoration or memorie of the bloudy Sacrifice of the 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.

[Page 27]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 fore­signified 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 [Page] 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 [Page 28] 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.

[Page]YOu finde great fault with that I said, Christe is of­fred vp vnto his Father vnder the formes of breade and wine, truly, and in dede: and to make it seme more odious, you affirme these to be myne own only words, confidently, and boldely presumed of my selfe, neuer vsed be­fore by any auncient Father. Whiles you take delite in such Rhetorical amplifications, you do but increase the num­ber of your vntruthes, and make the worlde witnesse of your shamelesse vanitie. Though the auncient Fathers that wrote within in the first six hundred yeres after Christe, haue not these precise termes, yet they haue the self same doctrin: and that is ynough. Your Sacramētarie heresie is not so auncient, the Churche was, as it were in quiet possession of the Catholike faith touching this Ar­ticle, for the space of a thousand yeres. If the flames of your heresie had flashed abroad out of Hel in their daies, there is no doubte, they would haue quenched it with streames of holesom doctrine vttered in the same ter­mes, whereof nowe you would faine take some aduaun­tage.

These termes, Christ is offered vp to his Father vnder the formes of bread and wine truely and in dede, proued not to be of my pri­uate deuise.

HOw so euer it be concerning the auncient Fathers, certaine it is these termes be not of my onely pre­sumption, or deuising. It is wel knowen to al that reade the later Councels both general, and prouincial, the Scholastical Doctours, and who so euer haue writ­ten [Page 29] against Berengarius, Wikleff, Luther, Zuinglius, Oecolampadius, Caluine, and those other late false tea­chers: that these be not wordes of mine owne inuenti­on, but common to others that haue written in this ma­ter sithens your Heresie first sprang. Christe is in the Sacrifice of the Churche so offered, as he is present: for there he is made present by vertue of consecration to be offered, and to be receiued. But he is present vnder the formes of Breade and Wine, and that truely, and in deede. Ergo he is offered vnder the formes of Breade and Wine, truly, and in deede. For proufe of the Minor, or second Proposition, for els nothing here I suppose you wil denie: that it may appeare these wor­des not to be of myne owne onely deuising, let a fewe testimonies suffice, where many might easily be brought.

In the great Councel of Laterane thus you finde this Article set forth.In Actis Conc. Lateran. cap. 1. de fid. Cat. Verum Christi corpus, & sanguis in Sacramento Altaris sub speciebus panis & vini veraciter continentur, transubstantiatis pane in corpus, & vino in sanguinem potestate Diuina. The true Body of Christe, and his Bloude are conteined truely and in deede (for so much the worde veraciter doth signifie) in the Sacra­ment of the Aulter, vnder the formes of breade and wine, the breade being transubstantiate into the body, and the wine into the bloude, by the power of God.

The Councel of Florence, whereat accorde was made betwene the Greke and Latine Churche, hath the very like,In Decret. Con. Flor. super vnio. Iacobin. & Armenior. or rather the same wordes touching the point by you denied. Sacerdos in persona Christi loque [...]is, hoc con­ficit Sacramētum. Nam ipsorum verborum virtute substan­tia panis in corpus Christi, & substantia vini in sanguinem [Page] conuertuntur, ita tamen qoòd totus Christus continetur sub specie panis, & totus sub specie vini, sub qualibet quoque par­te hostiae consecratae, & vini cōsecrati, separatione facta totus est Christus. The Priest speaking in the person of Christe, cōsecrateth this Sacrament. For by the vertue of the ve­ry wordes the substance of bread is turned into the body of Christe, and the substance of wine into his bloude, yet so that Christ is conteined whole vnder the forme of bread, and whole vnder the forme of wine. Also if a diuision be made [...] Christe is whole vnder euery parte of the consecrate hoste, and of the consecrate wine.

With this agreeth the late learned Councel of Trent, whose wordes these be touching both the real presence,Concil. Trident. Sess. 22. cap. 1. and also the real Sacrifice. Christus in coena nouissima sa­cerdotem secundùm ordinem Melchisedech se in aeternum constitutum declarans, corpus & sanguinem suum sub specie­bus panis & vini Deo Patri obtulit, ac sub earundem rerum symbolis, Apostolis, quos tunc noui testamenti Sacerdotes cō ­stituebat, vt sumerent, tradidit, & eisdem, eorū (que) in sacerdo­tio successoribus, vt offerrent, praecepit per haec verba: Hoc fa­cite in meā cōmemorationem. Christe in his last supper de­claring him selfe to be ordeined a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech, offered vp vnto God the Fa­ther his body and bloud vnder the formes of bread and wine, and deliuered them vnder the signes of the same thinges vnto the Apostles, whom then he ordeined Priestes of the newe Testament, that they should re­ceine: and gaue commaundement to them, and to their successours in Priesthode, that they should offer the [...]ame, by these wordes, Doo ye this in my remembrance.

[Page 30] Petrus Lombardus saith,Sentent. lib 4. Di­stinct. 8. Sub specie panis & vini, corpus & sanguinem suum discipulis tradidit. Christe gaue his body and his bloude vnto his Disciples vnder the forme of breade and wine.

S. Thomas also,In tertiae parte Sū ­mae. quae­stione. 75. whom onely I allege among so many Scholastical Doctours, saith most plainely. Quia non est consuetum hominibus, sed horribile, carnem homi­nis comedere, & sanguinem bibere: proponuntur nobis ca­ro & sanguis Christi sumenda sub speciebus illorum, quae fre­quentius in vsum hominis veniunt, scilicet panis & vini. Bicause it is not a thing customable for men, but a horri­ble thing, to eate mans flesh, and drinke mans bloude: the flesh and bloude of Christe are set before vs to be recei­ued vnder the formes of those thinges, which man is cō ­monly vsed vnto, to wit, of bread and wine.

There was no neede why I should recite so ma­ny testimonies for a thing so cleare,An impu­dent lye that can not be excused. and so wel kno­wen, I graunt. Yet bicause you are either so ignorant, which I beleue not, or so shamelesse, which semeth, as to say, these woordes, Christe is offred vp vnto his Fa­ther vnder the formes of bread and wine, truly, and in deede, to be my woordes onely, confidently, and bold­ly presumed of my selfe, as though I were the first that deuised them of mine owne head, and the first that pre­sumed to vse them: I thought good to reherse so much, to thintent I might cleare my selfe of such presumption, and geue the worlde to vnderstand, how litle you re­gard to vse manifest and impudent lying for mainte­nance of your doctrine, rather then you would seme to be ouercome. It is a token ye care litle what ye say, when ye feare not to vtter so open vntruth.

[Page]If for this point you require testimonies of auncient Fathers, whom you pretende to alowe: as the same do­ctrine is by them most assuredly auouched, whiche is ynough, as I said before: so some of them haue vtte­red it either with the same wordes, or with the very like, and such, as in signification are equiualent. S. Hilary saith,Hilar. de Trinit. lib. 8. Nos verè sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus. We receiue the flesh of his body vnder a mysterie truly, or verily.

Augu. ad Bonifaciū Epist. 23.S. Augustine saith, Nonne semel oblatus est Christus in semetipso? Et tamen in Sacramēto non solùm per omnes Paschae solennitates, sed omni die populis immolatur. Was not Christe once offered vp in him selfe? And yet ne­uerthelesse he is sacrificed in a Sacrament for the peo­ple, not only through al the solemne feastes of Easter, but also euery day. Here you must either graunt, that the fleshe of Christes body to be receiued of vs in, or vn­der a mysterie, and Christe him selfe to be sacrificed in a sacrament, doth importe his fleshe to be eaten, and him to be sacrificed vnder the formes of bread and wine, which be our Sacrament, and the eating of Christes body vnder the which, is an eating mystical, or ea­ting vnder a mysterie: or els you must shewe vs some other mater, wherein as vnder a mysterie, and as in a Sacramente, his body is eaten, and him selfe is of­fered.

De consec. Distinct. 2. Hoc est quod dici­mus.But there is an other more manifest place in S. Au­gustine, where he vseth the very same termes and wor­des, that you would nedes to be myne only, and of my selfe boldely and confidently presumed. His woordes be these. Caro eius est, quam forma panis opertam in Sa [...] ­cramento [Page 31] accipimus, & sanguis eius, quem sub vini specie & sapore potamus. It is the flesh of Christe, which we re­ceiue couered with the forme of bread in the Sacramēt, and his bloude, which we drinke vnder the shewe and taste of wine.

You see then M. Iewel [...] these wordes be not onely myne, they be S. Augustines, whose auctoritie you can not contemne. Neither can you reasonably reiecte the booke out of which they be taken, bicause your selfe e­uen in this very place haue alleged it for your helpe. If, as he saith, we eate the flesh of Christe couered with the forme of bread, then so is he also offred. For before it be receiued of vs, it behoueth it be cōsecrate and offred. Therfore it is true which I said, Christ is offered in forme of bread: onlesse you make a differēce betwen Christes flesh and bloud in formes of bread and wine, and Christes flesh and bloude coouered with the formes of bread and wine.

This is so plaine, that you must needes yeelde vnto it. As for the answer you make to this place alleged by me in the .12. Article,In the Re­plie [...] Page. 471. lin. 6. it is such, as any man that kno­weth your Diuinitie, would sone iudge it to be a peece of your owne coyning. The whole is fooiled and gla­fed ouer with a false colour of a phrase of speache. As though wordes in al phrases were taken in one and the selfe same [...]ignification. Your aunswer is this. Bi­cause this worde Forma, forme or shape in English, doth signifie the substance in S. Paule,Phill. 2. where he saith, Chri­stus seipsum exinaniuit formam serui accipiens, Christe empted him selfe taking the forme of a seruaunt: there­fore it must signifie the substance in this place of S. Au­gustine, [Page] Caro Christi est, quam forma panis opertam accipi­mus, It is Christes flesh, that we receiue coouered with the forme of bread.

M. Iewels ignorance or malice.In this answer you considered not, first that a thing can not in proper speache be said to be coouered with the substance of an other thing, bicause the substance of thinges is inuisible. Next, that in some places this worde Forma, [...], forma. or [...], which S. Paule in that place vseth, is an Accident, and a mere qualitie, as in Aristo­tle, in quarta specie Qualitatis, and is not alwaies taken for the name of nature, as it is taken of Aristotle, in 2. Physicorum. Againe you looked not vnto the later parte of S. Augustines sentence, where it is likewise of the bloud said, Sanguis est, quem sub vini specie & sa­pore potamus. It is bloude, that vnder the shew and sa­uour of wine we drinke. By these wordes, shew and sauour, the accidentes of wine, and not the substance must needes be vnderstanded. By conference of which two membres of one sentence together, you should haue perceiued, that S. Augustine speaking of Christes flesh, meant by the worde, Forma, the same that he meant by the other wordes, species, and sapor, where he spake of the bloude. If then we drinke the bloude of Christe vnder the accidententes of wine, then it is a true construction to say, that we receiue his flesh coouered with the forme, that is to say, with the shew and outward shape (which is an Accident) of bread.

operta.As for the worde, operta, which [...]ignifieth coouered, in the same place you make much a doo, and rake to­gether out of your Notebookes a heape of phrases and wordes, by which, lying priuy, hyding, coouering, [Page 32] keeping priuy, representation, resemblance, and any the like thing is signified: And al to an heretical pur­pose, to exclude the true presence of Chistes body and bloude out of the blessed Sacrament, and to leaue no­thing in it but a bare signification. And there in the ende you shutte vp the mater with a false caste of le­gierdemaine, falsifiyng a testimonie of S. Augustine. For whereas S. Augustine saith, In veteri Testamento occultabatur nouum, August. de Baptis. cōt. Dona tist. lib. 1. ca. 15 quia occultè significabatur: The newe Testament was hidden in the olde Testament, bicause it was secretely signified: you haue chaunged S. Au­gustines worde, quia, into id est, and say, that he ex­poundeth him selfe, M. Iewel falsifieth S. Austine, changing quia, into id est. occultabatur, id est, occultè significa­batur, It was hidden, that is to say, it was secretely signi­fied. And therefore you would haue the place which I alleged out of S. Angustine, thus to be expounded and vnderstanded, Caro Christi operta, id est, occultè si­gnificata: Christes flesh is priuily hidden, that is to say, is priuily signified, whereby you would exclude the real presence.

And this you call S. Augustines exposition, as though S. Augustine had euer said so, or meant so, and as though operta had in the place I alleged, bene put alone without an Ablatiue case, as the verbe, occulta­batur, is in the other sentence. Nowe the true woor­des of S. Augustine be these. Caro eius est, quam for­ma panis opertam in Sacramento accipimus. It is his flesh, which being coouered with the forme of bread in the Sacrament, we receiue.

And if you would needes haue these wordes, Forma panis opertam, to be expounded by Forma panis occultè [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [Page] significatam (though you haue no warrant for it) that we vnderstand the flesh of Christe coouered with the forme of breade, to be as much as if we said it to be se­cretely signified by the forme of bread, wherein there is no great cause why we should much contend with you: what can you thereof substantially conclude against the real presence? Wil you make this wise argument, The forme or shape of breade signifieth the body of Christ, Ergo, the body of Christ is not in deede present? If you reason so, the Baker must haue you to schole, who she­wing you a loafe set vpon his stal, can tel you, that that loafe signifieth breade to be in his howse to be solde,One truth put avvay by an other. and yet that the same loafe also is breade, whiche I tolde you before. And yet this is al the issue of your wrested interpretations, and heaped phrases. Once leaue your bad shifte of putting away one truth by an other truth. Howe oftentimes muste we tel you, the formes of bread and wine do signifie the body and bloud of Christ present, not absent?

Againe if for proufe that these wordes, which re­porte Christe to be present in the blessed Sacrament of the Aulter, or to be offered in the Sacrifice of the Aul­ter vnder the formes of bread and wine, be not onely my wordes, I should here also allege the place of Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus, which I alleged in my Answer to the tenth Article of your Chalenge: what could you rea­sonably replye to the contrary? That auncient Father saith thus, vsing the verie termes of the Scholastical Doctours.Cyril. Hie­rosol. Ca­techisi. Mystagog. Christe once chaunged water into wine, which is nye vnto bloude, in Chana of Galiley by his onely wil: and shal not he be worthy to be beleued of vs, that (at [Page 33] his last supper) he chaunged wine into bloude? For if being bidden to a corporal wedding he wrought a woonderous mi­racle, shal we not much more confesse, that he gaue his body and bloude vnto the children of the Spouse? Wherefore with al assurednesse let vs receiue the body and bloud of Christe. (Hitherto reason mouing credit, now folow the wordes that are specially to be noted. [...]) Nam sub specie panis da­tur tibi corpus, & sub specie vini datur sanguis, vt sump­to corpore & sanguine Christi, efficiaris ei comparticeps cor­poris & sanguinis. For vnder the forme (shape, shew or fi­gure) of bread the body (of Christe) is geuen vnto thee, and vnder the shape of wine his bloud is geuen, that hauing re­ceiued the body and bloud of Christe, thou maist be made cō ­partener with him of his body and bloude. Here haue you the expresse wordes, teaching vs the body of Christe to be present in the Sacramēt vnder the forme of bread, and his bloude vnder the forme of wine, which you report to be wordes of myne owne only inuention, neuer vsed by any auncient Father before my tyme.

Where you go about to answer to this place of S. Cy­rillus in the tenth Article of your Replie, to thintent the body and bloud of Christ might not be beleued to be real­ly present in the blessed Sacramēt: I wish that al men saw both your weakenes, and also your falshod. You confesse this lerned Fathers wordes touching this point of the real presence,Vvorde [...] in M. Iewels iudgemēt quicke and vio­lent. to be quicke and violent. Whereby vnwares as it semeth, you confesse him therein to be cleare, and re­solute, as he is in dede. To say truly, violent he is not, but a plaine reporter of the truth. But in dede he is to quicke, for dul heretikes, that beleue their carnal senses, rather then Christes owne most plaine wordes.

[Page] In the tenth Ar­ticle of [...]he Re­plie. page 432. Yet he him self in plainest wise (say you) openeth, and clea­reth his owne meaning. Truth it is, he doth so, as euery one that readeth the place, as the Author reporteth it, not as you haue falsified him, may easily iudge. Now bicause e­uery man hath not the booke of Cyrillus, nor the booke of your Replie at hande, for truthes sake, and that your impudent falshod may appeare: it shal be to good purpose, to lay here before the Reader, what you make that holy and auncient Father to say, and what he saith him selfe. Thus then say you falsly.

M. Ievvel falsifieth S. Cyril­lus Hiero solym. Cateches. Mystago­gica. 4. For thus he writeth [...] Ne consideres, tanquam panem nudū: Panis Eucharistiae non est amplius panis simplex, & nudus. Consider not, as if it were bare bread: The bread of the Sa­crament is no lenger bare and simple breade. Which wordes are naturally resolued thus. It is bread, how be it not only bare bread: but bread, and some other thing elles beside. And there after a few wordes you conclude thus. Of these wordes of Cyrillus we may wel reason thus by the way. The Sacrament is not only [...] or bare bread: therefore it is bread, albeit not only bare bread. And thus the same Cyrillus, that is brought to testi [...]ie, that there remaineth no bread in the Sacrament, te­stifieth most plainely to the contrary, that there is bread re­maining in the Sacrament.

Ca [...]echo. Myst. 4.On the other side, S. Cyrillus truly alleged saith thus. Ne consideres tanquàm panem nudum, & vinum nudum: corpus enim est, & sanguis Christi, secundùm ipsius Do­mini verba. Quamuis enim sensus hoc tibi suggesserit, tamen fides te confirmet, ne ex gusturem iudices, quin potius ha­beas ex fide pro certissimo, ita vt nulla subeat dubitatio, esse ti­bi donata corpus & sanguinem. Doo not consider it as bare breade, and bare wine: for it is the body and bloude of [Page 34] Christe, according vnto the wordes of our Lorde him selfe. For although thy sense make that suggestion vnto thee, yet let faith strengthen thee, that thou iudge not the thing by thy taste, but rather that of thy faith thou hold it as a most certaintie, so as thou be void of al doubt, that the body and bloud are geuen to thee.

These wordes being truly alleged, doo clearely open the meaning of Cyrillus. Your false forgeries and cor­ruptions doo vndoubtedly declare, that you seeke not the truth, but intende deceit. False doctrine must be mainteined, by false meanes. If you had meant good faith and truth, you would truly and faithfully haue reci­ted that holy Fathers woordes without such mangling and chaunging. Now to vse your owne Rhetorike, you haue done him great and open wrong, wilfully suppres­sing and drowning his wordes, and vncourteously com­maunding him to silence in the middest of his tale. Why did you not consider the force of his counsel, which is, that a Christen man regarde not the suggestion of his senses, but stay him selfe vpon his faith, not iudging of this high Mysterie, what the sense of sight or tast geueth, but with a simple faith beleuing the wordes that Christ spake.

In al S. Cyrillus you find not this order of wordes, Pa­nis Eucharistiae non est amplius panis simplex & nudus, The bread of the Sacrament is no lenger bare and simple breade, as you turne it, and ascribe it vnto S. Cyrillus. By occasion of which wordes you tel vs of your natural resolution, and beare vs in hande, it is bread, how be it not only or bare bread. Which is no natural resolution gathe­red of S. Cyrillus wordes, but a crafty collusion wroong [Page] out of your owne forged woordes to enuegle the igno­rant.

Now S. Cyrillus wordes be these, not in the fourth Ca­techesis, as you haue quoted your booke, but in the third, where he speaketh of the holy Oile. Quemadmodū (saith he) Panis Eucharistiae, In cate­ches. 3. My stigogica. post sancti spiritus inuocationem, non amplius est panis communis, sed est corpus Christi: sic & san­ctum hoc vnguentum, non amplius est vnguentum nudum, neque (si ita quis appellare malit) commune, post quàm 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. Cyrillꝰ, as you of purpose haue falsified him. Mary speaking of the holy Oile, whose substāce is not changed into an o­ther substāce, and remaineth Oile stil after it is cōsecrate, he saith, it is no lenger after consecration bare Oile. But of the breade he saith that after consecration it is not cō ­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. [...]ewels [...]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, [Page 35] 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 i [...] 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 [Page] 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 [...]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 [Page 36] fault or ouersight you finde in my Answer. Thus it folo­weth in your Replie.

Iewel.

But vvhere as he addeth further, That Christ is in deede, and ve­rily offered by the Priest; al be it, as he saith, not in respecte of the manner of offeringe, but onely in respecte of the presence of his Bodie, Either he vnderstandeth not, vvhat him selfe meaneth: or els vvith a vaine distinction of cloudie vvoordes vvithout sense, he laboureth to dasle his Readers eies. For vvhat a fantasie is this, to saie, Christ is of­fred Verily, and in deede, and yet not in Respecte of the Manner of offe­ringe? VVhat Respecte? VVhat Manner is this? VVherefore comme these blinde Mysteries abroade vvithout a glose? VVhiche of al the Olde Do­ctours, or holy Fathers euer taught vs thus to speake? Certainely, as he saith, Christ is Really offered, and yet not in Respect of the Man­ner of Offering: So maie he also saie, Christ died vpon the Crosse, and yet not in Respect of the manner of dieinge. By suche manners, and suche Respectes he maie make of Christian Religion, vvhat him li­steth.

Yf he thinke, Conc. Nic. [...] somevvhat to shadovve the mater vvith these vvoordes of the Councel of Nice, Sine Sacrificio Oblatus, Let him consider a fore hande, it vvil not healpe him. For the holie Fathers in that Councel neither saie, that Christ is Reallie Offered by the Prieste, nor seeme to vn­derstande these strange Respectes, Contra Faustum lib. 20. ca. 21. Chrys. in Epist. ad Hebrae. homil. 17. and Manners of Offeringe. They agree fullie in sense vvith that is before alleged of S. Augustine: In this Sacri­fice the Death of Christe is solemnized by a Sacramente of Re­membrance: And vvith that S. Chrysostome saith, Hoc Sacrificium, Exemplarillius est: This Sacrifice, is an Example of that Sacrifice. Thus the Death of Christe is renued before our eies. Yet Christe in deede neither is Crucified, nor dieth, nor sheaddeth his bloude, nor is Substantiallie Presente, August. De Ciuit. Dei. lib. 10 cap. 5. nor Reallie Offered by the Prieste. In this sorte the Councel saith, Christ is offered, [...] without Sacrifice. So Saint Augustine saithe, Quod ab omnibus appellatur Sacrifi­cium, Signum est Veri Sacrificij: The thinge, that of al menne is called a Sacrifice, is a Token, or a Signe of the True [Page] Sacrifice, Likevvise againe he saith, Vocatur ipsa Immolatio, quae Sacerdotis manibus fit,De Conse. Dis. 2. Hoc est. Christi Passio, Mors, Crucifixio, non rei veritate, sed Significante Mysterio. The Sacrifice, that is wrought by the handes of the Priest, is called the Passion, the Death, the Crucifieinge of Christ: not in deede, but by a Mysterie Signi­fieinge.

And vvhere as M. Hardinge saith further, Christ is offered onely in respecte of the presence of his Bodie, Neither vvould the Real Presence, beinge graunted, importe the Sacrifice (for Christ vvas Really Presente in his Mothers VVombe, and in the Cribbe, vvhere notvvith­standing he vvas no Sacrifice) nor hath M. Harding hitherto any vvaie prooued his Real Presence.

Hardinge.

That the Sacrifice of the Aulter, is a true and real Sa­crifice.The witnesse which I alleged out of the Nicen Coun­cel doth declare sufficiētly, what I meant by saying, that Christ is sacrificed in the daily Sacrifice of the Church truly, and in deede, not in respecte of the manner of offe­ring, but in respect of his very body and bloude, really, that is, in deede present. For the Sacrifice that was true and real in al respectes both of the inward substance, and also of the outward manner, was not made without bloudshed, and killing. This Sacrifice therefore of the Church being made without shedding of bloude or kil­ling, lacketh that one point of that most perfite and true Sacrifice. Neuerthelesse for that it hath the substance of the bloudy and moste absolutely per [...]ite Sacrifice that was offred vpon the Crosse, it is in that consideration a true and real Sacrifice.

And right wel did I vnderstand, what I meant by these wordes M. Iewel, and so do you too, what so euer you say: but of a wilful and peruerse frowardnesse you would seme not to vnderstand them, that in worde you [Page 37] might reproue me, where in dede you found nothing to be reproued. Yet, who marketh you, shal perceiue, how you bewray your owne knowledge by thobiection you make against yourself of the wordes of the Nicen Coū ­cel,M. Iewel falsifieth the Coū ­cel of Nice. which you translate falsely into Latin, not englishing them, least they should seme to make, as they doo, for the Sacrifice, which ye denie. The Greke wordes be, [...]. Your vntrue translation hath for them, thus: sine sacrificio oblatus, as much to say, offred vp without a Sacrifice. Which translation conteineth in it a contradi­ction. For if Christ the true Lambe of God (as the Coun­cel calleth him) be offered vp, how is there not a Sacri­fice? Therfore the true translation of these woordes [...], had ben, incruentè sacrificatus, sacrificed vn­bloudily, or without bloude shedding,Oecolam­padius. or, as a chiefe foun­der, and mainteiner of your Sacramentarie doctrine hath turned, non victimarum more sacrificatus, sacrificed not after the manner of hostes (which be sacrificed with kil­ling). And thus the place hath ben of learned men hi­therto translated, neither was there euer any so shame­lesse, as to swarue so farre from the right and natural sense of the wordes, as you doo, were he neuer so spite­ful an enemie to that blessed Sacrifice.

This terme of the Nicen Councel doth expresse the respect of the manner of offering which I spake of, to put a difference betwene the Sacrifice of the Crosse, and the daily Sacrifice of the Church: bicause the one was with shedding of bloud, and with death, the other with­out shedding of bloude, or death.

The same respecte of the manner of offering is vtte­red by the first Councel of Ephesus. [...] Incruentum cele­bramus [Page] in Ecclesiis sacrificij cultum, we doo celebrate in our Churches the vnbloudy seruice of the Sacrifice.Concil. Ephes. in Epist. ad Nestoriū. Aug. Cōt. Faustum Manich. lib. 20. ca. 21. The same doth Saint Augustine meane, writing, that the flesh and bloude of the Sacrifice is celebrated by a Sacrament of remembrance. The same doth S. Chrysostome vnder­stand, where he saith,Chrysost. in epist. ad Heb. Ho­mil. 17. Non aliud Sacrificium sicut pontifex, sed id ipsum semper facimus, magis autem recordationem sacrificij facimus. We make not a diuers sacrifice, as the high bishop did, but alwaies the selfe same, yea rather we celebrate a memorial of the Sacrifice.

Here is plainely expressed both the truth, and rea­litie (if I may so cal it) of the Sacrifice alwaies and con­tinually offered, and also the manner of offering, bi­cause it is done in remembrance of the Sacrifice, that was made vppon the Crosse. To be shorte, these termes, remembrance, token, signe, sampler, myste­rie, sacrament, and suche like, be oftentimes vsed of the Fathers to expresse this manner of offering, and in no wise to exclude the truth of the substance of the thinge offered.

This notwithstanding M. Iewel, you are not asha­med to pronounce, that the Councell of Nice, and the olde Doctours, or holy Fathers, neuer vnder­stode these respectes and manners. And whereas you charge me with dazeling the Readers eyes with a vaine distinction of clowdy wordes (so it liketh you to control the doctrine of Christes Churche) it is you, that employe your whole witte and cunning to enuegle and blinde Gods people, and to bereue them, wande­ring in the wildernes of this world, of the true Manna, that came downe from aboue al the clowdes, and [Page 38] to dazel their vnderstandinges so, that they may not discerne the true body of our Lorde from bare bread, and by your phantastical, and vncertaine phrases ap­plied out of place, to vndermine and shake no smal number of great and necessarie truthes by the Holy Ghoste founded, and so many hundred yeres susteined in Christes Churche.

As for the authorities which you bring either to wea­ken the doctrine of the Church touching the Sacrifice of the Aulter,M. Ievv. taketh aduantage of his ovvne false trās­lation. or to strengthen your owne contrary opi­nion, of how litle force they are, it is sone opened. First the Councel of Nice maketh clearely for vs, which re­porteth the Lambe of God, that taketh away the synnes of the worlde to be situate vpon the holy table (whereby is meant the Aulter) and of the Priestes to be sacrificed, [...], that is to say, without bloudshed, and not after the man­ner of beastes appointed to be killed in Sacrifice. Of these wordes you take a smal aduauntage, and that only by false translation. For whereas the Councel hath, [...], the Lambe is sacrificed of the Priestes vnbloudily, or, not after the manner of killed hostes: you turne it thus barely, sine Sacrificio oblatus, offered without sacrifice, but vntruly [...] as I haue said be­fore. This place serueth you to no purpose,M. Ievv. falsifieth S Augu­ [...]ine. bicause false translation ought not to make proufe against the truth.

S. Augustines wordes against Faustus,Contra Faustum Manich. lib. 20. cap. 21. you haue also falsified, and least you should be taken with the manner, you leaue out the Latine, and allege them onely in your owne English. Whereas he nameth the flesh and bloude of this sacrifice, least they might seme to importe [Page] a real presence of Cristes body and bloude, as they doo in dede: you haue put in steede therof, the death of Christ. Which declareth your meaning not to be simple and plaine, and the same in an other your selfe would not let passe, without note of vntrue dealing.

Chrysost. In epist. ad Heb. Hom. 17.And where S. Chrysostome saith, Hoc sacrificium exem­plar est illius, this Sacrifice is a sampler of that Sacrifice: If you had meant good faith and truth, you would not so haue nipped that Father, and stopped him of his tale: For it foloweth in the same sentence immediatly, id ipsum semper offerimus, M. Ievv. falsifieth S. Chry­sostome by nip­ping. we offer alwaies that one selfe Sacrifice. And that we should knowe certaynely, that he meant not a signe or an example of the true sacrifice onely, as you doo, but the same it self in substance: he saith in the same place, Pontifex noster ille est qui hostiam mundantem nos obtulit: ipsam offerimus & nunc, quae tunc oblata quidem consumi non potest. He is our high Bishop, who hath of­fred vp the Sacrifice or hoste, that cleanseth vs: the same do we also offer nowe, which then being offred can not be consumed.

Hereupon might a plaine man demaunde of you, who is our high Bishop? Is it not Christ? what is that hoste or sacrifice, which purgeth and cleanseth vs from the filth of our synnes? Is it any other, then the precious body of Christ? What can you answer then to S. Chrysostom, saying, that we now also offer vp the same? And this is that, for which you make so muche a doo at me for saying, that Christ is offered vp in the Sacrifice of the Churche vnder the formes of breade and wine, tru­ly, and in deede, not in respecte of the manner of offering, but in respecte of his very body and bloude [Page 39] really present. And thus my woordes, whiche you would so faine carpe, be grounded as you see, vpon a truth taught by the Councel of Nice, and by S. Chry­sostome.

In the other place of S. Augustine you haue very fowly demeaned your selfe.M Ievvel corrup­teth S. Au­gustine. You haue snatched a peece of a sentence out of him, and hauing framed it to an o­ther sense then he meant by your common sleight of fal­sifying, and vntrue tanslation: you set it forth so, as to the vnlearned it may make some shew for your side, against the Catholike doctrine that we mainteine touching the Sacrifice of the Aulter. And some learned also may hap­ly be deceiued, if they looke not better to your fingers, and by view and conferēce of the booke, espie out your false legierdemaine.August. de ciuit. Dei lib. 10. ca. 5. S. Augustine saith (say you) Quod ab omnibus appellatur sacrificium, signum est veri sacrificij. The thing, that of al menne is called a sacrifice, is a token, or signe of the true Sacrifice. Who reading these wordes, at the first being persuaded you haue plaid a true mans parte in alleging them, would not thinke, they made much for your negatiue doctrine, which denyeth the true and real Sacrifice of the Churche, and auoucheth al that is done in the Masse, to be but a signe, a remembrance, and a voide representation? Voide I say, bicause ye take away the substance of the thing it selfe, to wit, the body and bloud of Christe.

Now S. Augustine in that place,S. Augu­stine tru­ly expoū [...]ded. neither speaketh as you make him speake, and much lesse meaneth he, as with your falsified allegation you would force vpon him. In that chapter he treateth of outward sacrifices, and of the inward, or spiritual sacrifices. And prefer­ring [Page] the spiritual sacrifices before the other, he sheweth how the outward sacrifices made by the Fathers of the olde Testament with slaughter of beastes, were signifi­cations of our spiritual sacrifices, that is to say, of those thinges which be done by vs to this ende, that we cleaue vnto God, and that vnto the same ende we helpe fore­ward our neighbour. Of these he saith, that God requi­reth them, and that he is wel pleased with them: Of the other, that he requireth not them, nor hath great liking in them.

After certaine places alleged out of the Scriptures for declaration and proufe hereof, at length he commeth to the woordes, whereof you would take holde against this special, and singular Sacrifice of the Churche, and saith:De ciuit. lib. 10. cap. 5. Oseae. 6. Per hoc, vbi scriptum est, misericordiam magis vo­lo, quàm Sacrificium, nihil aliud quàm Sacrificium Sacrifi­cio praelatum oportet intelligi: quoniam illud quod ab home­nibus appellatur sacrificium, signum est veri sacrificij. Por­rò autem misericordia verum Sacrificium est, vnde dictum est, Heb. 13. quod paulò ante commemoraui, Talibus enim sacrificijs placatur Deus. Whereas it is written, I would haue mer­cie, rather then sacrifice, hereby we must vnderstand nothing els, but that sacrifice is preferred before sacri­fice: forasmuch as that, which is called sacrifice of men, is a signe of a true sacrifice. And as for mercie, it is a true sacrifice. In consideration whereof it is said, whereof I spake euen now, with such sacrifices (that is to saye, with almose and deedes of charitie) God is appea­sed.

In the ende of that discourse he concludeth thus. Quae­cunque igitur &c. What so euer thinges therefore we reade [Page 40] to haue bene commaunded by God diuers waies concerning sacrifices in the ministerie of the Tabernacle, or of the Temple, they are referred to the loue of God, and of our neighbour thereby to be signified.

By due conference and consideration of this whole place, and of the discourse there treated, thou maist eui­dently see good Reader, how litle M. Iewel is to be tru­sted, when he bringeth ought out of any olde Doctor, that semeth not to agree with the doctrine of the Catho­like Church. He would thee to beleue, that S. Augustine spake of the special and singular Sacrifice of the Chur­che, whereof we treate, which Sacrifice in dede is of al men called a sacrifice: and worthily, for so it is. But that by verdite of S. Augustine it is a signe of the true Sacrifice, as though thereby were meant, the same not to be the true Sacrifice, and therefore no true and real Sacrifice at al: therein lyeth much falshoode. For nei­ther speaketh Saint Augustine there of the Sacrifice of the Churche, neither vnderstandeth he by a true sacri­fice, the chiefe and most true Sacrifice, which is that of the Crosse, but any spiritual sacrifice in general, where­in the effect of loue toward God, or our neighbour is performed. And therefore he much abuseth the sim­plicitie of the vnlearned Reader by his futtel and false translation, turning, illud quod ab hominibus appellatur Sacrificium, that which of men is called a sacrifice, wher­by S. Augustine vnderstandeth any of the Sacrifices of the olde Law, into, illud quod ab omnibus appellatur Sacrifi­ciū &c. The thing, that of al men is called a sacrifice, is a tokē, or a signe of the true Sacrifice: whereby he induceth the Reader to conceiue the Sacrifice of the Churche, and to [Page] beleue the same not to be a true and real Sacrifice, but only a signe of the true Sacrifice. And in that he turneth signum veri Sacrificij, a signe or token of the true Sacrifice, he meaneth Christe offered vpon the Crosse, other­wise then S. Augustine did: whereas he should haue trā ­slated it thus, A signe of a true sacrifice. And what is there meant by a true sacrifice, he could not be ignorant. For it foloweth immediatly, Porrò autem misericordia ve­rum sacrificium est, mercie is a true sacrifice.

Differēce betvvene a true, ād, the True SacrificeAnd who perceiueth not a difference betwene these two, whether we say, a True Sacrifice, or the True Sa­crifice? Any spiritual sacrifice, is a true Sacrifice. The true Sacrifice, properly to speake, is Christe him selfe. Which S. Augustine, after that he hath treated of Sacrifices at large, calleth, Summum & verum Sacrificium, the highest, principal,August. de ciuit. Dei lib. 10. cap. 20. or chiefe, and the True Sacrifice, whereof the Sacrifice of the Churche (saith he) is a sacrament. The same Sacrifice of the Churche, may also be called the True Sacrifice, though not in respect of the olde commō maner of offering, which was by killing the hoste offred: yet in respecte of the thing offred, which by vertue of the woorde is made really present, which is the same flesh and bloude, that was offered and shed vpon the Crosse. Here it is not so offred, nor shed, but that offering and bloud shedding, that is to say, the death of Christ, is represented and recorded. The Sacrifice of the Crosse is the True Sacrifice in respect both of the thing offe­red, and of the common manner of offering, for there Christ was killed: the Sacrifice of the Aulter, which is the Sacrifice of the Churche, is also the True Sacrifice in respect of the thing offered which is the body and [Page 41] bloude of Christe, as truly present in the Sacrament, though inuisibly, as vpon the Crosse, where it was visi­bly, albe it in respect of the olde common manner of sa­crificing, it is not a Sacrifice after that manner, and there­fore is it called sacrificium incruentum, the vnbloudy Sa­crifice.

An other manner there is, singuler, special, and pro­per to this mystical Sacrifice, after whiche it is made, sa­crificed, and offered, so as the Mysterie that Christ in­stituted, requireth: which they knowe, that haue grace rightly to beleue. Of which manner Oecumenius saith,Oecum. in Epist. ad Heb. ca. 5. Christus in Mystica coena modum illis tradidit huiusmodi Sacrificij. Christe deliuered vnto Priestes the manner of such a Sacrifice. This manner hath euer ben, and is to this day obserued, euen as the Apostles were taught it of Christe, and as the Churche hath receiued it of the A­postles, and offereth the new Oblation of the newe Te­stament in the whole worlde, as S. Ireneus writeth.Iren. lib. 4. cap. 32. Euseb. de demonst. lib. 1. & lib. 5. Eu­sebius speaking of the manner of this sacrifice, calleth it Melchisedeks manner, and saith, in one place, it is offered after the newe Mysteries of the newe Testament, in an o­ther place, after the Ecclesiasticall ordinances.

As for that S. Augustine saith, The Sacrifice that is made by the handes (that is to say,De Conse. Dist. 2. Hoc est. ministerie) of the Priest, is called the Passion, the death, the Crucifying, not in truth of the thing, but in Mysterie signifying: I graunt it to be true, and such, as may wel serue for answer to certaine blasphemous obiections made by the Sacramentaries a­gainst this Sacrifice. How this maketh any proufe for your doctrine, I see not. For though the Sacrifice be cal­led sometimes by the name of the Passion, the Death, and [Page] crucifying of Christe (as S. Cyprian saith,Cyprian. lib. 2. epist. 3. Passio est Do­mini sacrificium quod offerimus, The Sacrifice that we of­fer is the Passion of our lorde) bicause it representeth and renueth the memorie of the Passion once performed and done, whereas in deede it is not the sensible Passion, death or Crucifying, but the same is signified in mysterie, for that the body which suffred, died, and was crucified, is truly exhibited: yet this taketh not away the truth of a Sacrifice. Such a great Logician, as you would seme to be, wil not make this childish Argument, I dare say: That whiche the Priest maketh, signifieth the Passion and Death of Christe, and is not the Passion and Death in deede: Ergo, it is not a Sacrifice. That it be a true and real Sacrifice, it is not necessary, that Christe suf­fer againe, and be slaine: it is yenough the body of Christe that once suffred, and was slaine, be truly ex­hibited, and offered vnto God. Which is done in our Mysterie by them, who haue commaundement to doo, that Christe did, when he said, Doo this in my remem­brance.

In the ende of this your first Diuision you say, that Neither would the Real presence being graunted, importe the Sacrifice, nor that I haue hitherto any waie prooued the Real presence, which after your scoffing custome you cal my Real presence, as though it had not ben taught by the cleare scriptures, by al the olde learned Fathers, and vniuersally beleued of Christen people, til the wic­ked generation of the Sacramentaries came. But sir, whether the Real presence of Christe, where so euer it be, do importe a sacrifice or no, it is impertinent to our purpose here to dispute. How be it I am not ignorant, [Page 42] that there want not learned men, who holde, that Christes body from the time it was first fourmed in, and of the body of the blessed virgin his mother, neuer ceassed, nor shal ceasse to be a sacrifice, according as S. Paule to the Hebrewes alleging the prophecie vttered in the Psalme,Hebr. 10. teacheth, Ingrediens mundum, dicit, ho­stiam & oblationem noluisti, Psalm. 39. corpus autem aptasti mihi. Christe entring into the worlde, saith, Sacrifice and ob­lation thou wouldest not haue, but a body thou hast made fitte for me.

To your position briefly I answer, that although the Real presence of Christe in other places, and times imported not a sacrifice, yet the same in the Sacrament doth necessarily inferre a sacrifice, bicause according to the general teaching of al the Fathers, Christe did institute it not onely to be receiued as a necessary foode, but also to be offered as an healthful Sacrifice,Cyprian. de Caen. Dom. medica­mentum & holocaustum existens ad sanandas infirmitates, & purgandas iniquitates [...] being a medicine and sacrifice to heale infirmities, and to purge iniquities, as S. Cy­prian saith.Lib. 4.32. He taught the new oblation of the new Te­stament, saith S. Irenaeus,

That I haue sufficiently proued, the Real presence of Christes body and bloude in the Sacrament, the An­swer I made to the fifth Article of your Chalenge, doth witnes to as many as be not lead with lewde and blind affection to your syde. As for the shiftes of your Replie thereunto, they are so detected, and fully confuted, and the Real presence otherwise so substantially proued by M. D. Saunder, and M. D. Heskins, that euery meane witte may easely see the weaknes of your cause.

The Ansvver.

THe two first manners of the offeringe of Christe, our aduersaries acknowledge and confesse. The thirde they denie vtterly. And so they robbe the Churche of the greatest treasure it hath or may haue, the Bodie and Bloud of our Sauiour Christe once offe­red vpon the Crosse with paineful suffering for our re­demption, and now daiely offered in the blessed Sacra­mente in remembrance. For which we haue so many proufes, as for no one pointe of our Christian religion moe. And herein I am more encombred with store, then straighted with lacke, and doubte more, what I may leaue, then what I may take. Wherefore thinking it shal appeare to the wise more skille, to shewe discre­tion in the choise of places, rather then learning in re­cital of number, though we are ouer peartely thereto prouoked by M. Iuelles vauntinge and insolent cha­lenge: I intende herein to be short, verily shorter, then so large a mater requireth: and to bring for proufe a fewe suche auctorities (I meane a fewe in respecte of the multitude that might be brought) as ought in eue­ry mannes iudgement to be of great weight, and esti­mation.

Iewel.

Touching the Oblation of Christes Bodie, vvee beleue, and Confesse as much, as the holy Ghost hath opened in the Scriptures. VVhere as M. [Page 43] Harding saith, Christes Bodie is offred vp by the Priest vnto God the Father, in remembrance of that Bodie, that Christe him selfe offered vpon the Crosse, He seemeth not to consider the incon­stancie, and folie of his ovvne tale. For it is vvel knovven to al Creatu­res, not onely Christians, but also Ievves, Turckes, and Saracenes, that Christ vvas Crucified vpon the Crosse: But that Christe should be sacrifi­ced by a Mortal man, Inuisibly, and, as they say, vnder the Formes of Bread, and vvine, and that Really, and in deede, it is a thinge so far passinge the common sense of Christian knovvledge, that the best learned, and vvisest of the Ancient learned Christian Fathers coulde neuer knovv it.

Therefore this is, not onely the proouing of a thinge knovven, by a thinge vnknovven: and of a thinge moste certaine, by a thinge vncer­taine: but also the Confirmation of a manifest Trueth, by an open Errour.

Neither do vvee robbe the Churche of God of that most Heauenly, and moste comfortable Sacrifice of Christes Bodie: But rather vvee o­pen, and disclose the errours, vvherevvith certaine of late yeeres haue vvilfully deceiued the Churche of God. Esay. 53. VVee knovv, That Christes Bodie was rente for our Sinnes, and that by his VVounds wee are made whole:1. Pet. 2. That Christe in his Bodie caried our Sinnes vpon the Tree:Heb. 9. And by the Oblation thereof, once made vpon the Crosse,Actor. 4. bath sanctified vs for euer, aud hath purchased for vs euerlastinge Redēption: And That there is none other Name (or Sacrifice) vnder Heauen, whereby wee can be saued, but onely the name (and Sacrifice) of Iesus Christe. I recken [...] vvho so teacheth this Doctrine, leaueth not the Churche of God vvithout a Sacrifice.

Touchinge the multitude of Authorities, vverevvith M. Harding findeth him selfe so muche encombred, the greater his stoare is, the more vvil vvise men require his discretion, and skil in the choise. His choise vvil seeme vnskilful, if he allege his Authorities biside his purpose. His purpose, and promise is to prooue, that the Priest hath good vvar­rant, to offer vp Christe the Sonne of God vnto his Father. VVhiche purpose if he neuer vouchesaue once to touche, but range abroade, as his manner is, and roaue idlely at maters impertinent, then muste vvee needes say, He bevvraieth his vvante, and bringeth his greate Stoare [Page] out of credit. So shal the offer, that is gently made him, seeme to stande vpon good, and conuenient termes, of Trueth, and Modestie. So shal his stoareful Vaunte of al thinges, perfourming nothing, vnto the vvise (to vse his ovvne vvordes) seeme pearte, and insolent.

Harding.

In your 2. Diuision though you be shorte, yet you spende many moe wordes, then either were nedeful, or imported any direct answer,M. Ievvel faineth me to say, that I say not [...] and therto di­recteth his Replie. reason, or learning. You pretend that to be said by me, which I say not, and then as your manner is, fighting with my shadow, which you set before you by your owne fained imagination, you come not to answer the point directly, but speake alto­ther inconsideratly.

Had that bene my tale, whiche you tel for me, wherein shewe you inconstancie and folie to be in it, whereof you note the fame? For (say you) not onely Christians, but also Iewes, Turkes, Saracens (you might haue added also the Deuil, whose knowledge is great) know, that Christe was crucified vpon the Crosse. This much I graunt, what conclude you? But (say you a­gaine) that he is sacrificed by a mortal man inuisibly, vnder the formes of bread and wine, the auncient Fathers could neuer know it. Here I stoppe you, and this I denie. And what cause I haue to denie it, I haue in the Diui­sion before shewed. After this you come vnto your Conclusion, wherein appeareth in deede both the in­constancie and folie of your tale. Therefore (say you of me in effecte) I prooue a thing knowen by a thing vn­knowen, and a thing certaine by a thing vncertaine, and [Page 44] confirme manifest truth by open errour.

Here if I would folow you, and set forth the pee­uishnes of your Argument, by telling you, how the Maior, or first Prorosition is impertinent, the Minor false, being the Negatiue of our Question (which being denied of me, was very absurdly brought by you in the Premisses) nor Moode, nor Figure, nor iust dispo­sition of the termes duely obserued, the Conclusion not folowing of the Premisses in right order of a Syl­logismus: I should bestowe many woordes to prooue that a foolish Argument, whiche thereof without a­ny curiouse shewing of Logique, of it selfe geueth witnesse.

What leadeth you to thinke, that by the vnbloudy Sacrifice of the Churche, which you cal a thing vncer­taine, I go about to prooue the Sacrifice of the Crosse, whiche I graunt to be certaine, and to confirme that most manifest truth by this other Sacrifice, which you, and they of your side denie? By what one woorde can you gather, that to haue bene myne intent? If it were not, as most certainely it was not (for what neede was there to bring any proufe for the Sacrifice of Christe vpon the Crosse?) why bestow you so many wordes to prooue your beleefe touching that Sacrifice?

I said not that ye robbed the Churche of the Sacrifice done vpon the Crosse (For of that being now paste, how can ye robbe the Churche?) But of the body and bloude of Christe, as it is daily offered at the Aulter in remembrance of his Death and Passion: of the Presence of the body and bloud, and of the Sacrifice of the same in mysterie, which the Churche from the Apostles time [Page] hitherto hath euer celebrated, you robbe the Churche, and of that spake I expressely, as my wordes be plaine, and thereof your selfe could not be ignorant.

The Ansvvere.

THe Scripture it selfe ministring euidēt proufe for the Oblatiō of Christ to his Father by the Priestes of the New Testament, in the Institution of this Holy Sacrament, in the figure of Melchisedech, and in the Prophecie of Malachie the Prophete: the authorities of the Fathers needed not to be alleaged, were not the same Scripture by the ouerthwarte, and false interpre­tations of our aduersaries wrested, and tourned to a cō ­trary sense, to the horrible seducing of the vnlearned.

Iewel.

