To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
In the new testament suche a sacrifice must remayne as may be dayly and perpetuall, and celebrated in euery place, as appeareth by the wordes of Malachy.
There can be no suche kynde of Sacrifice els, but the sacrifice of the Masse: proued by the Reasons before mentioned.
Ergo, The sacrifice of the Masse is that perpetuall sacri∣fice whereof Malachy doth prophecy, and which can not be dissolued.
* 1.1The words of the Prophet do so throughly expound the mea∣ning of the Prophett, as that they neéd none other interpreta∣tion. A pure offering (sayth Malachy) is offered vnto my name because my name,* 1.2 is great amongest the Gentiles. The Prophet doth playnely prophecy of the Church, which is to be gathered together from out emongest the Gentiles, of the enlarging of the Gospell,* 1.3 of fayth, of the knowledge of God, of calling vpon his name, of confessing his name, and geuing of thankes. And this pure and acceptable offering of the Gentiles by how farre it is outstretched and proclaymed ouer all the world, so much the more euidently it doth disclose the meaning of the Prophet. The Sacrifices of the Synagogue and of the Leuiticall wor∣shipping which were ministred with outward Ceremonies be abolished, to the end that spirituall Sacrifices (wherein God doth take greater pleasure) should supplye theyr place, who as he is himselfe a spirite, doth delight to be worshipped in spirite and trueth. And because this heauenlye and celestiall kinde of worshipping must be proclaymed euery where ouer all the face of the earth, therefore the Lord doth foreshew by the mouth of the Prophet, that it shall come to passe, that the great name of god should waxe mighty in all places & should be generally wor∣shipped wt worthy sacrifices & true honor. And by what meanes can this saying vphold this outward applicatory Sacrifices of ye Masse as they call it? And yet if they will neédes haue it so: what shall this be els, thē to descēd frō flesh to flesh? & to make a chaūge of the old Iewishnes with a new Iewishnes? S. Paule doth te∣stifie playnly of this Propheticall Sacrifice Rom. 15. That the Gētiles may glorifie God for his mercy,* 1.4 as it is writtē. For this cause will I prayse thee emongest the Gentiles. &c. Prayse the Lord all ye Gētiles.* 1.5 Psal. 117. And there shall spring a braunche out of the roote of lesse,* 1.6 in him shall the Gentiles trust. Esay. 11. That the offeringes of the Gentiles (sayth Paule) might be acceptable.
* 1.7Of the same Sacrifice, let vs now heare what Epiphanius and other writers doe write in their Commentaries vpon these wordes of Malachy.* 1.8 Sacrificing the Gospell (sayth Epiphanius) ouer all the face of the earth. Agayne. Tertullian agaynst Marci∣on in his 4. booke. I haue no pleasure in you, bycause from the rising of the Sunne to the going downe of the same my name is glorified, &
in all places a Sacrifice is offred vnto my name, yea and that a pure Sacrifice, what kinde of Sacrifice? he doth not say the Sacrifice of the Altar, but pure prayer, powred forth of a cleare consci∣ence. &c. And in his thyrd booke he doth him selfe expresse what kynde of Sacrifice, this is. Namely the proclamation of glory, thankesgeuing, and prayse, and Psalme. &c. The same Tertullian also Contra Iudaeos. Fol. 4.* 1.9 Wherfore thē doth the spirite Prophe∣cie afterwardes by the Prophetes, that it shall come to passe, that o∣uer all the earth, and in all places, sacrifices should be offred vnto God, as he spake by the mouth of Malachy, I will not accept the sa∣crifice of your handes? doubtles bycause the sounde of the preaching of the Apostles should be heard ouer all the world. Because God must be worshipped not with earthly sacrifices, but with spirituall, we read this, where it is written. A contrite hart is a sacrifice vnto God. And in an other place. Offer vnto God the sacrifice of prayse and paye thy vowes to the highest. After this maner therfore are the spirituall sacrifices of prayse noted: such an acceptable sacrifice to God is a contrite hart knowen to be. &c. Moreouer if you will learne what kynde of sacrifice of the Church this must be. Let vs heare the wordes of the same Tertullian to Scapula.* 1.10 And therfore we do offer sacrifice for the good preseruation of the Em∣perour, but we do sacrifice vnto our God and his: but how? euen as God hath commaunded vs, namely: with pure prayers. Thus much out of Tertullian. Irene is his fourth booke agaynst the here∣sies of Valentine and other like vnto him,* 1.11 cityng this place of Malachy: doth say yt by these wordes he made a most manyfest demonstratiō, that ye first people did cease to sacrifice vnto God, but in all places a sacrifice is offered vnto God, yea and that a pure sacrifice. But his name shalbe glorified emongest the Gen∣tiles. And in the 33. Chap. Iohn in his Reuelatiō (sayth he) doth call the prayer of the Sainctes by the name of Incense vnto the Lord. And in his 34. Chap. expoundyng the same place of Ma∣lachy. And therfore he will haue vs offerre an offryng at the altar without intermission.* 1.12 This Altar therfore is in the hea∣uens, for vnto that Altar must our prayers and oblations be dire∣cted, and to that Temple. &c. What shall we say to Augustine?* 1.13 Who writyng vpon ye same place, doth affirme ye Incense there is taken for the prayers of the faythfull. And immediately an∣nexyng
thereunto: When he sayd, I will not accept the Calues of thyne house: Offer vnto God the sacrifice of prayse. The same God by the mouth of this foretelling the thing that should come to passe as though it were done already, doth say. From the rising of the sunne to the going down of the same my name is glo¦rified emongest the Gentiles, and in euery place Incense is offered to my name, and a pure oblation. &c. You seé therfore Osorius by the testimonie of Augu. what kinde of pure sacrifice this is in Ma∣lachy, namely: That Prayse and Thankesgeuing is the continuall, and dayly sacrifice of the Christians: but especially when we doe represent the death of Christ, wherewith he redeémed us, and the cōioynyng of his mysticall body, by the partakyng of the holy Communion of the bread and wyne.
* 1.14Of ye same mynde also is Eusebius, who doth interprete this sacrifice of Malachy 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Which is as much to say Incēse of prayer. What shall I say of Ierome?* 1.15 Whose Ex∣position upō the same place of ye Prophet doth not vary from the Expositiō of Tertullian, affirming that the prayers of the faith∣full must be offred vnto the Lord, not in one onely prouince of Iury, but in all places. &c. Damascene is yet behinde, whose authoritie albeit doth geue no great credit to the cause, as being (to say no∣thyng els) a writer of no great antiquitie, yet euen in this same place, where by this vnbloudy Sacrifice, he noteth yt body & bloud of Christ, he spake playnly of ye Supper of the Lord: but maketh no mētion at all of the Masse, nor of the Sacrifice of the Masse.
Now I will aunswere to the Argument: Wherein to ad∣mitt the Maior: yet is ye Minor surely most false: which they do deuide into braunches on this wise.
First (say they) this dayly sa∣crifice that Malachy doth prophecy of, can haue no agrea∣blenes with the Leuiticall sacrifices, which are worne out of vse long sithence: neither do I deny this, what then? Neither could the Prophet here prophecy of the sacrifice of Melchi∣zedech, which was prefigured lōg before. You say very well. No more can it be vnderstāded of those spirituall sacrifices of the faythfull which are offered in mynde, and in spirite: Goe forth now. So neither can they be ascribed to the righte∣ousnes of workes, which the Prophet Esay doth reiect, be∣yng defiled as it were a menstruous cloth.* 1.16 I doe heare you.
Lastly, whereas the sacrifice of the Crosse was accomplished in one place onely at Ierusalem: The vnmeasurablenesse of this sacrifice, which is enclosed within no boundes of place can not be referred vnto that sacrifice. Well, conclude now at the length. It remayneth therefore, that the wordes of the Prophecy be construed to haue relatiō to the sacrifice of the popish masse: in the which christ him selfe being a most pure and most cleane sacrifice of it selfe is offered vnto God e∣mongst the Gentiles, in all places, yea euen now in the tyme of the new Testament, without end.
I do aunswere: where the Prophet doth name it a pure Sa∣crifice, therein he seémeth to wil nothyng els, but that abolishing all the Legall Sacrifices, which were offered by smoake, by smellyng sauour, and bloud, he did signifie certein other new reasonable Sacrifices, and vnbloudy, as Eusebius calleth them: namely spirituall and mysticall Lyturgies of the Church, and inward Sacrifices of the faythfull: which albeit do seéme of thē selues vncleane and menstruous, yet beyng purged and made cleane by the bloud of Christ, are accompted reasonable and ac∣ceptable in the sight of GOD: to witt, by that reason, as all thynges are sayd to be cleane to them that be cleane:* 1.17 And that which God hath made cleane, ought no man to accompt vncleane. In the which sence, the faithfull are commaūded to lift vppe pure handes in prayer, in S. Paule. Whereupon Eusebius doth say, that we do kindle the Insence of prayer, and doth call the same,* 1.18 a pure sacrifice, which we do execute, not with bloud and goare, but with pure actions.
