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 .12. Diuision.

The Ansvver.

LEauing no smal number of places, that might be recited out of diuerse other Doctours, I wil bring two of two woorthy Bishops, one of Chrysostom, the other of S. Ambrose, confirming this Trueth. S. Chrysostomes woordes be these. Pontifex noster ille est, qui hostiam mundantem nos obtulit: ipsam offerimus & nunc, quae tunc oblata qui∣dem consumi non potest. Hoc autem, quod

nos facimus, in commemorationem fit eius, quod factum est. Hoc enim facite, inquit, in mei commemorationem. He is our Bishop, that hath offered vp the Hoste, whiche cleanseth vs. The same doo we offer also nowe, whiche though it were then offered, yet can not be consumed. But this, that we doo, is done in Remembraunce of that, whiche is done. For, doo ye this, saith he, in my Remembraunce. S. Ambrose saith thus: Vidimus Principem Sa∣cerdotum ad nos venientem: vidimus, & au∣diuimus offerentem pro nobis sanguinem su∣um: sequamur, vt possumus, sacerdotes, vt offeramus pro populo sacrificium, etsi infirmi merito, tamen honorabiles Sacrificio. Quia etsi Christus non videtur offerre, tamen ipse offertur in terris, quando Christi Corpus offer∣tur. We haue seene the Prince of Priestes come to vs: we haue seene and hearde him offer for vs his Bloude: Let vs that be Priestes, folow him, as we may, that we may offer Sacrifice for the people, being though weake in merite, yet honourable for the Sacri∣fice. Because al be it Christe be not seene to offer, yet he is offered in earth, when the Body of Christe is offered. Of these our Lordes woordes, which is geuen for you, and, which is shedde for you, and for many, here S. Ambrose exhorteth the Priestes, to offer the

Body and Bloud of Christe for the people: and willeth them to be more regarded, then cōmonly they be now a daies, for this Sacrifice sake, though otherwise they be of lesse desert.

Iewel.

This allegation argueth no greate abundance of stoare. For Chry∣sostome in these vvoordes bothe openeth him selfe, and shevveth, in vvhat sense other Ancient Fathers vsed this vvorde, Sacrifice, and also vtterly ouerthrovveth M. Hardinges vvhole purpose touching the same. For, as he saithe, wee offer vp the same Sacrifice, that Christe offered, so in most plaine vvise and by sundrie vvordes, he remooueth al doubte, and declareth, in vvhat sorte, and meaning vvee offer it. He saithe not, as M. Hardinge saithe, wee offer vp the Sōne of God vnto his Father, and that verily, and in deede: but con∣trary vvise thus he saithe, Offerimus quidem, sed ad Recordatio∣nem facientes Mortis eius. Hoc Sacrificium Exemplarillius est. Hoc, quod nos facimus, in commemorationem fit eius, quod factum est. Id ipsum semper offerimus: Magis autem Recordatio∣nem Sacrificij operamur: VVe offer in deede: but in remem∣brance of his Death. This Sacrifice, is an Examlpe of that Sacrifice. This, that we doo, is donne in remembrannce of that, that was done. VVee offer vp the same, that Christe offered: Or rather wee worcke the Remembrance of that Sa∣crifice. Thus vvee offer vp Christe, That is to say, an Example, a Commemoration, a Remembrance of the Deathe of Christe. This kinde of Sacrifice vvas neuer denied: but M. Hardinges Real Sa∣crifice vvas yet neuer proued. So saithe S. Augustine: Cùm hostia frangitur, & sanguis in ora Fidelium funditur, quid aliud, quàm Dominici Corporis in Cruce Immolatio significatur? VVen the Oblation is broken, and the Bloude (that is to say, The Sacrament of the Bloude) is powred into the mouthes of the Faitheful, what other thinge is there signified, but the Sacrifice of Our Lordes Bodye vpon the Chrosse?

Harding.

How so euer it like you to scorne at our stoare, the multitude of cleare testimonies for proufe of the Sacri∣fice, to the learned can not be vnknowen. Were it so that ye had but one making so directly against it, as these two here, and sundry others in this Article by me alle∣ged make for it: ye would haue made no smal stoare of it. In bookes and pulpites, in tauernes and alebenches, your trompettes long er this should haue proclaimed it. As for these two places, let vs see, how your sclender Replie is farre to light, so to carry away the weight of them.

First touching S. Chrysostome, with what plainer termes, with what more effectual wordes could any man haue expressed the truth of our Sacrifice? If we that be Priestes, offer vp now also the selfe same hoste, which our Bishop Christe hath offered vpon the Crosse, euen that hoste which cleanseth vs from our sinnes, as S. Chrysostome saith: that being none other but the pre∣cious flesh and bloud of Christ, that is to say Christe him selfe (for he offered him selfe to his Father to cleanse vs) how haue not Priestes auctoritie to offer vp Christ vnto his Father, which is the expresse Article that you denye? That euery simple man may haue in readinesse an Argu∣ment against such false teachers for the Sacrifice, thus for their sake, it may be framed. Who so euer do offer vp the selfe same hoste, which Christ hath offered, they offer vp Christe. The Priestes offer the same that Christe offered: Ergo they offer vp Christe. The Maior is euident in it selfe, the Minor is S. Chrysostomes, the Argument being

good, the Conclusion must needes be true.

