A rejoinder TO M. JEWELS REPLY AGAINST THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS.  
In which the doctrine of the Answer to the xvij Article of his Challenge is defended, and further proved, and all that his Reply containeth against the Sacrifice, is clearly confuted, and disproved.  
By Thomas Harding Doctor of Divinity.  Luke. 22. 
Do ye this in my Remembrance.  Irenaeus lib. 4. Cap. 32. 
Christ (at his last Supper) taught the new Oblation of the new Testament, which the Church, receiving it of the Apostles, offereth up unto God through the whole world.  
LOVANII, Apud joannem Foulerum, Anno. 1567. cum PRIVILEGIO.   

REgiae Maiestatis Privilegio concessum est Thomae Hardingo Sacrae The●logiae Professori, ut Librum inscriptum A rejoinder to M. jewels Reply against the Sacrifice of the Mass, per Typographum aliquem juratum imprimere, ac impunè distrahere liceat.  
Datum Bruxellis. Callend. Septemb. Anno. 1567. Subsig. De La Torre.   

TO M. JEWEL.  
BECAUSE this tale hath now oftentimes been told you M. jewel, that in your books you corrupt and falsify the holy Scriptures by private interpretation, that you deny certain General Counsels, as for lack of age and years, that you misconstrue other most Ancient Counsels, and Fathers, partly by figurative Phrases, lightly applied in very weighty matters, partly by paring away their words, yea sometimes by lopping of certain their whole works (which and such other the like, have been hitherto, as it is well known, your ordinary and shameless shifts): I thought good at this time writing particularly unto you, to touch briefly some other matter, that might more edify, if not to call you home again unto the Church wherein you were baptised, who seem to stand obdurate in that you have once attempted, yet to stay some, and to revoke others, to the fellowship of that City and company of God, which was never hid under the bushel sithence the first erection and publication of it, but stood always upon a Hil, 
Math. 25.  and can by no means be at any time hid, as Christ himself hath warranted us, the Prophets have foretold us, and the Psalms have sounded unto us.  
And thus to do I am the rather moved, for that some of your Ministers, and many of your deceived favourers, as we hear say, seeing now your forgeries espied, your corruptions detected, your lies manifested, your insufficiency brought to light, begin to take an other way, how to abuse the people, keep some credit, and continued the course of your pleasant Gospel. Yea for sooth they say now, that these controversed points be no matters of the Faith, no Articles of the Crede, but School points of indifferency, and that it sufficeth to believe in the Father, in the Son, in the holy Ghost, and to believe the birth, passion and resurrection of Christ, the rest at liberty.  
They, that teach this dangerous piece of doctrine, seem to skim of the froth of that old Novatian Heresy, not calling to remembrance Chore, Dathan, and Abiron, who, as S. Cyprian saith, 
Cyprian. lib. 1. epist. 6.  believed in one God, worshipped one God, called upon him, and lived in like Law and Religion, as Moses and Aaron did. Yet because they divided themselves by schism from the rest, and resisted their Priests and Governous, God's heavy hand lighted on them.  
And touching this matter, who seeth not that there be expressed in the Crede other Articles to be believed of them, which willbe saved, as to believe the Church, Remission of sins, everlasting life, and that the belief in the Trinity excludeth not these, and that in these there is not one meaning among Heretics, and Catholics, not one and the same Law of the Crede, as S. Cyprian calleth it? For when they be asked, believe you Remission of sins, and life everlasting through the Church, they answer not truly. For they have not the Church, without the which there is no Remission, and then can it not avail them to believe in the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost, as Chore, Dathan, and Abiron had a right belief of God, which nevertheless were damned. As, touching Faith, it is necessary besides the Article of the Trinity, to believe the other Articles, that the Church holdeth: so touching Unity, it behoveth a man to join himself unto the whole body of Christ the Catholic Church, from the obedience of whose Head, that is the ministerial Head, and governeth over all under Christ, who so ever departeth, he entereth Schism, and until he return, and be duly reconciled, he remaineth a dead member, as being cut of from the body. The novatians, the Pelagians, the Donatists, erred not in the Article of the Trinity, yet are they reputed Heretics of condemned memory. S. Augustine avouched that the belief of the Pelagians was not sufficient, although they touched not the Manichees maladies. For (saith he) there is more than one kind of infection, as of bodies, so of minds.  
The Donatists believed in the Trinity, used Baptism, read the Gospel, kept the feasts of Martyrs, 
August. in Psal. 54.  and the solemnity of Easter. In these they were with me, saith he, and yet not altogether with me. In Schism not with me, in Heresy not with me, in many things with me, in a few, not with me. In those few, by the which (they were) not with me, the many could not help them in which (they were) with me. In all the Sacraments with me, in only Charity not with me.  
Mark well this M. jewel, and consider of it advisedly. Be the points wherein ye descent from us, I mean from the Catholic Church, never so few, and never so small, as they be many, and great in deed: if ye join not in charity and unity with the Church, ye are not annumbred with the Church, ye are not of the Church. If not of the Churche● then have ye not part with Christ, whose Passion worketh the effect of salvation only upon the membres of the Church.  
Luther the Founder of this fifth Gospel giveth this Censure of you, and of your fellows of Peter Martyrs, 
Tom. 2. Fol. 263.  and Calvin's school. Frustra illi in Deum patrem, & filium, & Spiritum sanctum credunt. omnia (inquam) haec nihil illis prosunt, quando hunc Articulum negant, eumque falsi insimulant, qui de Sacramento dixit, Hoc est corpus meum. They believe in God the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost in vain. All these things (say I) profit them nothing, forasmuch as they deny this Article (he meaneth the Article of Christ's real Presence in the Sacrament) and make him a false reporter, who said of the Sacrament, This is my Body.  
Gather then thereupon, if Luther himself be in any credit with you, that it sufficeth not to confess the grounds of the Faith in general, as Heretics do commomly, if there be contempt, or breach in special matter implied in the general: and that to believe in the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost, and to receive the story of Christ's doings in flesh, is not enough, except the faith be kept orderly, and wholly without wicked breach made in any one point.  
Neither can you M. jewel smooth the world under the show of this belief. For were it so that you offended not in Schism, 
Num. 16.  as Chore, and his fellows did, that you abbridged not the universal Church, as did the Donatists, that you bangored not in the Sacrament of Baptism, as the Pelagians, that you denied not the Sacrament of Penance, as the novatians, that you bereaved not the dead of the Sacrifice of the Church, as the Aërians, that you profaned not the blessed Sacrament of the Altar, as the calvinists of our time: yet could you not say, that your only belief in the Trinity, and of Christ's chief doings, is a saving belief. For infidelity or unbelief about any one point of those things that are to be believed, 
Basil. lib. de Spiritu sancto.  is an utter denial of the whole Godhead, saith S. Basil.  
What untruth you maintain in many and great points of the Faith, I may let pass in silence, sith yourself have in public audience professed it, by open writings confirmed it, and do still defend it. Some of your erroneous points I have detected, and confuted, and so other learned men have confuted many others. Let that be judged by those who can judge, and unto whom judgement belongeth. Let it be tried, how you believe not truly, and wholly in the Godhead.  
We may believe Christ, who is our Lord and God, and we may believe in Christ. To believe Christ, is to believe that Christ is. To believe in Christ, is to believe all to be true, that Christ spoke and taught, 
August in johan. Tract. 29. De verb. Dom. Ser. 61. & in Psal. 77.  with believing to love, and with beleeeving to go into him, to cleave unto him, and to be incorporate in his members, as S. Augustine teacheth, that is asmuch in effect, as with belief to have Charity.  
For he that hath Faith without Charity, believeth that Christ is● and yet believeth not in Christ.  
If we should here discourse upon some particulars of your new devised Faith, and precisely press what S. Augustine saith is to believe in Christ, your Faith and doctrine were like to be proved no faith.  
Christ is true God, equal with God the Father, and therefore as he is God, he is not a Priest no more than his Father is, nor, as God, ever made he any Sacrifice. You teach in the .14. 
M. jewel maketh Christ a Priest, and to have made Sacrifice, according to his Godhead. Which is heinous heresy.  Division of your Reply in your .17. Article. pag. 578. (whereto now I have made answer in my rejoinder) that Christ touching his Godhead, was the Priest, and made the Sacrifice, for these be your very words. Of which you can not excuse yourself by saying, they are the words of any Doctor. For never was there any that so taught, or said. Which words are clean contrary to the Faith, which the holy Scriptures do teach, and which hath been believed in the Church evermore. And by the same you seem to have an other Christ, than we have. For our Christ in one person hath two natures: to wit, the Nature of God, and the Nature of man.. Touching the Godhead, or the nature of God, he is in no point at all, in any one jot, less than his Father. For the Godhead receiveth no degrees. Neither can any thing be said, devised, or imagined, touching the Godhead, which is not altogether common with the Father, and the Son: 
joan. 10.  as he himself said, Ego & Pater unum sumus. I and the Father are one (thing, nature, or substance). And the Apostle saith, of Christ, that, 
Philip. 2.  Being in the form of God, he thought it no robbery to be equal with God. Yet say you, Christ, touching his Godhead was the Priest and made the Sacrifice: Of which, these absurdities and most horrible blasphemies do follow.  
First, that, whereas to do Sacrifice, is cultus Latriae, a service of worship, and a recognizing of superiority in him to whom the Sacrifice is made: Christ, making Sacrifice to his Father, touching his Godhead, as you say, is inferior to his Father, and doth service to his Father, touching his Godhead.  
Secondly, seeing that Priesthood is a dignity, and an excellency, such as in this world none is greater, or at the lest a Quality: if Christ be a Priest touching his Godhead, as you M. jewel do say he is: undoubtedly either God the Father also was a Priest, and had the same Quality, or else God the Father wanted one dignity or Quality, which God the Son had touching his Godhead. But God the Father never was Priest: Ergo, as before you made Christ inferior to his Father touching his Godhead, for making Sacrifice to his Father as being God: so now you make Christ Superior to his Father, for having an Excellency, Dignity, or Quality touching his Godhead, which God the Father had never.  
Thirdly, you make by this means two several and distinct Godheades of God the Father, and God the Son. For if to be a Priest belongeth to the Godhead of Christ, the same also belongeth to the Godhead of the Father. But Priesthood belongeth in no wise to God the Father: Ergo, the Godhead of the Father, and the Godhead of the Son, are two manner of Godheades of several and distinct powers, not equal, and one, the one godhead having Priesthood, the other having not, or, which is all one, the one God being a Priest, and the other being no Priest: whereof will follow, there are two Gods, not One only God.  
O horrible blasphemy. After these long Schisms, and multiplying of Heresies, our Protestants are now come to be right Arians, and professed enemies to the most blessed Trinity.  
If to avoid this most heinous and detestable Heresy, you will say, that God the Father also touching his Godhead is a Priest, then tell us, what hath he to sacrifice? To whom shall he do that humble service and worship? Or is he a man also as Christ is, and did he suffer death, as the old Heretics taught, called thereof, Patropassiani? 
Patropassiani.   
The Truth is. Christ touching his Godhead is not a Priest, ne made not the Sacrifice touching his Godhead (as very blasphemously you have written): but only touching his manhood.  
Mark the point good Reader, as being of most weighty importance. Christ is both God, and man.. But what he doth touching the manhood, that doth not the Father, nor the Holy Ghost in the same sort. Marry, what he doth touching his Godhead, that in all points God the Father, and God the holy Ghost, doth equally with him. Which is the cause that forceth us to believe, that not the Godhead, or whole Trinity took flesh, but only the second person in Trinity: Lest if the Godhead had done it, or if it had been done touching the Godhead, we should be constrained to say, the whole Trinity was incarnate, which is against our Faith. Now if Christ touching his Godhead could do that, which the Father and the Holy Ghost should not do: the Godhead were divided, and pieces, or parts were made thereof (it being immutable, indivisible, one, and most excellently perfect) so that touching that part of the Godhead, which were in Christ, Sacrifice might be made, but touching that, which were in the Father, and the Holy Ghost, sacrifice might not be made.  
Here we shall try how this now broached Arian, will purge himself. Here shall we see, whether this Heresy shall also be soothed, bolstered, and shouldered up, as your other Heresies are, or no. Last of all here shall we see, whether you will recant, and retract this abominable Heresy, as in your Sermon of the .15. of june last at Paul's Cross, you promised and protested to do, if you could be convinced of any. Of this I say no more. But if this blasphemy may be maintained in this new English Church, undoubtedly this English Church (o pitiful case) will prove a professor of Arianisme, yea I fear, at length of worse, if worse may be. Certainly our Christ never taught this doctrine, neither was ever any such thing attributed unto Christ by God's word, nor by the Catholic Church: wherefore you seem not to believe in our Christ.  
Christ said of the Spiritual rulers, 
Luc. 10.  he that heareth you, heareth me, he that despiseth you, despiseth me, and so taught obedience unto his Church, and also unto that chief Governor, whom he instituted Head of the same, and appointed to be his Vicar. For whereas he said, 
joan. 21.  feed my sheep, he meant, that the sheep should obey him, whom he ordained their feeder, or Pastor. Whereof it followeth, that who so ever refuseth to be fed, that is to say, to be governed and taught, by that general Shepherd, he forsaketh the state and order of a sheep, 
Math. 25.  and becometh a Goat, and therefore to be placed at the left side, when the great Shepherd of all shepherds shall come to sort his flocks. Christ commendeth unto us the Sacrament of Penance, in which if we sin after Baptism, we are reconciled to God by a Priest, whereunto Confession of sins belongeth. Christ also requireth performance of Vows. This doctrine you receive not, you teach it not. You believe not our Christ.  
Christ (saith S. Irenaeus) at his last supper took into his hands the creature of bread, blessed, and gave thanks, 
Iren. li. 4. cap. 32.  saying. This is my body, and taking the Cup likewise, he confessed it to be his blood, and taught the new Oblation of the new Testament, which the Church, receiving it of the Apostles, offereth up to God in the whole world. Christian people hath ever been taught from the Apostles time to this day, that to be his true Body, and his true Blood, which are offered, an upon credit of Christ's saying, do adore and worship the same. You teach not this doctrine. You believe not, that Christ's words do imply this much, you teach the contrary. Thus you believe not in our Christ.  
That Christ sitting at the right hand of his Father in heaven, is at the same time in the hands of them who receive the Sacrament of the Altar, both Sacrifice, and Sacrificer (as S. Chrysostom teacheth and the Church believeth) you teach not, you receive not, you believe not. Whereas Christ consecrateth the host by the ministery of the Priest, saying, this is my body, this is my blood: his saying being true, and you not believing, how believe you in Christ?  
Christ said, 
Math. 5.  A City built upon a hill can not be hid, meaning it of his Church built upon himself. You teach, that the true Church of Christ hath hen hid these almost a thousand years, and so hid, that before Luther's time, all Christians were in palpable darkness. How then believe you in Christ? Christ said to his Disciples bearing the person of all the Church. 
Math. 28.  Behold, I am with you all days until the end of the world. And again. 
joan. 14.  I will pray my Father, and he will give you an other comforter, to remain with you for ever, the Spirit of Truth. Mark well good Reader, All days: For ever: and, The Spirit of Truth. But you M. jewel, and your good fellows do teach plainly, that the whole Church of Christ was guided in Truth by the Holy Ghost, only for the space of .600. years: and therefore you limit, and prescribe the trial of Controversies to that age only. As for these later so many hundred years, you say, the Pope hath blinded the whole world. You believe then in a Christ of .600. years only, not in our Christ and Saviour, which promised to remain with his Church, All days, no day or year intermitted, even to the worlds end.  

August. in epist. johan, tractat. 6.  Nay believe you in Christ at all? S. Augustine teacheth, that Heretics believe not, that Christ came in flesh. Charity (saith he) brought him unto flesh. Who so ever therefore (thus he concludeth) hath not Charity, he denieth that Christ came in flesh. And to prove that an Heretic hath not Charity, thus he reasoneth. Tu non habes Charitatem, quia pro honore tuo dividis unitatem. Thou hast not Charity, because for thine own honour's sake thou dividest unity.  
There for sure trial of Preachers, whether they have the spirit of God, or no, comparing them, as S. Paul doth, to earthen pitchers, he biddeth men to prove them by the sound. Pulsate, tangite vasa fictilia, ne fortè crepuerint, & male resonent. Knock the earthen pitchers (saith he) tinke them with your fingers, lest perhaps they be crack, and give a broken sound. You are crack, you are crakte M. jewel. We have knockte you, and we find, that your sound is not whole. How so? Because you have not the Charity and love of unity.  
You say (I know well) that you have Charity, and that ye divide not the Unity, but that we the Papists (for so ye call the Catholics) be they, by whom the Unity is divided. No, no, M. jewel. It will not serve you so to say. For when men were once One, and in one Ancient fellowship or Communion (as ye and we were in One Ancient Church, before Luther broke the knot) he divideth Unity, which departeth from his fellows and former godly company, to join himself with a new company, not he who abideth still in the former Ancient company. Say therefore what ye will, S. Augustine plainly proveth, that ye are they, which have broken the Unity. For this can not be denied, which by him is spoken, as it were to your person: Tollis te ab unitate Orbis terrarum etc. 
Tract. 6. in epist. johan.  You withdraw yourself from the unity of the whole world. You divide the Church by Schisms, you rend the body of Christ. He came to gather together, you cry out to the end to set a sunder. It is you M. jewel, and your fellows, that divide yourselves from the Unity, in which the whole world was joined and knit together. We remain in that Faith, which we found the world in when we were borne, and in which the world hath continued sithence the Apostles time. You shall never be able to show, that (Orbis terrarum) the round world is at this day, or ever was, of your side.  
Will ye have it appear evidently, how ye divide yourselves from the Unity of the world? Yourselves do confess it in the Apology of your English Synagogue more than seven times. There ye affirm, that Friar Luther, and Zuinglius were the first that began to set abroad the Gospel, and that all the light was quite extinct, and that all the fonteines of the pure water of life were utterly dried up, before they came.  
Thus it is clear to the simplest wits that are, forasmuch as ye condemn the universal Church dispersed over the whole world, depart from it, and join yourselves to Luther, Zuinglius and Caluine, that ye make breach of the Unity. Of all this it is concluded, that you lack Charity, and therefore though ye have never so much Faith, by S. Augustine's doctrine, well may it be, that ye believe Christ, but in Christ ye believe not.  
If it be so then that ye believe not in Christ, (which never the less S. Augustine declareth to be understanded in respect of deeds, not of words, for many confess Christ with mouth, 
Tit. 1.  and deny him with deeds, as S. Paul saith) and that therefore chief ye believe not in him, because ye are void of Charity, as being gone from the Unity of the whole world: so many as love Christ, and fear to lose the part they hope to have with Christ, will study how to keep themselves like sound wheat in the safe Flower of Unity, and will not by the puffs of any your preachings, 
Ephes. 4.  or writings, seem they never so sweet and pleasant, suffer themselves, like light Chaff, to be scattered into your damnable sects and divisions.  
Nevertheless, if ye glory, and crack of the multitudes that ye have in our country of England, where the trumpets of your pleasant Gospel have been sounded, and twit us of our small number (small I mean in respect of such as make open profession there to be Catholics, for otherwise Gods secret and unknown number doubtless is right great): we tell you, a Peck of wheat is more worth, than a Sack of Chaff. Then remember ye withal, 
Math. 3.  that when the Winower shall come with his Fan, the wheat shallbe laid up in his Garner, the Chaff shallbe cast away into unquenchable fire. God send you grace to see the perilous state ye stand in, and both to believe in Christ rightly, and otherwise as to salvation is behooful: that so the people, for whom Christ hath shed his blood, be no more with most certain lossé of their souls seduced by you, and so to join in unity with the Catholic and Universal Church. Which when I shall understand, I shall right heartily rejoice in you, as now I am right sorry for you, and with good will, if ever I writ unto you, say (which now I may not say) Farewell. 
2. joan.   
Thomas Harding.   
August. Contrà literas Petiliani Donatistae. Lib. 2. Cap. xcij 
An non est ista vestra fallacia, sed error humanus est? utinam ita sit: emenda ergo, non inde eris minor: imò verò maioris ingenij est animositatis flammas confitendo extinguere, quàm falsitatis nebulas intelligendo vitare.  
Say ye, that this is not a false part played by you, but humane error? I pray God it be so: amend then, stick not at it, thou shalt therefore be never a whit the worse man: nay it is a point of greater wit to quench the flames of sturdy conceit by confessing that is amiss, than by sharpness of understanding to avoid the clouds of falsehood.   

The Preface to the Catholic Reader touching the Sacrifice of the Mass.  
IT can not be unknown unto thee, Christian Reader, what a do there hath been in these days about the Mass. Many scoff, and scorn at it, and after most unworthy wise revile it. Some make Arguments against it, and labour to bring it in contempt, with written treatises. Others have gone about to overthrow it with a penal Law, which punisheth them, that hear Mass, or be present at it, with imprisonment of their persons, and with los●e of great sums of money. 
The despisers of the Sacrifice not to be regarded.  But if it be certain, that the most worthy Sacrifice of the Mass is of Christ's Institution, most acceptable to God, and the thing sacrificed Christ himself, as in this rejoinder thou shalt find it proved: what is there, why thou shouldest regard the first sort, more than the jews, that passing by our Saviour Christ, as he hung upon the Cross, reviled him, 
Math. 27  wagging their heads, and saying, Va●, asmuch to say, fie on thee, or, out upon thee: The second, more than the two false Witnesses, 
Math. 26  who deposed against Christ, as he was convented before Caiphas: The third, more than Caiphas himself, and the Aldermen of the jews, 
Math. 27  that brought Christ bound, and delivered him unto Ponce Pilate, to be condemned to death?  
Concerning the Civil justicers the executors of this Law, as it becometh me not to say much: so yet I may be so bold, as to put them in mind, that, what Law so ever is unjust, God shall judge the promoters, the Makers, and the Ministers of the same. I wish heartily, they would deeply consider of that God saith by his Prophet isaiah, which among other things he commandeth to be cried out aloud, as with the sound of a trumpet. 
isaiah. 58.  Dissolve the bands of impiety, lose the burdens, wherewith men are overcharged, let go free them that be oppressed, etc. Certainly it is such a Law, as the like was never before heard of in any Christian Realm.  
As for the Arguments, and whatsoever other devices our Adversaries have invented against this Sacrifice, because all proceedeth of falsehood, malice, and ignorance, by reading this Preface, and my rejoinder, the truth being declared, I trust all shall vanish away, and seem worthy of no credit in their judgements, whom the love of Heresy hath not bewitched, bereaved of wit and understanding.  
And as touching them, that mock, scoff, and rail at the Mass, As Moses, and Aaron standing before King Pharaoh, 
Exod. 5.  said, The God of the Hebrews hath called us, that we go forth into the wilderness three days journey, and sacrifice unto our Lord, lest perhaps the pestilence, and sword come upon us: Even so if we Priests, and Catholic men be mocked, evil reported, and evil judged of for that which we do at the Mass, we confess plainly, for so much as we ought not to be ashamed of it: that according to Christ's commandment we offer unto our Lord God this Sacrifice in remembrance of Christ's death, 
Luc. 22.  and for our necessities, and that according unto the exhortation of S. Paul, 
1. Tim. 2.  we make supplications; prayers, intercessions, thanksgiving, for all men, for Kings, and foral that are in authority, that we may live a quiet and peaceable life, in all godliness, and chastity. For that (saith he) is good and acceptable in the sight of God our saviour, who will all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is but one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ jesus, that hath given himself a ransom for all men. These be the things, that we do in the Mass. What reproof they deserve, we see not. Yet these be the things, for which we sustain persecution.  
This being so, to th'intent they find comfort according to the exhortation of Christ in the Gospel, which suffer persecution for the Mass, 
Math. 5.  sith it is for righteousness sake, and that the persecutors seeing themselves deceived, take better advise, repent, and amend: and that the truth of this point be more clearly known: I think it good, and profitable, here to say somewhat of Sacrifice in general, and of the Sacrifice of the Mass.  
How be it this much at the beginning I confess, that, what is, and ever hath been in the Church agreed upon, as a thing certain and clear, thereof reason is, we should not dispute, least by disputing, we make the thing doubtful, that is most certain. Therefore here, I mean in this Preface, I intend not to bestow my labour, to the intent by Arguments I may seem to prove a thing, that in the Church is already defined: but to this end rather mind I to employ mine endeavour, that as touching this point of Divinity, I may confirm it, not so much by way of reasoning, as by way of expounding: whereby it may come to pass, that the truth being declared, the darkness of errors be put away.  

What things be intended in this Preface.  That I may proceed orderly, which I may not well do in my rejoinder following the course of answering to M. jewels confuse Reply: I will briefly declare, first, what Sacrifice is: 2 Why Sacrifice is made, as a thing acceptable, and due unto God: 3 that a visible Sacrifice is most convenient for our nature: 4 that God hath both engrafted in the minds of men the rite of Sacrificing, and also by the Law commanded it, and for what cause: 5 then, that for love towards us, Christ hath instituted a Sacrifice for us at his last Supper, for larger proof whereof I refer the Reader to this my rejoinder: 6 Furthermore, for so much as in every Sacrifice four things are to be considered, according to the doctrine of S. Augustine, 
August. de Trinit. lib. 4. cap. 14.  To whom offering is made, by whom it is made, what is offered, and for whom any thing is offered: I will show in what sort these be in the Sacrifice of the Mass: 7 After this, by what way this Sacrifice is available: 8 for what causes, and persons it is available: 9 what effects it worketh: 10 Lastly, that the Prayers, and the Ceremonies of the Mass, be good and godly, and void of all superstition. Of these points some I will but briefly touch, of some I will speak more largely, as the matter requireth.  
Whereas then M. jewel, and his fellows do so much abhor and detest the name of Sacrifice, specially of the Sacrifice of the Mass, as a thing injurious to the Cross of Christ, which nevertheless so much setteth forth the merit and benefit of the Cross, as nothing more: I would feign they had once plainly signified to the world, that they themselves do rightly understand, what a Sacrifice is.  
What new devise they have, and what they imagine thereof, it skilleth not. Let us see, what the Scriptures teach us. The blessed Apostle S. Paul going about to declare, that Christ was a true Priest, and that he offered a true Sacrifice for us, taketh unto himself this definition, 
Heb. 5.  saying, Every high Priest taken from among men, is ordained for men, in the things that appertain to God, to th'intent he offer up gifts, and Sacrifices for sins. And again in the same Epistle, 
Heb. 8.  Every high Priest is ordained to offer up gifts, and Sacrifices. Whereof it may be gathered, what Sacrifice is, 
What is Sacrifice as it is taken for the thing that is offered.  specially the condition of these Correlatives, Priest, and Sacrifice, considered, between which there is a mutual relation of the one to the other, as it is between Father and Son, Master and Servant: verily that it is, An Host, which as a gift and a present, is offered by a public Minister unto God for sins.  
And thus may Sacrifice be defined, 
What is Sacrifice as, it is taken for the action of sacrificing.  as the word signifieth the gift offered, and the thing sacrificed. For else, if we speak of Sacrifice, as it betokeneth the action of sacrificing, for the word is common to both: then we understand a true Sacrifice, and such as is convenient for our nature, to be made and offered, when we do consecrate any gift to our Lord God, by which, some rite and ceremony according to public ordinance about the gift observed, we profess him to be supreme and chief of all, the beginning and end of our health and salvation, so as by that we submit ourselves, and all that is ours unto his divine Majesty. Herein what is there, that may seem injurious to Christ, or by any means unworthy? 
Why is Sacrifice made.   
Neither do we thus offer gifts, and Sacrifices unto God, for that he hath any need of our things, who in himself is most sufficient, nor for that he desireth aught at our hands for cause of his own pleasure; as the carnal jews thought: but because in such gifts and presents, the recognition of his supreme Majesty, is to him most acceptable. And for so much as of his goodness he hath created us after his own Image, 
Gen. 1.  and hath ordained us to attain the fruition of his own blessed presence, where the true bliss is: it is right on our behalf, and to him acceptable, that to th'intent we may achieve this end, which to us is profitable, and not to him, we give him worship due unto him, and that by what means we can, we stir ourselves duly to do it: and that, if by committing sin, we have dishonoured, and offended him, and therefore deserve punishment, so far as our frailty stretcheth, we make some satisfaction and recompense.  

Sacrifice is the proper wourship of God.  And although he be truly wourshipped with all good works, that be done to his glory: Yet properly that worship is due unto him, whereby, after the manner that is convenient for us, we profess him to be Alpha and O, asmuch to say, the beginning and end of all things, for this is proper to his only Majesty. For in asmuch as that exceeding great excellency hath infinite properties, which for the infirmity of our nature we are forced with distinct considerations to conceive, and because we are carried unto God by distinct virtues with distinct affects and desires, which follow the apprehensions of our mind: that the virtues be not as an unordered heap confuse in the heart of a just man, but that each virtue answer to his proper consideration, whereby man is carried unto God (As, because God is true and faithful, therefore we believe him, because he is mighty and liberal, therefore we hope in him, because he is good, therefore we love him, which three virtues S. Paul setteth forth distinctly writing to the Corinthians) to the consideration, 
1. Cor. 13.  by which we conceive him to be verily our Lord and God, from whom, as being the Father of Lights, 
jacob. 1● Religion,  every good thing descendeth, and in whom, as in the last end, we put our highest felicity, properly the virtue of Religion answereth, by which we are wont to sacrifice, that is to wit, to offer up gifts, and presents in recognition hereof, whereby we acknowledge and profess, him to be the beginning of our creation, and the end of our bliss, to whom all that is ours ought to be referred.  
Therefore the people of Israel were commanded of God, as soon as they should come into the land of promise, to take the first fruits of all manner of corn, and to bring them to the Priest, and as he laid them upon the Altar, 
duty. 26  to say in this wise. I profess this day before thy Lord God, that I am entered into the Land, which our Lord hath sworn unto our Fathers that he would give unto us. Our Lord hath brought us out of egypt with his mighty hand, and stretched arm, etc. And therefore now I offer up the first fruits of the corn of the land, that our Lord hath given unto me.  
Even so King David said unto our Lord, 
1. Para. 29  after the great gifts had been given by him, and by his Nobles, towards the building of the Temple: All things are thine (O Lord) and what things we have received at thy hand, we have given unto thee. And thus we offer gifts unto our Lord, not for that he hath need of them, or pleasure in them, with which mind the Babylonians offered unto their Idol Bel: 
Daniel. 14  but because in the gifts so offered, there is a recognition of his Divine Majesty, and a certain satisfaction for sins, that is to say, for the temporal pains due unto sins.  
But because living upon the earth, and being environed with flesh we use the senses, 
That a visible Safice is most convenient for our nature. joan. 4.  and being tied unto sensible things we can not exercise the proper operations of the soul perfitly: such a Sacrifice is convenient for us, as with which visibly we may confess and honour that Divine excellency of Majesty. For although God, who is spirit, be delighted with that worship, which according to the Scripture, proceedeth of spirit, and truth, that is to say, of right faith working by charity, and although it be a certain acceptable Sacrifice unto him, when the soul with inward moving doth consecrate itself to God: yet truth itself, that is to say, right faith, requireth also outward worship, for two causes.  

Outward wourship of God, required for two causes.  The one is, because the soul maketh not that inward oblation of itself conveniently, and perfitly, except it behold the same in some sensible oblation of a gift, as in a sign and glass, that by this mean it may be moved and stirred unto that internal Oblation, there to rest and stay, as when we pray unto God, and praise him, we do it not only with the heart, but also with sensible signs: not because otherwise he understandeth us not, but for that so we stir and provoke ourselves the more fervently to pray, 
Rom. 6.  and praise him. And therefore S. Paul admonisheth us, that we exhibit, not only our mind, unto God but also our members, to be armours of righteousness.  
The other cause is, 
In Asceticis.  for that, as S. Basile saith, we have not only our soul of God. And therefore the worship that is given unto him by the soul only, 
God is to be honoured not only with the soul, but also with the body, and with outward things.  is unperfit. And for so much as we have received the body, and all that we have beside of him: it is right, that we serve him with the body itself, and with all things, acknwoleging that he is God, and Lord of all things, to whom all things ought to do service. In consideration whereof the third brother among the seven Maccabees, putting forth his tongue out of his mouth (as he was commanded) and holding up his hands, 
2. Mach. 7  both to be cut of by the tormentor, said, with a bold courage, E coelo ista possideo, sed propter Deileges nunc haec ipsa despicio. From heaven I have these things, but now for God's Laws sake, I care not for them. And so gladly he offered his tongue, his hands, and all the parts of his body, in Sacrifice to God of whom he had received them.  
And so the mother of those seven Maccabees, 
The Mother of the Maccabees.  a woman of manly fortitude, with free heart offered up her sons unto God, because it was he (as she said) that had created them, and brought them into this light, how so ever they had been conceived in her womb. Therefore she made protestation as before God, and said unto them, I know not (quoth she) how ye appeared in my womb: for it is not I, that have given unto you spirit, and soul, and life, it is not I, that have joined together the members of each of you, but it is the Creator of the world. etc. As much to say in effect, as this. Lord for so much as I have had these seven Sons of thee, for thy sake gladly I give them, and offer them unto thee.  

job. 1.  That blessed man job likewise, took the loss of all his goods patiently, and so with free heart offered them to God, forasmuch as he acknowledged, that he had received them at God's hand. 
1. Cor. 6.  S. Paul also exhorteth, that we glorify, 
Rom. 12.  and bear God in our body, and that we exhibit our bodies a lively Sacrifice unto God. 
Matt. 22.  And in that great and first Commandment, in which the Law and Prophets do depend, we are commanded to love God, not only with the soul, but also (ex omnibus viribus) with all our powers and strength. 
Luc. 10.   
And as we sin against God, not by thought only, but with outward works also, and outward things, as it is evident in fornication, gluttony, theft, sacrilege, and in the like: so we be bound seemly to serve him, not only with inward motions of the soul, but also with outward things, that we have received of his goodness. 
1. Cor. 11.  Therefore S. Paul gave precepts unto them of Corinth men and women, concerning the head to be uncoovered, or covered, when they prayed, or prophesied.  
Christ also in the Gospel declaring, that internal faith only doth not suffice, saith, He that confesseth me before men, 
Math. 10.  I will confess him also before my Father. And S. Paul saith, 
Rom. 10.  that with the heart a man believeth unto righteousness, but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation, by the mouth understanding every external work, whereby confession of our faith is made.  
But what shall we say to those places of the Scriptures, in which it is reported, that God hath no liking in the outward Sacrifices? 
Osee. 6.  I will have mercy, saith he, and not Sacrifice. 
Math. 9  If thou wouldst have had Sacrifice, I would have given it thee. 
Psalm. 50.  With burnt offerings thou wilt not be delighted. A troubled spirit is a Sacrifice to God, the contrite and humbled heart, thou wilt not despise. I will not rebuke thee for Sacrifices. 
Psal. 49.  Of the like places in the Scriptures of the old Testament, we find great numbers.  
To all this S. Augustine answereth. 
August. de Civi. Dei. lib. 10. c. 5. In what wise doth God refuse the old Sacrifices.  Sic illa Deum nolle dixit, quomodo ab stultis ea velle creditur, velut suae gratiae voluptatis. The Prophet said, that God would not have those Sacrifices, in such sort as fools believe he would have them, as for his own pleasures sake. For else, if he would not have had them at all, he would never have commanded them in the old Law to be offered. And therefore they were (saith he) to be changed now in their due and certain season, least men should believe, that they were such as might be desired of God's part, or be acceptable of themself in our behalf, and not rather those other Sacrifices (he meaneth internal Sacrifices) which by them were signified.  
Now therefore that those old Sacrifices be changed and abrogated, 
The Sacrifice of the Eucharist, or of the Altar.  the time being come, when Moses' Law should cease, and have an end: Christ in place of them hath substituted the Sacrifice of the eucharist, greater in virtue, better in profit, easier in doing, and incomparably higher in worthiness. So than that there may be a perfect profession of the supreme Majesty, which is to be showed by very things themselves: we offer unto it a visible gift of those things which we have received of our lords hand, for our sins, and for a thankful recognition.  

A certain change required in the things that be sacrificed. 2.2. q. 85. art. 3. arg. 3. Theoph. in cap. 8. ad Heb. Chrysost. in epist. ad Heb. Homil. 18.  Then is a gift said properly to be consecrated or hallowed unto God in sacrifice, when it is deputed to divine service, with some rite of religion or Ceremony obserserued, whereby some change is made about it. For it is not to be thought, that every oblation is a Sacrifice, as it is well noted of S. Thomas, Theophylacte, and S. Chrysostom. For as it appeareth in the book named Leviticus, In all the Sacrifices some rite was observed, whereby things, that before were profane, were made sacred and holy to the honour of God. For either they were slain, as the Beasts, or burnt, as the Incense, or sprinkled over with oil, as bread, meal, and the first fruits, and baked in an Oven, or fried in a pan, or roasted on a gredyern, 
levit. 2.  and all things were severed and ceasoned with salt. 
Marc. 9   
A rite and ceremony of changing we do observe in our Sacrifice also now, the bread (beside breaking and eating) by virtue of the words of consecration, being changed into the body, and the wine, into the blood of Christ. By which rite and ceremony we confess, that, for so much as we are by nature the children of wrath, we have need of a great change, to be made worthy of God, that we have need to put on the new man, that we protest all that is ours, to be ready for his sake to be changed to be consumed, to be spent and lost, right so as it shall be his pleasure. For who so ever doth lose his soul for my sake (saith our Saviour) he shall find his soul. 
Math. 16. That to offer Sacrifice is natural.   
Now let us come unto the fourth point, and declare that God hath both engrafted in the minds of men the rite of sacrificing, and also by Law commanded it, and for what cause. This is soon done. The consideration of nature, and general view of the world, layeth the one before our eyes, and the books of the old Testament, the other.  
Natural reason telleth man, that he is under some Superior, for the defects, which he feeleth in himself. In which defects he hath need to be helped and directed of some Superior. And what so ever that is, it is that, as S. Thomas saith, which among all is called God. And as in natural things, naturally the inferior things are under the superior things, even so natural reason telleth man according unto natural inclination, that he exhibit to that which is above man, subjection and honour according to his manner. And the convenient manner for man is, to use sensible signs to express some things, because he taketh his knowledge of sensible things. And therefore it proceedeth of natural reason, that man use certain sensible things, offering them to God in sign of due subjection and honour, in like sort as they do, who offer unto their Lords certain things, in recognition of their Lordship or Dominion. This pertaineth to the nature of Sacrifice, and therefore the offering of Sacrifice pertaineth to the Law of nature. 
Sacrifice hath ever been general to all people's. Cyprian. Serm. de ratione Circuncis.   
Wherefore there liveth no Nation in the world altogether without Religion, as we may see, and hear, nor is Religion maintained without Ceremonies. And among Ceremonies, the Nations of all ages have used outward Oblation, as the chief. Although for the more part (as S. Cyprian saith) they abhorred Circumcision, as a thing cruel, and unfriendly to nature, yet the other Sacrifices they did not likewise abhor: but following, the law of Nature in many things (saith he) they retained the custom of making Sacrifices. And this was fastened in their minds by common consent in general, that God only ought to be wourshipped with outward Sacrifice. With that kind of worship who ever judged, that any should be honoured (saith S. Augustine) but whom either he knew, 
August. de Civit. Dei li. 10. c. 4.  or thought, or (at least) imagined to be God? Of what antiquity this manner of godly worship is, the Sacrifices of the two first brethren, Cain, and Abel, do show. 
Gen. 4.   

For what cause hath God engrafted in Man the rite of sacrificing.  As touching the cause, why it hath pleased God to engraft in the minds of men the rite of sacrificing, what other can we render, but his great love towards Mankind? In declaration whereof this much is to be considered.  
Whereas our first parent Adam seduced by the envy and craft of the Devil, 
Gen. 3.  broke God's commandment, and through his sin brought sin into this world, 
Rom. 5.  yea such, and so great Sin, that all proceeding from him according to the flesh, became by nature the Children of wrath, and therefore remained thrall to God's anger, and just damnation: 
Ephes. 1.  God of his own goodness not willing they should perish, whom he had created, determined with himself, 
Gen. 3.12. & 22.26.28.  and promised to Adam at the beginning, and afterward to Abraham, Isaac, jacob, Moses, David, and the other Fathers, to send that blessed seed, jesus Christ his Son, 
Deut. 18.  to reconcile us unto himself, to pacify his just wrath, to wash us clean from our sins, and to redeem us from damnation, by Oblation of a singular Sacrifice. 
Galat. 4.  When the fullness of time was come, and the days fully expired that God had appointed, the Son of God our Saviour came, took our sins upon him, 
The true and chief Sacrifice, Christ's Death.  offered himself up a Sacrifice for us upon the Cross, appeased the wrath of his Father, and entering once by his blood into the holy place (as S. Paul saith) found for us an everlasting Redemption. 
Heb. 9   
This Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross, is the only Sacrifice, whereby we are redeemed, and without this, is there no salvation. 
Heb. 10.  With one offering (saith S. Paul) he hath made perfit for ever them that be sanctified. And in isaiah it is said of Christ, 
isaiah. 63.  Torcular calcavi solus. The press have I trodden alone. And as without and beside this Sacrifice nothing can save us, so this is a sufficient price to satisfy God for the debts and sins of the whole world. 
1. joan. 2:  He is the propitiation (saith S. john) for our sins, neither for our sins only, but for the sins of all the world. This is the lamb, that taketh away the sins of the world, 
johan. 1.  And God was reconciling the world in Christ unto himself, 
2. Cor. 5.  saith S. Paul. The virtue of this Sacrifice reacheth from the beginning of the world to the end, from the first man to the last, both Testaments taking their effect of it, and therefore S. john calling Christ the Lamb, saith, he was killed from the beginning of the world, 
Apocal. 13.  verily because his blood hath cleansed the sins of men of all ages.  
But albeit this be the Lamb, that taketh away the sins of the world, 
johan. 1.  and though it be the Sacrifice propitiatory for the sinner of the whole world, as S. john saith: yet is not the whole world thereby saved. For sure we are, the faithless Gentiles, Turks, moors, Saracenes, unbelieving jews, and seined Christians, be not saved. What then shall we say? This Sacrifice is sufficient to save all men, but it is not effectual to the salvation of all men. The virtue of it is such, as is able to save all, yet be not all saved. Whereof cometh this? The defect is not in God, it is in man. Now behold the goodness of God.  
That this Sacrifice of his Son, as it is sufficient for all, so it may be also effectual, for all: God hath ordained certain means, whereby men may be made able to receive the merit of it, and whereby the virtue of it is transferred, and applied unto them. These means be Sacraments, and Sacrifices. As for Faith, 
Faith, hope, and Charity, first, and chief required. Heb. 11. ●. johan. 3 Sacraments. Sacrifices double, Inward Sacrifices Heb. vlt.  Hope, and Charity, of necessity they are presupposed, without which neither Sacraments, nor Sacrifices do ought avail. For without faith it is impossible to please God, and who so ever loveth not, he remaineth in death. Likewise where is no hope, there Christ's mercy to salvation taketh no place.  
Of Sacraments some be proper to the old Testament, some to the new. Of Sacrifices some be inward, some be outward. The inward be known, as the sacrifice of a contrite Harte, an humbled spirit, the sacrifice of prayer, praise and thanksgiving, of mercy, and benevolence, and other the like. These be common to both Testaments.  

Outward Sacrifices.  But as concerning outward Sacrifices, that men might be made partakers of the Oblation of Christ, which hath most sufficiently merited the salvation of all men, and that they might transfer the fruit of it unto themselves, God hath even from the beginning of the world, both under the Law of Nature by Divine inspiration stirred up the minds of men unto the rite of sacrificing for witness whereof we have the example of Abel, 
Gen. 4.8.  Noah and Melchisedek, Abraham, Isaac, jacob, job, besides others, 
job. 1.  and eftsoons at what time he gave the Law by Moses, he commanded sacrifices to be made, and showed the divers kinds of Sacrifices, 
Exod. 12.  as the Paschal Lamb, 
Num. 28.  the continual sacrifice, the sacrifice for the sins of the Priest, 
In Levitico. ca 4.  of the Prince, of the people, for ignorance, forgiving thanks, for peace, for chastity, etc.  
The use of all which outward Sacrifices was, not that they should reconcile men to God, 
The use of the old Sacrifices.  and merit salvation by strength of their own nature, but that by them the minds of men might be moved, and admonished, to remember the great Sacrifice, that was to come, whereby God promised to redeem all men, that so their faith might be confirmed, and the fruit of it be applied unto them, having faith and trust in the Sacrifice to come. What strength they had in their degree against sin; they had it not by their own nature, but by virtue of Christ's Sacrifice upon the ●rosse, whereof they were figures and significations.  
Of these outward Sacrifices so great an account is made in the Scriptures, as necessary for the behoof of God's people living under the Law, that the lack of them is reputed in sundry places for an horrible plague. God threatening the people of Israel, saith by his Prophet Osee, 
Osee. 3.  that they should sit to many days (sine sacrificio, & sine Altari) without sacrifice, and without an Altar. In an other place he threatened king Asa, and his people, by the mowth of Azarias the son of Obed, that for a long time they should be without a Priest. 
2. Paralip. 15.  Azarias in Daniel lamentably bewaileth the state of the jews, as being grievously plagued, for that they had neither burnt offering, 
Danil. 3.  nor oblation, nor incense, nor place where to offer.  
Wherefore if Christ would his Church in the time of the new Testament to be without external Sacrifice, and Priesthood proper to that state, he should seem to have delivered unto his people, not the Testament of grace, but a state of ire and wrath, yea of more wrath, then was the state of the jewish people. But whereas he saith himself, 
isaiah. 61.  that he came (praedicare annum Domini acceptum) to preach the acceptable year of our Lord, 
Luc. 4.  that is to say, the time of grace, mercy, and salvation, and sith that S. Paul saith, 
2. Cor. 6.  Behold now is the acceptable time, behold now is the day of salvation: verily assured we are, forasmuch as to every law ordained by God Sacrifice and Priesthood belongeth, proper and convenient to the same: that God would not suffer his most dear people of the new Testament, his best beloved spouse the Church, to be without external Sacrifice, and Priesthood, the lack whereof was sometimes threatened to the jews for a grievous plague. Neither, to say the troth, could it in any wise seem convenient, that that Religion, which of all that ever have been, is most absolute, should l●cke that Service and worship, whereby the external and propitiatory sacrifice is offered, which Service hath always been most highly esteemed in every Religion, not only in that which is true, and instituted of God, but also in that which is false, and devised by the envy and suggestion of the Devil, wherein he endeavoureth all that he can, that the Image of the true Religion, as much as may be, be expressed, and lively set forth.  
Forasmuch then as in the old Testament, 
The Sacrifice of the Church.  as S. Paul witnesseth, there wanted perfection, by reason of the weakness, and unableness of the Levitical Priesthood (for the law brought nothing to perfection) it behoved, 
Heb. 7.  God the Father of mercy so disposing, that an other Priest after the order of Melchisedek should rise, who might make perfit all that were to be sanctified. This Priest was jesus Christ our Lord and God. Who, whereas he came not to lose the Law (in as much as it was Natural, 
Mat. 5.  or Moral) but rather to fulfil the Law: when he brought his new Law into the world, so much promised before in jeremy, 
jerem. 31.  and th'other Prophets: lest he should have lest it maimed, and unperfit in this behalf, contrariwise then the manner of the former laws (of nature, and of Moses) was, either of which had outward sacrifice, furnished it with a peculiar Sacrifice, and Priesthood. For it could not otherwise be, but that, when a new Law took place, Sacrifice proper to that Law should go with it, and Priests likewise, as Ministers of the same Sacrifice. For according to the Doctrine of S. Paul, Law, Sacrifice, and priesthood, go ever together.  
Therefore though he would once offer himself 
Heb. 7.  unto God the Father upon the Altar of the Cross with Death, that he might there pay the price of the ransom of the world, and work everlasting Redemption: yet because his Priesthood was not to be extinguished and ended by Death, and every Priesthood requireth a proper Sacrifice: at his last Supper, in the night that he was betrayed, that he might leave unto his Dear Spouse the Church a visible Sacrifice, as the nature of men required, whereby that bloody Sacrifice once to be made upon the Cross might be represented, and the Memory of it kept, and the healthful Virtue of it appyled unto us, and God duly recognised: at the same Supper declaring himself to be constituted a Priest after the order of Melchisedek, according to the duty of Priesthood he offered up unto God the Father, his body and blood under the forms of bread and wine, and delivered the same unto the Apostles, whom then he made Priests of the new Testament, that they should receive them, and by these words, Ho facite in meam commemorationem, 
Luc. 12.  Do ye this in my remembrance, 
1. Cor. 11.  (under: which request that his whole action is comprehended) he gave commandment to them, and to their Successors in Priesthood, to offer up the same. Thus the Church hath always understanded, thus it hath taught, thus it hath believed. In witness hereof S. Ireneus speaking of that which Christ did at his Supper, 
Iren. lib. 4. cap. 32.  saith, Novi Testamenti novam docuit oblationem. He taught the new oblation of the new testament. And this is the doctrine of the Catholic Church, touching the Sacrifice of the new Testament, simply declared, which Sacrifice is now according to our lords Institution, and commandment offered daily by Priests, in this office the Apostles successors.  
Neither saith S. Irenaeus of this Oblation, only, that it is the new Oblation of the new Testament, 
Ibidem.  and that Christ taught it: but also that the Church receiving it of the Apostles, doth offer this Sacrifice to God (in universo mundo) in the whole world. Wherefore it is mere madness, yea (if we would speak as S. Augustine speaketh in every the like case) it is most insolent madness, 
August. Epist. 118. ad januar.  to dispute, whether in the Mass there be a Sacrifice and oblation or no, and whether the same aught to be continued, seeing that the whole Church through the world doth celebrate and frequent it.  
For good proof of it we have the Scriptures, 
authorities for the sacrifice of the Altar.  the Doctors of all ages, the ancient Counsels, the sense, practice and use of the universal Church. As for the Scriptures, I think it enough here only to note certain places, 
Scripture for the Sacrifice,  that be alleged for it. They are these, the Institution of Christ described in the gospel: the prophecy of Malachi: the Fignre of Melchisedek. Unto which may be added the manifest place of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, 
Luc. 22.  where S. Paul saith, 
Malach. 1.  they could not be made partakers of the Table of our Lord, 
Gen. 14.  who had defiled themselves with taking part of the Table of Devils: 
1. Cor. 10.  where, by Table, he understandeth in both places the Altar, whereon the profane meats were offered to Devils among the Gentiles, and the eucharist is consecrated, and offered up unto God among the true believers, whereof Sacrifice is concluded. For by those words it is manifest, that S. Paul doth compare our eucharist in respect of Sacrifice, to the Sacrifices of the old law, and to the Sacrifices of the Devils. Which thing he would not have done, unless he had been assured, and unless it had been well known to the Christian people, that the eucharist is so a true Sacrifice, as those that were offered to God in the old Testament, and as those that of th● Gentiles were offered to Devils.  