Moreouer where the Prophet doth adde. In euery place: as these wordes preuayle nothyng for the credit of the Masse, so doth it extenuate our Religion of the Sacrifice of the Crosse no∣thyng at all. For albeit Christ the most sweéte Sauiour did suf∣fer his Passion no more but once, and in one place only, at Ie∣rusalem, this withstandeth nothyng at all, but that the efficacy dignity, and memoriall of this Sacrifice receaued by fayth, may ouer spread and be frequented in all places, and tymes. Where∣upon we do heare Chrisostome discoursing very playnly.
Nei∣ther did it therefore repent God of the Priesthood (sayth he) be∣cause the sacrifice, which he did offer vpon the Crosse doth so re∣maine
acceptable in the good pleasure of God, and permanent in endlesse power, that the same oblation should be lesse effectuall now in the sight of his Father, then it was the very same day,* 1.19 wherein water and bloud gushed from out his wounded hart, and the woūdes remainyng discernable alwayes in the body, should exact the price of mans redemption. &c.
Which if were truely spoken by Chrisostome, what neéde any more ••tteration of Sacrifices vpon altars for the saluation of soules? especially sithēce according to the generall & publique consent of ye Doctours, there is none other Sacrifice for sinnes but this one onely oblation vpon the Crosse, neither is any other Sacrifice acknowledged of ye Church, but ye onely which cōsisteth of the memoriall and thankfull remembraunce of that Sacrifice vpon the crosse. Innumerable testimonyes might be vouched out of the Doctors agreéing altogether in this sence and mea∣ning.* 1.20 But I doe seé that thauthorityes to Iustify this cause doe amount to an infinite number. This is an old and a true saying of Eusebius. That he gaue to vs a remembraunce to offer to God continually in steéd of Sacrifice.
What shall we say of Lombard: who doth affirme that this priestly Sacrifice is nothing els then a memorial and Repre∣sentation of that true oblatiō offered vpon the Crosse.* 1.21 Frō which sweéte agreable consonancye of Authors Nazianzen doth no∣thing differ, calling the exemplar of great Misteryes the Sacri∣fice of prayse.* 1.22 What say you to Iustine Martyr? Esay doth not promise (sayth he) a restoring agayne of bloudy Sacrifices, but true and spirituall oblations of prayses and thankesgeuing. &c. And Au∣gustine:* 1.23 Christ did deliuer a similitude of that Sacrifice to be cele∣brated in Remembraunce of his passion.
And the same Augustine in an other Place.* 1.24 Christ did geaue a representation of that Sacrifice to be celebrated in the Church for a memoriall of his passion.
* 1.25And agayne: The flesh and bloud of this sacrifice after the as∣cention of Christ is celebrated by a sacrament Memoriall.
To be short, if the controuersy shall be decyded by the Testi∣mony of Doctors: ye generall consent of all the learned Antiqui∣tye doth agreé and concurre in this question: namely that neuer any one of them would establish any other Sacrifice for sinnes,
besides that one onely Sacrifice, which Christ alone at one tyme onely, once and in one place, did enseale, and Ratify with his owne precious body, and bloud vpon the Altar of the Crosse. Of which Sacrifice albeit the thing it selfe (being once already performed) be past, and ye tyme thereof determined: yet doth the power & effectuallnesse thereof remaine vnmoueable, sure, and vndeterminable beyond all ages: And the dayly celebration thereof is reteigned in all places of Christendome for an euer∣lasting remembraunce: and for that cause it is oftentimes cal∣led by the name of that Sacrifice, whereof it doth represent a memoriall: not because our sinnes doe neéde any other Sacrifice from henceforth: but that our fayth being dayly exercized in these outward helpes, may be continually enured to know what benefites it hath receaued of her Sauiour, and how much lykewise it is indebted vnto him.
Not much vnlyke to the people of Israel, who by the bloud of the Passeouer were deliuered from the Tyranny of Pharaoe.* 1.26 In deéde they were deliuered once: yet neuerthelesse the Pascall Lambe was slayne euery yeare, for a remembraunce of their deliueraunce: wherein was neither any passage of Angell seéne, nor deliueraunce of the people. In lyke maner, for asmuch as we also be made so freé from any guilte of Sinne and bondage of death, by the one onely Sacrifice of the Lordes passion: as that there is no neéde now of any Sacrifice from henceforth for the full redemption of Sinnes: to vs now is this most blessed Supper & Eucharist instituted for a perpetuall memoriall of that inestimable benefitt: which albeit haue no power, nor ef∣fectuallnesse of ye oblation, which it doth represent, yet is it dig∣nified with the name of that Sacrifice, in respect of the honora∣ble representation of the thing represented. And thus much hi∣therto touching Malachy. Now let vs seé what moates these Sophisters doe knitt together touching Melchizedech.* 1.27
It behoued that the figure of Melchizedech should be fulfilled in the true Priesthood of Christ.
Melchizedech did offer bread and wine vnto God, which was a figure of the body and bloud of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine.
Ergo, Christ did offer at his last supper his body and
bloud, vnto God the Father vnder the formes of bread and wine.
As touching the necessary agreéablenesse of the things and the Types mentioned in the Maior, we doe agreé together.* 1.28 For it is vndoughted true that Augustine teacheth in his 10. booke De Ciuitate Dei. the 5. Chap.* 1.29 That the thinges of the olde Testament be representations of the things of the new Testa∣ment. But all that which is assumed in the Minor concerning the Sacrifice, is of all partes false: both in respect of Christ, and in respect of Melchizedech. For as much as neither of thē did euer institute any Sacrifice for sinnes in bread: what then, will you say? did not Melchizedech represent ye Type of Christ our Sauior? there is nothing more true. But we must cōsider wher∣in, and by what meanes this agreéablenes may be correspondēt: In the Priesthood (I suppose) and not in the Sacrifice. For comparison is made of a Priest with a Priest: not of a Sacrifice with a Sacrifice. Thou art an euerlasting Priest (sayth he) after the order of Melchizedech?* 1.30 which in mine opinion is in threé re∣spectes. First in the participation of kingly name: For they were both called kinges of Iustice and peace. 2. by reason of the Priestly kindred: whereas both were Priests without know∣ing any Parentage of whom they came .3. according to the per∣petuity of priesthood, because the priesthood in thē both was wtout beginning & without ending: vnto whom in ye Priesthood was ne¦uer assigned Successor, or predecessor. The playne explanation whereof doth appeare in no place more euidently, then in the very Epistle of Paul to the Hebrues. Which making a collecti∣on of many braunches, in comparing the Priesthood of Melchi∣sedech together with the Priesthood of Christ, yet in all the same maketh no mention at all of any Sacrifice of bread and wine.
But they take exception, and say: forasmuch as Melchise∣dech was a Priest, by what reasō could he be a Priest without a Sacrifice? And who doth exclude Melchisedech being a Priest, from his Sacrifice? But there is none other Sacrifice of his extant (say they) in the holy scriptures, but in the bread and the wine which were offred as ornamentes of his Priesthood. A deép reason, as though he, that so many thousād yeares agoe
was a Priest without all beginning of tyme: did not at any tyme during this whole entercourse of tyme, offerr any Sacrifice vn∣to God besides this one Sacrifice onely. Which being an vn∣reasonable absurditie, yet not to contend long vpon this poynt, I would fayne be resolued of these Catholickes in one question: When Melchisedech did offer bread and wine, whether he did Sacrifice for Sinnes yea or no?* 1.31 I doe maruell what aunswere they will make hereunto. If they say nay: how then did he pre∣figure the Type of Christ? if they say yea. I aske agayne, whe∣ther the Sacrifices that are ordayned for the clensing of sinnes, must be done vnto God, or vnto men? If he did Sacrifice to A∣braham, a good fellowship tell vs what had Abraham to doe with our sinnes? Moreouer, I would learne this also: for as much as there cann no expiation of sinnes consist in Sacrifices with∣out shedding of bloud: and whereas in all this preparation of Melchisedech was no bloudshed at all, what force and efficacy of expiation could there be in that Sacrifice? or how could it be accompted a Sacrifice at all? Forsooth (say you) because these thinges offred did prefigure a certein resemblaunce of this to come. But what resemblaunce might be there, where no lykenesse could be appliable? If in the Sacrifice of Melchi∣zedech was nothing seéne but bread and wine onely: what is this to the purpose to establish the Satisfactory Sacrifice of the Masse wherein is left no croome of bread, nor droppe of wine?
But Melchizedech is called the Type of our Sauiour. That is true in deéde: But the Type is past, and the veritye supplyeth the place. Lett vs make a comparison betwixt the sampler and ye trueth.* 1.32 Melchizedech did bring bread and wine into the Armye, which he did offerr to Abraham, and not vnto God: neither did he bring bread and wine to be gazed vpon, nor to be worshipped, not to release offences: but he deliuered it to Abraham, to refresh him, and his Souldiors, after their long and paynefull Iourney. The same which Melchizedech did in the Army, Christ hath perfourmed in his supper: who taking the bread and the cupp in his handes did not offer there his body vnto his Father, but did distribute the bread & wine peécemeale, in the name of his body, and he commaunded them to eate: where is there yet any Institution, or any signification of a Sacryfice?
