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.

The .6. Diuision. (Book 6)

The Ansvvere.

* 1.1THat Christe Sacrificed himselfe at his Supper, Hesychius affirmeth with these wordes: Quod Dominus iussit (Leuit. 4.) vt Sacerdos vi∣tulū pro peccato oblaturus,* 1.2 ponat manū super caput eius, & iugulet eū corā Domino, Christū significat, quem nemo obtulit, sed nec immola∣re poterat, nisi semetipsum ipse ad patiendū tra∣didisset. Propter quod non solùm dicebat, Po∣testatem habeo ponendi animan meam, & po∣testatem habeo iterum sumēdi eam: sed & prae∣ueniens semetipsum in Coena Apostolorū im∣molauit, quod sciunt, qui Mysteriorum perci∣piunt

virtutem. That our Lord commaunded (saith he) the Priest, which should offer a calfe for sinne, to put his hande vpon his heade, and to sticke him before our Lord, it signifieth Christ, whom noman hath offe∣red, neither could any man Sacrifice him, excepte he hadde deliuered him selfe to suffer. For the which he said not only, I haue power to lay downe my Soule, and I haue power to take it againe: But also preuenting it, he offred vp him selfe in Sacrifice in the Supper of the Apostles: which they knowe, y^t receiue the vertue of the Mysteries. By these wordes of Hesychius we learne, that Christ offered, and sacrificed his Body and Bloud twise. Firste in that Holy Supper vnbloudely, when he tooke Bread in his handes, and brake it, &c: With∣out Diuision of the Sacrifice, for it is but one and the same Sacrifice. And afterwarde on the Crosse, with Shedding of his bloud, and that is it, he meaneth by the woorde, Preuenting.

Iewel.

VVe denie not, but it may vvel be saide, Christe at his last Sup∣per offered vp him selfe vnto his Father: Albeit, not Really, and in deede, but, accordinge to M. Hardinges ovvne Distinction, in a Figure,* 1.3 or in a Mysterie: in suche sorte, as vve say, Christe vvas offered in the Sacrifices of the Olde Lavve: and as S. Iohn saieth, Ag∣nus Occisus ab Origine Mundi: The Lambe was shaine from the beginninge of the VVorlde. As Christe vvas slaine at the Table, so vvas he Sacrificed at the Table. But he vvas not slaine at the Table Verily, and in dede, but onely in a Mysterie: Therefore he vvas not Sacrificed at the Table Really, and in deede, but onely in a Mysterie.

So saith S. Augustine, Nonne semel immolatus est Christus in s••∣m etipso?* 1.4 Et tamen in Sacramento, non tantùm per omnes Pas∣chae Solennitates, sed etiam omni die populis immolatur. Nec vtique mentitur, qui interrogatus, eum responderit immolari. Si enim Sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum, quarum Sacramenta sunt, non haberent, omnino Sacramenta non essent. VVas not Christe once offered in him selfe? And yet in (or, by vvay of) a Sacramente, not only at the Solemne Feaste of Easter, but euery daye he is offered vnto the people. And he saith no vn∣trueth, that being demaunded, maketh answeare, that Christe is Sacrificed. His reason is this: For if Sacramentes had not a certaine Likenesse, or Resemblance of the thinges, wherof they be Sacra∣mentes, then should they vtterly be no Sacramentes.

Harding.

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

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

• him selfe really, he auoucheth it to be reproued by plaine wordes of S. Paule.

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

Although he tel not his tale in most distincte, and plaine wise, as this doctrine of the vnbloudy Sacrifice of Christe ought to be vttered, vsing the termes of Figure, and Mysterie, confusely: yet his meaning is plaine ye∣nough, verely more plaine, then true: Which is, that Christe offered vp him selfe vnto his Father at his laste Supper in Figure onely, and that, concerning both the thing offered, and the manner of offering: For adding as it were an exposition of his owne wordes,* 1.5 In such sorte, saith he, as we say, Christe was offered in the Sacrifice of the olde Lawe. Now certaine it is, that in the sacrifi∣ces of the olde Lawe Christe was offered in Figure one∣ly, whether we consider the substance that was offered, or the manner of offering. The substance of those olde Sacrifices, was a brute beast, a sheepe, a calfe, a goat, an Oxe. Of which euery one was but a figure onely of Christ•• the manner of offering was slaughter with bloud∣shed, which slaughter was also a figure onely of Christes bloudy death to be suffered vppon the Crosse. So M. Iewels doctrine touching this point is figuratiue on eue∣ry side, that is to say, that Christe offered vp him selfe at his supper in Figure onely.

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

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

* 1.6If he meane nothing els thereby, but to exclude the bloudy manner of sacrificing, as in deede properly to speake, the sacrificing of lyuing thinges is with bloude∣shed and slaughter: in that respecte we graunte also, that at the Table Christe was not really so sacrificed, but in Mysterie only. For at the Table we knowe, he was not stickte with a knife, as the brute beastes in the olde Lawe were, nor let bloude with thornes, nai∣les, or speare, as he was on the nexte morow vppon the Crosse.