Alas, vvhat toole is there so vveake, that M. Harding vvil refuse, to strike vvithal? To prooue his imagined Kind of Sacrifice, he hath brought vs forth out of his great stoare, the example of Melchisedeck, and the Pro­phecie of Malachie: As if he vvould reason thus, God saith vnto Christ, Thou arte a Priest for euer according to the order of Melchise­dek:Psal. 110. Or, God saith by the Prophete Malachie,Malac. 1. A pure Oblation shalbe offred vnto me in euery place: Ergo, The Priest hath Au­thoritie, and power, to offer vp the Sonne of God vnto his Fa­ther. If he had not had good choise, and stoare of Authorities, he vvould neuer haue begonne vvith these.

But he addeth further, as mater of greeuance, That these plaine Scriptures, by the ouerthwarte, and false Interpretations of his Aduersaries, are wreasted, and turned to a contrary sense, and that, (as he saith) to the horrible seducing of the vnlearned. Doubt­lesse here is a very horrible accusation. Hovv be it, if vve happely had mis­taken these places, and our errour therein vvere fully prooued: yet should not M. Harding in such horrible termes reprooue vs, for doing that thing once, that he, and his felovves doo so often. But by vvhat vvordes, by vvhat false Interpretation, into vvhat peruerse or Heretical Sense, haue vve so horribly vvreasted these Scriptures? M. Harding is vvise, is e­loquente, [Page 47] is vvatcheful, is circumspecte, is fast addicted vnto his cause: he dissembleth, and leaueth nothing, that any vvay may sexue his purpose. If our Errours be so horrible, he should not haue spared them: If there be none, he should not thus haue touched them. If M. Hardinge vvinke at them, vvho can see them? If M. Hardinge knovv them not, vvho can knovv them?

Harding.

Whether my tooles be weake, as you ieast, or of good strength, let it be iudged by the strokes they geue, with which doubteles the heresie that ye sustaine aganst the outward and sigular Sacrifice of the Churche, is striken downe, and quite ouerthrowen. And the same tooles haue the chiefe Doctours and auncient Fathers of the Church vsed before me. By the tooles I meane, as you doo, the Figure of Melchisedech, and the Prophecie of Malachie: by which the doctrine of the Church concer­ning the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe, is auouched. And here to enter into that special point, litle esteming your other impertinent talke, which you thinke toucheth my person, and wise men see helpeth not your cause: directing my wordes to the Reader, of whom I may conceiue better hope then I doo of you: thus I say.

The Argument which M. Iewel here maketh as on my behalfe, albeit to the learned, who knowe and vn­derstand the circumstances of the figure of Melchise­dech, and of the prophecie of Malachie, concludeth suf­ficiently and fully: yet thou maist be wel assured good Reader, I would neuer my selfe haue proponed it so na­kedly, and without any declaration of the necessary cir­cumstances. Although there folow hereafter more pro­per plac [...]s to open the figure of Melchisedech, and the [Page] prophecie of Malachie, where I bring them in for proufe of this intent: yet bicause M. Iewel hath by preuention abruptly fallen into them, and to the ende noman be de­ceiued by his cutted argument, which in deede is good, if the circumstances were not guilefully conceeled: here I thinke good to vtter some of those circumstances.

To beginne therfore with Melchisedech: It may please thee Reader to vnderstand, that he is recorded in the Scripture to be a Priest of God the highest. Gen. 14. Then being a Priest, it behoued him to offer Sacrifice according vnto S. Paules doctrine,Heb. 5. Euery Bishop (or Priest) taken from a­mong men, is for men appointed in those thinges that belong to God to offer vp giftes and sacrifices for sinnes. What sacri­fice then did he offer? He offered vp bread and wine, as Arnobius that auncient Father,That Mel­chisedek offered bread and vvine. beside sundry other Do­ctours doth witnesse, notwithstanding the Scripture make plaine and expresse mention only of bringing forth bread and wine. His wordes be these. Christus per myste­rium panis & vinisacerdos sactus est secundùm ordinē Mel­chisedech, Arnob. in Psal. 109. qui panem & vinum solus obtalit in sacerdotibus, dum Abraham Victor reuerteretur de praelio. By the myste­rie of bread and wine Christ became a Priest after the or­der of Melchisedech, who onely among the Priestes of­fered bread and wine, when Abraham returned conque­rour from bataile.Cyprian. epist. ad Cecilium. lib. 2. epi­stola. 3. This order (saith S. Cyprian speaking of the order of Melchisedech) is here comming of that sacri­fice, (he meaneth Melchisedeks sacrifice) and descending from thens, that Melchisedech was the priest of the highest God, that he offered bread and wine, that he blessed Abrahā.

Here it is expressely affirmed, that Melchisedech offe­red bread and wine, and moreouer that Christ by doing [Page 48] the like, was made a Priest according to the order of the same Melchisedek.

Iewel.

Perhappes he vvil say, Yee expounde the Prophecie of Malachie, some­times of Praier, and sometimes of the Preachinge of the Gospel. This vvas neuer the Prophetes meaninge: This is an horrible vvreasting of the Scriptures. Thus, no doubte, M. Harding vvil say: for othervvise he can say nothinge. And yet he knovveth and, beinge learned, can not choose but knovv, that this is the Olde learned Catholique Fathers Exposition, tou­chinge these vvoordes of the Prophete Malachie, and not ours. He kno­vveth, that the Ancient Father Tertullian saith thus, Tertull. contrae Iudaeos. Tertull. contra Marcion. lib. 4. Hieron. in 1. Caput Malach. The pure Sacri­fice, that Malachias speaketh of, that should be offered vp in eue­ry place, Est Praedicatio Euangelij vsque ad finem Mundi: Is the Preachinge of the Gospel vntil the ende of the worlde: And in an other place, Simplex Oratio de Conscientia pura: The Sacrifice, that Malachie meante, is a deuoute Praier proceedinge from a pure Conscience. He knovveth, that S. Hierome expoundeth the same vvoordes in this vvise: Dicit, Orationes Sanctorum Domino offe­rendas esse, non in vna Orbis Prouincia Iudaea, sed in omni loco: The Prophete Malachie meaneth hereby, That the Praiers of Holy people shoulde be offered vnto God, not onely in Iewrie, [Page] that was one prouince of the worlde, but also in al places. He knovveth, that Eusebius calleth the same Sacrifice of Malachie, Euseb. De Demonst. li. 1. [...]. The Sa­crifice, and the Incense of Praier. Thus the Holie Catholique Fathers expounded these vvoordes of the Prophete Malachie: and yet vvere they not therefore iuaged either ouerthvvarte vvreasters of the Scriptures, or horrible deceiuers of the people.

Novv, of the other side, if it may please M. Harding to shevvfoorth but one Anciēt Doctour, or Father, that either by the Exāple of Melchisedech, or by force of these vvordes of Malachie, vvil conclude, that the Priest hath Authoritie, and Povver, to offer vp Verelie, and in dede, the Sonne of God vnto his Father, he may happily vvinne some credit.

Harding.

In defence of your felowes, and of your selfe, you say, that wheras ye expound the prophecie of Malachie som­times of Praier, and sometimes of the preaching of the Ghospel, therin ye vse no wreasting of the Scripture, nor falshod: bicause the old lerned Catholike Fathers haue so expounded the place. And here you name Tertullian, S. Hierome, and Eusebius. That the Preaching of the Gospel may be, and is called a Sacrifice, I denie not. Ma­ry that by th'auctoritie, which here you pretend to allege out of Tertulliā it is proued, and that by the same the meaning of Malachies prophecie is to be drawen quit frō the Sacrifice of th'Aulter: this I deny vtterly. And how farre your dealīg in these weighty maters cōcerning the faith of a Christē man is to be trusted by this to al it may appere.M. Ievvel forgeth a saiyng of his ovvne ād putteth it vpon Tertullian First, wheras you beare al men in hand, that I know, that the Ancient Father Tertullian saith, as here you reporte: it is very false. for how can I know the thing, that is not at al? Tertullian saith not so. These wordes, The pure Sa­crifice, that Malachias speaketh of, that should be offered vp in euery place, est Praedicatio Euangelij vs (que) ad finē mundi, be [Page 54] not to be found in al Tertullians booke Cōtra Iudaeos. Yet you haue put them in a distinct letter, in which the say­inges of the Doctors be printed, that your Reader should beleue, they were the wordes of Tertulliā. This is a for­gerie wrought in your owne shoppe, fathered vpon Ter­tullian. Phy M. Iewel, can neither shame, nor the feare of God, withdraw you from vsing such forged sayinges of your owne, with which being by you fathered vpon som Ancient Doctor of the Church, your common manner is to face out an vntrue mater, as crafty players at Cardes doo as they say, with a Carde of ten?

Nexte, you swarue very much from the meaning and purpose of Tertullian. For he saith not, that the Preaching of the Ghospel is that cleane Sacrifice, which Malachie prophecied of, but farre otherwise. Tertullian hauing spo­ken of the two kindes of Sacrifices of the two peoples, the Iewes and the Gentiles, foreshewed at the beginning in th' oblations of Cain,Genes. 4. and Abel: demaundeth, whereas Gods law geuen by Moyses required the carnal sacrifices to be made by the people of Israel in the land of promise, and nowher els: why the holy Ghost afterward notwith­standing by Malachie,Psal. 95. and also by Dauid fortelleth, that the Iewes earthly and fleshly sacrifices should ceasse, and that spiritual Sacrifices should be offered vp to God ouer the whole world. Vnto this question he answereth him selfe,Tertulliae. contra Iu­daeos. and saith. Indubitatè, quòd in omni terra exire habebat praedicatio Apostolorū, that is to say, Vndoubtedly, bicause the preaching of th'Apostles was to come forth ouer al the world.

This assuredly is the true abbrigement and meaning of Tertullians woordes there.Tertuliās place tru­ly decla­red. And cleare it is, he saith not, that the Preaching of the Ghospell is the pure [Page] Sacrifice, that Malachie speaketh of, as you vntruly re­porte of him: but onely that the holy Ghoste foresigni­fied by Malachie, and by Dauid, that the Iewes sacrifi­ces being abolished, pure sacrifices should be offered a­mong al Nations of the earth, bicause it should come to passe, that the Apostles should preach ouer the whole worlde. So that by Tertullians verdite, the preaching of the Gospel was not that pure Sacrifice it selfe spoken of by Malachie, but the Apostles preaching that then was to come, was the cause, why Malachie and Dauid enspired of the holy Ghoste, fortolde the ceassing of the Iewes carnal sacrifices, and the setting vp, or vse of the Gentiles spiritual Sacrifices. More then this, which is nothing at al, Tertulliā in that place maketh not for you.

Leaue, leaue M. Iewel for your credites sake (if no­thing els can moue you) to deceiue vnlearned soules, whom Christe hath so derely bought, with sayinges of your owne forging, fathering them vpon the auncient Doctours. It is a manifest token what litle good stuffe ye haue to defend your new ghospel withal, whereas ye set forth your owne pelfe vnder the name of the aunci­ent writer Tertullian. Wherein ye folow false Lapida­nies and Goldsmithes, who sel Cristal and glasse, for true pretious stoanes, and gilted copper, for pure golde.

Your other three places, which you pretend to allege out of Tertullian, S. Hierome, and Eusebius, be not with such forme of wordes by those Fathers set forth, as you here reporte them. The sleight of falsifiyng that you so cōmonly vse, in this place for your purpose maketh but only a colourable shew to the ignorāt, who beleue what so euer you say: to the learned, who by diligent exami­tion [Page 55] wil serch what you say, a substantial proufe in dede, it maketh not.Thymia­ma, obla­tio mun­da. Al be it I graunt, wheras the Prophecie of Malachie speaketh of two thinges, thymiama, incense, and Oblatio munda, the cleane Oblation or Sacri [...]ice: that the best learned Fathers haue expounded the Incense, of Prayer, and the cleane Oblation, of the Sacrifice of the Aulter, that is now offered in the Churche, through the whole worlde.

Where Tertullian disputing with Marcion the he­retike expoundeth it of Prayer,Contra Marcionē lib. 4. either it is his priuate sense, which bringeth no preiudice vnto the doctrine of the Catholike Churche:VVhat Tertullian meant by pure prai­er. or he meaneth it as the other Fathers doo, of the Sacrifice of the Aulter, which is cō ­secrate with prayer. For so the olde learned Fathers cal the wordes of Consecration. Els if it should be ex­pounded of al manner of prayer, or of prayer in general, as it is made of ech priuate man: it can not alwaies seme to be the cleane Sacrifice prophecied of by Malachie, bicause the same is made by those that be not altogether pure,Prouer­bior. 20. and without spot of sinne. For so the Scripture wit­nesseth: who can say, my hart is cleane, I am cleane frō sinne?

But the Prayer, wherewith the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe is consecrate,1. Pet. 2. being the wor­des of our Lorde,Esai. 53. who neuer did synne, nor was guile found in his mouth: is both in that respect pure and cleane, and also for that it is pronounced by the Priest, as the pub­like minister of the Churche, whose priuate vncleannes what so euer it be, in that behalfe impaireth not the worthinesse of the sacrifice, nor of the prayer, where­with it is con [...]ecrate. Who also at what time he offered that Sacrifice, ought specially to be of a pure cōscience. [Page] And therefore Tertullian hauing rehersed the woordes of Malachie (though some what otherwise then either the seuenty Interpretours, or the Hebrue bookes haue, and otherwise then he him selfe rehersed them writing against the Iewes) in euery place shalbe offered vp in my name sacrifice, Tertullia. aduersus Marcion. lib. 4. and the cleane Sacrifice: might wel adde further by way of exposition, scilicet, simplex oratio de conscientia pura, to wit simple (or pure) prayer from a cleane conscience. In which prophecie the prophete fortelleth, that God hath disposed a better Sacrifice to be offered vp vnto his name, then the sacrifices were, which the Iewes offered.

Simple Prayer.By simple prayer, he meaneth such, as is not tempered and mingled with any sinneful infection of humane affe­ctions, of which sorte is the prayer of cōsecration of this Sacrifice, as that which is the worde of our Lorde, and not the worde of man. Whose prayer, as al other his acti­ons, proceding out of his corrupte harte, is steined with some spotte of synne, wereunto oure nature corrupted in Adam is thral and subiecte.

The Ansvvere.

FOr, whereas the holy Euangelistes reporte, that Christe at his last Supper tooke Breade, gaue thankes, VVordes of Obla­tiō, with­out Ter­mes of Oblatiō. brake it, and said, This is my body, which is geuen for you: Againe, this is my Bloude, which is sheadde for you in remission of sinnes: By these wordes being wordes of Sacrificing and offering, they shewe, [Page 64] and set forth an Oblatiō in Acte, and deede, though the terme it selfe of Oblation, or Sacrifice be not expres­sed. Albeit to some of excellent knowledge, Datur, here soundeth no lesse, then offertur, or immolatur, that is to say, is offered, or Sacrificed, specially the addi­tion, pro vobis, withal considered. For if Christe said truely (as he is trueth it selfe, 1. Pet. 2. and guile was ne­uer founde in his mouthe) then was his body presently geuen, and for vs geuen, at the tyme he spake the woordes, that is, at his Supper. For he saide datur, is geuen, not dabitur, shalbe geuen. And likewise was his Bloud sheadde in remission of sinnes, at the tyme of that Supper: for the text hath funditur, is sheadde. But the geuing of his Body for vs, and the sheadding of his Bloude in remission of sinnes, is an Oblation of the same: Ergo Christe offered his body and bloud at the Supper. And thus datur, signifieth here as much, as offertur.

Now this beinge true, that our Lorde offered him selfe vnto his Father at his last Supper, hauing geuen cōmandement to his Apostles to do the same, y^t he there did, whom then he ordeined Priestes of the newe Te­stament, saying, Doo this in my remēbrance, as Clemēt doth plainly shew Lib. 8. Apostol. Cōstitut. cap. vltimo: the same charge perteining no lesse to the Priestes, that be now the successours of the Apostles in this behalfe, [Page] then to the Apostles them selues: it doth right wel ap­pear, howe so euer M. Iuel assureth him selfe of the contrary, and what so euer the Diuel hath wrought, and by his Ministers taught against the Sacrifice of the Masse, that Priestes haue auctoritie to offer vp Christe vnto his Father.

Iewel.

Here M. Harding beginneth to scanne his Tenses, to rip vp Syllables, and to hunte for Letters: And in the ende buildeth vp the highest Castle of his Religion vpon a gheasse. I maruel, that so learned a man vvoulde either vse so vnlearned argumentes: or, hauing such stoare of Authorities, as he pretendeth, vvould euer make so simple choise.

He saith, These wordes, Is Geuen, Is Shead, be wordes of Sacri­ficing, though the Terme it self of Oblation and Sacrifice, be not expressed. Here M. Harding, b [...]sides that he hath imagined a strāge Con­struction of his ovvne, that neuer any learned man knevve before, and so straggleth alone, and svvarueth from al the Olde Fathers, includeth also a repugnance, and Contradiction against him selfe. For, vvhereas vvoordes, and termes sound both one thing, the one being mere Englishe, the other borovved of the Latine, M. Harding saith, Christe in the Institution of his Supper, vsed the VVordes of Sacrificing, and yet expres­sed not the Termes of Sacrificinge. Suche Priuilege these menne haue, vvith shifte of termes to beguile the vvorlde. For if Christe vsed the vvordes of Sacrificing, hovv can M. Harding say, He vsed not the Termes of Sacrificing? and yf he vsed not the Termes (vvordes, and Termes be­ing one thing) hovv can he say, He vsed the vvordes?

Harding.

Litle regarding what M. Iewel saith in the lying and scoffing entrie, that he maketh vnto his Replie in this [Page 65] Diuision,The chief pointes of M. Iewels Replie in the 4. Di­uision. I wil first briefly note vnto thee (good Reader) the pointes, wherein the weight of his whole tale stan­deth. That done, I wil answer to them in such order, as they shalbe proponed.

• First, he would prooue, that my wordes include a re­pugnance 1 and contradiction against my selfe.
• Secondly, he chargeth me with controlling the Olde 2 common Translation of the Newe Testament.
• Thirdly, he would a contradiction to seme to be im­plyed 3 in my doctrine.
• Fourthly, he burtheneth me with the corruption and 4 falsifying of S. Clement.
• Fifthly and lastly, he auoucheth that Christe by these 5 woordes,
  Luc. 22.
  Doo ye this in my remembrance, made not the Apostles Priestes, nor gaue them, nor their Successours, auctoritie therby to consecrate and offer vp in Sacrifice his Body and Bloude: but that what so euer was by these wordes commaunded to be done, it perteined vnto the whole people, as wel as vnto the Apostles. So he de­nieth vtterly the singular and external Sacrifice of the Churche, confoundeth the order of the Mysteries, and referreth al to eating of bread, and drinking of wine, in remembrance of Christe.

These be the pointes he treateh of in this Diuision, whereby his intent and endeuour is, to reproue my An­swer vnto his Chalenge. But with how substantial and piththy reasons, or authorities he performeth it, when they shalbe examined and disclosed, it wil appeare.

Touching the first, the mater is sone answered. Lyes make no proufe. This is your common grace M. Iewel,M. Iewels custome. for your aduantage in one place, to make me say [Page] lesse then I doo, in an other place, more then I doo, in e­uery place other [...]yse then I doo. Why do you here by false abbridging of my wordes, attribute that vnto two verbes, Is geuen, and, Is shed, which I ascribe vnto the whole sentence?

In my Ansvvere. fol. 165. bLothe I am to fyl vp the paper with repeating that I said before: but your impudencie driueth me vnto it. Read the place againe. There (as you knowe) I say thus.Luc. 22. Whereas the holy Euangelistes reporte, that Christe at his last supper tooke Bread, gaue thankes, brake it, and said, This is my body, wich is geuen for you: Againe, this is my bloude, which is shed for you in remission of synnes [...] By these woordes, being woordes of sacrificing and offering, they shewe and set forth an Oblation in acte and deede, though the terme it selfe of Oblation or Sacrifice be not ex­pressed. Vse as much pryieng as you can, in these woordes where finde you the Contradiction?

M. Ievvel [...]aineth a lye vpon his aduer­sary, and therevpō descā [...]eth.I graunt you, that woordes and termes, sounde both one thing. But where said I, that Christe in the Insti­tution of his supper, vsed the woordes of sacrificing, and yet expressed not the termes of sacrificing? For thus you make me to speake, and therevpon you dally at your pleasure, and grounding your selfe vpon a lye, you seme to conclude absurditie against me, as though I had said, that Christe vsed the wordes of sacrificing, and yet had denied that he vsed the termes of sacrificing. Which had ben very vaine, and fonde, wordes, and termes, being one thing. Now the truth is, I said not the one, ne denied not the other. Here one of vs both must needes be found a lyer. If it be not you, tel al the worlde for clearing of your selfe, and for sauing your Ministerships honestie, [Page 69] where I say, that Christ vsed not the termes of sacrificing.

The woordes by which the Euangelistes do describe what Christe did at his last supper, doo importe and im­plie the signification of sacrificing and offering. Christe say they, toke bread into his handes, gaue thankes, brake it, and said, This is my body, whiche is geuen for you. Againe, This is my bloud, which is shed for you in remission of synnes. Bicause these wordes do report and set forth an oblation in acte and deede: therfore I said, and might wel so say, they were wordes of sacrificing and offering. Yet in al this description, there is not founde this expresse terme, Sacrifice, or Oblation. I referred me to the Euāgelistes de­scription, and you referre al to the wordes of Christe.

If you marke my wordes wel, you shal finde therein reported, not only woordes, but also an acte of Christe, and by the Euangelistes, who declare the whole, an ob­lation shewed and set forth in acte and deede, this very terme it selfe of Oblatiō, or Sacrifice, not expressed, and this to be shewed and set forth (whereby I meane the Gospel written) not by Christe, but by the Euāgelistes. Againe. whereas I said of the woordes of the Gospel, that they were wordes of sacrificing and offring,M. Iewel falsifieth the vvordes of the Ansvver. and that the terme it selfe Oblation, or Sacrifice, was not expressed: to make my saying seme more absurde you falsifie my saying, re­porting me, to haue spoken of the termes of sacrificing, as though I had acknowledged the wordes of sacrificing, and denied the termes of sacrificing.

But sir, what meane you? Hath the long studie of Rhetorique, driuen out of your head the remembrance of Logique? Haue you quite forgoten the olde Distin­ction of implicitè, and explicitè, so much tossed in our So­phismes, [Page] when we were yong Sophisters at Oxforde?Thinges implied, though not vtte­red red in ex­presse termes. Remember you not that a thing may be implyed in wor­des, albeit the very termes signifying that thing, be not expressed? As for example, where it is written in the Psalme, Dixit Dominus Domino meo, sede à dextris meis: Our Lorde (the Father) said to my Lorde (the Sonne) sit at my right hand,Psal. 109. is not the Omnipotencie of God the Sonne, and his Equalitie with the Father in these woordes signified, though the terme it selfe of imnipo­tencie, or equalitie, be not expressed?

It is written of kinge Saules wicked and misera­ble ende, [...]. Reg. 31. Arripuit Saul galdium suum, & irruit super eum: Saul caught his owne sworde, and ranne vpon it: doth not the Scripture by those woordes shewe, and set forth his murthering and kylling of him selfe, though the terme it selfe of murdering, or killing be not expressely vttered?

Likewise the Scripture signifieth with very plaine woordes the Aduoutrie that Dauid committed with Bethsabee,2. Reg. 11. and his murdering of Vrias her husband: and yet in what place these actes be described, there is not at al expressed, the terme of Aduoutrie, nor of Murder.

In the whole storie of Christes passion written by the Euangelistes, it is not with any expresse terme of killing said, that the Iewes or Souldiers killed him. Yet I trowe ye wil not denie, but that in woordes it is implied.Actor. 2. If you denie it, S. Peter shal control you, who said to the Iewes, Hunc interemistis, this man ye haue killed.Actor. 7. S. Steuen also, who said vnto them, cuius vos nunc proditores & homicidae fuistis, ye haue now ben the [Page 67] traitours and murderers of Iesus.

But what neede we to vse so many examples in a ma­ter, that may be declared by infinite examples? Right so (to be shorre) the wordes which the Euangelistes,No cōt [...]a­dictiō [...]roued by M. Ievvel to be in the Ansvver. and S. Paule vse in the Description of the Institution of the blessed Sacrament at Christes last supper, be wordes implying and importing a Sacrifice, al be it this terme it selfe of Oblation, or Sacrifice, be not expressed. And who so euer affirmeth him that so saith, to include a Contra­diction: is either a wrangler hunting for termes, not re­garding the thing implyed, or very ignorant, not know­ing the nature of a Contradiction.

But besides al this,The re­proche of straggling alone an­ [...]vvered. as M. Iewel hath founde in my wordes a Contradiction, where none is, so doth he also with like truth, and like proufe, charge me with (as it pleaseth him to terme it) straggling alone, and swaruing from al the olde Fathers, by a strange construction of myne owne, for that I haue so construed the wordes vsed in the Scripture to declare the Institution of the Eucharist, as to include and implie a Sacrifice. For ve­rely I haue learned this construction of the olde learned Fathers, and haue not bene so presumptuous, as in so weighty a mater to trust the deuise of myne owne head. Which Fathers doo not onely in equiualent, but in ex­presse termes declare, that Christe offered a Sacrifice at his last supper.

Hesychius an olde Father maketh mention of three sundry Sacrifices,Three sa­crifices offered by Christe [...] Hesychius in Leuit. lib. 2. cap. 8 that Christe offered: two at his Maun­die, and the thirde vpon the Crosse. His wordes be plaine. Prius figur atam Ouem coenans cum Apostolis, postea suum obtulit Sacrificium: & deinde sicut ouem se­ipsum [Page] occidit. That Christe sa­crificed hī selfe at his last supper Christe supping with his Apostles, first offered the figuratiue Lambe, afterward he offered his owne Sacrifice: and then after that he killed him selfe (that is to say, deliuered vp him selfe to be killed) like a Lambe.

S. Cyprian one of the most auncient Fathers of the Churche, speaking of the Figure of Melchisedech, ge­ueth most iust occasion of this construction,Cyprian. lib. 2. epist. 3. where he saith, Quam rem perficiens & adimplens Dominus, pa­nem & calicem mixtum vino obtulit, & qui est plenitudo, Veritatem praefiguratae Imaginis adimpleuit. Which thing our Lorde perfourming and fulfylling (he meaneth the perfourmance of that which Melchisedeks Sacrifice did foresignifie) offered bread, and the cuppe mingled with wine, and he who is the fulnesse, did fulfil the Truth of the forefigured Image.

Theophylacte although not so olde as the others, yet a schoolemaister olde yenough to teach a Christian man this construction, expounding the later wordes of the Institution of the Sacrament, and speaking of the Sacri­fice, saith:Theophyla­ctus in Matt. 26. Sicut Vetus Testamentum immolationem ha­bebat & sanguinem, ita Nouum Testamentum sanguinem habet ac immolationē. Like as the Olde Testament had sa­crifice and bloude: euen so the Newe Testament hath bloude and Sacrifice. Here is to be considered, that if the wine by th'almighty power of the Worde be not cō ­uerted into the bloud of Christe, but remaine stil wine, as before consecration, which doctrine our Caluinistes teach, and the Lutherans impugne: then wil not this comparison of Theophylacte holde, neither is it true at al, that now the Newe Testament hath bloude.

[Page 68] Euthymius also a Father of the Greke Churche,Euthym. in Matt. con­strued the same wordes of Christe in like sense, saying, Sicut Vetus Testamentum hostias & sanguinem habebat, ita sanè &. Nouum, Corpus videlicet & sanguinē Domini. Non dixit autem, haec sunt signa corporis mei, & sanguinis mei, sed haec sunt corpus meum, & sanguis meus. As the Olde Testament had sacrifices and bloude, euen so truly hath the New Testament also, to wit, the Body and Bloud of our Lorde. He said not, these be the signes of my body, and of my bloud, but these be my Body, and my Bloude.

These Fathers, and sundry others, whose [...]ayinges here to reherse I omit that I be not tedious, auouching so plainely, that a Sacrifice was offered by Christe at his Maundie: I maruel at the impudencie of M. Iewel,It is M. Ievv. that in deede straggleth alone. who solacing him selfe with the terme of straggling a­lone, reporteth me in this point to swarue from al the olde Fathers, as though I had deuised a newe constru­ction, that any learned man neuer knewe before. Ve­rely in deniyng this Sacrifice, he sheweth him selfe to be departed from Christes folde the Churche, and like a lost shepe to straggle alone, and to wander from the saued flocke. Our Lorde yet turne his harte, and kepe him from the wolues and roaring Lion, that neuer cea­seth going about,1. Pet. 5. and seking whom he may deuour.

Iewel.

Verify yf this Latine vvorde, Dare, be, Sacrificare: and, Geuinge, be Sacrificinge, then, vvhere as S. Paule [...]aithe, If thine enimie be thir­stie, Geue him drinke:Roman. 15 And vvhere as Iudas saithe, VVhat wil ye Geue me,Matt. 26. Matt. 25. and I wil deliuer him vnto you: And, vvhere as the foo­lish Virgins saie, Geue vs parte of your Oile &c. In euerie of these, and suche other like places, by this Nevve Diuinitie, M. Harding vvil be [Page] hable to finde a Sacrifice.

Harding.

Forth you go, rather ieasting and scoffing, then pro­uing ought, or disprouing. If Dare, be Sacrificare, and geuing be sacrificing, say you: then where so euer in the Scriptures the worde Dare, which signifieth to geue, is found, there must be concluded a Sacrifice. And so sa­crifice must be done vnto Iudas, bicause he said, Quid vultis mihi dare, Matt. 26. What wil ye geue me, and I wil deliuer him vnto you?

M. Ievvel fondly ar­gueth frō the special to the ge­neral affirmatiuely.The sadnesse of this mater M. Iewel, beareth not wel your lightnesse. Praised be God, that his enemies wittes finde so litle weight of reason, or learning, in impugning his truth. You knowe, that I make not ge­uing, to be sacrificing, nor that Dare should alwaies signi­fie sacrificare. Which if it be not presupposed, your Ar­gument is peeuish. For what if Datur, in the wordes of Christes Institution of the Sacrament (for thereto onely my saying is restrained) do founde to some learned men, as much as offertur, specially in that place, where the addition of these two woordes, pro vobis, for you, is withal to be considered: wil it thereof folowe, that e­uery where els, Dare, be sacrificare, and that geuing be sacrificing in general?

By this your Logique it wil folow, that bicause this worde calix, is taken sometimes for passion, and tribula­tion, as where Christ said,Matt. 26. transeat à me calix iste, let this cuppe passe from me,Luc. 22. and likewise in other places: wher it is written of Christe being at his last supper, accipiens Calicem gratias egit, Iohn. 18. He tooke the Cuppe, and gaue [Page 69] thankes, it must be interpreted, Christ tooke his passion, and gaue thankes: whereby it is concluded, that he suffe­red his passion at his supper in the euening, and not on the morow, onlesse it be said, that he suffered his passion twise. By this it is made cleare, how fondly you reason.

How be it I iudge, if you were wel examined, your selfe would not denie, but that Dare, Dare, vsed for offer­re. may signifie offerre, where the circumstance of the place reporteth Christe to geue his body, or him self for vs, or for our synnes, spe­cially when being spoken of Christe, it is put with this Proposition pro. This if you deny, S. Paule shal conuince you, writing to the Galathians,Galat. 1. Gratia vobis & pax a Deo Patre nostro, & Domino Iesu Christo, qui dedit semet ipsum pro peccatis nostris, vt eriperet nos de praesenti seculo ne­quam. Grace and peace be to you from God our Father, and our Lorde Iesus Christe, who gaue him selfe for our sinnes, to deliuer vs from this present wicked world. Now if dare, be offerre in this place, why may it not signifie the same in the wordes of the Sacraments institution, where Christ also gaue his body and bloude, not only vnto vs, to be a foode, which no man denieth: but also for vs, to be a Sacrifice, which our newe Gospellers denie, and I now haue proued?

Iewel.

Yet, saith he, Certaine menne of excellent knowledge haue thus expounded it. It seemeth very strange, that these so notable men of excellent knovvledge should haue no names. Perhappes he meaneth Tapper of Louaine, or Gropper of Colaine, of vvhom he hath borovved the vvhole substance vvelneare of al this Article. Hovv be it, the demaunde vvas of the Ancient Doctours of the Churche: not of any of these, or other suche petite Fathers.

Harding.

I said not, as you reporte me, that certaine men of ex­cellent knowledge haue thus expounded it, but that to some such men, Datur, here soundeth nolesse then offertur, spe­cially in cōsideration of the addition, pro vobis. And there­in I said truly. And though I named them not, yet was there no cause, why you should make so strāge a mater of it, as though worthy men had no names. Bicause some of them be yet liuing, I thought it better not to name them. If I had meāt Tapper of Louaine,Tapper, Gropper. as I did not, or Gropper of Coulen: I had meant men in dede wel knowen, and cōmended vnto the worlde, both for excellent learning, and singul [...]r vertue. How so euer it please you in con­tempt to cal them petite Fathers.

These, or others like them, if I folow, and helpe my selfe in this, or any other question, with their or with any other mennes knowledge: what skilleth that, so that I mainteine nothinge but the truth? If you thought to abase myne estimation with the report of hel­ping my selfe with other mennes labours, you are decei­ued, the thing is lawful and commendable. Neither ought that to grieue me being obiected by you, who, as it is wel knowen, haue taken the parcels of the false wares pack [...] together in your Replie, out of other mennes shoppes, I meane the Lutherans, and Caluinistes of our age, who haue impugned the Catholike Religion, fithens Luther beganne to write against the Churche.

Iewel.

But Christe saieth in the Present Tense: This is my Bodie, That is Geuen: not in the Future Tense, That shalbe Geuen. And like­vvise, [Page 70] This is my Bloude, That Presently is shead: not in the Fu­ture Tense, That shalbe Shead. Therefore Christ sacrificed his Body, and shead his bloude presently at the Supper.

Here M. Harding is driuen to control the olde Common Translation of the nevv testament, not only, that beareth the name of S. Hierome, and hath ben euermore generally receiued in the Churche, and is allovved by the Councel of Tridente, but also, that is stil vsed, and continued in his ovvne Masse Booke. Chryso. in 1. Corin. 1 [...] Origen. in Matthaeū. tract. 35. I graunte, In the Greeke it is vvriten, Datur, Is Geuen: not Dabitur, shalbe Geuen. But here the Present Tense, according to the Common Phrase of the Scriptures, is vsed for the Future Chrysostome rea­deth it thus, Dabitur, shalbe Geuē: not Datur, Is geuen. Origen like­vvise readeth, not, Effunditur, Is Shead but, Effundetur, Shalbe Shead. And in this sorte Chrysostom also expoundeth it: Effundetur pro multis. Hoc dicens, ostendit, quòd Passio eius Mysterium Salutis huma­nae per quod etiam Discipulos consolatur. Shalbe shead for ma­ny. Thus saying, he sheweth, that his Passion is the Mysterie of the Saluation of mankinde: and by the same he comforteth his Disciples.Chrysost. in Caten [...]. Againe he saith. De Passione, & Cruce sua loquebatur. Christe (vttering the vvordes of the Sacramente) spake of his Passion, and of his Crosse.

Harding.

Touching that I noted Christes wordes concerning his body and bloude, to be spoken in the present Tense, Datur, is geuen, and funditur, is shed: there was no iust cause,The olde texte by me not control­led, as M. Ievvel saith. why you should say, that I am driuen to control the Olde common Translation of the new testament. Who so euer cōtrolleth any thing, findeth fault with the same. As for the Olde Translation of that place, I take not vpon me to finde faulte with it. It standeth not with the humilitie and modestie of such as be Catholik, to control that Translation, which hath bene corrected by S. Hie­rom (as it is beleued) so generally receiued in the Church, [Page] and also wel allowed by sundry Councels. We leaue that pride, and temeritie vnto the sawcinesse of them of your side: who as wel in Latine, as in their vulgar tongues, haue presumed of their owne heades, to set forth very many new Translations, not one wholy agreeing with an other. And yet eche one must boldly and stoutely be a­uouched to be Gods worde.

As for my selfe, I doo gladly imbrace and folow the olde common Translation, confessing the sense and mea­of the verbes in the future tense to be true according to the Latine texte. Neuer the lesse perceiuing that al the Greekes, in whose tongue the greatest parte of the new Testament was first writtē, and that many of the Latines, and their bookes, as S. Ambrose,Ambros. in 11. cap. 1. [...]d Corint. Beda. In Luc. cap. 22. and S. Bede, and the new Testament of Isidorus Clarius printed in Venis, with o­thers, do reade those verbes datur, frangitur, effunditur, is geuen, is broken, is shed, in the present tense, and that not without cause and reason: I thought good thereon to ground an Argument for my purpose, and to take the ad­uantage of that text, without controlment of the other.

Chryso­stom belied by M. Ievvel. Chryso. in 1. Corin. 1 [...] Chrysostome readeth Dabitur, shalbe geuen, say you, not datur, is geuen. For truthes sake, I must streine nourture, and tel you truely, you say false of Saint Chrysostome. The Latine Chrysostome hath in two places, trade­tur, shalbe deliuered: in both it is corrected in the Margent, where, for traditur, is noted, frangitur, and in both those places the Greke hath [...], which be­ing spoken of our Lordes Body, is as much to say, as, bro­ken, in the present tense. As for your Dabitur, shalbe geuen, it is of your owne forging: the woorde is not in S. Chrysostome in the place by you coted. And the olde [Page 71] common texte it selfe in S. Luke,Luc. 22. hath datur, is geuen, and not dabitur, shal be geuen.

And as the Latine translatour hath made S. Chryso­stome to speake otherwise in Latine, then he speaketh in Greke, putting tradetur, for frangitur: euen so hath he done, who so euer translated Origen, whom you allege, placing effundetur, shal be shed, in the future tense, for ef­funditur, is shed, in the present tense. Except therfore you can shewe vs the Greke Origen, your Latine Origen is to proue your future tense of that verbe, of as smal au­ctoritie, as the Latine Chrysostome is now shewed to be, for proufe of your false reported,Reasons, vvhy O­rigen se­meth to be belyed by M. Ievvel. Origen. in Matth. tract. 35. Dabitur.

How be it that Origen in his owne tongue would say effunditur, and not effundetur, it may partly be gathe [...]red by that foloweth in him a fewe lines after the place, which you haue alleged. For there thus we reade in the present Tence. Hic est Sanguis meus noui Testamenti, qui & bibitur, et effunditur, &c. This is my bloude of the new Testamēt, which both is droonke, and is shed. But wher­as Origen treateth vpon S. Matthew, how is it to be thought, that he being a Greke writer, would recite the texte of the Euangelist otherwise, then he founde it in the Greke,Matt. 26. where it is not reade effundetur, in the future tense,Marc. 14. as you woulde haue it, but, [...], quod ef­funditur, which is shed, by a participle of the present tense?

As for that you bring out of Catena aurea of S. Thomas,S. Tho­mas in Catena, falsified by M. Ievvel. you haue fowly falsified it. For neither hath S. Chryso­stome, nor S. Thomas, as you reherse the wordes. For these wordes, effundetur pro multis, be not placed immediatly before this sentence, Hoc autem dicens &c. Which S. Tho­mas [Page] allegeth as out of an Homilie of S. Chrysostome: For a saying of S. Remigius, and certaine other wordes, are put betwene, so that the same sentence is to be referred to that went before, pro multis, or, in remissionem peccatorum.

S. Tho­mas a­gaine fal­sified by M. Ievv.Your other place also alleged out of Catena, contei­neth the like falshod. For whereas by your owne forged parenthesis (vttering these wordes of the Sacrament) you would restraine S. Chrysostomes wordes to the mention of the Sacrament, which neuerthelesse in a right sense may be graūted: therby craftily ye would bereue the bles­sed Sacrament altogether of the truth of Christes body and bloude. Now S. Thomas in Catena allegeth S. Chryso­stome thus.In Catena in 26. cap. Matt. Quia verò de passione & cruce eis locutus erat, consequenter eum qui de Resurrectione est sermonem indu­cit, dicens, Dico autem vobis, non bibam ammodo &c. Bicause he had spoken vnto them of his Passion and Crosse, ther [...]vpon he bringeth in talke of his Resurrection, saying, I tel you, I wil not drinke henceforth, &c. Now the talke that Christ had with his disciples of his passiō and Crosse, appereth other wheres at his supper, then in the wordes of the Sacrament.Matth. 26 For there he said, Verely I say vnto you, that one of you shal betray me. Againe, The sonne of man goeth, as it is written of him, &c. Item, I haue very much de­syred to eate this Passeouer with you [...] before that I suffer my passion. Antequā patiar. Luc. 22. In consideration of these, and other the like wordes spoken by Christ at his last supper, and not only or chiefly of the wordes of the Sacramēt, S. Chrysostom saith,M. Iewels falshod depre­hended. as he is alleged in Catena, that Christ had spoken of his passion and Crosse. And thus your falshod M. Iewel is disclosed on euery side, so much, that in manner your [Page 72] whole processe against this Article hitherto, is founde to be none other but a continual lye.

But Sir,Real pre­sence, and Sacrifice auouched by Saint Chryso­stom, Dis­sembled by M. Iew. when you pryed so much in that Homilie of S. Chrysostome, 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 [Page] 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 [Page 73] 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.

[Page] Gregor. Nyss. De Resurre­ctione Christi, Oratio. 1.Gregorie Nyssen saith thus. Pro ineffabili arcanóque, & qui ab hominibus cerni nequit, sacrificij modo, sua dispo­sitione & administratione praeoccupat impetum violentum, ac sese Oblationem ac victimam offert pro nobis, Sacerdos simul & Agnus Dei, qui tollit peccatum mundi. Quando hoc accidit? Quum suum corpus ad comedendum, & sanguinem suum familiaribus ad bibendum praebuit. Cuilibet enim hoc perspicuum est, quòd oue vesci homo non possit, nisi mactatio comestionem praecesserit. Qui igitur dedit discipulis suis cor­pus suum ad comedendum, apertè demonstrat, iam perfectam & absolutam factam esse immolationem. &c.

Christ after a manner of sacrifice, that is vnspeakeable, secret, and such as can not be sene of men, by his owne disposition and administration preuenteth the violent as­sault (that afterward was made) and offereth him selfe an Oblation and Sacrifice for vs,Christ at the sup­per, both Priest, and Lābe. being the Priest, and also the Lambe of God, that taketh away the synne of the worlde. When was this done? At what time he gaue vnto them of his householde his body to be eaten, and his bloude to be droonke. For to euery one this is a cleare mater, that a man may not eate of the Lambe, ex­cept killing go before the eating. Whereas then he gaue vnto his disciples his body to eate, he sheweth euident­ly, that a perfite and absolute immolation (or Sacrifice) was now made.

What can M. Iewel require more? This learned Fa­ther saith, that Christ preuented the violence and furie of the Iewes, meaning that he did vnto him selfe that at the Supper, which was done on the morow with the vio­lence of them that crucified him. Wherby neuerthelesse he vnderstandeth the mystical Oblation of him selfe, not [Page 74] the manner of his blouddy Oblation. For he confesseth it to be secret, inuisible, and vnspeakeable. And that no man should doubte of this Sacrifice, he ascribeth vnto him both the office of a Priest, and also of the Lambe. As a Priest, he sacrificed, as the Lambe, he was sa­crificed.

For the better vnderstanding of this point, the Sacri­fice at the Supper, and that on the morow vppon the Crosse,The sa­crifice of the sup­per, and the sacri­fice of the Crosse, one, and diuers, in diuers re­spectes. may truly be accompted and named one Sacri­fice, and also diuers Sacrifices. Neither is this Sophistrie good Reader, as these newe Gospellers wil beare thee in hande: by this true distinction, sophistical obiections and wranglings of the Gospellers may reasonably be an­swered. How then is it one, how be they diuers? Learne it once, and be no more contentious, as they be, who ha­uing heard it so oftentimes by the Catholikes tolde them, wil yet seme not to vnderstand it.

Before I answer to this question,Sacrifice, taken tvvo vvaies. this much is neces­sarily to be declared, that the name of Sacrifice, is wont to be taken sometime for the thing that is offred vnto God, sometime for the action it selfe of sacrificing. Now then it is one Sacrifice in respect of the thing offred and sacrificed, which is the body and bloude of Christ. For that is one and the selfe same in both, in the Supper, and vpon the Crosse. The Action is of two manners, bloudy, and vnbloudy. These Sacrifices be diuers in respect of the manner of the Action and of the offe­ring. For in the Supper it was vnbloudy, and vpon the Crosse, it was bloudy.

Concerning the former Sacrifice, in deede al de­pendeth of the real presence, that is to say, vppon [Page] the credite of Christes worde, whereby his body and bloude is both professed to be present, and is made real­ly present. Which if it were truly beleued, al contention about the Sacrifice were sone ended. And yet hath that point of late bene learnedly, and substantially entreated by D. Heskins, and by D. Saunder, who hath clearely answered, and refuted the obiections, what so euer Maister Iewel in his Replie was hable to bring to the contrary.Tertull. In prae­script. But what shal we say? These mennes reasons may sone be answered, their pertinacie can neuer be answered. Of suche Tertul­lian saith, ouercome they may be, persuaded they can not be.

Theophy­lact. in Matt. ca­pit [...]. 28.Now to come vnto Theophylacte. His wordes be these, according to the Greke. Quinta feria fecit Domi­nus coenam, & Discipulis dixit, Accipite, & comedite Corpus meum. Itaque quia potestatem ex se habebat ponendi animā suam, manifestum est, quòd ex eo tempore immolauerit seip­sum, quando tradidit discipulissuis corpus suum. Nemo enim comedit aliquid, nisi prius fuerit immolatum. Vpon the fifth day our Lorde made his Supper, and said vnto his Disci­ples, take ye, and eate my body. So that bicause he had power of him selfe to put of his soule, it is manifest that from that time he sacrificed him selfe, when he delyuered his body vnto his Disciples. For no man doth eate any thing (at the solēnitie of a sacrifice, so he meaneth) which is not sacrificed before.

What can be vttered in plainer termes, then that we find in these two Fathers? The one saith, that Christ offe­red him selfe, when he gaue his body and bloude vnto his Disciples. The other, that he preuented the violence that was done vnto him on the morow, and offered vp [Page 75] him selfe an Oblation and Sacrifice, performing the parte bothe of a Prieste, and of the Lambe. And least any man should myssetake them, vnderstanding it to haue ben done vpon the Crosse onely: with most expresse wordes they referre it vnto the Supper. And so by their doctrine be the verbes, Datur, frāgitur, effunditur, is geuen, is brokē, is shed, verefied in the present Tense, and not on­ly in the future Tense.

In these testimonies the cause, that both Nyssen, and Theophylacte geueth, why Christe offered his body, which he deliuered vnto his Disciples, is specially to be noted: which is, bicause in the solemnitie of Sacrifices, no mā eateth that which is not before sacrificed. Where­in they allude vnto the olde manner of Sacrifices, which alwaies were offered vp, before they were eaten. And so the body and bloude of our Sauiour Christe our true Pas­chal Lambe, was at his Maundie, and now ought to be offered vp, before it was then, or now is to be eaten and dronke in the blessed Sacrament.Hesychius lib. 1. in Leuit. cap. 46. Hesychius vttereth the like doctrine writing vpon the booke of Leuiticus.

Iewel.

To be shorte, if it be true, that Christe shead his bloud at his Last Sup­per, and that Verily, Really, and in deede, as M. Hardinge alone strangely auoucheth, and no man els, I trovve, beside him, then can he no more say, The same was an vnbloudy Sacrifice: And so must he yelde vp the strongest Tovver of al his Holde. For yf the Sacrifice, that Christe made at his Supper vvere vnbloudy, hovv did Christ there shead his bloud? Yf Christ as M. Harding saith, did there Shead his Bloude, hovv can that Sacri­fice be called Vnbloudy?

But to leaue these fantasies, and vaine shiftes, Christe gaue his Bodie to be broken, and his Bloude to be shead, not at his Last Supper, but on­ly [Page] vpō his Crosse, and no vvere els. There he bare our iniquities: there was he rent for our Sinnes.Psal. 53. And in that only respect vve receiue his bo­dy, and embrace it, and haue fruit of it. In this respect S. Paule saith, God forbid,Galat. 6. I should reioice in any thing, sauing onely in the Crosse of our Lorde Iesus Christe.

Therefore, this nevv Article of the faith, of the real sacrificing, and Sheadding of Christes bloud at the table, neither being true in it self, nor hitherto by M. Harding any vvay proued, notvvithstāding the great Stoare, and choise of his Authorities: for asmuch as Christ neuer gaue, neither his Apostles, nor any their successours Commission to do more in that behalfe. then he him selfe had done, To say, that any mortal man hath povver, and authoritie, really, and in dede to Sacrifice the sonne of God, it is a manifest, and vvicked blasphemie: the great, and grosse errours, vvherevvith the Di­uel, and his Disciples in the time of his kingdome of darkenesse haue de­ceiued the vvorlde, notvvithstanding.

Harding.