I doe behold in Melchizedech a figure: but I acknowledge the veritye in Christ: I doe conceaue also a participation made of bread and wine by them both: yet all this while I seé no Sacri∣fice. Both of them offred bread and wine to nourish: namely Mel∣chizedech vnto the Patriarche, and to his souldiours, and not vnto God: Christ to his disciples, not to ye Father, but vnto men: after the vsuall maner of men that vse mutually to present eche other with giftes. Besides this also the Patriarche with his people, & Christ with his disciples were altogethers pertakers of that which was geuen.
Goe to now: and in what sense may all this be applied to the holy sacrifice of the Masse?* 1.33 Surely if you deriue the reason of your sacrifice from Melchizedech, he brought forth nothing but bare bread and wine: but you retayne neither bread nor wine: and in all the rest make no man partaker of your action. But one man alone deuoureth vpp all the Supper & yet not the supper, for he maketh a sacrifice of the Supper rather: the bread heé chaungeth into the body: being chaūged, he vaunceth it on high to be tooted vpon: being gazed vpon throughly, he doth sacrifice it for the quicke and the dead. Truely I beleéue neither Melchi∣zedech in his actiō, nor Christ in his supper did any such thing at any time, no more can you make that iustifiable that you doe now by any approued testimony of the scripture, or lawfull example of antiquitye.* 1.34 But here will some one vrge agayne: what? did not Melchizedech offer bread and wine then? I doe not deny it: was he not a Priest? Yes surely, and a king also. For he was both the king of Salem, and the Priest of the most high God. But he was not therefore a Priest, because he did of∣fer bread & wine: Nor did he geue bread and wine being a King, because he would make a sacrifice thereof: No more did he offer his presentes vnto God, but vnto Abraham: neither yet of any priestly duety but of a kingly magnificence: moreouer he did not onely geue giftes which was the poynt of a princely hart: but he blessed them also: which was part of a priestly function. For Priestes are wont to blesse men sometime: but they do neuer ac∣custome themselues to offer sacrifice to men.
The wordes of the History are playne and well knowne. Therefore lett vs returne to the very springhead and originall
(according to the ••ounsell of Cyprian) if it may please you. After the olde Trāslation the wordes be thus.* 1.35 Melchizedech King of Salem bringing forth bread and wine (for he was the Priest of the highest) did blesse him. &c.* 1.36 Although here be not so muche as a word of Sacrificing. Yet in this translatiō is no litle difference from the very originall: whereas chaunging the copulatiue He∣brue sillable for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 it readeth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But Moyses expresseth thys sentence after an other sort, for he doth vse not the word of Sa∣crificing, but hath [Hozia] which word what it signifyeth ac∣cording to ye verye naturall proprietye, I referre me to ye iudge∣ment of the learned. After the same maner also doth the chalde∣an expositor interpret the same.* 1.37 And Iosephus an especiall wit∣nesse hereof doth expound it after the same sence.
For Melchize∣dech (sayth he) did Banquet the souldiours of Abraham: suffe∣ring them to lack nothing necessary for their sustenaūce, and with∣all inuited Abraham to be a Guest of his owne Table. Wherein the courtesy of the King is commended that disdained not to make A∣braham a Guest of his owne Table.Whereupon you seé that it is most false which they do assume in the Minor touching the obla∣tion of Melchizedech, who being both a Pryest, and a Type of Christ, is not called therefore a Pryest neuerthelesse in the histo∣ry, because he brought forth bread and wine as is declared be∣fore.
But agaynst this, is there a strong countermure raysed,* 1.38 namely the Authority of ye Tridentine councell, wt a very horri∣ble cursse annexed thundring out after this sort. Whosoeuer shall say that the Masse is onely a sacrifyce of prayse and thankesgeuing, or a bare memoriall of the Sacrifice per∣formed vpon the Crosse, and not a propitiatory sacrifice: or that it auayleth to the Receiuer onely, and ought not to be offered for the quick and the dead, for sinnes, for punish∣mentes satisfactions and other necessityes, let him be holdē accursed.
If he shall be holden accursed, whosoeuer shall so say:* 1.39 surelye the very same haue all the auncient Deuines before mentioned spoken and affirmed. All the Doctors especially of the primi∣tiue Church haue both sayd so and taught so: neither did the whole Greéke Church almost teach otherwise, not exempting
out of the same beadroll all the Apostles of Christ, no nor Christ himselfe: vnlesse perhappes the Tridentine Lordinges will e∣steéme themselues to be of greater creditt, and authoritye then Christ and the Apostles, that so it may be lawfull for them to coyne a newfāgled Gospell, wherewt Christ & his Apostles were neuer acquainted. First what the opinion of the doctors is here∣in hath bene expressely set downe before. Surely Christ himselfe and the Apostle Paule do require nothing els in this celebratiō but onely a memoriall, and an expressing and shewing forth of the Lordes death: nor doth seéme to determine vpon any other end of this Sacrament, then a remembraunce with a thankes∣geuing.* 1.40
This do ye (sayth Christ) in remembraunce of me. And Paule deliuering to the Corinthians the same which he receiued of the Lord doth commaund them to shew forth the Lordes death whensoeuer they do celebrate this Supper vntill he come agayne.* 1.41Now I beseéch thee gētle reader, doost thou heare any thing els in these wordes of Christ and his Apostle, then the shewing forth of the Lordes death onely? And what els will the Tridentine councell exact of vs? Forsooth, that we shall agayne and agayne offer ye sonne of God for a sacrifice to God the Father, for the re∣mission of sinnes world without end: a sacrifice (I say) not sacra∣mentall onely, but very propitiatorye, which may helpe and be profitable not for the receiuer onely, but may procure saluation for ye quicke & the dead also, and wh thought to be offred of very ne∣cessity for the ease of punishmentes, of satisfactions, and of all other miseries, & afflictiōs of this present lyfe. But by what au∣thority do they proue this? where do they finde this? of Christ? of his Apostles? or of any prescript word of Gods gospell? No tru∣ly, I am not of yt mind. But why do I demaūd this of thē, what warrant they haue by the word of God? Lett it suffice me rather to admonish thē to beware, lest through the selfe same Sacrifice wherewith they iudge themselues able to satisfy for their owne and other mens punishmentes and sinnes without all warrant of Gods word, yea rather most wickedly requgnaunt to the ex∣presse word of God, they procure and heape vpon themselues lust damnation for this their shamelesse and horrible Idolatrye: which they shall neuer be able to redeéme with all their massings and Iuggling Sacrifices.
It might seéme that we had alleadged sufficiently for thys matter, and euicted the controuersy throughly, if we were not pestered with such brawlers that dyd not delight rather to contend and striue for theyr owne victory, then for the glorye of Christ, or with such as would be satisfied with any authoritye of scriptures, in ye discouery of ye truth of ye question. But they being now pressed downe, and quyte ouerthrowen with the multitude of testimonies out of the sacred scripture, fleé to the testimonies of men.* 1.42 As though Diuinity (as Tertullian sayth) ought to be valued by the deuises of men? or that the touchstone should be try∣ed by the golde, and the golde not by the touchstone: or that the course of ye Sonne should be apportioned after the will of Iohn Clockekeéper, and Iohn Clockekeéper not ruled rather by the course of the Sunne. And on this wise now our catholicks bend their force with Testimonyes and Consent.
The Catholicke Churche hath alwayes hitherto from the age of the Apostles ratified those obseruaunces & this doctrine of the sacrifice of the Masse:* 1.43 whiche it would neuer haue done, vnlesse this doctrine had bene agreable with the word of God.
Ergo, They are worthy to be accursed whosoeuer will spurne agaynst this Catholicke doctrine.
And because they may seéme to speake this not without some good ground: they haue scraped together a few shreddes out of Auncient Fathers namely: Cyprian, Hesychius, Ierome, Am∣brose, Irene, Oecumenicus, wherewith they may bolster vpp not their credytt, but their false packyng shuffled in among, to delude the simple people withall.
Out of Cyprian is vouched first this sentence in an Epistle of hys.* 1.44 For why rather (sayth he) the priest of the high God, then our Lord Iesus Christ, who did offer a sacrifice vnto God the Fa∣ther, and did offer the selfe same that Melchizedech did, namely bread and wine, to witt, his body and bloud. &c. And immediately after:
As therefore it is sayd in Genesis that the representatiō of the sacrifice did goe before by Melchizedech consisting of bread and wine, which thing the Lord performing and accomplishing did offer the bread and the cupp mingled with wine: and he that it fulnesse it selfe, hath fulfilled the verity of the prefigured represen∣tation.
Whereupon groweth this Argument.
We are commaunded to do the same that Christ did.
Christ did at his supper offer the Sacrifyce of his bodye and bloud.
Ergo, We also ought to do the same, if we beleeue Cypri∣an.