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

But if by his terme, Onely in a Mysterie, he ex∣clude

the Real presence of Christe him selfe, and meane that his very body and bloude (as muche to say, Christe him selfe bicause of the vnitie of the two na∣tures) was not in Christes handes, and vppon the Ta∣ble in deede, when hauing taken breade he gaue than∣kes, blessed,* 1.7 brake it, and said, this is my Body, and con∣cerning the Cuppe, this is my Bloude, ••e is not nowe in the Aulter,* 1.8 when we consecrate, doing that Christe did, and bad vs to doo, but that he was there then, and is here now at the Diuine Celebration, in a figure, signe, token, signification, memorie, representation, or Mysterie Onely, or that a figure, signe, token, or Mysterie Onely is present, and sacrificed, and not very Christe him selfe: If this be his meaning, herein we dis∣sent vtterly from him, and he dissenteth from the Chur∣che of God, from that the holy Ghoste hath taught his Churche, from that al faithful Christen people hath euer beleeued, from that Christe him selfe professed, saying, this is my body, this is my bloude: to be shorte, from that, which hath bene of late by certaine learned men against him, and his felowes sufficiently, and substantially prooued.

But what neede we to demaunde of M. Iewel, what he meaneth by his clowdy wordes? No clowde can hyde his Sacramentarie heresie, it is euident, as wel by that he saith here, as by that he hath said and writtē in sundry o∣ther places, according to the purport of the Caluinists do∣ctrine (vnto which sect he hath adioyned him self) and by his open profession, that he standeth in his Negatiue, and holdeth opinion, that Christe offered not him selfe really at his last Supper. Now the affirmatiue part, which is, that

Christe offered him selfe at that Supper really, truly, and in dede, and made a real Sacrifice, though it be in my An∣swere already proued: yet here further for theire sake, who breake not out of the Churche by their own stub∣bornnesse, and wilful malice, but be lead a syde by simpli∣citie, and ignorance: thus we prooue.

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

The Minor, or second Proposition is such, as no Chri∣sten man (I iudge) wil deny, or doubte of. The first Pro∣position, which is conditional, shal sone appeare true to him, who considereth, that the good and godly people lyuing vnder the Lawe of Nature before any Lawe was written,* 1.9 by the inspiration of God (as S. Cyprian wit∣nesseth) offered vp real sacrifices, in which they pro∣tested their faith, and trust in Christe to come, by whose Sacrifice to be made vpon the Crosse they looked, and hartily desyred to be saued. So did Abel offer vp Sa∣crifice to God of the best of his flocke.* 1.10 So did Noe offer vp Sacrifice of the cleane beastes, that had ben with him in the Arke.* 1.11 So Abraham, after that he had (for so much as in him was) offered vp his onely sonne Isaac, did in stede of him sacrifice the Ramme, that was tyed by the hornes among the brambles. So did o∣ther iust and good men of that time, offer vp the like sa∣crifices to the same ende.

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

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

If M. Iewel, and the mainteiners of this new Gospel, put vs in mynde of bread and wine, and tel vs, that the substance of bread and wine is our real Sacrifice, being the signes and figures of Christes body and bloud in the Lordes Supper: to that we answer, that bread and wine are not appointed, and ordeined by Christe, to be

the real Sacrifice of the Churche: and if they were, then were the state of the new Testament no better then that of the olde Testamēt, whereas the new farre passing the olde in euery degree of worthinesse, as S. Paule in sundry places declareth, the Sacrifice frequented in the newe lawe, ought to surmount the Sacrifices of the olde lawe. Then hath the Churche made a very meane exchange with the Iewish Synagog. For if we haue no better substance in our dayly Sacrifice, then a peece of bread and a smal portion of wine: how was not a goate, a lambe, an Oxe, as good, if not better, and more worth?

Christe hath not so solenderly dealt with the heires of the newe Testament, as to leaue so base and vn∣worthy a sacrifice vnto them (base and vnworthy I say, in comparison of the high dignitie, that God through his sonnes death hath called them vnto) but by his al∣mighty power, and according to his passing great mercy and loue, hath geuen no worse thing then him selfe, to be their true and real Sacrifice.

Some one wil say perhappes, I woulde beleue this doctrine the rather, if it were confirmed with the te∣stimonie of an Auncient learned Father. Let vs heare then, what S. Chrysostome saith touching this point.* 1.12 His wordes be these. In veteri quidem Testamento, cùm imperfectiores essent, quem Idolis offerebant sangui∣nem, cum ipse accipere volait, vt ab Idolis nos auerteret. Quod etiam inenarrabilis amoris signum erat. Hic autem multò admirabilius & magnificentius facrificium praepara∣uit, & quum sacrificium commutaret, & pro brutorum caede se ipsum offerendum praciperet. In the olde Te∣stament,

when men were more vnperfecte, Christe him selfe would take that bloude, which they offered vp vnto Idols, to thende to turne them from Idolatrie. Which thing was a signe of an vnspeakeable loue. But here (in the newe Testament) he hath prepared a much more maruelous and honorable Sacrifice, both in that he changed the Sacrifice, and also for that in stede of the slaughter of brute beastes, he commaunded his owne selfe to be offered.

