A reioindre to M. Iewels replie against the sacrifice of the Masse. In which the doctrine of the answere to the .xvij. article of his Chalenge is defended, and further proued, and al that his replie conteineth against the sacrifice, is clearely confuted, and disproued. By Thomas Harding Doctor of Diuinitie.

Harding.

The effect of that hath ben said by the Replier hitherto, is this. The Sacrifice wherin Christ is offered vp vnto his Fa∣ther, 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 Se∣cretaries 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,* 1.1 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

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?

* 1.2Verily 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, dis∣sented 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 ho∣ly 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 re∣ceiued the spirite of truth which Christe promised to the Apostles,* 1.3 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 sin∣guler 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 Sacri∣fice 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,

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 con∣fesse 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 gouer∣ne 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,* 1.4 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) deli∣ted themselues with the wordes, Sabbatum, Parasce••e, Pas∣cha, Pentecoste, and other termes of the olde Lawe, notwith∣standing the obseruation and Ceremonie thereof were then abolished: so they delited themselues oftetimes with these wordes, Sacerdos, Altare, Sacrificiū, Sacrificer, Aulter, Sacri∣fice, 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,

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.* 1.5 If there be no vse of Priestes, Aul∣ters, and Sacrifice, is it to be thought, the olde learned Fa∣thers 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.* 1.6 Nobis ad certā regulā loqui fas est, ne verborū licētia etiā de reb{us}, 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 af∣firme the Obseruatiō and vse of that is signified by these wordes, Sabbatū, Parasceue, Pascha, Pētecoste, Sacerdos, Al∣tare, Sacrificiū, to be vtterly abolished, and clearly expired in the newe Testamēt: you seme either of ignorance not

to vnderstand, or of malice to dissēble, that the obserua∣tion 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 clear∣ly expired in right, by the comming of Christ, specially at what time hanging on the Crosse, and now geuing vp the ghoste,* 1.7 he said, Consummatum est, It is finished. The newe, Euangelical, and Christian obseruatiō and vse hereof, re∣maineth 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 Sab∣both, that is to say, their restingtide, their Parasceue, or preparingtide, cōmonly called Goodfriday, their Pascha, or Easter, their Pentecost, or Whitsontide, their Priest∣hod, 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 significa∣tion, but according to the truth, the body, the spirite, and the very thinges.

Iesus vetus testamentum consummabat,* 1.8 & 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 ve∣ritatis, antiqua obseruantia nouo tollitur Sacramento, hostia in hostiam transit, sanguinem sanguis excludit, & legalis fe∣stiuitas dum mutatur, impletur. That the shadowes should

geue place to the Body, and the Images ceasse in pre∣sence 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.* 1.9 Nihil legalium instructionum, nihil propheticarum recedit figurarum, quod non tatum in Christi sacramenta transierit. Nobiscum est Signaculum Circumcisionis, sancti∣ficatio Chrismatum, consecratio Sacerdotum. Nobiscum pu∣ritas 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 hal∣lowing of the holy Ointements,* 1.10 the Consecration of Priestes. With vs is the purenesse of Sacrifice,* 1.11 the truth of Baptisme,* 1.12 the honour of the Temple:* 1.13 that for good cause the Messangers (that is to saie the olde lawe) ceas∣sed, after that their tidinges came.

Were it not tedious, easily might a hundred such pla∣ces be alleged out of the Fathers, by testimonie of which the obseruation and vse of these thinges of the olde Te∣stament, Pascha, Easter, Pentecoste, Priest, or Sacrificer, Hoste, Aulter, and Sacrifice, is acknowleged, as of thin∣ges 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 Sa∣lomons Temple at Ierusalem, we haue newe Aulters in the Churches of Christians thoroughe out the whole

worlde,* 1.14 on which the members of Christ be susteined, and in which the body and bloude of Christe * 1.15 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.* 1.16 For the feast of the Olde Passeouer,* 1.17 wherein the Iewes solemnized the memorie of the Striking Angels passing ouer them or be∣side them, when he destroyed al the first begoten of the Egyptians, and of their owne safe passing ouer the redde Sea out of Egypte,* 1.18 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,* 1.19 that for our sake he hath conquered al po∣wer that was against vs,* 1.20 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,* 1.21 that is to say, the fiftith day after that the Lambe had bē sacrificed:* 1.22 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,* 1.23 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 son¦nes of God the performāce of Gods holy wil by loue ād* 1.24

charitie, as the Lawe wrought it, or rather moued men to it by threates and terrour.

