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.

Among other shiftes of M. Iewels Rhetorique, this is very common, where in deede he is most pressed with weight of good authoritie, or reason: there in woorde he sheweth forth greatest courage, and maketh resem∣blance, as al were nought, that is brought against him. But what say you good Sir? Hath not S. Dionysius in the place by me alleged no token at al, nor so much as an inkling of our offering vp of Christe vnto his Father? what creame is growen ouer your eyes, that you see not this truth in so cleare a light? what moueth you so to say? what proufe, what argument haue you?

Mary say you, Dionysius clearely sheweth the diffe∣rence, that is betwene the Sacrifice of the Crosse, and the

Sacrifice of the holy Communion. What conclude you? Ergo, he hath no token nor inkling of sacrificing Christ vnto his Father? O valiant Argument, O cunning Logici∣an! May not this man be allowed to finde fault with other mennes Argumentes, that thus maketh an Argu∣mēt him selfe, without either good forme, or true mater? For touching the forme, let it be graunted, that S. Diony∣sius had put such a difference, as you imagin, wil it neces∣sarily folowe, that in the place alleged in my Answer, he maketh not mention of offering Christe vnto his Father? This kinde of reason in any mater is faulty, but in this ma∣ter it is most faulty. For albeit the manner of the oblatiō or Sacrifice made vpon the Crosse, be diuers from that which Christe made at his Supper, and is now continued by the Priestes in the Masse: yet the thing it selfe offred, and substance is al one in both Sacrifices, as it hath ben clearely proued before by testimonie of S. Chrysostom, and others. So that the shewing of some difference betwene them, doth not exclude the thing or substance of either of them, nor concludeth them, so to be diuers, but the one may wel stande with the other.

Touching the mater of the former Argument, it is euidently false. For S. Dionyse in that place treateth not of difference betwene this, and that Sacrifice, as you M. Iewel would haue him appeare to doo by wilful fal∣sifying of the place, by putting in woordes of your owne, and by clipping away wordes of that holy Do∣ctour. These be S. Dionyses wordes, as they lye in the Greeke, faithfully englished. Wherefore the Diuine Bishop standing at the Diuine Aulter, doth praise the said holy and godly actions of IESVS, for his heauenly pro∣uidence

towardes vs, whiche actions he (according to the Scripture) perfited for the saluation of Mankinde through the good pleasure of his most holy Father in the Holy Ghoste. And after that he hath ended the praises, and beholden the reuerent and spiritual contemplation of those thinges with the eyes of vnderstanding: he commeth vnto the Mystical Sacrifice of them, and that according to Gods tradition. By Gods tradition he meaneth that which Christe taught his Disciples at the Supper, how, and after what manner, they should offer this Sacrifice in re∣membrance of his death.

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

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

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

But here S. Dionyse (saith he) calleth not the Ministra∣tion of the holy Mysteries the sacrificing of Christe. I graunt. How could he so cal it here, that is to say, in this your falsified sentence, which S. Dionyse neuer vttered? And sir, what if S. Dionyse do not so cal it? What maketh that to the point, that presently we treate of? Mine endeuour was not to shewe, that S. Dionyse calleth the Ministra∣tion of the Mysteries the sacrificing of Christe: but that in deede he sacrificed the body and bloude of Christe, and consequently Christe him selfe. And bicause it semed

to him very much, a mortal man to offer vp the body and bloude of his Lorde: reuerently, and in seemely wise, he maketh his excuse, saying, Lorde thou hast said, Doo ye this in my remembrance. As who should say, Lorde hadst thou not by thine expresse worde commaunded vs so to doo, I would not be so bolde, as to take that vpon me, which so farre passeth my worthinesse.