Doctors for proof of the Sacrifice.  As for the Doctors, their witnesses for proof hereof be in manner infinite. In all their writings whereof speak they so often, as of this Sacrifice? Many of their sayings I will not here rehearse, many of good force I will dissemble, and the sayings of 
a Li 8● Constitut. Apost. & Epist. 2.  S. Clement, 
b Epist. 1  of S. Anacletus, 
c Epist. 1.  of S. Alexander, 
d Ecclesiast. Hierarch. c. 3 part. 3.  of S. Dionysius, and 
e Epist. ad Smyruen. & Trallian. Iren. li. 4. cap. 32. Infra. fol. ●40. b. etc Cyprian. Lib. 2.  S. Ignatius I will not touch. Who as they were either in the Apostles time, or soon after, and therefore are the rather to be hea●d: so of this Sacrifice they have given forth in writing very plain witness.  
Verily S. Irenaeus speaketh so clearly of it in his fourth book against Valentinus, that by no shift it can be avoided, by no mist or cloud it can be darkened. M. jewel hath beaten his wit very much about it, and hath travailed all that he could, to frame an answer to it in his Reply, but he laboureth in vain, and showeth more wilfulness, than reason, more talk, than learning, as by this Reiondre it shall appear.  
S. Cyprian writing to Caecilius, saith, that the Priest doth then offer in the Church a true and full sacrifice unto ●od the Father, if he begin so to offer, even as he seeth Christ to have offered. In which place he declareth how Christ offering his body and blood in the form of bread and wine at his Supper, 
Epist. 3. Ambros. lib. 4.5.6. De Sacrament. & lib. 5.  exercised the office of his Priesthood after the order of Melchi●edech.  
Here I might allege S. Ambrose, in sundry places of his books De Sacramentis, and in his Epistle to the noble woman Marcellina his sister, 
Epist. 33.  where expressly he nameth the Mass, by the name of Missa, and the Oblation, that it be not wrested to an other signification. S. Jerome in sundry places of his works, but specially in his epistle to Euagrius, and to Hedibia, quaest. 2. hath a manifest testimony of this sacrifice. S. Augustin likewise in many places of his works. 
De Civit. li. 17. c. 20  In the .17. book De Civitate Dei, speaking of the Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, which he doth exhibit after the order of Melchisedek, saith, Id sacrificium successit omnibus illis sacrificijs veteris Testamenti, quae immolabantur in umbra futuri. This Sacrifice hath come in place of all those sacrifices of the old Testament, which were sacrificed in the shadow of the sacrifice to come. And to th'intent we should understand this not to be the bloody Sacrifice of the Cross, but the unbloody Sacrifice of the Altar: he addeth these words to put the Reader out of doubt, pro illis omnibus sacrificijs & Oblationibus corpus eius offertur, & participantibus ministratur. For all those sacrifices and Oblations (of the old Law) Christ's body is offered, and ministered unto the receivers.  
In his book of Confessions, he speaketh of this Sacrifice so clearly, as it can not be denied, showing how it was offered for his Mother Monica that holy woman at her burial. 
August. Confess. lib. 9 c. 12  His words be plain. Neque in eyes precibus quas tibi fudimus, cùm offerretur pro eae Sacrificium precij nostri, ego flevi. Neither wept I in those prayers, which we made unto thee (he speaketh unto God) at what time the Sacrifice of our Price was offered up for her. In an other place he telleth what a great desire she had, not to have her body sumptuously and honourably buried, but to be remembered at the Altar of God● 
Ibid. ●. 13.  unde sciret dispensari victimam sanctam, qua deletum est Chirographum, quod erat contrariumnobis, qua triumphatus est hostis computans delicta nostra, etc. From whence she knew that holy host (or sacrifice) to be bestowed, by which the handwriting that was contrary to us, was blotted out, by which the enemy that reckoneth our offences, was overcome. By these two testimonies, both the Sacrifice offered at the Altar, and the Oblation of the same for the Dead, is avouched.  
If all were laid together that may be alleged out of S. Augustine in witness of this Sacrifice, it would fill a book.  

〈◊〉 serm. 7. the Passione Domini.  At what time the matter was treated in Caiphas haul (saith S. Leo) How Christ should be killed, than he ordained the Sacrament of his body and blood; and taught (his Disciples) what Sacrifice from thenceforth aught to be offered unto God. Against these our Adversaries can take no exception, either for their age, or for their authority.  

Masses made by S. james, S. Basil, S. Chrysostom, S. Ambros.  What shall I speak of the Mass of S. james the Apostle, and the Mass of S. Basil, allowed by the sixth general Council holden at Constantinople, and by all the Greeks, of the Mass of S. Chrysostom, and of S. Ambrose, all which the antiquity acknowledged, and now be extant? In those Masses this Sacrifice, and Oblation is oftentimes spoken of, and it is declared, how it is offered.  

Counsels for witness of this Sacrifice. ●●cil. Nic●n. ●ae. 14●  Hereunto may be added the authority of many Counsels, that contain most clear witness of the Sacrifice of the Altar. Those holy and learned Fathers of the great first General Council holden at Nice, say, that it is an unworthy thing, that they which have not power to offer the Sacrifice (that is to say, the Deacons) should give the body of Christ to them, that offer it. The first Council. Ephesine likewise acknowledgeth the unbloody Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, 
Concil. Ephesin● in Epistola cyril. ad Nestorium.  and the true presence of that body, which is proper unto the word. The Testimonies of other Counsels that followed these, might easily be alleged for this point, in great number. But these may suffice.  
M. jewel impudently beareth the world in hand, that nothing can be found in the ancient Doctors, or Counsels, 
M. jewel in his Challenge.  that maketh clearly for the Sacrifice. Yea he pretendeth himself to be so sure of it, that he offereth freely to yield, and subscribe (which it seemeth he mindeth not to do, what so ever be brought) if any learned man of his Adversaries, or all the learned men alive, be able to bring any one sentence out of any one old Doctor, or Council for it. But his Master john Caluine, as wicked an Heretic as he was, was never so shameless, as to deny a thing so manifest● nor so rash, as to grant so much. And therefore thus he writeth.  
Veteres Coenam Sacrificium vocasse notum est: neque possum veteris Ecclesiae consuetudinem excusare, 
Caluin●● de Coena domini●  quòd gestu ac ritu suo speciem quandam sacrificij figuraret, ijsdem ferè ceremonijs, quae sub veteri Testamento in usuerant, eo excepto, quod panis hostia animalis loco utebantur. Quod cùm nimis ad judaisinum accedat, 
Calvin acknowledgeth the Sacrifice was in the ancient Church. M. jewel denieth.  nec Domini institutioni consentaneum sit, minimè probo. That the old Fathers called the Supper a Sacrifice, it is knowen● neither can I excuse the custom of the ancient Church, for that with gesture, and outward rite, they did set forth a certain form of a Sacrifice, with the same Ceremonies in a manner, 
Calvin alloweth not the old Church: yet must we needs allow Calvin?  that were in use in the old Testament, save that they used the host of Bread in place of a beast. Which thing sith it cometh to nigh to jewishness, neither is agreeable unto the Institution of the Lord, I do not allow.  
Thus M. jewel should have told his tale, if he had followed the chief inventor and founder of his Genevian Gospel, for so besides heresy, he had offended but in pride. But now he hath so proclaimed his Challenge, that besides heresy, and pride, he hath also proved himself ignorant, rash, and impudent. And thus is he confuted by his own chief Doctor, who being convict with evident truth, with some modesty confesseth that, he could not deny, though with intolerable pride he disallowed that, which he was not able to disprove. So Lucifer knew, that his Creator was above him, yet not liking well of it, 
isaiah. 14.  he said, I will be like unto the highest.  
As concerning the Institution of Christ, that by a clear declaration of it, 
The institution of Christ declared.  it may appear by the act of Christ, that at his Supper he offered up to his Father his body and blood, it is to be considered, what he did. Do ye this (said he) in my remembrance. What this? This very thing, that I now have done. He took bread into his hands, and lifting up his eyes unto heaven, (as by assured tradition the Church hath received, 
Ambrose De sacrament. li. 4. cap. 5.  and S. Ambrose reporteth it as a thing undoubted) and showing it unto the Father, as we read in S. james Mass he gave thanks unto him, as being the author almighty of all things, 
jacobus in Liturgia.  from whom all that good is, proceedeth, and as it was accustomed to be done in Sacrifices, with a certain rite of Religion he consecrated the bread, blessing it, he broke it, and gave it unto his Disciples to eat, saying, This is my Body that is given for you. To whom is it given? To my Father almighty, to whom as being Lord of all, I have given thanks. It is given I say, to my Father presently without bloodshed, and in a Mystery, but anonne for his wills sake to be rend and torn, and to be put to death. Even so a little after he said, lifting up his eyes also into Heaven, as it is in S. john, 
johan. 17.  Pro illis ego sanctisico meipsum, I sanctify myself for them, fulfilling that old Law in deed itself, 
Exod. 13.  which required, 
Num. 8.  that every first begotten should be sanctified unto our Lord, 
Luc. 2.  that is to say, be offered and appointed unto God's holy service. Likewise he took the Cup, after that he had supped saying, 
Mat. 26.  This is my blood of the new Testament, that for you and for many is shed, 
Luc. 22.  in remission of sins.  
This is the visible work, which we do according to the instruction of Christ, with which by public authority (because Christ so ordained and commanded) we profess God to be not only the beginning and end of all things, the fountain of all felicity, and end of our desires, but also through the Death of his own Son, the redeemer of all men, and the repairer of all things, which through sin we had lost.  
That this commemoration ought to be celebrated externally with outward work, S. Paul plainly signifieth, saying to the Corinthians: So oft as ye eat this bread, 
1. Cor. 1●.  and drink of this Cup, ye do show forth the Death of our Lord until he come. For that showing forth can not be made with the internal commemoration of the mind. Which sense is also signified by the verb of the present tense, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  ye do show forth our lords death, for so in the Greek S. Paul speaketh.  
Touching testimonies that may be alleged for further proof of this Sacrifice, because it is declared and set forth at large both in my Answer to M. jewels. 17. Article, and in this Reiondre, and for so much as the convenient brevity of a Preface well beareth not so large a treaty, as the dew opening of this point requireth, and furthermore lest by treating of it here I should withdraw thy desire Reader from perusing that, wherewith I have fortified and made good my Answer: for these considerations I refer thee unto my rejoinder itself.  
Now let us see, how the four things, which after the doctrine of S. Augustine be required in every Sacrifice, 
August. de Trinit. lib 4. c. 14.  be found in the most blessed Sacrifice of the Altar. ¹ To whom oblation is made, ² by whom it is made, ³ what is that which is offered, ⁴ and for whom it is offered.  

To whom is Oblation made in the Sacrifice of the Church.  Concerning the first, This doctrine of the Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, which now we are driven to defend against the Professors of this new devised Gospel, was so certainly known, and generally holden of all men in the first times of the Church, that the very Arians, who were Heretics, and enemies of Christ, thought they had found an invincible Argument against the Equality of the Son of God with the Father, because in this Sacrifice the Son is offered up unto the Father. For it is certain, said they that he which is offered, is less than he, to whom he is offered. To which Argument that which Fulgentius an ancient Father writeth, may serve for answer, who showeth learnedly writing to Monimus, that this Sacrifice is not offered to the Father only, but to the whole Trinity.  
If ●here be any Catholic believers (saith he) that seemed hitherto to be ignorant of this Sacrifice, 
Fulgen●tius lib. 2. ad Moninum.  from hence forth they ought to know, that all service of every worship and healthful Sacrifice, 
Oblation is made to the most blessed Trinity.  is of the Catholic Church exhibited, both to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, that is to say, to the Holy Trinity, in whose only name, it is manifest, that the Holy Baptism also is celebrated. Neither is prejudice gotten unto the Son, or unto the Holy Ghost, whiles prayer by him that offereth is directed unto the person of the Father, the ending of which prayer, whereas it hath in it the name of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, showeth, that no 
* discrimen  odds is in the Trinity: because whiles the words of honour be directed unto the person of the Father only, with the Faith of him that well believeth, the whole Trinity is honoured: and when the intention of him that sacrificeth, is directed unto the Father, the gift of the Sacrifice with one and the same duty of the offerer, is offered unto the whole Trinity. Thus Fulgentius.  
When Christ the Son of God, is offered up according to his body and blood, that is to say, according to his humane nature, according to which, he is less than the Father, than himself, than the holy Ghost: he is consecrated unto the holy Trinity. And so much doth the Church in the lesser Canon, and specially in the end of the Mass profess, 
August. de Civit. Dei li. 10. c. 20  with express words naming the Trinity itself.  
Therefore S. Augustine saith that, whereas Christ jesus in the form of God taketh sacrifice with the Father, 
Christ is sacrificed in the form of a seruaunt●  with whom he is one God, yet in the form of a servant he had rather be a Sacrifice, then take Sacrifice, least by this occasion some man should think, that Sacrifice were to be done to any creature. By this he is a Priest, himself both the offerer, and himself also the offering. Of which thing he willed the daily Sacrifice of the Church to be a Sacrament, which Church whereas it is the body of himself the head, is taught through him to offer up itself.  

Masses in honour and memory of Sanctes.  Although sometime the Church do celebrate certain Masses in the honour and memory of saints, yet it doth not offer Sacrifice unto them, but unto the Trinity only, that hath crowned them, and giving thanks unto God for their victories, sueth for their aids, and desireth to be helped by their merits, and prayers. Whereof S. Augustine treateth, Lib. 8. De Civitate Dei. cap. v●t. lib. 20. Contrà Faustum. cap. 21.  
Concerning the second point, which is, by whom this Oblation and Sacrifice is made, 
By whom is this Sacrifice made.  among some men there is some doubt thereof. For some say, that Christ offereth not, but that we only do offer. Others there be, that will Christ here also to be the Priest, who will seem to lean to the authority of S. Ambrose, 
Ambr. lib. 1. Officiorum. c. 48. De Summa Trinit. & fide Cath. cap. firmiter.  and of the Laterane Council. Now Christ is offered (saith S. Ambrose) but he is offered as man, as receiving passion, and he offereth himself as a Priest, to forgive our sins. The Council hath thus. There is one universal Church of the faithful, in which the self same Priest is the Sacrifice jesus Christ.  
If our Lord, because he is a Priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedeck, have an everlasting priesthood, 
Heb. 7.  as S. Paul saith, although he offered himself unto the Father with death in the Altar of the Cross to pay the price of man's redemption: yet his priesthood was not extinguished by death. Wherefore, as in the Epistle to the Hebrews S. Paul concludeth, 
Heb. ●.  it is necessary, that he have also that, which he may offer. But whereas it is not Christ himself in his own person, but a man Priest that standeth at the Altar, who with the words of Christ doth consecrat and offer this Sacrifice, as to this purpose he is assumpted: the learned Fathers of the Council of Trent, 
Concil. Trident. Sessi. 22. cap. 2.  have discussed this controversy with three words. For the Host (say they) is one and the self same. He the same now offereth by the ministery of Priests, that offered himself upon the Cross with a divers way only of offering. Whereof it followeth, that both Christ, and also we, here are Priests, he, because he consecrateth by our ministery, we, because we consecrate in his person, and with his words. For whereas he said to his Apostles, 
Luc. 22.  Do ye this in my remembrance, after that he had offered himself unbloodily at the Supper, as he is now offered in the Altar: the Apostles so understood him, the Holy Ghost giving them such sense, or Christ by express words so teaching them, that they should consummate, and make perfit this Mystery, in the person of him, and with his words. Which of an assured tradition of the Church that can not be deceived, the ancient Fathers have always taught, and the Church to this day observeth.  
This doctrine S Chrysostom confirmeth with these words. 
Chrysost. homil. De prodi●ione judae.  Now the time inviteth us to come unto that dreadful Table with due reverence, and agreeable watchfulness. Let no judas there be found, let no evil disposed person thither come. For it is not man, that of the Consecration of our lords Table maketh the things set forth the body and blood of Christ●. The words be uttered with the priests mouth, and with the power of God and his grace, they are consecrated. This is my body, saith, Christ: with this word the things set forth be consecrated. And as that word, 
Gen. 1.  which saith, Grow ye, and be ye multiplied and fill the earth, was once spoken, but at all time feeleth his effect, nature working unto generation: Even so that word was once spoken, but it giveth strength unto the Sacrifice, through all the Tables of the Church, until this day, and until his coming. Again he saith in an other Homily. 
Idem Homil. 2.  I will tell you further of a marvelous thing, and wonder not at it, let it not trouble you. 
In 2. ad Timoth.  What is that? The holy Oblation itself, be it Peter, be it Paul, or of what so ever merit the Priest be, that offereth it, is the very same, that Christ himself gave unto his Disciples, and that Priests now also do consecrate. This hath no whit less than that. Why so? Because they be not men, that sanctify this, but Christ which consecrated that before. For as the words that Christ spoke, be the same, which the Priests now also do pronounce● so the Oblation is the same. 
Chrysost. Homil. 60 add popul. Antioch.  Therefore he saith in an other place: Ministrorum nos ordinem tenemus, qui verò ipsa sanctificat, & transmutat, ipse est. We are but in the order of Ministers, but he that sanctifieth the things (brought forth) and changeth them (into the body and blood of Christ) is he himself, that is to say, Christ.  

Concil. Florentinum.  Hereunto agreeth the Council of Florence. The Priest (say those learned Fathers) doth consecrate this Sacrament speaking in the person of Christ. in the person of Christ (they mean) sitting, and offering up himself at his Supper. For the church teacheth not, that the words of consecration be spoken by way of rehearsal only, and that the body and blood of Christ is made at every pronunciation of them, as by a covenant made by Christ with us. But as the brothers of joseph in egypt, fearing lest he would bear in mind the injuries, which he had suffered at their hands, caused this much to be said unto him, 
Gen. ultimo.  Thy Father gave us in commandment before he died, that we should say these unto thee with his words. I beseech thee to forget the wicked deed of thy brothers, the sin, and malice, which they wrought against thee. And we also on our own behalf, pray thee to forgive the servants of thy Father this iniquity: Even so the Church, first with the words of Christ, recording his commandment, offereth up unto the Father his body and blood. After that the Priests in the person of the Church, whose public ministers they are in this behalf, add further their own duty of offering with their own words.  
These things being considered, 
In what part of the Mass is the holy Oblation made. Vide Tho 3 part. q. 82 art. 4. ad primum. Homil d● proditione Iud●.  that question is soon answered, that of some is demanded, where, and in what part of the Mass, is this most holy Oblation made. For although from the lesser Canon unto the Communion, it be with words and intention presented unto the Father, yet forasmuch as the words of Christ (as S. Chrysostom speaketh) give strength unto the Sacrifice, and they are no where else pronounced: properly and in deed than it is made, when the Priest speaking in the person of Christ, saith, this is my body, to wit, which for you is given and broken (which is added in the Canon of S. james, and in S. Ambroses' Mass) and, This is my blood which is shed for you. For then do we that, which our Lord commanded to be done in remembrance of him, saying, Do ye this in remembrance of me. As for the things that be spoken before, and after, they are to be referred unto that time.  
For albeit all manner Consecration considered by itself, includeth not Oblation, yet considered, as it proceedeth of the priests Intention to offer unto God by Consecration itself the thing consecrated, because unto God, and unto the honour of him he consecrateth: it hath the true nature of Oblation, and Sacrifice.  

Remembrance distinct from Sacrifice.  Although therefore our Lord commanded us to do this in remembrance of him, yet is this Sacrifice a far other thing, than the remembrance itself, or the praise of God, or thanks giving: sith that the thing itself which is commanded to be made, is in the very words of Christ, distincted from the remembrance. For he said not, remember ye this, but, Do● ye this (or make this) in remembrance of me. The Sacrifice, and the Oblation ought to be made in the remembrance of Christ, so that the remembrance itself is not the Sacrifice, but the use and end of the Sacrifice, for which it ought to be offered for by this unbloody Sacrifice, a commemoration of the Bloody Sacrifice, that was offered upon the Cross, is made unto the Father. And so saith S. Augustine: 
Augu. lib. 20. contra Faustum. cap. 18.  Christiani per acti Sacrificij memoriam celebrant sacrosancta Oblatione, & participatione corporis & sanguinis Christi. The Christians do celebrate the memory of the Sacrifice already done (upon the Cross) by the holy Oblation, and participation of the body and blood of Christ. Whereof it is evidently gathered also, that Oblation is distincted from Participation, although Participation pertain to the perfection and full complement of the Sacrifice.  
So here thou hast Reader that, which was required in the second place, By whom this holy Sacrifice is offered, to wit, 
In this sacrifice the Church offereth, and is offered.  by Christ through the ministery of the Priest, and by the Priest in the person of Christ. Where also we ought to join the Church withal, because of the unity of Christ and the Church: and so we understand the Church also to offer, 
August. de Civit. Dei. li. 10. cap. 6.  by the ministery of the Priest. For so S. Augustine teacheth us with plain words. In that Sacrament (saith he) it is showed unto the Church, that in that Oblation, which it offereth, itself is offered.  
Concerning the third point required by S. Augustine, which was promised to be declared, 
What is the thing that is offered●  that is to say, what is the thing that is offered: if we will admit the godly exposition of the Church, the Prophet teacheth us what it is, 
Psal. 115.  where he saith, what shall I give again unto our Lord for all that he hath given unto me? I will take the Cup of our Saviour, and call upon the name of our Lord, meaning by the Cup, his precious blood that upon the Cross was shed for us, and is the price of our Redemption. Which blood together with the body by virtue of Christ's word in the eucharist, is made present.  
Who refuseth this exposition of the Prophet, if he will believe Christ himself, 
Luc. 22.  who said, This is my body, which is given for you, 
Math. 26.  This is my blood which is shed for you, he can not be ignorant, what it is, that is offered in this Sacrifice.  
Whereas then God hath so loved the world, 
johan. 3.  that he hath given his only begotten Son, 
Rom. 8.  and hath given unto us with him all things (for a Babe is borne to us, 
isaiah. 9  a Son is given to us, saith isaiah): the whole merit of Christ, and the price of the Redemption, which he goat upon the Cross, is ours. And therefore in this Oblation, the thing offered being the body and blood of Christ, which as a most sufficient price he gave upon the Cross for Redemption of mankind, and which of gift we have received of God: we present and give unto God, in the person of Christ, that same true body and blood, that is to say, Christ himself together with that great price and merit, not to purchase a new Redemption, but in commemoration of his death, whereby the redemption is already purchased, in rendering of thanks for his benefits, in a certain satisfaction for our sins and defects, and for the temporal pains that be due unto our sins (mortal sins and pains everlasting being forgiven either in Baptism, 
Cyprian. ad Cecilium. epist. 3. lib. 2.  or through the Sacrament of Penance) humbly beseeching and as king in the person of Christ, that so it be accepted. In consideration whereof S. Cyprian calleth it the Passion of our Lord, that we offer. And S. Augustine calleth it, 
Aug. Confess. lib. 9 cap. 12.  Sacrificium pr●tij nostri, the Sacrifice of our Price, wherewith our ransom is paid.  
And hereof Reader thou mayst conceive, what answer is to be made unto them, that move this question, which to some, though without just cause, seemeth to be of great difficulty: whether the Sacrifices of the old Testament, the Sacrifice that our Lord offered at his Supper, the Sacrifice of the Cross, and that Sacrifice, which is daily made in the Church, whether all these have a like and the self same consideration and being of a Sacrifice (to utter it more plainly in Latin to the learned, in which tongue this matter would more aptly be treated) an univocè Sacrificia dicantur. For although all these do commonly agree in this, that they profess a supreme excellency of the Divine Majesty, in deed itself, and sensibly: yet because, it pertaineth to the consideration and nature of a Sacrifice, that after some manner it be satisfactory, as with which satisfaction may in some sort be made to our Lord God, partly for sins, and for pains due to sins, partly for benefits, which we have received, or be desirous to receive: only the Sacrifice of the Cross hath the most perfit, and most proper nature, of a Sacrifice, as being that, by which only all the price of Satisfaction is purchased and paid, and out of which all Sacrifices, as also all Sacraments, as out of their first fountain do draw, and take their whole force and virtue, and by which also only, it hath been showed most fully, as much as can be done, how great is the excellency of the Divine Majesty, and how great things it is convenient that we do for the same.  
But the Sacrifice of the Altar, and the Sacrifice of our lords Supper, forasmuch as they offer up the same thing, retain the proper, true, and after their sort perfect, though very different consideration and nature of a Sacrifice, because the host is the same that was offered upon the Crosse. But the Sacrifices of the law, be Sacrifices after a common and unperfit respect: partly because there was little in them, that was worthy of the Divine Majesty, partly because, as S. Paul writeth to be Hebrews, 
Hebr. 9 &, 10.  they were not able to take away sins, nor make a man perfit in conscience: but they that sacrificed, obtained these benefits by faith, which by those Sacrifices was declared. Of this diversity of these Sacrifices speaketh S. Augustine. lib. 20. Contra Faust. cap. 18. and lib. 1. Contra adversarium Legis & Prophetarum. cap. 18. Where thou shalt learn Reader, that all Sacrifices have respect unto the Cross, in which they have their perfection, and from which they get virtue, 
August in psal. 108. in illum ver, sum, & oratio eius fiat in peccatum.  or grace to please God, forasmuch as they stay all upon that, as also all our thanksgiving, and prayer, as the same S. Augustine teacheth, writing upon the. 108. Psalm.  
Now let us see for whom Oblation is to be made● For in asmuch as our Lord hath need of nothing, but we contrariwise have need of him, and depend wholly of him: 
For whom i● this Sacrifice made.  he receiveth not gifts at our hands, but for our sakes and we acknowledging this much, do offer unto him, to th'intent to obtain some thing of him. For else to what purpose were it to offer gifts unto him, who saith, 
Psal. 49.  Si esuriero, non dicam tibi: If I happen to be a hungered, I will not tell thee of it: for mine is the round earth, and all wherewith it is filled. For asmuch therefore, as in this Divine Sacrifice, the same self Christ is contained, and is sacrificed unbloodily, which in the Altar of the Cross once offered up himself bloodily: we may soon see, for whom, I mean, for what persons, and for what causes, it may, or aught to be offered.  
For whereas this Sacrifice is instituted to this end, that the memory of the bloody Sacrifice should be celebrated, and the fruit of it through this be applied unto us, and for so much as by his word, Do ye this in remembrance of me, he made no exception of persons, nor of causes, for which he would offer the bloody Sacrifice: it followeth plainly, that the Sacrifice of the Altar is offered for all in general, for whom lawfully we pray to God in the name of Christ, and for whom Sacrifices in the Law, and before the Law, were wont to be offered. For for all those Christ hath died. And this only, and singular Sacrifice succeeded in place of all the Sacrifices of the old law, as S. Augustine teacheth, which for divers causes and persons were offered. 
De civit. Dei. li. 17. cap. 20.  For as concerning persons, he gave himself (as saith S. Paul) a redemption for all men.  
And as touching things to be looked for at God's hand, 
●. Tim. 2.  he that hath not spared his own Son (saith the same Apostle) but hath delivered him up for us all, 
Rom. 8.  how hath he not given to us also with him all things? How hath he not given, I say, in asmuch as for his sake he hath proponed all things by him to be obtained? 
joan. 16.  For what so ever (saith he) ye ask of my Father in my name, he will give it you. Wherefore sith that he commanded this Sacrifice to be offered in remembrance of him, and nothing is more effectual to the obtaining of any thing by the Passion of Christ, then with thankful commemoration to this end to celebrate the memory of the same before the Father: what is there whereunto the Death of Christ is available, 
For what causes were Sa●crifices offered by the Fathers, before the law, and in the law.  that may not through this Sacrifice be most profitably asked, in which he himself that hath died, is presented?  
Therefore we read, that the holy Fathers, which were before the law, and in the time of the law, did not offer up Sacrifice only for thanksgiving, and in recognition of the divine Majesty, but also for sins, and for what soever their necessities, and needs, as the Scripture recordeth of holy job, 
job. 1. & ●lt.  and his friends, of Aaron, Samuel, David, the Maccabees, and Onias the Priest. So also in the law there were offered, not only Peace offerings, called, pacifica, or whole burnt offerings, which were offered for thanksgiving, and for thobtaining of God's blessings: but also Sacrifices for sins: yea and after the diversity of sins, divers Sacrifices were instituted. Wherefore they offered not only for those, whom they accounted for just, but also for sinners, strangers, and infidels, for the quick, and the Dead.  

Sacrifice offered for the whole world.  Neither did they sacrifice always for one alone, but also for the whole people, yea and for the whole world. For it seemeth that the Sacrifice of No●, whereof we read in Genesis, 
Gen. 8.  was offered for all mankind. Noah builded an Altar to our Lord (saith the Scripture) and taking some of all the clean beasts, and birds, he offered burnt Sacrifices upon the Altar, and our Lord smelled the sweet savour, and saith unto him, I will no more curse the earth for men's cause, for the sense and thought of man's heart are prone to evil from their youth, wherefore I will no more strike every living soul, as I have done.  
As touching that which was offered in the law, on the morn and even every day, it was for the whole people, and for their common necessities: whereof we read Numer. 28. Onias the chief Priest offered up an healthful host for Heliodorus an infidel, 
●● Ma●h. 3  and a most wicked man. And the jews that were carried away captive to Babylon, sent money to jerusalem, wherewith they that remained there, should buy whole burnt offerings, and incense, 
Baruc. ●.  and make ye manna (quoth they) and offer ye for sin at the Altar of our Lord our God, and pray ye for the life of Nabugodonosor king of Babylon, and for the life of Balthasar his son, that their days may be as the days of heaven upon earth, as we find in Baruch. Furthermore judas that valiant Captain of the Maccabees, 
2. Machab 12.  sent a great sum of money to jerusalem, and commanded sacrifice to be made for the sins of the dead, whom he hoped to have died in godly estate.  
Now Reader, I trow that we, to whom a Sacrifice hath been left by our Saviour Christ of so much a more excellency, by how much the body of the Son of God, is worthier than an unreasonable beast, are not in this behalf in worse case, than the jews were, but that the same may also for us be profitable and available to all persons, to all causes, and to all necessities. This much we find taught by S. Augustine, Epist. 59 By S. Chrysostom also, 
Chrysost. Hom. 6. in. 1. Tim. 2. & li. 6. de Sacerdotio.  and by the daily practice of the Church, which in the Mass prayeth always for the whole world, as the Mass also of S. james hath expressly.  
But whereas a thing, that is good and profitable, is said to profit others by more ways than one, as for example, either ex opere operato, as the Shcolastical Doctors speak, 
After what way is this sacrifice available.  (asmuch to say, of the force, power, and strength of the thing or work itself, which is done or wrought, without respect had unto the worthiness, or merit of the party that doth or worketh, as the Sacraments are said to work ex opere operato, and to do that thing, for which they be adhibited unto a person accordingly disposed, by force and virtue of the work that is wrought, even as a man that putteth fire unto a house, is said to set the house a fire ex opere operato, by force of that very work done): or ex opere operantis, asmuch to say, by the devotion, virtue, and goodness of the party that worketh, as prayer, fasting, almose, and the like: Or else, by way of merit, or satisfaction, which do claim a certain right: or lastly, by way of humble prayer, which hath hope in benignity only and liberality of him to whom prayer is made: whereas, I say, a thing which is good and profitable, may be said to profit by so many sundry ways: Here there ariseth no small difficulty to discuss, by which of these means and ways, the Sacrifice of the Mass is available to them, for whom it is offered: and whereof it cometh to pass, that it profiteth one more than an other.  
To this question having consulted the writings of learned and grave men, thus I answer: that because in the Mass many things do concur and meet together, it is available by all means and ways, by which a good work may be available: but yet that for the diversity of causes, and persons, for which the Sacrifice is offered, it hath divers working. And generally, albeit of itself, or (ex opere operato) by virtue of the thing offered and sacrificed, it be available: yet not altogether after the same manner, 
Sacraments, and Sacrifices divers in the manner of working.  that Sacraments be. For as touching the Sacraments, they be as instruments that God useth in them to whom they be adhibited, and if they be disposed as they ought to be, and through faith and charity be capable, they work health and salvation, and confer grace. But the Sacrifice of the Mass (as the nature of a Sacrifice requireth) doth work after a manner, which, though it be of more efficacy, yet is like unto prayer. Of more efficacy, I say, forasmuch as it is made in the person of Christ, a most acceptable, and most sufficient gift being given and offered up, for whose sake God being appeased and pleased, is moved to hear them, that so to him do sue and pray. Neither is it to be doubted, but that th'institution of Christ is much available to increase the power, which this sacrifice hath to obtain things behooful for man's health. For he would never have delivered himself unto us, to th'intent we should offer him with our own hands unto his eternal Father: except he had foreseen and willed, that great commodity should redound too men by this Oblation.  
In consideration whereof, 
Sacrifice comprehended under the name of prayer.  because it worketh an effect like unto prayer, the Scripture under the name of prayer, oftentimes comprehendeth both Sacrifice in general, and also this Sacrifice specially succeeding in place of all the old Sacrifices, as though Sacrifice itself also were a certain prayer, but a singular prayer. So the writer of the story of the Maccabees having made a rehearsal of the Sacrifice of judas, that he commanded to be offered for them that were dead, bringeth in a general sentence, 
2. Machab. 12.  saying, It is therefore a holy and a wholesome thought, to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from their sins, signifying sacrifice to be contained under prayer, as the Special is contained under the General.  
And S. Paul expounding the definition of Christ as he is a Priest whose duty is to offer up gifts, and Sacrifices, faith, 
Heb. 5.  that he in the days of his flesh (asmuch to say, when he was conversant here among men) offering up prayers and supplications to him that was able to save him from death with strong crying, and with tears, was heard for his reverence. Where manifestly he calleth gifts and sacrifices by the name of prayers. So S. Augustine in his .59. Epistle taketh Orationes, that is to say, Prayers in S. Paul. 1. Tim. 2. for Oblations and Sacrifices. So in the Acts, Cap. 6. Nos orationi, & ministerio Verbi instantes erimus. We will attend diligently to Prayer, and to the ministery of the word. So whereas it is said of the Priest in the book of Leviticus, 
levit. 16.  Orabit prose, he shall pray for himself, S. Paul in the Epistle to the Hebrews interpreteth it, 
Heb. 5.  offeret prose ipso, he shall offer for himself.  
So where it is said in isaiah, Domus mea domus orationis vocabitur, 
Esaie. 56.  My House shallbe called the House of prayer, it is not without cause judged, that under the name of prayer, 
Mat. 21.  the Prophet comprehendeth Sacrifice. For the Temple was not appointed unto prayer specially, and properly, but unto Oblation and Sacrifice. For prayer might be made in every place, but Sacrifice could be made no where but in the Temple. In deed prayer was evermore added unto the Sacrifices, wherewith they asked that of God, for which they offered. Yet say we not that sacrifice is prayer, as the name of prayer is taken properly, but that oftentimes it is understanded by the name of prayer, because in this it is like unto it, for that it offereth a gift unto God, to th'intent to receive some thing of him, wherein it appeareth to be a prayer, not in word, but in deed. And because it giveth to receive, it hath also the nature of a certain satisfaction, as that which giveth one thing for an other.  
The Sacrifice then of the Mass, 
The Sacrifice available ex opere operato in what respect.  is available, ex opere operato, that is to say, in respect of the virtue and strength of the thing itself that is offered. of the thing itself I mean, without consideration had of the priest, whether he be good, or evil, because in the person of Christ, and by his commission, the body and blood of Christ are offered up unto God. Which oblation itself for the worthiness, and reverence of Christ, as a Prayer of greatest efficacy, and most worthy to be heard, the Father beholdeth, and in regard of it, performeth that, for which the body and blood of his Son are so offered, according to the order of his Divine disposition, and as it shall seem convenient to himself, forasmuch as all judgement is given unto him. 
johan. 5.   
By the same consideration it hath very great force and strength to satisfy for temporal pains that be due unto sins, 
The Sacrifice satisfieth for pains  which pains oftentimes in Scripture be called by the name of sins. For if according unto the counsel of Daniel, 
Daniel. 4.  sins, that is to say, pains due to sins, are redeemed with almose, how much more with the body and blood of the Son of God offered at the Altar? If pains were loosed by the sacrifices of the old Law, shall they not much more be loosed by the Sacrifice of the new Law? For else, what shall we say, that the blood of Christ is of less price in the sight of God, than the blood of a calf? Although Sacrifices have their valour by way of Prayer, yet when they bring a present that is worthy of God's favour to remission of pains, and of his gifts, they lean to a certain right and equity, as the Price being exhibited, and so they be satisfactory.  
S. Augustine speaking of this way of working by the name of Christ, 
August. contra literas Petiliani. lib. 2 cap. 54.  in Sacrifices, and otherwise, saith to Petilian the Donatist, Gratias Deo, quia tandem confessus es valere invocatum nomen Christi ad aliorum salutem, etiam si à peccatoribus invocetur. God be thanked, for that thou hast at length confessed that the name of Christ called upon is available unto the health of others, although it be called upon of sinners. If the name of Christ only called upon be available unto health, shall not the blood of Christ be available to procurement of health, specially if the person, for whom it is offered, be through his own good disposition meet to receive such benefit?  
Neither is this Sacrifice available only (ex opere operato) of itself, 
The Sa●crifice Available 〈◊〉 opere operantis.  and of the work done, but also in some degree, ex opere operantis, for, and through the merit of the offerer. For in as much as the Priest doth offer this holy Sacrifice not as a private man, and in his own private name, but as the public Minister of the Church, and in the name of the Church, assumpted thereunto by public authority: whereas there never want great merits in the Church, the merit of the offerer is never separated from the virtue of the work that is wrought, that is to say, from the body and blood of Christ: so that although the Priest that offereth, and they that be present, be wicked, yet the Sacrifice of the Mass is not void and frustrate, but much available to the working of some good effect, according to the disposition of Gods merciful providence. 
august c●●. epist. Parmen. lib. 2.   
And therefore no marvel is it, after the teaching of S. Augustin, that good words which be said in the public Prayers for the people, though they be said of evil Bishops, nevertheless be heard, not according to the perversity of the Governors, but according to the devotion of the people. And yet it skilleth much what the Governors be, seeing that their godliness through the Sacrifice much helpeth the infirmity of the people. For which consideration, as S. Cyprian saith, 
Cyprian. lib. 1. epist. 4.  we ought not to elect any other to be Bishops, but such as be unspotted, and whole, who offering up Sacrifices unto God worthily and holily, may be heard in their Prayers, which they make for the safety of our lords people. 
Gregor in Pastorali part. 1. ca 2.  For else, when he that is sent to make intercession, displeaseth: the mind of the displeased is more grievously provoked, saith S. Gregory speaking of unworthy Priests.  
But yet the priests impiety can not let, but that the Sacrifice, 
The impiety of the Priest is no hindrance to others touching the benefit of th● Sacrifice  which of itself, and being offered in the name of the Church, is so good and acceptable a thing unto God, shall profit them, which besides the Priests with godliness do offer it, according to the devotion both of them, that with the Priests do offer, and of them, for whom it is offered. For true it is that S. Augustin saith to Petilianus the Donatiste: Nos dicimus tale cuique Sacrificium fieri, qualis accedit ut offerat. We say, that the Sacrifice to each man is made such, 
August. contrà lit. Petil. lib. 2. c. 52 1. q. 1. cap. Dominus.  as he is, that cometh to offer.  
Whereas then the well disposed people doth offer up that same very Sacrifice by devout affection, which the Priest offereth by outward ministery: the wickedness of the Minister bereaveth not any devout person of the benefit of the Sacrifice.  
Neither is this so to be taken, as though in this case nothing were to be looked for above the merit of our devotion, for then to what purpose were the Sacrifice? But what so ever benefit redoundeth of the virtue of the Sacrifice, over and above the merit of devotion: the same is so much the more abundantly of every one enjoyed, with how much more devotion towards Christ and his Death he offereth.  
This devout disposition of the offerers our Lord prescribed, when consecrating and making his Apostles Priests, 
Luc. 22.  he said, Do ye this in remembrance of me. In which commandment, 
1. Cor. 11.  whereas there be two things contained, doing, and remembering, or commemoration: this much our Lord therein signified, 
The Sacrifice profiteth in divers degrees.  that with how much the more grateful and devout memory they did it, so much the more by this Sacrifice they should obtain: and again how much the nearer any man came unto that doing, and action of offering, the more benefit thereof he should receive. For though all they that be just may be said to offer this Sacrifice by a certain generality, 
August. Epist. 23.  which S. Augustin seemeth to mean, for so much as it pleaseth them all, that it be offered: yet they come nearer unto this action, who do it themselves, who hear Mass devoutly, who serve and attend upon the Priest to do that action, who sustain him for his ministery, who with godly desire require Mass of him.  
Wherefore as a prayer profiteth them that pray themselves more, than an other, for whom it is made: so this Sacrifice profiteth more them, that offer it themselves, than it doth them, for whom only it is offered. And as a Prayer profiteth more, that is specially made for one, then that which is made only in general for all: even so it is in the Sacrifice. But these things shall appear more clearly by the effects, which we look for to enjoy, by the Sacrifice of the Mass through the virtue of Christ's passion, if we rehearse them particularly.  
The first effect by consent of all men is the remission of Venial sins, 
The effects that we obtain by the Sacrifice of the Mass.  which the very just do daily commit, and also of temporal pains, unto which they remain thrall and bound, though damnation everlasting be forgiven.  
another effect is, the increase of righteousness, and the continuance in good life. These are expressly declared in the Institution of this Sacrifice by the Institutor himself, who first offered it. This is my blood (saith he) of the new Testament, 
a Luc. 22.  which for you, and 
b Mat. 26.  for many is shed in remission of sins. That the Apostles understood the very same also in the Consecration of the Body, the Mass of S. james doth show. Where after the pronouncing of those words, 
Liturgia jacobi.  this is my body which for you is given, and broken: the Deacon forthwith addeth, in remissionem peccatorum, in remission of sins. By which words, for so much as with them Christ to this effect offered himself, (albe it peradventure they might be more generally understanded) that at least may be gathered, which now we have said of the remission of Venial sins, and temporal pains, unto which the Apostles themselves were thrall.  
Touching the other, there is a manifest place in S. john. Christ speaking of the Apostles, and of them that should through their preaching believe in him, 
johan. 17.  saith: For them I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. Which saying is truly understanded of the increase of holiness, and of continuance, in asmuch as the Apostles were now cleansed, and sanctified.  
And unto these effects the Sacrifice of the Mass is available for all the faithful that pertain to the body of Christ, that is to say, for the just, not only by the devotion and merit of men that offer it, but by the virtue of the Sacrifice itself: neither only by mean of a certain common Prayer, which standeth upon liberality, but of such prayer, as satisfieth the requests of God's justice with presenting unto him the price paid for sins, and with a gift given worthy to obtain that is asked, which is the proper nature of a Sacrifice, which is to be satisfactory, and to be offered by way of satisfaction. And therefore S. Paul specially considering the worthiness of this true Sacrifice, said in general, that every Bishop or Priest is ordained to offer gifts and Sacrifices for sins.  
Of this it is learnedly by the Divines gathered, that, for so much as Infidels, and such wicked persons, as be not yet reconciled unto the Church, or unto God, nor so disposed, that for them satisfaction may effectually be made: Sacrifice for them is not properly offered. For whether they themselves, or others for them do offer, God doth not accept gifts for the wicked, to this end for which properly they be offered, as it appeared in Cain. 
Gen. 4.  This is witnessed in the Scriptures, and in sundry other places. 
prover. 15  
Eccles. 34   
Therefore S. Augustine saith writing to Renatus, Quis offerat Corpus Christi, 
August, de origine animae. lib. 1. c. 9  nisi pro eyes, qui membra sunt Christi? Who may offer the body of Christ, but for them, which are the members of Christ? The late holy general Council of Trent approving this sentence of S. Augustine, 
Masses common not private, and wherefore Concil. Trident. Sess. 22. cap. 6.  and declaring that the Masses, whereat no man communicateth beside the Priest, be not private, but common, saith, that they ought to be judged common, partly for that the people in them doth communicate spiritually, partly for that they be celebrated by the public Minister of the Church, not for himself only, but for all the Faithful, that pertain to the Body of Christ.  
When therefore Petrus à Soto that learned man was demanded in that Council, whether Chaunteries might be erected, and Masses appointed to be said for Infidels: he answered, that it was unlawful, because to ordain Mass for any, is to ordain, that Sacrifice for them be offered, and that to them thereby satisfaction be applied, which ought not to be done, because satisfaction requireth before a remission of the deadly fault. Yet well may it be, (said he) that Prayer in the Mass for their Conversion be made.  
Our Saviour himself seemeth to have insinuated this property of the Oblation, when offering up his body and blood at the Supper after the form and rite of Melchisedek, not without cause he said, of the one, 
Lucae. 22.  which for you is given, of the other, which for you, 
Math. 26  and for many is shed (that is to say, is presently offered up and shed in Mystery, anonne with outward violence to be shed) in remission of sins: For as touching the valour of the price, it was offered upon the Cross, not for many, but for al. And so the Sacrifice of Melchisedek obtained the benediction for just Abraham, who is the example and pattern of all that follow him.  
This judge I to be the chief cau●e why in the Primitive Church, as we find in S. Dionysius the Areopagite, when true discipline was exactly kept, 
Ecclesiast. Hierarch. c. 3 part. 5.  the learners of the faith before they received Baptism, then called Catechumeni, they that were possessed of unclean spirits, called Energumeni, Public Sinners, and they that did public penance, were commanded by the Deacon to depart out of the Church before the Oblation, that they should not be present at it.  
Yet as it is here before said, and as it is clear by S. Paul, 
1. Tim. 2.  in a certain general and common respect we offer for all, forasmuch as we present the body and blood of Christ unto the Father in his person, and by his commission, and beseech his goodness, that in regard of his body and blood he will have mercy upon them. But we do not present these gifts for all, as a Price that is exhibited for them (which thing the proper nature of this oblation comprehendeth in respect of release of the pains) because all be not capable, that is to say, not apt vessels to receive such benefit.  
As touching other things, which profitably be asked in the Mass, 
Benefits redounding to us by the Mass.  as victory, peace, health, ceasonable wether, and such other the like, wherewith man's misery is relieved and helped, the Sacrifice of the Mass is available for them, according to the order of God's eternal disposition, not only by reason of the merit of the Priest, and of the Church that offereth: but also, and that more amply, by reason of the quality, and virtue of the Sacrifice, which is consecrated in the person of Christ, and by his commission.  
But this is by way of Prayer: which Prayer, because it is not sitting the words of Christ to be frustrate, by which he committed this Sacrifice unto us: the Father very oftentimes heareth. And whereas he heareth it not, the judgements of God be secret. For great is the virtue of the signs, and Sacraments of the name of jesus Christ, unto whose honour the very powers of the Air are commanded to yield and give place, though it be called upon by evil, and for evil persons, as S. Augustine very learnedly teacheth in his book of .83. questions, 
Augu. lib. 83. quaest. quaest. 79.  or who else so ever is author of that book. For in no wise dare any spirits (saith he) to contemn these signs. For they tremble at these, where so ever they behold them. but men being unwitting of it, by God an other thing sometime is commanded. For whereas they give not place unto these-Signes, God himself forbiddeth, when he judgeth it just, and profitable. Thus S. Augustine.  
To this very aptly serveth that he writeth in his .22. book De Civitate Dei. Where he telleth of a house delivered from evil Spirits by the Prayers, and Sacrifice of the Mass. 
August. de Civit. Dei lib. 22. c. 8.  Hesperius a noble man (saith he) who dwelleth in our country, hath in the Lordship of Fussala, a Farm, called Cubedi. Where when he understood, that his house which he hath there, sustained great hurt by evil Spirits, and that his catail, and his Servants were much troubled: he besought our Priests in my absence, that one would go thither, that by his Prayers they might be driven away. One went, and offered up there the Sacrifice of the body of Christ, praying, as much as he was ha●le, that the vexation might cease. Forthwith by the mercy of God is ceased.  
S. Gregory showeth by many examples, that through the Sacrifice of the Mass divers received temporal benefits, 
Grego. in Dialogis.  who neither were present when Mass was said for them, nor thought at all of it. Also certain special helps by this Sacrifice be obtained, which of the Divines are called, prima gratia, for with these God doth oftentimes help them, for whom the Sacrifice is offered, that the motion of faith, and devotion, and desire of the medicine of the Sacraments, be stirred up in them.  
Thus thou seest Reader, what power the Sacrifice of the Mass hath. And as this Sacrifice hath virtue to remove all manner evils from us, so it hath virtue to get and procure all good things unto us, according to the disposition of God's Providence. 
What force the Sacrifice of the Mass hath ●ouching the remission of mortal sins.  Wherefore that also may easily be conceived, which of many men is called in question touching the remission of mortal sins. Verily the blessed Martyr S. Alexander fifth in the Register of the Popes, saith in his first epistle, that Crimes, and sins be put out by these Sacrifices offered up unto our Lord. And again, that our Lord is delighted, and appeased with such Sacrifices, and that (through them) he forgiveth great sins. 
Alexander epist. ad o●̄s orthodoxos.  For nothing (saith he) can be greater in Sacrifices, than the body and blood of our Lord.  
julius speaking likewise of the Sacrifices, saith, that by them offered to God, all crime and sin is quite put out. S. Gregory also saith, 
julius. De Cons. Distinct. 2. Cum omne. Gregor. Dialog. 4. Cap. 58.  that this Sacrifice singularly saveth the soul from everlasting destruction. All which, and sundry other the like sayings of certain Fathers, are so to be understanded, not as though we might obtain remission of such sins after Baptism committed without Absolution of the Priest, who is the Ministre of the Sacrament of Penance: but that this blessed Sacrifice doth give such grace, and worketh so together with the infirmity of the Penitentes, that they may by the Priests be reconciled unto God. And it is so acceptable in the sight of God, 
Sess. 22. Cap. 2.  that (as the Council of Trent teacheth) being appeased by the Oblation of it, granting grace, and the gift of Penance, he forgiveth Crimes, and sins, yea that be right great.  
As concerning them, 
The Sacrifice of the Mass profitable for the dead. 2. Mac. 12 joan. 11. August. in Enchirid. cap. 110.  that with godliness are departed this life and have taken their sleep, as the Scripture speaketh, and have not, as it behoved them, made full satisfaction, whom we believe to remain in Purgatory: although now they be not in state to merit any thing by any operation of their own will, or to do wholesome Penance for their sins: yet because they be the members of Christ, and fellow citizens withal the Saints, fellows, and brothers with them: the Sacrifice of the Mass profiteth them as it doth the other just persons here, but that their own proper devotion can help them nothing, ●s now depending wholly of Christ, and of the Church. For although God in the day of our departure hence (as it is said of the wise man) do render to every man according to his ways: 
Eccle. 11.  yet after the doctrine of S. Augustin this much by their good works they have deserved at God's hand whiles they lived here: 
August. in Enchirid. ad Laurenti. cap. 11●  that these common duties of Christian fellowship might profit them also after their departure hence. For else it should seem very unjust, and injurious unto the body of Christ, if there were any members of it, to which being in distress it could not procure succour. The motion of contrition and charity, with which they departed hence (for else they remain not in Purgatory) is a disposition, 
Athanas. in quaest. ad Antiochun. q. 34. Chrysost. ad pop. Antioch. Homil. 69 & Sermo. 3. in epist. ad Philip. Damas. in Oratione, de ijs qui hinc in fide migrating.  which may suffice in their behalf, that Sacrifices, and other godly works, offered and done for them, may help them. Wherefore as S. Athanasius, S. Chrysostom, Damascen, and the more part of the ancient Fathers do witness, it descended by Tradition from the Apostles, that this unbloody Sacrifice be continually offered for them.  
Now then Christian Reader thou hast here declared unto thee, those points, that I promised in the beginning: what is Sacrifice, being considered either as it is taken for the Action of offering, or for the gifts offered: for what consideration it is due unto God: that it is most convenient for our nature that it be visible: that the rite of sacrificing hath been by God both engrafted in the minds of men before the Law, and commanded in the Law: That for love of his Church our Lord Instituted the singular Sacrifice of his body and blood at his last Supper: How those four things be in this singular Sacrifice, which S. Augustine teacheth to be required in every Sacrifice: lastly, for whom this Sacrifice is offered by what ways it is available for man: what effects it bringeth forth.  
Some here perhaps do wish, that I said somewhat in defence of the Prayers, that be commonly said in the Mass about the Oblation of this unbloody Sacrifice, 
The Prayers of the Mass godly, and without superstition.  and of the Ceremonies, which the Church useth in the celebration of the same: for our Adversaries by divers ways labour to bring them in contempt. As touching the Canon of the Mass, what part of it M. jewel reproveth as blasphemous: in this Reiondre I do sufficiently defend, 
Pag. 123. b. item pag. 254. b. etc. Ambro. de Sacrament. lib. 4. c. 4.  as godly and holy, and such as may worthily seem mee●e to be said at the celebration of these Mysteries. As for all the rest that is said, for so much as therein, as S. Ambrose saith, Praise is deferred to God, prayer is made for the people, for Kings, and for all men, and for all our necessities: briefly ●ith nothing is done, but that which S. Paul exhorteth to be done in his epistle to Timothe, 
1. Tim. 2.  whereof we spoke before: what is there that M. jewel, or any of that side, or Satan himself the great enemy of this Sacrifice, can find fault withal?  
Concerning the Ceremonies used in the Mass, 
Ceremonies used in the celebration of the Mass.  which consist in the behaviour, Gesture, movings, and Signs of the Priest, whereat also these men bear great spite: they be void of superstition, and free from all just reproach, because they be only such, as put us in mind of some special thing touching the Incarnation, Birth, Life, Preaching, Death, and Resurrection of Christ, which pertaineth to the stirring up of Devotion, and to the commandment of Christ the more conveniently to be observed. For whereas he commanded us, 
Luc. 22.  that what he did, we should do the same: it may reasonably seem to be our duty, that as he did, and after what manner he did, we also do likewise. Verily the Ceremonies which we use, be of more antiquity, represent things of more excellency, and through the practice of the whole Church of Christ be of more authority: then that by the doctrine of any new Gospel, it may now toward the time of antichrist, seem either necessary, or convenient, that they be changed.  
And to th'intent these overthrowers of all ancient Religion, and setters up of their own Novelties, have ceremonies in less contempt: let us consider, whether Christ himself (who first of all celebrated Mass at his last Supper, 
1. Tim. 2.  and did those things, which S. Paul requiteth in his epistle to Timothee) observed not certain Ceremonies, 
Ceremonies used by our Saviour himself.  much like to ours. He laid down his garment, he girded himself, he kneeled or stooped down, he washed his Disciples feet, he gave thanks to his Father, he consecrated and offered up unto him his Body and Blood, 
johan. 17.  he spoke unto his Disciples, he admonished, he taught, he comforted them, he lifted up his eyes unto heaven, he prayed unto the Father for them, and for us.  