That it may the better appeare of what force M. Ie∣wels Replie is, this much is to be considered: That in this place of S. Chrysostome consisting of two partes, two thinges are auouched. In the first parte, he geueth vs his witnesse for the substāce of this Sacrifice, which Priestes do now offer in the Churche. In the second parte he de∣clareth one ende, wherein the Sacrifice offered by Priestes, doth differ from the Sacrifice offered by Christ him selfe. Christ our Bishop (saith he) offered the cleansing hoste. But we offer that ••oste in commemoration. Which is as much to say, The ende of the Sacrifice that Christe offered, was to cleanse vs from our synnes. The ende of the Sacrifice that is done by Priestes, is to renewe daily the memorie of this cleansing Sacrifice, and so conse∣quently to deriue and apply vnto the deuoute and faith∣ful people, as also vnto them selues, the fruit and effecte of it. The identitie of the substance, of either Sacrifice, and the diuersitie of the ende of either Sacrifice, is plainely taught by S. Chrysostome in that Homilie.

Now let vs examine your Replie. You attribute vnto S. Chrysostome for hauing vttered the saying that I here allege, three thinges. The first is, that in these wordes (marke Reader what this man saith) He openeth him selfe. The second is, that he sheweth in what sense other auncient Fathers vsed this worde, Sacrifice. The third is, that he ouerthroweth M. Hardings whole purpose touching the Sacrifice. Surely this is very much, and were it also true, I maruel why neither your selfe, nor any of your felowes euer heretofore alleged it against the Sa∣crifice. But certaine we are, ye shal wring hard, be∣fore

ye wring this muche out of these wordes.

That in these wordes he openeth him selfe, I may ea∣sily graunt you. But that opening is openly against your open Sacramentarie heresie. For whereas you denie the oblation and Sacrifice of the Church, he saith, that now also we offer. whereas you denie, that we offer Christe to the Father, he saith, we offer now also the selfe same hoste, which our high Bishop Christe, hath offered. And to put it out of doubte, what hoste he meaneth, he openeth him selfe, as you say, calling it, hostiam mundantem nos, the hoste that cleanseth vs, which can be none other, but Christe him selfe. And bicause the hostes that were offered in sacrifice in the olde lawe, were forthwith consumed, to shewe the excellencie of this hoste, he saith of it, that being then, that is to say, vpon the Crosse, offered, it can not be consumed. And therefore in the same Homilie he saith, that it is otherwise with vs now, then it was with the Iewes. For they on diuers daies offered diuers lambes. but we (saith he) offer not one lambe to day, and an other lambe to morowe, but alwaies we offer one, and the same lambe.

Touching the second point, if in these wordes (let them be consideratly perused) S. Chrysostome shewe, in what sense other auncient Fathers haue vsed this woorde, Sacrifice, then by the auncient Fathers your doctrine touching the truth of Christes body in the blessed Sacrament, is quite ouerthrowen. For he calleth it most expressely, the Hoste that cleanseth vs from our sinnes, which Christe our high Bishop offered vp for vs vppon the Crosse. If the auncient Fathers, when so euer they speake of the hoste that is offered

vp by Priestes in the Sacrifice of the Churche, meane thus, as S. Chrysostome speaketh, then are they of our side by your owne confession, then is the Ca∣tholike Doctrine concerning the Sacrament, and the Sacrifice, by them against your heresie confirmed, and mainteined. God be praised, by whose prouidence the Truth is confessed, by the ennemies of Truth. Certainely here you ouershote your selfe, in telling the truth against your selfe vnwares.

Here then I shal aduertise the Christian Reader, to beare these wordes of S. Chrysostome in memo∣rie, and to consider wel of them, for so much as in them he openeth him selfe, as Mayster Iewel con∣fesseth, and sheweth what meaning the auncient Fa∣thers had, when they spake of the Sacrifice of the Churche.

But how in these wordes he ouerthroweth my purpose touching the Sacrifice, or rather the vni∣uersal Doctrine of the whole Churche, that neither I, nor M. Iewel him selfe, nor any other man. I am sure, can perceiue. In, these wordes, I say whiche be here alleged in my Answer to the Chalenge. Nay, how can they not seme most plainely, and directly to auouche our doctrine touching the Sacrifice? Doth he not set Christe, and Priestes that be now, together in the office of offering? He hath offered, we offer also now, saith he. Doth he not auouche the hoste, that Christ offered, and the hoste that Priestes now offer (for thereof he speaketh) to be one, and the selfe same hoste? And that no man should doubte, what hoste he meant, saith he not, it is that, which cleanseth our sinnes? that, which

then being offered (to witte, vpon the Crosse with shed∣ding of bloude, with death, to cleanse synnes, and to re∣deme the worlde) can not be consumed? What hoste can this be, but the body of Christ, but Christe him selfe? For nothing could cleanse our synnes, but he, who onely is the Lambe of God, that taketh a way the synnes of the worlde. Thus then the substance of the hoste, that Christe our Bishop offered, and of that we offer, is one, and the selfe same. So it is clearely proued by these wordes of S. Chrysostome, that it is not onely a memorie, an ex∣ample, a similitude, a figure, or resemblance of Christes body, that we offer in our daily Sacrifice, but the selfe same hoste in substance, that Christe offered to cleanse vs, which is the substance of his owne body and bloud, for it was not a figure that he offered for vs, but his true and real bodye.