Here we haue by testimony of this auncient Father, the abolishing of the worse sacrifice, and the appoint∣ment of a better. That was made of brute beastes, this of Christe him selfe. Now consider good Reader, whe∣ther reason wil beare it, that the worse and baser sacri∣fice should be both real, and also in figure and signi∣fication (for so were al the Iewes sacrifices) and the better be in figure or mysterie onely, and not real, as M. Iewel wil haue the Sacrifice of the Churche to be.

But that our Sacrifice is real, and that it is Christe him selfe, and that he is really and in deede sacrificed: the woordes aboue rehersed, and others of the like force in that place of S. Chrysostome doo plainely auouche. For first let this be examined, that, as he saith, Christe commaunded for the slaughter of brute beastes, now in the new Testament, him selfe to be offered. Of what Sacrifice can this be meant, but of that which he both made, and instituted him selfe at his last Sup∣per, and gaue charge to be frequented and done, vntil he come? For as touching the Sacrifice of the Crosse, though he suffered him selfe to be taken, and to be

crucified, and to be offred vp with shedding of bloude vnto death, yet he commaunded not so muche to be done, for then had the wicked workers of his death ben giltlesse.

* 1.13This commaundement then of offering vp Christe him selfe,* 1.14 is vnderstanded to haue ben geuen at the Sup∣per, when after that he had consecrated his body and bloude, he said, doo ye this in my remembrance. And there∣fore S. Chrysostom speaketh thus vnto Christe in his Li∣turgie or Masse,* 1.15 Memoriam igitur agentes huius salutaris mandati, &c. We kepe the memorie of this healthful commaundement.

If M. Iewel replye, and say, that Christe commaunded at the supper a memory onely to be celebrate of the true and real Sacrifice vpon the Crosse: to that we answer. That this Sacrifice, whereof we speake, is a memorie of that, we confesse: but that it is a memorie onely, so as the real presence of Christ be excluded, that we deny: and to the contrary S. Chrysostome saith, that he com∣maunded, se ipsum, him selfe to be offred vp.

* 1.16Neither can M. Iewel shifte the mater from him by expounding this worde, him selfe, of the signe or figure of him selfe, meaning the bread and wine, as the Sacra∣mentaries doo: For if that, which is now daily in the Churche offered vp at the Aulter, were but bread and wine, the signes of Christes body and bloude: S. Chryso∣stome woulde not, ne could not iustly haue said, that Christe hath prepared for vs of the newe Testament, multò admirabilius, & magnificentius Sacrificium, a much more maruelous, and honorable Sacrifice. For how can we con∣ceiue a peece of bread, and a cuppe of wine, to be in re∣specte

of sacrifice, a thing muche more maruelous, and magnificent, or honourable, then a shepe, a goate, and an Oxe, bothe these and those signifying al one thinge, that is, Christe him selfe? Nay thinges com∣pared with thinges, are not the beastes of a farre more price?

I trow M. Iewel wil not set a greater price vpon the bread and wine vsed in this Sacrifice, for that they signi∣fie a more pretious thing, then the brute beastes did in the sacrifices of the olde lawe, to wit, Christe already come, whereas they signified Christe to come. For so he should diuide Christe, and imagine him to be better and worthier in the newe Testament, then he was in the olde. Verely though redemption perfourmed be to vs better, then redemption promised: yet Christe before and after the perfourmance, that is to say, Christe now come, and then to come, is one Christe, and of one worthinesse.

It foloweth therefore by al meanes, that either S. Chrysostome said vntruly, affirming Christe to haue pre∣pared for the new Testament a farre more wonderful and magnificent Sacrifice, then were the sacrifices of the Iewes, whiche I suppose M. Iewel wil not be so shamelesse as to say, what so euer he thinke: or that we haue now in the Sacrifice of the Churche, Christe him selfe, truly, really, and in deede, and that he him selfe is really offred vp vnto his Father by Priestes of the new Testament,* 1.17 according to the commaundement he gaue at his supper, saying, doo ye this in my remembrance.

And that it is the real and true bloude of Christe, which we haue in the Sacrifice of the Aulter, whereby

the real Sacrifice touching the thing sacrificed is pro∣ued: it is most clearely affirmed by S. Chrysostome in the place before alleged. For thus he speaketh there. Quid hoc admirabilius,* 1.18 dic quaeso, quid amabilius? Hoc & amantes faciunt, cùm amatos intuentur alienorum cupidi∣tate allectos, suae verò contemnentes: proprijs elargitis sua∣dent, vt ab illis abstineant. Sed amantes quidem in pecu∣nijs, vestibus, possessionibus, hanc ostendunt cupiditatem, in proprio sanguine nemo vnquam. What thing I pray thee, is more maruelous then this? What more louing? (He speaketh of the bloud that is in the chalice, which he saith to be the same that ranne out of Christes syde) This is a thing that louers doo, when they beholde them whom they loue, to be allured with the desire of other mens thinges, and to set litle by theirs: they geue them their owne thinges, and intreate them to absteine from others. But louers shewe this their desire in money, in garmen∣tes, in possessions, in his owne bloude no man euer shewed it.