* 1.45I do acknowledge the wordes of Cyprian: I doe allow the authority: neyther doe I sist out ouer narrowly, how he doth a∣greé herein with the trueth of the hebrue letter because he sayth that Melchizedech did offer bread and wine, and that vpon this offring hys Pryesthood was grounded, because he did offer bread and wine. As though Melchizedech were not a Pryest before he offered bread and wine. Neyther doe I presume to take vpon me to aunswere herein as Augustine did aūswere Crescentius.* 1.46 I am not bound to the authority of this Epistle, because I doe not accompt the Epistles of Cyprian as canonicall, but I do measure thē by the Canonicall scriptures: And whatsoeuer I finde in him a∣greable with the authority of Gods word, I doe allow of it, and cō∣mend him therefore: but whatsoeuer is contrary to Gods word, I do by his patience refuse it. &c. And therefore lett those sayinges of Cyprian be true and autentick for me. Goe to then: and what aduantage hereof may be gathered for the ratyfiyng of the po∣pish sacrifice, wherein they do say that they do offer the sonne of God really for a propitiatory sacrifice, which is auayleable not to the Receauer onely, but to the quicke and dead also? We are commaunded (sayth he) to do the same that Christ did at his last supper. But he did not offer sacrifice for himselfe at his last supper as I suppose. And how then doth the Pryest do the same thing that Chryst did? yet neuerthelesse he did offer at his supper his owne body and bloud.* 1.47 Did he offer it for sinnes yea or nay? If you say yea. The Apostle will deny it, who did ac∣knowledge none other sacrifice of Christ but onely one, and doth likewise affirme that Christ was offered once onely to purge and wype away the sinnes of many. If you say nay, how then doe the Priestes the selfe same, who do sacrifyce for sinnes, as they say? But I returne agayne to Cyprian. Christ (sayth he) accompli∣shing in effect and trueth that which went before in a shadow, dyd offer his owne body and bloud. This is true in deéd. But where did
he offer it? at his supper? surely so say the Papistes. But Cypriā doth not say so. For whereas he speaketh of bread and wyne mixt together, what he meaneth thereby he doth imediately declare in the same Epistle very playnely, and doth interpret himselfe o∣penly: that it may appeare that this was not done at the tyme of hys supper: but doth confesse that the same was performed at the passion and death of our Lord, which was foreshewed and prefigured before, And agayn a whiles after, he shall wash (sayth he) his garment in wyne, and his vesture in the blood of the grape. Now when it is named the blood of the grape, what els is decla∣red then the wine of the cupp of the blood of the Lord? And thus much Cyprian,* 1.48 not meaning the supper surely, but the crosse of Christ: which doth appeare euidently by this, that he annexeth forthwith in the same place, denying that we are able to drinke the blood of Christ vnlesse Christ had bene troden and prest in the wine presse first, and had dronken of the Cupp before, of which Cupp he should haue tasted first to the beleeuers. Which speéch of Cyprian forasmuch as can not be aptly applied to any other thyng then to the sacrifyce of the Crosse: it may easily appeare hereby what aunswere ought to be framed to the Argument.
The same which Christ did, must be imitated of vs.* 1.49
Christ did offer at his supper hys bodye and his bloud according to the Testimony of Cyprian.
But this is false. For Cyprian throughout all that whole Epistle, did neuer affirme that Christ dyd offer his bodye and bloud at hys supper, but vpon the Crosse. If an Argument must neédes be framed from out the wordes of Cyprian, we shall ar∣gue much more probably on thys wyse.
The same that Christ did offer we must offer also:
Christ did offer the same that Melchizedech did.
Ergo, We must offer the same that Melchizedech did.
But Melchizedech did offer bread & wine, according as Cy∣prian doth witnesse,
Ergo, We also must offer bread and wine.
Is there any sillable here that may helpe the Papistes cause, or vtterly ouerthrow it rather?
Here is an other boane to pycke vpon raked out of Ierome,* 1.50 where he sayth, Melchizedech in the Type of Chryst dyd of∣fer
bread and wyne: and dyd dedycate a Christian Mystery in the bloud and body of our sauiour. &c.
* 1.51This knott also is cleane cutt away with the very same two-edged Axe, for I am not ignoraunt that the Ecclesiasticall wri∣ters doe make comparison now and then betwixt the presentes of Melchizedech which he gaue to Abraham, and the sacrifice of Christ vpon the Crosse: to witte, that one figuratiuely, this o∣ther truely and in veryty. Be it now as they say. Yet is thys no good proofe notwithstandyng to iustify, that the Priest doth forth with offer the Sonne of GOD in the mysticall Supper real∣ly to God the Father in full remyssion of sinnes: And yet here also do not all the holy Doctours agreé amongest themselues in all poyntes: whereas some do compare the oblation of Melchy∣zedech with the Sacrifice of the Crosse: Agayne other do com∣pare it with the Celebrating of the holy communion: yea and do make it equiualent therewyth. Some do neyther agreé with thē∣selues, applying the Allegory now this way, now that way, and many times both waies.* 1.52 Finally though they should be vniforme in theyr Allegory, yet how true that Argument is that is deri∣ued from an Allegory, accordyng to that saying which is com∣mōly frequēted in schooles which doth affirme that an Allegori∣call Argument concludeth no trueth: I referr me to the Logi∣cians.
* 1.53Of no greater valydyty is that Argument lykewyse which they rake out of Augustines wordes. For on thys wyse is Au∣gustine cited: Melchizedech (sayth he) did deliuer to Abraham first as to thè Father of the faythfull the Eucharist of the body & bloud of Christ. &c.
* 1.54To graunt this vnto them as for confessed, which neuerthe∣lesse resteth yet vnproued: That Melchizedech did represent the Euchariste in a type, and vnder a veyle of likenesse: yet whereas he offered nothing but bread and wyne: this is not a good argument to proue, that the Pryest which doth celebrate the Masse, shall by and by offer vpon the Altar vnto God the Father, the very same substaunce of his sonne for sinnes, whiche suffered on the Crosse. Neyther is thys forme of argument al∣lowable in Schooles.
Melchizedech did represent the Eucharist in a figure.
Ergo, The flesh of the sonne of God is really offered for the quick and the dead in the Masse or Communion.
But lett vs proceéde to the remnaunt of our Aduersaryes Fragmentes.
There is also thrust in place a saying of Hesychius who wri∣ting vpon Leuiticus:* 1.55 but as going before (sayth he) he did offer vpp himselfe in the Apostles supper: Which they do know who be partakers of the efficacy of the misteries. &c.
Nothing withstandeth, but that Christ may be sayd after a certeine sorte to offer himselfe to the Father in his last supper,* 1.56 euē by ye same figuratiue speéch: wherein ye Lambe is sayd to be slayne from the beginning of the world. Or as it is sayd in the old Testament, that oblation is offered by Sacrifices: in which phrase of speéch, the same Hesychius in an other place, in the same Chap. doth call Christ an Altar: & Christ being incarnate in the Uirgines wombe, to be a soddē Sacrifice: not in actuall veritye, & in naturall trueth of ye thing in deéde: but in power and vertue of a Mystery. Whereupon lett vs heare what aunswere August. doth make not vnaptly to these figuratiue speéches of Hesychius. was not Christ once offred in himselfe (sayth he:) And yet he is offred to the people not onely at euery solemne feast of Easter, but euery day also: Neither doth he lye, that being de∣maunded shall aunswere that he was Sacrificed: For if Sacraments hadd not a certain lykenesse of the thinges, whereof they be Sacra∣mentes, they should not be Sacramentes at all. Thus much Augustine, whose authoritye if be not of sufficient creditt: Lett vs annexe thereunto the Sentence of Lombard. For thus speaketh he. After this (sayth he) question is demaunded, whether the action of the Priest, may be called a Sacrifice proper∣ly? or an oblation? And whether Christ be dayly offred? or whe∣ther he be offred once onely? whereunto may be aunswered briefe∣ly: That the thing that is offred, and consecrated by the Priest, is called a Sacrifice & an oblatiō:* 1.57 because it is a memoriall and a re∣presentatiō of the true sacrifice, & an oblatiō offred vpon the Altar of the Crosse. For Christ did suffer death vpon the Crosse once, and was there offred in himselfe: But he is dayly offred in the sacra∣ment: because in the same sacrament a memoriall is made of the same thing; that was once offred. &c. And because we may not
seéme to want witnesses: lett vs couple hereunto the common Glosse differing nothing at all from the Maister of the sentēces: which enterlacing a commentary vpon the place of Augustine, where Christ is sayd to be Sacrificed: De consecrat. Distinct. 2. he doth expound the wordes of the distinction on this wise.* 1.58 Christ is sacrificed: That is to say: the sacrifice of Christ (sayth he) is re∣presented, and a memoriall is made of his passion. &c. Now Syr how doe these hang together with the decreés of the Tridentine ghostly Fathers? who are not satisfied to call the Masse by the name of Sacramentall Sacrifice, wherein a memoriall and a representation may be made of the Lordes Sacrifice vnlesse it be accompted also a Satisfactory, and Propitiatory sacrifice, be∣yond all consideration and trueth of Scripture, and besides all custome of the auncient Fathers.