* 1.25S•• Leo speaking of this Feast, saith, Hodiernam solenni∣tatem in praeci•••••••• festis esse ••••••••••••nd••m, omnium Catholi∣corum 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. Re∣member M. Iewel, if your hart geue you, that there is no such feast of Pentecost to be obserued in Christes Chur∣che, because the vse of it is expired,* 1.26 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 ther∣fore 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 de∣ceiuer. So touching this point euery way your doctrin is to be shunned. Thus then it is made cleare, the olde lear∣ned 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 obserua∣tion and Ceremonie of them be abolished.

* 1.27The 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 ter∣mes

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 ac∣quainted 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 mea∣ning. And the thinges be so called more for a similitude, then for any proprietie.

* 1.28If M. Iewel say, that when so euer the old learned Fa∣thers 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 au∣thoritie 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 pote∣statem, adiunxit, atque ait: Sed erunt Sacerdotes Dei & Christi, & regnabunt cum eo mille annis, non vtique de so∣lis Episcopis, & Presbyteris dictum est, qui propriè iam vo∣cantur in Ecclesia Sacerdotes:* 1.29 sed sicut omnes Christianos dicimus propter mysticum Chrisma, sic omnes Sacerdotes, quoniam membra sunt vnius sacerdotis. De quibus Apo∣stolus Petrus,* 1.30 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 Bis∣shops 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,* 1.31 a holy people, a kingly Priesthood.

Beholde Reader, S. Aug••stine by expresse terme auou∣cheth, that Bishops and Priests are they, who be proper∣ly now in the Church of God called Sacerdotes, Priestes,

or as M. Iewel commonly for spite translateth, Sacrificers. Whereby it foloweth clearely, that the terme Priest, be∣ing applied to al men and wemen, who be not by a so∣lemne sacrament ordered, not specially called and cho∣sen to the office of a Bishop, or Priest, is taken in an im∣proper or mystical signification. In that S. Augustin ac∣knowlegeth the order of those to remaine nowe in the Churche, which be called Sacerdotes, Priestes, proper∣ly: he excludeth al metophorical, metonymical, and my∣stical signification of the woorde. So then folowing the doctrine of S. Augustine, a very sufficient wit∣nesse 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, where∣by 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 me∣taphorical 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 Sa∣crifice, and Aulter of like signification.

* 1.32That 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 bele∣uers 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 bid∣ding them to be content, as other meaner persons are, with their Metaphorical kingdom?

In dede this were the rediest way to bring al to con∣fusion, and beastly enormitie, in whiche state this new Gospel might sone be set vp, or any other religion be∣sides that the holy Ghost hath plāted in the Church hi∣therto. 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

say, and easy it were to proue, that the like confusion must ensue in the Church, if this opinion be once plan∣ted, 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 vi∣car, 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 Ba∣ptisme kinges ouer their own soules and bodies: So there be special Priestes in the newe Testament, called and ap∣pointed 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 bi∣cause I am constrained by the Replie to make a distin∣ction betwen these two termes Sacerdos, and Presbyter,* 1.33 by which the persons of the highest order in the Church be called, and in our English tongue there want two di∣stinct 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 signi∣fied

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 La∣tine, 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 fun∣ctions, were at the beginning, and may now also be cal∣led Priests ād Ministers:* 1.34 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 mini∣string Iustice, as vnto those persons, that minister and dis∣pēse 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 vo∣catiō ministers and dispensers of most holy things, which ministratiō ād dispēsatiō is to be foūd in the Church only.

To him that perhaps wil reply,* 1.35 and demaunde, why then did S. Paule, as it were of purpose shūning the terme Sacrificer, alwaies cal them Priestes, or Ministers: I an∣swer. 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 obser∣uation 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 Gos∣pel, 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 Mi∣nisters, 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,* 1.36 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 Fa∣thers 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 ter¦mes 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

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.

* 1.37Now to answer the authorities: first, whereas Pachy∣meres 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 coue∣nances: 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 wri∣ting 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 con∣cluded 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 Chur∣che, 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

time, the Ecclesiastical writers were accustomed to at∣tribute 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. Am∣brose, 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 re∣uerenced and honoured, is despised, accompted Iewish or Heathenish, hated and detested. So that the custome, which Pachymeres speaketh of, to cal a Priest a Sacrifi∣cer, is now toward the ende of the worlde, when Anti∣christ shal come, by the worst sort of men his foreron∣ners, 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,* 1.38 and to bleare the eyes of the vnler∣ned, 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 * 1.39 Moonke, To Dorothe{us} a * 1.40 Minister, or Deacon by interpretation of Pachymeres, To Polycarpus a * 1.41 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

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 cele∣brated. And the custome hath now so preuailed, saith Pachy∣meres. 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, Ori∣gen, S. Chrysostome, to proue that preaching of the Gos∣pel 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 vp∣on 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 im∣properly, 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,

whereas in dede preaching is no Sacrifice. And so by a phrase of speache the Sacrifice of Christes death, where∣on our faith and hope, as the ground of our saluatiō stay∣eth, were like to be remoued and displaced.