But here M. Iewel replieth, and would faine prooue a contradiction to be implyed in this doctrine. I omit his falsifying of my Answer, affirming me to say, that Christe did shed his bloud at his last Supper verily, really, and in dede (which I said not, though it may be so said in a right sense): and much lesse meant I, as thereby his intent is to report vnto the simple, to wit, an external, and sensible shedding, which was done only at the tyme of his Passiō. That the mater might seme the more absurde and vnrea­sonable, If (saith he) Christes Sacrifice made at the Supper were vnbloudy, how then did he there shed his bloud? If he did shed his bloud, how can that Sacrifice be called vnbloudy?

Why Sir, wil you nedes haue the Mysteries of this Sin­gular and peerlesse Sacrifice to be discussed by reason, and not to be conceiued only by faith? Wil you require [Page 76] the meane of this Sacrifice to be set forth euidently vnto you, which is secret as Nyssen before mentioned saith, inuisible, and vnspeakeable? S. Paule him selfe where he speaketh of the Priesthoode of Christe after the order of Melchisedek,Heb. 5. saith he not, that thereof he hath much to say, and that the things be hard to expound? These howes and questions M. Iewel become Iewes, Infidels, and Here­tikes, much better then a true Christian man. Christes bloud was shed at his Supper, so as it is now shed in the daily Sacrifice of the Aulter: that is to say, in a mysterie, and in a Sacrament, by a meane to man inuisible, and vn­speakeable.

Bicause his bloud is beneficial vnto vs to redemption, in that it was once actually, externally, and with death drawen forth of his body: In cōsideration thereof, where so euer that bloud is by the almighty power of our Lords worde in the Sacrifice made and exhibited, we thinke it no absurditie, nor inconuenience, to say, that his bloude is shed in a mysterie, and vnbloudily. Whereby we meane, that not only his memorie is celebrated, but also that the effecte of the bloudy shedding of his bloude, that is to say, the effect of his death, is thereby applied vnto vs hauing faith, and being disposed, as we ought to be, as if he were now hanging on the Crosse, and presently bleeding be­fore our eyes. For to shew this and that of the Crosse, to be one and the selfe Sacrifice, we offer him, saith Theo­phylact, perinde ac si esset hoc tempore immolatus, Theophy­lact. in cap. 10. ad Heb. as if he were at this very time sacrificed. Againe, hanc hostiam semper vt praesentem offerimus: we offer vp this hoste al­waies, as if it were present, saith he, meaning the visible presence vpon the Crosse: for otherwise it is present. [Page] And therefore it may truly be termed an vnbloudy shed­ding of bloude, the terme of shedding being referred to the bloude by the power of the worde of consecration made present, offered, presented, and verily exhibited, the terme vnbloudy, referred to the manner of offering and exhibiting it without any such violence, as was done vnto the person of Christe by the Souldiers, who with thornes, nailes, and speare, drew bloud of him, when he hong on the Crosse.

That no doubte remaine, to speake so plainely as I can of this high Mysterie, thus it is. The bloude of Christe (we confesse) is the price of our Redemption, in that it was once shed vpon the Crosse. That bloude, and body whereof it issued out, is the Hoste of our Sal­uation. That very bloude is here made present in the Sa­crifice of the Aulter by vertue of Christes worde, and is said presently to be shed (whiche neuer the lesse we vnderstand to be done in mysterie and in remēbrance of that which was shed vpon the Crosse) bicause the effecte of that external shedding by this is applied vnto vs, as if it were now in our sight offered and shed.

The vn­bloudy shedding of bloud.This shedding may be, and is called vnbloudy, as the offering and the Sacrificing of Christ, and as the death is called vnbloudy. For like as is the Sacrifice, such is the Death. Where is bloudy Sacrifice, there is bloudy Death. Where is the vnbloudy Sacrifice, there is the vnbloudy Death, and consequently the mystical and vn­bloudy Sheddding of bloude.

But for better credite, and that it seme not strange, let vs confirme this pointe with some testimonies of Ancient Faters, where the like speaches are vttered. [Page 77] S. Gregorie saith,Gregorius Dialog. 4. cap. 58. De consec. di. 2. Quid sit. Christus in seipso immortaliter viuens, iterum in hoc mysterio moritur [...] Christe, who liueth im­mortally in him selfe, in this Mysterie dieth againe. S. Augustine likewise. Semel immolatus est in semetipso Christus: & tamen quotidie immolatur in Sacramento. Christe was sacrificed in him selfe once:August. e­pist. 23. De Conse. dist. 2. Semel. De Conse. dist. 2. Ite­ratur. and yet is he sa­crificed daily in a Sacrament. Paschasius saith in like manner. Quotidie Christus mysticè pro nobis immolatur, & Passio Christi in Mysterio traditur &c. Christe is dai­ly sacrificed for vs mystically, and the Passion of Christe is in a mysterie deliuered.

To be shorte, Eusebius Caesarienses, Cyrillus, S. Chry­sostome, Theophylacte, Euthymius, S. Gregorie Nazi­anzen, and in manner all the other Fathers doo cal this, Incruentam immolationem, the vnbloudy sacrificing, and vnbloudy Hoste. By the whiche Christe to effecte is so sacrificed for vs, as to them who were present, when he offered him selfe on the Crosse, yet so, as this Sa­crifice take effecte of that. And that there be truely and properly a Sacrifice, it is yenough, that Christes death be so now applyed to remission of synne, as if he him selfe now dyed.

In these former and the like sayinges, the Fathers doo set forth the way and meane of this Sacrifice, of this Death, and consequently of this shedding of Chri­stes bloude: as they may seeme to signifie not obscure­ly their vnablenesse to expresse the same, terming it Sacrifice in a Sacrament, Death in a Mysterie, Sacri­ficing mystical. The whiche wordes, Sacrament, and Mysterie, doo not importe a signification of absence of the thing reported to be sacrificed, to be shed, and [Page] to dye: but the secrete manner of sacrificing, shed­ding, and dying. And bicause this oblation is not with shedding of bloude, whiche bloude may presently be sene, but by application of the bloude already shed: it is of the auncient Fathers rightly called an vnbloudy Sacrifice.

S. Chrysostome ioyning Hostiam, an Hoste, and Incruentam, Chrysost. in Psal. 95. Vnbloudy, together, could vnderstand an vnbloudy shedding of bloude in a Mysterie, and thought it not absurde. Yet neuerthelesse a man that standeth wel in his owne conceite, and skanneth al Diuinitie by Phrases, as M. Iewel doth: might finde mater in it to vtter a scoffe or two, and demaunde of Chrysostome, if it be an Hoste, how is it vnblou­dy? If it be vnbloudy, how can it be an Hoste, se­ing that an Hoste hath not bene woont to be offered without bloudshedding?

Likewise S. Gregorie Nazianzen that great Diuine, hauing respect vnto the body and bloude of Christe offred by the Priestes in the Sacrament, feared not to set together [...],Gregor. Nazian. in Carmi­nibus ad Episcopos. sacrifices, and [...], vnbloudy, saying: [...], O ye Priestes that offer vp vnbloudy Sacrifices! And to put al out of doubte, that he meant it of the Sacrifice of the Body and Bloude of Christe: he addeth further in the same place: [...]. O yee that beare the wrought worke of Greate GOD in your handes! Where­by he meaneth the true and real Body of Christe in the Sacrament.

Theophylacte also among other is very plaine, [Page 78] 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 thende 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 [Page] 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, [...]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 Commissiō, 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 trāslatoris, ad finem Cō ­mētario­rum 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 [Page] Reioindre to his first Article, sufficiently proued his Antiquitie,Page .29. b and authoritie, as there the Reader may see.S. Cle­mēt not brought in dūme.

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 cō ­tinued. who for our sake being made man, and offering a spiritual Sacrifice vnto God and his Father, before his passion commaunded vs (his A­postles) alone to do the same: albeit there were o­thers present with vs, that beleued in him, but euery one that beleueth, is not forth with a priest, nor hath Bi­shopply honour.

Here haue we expresse, and plaine mention of the Sacrifice, which Christe, as high Bishop offered vp vnto God his Father, and commaunded his Apostles to offer the same, before his passion. This Sacrifice he calleth Spiritual,Spiritual. in respecte of the sacrifices of Moyses lawe, which were grosse and bodily of brute beastes, [Page 80] meaning the sacrifice of his body and bloude, spiritual­ly, that is to say, with spiritual manner, and not with vi­sible shedding of bloude offred, and that before his pas­sion, whereby he signifieth the Sacrifice made at the Supper. And that it be not vnderstanded of the Sacri­fice of Praise, or prayer onely, S. Clement saith it was such, as the Apostles only were commaunded to offer, for that they were Priestes.A testi­mony for the Sacri [...]fice of the Altare.

Of what other sacrifice can M. Iewel vnderstand this, whiche Christe offered before his passion, and com­maunded his Apostles, and Priestes onely to offer: but of the Sacrifice of his Body and bloud, which there after a fewe wordes is called the pure and vnbloudy Sa­crifice?

Of this Sacrifice he is to be expounded, where spea­king of S. Steuen in the same chapter, he saith thus. Whereas he was such, and so great a man, feruent in spirite, and saw Christe on the right hande of God, and the gates of heauen open: yet it appeareth no where, that he exercised those offices, which be not conuenient for the degree of Dea­conship, as that either he offered the Sacrifice, or laid handes vpon any, but kept the order of a Deacon vnto his ende. As for the inward spiritual Sacrifices, as praise, thankes, a contrite harte, prayer and such the like: I trow M. Iewel wil not deny, but that S. Steuen did them before his martyrdom, and that the same were not vn­conue [...]ient for the order and degree of Deacons. And so S. Clement geueth vs a plaine testimonie for the Sa­crifice of the Aulter, the ministration whereof belon­geth to the order of Priesthod only, which is aboue the order of Deaconship.

[Page] M. Ievvel taken in a mani­fest and foule cō ­tradict [...]ō.But who would thinke, that M. Iewel, who is so bu­sy to burthen other men with contradiction, yea where none is, would fal into the ouersight of so foule a Con­tradiction him selfe? For what can be a more open con­tradiction, then to say, as he doth, that S. Clemēt is brought in dumme, and saying nothing, and yet his woordes be misre­ported? If he be brought in dumme, if he say nothing, then where be his woordes, that be misereported? If his woordes be misereported, how is he brought in dumme, how saith he nothing? I haue reade, where speach hath ben attributed to beastes, and Trees: but that a dumme mā, and one that saith nothing, speaketh, and vttereth woordes, as it is absurde in nature, so no man was euer so mad, as once to feine it. Thus whiles M. Iewel seeketh to skoffe S. Clement out of credite, he hath shewed him selfe worthy of smal prayse, and credite.

As touching the worde, Antitypon vsed by S. Cle­ment, whereof he taketh holde:Antity­pon doth not ex­clude the veritie of the my­steries. it maketh litle for his purpose. In what Logique learned he to make this Ar­gument, By S. Clement Priestes are required to offer vp antitypō, that is to say, the signe, figure, or sampler of Christes body: Ergo, they haue no commission, nor power to offer vp Christe him selfe? Where two thinges go to gether, it is a foolish reason, that with the affirma­tion of the one, concludeth the denial of the other. By suche Logique he may as wel denie Christe to be God, bicause he is Man.

For answer to this and the like cauilles made by the Sacramentaries against the veritie of Christes body and bloude in the blessed Sacrament, it shal be necessary [Page 81] to informe the Reader of the doctrine of S. Augustine touching this very point.Augu. lib. Sentētiar. Prosperi. de Consec. Dist 2. Hoc est quod. His wordes be these. Hoc est quod dicimus, quod omnibus modis approbare contendimus, Sacrificium Ecclesiae duobus confici, duobus constare, visibili elementorum specie, & inuisibili Domini nostri Iesu Christi carne & sanguine: & Sacramento & re sacramenti, id est, corpore Christi. &c. This is that we say, that we go about by al meanes to approue. That the Sacrifice of the Church is made of two thinges, and consisteth of two thinges, the visible forme of the elementes, and the inui­sible flesh and bloud of our Lorde Iesus Christe, both the Sacrament, and the thing of the Sacrament, that is to say, the body of Christe.

Now where as the Sacrifice consisteth of two things, the visible forme of the elementes,For what, antitypon is taken in S. Cle­ment. which are bread and wine, and the flesh and bloude of our Lorde: S. Clement naming antitypon regalis corporis, the signe, figure, or sam­pler of Christes roial body meaneth the visible forme of the elementes, as vnder them the body, and bloude is really conteined. And so by this woorde antitypon, he vnderstandeth not the outward formes of breade and wine only, but (as in the same sentence he plainely ex­poundeth him selfe) the whole Sacrament, otherwise cal­led the Euchariste. Which Sacrament is after consecra­tion not without reason termed antitypon, partly in consi­deration of the outward formes, partly bicause the ex­ternal breaking and diuision of the blessed Sacrament re­presenteth and betokeneth Christes passion and bloude shedding. Also, bicause we haue not yet the fruition of Christes body after such wise, as we shal haue in the life to come. Here we haue Christe verily, in deede, and sub­stantially, [Page] but as yet couered in a mysterie, and hidden vnder the outward formes.1. Cor. 13. But in the life to come we shal see him face to face, not as through a glasse, or darke contemplation: but euen so as he is in truth of his owne Maiestie.

That the terme antitypon, maketh nothing for the Sacramen­taries.Bicause the Sacramentaries, where, with al their witte and cunning they impugne the Sacrifice of the Aulter, pretend to haue great aduauntage against the Catholikes, for that S. Basil and certaine other olde Fa­thers vse this terme, antitypon, where they speake of the most blessed Sacrament, calling it by that name: It shal be good to shew, how litle the vse of the same in the Fa­thers writings maketh for proufe of their heresie, which they mainteine against the real presence.

First it is acknowledged and confessed of the Catho­likes, that the Sacrament of the Aulter is antitypon, that is to say, a sampler, or signe of Christes roial body: other­wise it could not be a Sacrament, which is a visible signe of inuisible grace. Thus farre we agree on both sides. The point wherein we vary frō the Sacramētaries, is touching the substance of the Sacramēt, or (which is al one though in diuers respectes) the Sacrifice.

We say, that onlesse the flesh and bloude of Christe be the substance of this sampler or signe, it can not be a Sacrament meete for the dignitie of the new Testament: bicause it must be the truth of al the figuratiue Sacri­fices of the olde Lawe, according to that S. Augustine teacheth speaking of the Table [...] Augu. De ciuita. Dei lib. 17. ca. 20. which Christe being a Priest aft [...]r the order of Melchisedech doth exhibite and geue. Id enim Sacrificium successit omnibus illis Sacrificijs veteris Testamenti, quae immolabantur in vmbra futuri. For [Page 82] that Sacrifice (saith he) hath succeded al those Sacrifices of the old Testament, which were offered in the shadow of that to come.

Wherefore this Sacrifice being the body of those shadowes, must excel in substance the Sacrifices, that were the shadowes. But how can that be, if the sub­stance of bread be the substance of our Sacrifice, for as­much as the substance of bread is no better (if it be so good being an artificial and dead thing) then is the sub­stance of a lambe, an Oxe, or a goat, which are natural, and lyuing creatures, whose substances were substances of the olde Sacrifices, that were shadowes.

S. Alexander therefore the fourth Bisshop of Rome after S. Peter, considering the excellency of our Sacri­fice aboue the olde Sacrifices,Alexand. epist. 1. De Cōsec. dist. 2. cap. Ni­hil in. saith, Nihil in Sacrificiis maius esse potest, quàm corpus & sanguis Christi, nec vlla oblatio hac potior est, sed omnes haec praecellit, &c. No­thing can be greater in Sacrifices, then the body and bloude Christe, neither is there any oblation better then this, but this doth farre excel al others, the which ought to be offered vp vnto God with a cleane conscience, and to be receiued with a pure mynde, and of men to be wourshipped.

Thus our Sacrifice conteyning really the pretious body and bloude of Christe, is a Sacrifice worthy of the newe Testamente, most meete and hable to re­present vnto vs, and preserue in perpetual remem­braunce the same body and bloude rent and shed vp­pon the Crosse, and most effectual to deriue and ap­ply vnto vs, the merites and fruites of that bloudy Sa­crifice.

[Page]And yet neuer the lesse being ministred vnder the out­ward formes not of the body and bloude it selfe, but of bread and wine for our infirmities sake, and for the bet­ter practise of our faith: it is rightly called the sampler of the roial body of Christe, so termed by a fitte worde in the greke tongue, antitypon, which being taken in the best signification,Augu. lib. 2. quaest. Euangel. cap. 3. VVhat properly is signi­fied by antitypō. (as it is reason it should so be taken, sith it signifieth a Sacrifice most diuine, and as S. Augustine ter­meth it, Sacrificium Sanctum Sanctorum, the Sacrifice that is of al holy things the most holy) doth import a true and like sampler, or counterpane equal in truth and worthi­nesse with that which is the [...], that is, the princi­pal copie. For so much doth the greke preposition [...] signifie in composition, as for example, Homere often­times calleth that man [...], asmuch to say, equal to God, who for some excellent qualitie semed to be nothing inferiour (at least in that point) to them whom he feined to be Gods. And in consideration hereof, learned men haue translated the Greke worde [...], by this Peri­prasis or circumlocution, examplar similis formae, a sam­pler of like forme.

Now what thing is there any where, that is worthy to be, or may be a true patern or sampler of like forme to the body and bloud of Christe crucified and shed, and now remaining visibly in heauen, but the body and bloud of Christe him selfe, which by vertue of his almighty woorde, he of his singular mercie so maketh and tem­pereth for vs in the most holy mysteries, geuing them vs vnder the formes of our common foode breade and wine, that neither the Maiestie of them should deterre and fray vs from offering them, nor any lothsomnes, [Page 83] or sight of fleshe and bloude, shoulde cause vs to ab­horre to eate and drinke them. And thus the body of Christ in the Eucharist, is, antitypon, that is to say, a signe, a sacrament, a patern, a sampler of his body that hoong vpon the Crosse, and of his body that is now in Maiestie at the right hande of God the Father.

Neither is this a new doctrine of our deuise, it was taught in Christes Churche aboue eleuen hundred yeres past. Let these woordes of S. Augustine serue to wit­nesse the same.Augu. lib. Sentent. Prosperi. de Consec. Dist. 2. Hoc est. Caro eius est, quam forma panis opertam in Sacramento accipimus, & sanguis eius, quem sub vini spe­cie & sapore potamus: Caro videlicet carnis, & sanguis est Sacramentum Sanguinis, vtroque inuisibili, Spirituali, in­telligibili, signatur visibile Domini nostri Iesu Christi corpus & palpabile, plenum gratia omnium virtutum, & diuina Ma­iestate. The flesh of Christe it is, that being couered with the forme of bread we receiue in the Sacrament, and his bloud it is, which vnder the shape and sauour of wine we drinke: soothly flesh is a sacrament of flesh, and bloude a sacrament of bloude, by both being inuisible, spiritual, and intelligible, the body of Iesus Christe our Lord that is visible and palpable, ful of the grace of al vertues, and diuine Maiesty, is betokened.

Consider this doctrine wel Christian Reader. First, that whiche we receiue in the Sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine (S. Augustine telleth thee) is the flesh and bloude of Christe. Next, he saith, not that the outward formes of bread and wine, but that the very flesh and bloude, be sacramentes of flesh and bloude. Lastly, to put al doubte away, and to make the mater cleare, he sheweth how this is true [...] and saith, that [Page] by both flesh and bloude inuisible, and intelligible, the vi­sible and palpable body of Christe is pointed to, notified, and signified. Which is as much to say briefly, as that the body of Christe in the Sacrament inuisible, is a signe or sampler of Christes body visible. Al this yf thou consider diligently and aduisedly, thou maist easily vnderstande, what both S. Clement in the place by M. Iewel alleged, and other learned Fathers meane by this worde, antity­pon, in the mater of the blessed Sacrament: soothly not to exclude the real presence of Christes body, but to signi­fie the secret meane of the presence.

We graunt therefore the Sacrament of the Aulter to be a signe, as S. Clement calleth it, antitypō. But when by any Sacramentarie the denial of the thing it self is infer­red of the affirmation of the signe,The kin­des of Signes, significatiue only, and exhibi­tiue. we deny the Argu­ment. For there be two kindes of signes. One is significa­tiue onely, the other exhibitiue, which doth not only be­token or signifie, but also exhibiteth, and geueth the thing signified. In the olde Lawe the vnleuened bread signi­fied onely, that the feast of Easter was to be celebra­ted with sinceritie of harte and life. The corporal purga­tions signified only the cleansing of myndes. But Bap­tisme in the newe Lawe doth not only signifie, but also exhibiteth, and worketh the Wasshing of synnes, and is the ablution it selfe, or wasshing away of sinnes. Like­wise the holy Euchariste doth not onely betoken or sig­nifie, the body and bloud of Christe, but contineth, and exhibiteth it present,Signū sig­natum, & exhibitiuū and is the very body and bloude of Christ, it is signū signatū, & exhibitiuū. Thus it appeareth, how the Sacramentaries Argument is naught, The Sa­crament is a signe, ergo it is not the body. For it is both a [Page 84] signe, and the body it sefe. For if any wil say, it is a signe significatiue only, it is to be denied as false, and contrary to the manifest wordes of Scripture, and the expositions of al the Fathers.

Now I reporte me to the iudgement of the discrete Reader, what aduauntage M. Iewel hath gotten by the terme, antitypon, alleged out of S. Clement against the blessed Sacrifice of the Churche.S. Clemēt corrup­ted by M. Ievvel. On the other side, what aduauntage may iustly be taken against him, for that most falsly he hath corrupted his author? For looke Reader vpon the shorte testimonie which he allegeth out of S. Clement, and thou shal finde, that M. Iewel hath cut of out of the middest, two wordes of greatest force for the vnderstanding of that goeth there immediatly before: that by falshod he might geue at least some colour vnto his Reply, where in truth he had none at al.

The wordes falsly cut away be these,Clemen. Constitut. lib. 6. cap. 30. acceptabilem (que) Eucharistiam. So that the whole sentence is this in S. Cle­ment, Antitypum regalis corporis Christi, acceptabilē (que) Eu­charistiam offerte in Ecclesiis & coemeteriis vestris. Offer ye vp the sampler of the roial body of Christ, and the accep­table Euchariste in your Churches, and burying places.

These two wordes with the sleight of falsifying nipte away by M. Iewel, be so requisite to the vnderstanding of the authours meaning, that without them mater of cauil by reason of the terme, antitypon, may be mini­stred vnto such, as be more ready to impugne, then to defend the doctrine of the vniuersal Churche touching the substance of the Sacrament, and Sacrifice of the Aul­ter. Contrarywise being leaft in the sentence, conside­red, and rightly vnderstanded, they exclude al occasion [Page] of doubte or cauil, that might rise through the other terme of more obscuritie. For the Euchariste without doubt in that age being taken for the body of Christ, how can it be conceiued, that the other terme, antitypon, in the same place ioyned by a copulatiue together with it, should importe the contrary?

That S. Clement meant by the Eucharist the true and real body of Christe, it is euident by that we finde in the learned Fathers of that age, namely S. Ignatius, and S. Ireneus, who lyued in, or sone after S. Clementes tyme. S. Irenaeus saith,Irenaeus lib. 4. ca. 34. that the breade hauing receiued the calling vpon of the name of God (whereby he mea­neth the Consecration) is no more common bread, but Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans, terrena, & coelesti, the Euchariste consisting of two thinges, the one earthly (where­by he vnderstandeth the forme of bread) the other hea­uenly (which is the body of our Sauiour).The Eu­chariste maketh our bo­dies to be immor­tal. And that it ap­peare certainely, that he thought the Euchariste to be the body and bloude of Christe, he proueth that our bo­dies shal not remaine in corruption, but haue the resur­rection that is hoped for, bicause they receiue the Eucha­riste, and be fed with the flesh and bloude of our Lorde. Ignat. ad Smyrnen. apud theo dorit. li. 3. Dialog.

S. Ignatius likewise in an Epistle ad Smyrnenses, as Theodoritus allegeth him in the third booke of his Dia­logues writing against certaine Heretikes, that would haue neither Euchariste, nor Sacrifice: auoucheth the Eucharist to be the flesh of Christe.The Eu­theriste is the flesh of Christ, that suffe­red for vs. These be his wordes. Eucharistias & oblationes non admittunt, eò quòd non con­fiteantur Eucharistiā esse carnēseruatoris nostri Iesu Christi, quae pro peccatis nostris passa est, & quam Pater sua benigni­tate suscitauit. Eucharistes and oblations they wil not ad­mit, [Page 85] bicause they wil not confesse the Euchariste to be the flesh of our Sauiour Iesus Christe, which flesh suf­fered for our sinnes, and which the Father of his goodnes raised vp from death.

Marke Reader, this auncient Father and blessed Mar­tyr saith not, the Euchariste signifieth Christes flesh, but is Christes flesh, yea that flesh, which was crucified, bu­ried, and rose againe.

And although Theodoritus alleged this authoritie to proue, that it was the humaine flesh, and not the God­hed of Christe, that suffered death, and rose againe, which he proueth by the later parte of the same: yet it principally proueth our purpose, that the Euchariste is the true flesh of Christe. Againe onlesse the selfe same flesh of Christe be in the Euchariste, which died vpon the Crosse, and rose againe: this authoritie auailed Theo­doritus nothing to proue, that Christes flesh was cruci­fied, and raised vp againe.

Wherefore for so much as it is cleare by the testimo­nies of S. Ignatius, and S. Irenaeus, who liued not long af­ter S. Clements time, that the beleefe of their age was, the Euchariste to be the flesh and bloude of Christe: how can M. Iewel kepe his credite with any man that loueth truth, and not seme to haue intended crafte and deceite, in that of purpose, least the truth should appeare manifest, he falsified his auctor by clipping away those two wordes from the middest of the sentence, that make directly against him, and put away al doubte of contrary sense? Thus to mainteine the false doctrine of his arro­gant Chalenge, he feareth not to violate the Fathers, to corrupte their writings, to deceiue the worlde, to pur­chase [Page] him selfe the most reprocheful name of a falsifier. By such champions such quarrels are mainteined.

Constitut. lib. 8.As for the other place of S. Clement, where he saith, offerimus hunc panem, & hoc poculum, we offer this breade, and this cuppe: who nowe a daies know­eth not that the Sacrament sometimes is called by the name of breade and wine, not bicause the substance of breade and wine remaineth: but bicause the outwarde formes, taft, and other qualities of breade and wine be sene, felt, and perceiued: bicause before consecration it was breade and wine, and bicause it is the true breade and wine, that came downe from heauen. Neither doth S. Clement (which is to be noted) barely cal it bread and a cuppe, but this bread, This breade [...] this Cup. and this Cuppe, as S. Paule cal­leth it likewise, this bread, and this Cuppe, and that bread, and the Cuppe of our Lorde. 1. Cor. 11. By which manner of speach vttered with the Pronoune Demonstratiue, not com­mon bread, nor a common cuppe, but a singular, a di­uine, a heauenly, and the supersubstantial breade, and the like cuppe in Saint Clement is signified: euen that breade and cuppe, which according to Christes Insti­tution was before consecrated with the woordes of our Lorde,Math. 26. This is my body, This is my bloude. Luc. 22.

Iewel.

Neither did Christe by these vvordes, Doo ye this in my Re­membrance, erecte any nevve Succession of Sacrificers, to offer him vp Really vnto his Father: nor euer did any Auncient learned Father so expounde it. Christes meaning is cleare by the vvordes, that folovve. For he saith not onely, Doo yee this, but he addeth also, In my Re­membrance: VVhich Doinge perteineth, not only vnto the Apostles, [Page 86] and their successours, as M. Harding imagineth, but also to the vvhole people. And therefore S. Paule saieth, not only to the Ministers, but also to the vvhole Congregation of Corinth, 1. Cor. 11 As often, as ye shal eate this Bread, and drinke this Cuppe, Ye shal shewe foorthe, and publishe the Lordes Deathe, vntil he come. Likevvise S. Chry­sostome applieth the same, Chrysost. ad popul. Antioch. Homil. 61 not onely to the Cleregie, but also to the vvhole people of his Churche of Antioche. Thus he saith, Hoc facite in me­moriam Beneficij mei, Salutis vestrae: Doo ye this in Remem­brance of my Benefite, and of your Saluation.

Of these vveake positions M. Harding vvithout the vvarrante, or authoritie of any learned Father reasoneth thus: Christe saith, This is my Bodie, that is geuen for you: Doo this in my Remem­brance:

Ergo, The Prieste hath power to offer vp the Sonne of God vnto his Father.

Harding.

What M. Iewel meaneth by erecting a newe succes­sion of Sacrificers,Priestes novv b [...] made by election, and ordinatiō, an contine [...] not by right of successiō I know not, but that he taketh plea­sure in his owne skoffing wittte. And whereas he was not hable with sounde reasons, or good authorities to im­pugne the Priesthod of the new Testament, it liked him to worke his spite against it with scorneful, prophane, and Iewish vtterance.

Who euer said, that Christe by those wordes, erected a new succession of Sacrificers? If no man euer said it, why chargeth he vs, as though it had bene said? Aarons Priesthode went by succession, and belonged to one Tribe. But Priestes of the newe Testamente enter not into their Priesthod by right of succession, as they of the Leuitical Tribe did: but by election, and lawful ordi­nation.

[Page]This Priesthod principally is Christes, which continu­eth without succession for euer, as he is a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedek.Psal. 109. Neither be we that are Priestes the Successours of Christe, and much lesse of Aa­ron: we be the ministers of Christ in the function of this Priesthod, and that which we do, we do it by vertue and power of Christe, and in the person of Christ: yea rather Christ is said to doo it through vs.Oecum. in epist. ad Heb. ca. 5. For Oecumenius spea­king of the daily execution of our Priesthoode, and of Priestes that daily do sacrifice, saith, per quos medios Chri­stus sacrificat, & sacrificatur, Christe by the meanes or mediation of the Priestes that be now (of whom there he spake before) sacrificeth, and is sacrificed.

Euseb. De Demonst. lib. 5.Eusebius declaring the euerlasting priesthod of Christ after the order of Melchisedek, saith likewise. Et sanè o­raculi exitus admirabilis est ei, qui comtempletur, quomodo Seruator noster Iesus, Christus Dei, ipsius Melchisedech ri­tu, ea quae sunt Sacrificij inter homines faciendi, [...]. etiam ad­huc per suos ministros perficiat. And verily the accom­plishment of the oracle (which is, thou art a Priest for e­uer after the order of Melchisedek) is maruelous to him that beholdeth,Psal. 109. how our Sauiour Iesus, the Christ of God, doth performe euen vntil this day, those thinges that be of the Sacrifice, which is to be done amonge men.

Marke Reader, how is that accomplished, which the Father in the Psalme is reported to haue said vnto Christ, Thou art a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech. How remaineth he a Priest for euer, sith cōcerning that Oblation and sacrifice, which was once offered by him (saith Oecumenius, meaning the sacrifice of the Crosse) he [Page 87] would not haue said, in aternum for euer? To this que­stion that might be moued, both Oecumenius, and Eu­sebius do answer: that euen now Christe doth the thin­ges that belong vnto the Sacrifice, which is to be made among men. Which is asmuch in sense, as Oecumenius saith, that now by the mediation of Priestes ministerie, Christe sacrificeth, and is sacrificed. And so he remai­neth a Priest for euer.

But leauing these skorneful termes of erecting a newe succession of Sacrificers, to the schoole of Heretiques, and vsing the common wordes of the Churche, If M. Iewel meane therby to say, that Christe speaking these wordes, Doo ye this in my remembrance, did not ordeine the Apo­stles Priestes, nor therby gaue them auctoritie to ordeine others, that for tyme to come should succede them in that order, and that so saying he gaue not them power, auctoritie, and cōmission to offer vp his body and bloud: I say his meaning is vtterly vntrue. And this also, which he saith further, that neuer any learned Father so ex­pounded those wordes of Christe, I affirme to be very false, as here it shal appeare.

First let S. Clement be heard in this point, whom M. Iewel in a false cause doth here take holde of.That Christe made the Apostles Priestes. Bicause the place is somewhat longe, it shalbe sufficient to re­porte it in English truly translated. Thus he saith. Of Moyses most derely beloued of God, Clemens [...] Constitut. Aposto. li. 8. cap. vlt. were instituted Bisshops, Priestes, and Leuites [...] Of our Sauiour we thirteen Apostles. Of the Apostles, I Iames, and I Clement, and with vs others, that we recken not al againe. Cōmonly of al vs, Priestes, Dea­cons, Subdeacons, and Readers. The first high Bishop then by nature is Christe the only begottē, rapuit who caught not honour vn­to [Page] himselfe, but was constituted of his Father. Who for our sake being made man, and offering spiritual sacrifice to God and his Father, before his passion commaunded vs alone, to do the same thing, albeit others were present with vs that be­leued in him. But yet not euery one that beleueth is by and by a Priest, and promoted vnto Bisshoply honour.

This testimonie of S. Clement declareth plainely, both that Christe made the Apostles Priestes, before his Passion geuing charge and commaundement to them onely, though others that beleeued were present, to doo and make the thing, which he had done, that is to say, to take bread and wine, to geue thankes, to blesse, to breake the bread, and to say in the person of Christe, this is my Body, this is my Bloude, &c. Which he calleth offering of spiritual sacrifice, bicause that body and bloud of Christe are thus offered vp spiritually, and in a My­sterie without bloudshed: And also that the Apostles af­terward instituted Priestes, Deacons, Subdeacons, and Readers.

S. Chrysostom excusing him selfe for that he presumed to minister vnto Christe at his holy table, and gathering boldnesse of that Christe him selfe had commaunded it, saith:Chrysost. in Litur­gia. Sacrificiorum ritum instituisti, ac solennis huius & im­maculati Sacrificij celebrationem nobis tradidisti, tanquàm Dominus omnium. Thou (Christe) hast instituted the rite of sacrificing, and hast deliuered vnto vs the cele­bration of this solemne and vnspotted Sacrifice, as Lord of al. And afterward he saith moreouer, hauing rehear­sed what Christ did and said at the Supper, memoriam igi­tur agentes salutaris huius mandati, we kepe the memorie of this healthful commaundement, meaning the comman­dement [Page 88] geuen by these wordes,Luc. 22. Do ye this in my Remem­brance.

When S. Chrysostome saith, Christ deliuered the cele­bration of this Sacrifice vnto vs, it is to be considered, vn­to which vs, and when he did deliuer it. S. Chrysostome was a Bishop, and therefore a Priest: so then naming vs, he meant Priestes. The time when it was deliuered, was at his last Supper. For the Scripture geueth no occasion to thinke, that Christ leafte to Priestes the celebratiō of this Sacrifice any where els, but where he said vnto his Apo­stles:Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11. Doo ye this in my remembrance.

S. Dionyse the Areopagite S. Paules scholer, doth acknowledge, and in most plaine wordes confesse, that Christe by these woordes gaue commaundement to Priestes to offer vp this diuine Sacrifice. Thus he saith. Quocirca Antistes reuerenter & ex Pontificali officio, Dionys. in Ecclesiast. Hierarch. part. 3. c. 3. post sacras diuinorum operum Laudes, quòd hostiam salutarem, quae supra ipsum est, litet, se excusat, ad ipsum primò decenter exclamans, Tu dixisti, hoc facite in mei commemorationem. The Bishop therfore, after he hath praised the workes of God, excuseth him selfe reuerently, and according to his Bishoply office, for that he sacrificeth the heathful hoste, which is aboue his worthinesse, semely first crying vnto him, Thou (ô Christ) hast said, Do ye this in my remēbrance.

Thus it appeareth clearely by this auncient Bishop, and blessed Martyr, who is to be thought to haue learned the same of S. Paule him self, as also by sundry other Fathers, of whome some be already alleged, some hereafter shal be alleged: that Christe by these woordes, Doo ye this in my remembrance, gaue to Priestes auctoritie and com­mission to offer vp the healthful Sacrifice, which can be [Page] none other but that of his body and bloude: and that by the same wordes they vnderstode them selues both char­ged so to doo, and also excused of presumption in doing, the doing of it being a thing, that so farre passeth the wor­thinesse of humaine condition.

But M. Iewel to put away wholly the Sacrifice, whereas Christe said, doo ye this in my remembrance, saith very strangely and boldly,M. Ievvel vvold, al the peo­ple to be Ministers of the Sa­crifice. that this doing perteineth not only vnto the Apostles, and their successours, but also vnto the whole people. And he beareth the worlde in hande, that this is the cleare meaning of Christe, bicause of these wordes, in my remembrance. As though bicause that heauenly Sacrifice is to be offered in remembrance of Christe, therefore the common people and euery one of them should haue the handling of the diuine My­steries, and be made the Ministers of them.

If this be true, weemen haue much wrong, among whom in so many hundred yeres, as haue ben since Christ gaue this commaundement, none was yet euer admitted vnto that administration. And if it perteine vnto the whole people (as M. Iewel saith) why should weemen be excluded? In dede it were a great ease for these holy Ministers, that their good wiues ministred sometimes in the Cōgregations for them, whiles they be playing with their children, or keeling the potre at home.

He should haue done wel, to haue proued this strange point, more substantially, sith there by he should do great pleasure to his felow Ministers, to many other good felowes, and specially to many good sad dames of his owne Gospel, whose curiositie would be wel pleased, if they were admitted to minister, and to doo so much, as [Page 68] these wordes of Christe doo importe, doo ye this in my remēbrance. The deuil hauing sowed hatred in M. Iewels breste against the priesthod, and Sacrifice of the newe Testament, hath brought him vnto this fowle absurditie.

Peraduenture to auoide so great an inconuenience, he wil say that these wordes doo principally perteine vnto the Ministers, who haue succeded the Apostles in this ministerie, and secondarily vnto the faithful people. If he say so, let him withal consider, that being so vnderstan­ded they may wel serue for the Apostles to claime vnto them selues the auctoritie of Priesthod, to offer vp the Sacrifice, and also to ordeine priestes to succede them. For as touching the office of a Priest, it is a cōfessed truth, that the Priest in offering the body and bloud of Christ, is the principal agent concerning outward ministerie, and as it were the instrument of the people, which by a certaine meane offereth also, geuing vnto the Priestes action their assent, and applying their deuotion. Much like to that we say of a multitude to make a supplication, when one man is the speaker and chiefe dooer, and the reste only geue their consent to that is said and done.

And what though S. Paule say vnto the Corinthians,1. Cor. 11. As often as ye shall eate this bread, and drinke this Cuppe, ye shal shewe forth our Lordes death, vntil he come? wil it folow thereof, that Christe speaking these wordes, doo ye this in my remembrance, woulde the whole people to doo that he at his supper did? That is to say, that euery lay person, boye, and woman (for they be of the number of the people) shal take bread, blesse and geue thankes, and vtter the wordes of consecration, This is my body, and likewise the cuppe, saying; this is my bloude, &c?

[Page]Doth he not vnderstand, there is great difference betwen this commaundement of Christ, and that saying of S. Paule? betwen, doo this in my remembrance, which Christe saith: and, when so euer ye eate this bread, and drinke this cuppe, ye shew forth our Lordes death, whiche S. Paule saith? Seeth he not the one to belong vnto the Priest, as he is the pronuncer of the Diuine wordes, whereby the holy Euchariste is consecrate and made: the other to be referred vnto them, that receiue it after it is consecrate? And though 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 [Page 90] 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 Ansvver.

THat Christe offred him selfe to his Father in his last Supper, and that Priestes by those woordes, Doo this in my remēbraunce, 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 y^e Church.

Eusebius Caesariensis hath these woordes, Euseb. li. 1 de demō ­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 [Page] 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 Euse [...]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 Petrū Di­aco. ca. 19. In isto Sa­crificio est gratiarum actio, & Commemoratio Carnis Christi, quam pro nobis obtulit. In this Sacrifice is a Thankes geuinge [Page 91] 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 1 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 2 Fathers to be called a Sacrifice, bicause of thankes, and praises therein offered vnto God.
• Thirdly, he alloweth not the Argumente made out 3 of Eusebius for proufe that Christe is offered vnto his Father.
• Fourthly, he pretendeth to shewe causes, why the 4 Sacrifice of the Communion is dredful, and causeth the [Page] 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 shalbe driuen from your holde by a pre­cise Argument. Answer it, if you can. What so euer we that are Priestes haue ben taught by Christe to doo, to doo the same we haue auctoritie. But we haue ben taught by Christe to offer vp Christe vnto his Father: Ergo, to offer vp Christe vnto his Father we haue au­ctoritie. Ergo, the Priest hath auctoritie, &c.

The Minor or second proposition of this Syllogisme, you denye, I doubte not. For nought els with reason is here to be stickt at. [...] Euseb. de Demōstr. Euāg. 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.

[Page 92]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 vniō 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 2 [...]. 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 [Page] 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 fl [...]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 [Page 93] 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 demō ­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 Testamēt, 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 [Page] Christe offered vnto his Father for the saluation of vs al. He termeth it also in respcte of the thing sacrificed, the [...] fleshly presence of Christ, and his framed body, that God fitted for him, alluding to the woordes of the Psalme, [...]. Corpus aptasti mihi. thou (ô God) hast framed or fitted to me a bodye.

That which of vs is commonly called the Sacrifice of the Aulter,Psal. 39. he calleth, in respect of the action of of­fering, [...], &c. The memorie of this Sacrifice (of the Crosse) celebrated vpon a table. He calleth it also in respect of the thing offered, [...]. The Diuine, honorable, and holy Sacrifice. And terming it also the pure Sacrifice, alluding to the Prophecie of Ma­lachie, he saith, that we sacrifice it, [...], after a new manner according to the new Testa­ment. Which can not be vnderstand of any other, then of the Sacrifices of the Aulter. Furthermore in respect of the body and bloude being two thinges that are offered, he calleth it, the Sacrifices of Christes table, as now the Churche cōmonly calleth it the Sacrifice of the Aulter.

Touching the third kinde of sacrifices, he nameth them first in general, by the terme, of vnbodyly and spiri­tual sacrifices. Afterward particularly he calleth them, the sacrifice of praise, of praiers, of lifting vp the hādes, of a contrite harte. The sacrifice of thankes geuing, by these very termes, he nameth not. In dede I confesse, that where he saith, we sacrifice the memorie of the great Sacrifice (meaning that of the Crosse) celebrating it accor­ding to the mysteries deliuered vnto vs by Christe: There he saith further, that we offer vp vnto God by godly [Page 94] hymnes and prayers, [...] Eucharistiam pro salute nostra, the Euchariste for our saluation: whiche peraduenture M. Iewel had rather to cal, the thankes geuing for our sal­uation.

To shewe that the first and chiefe kinde of sacrifice was prophecied of in the time of the olde Testament, he allegeth the Prophete Dauid,Psal. 39. saying: Oblationem & sacrificium noluisti, corpus autem aptasti mihi. Oblation and sacrifice thou refusedst, and had framed me a body.

For the sacrifices of the third kinde,Psal. 49. he allegeth the knowen scriptures, offer vnto God the sacrifice of praise, and render vnto the highest thy vowes, and cal vpon me in the day of [...]ribulation, Psal. 140. Psal. 50. and I wil deliuer thee. Againe, The lif [...]ing vp of my handes is an euening sacrifice. Item, A contrite spirite is a sacrifice to God. &c. In this order is to be placed the sacrifice of thankes geuing, which M. Iewel strange­ly and absurdly auoucheth to be that, whiche Eusebi­us calleth by the name of the Sacrifices of Christes table.

Now concerning the second kinde of Sacrifice,The Sa­crifices of Christes table, vvhat they are. that Eusebius speaketh of, which is the sacrifice of th'Aulter, or as the termeth it, the dreadful Sacrifices of Christes table: whiles he allegeth the prophecies of Dauid, and of Esay for it, he sheweth clearely, that he meant not thereby the sacrifice of thankes principally, or praise for the Sacri­fice once made vpon the Crosse, nor the Ministration of the holy Communion, of which M. Iewel confusely ex­poundeth Eusebius: but the holy Mysteries of Christes table, to wit, the Body and Blounde of Christe vnder the formes of bread and wine offered at the table in remembrance of Christes death. Which I confesse neuer the lesse alwaies to be offered not without the [Page] Sacrifice of thankes, and praise: and with that Sacrifice we doo thanke, and praise God most principally.

The saying of Dauid propheciyng of the Sacrifices of this table,Psal. 22. as Eusebius allegeth, is this. Parasti in conspe­ctu meomensam aduersus eos qui tribulant me, Impinguasti in oleo caput meum, & calix tuus inebrians me quàm fortis­simè. Thou hast prepared before mine eyes a table against those that trouble me, thou hast anointed my head with oile, and thy Cuppe maketh me dronke after a most strōg wise. [...] Expressely and manifestly in these wordes (saith Eu­sebius) is signified the mystical Chrisme (or ointment) and the dreadful (or honorable) Sacrifices of Christes table.

Verely this soueraigne praise, that Dauid after the mynde of Eusebius geueth vnto the mystical Cuppe of our Lordes table, can not seme to be attributed vnto the Cuppe of the Sacramentarie Suppers, which conteineth in it no better thing, then common wine. It is the bloud of Christe, not a suppe of common wine, that doth moist and inebriate a man in that most strong wise, wher­of Dauid prophecied. The Hebrew worde importing signification of great abundance, maketh muche for this sense, and quite contrary to the Sacramentarie do­ctrine.

From Dauid he goeth to Esay the Prophete, alleging among other thinges a saying out of him, signifiyng, that the Lorde of bostes should do maruelous thinges in al nations. What those thinges are, the prophete decla­reth. They shal haue pleasant drinke (saith he) they shal drinke wine. They shal be annointed with an ointment in this hil. Vpon these wordes of Esay thus saith Eusebius. These maruelous thinges that Esay speaketh of, did promise [Page 95] not to Israel, but to al nations, the annointing of a good sweete smelle, and of ointmētes, by reason whereof bicause of the an­nointing of the ointment, they obteined to be called Chri­stians, (that is to say the annointed). Then folow the wordes, which declare what he meant by the Sacrifices of Christes table.

Furthermore (saith he) this prophete prophecieth vnto the Gentiles of the pleasantnes of wine, secretly signifying the Mysterie of the new Testament of Christe, which is ma­nifestly celebrated at this time among al nations. Thus Eu­sebius in that place expounding the prophecies of Da­uid, and of Esay, promising the inebriating Cuppe, and gifte of wine vnto the Gentiles, of the blessed Sacri­fice of Christes table (which as it is called a table for that the heauenly foode is thence ministred vnto vs, so it is called also an Aulter in respect of the oblation and Sa­crifice there made and solemnized) doth plainely signifie what he vnderstode by the Sacrifices of Christes table, soothly not the sacrifice of thankes geuing principally, which semeth to the vnlearned to consist onely in wordes, but the Sacrifices of the body and bloude of Christe, and consequently Christe him selfe. And ther­fore that place of Eusebius is in my Answer to the Chalenge rightly and aptly to my purpose alleged, as the whiche, proueth against M. Iewel, that the Priest hath auctoritie to offer vp Christe vnto his Father.

Yet if M. Iewel wil not ceasse to cal for his owne termes,August. Epist. 174. not being content with termes equiualent: I thinke good to answer him, as S. Augustine answered Pascentius the Arian crying importunatly for the terme Homusion to be shewed him in the Scriptures. Quid est [Page] contentiosius, quàm vbi de re constat, certare de nomi­ne? What is a more contentious parte, then to striue about the name, when the thing it selfe is certainely knowen.

But now M. Iewel bringeth in S. Augustine, Eusebius, and S. Gregorie Nazianzen, to witnesse with him, that the ministration of the holy Communion is called a Sacri­fice, bicause therein thankes and Praises be offered vp vnto God for the Sacrifice made vpon the Crosse.

To this I answer, that these Fathers can not be shewed so much as once to haue named the Sacrifice of the Mi­nistration of the Communion, nor that this Ministration of the Communiō is in any of their workes expressely called a Sacrifice. He should haue done wel, if he had made it cleare, what he meaneth by this holy Communiō, and what by the Ministration of the same. That the Ministration of the Communion is a Sacrifice, I trowe it is a speache neuer heard of in the Churche of God, before these Mi­nistring prelates came to teache vs a new faith.

If he vnderstand by the holy Communion, the new de­uise of the Caluinistes,The ministratiō of the nevv holy Cō ­munion made a nevv Sa­crifice by M. Ievv. which they haue set vp like an Idol in their defourmed churches in place of the blessed Masse, after a diuers manner in diuers Cities, and Coun­tries, according to the diuers fantasies of new Ministers, who daily please them selues with changing what so euer liketh others, in which sorte of Communion there is no substance of any better thing, then of bread and wine, no due consecration made, no oblation, no real Sacrifice, no participation of the true body and bloude of Christe: If this be his meaning, as doubtelesse it is: most certaine it is, those auncient learned Fathers, neuer [Page 96] spake of it, neuer knewe it: much lesse did they any where call the ministration of it, a Sacrifice.