But I retourne agayne to Hesychius: who sayth, that Christ did Sacrifice himselfe at his supper: which saying I do admitt. But Augustine doth playnely disclose what maner of Sacrifice that was: De consecratione distinct. 2. The very Sacrifice (sayth he) which is made with the Priestes handes is called the Passion of Christ, his death, his crucifying, not in the trueth of the thing in deed, but in a signifyeng mistery. &c. And agayne. When the hoast is broken, and the blood powred into the mouthes of the faythfull what is signified thereby els then the offering of the body of Christ, vpon the crosse. &c. Therefore such as be of sound iudgementes will say, that to deduct true and vnreproueable propositions frō the wordes that are spoken figuratyuely and after a certein sort, is a shyft of subtle sophisters, and not a poynt of sober Di∣uynes.
* 1.59After this ensueth a place out of Irene very much and many times canuassed by our Aduersaries. And he tooke (sayth he) that which is of the substaunce of bread, and gaue thankes saying. This is my body. And the cuppe likewise which is of the creature, of wine that is vsuall with vs, he did confesse to be his bloud, and did teach a new oblation of a new Testament, which the Churche receiuing from the Apostles, doth offer vnto God through the whole world, of the which amongest the twelue prophets. Malachy did prophecy on this wise. I haue no pleasure in you sayth the Lord God of hostes and I will not accept an offering of
your handes. &c.
The place of Irene whereupon they beate their braynes so busily,* 1.60 is chopt in here at this present according as the olde pro∣uerbe sayth: as good neuer a whitt as neuer the better: as iust as Germaines lipps. For whereas proofe ought to haue bene made, that the same boyd of Christ which was once hāged on ye Crosse & thrust through the side vpon the Crosse, is offered dayly in the Masse, really and substantially in an vnbloudy Sacrifice, for the redemption of sinnes (for hereunto tendeth their inuincible Maxime) they slipp away frō thēce now, & are come to shew, that we are bound to offer vnto God ye first fruites of all his creatures by ye commaūdemēt of God: least we may seéme vnthākefull & vn∣gratefull. For besides this, ye wordes of Irene emporte nothing. Now to graunt them all this, that Christ tooke bread, and the cupp of the Creature of wine that is vsuall with vs, and did call the same his bloud, what will all this preuaile to defend them in this lurking hoale? for the question here is not, whether we onght to make an oblation to God of the first fruites of all his creatures: nor whether Christ gaue his commaundement to his Apostles, which they did conuey ouer by tradicion to the Poste∣ritye afterwardes: neither is any question made here whether Christ, after he had taken bread, and the cupp, did say that it was his body and his bloud: but whether the bread which the Priest doth offer in his Masse, be really and substantially, and in trueth of nature, the body of Christ which himselfe hath ap∣poynted and ordeyned to be offred in his Church, by thapostles, and their successors, as Priestes of the new Testament, for a dayly expiation of sinnes. This foule absurdity, whereas we and the whole consent of the Scripture doe vtterly deny, you ought to haue deliuered cleare from inconuenience: which as yet you haue not done out of Irene. Although he doe make men∣tion of a new oblation of a new Testament, yet this doth not ar∣gue notwithstanding, that either Christ should be supposed to offer him selfe at his last supper: or that the Priest should be imagined to make a dayly Sacrifice in his Masse for sinnes, w̄t the selfe same body, wherein he suffered his Passion once vpon the Crosse for ye sinnes of the world. In deéde Irene doth tearme it by the name of an oblation: And it is true: so is it also many
tymes called of many of the auncient Fathers. Neither doe we mislyke the word: nor yet doe abbridge the ecclesiasticall wri∣ters from libertye to frequent their Metaphors, and hyperboli∣call speéches as lyketh them best. Howbeit the Scripture doth not acknowledge any such wordes: Neuerthelesse sith it plea∣seth them to accustome themselues with such speéches, lett them vse this name of oblation a gods name, and call this an oblati∣on which we doe call the Eucharist: we contend not about words: it is the matter it selfe that we stand vpon. The auncient Fa∣thers, because they seé a Communion instituted in rembraunce of the Lordes Sacrifice, doe call it by the name of a Sacrifice: by the same reason, wherby they doe vsually ascribe vnto signes the names and effectes of the thinges signified.
These Catholickes on the contrary side doe cry out and ex∣clame, that he is an Heretique that will dare to say, that the Sacrifice of the Masse is a bare memoriall of the Sacrifice of Christ, accomplished vpon the Crosse. Neither thinke this to be sufficient that it be reputed as a memoriall, but besides this bare memoriall, they proceéde yet to his outrage, that they en∣dowe it also with the very power and effectuallnesse of the Lords Sacrifice:* 1.61 so that whereas the passion of Christ is the onely me∣ritorious cause of our redemption: yet will they shamefully at∣tribute the whole efficacye and operatiō of that inestimable bene∣fitt, to the Masse: and in that respect they dare presumptuously commaund it to be called a sacrifice, not a Sacramentall, or a memoriall sacrifice, but an Expiatory & Propietatory sacrifice (that I may be so bold to speake their owne tearmes) And all∣though they doe not deny: that all our whole perfection doth pro∣ceéde frō ye onely oblatiō of Christ, Yet because this perfection is not made so absolutely perfect by the vertue and grace of Bap∣tisme, but that after our regeneration by grace, we slippe and fail many tymes into many offensiue bypathes in this transito∣rye lyfe, they doe affirme that this Sacrifice of the Church was prouided for a medicine to solue all those soares,* 1.62 & amperinges out of ye fleshe: & as a restoratiue not onely to them that receaue it, but very medictable for ye quick & for the dead also: as though forsooth the merites of Christes bloud could not heale our woū∣des, without this minglemangle of these Satisfactory druggs
How trymly this iugglyng doctrine doth agreé with ye natu∣rall & proportioned squarier of ye Scriptures, let others Iudge as they liste, I for my part, that do now & then exercise my tyme in the conference & readyng of Scriptures, & auncient writers, do verily iudge: that these notorious Maximes can not by any meanes be of any importaunce, except we plucke vppe our fayth by the rootes, and banish cleane away the very sinowes and mar∣row of the sacred Scriptures. For whereas the whole doctrine of Christes Gospell hath established all the treasure and riches of Gods promises, yea Christ him selfe wholy, withall his de∣seruyngs, in fayth onely, what shall remayne thē for this Sa∣crifice, but that it represent vnto vs a memory & remembraunce of the Lordes death onely? and for this cause taketh the denomi∣nation of an oblation by the testimony of Irene and others. The holy and sacred monumentes of aunciēt Doctours be full of Te∣stimonies, which do playnly declare, that the Euchariste is not an oblation properly: but is called an Oblation in respect, that it is a memoriall of Christes oblation performed once vpon the Crosse. Furthermore as concernyng the application: that it is ministred not by any other outward Instrument, them by the preachyng of the Gospell of Christ, and the dispensation of his Sacramentes, and that the benefitt thereof is receaued by none other meane, then by force of fayth onely.
Now therefore let vs first heare Irene as it were expoūdyng him selfe.* 1.63 We doe offer vnto God (sayth he) the first fruites of his creatures with thankesgeuing: He declareth that out of those first fruites of Gods creatures, ye substaūce therof was taken, which was cōsecrated into the body & bloud of Christ. And in this res∣pect he doth call ye whole action of ye Minister, an oblation. And agayne emongest other thynges treatyng of the oblation of the new Testament:* 1.64 he willeth vs also to offer a gift at the Altar cō∣tinually and dayly. Therfore (sayth he) there is an Altar in hea∣uen, and thither must our prayers and oblations be directed. &c. First, if the Church doe offer vnto God a gift of his owne crea∣ture: I suppose now that ye Catholicke children will not affirme that the Chruch doth offer the Sonne of God then. Moreouer if our Altar be in heauē, as Irene did truly say, to what purpose
shall these Altares stand in the Church? whenas we are taught to direct the Sacrifices of our supplicatiōs to the Altar, not these stony Altares in the Churches, but to that heauenly Altar that is in heauen?
* 1.65Moreouer what shall we say to Ambrose? who treatyng of Uirginitie, was not afrayed to call the Uirgines hartes, by the name of Altares, in the which Christ was dayly offred.
* 1.66And hereunto accordeth the Iudgemēt of Chrisostome. The gift of the Gospell (sayth he) doth ascend on high without bloud, without smoake, without an Altar, and without other the like. &c.
* 1.67So also Ierome: Euery faythfull person hath an Altar with∣in him selfe which is fayth.
* 1.68Augustine likewise: The Sacrifice of the new Testament is, when we do offer cleane and pure Altares of our hartes in the pre∣sence of Gods maiestie.
* 1.69And the second Councell of Nyce: We Christians do scarsely know what is an Altar, and what is an oblation.
* 1.70Agreable to the Testimonies before recited is the notable and playne Testimonie of Eusebius: We do sacrifice (sayth he) and do receiue a remēbraūce of that sacrifice, celebratyng the my∣steries accordyng to the ordinaūce deliuered by him selfe, and ren∣dring thankes vnto God for our safety. And agayne: We doe erect vnto him an Altar of vnbloudy & reasonable sacrifices accordyng to new mysteries. Furthermore he doth forthwith expresse what kynde of new Mysteries they be: Christ did offer (sayth he) a won∣derfull sacrifice for the safety of vs all. That is to say, he gaue vs a memoriall to offer to God, commaundyng vs to offer a memoriall for a sacrifice. &c.