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

S. Chrysostome (say you) remoueth al doubte, and declareth in what sorte and meaning we offer the Sacri∣fice. How so good sir, tel it vs, I pray you, for I accompt it wel worth the learning. Mary (say you) he saith not, as M. Harding saith, we offer vp the Sonne of God vnto his Father, and that verely, and in deede. First it is a strange thing to me, that a man should remoue al doubtes, and declare the certaintie of thinges, by not saying, as you

replye. Nexte, what if he say not in expresse termes, that we offer vp the Sonne of God vnto his Father? Wil you now go from the matter, and flie for refuge to your owne precise termes?

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

Now that you haue tolde vs, what S. Chrysostome saith not, which helpeth your cause nothing at al: you shewe vs what he saith. And here you bring in cer∣taine peeces, and maimed sayinges out of him, being a fraid to allege the whole sentences, as they lye in that learned Doctor, least you should marre altogether, as you should haue done, if you had suffered him to tel his owne tale. Bicause the place is somewhat long, I had rather referre the Reader vnto the .17. Homilie vpon the Epistle to the Hebrewes, where it is written, then here to reherse the whole.

But let vs see, what you pike out of that Homilie for your purpose, and how much it relieueth your cause. Remember what you haue promised to shewe out of S. Chrysostome, that he remoueth al doubte, and declareth in what sorte and meaning we offer the Sacrifice. You allege out of the said Homilie, foure sentences, or rather foure peeces of sentences.

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

Your second peece of a sentence is this. Hoc Sacri∣ficium exemplar illius est. This Sacrifice is an example of that Sacrifice. But what foloweth, Id ipsum semper offeri∣mus. We offer alwaies the selfe same thing. And what thing is that? There he sheweth. It is the Hoste that cleanseth vs, which Christe our Bisshop hath offered. So then we see it called, both the real thing it selfe, that was

offered, and the sampler of the thing. In that he calleth it a sampler, thereby he putteth vs in minde, the order and manner of offering it now, to be different from the manner of the oblation of the Crosse. For there it was bloudy, here vnbloudy: there with suffering the tour∣ments of death, here with commemoration, representa∣tion and application of his death: there the thing offered visible in proper forme, here inuisible, vnder the forme of bread and wine.

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

Then immediatly foloweth the last sentence of the Homilie, a parte whereof you haue taken for your pur∣pose. Non aliud Sacrificiū, sicut Pontifex, sed idipsum sem∣per offerimus, & caet. we offer not an other Sacrifice, as the Bishop (of the olde lawe did) but alwayes we offer the very

same that Christe offered, or rather we worke the remem∣brance of the Sacrifice. In the Discourse of S Chrysostom, out of whiche M. Iewel hath piked, and culled out cer∣taine peeces, three thinges in effect are declared. First, that we offer, secondly, that our manner of offering is other, then Christes was, therefore ours is called a sam∣pler of that, and it is donne in commemoration of his Death. Thirdly, that the Hoste, or thing offered in ei∣ther Sacrifice, is one and the same in substance, which is the true body of Christe. Graunt vs the first, and the last, that is to say, that we offer in deede, yea and that the same Hoste, which Christe offered: and to al men of reason and iudgement, though our Sacrifice be a sampler of Christes Sacrifice vpō the Crosse, and though it be done for commemoration of that, shal our Real Sa∣crifice be sufficiently proued. For what is our endeuour in this Article, but to proue, that we offer vnto God that, which Christo our Bishop hath offered, which is Christe him selfe?

And whereas making vp your Epiphonema, you say with more brauarie, then truth, Thus we offer vp Christe, that is to say, an example, a commemoration, a remembrāce of the Death of Christe: I neuer heard of such a that is to say, before, specially if the real presence by these wordes be excluded as your meaning is. O what impudencie is this? Doth not S. Chrysostom by your selfe alleged make a plaine distinction and difference betwen the hoste of∣fered, and the remembrance, saying, that which we doo, is done for a commemoration? Doth it not therby appeare, that somewhat must be done before, and besides the Commemoration? Who euer so confounded thinges, as

as by your absurde and false interpretation you doo, making the body and bloude of Christe, or Christe him selfe, and the remembrance of Christes death, one thing? What, is this your meaning, as though the sub∣stance of the Sacrifice, were nothing els, but the remem∣brance of Christes death? Let this once be graunted, and why may not any man, or woman, make vs as good a Sacrifice at their table at home in their owne howse, as your selfe can at the Communion table in our Ladies Churche at Sarisburie? For at that home∣ly table may Christes death be remembred, aswel as at your Communion table.