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

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

If you say, this saying is to be expounded of the sacri∣fice of praise, and thankes geuing, tel vs, who euer gaue

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

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

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

Againe for further proufe of this most honorable

and heauenly Sacrifice, this is to be considered in S. Dionyses Treatise. So long as the bishop, or Priest is at∣tent to geuing praises, and thankes, for the great workes of God (which is also a kinde of sacrifice) so long we see none excuse made of any vnworthinesse. But the praises being once finished, as sone as he commeth vnto the mystical Sacrifice, before he dare to aduenture it, he premitteth his humble sute for excuse to be obteined. What should the cause be, why the Bishop or Priest before the offering of the one Sacrifice maketh no ex∣cuse of his vnworthinesse, and here as he entreth vnto it maketh so humble an excuse: but bicause there is a great difference betwen the excellencie of the one, and the other? In both sacrifices Christes benefites be re∣membred, for how can that be praised, that is not re∣membred? The difference must nedes be in the excel∣lencie of the thing offred. But what thing can be better and excellenter, then the praise of God, and thankes geuing, but onely the body and bloud of Christ? Where∣fore it must needes be the body and bloude of Christe, which the Bishop or Priest offered, premitting so humble an excuse, and appealing vnto Christes owne commaun∣dement for his warrant.

This much with the circumstances of the place duely considered, I doubte not but any reasonable man wil sone conceiue S. Dionyse to speake of the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe, and so consequently of Christe offered and sacrificed vnto God, to whom onely Sacrifice is to be made: though M. Iewel be so shamelesse as to say, that he hath no token, nor inkling of any such Sacrifice, and though in very deede

the precise termes of Sacrificing Christe, or the Sonne of God vnto his Father, be not expressely set forth. The which termes, as to expresse them, it was not necessa∣ry, so of great discretion and wisedome, this holy lear∣ned Father, who liued in the Apostles time, eschewed: and yet he so signified the thing, by other wordes, as of the faithful it might be vnderstanded, and from the In∣fidels kept secret. Who if our Mysteries had bene with plaine speache made open vnto them, through lacke of faith, would haue had them in derision, and trodden them vnder their feete, as swyne doo precious stones, and as Heretiques doo at this day.

For which cause S. Augustine, and S Chrysostome, and al other in manner the olde learned Fathers, spea∣king of this most reuerent Sacrifice, doo vse these or the like admonitions. The Sacrifice, which the faithful knowe, and those that haue read the Gospel. Againe. The which Sacrifice, where, and when, and how it is offred, thou shalt knowe, when thou art baptized. &c.

But in the age that folowed, when the faith was generally receiued ouer the worlde, the learned Fathers spake more plainely of it. As for example, Cassiodorus that noble Senatour of Rome, and learned writer, who liued about the yere of our Lorde. 570. in his Commen∣taries vpon the Psalmes, expounding the place of Chri∣stes euerlasting Priesthoode in the .109. Psalme, saith thus in most plaine wise. To whom can this truly, and eui∣dently be applied, but vnto our Lorde our Sauiour, who healthfully in the gifte of bread and wine consecrated his Body a••d Bloude? As him selfe saith in the Ghospel. Except ye eate the flesh of the Sonne of man, and drinke

his bloude, ye shal not haue life euerlasting. But in this flesh and bloude, let mans mynde conceiue, nothing that is bloudy, nothing that is corruptible, least i•• come to passe which the Apostle saith, he that eateth the body of our Lorde vnwor∣thily, eateth to him selfe condemnation: (the wordes that folowe be these). Sed viuificatricem substantiam, at que sa∣lutarem, & ips••us verbi propriam factam: per quam pecca∣torum remissio, & vitae aeternae dona praestantur. But let (the mynde of man conceiue it to be) the quickening, the healthful substance, and that which was made the worde it selfes owne proper substance, by which the remis∣sion of sinnes, and the giftes of euerlasting life be geuen. The which order (of Priesthode and Sacrifice) by mystical similitude Melchisedech that most iust king did institute, when he offered vp vnto our Lorde the fruites of bread and wine. For it is cleare, that the sacrifices of beastes are quite gone away, which were of the order of Aaron, and that Melchisedeks order rather remaineth, which in the deliuering forth of the Sacramentes is celebrated in al the worlde. Which thing the obstinate Iewes doo not yet vn∣derstand, whereas it is certaine, that both their Priest, and Sacrifices are taken quite away.