What a fond kind of arguing is this?* 1.42 The terme, Sacri∣fice, is sometimes vsed of the Fathers speaking metaphori∣cally: Ergo it is so to be taken, when thei speake of the Sa∣crifice 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,* 1.43 et quomodo coartor, vsque dū per∣ficiatur? 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. Ma∣thew, where Christ gaue cōmandemēt vnto his disciples,* 1.44 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,* 1.45 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,* 1.46 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 decla∣mation, then for a probation of truth called in contro∣uersie. And therefore it is a kinde of Argument at∣tributed vnto the Rhetorician, to explicate and make plaine a mater, and not to the Logician, strongly to con∣uince, and piththily to proue a veritie. Yet M. Iewel

notwithstanding is so in loue with this kinde of prouing in his whole booke of Replie, that if his comparisons of one phrase with an other were cut of, which he woulde haue seme to be like: the rest of his booke should appeare of smal quantitie.

How be it, though it be the slipperest way in reaso∣ning, 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 re∣spect, the other in an other. And by that meanes he con∣foundeth the Doctours sayinges,* 1.47 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 exam∣ple. 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.

* 1.48Where he saith, S. Paule speaketh of him self in this sense saying, Sacrifico Euangelium Dei, I sacrifice the Ghos∣pel of God, and Origen, Sacrificale opus est annunciare Euan∣gelium, It is a worke of Sacrifice to preach the Gospel: What sense meaneth he? or what sense would he his Reader to

conceiue, sith that he spake no worde of any sense be∣fore? 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, Sa∣crifico 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,* 1.49 is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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,* 1.50 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. Hie∣rome 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, into sacrificans, and saith, that to preach the Gospel, is a sa∣crificing worke, and there plainely declareth how.

Now though it be graunted, that both S. Paule al∣luded to the manner and condition of the Sacrifices of

Moyses lawe, and S. Hierome consydered the same in his exposition of that place: yet thereof it wil not fo∣lowe, 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 Sa∣crifice in deede, but onely in a figuratiue speache.

* 1.51This Argument is naught pardy, as M. Iewel know∣eth him selfe, S. Paule saith, he consecrated the Gos∣pel 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 prea∣ching 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 al∣waies 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. Na∣zianzen 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.* 1.52

The Testimonie of S. Chrysostome he hath fou∣ly falsified with vntrue translation. For whereas he found these wordes in S. Chrysostome, Ipsum mihi Sa∣cerdotium est praedicare & Euagnelizare: he hath thus

translated it into English, My whole priesthoode is, to teach, and to preach the Ghospel. As though ipsum in La∣tine, signified, whole in English, and as though it were true, that S. Paules Priesthode consisted wholy and altogether in preaching the Ghospel, whereas he con∣fesseth him selfe to haue baptized Crispus,* 1.53 and Caius, and the householde of Stephana: and it is not to be doubted, but he consecrated and ministred also the bles∣sed 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 Sacra∣mentes 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 ad∣mitted 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 occa∣sion of S. Paules worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.54 whereby he signi∣fied the excellencie of his Office, deducing his talke from the inferiour and common terme, Latria, that ap∣perteineth to al, whereof he spake in the beginning, to termes of an higher and more speciall dignitie, to wit, Liturgia, and Hierurgia, which import Priestly Office: his meaning I say, was partely to declare, that S. Paules

preaching was a certaine Priesthode, forasmuche as by the same he offered vp those that beleued, as a sacrifice vnto God, their outwarde man killed, and carnal affecti∣ons quite mortified, for which cause he calleth the Gos∣pel his sworde, Machaera mea Euangelium est, the Gospel, which is the worde of preaching,* 1.55 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,* 1.56 but to preache. Which wordes The∣phylacte 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 trans∣lation, 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 one∣ly to a bare preaching of Gods wordes, al other functi∣ons therevnto belonging, as to baptize, to loose and binde synnes, to consecrate and offer vp to God the bo∣dy and bloude of Christe, to minister the other Sacra∣mentes, and the like, clearely excluded.