* 1.71What shall I say of Cyrill. Who doth call the prayers and me∣lodious singing of fayth full soules praysing God cōtinually, vnblou∣dy sacrifices.
* 1.72And the same Cyrill writyng agaynst Iulian: We (sayth he) forsaking the grosse sacrifice of the Iewes haue a commaūdement, that we shall make a simple, spirituall, and a pearcyng sacrifice: And therfore we do offer vnto God for a sweete smelling sauour all kindes of godlynes, fayth, hope, and charitie. &c.
If this controuersie may be decided with the greatest part of voyces, who would require more wittnesses? if with authoritie?
who will demaunde more auncient and more learned? if by ex∣presse euidence of wordes: what is he so voyde of Reason, that cā not playnly conceaue by the premisses, that there is no one thyng more vntrue, then that which these braynesicke men haue by a most false and vnsauory inuention Imagined, concernyng the application and propiciation of this Sacrifice? for the vtter o∣uerthrow of which doctrine, what will more fittly serue the opor∣tunitie now offered, what cā be applyed more aptly for this pre∣sent, and more agreable to Reason, then to kill them with their own swordes, and to catch them in their owne pittfall? for where∣as the chiefest substaūce of a Sacrifice (especially such a Sacri∣fice as is offred for Sinnes) consisteth in slayeng of a body, and sheadyng of bloud: I would therfore learne of them, by what rea∣son the denomination of a Sacrifice may be properly applyable to their Popish Masse, whereas neither any slaughter of a body, or any sheadyng of bloud is discernable? But there is represen∣ted (say they) a memoriall of sheadyng of bloud. I do graunt it. The holy Euchariste therefore doth not expresse any actuall killyng of the body, or actuall sheddyng of bloud in truth and in deéde, but representeth it by a memoriall onely.* 1.73 Which bycause can not be denyed, we say, that hereof it commeth to passe: wher∣as Remission of Sinnes is not otherwise obteined then by kil∣lyng of some body, and sheadyng of bloud, that for this cause therefore the Euchariste which executeth no actuall sheadyng of bloud, but representeth onely a memoriall thereof, can not of it selfe geue forgeuenesse of Sinnes, but onely represent vnto vs a memoriall of the true Remission of Sinnes, by way of Repre∣sentation onely. And what accoumpt shall mē make now I pray you of that dreadfull Decreé of the Tridentine Fathers, who haue hundred out such flashes of horrible lightenyng, whereby they doe scorche cleane into powder,* 1.74 with their cursed Bull, all them whosoeuer dare vtter halfe a word so much, to say, that the Sacrifice of the Masse is onely a bare commemoration of that Sacrifice, finished vpō the Crosse, and not a propiciatory Sa∣crifice rather?
I draw now somewhat neare to the very Canō of the Masse:* 1.75 whereunto as these godly Catholickes do sticke most earnestly, and do settle in the same the chief prore and pewpe (as the Pro∣uerbe
is) and shooteanker of their whole Idolatrous Sacrifice: So doe they also in the same shyppe bulge them selues most of all, and with their owne cable ouerhale them selues into an vn∣recouerable gulfe. The Tenor of which Canon is this. Com∣maunde these giftes to be carried by the handes of thy holy Angelles vnto thyne hyghe Altar, &c. What? Can not Christ sitte on ye right hād of his Father, vnlesse he be posted ouer by the Priest, to be transported by Angelles vnto the highe Altar? whenas he hath bene in actuall possession of the highest heauens long sithence, not holpen thereunto by any person, and sitteth on the right hād of his Father, farre surmoūtyng in pow∣er, euen the most excellent ministery of Priestes and Aungelles? It followeth in the same Canō: Through whom thou doest alwayes create, sanctifie, and blesse all these good gifts. What is this that I doe heare? must Christ be created? blessed? and sanctified agayne?
I haue passed my boundes somewhat further perhappes in prosecutyng this controuersie, then the proportion of this our Apology would well admitt: But hereunto was I forced, part∣ly by ye peruersnes of Osorius, partly by allurement of necessary persuasion: for as much as I perceaued yt there is no one thyng throughout all the doctrine of this phātasticall Religion, where∣in our Catholickes doe sweate and turmoyle them selues more greédely, and raunge at riotte more perillously. And therfore I thought it not amysse to rippe abroad the whole matter, euen frō the very rootes of the foundation, and so to encounter the fran∣ticke attemptes, and engynes of our aduersaries. Wherein if I haue not satisfied all mens expectation, yet I trust that I haue reasonably brought to passe by this simple discourse, that the Reader may easily conceaue, how peéuish a plattforme this glo∣rious Peacocke hath forged for his peltyng Purgatory, and mumblyng maskyng Sacrifice, vauntyng them to be matters of such importaunce,* 1.76 as which the Apostles did deliuer ouer by mouth, and which their Disciples dyd deliuer ouer to the posteritie, and which the greatest consent of auncient Antiquitie with most Religious obseruaūce hath reteyned, and approued so many hundred yeares, with the generall
Fayth and allowaūce of the vniuersall Church, without any disagreement. But on the contrary part: as touchyng the Lutheranes, they are cōfuted with the authorities of the aū∣cient Fathers, and confounded with the generall consent of the whole Church, whō Osorius with his copemates haue vtterly discoūtenaunced and discomfited with vnuanqui∣shable Arguments, vncomptrollable testimonies, vnrepro∣ueable examples, and conuinced them of horrible impiety and wickednes. &c. In good sooth these be lofty, glorious, & ma∣gnificall speaches, but besides the bare soūde of wordes, no mat∣ter at all: which wordes if must of necessitie fleé into the Castle of creditt, bycause they be naked wordes onely without feathers, surely you are well furnished with a very ready pollicie of per∣suasion Osorius, and with a speciall practize for the speedy con∣quest of the cause. But by this very same deuise of yours, what a singular plattforme haue you layed forth for others to finde out the way to persuade as matter of truth, whatsoeuer they liste to blast out in bare wordes? For what is more easie then to pretend in word, & in speach those two wordes onely Church, and Anti∣quitie, if men wilbe contented to haue their mouthes choaked with such boanes? If the world be come to this passe, that whoso∣euer cā with finest floorish of wordes lauish abroad in the Church whatsoeuer him listeth, the same shall obteine greatest creditt and estimation of his speaches, without yeloyng any reason or demonstration of the thynges, which he vttereth, in good sooth then haue you spoken enough Osorius, and crackt the creditt of all the poore Lutherans vtterly, as you say. But if in decidyng of controuersies, trueth must be tryed, not wt bare speéches, but with substantiall matter, certes either you must gett a better vi∣sor for your glorious persuation, or els in my iudgement you were better hold your peace altogether.* 1.77 You doe oppresse vs in a glorious braggery of speéch, with the speéches of the Apostles, and with the tradiciōs of the Apostles disciples: And yet out of all the Apostles writings can not any man hitherto force from you, no not by violence, one title so much, which will auaile any ioate to ye creditt of those your Assertions, but will rather deface them & discouer your packing. Upon the neck of them, you do force vpon vs also the authoritye of auncient Fathers,* 1.78 and the
generall consent of the vniuersall Church, cleare from all maner of variablenes and disagreéing. What a iest is this? As though there were any one of those auncient Fathers euer borne as yet, that euer vttered one sillable so much of purging the sinnes of the faythfull, after they were once departed this lyfe: or of the Popes Pardons: of the Propiciatory Sacrifice of the Masse: of Transubstantiation, of Merite Meritorious, of Merite of Cō∣gruum and Condignum, or that euer durst presume to make the Sacrifice of the Altar comparable with the Sacrifice of the Crosse: or durst affirme that Christ himselfe was really in the consecrated hoast, with all the dimentions and liniaments of the same body, which suffred death vpon the Crosse: or would euer ascribe to a pelting Priest full power to Merite, and offerr Sa∣crifice for the quick and the dead. Now if euer you haue chaun∣ced vpon any such Doctrine in the writings of the auncient Fa∣thers, gentle Syr Byshopp, why doe yoe not vouch the same boldly, wherby you may seéme to haue confuted vs, not with bab∣ling, but with trueth, and substaunce of matter? But if you haue not so done as yet, nor seéme euer able to doe it: where is then that generall consent and agreément of the whole Church? Where be these Records and Monuments of auncient Antiqui∣tye, and of all foreages? Where be those inuincible Arguments? Where be those irreproueable Testimonyes, and vndeceiueable examples, wherevpon you crake so lustely? perhappes you will empart them vnto vs in your next bookes at your better leysure. For hitherto as yet you haue hadd no leysure to muster yt your braue guarison that you beare your selfe so stought vpon, and to leade them into the fielde, being otherwise surcharged with farr more weightie affaires.