This learned Father here setteth forth plainely three thinges concerning the Sacrifice we speake of. The first is, that Christe at his Supper consecrated his body and bloude, which you M. Iewel in your Replie of the first Article doo denie. The second is, what flesh, and what bloude it is, that is so consecrated, to wit, vnbloudy bloude, and•• if it be lawful so to speake, vnfleshy flesh, and yet true shesh, and true bloude, euen the quickening substance, that, which is proper to the

Worde it selfe, and whereby Mankinde is redemed. The thirde is, that the Priesthoode after Melchisedeks order remaineth stil, doubtelesse bicause as Christe pre∣senteth him selfe continually in heauen vnto the Father for vs: so by Priestes of the newe Testament, his Vicars, he offereth him selfe vnto the Father now also in earth vnder the formes of bread and wine, after the order of Melchisedek. Which Sacrifice is now frequented ouer al the world, the Iewes sacrifices being vtterly abandoned.

Isidorus that holy and learned Bishop of Hispa∣lis now called Siuile in Spaine, hauing declared out of the Scripture, that in the time of Sacrifices in the olde Lawe, the Leuites sownded their trumpets, by way of comparison speaking of the Offertories soong in the Churche, saith, that now we likewise doo sing, with deede and harte vttering forth praises to our Lorde in the time of our Sacrifice. In illo vero Sacrificio, cuius sanguine saluatus est mundus, be his wordes, that is to say, In that true Sacrifice, by the bloude whereof the worlde is saued. Here he calleth it the true Sacrifice, whereby M. Iewels wicked assertion of his only figuratiue Sacrifice, is quite dasshed, and ouer∣throwen.

Againe in an other place, The Sacrifice (saith he) which is offered vp vnto God by the Christians, Christe our Lorde and Maister did first institute it, when he gaue vnto the Apostles his body and his bloude, before he was betrayed: as it is read in the Gospel, Iesus (saith the Euangelist tooke bread, and the Cuppe, and hauing blessed, gaue to them. The which Sacrament Melchi∣sedech King of Salem first offered vp figuratiuely in type

(or token) of the body and bloude of Christe: and the same man first of al expressed imaginarily (or in image) the Mysterie of this so great a Sacrifice, foreshewing the likenesse of our Lorde and Sauiour Iesus Christe the euerlasting Priest. To whom it is said, Thou arte a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech. This Sacrifice the Christians haue bene commaunded to celebrate, the Iewish sacrifices leafte of and ended, which were commaunded to be celebrated, when the people of the olde Lawe were vnder seruitude. And so then this thing is done of vs, which our Lorde him selfe did for vs, whiche he offered not in the morning, but afterward, for he did it in the euening.

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

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

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

If the thing we haue in the Sacrament of the Aulter, were but a signe, figure, or token of Christes body, then would not this holy and learned Father, as sundry other Fathers haue done, so earnestly haue ex∣horted maried persons to forebeare their wedlocke-worke before the receiuing of it: yea specially then would not he by comparing this with the Shewbread, so much haue preferred this before that. For that was also a figure of the body of Christe. And if that whiche we haue be no more but a figure, then was that as good as this. Now Isidorus preferreth this before that, as being the body it selfe, whereof that was the shadow, the truth, whereof that was the Image, the thing it selfe, whereof that was a sampler. Where∣fore to conclude, this being the true and real Body of Christe, whereas Priestes offer vp and sacrifice the same, as we must graunt they doo, or denie the Fathers:

it foloweth, that they offer vp and sacrifice Christe the Sonne of God vnto his Father. The like, and plainer sayinges for the truth of this Sacrifice, if neede were, might in great number sone be recited out of the other Fathers, that wrote sithens the faith of Christ was generally receiued where it was preached, and al superstition of Gentilitie quite abolished•• but these may suffice.

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

And why is our most blessed Sacrament a figure? S. Gregorie euen there sheweth it to be so called in

respecte of the fruition of the same, whiche we shal enioye in Heauen, where we shal after an heauenly manner, eate, and drinke it, without any Fgure, or coouer. Such a Figure or signe doth not onely si∣gnifie, but conteineth also the thing signified. In con∣sideration whereof S. Augustine putting a difference betwene the Sacramentes of the Newe and of the olde Testament, saith, that The Sacramentes of the Newe Testament geue Saluation, and the Sacramentes of the Olde Testament promised the Sauiour. Suche signes as geue saluation, be meete Sacramentes of the Newe Testament, of such kinde of signe or figure speaketh S. Dionyse, where he vseth the terme Symbolical, speaking of the Sacrifice of the Body and Bloude of Christe.