This kinde of Sacrifice (say you speaking of the commemoration of Christes Death) was neuer deni∣ed. As in a right sense it is very true, and was ne∣uer by vs denied (for the deuoute remembrance of Christes Death by it selfe considered, is a kinde of spi∣ritual Sacrifice) so if you meane thereby to exclude the truth of the thing offered, whiche is the body and bloud of Christe, and serue vs with a shewe, and a remembrance onely distinct from the true thing it selfe that is offered, which seemeth to be your whole drifte: this parte of your doctrine we vtterly denie, and tel you, that for maintenance of the same, you vse a fond and vaine reason. For what an Argument is it, when two thinges be bothe true, by the affirmation of the one, to conclude the denial of the other? As for example, what witte wil allowe this Argument. The Sunne shineth, Ergo, it raineth not, or, Ergo, it is not colde: whereas many times we see it raine, and feele it colde, when the Sunne shyneth cleare and

bright? Right so we tel you, and neuer stint telling you (which neuerthelesse ye dissemble to vnderstand) that this your common Argument is naught, the Sacrifice which we offer, is a sampler, or a commemoration of that which Christe offered: Ergo, it is not the same, which Christe offered. For in diuers respectes it is bothe, as now we haue proued by S. Chrysostome.

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

The testimonie of S. Augustine (I maruel what you meant to allege it) maketh quite against you. For both it reporteth the real presence, which you denie, and she∣weth a difference betwixt the thing which is offered, and Christes Death by the same signified, which you cōfounde. We graunt with S. Augustin, when the hoste is broken, and the bloude is powred into the mouthes of the faithful, the Sacrificing of our Lordes body is signified. It is not your false translation of the Oblation, for the hoste, nor your Sacramentarie exposition of the Sacrament of the bloude, for the bloude, that can racke S. Augustine to the defence of your doctrine. If you grate vpon the worde, Significatur, and therefore wil needes haue it to be a signification of Christes Sacrifice: as we denie not the signification, so we require you to acknowlege the real body and bloude of Christe, by breaking whereof

vnder the forme of bread, and powring whereof into the mowthes of the faithful vnder the forme of wine, the same signification, and commemoration of Christes Death is made. You handle this place of S. Augustine, as it semeth, as you handled the place of S. Chrysostome before. Sweeping cleane away the hoste, and wyping away the bloude, you leaue remaining onely a significa∣tion or token. And thus you feede your people with signes and tokens, in steede of the most holesome and substantial meate and drinke.

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

Iewel.

Euen so S. Ambrose saith, Christe is offered here in the Earth (not Re∣ally, and in deede, as M. Hardinge saithe) but in like sorte, and sense, as S. Iohn saithe, The Lamme was slaine from the beginninge of the worlde: that is, not Substantially, or in Real manner, but in signi∣fication, in a Mysterie, and in a figure. And thus S. Ambrose expoundeth his ovvne meaning, euen in the same place, that is here alleged. Primū Vm∣bra praecessit: Secuta est Imago: Erit Veritas. Vmbra in lege: Imago in Euangelio: Veritas in Coelestibus. Ascende homo in coelum, & videbis illa, quorum hîc Vmbra erat, vel Imago. First the Shadowe wente before: The Image folowed: The Truethe

shalbe. The Shadowe in the Lawe: The Image in the Gospel: The Trueth in the Heauens. O Man, goe vp into Heauen: and thou shalte see those thinges, whereof here was an Image, and a shadowe. To like purpose S. Ambrose vvriteth thus: Vidimus eum, & oculis nostris perspeximus, & in vestigia clauorum eius digi∣tos nostros inseruimus. Videmur enim vidisse eum, quem legi∣mus: spectasse pendentem, & vulnera eius Spiritu Ecclesiae scru∣tante tentasse: wee haue seene him and lookte vpon him, with our eies: and wee haue thrust our fingers into the dentes of his nayles. The reason hereof is this: For wee seeme to see him, that wee reade of: to haue beholden him hanginge on the Crosse: and with the feelinge Sprite of the Churche to haue searched his woundes. So S. Hierome saithe, Quod semel natum est ex Ma∣ria, quotidiè in nobis nascitur: Christe that was once borne of Marie, is borne in vs euery daie. Novve as S. Ambrose saithe, VVee see Christe euen with our eies hanginge vpon the Crosse: and thruste in our fingers, and searche his woundes: Euen so, doo vvee see Christe Comminge vnto vs, and Offeringe him selfe in Sacrifice vnto God. And as S. Hierome saithe, Christe is Borne euery day, Euen so, and none othervvise, S. Ambrose saithe, Christe is Sacrificed euery daie. In like manner S. Ambrose vvriteth vnto certaine Virgins: Ve∣stras Mentes confidenter Altaria dixerim, in quibus quotidiè pro Redemptione Corporis Christus offertur: I maie boldely saie, Your hartes be Aultars, vpon whiche Hartes Christe is dayly offered for the Redemption of the Bodie. Hitherto M. Hardinge hath founde no manner t••ken of that, he sought for.