And now to deteigne theé no longer(gētle Reader) thou hast heard heretofore howe this Portiugall hath powred forth his prattling Rhetorick for the vpholding of his Purgatory, his Uowes, his Supplications, and Prayers for the safety of the dead, and also of that most holy oblation of all other, the Sa∣crifice of the body and bloud of Christ offred for the reconcilemēt of Gods wrath and displeasure. There remayneth behinde the knitting vp of all this geare: Wherein purposing to make an end of his whole discourse, he rusheth vpon Haddon with all
the bent of his Eloquence.
Dare you be so bold (sayth he) to call this holynes of Re∣ligion,* 1.79 this ardent endeuour of Loue, this comfortable oblation offred, not for vs alone, but for our bretheren also, wherewith we are knitt together in an euerlasting amitye, to be defacinges & disgracements of Religion?A very hay∣nous offēce verily to call a Boate by the name of a Boate, and a Mattock by the name of a Mattock. But here was one sharde left open which must neédes be slopt vp with some brambles and Bryars. Is not this foolishnes? Is not this vnshamefastnes? Is not this Madnes? For if Osorius Eloquence were not furni∣shed with these flashing flames, surely it would be very colde. But how more commendable, yea how much more seémely and sittingly for his personage, in my conceipt, should he haue done, if surceasing these outragious exclamations, which preuaile not to the creditt of his cause the value of a pinne, he hadd discreet∣ly, and with sober reasons debated the matter first, and exami∣ned thoroughly whether Haddon hadd spoken trueth, or fal∣shood. If he haue vttered the trueth, then is Osorius frendly dealt withall: If he haue spoken any untruethes: there be scrip∣tures, there be arguments, meéte and couenable Reasons, wher∣with Osorius might easily both defend the truth of his Religiō, and preserue it from to be impeached by others. Spightfull re∣proching, Skornefull taunting, Cotqueanelyke rayling, Ras∣callyke raging, and Barbarous exclaming, further not the de∣fence of his cause. If Osorius be so fully settled, and so through∣ly wedded to his Church, that no persuasion will seduce him to thinke, that his Churche may straye by any meanes from the right course, and that in all his Religion is no wrinkle or spott, that may be amended, surely he is herein very much deceaued.
Conferr who so list the whole face & shape of the Popes Reli∣giō, to witt, his adoratiō, his Sacramēts, his Masses, his bread∣worshipp, his Imageworshipp, his Sacrifices, his Applicatiō, his Transubstantiatiō, his Releasing of sinnes, his Merits, his Ceremonyes, his Pardons, & sixe hundreth lyke papisticall trū∣peries, with the pure, & cleare founteines of the sacred Scrip∣tures, with the Institution Euangelicall, and the expresse rule of the doctrine Apostolique: and he shall easily perceaue, that
Haddon did vse an ouer myld maner of speéch, whē he called thē disgracements:* 1.80 Some other man perhappes would haue bla∣zed abroad these dreggs with some grosser tearmes. Truely if the Apostle Paul hadd heard these profound opinions, and these deépe deuises of the Romish Religion, and hadd seéne their de∣crees, their Cannons, their Clogges of Ceremonies, & snares of consciences, I he liued now and beheld these obseruations of dayes, Monethes, & times, these vowes, and restraintes of mē, forbidding Marriage, denying the lawfull vse of meates, which are now dayly frequented in the Church: would any man dought whether he would call these disgracements of Religion, or the Doctrines of Deuils rather?* 1.81 But because we haue spoken hereof sufficiently before: It shall be lesse neédefull to take this doung∣hill abroad any more.
But Osorius goeth forward, and because Haddō shall not escape s••••tfreé for naming his pontificall pilfe to be disgrace∣ments of Religion, Osorius acquiteth him with ye like beadroll of ye Lutherans corruptions in a long raggemarow of wordes: that so comparing both partes one with an other, to witt, Lu∣thers nakednes and beggery, wt the maiestie & glory of the Ca∣tholickes, he may make them to grow into the greater obloquy and hatred. It remaineth therefore that we geue eare a whiles vnto the gallaunt brauery and loftines of Osorius Eloquence:* 1.82
To abādon dutifull obediēce to the Magistrate, to disturbe the auncient ordinaunces of the Church, to defyle the vir∣ginitie of sacred Nunnes, to dispoyle the Chaste of their continencye, to raze out all endeuour of godlynes and hu∣manitye, to robb and ransack holy Churches, to murther holy Fathers, to spoyle some, and to oppresse others with infinite afflictions, to throw others out into miserable ex∣ile, to expresse vngodly malice and deadly hate agaynst the Reliques of Saintes, to be outragiously insolent in this vn∣measurable destruction and ouerthrow of all holy Religi∣on, is this a poynt of honesty? of Modesty? or worthy to be aduaunced with immortall commendation and prayse? Truely I doe not suppose so.But whereunto tend all these at ye last? forsooth to make you know what he meaneth hereby. And therfore marke now gentle Reader ye other part of his collation.
But to be subiect to lawfull Authoritye established by the commaundement and ordinaunce of Christ,* 1.83 to preserue the bandes of Vnitye and concord, to esteeme highly of the vniting together of Gods Iustice and mercye, to reue∣rence the monuments of notable holynes, to make that most Sacred and most heauenly Sacrifice for the quick, for the dead, finally for the preseruation of all Christian Com∣mon weales, the Maiesty and vertue whereof we are nei∣ther able to expresse with tongue, nor comprehend in thought and imagination: shall this be accompted shame∣full infamy, and an intollerable haynousnesse? And yet you blush nothing at all: to call these disgracements of Religi∣on. &c.
* 1.84To aunswere these great speéches at a word: First as tou∣ching those slaunderous crymes which you throw out agaynst vs as being Rebellious to ye lawfull Magistrate, what els shall I aunswere to this your Insolency, then ye same which Augu∣stine did Aunswere sometime to Petilianus? If I should speake as much of such as you are (sayth Augustine:) I am sure, you would require me to make profe of the wordes that I should speake. The selfe same doe I now require & looke for at your hāds Oso∣rius, which so lustely rayle agaynst vs at this present. Whereas you exclayme that we doe renounce dutifull obedience, doe disquiet auncient orders, doe betray Chastitye, ouer∣throw all mindefulnes, and endeuour of vertue and godly∣nes, doe raze downe Temples of Religion, doe kill and doe spoyle godly personages. If I should now demaund of you in the voyce of Augustine, how you be able to proue, that all the foresayd crymes & innumerable such lyke (which your raūging penne hath raged agaynst vs) may be duely fathered vpon vs, how would you proue it? Agayne how will you deny that your selues are not duely to be charged therewith? what aunswere will you make? for hitherto as you haue spoken much, so haue you proued nothing. Unlesse you be of this opinion, that your bare speéches must be taken for sufficient proofes. If you thinke so: what resteth els, but that we requite you with the same, that you reproch vs withall:* 1.85 or els we desire you to rehearse so much agayne in our behalues: and then is our profe sufficient
enough (as Augustine sayth) if such kindes of proues be al∣lowable.
If I should deale with you on this wise Osori. What would remayne of your accusatiō? But I do not handle you so now. For I frame myne aūswere otherwise, and in flatt denyall, make our purgation frō all that you haue raked together agaynst vs. You say that we refuse lawfull Aucthoritie.* 1.86 But I on the contrary part do affirme that this Aucthoritie which you name to be law∣full: is neither any Aucthoritie at all, neither lawfull by any meanes. Nay rather what if this Aucthoritie, whereof you bragge so much, be so farre from beyng lawfull, that it is most manifestly proued by the expresse wordes of the Scriptures to be the kyngdome of Antichrist?* 1.87 What then Osorius? will you in despight of our beardes make vs subiect to such a Tiranny, frō whence the manifest word of the holy Ghost doth commaunde to cutt of our selues, vpon perill of the losse of our soules, not onely in the old Testament, but in the new also, as is declared before?
You adde further that we do disturbe the auncient or∣der of the Churche, and dispoyle the continent of their Chastitie.
But I do deny that this order of yours is auncient, which I haue Iustified to be true before aboundaūtly enough with ma∣ny and sounde Testimonies. Moreouer as touchyng your chast Uirgines I know not what to say. Surely if Cloisters & Dor∣ters could as well haue made Uirgines, as they could couer their incontinency, it were not all amisse that you say: And yet it may be that in Portingall be many holy Nunnes, such as you preache of: who did neuer treade their shoes awry. But without all question to speake of our litle Englād, whenas the neastes of these prety sparowes were scattered abroad, how these neastes were founde then not altogether so cleanly, as was supposed, I had rather were notified by publick Recordes & Registers ther∣of, wherein they be decyphred at large, thē to be proclaymed by any my writyngs. Many Recordes wherof be at this present in my custody, which if I would vtter, would easily bewray, that in these close Cloysters of coacted chastitie, were more open bellied Nunnes, thē chast and continent Uirgines, besides many other matters yt the common people euery where doth report of their
owne knowledge, whereof I will now say no more, vnder payne of Confession. This one thyng will I speake: such as haue per∣suaded vnuoluntary Uirgines from this coacted single lyfe, to enter into honorable wedlocke without all compulsion, doe not defile Uirgines, as I suppose, nor dispoyle the chast of their cō∣tinency: but rather prouide more circumspectly for their hone∣stie. And to say the truth, this complainte of defilyng Uirgines can be applyable so iustly to none, as to some of your owne Ca∣tholickes, not all of the best Geldynges perhappes.