As for that M. Iewel allegeth out of Prchyme∣res the Paraphraste, who saith, The Priest commeth to the Bread, and the Cuppe, whereof he would faine conclude, that the inuisible substance of the Sacrifice is not the body and bloude of Christe: it standeth him in litle stede. For in deede it is bread and wine, when the Priest first commeth vnto them to celebrate the Sa∣crifice: But when the wordes of Christe be comme vnto them (as S. Ambrose saith) that is to say, when the Priest hath duely pronounced the wordes of Con∣secration: then are they made the body and bloude of Christe, and so the Sacrifice of Christe.

And that Pachymeres was of this beleefe, it is cleare by his owne woordes, whiche M. Iewel ei∣ther knewe not, and so speaketh ignorantly, or knewe wel yenough, yet dissembled, and so doth maliciously.

Bicause for some credite of his purpose he cited his woordes in Greke (though by casting in one woorde of his owne which he founde not in the texte, after his common woonte he hath some deale falsified the sentence) I wil also here truely cite the woordes in Greke, by which Pachymeres sheweth him selfe to be Catholique in this point, and quite contrary to M. Iewels Sacramentarie doctrine. They be these. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. As muche to say in English. There be many that cast their eye vpon the holy signes onely, as they who are not ha∣ble to conceiue any higher thing. But the Bishop him silfe is caried vp vnto those first samplers (or natural thinges) to wit, the pretious body, and bloude it selfe of our Lorde, beleuing that the thinges which are set forth (that is to say, the bread and wine) be changed into them by the holy and almighty Ghoste.

Lo M. Iewel, here haue you the cleare testimonie of Pachymeres him selfe, for his true and Catholique beleefe touching the truth of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament. Which beleefe is, not onely that the pretious body and bloude of our Lorde are of a right beleeuer beholden, and conceiued in the Sacrament verely present, which the Lutherans do acknowledge: but also that the bread and wine are by the power of the holy Ghoste, into the same conuerted and chan∣ged,

whiche neither ye, nor Luthers scholers doo be∣leeue: and so by Pachymeres transubstantion is auou∣ched.

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

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

If you would needes shewe your cunning in Lo∣gique, and dispute after the rules of that arte, why rehersed you not the whole Antecedent? Though in this place I frame no Argume at al, but onely recite the saying of S. Dionyse applying it to my purpose:

yet if the whole should be disposed in fourme of an Argument, this is the Argument, that thereof might be concluded, the circumstance of the place consi∣dered.

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

If you had thus set forth the Argument M. Iewel, and dealt simply and truly, you should not haue needed to trouble the reader with so much Sophistrie and Logique, as here for confutation of your owne forged reason you haue bestowed. Bicause you knewe your selfe not hable to auoide the force of the whole Antecedent, slyly you answer to that parte of it onely, where it is said,

the Priest excuseth him selfe, as though I had layd the chiefe grounde of the authoritie in that clause onely. And thereof you take occasion to enter into a neede∣lesse common place, proouing by certaine testimonies, which no man euer denied, that sundry holy thinges are to be done not presumptuously and rashly, but reue∣rently, and with feare and trembling, as namely when we offer vp the Sacrifice of Praise, when we baptise, when we preache, or heare Gods holy worde, when we pray, and cal God our Father. For the reuerent and hūble demeanour that we ought to shewe in doing these holy thinges, you allege S. Basil, S. Dionyse, S. Paule, S. Cyprian.