Harding.

This Euen so (if I may be so bolde with you, as to vse a homely prouerbe) is as euen, as a rammes horne. And Sir, is this place of S. Ambrose so soone answered? Is it ynough for you to say as you doo, and proue nothing?

Is it lawful for you to say what you list, and denie what you list, without any proufe at al? And if ye stand so al waies in your Negatiues, what a coomber shal it be vnto vs, to proue any neuer so certaine a truth to such a wran∣gler? How oftentimes haue you now said, that Christe is none otherwise offered in earth, then he was offered in the Sacrifices of Abel, of Abraham, or of them of the olde Testament? And al this vppon warrant of this saying of S. Iohn, The lambe was slaine from the begin∣ning of the worlde, which maketh nothing against the daily Sacrifice of the Churche? How sufficiently, and by how many authorities hath this Sacrifice bene prooued? Yet forth you go, as if nothing had ben said.

If our Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament be not real, and substantial, but only figura∣tiue and significatiue, as you say: then how be our Myste∣ries of more excellencie, then the Iewes Sacramentes were? Nay how do not the liue beastes, which they sacrificed, passe a dead peece of breade, for better ye esteme it not? If our Sacrifice be no better then their Sa∣crifices were, then is our Priesthod of the new Testamēt no better then their Priesthode was. If our Priesthod be no better, then is the Lawe of the Gospel, wherein we liue, no better then the olde Lawe of Moyses was, vnder which the Iewes lyued. For these three, Sacrifice, Priesthod, and Lawe be so proportionate together, be so of cousinage, and alwaies go so together by the doctrine of S. Paule as you knowe, that the bettering of either of them, doth in ferre the bettering of the other. Nowe let the Christian reader make his choise, whether he wil beleeue the whole Churche of Christe, and S. Ambrose,

or you. He saith, Christe is offered on the earth, when the body of Christe is offered: you say. Neither Christ, nor the body of Christ is offered on the earth. but al that is done, is but a token and a figure.

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

As touching your other place of S. Ambrose, where∣by you would seme to expounde the former by me alle∣ged, it maketh for the Sacrifice, it maketh nothing against the Sacrifice. Neither can you take any aduantage of the worde, Imago, Image. For by that worde the truth is not excluded, but signified, yet so, as thereby we be admoni∣shed, that we beholde thinges more obscurely here, then we shal beholde them in heauē, and that the thinges here be but an Image, in cōparison of the true thinges in hea∣uē. The truth is here, no lesse then in heauē. But bicause it

is not so truly sene here, as there, therfore S. Ambros cō∣sidering the diuerse degree of our knowledge, calleth in sundry places (accordīg to S. Paule writīg to the Hebrues) the state here an Image, and the state there, the truth.

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

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

By this chopping and chaunging of woordes, your e∣uil intent was, to bring your reader in beleefe, that the

Sacramentes of the olde Law be of equal worthines with the Sacramentes of the newe Lawe. By your sclender Replie, and by such false legierdemaine, I doubte not but the wiser sorte wil be moued to trie your strange do∣ctrine better, then heretofore of many it hath ben tryed, before they beleeue it.

From this place to the ende of the Diuision, this Re∣plier doth nothing els, but endeuour to confound thinges, that in them selues be distinct, that so at least he might cast some myste as it were before the readers eyes. As for example, bicause the reading of the storie of the Gospel sheweth vnto our vnderstāding and faith, Christ hanging vpon the Crosse, as S. Ambrose saith, his syde opened with the souldiours speare, his handes and feete pearced through with the nayles, and the Sacrament also of Chri∣stes body and bloud, doth represent and commend vnto our memories the same:

Againe, bicause Christe being virtus Patris, the vertue of his Father, is borne in vs euery daye, when any vertue is wrought by vs, as S. Hierome saith: Therefore (by this mannes Logique) Christe is not really, but by a similitude or figure only sacrificed of Priestes euery day. Further∣more, bicause the myndes of holy virgins be meete Aul∣ters for Christ daily to be offered vpon (to wit, by daily meditation of his Passion) as S. Ambrose sticketh not to say: therefore Christe is no more really present vppon the real Aulters of the Churche, when the Sacrifice of his body and bloude is offered by the Priest, then he is in the mynde of a pure and holy virgine deuoutly thinking of his death. Seme not these reasons to procede from a profounde Diuinitie? What is this, but to confounde

one truth with an other truth, and to vndoo al proper speaches, by figuratiue and metaphorical Phrases? He should haue remembred, that euen they of his owne side doo teache, that we ought not to ronne vnto tropes for the vnderstanding of any point, onlesse there felowe a great absurditie, if the wordes be taken in their proper signification.