S. Augustine saith not,Augustin. ad Petrū Diaconū. cap. 19. the ministration of the Commu­nion is a Sacrifice, which M. Iewel by his wordes taketh vpon him to proue: but, In this Sacrifice (saith he) there is a thankesgeuing, and a cōmemoration of the flesh of Christe, which he offered for vs, and of the bloude, which the same God did shed for vs. In this Sacrifice, saith he, he saith not in the ministration of the Cōmunion. What he meant by this Sacrifice, there he sheweth clearely. For hauing said in the beginning of the chapter, that beastes were sacrificed vnto Christe with the Father, and the holy Ghost, by the Patriarkes, Prophetes, and Priestes of the olde Law, forth­with he addeth these wordes. Cui nunc, id est, tempore No­ui Testamēti, cū Patre & Spiritu sancto, cū quibus est illi vna Diuinitas, sacrificiū Panis & vini in fide & charitate sancta Ecclesia Catholica, per vniuersum orbē terrae offerre nō cessat. Vnto whom now, that is to say, in the time of the Newe Testament, with the Father, and the Holy Ghoste, with whom he hath one Godhed, the holy Catholike Church doth not ceasse to offer vp through the whole worlde, the Sacrifice of bread and wine in faith and charitie.

M. Iewel thought to take aduantage of this place,The Sa­crifice of bread and vvine. bi­cause this Sacrifice is here called the sacrifice of bread and wine, and would nedes this to be taken for the mini­station of his new Communion, as though bicause bread and wine is named (which is the substāce of their cōmu­nion) the body and bloud of Christe were excluded. But this reason is very weake, besides that neither M. Iewel, nor any of the Caluinistes doo vse to cal this sacrifice, the Sacrifice of bread and wine. Neither do they bring [Page] their bread and wine to church to make a sacrifice of it to God, but to distribute it vnto their Congregations. The sacrifice they pretende to make, is of thankes and praises: any outward thing they sacrifice not at al.

True it is, this Sacrifice is sometimes called the Sa­crifice of bread and wine, as in this place, De Fide ad Petrum Diaconum, either bicause it representeth in out­warde formes, bread and wine: or bicause bread and wine are the thinges, whereof of the change it selfe, which perteineth to the nature of a Sacrifice (for so much as it requireth, that the thing that is offered be sanctified by some change) taketh beginning. And as in the olde sacrifices of the Iewes, the Calfe both being yet aliue, was called a Sacrifice, bicause it was that thing, whiche by killing was to be sanctified, and also being killed, bi­cause it was the Hoste now sanctified by sacrificing, whiche hoste so many as did eate of, were made parta­kers of the aulter: Euen so in the Sacrament of the Eu­chariste, the bread and wine may be called a Sacrifice, as being the thinges, that by change made of them with consecration are to be sanctified. Therefore in the be­ginning of the Canon of the Masse it is said of them, Sup­plices rogamus ac petimus, &c. We humbly pray and beseche thee, that thou accepte, and blesse, these giftes, these pre­sentes, these holy Sacrifices.

The body it selfe also, and bloud of Christe conteined vnder the fourme of bread and wine, are called the Sa­crifice, as being the thinges, into which the holy change by vertue of the wordes of Consecration is made. of which it is said in the end of the Canon: We offer vp vn­to thy most honorable Maiestie of thy giftes and benefites, [Page 97] a pure Hoste, a holy Hoste, an vnspotted hoste. Thus we say, and so the Fathers speake both waies of this Sacrifice, that it is the Sacrifice of breade and wine, that is to say, made of bread and wine (bicause that which was breade and wine is now turned and changed into the body and bloude of Christe) and the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of our Lorde, that is to say, the very true hoste it selfe with a certaine diuine change consecrated and made.

In other places most commonly it is named of the Fa­thers, the Oblation or Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christe, in consideration of the inward substance of the Sacrifice vnder the formes of bread and wine conteined. As S. Augustine writing against Faustus the Heretique,Aug. cont. Faust. lib. 20 [...] ca. 18. hauing spoken of the manifold Sacrifices of the olde law, and of the Sacrifice of the Crosse, consequently saith, whereby he signifieth, what he vnderstandeth by this sa­crifice of bread and wine: I am Christiani peracti eiusdem Sacrificij memoriam celebrant, sacrosancta oblatione, & par­ticipatione corporis & sanguinis Christi. The Christians do nowe celebrate the memorie of the Sacrifice of the Crosse past and done, by the holy oblation, and partici­pation of the body and bloude of Christe. So in diuers considerations both these savinges be true, The holy ca­tholike Churche euery where offereth vp to God the sacrifice of bread and wine, and it offereth the Sacrifice of the flesh and bloud of Christe.

And whereas our daily Sacrifice, which the Christi­ans doo now euery where offer, is the celebration of the memorie of that which was done vpon the Crosse, and therefore oftentimes of the Fathers is named a me­morie [Page] or commemoration, as we finde in Eusebius here also alleged by M. Iewel:Euseb. in Demonst. lib. 1. the worde Memorie or comme­moration excludeth the truth of passion and death (for now Christe suffereth,Rom. 6. nor dieth no more) the truth, or real presence of the body, which on the Crosse suffered and dyed for vs, it excludeth not. For with and by the holy Oblation and participation of that flesh and bloude (saith S. Augustine) we celebrate the memorie of the Sa­crifice that was made vpon the Crosse. So that the sub­stance of the Sacrifice of the Crosse, and of that of the Aulter, is one and the same, the flesh and bloude of Christ: onely the manner of Oblation is diuers. Which if these Gospellers would once confesse, as S. Augustine here witnesseth, and Christes Church hath euer beleeued, and they them selues be not ignorant of: we should not haue neede to write so many bookes, and the worlde should sone drawe to a better quiet.

As for the two other testimonies alleged out of Euse­bius, and S. Gregorie Nazianzen, they prooue not that for which they be alleged, which is, that the Ministration of the Communion is of them called a sacrifice, wherby M. Iewel would exclude the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe. For first as touching Nazianzen, by what Logique maketh he this Argument good, He cal­leth the holy Communion, [...]. exemplar magnorum My­steriorum, the Figure or sampler of the great Mysteries: Ergo, the Ministration of the Communion, is called a Sacrifice? Verily in this Argument is neither reason, nor good Logique.

What though Eusebius say thus being truly transla­ted, Christe after al (the Sacrifices of Moses Lawe) hauing [Page 98] sacrificed a maruelous sacrifice, and a passing Hoste vnto his Father, offred it vp for al our saluatiō, [...]. hauing deliuered vn­to vs also a memorie, to offer it vp continually vnto God [...]. for a Sacrifice, so it is to be translated, not in stede of a Sacrifice, as Maister Iewel hath turned it? Wil he con­clude of this, that Eusebius calleth the Ministration of his Communion a Sacrifice? No, no, his purpose was not so much to proue the ministration of their Commu­nion to be called a sacrifice, as to disproue the Sacrifice of the Aulter, which Eusebius in my Answer alleged, calleth in respect of Christes body and bloude offered in the same, the Sacrifices of Christes table.

To that ende he semeth to haue alleged Eusebius,A memorie of the Sacrifice of the Crosse, excludeth not the Sacrifice of the Aulter. bi­cause he nameth that, which Christ deliuered vnto vs to offer vp daily vnto God, a memorie. As though Christes body and bloud could not be really present in these holy Mysteries, if that which we doo, be a memorie or cōme­moratiō of that which Christ did. Yeas forsoth M. Iewel, The Sacrifice that we offer, when we doo that which Christ at his last Supper cōmaūded vs to do, is the memo­rie of the body and bloud of Christ, and in respect of the thing offered and sacrificed, the very and true body and bloud of Christ it self. And this is accordīg to the doctrine of S. Augustin,Aug. cont. Faust. lib. 20. cap. [...]. who saith, as is afore rehersed, The Christi­ans do celebrate the memorie of the Sacrifice (of the Crosse) now performed (which Eusebius in respect of the thing of­fered calleth the maruelous Sacrifice, and passing hoste) with the holy Oblation and Participation of the body and bloude of Christe If they doo it with the Oblation and parti­cipation of the body and bloude of Christe, then is the body and bloud of Christe present, then is it offered, and [Page] participated, which Eusebius for that cause calleth the [...] Sacrifices of Christes Table.

Eusebius also (saith M. Iewel) calleth this a Sacrifice of praise. In deee, as I declared before, Eusebius speaketh of diuers Sacrifices. Of the Sacrifice of the Crosse, of the sa­crifices of the table of Christ, of the Sacrifice of praise, of prayers, of a contrite harte. And what if he speake of the Sacrifice of praise, wil it thereof folow M. Iewel by your new Logique, that the Sacrifices of Christes table be not taken in Eusebius for the body and bloude of Christ? And I pray you, may not the selfe same in one respect be a Sacrifice of Praise,M. Iewels common custom to disproue one truth by an o­ther truth. and also in an other respect, the Sa­crifice of Christes body and bloud? When wil you leaue your common woont, to disproue one truth by an other truth? If one should say vnto you concerning a sorte of your Ministers standing before you at a visitatiō, Sir these felowes be no Ministers of Gods worde, and holy Sacra­mētes, for they be handy Craftesmen: would you not an­swer him, Sir your reason is naught, for they be Ministers, and honest Craftesmen both? No better is your reason, where you say, This Sacrifice, is a Sacrifice of Praise, and of thankes geuing, or it is a memorie, and a sampler of the bloudy Sacrifice, ergo, it is not the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe, it is not a true, and a very Sacrifice. For there is no inconuenience in attributing these names and termes vnto the most blessed Sacrament and Sacrifice of the Aulter, diuers respectes being con­sidered.A plaine testimo­nie for the Sacri­fice of the Aulter.

But M. Iewel, how happed it, that where you founde in Eusebius, Sacrificium laudis, the Sacrifice of Praise (the Greeke whereof also you would needes to be noted in [Page 99] the margent of your booke, though with addition of an article more then is in the Doctour: you saw not among the manifold sacrifices there reckened, this Sacrifice so expressely set foorth and cōmended with these wordes? [...].Euseb. lib. 1. de De­monst. in fine. That is to say, we sacrifice the diuine, and honorable, and most holy Sacrifice. We sacrifice the pure Sacrifice after a new manner according to the newe Testament. By which description that, which we cal the Sacrifice of the Aulter, is plainely signified.

Againe how could you not see the manifest mention of the Aulter,A testimonie for material Aulters. whereon this Sacrifice is offred, there a litle before expressed? And least you might auoide the force of that cleare testimonie by expounding it of the spiritual Aulter of mans harte, remember that he speaketh of such an Aulter, as might not by Moses lawe be set vp, but onely in Iewrie, and that as there he saith in one on­ly Citie of that Prouince. As for the spiritual Aulters of mens hartes, Moses Lawe did neuer forbid. An Aul­ter (saith Eusebius) of vnbloudy and reasonable sacrifices, [...]. is now erected, according to the new Mysteries of the new Te­stament, ouer al the worlde, both in Egypte and in other na­tions, &c. What can be vnderstanded by this Aulter buil­ded in witnesse of the abrogation of Moses Lawe, of his Aulter at Hierusalem, and of his vncleane Sacrifices, as there Eusebius discourseth, and that according to the new Mysteries of the newe Testament: but the external Aulter of the Church, whereupon the body and bloud of Christe,In Apolo­getico. in forme of bread and wine, the external Sacri [...]fice, as S. Gregorie Nazianzen calleth it, is offered, and the most holy and dreadful Mysteries are celebrated?

[Page]Hath Satan the enemie of this Sacrifice so blinded your harte with malice against the same, that you saw the sacrifice of Praise, of Praiers, and other mere spi­ritual Sacrifices, and this most Diuine, most high, and most special Sacrifice of the Churche could not see, so euidently and with so expresse colours set forth in the same place? What can be said in your excuse? Either you saw this much in Eusebius your selfe, or you trusted your Greeke frende of Oxford, whose helpe for the ful­ler stuffing of your great booke you vsed, as it is know­en. If you saw it, and of purpose would concele it, and by rehersing other Sacrifices thought so to coouer this Sacrifice: then great was your malice. If you sawe it not, but trusted your Grecian, and such other slipper Merchantes, who knewe wel your humour, and perceiued what shoulde please your appetite: then were you very rash and vnwise, and thereby haue ge­uen occasion to al wise men to take good aduise, how they beleue you in so weighty maters.

Hitherto M. Iewel, as now vnto the learned it is made cleare, hath said litle for good Answere to the testimonie for the Sacrifice of the Aulter, brought out of Eusebius. But what falshoode he hathe vsed, it is partely disclosed. If thou marke him wel Reader, thou shalt perceiue this sleight in him, that he ne­uer reherseth the woordes of Eusebius, as I haue al­leged them. For in dede they seme to grauel him, and to be so plaine, as with plainenesse he seeth no way how to answer them. Craftily he dissembleth the Sa­crifices of Christes table spoken of by Eusebius in the plural number, whereby he vnderstandeth the body [Page 100] bloude of Christe, of which eche one is a Sacrifice, that is to say,M. Iewels guileful dealing. the thinge sacrificed, and consecrated seue­rally in the seueral fourmes of breade and wine, in Commemoration and Remembraunce of the Body and Bloude, whiche were seuered the one from the o­ther by violence of the souldiers vppon the Crosse: and nameth the Sacrifice of the Lordes Table in the sin­gular number, for the better oportunitie to deceiue the vnlearned Reader.

Iewel.

But Eusebius saith further, This Sacrifice is dreadful, and causeth the harte to quake. M. Harding may not vvel geather by any force of these vvordes, that the Sonne of God is Really offered vp by the Priest vn­to his Father. For al thinges, vvhat so euer, that put vs in remembrance of the Maiestie, and Iudgementes of God, of the Holy Fathers are called Dreadful. S. Cyril saith, Cyril. in Apol. Chrysost. 1. Cor. Hom. 49. Lectio Diuinarum, & Terribilium Scriptu­rarum: The reading of the Diuine, and Terrible Scriptures. S. Chrysostome calleth the vvordes of Baptisme, Verba arcana, & metuē ­da, & horribiles Canones dogmatum de Coelo transmissorum: The Secrete, and Dreadful wordes, and Terrible Rules of the do­ctrine, that came from Heauen. And speaking of the Hande, and voice of the Deacon, he saith thus, Manu illa Tremenda, & continua Vo­ce clamans, alios vocat, alios arcet: VVith that Terrible Hand, and continual Voice crieinge, somme he calleth in, and somme he putteth of.

This Sacrifice maketh the Harte to tremble, for that therein is laide forth the Mysterie, that vvas hidden from vvorlds, and Generations: The horrour of Sinne: The Death of the Sonne of God: That he tooke our hea­uinesse, and bare our sorovves, and vvas vvounded for our offenses, and vvas Rente, and Tormented for our VVickednesse: That he vvas carried like an innocent Lambe vnto the Slaughter: that be cried vnto his Father, O God. O my God, vvhy haste thou thus forsaken mee?

[Page] There vve cal to Remembrance al the causes, and circumstances of Christs Death: The Shame of the Crosse: The Darkening of the Aire: The Shaking of the Earth: The renting of the Vele: The cleauing of the Rocks: The opening of the Graues: The Descending into Hel: and the Cōquering of the Diuel. Therefore Chrysostome saith, Quāuis quis lapis esset, illa nocte audita,Chrysost. in 1. ad Corinth. Hom. 17. quomodò cū Discipulis tristis fue [...]it, quomodò tradi­tus, quomodò ligatus, quomodò abductus, quomodò iudicatus, quomodò deni (que) oīa Passus, cera mollior fiet, & terrā, & omnē ter­rae cogitationem abijciet: Any man hearing of the order of that night, how Christe was moorneful emonge his Disciples, howe he was deliuered, how he was bound, how he was leadde away, how he was arreigned, and how meekely he suffered al, that was donne vnto him, were he as harde as a Stoane, yet woulde he be as softe as VVaxe, and would throwe both the Earth, and al Earthely Cogitations away from him.

Thus saith Nicolaus Cabasilas, one of M. Hardings late Greeke Do­ctours: Hoc facite in meā Commemorationem. Sed quaenam est haec Commemoratio? &c. Doo ye this in Remembrance of me. But what is this Remembrance? Hovv doo we consider: Our Lorde in the Holy Ministration? VVhat doo we conceiue him doing? Hovv dealing? vvhat suffering? vvhat thinke vve? vvhat speake vve of him? Do vve imagin of him (in that time of the Holy Mysteries) that he healed the Blinde? That he raised the Dead? That he staied the VVindes? Or that vvith a fewe loaues he fead thousandes: which are tokens, that he was God Omni­potent? No, not so. But rather we cal to remembrance such thinges, as declared his weakenesse: his Crosse, his Passion, his Deathe: In respect of those thinges he said, Doo yee this in my Remembrance. The Priest both by his wordes, and also by the vvhole Circumstance of doinge, seemeth to say, Thus Christe came to his Passion: Thus he vvas vvounded in the side: Thus he died: Thus Bloud and VVater issued, and streamed from his vvounde. These considerations, thus laide before our eies, are hable to cause any godly harte to quake, and tremble. As for the Real offeringe vp of Christe in Sacrifice, that learned Father Eusebius saith nothing.

[Page 101] Verily, it is but a simple Sophisme to say, This Sacrifice is Dreadful, and causeth vs to quake: Ergo, The Priest offereth vp the Sonne of God vnto his Father.

Harding.

Whereas I gather an Argument of a plaine testimonie for the Sacrifice of the Aulter, out of the whole sentēce alleged: M. Iewel pretendeth to his Reader, as though I tooke my chiefe and onely holde of this one worde, Dreadful, Dreadful. which being but one worde in Eusebius, he maketh to sounde many wordes, and saith, that I may not gather by any force of these wordes, that the Sonne of God is really offered vp by the Priest vnto his Father. Whereas in deed I gather it not by force of that woorde, Dreadful (whereof for his aduantage he maketh diuers woordes) onely, nor chiefly: but of the whole saying, and special­ly of the very expresse name of the Sacrifice of Christes table, and also of that Eusebius saith, we haue bene taught by Christe him selfe to offer them vnto God. Which I ex­pounde, as they are to be expounded, of these woordes spoken by Christe at his Supper,Luc. 22. Hoc facite in meam com­memorationē, doo ye this in my remembrance, as it is to be sene in my Answere, and he dissembled to haue sene it. As for the Sonne of God really offered vp, they be not my wordes, as the booke is witnesse, they be his, where­by he thought to take aduantage, though the Proposition in those termes also be true, in a right and due sense.

Bicause therefore he groundeth his Replie vpon that which I say not, and bestoweth many wordes in dispro­uing that I affirme not, and prouing that I denie not, and maketh a long needelesse talke of the worde, Dreadful, [Page] shewing sundry thinges to be called Dreadful (wherein he telleth some truth) pretending to the Reader there­by, as though bicause Eusebius is alleged calling this Sa­crifice Dreadful, thereof specially I had concluded the auctoritie of offering Christe vnto his Father, whiche thing in dede I do not: And forasmuch as this much is vn­truly attributed vnto me, and therefore may with like fa­cilitie be denyed, as it is without proufe said, and the whole processe of the rest of this Diuision is vtterly im­pertinent, and besides the purpose: I thinke this much ynough for answer vnto it, that it is not worth the an­swering.

The Ansvvere.

Hesychius lib. 1. c. 4. THat Christe Sacrificed himselfe at his Supper, Hesychius affirmeth with these wordes: Quod Dominus iussit (Leuit. 4.) vt Sacerdos vi­tulū pro peccato oblaturus,Ioan. 10. ponat manū super caput eius, & iugulet eū corā Domino, Christū significat, quem nemo obtulit, sed nec immola­re poterat, nisi semetipsum ipse ad patiendū tra­didisset. Propter quod non solùm dicebat, Po­testatem habeo ponendi animan meam, & po­testatem habeo iterum sumēdi eam: sed & prae­ueniens semetipsum in Coena Apostolorū im­molauit, quod sciunt, qui Mysteriorum perci­piunt [Page 102] virtutem. That our Lord commaunded (saith he) the Priest, which should offer a calfe for sinne, to put his hande vpon his heade, and to sticke him before our Lord, it signifieth Christ, whom noman hath offe­red, neither could any man Sacrifice him, excepte he hadde deliuered him selfe to suffer. For the which he said not only, I haue power to lay downe my Soule, and I haue power to take it againe: But also preuenting it, he offred vp him selfe in Sacrifice in the Supper of the Apostles: which they knowe, y^t receiue the vertue of the Mysteries. By these wordes of Hesychius we learne, that Christ offered, and sacrificed his Body and Bloud twise. Firste in that Holy Supper vnbloudely, when he tooke Bread in his handes, and brake it, &c: With­out Diuision of the Sacrifice, for it is but one and the same Sacrifice. And afterwarde on the Crosse, with Shedding of his bloud, and that is it, he meaneth by the woorde, Preuenting.

Iewel.

VVe denie not, but it may vvel be saide, Christe at his last Sup­per offered vp him selfe vnto his Father: Albeit, not Really, and in deede, but, accordinge to M. Hardinges ovvne Distinction, in a Figure, Apocal. 13. or in a Mysterie: in suche sorte, as vve say, Christe vvas offered in the Sacrifices of the Olde Lavve: and as S. Iohn saieth, Ag­nus Occisus ab Origine Mundi: The Lambe was shaine from the beginninge of the VVorlde. As Christe vvas slaine at the Table, so vvas he Sacrificed at the Table. But he vvas not slaine at the Table Verily, and in dede, but onely in a Mysterie: Therefore he vvas not Sacrificed at the Table Really, and in deede, but onely in a Mysterie.

[Page] So saith S. Augustine, Nonne semel immolatus est Christus in s [...] ­m etipso?August. Epist. 23. Et tamen in Sacramento, non tantùm per omnes Pas­chae Solennitates, sed etiam omni die populis immolatur. Nec vtique mentitur, qui interrogatus, eum responderit immolari. Si enim Sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum, quarum Sacramenta sunt, non haberent, omnino Sacramenta non essent. VVas not Christe once offered in him selfe? And yet in (or, by vvay of) a Sacramente, not only at the Solemne Feaste of Easter, but euery daye he is offered vnto the people. And he saith no vn­trueth, that being demaunded, maketh answeare, that Christe is Sacrificed. His reason is this: For if Sacramentes had not a certaine Likenesse, or Resemblance of the thinges, wherof they be Sacra­mentes, then should they vtterly be no Sacramentes.

Harding.

The contentes of M. Iewels Replie in this Diuision stand in .4. pointes.

• First, he graunteth that Christe offered vp him selfe 1 vnto his Father at his last Supper, in a figure, or in a My­sterie, that is to say, as he expoundeth himselfe, in such sorte, as he was offered vp in the Sacrifices of the olde Lawe: But that he was there really, and in dede offred, he vtterly denieth.
• 2 Secondly, for answer to the authoritie alleged out of Hesychius, he saith, that sometimes he was driuen to streatche, and straine the Scriptures to his purpose.
• 3 Thirdly, he would prooue his Sacramentary opinion touching the difference betwen the Sacrifice of the Ta­ble, and the Sacrifice of the Crosse, by a place of S. Cy­prian, leauing out the which foloweth in him, being such as clearely determineth the point against him.
• 4 Fourthly, whereas I say, that Christe twise sacrificed [Page 103] him selfe really, he auoucheth it to be reproued by plaine wordes of S. Paule.

Of the falshode of the first point, though I haue spo­ken somewhat already, yet because M. Iewel ceasseth not to sing one song, and eftsones repeateth the same tale, standing vppon his false Negatiue: some deale more semeth here necessary to be spoken: that it may appeare how cleare the truth is of our side, and how weake the stuffe is, that he bringeth against vs.

Although he tel not his tale in most distincte, and plaine wise, as this doctrine of the vnbloudy Sacrifice of Christe ought to be vttered, vsing the termes of Figure, and Mysterie, confusely: yet his meaning is plaine ye­nough, verely more plaine, then true: Which is, that Christe offered vp him selfe vnto his Father at his laste Supper in Figure onely, and that, concerning both the thing offered, and the manner of offering: For adding as it were an exposition of his owne wordes,M. Iewels doctrine touching the Sacri­fice, is on­ly figura­tiue. In such sorte, saith he, as we say, Christe was offered in the Sacrifice of the olde Lawe. Now certaine it is, that in the sacrifi­ces of the olde Lawe Christe was offered in Figure one­ly, whether we consider the substance that was offered, or the manner of offering. The substance of those olde Sacrifices, was a brute beast, a sheepe, a calfe, a goat, an Oxe. Of which euery one was but a figure onely of Christ [...] the manner of offering was slaughter with bloud­shed, which slaughter was also a figure onely of Christes bloudy death to be suffered vppon the Crosse. So M. Iewels doctrine touching this point is figuratiue on eue­ry side, that is to say, that Christe offered vp him selfe at his supper in Figure onely.

[Page]Yet vnderstanding with him self, and as it were, bei [...]g gilty in his owne conscience, that this doctrine soun­deth very strangely, and would offend the eares of the learned Catholiques: in the conclusion he qualifieth his tale with termes, and shunning the odious woorde of a Figure onely, guilefully shifteth in the worde Mysterie, saying, that Christe was not sacrificed at the Table really, and in dede, but onely in a Mysterie.

Nowe that our disputation fal not into wrangling and cauilles, here he is to be demaunded, what he mea­neth by this terme, onely in a Mysterie, in this Proposition, Christe was not sacrificed at the Table really, but onely in a Mysterie.

Onely in a Myste­rie.If he meane nothing els thereby, but to exclude the bloudy manner of sacrificing, as in deede properly to speake, the sacrificing of lyuing thinges is with bloude­shed and slaughter: in that respecte we graunte also, that at the Table Christe was not really so sacrificed, but in Mysterie only. For at the Table we knowe, he was not stickte with a knife, as the brute beastes in the olde Lawe were, nor let bloude with thornes, nai­les, or speare, as he was on the nexte morow vppon the Crosse.

Mary where the exclusiue particle, Onely, is ad­ded, though in a right sense we might beare with it, as it is referred to the mystical manner of sacrificing: yet we say, it is strangely vsed in this place, where it may haue relation to two thinges, either to the body and bloud of Christe being the substance of the Sacrifice, or to the manner of sacrificing.

But if by his terme, Onely in a Mysterie, he ex­clude [Page 104] the Real presence of Christe him selfe, and meane that his very body and bloude (as muche to say, Christe him selfe bicause of the vnitie of the two na­tures) was not in Christes handes, and vppon the Ta­ble in deede, when hauing taken breade he gaue than­kes, blessed,Lucae 22. brake it, and said, this is my Body, and con­cerning the Cuppe, this is my Bloude, [...]e is not nowe in the Aulter,Only. when we consecrate, doing that Christe did, and bad vs to doo, but that he was there then, and is here now at the Diuine Celebration, in a figure, signe, token, signification, memorie, representation, or Mysterie Onely, or that a figure, signe, token, or Mysterie Onely is present, and sacrificed, and not very Christe him selfe: If this be his meaning, herein we dis­sent vtterly from him, and he dissenteth from the Chur­che of God, from that the holy Ghoste hath taught his Churche, from that al faithful Christen people hath euer beleeued, from that Christe him selfe professed, saying, this is my body, this is my bloude: to be shorte, from that, which hath bene of late by certaine learned men against him, and his felowes sufficiently, and substantially prooued.

But what neede we to demaunde of M. Iewel, what he meaneth by his clowdy wordes? No clowde can hyde his Sacramentarie heresie, it is euident, as wel by that he saith here, as by that he hath said and writtē in sundry o­ther places, according to the purport of the Caluinists do­ctrine (vnto which sect he hath adioyned him self) and by his open profession, that he standeth in his Negatiue, and holdeth opinion, that Christe offered not him selfe really at his last Supper. Now the affirmatiue part, which is, that [Page] Christe offered him selfe at that Supper really, truly, and in dede, and made a real Sacrifice, though it be in my An­swere already proued: yet here further for theire sake, who breake not out of the Churche by their own stub­bornnesse, and wilful malice, but be lead a syde by simpli­citie, and ignorance: thus we prooue.

If Christe offered not vp him selfe really and in dede in a Sacrifice at his last Supper, he leaft his new Lawe in worse state then was the condition of them, who liued in the time of the Lawe of Nature, or in the time of the Lawe written. But in worse state he leafte it not: Ergo, he sacrificed him selfe at the Supper truly, really, and in dede.

The Minor, or second Proposition is such, as no Chri­sten man (I iudge) wil deny, or doubte of. The first Pro­position, which is conditional, shal sone appeare true to him, who considereth, that the good and godly people lyuing vnder the Lawe of Nature before any Lawe was written,Cyprian. Sermone de ratio­ne circū ­cisionis. by the inspiration of God (as S. Cyprian wit­nesseth) offered vp real sacrifices, in which they pro­tested their faith, and trust in Christe to come, by whose Sacrifice to be made vpon the Crosse they looked, and hartily desyred to be saued. So did Abel offer vp Sa­crifice to God of the best of his flocke.Gen. 4. Gen. 8. So did Noe offer vp Sacrifice of the cleane beastes, that had ben with him in the Arke.Gen. 22. So Abraham, after that he had (for so much as in him was) offered vp his onely sonne Isaac, did in stede of him sacrifice the Ramme, that was tyed by the hornes among the brambles. So did o­ther iust and good men of that time, offer vp the like sa­crifices to the same ende.

[Page 105]As for the time of the lawe written, who is so igno­rant, that knoweth not, that real sacrifices of sundry beastes, beside other thinges were commaunded to be offred vp for diuers particular endes, yet al to one chiefe ende, to foresignifie and prefigurate the most perfite Sa­crifice of Christe to come? Al these sacrifices although offred in a figure, and signification of benefite that then was to come, yet were they real and true sacrifices not­withstanding, as consisting of real and true substances. And thus we see, that by Gods prouidence in the time of both Lawes, of Nature, and of Moyses, real sacri­fices were offred vp vnto him in figure and token of the Redemption to come.

Now then if Christe leafte to the newe lawe, which he ordeined, no real Sacrifice (a Sacrifice being the chiefest worship that man can do vnto God) but endued it with a sacrifice, that is offred onely in a figure: how did he not leaue it in worse case, then the lawe of na­ture, or the lawe written? And certaine it is, that he leaft it without any such Sacrifice, onlesse he offering him selfe really at his Supper, did beginne and institute it after the order of Melchisedek. For in any time, or place els, instituted, and commaunded, it is not founde. Con­cerning inward, and mere spiritual sacrifices, they be common to al times and lawes, as it is before proued.

If M. Iewel, and the mainteiners of this new Gospel, put vs in mynde of bread and wine, and tel vs, that the substance of bread and wine is our real Sacrifice, being the signes and figures of Christes body and bloud in the Lordes Supper: to that we answer, that bread and wine are not appointed, and ordeined by Christe, to be [Page] the real Sacrifice of the Churche: and if they were, then were the state of the new Testament no better then that of the olde Testamēt, whereas the new farre passing the olde in euery degree of worthinesse, as S. Paule in sundry places declareth, the Sacrifice frequented in the newe lawe, ought to surmount the Sacrifices of the olde lawe. Then hath the Churche made a very meane exchange with the Iewish Synagog. For if we haue no better substance in our dayly Sacrifice, then a peece of bread and a smal portion of wine: how was not a goate, a lambe, an Oxe, as good, if not better, and more worth?

Christe hath not so solenderly dealt with the heires of the newe Testament, as to leaue so base and 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, [Page 106] when men were more vnperfecte, Christe him selfe would take that bloude, which they offered vp vnto Idols, to thende 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 [Page] 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. [...]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 cōmaun­ded 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 [Page 107] 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 [Page] 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 [Page 108] 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 agaīst the Sacramētaries 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?

[Page]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 geuē 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 [Page 109] 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 [Page] 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 [...]0. c. ad Heb. Eundem semper offerimus, Imò potius memoriam illius oblationis, qua seip [...] 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 euen right now donne.

In this point therefore this Sacrifice is clearely vnlike the sacrifices of the olde lawe, wherein although beastes of one kinde were offered daily, as for example, this day a lambe, and to morow likewise a lambe: yet it was not one lambe, but diuers lambes. And therfore a new killing and shedding of bloude was daily required. But we doo not offer this day one lambe, to morow an other, but alwaies the selfe same, as S. Chrysostome saith.

Chrysost. in epist. ad Heb. Hom. 17. Ibidem.Againe this Hoste is suche, as can not be consu­med, though they be neuer so many, that be made partakers of it, as he also saith. Ipsam offerimus & nunc, quae tunc oblata quidem consumi nō potest. We doo offer vp now also the same hoste, which being offered then (he [Page 110] meaneth vpon the Crosse) can not be consumed. Wher­fore sith it is continually the selfe same hoste, in number with that, which was slaine vpon the Crosse, albeit it be really againe sacrificed, to continue the memorie of the real death of the same, and to be the real Sacrifice of the newe Testament: M. Iewel going about to abolish the truth of our Sacrifice, for that it is not truly againe slaine, bewrayeth his owne penurie of better and soun­der reasons, and semeth to reproue al the olde learned Fathers, for calling it the vnbloudy Sacrifice.

Iewel.

Notvvitstandinge, Hesychius expoundinge the Booke of Leuiticus, to the intente he may force the vvhole Storie of the Life, and Deathe of Christe, to ansvveare euery particulare Ceremonie of the Lavve, is some­times driuen, Hesych. in Leuit. li. 1 cap. 4. to streatche, and straine the Scriptures to his pnrpose. So he saithe, Christe is the Aultare: And, Christe Incarnate in the Virgins VVombe, is the Sodden Sacrifice.

Novv as Christe vvas the Aultare, Li. 1. ca. 2. Sacrificiū Coctum. and as he vvas Sacrificed in his Mothers VVombe, euen so he Sacrificed him selfe at his Supper: not in pro­per, or vsual manner of speache, but onely in a Mysterie Signifieinge.

Othervvise S. Cyprian plainely openeth the vvhole difference of these tvvo Sacrifices in this sorte: Cyprianus de Vnctio­ne Chris­matis. Dedit Dominus noster in mensa, in qua Vltimum cum Apostolis participauit Conuiuium, proprijs ma­nibus Panem, & vinum: In Cruce verò manibus militum Corpus tradidit vulnerandum. Our Lorde at the Table, whereat he receiued his laste Supper with his Disciples, with his owne handes gaue (not his very Bodie, and very Bloude Really, and in deede, but) Breade, and VVine: But vpon the Crosse, he gaue his owne Bodie, with the Souldiers handes to be VVounded. This, saithe Sainte Cyprian is the difference bitvvene the Sacrifice of the Table, and the Sacrifice of the Crosse: At the one, Christe gaue Breade, and VVine: Vpon the other, he gaue his Bodie.

[Page] Therefore, vvherea [...] M. Harding saith, onely vpon his ovvne vvar­rante, That Christe Really Sacrificed him selfe at two sundrie times, and that he twise Really Shead his Bloude, Firste at the Table, and Afterwarde vpon the Crosse: The vntrueth, and folie hereof is easily reproued by these plaine vvordes of S. Paule:Hebrae. 9. Semel Ob­latus est, ad multorum exhaurienda peccata: He was once offe­red, to take away the sinnes of many.Hebrae. 10. And againe, VVith one Sa­crifice he hath made perfite them for euer, that be Sanctified. These places are cleare, and vvithout question: onlesse M. Harding vvil say that, One, and, Tvvo: and, Once, and Tvvise, be bothe one thing.

Harding.

Concerning the wordes of Hesychius, they be plaine for the real sacrifice of Christe at the Supper. For if he had there offered vp him selfe in a figure, or Mysterie only, as M. Iewel meaneth by his only mystery: he would neuer haue called it a preuention of the bloudy Sacrifice, Hesychius In Leuit. li. 1. cap. 4. neither would he haue vsed the terme praeueniens, pre­uenting. For Christe to offer vp him selfe at the supper in a figure onely, in such sorte as he was offered in the sa­crifices of the olde lawe, had not ben a preuention of his bloudy Sacrifice vpon the Crosse. Verely if M. Iewels vnderstanding were streatched and strained vnto the obedience of faith, he would not say so sawcily of that auncient and learned Father, that he is driuen to stretche and straine the Scriptures to his purpose. And what if it were graunted, that so he did sometimes (for more this Replyer saith not him selfe) wil it thereof folow, that he hath so done in this place?

As for the streatching and straining of the Scriptures, which he layeth to Hesychius charge, it is a very sim­ple answer to the authoritie out of him alleged. That [Page 111] he calleth Christe the Aulter, it is not strange, for so S. Paule calleth him, as there he allegeth. Neither was Christe by his reporte, sacrified in his Mothers wombe, he was incarnate in the virginis wombe, and the same Christes incarnation, he calleth the baked Sacrifice, for thereof he speaketh, and not of a sodden sacrifice, as the place is euident. The Oouen wherein it was baked, was the Virgins wombe,Hesychius in Leuit. li. 1. cap. 2. Lucae 1. bicause (as he saith) shee receiued from aboue the bread of life, to wit, the worde of God, in her wombe, and the fire of the presence of the holy Ghoste. For the holy Ghoste (saith the Angel) shal come ouer into thee, and thee power of the highest shal ouershadow thee.

And the same Christe, that was incarnate in the Vir­gins wombe, sacrificed him selfe at his Supper, although not in such manner, as the liue hostes in the olde Testa­ment were sacrificed, that is to say, with bloudshed, and slaughter: yet in a mysterie, but truly, and really, and after that manner of speache, which is proper and vsual to the Catholique Church speaking of this singular Sa­crifice, not onely in a mysterie signifying, that is to say, in a figure, or signification onely, as M. Iewel meaneth, the substance of Christes body and bloud excluded: but so in a mystery, as that most diuine substance be beleued to be verely present, and by vs in remembrance of his death presented to God.

Touching the place of S. Cyprian,S. Cypriā falsified by M. Ievvels māgling, and he­vving. de vnctione Chrisma­tis, he is like to haue smal aduantage, and lesse honesty by alleging it, when it is knowen, how falsly he hath done, in taking the begynning of the sentence, which being set a parte from the rest, semeth to geue a sownde of his do [...]ctrine, and cutting away the ende, that declareth the Do­ctours [Page] meaning, and quit ouerthroweth the Sacramētary heresie. For immediatly after the wordes, that M. Iewel taketh for his purpose, wherby is signified, that our Lorde at his last Supper gaue vnto his Apostles, bread and wine with his owne handes, and vpon the Crosse deliuered his body to be wounded with the handes of the Souldiers: this much folo­weth in the same sentēce. Vt in Apostolis secretius impressa syncera veritas, Cyprianus De vnctio ne Chris­matis. & vera synceritas exponeret Gentibus, quo­modo vinū & panis, caro esset & sanguis, et quib [...] rōibus causae effectibus cōuenirēt, et diuersa noīa vel species ad vnā redu­cerētur essentiā, et significātia et significata eisdē nacabulis cē ­serentur. That the sincere truth, and true sinceritie being secretly imprinted in th'Apostles might expoūd vnto the Gētils, 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 thintēt 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 Cō secratiō [Page 112] duely pronoūced 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 substāce, to wit, bread and wine, vnto the substance of Christes flesh and bloude,Transub­stantiatiō [...] 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 Cōsecration was, and afterward semeth to be bread, is called the flesh, and in like case wine is called the bloud: and so cōtrariwise 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 cōfirmation 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. Epi [...]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 Ca [...]ilius, he saith. Qui magis sacer­dos, [...] Dominus noster Iesus Christus, qui sacrificiū obtulit, et obtulit hoc idē, quod Melchisedech, id est, panē et vinum, suū scilicet corpus et sanguinē. Who is more a Priest, then our Lorde Iesus Christ, who offred vp a Sacrifice, and offred [Page] 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 [Page 113] 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 cof­ [...]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 multorū exhauriend [...] peccata, Christ was once offered,Heb. 10 [...] to take away the synn [...]s of Many: Againe, with one Sacrifice he hath made per [...]ite for euer them, that be san­ctified? Bicause in these twoo sayinges you finde the termes, one, and once: therefore suppose you, that needes [Page] they must reprooue my assertion, auouching that Christ was twise really offered?

Two ob­lations of one body.It semeth you neuer cōsidered, that there may be two oblations of one body, one bloudy, the other vnbloudy: one by his owne vertue meriting, the other applying the merite: the one open to the eyes of al, the other in a my­sterie: the one imploying death of the thing offred, the o­ther representing and recording the same death. Thus it may be, and yet the one shal not quit exclude the other. And he that shal affirme, the bloudy, the meriting, and the open oblation to be but one, shal not reprooue him, that saith, hauing respect to both these Oblations, that they be two, and that the body offered, is twise offered.

Euen so standeth the case betwen that S. Paule saith, and that I say. S. Paule speaketh of the Sacrifice of the Crosse that imployed the death of Christe, and fully me­rited forgeuenesse of the sinnes of the worlde. Which appeareth by the effect of the oblation added, ad multorū exhaurienda peccata, Heb. 9. Heb. 10. to take away the sinnes of many, and in the other place, he made them that be sanctified with one oblation perfite for euer. This Sacrifice was offered vppon the Crosse. I speake both of that Sacrifice of the Crosse, and of this which Christ offered at his Supper, and com­maunded to be offred in his remembrance vntil he come againe.

The substance of these two Sacrifices being Christe, is al one. The manner of offering, and ende is diuers. That vpon the Crosse,Luc. 22. was paineful bloudy, ignominious, and ended in death.1. Cor. 11. This at the Supper, is impassible, vn­bloudy, glorious, and free from death. The ende of that was to deserue, and purchase the saluation of the [Page 114] worlde, by paying a raunsom superabundantly sufficient for the sinnes of mankinde. And that was done once for al. The ende of this, is to commemorate, and repre­sent the death of Christe vnto his Father, and in that cō ­memoration to besech God forgeuing vs our sinnes, to take vs into his fauour through the merites of that death, and to applie the benefite of it vnto them, for whom be­ing as they ought to be, disposed, this Sacrifice is of­fered.

To proue that Sacrifice made vpon the Crosse and the merites thereof, there neede none other testimonies, then those which haue ben already cited out of S. Paule. Of this, which was offred and instituted at the Supper, of the vnitie of it with the other, and of the effectes of the same, the learned Fathers haue made mention in sundry places. The oblation it selfe, and Institution, and one effecte, S. Cyprian comprehendeth in one sentence.Cyprian. lib. 2. epi­stol. 3. Iesus Christus Dominus noster ipse est summus Sacerdos Dei Patris, & Sacrificium Deo Patri ipse primus obtulit, & hoc fieri in sui commemorationem praecepit. Ie­sus Christe our Lorde, he is the highest Priest of God the Father, and he him selfe first offered a Sacrifice, and commaunded the same to be made in his Remem­brance.

The vnitie of it with the other in substance, and the same effect that S. Cyprian speaketh of,Chrysost. Hom. 17. in epist. ad Heb. S. Chrysostome most plainely vttereth. Quid ergo nos? &c. What then doo we? Do [...] we not offer euery day? We doo offer verily, but we doo it for remembraunce of his death. And this hoste (or Sacrifice) is one, not many. How is it one, and not many [...] Bicause it was once offered, it was offered vp [Page] into the most holy place. But this Sacrifice is a sampler of that other. The selfe same do we offer vp alwaies. &c.

An other effecte of this our Sacrifice, that is, the Ap­plying of Christes Passion vnto vs, S. Gregorie doth ex­presse saying.Gregor. Hom. 37. Quoties ei hostiam suae Passionis offerimus, toties nobis ad absolutionem nostram illius Passionem repa­ramus. As often as we offer vnto him the hoste of his Passion, so often do we renewe vnto our selues his Pas­sion to our absolution.

And here to answer his skoffing Conclusion, I woon­der, that skoffing at me for saying, Christe was twise sa­crificed, he forgotte, that in the selfe same Diuision a litle before, he alleged a place out of S. Augustine, where there is expresse mention of two immolations or sacrifi­cinges of Christe. S. Augustines wordes be plaine.August in. Epist. 23. Nō ­ne semel oblatus est Christus in semet ipso? Et tamen in Sa­cramento non tantùm per omnes Paschae solennitates, sed e­tiam omni die populis immolatur. Was not Christe once sacrificed in him selfe? And yet notwithstanding in a Sa­crament he is sacrificed for the people, (so it is to be tran­slated, and not is offered vnto the people, as M. Iewel fal­sly translateth it) not only through al the solemne feastes of Easter, but also euery day.

Why heard you not your selfe M. Iewel, reporting this plaine saying of S. Augustine, that Christe is twise offered? twise (I say) in respect of the manner of offe­ring, once openly, in him selfe, that is, vpon the Crosse: and againe in a Sacrament, after which manner he is offe­red vp euery day, whereby the Sacrifice of the Aulter is meant. Christ there, and Christe here is sacrificed, for the substance of both Sacrifices is Christe. Of that you [Page 115] doubte not, of this you should not doubte, beleuing him, who said, This is my body.

Thus then we answer your scorneful absurditie. One and Two, and Once and Twise, may thus both be concei­ued to be said of one thing in this singular Mysterie in di­uers respectes. If Sacrifice signifie the thing sacrificed, and also the Acte of sacrificing: then whereas One body and One Christe, was sacrificed, yet the Sacrifices were Two. There haue we One, and Two. Againe Christ was vnbloudely sacrificed at the Supper, and but once bloudi­ly vpon the Crosse. So he was in [...]espect of diuers man­ners of offering, Once and Twise offered. Yet in re­specte of the thing offered or sacrificed, it was One Sa­crifice, One offering, One Christe. Thus to a faithful man of the Catholike Church, who hath subdued his vn­derstanding vnto faith, it appeareth sufficiently, how in a due consideration, One, and Two, and Once, and Twise, wherat M. Iewel skoffeth, may both be said of one thing. Thus he is ouertaken, and founde vnable to answer the place of Hesychius, the substance of this Diuision.

The Ansvvere.

ANd at the same very instant of tyme (which is here further to be added, as a necessarie pointe of Christian dostrine) we must vnderstande that Christe offered him selfe in Heauen inuisibly (as con­cerninge man) in the sight of his Heauenly Father, and that from that time forewarde that Oblation of [Page] Christe in Heauen was neuer intermitted, but conti­nueth alwaies for our attonement with God, and shal without ceasing endure vntil the ende of the worlde. For as S. Paule saith, Heb. 9. Iesus hath not entred into Tem­ples made with handes, the samplers of the true Tem­ples, but into Heauē it self, to appeare now to the coun­tenance of God for vs. Nowe as this Oblation and Sacrifice of Christe endureth in Heauen continually, for as much as he is risen from the dead, and ascended into heauen with that Bodie, which be gaue to Thomas to feele, bringing in thither his Bloude, as Hesychius saith, Lib. 1. c. 4. and bearing the markes of his woundes, and there appeareth before the face of God with that Thorne­prickte, Naileboared, Spearepearsed, and otherwise wounded, rent, and torne Body for vs: (wherby we vn­derstand the vertue of his Oblation on the Crosse euer enduringe, not the Oblation it selfe with renewing of paine, and sufferāce continued) so we do perpetually ce­lebrate this Oblation and Sacrifice of Christes very bo­dy and bloud in the Masse, in remembraunce of him, cō ­maunded so to do, vntil his comminge.

Wherein our Aduersaries so foolishely, as wickedly scoffe at vs, as though we sacrificed Christe againe, so as he was Sacrificed on the Crosse, that is, in Bloudy manner. But we doo not so Offer, or Sacrifice Christe againe: but that Oblation of him in the Supper, and [Page 116] ours in the Masse, is but one Oblation, the same Sacri­fice, for this cause by his Diuine ordinaunce leaft vnto vs, that as the Oblatiō once made on the Crosse conti­nually endureth, and appeareth before the face of God in Heauen for our behalfe, continued not by new suffe­ring, but by perpetual intercession for vs: So the memo­rie of it may euer vntil his second comming be kept a­mongest vs also in earth, and that thereby we may ap­ply and bring vnto vs through Faith the great benefits, which by that one Oblation of him selfe on the Crosse he hath for vs procured, and daily doth procure.

Iewel.

At the same very instāt of time, saith M. Harding, when Christ was sacrificed vpon the Crosse, he offered vp him self also in Hea­uen in the sight of his heauenly Father. VVhich thing he enlargeth Rhetorically vvith a Tragical Description of a Thorneprickte, Naile­boared, Spearepearsed, and otherwise rente, and Torne Body. And this saith he, is a necessary point of Christiā doctrine: And that he auoucheth constantly, albeit vvithout the vvorde, or vvitnesse of any Ancient vvriter, only vpon his ovvne credit. VVhereof also grovveth some suspicion, that his Stoare of olde Recordes, is not so plenteous, as it is sup­posed.