But what of al this? wil it thereof folowe, Ergo, though the Priest standing at the Aulter, and comming to offer the Mystical Sacrifice, excuse him selfe (not for praying, preaching, praising, or baptizing, but) for of∣fering the healthful hoste, that farre passeth his degree, euen the same, that Christe offered at his laste Supper, whereof he said, This is my Body, this is my Bloud, and gaue commission to doo the same: yet he offereth not Christe vnto his Father? This is the iust iudgement of God M. Iewel, that you where you be so busy in scor∣ning at other mens good Argumentes, be founde your selfe to frame most fonde and childishe Argumentes, by certaine phrases eluding weighty pointes of Christian Religion, and alwaies impugning one truthe by an o∣ther truthe, which way of reasoning is of al other the weakest.

Thus you see good Sir, that I haue not prooued this Sacrifice only by the vnworthinesse of the Priest, as

you say, but by other force clearly appearing in the fore∣said testimonie of S. Dionyse.

Of al the authorities, that here to litle purpose you haue alleged, I had thought to touche neuer a one, forasmuche as I yeelde to tbat by the same is reported: had you not too shamefully falsified and corrupted a sentence of S. Gregorie Nazianzen, bothe with your false interlaced glose, and by changing the whole pur∣porte thereof. Thus you make that learned Father to speake. How can they, or dare they offer vnto God (he saith not the body of Christe really, and in deede, but) the figure of these great Mysteries?

Nowe let vs see S. Gregorie Nazianzens owne woordes. The whole sentence being long, I wil re∣cite onely the later ende of it, which aunswereth to your allegation. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉? As much to say. Howe shoulde I dare to offer vp vnto him (he meaneth God) the external Sacrifice, that is the sampler of the great Mysteries?

Compare this, and your owne allegation together, and you shal perceiue your vntrue dealinge and cor∣ruption of the sentence to be espied. You haue chan∣ged the firste person singuler, into the thirde person plural. Whiche is an argument, that your selfe neuer saw the place it selfe in the Author, but receiued it of some, that was appointed to gather notes for you such, as you might frame to your purpose. Your Note-gatherer espying as he thought some vantage in the la∣ter woordes of the Sentence, wrote them out onely, leauing out the beginning, where the pronoune 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

is expressely founde. And so both you and he were de∣ceiued in the verbe, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which serueth indifferently to the first person singuler, or to the third person plural, you of ignorance, as I suppose, he of malice, specially if he were learned.

Although this be no litle faulte, yet is it not the grea∣test by many partes. For you haue quite hewed away a principal member of the sentence, to wit, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is to say, the external Sacrifice, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, Sa∣crifice, is there to be supplied. Whereby you shewe vn∣to vs, that, as you and your companions haue bannished the thing it selfe already out of the Churches of Englād, so would you gladly also skrape the name and terme out of the bookes of the auncient writers, if by any meanes ye could. For this one clause, the external Sacrifice, ouer∣throweth al your doctrine against the Sacrifice of the Aulter, and proueth your interlined Glose to be false, and heretical. For if it be an external Sacrifice, it can not be but real, and true, and a Sacrifice in dede.

The addition that foloweth in S. Gregorie, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is nothing els, but a declara∣tion of what external Sacrifice he spake, to wit, not of that great external and open Sacrifice, which Christe offered vpon the Crosse, but of the true sampler of the same. Which is the external Sacrifice of the Churche, made by the ministerie of the Priest vpon the Aulter, one with the other in substance, but diuers in the manner of offering, as we are driuen by your affectate and dissem∣bled ignorance oftentimes to say. Of this terme, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, sampler, how it is to be taken, I haue already, decla∣red before in the .4. Diuision. Here to reherse the same

againe, it were superfluous.

Now I require thee to iudge indifferently gentle Rea∣der, whether M. Iewel be to be accompted a true and a faithful dealer in these weighty causes concerning our faith, and whether he be not worthy to be suspected, who hath so fowly falsified and corrupted this auncient and learned Father, by changing one person into an o∣ther, one number into an other, by altering the true sense with his heretical parenthesis, and by maiming the whole sentence with his cutting away of a principal member.