* 1.19To proue that Christe loueth vs more, then euer any man loued an other, he saith, that he geueth vs his owne bloude. Which in this place of S. Chrysostome, can in no wise be expounded of the Figure and token of his bloude. For worldly louers geue vnto their beloued as much, and as good a thing as that, namely money, garmentes, their possessions. As for a token or signe of their bloude, or of their persons, it were easy for them to geue. But Christ (saith he) sheweth his loue toward vs, by that whereby no man euer shewed his loue to an other. If the onely token of bloude, might at any time haue declared so certaine and assured loue, louers would

oftentimes haue spared their money, their garmentes, and their possessions: and would haue geuen vnto their dere beloued, the figure of their bloude, or of their whole persons.

Thus is the true and real presence of Christes bloud, and consequently of his flesh, prooued by witnesse of S. Chysostome. And by the same is that prooued, which we cal the real Sacrifice of the Church. For by that we say Christe to be really offered vp vnto his Father, we meane none other thing, but that the substance, which we offer and sacrifice, is the real body and bloude of Christe. This much therefore may stande for answer to M. Iewels Reply in this place: Christe in the Sacri∣fices of the olde Lawe, was so offred in a Figure, as he was not the substance of them. In the Supper he was, and in the Masse he is so offered, as he is the substance present.

And bicause this real Sacrifice of Christe, being the Sacrifice of the New Testament, and the worthinesse of it, is much impugned by the enemies of the Churche in our time, yea villanously mocked, skoffed, and rai∣led at by Antichristes wicked broode:* 1.20 the godly Ca∣tholiques may by these reasons be sufficiently armed a∣gainst them.

If it were necessary for the people of the olde Lawe to haue real sacrifices to protest, and to main∣teine their beleefe in Christes Death to come: why is it not as necessary, that the faithful people of the Newe Lawe, haue also a real Sacrifice, to protest and keepe in memorie their beleefe in Christes Death alrea∣dy past?

Againe, as the newe Lawe is better, and excellenter then the olde, so is it necessary it haue a better and excel∣lenter Sacrifice. But if we take away the Sacrifice of the Reall flesh and bloude of Christe, and leaue onely bread end wine to be offred vp in a figure, or mysterie: then haue we not a Sacrifice proper vnto the new Law, that in worthinesse passeth and excelleth the Sacrifi∣ces of the olde Lawe, as the which consisted of as good a substance, as the other, and signified as good a thing, as the other, and expressed it by slaughter, and shedding of pure and innocent beastes bloude more liuely, then the other.

Contrarywise let the real body and bloude of Christe be the substanee of the Sacrifice of the new Law (as the truth teacheth saying,* 1.21 this is my body which is geuē for you, this is my bloud which is shed for you,* 1.22 &c. and the Church beleueth): then doth it infinitely excel al the Sacrifices offered in the Lawe of Nature, or in the Lawe written. And then shal the New Lawe, as in greatenesse of gra∣ces, and promises, and plainenesse of Scripture: so sur∣mount and passe also the olde Lawe in Maiestie of the Sacrifice, and of Priesthode, which haue euer in al Lawes ben accompted the two principal pointes of the same.

To be shorte, how can it be conceiued, that our Sa∣crifice should be but a figure, a signe, or a mysterie one∣ly, and no true and real Sacrifice better then the olde sacrifices: sith that by the teaching of al the auncient learned Fathers, it is the truth, and perfourmance of al the olde sacrifices?

Hauing said this much for the real offering of Christe

let vs now examine M. Iewels argument.* 1.23 As Christe was slaine at the Table (saith he) so was he sacrificed at the Table. But he was not slaine at the Table verely, and in dede, but onely in a Mysterie: Therefore he was not sacrificed at the Table, really, and in deede, but onely in a Mysterie.

Christe was then, and is now also at the holy Table, both really sacrificed in respect of his real and true bo∣dy and bloude by vertue of the Worde made present, and also in a Mysterie, in respect of the outward formes of bread and wine vnder which they are present, and of the mystical manner of sacrificing. This being true, as before we haue declared, and therefore the Conclu∣sion being false: let vs see, which of the Premisses of M. Iewels Argument is false. It is the Maior, or first Proposition. If the same be resolued into the partes whereof it consisteth, the vntruth wil soone appeare. The first parte is this. Christe was slaine at the Table. That is false. The second is this. Christe was sacrificed at the Table. That is true. So that one parte is false, and the other true. And so by this trial, which is the su∣rest way to trie such kinde of Propositions, the whole Proposition in it selfe is found false, and therefore the Conclusion foloweth not.

For the better euidence of the thing it selfe, we most gladly acknowledge, and protest to the worlde, that Christe was really and in deede slaine, and put to death once for euer, and neuer shal againe suffer the paines of Death. Yet neuerthelesse he is, and shal to the worldes ende continue, the real and true Sacrifice of the newe Testament, according to his owne merciful Institution at his last Supper. As for the lacke of any

slaying, and shedding of bloude, it is no cause at al, why it was not at the Supper, is not now, or may not be a true and real Sacrifice. For it is sufficient, that is was once offered vp with slaying, and bloudeshedding to pay the raunsom of our synnes. He did then, and we de now of∣fer the same body and bloude in consideration and re∣membrance of that slaying, and shedding. He offered at the Supper his body, and bloud, that on the morow was to be slaine, and shed: we at the Aulter do stil offer that body, and bloude, that was slaine, and shed, euen the same selfe body, and bloude in number. For, as Theo∣phylacte folowing S. Chrysostome saith.* 1.24 Eundem semper offerimus, Imò potius memoriam illius oblationis, qua seip•• sum obtulit, facimus, ceu nunc iam facta sit, we offer vp al∣waies the selfe same (Christe) or rather we kepe the me∣morie of that oblation, whereby he offered him selfe, as though it were euen right now donne.