That this myste of M. Iewels confusion be discussed and put a waye, who is so vnskilful in maters of our faith, that putteth not a manifest difference betwen the set∣ting forth of Christes death vnto our vnderstanding by reading the Scriptures, and the representation and cō∣memoration of the same vnto our faith by the Sacramēt of his body and bloude? In that a Description only by wordes is made of the order and manner of putting Christ to death, whereby an Image thereof is imprinted in our vnderstanding and memorie. In this the body of Christe, that was put to death, is present, layd before vs according to his worde, This is my body which is geuen for you. That is a general meane to come to the knowledge of Christes death. This is a special meane to remember his death. That is common vnto the Infidel reading the storie of the Gospel, as wel as vnto the faithful. This is proper to the true Christiā geuing credit to Gods worde. That may be conueniently reade by euery priuate man at al times, and in al places. This can not duely be con∣secrate and ministred, but by a Priest lawfully ordered, and that in time and place appointed. That may be read by a wicked man without increase of his sinne. This can not be consecrate nor receiued of any being in dead∣ly sinne without increase of his farther damnation. This

is, and euer hath bene by the Churche called and taken for the very body and bloud of Christe. That neither is, nor euer hath ben commonly so called or taken. This is a Sacrament, and the Sacrifice of the new Lawe. That is neither of them both. Finally, that feedeth the vnder∣standing onely. This is the foode both of soule, and bo∣dy to life euerlasting. These differences being so appa∣rent, so greate, and of such importance, who can other∣wise iudge, but that Christes presence in the Sacrifice of the Churche, must be after a more substantial and real manner, then in the letter of the Gospel, or in the reading thereof?

Moreouer if he be present in the Sacrament and Sa∣crifice, none otherwise then he is at the reading of the Gospel, then is the Sacrifice and Sacrament superfluous. For to stirre vp in our myndes the remembraunce of Christes Death, it should suffice to reade, or to heare readen daily the storie of the Passion without any cele∣bration of the Sacrament. But Christe knowing the dulnesse of our hartes to be such, that woordes be not sufficient to repaire our memorie, and to stirre vp our affection without the presence of some thing of more Maiestie then woordes be, of his tender loue leafte to his dere spouse the Churche besides his Gospel, a thing of most excellent Maiestie, his owne flesh and bloude: that we being assured through faith of his real presence in our Mysteries, should more dreadfully reuerence him, more expressely remember him, more affectuously loue him, and by the worthy receiuing of it, be made parta∣kers of the fruit of his Passion. Of this presence, and of this great fruit, would M. Iewel with al his lewde harte

bereue vs, by making Christe present in the Myste∣ries none otherwise, then he is at the reading of the sto∣rie of the Gospel, that is to say, onely by the compre∣hension of our vnderstanding and by faith: And that he is as truly now hanging vpon the Crosse, when we reade the storie of his passion, and do by the eyes our of Ima∣gination beholde him hanging, as he doth sacrifice him selfe, when his body is sacrificed, as S. Ambrose before al∣leged, speaketh.

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

By charitie we behold Christ hāging vpon the Crosse,

and thrust our fingers into his woundes, bicause through charitie we are in that body of Christe, to witte the Churche, which seeth Christe so hanging, and thrusteth the fingers into his woundes. For what grace, vertue, miracle, or other excellencie so euer is in the Body of the Churche, through the merite of charitie, which causeth participation of al good thinges to be common, euery one that is of that body, may say, that he hath the same. In consideration whereof S. Augustine saith no∣tably: If any wil say to one of vs, thou hast receiued the holy Ghost, why speakest not with al tongues? He ought to Answer, I speake with al tongues, bicause I am in that body of Christe, in the Church, which speaketh with al tongues.

But how may it be vnderstanded, that the Churche speaketh with al tongues? In asmuch as some of the Churche doo speake with al tongues. Therefore in an o∣ther place he saith. In some Saintes the Churche worketh Miracles, in other Saintes it speaketh the truth, in other Saintes it kepeth virginitie, in other Saintes it kepeth the chastitie of wedlocke, in others this, in others that. Cer∣taine vertues (saith a holy Father) though al persons haue not, yet let them loue him, who hath that, which they finde not in themselues, and then haue they in him that, whiche in them selues they see not, as Peter in Iohn hath the merite of virginitie, so Iohn in Peter hath the reward of Mar∣tyrdom.

In whom then doth the Churche see Christe han∣ging vpon the Crosse, and feele his woundes? In S. Iohn the Churche seeth him, who saith, That which from the beginning, we haue heard, we haue sene with our eyes, and our handes haue touched, &c. In the Apostles it behol∣deth

with eyes Christe vpon the Crosse, in S. Thomas it toucheth his woundes. That this seeme not strange, euen so saith S. Ambrose in the booke and chapter aboue mē∣cioned. Sed etiam nos vidimus in Iohanne, oculis nostris perspeximus in Apostolis, & manibus nostris perscrutati sumus in Thomae digitis. Yea we also haue seene Christe in Iohn, with our eyes we haue beholden him in the Apo∣stles, and with our handes we haue serched his woundes in the fingers of Thomas.