Now that which followeth, touchyng the memory of ver∣tue and Iustice abolished, and endeuour of godlynes bani∣shed by these Lutheranes.* 1.88 I cā not well conceaue what Osori. doth meane hereby. For in as much as the consideration of all righteousnes and godlynes is comprehended in the law of God chiefly, I do Appeale here to the secrett Iudgementes of all the godly, how farre the Lutheranes be estraūged from all thought of ouerthrowyng this law of the Lord.
You say that they haue razed and ransackt Churches.* 1.89 But what Churches they were you do not tell vs: for considera∣tiō is not alwayes to be had of all Churches alike. Some Chur∣ches do serue for godly and necessary vses: Some are erected to mainteyne Idolatry and superstition: God hath his peculiar Churches. So hath the Deuill also his Chappelles. The Gen∣tiles had sometymes their Temples for their dumme Goddes. There be Selles also & Monckeries at this day for their mum∣blyng Goddes. Neither be the Turkes destitute of their Ta∣bernacles. And therefore to raze downe any particular Church whatsoeuer for any speciall cause is not altogether so haynous. Marke a most valiaunt Martyr of God did on a tyme throwe downe ye Temple of Diana in Arethusiū: & in place thereof did dedicate a Church vnto Christ. Euē so haue many godly Prin∣ces done in many places within Rome it selfe, as Cōstantinus & others: yet doth not any man condemne them for it. In tymes past emongest so huge a multitude of the Iewishe Nation was no more but one Temple onely: God did allow but one Altar: And yet this Temple being raysed and builded by his owne ap∣pointement and commaundement, neither was him selfe agreé∣ued to haue vtterly defaced, leauyng no one stoane vpon an other
for the abuses frequented therein: nor doth any man complayne of the same. To be short, what an infinite multitude of Tēples and Religiōs were there scattered ouer all the face of the earth long sithēce, among ye heathen, of the which not so much as any ruines be to be foūd any where? I speake not this as cōparyng Monckes and Friers with Heathen and Paynymes: or their holy Churches with the Temples of the Gentiles: but bycause I may make euident, That in razing and pluckyng downe of Churches, it is not enough bycause Osorius maketh complaint of the same, vnlesse he make it knowen first, That these Tem∣ples were Temples of true Religion, and not Tabernacles of superstition, and Idolatry. Which he hath not proued as yet, nor euer will be able to Iustifie.
But we doe kill some holy men, some we do spoyle and tourmoyle with infinite afflictions: others we force out into exile. &c. What holy men he meaneth in this place I know not: But if they be the same whom I do coniecture to be, who by the publicke authoritie and lawes of this Realme, were executed for highe Treason in the reigne of kyng Henry the eight: to con∣demne vs as blameworthy, for due executiō of the Lawes of our Land: and to call that their Trayterous treachery by the name of Holynes (I meane their renouncyng due obedience to their liege Lord, contrary to the manifest determination of Gods Scripture, and contrary to all Religiousnes) herein surely O∣sorius doth offer vs no small iniury. I call not their crime in question here. But this is most assured: That neither More nor Roffensis, nor the Charterhouse Monckes, were so rude or vn∣lettered, but that they knew sufficiently, what was the duetie of Subiectes to their Princes. Especially whenas they might haue learned out of Chrisostome, by the testimony of the Apo∣stle.* 1.90
Although thou be an Apostle (sayth he) although thou be an Euangelist, though thou be a Prophet, or whatsoeuer thou be, it be∣houeth that all persons be subiect to the higher powers:For this dutyfull subiection doth not abate any pointe of godly Religion. The same also doth Gregory declare not in one place alone.* 1.91
Christ (sayth he) did geue authoritie to the Emperour to be Lord, not onely ouer the Nobilitie, but ouer Priestes also.Wherefore in that you accuse vs of our misdemeanour agaynst those persons:
To aūswere briefly, what better aūswere shall I make vnto you, then the same that Augustine did aunswere vnto Petiliane, in a cause not much vnlike vnto this.
Whereas you lyue (sayth he) most like vnto Theeues, you bragge that ye dye like Martyrs.* 1.92
Aunswere.
Malach. 1.
The place of Malachy expounded.
Rom. 15.
Psal. 18.
Psal. 127.
Esay. 11. Rom. 15.
Epipha. lib. 3. Serm. 79. Tertulli. a∣gainst Mar∣cion 4. book.
Tertul. con∣tra I••daeos, fol. 4.
Tertulli. to Scapula.
Irene in his 4. booke. Cap. 32.
The same Irene. ca. 33.
Aug. contra aduers. leg. & Prophet. lib. 1. cap. 20
Eusebius de monstr. in his first booke.
Ierome vpō the Pro∣phet Ma∣lach. Cap. 1 Ioh. Dama∣scen. de or∣thodoxa fide Lib. 4. Cap. 14.
Esay. 64.
Act. 10.
1. Tim. 2. Euseb. de∣mōst. Euāg lib. 1. cap. 6.
Chrisost. to the Heb. Homil. 17.
Eusebius demonst. lib. cap. 10.
Nazianzen.
Iustinus Martyr in Dialo. cum Triphone.
Augustine contra ad∣uers. leg. & prophe.
August. in lib. quest. 61.
August. cō∣tra Faust. 20. cap. 21.
A compari∣son betwixt the passeo∣uer and Christ.
An Argu∣ment out of the Trident Councell.
Aunswere.
Aug. de ciuitat. dei. lib. 10. cap. 5
By what reasō Mel∣chizedech did represēt the Type of Christ.
Melchize∣dech is de∣nyed to of∣fer bread & wine for a Sacrifice.
A compari∣sō betwixt Melchize∣dech and Christ.
No lykenes betwixt the Sacrifice of the Masse, and Melchi¦zedech.
Melchize∣dech a king and a Priest
The place of Melchi∣zedech his offring is expounded.
Gene. 14.
Iosephus. libro. 1. An∣tiquitat.
Cap. 10. The Trydē∣tine Coun∣cell. Sess. 6. Can. 3.
Aunswere.
Luk. 22.
1. Cor. 11.
Tetullia. in Apologe∣tico.
Argumētes of the ad∣uersaries by witnesses and cōsent of Doctours
Obiection out of Cy∣prian Lib. 2
Aunswere to Cypriās wordes.
August. a∣gainst Cres∣centius.
Heb. 11.
Cyprian in the same Epistle.
In the 2. booke the 3. Epistle.
An Obiect. out of Ie∣rom. out of hys E∣pistle writ∣ten to Mar∣cellus.
Aunswere.
An Allego¦ricall Argu¦ment doth conclude no truth.
The Obie∣ction out of Augustine quest. vete. & no. Testa. quest. 109.
Aūswere to the Obie∣ction.
An obiecti∣on out of Hesychi. writing vpō Leuiti. lib. 1 cap. 4.
Aunswere out of Au∣gust. in the 23. Epistle.
Out of the Maister of the Senten∣ces 4. book. 12, distinct.
Glossa Cō∣ment. de Consecrat. Distinct. 2. Semel.
An Obie∣ction out of Iren. Lib. 4. Cap. 32.
An Aun∣swere to the place of Irene.
The Sacri∣fice of the Masse expi∣atory and propitiatory Tridenti. Councell Sess. 6. cap. 3.
Out of Ste∣uen Gardi∣ner and o∣ther.
Irenaeus lib. 4. Cap. 32.
Irenaeus Cap. 33.
Ambrose treating vp∣on virgins.
Chrisost. in psal 95.
Chrisost. in psal. 26.
August. de tempore. ser. 125.
The second counsell of Nyce.
Euseb. de∣monst. lib. 1. cap. 10.
Cyrill us ad Reginas.
Cyrill a∣gaynst Iu∣lian. lib. 10.
The Eu∣charist doth not forgeue sinnes but doth repre∣sēt the me∣mory of a true for∣geuenesse.
Sinod. Tri∣dent. sessi. 6. cant. 3.
Out of the Canon of the Masse.
Osort. pag. 199. 202. 204.
The Apo∣stles ordi∣naunces.
Authoritie of Fathers.
Osor. pag. 209.
Disgrace∣mentes of Religion.
1. Tim. 4.
Osori. pag. 203.
Osorius pag. 203.
August. cō∣tra lib. 2. cap. 14.
August. in the same place.
The Autho¦ritie of the Pope is de∣nyed to be lawfull.
The kyng∣dome of Antichrist.
The cauil∣latiō of O∣sori. of the Memory of vertue abo∣lished.
A cauilla∣tion of Ra∣zyng of Church.
Chrisost. ad Rom. 23.
Gregor. E∣pist. 64. lib. 3.
Aug.contra¦lite. petilia. lib. 2. cap. 33.