1. Cor. 11.  S. Paul straightly forbiddeth, a man to pray, or prophecy in the Church, with covered head. If the Catholics, without express Scripture, though moved with the like reason that moved S. Paul, had so ordained: these men would have cried out, that it had been superstitious. Touching this matter, here to speak of all, it were very long, and a thing meet for a special book to be written thereof, rather than for the brevity of a Preface. Therefore I let pass much that might well be recited out of S. Dionyse the Areopagite, S. justine the Martyr, Tertullian, Innocentius the first, and others, that of these things have written.  

How ceremonies may be used with out superstition.  Certain it is, that the Ceremonies we use, be not superstitious. For that we judge to be superstitious, which being used in place of God's service, pertaineth not to the worship of God, nor to the love of our neighbour. And whereas the worship of God is double, for so much as we have from him both th● inward, and the outward good things: then is it duly, and lawfully, and without all superstition done, when the outward things by some public authority, as from God (for all power is of God) or by a certain leading of nature be ordained unto an inward reverence, and a dutiful kindness towards God to be stirred up, nourrished, and continued. For the moving itself of the soul (as saith S. Augustine) so long as it is yet lapped within earthly things, 
August. ad januar. epist. 119.  is but slowly inflamed, but if it be carried unto bodily likenesses, and thence be carried unto the spiritual things, that by those likenesses be figured: with the passing itself as it were (from the one to the other) it is quickened, and being stirred as fire in a firebrand, it is enkindled, and with a more ardent love it is pulled unto her rest and quiet. Therefore the use of comely Ceremonies moveth the mind more, then if the things by them signified were uttered naked, and without similitudes of Sacraments, as there also he saith.  
And this is the meaning of all the outward Rites, 
The meaning of the Ceremonies used in the celebration of the Mass.  that be observed in the Mass. As for example, the priests Vestiments, do signify either the garments of Christ, with which he was mocked, either the new condition of the new man, or the Incarnation of the new King: His coming unto the Altar, betokeneth Christ's appearing, which was received with great joy, and singing of Angels: 
Math. 27  the going from the one side of the Altar to the other, 
Luc. 2.  showeth the translation of the Gospel unto the Gentiles, and the returning of it unto the jews: by the washing of hands, the priests cleanness of life, by his bowing down, humility, by stretching of his Arms abroad, the Cross, by his making of many signs of the Cross, every good effect to proceed of the merit of the Cross, is signified. The like may be conceived of such others more. For certainly as words be signs of things, so be these Rites in the blessed Mass, signs of great Mysteries.  
To be short, because through the infirmity of our condition, humane affection for the most part little esteemeth common things, and such as be not distinct from other things by some token of a more excellency, yea rather despiseth them (as Malachi the Prophet complained of the unclean, 
Malac. 1.  contemptible, and vile Oblations of his time) and woundereth and reverenceth those things, that by some show of excellency seem to surmount others: it was necessary for the reverence of so holy an Oblation, and of the worship of so great a Majesty, that peculiar places, as Churches, Tabernacles, Altars also consecrated, 
Ecclesias. Hierarch. cap. 5. p. 1  as we find in S. Dionysius, special, and not common Vessels, and peculiar Ministers were appointed for the same, whereby the cold minds of men might be brought to think more reverently thereof.  
As touching the practice of the Church, that is to say, of the holy and learned Priests, and of all the people of God from the Apostles tim● to these da●es, what the Ancient Fathers have wr●●●en in pro●fe, and confirmation of the Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, which hereto might, be added: for all this, I re●er●e the Reader unto my rejoinder.  
Now then to conclude: Sith that it is our duty to give and offer unto God some gift and Sacrifice, whereby to render unto him due thanks for his benefits, and to recognize him for our Creator, and Redeemer, and nothing we have to give either in itself better, or to him more acceptable, than the body and blood of his Son jesus Christ, and whereas we have commandment to offer the same, and so great profit cometh to men thereof, and whereas in the Mass, in which this Sacrifice is offered by Christ, and the Church, godly prayers be made for Kings, for them that be in authority, and for all men, thanks be given, certain outward signs are showed, whereby the memory of Christ's Passion is stirred up and to us renewed, and reverence to Godward is enkindled: what forbiddeth, why on the behalf of the most blessed Mass, and of them who sustain persecution for this Sacrifice, I may not here utter the words of the Holy Patriarch jacob, by way of expostulation with our Adversaries, Quam ob culpam nostram, 
Gen. 31.  & ob quod peccatum, quod in Missa committimus, 
Expostulation with the persecutions of the Mass.  sic exarsistis post nos, & scrutaeti estis omnem suppellectilem nostram? What is our trespass, and what is the sin that we have committed in saying, and hearing the Mass, that ye are so wroth, and fume so much against us?  
Ye have searched all stuff, as jacob said to Laban, ye have examined our doctrine, and what have ye found? Ye have examined us, ye have deprived us, ye have condemned us, some to prisons, some to certain places, ye have debarred us of liberty to see our dear friends, to enjoy our sweet Country, ye have taken from us great sums of money, ye have thirsted our blood, ye have oftentimes called for the Prince's sword to be drawn against us, ye have given the cause of the loss of many of our lives. This and much more, have ye done touching our part.  
But as touching God's part, what injury, what dishonour, what pillages, what robberies, what Sacrileges, what spoils, what profane and Turkish saggages of Churches, what contempt, what despite, what villainies, ye and your brethren, have done in sundry places of Christendom, what needeth it any man to speak, the secrets of hearts do speak, the sighing of God's people speaketh, the Earth, the Heaven, God himself by his brute and dumb Creatures speaketh. But what availeth it to make complaint unto them, that be not only far from all grief of their evil doing, and from remorse of conscience, but also rejoice, and glory in malice?  
NOw therefore to return to thee good Reader, that thou mayst the better understand our proceedings, when at the first I took in hand to answer M. jewels Challenge, and to justify the Articles, that rashly, and wickedly he had denied: amnog other things, I brought some of that I have here said, and what else then to me seemed good, for proof, of the Sacrifice of the Mass, which in his .17. Article he denieth. Thereto, as to the rest of my Answer, he hath made his Reply. In which Reply he hath said, what he was able to say, in disprouse of that singular Sacrifice. But how insufficient his disprouse i●, and of how little substance all is that he hath brought, how little he amendeth his common wont of falsifying his testimonies, what other false parts he playeth, and what gross errors he is fallen into: thou shalt perceive, if thou vouchsafe to read this rejoinder.  
Whereas against this Sacrifice, by many men many words have been said, many villainies have been wrought, many blasphemous books have been written (as is before mentioned) according to the spirit, that Satan the enemy of the Sacrifice hath inspired into their wretched breasts: Out of all M. jewel, like a Spider, hath sucked the most venomous iovice, and in his Reply hath uttered it, as it were spitting forth his poison. Which Reply; as perhaps it poisoneth the lighter sort, who have delight to feed thereon: so to the wise, and those that be steadfast in the Catholic Faith, all the stuff of his great book appeareth, as it were but Cobwebs. For in deed as with Cobwebs nothing is holden, but light mo●es, and weak flees: even so of a light wit, and feeble Faith he showeth himself to be, whom that Reply catcheth, and holdeth.  
He hath not one Ancient Doctor for him, not one Council, General, or Provincial, old, or new, not one Example of the Primitive Church, not one sentence of the holy Scriptures. Not one I say for him, that is to wit, whereof any clear conclusion may be gathered against the Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ. These do I the rather make account of, because by his own appointment, they be good ways and means, whereby to try points of Faith in Controversy.  
Now if M. jewel have nothing out of all these for a clear disprove of this Sacrifice, after he hath viewed all the books that by these new Masters have been written in defence of his side, after that he hath furnished himself with all that ever Luther, Bucer, Zuinglius, Oecolampadius, Caluine, Beza, and the upholders of their sects could devise against it, after that he hath conferred with his fellow Ministers and superintendents, who most readily join their forces together against the Sacrifice yea after that he hath learned the Arguments of Satan himself the first Founder of this new Gospel, wherewith he impugned the blessed Mass disputing with Luther, as he witnesseth of himself, if I say after all this, he be able to bring nothing, whereby this Sacrifice to any learned man may seem clearly disproved: hereof thou mayst soon conceive good Reader, how assured and certain the doctrine of the Catholic Church is, that teacheth the Body and Blood of Christ to be offered up unto God under the forms of bread and wine by Priests, and the same to be the Sacrifice propre to the new Testament, and how little there is to be said against it.  
Because in this treatise I do maintain my Answer, and disprove what M. jewel hath replied against it, that the whole process may seem the plainer, and for that oftentimes I am driven by him falsely reporting my words, to refer the Reader to that I said before: I have thought it necessary to set forth my Answer, with his Reply, and my rejoinder together, the order of his Divisions truly kept. Wherefore when M. jewel beareth thee in hand, that I speak either absurdly, or untruly, or that I make a fond Argument: it may please thee to return back unto the Answer, and viewing the place diligently, to consider, whether thou find, as he reporteth. If this be done, I doubt not but the chief advantage he seemeth to take against me, shall in thy judgement appear to stand altogether upon manifest untruths.  
Yea if thou wilt not be deceived by M. jewel, 
How M. lewels writings are to be read.  believe not at the first, what in proof, or disprove of any thing, he reporteth, as out of others. Examine the places from whence he bringeth his testimonies. believe not his shows, believe thine own eyes. Compare the authors text, 
The sleights he useth in writing against the Catholics.  and his reports together. And doubtless wheresoever he allegeth aught that disagreeth with the doctrine of the Catholic Church, thou mayst be assured by diligent search to find, that he hath corrupted and falsified the Doctor, either by taking away, or by adding unto, by exchange of words, or by perverting the order of the sentence, by conceeling the Circumstance of the place, or by applying it to a sense contrary to the writer's meaning, briefly by one false mean or other, as all merchants of such false wares, lack not crafts and sleights to help their utterance.  
And as his sleights of corrupting the Doctors be sundry and many, 
The sleights he useth in answering to the Catholics.  so be the means also many, and of no less craft, which he useth in answering to certain their most plain testimonies, with which oftentimes he is pressed. Some Doctors with him be utterly refused, some be of doubtful authority, some be disliked for their age, some be avoided by a crafty understanding, some that speak plainly, be told, they speak violently. Which is a very poor shift, and seemeth to have least weight of Learning, or Reason.  
When all other sleights be spent, yet this serveth him for the last refuge. He draweth this matter of the Sacrifice, to Phrases of speech, Tropes, and Metaphors, and alleging some Tropical speech, that receiveth a reasonable understanding somewhat divers from the literal sound of the naked words, he requireth the place that maketh for the truth of the Sacrifice, to be in like sort understanded. This is a way whereby one may seem to say somewhat, when in deed he saith nothing. By such mean the truth in any controversy is darkened, it is not discussed, and in the judgement of the unlearned, confusion is wrought.  

M. jewels common Arguments.  What shall I speak of the force of his Arguments? Certainly they be such, as very Boys that learn their Sophistry, may be a shamed to make. In manner he never maketh Argument against the Sacrifice, but wherein with one truth he excludeth an other truth, which kind of reason, of all other is the most childish and fondest. As for example, Because the Fathers sometimes call the eucharist an Image, a Figure, a memory, a sampler of the Sacrifice, that was made upon the Cross, thereof always he concludeth, that it is not a true Sacrifice. As though one might not by such Logic conclude, that the Sacrifices of the old Law were not truly, and properly Sacrifices, because they were all a Figure of that great Sacrifice, which Christ offered when he died. Both Sacrifices are a sign of that one and the self same host, that of the Law, was a sign of the host to come, ours of that is paste. Yet either is a true Sacrifice.  
Likewise of the affirmation of the Sacrifice of Praise, and thanksgiving, he induceth the denial of the true and real Sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood in the eucharist, as though it were not both. But what need I here Reader, to tell thee of M. jewels manifold shifts and sleights, 
See the Preface before my first rejoinder.  sith I have spoken thereof otherwheres, and other men have detected them at large? And in deed what else is contained in our books, but a discovering of his legerdemain? For how could the truth have been set forth, except his lies had been descried, and his falsehood confuted?  
As for the Untruths, that be in his Reply to this part of my Answer, I have not curiously noted the number of them, for so much as that hath been once done by D. Saunder, and me in part, and by M. Stapleton more copiously. whereas the number of his Untruths found in four Articles only of six and twenty, amount to a Thousand and odd, and the same are not yet discharged of M. jewels part: I intent not to bestow much time about such a loathsome work. It is more meet for Pinner's, Pointers, and Nailesellers, to spend their time about telling, and making such accounts.  
And though I had liked to have kept tale of them, yet the Margin of my book would not have sufficed to contain them, the number is so great. Yet that his lies, falsifyings, corruptions, and untruths, appear to be of small number, and that the shame, which would grow in respect of the multitude, if all were severally told, be not to the hindrance of his estimation discovered: I am content, his whole Reply touching this article, be taken (as it is in deed few things excepted, wherein gladly I agree with him) but for one Untruth.  
Touching this rejoinder, I have here defended and confirmed my Answer to his 17. Article, which is of the Sacrifice, and all that he hath replied against it, I have fully refelled. God give thee judgement good Reader, to discern truth from untruth. If perhaps I shall seem in some places over obscure, and tedious, and not to have framed my writing meet for all men's capacities: thou mayst think, that either learning failed, or that the matter would not suffer, verily good will wanted not. To make hard things easy to be understanded, and to give light to things, that of themself be dark, and not to serve from the exact rule of truth, it is a point of great wit and cunning: neither is it lightly performed, but of such as God hath endued with special gifts. And as excellency of wit is required to utter them plainly: so it behoveth the Readers senses be well exercised, to understand them fully.  
The doctrine of this Sacrifice in some part is hard, and obscure, such, as commonly hath rather been rightly believed, then by many clearly declared. The honour of holy Mysteries is better saved with reverent silence, then with bold opening. Experience teacheth into what danger of contempt they come, when they are openly revealed to populare understanding.  
Although both in the Scriptures, and in the Fathers, we have most sufficient proofs, and testimonies for the real presence, and for the real Sacrifice: yet they, that lived within the first six hundred years after Christ, wrote hereof more secretly, then of other points of our Religion. 
The cause why the old Fathers spoke so secretly of these mysteries.  For reverence of the Mystery, they thought it more convenient, to teach it by mowthe, and by tradition, then by evident, and open declararion to commit much to public writing, lest so to the Infidels, occasion should be ministered of despite and villainy. As for example, notwithstanding that religious wareness, we read in S. Augustine, how the Painimes charged the Christians with the worship of Ceres, 
August. contra Faust. Man●cha. lib. 20. cap. 13.  and Bacchus their false Gods, because of the bread and wine, they used in the celebration of their mysteries.  
Thereof it is, that we find in the ancient Fathers so often commendation of their silence. 
Chrysost. in Liturg.  S. Chyistome saith in his Mass, Conuivij tui mystici hody fili Dei communio nem assumpsi, non tamen hostibus tuis mysterium di●●. I have received this day the Communion of thy mystical banquet o Son of God, and yet I have not told the Mystery unto thine enemies. 
Ambro. ●i. De ijs qui initiantur mister. c. 1.  S. Ambrose maketh it a Treason, and betraying of the Mysteries, to show them unto those that be not yet baptised. The like commendation of silence in this behalf we find in Origen, 
Orige. homil. 9 in levit. c. 16  and in S. Augustine's works not seldom. Aurelianus the Emperor, when he saw himself, and the Roman Empire to be in great peril, for that the people named Marcomanni grew strong over him by a great overthrow they had given him in battle, wrote to the Senate of Rome, that (which was wont to be done in public distress) the Sibylles books should be looked in. 
Flavius Vopiscus in Divo Aureliano  In his Epistle he hath these words. Miror vos Patres sancti, tam diu de aperiendis Sibyllinis dubitasse libris, perinde quasi in Christianorum Ecclesiá, non in Templo Deorum omnium tractaretis. I marvel at you Reverend Fathers, that ye have been afraid to open Sibylles books thus long, as though ye had to do in the Church of Christians, and not in the Temple of all the Gods.  
By this it appeareth, what secretness and silence was used in the Primitive Church touching these mysteries, and how fearful the holy Fathers were to say, writ, or do any thing, whereby the Miscreants might come by knowledge of them. For which cause it is not to be marveled, if they spoke not so plainly, and so evidently of every point touching the Sacrifice, as the sauciness of heretics requireth in these days to be answered, and satisfied withal. Yet they may seem to have spoken plainly enough to right believers, and for the same we have no small number of good and clear testimonies, as by this rejoinder it shall appear to them, that be not wilfully bend, either to shut their eyes, because they would not see, or to wrangle contentiously, that they ●eeme not to be overcome, 
When began the Fathers to speak more plainly of our mysteries  or to deny stubbornly, what so ever disliketh their fancy, be it never so sufficiently proved.  
But after that the Faith was once generally received of all where it was preached and professed, and no Infidels remained among the Christians, that durst openly to work despite against the holy Mysteries, which in sundry Provinces came to pass before the first six hundredth year was determined, and thenceforth: the learned Fathers that in those times wrote, as occasion was given, spoke of the real Presence of the body an blood of Christ in the blessed Sacrament, and of the oblation of the same, no less plainly, and clearly, than the Church now teacheth. Which thing they find to be true, that be conversant in the works of Cassiodorus, S. Gregory the Roman, Isidorus, Gregorius Turonensis, Beda, Haimo, Rabanus, and other about that age.  
If then for this Sacrifice we have (as in this rejoinder thou shalt find) the Scriptures, the testimonies of the Fathers of the first six hundred years of sufficient clearness, and the most manifest testimonies of the writers that immediately followed that age, besides the authority of Counsels, that were within, and soon after that age, and so continually until the late Council of Trent: the favourers of M. jewels side may see, his Challenge fully answered, touching this Article. And therefore ought they to consider, how safe it is for them to contemn so great authority, and to be persuaded with such slender Arguments against the blessed Sacrifice of the Mass, as M. jewel setteth forth in his Reply, which he hath borrowed of the calvinists, they received of Luther, and Luther learned of Satan, when on a night he disputed with him against the Sacrifice of the Mass, as he lay waking in his bed, as by his own confession in his book De Missa privata, he hath witnessed unto the world. So than if with Luther, Caluine, and M. jewel they profess hatred against the Mass, and deny the real Sacrifice of the Church: they show whose scholars they be, and by whose spirit they are lead.  

whether the Mass be to be taken for an evil thing, seeing Satan disputeth with Luther against it.  But perhaps some here will say, what is that this Rejoinderer telleth us of Satan? Did Satan ever dispute with Luter against the Mass? Is this credible? If it be so, then may I soon believe, that the Mass is a godly thing, and that it proceedeth from the holy Ghost. For if it were an evil thing, as by our Preachers we are borne in hand it is: we may be sure, the Devil would not move Luther to leave it. For so he should work the destruction of his own kingdom: which to do is the office of Christ, and most contrary to the malice of Satan's condition. This Reioinder●● should do well here to clear himself of the vehement suspicion of an untruth. And in deed shame it were to belie the Devil, as they say.  

The disputation of Satan the Devil with Luther against the Mass, truly reported out of Luther's own Works.  

In the Replie● Division. 2. Pag. 2.  FOr as much then, as I understand, many doubt hereof, and M. jewel calleth it a scornful, and slanderous tale, blazed abroad by Pighius, Hosius and Staphylus, of malice, and hatred of the truth: to th'intent the truth be known, and that it be considered what Captain they follow, who make war against the Sacrifice of the Mass, and that the memory of this thing remain to our posterity: I will here truly and faithfully set forth the disputation, that was betwixt Friar Luthe● the first author and founder of the Protestants Religion, and Satan the Devil, as Luther himself reporteth it in the seventh Tome of his works, in a book entitled De Missa privata, & Vnctione Sacerdotum. Who soever is desirous to see the place, it is to be found in the seventh Tome printed at Wittenberg by one Thomas Klug, in the year of our Lord. 1557. Folio. 228. There thus writeth Luther.  

Luther's report of his Conference with the Devil.  
COntigit me semel, etc. It befell me on a time, that after midnight suddenly I awoke. Then Satan began disputation with me after this manner. Audi, inquit, Luthere Doctor perdocte. Listen, ꝙ he, ● right learned M. Doctor Luther.  
2 Thou knowest thou hast celebrated private Masses these fourteen years almost every day.  
3 What if such private Masses were horrible Idolatry?  

Denial of Adoration of Christ's body, the devils Doctrine.  4 What if it were so, that the body and blood of Christ were not present, but that thou didst adore bread and wine only, and showedst the same to be adored of others?  
To whom I answered. I am an anointed Priest, I have received unction and consecration of a Bishop, and all these things have I done 5 by commandment of my Superiors. Why should I not have consecrated, sith that I pronounced the words of Christ seriously, and celebrated Masses in great earnest? 
The Devil confesseth outward Priesthood M. jewel deneeths.  This much thou knowest.  
6 All this (ꝙ Satan) is true.  
7 But the Turks and the Gentiles also do all things in their temples upon obedience, and make their sacrifices in earnest. The Priests of jeroboam also did all things with a certain zeal, and desire contrary to the true Priests that were in jerusalem.  
8 And what if thy taking of Orders, and consecration were also false, as the Turks, and Samaritans Priests, are false Priests, and their worship is false and wicked worship?  
First thou knowest, ꝙ he, 9 At that time thou hadst no knowledge of Christ, nor true faith, and as touching faith, thou wast no better than any Turk. For the Turk, yea all the Devils also do believe the story of Christ, that he was borne, that he was orucified, that he died etc. But the Turk and we rejected spirits do not trust in his mercy, neither have we him for a mediator and Saviour, but fear him as a cruel judge.  
This manner of faith, and none other thou hadst, when thou tookest unction of a Bishop, and 10 all others, both the annointers, and the amnointed, so thought of Christ, and none otherwise.  
For that cause ye fled 11 from Christ, as from a cruel judge, to S. Marry, and the Saints.  
They were your mediators, between you and Christ: 12 so the glory was taken from Christ.  
13 This neither thou, nor any other Papist can deny. 
The Devil calleth us Papists.  Therefore ye are anointed, consecrated and shaven, and have sacrificed in the Mass, as Gentiles, and Heathens, and not as Christians.  
14 How then could ye consecrate in the Mass, and celebrate a true Mass, sith that (which thing after your own doctrine marreth altogether) there wanteth a person having power to consecrate? etc.   

A brief reproof of these Devilish Blasphemies.  
1 In this insinuation the Devil claweth the vain glorious Friar by the back as it were, where he knew him to itch, Right learned M. Doctor Luther. ꝙ he.  
2 Thou liest Satan, as thy wont is. Luther knew not, ne could not know that which is false. For in that which is chief to be accounted of, the Mass is publlque and common. Out of thy school the name of Private Mass in the sense that Luther conceiveth, 
Pri●at Mass the devils term.  first proceeded.  
3 What if they were not? as this Sacrifice is the highest honour that can be done unto God, being done, as it ought to be.  
4 What if it were present? as it is present consecration duly made. And so Luther himself teacheth against the Sacramentaries, as it is known. Mark Reader, from whose school the doctrine cometh, that teacheth, the body and blood not to be adored in the blessed Sacrament.  
5 Not only of them, but rather by commandment of Christ, who said, do this in my remembrance.  
6 Ergo, Luther was a Priest, specially, and properly, not as every faithful is. Then had he authority and power to offer the Sacrifice. This much thou confessest unwares, as it seemeth. M. jew. denieth. What, is he worse than thee self?  
7 Such obedience of Turks, and Gentiles, is not for God's sake. And therefore it is not obedience, as it is a virtue, and a service of God. It is the servitude of thee, Satan. Wherefore therein the more earnest, the more sinful. The Zeal likewise thou speakest of was wicked, therefore the case is not like and so thy reason is nought.  
8 But what if it were true? as it was true.  
9 Here thou liest Satan down right.  
10 Avaunt Satan, thou beliest Gods servants.  
It is not so thou enemy. When we beseech S. Marie, and the other Saints to pray for us, we flee not from Christ, no more then S. Paul did, when he desired the Romans, the Ephesians, and the Thessalonians to pray for him: Rom. 15. Ephes. 6. 2. Thess 3. but we go to Christ with other helpers, and suitors, as if having a suit to an earthly Prince, I make his mother, and his dearest friends to go unto him with me, and speak for me.  
12 By making the Saints intercessors for us to Christ, no part of his glory is taken from him. Mark Reader, who it is that teacheth thee, not to c●● to the Saints for their aids, and prayers.  
13 This we all do deny, and know it to be false. It pleaseth us to be called Papists of thee Satan. Avaunt blasphemous Spirit. In the blessed Mass, we present, and offer to God that body● that suffered upon the Cross and that blood that was shed for us, whereby we are redeemed from thee and from thy most grisly misery. By this tale we are fought to esteem anointing, consecration, and ●haning, be●●o●, because the Devil liketh it not.  
14 The Devil proceedeth to his Conclusion, as though his premises were true. Wherein M. jew. followeth him, as the scholar the Master, and so do all other the Sacramentaries, and Protestants.   
And there afterward Folio. 229. b. it followeth.  

In his angustijs &c. Being in these 15 straights, and in this conflict against the Devil, my will was to knock him again, with the weapons that I was accustomed unto living in Papistry, and I laid for me the Intention, and 16 faith of the Church, to wit, that I had celebrated private Masses in the faith, and intention of the Church.  
Albeit (ꝙ I) 17 that I have not believed or thought rightly, yet in this point the Church believeth, and thinketh rightly.  
But then Satan laying at me more mightily, and more vehemently, Go too, ꝙ he, bring me forth,  
18 where it is written, that a man, which is wicked and unbelieving, may stand at the Altar of Christ, and consecrate in the faith of the Church? Where hath God bid or commanded this thing? How wilt thou prove, that the Church doth impart unto thee, Intention to this thy private Mass?  
19 If now thou have not the word of God for thee, but if men have taught thee this thing without the word, than all this Doctrine is a lie. Behold your boldness. etc.   

15 Why didst thou not bless thee, and arm thyself with the sign of the Cross? Why didst thou not call upon the name of jesus? Thoughtest thou thyself able to match the Devil with words?  
16 If thou hadst the Faith of the Church, why went'st thou from it? And if thou hadst this Faith, then how believest thou not Christ, saying, Do this in my remembrance?  
17 By this thou impliest, that the rest of the Church, before thou brochedst thy fifth Gospel, believed not Rightly, wherein thou followest Satan, and beliest thyself, and the Church. For the common profession of the Faith, was ●hen right and sound.  
18 To confound this Friar, the Devil joineth a wicked man, and an unbeliever together in the case of Consecration, and requireth Scripture of him for that, which neither was, ne never shallbe done. An evil Priest, notwithstanding his wickedness of life, may consecrate, though to his damnation, as he may baptize, and absolve: but an unbelieving man, that is to say, an Infidel, can not consecrate. And what absurdity is it to say, an unbelieving man to consecrate in the Faith of the Church? If in the Faith of the Church, how is he unbelieving? If unbelieving, how in the Faith of the Church?  
19 For this Oblation, and Sacrifice, we have the word of Christ, Do ye this in my remembrance.   
And after this in the end of the Disputation (for it were to long to recite all) thus it followeth. Fol. 230.  

Confessus quidem sum, lege Dei convictus coram Diabolo, me peccasse, me damnatum esse ut judam: sed verto me ad Christum cum Petro, etc.  
20 Being cast by the law of God, I was feign to confess before the Devil, that I had sinned, and that I was damned like judas.  
21 But I turn myself unto Christ with Peter etc.   

20 Say not foolish Friar, thou were cast by the la of God, but by the Devil for desert of thine own iniquity. Thou makest Satan thy Ghostly Father, who afterwards taughtst, that confession ought not to be made to a Priest for benefit of absolution.  
21 No, no, thou turnedst thyself from Christ unto the Devil with judas, with Simon Magus, and with other Heretics. And so do all, that follow thee, and thy doctrine.   
This is the Sum of the conference and disputation that Satan had with Friar Luther against the Sacrifice of the Mass, by which Luther was persuaded, not only to say Mass no more, but also to write, preach, and work against it in such wise, as became Satan's scholar.  
And thus thou seest Reader, that this is not a tale maliciously, and slanderously blazed abroad by Pighius, Hosius, and Staphylus, as M. jewel saith: but that it is in great sooth reported, and in printed books published to the world, by Luther himself. Though M. jewel be ashamed to hear of it, yet he alloweth Satan's Conclusion against the Mass. The person of such a Schoolmaster he commendeth not, but the Scholar he praiseth, calling him, 
In M. jewels Reply. pag. 2.  that godly man Doctor Luther, and the doctrine he embraceth.  
By this we may conceive, what resistance the professors of this new Gospel will make against Antichrist, when he shall come, among whom the doctrine of the Devil himself is so soon received, so well liked, so boldly defended. But o foolish Friar, whose unsteadfast heart was so soon overthrown by Satan's wicked suggestions, false lies, and vain reasons. And o light, and miserable souls, that sithence with the wind of that lewd friars doctrine have been carried away. For what is there in all Satan's tale, in Luther's books, in the treatises of all his Scholars of Germany, of Cranmare, Peter Martyr, Zuinglius, Oecolampadius, Caluine, Beza, of all the other Sacramentaries, briefly in the whole Reply of M. jewel, whose Puddel is filled with their Sinks: that aught to withdraw any learned, wise, or godly man, from that belief touching the Sacrifice of the body and Blood of Christ, which the Catholic Church hath always taught from the beginning?  
What so ever they have said, and what so ever they can say against this blessed Sacrifice, assure thyself Christian Reader, the effect of all here shalt thou find, laid together in M. jewels Reply. All which, of how little force it is, considerately perusing, and weghing this rejoinder, thou shalt perceive. Although the authority of the Church be enough to stay thee, yet if thou desire to see the Adversary encountered, and his Objections answered: read what I have here written, and judge, not forgetting to call to God for the assistance of his holy Spirit, to illuminate thy understanding, and to purge thy affection: that thou mayst see, what is true, observe the same, and have a full will to perform what is good, and acceptable before God.   

The chief, and most common Argument, that the Protestants make against the Sacrifice of the Mass.  
S. Paul declareth in the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
Heb. 9  that Christ was but once only offered, and that he offereth not himself oftentimes. 
Cap. 9  By his own blood (saith the Apostle) he entered in once into the holy place, and found eternal redemption. Again, He was but once offered to take away the sins of many. And in an other place, With one oblation he hath made perfit them that are sanctified for ever. 
Heb. 10.  Ergo, to what purpose is it, that Christ is thus daily offered up unto God in the Mass?   

Solution.  
This Argument is soon solved, if a man consider the scope, mark, and purpose, whereunto S. Paul directeth himself in that Epistle. This much therefore is to be weighed. There were many of the Hebrews, that although through the preaching, and miracles of the Apostles, were persuaded to believe in Christ, yet remained in great estimation, and zeal of the Law, sticked unto their old customs, and ordinances of Moses, and specially unto their Sacrifices, which they were desirous to retain for their sins. And therefore they found themselves aggrieved with the Apostle, for that, whereas he took away their old Sacrifices, they thought themselves to be destitute of the benefits of the Law, and remedies for sin.  
Hereunto the Apostle maketh answer, and in effect teacheth: That of such Sacrifices as the Law ordained, now we have no need, for so much as the Priesthood of Christ, who hath once offered himself with sheadding of his blood upon the Altar of the Cross having thereby fulfilled them, remaineth and continueth still with us, which is sufficient. We have (saith he to them) an Altar, whereof it is not lawful for them to eat, which do serve the Tabernacle. 
Heb. 13.  And that ye see not hosts to b● killed, and the blood of Calves to be shed of us, the cause is, for that the only bloody host of Christ hath sufficed, that now we have need of no other, but of that. That host is the fountain, and endless treasure, which containeth the sufficient price of our Redemption. only it is need, that we be made partakers of it. Neither were those Sacrifices of Moses' law such, that by virtue and power of them being but signs and figures of Christ, 
Heb. 9  sins were remitted in conscience: but by them sins were brought to remembrance, and signification was given out, that there was need of an other bloody Sacrifice, by whose virtue men in conscience should be made perfit.  
And so the Apostle treateth of the thing itself, that was shadowed in all the Sacrifices of the Law, and is so acceptable unto the Father, that by his own proper virtue and merit it sanctifieth men, and remitteth sins, whereunto by the ordinance of God's justice the Blood of the Son of God was Requisite. Such is the Host or Sacrifice of the Cross only, by whose virtue and merit they be sanctified, whosoever from the beginning either by the Sacrifices of the former times, or by the daily Sacrifice of the Church, are sanctified. By which only for this cause all be said to be sanctified, because who so ever be sanctified, be by that, and by the virtue of that, made clean. In case the old Sacrifices, or the Sacrifice of the Mass also were such sufficient prices of our redemption, without doubt both those, and this, had long sithence ceased to be offered. For such a Sacrifice, which by his own proper merit getteth sufficient price for sins, aught to be great in deed (sooth by the Death of the Son of God) but one only sufficeth. 
Heb. 10.  Wherefore of a bloody Sacrifice there is no more need, but of such a one, as by which we may be made partakers of that great and most worthy Sacrifice. Of which sort the Sacrifice of the Mass is, where, in the person of Christ, that Death is presented for us unto the Father.  
And what Host, or thing mystically offered, could either better set Christ's Death before his Father's sight, or more effectually derive the merits of his Death unto us, than that very body, wherein he suffered? For which cause, when he delivered the Sacrament of his Possion unto us, 
Lucae 22.  he said, Do ye this in remembrance of me. So that this Sacrifice of the Mass, although it be in his kind a true Sacrifice, as it shallbe proved here after in this rejoinder: yet it taketh his whole virtue, and power, of the Sacrifice of the Cross, which is of itself the whole price of our Redemption. Now S. Paul disputeth with the Hebrews of that which with bloodshed redeemed us, and not of that which without bloodshed applieh the Redemption unto us. That was but once offered, this is, and must be oft repeated.    

Faults escaped in printing.  
Fault leaf line Correction Accidententes 31. b. 24. Accidents Sigular 47. a 11. Singular ●nd 56. b. 20. and in here 79. a. 4. is here the termeth 94. a. 21. be termeth end 108. b. 5. and sacrified 111. a. 3. sacrificed & iam num 117. b. 25. & iam nunc the unbloody 119. b. 33. the bloody taught them the new test. 131. b. 26. taught them the new Oblation of the new Testament argume 136. b. 30. argument neither he they 140. b. 13. neither be they and circumstance 149. b. 23. any circumstance is the Mass, in one 195. b. 10. in the Mass, is one and maketh haste 208 a. 10. and make hast he briefly examined 215. b. 15. be briefly examined  


In the Epistle to M. jew.  
Page. 1. In the margin read. Math. 5.  
Item there pag. 11. Lin. 2. for now broached, read, new broached.  
Item there pag. 13. Lin. 11. for hen. read, been.  
Item there Pag. 15. Lin. 14. for him, read, him.     
A rejoinder TO M. JEWELS REPLY AGAINST THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS.  


The words of M. jewels Challenge.  
IF any learned man of our Adversaries, or if all the learned men that be alive, be able to bring any one sufficient sentence out of any old Catholic Doctor or Father, or out of any old general Council, or out of the holy Scriptures of God, or any one example of the Primitive Church, whereby it may clearly and plainly be proved, that for the space of six hundred years after Christ, the Priest had authority to offer up Christ unto his Father, I am content to yield and to subscribe.   

The words of the Answer first made to this Challenge. Of the priests authority to offer up Christ to his Father.  
CHrist is offered up to his Father after three manners. Figuratively, Truly with Bloodshedding, and Sacramentally, or Mystically. In Figure or Signification he was offered in the Sacrifice made to GOD, both in the time of the Law of Nature, and also in the time of the law written. And therefore S. john calleth Christ the Lamb, 
Agnus occisus est ab origine mundi. Apoc. 13. Heb. 10. Lib. 6. c. 5.  which was killed from the beginning of the world, meaning in figure. The Sacrifices of Abel, Noah, and Abraham, and all those of the people of Israel commanded by the Law of Moses, figured and signified Christ. For which respect chief, the law is reported of S. Paul, to have the shadow of the good things to come. S. Augustine writing against Faustus the Heretic, saith: Testamenti Veteris Sacrificia omnia, multis & varijs modis unum Sacrificium, cuius nunc memoriam celebramus, significaverunt: All the Sacrifices of the old Testament signified by many, and sundry ways this one Sacrifice, whose memory we do now celebrate. And in an other place he saith, 
D● fide ad Petrum Dia c●num. c. 19  That in those fleshly Sacrifices, there was a Signification of Christ's Flesh, which he should offer for sins, and of his Blood, which he should shed for the remission of our sins.  
Truly, and with Bloudsheadding, Christ is offered on the Cross in his own person, whereof S. Paul saith: 
Tit. 2.  Christ gave him self for us, 
Ephes. 5.  that he might redeem us from all iniquity. And again, Christ hath loved us, and hath delivered himself for us an Oblation, and Sacrifice to God into a sweet savour.  
Sacramentally, or in Mystery, Christ is offered up to his Father in the daily Sacrifice of the Church under the Form of Bread, and Wine, truly and in deed, not in respect of the manner of offering, but in respect of his very Body, and Blood, really (that is in deed) present, as it hath been sufficiently proved here before.   

M. jewels Reply.  
The greater, and worthier the work is, that our Adversaries have imagined, that is, for a Mortal, and a Miserable man to offer up the Immortal Son of God unto his Father, and that Really, and in deed, the more ought the same, either by manifest words, or by necessary collection expressly, and plainly to be proved. 
Hebr. 5.  For noman taketh honour, and office unto himself, but he that is called, and appointed thereto by God. But for aught that may appear by any clause or sentence, either of the new Testament or of the old, God never appointed any such Sacrifice to be made by any Mortal Creature. And Theophylacte saith, jesus eiiciendo boves & columbas, 
Theophyl. in Matt. cap. 21.  praesignavit non ultra opus esse animalium Sacrificio, sed Oratione: jesus throwing the Oxen and doves out of the Temple, signified, that they should no longer have need of the Sacrifice of beasts, but of prayer.   

Harding.  
WOULD God M. jewel, that either your modesty were more, or that you had the grace to see, how evil your sauciness becometh you. As at the first by open Challenge you provoked all the learned men that be alive, as it were to try mastery with you: so in the entry of your Reply against my Answer to your seventienth Article, you bear all men in hand, that until you came from the school of Rhetoric to reach the world this new Gospel, no priest ever considered, how great and worthy a work it is, to offer up Christ unto his Father, which appertaineth to Priestly office. Wherein you charge the blessed Apostles, their successors, all the holy Fathers of the Church so many as were Priests, all that have been to your time, briefly the whole Church itself, with the crime of wicked presumption, for making this sacrifice. How can you seem otherwise to do? For whereas you say, it may not appear by any Clause, or sentence of the old, or new Testament, that God ever appointed any such Sacrifice to be made by any Mortal man, and most certain it is, that by the Apostles, and the holy Fathers of the Church, and by the priests of God in every age, it hath been made: what conclude you hereof, but that they have transgressed the Scripture, and presumptuously taken honour and office unto themselves, 
Hebr. 5.  not being called, nor appointed thereto by God? And so what may Christ be thought to have meant in suffering such a heinous error so long to continue in his Church, 
isaiah. 59  which he loveth so dearly, 
johan. 14.  to which he promised the assistance of the holy Ghost the spirit of truth for ever? 
Matt. 28.   
But consider M. jewel against whom, and how many, you strive. Will it do your heart good to hear that spoken of jewel which by the Angel of God was spoken of Ishmael. Manus eius contra oens, 
●●n. 16.  et manus omni contra cum? The hand of him against all, and the hand of all against him? Stand you so far in your own conceit, as to think, you shall be able to stand against all? Remember you not, what is said of the Church, 
Cant. 6.  that it is, terribilis, ut castrorum acies ordinata, terrible, like the forward of an Army set in battle ray?  
But leaving to put you in mind of that, which might withdraw you from your wicked doctrine, either for fear of God, or for shame of men, having little hope by words to do good with you, to th'intent the weakness of your part laid forth to be considered, the unlearned Reader, that perhaps is seduced by you, may be admonished to beware of you, and to give no more credit unto you, than a professed enemy of the Church, and a teacher of falsehood deserveth: I will come to the examination of your Reply.  
You seem to deduce an argument against this Sacrifice made by a priest, of the baseness and vileness of humane condition, as though man, who in deed is mortal and miserable, and a mortal creature, as you term him, were not worthy, ne could not be made worthy, to offer up the Immoral Son of God unto his Father. True it is, Man of himself, is very unworthy of that high office: neither can he by any his own power or virtue, reach unto the worthiness of that sovereign honour. But if it please God of his great love towards his own dear creature, to admit man to that dignity, notwithstanding he be never so unworthy of himself: so he is made worthy. Neither Anna, nor Elizabeth, nor blessed Marie herself, nor any other woman was ever worthy of herself to conceive, and bring forth th'Immortal Son of God: yet the virgin Marie through grace of him whom she bore, was made worthy to bear him. and therefore she said, fecit mihi magna qui potens est, he hath done me great things, 
Luc. 1.  that is mighty. Else if consideration of the mortal and miserable condition of man, might be brought in argument for the contrary, what a wide door were opened unto the scholars of Martion, Manichaeus, Apollinaris, and to other Heretics, to rush in, and to thrust in again their old heresies against the truth of the Flesh assumpted, and the Incarnation of Christ?  

Gene. 18.  Abraham was a man, mortal and miserable as we are, dust and ashes, 
To how great dignity a man mortal and miserable, hath been admitted by God.  as he said himself: yet was he made worthy to have talk with God, and to understand his purpose touching the destruction of Sodoma. Moses' like wise, though he were but a mortal and miserable man, was accounted worthy, with whom God spoke mouth to mouth, and as the Scripture saith, face to face, as a man is wont to speak unto his friend, to see our Lord openly without obscure signs and figures, 
Num. 12.  to be God's Ambassador unto Pharaoh, 
Exod. 33. Exodi. 3. Exod. 19  and the people of Israel, to enter into the Cloud upon the hill where God was, and there to receive the Law written with Gods own finger.  
And to come again unto the new Testament, what a dignity is it for john the Baptist to baptize Christ, 
Mat. 3. Mat. 28.  for the Apostles and their successors to carry his name, 
joan. 20.  and his word through out the whole world, to remit, and retain sins? Shall we deny, or so much as call in question these great things, because they be mortal and miserable men, to whom they are committed? Notwithstanding the mortality and misery of mankind, yet behold what a high dignity men are called unto by testimony of S. john: 
joan. 1.  Dedit eye potestatem filios Dei fieri: He hath given them power to be made the sons of God. Unto which dignity S. Paul addeth a farther degree, saying: Si autem filii, 
Rom. 8.  & haeredes: haeredes quidem Dei, cohaeredes autem Christi. If we be the sons of God than we be also the heirs: the heirs of God, and fellow heirs with Christ. That high degree of honour which S. Peter speaketh of, surmounteth all other, neither can any other unto it be comparable. Which is, that God through Christ hath bestowed upon us so great gifts, 
2. Pet. 1.  ut efficiamur Divinae consortes naturae, that we be made partakers of the Divine nature.  
Verily of the high dignity that it hath pleased God to admit man unto, in these and other the like cases, that may well be said against M. jewel, 
Esther. 6.  and all other the enemies of this Sacrifice, which King Assuerus commanded openly to be proclaimed of good Mardochaeus against wicked Aman, Hoc honore dignus est, quemcunque rex volverit honorare. Of this honour is he worthy, whom so ever the King (of all Kings) will have honoured. And this is a sufficient answer to M. jewels secret objection against the Sacrifice, taken of the baseness and misery of humanie condition.  
He will say perhaps, 
M. jewel denieth the Sacrifice of the Altar stoutly.  these examples and Scriptures prove in deed, that God hath advanced man unto high honour, but not that he may offer up Christ unto his Father: For (saith he) for aught that may appear by any clause or sentence of the new Testament, or of the old, God never appointed any such Sacrifice to be made. Such stout asseverations make but weak proofs. Here might be alleged for the Sacrifice, first, out of the old Law the Figures foresignifying, and the Prophecies foretelling, that such Sacrifice was to be instituted. Secondly, out of the new Testament, Christ's own fact offering this Sacrifice, and his plain precept, commanding his Apostles, and their successors in the office of Priesthood, to continue the same until his coming. Thirdly, the interpretation of the Father's expounding in that sense, both those figures and Prophecies of the old Testament, and likewise Christ's fact, and precept in the new Testament. Last of all, the continual practice of the universal Church, both Greek and Latin, wherein the Priests in all ages since Christ's death, have made to God, a Sacrifice of our lords body and blood. But because this is done already in the discourse of my Answer to this 17. Article of M. jewels Challenge, leaving to repeat the same here again, when orderly proceeding I shall come unto the places by M. jewels Reply impugned: there (I trust) I shall by disclosing the Repliers false sleights, and by bewraying the weakness of his Reply, to the indifferent and unaffectionate Reader evidently show, how strong and sound the Catholic doctrine of the Church is in this behalf, and how invincibly the testimonies of the Scriptures and Fathers which in my Answer I alleged, prove and establish the same.  

What may follow, if all be taken away, that hath not proof of Scripture. anabaptists.  But touching such kind of assertions, as this is of M. jewels, if they may take place, and if it shall be enough to say, for aught that may appear: shall it not seem lawful to the anabaptists to say, away with the baptizing of infants, For, for aught that may appear, the Scriptures give us no warrant so to do? Will not the blasphemous Arians say, away with Consubstantiality, and equality of Christ with his Father? For, 
Arians.  for aught that may appear, it can not be avouched by any Clause, or sentence, either of the new Testament, or of the old. Will not the followers of jovinian and helvidius say, 
jovinianistes.  away with the perpetual Virginity of our blessed Lady Christ's Mother? 
Heluidians.  For, for aught that may appear, the Scriptures be plain against it, rather than with it. The Sabbataries, 
Sabbataries.  will not they cry out against keeping holy and solemn the Sunday? For, for aught that may appear (say they) the commandment to hollow the Saturday, standeth still in force, neither is there any clause, or sentence in the old, or new Testament, bidding us to change it into the Sunday. To be short, what Heretic ever was there in old time, or is at this day, whose turn this kind of assertion (for aught that may appear) may not serve, wherewith to maintain his Heresy?  
As touching the saying of Theophylact, 
M. jewel to prove his Negative, at the first findeth no ancienter Doctor, than Theophylacte a late writer.  wherewith this Replier would fortify his Negative, it giveth evidence, how weak his side is, that could not be maintained by any sentence of greater force than this is, nor by any writer of more antiquity, than Theophylact is with him. Who requireth his cause to be tried by those Father's only, that lived within the first six hundred years. If he were able to make any man believe, that the Priests of the Church have at any time sacrificed beasts unto God, or that Theophylact in that saying meant, that now there were need of nothing but of prayer only, as prayer is taken in the common signification, and that all other means to serve God were needless: than might the sentence be alleged, and seem to serve his turn so far forth, as in consideration of his request the author were to be esteemed. But now sith Priests of the new Testament never honoured God with bloody sacrifices, and slaughter of beasts, that were foresignified to cease by our Lords driving of the Oxen and doves out of the Temple, and Theophylact here useth no exclusive, whereby prayer alone, as it commonly signifieth, should be appointed a mean wherewith to serve God: the saying was evil chosen, and with small judgement put into the Reply, as that which nothing at all maketh against the singular, external, and public Sacrifice of the Church in mine Answer defended.  
If M. jewel would gather arguments out of this place, thus he ought to dispose them. 
Theophyl. in Matth. cap. 21.  In that Christ drove the oxen and doves out of the Temple, he foresignified, that there should be no more need of sacrifices of beasts, or of slaughters, but of prayer. 
What argument may be conclnded out of Theophylact here alleged.  So be the very words of Theophylacte in Greek, somewhat otherwise, than this Replier hath translated them. Thereof it is concluded, Ergo, now in the new Testament there is need of prayer. Then further. In the new Testament there is need of prayer, But the Mass whereat the priest offereth up Christ unto his Father, is no prayer: Ergo, in the new Testament the Mass is needless. This is the best Argument he can make out of Theophylactes words. In which, how so ever it be allowed for good, or otherwise, the minor or second proposition is evidently false, and so he is stopped from his conclusion. Wherefore Theophylact helpeth not the matter at al.  

Theophylacte maketh for the Sacrifice.  Yea rather by the manner of his speech he avoucheth the Sacrifice of the Church, understanding it by the name of prayer. For whereas by his report, which is expressed also in the Gospel, Christ driving out the oxen and doves foresignified the ceasing of the bloody and unclean sacrifices of the old Law: 
Matt. 21.  certainly he showed thereby, that a new Sacrifice unbloody and pure, should succeed in place of the old, because every law hath a priesthood and a sacrifice peculiar unto it. Which in the new law is none other, 
Prayer.  than the Sacrifice of his body and blood consecrated with prayer, and offered up to God with prayer by them, who under Christ be priests after Melchisedeks' order. And this chief is that which Theophylacte calleth prayer. For in as much as this Sacrifice (due matter presupposed) is consecrated by the Priest with the words of our Lord, 
Matt. 26.  this is my body, this is the Cup of my blood, 
Luke. 22.  &c: which words the Fathers oftentimes name the mystical prayer: 
1. Cor. 11.  he had regard to the form of the Consecration, and would speak, as the chief of the ancient Fathers have spoken. And so the saying of Theophylacte maketh for the Sacrifice, it maketh not against the Sacrifice, as to that purpose of M. jewel it is alleged.  
Furthermore Prayer in this place may be taken not only for that which commonly we understand by the name of prayer (that is to say for petition made to God with words) but for every such mean, 
What is signified by the name of Prayer.  as God is served withal in his Church, according as it is taken in Esay the prophet alleged by Christ in the Gospel. Domus mea domus orationis vocabitur, 
Matt. 21.  vos autem fecistis eam speluncam latronum. My house shall be called the house of prayer, but ye have made it a den of thieves. So that Prayer here being set contrary to the bloody and unclean sacrifices of the old Law, signifieth all manner of service of God that is pure and clean, without bloodshedding. Ye have made it a den of thieves. In dens of thieves slaughters and bloudsheddinges are made, saith Theophylacte.  
Nicolaus de Lyra writing upon this place, 
Lyra in Comment. in 21. cap. Matt.  saith: Non curabant de cultu Dei, sed magis de excoriatione populi per astutias suas exquisitas. They took no care for God's service, but rather how by their fine crafty sleights they might pill the people. 
Prayer taken generally for the service of God.  Here what the prophet calleth orationem prayer, the interpreter nameth it cultum Dei, the service or worship of God. And to this agreeth the general definition of Prayer, oratio est mentis elevatio ad Deum, Prayer is the lifting up of the mind unto God. And because among all kinds of prayer, that, wherein, and whereby Christ is offered up unto his Father, is the chief, therefore may Theophylact reasonably be thought in this place to have meant that prayer, which the Church calleth the Mass.  
So then by Christ's driving of the Oxen and doves out of the Temple, and by commending unto his Church the use of prayer, this Sacrifice can not in any wise seem to be excluded, but rather to be brought in, as that, which being unbloody and pure, aught to succeed the bloody and impure sacrifices of the jews. About the administration of which Sacrifice (that Theophylact may also the rather seem to have understanded it by the name of prayer) after the mind of S. Augustin, 
August. ad Paulinum epist. 59  the request of S. Paul touching sundry kinds of prayer is accomplished. Obsecro igitur primum fieri obsecrationes, orationes, 
1. Tim. 2.  postulationes, gratiarum actiones ꝓ omnibus hominibus, pro regibus, & oimbus, qui in sublimitate constituti sunt. I beseech you therefore, that above all things, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for Kings, and for all that be placed in high authority. To conclude, all redoundeth to this end, that forasmuch as the special Sacrifice of the Church is made and celebrated with prayer, so as itself be included within the general name of Prayer: M. jewel findeth no help in this saying of Theophylact towards the maintenance of his Negative, whereby he would utterly deface and take the Sacrifice away. Which thing when he saw himself evidently enough, he devised other shifts, and saith.   

jewel.  
How be it, the old learned Fathers, as they oftentimes delighted themselves with these words, Sabbatum, , Pascha, Pentecoste, and such other like terms of the old Law, notwithstanding the Observation, and Ceremony thereof were then abolished, and out of use: Even so likewise they delighted themselves oftentimes with these words, Sacerdos, Altar, Sacrificium, the Sacrificer, 
Pachymeres. pa 401 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Rom. 15. Origen. in Epist. ad Rom. li. 10. Nazian. in Oratio. ad Pleben. Chryso. in Epist. ad Rom. Homil. 29.  the Altar, the Sacrifice, notwithstanding the use thereof were then clearly expired: only for that the ears of the people, as well of the jews, as of the Gentiles, had been long acquainted with the same. Therefore Pachymeres the Paraphraste writing upon Dionysius, saith thus, Presbyterun appellat Sacerdoten, ut etiam in Coelesti Hierarchia: idque usus iam obtinuit. Him, that is the Priest, or elder, he calleth the Sacrificer, as he doth also in his Celestial Hierarchy: And the same word, Sacrificer, is now obtained by Custom. In this sense S. Paul saith of himself, Sacrifico evangelium Dei: I sacrifice the Gospel of God. And Origen saith, Sacrificale opus est, anunnciare Euangelium:: It is a work of Sacrifice, to Preach the Gospel. So the learned Bishop Nazianzenus saith unto his people, Hostiam vos ipsos obtuli: I have offered up you for a Sacrifice. So saith S. Chrysostom, Ipsum mihi Sacerdotium est, Praedicare, & Euamgelizare. Hanc offero oblationem: My whole priesthood is, to teach, and to preach the Gospel. This is my Oblation, This is my Sacrifice. Thus the holy Fathers alluding to the orders, and Ceremonies of Moses Law● called the preaching of the Gospel, a Sacrifice: notwithstanding in deed it were no Sacrifice.   