Now if this body the Churche, and consequently eue∣ry one that is a member of this body, see Christe hanging vpon the Crosse, and with the fingers touche his woun∣des, either bicause he hath the light and sight of faith, or bicause through Charitie he is incorporate and made a member of that body, and so seeth and toucheth by parti∣cipatiō: what maketh this against the real Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ, frequented in the Church? Bi∣cause this manner of seeing Christe, and of touching his woundes, whether it be through vertue of faith, or me∣rite of charitie, is not real and in dede, wil you therof ga∣ther an Argumēt, that Christ in the Sacrifice of the Chur∣che is not really offered? O that you would make this Argument in Louaine, or Paris, or in any other famous Schoole of Diuinitie in the worlde, this Argument I say,

Christe is not now seene hanging vpon the Crosse, nei∣ther be his woundes touched really and in dede: Ergo, he is not of the Priestes offered vp in the Mysteries really:

You may be sure the Audience with hissing, and tram∣pling would driue you out of the Schoole.

If you say, I doo you wrong in reporting your Argu∣ment

to disaduantage, which is your cōmon practise to∣wardes me: I am content you frame it to your best aduā∣tage. Let your owne Argument stand, as your selfe haue set it forth. An Argument I may cal it, for by your Maior, any man may sone vnderstād, what should be your Minor, and conclusion. Your Argument then is this. As we see Christ euē with our eyes hanging vpon the Crosse, and thrust in our fingers, and searche his woundes: Euen so doo we see Christ comming vnto vs, and offering him selfe in Sacrifice vnto God. Your Minor, or secōd proposition, must be this. but really and in deede so we see not Christ, neither doo we so with our fingers searche his woundes: Ergo, really and in deede we see not Christe comming vnto vs, and offering him selfe in Sacrifice.

Why sir al this I graunt. For in deede we see not now Christe comming vnto vs, nor offering him selfe: But our controuersie is not of seing Christ comming, and of∣fering him selfe: but of the offering of his body in Sacri∣fice. And to that I alleged S. Ambrose, saying, Et si Chri∣stus non videtur offere, tamen ipse offertur in terris, quan∣do Christi corpus offertur. Although Christ be not seene to offer, yet him selfe is offered in the earth, when the bo∣dy of Christ is offered. Lo he saith expressely, he is not seene to offer, and yet he is offered. Your parte is to im∣pugne the offering, and bicause you cannot, you impugne the seing of him cōming and offering him selfe. We see him not, and yet he is offered in earth, as S. Ambrose saith.

Now then, whereas you are driuen from this, if thus you make your Argument, as in effecte you doo, and as your fetche is to conclude:

As Christ is seene of vs hanging vpon the Crosse, and

as his woūdes be touched with our fingers, so he is by Priests offred, but he is not sene hāging vpō the Crosse really and in dede, nor his woūdes be so touched with our fingers: Ergo, he is not offered really and in dede:

As I graunt the Argument to be good in forme, so I denie the mater to be true. For the Maior, or first proposition is false. For Christes hanging on the Crosse, and the print of his woundes, is seene, and felt of vs by faith, or by chari∣tie, as I haue now declared: but Christe is offered vp in Sacrifice really, and in dede, bicause his body is really and in dede present in the Sacrament, as it hath bene against you M. Iewel by the Catholikes most sufficiently proo∣ued by scriptures, Fathers, and the faith of the Churche, and as you knowe in your owne gilty conscience.

The saying which you attribute vnto S. Hierom, Quod semel natū est ex Maria, quotidie in nobis nascitur, Christe that was once borne of Marie, is borne in vs euery day: is an inuētion of your owne. S. Hierom hath it not, you may sone fil your booke with such authorities, being made at home in your owne forge. S. Hierome expoūding an ob∣scure place of the .86. Psalme tropologically, saith this much, I graūt, Si volumus, quotidie nascitur Christus, If we wil, Christ is borne daily. There he calleth the doing of e∣uery vertue, the begeting and bringing forth of Christe, bicause Christ is the vertue and wisedome of his Father. But what maketh this saying against the real Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe? By occasion of these wordes, you reason thus, as it may be conceiued.

As S. Hierom saith, Christ is borne euery day, Euen so ād none otherwise, S. Ambros saith, Christ is sacrificed euery day. But Christe is not borne euery day really.

Ergo, S. Ambrose meaneth not, that he is sacrificed e∣uery day really.

I answer. Your Maior is false. For there is a manifest dis∣similitude betwen the partes compared together. When we bring forth good vertues, and Christe therefore is said to be borne in vs: this is spoken by a Metaphore, and is true onely in a tropological, or morale sense, and not in the litteral sense. The other parte of the comparison, Christ is offered day, when his body is offered, as S. Am∣brose saith, is a proper speache, and the same is true in the litteral sense, as now we haue prooued.

Lastly, that I let not passe the other place of S. Am∣brose, where he calleth the myndes of holy virgins, Aul∣ters: the reason you gather thereof is naught. For of the affirmation of an internal Sacrifice, you inferre the de∣nial of the external Sacrifice, and so you would driue out one truth by an other truthe, after your common wount. Which kinde of reasoning is very fonde and childish. For both may, and ought to stand together. Your Argument, if you conclude ought, must be this.