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

* 1.25Againe this Hoste is suche, as can not be consu∣med, though they be neuer so many, that be made partakers of it, as he also saith. Ipsam offerimus & nunc, quae tunc oblata quidem consumi nō potest. We doo offer vp now also the same hoste, which being offered then (he

meaneth vpon the Crosse) can not be consumed. Wher∣fore sith it is continually the selfe same hoste, in number with that, which was slaine vpon the Crosse, albeit it be really againe sacrificed, to continue the memorie of the real death of the same, and to be the real Sacrifice of the newe Testament: M. Iewel going about to abolish the truth of our Sacrifice, for that it is not truly againe slaine, bewrayeth his owne penurie of better and soun∣der reasons, and semeth to reproue al the olde learned Fathers, for calling it the vnbloudy Sacrifice.

Iewel.

Notvvitstandinge, Hesychius expoundinge the Booke of Leuiticus, to the intente he may force the vvhole Storie of the Life, and Deathe of Christe, to ansvveare euery particulare Ceremonie of the Lavve, is some∣times driuen,* 1.26 to streatche, and straine the Scriptures to his pnrpose. So he saithe, Christe is the Aultare: And, Christe Incarnate in the Virgins VVombe, is the Sodden Sacrifice.

Novv as Christe vvas the Aultare,* 1.27 and as he vvas Sacrificed in his Mothers VVombe, euen so he Sacrificed him selfe at his Supper: not in pro∣per, or vsual manner of speache, but onely in a Mysterie Signifieinge.

Othervvise S. Cyprian plainely openeth the vvhole difference of these tvvo Sacrifices in this sorte:* 1.28 Dedit Dominus noster in mensa, in qua Vltimum cum Apostolis participauit Conuiuium, proprijs ma∣nibus Panem, & vinum: In Cruce verò manibus militum Corpus tradidit vulnerandum. Our Lorde at the Table, whereat he receiued his laste Supper with his Disciples, with his owne handes gaue (not his very Bodie, and very Bloude Really, and in deede, but) Breade, and VVine: But vpon the Crosse, he gaue his owne Bodie, with the Souldiers handes to be VVounded. This, saithe Sainte Cyprian is the difference bitvvene the Sacrifice of the Table, and the Sacrifice of the Crosse: At the one, Christe gaue Breade, and VVine: Vpon the other, he gaue his Bodie.

Therefore, vvherea•• M. Harding saith, onely vpon his ovvne vvar∣rante, That Christe Really Sacrificed him selfe at two sundrie times, and that he twise Really Shead his Bloude, Firste at the Table, and Afterwarde vpon the Crosse: The vntrueth, and folie hereof is easily reproued by these plaine vvordes of S. Paule:* 1.29 Semel Ob∣latus est, ad multorum exhaurienda peccata: He was once offe∣red, to take away the sinnes of many.* 1.30 And againe, VVith one Sa∣crifice he hath made perfite them for euer, that be Sanctified. These places are cleare, and vvithout question: onlesse M. Harding vvil say that, One, and, Tvvo: and, Once, and Tvvise, be bothe one thing.

Harding.

Concerning the wordes of Hesychius, they be plaine for the real sacrifice of Christe at the Supper. For if he had there offered vp him selfe in a figure, or Mysterie only, as M. Iewel meaneth by his only mystery: he would neuer haue called it a preuention of the bloudy Sacrifice,* 1.31 neither would he haue vsed the terme praeueniens, pre∣uenting. For Christe to offer vp him selfe at the supper in a figure onely, in such sorte as he was offered in the sa∣crifices of the olde lawe, had not ben a preuention of his bloudy Sacrifice vpon the Crosse. Verely if M. Iewels vnderstanding were streatched and strained vnto the obedience of faith, he would not say so sawcily of that auncient and learned Father, that he is driuen to stretche and straine the Scriptures to his purpose. And what if it were graunted, that so he did sometimes (for more this Replyer saith not him selfe) wil it thereof folow, that he hath so done in this place?

As for the streatching and straining of the Scriptures, which he layeth to Hesychius charge, it is a very sim∣ple answer to the authoritie out of him alleged. That

he calleth Christe the Aulter, it is not strange, for so S. Paule calleth him, as there he allegeth. Neither was Christe by his reporte, sacrified in his Mothers wombe, he was incarnate in the virginis wombe, and the same Christes incarnation, he calleth the baked Sacrifice, for thereof he speaketh, and not of a sodden sacrifice, as the place is euident. The Oouen wherein it was baked, was the Virgins wombe,* 1.32 bicause (as he saith) shee receiued from aboue the bread of life, to wit, the worde of God, in her wombe, and the fire of the presence of the holy Ghoste. For the holy Ghoste (saith the Angel) shal come ouer into thee, and thee power of the highest shal ouershadow thee.