In the ende M. Iewel to leaue in the Readers mynde an opinion of his skil in Logique, which is knowen to be very smal, repeating againe the former Argument of his owne forging, and falsly ascribed vnto me, saith: It is a fal∣lax à meris particularibus, a kind of fallacie of his owne in∣uention, vnknowen to Aristotle, and to al that haue writ∣tē since of deceitful Argumentes. For al skilful Logicians do knowe, that of two premisses being both particular, a good argument may be concluded, although it be not di∣rectly in any of the three perfite Figures. And if the Ar∣gument be not faulty for this cause, yet it procedeth (saith he) A non distributo ad distributū. Wel, if it so procede and therefore be naught, let him selfe amende it, that made it. As for my grounde, it resteth vpon the authoritie of S. Dionyse the blessed Apostle S. Paules scholer.

An other faulte in this Argument, is founde contrary to the rules of Logique, for that it concludeth (saith this great Logician) affirmatiuely in the second Figure. What Sir? Haue you forgoten your selfe so quickly? Said you not in the line before, it was ex meris particularibus? If it be so, then is it neither in the first, nor second, nor third

Figure. So that either the first faulte is none, and this later one: or this later none, and the first one, or ra∣ther neither this, nor that any at al. Beside this it is an Enthymema, consisting onely of two propositions. And then if it were myne Argument, how knowe you to what Mode and Figure, by a litle displacing of the termes, I were hable to reduce it vnto, if it should be de∣nyed?

Thus I abuse thy leisure gentle Reader with stan∣ding vppon these trifles. But I trust, thou wilt con∣sider, how farre I was enforced thereunto by M. Iew∣els trifling in an ernest mater. And as by the aduise of the wise man, we may aunswere a foole according to his foolishnes, least he seme wise in his owne conceit: so sometimes it is profitable, to answer a trifler, according to his trifles, that he may beholde his owne vanitie and trifling witte. And thus standeth S. Dionyses saying in his ful force.

Notes

• A Com∣mō shifte of M. Ievvels Rheto∣rique.
• In epistol. ad Hebr. Hom. 17.
• Dionys. ec∣cles. Hie∣rarc. Cap. 3. p. 3.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• Luc. 22.
• Aulter.
• M. Ievvel falsifieth S Dionyse.
• August. epist. 174.
• August. Confess. lib. 9. ca. 12.
• Diuisiō. 6.
• Iren. li. 4. cap. 32.
• The Tra∣dition of God.
• That S. Dionyse meaneth the Sacri∣fice of the body and bloude of Christe.
• August. in Psalm. 33. & epistol. 120.
• Origen. in Leuit. ca. 16. hom. 9
• At the begīning ••ge Fa∣thers spake se∣c••etly of the Sacri∣fice at lēg∣th vvhen the faith had pre∣uailed ge∣nerally, thei spake more plainely. Cassiodor. Psal. 109.
• 1. Cor. 11.
• Gen. 14.
• Pag. 19.
• A cleare testimo∣ny agaīst those, that make this only a fi∣guratiue Sacrifice.
• Isidorus de Eccles. Officijs. li. 1. ca. 14
• Ibidem. cap. 18.
• Math. 26.
• Imagina∣riè. Psal. 109.
• Ibidem.
• 1. Reg. 21.
• In vvhat sense is the Sacri∣fice sym∣bolical, or figura∣tiue.
• Gregor. Nazian. Hom. 4. de Pasch.
• August. in Psal. 73.
• Ansvver to Pachy∣meres.
• Ambros. de Sacramēt. lib. 4 cap 5
• Pachymee. in Dionys. Eccles. Hie¦rarch. cap. 3. pag. 136.
• Transub∣stātiation
• M. Ievvel forgeth Argumēt••.
• Augustin. contra Iu∣lian. lib. 3. cap. 7.
• An Argu∣ment ga∣thered out of S. Dionyse for the Sacrifice.
• Luc. 22.
• M. Ievvel falsifieth and fow∣ly cor∣rupted S. Gregorie Nazian∣zene.
• Gregor. Nazian. in Apolo∣getico.
• S. Grego∣rie Nazi∣anzen ac∣knovv∣ledgeth the exter∣nal Sacri∣fice.
• External Sacrifice.
• Antitypō. Fol. 82. b. & 83.
• A nevv fallacie di¦uised by M. Iewel.
• Beholde reader the rare cunning this man hath in Logique.
• Prouer. 26