Thus I hope, thou perceiuest Reader, what miserable and shameful an entrie M. Iewel hath ben driuē to make, to come to his purpose, whiche was to impugne the most worthy and healthful Sacrifice of Christes body and bloude, and to persuade vnlearned soules, there is no such Sacrifice really offered vnto God by Priestes of

the newe Testament.* 1.57 Wherevpon I haue stayd some∣what the lenger, because I sawe, how by guileful persua∣sions 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 na∣ked 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 al∣ready said, and shal more fully appeare in the processe of this Reioindre. Now let vs heare M. Iewel.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Act. 20.
• * 1.2

  Either the Fathers vvere de∣ceiued, or the holy Ghost dis∣senteth frō him selfe, by M. Ievvel
• * 1.3

  Ioan. 14.
• * 1.4

  A shifte deuised bi the schole of this nevve Gospel, a∣gainst the manifold testimo∣nies of the Fa∣thers, for the Sacri∣fice.
• * 1.5

  M. Ievvel maketh the Fa∣thers to speak one thing, ād to meane an other.
• * 1.6

  Aug. de Ciuit. Dei libr. 10. cap. 23. Vse a••d obserua∣tiō of Sab¦batū, Pas∣cha, Al∣tare etc•• is double, olde, and nevve.
• * 1.7

  Ioan. 19.
• * 1.8

  Ser. 7. de pass. Do∣mini.
• * 1.9

  Leo. Ser. 13 de Pass. Domini.
• * 1.10

  Priestes.
• * 1.11

  Sacrifice.
• * 1.12

  Baptisme
• * 1.13

  Temple.
• * 1.14

  Optatus lib. 6.
• * 1.15

  Per cer∣t•• momē∣ta.
• * 1.16

  Ioan. 1.
• * 1.17

  Exod. 12.
• * 1.18

  1. Cor. 5.
• * 1.19

  1. Pet. 3.
• * 1.20

  I. Ioan. 3.
• * 1.21

  Exod. 20.
• * 1.22

  1. Cor. 5.
• * 1.23

  Act. 2.
• * 1.24

  Matt. 28.
• * 1.25

  Leo Ser. 1. de Pente∣coste.
• * 1.26

  VVhat ansvver you M. Ievvel?
• * 1.27

  M. Iewels reason re¦proued.
• * 1.28

  That the terme Sa∣cerdo••, Priest, is vsed of the Fa∣thers in proper significa∣tion, for a Priest of the nevv Testamēt. August. de ciuit. Dei. lib. 20. ca. 10.
• * 1.29

  Apoc. 20.
• * 1.30

  1. Pet. 2.
• * 1.31

  Real Priesthod is in the Churche novv, er∣go, real Sa¦crifice.
• * 1.32

  Christian mē in ge∣neral be Priests af∣ter a me∣taphori∣cal mea∣ning, not in proper speache, as like∣vvise thei be Kings.
• * 1.33

  Presbyter, Sacerdos, Priest, Sa∣crificer.
• * 1.34

  That there be novve in the Churche, vvho ought properly to be cal∣led Sacer∣dotes, that is, Sa¦crificers.
• * 1.35

  VVhy S. Paule cal∣leth them Priestes, rather then Sa••crificers.
• * 1.36

  After the destru∣ction of Ierusalē, the olde terme Sa¦crificer, vvas re∣sumed and vsed••
• * 1.37

  Ansvvere to M. Ievvels authori∣ties.
• * 1.38

  S. Dio∣nyse vvri••ting to Sopater a Priest, calleth hī ••acrificer. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.39

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.40

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.41

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.42

  The ab∣surdity of M. Iewels argumēt.
• * 1.43

  Luc. 21.
• * 1.44

  Mat. 28.
• * 1.45

  Mar. 7.
• * 1.46

  M. Iewels comō Ar¦guments deduced from like to like.
• * 1.47

  M. Iewels custome, to put a∣vvay one truth by an other.
• * 1.48

  Rom. 15. Origen. in Epist. ad Ro. lib. 10.
• * 1.49

  Rom. 15.
• * 1.50

  Beza in Annot. in no. test.
• * 1.51

  M Ievvel for the most part so argu∣eth, that he impug¦neth one truth by an other truth.
• * 1.52

  M. Ievvel falsifieth S. Chry∣sostome
• * 1.53

  1. Cor. 1.
• * 1.54

  Rom. 15.
• * 1.55

  Chrysosto. in epist. ad Romanos homil. 29.
• * 1.56

  1. Cor. 1.
• * 1.57

  The sum∣me of M. Ievvels shiftes a∣gainst the Sacrifice.