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

Touching the place of S. Cyprian,* 1.33 de vnctione Chrisma∣tis, he is like to haue smal aduantage, and lesse honesty by alleging it, when it is knowen, how falsly he hath done, in taking the begynning of the sentence, which being set a parte from the rest, semeth to geue a sownde of his do••ctrine, and cutting away the ende, that declareth the Do∣ctours

meaning, and quit ouerthroweth the Sacramētary heresie. For immediatly after the wordes, that M. Iewel taketh for his purpose, wherby is signified, that our Lorde at his last Supper gaue vnto his Apostles, bread and wine with his owne handes, and vpon the Crosse deliuered his body to be wounded with the handes of the Souldiers: this much folo∣weth in the same sentēce. Vt in Apostolis secretius impressa syncera veritas,* 1.34 & vera synceritas exponeret Gentibus, quo∣modo vinū & panis, caro esset & sanguis, et quib•• rōibus causae effectibus cōuenirēt, et diuersa noīa vel species ad vnā redu∣cerētur essentiā, et significātia et significata eisdē nacabulis cē∣serentur. That the sincere truth, and true sinceritie being secretly imprinted in th'Apostles might expoūd vnto the Gētils, how wine and bread should be his flesh and bloud, and by what meanes the causes should be agreable to the effectes, and diuers names and kindes should be brought vnto one substance, and the thinges signifying, and the thinges signified, should be called by the same names.

Lo here it is declared, what bread and wine it was, as much to say, the flesh and bloud of Christe, which S. Cy∣prian saith, he gaue at his last Supper vnto his Apostles. This cleare and syncere truth, or true synceritie (so he cal∣leth either the true doctrine of this Sacrifice, or the Sacri¦fice it self in respect of the sundry impure and typical sa∣crifices of Moses Lawe) he would secretly, that is, with th'inward knowledge of these secret mysteries, to be im∣printed and digested in th'Apostles, to thintēt they should expound vnto the Gentils, the Iewes with their olde sa∣crifices being now reiected, how at this heauenly banket the bread and wine is flesh and bloud: how the causes and effectes be agreable, that is to say, how the wordes of Cō¦secratiō

duely pronoūced by the Priest, and the power of the holy Ghoste, which are the causes, doo produce and make the body and bloud of our Lord, which be the effe∣ctes: how thinges of diuers names, and diuers in nature, and therfore diuers kindes, be brought vnto one essence or substāce, to wit, bread and wine, vnto the substance of Christes flesh and bloude,* 1.35 whereby Transubstantiation is wrought: briefly to conclude, how, wheras bread signifi∣eth the body, and wine the bloud, the thinges signifiyng, and the thinges signified, be called by the same names. Which thus appeareth to be true, bicause that which be∣fore Cōsecration was, and afterward semeth to be bread, is called the flesh, and in like case wine is called the bloud: and so cōtrariwise sometimes the flesh is called the bread, and the bloud is called the wine. What can be said more directly against M. Iewels Sacramentarie Heresie, and more piththily for cōfirmation of the Catholike doctrine touching this point? And al this M. Iewel hath leaft out.

The same very thing S. Cyprian doth vtter more plainely in other places.* 1.36 In his Treatise of the Supper of our Lorde he hath these most euident wordes. Panis iste, quem Dominus Discipulis porrigebat, non effigie, sed natura mutatus, Omnipotentia Verbi factus est Caro. This bread,* 1.37 which our Lorde gaue vnto his Disciples (at his supper) being changed not in shape, but in nature, by the almighty power of the Worde was made flesh.

Againe writing to Ca••ilius, he saith. Qui magis sacer∣dos, •• Dominus noster Iesus Christus, qui sacrificiū obtulit, et obtulit hoc idē, quod Melchisedech, id est, panē et vinum, suū scilicet corpus et sanguinē. Who is more a Priest, then our Lorde Iesus Christ, who offred vp a Sacrifice, and offred

the very same, that Melchisedech did, that is to say, bread and wine, as much to say, his owne body and bloude. By these places S. Cyprian declareth his minde plainely, what he meaneth by the bread and wine, that Christe either gaue at the Supper vnto his Disciples, or offered vnto his Father to render thankes for the great benefite of his passion, soothly none other bread and wine, then that which was made by the almighty power of the Woorde, his body and bloude. And behold Reader how vniforme his vtterance is, and how he agreeth with him selfe. In the Sermon De vnctione Chrismatis by M. Iewel with false leauing out that whiche made for the truth, alleged, he saith, that diuers, kindes are reduced into one substance, in his Sermon De coena Domini, he saith, the bread by the omnipotencie of the Woorde is made flesh, so bread and flesh being diuers kindes, are brought to one substance. There the thinges signifying, and the thinges signified, saith he, be called with the same names, as how, I haue before declared. In his Epistle to Cecilius, naming bread and wine, he expoundeth him selfe, thus, suum sci∣licet corpus & sanguinem, as much to say, his owne body and bloude. Where the body and bloude beare the na∣mes of bread and wine. By this it is clearly seene, what an impudent and wicked glose is that, which M. Iewel incloseth in his parenthesis added by way of exposition vnto the maimed sentence of S. Cyprian, wherewith to exclude the body and bloude of Christe, the true bread and wine.