But vvhere he saith, Christ was thus Inuisibly sacrificed in Hea­uen, I marueile, he saith not likevvise, that Pilate, Annas, Caiphas, the Souldiers, and the tourmentours vvere likevvise in Heauen to make this Sacrifice. For vvithout this Companie Christes Bloude vvas not shead: And without Sheadding of Bloude, S. Paule saith, There is no Sacrifice for Remission of Sinne. This Fable is so vaine, that, I be­leeue, M. Harding him selfe is not vvel hable, to expounde his ovvne meaning. Origen saith, There vvere some in his time, that thought, [Page] That, as Christ was Crucified in this worlde for the liuing, so he should afterwarde suffer,Origen. in epist. ad Rom. lib. 5. cap. 6. and be Crucified in the worlde to come for the deade. But that Christ vvas thus Thorneprickte, Naileboarde, Spearepearsed, and Crucified in Heauē, I thinke, noman euer savv, or said, but M. Hardinge. The Apostles, the Euangelistes, the Olde Doctours, and Ancient Fathers neuer knevv it. S. Paule saith, Semel seipsum ob­tulit: Once he offered vp him selfe:Heb. 7. Heb. 9. Semel introiuit in Sancta: Once he entred into the holy place. And therefore hanging vpon the Crosse, and yelding vp the Ghost, he said, Consummatum est, It is fi­nished, This Sacrifice is perfitely vvrought for euer. This onely Sacrifice of Christ the Sonne of God the Scriptures acknovvlege, and none other.

Harding.

In this Diuision M. Iewels Replie conteineth litle, that is worthy to be answered. Yet least more substance of mater should be thought to be in it, then is in deede: with some fewe woordes the vanitie of it is to be de­tected.

• The con­tentes of M. Iewels Replie in the 7. Di [...]uision.
  First, he skoffeth at an absurditie of his owne Deuise by his false reporte attributed to me, as though I had vt­tered it.
• Secondly, he affirmeth that noman denied, which is altogether impertinent, that Christes Sacrifice vppon the Crosse remaineth stil in force.
• Thirdly, he findeth fault with an Auncient Prayer v­sed to be said in the Masse.
• Fourthly, he goeth about by a fonde reason to shewe, the Sacrifice of the Aulter, not to be the same that was offered vpon the Crosse.

For answer to his first parte I desire no more, but that the wordes of my booke be circumspectly reade ouer, and considered. Which done, I doubt not but the reader [Page 117] shal easily espie the lightnesse of his Replie, and the va­nitie of his skoffes. For proufe that our Sauiour Christe appeareth in heauen before the face of his Father, with his rent and torne body for vs, partely in my Answer I touched a testimony taken out of Hesychius, as there it is to be sene: and harde it was not other testimonies to haue brought. If I wist that would satisfie him, and bring him to recant, and returne vnto the catholique faith: I would gladly proue that point with some good number of the olde Learned Fathers.That Christe appea [...]reth befo­re the Fa­ther in heauen vvith his wounded body. But doubting much thereof, I thinke in a mater so generally bele­ued and confessed, a fewe testimonies may suffice.

First, Hesychius saith thus, Cicatrices portans Pas­sionum, à mortuis resurrexit, vnde & suum corpus palpan­dum Thomae praebuit, atque ita in caelos ascendit. Christe rose againe from the dead bearing with him the skarres of his stripes and woundes.Hesychius in Leuit. lib. 1. c. 4. For so he offered his owne body to Thomas to feele it, and so he ascended into heauen.

Nexte S. Cyprians wordes be plaine.Cypriā. de baptismo Christi. Semper reser­uatae in corpore plagae salutis humanae exigunt precium, & obedientiae donatiuum requirunt. The woundes reserued styl in Christes body, doo demaunde the paiment of Mannes saluation, and require the rewarde of his obe­dience. Now what were the woundes, that Christe re­ceiued in his body at the time when he suffered his Pas­sion, but the prickinges of the Thornes, the boaringes of the Nailes, and the pearsing of the Souldiours speare? If these woundes be reserued alwaies in his body, and claime for paiment to be made, which paiment is the saluation of Mankinde, as S. Cyprian saith: why ma­keth [Page] M. Iewel so much a doo for that I said, that Christe appeareth continually before the face of God, with that thorneprickte, naileboared, spearepearsed, and otherwise wounded, rent, and torne body for vs?

And whereas he calleth this a Rhetorical enlarging of the thing with a Tragical description: if it were so, what euil is therein committed? Do not the best learned Fathers oftentimes to moue deuotion, and compassion, vse Rhetorical amplifications, and much more vehe­ment speaches? Doth not S. Cyprian in the place a­boue mentioned, tell vs of certaine wordes, quae emol­liunt animum, accendunt (que) deuotionis affectum, which doo soften and supple our mynde,Cyprianus ibidem. and enkindle the affection of deuotion in vs? If I had such a motion, when I wrote those woordes, M. Iewel ought not to scorne, and skoffe at it.

An other learned Father touching the appearing of Christe in heauen before his Father with such a body, writeth thus. Theophylacte I meane, who, though he be not one of the most aunciēt, yet reporteh that which he learned of the olde learned Fathers of the Greke Churche: and so reporteth it, as he may seme to ex­pounde what S. Cyprian meant, by claiming the paiment or reward of Mans saluation. These be his woordes. Etiam num vnà cum corpore quod pro nobis immolauit, Theophyl. in epistol. ad Hebr. cap. 5. apud Deum & patrem intercedit, hoc est, quas pro nobis pertulit afflictiones, vt multùm commoueat, proponit etiam sine voce, reipsa nimirum patriloquens: Pro humana natura filius tuus ego sustinui haec: miserere igitur horum, pro quibus ego pati & mori sustinui. Christe euen now by his body, which he sacrificed for vs, with God and his Father maketh in­tercession, [Page 118] that is to say, he setteth forth to the intent he may much moue him the afflictions which he suffered for vs, without voice, euen by deede it selfe speaking vn­to the Father (in this wise) I, which am thy Sonne haue suffered these thinges for mankinde: haue mercie there­fore of them, for whom I haue susteined to suffer and dye.

What other thing in effect doo my wordes importe, which M. Iewel so much ieasteth at, and saith I speake them vpon myne owne credit onely without witnesse of any Auncient writer: then that was spoken so long sithens by Hesychius, S. Cyprian, and Theophylacte? For as concerning S. Chrysostome (who saith no lesse,Chrysosto. in caput. 9 ad Hebrae. Homi. 17. though in fewer wordes, Cum Sacrificio ascendit, quod po­tuit propitiare Patrem, Christ ascended into heauen with the Sacrifice, that was hable to pacifie the Father) and other auncient Fathers, by which they meane the body that suffred vpon the Crosse: bicause they speake it more darkely, here I omit to recite them. If then M. Iewels humour be suche, as he must needes please him selfe in mocking and skoffing, let him consider how it becom­meth him to skoffe at Hesychius, S. Cyprian, Theo­phylacte, S. Chrysostome, and other holy and learned Fathers.

That Christe was thus inuisibly sacrificed in heauen,M. Ievvel falsly re­porteth the An­svver. I say not: it is your false reporte M. Iewel, let my booke be trial. This is your common woonte, with shifting of your wordes in my wordes place, to frame an ab­surde saying, and thereat to exercise the talent of your skoffing. Wherein you fight but with your owne sha­dow, you touche not my person.

[Page]Onely I said, that Christe offered him selfe in hea­uen, when he was crucified on earth, reade my wordes who liste. And that I said is true. And it is none other thing, then was said by Hesychius aboue a thousand yeres paste.Hesych. in Leuit. lib. 1. cap. 4. Whose wordes these be. Quo tempore vitulus immolabatur in inferioribus, eo tempore vt Pontisex ipse sibi Sacrificium offerebat in coelo. At what time the Calfe (that is to say, Christe) was sacrificed beneathe in the earth, at the same time Christe as the high Bishop, him selfe offered vp Sacrifice to him selfe in heauen.

As for your mery obiection of Pilate, Annas, Cai­phas, the Souldiours, aud Tourmentours, of whom you maruel, I said not, that they were likewise in heauen to make this Sacrifice: you might haue semed to haue some reason, if I had said, or meant, that this Sacrifice was made in heauen, as you by falsifiyng my Answer beare the vnware Reader in hande I said. This Sacrifice, I say, by which you meane the visible, paineful, and bloudy Sacrifice, that was made vpon the Crosse, and not in heauen: This Sacrifice, wherein Christes Bloude was shed, without which companie (say you) it was not shed. And yet where it was shed, I trow you can not proue, that Pilate, Annas, and Caiphas were in the companie of the Souldiours that shed it.

Therefore where you say thus, That Christe was thus Thorneprickte, Naileboarde, Spearepearsed, and Cru­cified in Heauen, I thinke noman euer saw, or said, but M. Harding: I answer, that M. Harding neuer said it, as he referreth al to his booke for trial, and I thinke, noman is so impudent, as in so plaine a matter so to belye him, but M. Iewel.

[Page 119]With what eyes did you reade my booke in this very place? Or thinke you other men haue not eyes to see these expresse wordes there put in by a parēthesis, to take away this very fonde cauil that you make, whereby we vnderstand the vertue of his oblation on the Crosse euer enduring, not the oblation it selfe with renuing of paine, and sufferance continued? This once espied by the Rea­der, how doth not al your skoffiing lose his grace, and set forth your impudencie of lying?

And therefore you spende labour in vaine, to proue that is not denied:Hebre. 7. that Christe once offered vp him selfe, and once entred into the holy place. Which is true, once through shedding of his bloude. Yet that Oblation ne­uerthelesse endureth for euer, and he with that very broken and torne body stil appeareth to the countenance of God in Heauen, making intercession for vs. And there, when we haue synned, if we repent, and cal vpon him, he is a Propitiation for our sinnes, as S. Iohn saith,1. Ioan. 2. not by a newe shedding of bloude, but by vertue of his bloude once shed vpon the Crosse, and of his Passi­on. Vnto whiche manner of Oblation and appearing before the face of the Father, whiche hath continued from the houre of his Passion to this time, and shal con­tinue to the last day: the companie of Pilate, Annas, Caiphas, the Souldiours and Tormentous, as you skoffe, is not necessary. They are appointed an other place, where is weeping and gnasshing of teeth, Luc. 13. where you are sure to haue your parte with them, onlesse you re­pent, and returne vnto the Catholique Churche.

Iewel.

Hovv be it, like as the Praiers, that Christe once made, and the Do­ctrine, that he once taught, remaine stil ful, and effectual, as at the first: euen so the Sacrifice, that Christ once made vpon the Crosse, re­maineth stil in ful force, effect [...]al, and perfite, and endureth for euer. Therefore S. Paule saithe, Hebre. 7. Christe hath an euerlastinge Priesthode, and liueth stil, that he may stil pray for vs. And therefore God the Father saithe vnto him, and to none other, either man, or Angel, or Ar­changel, Chrysostō. in epist. ad Hebrae. Hom. 17. Cyprian De Baptis. Christi. Tu es Sacerdos in aeternū: Thou art a Priest for euer. And therefore S. Chrysostome compareth this Sacrifice to a most soueraine salue, that beinge once laide to the vvounde, healeth it cleane, and needeth no more lai [...]inge on. Likevvise S. Cyprian saithe [...] Nec Sacerdo­tij eius paenituit Deum: quoniam Sacrificium, quod in Cruce obtulit, sic in beneplacito Dei constat acceptabile, & perpetua virtute consistit, vt non minus hodiè in conspectu Patris Obla­tio illa sit efficax, quàm ea die, qua de saucio latere Sanguis, & Aqua exiuit: & semper reseruatae in Corpore plagae salutis Hu­manae exigant pretium: It neuer repented God of Christes Priesthoode: For the Sacrifice, that he offered vpon the Crosse, is so acceptable in the good wil of God, and so standeth in con­tinual strength and Vertue, that the same Oblation is no lesse ac­ceptable this daie in the sight of God the Father, then it was that day, when Bloud, and VVater ranne out of his VVounded side. The Skarres reserued stil in his Bodie, doo weighe the price of the Saluation of man.

Harding.

Now commeth M. Iewel to proue that no man denied. That the Sacrifice of Christe vpon he Crosse continueth stil in force and effectual, as the Prayers that he once made, and the doctrine that he once taught, remaine effectual, as at the first. Al this is true M. Iewel, but how pertaineth it to your purpose? Wil you thereof conclude against vs, and thus reason against the vnbloudy Sacrifice: The vnbloudy [Page 120] Sacrifice continueth alwaies in force, Ergo, the vnbloudy Sacrifice is superfluous? That is acceptable in the sight of God, Ergo, this is vnacceptable and dis­pleasant.

If this be not your Argument, why said you so much for that, which euery faithful man confesseth? If this be your Argument, we require you to learne your Logique better, before you teache vs newe Diuinitie. For whereas there be two thinges true, it is a fonde kinde of reasoning, to conclude the denial of the one, by the affirmation of the other, as I must tel you oftentimes.

This much we confesse also, that onlesse the Sacri­fice whereof we speake, were one and the same in sub­stance of the thing offered, with the Sacrifice made vpon the Crosse, though the manner of offering be diuers: it were superfluous, and to God displeasant. For the newe Testament acknowledgeth, nor accepteth none other real and external Sacrifice, but the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe, which hath succeded, as S. Au­gustine,August. de ciuitate Dei. li. 17. cap. 20. and al the learned Fathers with one consent do confesse, in place of al the olde Sacrifices.

Yet you wil replie, and say. If that Sacrifice vpon the Crosse, be styl effectual, and continue in force for euer, what neede is there of this Sacrifice daily made vpon the Aulter?

Concerning this Replie, euery man shal easily sa­tisfie him selfe, if he wil consider it in a like case. Christe once prayed, and that prayer is effectual to this day, and shalbe to the worldes ende. Neuerthelesse we must pray also, if we wil be partakers of his prayer.

Christe wasshed away the sinnes of the worlde, with [Page] the bloude, that was shed out of his body at his Passion: Notwitstanding we must, if we wil be saued, be baptised, that we be made cleane from Original sinne, and from Actual too, if we haue committed any before our Bap­tisme.

Hebr. 10. Christe hath for euer perfited them that be sanctified, with one oblation. 2. Cor. 7. Yet S. Paules counsel is, vt emunde­mus nos ab omni inquinamento carnis & spiritus perfi­cientes sanctificationem in timore Dei. That we cleanse our selues from al filth of flesh, and spirite, perfiting our sanctification in the feare of God. Here is special mention made of two perfitinges of our sanctification, the one belonging to Christe, the other to our selues. If Christe doo perfite, what neede we to perfite?

For the better assoiling of this doubte, let vs cal to mynde, what S. Paule writeth in his Epistle to the Co­rinthians, saying,1. Cor. 3. Dei sumus adiutores. We are the hel­pers of God. What (wil some say) hath God neede of helpers? Yea truly. His goodnes is suche, that he vouchesaueth to take vs to be his helpers, not for any defecte, or vnhablenesse that is in him, but bicause he would haue vs to be occupied in his seruice, and not to be idel. And therfore he hath appointed certaine meanes and instrumentes to practise vs withal, as Faith, Bap­tisme, Penance, Fasting, Prayer, Almose, and spe­cially a Sacrifice, wherein we may concurre with him, not in the chiefe, first, and general cause, which alone hath wrought, and daily worketh: but as liue­ly instrumentes to deriue vnto our selues the effecte of that chiefe, first, and general cause, that as he generally hath deserued and purchased a most ful and [Page 121] perfite saluation for al the worlde, which in it selfe can not be increased, bicause it is perfite, ne can not be diminished, bicause it is infinite: so we ech of vs by his grace vsing and putting in practise the meanes, that he hath appointed, may be made comparteners of the same saluation, which otherwise can not be auailea­ble vnto vs.

It should be ouer longe, and beside my purpose, to stande about the prouing, that Baptisme, Penaunce, Pray­er, Fasting, Almose ioyned with Faith, that worketh through Charitie,That thi [...] Sacrifice is a mea­ne to de­riue th [...] effecte of Christes death vn­to vs. be meanes to deriue vnto vs the effect of Christes death. It shal suffise to prooue the Sacrifice of Christes body and bloud vpon the Aulter, to be one of those meanes.

This truth is prooued not onely by that which I haue before alleged out of S. Gregorie, who saith, that as ofte as we offer vp vnto him the hoste of his Passion, so ofte we renew vnto our selues his Passion for our absolution: Gregor. Hom. 37. but also by that which S. Augustine writeth in a Prayer, which is to be founde in a treatise of deuoute Prayers intituled, Manuale. August. in Manuali. cap. [...]1. Where asking of God a contrite harte, and a fountaine of teares, specially at the time when he prayeth, he saith thus. Dum sacris Altaribus licet indig­nus assisto, cupiens tibi offerre illud mirabile & coeleste Sa­crificium omni reuerentia & deuotione dignum, quod tu Domine Deus meus sacerdos immaculate instituisti, & of­ferre praecepisti, in commemorationem tuae charitatis, mortis scilicet & Passionis pro salute nostra, pro quotidiana nostrae fragilitatis reparatione. Geue me I besech thee ô Christe Iesu, contrition of harte, &c. Whiles I, although vnwor­thy, doo stande at the holy Aulters, desirous to offer vp [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [Page] vnto thee that maruelous and heauenly Sacrifice, worthy of al reuerence and deuotion, which thou Lorde my God vnspotted Priest didst institute,Luc. 22. and commaundedst to of­fer vp for a remembrance of thy charitie, that is to say, of thy death and passion for our saluation, and for the daily repairing of our frailtie.

Nowe whereas this Sacrifice offered vp for the re­membraunce of Christes death, is here said to be pro­fitable to saue vs, and to repaire our daily ruines hap­pening vnto vs through our frailtie: in what other sense can it be true, but bicause thereby, as by a soueraigne meane appointed by Christe, some particular effecte of that general and infinite saluation and reparation made vpon the Crosse, is applied vnto our sicke and much de­cayed soules? And thus it is declared, although not so largely as the worthinesse of the mater requireth, how the Sacrifice of the Aulter is auaialeble and requisite, al­though the Sacrifice made vpon the Crosse remaine stil in ful force, effectual, and perfite, and endure for euer.

Iewel.

But M. Harding condemneth vs al for Foolishe, and VVicked peo­ple. For Foolishe, I knovv not vvhy. Neither is it thought a vvise-mannes parte, either greatly to mislike other mennes vvittes, or ouer­muche to like his ovvne. Hovv be it, vvho so speaketh, as neuer vvise-man spake, and yet him selfe vnderstandeth not, vvhat he speaketh, as, in this case, it is thought, M. Harding doth, hath no greate cause, in this behalfe, to charge others vvith folie.

Harding.

M. Iewel is much offended for that I said, our aduer­saries no lesse foolishly, then wickedly skoffe at vs, us though [Page 122] when we celebrate the vnbloudy Sacrifice, we sacrificed Christe againe, so as he was sacrificed vpon the Crosse. But why should you herewith be offended good sir? Is it not a foolish thing to tel vs, as ye do, that we shed the bloud of Christe, and doo such violence vnto him at the Aul­ter, as the Souldiours did at the Crosse? Though ye be so malicious as to speake it, yet is there any man so sim­ple, as to beleeue it? Who thus speaketh, I trowe he speaketh as foolishly, as he that goeth about to make one beleeue the Moone is made of greene cheese. As that is a foolish persuasion, so is this nolesse foolish, but more malicious. This notwithstanking, why I should cal them foolish, M. Iewel seeth no cause. And no mar­uel. For a rare thing it is to heare of a foole, that wil ac­knowledge him selfe to be a foole, or to doo foo­lishly.

How be it, wheras M. Iewel, and his Companions do cal in question and disputation, whether many thinges, as wel touching this vnbloudy Oblation of the Churche, as other pointes, be to be done of our parte, which though not expressely written, yet deliuered from hand to hand be obserued through out the whole worlde, and therefore are presupposed to be reteined, as commen­ded and decreed either by the Apostles them selues, or by General Councels, whose auctoritie in the Churche is most holesome:August. ad Ianuariū. Epist. 118. for this cause Saint Augustine con­demneth them not of bare folie, but of most insolent madnes. Thus to doo, is a point, insolentissimae insaniae, of most insolent madnes, saith he.

If then this be S. Augustines verdite of them for doub­ting, and reasoning of such things, that be not expressely [Page] written in the Scripture, but be receiued by custome: by what name deserueth M. Iewel to be called, who flat­ly denieth, and with tongue, penne, and outwarde force of punishmentes, withstandeth the Sacrifice of the Churche offered and instituted by Christe, described in the Gospel,Math. 26. auouched of the olde learned Fathers, fre­quented Luc. 22.through out the whole Catholike Church of al ages,1 Cor. 11. and countries?

Neither hath M. Iewel sufficient reason to conclude, that either I ouermuch like myne owne witte, or mis­like his witte, and his felowes, bicause I said, they skossed foolishly and wickedly at vs, touching this point. He, and they may haue witte ynough, and yet for lacke of grace doo ful foolishly.Esai. 6. We reade in the Scriptures of some who haue eyes, Math. 13. yet see not, eares, yet heare not, hartes, yet vnderstand not. So there be that haue witte, yet many times do not wisely, but so as it may be said of them, that fooles haue it in keeping. You haue witte ynough M. Ie­wel, I denie not, ne enuye not the praise of it: would God a good man had the occupying of it.

Whereas I charged our Aduersaries with folie, and wickednesse, in that they skoffe at vs, as though we sa­crificed Christe againe with violent drawing of bloude out of his body, as he was sacrificed vpon the Crosse: M. Iewel vnderstanding him selfe therein touched, hath ful wisely put away from him the blemish of folie, as now it is declared. It remaineth, he purge him selfe, and his felowes, of the crime of wickednesse. The same now he goeth about to doo. But how, and with what reason, it is worth the consideration.

Iewel.

Of the other side, vvhat so euer Mortal man presumeth to offer vp Christe in Sacrifice, and dareth to desire God the Father so fauourably to beholde his ovvne onely Sonne, as in olde times he behelde the Oblation of Abel, or of Melchisedek, and is not afraide, therevvith to beguile the simple, and to mocke the vvorlde, as M. Harding doth daily at his Masse: he can not vvel excuse him selfe of open vvickednesse.

Harding.

To auoide the crime of wickednesse, he againe falsly accuseth me, and in my person, the whole Catholique Churche of the same faulte, as if a theefe being burthe­ned with fellonie by some true man, would thinke him selfe vnburthened of that infamie, by charging the true man with thefte on the other side. And what is this greate wickednesse, that he layeth vnto our charge? Forsooth bicause being mortal men we offer vp Christe in Sacrifice, and dare to desire God the Father, pronoun­cing the auncient Prayer of the Churche in the Canon of the Masse fauourably to beholde our oblation, and to accepte it, as he vouchesaued to accepte the giftes of A­bel, the Sacrifice of Abraham, and that which Melchi­sedech offered. For so we doo, and not altogether as M. Iewel reporteth. This is that, whereof he saith, we beguile the simple, and mocke the worlde.

This is sufficiently answered before. For vs to offer vp to God the body and bloude of Christe, as executing thereby the plaine commaundement of Christe, who at his laste Supper hauing consecrated his body and bloude, said,Luc. 22. Doo ye this is in my Remembrance: is neither to be­guile the simple, nor to mocke the worlde. If we did [Page] it not, we should by not doing that we are commaunded to doo, beguile the worlde, and defraude Gods people of the most heauenly and pretious tresoure, that our Lorde lefte vnto his Churche.

And as touching the Prayer we are taught to make vn­to God,A defence of the prayer v [...]sed to be said in the holy Canon of the Masse wherein we humbly besech him to accept our oblation of his Sonnes body and bloude, as he accepted the sacrifices of Abel, Abraham, and Melchisedech: ther­in is no doubte made, but God the Father is best pleased with his onely and most dere Sonne Christe Iesus. The feare of our on worthinesse moueth vs so to pray, least that although the thing offered of it selfe be most acceptable, yet the Father through our greuous synnes displeased with vs, wil not admit, and accept that most acceptable Sacrifice to our saluation, but rather to our damnation. Like as it happeth sometimes a Prince to reiecte a very pretious Iuel offered by his enemie, or one that he fa­uoureth not, not bicause the Iuel misliketh him, but bi­cause the partie that offered it, was his foe, or out of his fauour.

And whereas M. Iewel would haue it seme absurde, that the Father should be entreated with his merciful and fauourable countenance to looke vpon the holy bread of life euerlasting, In Cano­ne Missae. and the cuppe of perpetual saluation, and to ac­cepte the same, as he vouchesaued to accepte the giftes and Sacrifices of Abel, Abraham, and Melchisedech, (for so the Priest prayeth at the Masse, and not as M. Iewel to colourable aduantage falsly reporteth it): I answer, that happy be we, if for our behalfe, he wil so accepte that our Sacrifice, as he did the Sacrifices of those holy men his dere frendes.

[Page 124]Furthermore M. Iewel is not ignorant, if he be so wel learned, as he is thought to be, that the aduerbe of simi­militude (Sicuti) As, Sicuti. doth not alwaies signifie a ful e­qualitie, but onely a likenesse in some parte and degree. As for example, it doth in that prayer, which Christe made vnto his Father for his chosen.Iohan. 1 [...]. Pater sancte serua eos in nomine tuo, quos dedisti mihi, vt sint vnum, sicut & nos. O Holy Father keepe them in thy name, whom thou hast geuen vnto me, that they may be one, as wee are. In this Prayer Christes meaninge was not, that the electe shoulde be thoroughly in substance al one, as God the Father and God the Sonne be: but one in charitie, wil, and concorde, thinking al one thing, and willing al one thing,Theophyl. in Iohan. cap. 17. as Theophilacte with other Doctours expoundeth the place. And whereas the Scripture saith in the person of God speaking vnto Io­sue, Sicut cum Moyse fui, Iosue. 3. ita & tecum sum, As I was with Moyses, euen so I am with the also: It is not meant, that God was with Moyses in no greater an higher de­gree of power and vertue, then he was with Iosue. For Moyses was admitted vnto a peerlesse frendship with God, and endewed with more special auctoritie, then euer Iosue was, as the Scriptures doo euidently wit­nesse.

So doth the Churche besech the Father to looke vpō that holy bread, and cuppe of life and health euerlasting, that is to say, the body and bloude of his Sonne Iesus Christ, with a merciful and cleare countenance, as he did vpō the sacrifices of Abel, Abrahā, and Melchisede [...]: not that it is mistrusted, least God be lesse, or not infinitely more pleased with the one Sacrifice, then with the other: [Page] but that humbly we thinke, it shalbe wel with vs, if he respecte,See what I say tou­ching this Prayer of the Ca­non, in the last Diuision. beholde, and allowe the ministerie, and deuo­tion of vs, as farre forth as he did the deuotion of the o­thers. Of this M. Iewel geueth me occasion to speake more, in the last Diuision of this Article.

If M. Iewel had in his harte so much deuoute humili­tie, or humble deuotion, as he seemeth to haue deuilish ar­rogancie, or arrogant deuilishnesse: he would neuer haue accused me, or rather the Churche, for vsing this humble and deuoute Prayer in the Masse, which in spite he cal­leth my Masse, being the common Seruice, and Sacrifice of the whole Churche of Christ.

But bicause like an vnkinde and degenerate, or ra­ther a rebellious sonne, he despiseth the auctoritie of his Mother the Church, I wil put him in minde of S. Am­brose, that holy and learned Bisshop, and excellent mem­ber of the Churche, yet doubting whether he wil ought reuerence one, after he hath so insolently contemned them al. Fayne would I vnderstand, with what sope or lye, he is hable to scoure out the spotte of so vaine, wic­ked, and foolish an opinion, so contrary to that S. Am­brose writeth. Who to prooue that this is the Sacra­ment, the figure whereof went before, and to shewe how great a Sacrament it is, bringeth in this Prayer vsed in the Masse, and wherein M. Iewel findeth so great be­guyling of the simple, mocking of the worlde, and open wickednesse: as a most strong argument. His wordes be these, the same (very few wordes excepted) that be in Canon of the Masse, that so confidently he reproueth both here, and also in the Sermon, wherein he made the first proclamation of his vaine Chalenge.

[Page 125] Sacerdos dicit: Ambrosius de sacram. lib. 4. cap. 6. Ergo memores gloriosissimae eius Pas­sionis, & ab inferis Resurrectionis, & in coelum Ascensionis, offerimus tibi hanc immaculatam hostiam, rationabilem ho­stiam, incruentam hostiam, hunc panem sanctum, & cali­cem vitae aeternae, & petimus, & precamur, vt hanc oblationē suscipias in sublimi altari tuo per manus Angelorum tuorum, sicut suscipere dignatus es munera pueri tui iusti Abel, & sa­crificium Patriarchae nostri Abrahae, & quod tibi obtulit summus sacerdos Melchisedech. The priest saith. There­fore being myndeful of his most glorious Passion, and Resurrection from hell, and of his Ascension into hea­uen, we offer vp vnto thee this vnspotted hoste, this reasonable hoste, this vnbloudy hoste, this holy bread, and cuppe of life euerlasting: And we beseeche, and pray thee, that thou receiue this Oblation in thy Aulter on high, by the handes of thy Angels, as thou vouche­sauedst to receiue the giftes of thy childe Iuste Abel, and the sacrifice of Abraham our Patriarke, and that which Melchisedech the higest Priest offered vp vnto thee.

Lo good Reader, thus prayed S. Ambrose in his Masse, nor for so doing was he euer thought to haue be­gyled the simple, nor to haue mocked the worlde. And the whole Catholique Churche hath euer so farre clea­red him of al wickednesse, not onely open, but also pri­uy: that he is holden for a holy Confessour, vncontrol­led Doctour, and strong pillour of the Churche, vntil M. Iewel a very begyler of the simple, and mocker of the worlde in deede, came to prie out in his doctrine, and prayer, being also the cōmon prayer of the Church, a heinous wickednesse.

Iewel.

Notvvitstandinge this matter is easily ansvveared. For (saith he) we Sacrifice not Christe againe: The Oblation, that Christe made vpon the Crosse, and ours in the Masse, is al one. And this Sacrifice Christe hath commaunded vs to continew vntil his comminge. If M. Harding make the selfe same Sacrifice, that Christe made vpon the Crosse, then is he A Priest ofter the order of Melchisedeck: And so The king of Iustice: The Prince of Peace: and a Prieste for euer, without Successour. For these titles be incident to the Priesthoode of Melchisedeck: vvhiche neuer­thelesse, I thinke, M. Hardinge of his modestie vvil not acknovvledge. And vvithout the same, he can not offer vp to God the same Sacrifice, that Christe offered vpon the Crosse.

And vvhere he saithe, Christe hath commaunded him, and his Felowes to make, and continew this Sacrifice vntil his com­minge, If he had meante simply, and plainely, he vvould haue shevved, either vvhen, or vvhere, or by vvhat vvordes Christe gaue him this Commaundement. For so large a Commission is vvoorthy the shevving: And it vvere greate boldenesse, to attempte suche a mater vvithout Commission.

Harding.

Last of al commeth M. Iewel to declare the titles, and dignities of Melchisedech, and saith, that M. Harding, that is to say, any Priest of the Catholique Churche, can not offer vp the same Sacrifice, that Christe offered vpon the Crosse, bicause he is not a king of Iustice, a Prince of peace, and a Priest for euer without Successour. For these titles (saith he) belong to Melchise­deks Priesthode.

Here I must againe warne the Reader to haue a good eye to M. Iewel, and to consider, first that now, as oftentimes before, he frameth an Obiection with his [Page 126] owne wordes, whiche I make not, and replyeth against it, as if it were myne. Nexte, that in case I had said, as he pretendeth I said, neuerthelesse when we say, the Priest offereth the same Sacrifice which Christe offered vpon the Crosse: the substance of the Sacrifice it selfe, that is, the thing sacrificed, which is the body and bloude of Christe, is meant thereby, and not the manner of sacrificing. Of this M. Iewel, and his felowes be not, ne can not be ignorant, being by the Catholi­ques so oftentimes tolde of it. Yet euer they wil seeme not to knowe it, least their common obiection against the Sacrifice of the Aulter, wherewith they haue neuer done, should appeare friuolous. For they iarre alwaies vpon the false string of the manner of sacrificing, which we touche not, but auouche the same substance of the Sacrifice that was offered vp vpon the Crosse.

If I had swarued so farre from truth and reason, as to say, that I being a Priest do offer vp to God the same Sa­crifice, which Christe offered vpon the Crosse, and that in the same manner, and to the same effecte and merite, which is to vsurpe the office that is proper to Christe onely: then with some reason he might haue replied, as he doth: that I were a Priest after the order of Melchise­dech, and so the king of Iustice, the Prince of peace, and a Priest for euer without Successour. Which titles of right belong to Christe onely.

But now wheras I am farre frō saying, yea also frō thin­king any such thing: he replieth with asmuch reason, as if he should tel one of the Iudges of the Realme, who exe­cuteth his office vnder the Prince, and by Cōmission frō the Prince, Sir if you acquit men in Englād, and condēne mē [Page] to die, then are you a King of England: for what greater thing can a King doo, then to saue, and condemne men? And if you be King of England, then of Fraunce also, and of Ireland, and so defendour of the Faith, for these titles belong to the king of England, or who so euer els succedeth in the kingly right. In this case might not that Iudge an­swer you againe, and say, M. Superintendent, you may talke of your Ministers, and your Ministring matters. You speake ye wote not what. I tel you, I neither ac­quitte, nor condemne men to die of myne owne power or auctoritie, but vnder the Prince, and by vertue of my Commission from the Prince. And therefore you may go to schoole againe to learne your Logique better, and to make a wiser Argument.

The case betwen Christe, and those that execute the office of Priesthode vnder Christe, standeth in like con­dition. Albeit in Christe being Cod,Psal. 44. and man, annoin [...]ted of God him selfe with the oile of gladnesse aboue his comparteners, Mē offer this Sa­crifice and be Priestes after the order of Melchise [...]dek vn­der Christ as in the Psalme it is of him prophecied, and being the highest Priest, the foresaid conditions be most perfitely accomplished, that is to say, though by nature he be the King of Iustice, the Prince of Peace, and the most true Priest for euer after the or­der of Melchisedech, without any other to succede him: Yet it is not necessary, the same soueraine condi­tions in al pointes be required in those that be made Priestes from among men, and be Priestes vnder Christe, or, as Eusebius speaketh,Euseb. de demonstr. lib. 5. [...], Priestes out of him. For whom it is sufficiēt, they be laufully chosen and or­dered, to be Ministers vnder Christ of his Mysteries, and of his Priesthood, by meane of whom, and through whom [Page 127] Christe doth celebrate after the manner of Melchisehech the thinges that apperteine vnto the Sacrifice that is among men, [...]. euen vnto this day, as Eusebius saith. Marke Rea­der, Eusebius saith, after the manner of Melchisedech, expounding the meaning of the worde, Order, where it is said of Christe, that he is a Prieste after the Order of Melchisedek. Whereby we vnderstand, that he was a Priest, not onely after the dignitie of Melchisedek, that is to say, bicause he was a King of peace, and of iustice, without father, without mother, without Genealogie, neither hauing beginning of daies, nor ending of life: but also after the rite, and manner of Melchisedek, whose Sacrifice was in bread and wine. After whiche manner, Christe did at the Supper, and we doo now at the Aul­ter, offer his body and bloud, vnder the formes of bread and wine.

And this much that auncient and learned Doctour would to be considered,Psal. 109. as the wonderful ende and per­formance of the Oracle pronounced of Christe, Thou art a Priest for euer after the Order of Melchisedek, Theophy­lactus. bicause he cōtinueth his Priesthood by the ministerie of Priestes. Theophylacte expoundeth it likewise.In epist. ad Heb. cap. 5. Oecumenius al­so hauing conceiued thereof the same sense, saith, He would neuer haue said In aeternum, for euer, hauing respect vnto the oblation that was but once offred (vpon the Crosse) but referring consideration vnto the Priestes, Qui quo­tidie offertur per Dei Mini­stros. that be at this present, by whom as by meanes, Christe doth sacrifice, and is sacrificed, who also in his Mystical Supper deliuered vnto them the manner of such Sacrifice. Ibidem.

And the later parte of this Testimonie doth make answer in my behalfe vnto you M. Iewel burthening me [Page] with no simple and plaine dealing, for that I haue not shewed, when, and where, or by what woordes Christe gaue commaundement to make and continue this Sacri­fice. By OEcumenius you haue heard it tolde, that Christe deliuered vnto Priestes at his last Supper the manner of this Sacrifice. And if it had liked you to haue looked backe, or to haue remembred, what I had said in the: 5. Diuision, you would neuer so without cause haue reprehended me for not telling, when, and where, and by what wordes Christe gaue commaundement to make and continue this Sacrifice. For there euen in the beginning, the time when, the place where, and the woordes by which this Sacrifice was instituded, and commaunded, be plainely expressed. Now 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 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, [Page 128] ad ipsum primò decenter exclamans, Tu dixisti: Hoc facite in meam cōmemorationem. 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 tokē, or inkling of any such sacrificing of the Sonne of God vnto his Father. But clearely & in most plaine vvise he shevveth the differēce, 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. [Page] 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 Respondēt 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, shalbe 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 [Page 129] ille sit, qni nos affatur, what eare is worthy to heare the Maiestie of these thinges?Basil. He [...] amer. 1. [...]; 2. Cor. 2. Cypriā in Oration. Dominicā 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 mee [...]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 nomē 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 s [...]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 Com­mō 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 [Page] 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 Argu­mēt him selfe, without either good forme, or true mater? For touching the forme, let it be graunted, that S. Diony­sius had put such a difference, as you imagin, wil it neces­sarily folowe, that in the place alleged in my Answer, he maketh not mention of offering Christe vnto his Father? This kinde of reason in any mater is faulty, but in this ma­ter it is most faulty. For albeit the manner of the oblatiō or Sacrifice made vpon the Crosse, be diuers from that which Christe made at his Supper, and is now continued by the Priestes in the Masse: yet the thing it selfe offred, and substance is al one in both Sacrifices,In epistol. ad Hebr. Hom. 17. as it hath ben clearely proued before by testimonie of S. Chrysostom, and others. So that the shewing of some difference betwene them, doth not exclude the thing or substance of either of them, nor concludeth them, so to be diuers, but the one may wel stande with the other.

Touching the mater of the former Argument, it is euidently false. For S. Dionyse in that place treateth not of difference betwene this, and that Sacrifice, as you M. Iewel would haue him appeare to doo by wilful fal­sifying of the place, by putting in woordes of your owne, and by clipping away wordes of that holy Do­ctour. These be S. Dionyses wordes,Dionys. ec­cles. Hie­rarc. Cap. 3. p. 3. as they lye in the Greeke, faithfully englished. Wherefore the Diuine Bishop standing at the Diuine Aulter, doth praise the said holy and godly actions of IESVS, for his heauenly pro­uidence [Page 130] towardes vs, whiche actions he (according to the Scripture) perfited for the saluation of Mankinde through the good pleasure of his most holy Father in the Holy Ghoste. And after that he hath ended the praises, and beholden the reuerent and spiritual contemplation of those thinges with the eyes of vnderstanding: [...] he commeth vnto the Mystical Sacrifice of them, and that according to Gods tradition. By Gods tradition he meaneth that which Christe taught his Disciples at the Supper, how, and after what manner,Luc. 22. they should offer this Sacrifice in re­membrance of his death.

Now gentle Reader conferre this testimonie of S. Dionyse, and M. Iewels falsified allegation toge­ther. Note first, that the Bisshop, or Priest, is said to stand at the holy Aulter.Aulter. That clause M. Iewel hath quite cutte of. And by the way consider, to what pur­pose serueth an Aulther,M. Ievvel falsifieth S Dionyse. onlesse there be a Real and outwarde Sacrifice to be made. Nexte, that there is no mention at al made of the flesh or Crosse of Christe, which termes he hath patched in of his owne. Thirdly the good pleasure of the Father, and holy Ghoste, is leafte out. To be shorte, whereas the praises be rendred not onely for Christes passion wrought in his flesh vpon the Crosse (albe it [...] specially for that) but also for the doinges of his whole life, as for his birth, his fasting, his praying, his preaching, and the reste: he to make his fained differēce to appeare, hath drawen them vnto the thinges onely wrought by Christe vpon the Crosse. Such a licentious priuilege this man taketh vnto him selfe, to pare and hew lesse, and to enlarge at his owne pleasure, the saynges of the most auncient and learned Fathers.

[Page]Againe, whereas the Greeke hath [...], for which the Latine translation vseth this cir­cumlocution, sacra mysteria in signis celebranda, the holy Mysteries that are to be celebrated in or vnder signes: he translateth it by the basest worde, that he coulde inuent of that signification, calling it, Figuratiue sacrifice, craftily intending to bring into the Readers mynde and conceit thereby, that this Sacrifice, wherein after praises in manner for al the actions of Christes life the body and bloude of Christe are offred vp: should appeare to be no better, then a bare figure, or then the figuratiue sacrifices of the olde lawe.

The premisses considered, what man but M. Iewel, would haue presumed to set abroad to the worlde in printe, a sentence of an olde writer so hewed and hack­led, so bodged and peeced, so corruptly translated? And who but he, could espie in that saying, any cleare and plaine difference betwen the Sacrifice of the Crosse, and the Sacrifice of the Aulter (which guilefully he calleth the Sacrifice of the holy Communion) such a one, as he impudently auoucheth to be?

But here S. Dionyse (saith he) calleth not the Ministra­tion of the holy Mysteries the sacrificing of Christe. I graunt. How could he so cal it here, that is to say, in this your falsified sentence, which S. Dionyse neuer vttered? And sir, what if S. Dionyse do not so cal it? What maketh that to the point, that presently we treate of? Mine endeuour was not to shewe, that S. Dionyse calleth the Ministra­tion of the Mysteries the sacrificing of Christe: but that in deede he sacrificed the body and bloude of Christe, and consequently Christe him selfe. And bicause it semed [Page 131] to him very much, a mortal man to offer vp the body and bloude of his Lorde: reuerently, and in seemely wise, he maketh his excuse, saying, Lorde thou hast said, Doo ye this in my remembrance. As who should say, Lorde hadst thou not by thine expresse worde commaunded vs so to doo, I would not be so bolde, as to take that vpon me, which so farre passeth my worthinesse.

Hunt not after wordes, and syllables M. Iewel. When ye haue the thing it selfe, whereof ye contende, what a vaine wrangling is it, to require certaine precise termes? So when somtimes we bring you forth your owne very wordes, then you make a brabbling about the meaning. These be the poore shiftes of such, as being ouercomme, that by the confession of their silence they might not seme ouercomme, wil not holde their peace. This is that S. Augustine reproued in Pascentius the Arian, whereof you were tolde before.August. epist. 174. What is a more contentious parte (saith he) then to striue about the name (of Homusion he meaneth) where the thing it selfe is certainely knowen?

What can you demaunde more? Haue you not here a manifest witnesse of sacrificing the healthful Sacrifice, which S. Dionyse acknowlegeth to be aboue his degree and worthinesse? What other is that, then the body and bloude of Christe? What is to be accompted healthful in comparison of that, which is, as S. Augu­stine calleth it,August. Confess. lib. 9. ca. 12. the Sacrifice of our Raunsom? That is to say, of that thing, whereby we haue ben bought from the Deuil, from hel, and euerlasting damnation.

If you say, this saying is to be expounded of the sacri­fice of praise, and thankes geuing, tel vs, who euer gaue [Page] the title of so soueraine honour vnto such kinde of Sa­crifice? Though it be our duetie, and also healthful for vs, to offer vp the sacrifice of praise, and thankes: yet who euer called it hostiam salutarem, the healthful hoste? The sacrifice of praise here I meane, as it is our owne spiritual worke, for otherwise I confesse, the blessed Sacrifice it selfe of the body and bloude of Christe, is also not seldom named the sacrifice of praise, as your selfe haue in this Diuision alleged a place out of S. Basils Masse, where it is so called.

And that S. Dionyse meant not the Sacrifice of praise and thankes, it is cleare, in that he spea­keth of a Sacrifice to be offered, after that prai­ses of Gods woorkes, and thankes for the same be geuen.

How be it, what so euer M. Iewel say there can be no doubte, what Sacrifice S. Dionyse meant. For by alleging this Scripture, Doo ye this is my remem­brance, for his warrant, he leadeth vs directly vnto the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe, which he offered vp at his last Supper,Diuisiō. 6. as it is before proued by S. Ireneus. S. Cyprian, S. Chrysostome, Hesychius, Gregorie Nyssen, and others. Which Sacrifice bicause Christe him selfe both offered, and taught his Apostles likewise to offer in remembrance of him (for then he taught them the new Testament, Iren. li. 4. cap. 32. saith S. Ireneus) and de­liuered them a forme, how they should doo it after­warde: in consideration hereof S. Dionyse, who bele­ued Christe to be God,The Tra­dition of God. in this very place calleth it the Tradition of God.

Againe for further proufe of this most honorable [Page 132] and heauenly Sacrifice, this is to be considered in S. Dionyses Treatise.That S. Dionyse meaneth the Sacri­fice of the body and bloude of Christe. So long as the bishop, or Priest is at­tent to geuing praises, and thankes, for the great workes of God (which is also a kinde of sacrifice) so long we see none excuse made of any vnworthinesse. But the praises being once finished, as sone as he commeth vnto the mystical Sacrifice, before he dare to aduenture it, he premitteth his humble sute for excuse to be obteined. What should the cause be, why the Bishop or Priest before the offering of the one Sacrifice maketh no ex­cuse of his vnworthinesse, and here as he entreth vnto it maketh so humble an excuse: but bicause there is a great difference betwen the excellencie of the one, and the other? In both sacrifices Christes benefites be re­membred, for how can that be praised, that is not re­membred? The difference must nedes be in the excel­lencie of the thing offred. But what thing can be better and excellenter, then the praise of God, and thankes geuing, but onely the body and bloud of Christ? Where­fore it must needes be the body and bloude of Christe, which the Bishop or Priest offered, premitting so humble an excuse, and appealing vnto Christes owne commaun­dement for his warrant.

This much with the circumstances of the place duely considered, I doubte not but any reasonable man wil sone conceiue S. Dionyse to speake of the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe, and so consequently of Christe offered and sacrificed vnto God, to whom onely Sacrifice is to be made: though M. Iewel be so shamelesse as to say, that he hath no token, nor inkling of any such Sacrifice, and though in very deede [Page] the precise termes of Sacrificing Christe, or the Sonne of God vnto his Father, be not expressely set forth. The which termes, as to expresse them, it was not necessa­ry, so of great discretion and wisedome, this holy lear­ned Father, who liued in the Apostles time, eschewed: and yet he so signified the thing, by other wordes, as of the faithful it might be vnderstanded, and from the In­fidels kept secret. Who if our Mysteries had bene with plaine speache made open vnto them, through lacke of faith, would haue had them in derision, and trodden them vnder their feete, as swyne doo precious stones, and as Heretiques doo at this day.August. in Psalm. 33. & epistol. 120.

For which cause S. Augustine, and S Chrysostome, and al other in manner the olde learned Fathers, spea­king of this most reuerent Sacrifice,Origen. in Leuit. ca. 16. hom. 9 doo vse these or the like admonitions. The Sacrifice, which the faithful knowe, and those that haue read the Gospel. Againe. The which Sacrifice, where, and when, and how it is offred, thou shalt knowe, At the begīning [...]ge Fa­thers spake se­c [...]etly of the Sacri­fice at lēg­th vvhen the faith had pre­uailed ge­nerally, thei spake more plainely. Cassiodor. Psal. 109. when thou art baptized. &c.

But in the age that folowed, when the faith was generally receiued ouer the worlde, the learned Fathers spake more plainely of it. As for example, Cassiodorus that noble Senatour of Rome, and learned writer, who liued about the yere of our Lorde. 570. in his Commen­taries vpon the Psalmes, expounding the place of Chri­stes euerlasting Priesthoode in the .109. Psalme, saith thus in most plaine wise. To whom can this truly, and eui­dently be applied, but vnto our Lorde our Sauiour, who healthfully in the gifte of bread and wine consecrated his Body a [...]d Bloude? As him selfe saith in the Ghospel. Except ye eate the flesh of the Sonne of man, and drinke [Page 133] his bloude, ye shal not haue life euerlasting. But in this flesh and bloude, let mans mynde conceiue, nothing that is bloudy, nothing that is corruptible, least i [...] come to passe which the Apostle saith, 1. Cor. 11. he that eateth the body of our Lorde vnwor­thily, eateth to him selfe condemnation: (the wordes that folowe be these). Sed viuificatricem substantiam, at que sa­lutarem, & ips [...]us verbi propriam factam: per quam pecca­torum remissio, & vitae aeternae dona praestantur. But let (the mynde of man conceiue it to be) the quickening, the healthful substance, and that which was made the worde it selfes owne proper substance, by which the remis­sion of sinnes, and the giftes of euerlasting life be geuen. The which order (of Priesthode and Sacrifice) by mystical similitude Melchisedech that most iust king did institute, Gen. 14. when he offered vp vnto our Lorde the fruites of bread and wine. For it is cleare, that the sacrifices of beastes are quite gone away, which were of the order of Aaron, and that Melchisedeks order rather remaineth, which in the deliuering forth of the Sacramentes is celebrated in al the worlde. Which thing the obstinate Iewes doo not yet vn­derstand, whereas it is certaine, that both their Priest, and Sacrifices are taken quite away.