Harding.  
The effect of that hath been said by the Replier hitherto, is this. The Sacrifice wherein Christ is offered up unto his Father, is not appointed by God to be made by man, for aught that may appear by any Clause, or Sentemce of the Scripture, but yet it is reported, and oftentimes spoken of by the Old learned Fathers. What meaneth M. jewel thus to teach? would he have men believe, that the Holy Ghost the spirit of truth, who used the Prophets, Apostles, and Evangelists for his Secretaries to indite the Scriptures, agreeth not with the Holy Ghost, that sithence their time hath spoken by the mouths of the holy Doctors? Remembreth he not, they were for the more part such, 
Act. 20.  as by report of S. Paul the Holy Ghost hath made Bishops to govern the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his blood? If they have been made governors of the Church by the holy Ghost, may we not boldly say, they have been taught the truth by the holy Ghost, wherewith they might instruct the Church?  

Either the Fathers were deceived, or the holy Ghost dissenteth from himself, by M. jewel  Verily of this doctrine one of these two must follow. That either all the old learned Fathers were deceived, and taught false doctrine, or that the holy Ghost, who ruled the pen of them that indited the Scriptures, dissented from himself speaking in their Successors the learned Fathers. For that the Fathers either of their own heads, or of private inspiration, without all warrant of God's word instituted this Sacrifice: neither M. jewel saith it, nor is it so much as to be suspected. The second, that is, that any dissension or contrariety be ascribed to the holy Ghost, is heinous blasphemy. The first, that all the learned Fathers should be deceived, and also deceive the Church, is not to be granted. For in as much as they received the spirit of truth which Christ promised to the Apostles, 
joan. 14.  and were governed by the spirit of God, and by the same were lead into all truth: it ought not to be thought of them in general, that they have inclined unto falsehood, specially in so weighty a matter.  
Wherefore it standeth M. jewel upon, either to deny, that the old learned Fathers have by their oft mention of Priests, Altars, and Sacrifice, acknowledged the singular Sacrifice of the Church, or recant what he said of the Scriptures, that by any clause, or sentence of them it cannot appear, where God appointed any such Sacrifice to be made at al.  
If he will say, as he seemeth to say: The Fathers confess not, ne acknowledge not in deed the Sacrifice itself, but yet oft times they use the word of Sacrifice, that is to say, they speak of it, as also of the Priests, and Altars: to that may be answered, that by their words we understand their meaning. Forasmuch as they confess it with words, and that very oft, how can we judge otherwise of them, but that they believed it also in heart? What, maketh he the ancient holy Fathers, God's dear friends, placed in authority by the holy Ghost to govern the Church of God, to be double men, such as say one thing, and think an other? Why taught they so, but that the Church should believe so? If they would all men to believe it, shall we say, they believed it not themselves?  
When M. jewel minding to maintain his Challenge, 
A shift devised by the school of this new Gospel, against the manifold testimonies of the Fathers, for the Sacrifice.  had with himself considered this much, knowing right well, as thereof he could not be ignorant, how easy a thing it were for the Catholics, to allege infinite places out of the old learned Fathers for witness and proof of their faith, and of the Church's faith concerning this Sacrifice: for some show at least of a colourable answer to be made, he devised this shift, or rather useth a shift invented by the devisers of this new Gospel, in whose school he hath learned his new divinity. As the Fathers (saith he) delighted themselves with the words, Sabbatum, Parasce●e, Pascha, Pentecoste, and other terms of the old Law, notwithstanding the observation and Ceremony thereof were then abolished: so they delighted themselves oftentimes with these words, Sacerdos, Altar, Sacrificium, Sacrificer, Altar, Sacrifice, notwithstanding the use hereof were then clearly expired.  
This great matter is not so lightly carried away M. jewel. Although with force of your sword, with your mattocks, and pickaxes, ye have cut, hewed, and thrown down all the holy Altars of the Churches of England, and therefore of the Churches of Christ, have made the synagogues of Antichrist: yet with this slender word of yours, ye can not bereave the whole Church of God, of the priesthood, of the Altars, of the Sacrifice appertaining to the new Testament. 
M. jewel maketh the Fathers to speak one thing, and to mean an other.  If there be no use of Priests, Altars, and Sacrifice, is it to be thought, the old learned Father's hearts could serve them so oftentimes to speak, and write of them, and to deceive the people committed to their charge, for their delight and pleasures sake? Belonged it to their gravity, holiness, and love of truth, to delight and solace themselves with falsehood? to use hypocrisy, and as it were legiérdemaine, by speaking one thing, and meaning another? to serve God's people with void and empty words, as it were with pipped nuts? Whiles they teach them a doctrine of great importance, to use words that contain not the matter which their proper signification reporteth? This were crafty cifring, it were not right and plain teaching.  
Verily we ought to judge better of the holy Fathers, and to think, that men endued with so great grace, swerved not from the upright conscience, touching the use of terms, which one of the best learned of them speaketh of. Whose words be these, whereby it appeareth, how rightly, warily, and circumspectly they used to speak. 
Aug. de Civit. Dei libr. 10. cap. 23. Use a●d observation of Sabbatum, Pascha, Altar etc● is double, old, and new.  Nobis ad certam regulam loqui fas est, ne verborum licentia etiam de rebus, quae his significantur, impian gignat opinionem It is right (saith he) that we speak after a certain rule, lest the overmuch liberty of words engender an opinion of the things, which by them be signified.  
But for a full answer to you M. jewel, where as you affirm the Observation and use of that is signified by these words, Sabbatum, , Pascha, Pentecoste, Sacerdos, Altar, Sacrificium, to be utterly abolished, and clearly expired in the new Testament: you seem either of ignorance not to understand, or of malice to dissemble, that the observation and use of these things is of two sorts, old, and new, Legal, and evangelical: jewish, and Christian. The old, Legal or jewish Observation and use of these, was clearly expired in right, by the coming of Christ, specially at what time hanging on the Cross, and now giving up the ghost, 
joan. 19  he said, Consummatum est, It is finished. The new, evangelical, and Christian observation and use hereof, remaineth in the Church, and shall remain so long as the Church continueth. The jewish Ceremony of these is quite abolished, we grant, neither be they now in Christ's Catholic Church used, as the jews used them. But the faithful Christians now keep, use, and celebrate their Sabbath, that is to say, their restingtide, their , or preparingtide, commonly called Goodfriday, their Pascha, or Easter, their Pentecost, or Whitsuntide, their Priesthood, their Altar, their Sacrifice, in such manner, order, sense, and meaning, as the new state and condition of the Church succeeding the jewish synagogue, requireth: that is, not according to the figure, shadow, letter, or signification, but according to the truth, the body, the spirit, and the very things.  
jesus vetus testamentum consummabat, 
Ser. 7. de pass. Domini.  & nowm Pascha condebat, saith the ancient and learned Father S. Leo. jesus made an end of the old Testament, and did set up the new Easter, or passover. And this new Easter do we keep and celebrate. The same Father saith also: Vt umbrae cederent corpori, et cessarent imagines sub praesentia veritatis, antiqua obseruantia novo tollitur Sacramento, hostia in hostiam transit, sanguinem sanguis excludit, & legalis festivitas dum mutatur, impletur. That the shadows should give place to the Body, and the Images cease in presence of the Truth, the Old Observance is taken away by the new sacrament, host passeth over into host, blood putteth out blood, and the holy solemnity of the Law, whiles it is changed, is fulfilled.  
Again more plainly to this purpose in an other place. 
Leo. Ser. 13 the Pass. Domini.  Nihil legalium instructionum, nihil propheticarum recedit figurarum, quod non tatum in Christi sacramenta transierit. Nobiscum est Signaculum Circumcisionis, sanctificatio Chrismatum, consecratio Sacerdotum. Nobiscum puritas Sacrificij, Baptismi veritas, honour Templi, ut meritò cessarint nuncij, postquam nunciata venerunt. What so ever instructions be in the Law, what figures so ever be in the Prophets, no jot of it departeth quite away, but is gone over altogether into the Sacraments of Christ. With us is the signet of Circumcision, the hallowing of the holy Ointements, 
Priests.  the Consecration of Priests. With us is the pureness of Sacrifice, 
Sacrifice.  the truth of Baptism, 
Baptism  the honour of the Temple: 
Temple.  that for good cause the Messengers (that is to say the old law) ceased, after that their tidings came.  
Were it not tedious, easily might a hundred such places be alleged out of the Fathers, by testimony of which the observation and use of these things of the old Testament, Pascha, Easter, Pentecoste, Priest, or Sacrificer, Host, Altar, and Sacrifice, is acknowledged, as of things translated, established, and having place in the new Testament. The old Observation is taken away by the new Observation. For the old Altar that was in salomon's Temple at jerusalem, we have new Altars in the Churches of Christians thorough out the whole world, 
Optatus lib. 6.  on which the members of Christ be sustained, and in which the body and blood of Christ 
* Per cert● momenta.  at certain times do dwell, as the ancient Father Optatus writeth. New Altars I say because they serve to a new purpose, and to a new kind of Sacrifice in respect of the old Sacrifices.  
Concerning the host, for Oxen, sheep, goats, and doves, we have the body and blood of Christ. For the figurative Lamb, we have the true Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world. 
joan. 1.  For the feast of the Old passover, 
Exod. 12.  wherein the jews solemnized the memory of the Striking Angels passing over them or beside them, when he destroyed all the first begotten of the Egyptians, and of their own safe passing over the red Sea out of egypt, 
1. Cor. 5.  we have our passover or Easter, wherein we keep a holy and solemn feast in remembrance that by the merit of Christ's blood, who is the true Lamb, the plague of everlasting death is passed over, and quite beside us, 
1. Pet. 3.  that for our sake he hath conquered all power that was against us, 
I. joan. 3.  that he is passed over from death to life, and hath translated and redeemed us from death and hell, to be partakers of life, and glory everlasting in his kingdom.  
As the jews had their Pentecost, so we have ours. For as when they were delivered out of egypt, the Law was given them in the Mount Sina upon the Pentecoste, 
Exod. 20.  that is to say, the fiftieth day after that the Lamb had been sacrificed: 
1. Cor. 5.  So upon the fiftieth day after our passover, in which the true Lamb of God was slain, the holy Ghost came down upon the Apostles, 
Act. 2.  and the company of them that believed: which holy Ghost from that day to the end of the world continueth with the Church, and worketh in the sons of God the performance of God's holy will by love and 
Matt. 28.  charity, as the Law wrought it, or rather moved men to it by threats and terror.  

Leo Ser. 1. de Pentecoste.  S● Leo speaking of this Feast, saith, Hodiernam solennitatem in precipice festis esse ●●●●●●nd●m, omnium Catholicorum corda cognoscunt. The hearts of all Catholic men know, that the solemnity of this day (of Pentecoste) ought to be had in honour among the chief feasts. Remember M. jewel, if your heart give you, that there is no such feast of Pentecost to be observed in Christ's Church, because the use of it is expired, 
What answer you M. jewel?  as you say: by whose verdict you are excluded out of the number of Catholic men, and so pronounced guilty. To whether part will you answer? Doth your heart know it, or know it not? If your heart know it not, than you are not Catholic, and therefore you ought not to be admitted to teach God's people. If your heart know it, and yet cease not to teach the contrary: then are you a damnable dissembler, and a false deceiver. So touching this point every way your doctrine is to be shunned. Thus than it is made clear, the old learned Fathers followed not their pleasure or vain delight, when they spoke of Sabbatum, , Pascha, Pentecoste, Priest, Altar, Sacrifice: But uttered the truth seriously, as men ready to give account of their doctrine before God and man, and as speaking of things, that have use and place in Christ's Church, though the jewish observation and Ceremony of them be abolished.  

M. jewels reason reproved.  The reason why the Fathers used these terms, is, as M. jewel saith, only for that the ears of the people, as well of the jews, as of the Gentiles had been long acquainted with the same. This reason is altogether without favour. For if all manner use and observation of the things by these terms signified were quite abolished, whereas words and terms serve to th'end the hearers and readers by them be taught, and the Fathers in all their writings intended to teach Christ and his Law: what could the jews or Gentiles learn touching the faith of Christ, hearing and reading these terms, not signifying to them the things which they did before their conversion? The more acquainted their ears were with them before, the more by hearing the same now were they put in mind of that they once signified. And so were they by the Fathers invited either to return again to their old jewishness and Paganism, or at least to conceive of their manner of speech, they knew not what, those terms signifying nothing properly, that is extant, or put in practice.  
This being supposed, which M. jewel supposeth, that there is no real Priesthood, no real Sacrifice, no real Altar proper to the new Testament: again this being granted, as it is an undoubted truth, that the Priesthood, Sacrifice, and Altars of the old Law be abrogated, and those of the Heathens detested: what thing doth remain for these terms properly in the new Testament to signify? I say properly, For if any will reply, saying, that every Christian man and woman is a Priest, and that contrition of heart, thanks giving, praises, and such other the like be sacrifices, and our hearts be Altars to offer these sacrifices upon it may be answered, that these terms applied to such things, be not taken in their first and proper signification, but in a second and improper, or rather metaphorical meaning. And the things be so called more for a similitude, then for any propriety.  

That the term Sacerdo●, Priest, is used of the Fathers in proper signification, for a Priest of the new Testament. August. de civit. Dei. lib. 20. ca 10.  If M. jewel say, that when so ever the old learned Fathers speak of these things in express terms, they are to be understanded metaphorically only: he is soon confuted. For avoiding tedious prolixity, it may suffice here to prove the contrary in the term Sacerdos, Priest, only. Which being proved, the like may be judged of the rest, for the mutual respect and relation, which either of the two other terms hath to the other, For this the authority of that excellent learned Father S. Augustine may stand us in stead of many. Thus he saith. Quod autem cùm dixisset, In istis secunda mors non habet potestatem, adiunxit, atque ait: Sed erunt Sacerdotes Dei & Christi, & regnabunt cum eo mill annis, non utique de solis Episcopis, & Presbyteris dictum est, qui propriè iam vocantur in Ecclesia Sacerdotes: 
Apoc. 20.  sed sicut omnes Christianos dicimus propter mysticum Chrisma, sic omnes Sacerdotes, quoniam membra sunt unius sacerdotis. De quibus Apostolus Petrus, 
1. Pet. 2.  Plebs (inquit) sancta regal Sacerdotium. As touching that when the Apostle had said: In these the second death hath not power, he added and said: But they shallbe the Priests of God and Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years: that is not spoken of the Bishops and Priests, who properly are now called in the Church Sacerdotes, Priests: But as we do call all men, Christians, for the mystical ointment, likewise all men, Priests, because they be members of one Priest. Of whom the Apostle S. Peter saith, 
Real Priesthood is in the Church now, ergo, real Sacrifice.  a holy people, a kingly Priesthood.  
Behold Reader, S. Aug●stine by express term avoucheth, that Bishops and Priests are they, who be properly now in the Church of God called Sacerdotes, Priests, or as M. jewel commonly for spite translateth, Sacrificers. Whereby it followeth clearly, that the term Priest, being applied to all men and women, who be not by a solemn sacrament ordered, not specially called and chosen to the office of a Bishop, or Priest, is taken in an improper or mystical signification. In that S. Augustin acknowledgeth the order of those to remain now in the Church, which be called Sacerdotes, Priests, properly: he excludeth all metophorical, metonymical, and mystical signification of the word. So then following the doctrine of S. Augustine, a very sufficient witness of the saith of Christ's Church, of, and before his time, we may boldly say: that in the Church we have Priests, and Priesthood, speaking properly, that is to say, a real Priesthood, and therefore a real Sacrifice, which M. jewel denieth.  
This then being proved, that in the state of the new Testament there be Priests in the proper signification of the term beside that mystical signification, whereby all Christians be termed Priests: this also is clearly proved withal, that the other two terms, Sacrifice, and Altar, properly taken, must remain in the Church of Christ, and not be construed, where so ever the Fathers make mention of them, by a metaphorical or mystical understanding, as though there were neither real Sacrifice, nor material Altar. For a Priest properly taken, requireth a Sacrifice properly taken, which he may offer: and an Altar properly taken, whereupon he may make his Sacrifice. Like as a Priest metaphorically taken, requireth only Sacrifice, and Altar of like signification.  

Christian men in general be Priests after a metaphorical meaning, not in proper speech, as likewise they be Kings.  That this matter be made more manifest, if it shall like thee Reader to return again to the place of S. Peter forementioned by S. Augustine, wherein all faithful believers have the name and title of Priests ascribed unto them: in the same sentence shalt thou find them called Kings, no less than Priests. But how are they called Kings? By a proper kind of speech? Not so, but by a similitude, or Metaphor. And by the same kind of speech every Christian persons own body and soul, may be called his kingdom appointed him of God king of kings to govern. The jurisdiction and dominion of infinite such kings, we conceive to be bordered and enclosed within the narrow limits of each one person, and the subjects to be fewer than may make a perfit number. Shall we hereof infer, that there is nothing else in the world, that these terms king and kingdom, may and do properly signify? Shall we hereupon dissolve Monarchies, and plainly tell such whom the world calleth kings, that they have but the Metaphorical name of kings, and be no kings in deed, bereaving them of all authority to rule their Subjects, and bidding them to be content, as other meaner persons are, with their Metaphorical kingdom?  
In deed this were the readiest way to bring all to confusion, and beastly enormity, in which state this new Gospel might soon be set up, or any other religion besides that the holy Ghost hath planted in the Church hitherto. And this is that state, that Luther's holy spirit would have brought Germany unto, and had prevailed, had not the Nobility resisted with all their force, the rash and wicked stourdinesse of the vulgar people. We might say, and easy it were to prove, that the like confusion must ensue in the Church, if this opinion be once planted, and rooted in the hearts of the laity, that each of them is as truly, and as properly a Priest, as is his Curate, his vicar, his Person, or his Bishop. But because this pertaineth not chief to the present purpose, I will not stand about it. This which is now made evident by that is already said, may boldly be avouched: That, as there be special kings bearing rule not only over themselves, yea though perhaps not over themselves sometimes (which may be said for some part of them) but at the least over their Subjects: notwithstanding that all the faithful people through Christ, whose members they are, be made by Baptism kings over their own souls and bodies: So there be special Priests in the new Testament, called and appointed to that function, albeit all Christians be spiritual Priests, as being the membres of the highest Priest jesus Christ.  
Here I think good to forewarn the Reader, that because I am constrained by the Reply to make a distinction between these two terms Sacerdos, and Presbyter, 
Presbyter, Sacerdos, Priest, Sacrificer.  by which the persons of the highest order in the Church be called, and in our English tongue there want two distinct terms correspondent to them, the name of Priest serving to both, as the common use hath received: I will for a few leaves, that my talk may be more distinct, and better perceived, use the term Sacrificer, for the Latin word Sacerdos, and the term Priest, for the word, Presbyter. When therefore I shall name a Sacrificer, that is to be understanded, which this word, Sacerdos, signifieth, and likewise Priest shall be that, which is signified by the word Presbyter. Thus I require the use of an unwoont term to be taken in good part for so good and profitable a cause. After a few leaves I will return to the use of the accustomed term, Priest, whether the Latin, where unto it shall answer, be Sacerdos, or Presbyter. And now to come again from whence I have thus digressed.  
If for the force of the former comparison, M. jewel will confess, that there be certain special persons chosen and sent to bear in the congregation certain offices, which every man upon the commission of their general Priesthood may not adventure upon without a special commission and appointment, and those persons be of the Fathers by an abuse of the word called Sacerdotes, Sacrificers, whereas in deed, and properly they are to be called Presbyteri, Priests, Elders, or Ministers: to this I reply granting and confessing that such persons called to these special functions, were at the beginning, and may now also be called Priests and Ministers: 
That there be now in the Church, who ought properly to be called Sacerdotes, that is, Sacrificers.  But I deny utterly, that the same may not, ne ought not properly to be called Sacrificers. Yea doubtless the name of a Sacrificer, doth more aptly and properly agree unto than, then doth the term Priest, or Minister. For of these terms the one rather declareth the age, or ancient gravity, which is most seemly in these persons, then expresseth their office. The other through the largeness of the signification is such, as may be applied as well unto Majors of Cities, and temporal judges ministering justice, as unto those persons, that minister and dispense the mysteries of God. But the term Sacrificer doth properly extend only to those, who have authority to consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ, and be by special vocation ministers and dispensers of most holy things, which ministration and dispensation is to be found in the Church only.  
To him that perhaps will reply, 
Why S. Paul calleth them Priests, rather than Sa●crificers.  and demand, why then did S. Paul, as it were of purpose shunning the term Sacrificer, always call them Priests, or Ministers: I answer. S. Paul had just cause so to do. The which cause learned men show to be, for that in his time the old Law, and Priesthood of the same, was yet among the jews fresh in estimation, and sticked so in their conscience, as they could not upon the sudden be removed from the observation of their accustomed Religion, delivered unto them of God by Moses his special prophet. S. Paul therefore with other the first setters forth of Christ's Law the Gospel, preaching continually of the end of the old Law, and of the ceasing and abrogation of the Sacrifices: thought it convenient for a time to forbear the name of Sacrificer, and to call the spiritual officers, by the name of Priests and Ministers, lest the jews hearing the terms of their own Religion, might falsely suppose, no difference, or pre-eminence to be between the office and officers of the new, and their Religion, that is to say, of the new, and old Testament. And this wareness of speaking continued until jerusalem, 
After the destruction of jerusalem, the old term Sacrificer, was resumed and vsed●  and the Temple itself, where only their Sacrifices were to be made, were destroyed: at what time the kingdom, priesthood, and rite of Sacrificing of the jews, was quite ended and taken away. From thence forth to this time, the learned Fathers have commonly without fear or doubt, resumed the terms of Priesthood, and Sacrificers, and applied them to the spiritual ministery administers of the Church. This cause being known and well weighed, bewrayeth M. jewels ignorance, or folier affirming, the Fathers to have used the terms Sacrifice, Sacrificer, and Altar for that the jews and the Gentiles ears were well acquainted with these terms. Where as contrary wise the first Preachers of Christian Religion abstained from those words, because the same were unto them usual and familiar, least by the use of them, some error, or inconvenience might chance to grow.  

Answer to M. jewels authorities.  Now to answer the authorities: first, whereas Pachymeres is haled in whether he will or no, to be a witness in this wrong cause: let it be considered how injurious M. jewel is, in that he bindeth other men to Doctors, and Counsels of the first six hundred years after Christ only, and here useth himself the authority of so late a writer, as Pachymeres is. And therefore sith that he hath first broken his own Law, and the bond of the covenances: we think it right he bear with us, if sometime we allege Doctors, and Counsels, though some deal beneath the first six hundred years, yet ancienter, and of far better authority, than Pachymeres a writer of Notes upon S. Dionyse hath ever been accounted of.  
Next how proveth Pachymeres the purpose, for which he is brought in? Be it granted, that S. Dionyse writing to Sopater being a Priest, calleth him a Sacrificer, and that custom hath now obtained, a Priest, or Elder, to be named a Sacrificer, as Pachymeres saith. what can be concluded of all this? Will it follow hereof, that Sopater was no true Sacrificer, but only a figurative Sacrificer? And that the name of a Priest, doth more aptly express the office of the stewards of God's Mysteries in the Church, then doth the term Sacrificer? Nothing less. This is it only that will follow, that the dispensators of those spiritual treasures were called by both the names of a Priest, and of a Sacrificer, even from the beginning of the Church, a short time only excepted, until the jewish Synagogue was buried, and almost forgotten. After which time, the Ecclesiastical writers were accustomed to attribute unto the chief ministers of God's mysteries as oft (or oftener) the title of Sacrificers, as of Priests, or Elders, as it may be tried by view of the works written by S. Dionyse, Tertullian, S. Cyprian, S. Chrysostom, S. Ambrose, S. Jerome, S. Augustine, S. Leo, S. Gregory, and briefly by the writings of all others, from age to age, unto these wretched times, when the name and person of a Sacrificer, which all good men of times passed ever reverenced and honoured, is despised, accounted jewish or Heathenish, hated and detested. So that the custom, which Pachymeres speaketh of, to call a Priest a Sacrificer, is now toward the end of the world, when Antichrist shall come, by the worst sort of men his foreronners, interrupted and broken.  
How be it I marvel, that M. jewel, who hath so great store of phrases, wherewith to make show of somewhat against the catholics, 
S. Dionyse writing to Sopater a Priest, calleth hī●acrificer. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and to blear the eyes of the unlearned, had no better phrase, than this of S. Dionyse, against the Sacrifice of the Church. Will it seem likely to any wise man, that S. Dionysius was so far overseen, as to use one word for an other, specially in that place, where he so earnestly advertiseth one to utter nothing that may be reproved? For that special counsel he giveth Sopater in that Epistle. And whereas writing Epistles to others, he giveth to each one his due title of honour and calling, as, To Gaius a 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  monk, To Dorotheus a 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Minister, or Deacon by interpretation of Pachymeres, To Polycarpus a 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Bishop, To john the Divine, Apostle, and Evangelist: how shall we think he failed only of the true name, that Sopaters' vocation was called by? Verily had not a Priest in his certain knowledge, and in the judgement of the learned Fathers of that time the Apostles scholars, done true Sacrifice in deed by offering up the body and blood of Christ unto God, he would not have called Sopater the Priest a Sacrificer. But because they had the same faith concerning this Sacrifice, that the Church ever sithence had, and we now have: he doubted not to call a Priest a Sacrificer, as now he is commonly called. Neither used he that term only in his Epistle to Sopater, but also in his Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, where he declared the manner how the Sacrifice was to be celebrated. And the custom hath now so prevailed, saith Pachymeres. Which custom should never so have prevailed in the universal Church of Christ, had not the term in so weighty a matter been agreeable unto the truth. Thus S. Dionyse, whom M. jewel allegeth for himself, maketh clearly against M. jewel.  
Unto Pachymeres M. jewel adjoineth S. Paul, Origen, S. Chrysostom, to prove that preaching of the Gospel is called a Sacrifice, being none in deed, and also S. Gregory Nazianzene, calling the people, his Sacrifice. These authorities might as well have been brought in to prove, that Christ offered no true and real Sacrifice upon the Cross, as that there is no external Sacrifice in the Church, but only a reported Sacrifice by a metaphor. For if any man allege to the contrary, the testimonies of the Scripture and Doctors, where they call Christ's death a Sacrifice, following M. jewel one may easily answer, that both the Scripture and Doctors used the word improperly, alluding for their delight unto the Sacrifices of the old Law. For behold, saith he, this is not strange. S. Paul, S. Chrysostom, and Origen do call preaching a Sacrifice, whereas in deed preaching is no Sacrifice. And so by a phrase of speech the Sacrifice of Christ's death, whereon our faith and hope, as the ground of our salvation stayeth, were like to be removed and displaced.  
What a fond kind of arguing is this? 
The absurdity of M. jewels argument.  The term, Sacrifice, is sometimes used of the Father's speaking metaphorically: Ergo it is so to be taken, when they speak of the Sacrifice of the Altar. The great absurdity of this argument may easily appear in the like. As for example. Baptism is sometime taken in the Scripture by a figurative speech, for tribulation and suffering of death, as when Christ said, Baptismo habeo baptizari, 
Luc. 21.  et quomodo coartor, usque dum perficiatur? I have a Baptism to be baptised withal, and how am I straighted, until it be accomplished? Ergo Baptism hath no proper signification in the last chapter of S. Matthew, where Christ gave commandment unto his disciples, 
Mat. 28.  saying, Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost: But Christ pronouncing the term of Baptism, 
Mar. 7.  alluded only unto the observance and Ceremony of the jews, whose custom was, to baptise and wash themselves, when they returned home from the market or common place.  
For thy better instruction herein Reader, 
M. jewels common Arguments deduced from like to like.  thou mayst be advertised, that these Arguments à Simili, from one like thing to an other, be the weakest of all others, and most deceivable, and are fit for a Rhetorical declamation, then for a probation of truth called in controversy. And therefore it is a kind of Argument attributed unto the Rhetorician, to explicate and make plain a matter, and not to the Logician, strongly to convince, and pithily to prove a verity. Yet M. jewel notwithstanding is so in love with this kind of proving in his whole book of Reply, that if his comparisons of one phrase with an other were cut of, which he would have seem to be like: the rest of his book should appear of small quantity.  
How be it, though it be the slipperest way in reasoning, yet if M. jewel had compared phrases together, that were like in deed all circumstances observed, he were the more to be borne withal. But most commonly he maketh his comparisons betwixt those phrases, that have little, or none affinity at all, either for that the one is spoken by a Metaphor, and the other properly: or the one of one matter, and the other of an other: or the one in one respect, the other in an other. And by that means he confoundeth the Doctors sayings, 
M. jewels custom, to put away one truth by an other.  and thinketh he hath done the part of a learned man, if he may seem to foil, and desplace one truth by an other truth. As for example. In our present case, because S. Paul, and certain Doctors by a Figure do take Preaching for a Sacrifice, which is a truth denied by no man, for it is in deed a kind of spiritual Sacrifice: therefore he would have it seem, that the same Doctors never speak of any real Sacrifice of Christ's body and blood, whereas it is most manifest (as it shall hereafter be proved) that they speak of both kinds of these Sacrifices, and both may well stand together.  

Rom. 15. Origen. in Epist. ad Ro. lib. 10.  Where he saith, S. Paul speaketh of himself in this sense saying, Sacrifico evangelium Dei, I sacrifice the Ghospel of God, and Origen, Sacrificale opus est annunciare evangelium, It is a work of Sacrifice to preach the Gospel: What sense meaneth he? or what sense would he his Reader to conceive, sith that he spoke no word of any sense before? He spoke only of a certain delight, that the old learned Fathers had in using words, which after the promulgation of the Gospel, signified nothing extant nor practised. I trow therefore he meant, that S. Paul had also that delight, which he pretendeth. Now true it is, that S. Paul hath nowhere these very words, Sacrifico evangelium Dei, I sacrifice the Gospel of God. Neither be the words Origens', that he ascribeth to Origen, but S. Hieromes, who added unto, and took from Origens' fifteen unperfit books upon the Epistle to the Romans, and disposed that whole work, as he thought best, as it appeareth by his Epistle to Heraclius.  
The place which he meaneth, 
Rom. 15.  is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for which the common Latin books have, sanctificans evangelium Dei, Erasmus, administrans, S. Augustine, consecrans, which word liketh Caluine, and the same he pteferreth before Erasmus word, which notwithstanding the translators of the English new Testament followed. All which interpretations be too obscure, 
Beza in Annot. in no. test.  as Beza judgeth, and therefore he liketh his own best, Operans evangelio Dei, as his Master Caluine liked his own better, then that of Erasmus. S. Jerome confesseth it to be more highly, and with a more magnificence spoken in Greek, than he was able fully to express in Latin. Yet as being destitute of a fuller and perfecter word, he turneth the Greek word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, into sacrificans, and saith, that to preach the Gospel, is a sacrificing work, and there plainly declareth how.  
Now though it be granted, that both S. Paul alluded to the manner and condition of the Sacrifices of Moses' law, and S. Jerome considered the same in his exposition of that place: yet thereof it will not follow, that when so ever the old Learned Fathers speak of the external, visible, and singular Sacrifice of the Church, they mean that there is no real Sacrifice in deed, but only in a figurative speech.  

M jewel for the most part so argueth, that he impugneth one truth by an other truth.  This Argument is nought pardy, as M. jewel knoweth himself, S. Paul saith, he consecrated the Gospel as it were a Sacrifice, through preaching of the same offering up the believers as Hosts unto God: Item, Saint Jerome for that respect, calleth preaching of the Ghospel a sacrificing work: Ergo, the Father's words spoken of the daily Sacrifice of the Church, are to be taken metaphorically only, and not properly. Both manners of sayings be true in their right sense, the one in figurative, the other in proper sense.  
Who so ever answereth M. jewel, he must always sing one song unto him, that his continual shift is, to impugn one truth by an other truth. The same answer serveth to the places by him alleged out of S. Gregory Nazianzen, and S. Chrysostom: if S. Nazianzen have any such words at al. For amongst all his Orations that be extant, none beareth the title that is here noted in the margin. Yet I acknowledge them to be such, as he might well have spoken them by a metaphor. 
M. jewel falsifieth S. Chrysostom   
The Testimony of S. Chrysostom he hath foully falsified with untrue translation. For whereas he found these words in S. Chrysostom, Ipsum mihi Sacerdotium est praedicare & Euagnelizare: he hath thus translated it into English, My whole priesthood is, to teach, and to preach the gospel. As though ipsum in Latin, signified, whole in English, and as though it were true, that S. Paul's priesthood consisted wholly and altogether in preaching the Ghospel, whereas he confesseth himself to have baptised Crispus, 
1. Cor. 1.  and Caius, and the household of Stephana: and it is not to be doubted, but he consecrated and ministered also the blessed Sacrament of Christ's body and blood, and where occasion so required, loosed and retained sins. Which three functions be diverse from the preaching of the gospel. Whereby it is clear, that S. Paul's whole priesthood consisted not in preaching.  
But these men would feign enclose all Priestly office within the limits of preaching. For so should our whole Religion consist in prating, so few Sacraments would serve, so the continual Sacrifice should cease, so should Ostlers, and Tapsters occupy the pulpits, and what other so ever lewd jacks could chat and chapter their matters, they should be admitted to the government of souls. And thus think they, Papistry should quit be thrown down, and their glorious Ghospel be set up.  
But S. Chrysostom's meaning was, upon occasion of S. Paul's word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Rom. 15.  whereby he signified the excellency of his Office, deducing his talk from the inferior and common term, Latria, that appertaineth to all, whereof he spoke in the beginning, to terms of an higher and more special dignity, to wit, Liturgia, and Hierurgia, which import Priestly Office: his meaning I say, was partly to declare, that S. Paul's preaching was a certain priesthood, forasmuch as by the same he offered up those that believed, as a sacrifice unto God, their outward man killed, and carnal affections quite mortified, for which cause he calleth the Gospel his sword, Machaera mea evangelium est, the Gospel, which is the word of preaching, 
Chrysosto. in epist. ad Romanos homil. 29.  is my sword: partly also to signify, that of all other offices and duties, the chief function of S. Paul's priesthood was, to preach the Gospel, according to that himself witnesseth, Non misit me Christus baptizare, sed evangelizare: Christ sent me not to baptise, 
1. Cor. 1.  but to preach. Which words Thephylacte expounding, wherein he followeth the vain of S. Chrysostom, saith expressly, that although the Apostle were not sent specially to baptise, yet he was not forbidden to take that office upon him.  
M. jewel not being ignorant of all this, I see not what he can pretend for any colourable excuse of his false translation, specially directed to so wicked an end, as of him it is: which is, either quit to abolish the external and true priesthood of the new Testament, or to abridge it only to a bare preaching of God's words, all other functions thereunto belonging, as to baptise, to lose and bind sins, to consecrate and offer up to God the body and blood of Christ, to minister the other Sacraments, and the like, clearly excluded.  
Thus I hope, thou perceivest Reader, what miserable and shameful an entry M. jewel hath been driven to make, to come to his purpose, which was to impugn the most worthy and healthful Sacrifice of Christ's body and blood, and to persuade unlearned souls, there is no such Sacrifice really offered unto God by Priests of the new Testament. 
The sum of M. jewels shifts against the Sacrifice.  Whereupon I have stayed somewhat the longer, because I saw, how by guileful persuasions he went about to engraft at the beginning in the minds of the unlearned, First, that man for cause of his miserable and mortal condition, ought not to presume to offer up the Immortal Son of God in a real Sacrifice unto his Father: next, that by Scripture there appeareth no grant of authority or warrant, so to do: lastly, that the terms Sacrificer, Sacrifice, and Altar, be only naked and empty terms, void of any substance signified that is in the Church, as derived out of the Law of Moses, and used by the old learned Fathers for their delight. All which three points, how far wide they be from truth, it may partly appear by that I have already said, and shall more fully appear in the process of this rejoinder. Now let us hear M. jewel.   

jewel.  
Now, to come to M. hardings words, Three ways, saith he, Christ is offered up unto his Father, In a Figure, as in the Old Law: In Deed, and Blouddily, as upon the Cross: In a Sacrament, or Mystery, as in the New Testament. Of which three ways, the Bloody Oblation of Christ upon the Cross, is the very, true, and only Propitiatory Sacrifice for the Sins of the world. The other two, as in respect, and manner of signifying, they are sundry, so in effect, and substance, they are all one. For, like as in the Sacraments of the old Law was expressed the Death of Christ, that was to come: Even so in the Sacraments of the new Law of the Ghospel, is expressed the same Death of Christ already passed. As we have Mysteries, so had they Mysteries: As we Sacrifice Christ, so did they Sacrifice Christ: As the Lamb of God is slaive unto us, So was the same Lamb of God slain unto them. S. Augustine saith, 
August. De utilitate penitent. cap. 1.  Tunc Christus Venturus, modò Christus Venit. Venturus, & Venit, diversa verba sunt: sed idem Christus. Then was, Christ shall come: Now is, Christ Is come. Shall come, and, Is come, are sundry words. But Christ is all one. Again in like comparison bytweene the Law of Moses, and the Gospel of Christ, he saith thus: 
August. in joannem tract. 26.  Videte, Fide manente, Signa variata. In Signis diversis eadem Fides. Behold, the Faith remaining, the (Sacraments, or) Signs are changed. The Signs, or Sacraments being divers, the Faith is one.   

Harding.  
Now than that after your Preface you come to my words M. jewel, what have you to reply against them, that to any learned man may seem to be to the purpose? I said, Christ is offered after three manners, figuratively, truly with bloodshedding, and sacramentally, or in Mystery. With which part of this threefold Division find you fault? As for the two first parts, they be clearly proved by the Scriptures. The third is that ye call in question, and which you impugn. Because you had nothing to say against the two first, lest your matter should seem to have a foil, if you yielded to any thing that were by me said, were it never so true: you go from the purpose, and enter into other talk. 
M. jewel diverteth from the purpose to impertinent matter.  Whereof as part is false, so the whole is impertinent. What need was there to tell us, that the bloody Oblation of Christ upon the Cross, is the Propitiatory Sacrifice for the sins of the world? As thereof no man doubted, so no man spoke of it.  
The point now treated, is not, whether the Sacrifice of the Cross be Propitiatory, for it were superfluous thereof to dispute: but whether Christ be now offered up in Mystery. Grant that first, and afterward we may proceed further, to discuss whether the Sacrifice of the Altar be Propitiatory, and in what sense it be Propitiatory.  
Of what effect and substance so ever the Sacrifices of both Laws be, how so ever the Death of Christ to come, or past, be expressed in the old and new Sacraments, that they of the old Testament, as well as we, had Mysteries, of the equality, and likeness of Sacrifices, and of like slaying of the Lamb of God on their part, and ours: of all these things so particularly to speak, the Division by me declared ministered you no just occasion. And all this might well be suffered to go unanswered, as impertinent, had you not by the way as it were spitten forth some poison of erroneous doctrine, to the infection of the unlearned and unware Readers.  
For by calling the bloody Oblation of Christ upon the Cross the very, true, and only Sacrifice Propitiatory for the sins of the world (which no man denieth) your meaning is to insinuate, that the unbloody Sacrifice, which Christ instituted at his last Supper of his body and blood, were not in deed a Sacrifice in any sense or respect Propitiatory. Whereas if that of the Cross was Propitiatory, the other must needs be Propitiatory, though in a divers degree of Propitiation, because in substance of the thing offered it is one with the other, but divers in the manner of offering, as being unbloody, and done in a mystery, and the other bloody, and done in the form of a visible body. And the force and virtue of Propitiation of the one, issueth not from the Priest, but from the Propitiation of the other, in whose commemoration it is offered. 
Cyprianus de coe. Do.  Verily S. Cyprian sticketh not to call the holy eucharist, Medicamentum ad sanandas infirmitates, & holocaustum ad purgandas iniquitates. A medicine to heal sicknesses, and a wholeburnt Sacrifice to cleanse iniquities. 
Baesilius in Liturg.  S. Basile also in his Liturgy making his supplication, saith thus. Da Domine, ut pro nostris peccatis, & populi ignorantijs, acceptum sit Sacrificium nostrum. Grant Lord, that our Sacrifice may be acceptable for our sins, and for the ignorances of the people.  
Whereas you affirm the other two ways, after which Christ is offered, that is to say, the Sacrifices of the old Law, and the singular Sacrifice of the Church now, to be one in effect, and substance, as they are sundry in respect, 
Three untruths uttered at once by M. jewel  and manner of signifying: you utter three great untruths at once. For first, as concerning the respect of signifying, in our Sacrifice the forms of Bread and Wine do signify the Body and Blood of Christ, as the Sacrifices of the old Law signified Christ. And although they signify Christ present, and the other absent: yet in respect of signifying they agree, and therefore are not sundry therein. The respect of signifying is one, and the thing signified is one, though the manner of signifying be divers.  

That the substance of the Sacrifices of both testaments is divers.  Secondly, touching the substance, it is divers in the Sacrifices of both Testaments. For the substance of the old Sacrifices was a brute beast, meal, cakes, oil, wine, and such the like. But the substance of our Sacrifice now frequented in the new Testament, is the Body and Blood of Christ. 
Luc. 22.  So both the Scripture teacheth, showing how Christ having at his supper consecrated his body and blood, commanded his disciples to do the same that he had done in his remembrance, and S. Augustine declareth in these words. 
August. in lib. senten. Prosperi.  Hoc est quod dicimus, quod modis omnibus approbare contendimus, Sacrificium Ecclesiae duobus confici, duobus constare, visibili elementorum specie, & invisibili Domini nostri jesu Christi corpore & sanguine, & sacramento, & re Sacramenti. This is that we say, that by all means we earnestly endeavour to approve, that the Sacrifice of the Church is made of two things, and doth consist of two things, of the visible form of the Elements, and of the invisible body and blood of our Lord jesus Christ, of the Sacrament, and of the thing of the Sacrament (that is to wit, of the body of Christ).  
S. Ireneus agreeably to this doctrine, 
Irene. lib. 4. ca 34.  saith, the eucharist to consist of two things, the one earthly, whereby he meaneth the form of the elements, the other heavenly, that is to say, the body and blood of Christ.  
Learn Reader by this doctrine of S. Augustine, 
The substance of bread and wine hath no place in our Sacrifice.  that the substance of bread and wine, which be called here the Elements, hath no place in our Sacrifice, which doth consist of two parts, the one visible, the other invisible. The forms of the Elements be the visible part. As for the substance of bread and wine, it is utterly invisible. But the invisible part of the Sacrifice, is the body and Blood of Christ. And therefore unless we appoint two invisible parts of this Sacrifice, that is to say, the substance of bread and wine, and also the body and blood of Christ, (which were absurd to think) it must needs be confessed, that no place is here left for the substance of bread and wine: but that the invisible thing or substance of the Sacrament and likewise of the Sacrifice is the body and blood of Christ. And thus it is evident, that the substance of the Sacrifices of the old Law, and of the Sacrifices of the new Law is sundry and diverse. Whereof it is concluded, that it is either ignorantly and grossly, or heretically said if it be stubbornly maintained, that our Sacrifice is one in substance with the jewish Sacrifices.  

The effects of the Sacrifices of both Laws be different and divers.  Now thirdly to speak of the effect of the Sacrifices of the old Law, and of the Sacrifice of the Church, wherein Christ is offered up unto his Father in a Sacrament and mystically, to wit under the form of bread and wine: certain it is, the effects be divers. To declare fully the manifold and heavenly effects of our Sacrifice, far surmounting any effect that ever was ascribed to the Sacrifices of the old Law, it would require a long treatise. The difference of both may sufficiently appear by comparing two or three of their effects together.  
The blood of the Sacrifices of the old Law confirmed the same Law. The blood of our Sacrifice confirmeth the new Testament. 
Math. 26.  Hic est Sanguis meus novi Testamenti, this is my blood of the new Testament, saith our Lord in the Gospel. How much diversity than is between the new Testament and the old (which is incomparably great, the new Law passing in excellency the old) so much differeth, and so far surmounteth the effect of the Sacrifice of Christ's Church, the effect of the Sacrifices of the jewish Synagogue.  
Again, 
August. de fide ad Petrum cap. 19  to use your own witness against yourself, by report of Saint Augustine, the old Sacrifices signified in Figures Christ's death to come, and to be suffered. But the Sacrifice of the Church, representeth with the real presence of that body which hath died, the death already past and perfected. And who knoweth not, what difference there is between a promise, and the performance of the promise? Performance I say, for although in our Sacrifice the death of Christ be not performed a new, and again suffered: yet in the same is the truth of that very body invisibly present, which by suffering death hath paid the price of our Redemption. In consideration whereof S. Augustine speaking of this Sacrifice offered unto God for that blessed woman S. Monica his mother at her burial, 
Augustin. Confes. lib. 9 cap. 12.  whereby he meaneth the Mass, calleth it Sacrificium pretij nostri, the Sacrifice of our Price, that is to say, wherewith our Ransom was paid.  
S. Ignatius ascribeth to our Sacrifice of a faithful person worthily received, 
Ignatius in epist. ad Ephesios'.  a marvelous effect, calling it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a medicine of immortality, and a preservative whereby we may be kept from dying. Which marvelous benefit who ever attributed to the Sacrifices of the old Law? Other the like effects which the old learned Fathers have ascribed unto the blessed Sacrifice, be many in number, and great in excellency, of which the old Sacrifices were never able to work any. Wherefore you ought to recant this your false doctrine M. jewel, that the Sacrifices of both Laws be of one effect, or which is the same, one in effect.  
No less false is that you affirm, that as we have Mysteries, so had they Mysteries, specially if your word of comparison imply a likeness and equality of Mysteries, as the purport of your other doctrine leadeth us to judge of you. For although it be true, that they had Mysteries, and we also have Mysteries: yet had not they the like Mysteries, nor equal in dignity, truth, and plainness, to our Mysteries and Sacraments. How much ours are preferred before theirs in the judgement of S. Augustine, 
August. in Psal. 73.  it is evident by that he saith speaking of both. Mutata sunt Sacramenta, facta sunt faciliora, pauciora, salubriora, feliciora. The Sacraments (saith he) be changed, they be made easier, fewer, healthfuller, happier. And in the same place: Sacramenta novi Testamenti dant Salutem, sacramenta veteris Testamenti promiserunt salvatorem. The Sacraments of the new Testament give salvation, the Sacraments of the old Testament promised the Saviour. Wherefore M. jewel either make us believe, that you are to be heard before S. Augustine, and that better is worse, and worse better: or revoke your words, by which you teach likeness and equality between the Mysteries and Sacraments of both Testaments.  

M. jewel utterly taketh away the real Sacrifice of the new Testament.  Where you say further, that as we Sacrifice Christ, so did they Sacrifice Christ: you utterly take away the Real Sacrifice of the new Testament. Wherein being a very weighty point, you descent from the Catholic Church, for which you and your fellows be condemned of the Church, and holden for Heretics. This have I avouched, and sufficiently proved in mine Answer to this. 17. Article of your Challenge. What you reply against the same, here in the process of this rejoinder by Gods grace I shall confute. To make your untrue and heretical saying appear the more tolerable to the unlearned, you join unto it a saying, that in a right construction may be admitted. As the Lamb of God is slain unto us (say you) so was the same Lamb of God slain unto them. In deed if you mean a new actual slaying of Christ, who is the true Lamb of God, he is not now in the daily Sacrifice of the Church slain, no more than he was slain in the daily sacrifices, or in the yearly passover of the jews. But for as much as in our daily Sacrifice we have the true Body and Blood of the Lamb of God, 
joan. 1.  that taketh away the sins of the world, laid upon the holy table (which is the Altar) sacrificed of priests 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the Nicen Council saith, that is to say, without killing and bloodshed. In consideration hereof, you should not have said, as we sacrifice Christ, so did they sacrifice Christ. For though in our Sacrifice we slay not Christ, the true Lamb of God, as they slew the Lambs, which prefigured Christ: yet so far as that is true, which the Fathers of the Nicen Council report, and as by virtue of Christ's almighty words according to his commandment and Institution his Body and Blood are consecrate, and really present: we offer up Christ in deed unto God in the Sacrifice of the Church.  
For proof of the real presence, I refer the Reader, who understandeth not the Latin tongue, to sundry learned works written in the English tongue in our time thereof. In which he shall find the matter so largely, so clearly, and so substantially proved, that he shall confess he seeth the same, unless he will as some do, wilfully blindefolde himself, and say in midday, it is dark night. Forasmuch then as we sacrifice Christ truly, because we have and offer up in our sacrifice the truth of the body and Blood of Christ in deed present by th'almighty power of his own word, after which sort the jews had not Christ present: therefore it is not true that you say, that as we sacrifice Christ, so did they sacrifice Christ.  

diversity in the Sacraments of both Laws.  Touching the comparison you make between the Sacraments of both Laws (for now suddenly you chop from the Sacrifices into the Sacraments) in expressing Christ's death then to come, and now passed, whereby you go about to prove the equal value of both Sacraments: notwithstanding that both do express or signify (though in divers degree) the death of Christ, yet doth our Sacrament of the Altar far surmount theirs, because in ours is contained the very body and blood of Christ, in theirs was nothing but a figure, in theirs the shadow, in ours the body.  
The place you allege out of the book de utilitate Poenitentiae, that you attribute to S. Augustine contrary to the censure of Erasmus, serveth you to no purpose. We agree unto it no less than yourself. In that place the author speaketh of the spiritual meat, which the jews did eat, the same as we do. And that meat he will both to be Christ, teaching how they did eat Christ, 
Aug. de Vtilitate Poenitentiae.  whom we do eat. The whole process there is to be understanded of the spiritual eating, for so he saith. Quicunque in Manna Christum intellexerunt, eundem quem nos cibum spiritalem manducaverunt. Quicunque autem de Manna solam saturitatem quaesierunt, patres infidelium, manducaverunt & mortui sunt. Sic etiam eundem potum: Petra enim Christus. Eundem ergo potum, sed spiritalem, id est, qui fide capiebatur, non qui corpore hauriebatur. Who so ever in the Manna understood Christ, they did eat the same spiritual meat that we eat. But who so ever sought only to fill their bellies by eating Manna, being the Fathers of the unfaithful, they did eat, and died. So likewise they drank the same drink. For the Rock was Christ. And therefore the same drink which we drink, they drank, but spiritual, that is to say, which was received by faith, not that which was taken in by the body.  
Now what though Christ, whom both the jews and we do eat spiritually, be one spiritual meat, one Christ, and likewise one spiritual drink, as he is eaten and drunken with spiritual eating and drinking? Shall that therefore which, we receive in our Sacrament by sacramental eating and drinking under the forms of bread and wine, be no better, then that which they did eat and drink in the ceremony of their Sacraments? Christ that was to come, and Christ that now is come, is one Christ, thereof who doubteth? And though the words shall come, and is come, be sundry, yet Christ is one, Christ is not sundered with division of times.  
And this is all that the author meant, wherein lieth no controversy betwixt us. But that you would prove, and can not prove, and we utterly deny, is this, that the thing and substance of the Sacraments of both Laws be not sundry, but one and the same, and of equal worthiness. We receive Christ both sacramentally, to wit, his true and real body and blood in the Sacrament of the Altar under the forms of bread and wine, and also spiritually, that is to say, by faith. They received him only spiritually, because in Manna they understood Christ. The like is to be said of the water, that flowed out of the Rock which they drank, in comparison of the very blood of Christ, which we drink, not only spiritually, but also sacramentally, and in deed under the form of wine mingled with water, which blood is the true water of life, the same that issued out of our lords body the true Rock, after it was stricken with the Rod, 
Exod. 15. Aug. Tractatu de utilitate Poenitentiae.  that is to say, after that the Cross came unto it. For in figure thereof the old Rock was stricken with wood, and not with Iron, quia Crux ad Christum accessit, ut nobis gratiam propinaret, because the Cross came unto Christ, that it might 
* Propinaret.  brince his grace unto us, as saith S. Augustine, or who so ever was the author of that book.  
The other place that you pretend to allege out of S. Augustine, 
M. jew. forgeth sayings of his own, fathering them upon the Doctors  In johannem Tractat. 26. is soon answered: where so ever it be, it is not there. Thus to forge sayings of your own, and to bear your Reader in hand, it is S. Augustine's, or any other learned Fathers, is a very false part, and such as must needs much discredit you, when it is detected against you. And yet by such false: dealing you, and your fellows have beguiled many unlearned and unstable souls. How be it if it were S. Augustine's, or any other ancient Doctors saying, it forced nothing. For true it is, the signs or sacraments of the new Testament, be diverse from the sacraments of the old Testament: the faith notwithstanding is not changed, because Christ signified by the signs or sacraments of both, being that which faith reacheth unto, remaineth one and the same. Let us see whether your other stuff be any better.   

jewel.  
But here hath M. harding donne great, and open wrong unto S. Augustine, wilfully suppressing, and drowning his words, and uncourteousely commanding him to silence in the midst of his tale. Wherein also appeareth some suspicion of no simple dealing. S. Augustine's words touching this whole matter, 
Aug. De Fide ad Petrum Diacon. cap. 19  are these: In illis carnalibus Victimis Figuratio fuit Carnis Christi, quam pro nobis fuerat oblaturus, & Sanguinis, quem erat effusurus in Remissionem peccatorum: In isto autem Sacrificio Gratiarum actio est, & Commemoratio Carnis Christi, quam pro nobis obtulit, & Sanguinis, quem pro nobis idem Deus effudit. In illis Sacrificijs, quid nobis esset donandum, Figurate significabatur: In hoc autem Sacrificio, quid nobis iam donatum sit, evidenter oftenditur. In illis Sacrificijs praenunciabatur Filius Dei pro impijs occidendus: in hoc autem, pro impijs annuntiatur occisus. In those fleshly Sacrifices (of the jews) there was a Figure of the Flesh of Christ, which he would afterward offer for us, and of the Blood, which he would afterward shed for the Remission of Sin: But in this Sacrifice (of the new Testament) there is a thanksgiving, and a Remembrance of the Flesh, which he hath already offered for us, and of the Blood, which he being God, hath already shed for us. In those Sacrifices it was represented unto us under a Figure, what thing should be given unto us: But in this Sacrifice it is plainly set forth, what thing is already given us. In those Sacrifices it was declared, that the Son of God should be slain for the wicked: But in this Sacrifice it is plainly preached unto us, that the same Son of God hath already been slain for the wicked.  
Likewise again be saith: Huius Sacrificij Caro, & Sanguis ante Aduentum Christi per Victimas Similitudinum promittebatur: 
Aug. Contrae Faustum. lib. 20. ca 21.  in Passione per ipsam Veritatem reddebatur: Post Ascensum verò Christi per Sacramentum Memoriae celebratur. The flesh, and Blood of this Sacrifice, before the coming of Christ, was promised by Sacrifices of Resemblance: The same in his Passion (upon the Cross) was given in Truth, and in deed: But after his Ascension it is solemnized by a Sacrament of Remembrance.  
This is the Difference that S. Augustine noteth between the Sacraments of the Old Law, and the Sacraments of the New. Therefore, the words, that M. Harding hath hereunto added, Christ is offered up unto his Father, and that under the Forms of Bread, and Wine, yea and that truly, and in deed, are his own only words, confidently, and boldly presumed of himself, never used, neither by S. Augustine, nor by any other Ancient godly Father.   