What haue you wonne here by S. Cyprian M. Iewel? Who cutteth and maimeth the Doctours? Who is now to be asked, whether he haue the chynecoffe,* 1.38 which in a

place of your Reply with out cause you twite me of? What kinde of coffe I shal cal this, I wote not, I feare me the il mater of it lyeth not in your chyne, a place so farre from the harte, but in the harte it selfe. For were not the same by Satans worke festred with the corruption of he∣resie, you had not ben letted, as with a coffe, from brin∣ging forth the later parte of S. Cyprians saying, whose beginning you falsly abuse to obscure the cleare truthe. Who so euer thus coffeth, I wil not say, he hath the chynecoffe, as you ieast, but verely (sauing my charitie) that he coffeth as like an heretique, as a rotten yew cof∣••eth like a sheepe.

Laste of al, whereas he saith, that I am reprooued of vntruth and folie by S. Paule for saying,* 1.39 that Christe real∣ly sacrificed him selfe at two seueral times, and twise really shed his bloude, only vpon myne owne warrant: he maketh no lesse then three lyes within three lines. For neither said I in this place, that Christe twise really shed his bloude, nor onely vpon myne owne warrant said I, that Christe sacrificed his body and bloud twise, bicause I had the authoritie of Hesychius here, as the authoritie of o∣ther Fathers before, namely Gregorie Nyssen, and Theo∣phylacte, for my warrant. Nor for so saying am I repro∣ued of any vntruth, or folie, by S. Paule. For my assertion is true, notwithstanding any thing that S. Paule saith.

What though S. Paule say,* 1.40 M. Iewel, Christus semel ob∣latus est ad multorū exhauriend•• peccata, Christ was once offered,* 1.41 to take away the synn••s of Many: Againe, with one Sacrifice he hath made per••ite for euer them, that be san∣ctified? Bicause in these twoo sayinges you finde the termes, one, and once: therefore suppose you, that needes

they must reprooue my assertion, auouching that Christ was twise really offered?

* 1.42It semeth you neuer cōsidered, that there may be two oblations of one body, one bloudy, the other vnbloudy: one by his owne vertue meriting, the other applying the merite: the one open to the eyes of al, the other in a my∣sterie: the one imploying death of the thing offred, the o∣ther representing and recording the same death. Thus it may be, and yet the one shal not quit exclude the other. And he that shal affirme, the bloudy, the meriting, and the open oblation to be but one, shal not reprooue him, that saith, hauing respect to both these Oblations, that they be two, and that the body offered, is twise offered.

Euen so standeth the case betwen that S. Paule saith, and that I say. S. Paule speaketh of the Sacrifice of the Crosse that imployed the death of Christe, and fully me∣rited forgeuenesse of the sinnes of the worlde. Which appeareth by the effect of the oblation added, ad multorū exhaurienda peccata,* 1.43 to take away the sinnes of many, and in the other place, he made them that be sanctified with one oblation perfite for euer. This Sacrifice was offered vppon the Crosse. I speake both of that Sacrifice of the Crosse, and of this which Christ offered at his Supper, and com∣maunded to be offred in his remembrance vntil he come againe.

The substance of these two Sacrifices being Christe, is al one. The manner of offering, and ende is diuers. That vpon the Crosse,* 1.44 was paineful bloudy, ignominious, and ended in death.* 1.45 This at the Supper, is impassible, vn∣bloudy, glorious, and free from death. The ende of that was to deserue, and purchase the saluation of the

worlde, by paying a raunsom superabundantly sufficient for the sinnes of mankinde. And that was done once for al. The ende of this, is to commemorate, and repre∣sent the death of Christe vnto his Father, and in that cō∣memoration to besech God forgeuing vs our sinnes, to take vs into his fauour through the merites of that death, and to applie the benefite of it vnto them, for whom be∣ing as they ought to be, disposed, this Sacrifice is of∣fered.

To proue that Sacrifice made vpon the Crosse and the merites thereof, there neede none other testimonies, then those which haue ben already cited out of S. Paule. Of this, which was offred and instituted at the Supper, of the vnitie of it with the other, and of the effectes of the same, the learned Fathers haue made mention in sundry places. The oblation it selfe, and Institution, and one effecte, S. Cyprian comprehendeth in one sentence.* 1.46 Iesus Christus Dominus noster ipse est summus Sacerdos Dei Patris, & Sacrificium Deo Patri ipse primus obtulit, & hoc fieri in sui commemorationem praecepit. Ie∣sus Christe our Lorde, he is the highest Priest of God the Father, and he him selfe first offered a Sacrifice, and commaunded the same to be made in his Remem∣brance.

The vnitie of it with the other in substance, and the same effect that S. Cyprian speaketh of,* 1.47 S. Chrysostome most plainely vttereth. Quid ergo nos? &c. What then doo we? Do•• we not offer euery day? We doo offer verily, but we doo it for remembraunce of his death. And this hoste (or Sacrifice) is one, not many. How is it one, and not many•• Bicause it was once offered, it was offered vp

into the most holy place. But this Sacrifice is a sampler of that other. The selfe same do we offer vp alwaies. &c.