This learned Father here setteth forth plainely three thinges concerning the Sacrifice we speake of. The first is, that Christe at his Supper consecrated his body and bloude,Pag. 19. which you M. Iewel in your Replie of the first Article doo denie. The second is, what flesh, and what bloude it is, that is so consecrated, to wit, vnbloudy bloude, and [...] if it be lawful so to speake, vnfleshy flesh, and yet true shesh, and true bloude, euen the quickening substance, that, which is proper to the [Page] Worde it selfe, and whereby Mankinde is redemed. The thirde is, that the Priesthoode after Melchisedeks order remaineth stil, doubtelesse bicause as Christe pre­senteth him selfe continually in heauen vnto the Father for vs: so by Priestes of the newe Testament, his Vicars, he offereth him selfe vnto the Father now also in earth vnder the formes of bread and wine, after the order of Melchisedek. Which Sacrifice is now frequented ouer al the world, the Iewes sacrifices being vtterly abandoned.

A cleare testimo­ny agaīst those, that make this only a fi­guratiue Sacrifice.Isidorus that holy and learned Bishop of Hispa­lis now called Siuile in Spaine, hauing declared out of the Scripture, that in the time of Sacrifices in the olde Lawe, the Leuites sownded their trumpets, by way of comparison speaking of the Offertories soong in the Churche, saith, that now we likewise doo sing, with deede and harte vttering forth praises to our Lorde in the time of our Sacrifice. In illo vero Sacrificio, cuius sanguine saluatus est mundus, Isidorus de Eccles. Officijs. li. 1. ca. 14 be his wordes, that is to say, In that true Sacrifice, by the bloude whereof the worlde is saued. Here he calleth it the true Sacrifice, whereby M. Iewels wicked assertion of his only figuratiue Sacrifice, is quite dasshed, and ouer­throwen.

Ibidem. cap. 18.Againe in an other place, The Sacrifice (saith he) which is offered vp vnto God by the Christians, Christe our Lorde and Maister did first institute it, when he gaue vnto the Apostles his body and his bloude, before he was betrayed: as it is read in the Gospel, Iesus (saith the Euangelist tooke bread, and the Cuppe, and hauing blessed, Math. 26. gaue to them. The which Sacrament Melchi­sedech King of Salem first offered vp figuratiuely in type [Page 134] (or token) of the body and bloude of Christe: and the same man first of al expressed imaginarily (or in image) the Mysterie of this so great a Sacrifice, foreshewing the likenesse of our Lorde and Sauiour Iesus Christe the euerlasting Priest. Imagina­riè. Psal. 109. To whom it is said, Thou arte a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech. This Sacrifice the Christians haue bene commaunded to celebrate, the Iewish sacrifices leafte of and ended, which were commaunded to be celebrated, when the people of the olde Lawe were vnder seruitude. And so then this thing is done of vs, which our Lorde him selfe did for vs, whiche he offered not in the morning, but afterward, for he did it in the euening.

By this it is cleare, that Christe offered vp his body and bloude, before he was betrayd, that is to say, at his last Supper, when he gaue the same to his Apostles, that he instituted, and commaunded the same Sacrifice to be celebrated of vs: That this is the true Sacrifice, whereof Melchisedech in his sacri­fice expressed the Image, figure, and type. Whereby M. Iewels onely imaginatiue, figuratiue, and typical Imagination, to exclude the real presence and sub­stance of Christes Flesh and Bloude, is vtterly con­demned.

For the truth of the Real presence, and of this Sacrifice he speaketh afterwarde in the same place more plainely, if any thing may more plainely he spoken. Exhorting maried persons to absteine cer­taine daies from their carnal imbracinges, and to geue them selues to prayer, before they come to re­ceiue the body of Christe, thus he saith.

[Page] Ibidem. Let vs peruse the bookes of the Kinges, and we shal finde, that Abimelech the Priest would not geue to Dauid, and his men any of the Shewbreades, 1. Reg. 21. before he asked them whether they were pure from wemen, not from strange wemen, but from their owne wiues. And except he had heard, that they had absteined from the wedlocke worcke from the time of yesterday and the day before: he would neuer haue graunted them the breades, which before he had denyed to them. Now so great difference there is betwen the Shewbreades, and the body of Christe, how much difference there is betwen the body, and the shadow, betwen the Image, and the truth, betwen the samplers of thinges to come, and the thinges them selues, which were figured by the samplers. Thus Isidorus.

If the thing we haue in the Sacrament of the Aulter, were but a signe, figure, or token of Christes body, then would not this holy and learned Father, as sundry other Fathers haue done, so earnestly haue ex­horted maried persons to forebeare their wedlocke-worke before the receiuing of it: yea specially then would not he by comparing this with the Shewbread, so much haue preferred this before that. For that was also a figure of the body of Christe. And if that whiche we haue be no more but a figure, then was that as good as this. Now Isidorus preferreth this before that, as being the body it selfe, whereof that was the shadow, the truth, whereof that was the Image, the thing it selfe, whereof that was a sampler. Where­fore to conclude, this being the true and real Body of Christe, whereas Priestes offer vp and sacrifice the same, as we must graunt they doo, or denie the Fathers: [Page 135] it foloweth, that they offer vp and sacrifice Christe the Sonne of God vnto his Father. The like, and plainer sayinges for the truth of this Sacrifice, if neede were, might in great number sone be recited out of the other Fathers, that wrote sithens the faith of Christ was generally receiued where it was preached, and al superstition of Gentilitie quite abolished [...] but these may suffice.

Now whereas S. Dionyse calleth this our Sacrifice of the Aulter,In vvhat sense is the Sacri­fice sym­bolical, or figura­tiue. [...] a sacrifice symbolical, or done in signes, or figure: we also graunt it to be symbolical, for vnder the signes that are visible and familiar to our senses, the heauenly Mysteries, to wit, the body and bloude of Christe, the substance of our Sacrifice, are inuisibly conteined. And we say, that S. Dionyse is here to be vnderstanded to speake of a signe or figure, as proper to the newe, and not to the olde Lawe,Gregor. Nazian. Hom. 4. de Pasch. euen so as S. Gregorie Nazianzen meaneth by a figure, when he saith, Iam Pascha fia­mus participes, figuraliter tamen adhuc, & si Pascha hoc veteri sit manifestius. Si quidem Pascha legale, au­denter dico, figura figurae erat obscurior. Let vs now be partakers of the Passeouer, but yet figuratiuely as yet, albeit this Passeouer be more manifest, then the Olde was. For the Passeouer of the Lawe was (I am bolde thus to say) a darcke figure of a figure. Here is our Passeouer, that is to say, our Sacrament, called a figure, but yet much more manifest, then the olde figures were, for they were but figures of figures.

And why is our most blessed Sacrament a figure? S. Gregorie euen there sheweth it to be so called in [Page] respecte of the fruition of the same, whiche we shal enioye in Heauen, where we shal after an heauenly manner, eate, and drinke it, without any Fgure, or coouer. Such a Figure or signe doth not onely si­gnifie, but conteineth also the thing signified. In con­sideration whereof S. Augustine putting a difference betwene the Sacramentes of the Newe and of the olde Testament, saith, that The Sacramentes of the Newe Testament geue Saluation, August. in Psal. 73. and the Sacramentes of the Olde Testament promised the Sauiour. Suche signes as geue saluation, be meete Sacramentes of the Newe Testament, of such kinde of signe or figure speaketh S. Dionyse, where he vseth the terme Symbolical, speaking of the Sacrifice of the Body and Bloude of Christe.

Ansvver to Pachy­meres.As for that M. Iewel allegeth out of Prchyme­res the Paraphraste, who saith, The Priest commeth to the Bread, and the Cuppe, whereof he would faine conclude, that the inuisible substance of the Sacrifice is not the body and bloude of Christe: it standeth him in litle stede. For in deede it is bread and wine, when the Priest first commeth vnto them to celebrate the Sa­crifice: But when the wordes of Christe be comme vnto them (as S. Ambrose saith) that is to say,Ambros. de Sacramēt. lib. 4 cap 5 when the Priest hath duely pronounced the wordes of Con­secration: then are they made the body and bloude of Christe, and so the Sacrifice of Christe.

And that Pachymeres was of this beleefe, it is cleare by his owne woordes, whiche M. Iewel ei­ther knewe not, and so speaketh ignorantly, or knewe wel yenough, yet dissembled, and so doth maliciously. [Page 136] Bicause for some credite of his purpose he cited his woordes in Greke (though by casting in one woorde of his owne which he founde not in the texte, after his common woonte he hath some deale falsified the sentence) I wil also here truely cite the woordes in Greke, by which Pachymeres sheweth him selfe to be Catholique in this point, and quite contrary to M. Iewels Sacramentarie doctrine. They be these. [...].Pachymee. in Dionys. Eccles. Hierarch. cap. 3. pag. 136. As muche to say in English. There be many that cast their eye vpon the holy signes onely, as they who are not ha­ble to conceiue any higher thing. But the Bishop him silfe is caried vp vnto those first samplers (or natural thinges) to wit, the pretious body, and bloude it selfe of our Lorde, beleuing that the thinges which are set forth (that is to say, the bread and wine) be changed into them by the holy and almighty Ghoste.

Lo M. Iewel, here haue you the cleare testimonie of Pachymeres him selfe, for his true and Catholique beleefe touching the truth of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament. Which beleefe is, not onely that the pretious body and bloude of our Lorde are of a right beleeuer beholden, and conceiued in the Sacrament verely present, which the Lutherans do acknowledge: but also that the bread and wine are by the power of the holy Ghoste,Transub­stātiation into the same conuerted and chan­ged, [Page] whiche neither ye, nor Luthers scholers doo be­leeue: and so by Pachymeres transubstantion is auou­ched.

After al this M. Iewel disposeth him selfe to dally at an Argument of his owne mery heads forging,M. Ievvel forgeth Argumēt [...]. bea­ring the Reader in hand, it is myne. And this Argu­ment forsooth is such, and so vnskilful, as a yong So­phister (saith he) would neuer haue framed it. What any yong Sophister would doo, I knowe not. But now certaine it is, that be it wel, or otherwise, it is framed by as olde a Sophister, as your selfe are M. Iewel. If it be vnskilfully framed, the blame is yours: for yours it is, not myne.

Here that you be so ful of your Argumentes (which vntruely you father vpon me) and so busy with your Logique, I answer you, as S. Augustine answered Iu­lian the Pelagian Heretique dealing with him, as you doo with me, not onely in this place, but in manner in your whole booke. Quantùm tibi places, tantùm graui­bus Lectoribus displices, Augustin. contra Iu­lian. lib. 3. cap. 7. & quod peius est, fingis me dice­re quod non dico, concludere, sicut non concludo, & caet. Looke (saith he) how much you stande in your owne conceite, so muche you are out of conceite with the graue Readers, and, which is worse, you feine me to say, that which I say not, to conclude, so as I con­clude not.

If you would needes shewe your cunning in Lo­gique, and dispute after the rules of that arte, why rehersed you not the whole Antecedent? Though in this place I frame no Argume at al, but onely recite the saying of S. Dionyse applying it to my purpose: [Page 137] yet if the whole should be disposed in fourme of an Argument, this is the Argument, that thereof might be concluded, the circumstance of the place consi­dered.

The Bishop or Priest (by reporte of S. Dionyse) stan­ding at the holy Aulter,An Argu­ment ga­thered out of S. Dionyse for the Sacrifice. after he hath geuen praises to God for his Diuine workes, commeth vnto the mystical Sacrifice, excusing him selfe for that he taketh vpon him to offer vp the healthful hoste or Sacrifice that is farre aboue his worthinesse, whereof Christe at his last Sup­per hauing consecrated his body and bloude, said, by way of commaundement and commission,Luc. 22. Doo ye this in my Remembrance: But this healthful Sacrifice whereof Christ so said, and which he required to be offered, is the Sa­crifice of his body and bloude vnder the formes of bread and wine: Ergo, by witnesse of that Auncient and most worthy Father, the Bishop or Priest, offereth vp Chri­stes body and bloude, and consequently Christ him selfe. For where the body of Christe is, there also is whole Christe, bicause of the inseparable vnitie of both natu­res. And if Christe be thus offered, to whom is he of­fred, but to the Father? Albeit I confesse, that Christe is offered to him selfe also as being God, and to the holy Ghoste to the whole most blessed Trinitie.

If you had thus set forth the Argument M. Iewel, and dealt simply and truly, you should not haue needed to trouble the reader with so much Sophistrie and Logique, as here for confutation of your owne forged reason you haue bestowed. Bicause you knewe your selfe not hable to auoide the force of the whole Antecedent, slyly you answer to that parte of it onely, where it is said, [Page] the Priest excuseth him selfe, as though I had layd the chiefe grounde of the authoritie in that clause onely. And thereof you take occasion to enter into a neede­lesse common place, proouing by certaine testimonies, which no man euer denied, that sundry holy thinges are to be done not presumptuously and rashly, but reue­rently, and with feare and trembling, as namely when we offer vp the Sacrifice of Praise, when we baptise, when we preache, or heare Gods holy worde, when we pray, and cal God our Father. For the reuerent and hūble demeanour that we ought to shewe in doing these holy thinges, you allege S. Basil, S. Dionyse, S. Paule, S. Cyprian.

But what of al this? wil it thereof folowe, Ergo, though the Priest standing at the Aulter, and comming to offer the Mystical Sacrifice, excuse him selfe (not for praying, preaching, praising, or baptizing, but) for of­fering the healthful hoste, that farre passeth his degree, euen the same, that Christe offered at his laste Supper, whereof he said, This is my Body, 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 [Page 138] 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 [...] [Page] 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 [Page 139] 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 [Page] 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 Ansvvere.

IRenaeus receiued the same from S. Iohn the Euan­gelist, by Polycarpus S. Iohns scholar. He decla­reth it with these wordes: Eum, qui ex creatura Panis est,Lib. 4. cap. [...]3. accepit, & gratias egit, dicens, Hoc est Corpus meum, Et Calicem similiter, qui est ex creatura quae est secundùm nos, suum Sanguinem confessus est, & Noui Testamen­ti [Page 140] nouam docuit Oblationem, quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens, in vniuerso mundo offert Deo. De quo in duodecim Prophe­tis Malachias sic presignificauit,Malac. 1. Non est mi­hi voluntas in vobis, dicit DOMINVS ex­ercituum: & munus non suscipiam de manu vestra. He tooke that, which by creation is breade, and gaue thankes, sayinge, This is my Body. And likewise the Cuppe ful of that Creature, whiche is here with vs, and confessed it to be his Bloude, and thus taught the newe Oblation of the Nwe Testa­mente, whiche the Churche receiuinge of the Apost­les, dooth offer to God through the whole worlde, whereof Malachie one of the twelue Prophetes did prophecie thus: I haue no likinge in you, saith our Lord almightie, neither wil I take Sacrifice of your handes: bicause from the risinge of the Sunne, to the going downe of the same, my name is glorified amonge the Nations, and Incense is offered to my name in e­uery place, and pure Sacrifice, for that my name is greate amonge Nations. What can be vnderstan­ded by this newe Oblation of the Newe Testa­mente other, then the Oblation of that, which he saide to be his Body, and confessed to be his Bloude? And if he had offered Breade and Wine onely, or the Figure of his Body, and Bloude in Bread and Wine, [Page] it had beene no Newe Oblation, for suche had beene made by Melchisedech longe before. Neither can the Prophecie of Malachie be vnderstanded of the Obla­tion of Christe vppon the Crosse, forasmuche as that was doone but at one time onely, and in one certaine place of the worlde, in Golgoltha, a place without the gates of Hierusalem, neare to the walles of that Ci­tie. Concerninge the Sacrifice of a contrite, and an humbled harte, and al other Sacrifices of our deuo­tion, that be mere Spiritual, they can not be called the Newe Oblation of the newe Testament, forasmuche as they were doone as wel in the Olde Testamente, as in the Newe, neither be they altogeather pure. Where­fore this place of Ireneus, and also the Prophecie of Malachie, wherewith it is confirmed, must needes be referred to the Sacrifice and Oblation of the Bodie and Bloude of Christe daily throughout the whole worlde offered to God in the Masse, which is the ex­ternal Sacrifice of the Churche, and proper to the Newe Testament: which, as Ireneus saith, the Chur­che receiued of the Apostles, and the Apostles of Christe.

Iewel.

Here at laste, M. Harding hath founde out the name of a Sacrifice, that vvas not denied him. But the Sacrifice, that he hath so long sought for, and hath so assuredly promised to finde, hitherto he hath not founde. For Ireneus not once nameth, neither the Masse, nor this Real Oblation [Page 141] of the Sonne of God vnto his Father. Malac. 1. Thus onely he saith, God hath vt­terly misliked,Martialis ad Burde­galenses. and refused the olde Carnal Sacrifices of the Iew­es: and hath taught vs to offer vp the New Sacrifice of the new Testamente, according to the Prophecie of Malachie. This Sa­crifice, M. Harding imagineth, Tertul. contra Iudaeos. can be none other, but the offering vp of Christ in the Masse. These Conclusions be very suddaine. The Olde learned Fathers could neuer vnderstande so much. One of M. Hardings ovvne Nevve founde Doctours, Tertul. contra Marcio. lib. 4. Martialis, saith thus, Oblatio munda, non tantùm in Ara Sanctificata offertur, sed etiam vbique: The pure Sacrjfice, which Malachie meaneth, is offered, not only vppon the Holy Aultare (or Communion Table) but also euery where. M. Harding saith, Hieron. in 1. cap. Malach. It is offered onely vppon the Aulter: Martialis saith, It is offered euerywhere, and not onely vpon the Aultare. Certainely if Malachie meante the Sacrifice, that may be offered in al places, Hieron. in Zacha. li. 2. cap. 8. and vvithout an Aultare, as Martialis saith, then he meante not the Sacrifice of the Masse. Tertullian saith, That the Prophete Ma­lachie by that pure Sacrifice, meant the Preaching of the Gospel: the offering vp of a Contrite Harte:Aug. con­tra aduer. Legis, & Prophet. cap. 20. and praier proceeding from a pure Conscience. S. Hierom likevvise expoundeth the same of the Sa­crifice of Praier, and openeth it by these VVordes of the Prophete Da­uid: Let my Praier be directed, as incense before thy sight. S. Au­gustine calleth the same, Sacrificium Laudis, & Gratiarum actionis: The Sacrifice of Praise,Contra Liter. Pe­tilian. lib. 2. cap. 86. and of Thankesgeuinge.

Harding.

What truth thou arte like to find in M. Iewels Reply to the rest of this Diuision, thou maist sone cōceiue Rea­der, seing he maketh his entrie with so shamelesse, and so open a lye. Here at the last (saith he) M. Harding hath found the name of Sacrifice. And but here at the laste good Sir? As though expresse mention of Sacrifice were not con­teined in sundry testimonies before alleged. Where be your eyes? Nay where is your fidelitie? Where is your sin­ceritie? Where is your honestie? Where is your shame­fastnesse? [Page] Doth not S. Dionyse in the last Diuision be­fore this name the Sacrifice, [...]. Hesych. li. 1. cap. 4. that is aboue his worthy­nesse? Doth not Hesychius say, that Christe at his Supper sacrificed him selfe? Doth not Eusebius reporte vnto you the dreadful Sacrifices of Christes Table? I leaue the reste.Diony. Ec­clesiast. Hierarch. c. 1. p. 3. For shame M. Iewel if you haue no way to escape the iust request of your promised Subscription but by lying, yet haue some regarde of your estimation, that the very simplest of the worlde espye not out your so grosse lying.

And now touching the chiefe point of this Diuision, what, thinke you to auoide the strength of S. Irenaeus testimonie for the Sacrifice, bicause he nameth not the Masse expressely, nor the real Oblation of the Sonne of God vnto his Father [...] Why Sir then wil you not stād to the mater, but cowardly flie away and lurke in termes? How be it, the real Oblation of the Sonne of God vnto his Father (if you wil needes put the trust of your cause in termes) if you remember, be not the wordes of your owne Cha­lenge.

If this Argument be good, that here you make, S. Ire­naeus not once nameth the Masse, nor real Oblation of the Sonne of God vnto his Father, Ergo, by him the Sa­crifice of the Churche can not be auouched: why may not this also be as good: Not one of the foure Euange­listes saith expressely, that Christe offered or sacrificed him selfe vpon the Crosse, nor once nameth that Sacri­fice of Christe: Ergo Christe was not sacrificed for vs vpon the Crosse? If this Argument shalbe taken for good, then haue the Arians ouercomme. For if the Churche shalbe driuen to shewe letters, syllables, and [Page 142] termes: neither can we finde the Cōsubstantialitie of the Sonne of God with the Father, nor the Procession of the holy Ghoste from the Father and the Sonne, nor certaine other great pointes of our Faith, which notwithstan­ding being reueled to the Churche by the holy Ghoste the spirite of truth, and declared by the expositions of the holy Fathers, we are bounde to beleue vnder paine of e­ternal damnation.

Knowing your selfe ouerborne with the force of this plaine testimonie of S. Irenaeus, craftily you dissemble it, and keepe your selfe a loofe of from rehersing the wor­des, pretending thereby that he neuer said so, as I haue reported him. But let the booke be vewed, and it shal­be founde, wil you nil you, that I haue truly alleged him.M. Ievvel forgeth sayinges of his ovvne head, and reporteth them for the sayin [...]ges of S. Ireneus. You on the other side, to conueigh the whole point to Malachie the Prophete, where you thought rather to haue some colour of aduantage: come in with a forged saying of your owne, and setting it forth in the lettre, that you caused the Doctours sayinges to be printed in, you ascribe it vnto S. Irenaeus, whereas the sentence which here you haue inserted (pretending for credit your so­lemne warrant with these woordes, Thus onely he saith) is not in S. Irenaeus.

You should haue tolde vs,M. Ievvel diuerteth from the testimo­nie wher vvith he is vrged, and en­treth into an other mater. and with good authoritie haue prooued it, what other thing can be vnderstanded by the newe Oblation of the newe Testament, whereof S. Irenaeus speaketh, but the Oblation of that, which Christ said to be his body, and confessed to be his bloude. To this you make no directe Answer, but slily carye away the reader vnto the saying of Malachie, whereof I haue treated before. I vrge you with S. Irenaeus, and you [Page] shooting wide of the marke make answer to the place of Malachie, whose saying is not in this place principally obiected, but brought in by the way as it were, by Saint Irenaeus, interpretinge the pure Sacrifice by him mentioned, of the Newe Oblation of the Newe Te­stament.

The olde learned Fathers (you say) neuer vnderstoode so much. So much? What so muche meane you? That the Oblation of Christes body and Bloud, is, the new Oblation of the New Testament, Irenaeus li. 4. cap. 23. which Christ taught his Disciples, which the Church receiued of the Apostles, and now offereth vp vnto God through the whole wrrlde, as S. Irenaeus saith? Did the Fathers neuer vnderstand this much? What say you then to S. Irenaeus, who vnderstoode so much, as by his wordes it is cleare? What is this, but to set the holy Fathers at variance with S. Irenaeus?

Yet you wil needes seme to vnderstande the Sacrifice that Malachie spake of, of Preaching, of a Contrite hart, of Prayer, of Praise, and thankesgeuing. For credite here­of you allege Tertulliā, S. Hierom, and S. Augustin. Wel, what if it be so? What answer is that to S. Irenaeus? As for the place of Malachie, as I said before, it is past, and an­swered. Certainly it can not be vnderstanded of the pure­nes of mans hart, for of lacke therof he complaineth not, but of polluted sacrifices. Againe the purenes of mans harte, commonly is not so great, as therfore, the name of God, should so much be magnified. And the same was in many Iewes then, no lesse then it is in the Christiās now.

To that you bringe out of Tertullian, and S. Hie­rome, concerning what is meante by the Pure Sa­crifice in Malachie, you haue myne answer before in [Page 143] the thirde Diuision.In the .3. Diuision fol. [...]0. b. & dein­ceps. What you bringe here, you brought the same before. Sparing my labour, inke, and paper, I remitte the Reader vnto that place, where he shal finde you to haue but a weake aide of Tertullian, and shamefully to haue falsified S. Hierome, as becom­meth such false shifters to doo.

To prooue that Malachie by the pure Sacrifice meant not the Sacrifice of the Aulter, you bringe in S. Martialis ad Burdegalenses, whom you cal one of myne owne newe founde Doctours. If you contemne him, why doo you allege him? Wil you shunne his auctori­tie, and yet craue helpe of him? If I would vse your owne Rhetorique, here might I say, what toole is so bad, that Maister Iewel wil not occupie,M. Ievvel falsifieth Martialis. rather then seeme to be without al weapon? Of what authoritie so euer he be, once this is true, in your translation you haue fowly falsified him, by putting in woordes of your owne forgerie. For he speaketh nothing at al of Malachie, nor in that place once nameth him. Whose name you added of your owne vnto the sentence out of him alleged, to vnderproppe your weake and ruinous building with al.

In that Epistle ad Burdegalenses, S. Martialis vn­derstandeth by Ara Sanctificata, one Special Aulter, that in the Citie of Burdeaulx was consecrated in the name of GOD, and S. Steuen. Which Aulter being in olde time dedicated to an vnknowen God, he at the ouerthrowe of Idols Aulters there caused to be reser­ued whole, and him selfe halowed it. This much is de­clared in the Epistle it selfe. And as you haue falsified your Doctor with putting in stuffe of your owne to the [Page] beginning of the sentence, so haue you corrupted him much worse, with cutting away from the middest the hinder parte.Martialis Epistol. ad Burdegal. For these be his wordes, Nec solùm in a­ra sanctificata, sed vbique offertur Deo oblatio munda, sicut testatus est, cuius corpus & sanguinem in vitam aeternam offerimus. Neither onely vpon the halowed Aulter, but euery where is the cleane oblation offered vp vnto God, as he hath witnessed, whose body and bloude we offer vp to life euerlasting. And what is that Christ hath wit­nessed? for of him he speaketh. That Priestes should of­fer vp his body and bloude in euery countrie,Luc. 22. saying, Do this in my Remembrance. This serued not your purpose, and therefore you hewed it away.

Double oblation, one in spirite only, the o­ther in the Sacrament.If this answer do not satisfie you, may it please you to take this other. S. Martialis speaketh of two kindes of Oblations. The one is offered vp in spirite only. the o­ther in mysterie and in the Sacrament. The spiritual ob­lation is offered vp not only vpon a sanctified Aulter, but also euerywhere. But the mystical and Sacramental ob­lation which is of the body and bloud of Christe, is offe­red vp only vpon a consecrated Aulter, bicause thereon is the real presence of the same. And of that kinde of ob­lation in that very place which you haue so fowly cor­rupted, he saith thus. Christ hauing a body both vnspotted, and without synne, bicause he was conceiued of the Holy Ghoste, and borne of the virgin Marie, permitted it to be sacrificed on the Aulter of the Crosse. And the same thing which the Iewes sacrificed through enuie, thinking so they should abolish his name quite out of the earth, we set forth vppon the halowed Aulter for cause of our health, know­ing that by this onely remedie life is to be geuen vnto vs, and [Page 144] death to be driuen away. For our Lorde him selfe commaun­ded vs, to doo this in remembraunce of him. By this it is made cleare, that if you wil stand to the authoritie of S. Martialis, you must recant your Chalenge denying the Priestes to haue power and cōmission to offer vp Christe vnto his Father.

Vpon the false construction you make of S. Martialis, you procede, as if it were the Gospel that you said. But your grounde being false (for neither once there nameth he Malachie, and of the Sacrifice he speaketh plainely) al likewise is false, that you buylde thereon, or conclude thereof.

S. Augustine (say you) calleth the same Sacrifice (whereof Malachie speaketh) Sacrificiū Laudis, Aug. cōtra Aduers. Legis & Propheta­rum. c. 20. Cont. lit. Petiliani. li. 2. c. 86. & gratia­rū actionis, The Sacrifice of Praise, and of thankesgeuing. And that it should appeare, you allege him truly, you haue by your cotation in the margent, directed your rea­der vnto two places. But in those places S. Augustine calleth it, Sacrificium Laudis, the Sacrifice of praise onely: as for the Sacrifice of thankesgeuing, it is of your owne putting in, S. Augustine there doth not once name it. The mater is not great: yet your vntruth is to be noted. How be it what should I note this? There is in manner nothing by you in any place alleged, which more or lesse by your crafte of falsifying, you haue not altered and corrupted.

And though S. Augustine cal the pure Sacrifice pro­phecied of by Malachie, the Sacrifice of Praise, what conclude you thereof? Ergo, it is not the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe? Thus you must conclude, for els it serueth you to no purpose. This being your ar­gument, you shew vs as good Logique, as if one shoulde [Page] thus prooue your ring not to be golde. This ring is metal, ergo, it is not golde. For as metal is general to gold, syl­uer, brasse, and to other thinges of that kinde, and com­priseth them within his generalitie, so as the Argument is foolish, which from the affirmation of the general, de­duceth the denial of the special: No whit wiser, nor of better force is your reason, This Sacrifice by reporte of S. Au­gustin, is the Sacrifice of Praise, Ergo, it is not the Sacrifice of the Body and bloud of Christe. For the Sacrifice of Praise is general to al those Sacrifices,The Sa­crifice of Praise, hovv ge­neral it is. by which the name of God is praised, and is not only the Praise of God, that is vttered by wordes proceeding out of our mouthe. And God is praised by no other thing so much, as by this vn­bloudy Sacrifice, representing the oblation of Christe v­pon the Crosse. And S. Augustine him selfe writing vpon the .49. Psalme, calleth the liberal almose of Zachaeus, who said,Luc. 19. I geue the halfe of my goodes to the poore, and the two Mites,Mat. 12. Math. 10. that the poore widow gaue to the com­mon Boxe, and the Cuppe of colde water, that the poore hoste gaue, as it is tolde in the Gospel, eche of these (I say) he calleth Sacrificium Laudis, a Sacrifice of praise. This Sacrifice of Praise (saith he) had Zachaeus in his Patrimonie, August. in Psal. 49. had the wydow in her purse, had the poore hoste in his tubbe.

So then M. Iewel, what you bring here out of S. Augustine, disprooueth nothing at al the Doctrine of the Catholique Churche, concerning that we cal the Sacrifice of the Body and Bloude of Christe celebra­ted in the Masse, whereof Saint Irenaeus so plainely speaketh, that you not beinge hable to auoide the force of his cleare woordes, are fayne to shifte your [Page 145] handes of it,The Sa­crifice of the Aul­ter is th [...] Sacrifice of praise. and turne away al your talke vnto Malachie. Neither is it strange, that S. Augustine calleth it the sa­crifice of praise. For whereby is the mercie of God so much praised, as by the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of his Sonne, which we offer vp in remembrnce of his Death?

But Sir why haue you dissembled, and conceeled these other woordes, with which S. Augustine in the very booke and chapter that you allege, confirmeth the Catholique doctrine on our behalfe against you, and auoucheth that Sacrifice, which most wickedly you de­nie? his woordes be these.Augustin. cōtra Ad­uers. legis & proph. li. 1. c. 20. This Churche is Israel accor­ding to the spirite, from which that Israel according to the flesh, is distincted, which serued in the shadowes of sacrifi­ces, by which the Singular Sacrifice was signified, that now Israel according to the spirite offereth vp. Againe a litle after in the same place. They that reade, do knowe, what Melchisedech brought forth, when be blessed Abraham. And now they are partakers of it, Ibidem. Gen. 14. they see that kinde of Sacrifice, now to be offred vp vnto God ouer al the worlde.

What is this Singular Sacrifice,The Sin­gular Sa­crifice. which the Churche offereth vp, but the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe? For what so euer els you recken, it shal ap­peare common as wel to Israel according to the flesh, as to Israel according to the spirite. And what sacri­fice can you name vs like vnto that which Melchisedek brought forth when he blessed Abraham, which they that reade do knowe (by which manner of speache, as by holding vp a finger, S. Augustin is woont to point the Reader vnto the Sacrifice of the Aulter) and which is now offred vp vnto God ouer al the worlde, but the Sa­crifice [Page] of the body and bloude of Christe, vnder the for­mes of bread and wine? Thus we thanke you M. Iew­el for leading vs vnto those places in S. Augustine, where our Doctrine is so substantially auouched, and your heresie so plainely confuted.

Iewel.

In like sorte Irenaeus also expoundeth his ovvne meaninge, Ecclesia offert Deo cum Gratiarum actione ex Creatura eius. Est ergo Altare in Coelo:Iren. lib. 4 cap. 34. illuc Preces, & Oblationes nostrae diriguntur: The Churche offereth vp to God, (not his ovvne, and onely Sonne, but) a natural thinge of Goddes Creation. Neither is our Aultare here in earthe, but in heauen. Thither our Praiers, and Sacrifices be directed.Euseb. de Demōstr. lib. 1. c. 10. So likevvise Eusebius saith, Sacrificamus, & incendimus Memoriam Magni illius Sacrificij, secundùm ea, quae ab ipso tradita sunt, Mysteria celebrantes, & gratias Deo pro salute nostra agentes: wee Sacrifice, and offer vp vnto God the Remembrance of that Greate Sacrifice, vsinge the Holy Mysteries accordingly, as Christe hath deliuered them, and ge­uinge God Thankes for our Saluation.

And that Irenaeus meante not any such Real Sacrifice of the Sonne of God, nor may not in any vvise so be taken, it is euidente by the plaine vvoordes, that folovve, touching the same. For thus he saith, speaking of the very same Sacrifice of the Nevve Testamente, that is mentioned by Malachie: Sacrificia non sanctificant hominem, sed conscientia eius, qui offert, existens pura, sanctificat Sacrifici­um. The Sacrifice dooth not Sanctifie the Man: but the Con­science of the offerer, being pure, sanctifieth the Sacrifice. I trovve, M. Harding vvil not saie, The Prieste is not sanctified by the Sonne of God: but the Sonne of God is sanctified by the Con­science of the Priest: For that vvere Blasphemie. And yet thus must he needes saie, if Irenaeus meante the Real Sacrificinge of the Sonne of God.

Harding.

After al these allegations brought by M. Iewel a­gainst the Sacrifice of the Churche, whereof not one ought at al helpeth his cause,VVith vvhat sinceritie ād truth M. Ievv. hādleth S. I­renaeus. as I haue now proued: he returneth vnto S. Irenaeus againe, and by his accustomed craft of falsifying, he would make his Reader beleue, that S. Irenaeus expoundeth his owne meaning so, as the Sa­crifice of Christes body and bloude be quite excluded. To bring this to passe, it is a woonder to see, what fowle shiftes he maketh. Of this blessed Fathes senten­ces he snatcheth here a peece, and there a peece, taking the head without the taile, the body without either, dis­membring the whole. He ioyneth together wordes, that be aboue thirty lines a sund [...]r, and thereof frameth a sense sounding to his false purpose, cleane contrary to the holy Doctors meaning. What shal I say of his owne false gloses, and additions, set forth with that letter, in which the Doctours sayinges be printed, of corrupting the Latine, of making his translation muche worse? Briefly he demeaneth him selfe so, as who so euer consi­dereth and weigheth the wordes of S. Irenaeus, and M. Iewels false sleightes together, he wil thinke, that he hath vtterly abandoned al truth, simplicitie and shame­fastnesse, and putteth his whole truste in lying.

Touching then that he first bringeth out of S. Irenae­us, I maruel what he meant here to recite it.M. Ievvel Fovvly corrup­teth S. I­renaeus. If he had set forth the whole sentence, as it lyeth in the Doctour, euery simple man would soone haue perceiued, that it furthereth his Chalenge nothing at al. Hauing spoken in the foreparte of the sentence of Oblation, that we [Page] must offer vp vnto the Creator in pure meaning, in faith without Hypocrisie, infirme hope, inferuent loue: he com­meth to the later parte, whereof M. Iewel hath pyked out a litle peece with wyly falshod turning it to his pur­pose. This it is, Et hanc oblationem Ecclesia sola pura of­fert Fabricatori, Iren. li. 4. cap. 34. offerens ei cum gratiarum actione ex crea­tura eius. And this oblation the Churche onely offereth vp pure vnto our Creator, offering vnto him with ge­uing thankes out of his creature, that is to say, out of that he hath created. There it foloweth immediatly, Iudaei autem non offerunt. &c. But the Iewes do not (so) offer, for their handes be ful of bloude. &c.

What maketh this for M. Iewel? Mary were al true, that he addeth to his Doctors text, and in case that folo­wed immediatly, which he adioineth hereunto, and with such termes, as he hath deuised of his owne, and be not in S. Ireneus, that is to say, if blacke were white: it were somewhat perhaps to his purpose. But now he hath falsified altogether,Fovvle corrup­tion. with these wordes falsly infar­ced into the sentence, not his owne, and onely Sonne, but a natural thing: Also by putting these wordes, Est ergo Altare in coelo, Illuc preces, & oblationes nostrae dirigun­tur next after the other, as though euen there they fo­lowed, which do not folow: but be found at the ende of the chapter. 36. lines after. Which neuerthelesse he trās­lateth also very falsly, as the Reader may see. For these wordes, Neither is our Aulter here in earth, be of his owne false addition, and be not at al in the Doctour [...] and most true it is, that we haue Aulters in the Churche to offer the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christ [...] vpon, which by vertue of his worde be made really [Page 147] present: though we haue an Aulter also in heauen.

Where as S. Ireneus is brought in by M. Iewel in the next paragraph, saying,Sacrificia. The sacrifices doo not sanctifie the man, but the conscience of the offerer being pure, sanctifieth the sacrifice: in that place he speaketh not of the Sacri­fice of the Aulter at al, but of the Sacrifices of the olde Testament. What so euer is offered vnto God, it is not the thing offered, that of it selfe sanctifieth him that offe­reth, But the pure and cleane harte of the party that offe­reth sanctifieth the sacrifice, that is to say, as S. Ire­neus expoundeth him selfe, praestat acceptare Deum quasi ab amico, causeth God to accept it, as at the hand of a frend. Els if a wicked synner (saith the Scripture there also alleged) kil me a calfe, Esai. 66. I had as leaue he killed me a dogge. In that place therefore he speaketh against them onely, that thought to please God with their outward Sacrifices, whereof he hath no neede, them selues in­wardly being wicked, and hauing impure consciences. To make this clearer by examples, and testimonies of Scripture, he allegeth the example of Cain, of the Scri­bes and Pharisees, and certaine sayinges out of Ieremie, and Esaye.

Now in the setting forth of this saying,Tvvo lie [...] of M. Ievvel. M. Iewel de­ceiueth his Reader, but with two lyes at once. The one is, in that he saith, it foloweth after the other before al­leged. For it foloweth not, but goeth before it, as it may be sene in the booke. The other lye is, in that he auoucheth this holy Father to speake this much of the newe oblation of the newe Testament, which is vt­terly false, as I haue now declared.

Iewel.

But M. Harding hath diuised a greate many replies to the contrary. First he saithe, The offering vp of praier, Praises, and Than­kesgeuinge can not be called a Newe Sacrifice: for the same was made by Moses, Aaron, the Prophetes, and other holy menne in the Olde Lawe. This obiection serueth vvel to control Tertullian, S. Augustine, and S. Hierome, and other learned Fathers, that thus haue taken it: vvho, by M. Hardinges iudgemente, vvrote vnaduisedly, they knevve not vvhat. Hereunto Irenaeus him selfe an­svveareth thus:Irenae. li. 4. c. 34 Oblationes hîc: Oblationes illic. Sacrificia in Po­pulo Israel: Sacrificia in Ecclesia. Sed species immutata est tan­tùm. Quippe cùm iam non à Seruis, sed à Liberis offeruntur. There were Sacrifiees in the Olde Testament: There be Sacri­fices in the newe. There were Sacrifices in the People of Israel: there be Sacrifices in the Church. Onely the manner, or forme is changed. For nowe they be offered, not by Bonde menne (as before) but by Free menne. In like sense vvriteth Angelomus. Angelomꝰ Anti [...]m. lib. 3. Man­datum nouum scribo vobis: non alterum: sed ipsum, quod dixi Vetus, idem est Nouum. I write vnto yowe a Newe Com­maundemente: None other, but that I called the Olde, the selfe same is the Newe. And it is called a Nevve sacrifice, saith Chry­sostome, Chrysost. contra Iudaeos. lib. 3. Bicause it proceedeth from a Newe minde, and is offered, not by fiere, and smoke, but by Grace, and by the Spirite of God. And in this consideration Irenaeus thinketh, Dauid said vnto the Chil­dren of the Church of Christ,Irenae. lib. 4. cap. 1. O sing vnto the Lord a New Song.

M. Hardinge saithe further, The wordes of Malachie maie in no wise be taken for the Oblation of Christe vpon the Crosse. For that, saith he, was donne at one time onely, a [...]d in one certaine place, in Golgotha without the Gates of Hierusalem, and not in euery place. Yet M. Hardinge maie easily vnderstande, that the Remembrance of that Sacrifice, and Thankesgeuinge for the same, maie be made at al times, and in al places. And therefore Eusebius as it is noted before, Eusebius de demon. lib. 1. c. 10. calleth our Sacrifice, Magni illius Sacrificij Me­moriam, The Remembrance of that greate Sacrifice: and, the Thankesgeuinge, which vvee yelde vnto God for our Saluation, [Page 148] Dionysius calleth it, Ecclaesia Hierar. cap. 3. Augustin. in Psal. 75 [...] Hiero. in Psal. 147. [...], a Figuratiue Sacrifice. And S. Augustine saithe, Cùm credimus in Christum, ex ipsis reli­quijs cogitationis, Christus nobis quotidiè immolatur: VVhen vvee beleeue in Christe, euen of the very remanentes of our Co­gitation (in vvhat place so euer vve be) Christe is Sacrificed vnto vs euery day. Likevvise S. Hierome saithe, Cùm audimus Sermonem Domini, Caro Christi, & Sanguis eius in auribus nostris funditur. VVhen vve heare the vvorde of the Lorde, the Fleash of Christ and his Bloude is povvred out into our eares. And, vvhereas M. Hardinge saithe further, that the Spiritual Sacrifices of our deuotion cannot altogeather be called pure, Esai. 64. and therefore can not be the Sacrifices of the Nevve Testamente, Psal. 50. it must needes be confessed, that al our righte­ousnes, in respecte of many imperfections, Euseb. de demon. li. 1. cap. 6. Orationis sacrificiū, quod Mū ­dum di­ctum est. Tertul ad Scapulā. maie be cōpared, as the prophete Esay saithe, vnto a filthy clovvte. Yet in respecte of Goddes mercie, and in Christe, the Prophete Dauid saithe, Thou shalt vvashe me, and I vvil be vvhiter, then the snovve.

Hovve be it, herein I vvil remit M. Hardinge to the iudgement of them, vvhoes Authorities he can not vvel denie. Eusebius calleth our Praiers, Mundum Sacrificium, A Pure Sacrifice. Tertullian saithe, VVee make Sacrifice vnto our God, for the safetie of our Emperours, Pura prece, vvith a Pure Praier. S. Hierome speaking of the Sacri­fice of Christian Praiers, saithe thus: A pure Sacrifice is Offered vnto me in euery place: not in the Oblations of the Olde Testa­mente, but in the holynes of the Puritie of the Gospel. To be short S. Paule saithe, Hiero. in Zachar. lib. 2. c. 8. Volo viros precari in omni loco, leuantes ma­nus Puras: I vvoulde, that menne should praie in al places, lifting vp Pure handes (vnto God)

Touchinge the Sacrifice of the Lordes Table, In sancti­tate Euā ­gelicae Pu­ritatis. Eusebius vvriteth thus: [...]: He gaue vs a Remēbrance in steede of a Sacrifice to offer vp cō ­tinually vnto God. And this he calleth, Incruentū, et Rationabile sa­crificiū: The vnbloudy,1. Tim. 2. Eusebius de demō ­stra. lib. 1. and Reasonable Sacrifice. This saith Irae­neus, is the Sacrifice of the Nevve Testament. This Sacrifice the Churche receiued of the Apostles: and the same the Apostles receiued of Christe, that made al thinges Nevve.

Harding.

Concerning the Sacrifices of our deuotion (say I in my Answer) that be mere spiritual, they can not truly be called the newe oblation of the new Testament, bi­cause they were offered vp to God in the olde Testa­ment, as now they be in the newe. By this M. Iewels shifte is quite auoided, who hath nothing to answer to this place of S. Ireneus reporting Christe, after that he had consecrated his body and bloude, to haue taught vs the newe oblation of the newe Testament, but that it is the pure sacrifice that Malachie speaketh of, that is to say, a contrite harte, or preaching of the Gospel, or prayer, or praise, and thankesgeuing, or, he can not tel what. This obiection (saith M. Iewel) serueth wel to con­trol the olde Fathers, namely Tertullian, S. Augustine, S. Hierome.

No No, M. Iewel, it controlleth the olde Fathers nothing at al. It controlleth our yong Fathers, such as you, and your felowes be, who haue most rashly, most vnlearnedly, most wickedly, and Antichristlike, aboli­shed out of the Churches of England, the most blessed Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe, and now being vrged and pressed with this manifest place of this Auncient and learned Father, who affirmeth it so clearely, ye haue not what to answer. Your whole booke of Replie conteineth nothing in effecte, but wyly sleightes, vaine shiftes, shamelesse lyes, and fowle corruptions of the Doctours, and Councels, aboue al measure. But of such Merchandize you make your shew no where more, then in this Article, in which you im­pugne [Page 149] the Sacrifice. And of al your Diuisions of the same Article hitherto, in this Diuision the vanitie of your shiftes, appeareth most.

Yet you wil not geue ouer,Irenaeus corrupted by M. Ievv but that at least to the ignorant people it may seme you haue ynough to say for your selfe, you come againe to S. Irenaeus for helpe, and he helpeth your cause nothing at al. Wel, what saith he?Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34. Oblationes hî,c Oblationes illic. &c. The head of the sentence you haue lopped of. This is the whole. It is the kinde of Oblations, that is reiected: for ther were Oblations both there (among the Iewes) and ther be Ob­lations also here. There were sacrifices among that people, there be sacrifices in the Churche. But the Kinde (or forme) is changed onely, for somuch as they be not bonde men that offer now, but freemen.

What conclude you of al this M. Iewel? What ma­keth this against the real Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christe? Mary say you, Thus answereth Irenaeus to my Obiection. What was my Obiection? This is that I said in effect, as is before rehersed, that the mere spiri­tual sacrifices of our deuotion, can not truely be called the New Oblation of the New Testament, bicause they are common to them of both Testamentes. How say you, is not this true? And what haue you to the contra­ry, in this saying of S. Irenaeus?

The kinde, or forme of their, and our sacrifices, is changed, you wil say perhaps. I graunt this much: albe it S. Irenaeus referreth this change, not to the sacrifices, but to the offerers: bicause the olde people of the Sy­nagog were bonde men, and we of the Churche are free men. But let it be, as you would haue it. Who [Page] vnderstandeth not the kinde of sacrifices to be changed, for that they killed brute beastes, according to Moyses Lawe, and we kyl them not, as not being vnder that Lawe? But what? Wil you of this conclude, that they offered not vp vnto God the Sacrifices of a contrite harte, of prayers, of praise and thankesgeuing, and such other spiritual sacrifices, bicause they offred vp beastes, and bicause we now offer these? I trowe by that time you haue bethought your selfe, you wil not stande in it. For, be not the Psalmes, and the sermons of the Prophe­tes ful of exhortations, to this ende, that these spiritual oblations should be made, a [...]d the like thinges done, that God accepteth for swete smelling sacrifices? Would they so haue exhorted the people, except these thinges ought to haue ben done? And whereas they were to be done, wil you say, there were none, that did them? wil you say, the holy kinges, and Prophetes had not cō ­trite hartes, prayed not, nor praised, ne thanked God? I suppose you wil not say it. To what purpose then pyked you out the former saying of S. Irenaeus? What maketh it for you? what maketh it against vs?

No more furthereth that your cause, which without opening and circumstance you allege out of Angelo­mus, and S. Chrysostome. How much better had you done, if confessing the truth, you had leafte out these obscure and impertinent places, and had rehersed vnto your Reader certaine other most plaine sayinges out of S. Irenaeus, whereof this is one written in the same chapter, out of which you piked the peeces that here you haue patched together. Quomodo constabit eis, &c. How shal they be assuredly certified (saith this blessed Mar­tyr) [Page 150] that bread whereon thankes be geuen, Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34. to be the bo­dy of their Lorde, and that Cuppe to be (the Cuppe) of his bloude, if they wil not say, he is the Sonne of the Cre­atour of the worlde, that is to say, his Worde, whereby the Vine bringeth forth fruite, founteines (of wine) do runne, and which (for bread to be had) geueth first grasse, after­ward an eare, and then at length ful wheate in the eare? Againe how say they, that the flesh commeth into corrupti­on, and receiueth not life, which is fedde of the body and bloude of our Lorde? Therefore either let them change their opinion, or ceasse from offering vp the thinges, that are before said.

An other like saying there auouching our doctrine, is this.The Eu­charist cō sisteth of tvvo thinges. As the bread that is of the earth, receiuing the calling vpon of God, is not now common bread, but the Eu­chariste, consisting of two thinges, earthly, and heauenly: So our bodies receiuing the Euchariste, be not now corrupti­ble, but haue hope of the Resurrection.