Harding.  
Full evil doth it become you to charge me with wrong done unto S. Augustine, whereas in the very next sentence before, yourself did him so much wrong, as to father a saying upon him in that place, where he hath none such at al. If he be to be burdened with doing wrong unto the Doctors, that in alleging their sayings doth not with all circumstances of the place that serveth to the present purpose set them forth: then is there no man so much to be reproved, as yourself M. jewel. For of all that ever wrote, we find none, that so much, and with like falsehood, and to so evil meaning, cutteth, pareth, and nippeth their sentences, as you commonly do. Truly in laying this to my charge, you have not so clearly proved me to have done wrong unto S. Augustine: as you have with the scornful utterance of your words declared your own spite.  
Concerning the thing itself, I have donne S. Augustine no wrong at al. For what needed me to rehearse his whole process to the end of the Chapter? 
M. jewels charge discharged.  I recited faithfully so much as appertained to the proof of the matter for which I alleged his authority. The sentence that followeth belongeth to an other matter, whereby is declared (which no catholic man ever denied) that the Sacrifice of the new Testament is a thanks giving, and a commemoration of Christ's flesh and blood, which he hath offered for us. But that member of the division, which I went about to establish by S. Augustine's authority, speaketh only of the Sacrifices of the old Law, that they prefigured the flesh of Christ, which he would afterward offer, and the blood, that he would shed for remission of sins. If I had rehearsed all that you blame me for leaving it out, I had but made the book bigger, and wearied the reader with a long superfluous saying, superfluous I say, because the same was in effect uttered in the next sentence before, taken out also of the same S. Augustine. For all that you force out of the long process there following, is only the commemoration of Christ's flesh and blood offered and shed, which (though in fewer words) was expressed in the former sentence out of the books against Faustus the Manichey, as the reader by conference may soon perceive.  
The place of S. Augustine, for leaving out whereof you so much reprove me, and wherein you repose the confidence of your doctrine, helpeth you nothing at al. For there he saith, not what is the substance of our Sacrifice, wherein lieth the question: but what thing is done in our Sacrifice, to wit, giving of thanks, and the commemoration of our lords flesh and blood, which he offered and shed for us, and likewise what thing is showed and declared in the same, that is to say, his death and passion. All which we deny not. But that S. Augustine ascribing unto the Sacrifice of the Church thanks giving, and commemoration of the flesh and blood of Christ, doth exclude the real Sacrifice of his flesh and blood, by virtue of his word through the holy Ghost made substantially present: that we deny utterly. And that was your part to prove, else you prove nothing against the ancient doctrine of the Church.  

M. jewel citeth one truth against an other truth.  But seeing yourself not able to perform so much, you thought it an easier matter, after your common wont, to set one truth against an other truth, to wit, the commemoration or memory of the bloody Sacrifice of the Cross, against the unbloody and mystical Sacrifice of the Altar. By the word mystical, I exclude not the truth of our lords body and blood, the substance of this Sacrifice: but I signify the covert manner of their being in the same. If S. Augustine had in that place affirmed in the Sacrifice of the Church a thanks giving and remembrance of Christ's death only, wherein he should have said untruly: in some respect than had he served your turn. Now that he saith not so, by the uncourteous reproof of me for leaving the words unrehearsed which pertained not to my purpose, and help your doctrine nothing at all: it appeareth how feeble the part is, that with the trumpet of your vain Challenge you would needs to be proclaimed, and that now with your colourable Reply you have taken in hand to maintain.  
S. Augustine contrariwise declaring with what kind of Sacrifices the jews gave a signification of Christ's Sacrifice that was to come, and with what kind of Sacrifice the Christians do keep the remembrance of Christ's Sacrifice now past: saith expressly, that the substance of the jews sacrifices were brute beasts, and that of the Christians Sacrifice is the body and blood of Christ● his words be these. 
Augu. cont. Faust. lib. 20. ca 18.  Hebraei in victimis pecorum prophetiam celebrabant futurae victimae, quam Christus obtulit. unde iam Christiani per acti eiusdem sacrificij memoriam celebrant oblatione & participatione corporis & Sanguinis Christi. The Hebrews celebrated a prophecy of the Sacrifice to come, which Christ offered. Whereupon the Christians do now celebrate the memory of the same Sacrifice already performed, by the offering, and receiving of the body and blood of Christ.  
This Sacrifice was in all times to be recommended unto the mind of man, because thereof only dependeth the salvation of man. Before the Law, and during the time of the Law, it was prefigured and foresignified by many and sundry things, but specially by the sacrifices of beasts. In the time of grace, wherein we now live, the Christians do preserve, keep, celebrate, and solemnize the memory of it by a more lively and effectual representation, as to whom more abundance of grace through Christ's Incarnation is dispensed, that is, as Saint Augustine teacheth, by the Oblation and participation of the same body and blood, that was offered and shed for us. Now if it be not the true body and blood of Christ, that we offer and receive: then neither can S. Augustine's words be duly justified, and the Sacrifice of the Christians shall be less lively, less evident, less representative (as I may so say) and of less value, than were the Sacrifices of the jews. For what comparison is there between a Lamb, and a piece of bread with a sup of wine? And who judgeth not the death of Christ to be more expressly represented by a lamb slain, then by bare bread and wine?  
Neither because our Sacrifice is done in commemoration or remembrance, thereof followeth it, that the presence of Christ's body and blood is not requisite. But forasmuch as this is the commemoration, which alone maketh God merciful unto us, 
Origen. in levit. Hom. 13.  as Origen saith: therefore to the working of so great an effect it is necessary, that Christ's true body and blood be really present in our Sacrifice.  

M. jewel excludeth one truth by an other.  And whereas you bring Testimonies of the Fathers to prove that our Sacrifice is a remembrance, an example, a token, or sign of the true Sacrifice that was made upon the Cross, you took more pains than need required. For that no Catholic man denieth. But the conclusion, which guilefully your endeavour is to infer thereof, which is, that therefore Christ is not really present, and offered by the Priest: we deny utterly. For both be true, that Christ is present substantially and in deed, and is so offered by the Priest, and also that the same is done in a remembrance. And this much is witnessed by S. Chrysostom, 
Chrysost. in epist. ad Heb. Homil. 17.  where he saith. Pontifex noster ille est, qui hostiam mundantem nos obtulit. Ipsam offerimus & nunc, quae tunc oblata quidem consumi non potest. Hoc autem quod facimus, in commemorationem quidem fit eius, quod factum est. Christ is our Bishop, who offered a Sacrifice cleasing us. We do offer the self same now also. Which being then offered can not be consumed. That which we do, is done in commemoration of that which was done.  
Here we be taught by S. Chrysostom, that we offer now the self same host or Sacrifice, that Christ our high Bishop offered, wherewith to cleanse us from the filth of our sins: which was none other, but his own body and blood. And nevertheless that which we do, is done for a remembrance of that, which Christ did. 
Commemoration, example, and sign, do not exclude the real presence, and real oblation.  So that by Chrysostoms' judgement, neither the commemoration, nor example, nor sign doth exclude the real presence, and real oblation of Christ's body and blood. But you M. jewel after your common manner go about to put away one truth by an other truth. Which your accustomed shift is now very stolen, and moveth few, that read your books with any mean judgement. For the foolishness of your argument is laughed at by every Baker, who having set forth a loaf of bread upon his stall, can tell you, that that loaf signifieth and putteth folk in mind, there is bread to be sold in his house, and that the same notwithstanding is bread, as other his loaves be, and perhaps of the same batch. Right so the body of Christ in the Sacrament, is both a sign of Christ's body, and also his very true body in deed. And likewise his very flesh and blood is offered in our dreadful mysteries, in sign, commeration, and remembrance of his flesh and blood, offered and shed upon the Crosse.  
YOu find great fault with that I said, Christ is offered up unto his Father under the forms of bread and wine, truly, and in deed: and to make it seem more odious, you affirm these to be mine own only words, confidently, and boldly presumed of myself, never used before by any ancient Father. Whiles you take delight in such Rhetorical amplifications, you do but increase the number of your untruths, and make the world witness of your shameless vanity. Though the ancient Fathers that wrote within in the first six hundred years after Christ, have not these precise terms, yet they have the self same doctrine: and that is enough. Your sacramentary heresy is not so ancient, the Church was, as it were in quiet possession of the Catholic faith touching this Article, for the space of a thousand years. If the flames of your heresy had flashed abroad out of Hell in their days, there is no doubt, they would have quenched it with streams of wholesome doctrine uttered in the same terms, whereof now you would feign take some advantage.   

These terms, Christ is offered up to his Father under the forms of bread and wine truly and in deed, proved not to be of my private devise.  
HOw so ever it be concerning the ancient Fathers, certain it is these terms be not of my only presumption, or devising. It is well known to all that read the later Counsels both general, and provincial, the Scholastical Doctors, and who so ever have written against Berengarius, Wikleff, Luther, Zuinglius, Oecolampadius, Caluine, and those other late false teachers: that these be not words of mine own invention, but common to others that have written in this matter sithence your Heresy first sprang. Christ is in the Sacrifice of the Church so offered, as he is present: for there he is made present by virtue of consecration to be offered, and to be received. But he is present under the forms of Bread and Wine, and that truly, and in deed. Ergo he is offered under the forms of Bread and Wine, truly, and in deed. For proof of the Minor, or second Proposition, for else nothing here I suppose you will deny: that it may appear these words not to be of mine own only devising, let a few testimonies suffice, where many might easily be brought.  
In the great Council of Laterane thus you find this Article set forth. 
In acts Conc. Lateran. cap. 1. de fid. Cat.  Verum Christi corpus, & sanguis in Sacramento Altaris sub speciebus panis & vini veraciter continentur, transubstantiatis pane in corpus, & vino in sanguinem potestate Divina. The true Body of Christ, and his Blood are contained truly and in deed (for so much the word veraciter doth signify) in the Sacrament of the Altar, under the forms of bread and wine, the bread being transubstantiate into the body, and the wine into the blood, by the power of God.  
The Council of Florence, whereat accord was made between the Greek and Latin Church, hath the very like, 
In Decret. Con. Flor. super unio. jacobin. & Armenior.  or rather the same words touching the point by you denied. Sacerdos in persona Christi loque●is, hoc conficit Sacramentum. Nam ipsorum verborum virtute substantia panis in corpus Christi, & substantia vini in sanguinem convertuntur, ita tamen qoòd totus Christus continetur sub specie panis, & totus sub specie vini, sub qualibet quoque part hostiae consecratae, & vini consecrati, separatione facta totus est Christus. The Priest speaking in the person of Christ, consecrateth this Sacrament. For by the virtue of the very words the substance of bread is turned into the body of Christ, and the substance of wine into his blood, yet so that Christ is contained whole under the form of bread, and whole under the form of wine. Also if a division be made● Christ is whole under every part of the consecrate host, and of the consecrate wine.  
With this agreeth the late learned Council of Trent, whose words these be touching both the real presence, 
Concil. Trident. Sess. 22. cap. 1.  and also the real Sacrifice. Christus in coena novissima sacerdotem secundùm ordinem Melchisedech se in aeternum constitutum declarans, corpus & sanguinem suum sub speciebus panis & vini Deo Patri obtulit, ac sub earundem rerum symbolis, Apostolis, quos tunc novi testamenti Sacerdotes constituebat, ut sumerent, tradidit, & eisdem, eorumque in sacerdotio successoribus, ut offerrent, praecepit per haec verba: Hoc facite in meam commemorationem. Christ in his last supper declaring himself to be ordained a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech, offered up unto God the Father his body and blood under the forms of bread and wine, and delivered them under the signs of the same things unto the Apostles, whom then he ordained Priests of the new Testament, that they should receive: and gave commandment to them, and to their successors in priesthood, that they should offer the ●ame, by these words, Do ye this in my remembrance.  
Petrus Lombardus saith, 
Sentent. lib 4. Distinct. 8.  Sub specie panis & vini, corpus & sanguinem suum discipulis tradidit. Christ gave his body and his blood unto his Disciples under the form of bread and wine.  
S. Thomas also, 
In tertiae part Summae. quaestione. 75.  whom only I allege among so many Scholastical Doctors, saith most plainly. Quia non est consuetum hominibus, sed horribile, carnem hominis comedere, & sanguinem bibere: proponuntur nobis caro & sanguis Christi sumenda sub speciebus illorum, quae frequentius in usum hominis veniunt, scilicet panis & vini. Because it is not a thing customable for men, but a horrible thing, to eat man's flesh, and drink man's blood: the flesh and blood of Christ are set before us to be received under the forms of those things, which man is commonly used unto, to wit, of bread and wine.  
There was no need why I should recite so many testimonies for a thing so clear, 
An impudent lie that can not be excused.  and so well known, I grant. Yet because you are either so ignorant, which I believe not, or so shameless, which seemeth, as to say, these words, Christ is offered up unto his Father under the forms of bread and wine, truly, and in deed, to be my words only, confidently, and boldly presumed of myself, as though I were the first that devised them of mine own head, and the first that presumed to use them: I thought good to rehearse so much, to th'intent I might clear myself of such presumption, and give the world to understand, how little you regard to use manifest and impudent lying for maintenance of your doctrine, rather than you would seem to be overcome. It is a token ye care little what ye say, when ye fear not to utter so open untruth.  
If for this point you require testimonies of ancient Fathers, whom you pretend to allow: as the same doctrine is by them most assuredly avouched, which is enough, as I said before: so some of them have uttered it either with the same words, or with the very like, and such, as in signification are equivalent. S. Hilary saith, 
Hilar. de Trinit. lib. 8.  Nos verè sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus. We receive the flesh of his body under a mystery truly, or verily.  

Augu. ad Bonifacium Epist. 23.  S. Augustine saith, Nun semel oblatus est Christus in semetipso? Et tamen in Sacramento non solùm per omnes Paschae solennitates, sed omni die populis immolatur. Was not Christ once offered up in himself? And yet nevertheless he is sacrificed in a Sacrament for the people, not only through all the solemn feasts of Easter, but also every day. Here you must either grant, that the flesh of Christ's body to be received of us in, or under a mystery, and Christ himself to be sacrificed in a sacrament, doth import his flesh to be eaten, and him to be sacrificed under the forms of bread and wine, which be our Sacrament, and the eating of Christ's body under the which, is an eating mystical, or eating under a mystery: or else you must show us some other matter, wherein as under a mystery, and as in a Sacrament, his body is eaten, and himself is offered.  

De consec. Distinct. 2. Hoc est quod dicimus.  But there is an other more manifest place in S. Augustine, where he useth the very same terms and words, that you would needs to be mine only, and of myself boldly and confidently presumed. His words be these. Caro eius est, quam forma panis opertam in Sa●cramento accipimus, & sanguis eius, quem sub vini specie & sapore potamus. It is the flesh of Christ, which we receive covered with the form of bread in the Sacrament, and his blood, which we drink under the show and taste of wine.  
You see then M. Iewel● these words be not only mine, they be S. Augustine's, whose authority you can not contemn. Neither can you reasonably reject the book out of which they be taken, because yourself even in this very place have alleged it for your help. If, as he saith, we eat the flesh of Christ covered with the form of bread, then so is he also offered. For before it be received of us, it behoveth it be consecrated and offered. Therefore it is true which I said, Christ is offered in form of bread: unless you make a difference between Christ's flesh and blood in forms of bread and wine, and Christ's flesh and blood covered with the forms of bread and wine.  
This is so plain, that you must needs yield unto it. As for the answer you make to this place alleged by me in the .12. Article, 
In the Replie● Page. 471. lin. 6.  it is such, as any man that knoweth your Divinity, would soon judge it to be a piece of your own coining. The whole is fooiled and glafed over with a false colour of a phrase of speech. As though words in all phrases were taken in one and the self same ●ignification. Your answer is this. Because this word Forma, form or shape in English, doth signify the substance in S. Paul, 
Phill. 2.  where he saith, Christus seipsum exinanivit formam servi accipiens, Christ empted himself taking the form of a servant: therefore it must signify the substance in this place of S. Augustine, Caro Christi est, quam forma panis opertam accipimus, It is Christ's flesh, that we receive covered with the form of bread.  

M. jewels ignorance or malice.  In this answer you considered not, first that a thing can not in proper speech be said to be covered with the substance of an other thing, because the substance of things is invisible. Next, that in some places this word Forma, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, forma.  or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which S. Paul in that place useth, is an Accident, and a mere quality, as in Aristotle, in quarta specie Qualitatis, and is not always taken for the name of nature, as it is taken of Aristotle, in 2. Physicorum. Again you looked not unto the later part of S. Augustine's sentence, where it is likewise of the blood said, Sanguis est, quem sub vini specie & sapore potamus. It is blood, that under the show and savour of wine we drink. By these words, show and savour, the accidents of wine, and not the substance must needs be understanded. By conference of which two membres of one sentence together, you should have perceived, that S. Augustine speaking of Christ's flesh, meant by the word, Forma, the same that he meant by the other words, species, and sapor, where he spoke of the blood. If then we drink the blood of Christ under the accidententes of wine, than it is a true construction to say, that we receive his flesh covered with the form, that is to say, with the show and outward shape (which is an Accident) of bread.  

operta.  As for the word, operta, which signifieth covered, in the same place you make much a do, and rake together out of your notebooks a heap of phrases and words, by which, lying privy, hiding, covering, keeping privy, representation, resemblance, and any the like thing is signified: And all to an heretical purpose, to exclude the true presence of Chistes' body and blood out of the blessed Sacrament, and to leave nothing in it but a bare signification. And there in the end you shut up the matter with a false cast of legerdemain, falsifying a testimony of S. Augustine. For whereas S. Augustine saith, In veteri Testamento occultabatur nowm, 
August. de Baptis. count. Dona 'tis. lib. 1. ca 15  quia occultè significabatur: The new Testament was hidden in the old Testament, because it was secretly signified: you have changed S. Augustine's word, quia, into id est, and say, that he expoundeth himself, 
M. jewel falsifieth S. Austin, changing quia, into id est.  occultabatur, id est, occultè significabatur, It was hidden, that is to say, it was secretly signified. And therefore you would have the place which I alleged out of S. Angustine, thus to be expounded and understanded, Caro Christi operta, id est, occultè significata: Christ's flesh is privily hidden, that is to say, is privily signified, whereby you would exclude the real presence.  
And this you call S. Augustine's exposition, as though S. Augustine had ever said so, or meant so, and as though operta had in the place I alleged, been put alone without an Ablative case, as the verb, occultabatur, is in the other sentence. Now the true words of S. Augustine be these. Caro eius est, quam forma panis opertam in Sacramento accipimus. It is his flesh, which being covered with the form of bread in the Sacrament, we receive.  
And if you would needs have these words, Forma panis opertam, to be expounded by Forma panis occultè significatam (though you have no warrant for it) that we understand the flesh of Christ covered with the form of bread, to be as much as if we said it to be secretly signified by the form of bread, wherein there is no great cause why we should much contend with you: what can you thereof substantially conclude against the real presence? Will you make this wise argument, The form or shape of bread signifieth the body of Christ, Ergo, the body of Christ is not in deed present? If you reason so, the Baker must have you to school, who showing you a loaf set upon his stall, can tell you, that that loaf signifieth bread to be in his house to be sold, 
One truth put away by an other.  and yet that the same loaf also is bread, which I told you before. And yet this is all the issue of your wrested interpretations, and heaped phrases. Once leave your bad shift of putting away one truth by an other truth. How oftentimes must we tell you, the forms of bread and wine do signify the body and blood of Christ present, not absent?  
Again if for proof that these words, which report Christ to be present in the blessed Sacrament of the Altar, or to be offered in the Sacrifice of the Altar under the forms of bread and wine, be not only my words, I should here also allege the place of Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus, which I alleged in my Answer to the tenth Article of your Challenge: what could you reasonably reply to the contrary? That ancient Father saith thus, using the very terms of the Scholastical Doctors. 
Cyril. Hierosol. Catechisi. Mystagog.  Christ once changed water into wine, which is nigh unto blood, in Chana of Galiley by his only will: and shall not he be worthy to be believed of us, that (at his last supper) he changed wine into blood? For if being bidden to a corporal wedding he wrought a wondrous miracle, shall we not much more confess, that he gave his body and blood unto the children of the Spouse? Wherefore with all assuredness let us receive the body and blood of Christ. (Hitherto reason moving credit, now follow the words that are specially to be noted. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) Nam sub specie panis datur tibi corpus, & sub specie vini datur sanguis, ut sumpto corpore & sanguine Christi, efficiaris ei comparticeps corporis & sanguinis. For under the form (shape, show or figure) of bread the body (of Christ) is given unto thee, and under the shape of wine his blood is given, that having received the body and blood of Christ, thou mayst be made compartener with him of his body and blood. Here have you the express words, teaching us the body of Christ to be present in the Sacrament under the form of bread, and his blood under the form of wine, which you report to be words of mine own only invention, never used by any ancient Father before my tyme.  
Where you go about to answer to this place of S. Cyrillus in the tenth Article of your Reply, to th'intent the body and blood of Christ might not be believed to be really present in the blessed Sacrament: I wish that all men saw both your weakness, and also your falsehood. You confess this learned Father's words touching this point of the real presence, 
Worde● in M. jewels judgement quick and violent.  to be quick and violent. Whereby unwares as it seemeth, you confess him therein to be clear, and resolute, as he is in deed. To say truly, violent he is not, but a plain reporter of the truth. But in deed he is to quick, for dull heretics, that believe their carnal senses, rather than Christ's own most plain words.  

In the tenth Article of ●he Reply. page 432.  Yet he himself in plainest wise (say you) openeth, and cleareth his own meaning. Truth it is, he doth so, as every one that readeth the place, as the Author reporteth it, not as you have falsified him, may easily judge. Now because every man hath not the book of Cyrillus, nor the book of your Reply at hand, for truths sake, and that your impudent falsehood may appear: it shall be to good purpose, to lay here before the Reader, what you make that holy and ancient Father to say, and what he saith himself. Thus then say you falsely.  

M. jewel falsifieth S. Cyrillus Hiero solym. Cateches. Mystagogica. 4.  For thus he writeth● Ne consideres, tanquam panem nudum: Panis Eucharistiae non est amplius panis simplex, & nudus. Consider not, as if it were bare bread: The bread of the Sacrament is no longer bare and simple bread. Which words are naturally resolved thus. It is bread, how be it not only bare bread: but bread, and some other thing else beside. And there after a few words you conclude thus. Of these words of Cyrillus we may well reason thus by the way. The Sacrament is not only or bare bread: therefore it is bread, albeit not only bare bread. And thus the same Cyrillus, that is brought to testify, that there remaineth no bread in the Sacrament, testifieth most plainly to the contrary, that there is bread remaining in the Sacrament.  

Ca●echo. Myst. 4.  On the other side, S. Cyrillus truly alleged saith thus. Ne consideres tanquàm panem nudum, & vinum nudum: corpus enim est, & sanguis Christi, secundùm ipsius Domini verba. Quamuis enim sensus hoc tibi suggesserit, tamen fides te confirmet, ne ex gusturem judices, quin potius habeas ex fide pro certissimo, ita ut nulla subeat dubitatio, esse tibi donata corpus & sanguinem. Do not consider it as bare bread, and bare wine: for it is the body and blood of Christ, according unto the words of our Lord himself. For although thy sense make that suggestion unto thee, yet let faith strengthen thee, that thou judge not the thing by thy taste, but rather that of thy faith thou hold it as a most certainty, so as thou be void of all doubt, that the body and blood are given to thee.  
These words being truly alleged, do clearly open the meaning of Cyrillus. Your false forgeries and corruptions do undoubtedly declare, that you seek not the truth, but intend deceit. False doctrine must be maintained, by false means. If you had meant good faith and truth, you would truly and faithfully have recited that holy Father's words without such mangling and changing. Now to use your own Rhetoric, you have done him great and open wrong, wilfully suppressing and drowning his words, and uncourteously commanding him to silence in the midst of his tale. Why did you not consider the force of his counsel, which is, that a Christian man regard not the suggestion of his senses, but stay himself upon his faith, not judging of this high Mystery, what the sense of sight or taste giveth, but with a simple faith believing the words that Christ spoke.  
In all S. Cyrillus you find not this order of words, Panis Eucharistiae non est amplius panis simplex & nudus, The bread of the Sacrament is no longer bare and simple bread, as you turn it, and ascribe it unto S. Cyrillus. By occasion of which words you tell us of your natural resolution, and bear us in hand, it is bread, how be it not only or bare bread. Which is no natural resolution gathered of S. Cyrillus words, but a crafty collusion wrong out of your own forged words to enuegle the ignorant.  
Now S. Cyrillus words be these, not in the fourth Catechesis, as you have quoted your book, but in the third, where he speaketh of the holy Oil. Quemadmodum (saith he) Panis Eucharistiae, 
In cateches. 3. My stigogica.  post sancti spiritus invocationem, non amplius est panis communis, sed est corpus Christi: sic & sanctum hoc unguentum, non amplius est unguentum nudum, neque (si ita quis appellare malit) commune, post quàm iam consecratum est. etc. As the bread of the Sacrament, after the Holy Ghost is called upon it, is no longer common bread, but is the body of Christ: so this holy ointment also is no longer a bare ointment, nor (if any man had rather so to call it) a common ointment, after that it is now consecrate. The words which you abuse to guile, simple bread, bare bread, only bread, be not there used of S. Cyrillus, as you of purpose have falsified him. Marry speaking of the holy Oil, whose substance is not changed into an other substance, and remaineth Oil still after it is consecrated, he saith, it is no longer after consecration bare Oil. But of the bread he saith that after consecration it is not common bread: As if it were done of a great foresight, and of very purpose, to stop the wrangling of such false Sacramentaries, and corrupt teachers, in consideration that after consecration it is no longer bread, that is to say, 
joan. 6.  common bread, but the body of Christ the bread of life, 
M. ●ewels falsehood plainly detected.  that came down from heaven. The like is to be judged of the cup.  
What wilt thou have more good Reader? Christ faith of the one, 
Math. 26.  it is his body, of the other, it is his blood: Saint Cyrillus here saith, 
Luc. 22.  it is not bread, it is not wine, but the body and blood of our Lord. And to declare his meaning plainly against all cavillation of heretics, he biddeth us not to call our senses, as sight, taste, or any other sense, to give us account, what it is: but to stay our hearts upon faith, and to believe the words of our Saviour. M. jewel contrariwise forging a saying of his own, and falsely fathering it upon S. Cyrillus, as though he had said, it is not bare, simple, or only bread, which that ancient Father saith not: concludeth his Sacramentary doctrine, that it is bread. If thou hadst rather go out of the way, and be deceived, then go right: thou hast whom to follow. But how false a guide he is, these things considered, thou canst not be ignorant.  
If after this large proof of the being of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament under the forms of bread and wine, which form of words you would your Reader think to be mine only, and never to have been used before by any of the ancient Fathers, if I say after all this, lest you should seem fully confuted, you will yet reply, and say, that I have nothing whereby to avouch the true and real Sacrifice of Christ (for so much also do your words import): then omitting here an infinite number of other testimonies, for proof that Christ is truly, 
That Christ i● truly and in deed offered.  and in deed offered up of the Priests in Sacrifice, I will in this place allege only the testimony of the first Nicene Council. The authority whereof is, and hath ever been esteemed very great, as that, which declareth not the opinion of one man, but the faith of the whole Church of that time, uttered by the mouths, and after mature and long deliberation confirmed with the subscription of .318. the best learned, and most holy Bishops then living.  
The holy Ghost by them published to the whole Church of God this doctrine. 
Conc. Nic.  Exaltatament fide consideremus situm esse in illa sancta mensa Agnum Dei, qui tollit peccata mundi, qui a Sacerdotibus sacrificatur sine ●ruoris effusione. Lifting up our mind let us consider by faith the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world, to be laid upon that holy table, which is of the Priests sacrificed without the shedding of blood, that is to say, not after the manner of other sacrifices, where the host is slain, for so signifieth the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  

Real, and true Sacrifice, and Sacrifice in deed.  What other thing doth this addition, without the shedding of blood, import, but a true and real sacrificing of one and the same substance, that was before sacrificed with blood shedding? For these two contrary Accidents be referred unto one substance, and have their being in one substance. seeing then it was the substance of Christ's most precious body and blood, that was offered bloodily, truly, and in deed upon the Cross: it will follow by necessary sequel of reason, that it is the same self substance of Christ, that is sacrificed unbloodily, unless perhaps you will imagine there be two Christ's offered, the one bloodily, the other unbloodily. If then it be the substance of Christ, that is offered, it is a true and real Sacrifice. For where so ever Christ's substance is offered, there is a true Sacrifice, and a Sacrifice in deed. And thus is your uncourteous reproach of my undue boldness, and presumption in uttering the true doctrine of the Church with the foresaid words, answered, and clearly discharged. Now let us see, what other greater fault or oversight you find in my Answer. Thus it followeth in your Reply.   

jewel.  
But where as he addeth further, That Christ is in deed, and verily offered by the Priest; all be it, as he saith, not in respect of the manner of offering, but only in respect of the presence of his Body, Either he understandeth not, what himself meaneth: or else with a vain distinction of cloudy words without sense, he laboureth to dasle his Readers eyes. For what a fantasy is this, to say, Christ is offered Verily, and in deed, and yet not in Respect of the Manner of offering? What Respect? What Manner is this? Wherefore come these blind Mysteries abroad without a gloze? Which of all the Old Doctors, or holy Fathers ever taught us thus to speak? Certainly, as he saith, Christ is Really offered, and yet not in Respect of the Manner of Offering: So may he also say, Christ died upon the Cross, and yet not in Respect of the manner of dieinge. By such manners, and such Respects he may make of Christian Religion, what him listeth.  
If he think, 
Conc. Nic. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  somewhat to shadow the matter with these words of the Council of Nice, Sine Sacrificio Oblatus, Let him consider a fore hand, it will not help him. For the holy Fathers in that Council neither say, that Christ is Really Offered by the Priest, nor seem to understand these strange Respects, 
Contra Faustum lib. 20. ca 21. Chrys. in Epist. ad Hebrae. homil. 17.  and Manners of Offering. They agree fully in sense with that is before alleged of S. Augustine: In this Sacrifice the Death of Christ is solemnized by a Sacrament of Remembrance: And with that S. Chrysostom saith, Hoc Sacrificium, Exemplarillius est: This Sacrifice, is an Example of that Sacrifice. Thus the Death of Christ is renewed before our eyes. Yet Christ in deed neither is Crucified, nor dieth, nor sheaddeth his blood, nor is Substantially Present, 
August. De Civit. Dei. lib. 10 cap. 5.  nor Really Offered by the Priest. In this sort the Council saith, Christ is offered, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without Sacrifice. So Saint Augustine saith, Quod ab omnibus appellatur Sacrificium, Signum est Veri Sacrificij: The thing, that of all men is called a Sacrifice, is a Token, or a Sign of the True Sacrifice, Likewise again he saith, Vocatur ipsa Immolatio, quae Sacerdotis manibus fit, 
De Conse. Dis. 2. Hoc est.  Christi Passio, Mors, Crucifixio, non rei veritate, sed significant Mysterio. The Sacrifice, that is wrought by the hands of the Priest, is called the Passion, the Death, the Crucifieinge of Christ: not in deed, but by a Mystery signifying.  
And where as M. harding saith further, Christ is offered only in respect of the presence of his Body, Neither would the Real Presence, being granted, import the Sacrifice (for Christ was Really Present in his Mother's Womb, and in the Crib, where notwithstanding he was no Sacrifice) nor hath M. Harding hitherto any way proved his Real Presence.   

harding.  

That the Sacrifice of the Altar, is a true and real Sacrifice.  The witness which I alleged out of the Nicen Council doth declare sufficiently, what I meant by saying, that Christ is sacrificed in the daily Sacrifice of the Church truly, and in deed, not in respect of the manner of offering, but in respect of his very body and blood, really, that is, in deed present. For the Sacrifice that was true and real in all respects both of the inward substance, and also of the outward manner, was not made without bloodshed, and killing. This Sacrifice therefore of the Church being made without shedding of blood or killing, lacketh that one point of that most perfit and true Sacrifice. Nevertheless for that it hath the substance of the bloody and most absolutely perlite Sacrifice that was offered upon the Cross, it is in that consideration a true and real Sacrifice.  
And right well did I understand, what I meant by these words M. jewel, and so do you too, what so ever you say: but of a wilful and perverse frowardness you would seem not to understand them, that in word you might reprove me, where in deed you found nothing to be reproved. Yet, who marketh you, shall perceive, how you bewray your own knowledge by thobjection you make against yourself of the words of the Nicen Council, 
M. jewel falsifieth the Council of Nice.  which you translate falsely into Latin, not englishing them, lest they should seem to make, as they do, for the Sacrifice, which ye deny. The Greek words be, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Your untrue translation hath for them, thus: sine sacrificio oblatus, as much to say, offered up without a Sacrifice. Which translation containeth in it a contradiction. For if Christ the true Lamb of God (as the Council calleth him) be offered up, how is there not a Sacrifice? Therefore the true translation of these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, had been, incruentè sacrificatus, sacrificed unbloodily, or without blood shedding, 
Oecolampadius.  or, as a chief founder, and maintainer of your sacramentary doctrine hath turned, non victimarum more sacrificatus, sacrificed not after the manner of hosts (which be sacrificed with killing). And thus the place hath been of learned men hitherto translated, neither was there ever any so shameless, as to serve so far from the right and natural sense of the words, as you do, were he never so spiteful an enemy to that blessed Sacrifice.  
This term of the Nicen Council doth express the respect of the manner of offering which I spoke of, to put a difference between the Sacrifice of the Cross, and the daily Sacrifice of the Church: because the one was with shedding of blood, and with death, the other without shedding of blood, or death.  
The same respect of the manner of offering is uttered by the first Council of Ephesus. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Incruentum celebramus in Ecclesiis sacrificij cultum, we do celebrate in our Churches the unbloody service of the Sacrifice. 
Concil. Ephes. in Epist. ad Nestorium. Aug. Cont. Faustum Manich. lib. 20. ca 21.  The same doth Saint Augustine mean, writing, that the flesh and blood of the Sacrifice is celebrated by a Sacrament of remembrance. The same doth S. Chrysostom understand, where he saith, 
Chrysost. in epist. ad Heb. Homil. 17.  Non aliud Sacrificium sicut pontifex, sed id ipsum semper facimus, magis autem recordationem sacrificij facimus. We make not a divers sacrifice, as the high bishop did, but always the self same, yea rather we celebrate a memorial of the Sacrifice.  
Here is plainly expressed both the truth, and reality (if I may so call it) of the Sacrifice always and continually offered, and also the manner of offering, because it is done in remembrance of the Sacrifice, that was made upon the Crosse. To be short, these terms, remembrance, token, sign, sampler, mystery, sacrament, and such like, be oftentimes used of the Fathers to express this manner of offering, and in no wise to exclude the truth of the substance of the thing offered.  
This notwithstanding M. jewel, you are not ashamed to pronounce, that the Council of Nice, and the old Doctors, or holy Fathers, never understood these respects and manners. And whereas you charge me with dazzling the Readers eyes with a vain distinction of cloudy words (so it liketh you to control the doctrine of Christ's Church) it is you, that employ your whole wit and cunning to enuegle and blind God's people, and to bereave them, wandering in the wilderness of this world, of the true Manna, that came down from above all the clouds, and to dazzle their understandings so, that they may not discern the true body of our Lord from bare bread, and by your fantastical, and uncertain phrases applied out of place, to undermine and shake no small number of great and necessary truths by the Holy Ghost founded, and so many hundred years sustained in Christ's Church.  
As for the authorities which you bring either to weaken the doctrine of the Church touching the Sacrifice of the Altar, 
M. jew. taketh advantage of his own false translation.  or to strengthen your own contrary opinion, of how little force they are, it is soon opened. First the Council of Nice maketh clearly for us, which reporteth the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world to be situate upon the holy table (whereby is meant the Altar) and of the Priests to be sacrificed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is to say, without bloodshed, and not after the manner of beasts appointed to be killed in Sacrifice. Of these words you take a small advantage, and that only by false translation. For whereas the Council hath, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Lamb is sacrificed of the Priests unbloodily, or, not after the manner of killed hosts: you turn it thus barely, sine Sacrificio oblatus, offered without sacrifice, but vntruly● as I have said before. This place serveth you to no purpose, 
M. jew. falsifieth S Augu●●ine.  because false translation ought not to make proof against the truth.  
S. Augustine's words against Faustus, 
Contra Faustum Manich. lib. 20. cap. 21.  you have also falsified, and lest you should be taken with the manner, you leave out the Latin, and allege them only in your own English. Whereas he nameth the flesh and blood of this sacrifice, lest they might seem to import a real presence of Cristes' body and blood, as they do in deed: you have put in steed thereof, the death of Christ. Which declareth your meaning not to be simple and plain, and the same in an other yourself would not let pass, without note of untrue dealing.  

Chrysost. In epist. ad Heb. Hom. 17.  And where S. Chrysostom saith, Hoc sacrificium exemplar est illius, this Sacrifice is a sampler of that Sacrifice: If you had meant good faith and truth, you would not so have nipped that Father, and stopped him of his tale: For it followeth in the same sentence immediately, id ipsum semper offerimus, 
M. jew. falsifieth S. Chrysostom by nipping.  we offer always that one self Sacrifice. And that we should know certainly, that he meant not a sign or an example of the true sacrifice only, as you do, but the same itself in substance: he saith in the same place, Pontifex noster ille est qui hostiam mundantem nos obtulit: ipsam offerimus & nunc, quae tunc oblata quidem consumi non potest. He is our high Bishop, who hath offered up the Sacrifice or host, that cleanseth us: the same do we also offer now, which then being offered can not be consumed.  
Hereupon might a plain man demand of you, who is our high Bishop? Is it not Christ? what is that host or sacrifice, which purgeth and cleanseth us from the filth of our sins? Is it any other, than the precious body of Christ? What can you answer then to S. Chrysostom, saying, that we now also offer up the same? And this is that, for which you make so much a do at me for saying, that Christ is offered up in the Sacrifice of the Church under the forms of bread and wine, truly, and in deed, not in respect of the manner of offering, but in respect of his very body and blood really present. And thus my words, which you would so feign carp, be grounded as you see, upon a truth taught by the Council of Nice, and by S. Chrysostom.  
In the other place of S. Augustine you have very foully demeaned yourself. 
M jewel corrupteth S. Augustine.  You have snatched a piece of a sentence out of him, and having framed it to an other sense than he meant by your common sleight of falsifying, and untrue tanslation: you set it forth so, as to the unlearned it may make some show for your side, against the Catholic doctrine that we maintain touching the Sacrifice of the Altar. And some learned also may haply be deceived, if they look not better to your fingers, and by view and conference of the book, espy out your false legerdemain. 
August. de civit. Dei lib. 10. ca 5.  S. Augustine saith (say you) Quod ab omnibus appellatur sacrificium, signum est veri sacrificij. The thing, that of all men is called a sacrifice, is a token, or sign of the true Sacrifice. Who reading these words, at the first being persuaded you have played a true man's part in alleging them, would not think, they made much for your negative doctrine, which denieth the true and real Sacrifice of the Church, and avoucheth all that is done in the Mass, to be but a sign, a remembrance, and a void representation? Void I say, because ye take away the substance of the thing itself, to wit, the body and blood of Christ.  
Now S. Augustine in that place, 
S. Augustine truly expoū●ded.  neither speaketh as you make him speak, and much less meaneth he, as with your falsified allegation you would force upon him. In that chapter he treateth of outward sacrifices, and of the inward, or spiritual sacrifices. And preferring the spiritual sacrifices before the other, he showeth how the outward sacrifices made by the Fathers of the old Testament with slaughter of beasts, were significations of our spiritual sacrifices, that is to say, of those things which be done by us to this end, that we cleave unto God, and that unto the same end we help forward our neighbour. Of these he saith, that God requireth them, and that he is well pleased with them: Of the other, that he requireth not them, nor hath great liking in them.  
After certain places alleged out of the Scriptures for declaration and proof hereof, at length he cometh to the words, whereof you would take hold against this special, and singular Sacrifice of the Church, and saith: 
De civit. lib. 10. cap. 5. Oseae. 6.  Per hoc, ubi scriptum est, misericordiam magis volo, quàm Sacrificium, nihil aliud quàm Sacrificium Sacrificio praelatum oportet intelligi: quoniam illud quod ab homenibus appellatur sacrificium, signum est veri sacrificij. Porrò autem misericordia verum Sacrificium est, unde dictum est, 
Heb. 13.  quod paulò ante commemoravi, Talibus enim sacrificijs placatur Deus. Whereas it is written, I would have mercy, rather than sacrifice, hereby we must understand nothing else, but that sacrifice is preferred before sacrifice: forasmuch as that, which is called sacrifice of men, is a sign of a true sacrifice. And as for mercy, it is a true sacrifice. In consideration whereof it is said, whereof I spoke even now, with such sacrifices (that is to say, with almose and deeds of charity) God is appeased.  
In the end of that discourse he concludeth thus. Quaecunque igitur etc. What so ever things therefore we read to have been commanded by God divers ways concerning sacrifices in the ministery of the Tabernacle, or of the Temple, they are referred to the love of God, and of our neighbour thereby to be signified.  
By due conference and consideration of this whole place, and of the discourse there treated, thou mayst evidently see good Reader, how little M. jewel is to be trusted, when he bringeth aught out of any old Doctor, that seemeth not to agree with the doctrine of the Catholic Church. He would thee to believe, that S. Augustine spoke of the special and singular Sacrifice of the Church, whereof we treat, which Sacrifice in deed is of all men called a sacrifice: and worthily, for so it is. But that by verdict of S. Augustine it is a sign of the true Sacrifice, as though thereby were meant, the same not to be the true Sacrifice, and therefore no true and real Sacrifice at all: therein lieth much falsehood. For neither speaketh Saint Augustine there of the Sacrifice of the Church, neither understandeth he by a true sacrifice, the chief and most true Sacrifice, which is that of the Cross, but any spiritual sacrifice in general, wherein the effect of love toward God, or our neighbour is performed. And therefore he much abuseth the simplicity of the unlearned Reader by his futtel and false translation, turning, illud quod ab hominibus appellatur Sacrificium, that which of men is called a sacrifice, whereby S. Augustine understandeth any of the Sacrifices of the old Law, into, illud quod ab omnibus appellatur Sacrificium etc. The thing, that of all men is called a sacrifice, is a token, or a sign of the true Sacrifice: whereby he induceth the Reader to conceive the Sacrifice of the Church, and to believe the same not to be a true and real Sacrifice, but only a sign of the true Sacrifice. And in that he turneth signum veri Sacrificij, a sign or token of the true Sacrifice, he meaneth Christ offered upon the Cross, otherwise then S. Augustine did: whereas he should have translated it thus, A sign of a true sacrifice. And what is there meant by a true sacrifice, he could not be ignorant. For it followeth immediately, Porrò autem misericordia verum sacrificium est, mercy is a true sacrifice.  

Difference between a true, and, the True Sacrifice  And who perceiveth not a difference between these two, whether we say, a True Sacrifice, or the True Sacrifice? Any spiritual sacrifice, is a true Sacrifice. The true Sacrifice, properly to speak, is Christ himself. Which S. Augustine, after that he hath treated of Sacrifices at large, calleth, Summum & verum Sacrificium, the highest, principal, 
August. de civit. Dei lib. 10. cap. 20.  or chief, and the True Sacrifice, whereof the Sacrifice of the Church (saith he) is a sacrament. The same Sacrifice of the Church, may also be called the True Sacrifice, though not in respect of the old common manner of offering, which was by killing the host offered: yet in respect of the thing offered, which by virtue of the word is made really present, which is the same flesh and blood, that was offered and shed upon the Crosse. Here it is not so offered, nor shed, but that offering and blood shedding, that is to say, the death of Christ, is represented and recorded. The Sacrifice of the Cross is the True Sacrifice in respect both of the thing offered, and of the common manner of offering, for there Christ was killed: the Sacrifice of the Altar, which is the Sacrifice of the Church, is also the True Sacrifice in respect of the thing offered which is the body and blood of Christ, as truly present in the Sacrament, though invisibly, as upon the Cross, where it was visibly, albe it in respect of the old common manner of sacrificing, it is not a Sacrifice after that manner, and therefore is it called sacrificium incruentum, the unbloody Sacrifice.  
another manner there is, singular, special, and proper to this mystical Sacrifice, after which it is made, sacrificed, and offered, so as the Mystery that Christ instituted, requireth: which they know, that have grace rightly to believe. Of which manner Oecumenius saith, 
Oecum. in Epist. ad Heb. ca 5.  Christus in Mystica coena modum illis tradidit huiusmodi Sacrificij. Christ delivered unto Priests the manner of such a Sacrifice. This manner hath ever been, and is to this day observed, even as the Apostles were taught it of Christ, and as the Church hath received it of the Apostles, and offereth the new Oblation of the new Testament in the whole world, as S. Ireneus writeth. 
Iren. lib. 4. cap. 32. Euseb. de demonst. lib. 1. & lib. 5.  Eusebius speaking of the manner of this sacrifice, calleth it Melchisedeks' manner, and saith, in one place, it is offered after the new Mysteries of the new Testament, in an other place, after the Ecclesiastical ordinances.  
As for that S. Augustine saith, The Sacrifice that is made by the hands (that is to say, 
De Conse. Dist. 2. Hoc est.  ministery) of the Priest, is called the Passion, the death, the Crucifying, not in truth of the thing, but in Mystery signifying: I grant it to be true, and such, as may well serve for answer to certain blasphemous objections made by the Sacramentaries against this Sacrifice. How this maketh any proof for your doctrine, I see not. For though the Sacrifice be called sometimes by the name of the Passion, the Death, and crucifying of Christ (as S. Cyprian saith, 
Cyprian. lib. 2. epist. 3.  Passio est Domini sacrificium quod offerimus, The Sacrifice that we offer is the Passion of our lord) because it representeth and reneweth the memory of the Passion once performed and done, whereas in deed it is not the sensible Passion, death or Crucifying, but the same is signified in mystery, for that the body which suffered, died, and was crucified, is truly exhibited: yet this taketh not away the truth of a Sacrifice. Such a great Logician, as you would seem to be, will not make this childish Argument, I dare say: That which the Priest maketh, signifieth the Passion and Death of Christ, and is not the Passion and Death in deed: Ergo, it is not a Sacrifice. That it be a true and real Sacrifice, it is not necessary, that Christ suffer again, and be slain: it is enough the body of Christ that once suffered, and was slain, be truly exhibited, and offered unto God. Which is done in our Mystery by them, who have commandment to do, that Christ did, when he said, Do this in my remembrance.  
In the end of this your first Division you say, that Neither would the Real presence being granted, import the Sacrifice, nor that I have hitherto any way proved the Real presence, which after your scoffing custom you call my Real presence, as though it had not been taught by the clear scriptures, by all the old learned Fathers, and universally believed of Christian people, till the wicked generation of the Sacramentaries came. But sir, whether the Real presence of Christ, where so ever it be, do import a sacrifice or no, it is impertinent to our purpose here to dispute. How be it I am not ignorant, that there want not learned men, who hold, that Christ's body from the time it was first formed in, and of the body of the blessed virgin his mother, never ceased, nor shall cease to be a sacrifice, according as S. Paul to the Hebrews alleging the prophecy uttered in the Psalm, 
Hebr. 10.  teacheth, Ingredients mundum, dicit, hostiam & oblationem noluisti, 
Psalm. 39  corpus autem aptasti mihi. Christ entering into the world, saith, Sacrifice and oblation thou wouldst not have, but a body thou hast made fit for me.  
To your position briefly I answer, that although the Real presence of Christ in other places, and times imported not a sacrifice, yet the same in the Sacrament doth necessarily infer a sacrifice, because according to the general teaching of all the Fathers, Christ did institute it not only to be received as a necessary food, but also to be offered as an healthful Sacrifice, 
Cyprian. de Caen. Dom.  medicamentum & holocaustum existens ad sanandas infirmitates, & purgandas iniquitates ● being a medicine and sacrifice to heal infirmities, and to purge iniquities, as S. Cyprian saith. 
Lib. 4.32.  He taught the new oblation of the new Testament, saith S. Irenaeus,  
That I have sufficiently proved, the Real presence of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament, the Answer I made to the fifth Article of your Challenge, doth witness to as many as be not lead with lewd and blind affection to your side. As for the shifts of your Reply thereunto, they are so detected, and fully confuted, and the Real presence otherwise so substantially proved by M. D. Saunder, and M. D. Heskins, that every mean wit may easily see the weakness of your cause.    