Christe is offered in the myndes of virgins, which therefore may be called Aulters, internally, and spiri∣tually: Ergo, he is not offered on the true Aulters in the Churche externally, and really.

The Argument is naught, as euery yong Sophister know∣eth, bicause he is offered both waies. As wel you might reason thus, Christ is God, Ergo, he is not man•• or contra∣rywise, Christe is man, ergo, he is not God.

Thus thou mayst easily perceiue good Reader, what guileful Sophistrie M. Iewel vseth, putting away the vi∣sible and outwarde Sacrifice of the Churche, by alle∣ging

places of Fathers, commending vnto vs, the in∣warde and mere spiritual Sacrifices of mannes harte. Withal thou seest also, what so euer M. Iewel saith, that I haue founde in S. Chrysostome, and S. Ambrose, that I sought for.

Notes

• Chrysosto. in epist. ad Heb. homi. 17.
• Ambros. In Psal. 38.
• Chrysost. in Epist. ad Hebr. Hom. 17.
• De Con∣secat. Di∣stin. 2. Cū frāgitur.
• That Priestes haue au∣ctoritie to offer vp Christ vnto his Father.
• An Ar∣ment for the vn∣learned to prooue the Sacri∣fice.
• S. Chry∣sostomes place ex∣amined vvith the Replie of M. Ievv.
• Ad Heb. Hom. 17.
• In Epist. ad Heb. Hom. 17.
• Three thinges attribu∣ted to this say∣ing of S. Chrysost•• by M. Ievv.
• Hovv S. Chryso∣stō ope∣neth him selfe against M. Iewel.
• S. Chry∣sostom returned vpon M. Ievvel.
• M. Ievv. ouershot him selfe in alle∣ging this place of S. Chry∣sostom.
• S. Chry∣sostome maketh directly for the real Sa∣crifice.
• Ioan. 1.
• The ende of Christes Sacrifice, and of ours.
• M. Iewels obiection is but a vaine vvran∣gling.
• M. Iuels promise vpon S. Chrysost. hovv it is {per}formed
• Chrysost. Hom. 17. in epist. ad Heb.
• In our Sa∣crifice vve haue the sampler, and the true thing it selfe, vvhich Christe offered.
• Differēce betvven the hoste and the comme∣moratiō.
• M. Ievvel alvvaies cōcludeth the denial of one truth by thaffirma¦tion of an other truth.
• De Consec. Dict. 2. Cum fran∣gitur.
• Ambrosi. in Psal. 38 Apocal. 5.
• Ambros. in Psalm. 38.
• Ambros. in Lucam. lib. 5. ca. 7
• Hieron. in Psalm. 86.
• Ambros. de Virgi∣nib. lib. 2.
• Apoc. 5.
• If our Myste∣ries be ex∣cellenter then the Sacrifices of the old Law, then are they not signi∣ficatiue only.
• Heb. 7.
• Ambro. in Psal. 38.
• Article. 5.
• Image, vvhat it signifieth and how it exclu∣deth not the truth••
• Ambro. li. 1. officiorū cap. 48. In Psal. 38.
• Heb. 10.
• Ambro. de interpel∣latione Dauid.
• M. Ievvel falsifieth S. Am∣brose.
• M. Ievvel confoun∣deth one truthe vvith an other truth. Lib. 5. Commēt. in Luc. cap. 7.
• Hieron. in Psal. 86.
• Ambro. de Virginib. lib. 2.
• The diffe¦rence of Christes being in the Sacri∣fice, and in the rea¦ding of the storie of the Gospel.
• Luc. 22.
• M. Ievvel acknovv¦ledgeth Christes presence in the Bless. Sa∣crament no other∣vvise thē in the sto∣rie of the Gospel, vvhen it is read ād heard.
• VVe see Christ hā∣ging on the Crosse and grope his vvoū∣des, tvvo vvaies.
• Hovv vve see the vvoū∣des of Christ by faith.
• Ioan•• 20.
• Ambros. In Luc. lib. 5. c. 7.
• Hovv vve see Christ ••uf¦fering•• by Charitie.
• Augu. ser∣mone. 188 De tem∣pore.
• Hovv speaketh the Chur∣che vvith al tōgues.
• Augu. ser∣mone. 186. De Tem∣pore.
• Guerricus abbas Ig∣niacensis. Sermo. in die Purifi∣cat. inter opera Ber∣nardi.
• 1. Ioan. 1.
• The Chur¦che be∣holdeth Christ, and tou∣cheth his vvoūdes.
• Ambros. in Lucam. lib. 5. ca. ••
• M. Ievvel forgeth vvordes of his ovvne ād attribu∣teth them to S. Hierom. Hierony. in Psal. 86.
• Ambros. de Virgi∣nib. lib. 2. M. Iewels peculiar Sophi∣strie to put away one truth by an o∣ther.