How plaine and cleare testimonie haue we in these sayinges, for the truth, and Real presence of our Lordes body and bloude in the blessed Sacrament, for the Ob­lation of the same, for the most soueraine effecte, that thereby is wrought in our bodies nourrished and fedde therewith? At these M. Iewel you closed vp your eyes, bicause they confounde the pride and wicked folie of your Chalenge: other woordes, and patches of senten­ces, you pryed and hunted after, by which you might seme to auoid the cleare authoritie in this Diuision alle­ged against you out of S. Irenaeus, yet when you haue al said, and shifted, your Replie is founde to weake, and insufficient.

[Page]Bicause you feele your selfe much pressed, and as it were borne downe, with the weight of this plaine testi­monie of S. Irenaeus (Christe hauing confessed of the bread, that is was his body, and of the cuppe, that it was his bloud, taught his Apostles the new oblation of the newe Testament) faine would you finde some way, how to ease your selfe of it, and therefore haue you looked ouer (as it semeth) al your Notebookes, and searched the Doctours farre and neare, to happen vpon some for your relief, but none can you finde. And here you shewe your selfe to be graueled with these plaine wordes,This sen­tence of S. Ireneus graueleth M. Ievvel Noui Testamenti nouā docuit oblationem, Christe taught the newe oblation of the new Testament. To auoide this newe oblation, that so much combreth you, you haue deuised a new policie, which would serue you for some shewe and colour, were it not altogether stuffe of your owne counterfey­ting and forging. What is that? Beholde Reader, and consider of it diligently.

Thus saith M. Iewel. It is called a newe Sacrifice, saith Chrysostome, (now folow the wordes pretended to be S. Chrysostomes in the distinct letter, that he putteth the Doctours sayinges in) bicause it proceedeth from a new minde, and is offered, not by fiere and smoke, but by Grace, and by the Spirite of God. But where saith S. Chrysostome this much? You haue put it in the letter of the Fathers sayinges, tel vs where we may finde the cause thus de­clared, why this oblation of the newe Testament, is called, Newe. By your cotation in the margent you send vs vnto Chrysost. contra Iudaeos. lib. 3. but there we finde no such thing at al. Neither be they Bookes, but Orations, that he wrote against the Iewes, and so Erasmus, [Page 151] who translated that worke, calleth them.

Mary in the second Oration we haue trakte you,M Ievve [...] fouly ab­useth S. Chrysost. and founde out the place, that you abuse: abuse, I say, for it maketh wholly against you. There, S. Chryso­stom, to proue vnto the Iewe, to whom he speaketh, that both their Lawe, and ther Sacrifice is ended, and abolished, and that an other Sacrifice is come in place of theirs, which is pure, and is to be offered vp through al the worlde, allegeth the prophecie of Malachie, from the rising of the Sunne to the going downe, Malach. 1. &c. a pure Sacrifice shal be offered vnto my name. Vpon this prophecie he stayth him selfe, and declareth at large, how it ought to be vnderstanded, and how the Pro­phete may not seme to be repugnant to Moyses, who appointeth the Sacrifice of the Iewes vnto one onely place, and how, and for what respecte, the Sacri­fice that Malachie speaketh of, is pure, whiche S. Chrysostome calleth, Sacrificium nostrum, our Sacri­fice. Among other many wordes spoken in praise of this our pure Sacrifice,Vvhi our sacrifice i [...] of Mala­chie called the Pure Sacrifice, after the minde of S. Chry­sostome. thus he saith there.

If one conferre this Sacrifice with theirs, he shal finde an exceding great difference, so that according to the pro­portion of comparison, this alone may deserue to be called pure. And looke what S. Paule said of the Lawe, and Grace, that, that was not glorified at al, which was glo­rified, in comparison of the high Glorie: the same here al­so iustly we may say, 2. Cor. 3. to wit, that this Sacrifice compared with that (of the Lawe) ought alone to be called pure. Then folowe the wordes which M. Iewel hath by fal­sifying, and fowle corruption abused to his purpose. Non enim per fumum ac nidorem, non per sanguinem ac [Page] redemptionis precia, sed per spiritus gratiam offertur. For it is not offered by smoke and gresy sauour,Chrysosto. oratioee. 2 contra Iu­daos. not by bloude and prices of redemption, but by grace of the spirite. With these wordes he rendreth the cause, why the Sacrifice of the Churche, is of Malachie called pure, and not why it is called Newe,Chrysostō misrepor­ted by M. Ievvel. as M. Iewel hath peruer­ted the sentence.

Compare good Reader this Repliers wordes with S. Chrysostomes wordes, and thou shalt espye, what a corrupter and falsifier he is of the Doctours. Where­fore seing he can finde no helpe at S. Chrysostomes handes (whom here he hath much iniured, and misre­ported) nor at the handes of any other Doctor, nor can shewe vs what Sacrifice that is, which S. Ireneus calleth the newe Sacrifice, or newe Oblation of the newe Testament that Christ taught, when he said of the bread and Cuppe, this is my body, this is my bloude, but the Sa­crifice of the body and bloude of Christe: with right he may be required to subscribe, and yeelde. Which wil be best for him to doo, least the time come, when not yeelding he shalbe taken prysoner, and for his he­resie and impenitent harte, be caste into the owtward darkenes,Matt. 22. where shal be weeping, and gnasshing of teeth.

Bicause M. Iewel harpeth so much vpon the pro­phecie of Malachie, and putteth the confidence of his cause therein, and hath taken his aduantage of S. Chry­sostome by falsifying his wordes: let vs see how litle cause he had so to doo, and how muche S. Chrysostome being truly alleged, proueth in that very place which M. Iewel bringeth, treating of Malachie, the Catholique [Page 152] assertion. Whereas Moyses forbad sacrifice to be made in any other place,Deut. 16. but in that place whiche our Lorde had chosen, and Malachie saith, that the pure Sacrifice is to be offered vp in euery place from the East to the West: that these two should not seme to be repugnant, S. Chrysostome saith, that Moyses spake of one Sacrifice, and Malachie prophecied of an other.

To prooue this, he asketh this question. Vnde hoc declaratur? Whereby is this declared? There for declaration and proufe hereof, among other thinges he bringeth the argument of the place. For (saith he) Ma­lachie foretolde that this worship should be celebrated, not in one Citie, as the Iewish sacrifice was, but from the rysing of the Sunne, to the going downe. Then folowe these woordes:Cōclusiōs gathered out of S, Chrysost. against M. Ievv. Praeterea ex Sacrificij modo, siquidem pu­ram illam appellans, declarauit de qua loqueretur. Fur­thermore this is declared by the manner of the Sacrifice, for in that he calleth that oblation (or worship) pure, he hath declared of what oblation (or worship) he spake. This much S. Chrysostome there.

Hereof and of that S. Chrysostome saith in that place, these Conclusions may be gathered against M. Iewel.

• The First Concusion. Malachie in S. Chryso­stomes 1 iudgement speaketh of suche a Sacrifice, as for commendation whereof he might seme repugnant to Moyses. But in respecte of those, which are mere spiri­tual Sacrifices, of which onely M. Iewel wil Malachie to be expounded, as of a contrite harte, of prayer, of praise, [Page] and thankesgeuing, Malachie can not seme repugnant to Moyses, bicause Moyses neuer forbad them: Ergo, the Sacrifice that Malachie speaketh of, is not to be vnder­standed of mere spiritual sacrifices.
• 2 The .2. Conclusion. Malachies prophecie is of such a Sacrifice after the mynde of S. Chrysostome, as the ce­lebration whereof should abandon, and quite put away the Priesthoode, and Sacrifices of the Iewes. But the mere spiritual Sacrifices of our deuotion, whereto only M. Iewel draweth the prophecie of Malachie, haue not that power and effecte. For they continued with their Sacrifices, as they do with ours: Ergo, Malachie is not to be vnderstanded of the mere spiritual Sacrifices.
• 3 The .3. Conclusion. S. Chrysostome speaking of [...]e Sacrifice mentioned by Malachie, vseth these wor­des, Praedixit hanc culturam celebrandam, he fortolde that this worship should be celebrated, not in one citie, &c. But of any of the mere spiritual sacrifices of our deuo­tion, no learned Father euer said, that it is a worship to be celebrated, nor are these termes cōuenient for them, or for any of them, for they are not, properly to speake, a worship by vs to be celebrated, but thereby and there­with we doo celebrate and worship God: Ergo, Mala­chie by S. Chrysostomes doctrine, speaketh not special­ly of the mere spiritual sacrifices of mannes harte, but of an other Sacrifice outwardly celebrated.
• 4 The .4. Conclusion. The Sacrifice that Malachie prophecied of, S. Chrysostom saith it is such, as is decla­red what it is, by the manner of it. But a thing can not be declared what it is by the manner, onlesse the manner be external, and sensible, so as it may be perceiued by [Page 153] sense, and the mere spiritual sacrifices of mans inward de­uotion be not such: Ergo, Malachie meant not of them, but of an other Sacrifice.
• The .5. Conclusion. Malachie by the exposition of 5 S. Chrysostome speaketh of that Sacrifice, which pro­perly is Nostrum, that is to say, ours, belonging to vs, that be of the newe Testament. But the Sacrifice of a contrite harte, of Praiers, Praise, and thankesgeuing be theirs of the olde Testament, as wel as ours: Ergo, of that kinde of Sacrifice he spake not.
• That I make an ende of Conclusions, the sixth and last 6 Conclusion may be this. By interpretation of S. Chryso­stome, the Sacrifice that Malachie prophecied of, is pure in the most excellent degree of purenesse. But the spiritual Sacrifices proceeding from the harte of man, be not pure in the highest degree of purenesse: Ergo, it is an other kinde of Sacrifice, which Malachie foretolde.

So then it is,M. Ievvel reasona­bly required to yeelde. if M. Iewel can not declare and cleare­ly prooue vnto vs, that Malachie prophecying of a mere spiritual Sacrifice of mans deuotion, might reaso­nably seme to S. Chrysostom to be repugnant to Moy­ses, that such a sacrifice should abolish the Iewes sacrifi­ces, that it is called a worship to be celebrated by vs, that it is declared what it is, by the external manner of it, that in proper and right speache it ought to be called our Sacrifice, or the Sacrifice of the newe Testament, and to conclude, that it is most singularly and most excellently pure: if I say he can not make good these pointes [...] as to euery man of meane iudgement and learning most cer­taine it is, he can not: iudge discrete Reader, how good reason we haue, to require him to yeelde, and to de­ceiue [Page] the worlde no more by alleging the authoritie of 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 [...]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 Lawe [...] 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 substāce of it, the pure Sa­crifice in highest and supreme degree of purenesse. For what cā be thought purer then that body, which was cō ­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 we [...]e with scoopes, cast [...] together, bicause they importe litle substance, and be, [Page 154] 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 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 Remembrāce: 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? [Page] 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 [Page 155] 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. Ita (que) 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 Cōmunion 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 Salutē patitur: Christ liuīg 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 expo [...]nens illud [...] 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. d [...] Virginib. So saith S. Hierome, Quotidiè nobis Christus Crucifigitur:August. Quaest. E [...]uāge. 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: [Page] Then is Christe slaine to euery man,Hieron ad Damas. when he beleeueth that Christe was slaine. To conclude, so S. Hierome [...]aith, Semper Christus credentibus immolatur: Vnto the faithf [...]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 vpō 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 [Page 156] 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 euidēt place of S. Cypriā 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 Ceciliū [...] whereof S. Cyprian treateth in that E­pistle to Caecilius, and what Christe did at his Supper? [Page] 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 say [...] 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 cōmaunded 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 [Page 157] 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. 1 [...]. the Rocke was Christe. I say to M. Iewel eftsones, it may please him to remember, that S. Augustine ex­poundeth him selfe immediatly in the next sentence, say­ing, Petra Christus in signo. The Rocke vvas Christe. The Rocke was Christe in a signe, that is to say, the Rocke was not Christe in sub­stance, and in deede, but signified Christe. If he intende thus to conclude, as the Replie semeth to reporte, As the Rocke was Christe, so Christe is the Sacrifice: but the Rocke was not Christe in deede: Ergo, Neither Christe is the Sacrifice: If he make this Argument, I denie his Maior, or first Proposition. For the Rocke was Christe in signe onely, but Christes body and bloud Really made present, by the almighty power of the Worde, is in deede the substance of the commemora­tiue Sacrifice. Wherefore no likenesse touching the Phrase being betwen these two Propositions, the Rocke was Christe, and, Christe is the Sacrifice: the one can not rightly be applyed to ouerthrowe the other. And [Page] whereas M. Iewel maketh his colourable aduantage by making Sacrifice the nominatiue case to the verbe in this saing of S. Cyprian, In Sacrificio quod Christus est: he is to be tolde, that he misconstrueth it, and that false cōstructiō maketh no proufe. For S. Cyprian saith not, the Sacrifice is Christ, which also is true, and that taketh M. Iewel for his purpose: but, Christe is the Sacrifice. In cōsideratiō wherof the figuratiue saying, and the Phrase of the Rock, and the great number of his other phrases, serueth not his turne.

That the Sacrifice after the order of Melchise­dech was not onely vpon the Crosse, but also at the Supper.Vpon this false constructiō of S. Cyprians saying how so euer he procedeth, speaking cōfusely of the sacrifice, which is after the order of Melchisedek, and of the propi­tiation for the synnes of the worlde: this I acknowledge, that onely Iesus Christe the Sonne of God, is the propi­tiatorie Sacrifice for the synnes of the worlde, and that such a Sacrifice in most perfit wise, he was vpō the Crosse, yea also after th'order of Melchisedek, wher, as Melchise­dek offred bread and wine, so he offered vp his body and bloud,Hieronym. in Psalm. 109. the true bread, and the true wine, as s. Ierom saith. For al though he expressed the shadowes of al Aarons sa­crifices vpon the Crosse, yet ther he was a Priest after the order of Melchisedek. For so S. Paule in th'Epistle to the Hebrues sheweth, by the dissimilitude of both Priesthods. But that he was a sacrifice after th'order of Melchisedek only, when he hoong vpō the Crosse, that I denie. For he was a Priest, and also a sacrifice after th'order of Melchi­sedek at his last supper. at what time offring vp his body, and bloud vnder the formes of bread and wine, he began to execute th'office of the Priesthod after th'order of Mel­chisedek, and taught his Disciples the way,Theophyl. in Matth. cap. 28. how after his death to make the same oblatiō. Vpon which cōsideratiō Theophylact, as it is before rehersed, saith, Tunc īmolauit se­ipsū, [Page 158] ex quo tradidi [...] Discipulis corpus suū, he sacrificed him selfe, at the time he deliuered his body to his Disciples. And S. Austine more plainly,August. de ciuit. Dei, lib. 17. ca­pit. 20. expounding this place of Ec­clesiastes, Non est bonū homini, nisi quod māducabit et bibet, wher he saith thus. Quid credibilius etc. What is more credi­ble we should thinke Salomō meant by those wordes, then that perteineth to the participatiō of this table, which Christ him selfe a Priest and mediator of the new Testamēt doth exhibit after the order of Melchisedek, of his body and bloud? For that sacrifice did succede al other sacrifices of the olde Testament, which were offred in the shadow of this to come. A litle before in the same chapter speaking of the Table which Christe prepared with bread and wine, he geueth an eui­dēt testimonie for the Sacrifice and Priesthod after th'or­der of Melchisedek, where he saith thus, Vbi apparet etiā f [...]cerdotiū secundū ordinē Melchisedech, that is to say, where also appeareth the priesthod after the order of Melchise­dek. By this authoritie it is cleare, that Christ at the table, wher the blessed Sacramēt was first instituted, and is now daily celebrated in memorie of his Passion, doth exhibite that which is a sacrifice after the order of Melchisedech, which can be nothing els, but the Sacrifice of his body and bloude vnder the formes of bread and wine. That Christ merited the forgeuenes, and propitiatiō of the sin­nes of the world vpō the Crosse only, that I gladly graunt.

As for the Sacrifice and Priesthode after the order of Melchisedech, S. Augustine in an other place saith,August. in Psalm. 33. concion 2. that Christe (at his Supper) instituted a Sacrifice of his body and bloude according to the order of Melchisedech. De corpore et sāguine suo, of his body and bloud, saith he, signi­fying his body and bloud to be the mater of the Sacrifice. [Page] Lo here againe it is plainely auouched, that Christe insti­tuted a Sacrifice after the order of Melchisedech before he was nayled vpon the Crosse, yea the Sacrifice of his body and bloude. For to the time of the Supper this is to be referred, when both he taught them how, and com­maunded them to sacrifice.

Of this Sacrifice S. Augustine in the sermon there nexte before, geueth vs a manifest testimonie, where he saith. Nondum erat Sacrificium corporis & sanguinis Do­mini, quod fideles norunt, Ibidem in Psal. 33. Cōcion. 1. & qui Euangelium legerunt, quod sacrificium nunc diffusum est toto orbe terrarum. The Sa­crifice of the body and bloude of our Lorde was not yet in place (he speaketh of the time when beastes were sacrificed) which the faithful do knowe, and they that haue reade the Gospel. Which Sacrifice is now spreade abroade in al the worlde. Let M. Iewel tel vs, what i [...] this Sacrifice of the body and bloude of our Lorde, that is diffused and spread ouer al the worlde, besides that is celebrated in the Masse: and then we wil say he saith somewhat to his purpose.

NOw M. Iewel departeth from our special point, which is (as it is auouched by S. Ireneus, S. Cy­prian and others) that Christe offered his body and bloude vnto God at his Supper, and commaunded the same sacrifice to be offered by Priestes of the newe Te­stament in remembrance of his death: and commeth to proue that, whereof no question was moued: That the Ministration of the holy Mysteries in a phrase and man­ner of speach, is the same Sacrifice. How be it what he meaneth by his ministerlike termes, wel I wote not. He [Page 159] sheweth him selfe inconstant in the vse of them. In this one Diuision, he calleth it first, The ministration of the holy Mysteries. Nexte, the Ministration of the holy Commu­nion. Thirdly, the Sacrifice of the holy Communion. For the same he allegeth a certaine saying, as he telleth vs, out of S. Augustine vpon the .20. Psalme, where he hath no such saying at al. The place he meaneth is in Gratian. Where it speaketh not of M. Iewels Ministration of the holy Mysteries (which I trow in his meaning is the Mi­nistration of bread and wine at the Geuenian Commu­nion; for what other holy Mysteries they haue I knowe not) nor of the Sacrifice, that is daily celebrated in the Churche, but of the solemnitie which once in the yere vpon Maundie thursday, and Good fryday, is celebrated with special ceremonies in remembrance of Christes death and passing out of this mortal life. This Anniuersary recordation saith he (for so he calleth it) doth represent that which was once done, De Con­secrat. di­stinct. 2. Semel. and causeth vs so to be moued, as if we saw our Lorde present on the Crosse.

Neither noteth the Glose, vpon these wordes, that you reporte of it M. Iewel, but vpon the worde immo­latur, which is in the next chapter folowing. For where­as Gratian reciteth S. Augustine speaking thus of the Sa­crifice,August. epist. 23. ad Boni­facium. semel immolatus est in semetipso Christus, & tamen quotidie immolatur in sacramento, Christe was once sacri­ficed in him selfe, (that is to say) he suffered once in his owne person in the forme of man) and yet he is daily sa­crificed in a Sacrament: vpon this last worde immola­tur, the Glose, hath noted, that you bring, The Sacrifice, (meaning the bloudy Sacrifice vpon the Crosse) is repre­sented, and a Memorie of the Passion is made.

[Page]In the former chapter is declared, what is done at one certaine time in the yere, touching the representation, and remembrance of Christes passion, in the nexte, what is done daily. M. Iewel hauing alleged the first, applyeth vnto it, the glose of the second. And al is quite besides his purpose. For how hangeth this Argument together? The Seruice of the Church in the holy weke before Eas­ter, as the reading of the Passion, creaping to the Crosse, the salutatiō of the Crosse, and other Ceremonies in olde time vsed in England, and yet vsed through the whole Catholique Church, do liuely represent vnto vs Christes Passiō: Ergo, the Priest doing that Christe did at his Sup­per, and that he is cōmaunded to doo, doth not offer vp his body and bloud to God. Logike must nedes be good cheape, where such Argumentes be made good chaffer.

And forasmuch as M. Iewel him selfe (who craketh so much of Antiquitie,M. Ievvel craueth helpe of the Glose, that he calleth Barba­rous. and wil al controuersies to be tried by the Fathers of the first .600. yeres) is not a sha­med here to craue helpe of the Common Glose, which within few lines after he calleth barbarous: as he hath brought it against vs, though in deede it be not against vs at al: let him paciently suffer vs to tel him, what he sawe in the same Glose, in that very place, that is cleare against him.De Conse­crat. Dist. 2. Semel. In Glossa. In this part of this distinction (saith the Glose) It is proued, that Christe once hauing dyed, can dye no more, (yet) the truth of his flesh, and of his bloude is alwaies in the Sa­crament of the Aulter. And there it setteth forth .10. verses declaring the summe of the catholike faith touching the most blessed Sacrament. In which perhappes M. Iewel may espie a fault touching the rules of Poetrie, but vere­ly touching the rules of faith, he shal finde no faulte. Al [Page 160] conteining excellent sense, for auoiding prolixitie, to gra­tifie the Reader, here I wil reherse two.

Clauditur hoc vase nostri pia victima Phase. Ibidem.

Viua salutaris, semel in cruce, semper in aris. Here is inclo­sed in this vessel the diuine hoste of our Paschal lambe: the hoste that lyueth, that is healthful, that was once on the Crosse, and alwaies is on the Aulters. Go forth M. Iewel, and stil for lacke of good mater that maketh for you, allege vs places, where your heresie is most eui­dently confuted and condemned.

Stil you harpe vpon a wrong string, alleging S. Cypriā, and S. Gregorie, to disproue that which you feine me to say, or at least mistake me to say, as reporting the wordes of S. Cyprian. Your parte had ben to yelde, or to shewe good reason, why you deny Christe, or, (which is al one) Christes flesh and bloude, to be offered vp vnto God by Priestes,Luc [...]. 22. to whom in the Apostles he said, doo ye this in my remembrance. I go not about in this Diuisiō to proue, that the Sacrifice is Christ,In sacrifi­cio, quod Christus est. wherof in your owne conceit you haue stuffe to cauil and wrangle, though the same be true, as I tolde you before: but I allege S. Cyprian to this ende, that the Christiā Reader should beleue, that Christ is the Sacrifice.How, and where­with, is there made in our My­steries a memorie and signi­ficatiō of Christe, and of his death. For so S. Cypriā precisely englished saith, In the Sacrifice which Christ is, whereof by right constru­ction ryseth this Proposition, Christe is the Sacrifice. Which is true, though neuer so muche it be said by some Fathers, that the Passion and Death of Christe is repre­sented in a mysterie [...] both may stand together ful wel.

In this Mysterie there is a representation I graunt, there is a signification, there is a memorie or commemo­ration made of Christe, of his Passiō, and of his Sacrifice [Page] vpon the Crosse: but how, and where withal? Figura­tiuely, by imagination, by thinking, by tokens and signes onely, or by wordes of praise and thankes onely? Not so. By these, and with these partly, but specially by offe­ring and receiuing the same body, that suffered death. So. S. Augustine touching a memorie or commemora­tion, teacheth clearely writing against Faustus the Mani­chee. Hebraei in victimis pecorum prophetiam celebrabāt futurae victimae, August. cōt. Faust. lib. 20. cap. 18. quam Christus obtulit. Vnde iam Christiani peracti eiusdem Sacrificij memoriam celebrant sacrosancta oblatione, & participatione corporis & sanguinis Christi. The Hebrewes (saith he) in their sacrifices of beastes did celebrate a prophecie of the Sacrifice to come, which Christe offered. The Christians now doo delebrate the memorie of the same Sacrifice that is past, by the most holy Oblation and participation of Christes body and bloude. Lo, here haue you [...]he memorie [...] but withal the Oblation of that very body, whereby the memorie of his bloudy Sacrifice is celebrated.

VVherin M. Ievvel and they of that syde, are deceiued of igno­rāce, or of malice deceiue othe [...].You seme to be much deceiued in your thoughtes, in that you thinke, that a thing can not be exhibited real­ly and also in a mysterie, in a sampler, in an Image, in a commemoration, in a representation, in signification, in figures, signes, and tokens. And where so euer you finde in the writinges of the Fathers any of these ter­mes, thereof cōmonly you induce a Conclusion denying the truth of the thing: wherein either you are deceiued through ignorance (and then are you very sawcie to be so busy in teaching that you vnderstand not) or of very malice you trauaile al that you can to deceiue others, least you should seme to haue craked more in your Cha­lenge, [Page 161] then you are hable to mainteine.

Concerning the point it selfe, doo you not remem­ber, that S. Paule doth attribute to the Law,Hebr. 10. Image, excludeth not truth. vmbrā rerū, the 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. [...].

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 [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [Page] 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 sen [...]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 [Page 162] 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 begotē 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 vpō the Crosse. For though the paines and violēce 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 saluatiō 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 s [...]l [...]at, quae illā nobis mortē vnigeniti per Mysterium reparat. This Sacrifice doth singularly saue the soule frō euerla­sting destructiō, which by Mysterie renueth vnto vs the. [Page] Death of Gods onely begoten Sonne. Againe in an other place.Idem homil. 37. Quoties ei hostiam suae Passionis offerimus, toties nobis ad absolutionem nostram passionem illius reparamus. As often as we offer vp vnto him the hoste (or sacrifice) of his Passion, so often we renue and repaire his Passi­on vnto vs for our absolution.

Now then bicause by this Sacrifice the Death of Christe is renued and applied vnto vs, for our absolution and remission of synne (which is the effecte of his Death) as if we had ben present at the Crosse, when he was crucified: therefore S. Gregorie was so bolde as to say, that Christe lyuing immortally in him selfe, in this Mysterie dyeth againe. Such Sacrifice, such Death. If the Sacrifice be bloudy, then the Death must be bloudy, or with shedding of bloude. If the Sacrifice be vnbloudy,Vnblou­dy Death. then is the Death also vnbloudy, and mystical, that is to say, the effecte of his death, as if it were now present. And that there be truly and in proper speach a Sacrifice, it is ynough, that the body and bloude of Christe being made present by vertue of his worde, his Death be so applied vnto vs to remission of synne, as if he were now a dying.

And this muche may serue for Answer to the heape of your mangled and maimed allegations, that here you haue laid so thicke together. Whereof not one proueth your purpose, which is, that in S. Cy­prians iudgement Christe in the celebration of the Sup­per, is not a Sacrifice in true and proper speache and in deede, but by a figuratiue speache onely, as it is said, the rocke was Christe. For though the Fathers vse sometimes figuratine speaches, yet thereof it foloweth [Page 163] 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. ep [...]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 supp [...] fulfilled the figu [...] of Mel­chisede [...] 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.

[Page]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 āsvvereth as he thin­keth good to a word or tvvo, ād leaueth the chiefe substance vnāsvve­red. 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 cōmaunded 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 [Page 164] 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. expositiō inchoat [...] 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 poeni [...] 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. i [...] expositiōe 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, [Page] 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, [Page 165] 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 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 shalbe 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 cō ­mō place, to defend Priestes MariagesBut 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, [Page 166] 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 mā ­ner 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 [Page] with vs that beleeue, the children of God, and in the pri­mitiue Churche the name of Brother and Sister was cō ­mon among the beleuers, yet how prooue you, that S. Paule calleth wyues, sometimes Sisters, sometimes yoke­fellowes? 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. cō ­tra 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. Am­brose, S. Augustine, the Greeke Scholies, and Theophy­lacte, and specially S. Hierome do expounde the place, S. Paule meaneth not, that the Apostles caried their [Page 167] owne wiues about with them, where so euer they prea­ched: but that certaine deuoute faithful wemen, hauing wordly substance, desyrous to heare our Lordes do­ctrine, and to leade a holy life, went about with them, and ministred vnto them both sustenance of their goods, and also necessary seruices, that they should haue care of nothing, but onely attend the worke of preaching. Wherein the Apostles folowed the example of Christe. For likewise when he went about and preached, certaine holy wemen went with him from Galiley,Luc. 8. who of their goods ministred vnto him what was necessary, namely Marie Maudelen, Ioan wife to Chusa Herods stewarde, Susanna, and many others. This S. Paule saith was law­ful for him to doo being an Apostle, as the other Apost­les did, but yet he telleth that he would not vse that li­bertie.

Some not vnderstanding this saith Augustine (of whom M. Iewel seemeth to be one,August. li de opere Monacho. if it be not malice of his parte, and not only ignorance) for Sororem mulierem, a Sister woman, haue interpreted sororem vxorem, a sister wife, or, as the English Translation hath, a Sister to Wi [...]e. The ambiguitie of the Greeke worde hath deceiued them (saith he) bicause in Greeke a wife, [...]. and a woman, is named by one worde. Lo M. Iewel here is your wife that S. Paule speaketh of, becōme, not a wife precisely, but a woman, and the same a Sister, not in respecte of nearenesse of bloude, but of faith, for that she is a Christian.

By this we learne, what credit is to be geuen vnto the chiefe Maisters of this newe Gospel in the time of King Edwarde the sixth,Printed by Ri­chard lugge. who in the newe Testamente peru­sed (as in the same booke we finde) by the commaunde­mēt [Page] of the King and the Coūcel, and by them auctorized, vpō this place of S. Paule haue at the ende of the Chapter put in this Note. By this saying of S. Paule we haue a ful in­struction, that the Apostles did carye about their wiues with them. By this Note, we hane a ful instruction, that the Translatours of the Bible, and the makers of such Notes, were false hartlots.

As for the Yokefelow, to whom S. Paule in the Epistle to the Philippians commendeth the wemen that labou­red with him in the Gospel,Philip. 4. that thereby is signified S. Paules wife, [...] Germane Compar. Ambro. in 2. Cor. 11. Hiero. cō ­tra Iouin. Epiphan. haeresi. 58. Chryso. in Commen. [...]. Compar. besides that ye haue neither reason for it, nor the proprietie of the Greeke tongue clearely bearing it: it is gainesaid by S. Chrysostom, Theophylacte, and the Author of the Greeke Scholies in the same place, and by S. Ambrose, and S. Hierom, and Epiphanius otherwheres, who deny vtterly, that he had a wife. The author of the briefe commentaries vpon S. Paules Epistles printed with S. Hieromes workes, is of the opinion, that this Yoke­felow, to whom S. Paule speaketh, was a man, named Germanus in Latine, which in Greeke is [...]. and the Greeke Scholiast iudgeth (which S. Chrysostom also no­teth) that his name was Syzygus, in Greeke, that Lyra be not altogether lawghed to scorne, for thinking that his name was Compar in Latine.

Whereas then these auncient learned Fathers liked not the interpretation of certaine before their time, that thought S. Paule in that Epistle to speake to his wife, vp­pon good warrant of their construction we may be bolde to tel M. Iewel, and M. Erasmus, whom alwaies it liked wel vpon the least occasion that was offred him, to swarue from the receiued exposition of the Scriptures: [Page 168] that in the said place S. Paule spake to no Yokefelow wo [...]man, but to a Yokefelow man,Yokefe [...]low ma [...] and that they are decei­ued in expounding it of S. Paules wife, who by euident likelihod gathered of his owne wordes,1. Cor. [...] and by iudgemēt of al the olde Fathers in manner, (Clement of Alexan­dria excepte) neuer had wife.

Seing therefore Monkes,The wi [...]dom of the vvi­ued Apo [...]states. Friers and Priestes that be wyued, can not truly cal their wemen wyues, being in dede no wiues, but strompetes: they do wisely (ac­cording to the wisedom of such a generation) to put v­pon so filthy a thing, the cleane name of a Sister, or of a Yokefelow, that whereas the mariage it selfe is naught, yea detestable Sacrilege, and therfore of right they them selues should be called sacrilegious aduoutrers, and their wemen sacrilegious harlots: yet by allurement of an ho­nest name wemen might be content to yoke with them, which, if they were called by their true names, would neuer be induced to be made instrumentes of so open abomination.

And where S. Paule saith of matrimonie (as you re­porth him) that it is honorable, Heb. 13. This vvorde, Al, many times in Scripture admit­teth ex­ceptiō of many. in al personnes, he mea­neth not absolutely al (for your selfe I trowe wil except it betwene Father and daughter, brother and sister, and such as haue impediments of nature) but only those per­sons, for whom it is lawful, cōuenient, and godly to mar­rye. The case of a solēne vow maketh matrimonie other­wise lawful and honorable of it selfe, to those that haue made such vow to the cōtrary, vnlawful and reprocheful. Neither may we think alwaies none to be excluded, wher the Scripture in terme includeth al. For though it say, that Christ doth illuminat (omnē hominē venientē in hūc mūdū) Ioan. 1. [Page] euery man that commeth into this worlde, and that God wil (omnes homines saluos fieri) al men to be saued,1. Tim. 2. and though Christ say in the Gospel, al, euen as many, as came afore me are theues and robbers: Ioan. 10. yet certaine it is, that ma­ny remaine in darkenes,Math. 20. and that (many being called and fewe chosen) mo shal be damned then saued, and that the Patriarkes, Moyses, and the Prophetes, who came afore Christe was incarnate, were Gods true frendes, and faith­ful seruauntes.

S. Paules vvordes devvly exami­ned, make not mari [...]age lavv­ful for al vvithout exceptiō.Furthermore touching this place of S. Paule by them of your secte so commonly alleged in defence of Priestes Mariages, what haue you to answer, if it be denyed, the blessed Apostle to say, as you report him? The best lear­ned Fathers, who haue expounded that Epistle, iudge that saying to be an exhortation to persons already ma­ried, that they kepe their wedlocke in chastitie and ho­nestie, and defyle not their wedlocke bedde with vn­worthy wantonnesse. And so after their iudgement, for asmuch as the verbe est, is, is not in S. Paule, neither in the Greeke, nor in the Latine (for his saying is, honora­bile in omnibus) and the circumstance of the place so bea­reth it, in which diuerse thinges be vttered by way of 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 yokinges [...] beare with your owne terme, for Matrimonie, or wedlocke it is not, neither is the same a conuenient terme for such filth.

[Page 169]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 forbiddīg 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. li [...] 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. cōtra 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.

[Page 170]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, & perfectiorē cō ­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 cōmending 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 cō 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 finē. bicause certainely he absteined from al carnal acte.

S. Ambrose in an other place acknowlegeth S. Paules [Page] 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 ex [...]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 sufficiēt 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 [Page 171] Epiphanius and Theophylact, by verdite of your owne great Rabbi Peter Martyr him selfe,Pet. Mar­tyr in Cō ­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 [...]la [...]te and an impudēt­lye 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 impudēt 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 habuerūt. 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. cōtra Io­uin. lib. 1. and lyued the single life. Thus he saith, Petrus & caeteri Apostoli, &c. Peter and the other [Page] 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,Sozomenꝰ 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.

[Page 172]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 husbā ­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.

[Page]And whereas Sozomenus saith of Spiridion by way of correction, tamē 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 Husbādry, 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 lettes to the quiet libertie of Gods seruice. So that of Sozo­menus by you alleged ye gete no certaine reliefe at al.Fol. 77. This very place you bring for Priestes mariages in your Apologie, if it be yours. What I haue answered vnto it: the Reader may see in my Confutation of the same.

TertulliāAs for Tertullian, that he had a wife, and was a Priest, as no man denieth, so it helpeth nothing toward the defence of your Vowebreakers incestuous marriages. One auncient example of a Priest lawfully married after holy orders taken, had relieued your cause more, then al this number of married Apostles, Bishops, and Priestes. If ye can finde none such, as we knowe ye can not: bewray not the weakenes of your cause by oft telling vs of that al the world knoweth,Tertulliā no Mar­tyr. and your selfe see, it ser­ued not your turne.Rhenan. in vita Tert. M. Ievvel is very savvcy vvith S. Hilare, appointing him a vvife, vvhere as he had neuer no­ne. That your Doctor Regino maketh him a Martyr, he tooke more vpon him, then he was ha­ble to iustifie. Had he ben a Martyr, S. Hierome, who fa­uoured him so greatly, writing his life would not haue omitted it. Therefore Beatus Rhenanus beleueth it not, and thinketh the Martyr was an other man of that name.

But I maruel how you durst be so sawcy with that re­uerēd Father, and cōstant Bishop S. Hilarie, as to appoint him a wife, and to place him in the rancke of Married [Page 173] Priestes. Can not your filthy yoking of Votaries be de­fended, but with filthy lying? Wath learned man euer said or wrote,The for­ged Epi­stle of S. Hilarie to Abra his daughter. that S. Hilarie had a wife? Touching the foolish Epistle that you allege written to Abra his daughter, had ye not bene very needy of good stuffe, and imprudent in facing out a bad mater: ye would ne­uer for shame haue mentioned such a fonde forged wri­ting. Neither can you plead ignorance for your ex­cuse. For, that no man should be deceiued with the Inscription of the Epistle, hath not Erasmus there ge­uen a plaine warning of it? Be not these woordes set before the begynning of it?Inter ope­ra Hilarij Haec Epistola merum est nu­gamentum hominis ociosè indocti? What is this to say, but, This Epistle is a tale of a tubbe written by some daw that wist not how to spende his time? And now a Gods name it must be alleged in great sadnesse by this worthy Superintendēt, to make good the abominable marriages of Priestes, Monkes, Friers, and Nonnes. As wel he might haue alleged for them the booke of Beuys of Southamptō, or of Guy of Warwike, or the Song of Ro­bin Hoode. But thankes be to God, who reueleth to the worlde, with what ragges they coouer their vncleane trechery.

Iewel.

And to leaue infinite others, S. Chrysostome saith, Chrysost. in epist. ad Ti [...] Homi. 2. Ita pretiosa res est Matrimonium, vt possis cum eo ad Sanctum Episcopatus Solium subuehi. Vtere moderatè nuptijs, & eris primus in Reg­no Coelorum. So pretious a thinge is matrimonie, that with the same thou maist be promoted euen vnto the Bishoppes Chaire-Vse Mariage with discretion,In epist. ad Hebr. Homi. 7. and thou shalt be the Chiefe in the Kingdome of Heauen. S. Hierome saithe, Hodiè quoque plu­rimi [Page] Sacerdotes habent Matrimonia: Euen nowe a greate num­ber of Priestes liue in Matrimonie. Thus the Apostles of Christe, and many other Learned Fathers, Hierony. contra Io­uinianum. and godly Bishopes vvere married, and, as M. Hardinge saithe, in his mirthe, and pleasance, had their Sisters, and yoke fellowes. But hovve, and vvith vvhat Sisters, or Felovves, a greate number of the VViuelesse sorte of M. Hardinges side be yokte, for very regarde of honestie, it may not be vttered.

Harding.

Say not M. Iewel, to leaue infinite others. Your ambition is suche, and your cause so weake, that if ye had others, ye would not be so squeamish to bring them forth. Now these two wil helpe your neede nothing at al. S. Chrysostome vpon the saying of S. Paule to Tite,Chrysosto. in 1. ca. ad Titum. ho­mil. 2. that a Bishop ought to be without crime, the hus­band of one wife, hath these wordes being truly trans­lated. The Apostle stoppeth the mouthes of Heretiques which condemne Mariage, shewing that it is not an vn­cleane thing, but so reuerent, that with the same a man may ascend vnto the holy Throne, by that he meaneth the state of a Bishop. It foloweth there further. And herewith he chastiseth and restraineth the vnchast persons, not permit­ting them who haue twise married, to atteine such rome. For wheras he kepeth no beneuolēce towardes his wife deceaced, how can he be a good gouernour? &c. Thus S. Chrysostom.

Ye do wel to make muche of a litle. And what litle is that? Is it any other thing, then we alwaies haue acknowleged, and graunted vnto you, that a married man may be made a Bishop, and that by Gods expresse woorde mariage is not of it selfe a lette, but that therewith a man may be promoted vnto the ho­ly state of a Bishop? Is there any more for you in this [Page 174] place of S. Chrysostome? Come to the point M. Iewel. You and your felowes haue vttered many hote wordes by mouth and pen against vs, as though we folowed the Cerdonistes, Marcionistes, Manichees, Taciās, Seueriās, and other olde pestilent heretikes, who condemned ma­riage, as a thing vncleane and displeasing God. But how oftētimes haue ye ben tolde by vs, that we are farre from that wicked opinion? who is ignorāt how much the Ca­tholikes haue written and preached in praise and cōmen­dation of lawful and Godly wedloke? Is it not wel kno­wen, that we geue vnto it a farre more honour then ye doo? For do we not honour it with the name of a holy Sacrament, whereas ye cal it but a state of life?

The point whereabout we varie,The state of the question tou­ching mariage. is this. Ye hold that is is lauful for al persons to marie, be they Priestes, Mon­kes, Friers, Nonnes, or of what state or degree so euer they be. We say, that as it was lauful for such persons to marye before they promised God to liue the single life, and bound them selfe thereto by solemne vowe: so after the vowe duely made, that it is vnlauful. We stand vpon the negatiue with the Churche of Christe, ye affirme, and say much, but to the purpose ye proue nothing. And as for this place of S. Chrysostome, how can ye vse it to any reliefe of your cause? Shal this be your Argu­ment, With Matrimonie a man may be promoted to the state of a Bishop: Ergo, a Bishop hauing made a solemne vow to leade the single life, may take a wife, and be mar­ried? If this be not your Argument, what elles can ye make of it? If ye haue no better Argumentes then this, ye may not be angry with them, that shal call your yokefellowes, Queanes, and your children, bastardes. [Page] verely al the Burgeses of your Parlamentes, with the helpe of al your brethren, shal neuer make them, honest wiues, nor these, true begoten.

And here remember M. Iewel, that as the first parte of this saying of S. Chrysostome, which you allege for you, maketh nothing for your Mariage of Vo­taries: so the later parte is altogether contrarie to the procedinges of your fleshly felowes. For it condemneth vtterly their filthy bigamie, or second yoking. Some of your companions, who being Priestes, and religious, and vsurping the roome of a Bishop (not farre from Sa­risburie) as you do, being olde of yeres, but ful of luste, who for chastities sake (and God wote for none other cause) their former olde queanes being departed this life, haue yoked vnto them yonge Strompets, contrary to S. Chrysostom, and also to S. Paule S. after Chrysosto­mes iudgement, would (I dare say) geue you harty thankes, and wel rewarde you too, if you could defend their second yoking. How I may terme it, I knowe not. For I trow it ought not to be called Bigamie, sithens the first yoking was not mariage. For a fuller answer to al this brought here our of S. Chrysostome, I referre the Reader to my Confutation of the Apologie,In the cō ­futation Fol. 75. &c. where this Replier hath set forth the matter for Priestes Ma­riage, and furnished it with the same stuffe. If the Apo­logie be not his workemanship, I crye him mercie. Ve­rely I am persuaded, and so be many mo, that this ambi­tious Replie, and that rash Apologie, be egges of one hennes laying.Chrysost. in epist. ad Hebraeos hom. 7.

Wel let vs see other your best stuffe. Vse marriage with discretion (saith S. Chrysostome by you alleged) [Page 175] and thou shalt be the Chiefe in the kingdom of heauen. Why sir, what auaileth this to the iustifying and making good of the incestuous contracte betwen men and we­men of your sectes, that haue vowed chastitie? As for example, what helpeth this the case of Martin Luther the Austen Fryer, who yoked him selfe to Caterin Bore the Nonne of Nymick in Saxonie, or of your great frend and Maister,Peter Martyr yoked in Euange­lical wed­locke to dame Ca­terin the Nonne of Metz. Peter Martyr the regular Chanon of S. Augustines order, who likewise yoked him selfe vnto Dame Catherine the Nonne of Metz in Lorraine, that stale out of her cloister by night, and ranne away with an honest mans wife of Metz to Strasburg, which honest mans wife married to Emanuel the Iewe (that afterward came to Cambridge, and there read an Hebrue lesson) her husband being a liue,Emannel the Ievv to the Regesters vvife of Metz her husband lyuing. as he tolde me the tale him selfe with weeping eyes at Metz, as I passed toward Italie through Lorraine.

Whereas ye make S. Paule to say, that matrimonie is honorable in al persons, I iudge ye wil say, it was not very honorable in these two persons. And yet forsooth it was allowed for good among your holy brethren of Stras­burg, bicause the true husband was a Papist. Moreouer touching this saying of S. Chrysostom [...], how can they vse marriage moderately, and with discretion, betwen whom it was vnlawful, and wicked from the beginning?

In the last place, as an auctoritie of greatest force, to knit vp the knotte of the Vowebreakers mariages, S. Hieromes recorde is alleged. But ô Lorde, out of which worke of his is it alleged! Euen out of the first booke against Iouinian the heretike, defending the sacrilegious wedlocke of wiued Monkes, and husbanded Nonnes, [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [Page] as M. Iew. now doth. What mayst thou (good Reader) more woonder at in this Superintendent? His impuden­cie, that is not a shamed to name S. Hierom, as though he spake any worde for the maintenance of Votaries wedlockes, who of set purpose most vehemently and learnedly wrote against them, and against Iouinian the great patrone of the same: or his crafty wickednesse, that would so begyle the simple and vnlearned Reader with the auctoritie of so holy and so auncient a Fa­ther, dissembling the argument whereof he treated, which being disclosed, it is easily perceiued, how litle he furthereth such abominable bargaines?.

But some wil say. Be not the wordes alleged by M. Iewel to be founde in S. Hierome? I gra [...]nt they are founde. So the wordes that Satan tempted our Sauiour withal,Math. 4. are founde in the Scripture. Yet were they not truly alleged.Psal. 90. It is not hard to peeke a fewe wordes out of any writer, which being s [...]t alone may seme to sounde against some truth, yea against the writers principal intent. How beit the wordes that be here alleged out of S. Hierom, be neither against the writers purpose, nor for M. Iewels purpose. For onely they proue, that the custome of promoting married men to be Priestes, was not quite growen out of vse in S. Hieromes time. For though he say, that in his daies Priestes were made of mar­ried men, yet he semeth not to meane, that they vsed to company in bedde with wiues. Thereof thus he writeth in the same booke.Hieron. aduersus Iouinian. lib. 1. Si laicus & quicunque fi­delis orare non potest, nisi careat officio coniugali, Sacer­doti, cui semper pro populo offerend [...] sunt sacrificia, semper [Page 176] orandum est. Si semper orandum est, ergo semper caren­dum est matrimonio. If one of the laietie, or any faithful person who so euer he be, can not praye (that is to say, can not geue him selfe wholly to prayer, as when he receiueth our Lordes body, for thereof he speaketh specially) onlesse he cease from the dutie of wedlocke: a Priest by whom Sacrifices must alwaies be offered vp for the people, must alwaies praye. If he must alwaies praye, then must he alwaies be with­out matrimonie, that is, without the worke of ma­trimonie.

Thus thou seest good Reader, how euident and strong a truth it is, that he who hath ones vowed chastitie, as Priestes in the West Churche, Monkes, Friers, and Nonnes haue done, can not lawfully go backe to Mariage, and that M. Iewel going about to proue the contrary, that is to [...]ay, that they may mar­rie, is not hable to bring one example of the Primi­tiue Churche, nor one testimonie of any auncient writer, that maketh directely, or by necessary sequele for that purpose, But diuerting from the point of the question, he allegeth places and testimonies to proue, that married men were at the beginning made Priestes and Bishops (as we graunt they were, for lacke of o­thers so meete as they were for that function) being a truth denied by no man: and can not bring one ex­ample of the olde Churche, sentence, or peece of sentence, whereby it may clearely appeare, that any man was euer first made Priest, and afterward married, and was allowed for so doing.

Iewel.

Epiphanius vvriteth thus of certaine of his time, Repudiant nupti­as, at non libidinem.Epiphan. [...]. In honore enim apud illos est, non sancti­ [...]as, [...]ed Hypocris [...]s [...] They re [...]use Marriage, no [...] [...]. For they esteeme not Holines, but Hypocrisie. VVho seethe not, that in the [...] [...] ­vvitstandinge they be vtterly forebidden to haue VVyues, yet are easily allovved to haue Concubines? They them selues haue confessed it by these vvoordes vnto the vvorlde: Etiam in hac vrbe Romana meretri­ces, vt Matronae incedunt per vrbem, seu mula vehuntur: quas a [...]ectantur de Media die Nobiles familiares Cardinalium, Cleri­ci (que): Euen here in this Citie of Rome, harlottes passe through the streetes, or ride vpon their mules, like honest Gentle wemen: And Gentlemen of the Cardinalles bandes, and Priestes at noone daies waite vpon them.

Harding.