The 2. Division.  

The Answer.  
THe two first manners of the offering of Christ, our adversaries acknowledge and confess. The third they deny utterly. And so they rob the Church of the greatest treasure it hath or may have, the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ once offered upon the Cross with painful suffering for our redemption, and now daily offered in the blessed Sacrament in remembrance. For which we have so many proofs, as for no one point of our Christian religion more. And herein I am more encumbered with store, then straighted with lack, and doubt more, what I may leave, than what I may take. Wherefore thinking it shall appear to the wise more skille, to show discretion in the choice of places, rather than learning in recital of number, though we are over peartely thereto provoked by M. jewels vaunting and insolent challenge: I intend herein to be short, verily shorter, than so large a matter requireth: and to bring for proof a few such authorities (I mean a few in respect of the multitude that might be brought) as ought in every man's judgement to be of great weight, and estimation.   

jewel.  
Touching the Oblation of Christ's Body, we believe, and Confess as much, as the holy Ghost hath opened in the Scriptures. Where as M. Harding saith, Christ's Body is offered up by the Priest unto God the Father, in remembrance of that Body, that Christ himself offered upon the Cross, He seemeth not to consider the inconstancy, and folly of his own tale. For it is well known to all Creatures, not only Christians, but also jews, turks, and Saracenes, that Christ was Crucified upon the Cross: But that Christ should be sacrificed by a Mortal man, Invisibly, and, as they say, under the Forms of Bread, and wine, and that Really, and in deed, it is a thing so far passing the common sense of Christian knowledge, that the best learned, and wisest of the Ancient learned Christian Fathers could never know it.  
Therefore this is, not only the proving of a thing known, by a thing unknown: and of a thing most certain, by a thing uncertain: but also the Confirmation of a manifest Truth, by an open Error.  
Neither do we rob the Church of God of that most Heavenly, and most comfortable Sacrifice of Christ's Body: But rather we open, and disclose the errors, wherewith certain of late years have wilfully deceived the Church of God. 
Esay. 53.  We know, That Christ's Body was rent for our Sins, and that by his Wounds we are made whole: 
1. Pet. 2.  That Christ in his Body carried our Sins upon the Tree: 
Heb. 9  And by the Oblation thereof, once made upon the Cross, 
Actor. 4.  bathe sanctified us for ever, and hath purchased for us everlasting Redemption: And That there is none other Name (or Sacrifice) under Heaven, whereby we can be saved, but only the name (and Sacrifice) of jesus Christ. I recken● who so teacheth this Doctrine, leaveth not the Church of God without a Sacrifice.  
touching the multitude of Authorities, wherewith M. Harding findeth himself so much encumbered, the greater his store is, the more will wise men require his discretion, and skill in the choice. His choice will seem unskilful, if he allege his Authorities beside his purpose. His purpose, and promise is to prove, that the Priest hath good warrant, to offer up Christ the Son of God unto his Father. Which purpose if he never vouchsafe once to touch, but range abroad, as his manner is, and rove idly at matters impertinent, then must we needs say, He bewrayeth his want, and bringeth his great Store out of credit. So shall the offer, that is gently made him, seem to stand upon good, and convenient terms, of Truth, and Modesty. So shall his stoareful Vaunt of all things, performing nothing, unto the wise (to use his own words) seem pearte, and insolent.   

Harding.  
In your 2. Division though you be short, yet you spend many more words, than either were needful, or imported any direct answer, 
M. jewel feigneth me to say, that I say not● and thereto directeth his Reply.  reason, or learning. You pretend that to be said by me, which I say not, and then as your manner is, fight with my shadow, which you set before you by your own feigned imagination, you come not to answer the point directly, but speak altother inconsiderately.  
Had that been my tale, which you tell for me, wherein show you inconstancy and folly to be in it, whereof you note the fame? For (say you) not only Christians, but also jews, Turks, Saracens (you might have added also the Devil, whose knowledge is great) know, that Christ was crucified upon the Crosse. This much I grant, what conclude you? But (say you again) that he is sacrificed by a mortal man invisibly, under the forms of bread and wine, the ancient Fathers could never know it. Here I stop you, and this I deny. And what cause I have to deny it, I have in the Division before showed. After this you come unto your Conclusion, wherein appeareth in deed both the inconstancy and folly of your tale. Therefore (say you of me in effect) I prove a thing known by a thing unknown, and a thing certain by a thing uncertain, and confirm manifest truth by open error.  
Here if I would follow you, and set forth the peevishness of your Argument, by telling you, how the Mayor, or first Prorosition is impertinent, the Minor false, being the Negative of our Question (which being denied of me, was very absurdly brought by you in the Premises) nor Mood, nor Figure, nor just disposition of the terms duly observed, the Conclusion not following of the Premises in right order of a Syllogismus: I should bestow many words to prove that a foolish Argument, which thereof without any curious showing of Logic, of itself giveth witness.  
What leadeth you to think, that by the unbloody Sacrifice of the Church, which you call a thing uncertain, I go about to prove the Sacrifice of the Cross, which I grant to be certain, and to confirm that most manifest truth by this other Sacrifice, which you, and they of your side deny? By what one word can you gather, that to have been mine intent? If it were not, as most certainly it was not (for what need was there to bring any proof for the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross?) why bestow you so many words to prove your belief touching that Sacrifice?  
I said not that ye rob the Church of the Sacrifice done upon the Cross (For of that being now passed, how can ye rob the Church?) But of the body and blood of Christ, as it is daily offered at the Altar in remembrance of his Death and Passion: of the Presence of the body and blood, and of the Sacrifice of the same in mystery, which the Church from the Apostles time hitherto hath ever celebrated, you rob the Church, and of that spoke I expressly, as my words be plain, and thereof yourself could not be ignorant.  

Whether the Sacramentaries rob the Church of her greatest treasure.  
But how do you avoid the crime of spoiling the Church of her greatest treasure? Because forsooth ye know and teach, that Christ suffered death for us upon the Crosse. As though the Heretics have not always acknowledged, and confessed the same. Arius confessed Christ was God, and the Son of God: yet he rob him of his equality of Godhead, of his coeternity, and of his consubstantiality with, God his Father. In like sort although ye believe never so constantly, and preach never so earnestly, that Christ shed his blood, and died for us upon the Cross: yet shall ye be accounted to rob the church of her chief treasure, unless ye leave unto her the real flesh and blood of Christ: by oblation, and participation whereof, the effect of the Sacrifice made upon the Cross, is transferred unto us.  

Cyprian. de coena Domini. Origen. in Lucam. Hom. 38. Concilium Nicenum. Concilium Ephesin.  Ye shall defraud her touching food, Alimonia immortalitatis, & portione vitae aeternae, of the food of immortality, and of the portion of life everlasting, as S. Cyprian saith: Pane vitae, epulo incorrupto, of the bread of life, of the banquet that is incorruptible, as Origen writeth: Of the Pledges of our Resurrection, as the Nicen Council determineth: Of the flesh verily giving life, and proper to the word itself, as the Council of Ephesus declareth: to be short, of the meat of Angels, as S. Ambros testifieth.  
Ye shall rob her touching the Sacrifice, 
Diony. Ecclesia. Hi●rarch. c. 3. Augu. lib. 9 Confess. cap. 12. Concil. Nicen.  Hostia salutari, of the healthful Host, as S. Dionyse calleth it: of the permanent and always continuing burnt offering, as S. Cyprian esteemeth it: of the Sacrifice of our Ransom, as S. Augustine termeth it: Finally of the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world, as the Council of Nice teacheth.  
What judge you? They that violently take from the Church of Christ these things, seem they not to rob her of the gratest treasure she hath, though they preach that Christ died upon the Cross for us never so busily? Do they not leave her without a Sacrifice, and therefore without a Religion, according unto S. Cyprians mind? Do not they take the next way to abolish that, which faith and contrition presupposed, is the chiefest mean to apply unto us the benefit of Christ's death, by abolishing the daily Sacrifice? S. Gregory saith, 
Gregor. Hom. 37. Dialog. 4. cap. 58.  Quoties ei hostiam suae passionis offerimus, toties nobi● ad absolutionem nostram ipsius passionem reparamus. As often as we offer unto him the Sacrifice of his passion, so oft do we repair and renew unto ourself his passion to our absolution.  
All this notwithstanding, touching the Oblation of Christ's body, you say, that ye believe and confess as much, as the Holy Ghost hath opened in the Scriptures. 
That Christ offered up his body at his last Supper.  But how untruly this is spoken, who understandeth not? For the holy Ghost hath opened in the Gospel, that Christ made an Oblation of his body and blood at his last Supper, which you M. jewel, and your fellows will not believe. That Christ made such a Sacrifice, and that the same is revealed in the Gospel, if you will not believe the Catholic Church, that is to be believed before any one man: 
August. in Psalm. 33. Concio. 1.  yet may it please you to believe S. Augustine with these words recording the same. Erat ut nostis, Sacrificium judaeorum anteà secundùm ordinem Aaron in victimis pecorum, & hoc in mysterio. Nondum enim erat sacrificium corporis & sanguinis, quod fideles nôrunt, & qui evangelium legerunt quod sacrificium nunc diffusum est toto orb terrarum. The sacrifice of the jews was, as ye know before, after the order of Aaron in Sacrifices of brute beasts, and that in mystery. For the Sacrifice of the body and blood (of Christ) which the faithful, and they that have read the Gospel do know, was not as yet. The which Sacrifice is now dispersed abroad in the whole world.  

The Sacrifice of Christ avouched in the Gospel, in the judgement of S. Augustine.  Now mark good Reader, S. Augustine saith, that the faithful, and so many as have perused the Gospel, do know the Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ. What shall we say then? Is not that Sacrifice opened by the holy Ghost in the Scriptures? And lest any man should mistake him, and think him to speak of the Sacrifice of Christ's body and blood, made upon the Cross, on the mount of calvary, without the gates of jerusalem: he declareth his meaning, 
Sacrifice spread over the world.  and nameth plainly the Sacrifice, which is now spread and made through out the whole world. Which Sacrifice of Christ's body and blood can be none other, but that which the Church hath been accustomed to offer up to God in the Mass, under the visible forms of bread and wine, in remembrance of Christ's Passion, Resurrection, Ascension, and other his great benefits.  
Cavil not M. jewel upon words, commonly used by the Church for a more certain explication, and the better to repel the wrangling objections of the sacramentary Heretics, sithence the time of Berengarius. The Sacrifice that we defend, is (which S. Augustine confesseth) the Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, which succeeded the Sacrifices of the jews, that were of brute beasts, which all Christian people, and the faithful that read the new Testament, do acknowledge and confess, which is now frequented and celebrated in all parts of the world, where so ever the voice of the Gospel hath been sounded, and received.  
Touching the store of authorities, that may be alleged for good witness of this Sacrifice, though your spirit stirreth you to scoff at it, how great it is, and of what number they are: unto the learned it is not unknown. And such witnesses as I brought, how aptly they serve to this purpose, and how directly they strike the mark: it doth already (I doubt not) appear to such, as with an indifferent eye have perused mine Answer to this your seventeenth Article. And more evidently it shall appear with God's grace by this process, when the weakness and falsehood of your Reply shall be detected, and thereby it shall be proved, that your vain Challenge being too malapertly and presumptuously made, standeth neither upon good, nor convenient terms, but upon a devilish denial, unmeet to proceed out of any Christian man's mouth.     

The .3. Division.  

The Answer.  
THe Scripture itself ministering evident proof for the Oblation of Christ to his Father by the Priests of the New Testament, in the Institution of this Holy Sacrament, in the figure of Melchisedech, and in the Prophecy of Malachi the Prophet: the authorities of the Fathers needed not to be alleged, were not the same Scripture by the overthwart, and false interpretations of our adversaries wrested, and turned to a contrary sense, to the horrible seducing of the unlearned.   

jewel.  
Alas, what tool is there so weak, that M. Harding will refuse, to strike withal? To prove his imagined Kind of Sacrifice, he hath brought us forth out of his great store, the example of Melchisedeck, and the Prophecy of Malachi: As if he would reason thus, God saith unto Christ, Thou art a Priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedek: 
Psal. 110.  Or, God saith by the Prophet Malachi, 
Malac. 1.  A pure Oblation shallbe offered unto me in every place: Ergo, The Priest hath Authority, and power, to offer up the Son of God unto his Father. If he had not had good choice, and store of Authorities, he would never have begun with these.  
But he addeth further, as matter of grievance, That these plain Scriptures, by the overthwart, and false Interpretations of his Adversaries, are wrested, and turned to a contrary sense, and that, (as he saith) to the horrible seducing of the unlearned. Doubtless here is a very horrible accusation. How be it, if we happily had mistaken these places, and our error therein were fully proved: yet should not M. Harding in such horrible terms reprove us, for doing that thing once, that he, and his fellows do so often. But by what words, by what false Interpretation, into what perverse or Heretical Sense, have we so horribly wrested these Scriptures? M. Harding is wise, is eloquent, is watcheful, is circumspect, is fast addicted unto his cause: he dissembleth, and leaveth nothing, that any way may sexue his purpose. If our Errors be so horrible, he should not have spared them: If there be none, he should not thus have touched them. If M. harding wink at them, who can see them? If M. harding know them not, who can know them?   

Harding.  
Whether my tools be weak, as you jest, or of good strength, let it be judged by the strokes they give, with which doubtless the heresy that ye sustain against the outward and sigular Sacrifice of the Church, is stricken down, and quite overthrown. And the same tools have the chief Doctors and ancient Fathers of the Church used before me. By the tools I mean, as you do, the Figure of Melchisedech, and the Prophecy of Malachi: by which the doctrine of the Church concerning the Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, is avouched. And here to enter into that special point, little esteeming your other impertinent talk, which you think toucheth my person, and wise men see helpeth not your cause: directing my words to the Reader, of whom I may conceive better hope than I do of you: thus I say.  
The Argument which M. jewel here maketh as on my behalf, albeit to the learned, who know and understand the circumstances of the figure of Melchisedech, and of the prophecy of Malachi, concludeth sufficiently and fully: yet thou mayst be well assured good Reader, I would never myself have proponed it so nakedly, and without any declaration of the necessary circumstances. Although there follow hereafter more proper places to open the figure of Melchisedech, and the prophecy of Malachi, where I bring them in for proof of this intent: yet because M. jewel hath by prevention abruptly fallen into them, and to the end noman be deceived by his cutted argument, which in deed is good, if the circumstances were not guilefully conceeled: here I think good to utter some of those circumstances.  
To begin therefore with Melchisedech: It may please thee Reader to understand, that he is recorded in the Scripture to be a Priest of God the highest. 
Gen. 14.  Then being a Priest, it behoved him to offer Sacrifice according unto S. Paul's doctrine, 
Heb. 5.  Every Bishop (or Priest) taken from among men, is for men appointed in those things that belong to God to offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins. What sacrifice then did he offer? He offered up bread and wine, as Arnobius that ancient Father, 
That Melchisedek offered bread and wine.  beside sundry other Doctors doth witness, notwithstanding the Scripture make plain and express mention only of bringing forth bread and wine. His words be these. Christus per mysterium panis & vinisacerdoes sactus est secundùm ordinem Melchisedech, 
Arnob. in Psal. 109.  qui panem & vinum solus obtalit in sacerdotibus, dum Abraham Victor reverteretur de praelio. By the mystery of bread and wine Christ became a Priest after the order of Melchisedech, who only among the priests offered bread and wine, when Abraham returned conqueror from battle. 
Cyprian. epist. ad Cecilium. lib. 2. epistola. 3.  This order (saith S. Cyprian speaking of the order of Melchisedech) is here coming of that sacrifice, (he meaneth Melchisedeks' sacrifice) and descending from thence, that Melchisedech was the priest of the highest God, that he offered bread and wine, that he blessed Abraham.  
Here it is expressly affirmed, that Melchisedech offered bread and wine, and moreover that Christ by doing the like, was made a Priest according to the order of the same Melchisedek.  

That Christ at his Supper showed himself a priest after the order of Melchisedek.  
But when, and where did Christ begin to show himself a Priest in offering sacrifice after that Order? Verily at his last Supper: For of that he did upon the Cross, whereof the Sacrifice of the Supper taketh his merit, now I speak not. And that he did so at his last Supper, S. Jerome in his Commentaries upon the .26. chapter of S. Matthew, is an evident witness, where he saith thus. 
Hieron, in Mat. 26.  Post quam typicum Pascha fuerat impletum, & Agni carnes cum Apostolis comederat, assumit panem, qui confortat cor hominis, & ad verum Paschae transgreditur sacramentum, ut quomodo in praefiguratione eius Melchisedech summi Dei sacerdos, panem & vinum offerens fecerat, ipse quoque veritatem sui corporis & sanguinis repraesentaret. After that the figurative passover had been fulfilled, and he had eaten with his Apostles the flesh of the Lamb, he took unto him bread, that strengtheneth the heart of man, and passeth over unto the true Sacrament of passover, that like as Melchisedech the Priest of the highest God had done in offering bread and wine in a foregoing figure of him: so he himself also might represent the truth of his body and blood. Who can more plainly utter this matter, then S. Jerome hath done in these words, expressly saying, that Christ executed in deed at his last Supper that priesthood, which Melchisedech did prefigurate, when having taken bread, he represented, that is to say, presently exhibited, not the figure or sign, as Zuinglius and Oecolampadius teach, nor the power and virtue, as Caluine teacheth, but the truth of his body and blood.  

Cyprian. lib. 2. epistola. 3.  S. Cyprian speaking of that Christ did at his last Supper, avoucheth the same thing with words of like effect. Qui magis sacerdos Dei summi, quàm Dominus noster jesus Christus, qui sacrificium Deo patri obtulit, & obtulit hec idem, quod Melchisedech, id est, panem & vinum, suum scilicet corpus & sanguinem? Who is more a Priest of the highest God, than our Lord jesus Christ, who offered a Sacrifice of God the Father, and offered the same, that Melchisedech did that is to wit, bread and wine, as much to say, his body and blood.  
Consider Reader, when Saint Cyprian had said, that Christ offered the same sacrifice that Melchisedech had offered, which was, bread and wine: lest any man should mistake his meaning, and think, that Christ offered none other, nor better thing, than bread and wine, and in so doing should not excel Melchisedech: he addeth an interpretation of his own words, to wit, that although Christ's offering appeared to be bread and wine, yet in deed it was his body and blood. Wherefore if thou wilt acknowledge Christ's excellency above Melchisedech, and follow the interpretation, that S. Cyprian putteth upon his own words: thou must believe Christ and Melchisedech to offer one and the same thing in outward form, and in mystery or sacrament, but not one in substance and truth. The premises considered, it is most certain, that Christ fulfilling the figure of Melchisedech at his maundy, offered his body and blood, that is to say, him sel●e unto his Father.  
Let us go a step forward, 
That priests have authority to offer up Christ unto his Father.  and consider one circumstance more, whereby it may appear, that priests also have authority to offer up Christ unto his Father. How will that appear? Forsooth because Christ, after that he had offered his body and blood himself, and delivered the same unto his Apostles, gave them withal a commandment to do the same, 
Luc. 22.  saying, Do ye this in remembrance of me. 
1. Cor. 1●.  No man, be he never so great an enemy unto the continual Sacrifice of the Church, will deny, but that the Apostles had a warrant given them by this commandment requiring them to do, that they had seen their Lord and Master to have done before them. But it is proved already by sufficient authorities, that Christ at his Supper did offer his body and blood unto his Father: Ergo the Apostles had warrant to offer Christ's body and blood unto God his Father.  
Now let us descend one step lower, and we shall come unto the very point, at which M. jewel unlearnedly, and wickedly maketh such a woondering, as if it were a monstrous, and most dangerous presumption, which is, that a priest hath authority to offer up Christ unto his Father. It is therefore to be understanded, that Christ gave not this commandment, and through virtue of the same a warrant, to do the thing he had himself done before unto his Apostles only, but also unto such as should succeed them in office of priesthood (whereunto they were admitted by Christ at the maundy) to the worlds end. Which truth S. Paul doth insinuate, 
1. Cor. 11.  where he speaketh of this blessed Sacrament, showing that it must be celebrated in remembrance of his death until his last coming. Where of this argument is easily gathered.  

Continuance of priests necessary  Our lords Supper is to be celebrated until his last coming. But that can not be performed, unless some succeed the Apostles in the office, by virtue whereof it is done: Ergo it is necessary, that some succeed the Apostles in that office. The first proposition is proved by S. Paul. The second is manifest, because the Apostles, to whom the commandment was given, were not to continue a live in the Church until Christ's second coming. That commandment therefore was given as well unto them who should succeed, as unto the Apostles themselves: For that any should take upon them to execute so high an office, who have no commandment thereto, or that the commandment was given to all in general, it is to absurd to think.  
To whom then hath this office been committed? By what name have these successors been called? 
Priests by special calling succeed the Apostles in degree. Hieron. ad Heliodorum.  Verily it hath been committed to the Priests of the Church, and to none else. Of this special calling and condition of certain, S. Jerome giveth us an evident witness, saying. Absit ut de ijs quicquam sinist rum loquar, qui Apostolico gradui succedentes, Christi corpus sacro ore conficiunt, per quos & nos Christiani sumus. God forbidden I should speak aught amiss of them, who succeeding into the degree of the Apostles, with their sacred mouth make the body of Christ, by whom also we be made Christians. Thus we are taught, that it is the office of Priests, to make or consecrate the precious body of Christ by virtue of his word, by them, as Ministers, and substitutes of Christ pronounced, for which S. Jerome acknowledgeth their mouth to be sacred and holy, and for the same dignity, confesseth them to succeed the Apostles in that degree.  
To the like effect we find in S. Cyprian a testimony worthy of note. 
Cyprian. lib. 2. ep. 3.  Si Christus summus Sacerdos Sacrificium Deo Patri ipse primus obtulit, & hoc fieri in sui commemorationem praecepit: utique ille sacerdos vice Christi verè fungitur, 
Priests, substitutes of Christ.  qui id quod Christus fecit, imitatur. If Christ the highest priest himself did first offer the sacrifice unto God his Father, and commanded the same to be done in remembrance of him: then that Priest doth truly supply the stead of Christ, which followeth that which Christ did.  
This saying of S. Cyprian goeth somewhat higher, than the former of S. Jerome. There it was said, that Priests succeeded in Apostolic degree. Here a Priest following the act of Christ in offering the Sacrifice, is said to be the substitute of Christ himself. By S. Hieromes verdict they may consecrate the body of Christ, as the successors of the Apostles: by S. Cyprians doctrine they may offer the Sacrifice, as the Vicars of Christ. What think we then? May any Christian man saving his profession, imagine, yea believe, and openly by preaching, and writing publish unto the world, that the Apostles successors, and Christ's substitutes want authority and commission to do that, unto th'office whereof they succeed, and be substitutes?  
Now let these circumstances be gathered, and set together in fewer words, so shall the necessary sequel the better be perceived. Melchisedech was a priest, and figure of Christ by offering bread and wine. Christ fulfilled this figure at his maundy by consecrating, and offering his body and blood under the forms of Bread and Wine unto his Father, himself being the true bread of life, that came down from heaven: and gave commandment and authority to his Apostles, and to their successors, to do the same in remembrance of him: The successors of the Apostles in this behalf be the Priests of the new Testament: Ergo, the Priests have a commandment, and thereby sufficient authority, to do that Christ did at his maundy, that is, to consecrated and offer the body and blood of Christ unto his Father. And so to conclude, these circumstances thus considered, do clearly prove to the detection of M. jewels either blind ignorance, or cankered malice against the Church, this to be a good and true consequent, which he proponed as absurd and ridiculous: God the Father saith unto Christ, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech: Ergo the Priest hath authority and power to offer up Christ unto his Father.   

That the Prophecy of Malachi foresignifieth the Sacrifice of the Mass.  
Touching the prophecy of Malachi, it doth in conclusion import as much as the figure of Melchisedech, if the circumstances be well weighed and considered. This Prophet inspired with the holy Ghost foresaw, that the sacrifices of the jews, which were gross, and in sundry respects unclean, yet for a time allowable, should cease and have an end. 
Malach. 1.  And that in stead of them, God would be honoured with a pure and clean Sacrifice, which should be offered unto his name not only in jewrie, but also among the Gentiles, from the rising to the going down of the sun. This is the effect of that Prophecy.  
Now, if we search never so exactly, and seek for that Sacrifice, which was not used in the old Law, but succeeded in the room of all them of the old Law, and hath been frequented through out all nations: what other can we find, but the Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ? In this Sacrifice we perceive most clearly all the conditions of that Prophecy fulfilled. 
All the conditions of Malachies' prophecy found in the Sacrifice of the Altar.  First, it is in stead of many. Next, it is offered unto Gods most holy name. Thirdly, it is celebrated and solemnized among the Gentiles, and thereby God's name is magnified. Fourthly, it is a most pure and sincere Sacrifice, because the thing that is offered, is the immaculate Lamb of God, the body and blood of him, 
1. Pet. 2.  that was conceived of the holy Ghost, borne of the pure virgin, who never committed sin, nor was any guile found in his mouth: Fiftly, it is offered through out all the world from East to West. Sixthly, it had beginning in the new Testament, and was not used in the old Testament, but only by figures foresignified. Sure it is, that none can be named beside this, in which all these conditions by the Prophet specified be accomplished.  
As for the Sacrifice of Christ's body upon the Cross, it was offered in one special place, 
Sacrifices common to b●●h testaments.  in Golgoltha without the gates of jerusalem. The sacrifices of thanks giving, of praise, of almose deeds, of mercy, of a contrite heart, of preaching Gods words, these and such like, succeeded not in the room of all the old sacrifices, nor began they in the new Testament, but were used in the time of the Law, as well as they be now in these days, as they which be common to both Testaments.  
That this Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ 
That this Sacrifice succeeded all the Sacrifices of the old Law.  succeeded all the Sacrifices of the old Law, which of the Fathers in their learned treatises have not reported? It is needless to rehearse many testimonies. The witness of S. Augustine alone for the plainness and authority of it, might suffice. He writeth thus. Vbi ait (Ecclesiastes) non est bonum homini, 
August. de civita. lib. 17. ca 20.  nisi quod manducabit & bibet, quid credibilius dicere intelligitur, quàm quod ad participationem mensae huius pertinet, quam sacerdos ipse mediator Testamenti novi exhibet secundùm ordinem Melchisedech, de corpore & sanguine suo? Id enim Sacrificium successit omnibus illis Sacrificijs veteris Testamenti, quae immolabantur in umbra futuri. Propter quod etiam vocem illam in Psalmo tricesimo nono eiusdem mediatoris per Prophetiam loquentis agnoscimus. Sacrificium & oblationem noluisti, corpus autem perfecisti mihi, quia pro illis omnibus sacrificijs & oblationibus corpus eius offertur, & participantibus ministratur. Whereas Solomon saith, 
Eccles. 3.  a man hath no good thing, but that he shall eat and drink, what thing is more credible that he understandeth in so saying, then that appertaineth unto the partaking of this table, which the Priest himself the mediator of the new Testament doth exhibit according to the order of Melchisedech, of his own body and blood? For that Sacrifice hath succeeded all those sacrifices of the old Testament, which were sacrificed in shadow of that which was to come. For which cause we do acknowledge that same voice of the self same Mediator speaking by prophecy in the nine and thirteth Psalm, Sacrifice and Oblation thou refusedst, but a body thou madest perfit for me, because for all those sacrifices and oblations his body is offered, and ministered unto the partakers.  
The last cause of this testimony declareth plainly, that S. Augustine meant not the bloody Sacrifice made upon the Cross, but the unbloody Sacrifice offered by the Priests in remembrance of the same, as the which is not only offered up, but also ministered unto the partakers.  
If this notwithstanding any yet remain in doubt, whether the Prophecy of Malachi be to be understanded of this unbloody Sacrifice, it may please him to hear other old learned Fathers teaching the same doctrine. S. Chrysostom writing upon the .95. Psalm, alleging this very Prophecy: 
Chrysost. in Psalm. 95.  In omni loco Sacrificium offeretur nomini meo, & Sacrificium purum: In every place a Sacrifice shallbe offered unto my name, and that a pure Sacrifice: saith forthwith: 
Malac. 1.  Vide quàm luculenter, quámque dilucidè mysticam interpretatus est mensam, quae est incruenta hostia. See how plainly, and how clearly he hath declared the mystical Table, which is the unbloody Sacrifice.  
S. Irenaeus likewise writing against Valentinus the Heretic, 
Irene. lib. 4. ca 32. Aug. contra● Aduersar. leg. et prophet. lib. 1. cap. 20. justmusin Dialog. ad Tryphonen.  S. Augustine, also, and S. justinus the martyr, do expound the prophecy for the same Sacrifice. Whose sayings hear to rehearse, to the proof of so certain a doctrine, it were more tedious, then needful.  
Wherefore this being so sufficiently witnessed by the Ancient Doctors of the Church (against whose authority no novelty is to be heard) as a most undoubted truth, that the sacrifice, which Christ made of his body and blood at his last supper, is that pure and Unbloody Sacrifice, which Malachi prophesied should be offered up unto God from the east to the west: this also being no less true, that Christ appointed and authorized some to offer the same (otherwise to what purpose was it instituted?) and sith that we read of none other appointed and authorized thereto, but the Apostles, and their successors, Priests of the new Testament, nor have we heard of any that lawfully ever took upon them to offer the same, that were not Priests: with what impudency is it denied, that the Apostles had, and Priests now have, authority to offer up this pure Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ unto his Father?  
Thus thou mayst perceive good reader, the argument, which M. jewel here ascribeth unto me, and would to seem ridiculous, to conclude rightly for the truth, if the due consideration of the circumstances be not omitted. Withal thou understandest, that who so ever allegeth the figure of Melchisedech, and the Prophecy of Malachi to prove, that the Priests of the new Testament have authority and power to offer up Christ unto his Father, he maketh no evil choice of the store of authorities, by witness of which that point is proved and confirmed.  
As for the matter of grievance M. jewel, where of you complain so grievously, which is, that I charge them of your side, with wresting by overthwart and false interpretation the words of the Institution of this Sacrifice, the figure of Melchisedech, and the Prophecy of Malachi: I uttered it upon very just occasion, as the learned do know. The same aught to be grievous in deed unto you, not because ye are told of it by me, but because it is true. Neither thought I it good to exemplify the matter, staying the course of my brief Answer to your Challenge, by descending unto the particulars: for that my scope and chief intent was, not to confute the contrary Doctrine, but to prove and establish the truth of this Article by you most wickedly denied.  
If it be pleasure unto you to behold paricular places and points of your false legerdemain disclosed, by reading over my Confutation of your lying Apology, my rejoinder to your Reply, that also which M. D. Saunder, D. Heskins, M. Rastel, M. Dorman, and M. Stapleton have written against you: your lust may happily be satisfied. Take your fill of that, until more come.    

jewel.  
Perhaps he will say, Ye expound the Prophecy of Malachi, sometimes of Prayer, and sometimes of the preaching of the Gospel. This was never the prophets meaning: This is an horrible wreasting of the Scriptures. Thus, no doubt, M. Harding will say: for otherwise he can say nothing. And yet he knoweth and, being learned, can not choose but know, that this is the Old learned Catholic Father's Exposition, touching these words of the Prophet Malachi, and not ours. He knoweth, that the Ancient Father Tertullian saith thus, 
Tertull. contrae judaeos. Tertull. contra Martion. lib. 4. Hieron. in 1. Caput Malach.  The pure Sacrifice, that Malachias speaketh of, that should be offered up in every place, Est Praedicatio evangelii usque ad finem Mundi: Is the preaching of the Gospel until the end of the world: And in an other place, Simplex Oratio de Conscientia pura: The Sacrifice, that Malachi meant, is a devout Prayer proceeding from a pure Conscience. He knoweth, that S. Jerome expoundeth the same words in this wise: Dicit, Orationes Sanctorum Domino offerendas esse, non in una Orbis Provincia judaea, said in omni loco: The Prophet Malachi meaneth hereby, That the Prayers of Holy people should be offered unto God, not only in jewrie, that was one province of the world, but also in all places. He knoweth, that Eusebius calleth the same Sacrifice of Malachi, 
Euseb. De Demonst. li. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  The Sacrifice, and the Incense of Prayer. Thus the Holy Catholic Fathers expounded these words of the Prophet Malachi: and yet were they not therefore ivaged either overthwart wreasters of the Scriptures, or horrible deceivers of the people.  
Now, of the other side, if it may please M. Harding to shewfoorth but one Ancient Doctor, or Father, that either by the Example of Melchisedech, or by force of these words of Malachi, will conclude, that the Priest hath Authority, and Power, to offer up verily, and in deed, the Son of God unto his Father, he may happily win some credit.   

Harding.  
In defence of your fellows, and of yourself, you say, that whereas ye expound the prophecy of Malachi sometimes of Prayer, and sometimes of the preaching of the Ghospel, therein ye use no wresting of the Scripture, nor falsehood: because the old learned Catholic Fathers have so expounded the place. And here you name Tertullian, S. Jerome, and Eusebius. That the Preaching of the Gospel may be, and is called a Sacrifice, I deny not. Marry that by th'authority, which here you pretend to allege out of Tertullian it is proved, and that by the same the meaning of Malachies' prophecy is to be drawn quit from the Sacrifice of th'altar: this I deny utterly. And how far your dealing in these weighty matters concerning the faith of a Christian man is to be trusted by this to all it may appear. 
M. jewel forgeth a saying of his own and putteth it upon Tertullian  First, whereas you bear all men in hand, that I know, that the Ancient Father Tertullian saith, as here you report: it is very false. for how can I know the thing, that is not at all? Tertullian saith not so. These words, The pure Sacrifice, that Malachias speaketh of, that should be offered up in every place, est Praedicatio evangelii usque ad finem mundi, be not to be found in all Tertullians' book Contra judaeos. Yet you have put them in a distinct letter, in which the sayings of the Doctors be printed, that your Reader should believe, they were the words of Tertullian. This is a forgery wrought in your own shop, fathered upon Tertullian. Phy M. jewel, can neither shame, nor the fear of God, withdraw you from using such forged sayings of your own, with which being by you fathered upon some Ancient Doctor of the Church, your common manner is to face out an untrue matter, as crafty players at Cards do as they say, with a Card of ten?  
next, you serve very much from the meaning and purpose of Tertullian. For he saith not, that the Preaching of the Ghospel is that clean Sacrifice, which Malachi prophesied of, but far otherwise. Tertullian having spoken of the two kinds of Sacrifices of the two peoples, the jews and the Gentiles, foreshowed at the beginning in th' oblations of Cain, 
Genes. 4.  and Abel: demandeth, whereas God's law given by Moses required the carnal sacrifices to be made by the people of Israel in the land of promise, and nowher else: why the holy Ghost afterward notwithstanding by Malachi, 
Psal. 95.  and also by David fortelleth, that the jews earthly and fleshly sacrifices should cease, and that spiritual Sacrifices should be offered up to God over the whole world. Unto this question he answereth himself, 
Tertulliae. contra judaeos.  and saith. Indubitatè, quòd in omni terra exire habebat praedicatio Apostolorum, that is to say, Undoubtedly, because the preaching ofth' Apostles was to come forth over all the world.  
This assuredly is the true abbrigement and meaning of Tertullians' words there. 
Tertulians' place truly declared.  And clear it is, he saith not, that the Preaching of the Gospel is the pure Sacrifice, that Malachi speaketh of, as you untruly report of him: but only that the holy Ghost foresignified by Malachi, and by David, that the jews sacrifices being abolished, pure sacrifices should be offered among all Nations of the earth, because it should come to pass, that the Apostles should preach over the whole world. So that by Tertullians' verdict, the preaching of the Gospel was not that pure Sacrifice itself spoken of by Malachi, but the Apostles preaching that then was to come, was the cause, why Malachi and David inspired of the holy Ghost, fortold the ceasing of the jews carnal sacrifices, and the setting up, or use of the Gentiles spiritual Sacrifices. More than this, which is nothing at all, Tertullian in that place maketh not for you.  
Leave, leave M. jewel for your credits sake (if nothing else can move you) to deceive unlearned souls, whom Christ hath so dearly bought, with sayings of your own forging, fathering them upon the ancient Doctors. It is a manifest token what little good stuff ye have to defend your new gospel withal, whereas ye set forth your own pelf under the name of the ancient writer Tertullian. Wherein ye follow false Lapidanies and Goldsmiths, who sell Crystal and glass, for true precious stones, and gilted copper, for pure gold.  
Your other three places, which you pretend to allege out of Tertullian, S. Jerome, and Eusebius, be not with such form of words by those Fathers set forth, as you here report them. The sleight of falsifying that you so commonly use, in this place for your purpose maketh but only a colourable show to the ignorant, who believe what so ever you say: to the learned, who by diligent examition will search what you say, a substantial proof in deed, it maketh not. 
Thymiama, oblatio munda.  All be it I grant, whereas the Prophecy of Malachi speaketh of two things, thymiama, incense, and Oblatio munda, the clean Oblation or Sacrifice: that the best learned Fathers have expounded the Incense, of Prayer, and the clean Oblation, of the Sacrifice of the Altar, that is now offered in the Church, through the whole world.  
Where Tertullian disputing with Martion the heretic expoundeth it of Prayer, 
Contra Marcionem lib. 4.  either it is his private sense, which bringeth no prejudice unto the doctrine of the Catholic Church: 
What Tertullian meant by pure prayer.  or he meaneth it as the other Fathers do, of the Sacrifice of the Altar, which is consecrated with prayer. For so the old learned Fathers call the words of Consecration. Else if it should be expounded of all manner of prayer, or of prayer in general, as it is made of each private man: it can not always seem to be the clean Sacrifice prophesied of by Malachi, because the same is made by those that be not altogether pure, 
Proverbior. 20.  and without spot of sin. For so the Scripture witnesseth: who can say, my heart is clean, I am clean from sin?  
But the Prayer, wherewith the Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ is consecrate, 
1. Pet. 2.  being the words of our Lord, 
isaiah. 53.  who never did sin, nor was guile found in his mouth: is both in that respect pure and clean, and also for that it is pronounced by the Priest, as the public minister of the Church, whose private uncleanness what so ever it be, in that behalf impaireth not the worthiness of the sacrifice, nor of the prayer, wherewith it is consecrated. Who also at what time he offered that Sacrifice, ought specially to be of a pure conscience. And therefore Tertullian having rehearsed the words of Malachi (though some what otherwise then either the seventy Interpreters, or the Hebrew books have, and otherwise then he himself rehearsed them writing against the jews) in every place shallbe offered up in my name sacrifice, 
Tertullia. adversus Martion. lib. 4.  and the clean Sacrifice: might well add further by way of exposition, scilicet, simplex oratio de conscientia pura, to wit simple (or pure) prayer from a clean conscience. In which prophecy the prophet fortelleth, that God hath disposed a better Sacrifice to be offered up unto his name, than the sacrifices were, which the jews offered.  

Simple Prayer.  By simple prayer, he meaneth such, as is not tempered and mingled with any sinful infection of human affections, of which sort is the prayer of consecration of this Sacrifice, as that which is the word of our Lord, and not the word of man. Whose prayer, as all other his actions, proceeding out of his corrupt heart, is stained with some spot of sin, wereunto our nature corrupted in Adam is thrall and subject.  

The words of Consecration of the Sacrament, called by the name of prayer.  
If to any it seem strange, the words, wherewith the body and blood of Christ are consecrate, to be called a prayer: by reading the old learned Fathers he shall find it so termed in sundry places. 
Instinus martyr in 2. Apolog.  S. justine the Martyr speaking of the blessed Sacrament, nameth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the food which is made the Eucharist through the prayer of the word that we have of him, he meaneth Christ. Lo he calleth the consecration, the Prayer of the word, that Christ delivered unto his Apostles, and consequently to their successors, Priests of the new Testament.  
S. Augustine writing unto Paulinus, saith, Precationes accipimus dictas, 
Augustin. ad Paulinum. Epistol. 59  quas facimus in celebratione Sacramentorun, antequam illud quod est in Domini mensa, incipiat benedici: Orationes, cum benedicitur & sanctificatur, & ad distribuendum comminuitur. We take Precationes to be called those prayers, which we make in the celebration of the sacraments, before that, which is on our lords table, begin to be blessed: and Orationes (we take for the prayers that be said) when that (which is on our lords table) is blessed and sanctified, or consecrated, and broken to be distributed.  
Again he saith there, excepto nomine generali orationis, ea propriè intelligenda est Oratio, quam facimus ad votum, id est, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Voventur autem omnia quae offeruntur Deo, maximè sancti Altaris Oblatio, etc. Beside the general name of Prayer, that properly is to be understanded prayer, which we make at vow. And all things are vowed, which be offered unto God, chief the Oblation of the holy Altar. Sith then that is properly a prayer, which is made at vow, that is to say, when we vow aught unto God, and what things so ever we offer unto God, the same be vowed, that is to wit, by the service of our heart, be given, dedicated, and rendered unto God, thereby to protest our faith in him, to thank him, to praise him, to honour him, to show ourselves mindful of his benefits, among all things the Oblation of the Altar being that which is chief vowed: it followeth that the Consecration is specially to be called and accounted prayer.  
S. Jerome likewise called the words of Consecration by the name of Prayer, 
Hierony. ad Eu●grium.  where he saith in his Epistle to Euagrius. Quid patitur mensarum minister, ut super eos se tumidus efferat, ad quorum preces Christi corpus sanguisque conficitur? What aileth the minister of tables, (whereby he meanetha Deacon) to swell and advance himself over them (he speaketh there of Priests) at whose Prayers, the body and blood of Christ is consecrated?  
What shall I need to allege more Fathers for proof of a thing so well known to them, that be conversant in their books? Wherefore seeing the word of Consecration is the word of prayer, whereby the body and blood of Christ, the Sacrifice of our ransom, as S. Augustine calleth it, 
Augustin. Confess. libro 9 cap. 12.  is by us offered up and vowed unto God, that a remembrance of his death be celebrated of our part, and that mercy be extended unto us of God's part, for that body's sake represented and offered up which hath died for us: and seeing in the same we ourselves are also offered up, dedicated, vowed, and rendered unto God, because therein Christ our head, whereof we be members, is offered: the word of Consecration in this consideration being most properly and truly a prayer, yea (if I may so term it) an actual prayer, because it is such a word, as fulfilleth the act of the Sacrifice: it standeth with good reason and learning, that Tertullian expounding the clean Sacrifice whereof Malachi speaketh of prayer, be understanded to mean the oblation and Sacrifice of the Altar, as being that, which is the highest kind of prayer, and of worshipping God, that can be.  
Thus that you bring out of Tertullian, maketh nothing for excuse of them of your side, whom I noted for wresting the place of Malachi, for that by their overthwart and false interpretations, they rack it from the meaning of the Sacrifice of the Altar, offered up unto God in the new Testament in all places among the Gentiles, by Priests after the order of Melchisedek, under Christ.  
TOuching the two other Doctors, S. Jerome, and Eusebius, whom you allege for you, as expounding this place of Malachi of prayer (whereby, though they so did, you see the Sacrifice of the Altar is not excluded): let us see whether in them you have used a more truth and fidelity, than you have in Tertullian. Verily were you mine Adversary never so much, yet for truths sake I can not but give you this commendation: You show yourself always in your writing one manner a man, which is a token of great constancy. I mean, that lightly you never recite any Doctor, but you falsify him, 
The practice of falsifiers.  and corrupt his meaning, by clipping away of part, or by changing of words, or by adding of your own, or by keeping close some what that goeth before, or cometh after, or by conceeling the circumstances of the places alleged by one way or other. He knoweth (say you meaning of me) that Saint Jerome expoundeth the same words in this wise. Dicit, orationes sanctorum Domino offerendas esse, non in una orbis provincia judaea, said in omni loco: The Prophet Malachi meaneth hereby (so you interpret) that the prayers of holy people should be offered unto God, not only in jewrie, that was but one province of the world, but also in all places.  
For the right understanding of this point, I pray thee Reader peruse the place of S. Jerome thyself, believe thine own eyes, believe not such false jugglers. Which counsel I advise thee to observe not only for trial of this one place, but also for trial of other places, which M. jewel bringeth in defence of any his negative Articles. Verily neither hath S. Hierom these very words in such order, 
M. jewel falsifieth S. Jerome.  as they be here laid forth, and the whole sentence viewed and considered together, maketh directly for the Catholic doctrine which I defend, and quite against that M. jewel saith. To th'intent I be plainer, though longer, here I will rehearse the whole place, as we find it written in S. Jerome. Thus he saith.  

Hieron. in comen. in Malac. cap. 1.  Propriè ad Sacerdotes judaeorum sermo fit Domini, qui offerunt coecum & claudum, & languidum ad immolandum: ut sciant carnalibus victimis spirituales victimas successur as. Et nequaquam taurorum hircorumque sanguinem, sed thymiama, hoc est, Sanctorum Orationes Domino offerendas: & non in una orbis provincia judaea, nec in una Iudaeae urbe Jerusalem, said in omni loco offerri oblationem, nequaquam immundam, ut à populo Israel, sed mundan, ut in Ceremoniis Christianorum. Ab ortu enim solis usque ad occasum magnum est nomen Domini in gentibus, etc. The word of our Lord is now properly uttered unto the Priests of the jews, who do offer that which is blind, lame, and sickly, to be sacrificed, to th'intent they might know, that spiritual sacrifices should succeed their carnal Sacrifices: And that the blood of bulls, and goats should no more be offered unto our Lord, but Incense, that is to say, the Prayers of Holy men and that not in jewrie only, which is but one province of the world, nor in jerusalem only, which is but one City of jewrie, but in every place there is offered an Oblation, not an unclean one, as was offered of the people of Israel, but a clean one, as is offered up in the Ceremonies of the Christians. For from the rising of the sun to the setting, the name of our Lord is great among the Gentiles.  
This Prophet speaketh of two things, 
Two things spoken of by Malachi.  the one done among the jews, and now to be left of, the other to be done among the Gentiles. Of each he hath a double consideration. Concerning the first, which is the sacrifice of brute beasts, that it was done but in one province of the world, in jewrie, and only in Jerusalem, a City of that Province. Again, that the same thing was unclean and filthy. For how filthy a thing the blood of Bulls, goats, rams, and other beasts, the smoke and savour of their grese burnt in Sacrifice, was: it is soon conceived. Concerning the second, which is Sacrifice to be done among the Gentiles, the consideration thereof is also double, for that it is pure and clean, and also for that it is frequented in every place.  
This Sacrifice is of two sorts, the one mere spiritual and internal: the other external as touching the Ceremony of doing it, 
Prayer signified by Incense. Apoc. 5. Lib. 4. ca 33. Augu. contra adversar legis et Prophetarum lib. 1. c. 20  spiritual also notwithstanding. The one, after the manner of the Prophets, who be wont to express things of the new Testament, with words of the old Testament, he calleth Incense, and S. Jerome expoundeth it of prayer, which ascendeth from our hearts unto the heavenly throne of mercy like a sweet perfume of Incense. And so S. john in his revelation, as S. Irenaeus writeth, calleth the sweet perfumes, the prayers of Saints.  
The other he termeth a pure Oblation, the which S. Hierom expoundeth of that pure Oblation, which is offered every where, in the Ceremonies of the Christians. Which can be understanded of none other, but of the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ offered up unto God by Priests of the new Testament. For what other Oblation or sacrifice can be named, 
Four conditions of the Mystical Oblation.  that hath these four conditions, which S. Jerome here toucheth, but the Oblation of the Altar? The conditions be these. That it succeed the Sacrifices of the old Law, that it be pure and clean, that it be made in all places, and that it be celebrated and solemnized in the Ceremonies of the Christians.  
Of what so ever spiritual and internal Sacrifice the Gospelers will understand this place, be it laud and praise, 
In his book Against the B. of Winchester. li. 3. fol 425. & 443.  thanks giving, prayer, a contrite heart, mercy, or any such other, as Cranmare understandeth it of laud, praise and thanks, and M. jewel of prayer: it shall quite be avoided by one or other of these conditions, specially by the first, and the fourth. For how can laud and praise, or prayer, are any other mere spiritual sacrifice used in the new Testament, seem to succeed the Sacrifices of the old Testament, seeing all such spiritual Sacrifices be common to both Testaments, and that thing can not be said to succeed, that had place before?  
And if our adversaries will cavil never so much, expounding the pure Oblation that Malachi speaketh of, 
Against the B. of Winster. lib. 3. fol. 99  of some other thing, as Cranmare in one place expoundeth it in general of all the works that Christian people do to the glory of God: the same shall be avoided by that it is restrained unto that Oblation, which is made (as S. Hierom declareth) in Ceremonijs Christianorum, in the Ceremonies of the Christians. For all these spiritual and internal sacrifices be done inwardly in the heart of man: and what other works can they name done to the glory of God in the public Ceremonies of the Christians, 
Ceremonies of the Christians.  which the prophet may reasonably seem to have meant? And what meaneth S. Jerome by the Ceremonies of the Christians, but the Ceremonies of the Church used through all the world in the celebration and solemnity of the Mass, wherein the Sacrifice of the Body and blood of Christ is made and offered by the Priests, touching ministery, by the faithful people also, touching vow? Which Ceremonies be the chief, the most ancient, the most reverent, the most mystical, and most holy Ceremonies, that Christians have.  
Wherefore, whereas Malachi, and likewise S. Jerome expounding his words, speak of two things, of prayer, and of the pure Oblation, the same being that Oblation which is offered every where from the East to the west in the Ceremonies of the Christians by his interpretation: now it appeareth how falsely M. jewel demeaneth himself in this point, who maketh S. Jerome so to understand the place of Prayer, as though he understood the whole saying of Prayer only, and not one part of it of Prayer, and an other part also of the Sacrifice of the Church, whereas in deed he understandeth it of both, and most expressly speaketh of both, as I have now declared. Thus he never leaveth to justle away one truth, with an other truth.  
NOw to come to Eusebius, let us see, whether you entreat him with more truth, than you have entreated Tertullian, and S. Hierom. He knoweth (say you likewise of me) that Eusebius calleth the same sacrifice of Malachi, the sacrifice and the Incense of prayer. And for some show of proof for that you say, you put in the margin of your book, this piece of a Greek sentence out of Eusebius, 
Euseb. De Demonst. lib. 1.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as much to say, the incense, or perfume that is made through prayers.  
For answer here unto, It is to be remembered, as I said before, that Malachi speaketh of two things to be offered up unto God in all nations from the East to the west, Incense, 
Incense, Pure Sacrifice.  and the pure Sacrifice. Eusebius, where he allegeth this place of Malachi, to prove that Moses Law is ended, and that the new Law of the new Testament is come in place: by Incense understandeth Prayer, as S. Jerome, 
M. jewel falsifieth Eusebius.  and other old learned Fathers do. As for the Pure Sacrifice, whereof now we speak, that he calleth it the Sacrifice, and the Incense of Prayer, it is utterly false. In that very place which you allege, Eusebius doth so expound Malachi, as to any man of judgement it shall evidently appear, how untruly you report of him, and how aptly he maketh for the catholic doctrine, and against you.  