An other effecte of this our Sacrifice, that is, the Ap∣plying of Christes Passion vnto vs, S. Gregorie doth ex∣presse saying.* 1.48 Quoties ei hostiam suae Passionis offerimus, toties nobis ad absolutionem nostram illius Passionem repa∣ramus. As often as we offer vnto him the hoste of his Passion, so often do we renewe vnto our selues his Pas∣sion to our absolution.

And here to answer his skoffing Conclusion, I woon∣der, that skoffing at me for saying, Christe was twise sa∣crificed, he forgotte, that in the selfe same Diuision a litle before, he alleged a place out of S. Augustine, where there is expresse mention of two immolations or sacrifi∣cinges of Christe. S. Augustines wordes be plaine.* 1.49 Nō∣ne semel oblatus est Christus in semet ipso? Et tamen in Sa∣cramento non tantùm per omnes Paschae solennitates, sed e∣tiam omni die populis immolatur. Was not Christe once sacrificed in him selfe? And yet notwithstanding in a Sa∣crament he is sacrificed for the people, (so it is to be tran∣slated, and not is offered vnto the people, as M. Iewel fal∣sly translateth it) not only through al the solemne feastes of Easter, but also euery day.

Why heard you not your selfe M. Iewel, reporting this plaine saying of S. Augustine, that Christe is twise offered? twise (I say) in respect of the manner of offe∣ring, once openly, in him selfe, that is, vpon the Crosse: and againe in a Sacrament, after which manner he is offe∣red vp euery day, whereby the Sacrifice of the Aulter is meant. Christ there, and Christe here is sacrificed, for the substance of both Sacrifices is Christe. Of that you

doubte not, of this you should not doubte, beleuing him, who said, This is my body.

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

Notes

• * 1.1

  Hesychius lib. 1. c. 4.
• * 1.2

  Ioan. 10.
• * 1.3

  Apocal. 13.
• * 1.4

  August. Epist. 23.
• * 1.5

  M. Iewels doctrine touching the Sacri∣fice, is on∣ly figura∣tiue.
• * 1.6

  Onely in a Myste∣rie.
• * 1.7

  Lucae 22.
• * 1.8

  Only.
• * 1.9

  Cyprian. Sermone de ratio∣ne circū∣cisionis.
• * 1.10

  Gen. 4. Gen. 8.
• * 1.11

  Gen. 22.
• * 1.12

  Chrysost. in. 1. Cor. 10. Ho. 24 A cleare testimo∣ny for the Sacri∣fice of Christe in the Churche.
• * 1.13

  Lucae 22.
• * 1.14

  1. Cor. ••1.
• * 1.15

  Chrysost. in Litur∣gia.
• * 1.16

  Christe cōmaun∣ded him selfe to be offred vp.
• * 1.17

  VVitnes for the true and real bloud of Christ in the Sa∣crament.
• * 1.18

  Chrysost. in prior. ad Cor. Hom. 24.
• * 1.19

  Figure on¦ly exclu∣ded.
• * 1.20

  Reasons, vvhereby the Catho¦likes may be armed agaīst the Sacramēta¦ries for defense of this Sacri∣fice.
• * 1.21

  Lucae 22.
• * 1.22

  Math 26
• * 1.23

  Examina∣tion of M. Iuels Ar∣gument.
• * 1.24

  Theophy∣lact. in ••0. c. ad Heb.
• * 1.25

  Chrysost. in epist. ad Heb. Hom. 17. Ibidem.
• * 1.26

  Hesych. in Leuit. li. 1 cap. 4.
• * 1.27

  Li. 1. ca. 2. Sacrificiū Coctum.
• * 1.28

  Cyprianus de Vnctio∣ne Chris∣matis.
• * 1.29

  Hebrae. 9.
• * 1.30

  Hebrae. 10.
• * 1.31

  Hesychius In Leuit. li. 1. cap. 4.
• * 1.32

  Hesychius in Leuit. li. 1. cap. 2. Lucae 1.
• * 1.33

  S. Cypriā falsified by M. Ievvels māgling, and he∣vving.
• * 1.34

  Cyprianus De vnctio ne Chris∣matis.
• * 1.35

  Transub∣stantiatiō••
• * 1.36

  Cyprianus De coena Domini.
• * 1.37

  Lib. 2. Epi••stola 3.
• * 1.38

  M. Ievvels Coffe.
• * 1.39

  Three lyes made by M. Ie∣wel with∣in three lines.
• * 1.40

  Heb. 9.
• * 1.41

  Heb. 10••
• * 1.42

  Two ob∣lations of one body.
• * 1.43

  Heb. 9. Heb. 10.
• * 1.44

  Luc. 22.
• * 1.45

  1. Cor. 11.
• * 1.46

  Cyprian. lib. 2. epi∣stol. 3.
• * 1.47

  Chrysost. Hom. 17. in epist. ad Heb.
• * 1.48

  Gregor. Hom. 37.
• * 1.49

  August in. Epist. 23.