You flye, you flye away M. Iewel out of the feelde. You runne from the state of the question to bye maters,M. Ievvel flieth frō prouing his owne case to disproo­uing of our liues. and voyd talke. You pretend to proue and make good the mariages of the Apostates your lewde Brethren, who haue by solemne vowe bounde them selues to liue single, and now seing your selfe not hable to performe it, and not hauing so muche as one example, or any one sentence of an auncient Father for the same: you di­uert from fortifiyng your owne doctrine, to carping of others faultes. To be shorte, what so euer is euil, we blame it, nolesse then you. But take this for a general lesson. The iniquitie of other mennes lyues, shal neuer be a iustification of your false doctrine

What meane you here to allege Epiphanius? whom iudge you? or whom sclaunder you? Euil haue he that [Page 177] euil thinketh. Had your hart ben chaste and cleane, your mouth had not ben so fowle, you would neuer haue stirred that stinking puddel. Howbeit to note, how vprightly you handle euery mater: Epiphanius doth not write thus so much of certaine of his time, as of the He­retikes named Origeniani in general,Origenia­ni. that for the more part lyued long before his time. Againe the case betwen the Catholike Clergie (to whom your slaunderours sus­pition is directed) and those heretikes,The he­resie of the Ori­genians. is not like. They reiected and condemned mariage, bicause they had an euil opinion of it, and iudged Conception, to be of it selfe an euil thing. But Priestes and Clerkes of the Ca­tholike Churche absteine from mariage, not bicause they haue any euil opinion of it, or of Gods ordinance, but for conscience sake in consideration of their vowe, which they know them selues bounde to keepe.

Where you say, that in the Churche of Rome, Prie­stes, Bishops,A noto­rious and sclaunde­rous lye. and Cardinals are easily allowed to haue Concubines, it is such a notorious and sclaunderous lye, as becommeth no man to make, but such a notorious lyer, and sclaunderer, as you are. God graunt that once such Adders tonges be stayd from irksom hissing, as their venemous teeth be yet stayd from deadly byting.

And what impudencie is it to say, as you do, that Bis­shops and Cardinals them selues confesse, that they are allowed Concubines? Where haue they confessed it? Gentle Reader looke backe, I pray thee, and read the wordes that he allegeth, againe. For the better vnder­standing of the mater,The god­ly pur­pose of Paulus tertius. this much is to be knowen. Pau­lus tertius the Pope, moued with the spirite of God, and desyrous to reforme the Churche, gaue charge to nyne [Page] the best learned, wisest, and most godly and zelous men that he knewe, 4. Cardinals, 3. Bishops, and .2. others (of whom the worthy man Cardinal Poole of blessed and famous memorie was one) to enquire and serche out, what abuses and disorders were in the Churche, and spe­cially in the courte of Rome, and to signifie the same vn­to his Holines, to thintent those being taken away, a holesom reformation might be made.

They went together, applied their studie and wisdom to that effecte, and brought to ende, that they had in charge. In the number of abuses, they signified this for one, which M. Iewel here by his false translation ma­king it worse then it is,In Cōcilio Delectorū Cardina­lium. grateth vpon. In hac etiam vrbe meretrices &c. furthermore (say they) in this Citie har­lottes go in the streetes, or ride on mule, like Matrones, and Gentilmen of the Cardinals families, and Clerkes go af­ter them at midde daye. This is the disorder they com­plained of, and would to be redressed. Now of this how can M. Iewel inferre his sclaunderous conclusion, Ergo Priestes, Bisshops, and Cardinals, be easily allowed to haue Concubines at Rome? Can not the yong Gentilmen of the Cardinals families be founde in faulte, but it must be laid to the Cardinals charge them selues? What if certaine of M. Iewels men were founde gylty of thefte and murder, and therefore deserued hanging: were it reason to say, that M. Iewel were a felon, and worthy to be hanged?

Moreouer what hatred and malice beareth this Mini­ster to Priestes, who here for Clerici, odiously transla­teth Priestes, whereas the worde now signifieth gene­rally those that be toward the Churche, be they scolers, [Page 178] inferiour Ministers, singingmen, or such others? And al this to bring Priestes into contempt and hatred. But if his malice wanne credite among the ignorant, what could that relyue his cause? Were it true that some Priestes at a time were sene folowing harlottes in Rome, yet wil not that iustifie the Priestes, Mounkes, and Friers, that marye harlottes in England.

Iewel.

As touching them, vvhom, it so muche greeueth you, M. Hardinge, to be called Martyrs, you haue slaine, not only such, and such, vvhom it liketh you, by your ovvne Name, if ye haue not forgotten your ovvne Name, to cal Renegates, but also great numbers of others moe, Married, Vnmarried, Learned, Vnlearned, Olde, Yonge, Boies, Maides, La [...]emenne, Priestes, Bishops, Archbishops, vvithout mercie. Ye scourged them vvith rod­des: ye sette burning torches to their hādes, ye cut of their tōgues, ye hāged them, ye beheadded them, ye burnte them to ashes, ye tooke the poore innocent babe falling from the mothers vvombe, and threvve it cruel­ly into the fier. Briefly, ye did vvith them, vvhat so euer your plea­sure vvas.

Harding.

Iewel.

The vvorste vvoorde that proceeded from them, vvas this, O Lord, for­geue them, They knovve not, vvhat they doo. O Lorde Iesu, receiue my Spirite. In the meane vvhile, ye stoode by, and delited your eies vvith the sight. Ye digged vp the poore carkasses of Goddes Sainctes, that had beene buried longe before: ye serued them solemnely vvith processe, and ascited them to appeare at your Consistories, and by Publique sentence ad­iudged them to die the second death: and so, to the perpetual shame of your cruel folie, ye vvreak [...]e your anger vpon the dead. O M. Hardinge [...] your conscience knovveth, these are no lies: They are vvriten in the eies, and hartes of many thousandes. These be the markes of your Religion. O [Page 186] vvhat reckeninge vvil you yeelde, vvhen so muche innocent Bloud shalbe required at your handes? And vvhere you say, VVee must pulle the Olde Martyrs out of Heauen to place our ovvne, for that our Doctrine, and theirs (as you beare vs in hande) is quite contrary, al this is but a needeles ostentation of idle vvordes. Yf vauntes vvere proufes, then vvere this mater fully ended. But vve say, that in these cases, that I haue mooued, you are not hable to allege one sufficient Clause, or Sentence of your side out of any of al the Olde learned Fathers. And hitherto your muster ap­peareth but very simple, notvvithstāding the great promise of your Stoare.

Harding.

The pacience of your stincking Martyrs, who (say you) vttered no worse worde, then, ô Lorde forgeue them, ô Lorde Iesu receiue my spirite: is by you hyely commended. Pa­cience in an euil cause is no sufficient trial of a true Mar­tyr. It is not suffering,Matt. 5. but the cause of suffering, that ma­keth a Martyr. Blessed are they that suffer persecution, saith Christe, but there he addeth, propter iustitiam, for righte­ousnes. How many,Pacience in dying, argueth no Mar­tyrdom. theeues, murtherers, and Traitours, see wee to suffer their death paciently? Yet are they not canonizate for Martyrs. Many among the Donatistes tooke their Death with as great pacience, and as hartely prayed for their Aduersaries as any of al your Martyrs did.Anno. Do- 1305. Margarete the wife of Dulcinus, when she came to suffer death at Nouaria in Lombardie for the filthy here­sie of the Adamites, for whiche her husband had died before, song Te Deum, and shewed a maruelous pacience, and cōtempte of death. Peruse the Stories of Bohemia, and ye shal find, that bothe men and wemen put to death for that abominable heresie, suffered their executiō with suche quiet, pacience, and constancie: that it seemed to lerned men a worthy thing to be Cronicled. Verely of the [Page] glorie of pacience shewed at death, the Anabaptistes, that haue ben burnt in sundry places in our dayes, by al mens iudgement haue wonne the garland from you, and frō your brothers, and Systers, be they Lutherans, or Cal­uinistes. Neither haue al your Martyrs dyed with suche pacience, and quiet wordes, as here you talke of.

Burning of Dead carcases, no nevv thing.Touching the digging vp of the Carkasses, not of Goddes Sainctes, as you name them, but of the Deuils Champions, and the asciting of some that were before buried, to appeare at the Consistories: al this was not done for wreaking of Anger, as you feine, but for exam­ples sake, that others might be frayed from folowing them, and for shew, how detestable their heresie was, and the same not without lawe custome, and wel liking of Christian people. Neither altogether without the ex­ample of the Scriptures. For in them we reade, that the good king Iosias brake vp the Graues of wicked Priestes,4. Reg. 23 and false Prophetes,2. Par. 34 and burned their bones to Asshhes. So that this complaint toucheth the holy king Iosias, no lesse then the Catholiques.

Augustin. Epist. 50. S. Augustine saith, that if the crimes obiected against Cecilianus, were true, and could be plainly proued: ipsum iam mortuum anathematizaremus [...] we would accurse him now being dead. If a Curse may be extended vpon an heretique, after he is departed this worlde, whiche ban­nisheth the soule from the communiō and societie of the saued companie: why may not the Carkasse of a noto­rious dead heretique be for examples sake digged out of halowed grownde appointed for the reuerent burial of those bodies, that when they liued were tabernacles of the holy Ghost: that after death they reste not with the [Page 187] bodies of them, from whom they diuided them selues by schisme and heresie, when they lyued? And therefore I aduise you M. Iewel, and your brothers, not to bestow great charges about your toumbes, and places of burial, least the time come, as certainely it shal come, onlesse for synne God vtterly forsake our Countrie: when your Carkasses shalbe digged out againe, and be serued as he­retiques Carkasses these many hundred yeres haue ben: example whereof we haue in the Frenche Chronicles of one Amalricus, In Chro­nicis Frā ­cicis. an heretique in S. Bernardes time, whose body at Paris was digged out of his graue after his death, and burnt to Ashes, whiche punishment he was knowen being dead to haue deserued, when he ly­ued. Your owne brethren of Geneua are reported of late yeres to haue digged one out of his graue, and to haue hanged vp his dead carkasse vpon a Gibbet, for that he repented him of your heresies in his death bed, and re­ceiued the blessed Sacrament, before he departed.

And how say you to your brethern of Basile?Dauid Georges Carkasse digged vp at Basil, and burnt with his Image. Did they not digge vp the carkasse of Dauid Georgius, and burne it with his Image long after he had ben buried? Shal it be lawful for you in England to burne the bones of S. Tho­mas of Cantorburie the Martyr, and for your brethren the Huguenotes in Fraunce to burne the holy Reliques of S. Irenaeus that blessed and so auncient Martyr, of S. Martin, and S. Hilarie: and may not the Catholiques burne the carkasses, and bones of blasphemous Sacra­mentaries, and other heretiques?

But now to conclude, what meane you M. Iewel, thus to complaine of vs, and to accuse the Catholiques of Crueltie? Are your selues giltles hereof? I meane [Page] you, your brethren, and them of your side, specially the ministers, and Superintendentes of England. Who are more cruel, they, that doo but execute an olde Lawe of death vnder the Prince according to com­maundement, or they, that hauing no lawe to put men to death, by al meanes procure, and cause suche a lawe to be made them selues? Who haue so importunatly, so lowdely, so maliciously cryed out vpon the Prince, to draw her sworde against the Catoliques? Who cryed out stil for the law of Premunire to be extended against them, and last of al for the lawe of death to be enacted a­gainst them, as in cases of hye treason? How oftentimes haue ye required this your owne new law to be execu­ted vpon learned, holy, and innocent men? Were it not that God stayeth the harte of the Prince, and inclined her vnto mercie and clemencie, ye would soone make al the worlde witnesse of the crueltie of your hartes.

I wil not here say so muche as I could, nor thinke I it good to grate muche vpon this sore. Certaine it is, God seeth the crueltie of your hartes, and what deadly hatred ye beare towarde the Catholiques. What is either in you, or in vs amisse, our Lorde amend it. I wish you, and your brethren would wel consider, what S. Augustine saith to the Donatistes, whom ye farre passe in number, and malice of heresies. Thus it is. Si quid à nostris Chri­stianae charitatis modum votum (que) non custodientibus, August. de vnitate Ecclesiae cap. 17. odiosè & perniciosè patimini, non esse illos nostros citò dixerim, sed aut futuros, si se correxerint, aut in fine separandos, si in ma­litia perdurârint. Nos tamen nec propter pisces malos retiae rumpimus, nec propter vasa in coutumeliam facta domū ma­gnam deserimus. Quod si vos quoque illos à quibus talia Cae­tholica [Page 188] patitur, non esse vestros eadem regula dicitis, probate animum vestrum, corrigite errorē, amplectimini vnitatem spiritus in vinculo pacis. If it be so that ye suffer any thing spitefully done vnto you by them of our side not keping the meane and vowe of Christian charitie: I may soone say, that they be not of our number, mary but that they shalbe, if they amende them selues, or that in the ende they shalbe separated from vs, if they continue. How so euer it be, yet wil not we for the euil Fisshes sake breake the Nettes, neither forsake the great House (that is to say, the Churche) for their sakes, who be Vessels made to dishonour. Now in case ye also, by like rule wil say, that they, at whose handes the Catholique Churche suffereth suche thinges, be not of your side: then trie your owne mynde, amend your errour, imbrace vnitie of sprite in the band of peace.

Iewel.

Certainely the holy Fathers, and Martyrs of God vvil say unto you, VVee knovve not your Priuate Masses: vvee knovve not your Halfe Communion: vvee knovv not your Strange Vnknovven Praiers: vvee knovve not your Adoration of Gorruptible Creatures: vve knovve not this Sacrificing of the Sonne of God: vvee knovve not your Nevve Re­ligion: vvee knovve not you. God open the eyes of your Hartes, that ye may see the miserable state, ye stande in, and recouer the place, that ye haue loste, and finde your Names vvritten in the Booke of Life.

Harding.

In the ende of this Diuision by a Rhetorical ficti­on you make the holy Fathers,The holy lerned Fa­thers tale to M. Ievv and hi [...] Cō panion [...]. and Martyrs of God to say vnto vs, as your blasphmous harte doth phontasie. But as we feare not that any suche thing by them shal [Page] be tolde vs, so were they now lyuing, doubtelesse thus would they saye vnto you, and them of your sectes, as neuerthelesse in their bookes and learned workes, they also doo now in effecte say vnto you daily. We knowe not your strange state, that is without external Sacri­fice and Priesthod, and consequently without a Lawe. We knowe not your eating of common bread, and drinking of common wine at your newe founde Sup­pers, in steede of receiuing the true body and bloude of Christe. We knowe not your Iustification by your spe­cial Faith onely. We knowe not your perilous doctrine of Predestination. We knowe not your new manner of baptizing without holy oile, and other auncient rites and Ceremonies. We knowe not your chaungeable new deuised Cōmunions. We knouwe not your mon­strous Supremacie of Princes in Ecclesiastical maters, that is to say, the keyes of the kingdom of heauen, the supreme Cōmission to feede Christes lambes and shepe, and the whole auctoritie that Christe gaue to S. Peter, and his Successours, so to be vnited by a forced Parla­ment to the Crowne of a laye Prince, that it be made a mater of inheritaunce, so that the Prince for the time being be head of the Churche, and supreme gouernour in al thinges and causes, as wel spiritual as temporal, be it man or woman, or childe sucking at the Nourses breste. We condemne your negatiue Diuinitie, which denieth mannes freewil, merites of good workes done in grace, Prayers made to our blessed lady, the Apostles, Martyrs, and other Saintes, to be intercessours for vs to God, Prayers for the dead. We deteste your wicked and in­cestuous mariages of Priestes, Monkes, Friers, and Non­nes, [Page 189] and of al such as haue made solemne vowe to liue without the vse of wedlocke. We deteste your impie­tie, in that ye refuse to adore and doo godly honour to the body and bloude of your Creator in the Sacrament of the Aulter. We detest your pulling downe of Aul­ters, your robbing of Churches, your schismes and here­sies, and rebellion against your lawful Princes, we detest your prophane contempte of al good religion and god­lynes, we detest your wickednes, we detest you.

As for you M. Iewel, I pray God to touche your harte so, as you may be induced rather with some shame of the worlde to recant your heresies, and repent, to saue your soule: then with desperat continuing in that you haue taken vppon you by your foolish and arrogant Chalenge, to keepe the vaine estimation of deceiued men, and finally to lose your foule for euer.

The Ansvver.

LEauing no smal number of places, that might be recited out of diuerse other Doctours, I wil bring two of two woorthy Bishops, one of Chrysostom, the other of S. Ambrose, confirming this Trueth. S. Chrysostomes woordes be these. Chrysosto. in epist. ad Heb. homi. 17. Pontifex noster ille est, qui hostiam mundantem nos obtulit: ipsam offerimus & nunc, quae tunc oblata qui­dem consumi non potest. Hoc autem, quod [Page] nos facimus, in commemorationem fit eius, quod factum est. Hoc enim facite, inquit, in mei commemorationem. He is our Bishop, that hath offered vp the Hoste, whiche cleanseth vs. The same doo we offer also nowe, whiche though it were then offered, yet can not be consumed. But this, that we doo, is done in Remembraunce of that, whiche is done. For, doo ye this, saith he, in my Remembraunce. S. Ambrose saith thus: Ambros. In Psal. 38. Vidimus Principem Sa­cerdotum ad nos venientem: vidimus, & au­diuimus offerentem pro nobis sanguinem su­um: sequamur, vt possumus, sacerdotes, vt offeramus pro populo sacrificium, etsi infirmi merito, tamen honorabiles Sacrificio. Quia etsi Christus non videtur offerre, tamen ipse offertur in terris, quando Christi Corpus offer­tur. We haue seene the Prince of Priestes come to vs: we haue seene and hearde him offer for vs his Bloude: Let vs that be Priestes, folow him, as we may, that we may offer Sacrifice for the people, being though weake in merite, yet honourable for the Sacri­fice. Because al be it Christe be not seene to offer, yet he is offered in earth, when the Body of Christe is offered. Of these our Lordes woordes, which is geuen for you, and, which is shedde for you, and for many, here S. Ambrose exhorteth the Priestes, to offer the [Page 190] Body and Bloud of Christe for the people: and willeth them to be more regarded, then cōmonly they be now a daies, for this Sacrifice sake, though otherwise they be of lesse desert.

Iewel.

This allegation argueth no greate abundance of stoare. For Chry­sostome in these vvoordes bothe openeth him selfe, and shevveth, in vvhat sense other Ancient Fathers vsed this vvorde, Sacrifice, and also vtterly ouerthrovveth M. Hardinges vvhole purpose touching the same. For, as he saithe, wee offer vp the same Sacrifice, that Christe offered, so in most plaine vvise and by sundrie vvordes, he remooueth al doubte, and declareth, in vvhat sorte, and meaning vvee offer it. He saithe not, as M. Hardinge saithe, wee offer vp the Sōne of God vnto his Father, and that verily, and in deede: but con­trary vvise thus he saithe, Chrysost. in Epist. ad Hebr. Hom. 17. Offerimus quidem, sed ad Recordatio­nem facientes Mortis eius. Hoc Sacrificium Exemplarillius est. Hoc, quod nos facimus, in commemorationem fit eius, quod factum est. Id ipsum semper offerimus: Magis autem Recordatio­nem Sacrificij operamur: VVe offer in deede: but in remem­brance of his Death. This Sacrifice, is an Examlpe of that Sacrifice. This, that we doo, is donne in remembrannce of that, that was done. VVee offer vp the same, that Christe offered: Or rather wee worcke the Remembrance of that Sa­crifice. Thus vvee offer vp Christe, That is to say, an 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. Cū frāgitur. So saithe S. Augustine: Cùm hostia frangitur, & sanguis in ora Fidelium funditur, quid aliud, quàm 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 [Page 191] 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 substāce 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 [...]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. Chrysost [...] 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 [Page] ye wring this muche out of these wordes.

Hovv S. Chryso­stō 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 [Page 192] 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 other man. I am sure,S. Chry­sostome maketh directly for the real Sa­crifice. can perceiue. In, these wordes, I say whiche be here alleged in my Answer to the Chalenge. Nay, how can they not seme most plainely, and directly to auouche our doctrine touching the Sacrifice? Doth he not set Christe, and Priestes that be now, together in the office of offering? He hath offered, we offer also now, saith he. Doth he not auouche the hoste, that Christ offered, and the hoste that Priestes now offer (for thereof he speaketh) to be one, and the selfe same hoste? And that no man should doubte, what hoste he meant, saith he not, it is that, which cleanseth our sinnes? that, which [Page] then being offered (to witte, vpon the Crosse with shed­ding of bloude, with death, to cleanse synnes, and to re­deme the worlde) can not be consumed? What hoste can this be, but the body of Christ, but Christe him selfe? For nothing could cleanse our synnes, but he, who onely is the Lambe of God, Ioan. 1. that taketh a way the synnes of the worlde. Thus then the substance of the hoste, that Christe our Bishop offered, and of that we offer, is one, and the selfe same. So it is clearely proued by these wordes of S. Chrysostome, that it is not onely a memorie, an ex­ample, a similitude, a figure, or resemblance of Christes body, that we offer in our daily Sacrifice, but the selfe same hoste in substance, that Christe offered to cleanse vs, which is the substance of his owne body and bloud, for it was not a figure that he offered for vs, but his true and real bodye.

But as the substance of his, and our Sacrifice is one, so the ende and effecte by S. Chrysostome in this place,The ende of Christes Sacrifice, and of ours. is diuers. He offered him selfe to death to cleanse the synnes of the worlde, to redeme mankinde. We of­fer him in remembrance of that his death, to be partakers of his redemption. But hereof I speake more particu­larly in my preface before this Roioindre.

S. Chrysostome (say you) remoueth al doubte, and declareth in what sorte and meaning we offer the Sacri­fice. How so good sir, tel it vs, I pray you, for I accompt it wel worth the learning. Mary (say you) he saith not, as M. Harding saith, we offer vp the Sonne of God vnto his Father, and that verely, and in deede. First it is a strange thing to me, that a man should remoue al doubtes, and declare the certaintie of thinges, by not saying, as you [Page 193] replye. Nexte, what if he say not in expresse termes, that we offer vp the Sonne of God vnto his Father? Wil you now go from the matter, and flie for refuge to your owne precise termes?

Consider, I praye you, how this vaine wran­gling becommeth the Person of the Great Minister of Sarisburie.M. Iewels obiection is but a vaine vvran­gling. Whereas S. Chrysostome saith, that we offer vp the selfe same Hoste, that Christe our Bis­shop hath offered, which cleanseth vs from our synnes, is it not as muche, as if he had said, we offer vp the Sonne of God? What hoste is that which cleanseth vs? Is it not Christe onely? Who is Christe? Is he not the Sonne of God? And to whom is Sacrifice done, but to God? Al this set together, how much varieth he from S. Chrysostome, who saith, that we offer vp the Sonne of God vnto his Father? If you sticke to that other worde, verely, and in deede, remember, you haue by your translation, made S. Chrysostome in this very place, so to speake your selfe. We offer in deede, be the wordes.

Now that you haue tolde vs, what S. Chrysostome saith not, which helpeth your cause nothing at al: you shewe vs what he saith. And here you bring in cer­taine peeces, and maimed sayinges out of him, being a fraid to allege the whole sentences, as they lye in that learned Doctor, least you should marre altogether, as you should haue done, if you had suffered him to tel his owne tale. Bicause the place is somewhat long, I had rather referre the Reader vnto the .17. Homilie vpon the Epistle to the Hebrewes, where it is written, then here to reherse the whole. [Page] But let vs see, what you pike out of that Homilie for your purpose,M. Iuels promise vpon S. Chrysost. hovv it is ꝑformed and how much it relieueth your cause. Remember what you haue promised to shewe out of S. Chrysostome, that he remoueth al doubte, and declareth in what sorte and meaning we offer the Sacrifice. You allege out of the said Homilie, foure sentences, or rather foure peeces of sentences.

The first is this. Offerimus quidem &c. We offer in deede, Chrysost. Hom. 17. in epist. ad Heb. but in remembrance of his Death. These wordes by your interpretation declare in what sorte we offer the Sacrifice. Wel, be it so, I wil not muche contende with you, so that you meane by this sorte, the excluding of the bloudy manner of oblatiō. But here I must put the reader in mynde, what foloweth immediatly in that auncient Father. Whiche you haue vntruly conceeled. Vna est ho­stia, non multae. The hoste that we offer (daily, for there he speaketh of the dayly Oblation) is one, it is not many. If it be bread made by the handes of a man, that we of­fer, and wine pressed out of the grape (for the Real Ob­lation of the body and bloud of Christe ye denie) albe it the same properly can not be called an Hoste, how can you say, it is one Hoste, that we offer daily, and not many Hostes, seing that euery day we take newe bread, and newe wine for our Sacrifice?

In our Sa­crifice vve haue the sampler, and the true thing it selfe, vvhich Christe offered.Your second peece of a sentence is this. Hoc Sacri­ficium exemplar illius est. This Sacrifice is an example of that Sacrifice. But what foloweth, Id ipsum semper offeri­mus. We offer alwaies the selfe same thing. And what thing is that? There he sheweth. It is the Hoste that cleanseth vs, which Christe our Bisshop hath offered. So then we see it called, both the real thing it selfe, that was [Page 194] offered, and the sampler of the thing. In that he calleth it a sampler, thereby he putteth vs in minde, the order and manner of offering it now, to be different from the manner of the oblation of the Crosse. For there it was bloudy, here vnbloudy: there with suffering the tour­ments of death, here with commemoration, representa­tion and application of his death: there the thing offered visible in proper forme, here inuisible, vnder the forme of bread and wine.

Your thirde peece of a sentence taken out of S. Chrysostome, is this. This that we doo, is done in remem­brance of that that was done. Which wordes declare, the thing that we doo, to be donne in remembrance of the Death of Christe. And they folow immediatly vpon that he said of the cleansing Hoste, whiche our Bishop Christe offered, and we also offer the same. So that the difference betwene this, and that, is this. That was the Sacrifice that cleanseth our synnes with his bloude actu­ally shed, and redemed vs by vertue of it selfe. This is the Commemoratiue Sacrifice, which is offered in comme­moration of that, hauing for the substance of it, the same body and bloude of Christe, that was offered vpon the Crosse, by vertue of Consecration made really pre­sent, and applieth vnto vs the merite and effecte of the cleansing, and redemption wrought and perfourmed vp­on the Crosse.

Then immediatly foloweth the last sentence of the Homilie, a parte whereof you haue taken for your pur­pose. Non aliud Sacrificiū, sicut Pontifex, sed idipsum sem­per offerimus, & caet. we offer not an other Sacrifice, as the Bishop (of the olde lawe did) but alwayes we offer the very [Page] same that Christe offered, or rather we worke the remem­brance of the Sacrifice. In the Discourse of S Chrysostom, out of whiche M. Iewel hath piked, and culled out cer­taine peeces, three thinges in effect are declared. First, that we offer, secondly, that our manner of offering is other, then Christes was, therefore ours is called a sam­pler of that, and it is donne in commemoration of his Death. Thirdly, that the Hoste, or thing offered in ei­ther Sacrifice, is one and the same in substance, which is the true body of Christe. Graunt vs the first, and the last, that is to say, that we offer in deede, yea and that the same Hoste, which Christe offered: and to al men of reason and iudgement, though our Sacrifice be a sampler of Christes Sacrifice vpō the Crosse, and though it be done for commemoration of that, shal our Real Sa­crifice be sufficiently proued. For what is our endeuour in this Article, but to proue, that we offer vnto God that, which Christo our Bishop hath offered, which is Christe him selfe?

And whereas making vp your Epiphonema, you say with more brauarie, then truth, Thus we offer vp Christe, that is to say, an example, a commemoration, a remembrāce of the Death of Christe: I neuer heard of such a that is to say, before, specially if the real presence by these wordes be excluded as your meaning is. O what impudencie is this?Differēce betvven the hoste and the comme­moratiō. Doth not S. Chrysostom by your selfe alleged make a plaine distinction and difference betwen the hoste of­fered, and the remembrance, saying, that which we doo, is done for a commemoration? Doth it not therby appeare, that somewhat must be done before, and besides the Commemoration? Who euer so confounded thinges, as [Page 195] as by your absurde and false interpretation you doo, making the body and bloude of Christe, or Christe him selfe, and the remembrance of Christes death, one thing? What, is this your meaning, as though the sub­stance of the Sacrifice, were nothing els, but the remem­brance of Christes death? Let this once be graunted, and why may not any man, or woman, make vs as good a Sacrifice at their table at home in their owne howse, as your selfe can at the Communion table in our Ladies Churche at Sarisburie? For at that home­ly table may Christes death be remembred, aswel as at your Communion table.

This kinde of Sacrifice (say you speaking of the commemoration of Christes Death) was neuer deni­ed. As in a right sense it is very true, and was ne­uer by vs denied (for the deuoute remembrance of Christes Death by it selfe considered, is a kinde of spi­ritual Sacrifice) so if you meane thereby to exclude the truth of the thing offered, whiche is the body and bloud of Christe,M. Ievvel alvvaies cōcludeth the denial of one truth by thaffirmation of an other truth. and serue vs with a shewe, and a remembrance onely distinct from the true thing it selfe that is offered, which seemeth to be your whole drifte: this parte of your doctrine we vtterly denie, and tel you, that for maintenance of the same, you vse a fond and vaine reason. For what an Argument is it, when two thinges be bothe true, by the affirmation of the one, to conclude the denial of the other? As for example, what witte wil allowe this Argument. The Sunne shineth, Ergo, it raineth not, or, Ergo, it is not colde: whereas many times we see it raine, and feele it colde, when the Sunne shyneth cleare and [Page] bright? Right so we tel you, and neuer stint telling you (which neuerthelesse ye dissemble to vnderstand) that this your common Argument is naught, the Sacrifice which we offer, is a sampler, or a commemoration of that which Christe offered: Ergo, it is not the same, which Christe offered. For in diuers respectes it is bothe, as now we haue proued by S. Chrysostome.

It is the same in substance, that is to say, the substance of that was offered vpon the Crosse, and of that is offe­red by Priestes is the Masse, in one, and the same: but it is diuers in the manner of offering. For that was offered bloudily, this vnbloudily in mysterie, and by way of com­memoration. So it is the body and Bloud of Christe offe­red, and also a commemoration of the bloudy offe­ring.

The testimonie of S. Augustine (I maruel what you meant to allege it) maketh quite against you. For both it reporteth the real presence, which you denie, and she­weth a difference betwixt the thing which is offered, and Christes Death by the same signified, which you cōfounde. We graunt with S. Augustin, when the hoste is broken, De Consec. Dict. 2. Cum fran­gitur. and the bloude is powred into the mouthes of the faithful, the Sacrificing of our Lordes body is signified. It is not your false translation of the Oblation, for the hoste, nor your Sacramentarie exposition of the Sacrament of the bloude, for the bloude, that can racke S. Augustine to the defence of your doctrine. If you grate vpon the worde, Significatur, and therefore wil needes haue it to be a signification of Christes Sacrifice: as we denie not the signification, so we require you to acknowlege the real body and bloude of Christe, by breaking whereof [Page 196] vnder the forme of bread, and powring whereof into the mowthes of the faithful vnder the forme of wine, the same signification, and commemoration of Christes Death is made. You handle this place of S. Augustine, as it semeth, as you handled the place of S. Chrysostome before. Sweeping cleane away the hoste, and wyping away the bloude, you leaue remaining onely a significa­tion or token. And thus you feede your people with signes and tokens, in steede of the most holesome and substantial meate and drinke.

Thus haue you not weakened the strength of S. Chrysostomes testimonie by your feeble answer, thus it remaineth stil in good force against your Chalenge, thus by your sclender Replie you haue geuen al men occa­sion to thinke, how good and sufficient our Stoare is for the proufe of the external Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christe, in scoffing whereat you take so muche pleasure. It remaineth that we trie, of what substance and pith your Replie is, to the place by me alleged out of S. Ambros.

Iewel.

Euen so S. Ambrose saith, Ambrosi. in Psal. 38 Apocal. 5. Christe is offered here in the Earth (not Re­ally, and in deede, as M. Hardinge saithe) but in like sorte, and sense, as S. Iohn saithe, The Lamme was slaine from the beginninge of the worlde: that is, not Substantially, or in Real manner, but in signi­fication, in a Mysterie, and in a figure. And thus S. Ambrose expoundeth his ovvne meaning, Ambros. in Psalm. 38. euen in the same place, that is here alleged. Primū Vm­bra praecessit: Secuta est Imago: Erit Veritas. Vmbra in lege: Imago in Euangelio: Veritas in Coelestibus. Ascende homo in coelum, & videbis illa, quorum hîc Vmbra erat, vel Imago. First the Shadowe wente before: The Image folowed: The Truethe [Page] shalbe. The Shadowe in the Lawe: The Image in the Gospel: The Trueth in the Heauens. O Man, goe vp into Heauen: and thou shalte see those thinges, whereof here was an Image, and a shadowe.Ambros. in Lucam. lib. 5. ca. 7 To like purpose S. Ambrose vvriteth thus: Vidimus eum, & oculis nostris perspeximus, & in vestigia clauorum eius digi­tos nostros inseruimus. Videmur enim vidisse eum, quem legi­mus: spectasse pendentem, & vulnera eius Spiritu Ecclesiae scru­tante tentasse: wee haue seene him and lookte vpon him, with our eies: and wee haue thrust our fingers into the dentes of his nayles. The reason hereof is this: For wee seeme to see him, that wee reade of: to haue beholden him hanginge on the Crosse: and with the feelinge Sprite of the Churche to haue searched his woundes.Hieron. in Psalm. 86. So S. Hierome saithe, Quod semel natum est ex Ma­ria, quotidiè in nobis nascitur: Christe that was once borne of Marie, is borne in vs euery daie. Novve as S. Ambrose saithe, VVee see Christe euen with our eies hanginge vpon the Crosse: and thruste in our fingers, and searche his woundes: Euen so, doo vvee see Christe Comminge vnto vs, and Offeringe him selfe in Sacrifice vnto God. And as S. Hierome saithe, Christe is Borne euery day, Euen so, and none othervvise, Ambros. de Virgi­nib. lib. 2. S. Ambrose saithe, Christe is Sacrificed euery daie. In like manner S. Ambrose vvriteth vnto certaine Virgins: Ve­stras Mentes confidenter Altaria dixerim, in quibus quotidiè pro Redemptione Corporis Christus offertur: I maie boldely saie, Your hartes be Aultars, vpon whiche Hartes Christe is dayly offered for the Redemption of the Bodie. Hitherto M. Hardinge hath founde no manner t [...]ken of that, he sought for.

Harding.

This Euen so (if I may be so bolde with you, as to vse a homely prouerbe) is as euen, as a rammes horne. And Sir, is this place of S. Ambrose so soone answered? Is it ynough for you to say as you doo, and proue nothing? [Page 197] Is it lawful for you to say what you list, and denie what you list, without any proufe at al? And if ye stand so al waies in your Negatiues, what a coomber shal it be vnto vs, to proue any neuer so certaine a truth to such a wran­gler? How oftentimes haue you now said, that Christe is none otherwise offered in earth, then he was offered in the Sacrifices of Abel, of Abraham, or of them of the olde Testament? And al this vppon warrant of this saying of S. Iohn,Apoc. 5. The lambe was slaine from the begin­ning of the worlde, which maketh nothing against the daily Sacrifice of the Churche? How sufficiently, and by how many authorities hath this Sacrifice bene prooued? Yet forth you go, as if nothing had ben said.

If our Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament be not real,If our Myste­ries be ex­cellenter then the Sacrifices of the old Law, then are they not signi­ficatiue only. and substantial, but only figura­tiue and significatiue, as you say: then how be our Myste­ries of more excellencie, then the Iewes Sacramentes were? Nay how do not the liue beastes, which they sacrificed, passe a dead peece of breade, for better ye esteme it not? If our Sacrifice be no better then their Sa­crifices were, then is our Priesthod of the new Testamēt no better then their Priesthode was. If our Priesthod be no better,Heb. 7. then is the Lawe of the Gospel, wherein we liue, no better then the olde Lawe of Moyses was, vnder which the Iewes lyued. For these three, Sacrifice, Priesthod, and Lawe be so proportionate together, be so of cousinage, and alwaies go so together by the doctrine of S. Paule as you knowe, that the bettering of either of them, doth in ferre the bettering of the other. Nowe let the Christian reader make his choise,Ambro. in Psal. 38. whether he wil beleeue the whole Churche of Christe, and S. Ambrose, [Page] or you. He saith, Christe is offered on the earth, when the body of Christe is offered: you say. Neither Christ, nor the body of Christ is offered on the earth. but al that is done, is but a token and a figure.

Here were it to good purpose, to proue the truth of the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacramēt, for els we labour in vaine, a wrangling and contentious witte euer finding shiftes by running alwaies to his Negatiues. But bicause that Article hath ben already proued,Article. 5. partly by me in my Answer to your Chalenge and more amply by Doctor Heskins, and Doctor Saunder, as also by sundry other learned and worthy men, before you and your cō ­panions russhed into the Church by the window: I mynd not to enter into that large feelde now, nor think it nede­ful to do that is wel done already. That point then being cleare by Gods worde, and besides substantially proued, determined by the Church in General Councels accor­ding to the Scriptures, beleued euer of al Christian and faithful people, and graunted by the Fathers of your reli­gion the Lutherans: let vs consider of that you bring a­gainst the Sacrifice auouched by S. Ambrose.

Image, vvhat it signifieth and how it exclu­deth not the truth [...]As touching your other place of S. Ambrose, where­by you would seme to expounde the former by me alle­ged, it maketh for the Sacrifice, it maketh nothing against the Sacrifice. Neither can you take any aduantage of the worde, Imago, Image. For by that worde the truth is not excluded, but signified, yet so, as thereby we be admoni­shed, that we beholde thinges more obscurely here, then we shal beholde them in heauē, and that the thinges here be but an Image, in cōparison of the true thinges in hea­uē. The truth is here, no lesse then in heauē. But bicause it [Page 198] is not so truly sene here,Ambro. li. 1. officiorū cap. 48. In Psal. 38. as there, therfore S. Ambros cō ­sidering the diuerse degree of our knowledge, calleth in sundry places (accordīg to S. Paule writīg to the Hebrues) the state here an Image, and the state there, the truth.

And if we may expounde S. Ambrose by S. Ambrose,Heb. 10. he sheweth his meaning clearly in an other place. Which is, by the terme, Image, in respect of the state of the Gos­pel, not to exclude the Truth of thinges, but to insinuat an obscurer manner of exhibeting the truth in compari­son of the state of heauen.Ambro. de interpel­latione Dauid. His wordes be these. Ecclesia est imago coelestiū, etenim postquā vmbra praeterijt, imago successit. Vmbra, synagoga est. In vmbra lex, in Euangelio ve­ritas. The Church is an image of heauen (or of heauenly thinges) for after that the shadowe was gone away, the Image succeded. The shadow, is the Synagogue. In the shadowe was the Lawe, in the Gospel is the Truth. Lo wheras he said in the place by you alleged, the image is in the Gospel, here expounding his minde more plainely, he faith, in the Gospel is Truth, calling that Truth, here, which he called Image, there.

But sir with what face,M. Ievvel falsifieth S. Am­brose. I say not with what cōscience, durst you so fowly in translating this place of S. Ambrose to falsifie his wordes and sense? Why did you trāspose his wordes, setting the former word in the second place? and why did you turne, and, for, or? The later sentence truly translated is this. O man, go vp into heauen, and thou shalt see those thinges, whereof here was a shadow, or an Image. Which last wordes you falsified thus, whereof here was an Image and a shadowe.

By this chopping and chaunging of woordes, your e­uil intent was, to bring your reader in beleefe, that the [Page] Sacramentes of the olde Law be of equal worthines with the Sacramentes of the newe Lawe. By your sclender Replie, and by such false legierdemaine, I doubte not but the wiser sorte wil be moued to trie your strange do­ctrine better, then heretofore of many it hath ben tryed, before they beleeue it.

M. Ievvel confoun­deth one truthe vvith an other truth. Lib. 5. Commēt. in Luc. cap. 7.From this place to the ende of the Diuision, this Re­plier doth nothing els, but endeuour to confound thinges, that in them selues be distinct, that so at least he might cast some myste as it were before the readers eyes. As for example, bicause the reading of the storie of the Gospel sheweth vnto our vnderstāding and faith, Christ hanging vpon the Crosse, as S. Ambrose saith, his syde opened with the souldiours speare, his handes and feete pearced through with the nayles, and the Sacrament also of Chri­stes body and bloud, doth represent and commend vnto our memories the same:

Hieron. in Psal. 86.Againe, bicause Christe being virtus Patris, the vertue of his Father, is borne in vs euery daye, when any vertue is wrought by vs, as S. Hierome saith: Therefore (by this mannes Logique) Christe is not really, but by a similitude or figure only sacrificed of Priestes euery day. Further­more, bicause the myndes of holy virgins be meete Aul­ters for Christ daily to be offered vpon (to wit, by daily meditation of his Passion) as S. Ambrose sticketh not to say:Ambro. de Virginib. lib. 2. therefore Christe is no more really present vppon the real Aulters of the Churche, when the Sacrifice of his body and bloude is offered by the Priest, then he is in the mynde of a pure and holy virgine deuoutly thinking of his death. Seme not these reasons to procede from a profounde Diuinitie? What is this, but to confounde [Page 199] one truth with an other truth, and to vndoo al proper speaches, by figuratiue and metaphorical Phrases? He should haue remembred, that euen they of his owne side doo teache, that we ought not to ronne vnto tropes for the vnderstanding of any point, onlesse there felowe a great absurditie, if the wordes be taken in their proper signification.

That this myste of M. Iewels confusion be discussed and put a waye, who is so vnskilful in maters of our faith, that putteth not a manifest difference betwen the set­ting forth of Christes death vnto our vnderstanding by reading the Scriptures, and the representation and cō ­memoration of the same vnto our faith by the Sacramēt of his body and bloude?The difference of Christes being in the Sacri­fice, and in the reading of the storie of the Gospel. In that a Description only by wordes is made of the order and manner of putting Christ to death, whereby an Image thereof is imprinted in our vnderstanding and memorie. In this the body of Christe, that was put to death, is present, layd before vs according to his worde, This is my body which is geuen for you. That is a general meane to come to the knowledge of Christes death. This is a special meane to remember his death.Luc. 22. That is common vnto the Infidel reading the storie of the Gospel, as wel as vnto the faithful. This is proper to the true Christiā geuing credit to Gods worde. That may be conueniently reade by euery priuate man at al times, and in al places. This can not duely be con­secrate and ministred, but by a Priest lawfully ordered, and that in time and place appointed. That may be read by a wicked man without increase of his sinne. This can not be consecrate nor receiued of any being in dead­ly sinne without increase of his farther damnation. This [Page] is, and euer hath bene by the Churche called and taken for the very body and bloud of Christe. That neither is, nor euer hath ben commonly so called or taken. This is a Sacrament, and the Sacrifice of the new Lawe. That is neither of them both. Finally, that feedeth the vnder­standing onely. This is the foode both of soule, and bo­dy to life euerlasting. These differences being so appa­rent, so greate, and of such importance, who can other­wise iudge, but that Christes presence in the Sacrifice of the Churche, must be after a more substantial and real manner, then in the letter of the Gospel, or in the reading thereof?

Moreouer if he be present in the Sacrament and Sa­crifice, none otherwise then he is at the reading of the Gospel, then is the Sacrifice and Sacrament superfluous. For to stirre vp in our myndes the remembraunce of Christes Death, it should suffice to reade, or to heare readen daily the storie of the Passion without any cele­bration of the Sacrament. But Christe knowing the dulnesse of our hartes to be such,M. Ievvel acknovvledgeth Christes presence in the Bless. Sa­crament no other­vvise thē in the sto­rie of the Gospel, vvhen it is read ād heard. that woordes be not sufficient to repaire our memorie, and to stirre vp our affection without the presence of some thing of more Maiestie then woordes be, of his tender loue leafte to his dere spouse the Churche besides his Gospel, a thing of most excellent Maiestie, his owne flesh and bloude: that we being assured through faith of his real presence in our Mysteries, should more dreadfully reuerence him, more expressely remember him, more affectuously loue him, and by the worthy receiuing of it, be made parta­kers of the fruit of his Passion. Of this presence, and of this great fruit, would M. Iewel with al his lewde harte [Page 200] bereue vs, by making Christe present in the Myste­ries none otherwise, then he is at the reading of the sto­rie of the Gospel, that is to say, onely by the compre­hension of our vnderstanding and by faith: And that he is as truly now hanging vpon the Crosse, when we reade the storie of his passion, and do by the eyes our of Ima­gination beholde him hanging, as he doth sacrifice him selfe, when his body is sacrificed, as S. Ambrose before al­leged, speaketh.

Touching the right vnderstanding of this place of S. Ambrose,VVe see Christ hā ­ging on the Crosse and grope his vvoū ­des, tvvo vvaies. we see Christe hanging vpon the Crosse, and thrust our fingers into the dentes of his nayles, twoo waies. either by faith, or by charitie. Faith hath eyes to see, and fingers to feele. But what manner eyes, and fin­gers? spiritual. Through faith we see Christe han­ging vpon the Crosse,Hovv vve see the vvoū ­des of Christ by faith. and feele his woundes. That is to say, The benefite of his Passion through the merite of faith is imparted vnto vs nolesse, then if we behelde him with our eyes hanging vppon the Crosse, and with our fingers touched his woundes. Of them that haue this faith our Lorde saith in the Gospel,Ioan [...] 20. Beati qui non viderunt, & crediderunt. Blessed by they, that haue not sene (with bo­dily eyes) and beleeue. Neither saith S. Ambrose plainely, that we see Christe with our eyes hanging vpon the Crosse, Ambros. In Luc. lib. 5. c. 7. and that we thrust in our fingers, and searche his woundes, as to your aduantage you report him: but correcting him selfe, he saith, Videmur vidisse eum &c. We seeme to haue seene him, and with the searching sprite of the Churche to haue groped his woundes. He attributeth al to the spirite, which through faith seeth, and feeleth.

By charitie we behold Christ hāging vpon the Crosse, [Page] and thrust our fingers into his woundes,Hovv vve see Christ [...]uffering [...] by Charitie. bicause through charitie we are in that body of Christe, to witte the Churche, which seeth Christe so hanging, and thrusteth the fingers into his woundes. For what grace, vertue, miracle, or other excellencie so euer is in the Body of the Churche, through the merite of charitie, which causeth participation of al good thinges to be common, euery one that is of that body,Augu. ser­mone. 188 De tem­pore. may say, that he hath the same. In consideration whereof S. Augustine saith no­tably: If any wil say to one of vs, thou hast receiued the holy Ghost, Hovv speaketh the Chur­che vvith al tōgues. why speakest not with al tongues? He ought to Answer, I speake with al tongues, bicause I am in that body of Christe, in the Church, which speaketh with al tongues.

But how may it be vnderstanded, that the Churche speaketh with al tongues?Augu. ser­mone. 186. De Tem­pore. In asmuch as some of the Churche doo speake with al tongues. Therefore in an o­ther place he saith. In some Saintes the Churche worketh Miracles, in other Saintes it speaketh the truth, in other Saintes it kepeth virginitie, Guerricus abbas Ig­niacensis. Sermo. in die Purifi­cat. inter opera Ber­nardi. in other Saintes it kepeth the chastitie of wedlocke, in others this, in others that. Cer­taine vertues (saith a holy Father) though al persons haue not, yet let them loue him, who hath that, which they finde not in themselues, and then haue they in him that, whiche in them selues they see not, as Peter in Iohn hath the merite of virginitie, so Iohn in Peter hath the reward of Mar­tyrdom. 1. Ioan. 1.

The Churche be­holdeth Christ, and tou­cheth his vvoūdes.In whom then doth the Churche see Christe han­ging vpon the Crosse, and feele his woundes? In S. Iohn the Churche seeth him, who saith, That which from the beginning, we haue heard, we haue sene with our eyes, and our handes haue touched, &c. In the Apostles it behol­deth [Page 201] with eyes Christe vpon the Crosse, in S. Thomas it toucheth his woundes. That this seeme not strange, euen so saith S. Ambrose in the booke and chapter aboue mē ­cioned. Sed etiam nos vidimus in Iohanne, Ambros. in Lucam. lib. 5. ca. [...] oculis nostris perspeximus in Apostolis, & manibus nostris perscrutati sumus in Thomae digitis. Yea we also haue seene Christe in Iohn, with our eyes we haue beholden him in the Apo­stles, and with our handes we haue serched his woundes in the fingers of Thomas.

Now if this body the Churche, and consequently eue­ry one that is a member of this body, see Christe hanging vpon the Crosse, and with the fingers touche his woun­des, either bicause he hath the light and sight of faith, or bicause through Charitie he is incorporate and made a member of that body, and so seeth and toucheth by parti­cipatiō: what maketh this against the real Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ, frequented in the Church? Bi­cause this manner of seeing Christe, and of touching his woundes, whether it be through vertue of faith, or me­rite of charitie, is not real and in dede, wil you therof ga­ther an Argumēt, that Christ in the Sacrifice of the Chur­che is not really offered? O that you would make this Argument in Louaine, or Paris, or in any other famous Schoole of Diuinitie in the worlde, this Argument I say, ‘Christe is not now seene hanging vpon the Crosse, nei­ther be his woundes touched really and in dede: Ergo, he is not of the Priestes offered vp in the Mysteries really:’ You may be sure the Audience with hissing, and tram­pling would driue you out of the Schoole.