Euseb. De Demonst. lib. 1.  The beginning of the sentence is this. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. In English the whole truly turned word for word, soundeth thus. That in every place Incense, and Sacrifice is offered up unto God, what other thing doth it signify, then that the time shall come, when they shall offer up unto God that is above all, the Incense which is made by Prayers, and that which is called the Pure Sacrifice, that is made not by blood, but by Godly actions, not in jerusalem, neither in this or that determinate place, but in every country, and in all nations. Behold Reader how he expoundeth the Incense or perfume, whereof Malachi speaketh, of the Incense that is made by Prayer, as afterward in the end of that first book to that meaning he allegeth the words of the Psalm, 
Psal. 140.  Dirigatur Oratio mea sicut Incensum in conspectu tuo Domine: Let my Prayer o Lord like a perfume be brought up into thy ●ight.  
Touching the Pure Sacrifice, which is offered up unto God by pure and godly actions, that thereby he understandeth most specially the External Sacrifice of the Church, which is offered upon an Altar, the words following do manifestly declare. For immediately to show what he understood by the Pure Sacrifice, he bringeth forth a prophecy of Esay foreshowing the same. There shall be an Altar (saith the Prophet Esay as Eusebius reciteth) to our Lord in the country of egypt, 
isaiah. 19  and our Lord shall be known unto the Egyptians, and (God) shall send them a man who shall save them: and the Egyptians shall know our Lord in that day, and they shall offer up sacrifices, and make vows unto our Lord, and shall perform the same, and they shall be converted unto our Lord, and he shall hear them, and heal them.  
For the better understanding of this place, by the Egyptians Esay meaneth, as Eusebius there afterward expoundeth, all kind of men, that before the coming of Christ were idolaters, as the Egyptians were. Now if Eusebius had understanded the Pure Sacrifice mentioned by Malachi of prayer, or only of mere spiritual and internal sacrifices, he would not have alleged for further proof and declaration of it, that place of Esay, where he maketh express mention of an Altar to be set up among the Egyptians, that is, among all the Gentiles, who were before given to Idolatry. The external Altar argueth and presupposeth an external sacrifice. For else if the Sacrifice be inward only and spiritual, to the doing of it, the building of an Altar is void and to no purpose.  
If M. jewel to avoid the force of this place alleged by Eusebius, will bring phrases, as his manner is, whereby to declare, that Altars oftentimes be understanded to be spiritual (which I acknowledge and confess that the Altars of our hearts be of the Fathers not seldom spoken of) and therefore will say, that Eusebius understood this prophecy of Esay of such a spiritual Altar: to this I answer: Eusebius understandeth Esay to mean such an Altar, as Moses law forbade any where else to be set up, then in jewrie, and that only in one city of jewrie. But it was never forbidden by Moses Law, but that the spiritual Altars of men's hearts might be prepared in more places then in one only City of jewrie, for jeremy, Ezechiel, Daniel, Ezdras, Tobias, and many other holy jews, and Israelites had such spiritual Altars, and thereon offered acceptable spiritual sacrifices unto God in other Countries besides jewrie, and in Cities far distant from jerusalem: wherefore he meant of such Altars, as Christians have ever had in their Churches, which be made after the manner of the Altar appointed by Moses, though the Sacrifice be of a far divers manner.  

Visible, and external Altar.  Eusebius words be these, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Moses ordained Altar and sacrifices to be made in no Land elsewhere, but in jewrie only, and that in one only, City thereof. But this prophecy of Esay saith, that an Altar shall be set up unto our Lord in the Land of egypt, and that the Egyptians themselves shall offer up the Sacrifices unto the Lord of the Prophets, and no longer unto their Country Gods.  
After that he hath spoken what he thought good of this new manner of Altar, and Sacrifice, of the translation of the Altar, and priesthood appointed by Moses, and therefore consequently of the translation of the Law itself: in conclusion thus he saith. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. As much to say, Now then is the time come, that there is need of a new law to be made, that the foresaid things may take place. But as for the spiritual Altar of men's hearts, and the mere spiritual and inward sacrifices, as the sacrifices of prayer, of laud and praise, of thanks giving, and such other: who understandeth not, that they might well take place, and be frequented without necessity of any new Law to be made, and that other wheres, then only in one City of jewrie? Verily the use of such Altars requireth not a change of Moses law, and priesthood. For such Altars, and such sacrifices were in egypt, and Chaldaea, among many thousands of jews, who lived in those Lands, long before Moses law was dissolved. The Altar therefore and Sacrifice that Eusebius meaneth in that place for declaration of Malachies' Prophecy, is the Altar and Sacrifice, whereupon and which, the faithful people by ministery of Priests of the new Testament, doth continually offer unto God, to wit the body and blood of Christ, in remembrance of his death, after the new Decrees and ordinances of the new Testament, as he saith in 
* Lib. 1. De Demonstrat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  one place, after the Decrees and ordinances of the Church, as he saith in an 
* Lib. 5. De Demonstrat.  other place.  
That no man should doubt of what Altar he meant, thus there he speaketh of it. 
Lib. 1. De Demonst.  To our one only Lord an Altar of unbloody and reasonable hosts, after the new mysteries of the new Testament, throughout the whole world hath been erected, both in Egypt itself, and in the other nations being of like conditions unto the Egyptians as touching wicked error. Verily these words can not with any reason seem to be meant of the spiritual Altar of our hearts. For though on the same we offer up unbloody and reasonable hosts, yet that is not done after the new Mysteries of the new Testament. For in the old Testament also no less than in the new, such mere spiritual and internal sacrifices were offered up upon the spiritual Altars of good men's hearts.  

Luc. 22.  And what other be these new Mysteries of the new Testament, whereof this doctor speaketh, 
1. Cor. 11.  but those that Christ taught the Apostles, and delivered unto them at his last Supper, where he converted bread and wine into his body and blood, whom, as S. Irenaeus saith, 
Iren. lib. 4. cap. 32.  he taught the new Oblation of the new Testament, which the Church receiving of the Apostles, offereth up unto God throughout the whole world?  
Whereas then Eusebius expounding the prophecy of Malachi, speaking of Incense, and pure Sacrifice, understandeth it to speak of two distinct sorts of Oblations: therein appeareth either the ignorance, or the wilful malice of M. jewel, who referreth all to one, that is to say, to Prayer, to th'intent the Mystical Oblation and Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, be quite excluded. But as the weighing of that which is already alleged out of the midst of Eusebius first book. De Demonstratione evangelica, detecteth M. jewels falsehood not obscurely: so the due consideration of that he writeth upon the same place of Malachi in the end of that book, doth the same most clearly, and putteth away all mists and clouds of any objection to the contrary.  
For having alleged the prophecy of Malachi to prove the New state of the new Testament, in which prophecy God saith, that in every place, Incense shall be offered up unto his name, and Pure Sacrifice: to declare what he understandeth by either of them, first he showeth, what is the Pure Sacrifice that we offer, next, what Incense we burn, and what perfume we make.  
Concerning Incense, 
What Eusebius understandeth by Incense in Malachi.  he maketh it to be Prayer, and not only Prayer, but also other spiritual Sacrifices, namely the sweet fruit of our right opinion touching God, the sacrificing of ourselves unto God, the purity of our bodies and minds, the worshipping of God with sincere affection, 
Ad finem lib. 1. De Demonst.  and with doctrines of truth. For these (saith he) do please him more, than the multitude of sacrifices made with blood, smoke, and unsweet savours.  
Touching the Pure Sacrifice, 
Pure Sacrifice.  he saith, that we sacrifice unto God the sacrifice of praise. And lest he should seem to mean none other but the mere spiritual sacrifice, that is declared by words, he declareth with very express and apt terms, what Sacrifice specially he meant, saying. 
Lib. 1. De Demonst. in fine.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 1. Sacrificamus Divinum, & venerandum, & sacrosanctum Sacrificium. Sacrificamus nouè secundùm Nowm Testamentum Sacrificium purum. We sacrifice the Divine, and the reverend, and most holy Sacrifice. We sacrifice after a new manner according to the new Testament the Pure Sacrifice.  
In these words Eusebius, doth as it were with pointing of his finger direct us unto the most blessed Sacrifice of the Altar: and withal toucheth the manner how it is offered. For what other sacrifice is there in the Church, which is set forth with so special, and so high titles of honour, but the Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ? For this above all other is Divine, as that wherein Christ, God and man, but as man, unto God is offered. This chief is reverend and honourable, and most worthily to be accounted holy, wherein is contained, Sanctum sanctorum, the holiest of all holy.  
As for the manner of sacrificing, what is that we offer up now in the Church of God, after a new manner, and according unto the new Testament, but the Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, which Priests under Christ after the order of Melchisedech offer up unto God, under the forms of Bread and Wine? This new manner of offering, Christ taught his Apostles, the Apostles delivered it unto the Church, to whom, after that he had taken bread into his hands, given thanks, broken, and blessed, saying, 
Luke. 22.  this is my body, and likewise the cup, saying also, this is my blood, he gave that he professed to be his body and blood, and commanding them, and in them their successors, to do the same in remembrance of him, he taught (as S. Irenaeas saith) the new Oblation of the new Testament. 
Irenaeus. lib. 4. capite. 32.   
Let it be remembered now and considered, how many properties are attributed unto this Sacrifice, that Malachi speaketh of, partly by the other old learned Fathers, but specially by S. Jerome, and Eusebius, whom M. jewel hath brought for him.  
First, that it succeed all the sacrifices of the old Law: 
Hieron. in Malachi. Cap. 1.   
Secondly, that it be offered in every place:  
Thirdly, that it be pure and clean:  
Fourthly, that it be done in the Ceremonies of the Christians:  
Fifthly, (to come to Eusebius) that it be Divine, 
Euseb. de Demonst. lib. 1.  reverend, and most Holy:  
Sixthly, that it be offered after a new manner:  
Seventhly, that it be offered according unto the Mysteries of the new Testament:  
Eightly (that I may add certain properties out of Eusebius fifth book De Demonstratione) that it be done according unto the rules, rites, and ordinances of the Church:  
Nienthly, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  that Christ doth perform it after the form and manner of Melchisedech yet to this day amon guessed men by his ministers:  
Tenthly, that it be such, as was first done by our Lord and Saviour himself, and afterward by Priests that 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  proceed from out of him:  
eleventhly, that the things which be offered contained under the forms of bread and wine used in this Sacrifice, 
Lib. 1 De Demonst.  be (as Eusebius saith) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is to say, the very and true things, and the principal patterns of the Images: by which word he meaneth the Sacrifices of Moses Law, which were Images in respect of this truth:  
Twelfthly, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  that they be the things, whereof being then to come, Melchisech long before used the Images, as Eusebius speaketh, which Images were Bread and Wine, wherewith (as he saith) he blessed Abraham. S. Cyprian calleth this, 
Gen. 14. Cyprian. lib. 2. epistol. 3.  veritatem praefiguratae Imaginis, the truth of the Image, that went before in figure.  
Now let M. jewel name, if he can, what sacrifice is that which we offer up after a new manner according unto the new Testament, and hath all these conditions and properties. And if he have none to name besides the blessed Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, whereof we speak, as we are assured he hath none: then I wish his conscience would overcome shame, lead him to recant, and consider of the false doctrine, whereby he enuegleth the people of God, making them to believe, that this Sacrifice is to be understanded only of Prayer, as he himself taketh Prayer: and that there is no such external Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ at al. This much I think to be enough for answer unto his .3. Division.     

The .4. Division.  

The Answer.  
FOr, whereas the holy Evangelists report, that Christ at his last Supper took Bread, gave thanks, 
Words of Oblation, without Terms of Oblation.  broke it, and said, This is my body, which is given for you: Again, this is my Blood, which is shed for you in remission of sins: By these words being words of Sacrificing and offering, they show, and set forth an Oblation in Act, and deed, though the term itself of Oblation, or Sacrifice be not expressed. Albeit to some of excellent knowledge, Datur, here soundeth no less, then offertur, or immolatur, that is to say, is offered, or Sacrificed, specially the addition, pro vobis, withal considered. For if Christ said truly (as he is truth itself, 
1. Pet. 2.  and guile was never found in his mouth) then was his body presently given, and for us given, at the time he spoke the words, that is, at his Supper. For he said datur, is given, not dabitur, shallbe given. And likewise was his Blood shed in remission of sins, at the time of that Supper: for the text hath funditur, is shed. But the giving of his Body for us, and the sheadding of his Blood in remission of sins, is an Oblation of the same: Ergo Christ offered his body and blood at the Supper. And thus datur, signifieth here as much, as offertur.  
Now this being true, that our Lord offered himself unto his Father at his last Supper, having given commandment to his Apostles to do the same, that he there did, whom then he ordained Priests of the new Testament, saying, Do this in my remembrance, as Clement doth plainly show Lib. 8. Apostol. Constitut. cap. ultimo: the same charge pertaining no less to the Priests, that be now the successors of the Apostles in this behalf, then to the Apostles themselves: it doth right well appear, how so ever M. jewel assureth himself of the contrary, and what so ever the Devil hath wrought, and by his Ministers taught against the Sacrifice of the Mass, that Priests have authority to offer up Christ unto his Father.   

jewel.  
Here M. Harding beginneth to scan his Tenses, to rip up Syllables, and to hunt for Letters: And in the end buildeth up the highest Castle of his Religion upon a guess. I marvel, that so learned a man would either use so unlearned arguments: or, having such store of Authorities, as he pretendeth, would ever make so simple choice.  
He saith, These words, Is Given, Is Shed, be words of Sacrificing, though the Term itself of Oblation and Sacrifice, be not expressed. Here M. Harding, besides that he hath imagined a strange Construction of his own, that never any learned man knew before, and so straggleth alone, and swerveth from all the Old Fathers, includeth also a repugnance, and Contradiction against himself. For, whereas words, and terms sound both one thing, the one being mere English, the other borrowed of the Latin, M. Harding saith, Christ in the Institution of his Supper, used the Words of Sacrificing, and yet expressed not the Terms of sacrificing. Such Privilege these men have, with shift of terms to beguile the world. For if Christ used the words of Sacrificing, how can M. Harding say, He used not the Terms of Sacrificing? and if he used not the Terms (words, and Terms being one thing) how can he say, He used the words?   

Harding.  
Little regarding what M. jewel saith in the lying and scoffing entry, that he maketh unto his Reply in this Division, 
The chief points of M. jewels Reply in the 4. Division.  I will first briefly note unto thee (good Reader) the points, wherein the weight of his whole tale standeth. That done, I will answer to them in such order, as they shallbe proponed. 

First, he would prove, that my words include a repugnance and contradiction against myself.  
Secondly, he chargeth me with controlling the Old common Translation of the New Testament.  
Thirdly, he would a contradiction to seem to be implied in my doctrine.  
Fourthly, he burdeneth me with the corruption and falsifying of S. Clement.  
Fifthly and lastly, he avoucheth that Christ by these words, 
Luc. 22.  Do ye this in my remembrance, made not the Apostles Priests, nor gave them, nor their Successors, authority thereby to consecrate and offer up in Sacrifice his Body and Blood: but that what so ever was by these words commanded to be done, it pertained unto the whole people, as well as unto the Apostles. So he denieth utterly the singular and external Sacrifice of the Church, confoundeth the order of the Mysteries, and referreth all to eating of bread, and drinking of wine, in remembrance of Christ.    
These be the points he treateh of in this Division, whereby his intent and endeavour is, to reprove my Answer unto his Challenge. But with how substantial and pithy reasons, or authorities he performeth it, when they shallbe examined and disclosed, it will appear.  
Touching the first, the matter is soon answered. Lies make no proof. This is your common grace M. jewel, 
M. jewels custom.  for your advantage in one place, to make me say less than I do, in an other place, more than I do, in every place other ●yse than I do. Why do you here by false abbridging of my words, attribute that unto two verbs, Is given, and, Is shed, which I ascribe unto the whole sentence?  

In my Answer. fol. 165. b  Loath I am to fill up the paper with repeating that I said before: but your impudency driveth me unto it. Read the place again. There (as you know) I say thus. 
Luc. 22.  Whereas the holy Evangelists report, that Christ at his last supper took Bread, gave thanks, broke it, and said, This is my body, which is given for you: Again, this is my blood, which is shed for you in remission of synnes● By these words, being words of sacrificing and offering, they show and set forth an Oblation in act and deed, though the term itself of Oblation or Sacrifice be not expressed. Use as much pryieng as you can, in these words where find you the Contradiction?  

M. jewel ●aineth a lie upon his adversary, and thereupon descā●eth.  I grant you, that words and terms, sound both one thing. But where said I, that Christ in the Institution of his supper, used the words of sacrificing, and yet expressed not the terms of sacrificing? For thus you make me to speak, and thereupon you dally at your pleasure, and grounding yourself upon a lie, you seem to conclude absurdity against me, as though I had said, that Christ used the words of sacrificing, and yet had denied that he used the terms of sacrificing. Which had been very vain, and fond, words, and terms, being one thing. Now the truth is, I said not the one, ne denied not the other. Here one of us both must needs be found a liar. If it be not you, tell all the world for clearing of yourself, and for saving your Ministerships' honesty, where I say, that Christ used not the terms of sacrificing.  
The words by which the Evangelists do describe what Christ did at his last supper, do import and imply the signification of sacrificing and offering. Christ say they, took bread into his hands, gave thanks, broke it, and said, This is my body, which is given for you. Again, This is my blood, which is shed for you in remission of sins. Because these words do report and set forth an oblation in act and deed: therefore I said, and might well so say, they were words of sacrificing and offering. Yet in all this description, there is not found this express term, Sacrifice, or Oblation. I referred me to the evangelists description, and you refer all to the words of Christ.  
If you mark my words well, you shall find therein reported, not only words, but also an act of Christ, and by the Evangelists, who declare the whole, an oblation showed and set forth in act and deed, this very term itself of Oblation, or Sacrifice, not expressed, and this to be showed and set forth (whereby I mean the Gospel written) not by Christ, but by the evangelists. Again. whereas I said of the words of the Gospel, that they were words of sacrificing and offering, 
M. jewel falsifieth the words of the Answer.  and that the term itself Oblation, or Sacrifice, was not expressed: to make my saying seem more absurd you falsify my saying, reporting me, to have spoken of the terms of sacrificing, as though I had acknowledged the words of sacrificing, and denied the terms of sacrificing.  
But sir, what mean you? Hath the long study of Rhetoric, driven out of your head the remembrance of Logic? Have you quite forgotten the old Distinction of implicitè, and explicitè, so much tossed in our Sophisms, when we were young Sophisters at Oxford? 
Things implied, though not uttered red in express terms.  Remember you not that a thing may be implied in words, albeit the very terms signifying that thing, be not expressed? As for example, where it is written in the Psalm, Dixit Dominus Domino meo, sede à dextris meis: Our Lord (the Father) said to my Lord (the Son) sit at my right hand, 
Psal. 109.  is not the Omnipotency of God the Son, and his Equality with the Father in these words signified, though the term itself of imnipotencie, or equality, be not expressed?  
It is written of king saul's wicked and miserable end, 
●. Reg. 31.  Arripuit Saul galdium suum, & irruit super eum: Saul caught his own sword, and ran upon it: doth not the Scripture by those words show, and set forth his murdering and killing of himself, though the term itself of murdering, or killing be not expressly uttered?  
Likewise the Scripture signifieth with very plain words the Adultery that David committed with Bethsabee, 
2. Reg. 11.  and his murdering of Urias her husband: and yet in what place these acts be described, there is not at all expressed, the term of Adultery, nor of Murder.  
In the whole story of Christ's passion written by the Evangelists, it is not with any express term of killing said, that the jews or Soldiers killed him. Yet I trow ye will not deny, but that in words it is implied. 
Actor. 2.  If you deny it, S. Peter shall control you, who said to the jews, Hunc interemistis, this man ye have killed. 
Actor. 7.  S. Steven also, who said unto them, cuius vos nunc proditores & homicidae fuistis, ye have now been the traitors and murderers of jesus.  
But what need we to use so many examples in a matter, that may be declared by infinite examples? Right so (to be shorre) the words which the Evangelists, 
No cōt●adictiō●roued by M. jewel to be in the Answer.  and S. Paul use in the Description of the Institution of the blessed Sacrament at Christ's last supper, be words implying and importing a Sacrifice, all be it this term itself of Oblation, or Sacrifice, be not expressed. And who so ever affirmeth him that so saith, to include a Contradiction: is either a wrangler hunting for terms, not regarding the thing implied, or very ignorant, not knowing the nature of a Contradiction.  
But besides all this, 
The reproach of straggling alone answered.  as M. jewel hath found in my words a Contradiction, where none is, so doth he also with like truth, and like proof, charge me with (as it pleaseth him to term it) straggling alone, and swerving from all the old Fathers, by a strange construction of mine own, for that I have so construed the words used in the Scripture to declare the Institution of the Eucharist, as to include and imply a Sacrifice. For verily I have learned this construction of the old learned Fathers, and have not been so presumptuous, as in so weighty a matter to trust the devise of mine own head. Which Fathers do not only in equivalent, but in express terms declare, that Christ offered a Sacrifice at his last supper.  
Hesychius an old Father maketh mention of three sundry Sacrifices, 
Three sacrifices offered by Christe● Hesychius in levit. lib. 2. cap. 8  that Christ offered: two at his maundy, and the third upon the Crosse. His words be plain. Prius figure atam Ouem coenans cum Apostolis, postea suum obtulit Sacrificium: & deinde sicut ovem seipsum occidit. 
That Christ sacrificed him self at his last supper  Christ supping with his Apostles, first offered the figurative Lamb, afterward he offered his own Sacrifice: and then after that he killed himself (that is to say, delivered up himself to be killed) like a Lamb.  
S. Cyprian one of the most ancient Fathers of the Church, speaking of the Figure of Melchisedech, giveth most just occasion of this construction, 
Cyprian. lib. 2. epist. 3.  where he saith, Quam rem perficiens & adimplens Dominus, panem & calicem mixtum vino obtulit, & qui est plenitudo, Veritatem praefiguratae Imaginis adimplevit. Which thing our Lord performing and fulfilling (he meaneth the performance of that which Melchisedeks' Sacrifice did foresignify) offered bread, and the cup mingled with wine, and he who is the fullness, did fulfil the Truth of the forefigured Image.  
Theophylacte although not so old as the others, yet a schoolmaster old enough to teach a Christian man this construction, expounding the later words of the Institution of the Sacrament, and speaking of the Sacrifice, saith: 
Theophylactus in Matt. 26.  Sicut Vetus Testamentum immolationem habebat & sanguinem, ita Nowm Testamentum sanguinem habet ac immolationem. Like as the Old Testament had sacrifice and blood: even so the New Testament hath blood and Sacrifice. Here is to be considered, that if the wine by th'almighty power of the word be not converted into the blood of Christ, but remain still wine, as before consecration, which doctrine our calvinists teach, and the Lutherans impugn: then will not this comparison of Theophylacte hold, neither is it true at all, that now the New Testament hath blood.  
Euthymius also a Father of the Greek Church, 
Euthym. in Matt.  construed the same words of Christ in like sense, saying, Sicut Vetus Testamentum hostias & sanguinem habebat, ita sanè &. Nowm, Corpus videlicet & sanguinem Domini. Non dixit autem, haec sunt signa corporis mei, & sanguinis mei, sed haec sunt corpus meum, & sanguis meus. As the Old Testament had sacrifices and blood, even so truly hath the New Testament also, to wit, the Body and Blood of our Lord. He said not, these be the signs of my body, and of my blood, but these be my Body, and my Blood.  
These Fathers, and sundry others, whose saying here to rehearse I omit that I be not tedious, avouching so plainly, that a Sacrifice was offered by Christ at his maundy: I marvel at the impudency of M. jewel, 
It is M. jew. that in deed straggleth alone.  who solacing himself with the term of straggling alone, reporteth me in this point to serve from all the old Fathers, as though I had devised a new construction, that any learned man never knew before. Verily in denying this Sacrifice, he showeth himself to be departed from Christ's fold the Church, and like a lost sheep to straggle alone, and to wander from the saved flock. Our Lord yet turn his heart, and keep him from the wolves and roaring Lion, that never ceaseth going about, 
1. Pet. 5.  and seeking whom he may devour.   

jewel.  
Verify if this Latin word, Dare, be, Sacrificare: and, giving, be sacrificing, then, where as S. Paul ●aithe, If thine enemy be thirsty, give him drink: 
Roman. 15  And where as judas saith, What will ye give me, 
Matt. 26. Matt. 25.  and I will deliver him unto you: And, where as the foolish Virgins say, give us part of your Oil etc. In every of these, and such other like places, by this New Divinity, M. Harding will be able to find a Sacrifice.   

Harding.  
Forth you go, rather jesting and scoffing, then proving aught, or disproving. If Dare, be Sacrificare, and giving be sacrificing, say you: then where so ever in the Scriptures the word Dare, which signifieth to give, is found, there must be concluded a Sacrifice. And so sacrifice must be done unto judas, because he said, Quid vultis mihi dare, 
Matt. 26.  What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you?  

M. jewel fond argueth from the special to the general affirmatively.  The sadness of this matter M. jewel, beareth not well your lightness. Praised be God, that his enemy's wits find so little weight of reason, or learning, in impugning his truth. You know, that I make not giving, to be sacrificing, nor that Dare should always signify sacrificare. Which if it be not presupposed, your Argument is peevish. For what if Datur, in the words of Christ's Institution of the Sacrament (for thereto only my saying is restrained) do found to some learned men, as much as offertur, specially in that place, where the addition of these two words, pro vobis, for you, is withal to be considered: will it thereof follow, that every where else, Dare, be sacrificare, and that giving be sacrificing in general?  
By this your Logic it will follow, that because this word calix, is taken sometimes for passion, and tribulation, as where Christ said, 
Matt. 26.  transeat à me calix iste, let this cup pass from me, 
Luc. 22.  and likewise in other places: where it is written of Christ being at his last supper, accipiens Calicem gratias egit, 
john. 18.  He took the Cup, and gave thanks, it must be interpreted, Christ took his passion, and gave thanks: whereby it is concluded, that he suffered his passion at his supper in the evening, and not on the morrow, unless it be said, that he suffered his passion twice. By this it is made clear, how fond you reason.  
How be it I judge, if you were well examined, yourself would not deny, but that Dare, 
Dare, used for offer.  may signify offer, where the circumstance of the place reporteth Christ to give his body, or himself for us, or for our sins, specially when being spoken of Christ, it is put with this Proposition pro. This if you deny, S. Paul shall convince you, writing to the Galathians, 
Galat. 1.  Gratia vobis & pax a Deo Patre nostro, & Domino jesu Christo, qui dedit semet ipsum pro peccatis nostris, ut eriperet nos de praesenti seculo nequam. Grace and peace be to you from God our Father, and our Lord jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins, to deliver us from this present wicked world. Now if dare, be offer in this place, why may it not signify the same in the words of the Sacraments institution, where Christ also gave his body and blood, not only unto us, to be a food, which no man denieth: but also for us, to be a Sacrifice, which our new Gospelers deny, and I now have proved?   

jewel.  
Yet, saith he, Certain men of excellent knowledge have thus expounded it. It seemeth very strange, that these so notable men of excellent knowledge should have no names. Perhaps he meaneth Tapper of Louvain, or Gropper of Colaine, of whom he hath borrowed the whole substance well-near of all this Article. How be it, the demand was of the Ancient Doctors of the Church: not of any of these, or other such petite Fathers.   

Harding.  
I said not, as you report me, that certain men of excellent knowledge have thus expounded it, but that to some such men, Datur, here soundeth nolesse then offertur, specially in consideration of the addition, pro vobis. And therein I said truly. And though I named them not, yet was there no cause, why you should make so strange a matter of it, as though worthy men had no names. Because some of them be yet living, I thought it better not to name them. If I had meant Tapper of Louvain, 
Tapper, Gropper.  as I did not, or Gropper of Coulen: I had meant men in deed well known, and commended unto the world, both for excellent learning, and singul●r virtue. How so ever it please you in contempt to call them petite Fathers.  
These, or others like them, if I follow, and help myself in this, or any other question, with their or with any other men's knowledge: what skilleth that, so that I maintain nothing but the truth? If you thought to abase mine estimation with the report of helping myself with other men's labours, you are deceived, the thing is lawful and commendable. Neither ought that to grieve me being objected by you, who, as it is well known, have taken the parcels of the false wares pack● together in your Reply, out of other men's shops, I mean the Lutherans, and calvinists of our age, who have impugned the Catholic Religion, sithence Luther began to write against the Church.   

jewel.  
But Christ saith in the Present Tense: This is my Body, That is Given: not in the Future Tense, That shallbe Given. And likewise, This is my Blood, That Presently is shed: not in the Future Tense, That shallbe Shed. Therefore Christ sacrificed his Body, and shed his blood presently at the Supper.  
Here M. Harding is driven to control the old Common Translation of the new testament, not only, that beareth the name of S. Jerome, and hath been evermore generally received in the Church, and is allowed by the Council of trident, but also, that is still used, and continued in his own Mass Book. 
Chryso. in 1. Corin. 1● Origen. in Matthaeun. tract. 35.  I grant, In the Greek it is written, Datur, Is Given: not Dabitur, shallbe Given. But here the Present Tense, according to the Common Phrase of the Scriptures, is used for the Future Chrysostom readeth it thus, Dabitur, shallbe Given: not Datur, Is given. Origen likewise readeth, not, Effunditur, Is Shed but, Effundetur, shallbe Shed. And in this sort Chrysostom also expoundeth it: Effundetur pro multis. Hoc dicens, ostendit, quòd Passio eius Mysterium Salutis humanae per quod etiam Discipulos consolatur.Shall be shed for many. Thus saying, he showeth, that his Passion is the Mystery of the Salvation of mankind: and by the same he comforteth his Disciples. 
Chrysost. in Caten●.  Again he saith. De Passione, & Cruce sua loquebatur. Christ (uttering the words of the Sacrament) spoke of his Passion, and of his Crosse.   

Harding.  
Touching that I noted Christ's words concerning his body and blood, to be spoken in the present Tense, Datur, is given, and funditur, is shed: there was no just cause, 
The old text by me not controlled, as M. jewel saith.  why you should say, that I am driven to control the Old common Translation of the new testament. Who so ever controlleth any thing, findeth fault with the same. As for the Old Translation of that place, I take not upon me to find fault with it. It standeth not with the humility and modesty of such as be Catholic, to control that Translation, which hath been corrected by S. Hierom (as it is believed) so generally received in the Church, and also well allowed by sundry Counsels. We leave that pride, and temerity unto the sauciness of them of your side: who as well in Latin, as in their vulgar tongues, have presumed of their own heads, to set forth very many new Translations, not one wholly agreeing with an other. And yet each one must boldly and stoutly be avouched to be God's word.  
As for myself, I do gladly embrace and follow the old common Translation, confessing the sense and meaof the verbs in the future tense to be true according to the Latin text. Never the less perceiving that all the Greeks, in whose tongue the greatest part of the new Testament was first written, and that many of the Latins, and their books, as S. Ambrose, 
Ambros. in 11. cap. 1. ●d corinth. Beda. In Luc. cap. 22.  and S. Bede, and the new Testament of Isidorus Clarius printed in Venice, with others, do read those verbs datur, frangitur, effunditur, is given, is broken, is shed, in the present tense, and that not without cause and reason: I thought good thereon to ground an Argument for my purpose, and to take the advantage of that text, without controlment of the other.  

Chrysostom belied by M. jewel. Chryso. in 1. Corin. 1●  Chrysostom readeth Dabitur, shallbe given, say you, not datur, is given. For truths sake, I must strain nurture, and tell you truly, you say false of Saint Chrysostom. The Latin Chrysostom hath in two places, tradetur, shallbe delivered: in both it is corrected in the Margin, where, for traditur, is noted, frangitur, and in both those places the Greek hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which being spoken of our lords Body, is as much to say, as, broken, in the present tense. As for your Dabitur, shallbe given, it is of your own forging: the word is not in S. Chrysostom in the place by you quoted. And the old common text itself in S. Luke, 
Luc. 22.  hath datur, is given, and not dabitur, shall be given.  
And as the Latin translator hath made S. Chrysostom to speak otherwise in Latin, than he speaketh in Greek, putting tradetur, for frangitur: even so hath he done, who so ever translated Origen, whom you allege, placing effundetur, shall be shed, in the future tense, for effunditur, is shed, in the present tense. Except therefore you can show us the Greek Origen, your Latin Origen is to prove your future tense of that verb, of as small authority, as the Latin Chrysostom is now showed to be, for proof of your false reported, 
Reasons, why Origen seemeth to be belied by M. jewel. Origen. in Matth. tract. 35.  Dabitur.  
How be it that Origen in his own tongue would say effunditur, and not effundetur, it may partly be gathe●red by that followeth in him a few lines after the place, which you have alleged. For there thus we read in the present Tence. Hic est Sanguis meus novi Testamenti, qui & bibitur, et effunditur, etc. This is my blood of the new Testament, which both is droonke, and is shed. But whereas Origen treateth upon S. Matthew, how is it to be thought, that he being a Greek writer, would recite the text of the Evangelist otherwise, than he found it in the Greek, 
Matt. 26.  where it is not read effundetur, in the future tense, 
Marc. 14.  as you would have it, but, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quod effunditur, which is shed, by a participle of the present tense?  
As for that you bring out of Catena aurea of S. Thomas, 
S. Thomas in Catena, falsified by M. jewel.  you have foully falsified it. For neither hath S. Chrysostom, nor S. Thomas, as you rehearse the words. For these words, effundetur pro multis, be not placed immediately before this sentence, Hoc autem dicens etc. Which S. Thomas allegeth as out of an Homily of S. Chrysostom: For a saying of S. Remigius, and certain other words, are put between, so that the same sentence is to be referred to that went before, pro multis, or, in remissionem peccatorum.  

S. Thomas again falsified by M. jew.  Your other place also alleged out of Catena, containeth the like falsehood. For whereas by your own forged parenthesis (uttering these words of the Sacrament) you would restrain S. Chrysostom's words to the mention of the Sacrament, which nevertheless in a right sense may be granted: thereby craftily ye would bereave the blessed Sacrament altogether of the truth of Christ's body and blood. Now S. Thomas in Catena allegeth S. Chrysostom thus. 
In Catena in 26. cap. Matt.  Quia verò de passione & cruce eye locutus erat, consequenter eum qui de Resurrectione est sermonem inducit, dicens, Dico autem vobis, non bibam ammodo etc. Because he had spoken unto them of his Passion and Cross, thereupon he bringeth in talk of his Resurrection, saying, I tell you, I will not drink henceforth, etc. Now the talk that Christ had with his disciples of his passion and Cross, appeareth other wheres at his supper, then in the words of the Sacrament. 
Matth. 26  For there he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. Again, The son of man goeth, as it is written of him, etc. Item, I have very much desired to eat this passover with you● before that I suffer my passion. 
Antequam patiar. Luc. 22.  In consideration of these, and other the like words spoken by Christ at his last supper, and not only or chief of the words of the Sacrament, S. Chrysostom saith, 
M. jewels falsehood deprehended.  as he is alleged in Catena, that Christ had spoken of his passion and Crosse. And thus your falsehood M. jewel is disclosed on every side, so much, that in manner your whole process against this Article hitherto, is found to be none other but a continual lie.  
But Sir, 
Real presence, and Sacrifice avouched by Saint Chrysostom, Dissembled by M. jew.  when you pried so much in that Homily of S. Chrysostom, to find your forged word, Dabitur, which is not in him to be found: what eyes had you, that you saw not in him so plain, and so express mention, both of the real Presence, and of the Sacrifice? Else if you saw it, why do you dissemble it? Yea, why do you deny it?  
There demanding of himself, 
Chrysost. in 1. Cor. 11. Homil. 27.  wherefore he that eateth this bread, and drinketh the cup of our Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body, and blood of our Lord: doth he not answer, because he hath shed the blood, and so hath showed the thing to be a slaughter, and not only a Sacrifice? 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Doth he not compare him that doth communicate unworthily, unto the tormentors, who, when they pierced the body of Christ, did not pierce it to th'intent to drink, but to shed his blood? Now if there be no real blood at all in the dreadful Mysteries, but Symbolical and tokening wine only: what reason were it so expressly to charge the unworthy receiver with the heinous crime of shedding Christ's blood? Were your sacramentary doctrine true, the unworthy communicant deserveth otherwise to be reprehended, he can not truly be called a shedder of Christ's blood. For where no blood is, there can not blood be shed pardy.  
Yet here to avoid the wicked carping of a sacramentary, 
In what sense is slaughter committed by the unworthy receivers  where S. Chrysostom termeth the unworthy receiving of Christ's blood, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say, slaughter, likewise spilling and shedding of his blood: we know that it is not a slaughter in deed concerning Christ's part, for Christ can no more be slain, and being now risen from the dead, 
Rom. 6.  he dieth no more, deah shall no more have mastery over him: as S. Paul saith. But it is slaughter on the unworthy receivers part, because by his unworthy receiving he doth as it were shed and spill for so much as in him lieth, and cast away the blood of Christ. Which thing though he do it not visibly, yet doth he it truly not by sensible way of doing, but because wickedly he presumeth to abuse that, which is the very substance of the precious blood, by virtue of the word of consecration made really present.  

Sacrifice avouched by Saint Chrysostom.  To be short, verily in that .27. Homily upon the first epistle to the Corinthians, S. Chrysostom calleth the body of Christ present by consecration, a Sacrifice sundry times, and in the .28. Homily that followeth, he nameth it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, illud purum Sacrificium, that pure Sacrifice, with the pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which importeth a special notification) signifying it to be Singular above other Sacrifices.  
Touching the Present Tense, in which the words of the Institution of the Sacrament be expressed, whereof I gathered an Argument for the Sacrifice at the Supper: for answer thereto M. jewel saith, that it is the common Phrase of the Scriptures, to use the present Tense for the future. But this confuse and uncertain answer, putteth not away the force of my Argument. For what meaneth he? That the present Tense be taken for the Future, is it common to the whole Scriptures, and to every part, or to some parts only? He will not affirm it of the whole, I trow. For so he should be guilty of denying Christ to be come, and of many other great untruths, and absurdities. So, whereas the voice of God the Father said of Christ, 
Matth. 3. &. 17.  This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased: we should take it, as though God had meant, this is he that is not yet my son, but, that shall be my son. And where Christ said to the Samaritane woman, 
joan. 4.  I am Messiah or Christ, even I that speak with thee: that should we expound of the time to come, that he shall be Messiah. Which doctrine maketh a right way for Antichrist, who is to come.  
If he soothe his saying of some part of the Scriptures, the same I grant also, specially of the old Testament, where prophecies are uttered of things to come in the new Testament. But it had been his part to prove (unless his profession be to prove nothing, and to stand only in denials) that in the Institution of the Sacrament the Present Tense standeth for the future, and that so, as the thing signified may not by any convenient sense be verified in the Present Tense. For else if it might, how much better were it to expound it of both Tenses, then of one only, that Christ's saying might thoroughly, and on every side appear true? And if it may appear true for the Present Tense, than so far forth standeth my reason in force, and is not yet repelled.  
Whereas then I said in my Answer, 
That Christ gave his body for us, and shed his blood at the supper, affirmed by certain Fathers.  that Christ gave his body for us, and shed his blood at his supper, which again I affirm to be true in a right sense: that I said not the same altogether without the authority of certain old and learned Fathers, and therefore neither strangely, nor alone, as M. jewel chargeth me: by that which here followeth, it shall appear. I report me to Gregory Nyssen S. Basils' brother, and to Theophylacte.  

Gregor. Nyss. De Resurrectione Christi, Oratio. 1.  Gregory Nyssen saith thus. Pro ineffabili arcanóque, & qui ab hominibus cerni nequit, sacrificij modo, sua dispositione & administratione praeoccupat impetum violentum, ac sese Oblationem ac victimam offert pro nobis, Sacerdos simul & Agnus Dei, qui tollit peccatum mundi. Quando hoc accidit? Quum suum corpus ad comedendum, & sanguinem suum familiaribus ad bibendum praebuit. Cuilibet enim hoc perspicuum est, quòd oue vesci homo non possit, nisi mactatio comestionem praecesserit. Qui igitur dedit discipulis suis corpus suum ad comedendum, apertè demonstrat, iam perfectam & absolutam factam esse immolationem. etc.  
Christ after a manner of sacrifice, that is unspeakable, secret, and such as can not be seen of men, by his own disposition and administration preventeth the violent assault (that afterward was made) and offereth himself an Oblation and Sacrifice for us, 
Christ at the supper, both Priest, and Lamb.  being the Priest, and also the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world. When was this done? At what time he gave unto them of his household his body to be eaten, and his blood to be droonke. For to every one this is a clear matter, that a man may not eat of the Lamb, except killing go before the eating. Whereas then he gave unto his disciples his body to eat, he showeth evidently, that a perfit and absolute immolation (or Sacrifice) was now made.  
What can M. jewel require more? This learned Father saith, that Christ prevented the violence and fury of the jews, meaning that he did unto himself that at the Supper, which was done on the morrow with the violence of them that crucified him. Whereby nevertheless he understandeth the mystical Oblation of himself, not the manner of his bloody Oblation. For he confesseth it to be secret, invisible, and unspeakable. And that no man should doubt of this Sacrifice, he ascribeth unto him both the office of a Priest, and also of the Lamb. As a Priest, he sacrificed, as the Lamb, he was sacrificed.  
For the better understanding of this point, the Sacrifice at the Supper, and that on the morrow upon the Cross, 
The sacrifice of the supper, and the sacrifice of the Cross, one, and divers, in divers respects.  may truly be accounted and named one Sacrifice, and also divers Sacrifices. Neither is this Sophistry good Reader, as these new Gospelers will bear thee in hand: by this true distinction, sophistical objections and wranglings of the Gospelers may reasonably be answered. How then is it one, how be they divers? Learn it once, and be no more contentious, as they be, who having heard it so oftentimes by the Catholics told them, will yet seem not to understand it.  
Before I answer to this question, 
Sacrifice, taken two ways.  this much is necessarily to be declared, that the name of Sacrifice, is wont to be taken sometime for the thing that is offered unto God, sometime for the action itself of sacrificing. Now than it is one Sacrifice in respect of the thing offered and sacrificed, which is the body and blood of Christ. For that is one and the self same in both, in the Supper, and upon the Crosse. The Action is of two manners, bloody, and unbloody. These Sacrifices be divers in respect of the manner of the Action and of the offering. For in the Supper it was unbloody, and upon the Cross, it was bloody.  
Concerning the former Sacrifice, in deed all dependeth of the real presence, that is to say, upon the credit of Christ's word, whereby his body and blood is both professed to be present, and is made really present. Which if it were truly believed, all contention about the Sacrifice were soon ended. And yet hath that point of late been learnedly, and substantially entreated by D. heskin's, and by D. Saunder, who hath clearly answered, and refuted the objections, what so ever Master jewel in his Reply was able to bring to the contrary. 
Tertull. In prescript.  But what shall we say? These men's reasons may soon be answered, their pertinacy can never be answered. Of such Tertullian saith, overcome they may be, persuaded they can not be.  

Theophylact. in Matt. capit●. 28.  Now to come unto Theophylacte. His words be these, according to the Greek. Quinta feria fecit Dominus coenam, & Discipulis dixit, Accipite, & comedite Corpus meum. Itaque quia potestatem ex se habebat ponendi animam suam, manifestum est, quòd ex eo tempore immolaverit seipsum, quando tradidit discipulissuis corpus suum. Nemo enim comedit aliquid, nisi prius fuerit immolatum. Upon the fifth day our Lord made his Supper, and said unto his Disciples, take ye, and eat my body. So that because he had power of himself to put of his soul, it is manifest that from that time he sacrificed himself, when he delivered his body unto his Disciples. For no man doth eat any thing (at the solemnity of a sacrifice, so he meaneth) which is not sacrificed before.  
What can be uttered in plainer terms, then that we find in these two Fathers? The one saith, that Christ offered himself, when he gave his body and blood unto his Disciples. The other, that he prevented the violence that was done unto him on the morrow, and offered up himself an Oblation and Sacrifice, performing the part both of a Priest, and of the Lamb. And lest any man should myssetake them, understanding it to have been done upon the Cross only: with most express words they refer it unto the Supper. And so by their doctrine be the verbs, Datur, frangitur, effunditur, is given, is broken, is shed, verified in the present Tense, and not only in the future Tense.  
In these testimonies the cause, that both Nyssen, and Theophylacte giveth, why Christ offered his body, which he delivered unto his Disciples, is specially to be noted: which is, because in the solemnity of Sacrifices, no man eateth that which is not before sacrificed. Wherein they allude unto the old manner of Sacrifices, which always were offered up, before they were eaten. And so the body and blood of our Saviour Christ our true Paschal Lamb, was at his maundy, and now aught to be offered up, before it was then, or now is to be eaten and drunk in the blessed Sacrament. 
Hesychius lib. 1. in levit. cap. 46.  Hesychius uttereth the like doctrine writing upon the book of Leviticus.   

jewel.  
To be short, if it be true, that Christ shed his blood at his Last Supper, and that Verily, Really, and in deed, as M. harding alone strangely avoucheth, and no man else, I trow, beside him, then can he no more say, The same was an unbloody Sacrifice: And so must he yield up the strongest Tower of all his Hold. For if the Sacrifice, that Christ made at his Supper were unbloody, how did Christ there shed his blood? If Christ as M. Harding saith, did there Shed his Blood, how can that Sacrifice be called Unbloody?  
But to leave these fantasies, and vain shifts, Christ gave his Body to be broken, and his Blood to be shed, not at his Last Supper, but only upon his Cross, and no were else. There he bore our iniquities: there was he rend for our Sins. 
Psal. 53.  And in that only respect we receive his body, and embrace it, and have fruit of it. In this respect S. Paul saith, God forbidden, 
Galat. 6.  I should rejoice in any thing, saving only in the Cross of our Lord jesus Christ.  
Therefore, this new Article of the faith, of the real sacrificing, and Sheadding of Christ's blood at the table, neither being true in itself, nor hitherto by M. Harding any way proved, notwithstanding the great Store, and choice of his Authorities: for as much as Christ never gave, neither his Apostles, nor any their successors Commission to do more in that behalf. than he himself had done, To say, that any mortal man hath power, and authority, really, and in deed to Sacrifice the son of God, it is a manifest, and wicked blasphemy: the great, and gross errors, wherewith the Devil, and his Disciples in the time of his kingdom of darkness have deceived the world, notwithstanding.   

Harding.  
But here M. jewel replieth, and would feign prove a contradiction to be implied in this doctrine. I omit his falsifying of my Answer, affirming me to say, that Christ did shed his blood at his last Supper verily, really, and in deed (which I said not, though it may be so said in a right sense): and much less meant I, as thereby his intent is to report unto the simple, to wit, an external, and sensible shedding, which was done only at the time of his Passion. That the matter might seem the more absurd and unreasonable, If (saith he) Christ's Sacrifice made at the Supper were unbloody, how then did he there shed his blood? If he did shed his blood, how can that Sacrifice be called unbloody?  
Why Sir, will you needs have the Mysteries of this Singular and peerless Sacrifice to be discussed by reason, and not to be conceived only by faith? Will you require the mean of this Sacrifice to be set forth evidently unto you, which is secret as Nyssen before mentioned saith, invisible, and unspeakable? S. Paul himself where he speaketh of the Priesthood of Christ after the order of Melchisedek, 
Heb. 5.  saith he not, that thereof he hath much to say, and that the things be hard to expound? These how's and questions M. jewel become jews, Infidels, and Heretics, much better than a true Christian man. Christ's blood was shed at his Supper, so as it is now shed in the daily Sacrifice of the Altar: that is to say, in a mystery, and in a Sacrament, by a mean to man invisible, and unspeakable.  
Because his blood is beneficial unto us to redemption, in that it was once actually, externally, and with death drawn forth of his body: In consideration thereof, where so ever that blood is by the almighty power of our Lord's word in the Sacrifice made and exhibited, we think it no absurdity, nor inconvenience, to say, that his blood is shed in a mystery, and unbloodily. Whereby we mean, that not only his memory is celebrated, but also that the effect of the bloody shedding of his blood, that is to say, the effect of his death, is thereby applied unto us having faith, and being disposed, as we ought to be, as if he were now hanging on the Cross, and presently bleeding before our eyes. For to show this and that of the Cross, to be one and the self Sacrifice, we offer him, saith Theophylact, perinde ac si esset hoc tempore immolatus, 
Theophylact. in cap. 10. ad Heb.  as if he were at this very time sacrificed. Again, hanc hostiam semper ut praesentem offerimus: we offer up this host always, as if it were present, saith he, meaning the visible presence upon the Cross: for otherwise it is present. And therefore it may truly be termed an unbloody shedding of blood, the term of shedding being referred to the blood by the power of the word of consecration made present, offered, presented, and verily exhibited, the term unbloody, referred to the manner of offering and exhibiting it without any such violence, as was done unto the person of Christ by the Soldiers, who with thorns, nails, and spear, drew blood of him, when he hung on the Crosse.  
That no doubt remain, to speak so plainly as I can of this high Mystery, thus it is. The blood of Christ (we confess) is the price of our Redemption, in that it was once shed upon the Crosse. That blood, and body whereof it issued out, is the Host of our Salvation. That very blood is here made present in the Sacrifice of the Altar by virtue of Christ's word, and is said presently to be shed (which never the less we understand to be done in mystery and in remembrance of that which was shed upon the Cross) because the effect of that external shedding by this is applied unto us, as if it were now in our sight offered and shed.  

The unbloody shedding of blood.  This shedding may be, and is called unbloody, as the offering and the Sacrificing of Christ, and as the death is called unbloody. For like as is the Sacrifice, such is the Death. Where is bloody Sacrifice, there is bloody Death. Where is the unbloody Sacrifice, there is the unbloody Death, and consequently the mystical and unbloody Sheddding of blood.  
But for better credit, and that it seem not strange, let us confirm this point with some testimonies of Ancient Faters, where the like speeches are uttered. S. Gregory saith, 
Gregorius Dialog. 4. cap. 58. De consec. di. 2. Quid sit.  Christus in seipso immortaliter vivens, iterum in hoc mysterio moritur ● Christ, who liveth immortally in himself, in this Mystery dieth again. S. Augustine likewise. Semel immolatus est in semetipso Christus: & tamen quotidie immolatur in Sacramento. Christ was sacrificed in himself once: 
August. epist. 23. De Conse. dist. 2. Semel. De Conse. dist. 2. Iteratur.  and yet is he sacrificed daily in a Sacrament. Paschasius saith in like manner. Quotidie Christus mysticè pro nobis immolatur, & Passio Christi in Mysterio traditur etc. Christ is daily sacrificed for us mystically, and the Passion of Christ is in a mystery delivered.  
To be short, Eusebius Caesarienses, Cyrillus, S. Chrysostom, Theophylacte, Euthymius, S. Gregory Nazianzen, and in manner all the other Fathers do call this, Incruentam immolationem, the unbloody sacrificing, and unbloody Host. By the which Christ to effect is so sacrificed for us, as to them who were present, when he offered himself on the Cross, yet so, as this Sacrifice take effect of that. And that there be truly and properly a Sacrifice, it is enough, that Christ's death be so now applied to remission of sin, as if he himself now died.  
In these former and the like sayings, the Fathers do set forth the way and mean of this Sacrifice, of this Death, and consequently of this shedding of Christ's blood: as they may seem to signify not obscurely their unableness to express the same, terming it Sacrifice in a Sacrament, Death in a Mystery, Sacrificing mystical. The which words, Sacrament, and Mystery, do not import a signification of absence of the thing reported to be sacrificed, to be shed, and to die: but the secret manner of sacrificing, shedding, and dying. And because this oblation is not with shedding of blood, which blood may presently be seen, but by application of the blood already shed: it is of the ancient Fathers rightly called an unbloody Sacrifice.  
S. Chrysostom joining Hostiam, an Host, and Incruentam, 
Chrysost. in Psal. 95.  Unbloody, together, could understand an unbloody shedding of blood in a Mystery, and thought it not absurd. Yet nevertheless a man that standeth well in his own conceit, and skanneth all Divinity by Phrases, as M. jewel doth: might find matter in it to utter a scoff or two, and demand of Chrysostom, if it be an Host, how is it unbloody? If it be unbloody, how can it be an Host, seeing that an Host hath not been wont to be offered without bloodshedding?  
Likewise S. Gregory Nazianzen that great Divine, having respect unto the body and blood of Christ offered by the Priests in the Sacrament, feared not to set together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Gregor. Nazian. in Carminibus ad Episcopos.  sacrifices, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unbloody, saying: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, O ye Priests that offer up unbloody Sacrifices! And to put all out of doubt, that he meant it of the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ: he addeth further in the same place: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. O ye that bear the wrought work of Great GOD in your hands! Whereby he meaneth the true and real Body of Christ in the Sacrament.  
Theophylacte also among other is very plain, where he saith thus. 
Theophylactus in 10. cap. ad Hebr.  Num & ipsi sine sanguine immolamus? Omnimo. Sed nunc reminiscimur mortis Domini. Do we also sacrifice without blood? Yea verily. But now (in our Sacrifice) we remember the death of our Lord. The Greek word, which Theophylacte useth is such as properly signifieth the kill of a living thing. Here is a word alone for M. jewel to utter his scoffing eloquence upon. Do we kill? Then how without blood? If without blood, how then do we kill? Thus the learned Fathers being persuaded, that through the almighty power of Christ's words, his flesh and blood are really exhibited, and made present in the Sacrament: thought it no absurdity in this singular Sacrifice, to join those terms together, which in no truth could stand together in the order and manner of offering the old sacrifices, or Christ's Sacrifice upon the Crosse.  
If M. jewel will here reply and say, that the joining of these unagreeing terms together is an Argument, that the Fathers meant not to avouch a true and Real Sacrifice, but a figurative Sacrifice only: how can it not appear most absurd, to think that, whereas they affirm Christ's Real flesh and blood to be made present by virtue of his word, to th'end it be the Sacrifice of the new Testament, and likewise where as they teach this Sacrifice and this host to be one with that of the Cross: they should mean no true and Real Sacrifice, but only a Figurative Sacrifice?  
And wilt thou understand Christian Reader, how the old Fathers of the Church mean, where they report the Sacrifice of the Altar, to be one with the Sacrifice of the Cross? 
In what sense the Fathers make the sacrifice of the Altar, and of the Cross, one Sacrifice.  Verily they mean, as every where we teach, the Host, or the thing sacrificed, to be one, and the very self same, upon the Altar, and upon the Crosse. For witness hereof hear S. Chrysostom. Having asked this question, Quomodo una est Hostia, & non multae? How is it one Host, and not many? After a few words he saith: Id ipsum semper offerimus. Nec nunc quidem alium agnum, ●rastina alium, 
Chrysost. homil. 17. in Epist. ad Heb.  sed semper eundem ipsum. Proinde unum est hoc Sacrificium, hac ratione. We offer up always the self same thing. Neither do we offer one Lamb to day, an other to morrow, but always one the self same. Therefore this is but one Sacrifice, by this reason, 
Hacratione.  or in consideration hereof, that is to say, because the thing which is offered, is one. Christ is our high Bishop (there saith he further) which hath offered up the host that cleanseth us (of our sins) the same offer we now also, which being then offered, can not be consumed. If we offer the same host and sacrifice, that Christ offered, whereby we are made clean from our sins, which is the sacrifice of the Cross: it followeth, that this be a true and real sacrifice (in respect of the thing sacrificed) as that was. By this M. jewel may understand, how lawful it is for me to speak, as the catholic Church speaketh, that Christ is offered up unto his Father by the Priests of the new Testament, verily, really, and in deed. Now let us see what substance there is in all that, wherewith he burdeneth me touching S. Clement.   

jewel.  
As for Clemens, whom M. Harding so often calleth the Apostles fellow, as he is but lately start up, and come abroad, and therefore hath not yet gotten sufficient credit, and in here brought in dumb, and saying nothing, so is he not worthy of further answer. How be it M. Harding doth great wrong, otherwise to report his Authors words, than he findeth them. Truly his Clemens, what so ever he were, saith not, The Priest hath Commission, or Power, to offer up the Son of God. 
Clemens Constit. Apostoli. lib. 6. cap. 30. Clemens Constit. Apostol. lib. 8.  His words are plain to the contrary: Antytipon Regalis Corporis Christi offerte: Offer ye up (not the Body of Christ, but) the Sign, or Sacrament of the Royal Body of Christ. Likewise again he saith, Offerimus tibi Regi, & Deo juxta Institutionem Christi, Hunc Panem, & hoc Poculum: We offer up unto thee, our King and God (not the very Body of thy Son Really, and in deed, but) This Bread, and this Cup, according to Christ's Institution. It is a great Prerogative for M. harding, both to make Doctors of his own, and also to give them his own Constructions.   

Harding.  
First, 
Philip. 4. Hierony. in peroration translatoris, ad finem Commentariorum Origenis in epist. ad Romanos.  he laboureth to put him out of credit, to that end using pretty light terms, but never a weighty reason. He is but lately start up, and come abroad, saith he. For whereas I call him the Apostles fellow (and that not often as he saith) he should be offended with the Apostles, who so used him, and with S. Jerome, who so calleth him. Next, he reproveth me after his scoffing manner, for that I bring him in dumb, and saying nothing. Lastly, he chargeth me with reporting my authors words otherwise then I find them.  
That S. Clement can not truly be said, lately to have started up, as it pleaseth M. jewel to speak, I have in my rejoinder to his first Article, sufficiently proved his Antiquity, 
Page .29. b  and authority, as there the Reader may see. 
S. Clement not brought in dumb.   
I do not bring him in dumb. To refer the Reader unto a special place of a writer, is not to bring him in dumb. So I in my Answer referred the Reader to the eight book and last chapter of S. Clement's Constitutions. There shall he find a clear testimony for the unbloody Sacrifice, for the Priesthood, and for the Institution, and commandment of the exercise of the same, all which M. jewel denieth. The words for brevities sake I rehearsed not. To advertise the Reader of the place, I thought it enough.  
Lest M. jewel charge me again with S. Clement's dumbness, 
Clemens in Constitut. li. 8 cap. vlt.  certain of his words, here briefly to satisfy the man, I am content to allege. Thus than he saith. Christ the only begotten (son of God) by nature is the first high Bishop, who took not honour unto himself, but was ordained of his Father, 
Christ made Sacrifice before his Passion, and commanded the same to be continued.  who for our sake being made man, and offering a spiritual Sacrifice unto God and his Father, before his passion commanded us (his Apostles) alone to do the same: albeit there were others present with us, that believed in him, but every one that believeth, is not forth with a priest, nor hath Bishopply honour.  
Here have we express, and plain mention of the Sacrifice, which Christ, as high Bishop offered up unto God his Father, and commanded his Apostles to offer the same, before his passion. This Sacrifice he calleth Spiritual, 
Spiritual.  in respect of the sacrifices of Moses' law, which were gross and bodily of brute beasts, meaning the sacrifice of his body and blood, spiritually, that is to say, with spiritual manner, and not with visible shedding of blood offered, and that before his passion, whereby he signifieth the Sacrifice made at the Supper. And that it be not understanded of the Sacrifice of Praise, or prayer only, S. Clement saith it was such, as the Apostles only were commanded to offer, for that they were Priests. 
A testimony for the Sacri●fice of the Altar.   
Of what other sacrifice can M. jewel understand this, which Christ offered before his passion, and commanded his Apostles, and Priests only to offer: but of the Sacrifice of his Body and blood, which there after a few words is called the pure and unbloody Sacrifice?  
Of this Sacrifice he is to be expounded, where speaking of S. Steven in the same chapter, he saith thus. Whereas he was such, and so great a man, fervent in spirit, and saw Christ on the right hand of God, and the gates of heaven open: yet it appeareth no where, that he exercised those offices, which be not convenient for the degree of Deaconship, as that either he offered the Sacrifice, or laid hands upon any, but kept the order of a Deacon unto his end. As for the inward spiritual Sacrifices, as praise, thanks, a contrite heart, prayer and such the like: I trow M. jewel will not deny, but that S. Steven did them before his martyrdom, and that the same were not vnconue●ient for the order and degree of Deacons. And so S. Clement giveth us a plain testimony for the Sacrifice of the Altar, the ministration whereof belongeth to the order of Priesthood only, which is above the order of Deaconship.  

M. jewel taken in a manifest and foul contradiction.  But who would think, that M. jewel, who is so busy to burden other men with contradiction, yea where none is, would fall into the oversight of so foul a Contradiction himself? For what can be a more open contradiction, then to say, as he doth, that S. Clement is brought in dumb, and saying nothing, and yet his words be misreported? If he be brought in dumb, if he say nothing, then where be his words, that be misereported? If his words be misereported, how is he brought in dumb, how saith he nothing? I have read, where speech hath been attributed to beasts, and Trees: but that a dumb man, and one that saith nothing, speaketh, and uttereth words, as it is absurd in nature, so no man was ever so mad, as once to feign it. Thus while M. jewel seeketh to scoff S. Clement out of credit, he hath showed himself worthy of small praise, and credit.  
As touching the word, Antitypon used by S. Clement, whereof he taketh hold: 
Antitypon doth not exclude the verity of the mysteries.  it maketh little for his purpose. In what Logic learned he to make this Argument, By S. Clement Priests are required to offer up antitypon, that is to say, the sign, figure, or sampler of Christ's body: Ergo, they have no commission, nor power to offer up Christ himself? Where two things go together, it is a foolish reason, that with the affirmation of the one, concludeth the denial of the other. By such Logic he may as well deny Christ to be God, because he is man..  
For answer to this and the like cavils made by the Sacramentaries against the verity of Christ's body and blood in the blessed Sacrament, it shall be necessary to inform the Reader of the doctrine of S. Augustine touching this very point. 
Augu. lib. Sententiar. Prosperi. de Consec. Dist 2. Hoc est quod.  His words be these. Hoc est quod dicimus, quod omnibus modis approbare contendimus, Sacrificium Ecclesiae duobus confici, duobus constare, visibili elementorum specie, & invisibili Domini nostri jesu Christi carne & sanguine: & Sacramento & re sacramenti, id est, corpore Christi. etc. This is that we say, that we go about by all means to approve. That the Sacrifice of the Church is made of two things, and consisteth of two things, the visible form of the elements, and the invisible flesh and blood of our Lord jesus Christ, both the Sacrament, and the thing of the Sacrament, that is to say, the body of Christ.  
Now where as the Sacrifice consisteth of two things, the visible form of the elements, 
For what, antitypon is taken in S. Clement.  which are bread and wine, and the flesh and blood of our Lord: S. Clement naming antitypon regalis corporis, the sign, figure, or sampler of Christ's royal body meaneth the visible form of the elements, as under them the body, and blood is really contained. And so by this word antitypon, he understandeth not the outward forms of bread and wine only, but (as in the same sentence he plainly expoundeth himself) the whole Sacrament, otherwise called the eucharist. Which Sacrament is after consecration not without reason termed antitypon, partly in consideration of the outward forms, partly because the external breaking and division of the blessed Sacrament representeth and betokeneth Christ's passion and blood shedding. Also, because we have not yet the fruition of Christ's body after such wise, as we shall have in the life to come. Here we have Christ verily, in deed, and substantially, but as yet covered in a mystery, and hidden under the outward forms. 
1. Cor. 13.  But in the life to come we shall see him face to face, not as through a glass, or dark contemplation: but even so as he is in truth of his own Majesty.  

That the term antitypon, maketh nothing for the Sacramentaries.  Because the Sacramentaries, where, with all their wit and cunning they impugn the Sacrifice of the Altar, pretend to have great advantage against the Catholics, for that S. Basil and certain other old Fathers use this term, antitypon, where they speak of the most blessed Sacrament, calling it by that name: It shall be good to show, how little the use of the same in the Father's writings maketh for proof of their heresy, which they maintain against the real presence.  
First it is acknowledged and confessed of the Catholics, that the Sacrament of the Altar is antitypon, that is to say, a sampler, or sign of Christ's royal body: otherwise it could not be a Sacrament, which is a visible sign of invisible grace. Thus far we agree on both sides. The point wherein we vary from the Sacramentaries, is touching the substance of the Sacrament, or (which is all one though in divers respects) the Sacrifice.  
We say, that unless the flesh and blood of Christ be the substance of this sampler or sign, it can not be a Sacrament meet for the dignity of the new Testament: because it must be the truth of all the figurative Sacrifices of the old Law, according to that S. Augustine teacheth speaking of the Table● 
Augu. De civita. Dei lib. 17. ca 20.  which Christ being a Priest aft●r the order of Melchisedech doth exhibit and give. Id enim Sacrificium successit omnibus illis Sacrificijs veteris Testamenti, quae immolabantur in umbra futuri. For that Sacrifice (saith he) hath succeeded all those Sacrifices of the old Testament, which were offered in the shadow of that to come.  
Wherefore this Sacrifice being the body of those shadows, must excel in substance the Sacrifices, that were the shadows. But how can that be, if the substance of bread be the substance of our Sacrifice, for as much as the substance of bread is no better (if it be so good being an artificial and dead thing) then is the substance of a lamb, an Ox, or a goat, which are natural, and living creatures, whose substances were substances of the old Sacrifices, that were shadows.  
S. Alexander therefore the fourth Bishop of Rome after S. Peter, considering the excellency of our Sacrifice above the old Sacrifices, 
Alexand. epist. 1. De Consec. dist. 2. cap. Nihil in.  saith, Nihil in Sacrificiis maius esse potest, quàm corpus & sanguis Christi, nec ulla oblatio hac potior est, sed omnes haec praecellit, etc. Nothing can be greater in Sacrifices, than the body and blood Christ, neither is there any oblation better than this, but this doth far excel all others, the which ought to be offered up unto God with a clean conscience, and to be received with a pure mind, and of men to be wourshipped.  
Thus our Sacrifice containing really the precious body and blood of Christ, is a Sacrifice worthy of the new Testament, most meet and able to represent unto us, and preserve in perpetual remembrance the same body and blood rend and shed upon the Cross, and most effectual to derive and apply unto us, the merits and fruits of that bloody Sacrifice.  
And yet never the less being ministered under the outward forms not of the body and blood itself, but of bread and wine for our infirmities sake, and for the better practice of our faith: it is rightly called the sampler of the royal body of Christ, so termed by a fit word in the greek tongue, antitypon, which being taken in the best signification, 
Augu. lib. 2. quaest. Euangel. cap. 3. What properly is signified by antitypon.  (as it is reason it should so be taken, sith it signifieth a Sacrifice most divine, and as S. Augustine termeth it, Sacrificium Sanctum Sanctorum, the Sacrifice that is of all holy things the most holy) doth import a true and like sampler, or counterpane equal in truth and worthiness with that which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, the principal copy. For so much doth the greek preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify in composition, as for example, Homer oftentimes calleth that man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as much to say, equal to God, who for some excellent quality seemed to be nothing inferior (at least in that point) to them whom he feigned to be Gods. And in consideration hereof, learned men have translated the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by this Periprasis or circumlocution, exemplar similis formae, a sampler of like form.  
Now what thing is there any where, that is worthy to be, or may be a true pattern or sampler of like form to the body and blood of Christ crucified and shed, and now remaining visibly in heaven, but the body and blood of Christ himself, which by virtue of his almighty word, he of his singular mercy so maketh and tempereth for us in the most holy mysteries, giving them us under the forms of our common food bread and wine, that neither the Majesty of them should deter and fray us from offering them, nor any loathsomeness, or sight of flesh and blood, should cause us to abhor to eat and drink them. And thus the body of Christ in the Eucharist, is, antitypon, that is to say, a sign, a sacrament, a pattern, a sampler of his body that hung upon the Cross, and of his body that is now in Majesty at the right hand of God the Father.  
Neither is this a new doctrine of our devise, it was taught in Christ's Church above eleven hundred years past. Let these words of S. Augustine serve to witness the same. 
Augu. lib. Sentent. Prosperi. de Consec. Dist. 2. Hoc est.  Caro eius est, quam forma panis opertam in Sacramento accipimus, & sanguis eius, quem sub vini specie & sapore potamus: Caro videlicet carnis, & sanguis est Sacramentum Sanguinis, utroque invisibili, Spirituali, intelligibili, signatur visibile Domini nostri jesu Christi corpus & palpabile, plenum gratia omnium virtutum, & divina Maiestate. The flesh of Christ it is, that being covered with the form of bread we receive in the Sacrament, and his blood it is, which under the shape and savour of wine we drink: sooth flesh is a sacrament of flesh, and blood a sacrament of blood, by both being invisible, spiritual, and intelligible, the body of jesus Christ our Lord that is visible and palpable, full of the grace of all virtues, and divine Majesty, is betokened.  
Consider this doctrine well Christian Reader. First, that which we receive in the Sacrament under the forms of bread and wine (S. Augustine telleth thee) is the flesh and blood of Christ. Next, he saith, not that the outward forms of bread and wine, but that the very flesh and blood, be sacraments of flesh and blood. Lastly, to put all doubt away, and to make the matter clear, he showeth how this is true● and saith, that by both flesh and blood invisible, and intelligible, the visible and palpable body of Christ is pointed to, notified, and signified. Which is as much to say briefly, as that the body of Christ in the Sacrament invisible, is a sign or sampler of Christ's body visible. All this if thou consider diligently and advisedly, thou mayst easily understand, what both S. Clement in the place by M. jewel alleged, and other learned Fathers mean by this word, antitypon, in the matter of the blessed Sacrament: sooth not to exclude the real presence of Christ's body, but to signify the secret mean of the presence.  
We grant therefore the Sacrament of the Altar to be a sign, as S. Clement calleth it, antitypon. But when by any sacramentary the denial of the thing itself is inferred of the affirmation of the sign, 
The kinds of Signs, significative only, and exhibitive.  we deny the Argument. For there be two kinds of signs. One is significative only, the other exhibitive, which doth not only betoken or signify, but also exhibiteth, and giveth the thing signified. In the old Law the unleavened bread signified only, that the feast of Easter was to be celebrated with sincerity of heart and life. The corporal purgations signified only the cleansing of minds. But Baptism in the new Law doth not only signify, but also exhibiteth, and worketh the Washing of sins, and is the ablution itself, or washing away of sins. Likewise the holy eucharist doth not only betoken or signify, the body and blood of Christ, but contineth, and exhibiteth it present, 
Signum signatum, & exhibitiwm  and is the very body and blood of Christ, it is signum signatum, & exhibitiwm. Thus it appeareth, how the Sacramentaries Argument is nought, The Sacrament is a sign, ergo it is not the body. For it is both a sign, and the body it sefe. For if any will say, it is a sign significative only, it is to be denied as false, and contrary to the manifest words of Scripture, and the expositions of all the Fathers.  
Now I report me to the judgement of the discrete Reader, what advantage M. jewel hath gotten by the term, antitypon, alleged out of S. Clement against the blessed Sacrifice of the Church. 
S. Clement corrupted by M. jewel.  On the other side, what advantage may justly be taken against him, for that most falsely he hath corrupted his author? For look Reader upon the short testimony which he allegeth out of S. Clement, and thou shall find, that M. jewel hath cut of out of the midst, two words of greatest force for the understanding of that goeth there immediately before: that by falsehood he might give at least some colour unto his Reply, where in truth he had none at al.  
The words falsely cut away be these, 
Clemen. Constitut. lib. 6. cap. 30.  acceptabilemque Eucharistiam. So that the whole sentence is this in S. Clement, Antitypum regalis corporis Christi, acceptabilemque Eucharistiam offerte in Ecclesiis & coemeteriis vestris. Offer ye up the sampler of the royal body of Christ, and the acceptable eucharist in your Churches, and burying places.  
These two words with the sleight of falsifying nipt away by M. jewel, be so requisite to the understanding of the authors meaning, that without them matter of cavil by reason of the term, antitypon, may be ministered unto such, as be more ready to impugn, then to defend the doctrine of the universal Church touching the substance of the Sacrament, and Sacrifice of the Altar. Contrariwise being left in the sentence, considered, and rightly understanded, they exclude all occasion of doubt or cavil, that might rise through the other term of more obscurity. For the eucharist without doubt in that age being taken for the body of Christ, how can it be conceived, that the other term, antitypon, in the same place joined by a copulative together with it, should import the contrary?  
That S. Clement meant by the Eucharist the true and real body of Christ, it is evident by that we find in the learned Fathers of that age, namely S. Ignatius, and S. Ireneus, who lived in, or soon after S. Clementes tyme. S. Irenaeus saith, 
Irenaeus lib. 4. ca 34.  that the bread having received the calling upon of the name of God (whereby he meaneth the Consecration) is no more common bread, but Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans, terrena, & coelesti, the eucharist consisting of two things, the one earthly (whereby he understandeth the form of bread) the other heavenly (which is the body of our Saviour). 
The eucharist maketh our bodies to be immortal.  And that it appear certainly, that he thought the eucharist to be the body and blood of Christ, he proveth that our bodies shall not remain in corruption, but have the resurrection that is hoped for, because they receive the eucharist, and be fed with the flesh and blood of our Lord. 
Ignat. ad Smyrnen. apud theo dorit. li. 3. Dialog.   
S. Ignatius likewise in an Epistle ad Smyrnenses, as Theodoritus allegeth him in the third book of his Dialogues writing against certain Heretics, that would have neither eucharist, nor Sacrifice: avoucheth the Eucharist to be the flesh of Christ. 
The Eutheriste is the flesh of Christ, that suffered for us.  These be his words. Eucharistias & oblationes non admittunt, eò quòd non confiteantur Eucharistiam esse carnenseruatoris nostri jesu Christi, quae pro peccatis nostris passa est, & quam Pater sua benignitate suscitavit. Eucharistes and oblations they will not admit, because they will not confess the eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our sins, and which the Father of his goodness raised up from death.  
Mark Reader, this ancient Father and blessed Martyr saith not, the eucharist signifieth Christ's flesh, but is Christ's flesh, yea that flesh, which was crucified, buried, and rose again.  
And although Theodoritus alleged this authority to prove, that it was the humane flesh, and not the Godhead of Christ, that suffered death, and rose again, which he proveth by the later part of the same: yet it principally proveth our purpose, that the eucharist is the true flesh of Christ. Again unless the self same flesh of Christ be in the eucharist, which died upon the Cross, and rose again: this authority availed Theodoritus nothing to prove, that Christ's flesh was crucified, and raised up again.  
Wherefore for so much as it is clear by the testimonies of S. Ignatius, and S. Irenaeus, who lived not long after S. Clement's time, that the belief of their age was, the eucharist to be the flesh and blood of Christ: how can M. jewel keep his credit with any man that loveth truth, and not seem to have intended craft and deceit, in that of purpose, lest the truth should appear manifest, he falsified his auctor by clipping away those two words from the midst of the sentence, that make directly against him, and put away all doubt of contrary sense? Thus to maintain the false doctrine of his arrogant Challenge, he feareth not to violate the Fathers, to corrupt their writings, to deceive the world, to purchase himself the most reproachful name of a falsifier. By such champions such quarrels are maintained.  

Constitut. lib. 8.  As for the other place of S. Clement, where he saith, offerimus hunc panem, & hoc poculum, we offer this bread, and this cup: who now a days knoweth not that the Sacrament sometimes is called by the name of bread and wine, not because the substance of bread and wine remaineth: but because the outward forms, taft, and other qualities of bread and wine be seen, felt, and perceived: because before consecration it was bread and wine, and because it is the true bread and wine, that came down from heaven. Neither doth S. Clement (which is to be noted) barely call it bread and a cup, but this bread, 
This breade● this Cup.  and this Cup, as S. Paul calleth it likewise, this bread, and this Cup, and that bread, and the Cup of our Lord. 
1. Cor. 11.  By which manner of speech uttered with the pronoun Demonstrative, not common bread, nor a common cup, but a singular, a divine, a heavenly, and the supersubstantial bread, and the like cup in Saint Clement is signified: even that bread and cup, which according to Christ's Institution was before consecrated with the words of our Lord, 
Math. 26.  This is my body, This is my blood. 
Luc. 22.    

jewel.  
Neither did Christ by these words, Do ye this in my Remembrance, erect any new Succession of Sacrificers, to offer him up Really unto his Father: nor ever did any Ancient learned Father so expound it. Christ's meaning is clear by the words, that follow. For he saith not only, Do ye this, but he addeth also, In my Remembrance: Which Doing pertaineth, not only unto the Apostles, and their successors, as M. Harding imagineth, but also to the whole people. And therefore S. Paul saith, not only to the Ministers, but also to the whole Congregation of Corinth, 
1. Cor. 11  As often, as ye shall eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, Ye shall show forth, and publish the lords Death, until he come. Likewise S. Chrysostom applieth the same, 
Chrysost. ad popul. Antioch. Homil. 61  not only to the clergy, but also to the whole people of his Church of Antioch. Thus he saith, Hoc facite in memoriam Beneficij mei, Salutis vestrae: Do ye this in Remembrance of my Benefit, and of your Salvation.  
Of these weak positions M. Harding without the warrant, or authority of any learned Father reasoneth thus: Christ saith, This is my Body, that is given for you: Do this in my Remembrance:  
Ergo, The Priest hath power to offer up the Son of God unto his Father.   

Harding.  
What M. jewel meaneth by erecting a new succession of Sacrificers, 
priests now b● made by election, and ordination, an continue not by right of succession  I know not, but that he taketh pleasure in his own skoffing wittte. And whereas he was not able with sound reasons, or good authorities to impugn the Priesthood of the new Testament, it liked him to work his spite against it with scornful, profane, and jewish utterance.  
Who ever said, that Christ by those words, erected a new succession of Sacrificers? If no man ever said it, why chargeth he us, as though it had been said? Aaron's priesthood went by succession, and belonged to one Tribe. But Priests of the new Testament enter not into their Priesthood by right of succession, as they of the Levitical Tribe did: but by election, and lawful ordination.  
This Priesthood principally is Christ's, which continueth without succession for ever, as he is a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek. 
Psal. 109.  Neither be we that are Priests the Successors of Christ, and much less of Aaron: we be the ministers of Christ in the function of this Priesthood, and that which we do, we do it by virtue and power of Christ, and in the person of Christ: yea rather Christ is said to do it through us. 
Oecum. in epist. ad Heb. ca 5.  For Oecumenius speaking of the daily execution of our Priesthood, and of Priests that daily do sacrifice, saith, per quos medios Christus sacrificat, & sacrificatur, Christ by the means or mediation of the Priests that be now (of whom there he spoke before) sacrificeth, and is sacrificed.  

Euseb. De Demonst. lib. 5.  Eusebius declaring the everlasting priesthood of Christ after the order of Melchisedek, saith likewise. Et sanè oraculi exitus admirabilis est ei, qui comtempletur, quomodo Seruator noster jesus, Christus Dei, ipsius Melchisedech ritu, ea quae sunt Sacrificij inter homines faciendi, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  etiam adhuc per suos ministros perficiat. And verily the accomplishment of the oracle (which is, thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek) is marvelous to him that beholdeth, 
Psal. 109.  how our Saviour jesus, the Christ of God, doth perform even until this day, those things that be of the Sacrifice, which is to be done among men.  
Mark Reader, how is that accomplished, which the Father in the Psalm is reported to have said unto Christ, Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech. How remaineth he a Priest for ever, sith concerning that Oblation and sacrifice, which was once offered by him (saith Oecumenius, meaning the sacrifice of the Cross) he would not have said, in aternum for ever? To this question that might be moved, both Oecumenius, and Eusebius do answer: that even now Christ doth the things that belong unto the Sacrifice, which is to be made among men. Which is as much in sense, as Oecumenius saith, that now by the mediation of priests ministery, Christ sacrificeth, and is sacrificed. And so he remaineth a Priest for ever.  
But leaving these scornful terms of erecting a new succession of Sacrificers, to the school of Heretics, and using the common words of the Church, If M. jewel mean thereby to say, that Christ speaking these words, Do ye this in my remembrance, did not ordain the Apostles Priests, nor thereby gave them authority to ordain others, that for time to come should succeed them in that order, and that so saying he gave not them power, authority, and commission to offer up his body and blood: I say his meaning is utterly untrue. And this also, which he saith further, that never any learned Father so expounded those words of Christ, I affirm to be very false, as here it shall appear.  
First let S. Clement be heard in this point, whom M. jewel in a false cause doth here take hold of. 
That Christ made the Apostles Priests.  Because the place is somewhat long, it shallbe sufficient to report it in English truly translated. Thus he saith. Of Moses' most dearly beloved of God, 
Clemens● Constitut. Aposto. li. 8. cap. vlt.  were instituted Bishops, Priests, and Leuites● Of our Saviour we thirteen Apostles. Of the Apostles, I james, and I Clement, and with us others, that we reckon not all again. Commonly of all us, Priests, Deacons, Subdeacons, and Readers. The first high Bishop then by nature is Christ the only begotten, 
rapuit  who caught not honour unto himself, but was constituted of his Father. Who for our sake being made man, and offering spiritual sacrifice to God and his Father, before his passion commanded us alone, to do the same thing, albeit others were present with us that believed in him. But yet not every one that believeth is by and by a Priest, and promoted unto bishoply honour.  
This testimony of S. Clement declareth plainly, both that Christ made the Apostles Priests, before his Passion giving charge and commandment to them only, though others that believed were present, to do and make the thing, which he had done, that is to say, to take bread and wine, to give thanks, to bless, to break the bread, and to say in the person of Christ, this is my Body, this is my Blood, etc. Which he calleth offering of spiritual sacrifice, because that body and blood of Christ are thus offered up spiritually, and in a Mystery without bloodshed: And also that the Apostles afterward instituted Priests, Deacons, Subdeacons, and Readers.  
S. Chrysostom excusing himself for that he presumed to minister unto Christ at his holy table, and gathering boldness of that Christ himself had commanded it, saith: 
Chrysost. in Liturgia.  Sacrificiorum ritum instituisti, ac solennis huius & immaculati Sacrificij celebrationem nobis tradidisti, tanquàm Dominus omnium. Thou (Christ) hast instituted the rite of sacrificing, and hast delivered unto us the celebration of this solemn and unspotted Sacrifice, as Lord of al. And afterward he saith moreover, having rehearsed what Christ did and said at the Supper, memoriam igitur agentes salutaris huius mandati, we keep the memory of this healthful commandment, meaning the commandment given by these words, 
Luc. 22.  Do ye this in my Remembrance.  
When S. Chrysostom saith, Christ delivered the celebration of this Sacrifice unto us, it is to be considered, unto which us, and when he did deliver it. S. Chrysostom was a Bishop, and therefore a Priest: so then naming us, he meant Priests. The time when it was delivered, was at his last Supper. For the Scripture giveth no occasion to think, that Christ left to Priests the celebration of this Sacrifice any where else, but where he said unto his Apostles: 
Luc. 22.  
1. Cor. 11.  Do ye this in my remembrance.  
S. Dionyse the Areopagite S. Paul's scholar, doth acknowledge, and in most plain words confess, that Christ by these words gave commandment to Priests to offer up this divine Sacrifice. Thus he saith. Quocirca Antistes reverenter & ex Pontificali officio, 
Dionys. in Ecclesiast. Hierarch. part. 3. c. 3.  post sacras divinorum operum Laudes, quòd hostiam salutarem, quae supra ipsum est, litet, se excusat, ad ipsum primò decenter exclamans, Tu dixisti, hoc facite in mei commemorationem. The Bishop therefore, after he hath praised the works of God, excuseth himself reverently, and according to his Bishoply office, for that he sacrificeth the heathful host, which is above his worthiness, seemly first crying unto him, Thou (o Christ) hast said, Do ye this in my remembrance.  
Thus it appeareth clearly by this ancient Bishop, and blessed Martyr, who is to be thought to have learned the same of S. Paul himself, as also by sundry other Fathers, of whom some be already alleged, some hereafter shall be alleged: that Christ by these words, Do ye this in my remembrance, gave to priests authority and commission to offer up the healthful Sacrifice, which can be none other but that of his body and blood: and that by the same words they understood themselves both charged so to do, and also excused of presumption in doing, the doing of it being a thing, that so far passeth the worthiness of humane condition.  
But M. jewel to put away wholly the Sacrifice, whereas Christ said, do ye this in my remembrance, saith very strangely and boldly, 
M. jewel would, all the people to be Ministers of the Sacrifice.  that this doing pertaineth not only unto the Apostles, and their successors, but also unto the whole people. And he beareth the world in hand, that this is the clear meaning of Christ, because of these words, in my remembrance. As though because that heavenly Sacrifice is to be offered in remembrance of Christ, therefore the common people and every one of them should have the handling of the divine Mysteries, and be made the Ministers of them.  
If this be true, weemen have much wrong, among whom in so many hundred years, as have been since Christ gave this commandment, none was yet ever admitted unto that administration. And if it pertain unto the whole people (as M. jewel saith) why should weemen be excluded? In deed it were a great ease for these holy Ministers, that their good wives ministered sometimes in the Congregations for them, whiles they be playing with their children, or keeling the potre at home.  
He should have done well, to have proved this strange point, more substantially, sith there by he should do great pleasure to his fellow Ministers, to many other good fellows, and specially to many good sad dames of his own Gospel, whose curiosity would be well pleased, if they were admitted to minister, and to do so much, as these words of Christ do import, do ye this in my remembrance. The devil having sowed hatred in M. jewels breast against the priesthood, and Sacrifice of the new Testament, hath brought him unto this fowl absurdity.  
Peradventure to avoid so great an inconvenience, he will say that these words do principally pertain unto the Ministers, who have succeeded the Apostles in this ministery, and secondarily unto the faithful people. If he say so, let him withal consider, that being so understanded they may well serve for the Apostles to claim unto themselves the authority of Priesthood, to offer up the Sacrifice, and also to ordain priests to succeed them. For as touching the office of a Priest, it is a confessed truth, that the Priest in offering the body and blood of Christ, is the principal agent concerning outward ministery, and as it were the instrument of the people, which by a certain mean offereth also, giving unto the priests action their assent, and applying their devotion. Much like to that we say of a multitude to make a supplication, when one man is the speaker and chief doer, and the rest only give their consent to that is said and done.  
And what though S. Paul say unto the Corinthians, 
1. Cor. 11.  As often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink this Cup, ye shall show forth our lords death, until he come? will it follow thereof, that Christ speaking these words, do ye this in my remembrance, would the whole people to do that he at his supper did? That is to say, that every lay person, boy, and woman (for they be of the number of the people) shall take bread, bless and give thanks, and utter the words of consecration, This is my body, and likewise the cup, saying; this is my blood, & c?  
Doth he not understand, there is great difference between this commandment of Christ, and that saying of S. Paul? between, do this in my remembrance, which Christ saith: and, when so ever ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye show forth our lords death, which S. Paul saith? Seeth he not the one to belong unto the Priest, as he is the pronuncer of the Divine words, whereby the holy eucharist is consecrate and made: the other to be referred unto them, that receive it after it is consecrate? And though both tend to one end, that is, to celebrate the memory of Christ's death, yet be not the actions divers? and may they not be done by divers persons, as it happeth when the people receiveth the body of Christ at the priests hands?  
This much may serve also for answer to the authority brought out of S. Chrysostom. For the circumstance of the place declareth evidently, that he spoke there of the people's receiving of the mysteries. And so in that place, facere signifieth only to receive, and not to consecrate and minister the Sacrament.  

M. jew. corrupteth S. Chrysostom.  And here M. jewel, lest he should not be always like unto himself, altereth and changeth his authors words, and maketh S. Chrysostom's words to sound to the advantage of his own false purpose. For whereas S. Chrysostom saith thus, 
Chrysost. hom. 61. ad Pop. Antioch.  Quotiescunque hoc feceritis, mortem Domini annunciabitis, hoc est, facietis commemorationem salutis vestrae beneficij mei: As often as ye shall do this, ye shall set forth our lords death, that is to say, ye shall make a commemoration of your salvation being my benefit: M. jewel allegeth him thus. Hoc facite in memoriam beneficij mei, salutis vestrae. Do ye this in remembrance of my benefit, and of your salvation. Wherein he falsifieth the Doctor, maketh a false translation of the place, and giveth out a sense contrary to S. Chrxsostomes' meaning. Such adventuring to alter Modes, and Tenses, to tell an other tale, than the Doctor alleged telleth, to leave out, to put in words of private forgery, is a most certain argument of untrue dealing, and of guile intended of M. jewels part.    

The 5. Division.  

The Answer.  
THat Christ offered himself to his Father in his last Supper, and that Priests by those words, Do this in my remembrance, have not only authority, but also a special commandment to do the same, and that the Figure of Melchisedech, and the Prophecy of Malachi pertaineth to this Sacrifice, and maketh proof of the same: let us see by the testimonies of the Fathers, what doctrineth' Apostles have left to the Church.  
Eusebius Caesariensis hath these words, 
Euseb. li. 1 de demonstrate.  Horrorem afferentia Mensae Christi Sacrificia Supremo Deo offer, per eminentissimum omnium ipsius Pontificem edocti sumus. We are taught (saith he) to offer unto our Supreme God the Sacrifices of Christ's Table, which cause us to tremble, and quake for fear, by his Bishop highest of al. Here he calleth Christ in respect of his Sacrifice, God's Bishop highest of all Bishops: the Sacrifices of Christ's Table he calleth, the Body and Blood of Christ, because at the Table in his last Supper he Sacrificed and offered the same, and for that it is his very Body, and his very Blood, imagination only, Fantasy, and Figure set apart, he termeth these Sacrifices, as commonly the ancient Fathers do, horrible, causing trembling and fear. And whereas he saith, we have been taught to offer these Sacrifices to God, doubtless he meaneth by these words of Christ: Do this in my remembrance, This is my Body, which is given for you: This is my Blood, which is shed for you. Clement in his eight Book often cited, speaking of the Sacrifice offered by the Apostles, commonly addeth these words, Secundùm ipsius ordinationem, or, ipso ordinante: whereby he confesseth it to be Christ's own ordinance.   

jewel.  
To prove, that the Priest offereth up the Son of God, M. harding hath here brought in Euse●ius an Ancient Father, that never once named any such Oblation of the Son of God. So much is he oppressed, and encumbered with his store.  
True it is, The Ministration of the Holy Communion is oftentimes of the old learned Fathers called a Sacrifice: not for that, they thought, the Priest had Authority, to Sacrifice the Son of God, but for that therein we offer up unto God, Thanks, and Praises for that great Sacrifice once made upon the Crosse. So saith S. Augustine, 
August. ad Petrum Diaco. ca 19  In isto Sacrificio est gratiarum actio, & Commemoratio Carnis Christi, quam pro nobis obtulit. In this Sacrifice is a Thanks giving and a remembrance of the flesh of Christ, 
Euseb. De demonstr. li. 1. c. 10.  which he hath offered for us. Likewise Eusebius saith, Christ after all other things done, made a marvelous Oblation, and a passing Sacrifice unto his Father (upon his Cross) for the Salvation of us all: 
Nazian. in Apolog. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  giving unto us to offer continually unto God a Remembrance in steed of a Sacrifice. So Nazianzenus calleth the Holy Communion, A Figure of that great Mystery, of the Death of Christ.  
This is it, that Eusebius calleth, The Sacrifice of the lords Table: Which also he calleth, Sacrificium Laudis, The Sacrifice of Praise.   

Harding.  
M. jewels Reply in this Division is of small pith and substance. Lest he should seem to say nothing, whereas in deed he hath nothing to say, whereby clearly to avoid the force of Eusebius authority by me alleged: he darkeneth the matter with many words partly of his own, partly of other Doctors to little purpose rehearsed.  
The effect of his whole tale consisteth in these .4. points. 

First, he denieth that Eusebius ever named any such Sacrifice of the Son of God unto his Father.  
Secondly, he adknowlegeth the Ministration of the holy Communion (for so he calleth it) of the old learned Fathers to be called a Sacrifice, because of thanks, and praises therein offered unto God.  
Thirdly, he alloweth not the Argument made out of Eusebius for proof that Christ is offered unto his Father.  
Fourthly, he pretendeth to show causes, why the Sacrifice of the Communion is dreadful, and causeth the heart to tremble.    
Touching the first, what mean you M. jewel by saying, that Eusebius never once named any such oblation of the Son of God? Be you so addicted to the precise terms of your own Challenge, 
M. jewel is driven from the matter, unto precise words.  that other words of equal force may not be admitted? Verily this declareth the weakness of your cause, and openeth your poor shift to the world, which is, that whereas you are convict by clear truth of things, yet you run for secure unto the shadow of words.  
You deny by the words of your Challenge, that by witness of any doctor within the first six hundred years after Christ, we are able to show, that a Priest hath authority to offer up Christ unto his Father. Now this are we able to prove as by divers others, so in this place by testimony of Eusebius, though expressly he name it not an oblation of the Son of God.  
And for as much as you stand upon your own precise terms, you shallbe driven from your hold by a precise Argument. Answer it, if you can. What so ever we that are Priests have been taught by Christ to do, to do the same we have authority. But we have been taught by Christ to offer up Christ unto his Father: Ergo, to offer up Christ unto his Father we have authority. Ergo, the Priest hath authority, etc.  
The Minor or second proposition of this Syllogism, you deny, I doubt not. For nought else with reason is here to be sticked at. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb. de Demonstr. evang lib. 1.  That proposition then thus I prove by Eusebius, whom I alleged in my Answer. We have been taught (saith he) to offer up unto our Supreme God the dreadful Sacrifices of Christ's table, by his Bishop highest of al.  
Whereat do you cavil? The proposition that you deny, and we affirm, being this, The Priest hath authority to offer up Christ unto his Father: what lacketh here, that answereth not the purport of your own precise terms? We have been taught by God's bishop highest of all, saith Eusebius, Ergo, The Priest hath authority. Require you the word, to offer? Behold here it is put expressly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i offer. Call you for the name of the Father? Look in Eusebius, and you shall find, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as much to say, unto God that is over al. there have you the Father of Christ plainly enough expressed, unless you deny that the Father of jesus Christ is God over al. How be it we acknowledge this sacrifice to be offered not only unto the Father, but also unto the Son, in as much as he is God, and unto the holy Ghost. Now for Christ, you have here expressed, the dreadful or honourable Sarifices of Christ's table.  
But you will say. I hear the dreadful sacrifices of Christ's table, but Christ himself, I hear not. Truth it is, Christ himself to be offered you hear not in express terms, but those terms, which to our understanding do import Christ's body and blood, you hear, and therefore Christ himself, because of the union of both persons. For what other thing may we with any reason understand by the dreadful Sacrifices of Christ's table, but the body and blood of Christ? What cause had Eusebius to make mention of Christ's table, 
Math. 26.  but to put us in mind of that table, 
Lucae 2●.  whereupon Christ at his last Supper consecrated and offered his precious body and blood, 
1. Cor. 11.  saying, this is my body which is given for you, this is my blood which is shed for you, as the Scripture teacheth us? Whereupon the bread, 
Cyprian. de coenae Domini.  that Christ gave unto his disciples, changed not in shape, but in nature, by the omnipotency of the word is made flesh, as S. Cyprian writeth. Whereupon is laid the lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world, 
Concil. Nicen. Optatus. lib. 6. Iren. lib. 5  as we find it reported by the Fathers of the first Nicen Council. Whereupon the vows of the people, and the members of Christ be borne, as the Ancient Father Optatus speaketh. From whence our flesh is nourrished with the blood and body of Christ, as S. Ireneus saith. 
Chrysost. in 1. Cor. Hom. 24.  From whence Christ hath given us his fl●sh to fill us withal, as S. Chrysostom preacheth.  
But M. jewel understandeth by the Sacrifices of Christ's table spoken of in Eusebius, the Sacrifice of thanks giving. For whereas I say in my Answer, that the Body and blood of Christ, are called of Eusebius the Sacrifices of Christ's table, because at the table in his last Supper he sacrificed and offered the same: he controlleth me for so saying, and skoreth it up in the margin for his: 222. Untruth, showing this cause why. For (saith he) Eusebius calleth it the sacrifice of thanks giving. 
M. jewel belieth Eusebius.  wherein he deserveth an untruth, or rather a manifest lie to be scored up upon himself. For neither nameth Eusebius a sacrifice in that place, which he would, if he had meant the sacrifice of thanks giving, but sacrifices in the plural number, yea expressly the dreadful or honourable Sacrifices of Christ's table, neither nameth he there expressly, the sacrifice of thanks giving at all: And never was it heard before, that any old, or late learned catholic writer called thanks giving indefinitely, the dreadful Sacrifices of Christ's table. For to give thanks it is not dreadful, neither is it peculiar to the mystical table, but common in respect of all times, places and services.  
Certain it is, as it shall be evident to all that will peruse that place of Eusebius, that by the dreadful Sacrifices of Christ's table, he meant the body and blood of Christ: How be it he speaketh so thereof, using the terms, of memory, signs, and tokens, as it was most convenient for that time, when the Christians lived among the Painimes and Infidels, to whom those secrets were not to be revealed, 
Math. 7.  accordingly as Christ forebad a holy thing to be given to dogs, and precious stones to be cast before swine. By which way of utterance the old learned Father's intent was, not to exclude the true presence of the most holy things, but to cover them from the unworthy Painimes profane understanding, and to insinuate unto the believers, the mystical and secret manner of their presence.  
To return to Eusebius, In the later part of his first book, De demonstratione evangelica, discoursing upon the excellency of the new Testament in comparison of the old, having declared the figurative sacrifices of Moses' law to be abolished, 
Three kinds of Sacrifices of the new Testament mentioned by Eusebius. Euseb. li. 1 de demonstrate.  and that law itself to have his end by the coming of Christ into flesh: at length he speaketh of three kinds of Sacrifices of the new Testament, proving each one to have been forespoken of by the Prophets. They are, the Sacrifice of the Cross, the Sacrifice of the Altar, and the mere spiritual Sacrifices.  
The which we call the Sacrifice of the Cross, he nameth, the marvelous oblation, and passing Sacrifice, which Christ offered unto his Father for the salvation of us al. He termeth it also in respcte of the thing sacrificed, the 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  fleshly presence of Christ, and his framed body, that God fitted for him, alluding to the words of the Psalm, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Corpus aptasti mihi. thou (o God) hast framed or fitted to me a body.  
That which of us is commonly called the Sacrifice of the Altar, 
Psal. 39  he calleth, in respect of the action of offering, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. The memory of this Sacrifice (of the Cross) celebrated upon a table. He calleth it also in respect of the thing offered, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Divine, honourable, and holy Sacrifice. And terming it also the pure Sacrifice, alluding to the Prophecy of Malachi, he saith, that we sacrifice it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, after a new manner according to the new Testament. Which can not be understand of any other, then of the Sacrifices of the Altar. Furthermore in respect of the body and blood being two things that are offered, he calleth it, the Sacrifices of Christ's table, as now the Church commonly calleth it the Sacrifice of the Altar.  
Touching the third kind of sacrifices, he nameth them first in general, by the term, of unbodily and spiritual sacrifices. Afterward particularly he calleth them, the sacrifice of praise, of prayers, of lifting up the hands, of a contrite heart. The sacrifice of thanks giving, by these very terms, he nameth not. In deed I confess, that where he saith, we sacrifice the memory of the great Sacrifice (meaning that of the Cross) celebrating it according to the mysteries delivered unto us by Christ: There he saith further, that we offer up unto God by godly hymns and prayers, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Eucharistiam pro salute nostra, the eucharist for our salvation: which peradventure M. jewel had rather to call, the thanks giving for our salvation.  
To show that the first and chief kind of sacrifice was prophesied of in the time of the old Testament, he allegeth the Prophet David, 
Psal. 39  saying: Oblationem & sacrificium noluisti, corpus autem aptasti mihi. Oblation and sacrifice thou refusedst, and had framed me a body.  
For the sacrifices of the third kind, 
Psal. 49.  he allegeth the known scriptures, offer unto God the sacrifice of praise, and render unto the highest thy vows, and call upon me in the day of tribulation, 
Psal. 140. Psal. 50.  and I will deliver thee. Again, The lifting up of my hands is an evening sacrifice. Item, A contrite spirit is a sacrifice to God. etc. In this order is to be placed the sacrifice of thanks giving, which M. jewel strangely and absurdly avoucheth to be that, which Eusebius calleth by the name of the Sacrifices of Christ's table.  
Now concerning the second kind of Sacrifice, 
The Sacrifices of Christ's table, what they are.  that Eusebius speaketh of, which is the sacrifice of th'altar, or as the termeth it, the dreadful Sacrifices of Christ's table: whiles he allegeth the prophecies of David, and of Esay for it, he showeth clearly, that he meant not thereby the sacrifice of thanks principally, or praise for the Sacrifice once made upon the Cross, nor the Ministration of the holy Communion, of which M. jewel confusely expoundeth Eusebius: but the holy Mysteries of Christ's table, to wit, the Body and Blounde of Christ under the forms of bread and wine offered at the table in remembrance of Christ's death. Which I confess never the less always to be offered not without the Sacrifice of thanks, and praise: and with that Sacrifice we do thank, and praise God most principally.  
The saying of David prophesying of the Sacrifices of this table, 
Psal. 22.  as Eusebius allegeth, is this. Parasti in conspectu meomensam adversus eos qui tribulant me, Impinguasti in oleo caput meum, & calix tuus inebrians me quàm fortissimè. Thou hast prepared before mine eyes a table against those that trouble me, thou hast anointed my head with oil, and thy Cup maketh me drunk after a most strong wise. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Expressly and manifestly in these words (saith Eusebius) is signified the mystical Chrism (or ointment) and the dreadful (or honourable) Sacrifices of Christ's table.  
Verily this sovereign praise, that David after the mind of Eusebius giveth unto the mystical Cup of our lords table, can not seem to be attributed unto the Cup of the sacramentary Suppers, which containeth in it no better thing, then common wine. It is the blood of Christ, not a sup of common wine, that doth moist and inebriate a man in that most strong wise, whereof David prophesied. The Hebrew word importing signification of great abundance, maketh much for this sense, and quite contrary to the sacramentary doctrine.  
From David he goeth to Esay the Prophet, alleging among other things a saying out of him, signifying, that the Lord of boasts should do marvelous things in all nations. What those things are, the prophet declareth. They shall have pleasant drink (saith he) they shall drink wine. They shall be anointed with an ointment in this hill. Upon these words of Esay thus saith Eusebius. These marvelous things that Esay speaketh of, did promise not to Israel, but to all nations, the anointing of a good sweet smell, and of ointmentes, by reason whereof because of the anointing of the ointment, they obtained to be called Christians, (that is to say the anointed). Then follow the words, which declare what he meant by the Sacrifices of Christ's table.  
Furthermore (saith he) this prophet prophesieth unto the Gentiles of the pleasantness of wine, secretly signifying the Mystery of the new Testament of Christ, which is manifestly celebrated at this time among all nations. Thus Eusebius in that place expounding the prophecies of David, and of Esay, promising the inebriating Cup, and gift of wine unto the Gentiles, of the blessed Sacrifice of Christ's table (which as it is called a table for that the heavenly food is thence ministered unto us, so it is called also an Altar in respect of the oblation and Sacrifice there made and solemnized) doth plainly signify what he understood by the Sacrifices of Christ's table, sooth not the sacrifice of thanks giving principally, which seemeth to the unlearned to consist only in words, but the Sacrifices of the body and blood of Christ, and consequently Christ himself. And therefore that place of Eusebius is in my Answer to the Challenge rightly and aptly to my purpose alleged, as the which, proveth against M. jewel, that the Priest hath authority to offer up Christ unto his Father.  
Yet if M. jewel will not cease to call for his own terms, 
August. Epist. 174.  not being content with terms equivalent: I think good to answer him, as S. Augustine answered Pascentius the Arian crying importunately for the term Homusion to be showed him in the Scriptures. Quid est contentiosius, quàm ubi de re constat, certare de nomine? What is a more contentious part, then to strive about the name, when the thing itself is certainly known.  
But now M. jewel bringeth in S. Augustine, Eusebius, and S. Gregory Nazianzen, to witness with him, that the ministration of the holy Communion is called a Sacrifice, because therein thanks and Praises be offered up unto God for the Sacrifice made upon the Crosse.  
To this I answer, that these Fathers can not be showed so much as once to have named the Sacrifice of the Ministration of the Communion, nor that this Ministration of the Communion is in any of their works expressly called a Sacrifice. He should have done well, if he had made it clear, what he meaneth by this holy Communion, and what by the Ministration of the same. That the Ministration of the Communion is a Sacrifice, I trow it is a speech never heard of in the Church of God, before these Ministering prelate's came to teach us a new faith.  
If he understand by the holy Communion, the new devise of the calvinists, 
The ministration of the new holy Communion made a new Sacrifice by M. jew.  which they have set up like an Idol in their deformed churches in place of the blessed Mass, after a divers manner in divers Cities, and Countries, according to the divers fantasies of new Ministers, who daily please themselves with changing what so ever liketh others, in which sort of Communion there is no substance of any better thing, then of bread and wine, no due consecration made, no oblation, no real Sacrifice, no participation of the true body and blood of Christ: If this be his meaning, as doubtless it is: most certain it is, those ancient learned Fathers, never spoke of it, never knew it: much less did they any where call the ministration of it, a Sacrifice.  
S. Augustine saith not, 
Augustin. ad Petrum Diaconun. cap. 19  the ministration of the Communion is a Sacrifice, which M. jewel by his words taketh upon him to prove: but, In this Sacrifice (saith he) there is a thanksgiving, and a commemoration of the flesh of Christ, which he offered for us, and of the blood, which the same God did shed for us. In this Sacrifice, saith he, he saith not in the ministration of the Communion. What he meant by this Sacrifice, there he showeth clearly. For having said in the beginning of the chapter, that beasts were sacrificed unto Christ with the Father, and the holy Ghost, by the patriarchs, Prophets, and Priests of the old Law, forthwith he addeth these words. Cui nunc, id est, tempore Novi Testamenti, cum Patre & Spiritu sancto, cum quibus est illi una Divinitas, sacrificium Panis & vini in fide & charitate sancta Ecclesia Catholica, per universum orbem terrae offerre non cessat. Unto whom now, that is to say, in the time of the New Testament, with the Father, and the Holy Ghost, with whom he hath one Godhead, the holy Catholic Church doth not cease to offer up through the whole world, the Sacrifice of bread and wine in faith and charity.  
M. jewel thought to take advantage of this place, 
The Sacrifice of bread and wine.  because this Sacrifice is here called the sacrifice of bread and wine, and would needs this to be taken for the ministation of his new Communion, as though because bread and wine is named (which is the substance of their communion) the body and blood of Christ were excluded. But this reason is very weak, besides that neither M. jewel, nor any of the calvinists do use to call this sacrifice, the Sacrifice of bread and wine. Neither do they bring their bread and wine to church to make a sacrifice of it to God, but to distribute it unto their Congregations. The sacrifice they pretend to make, is of thanks and praises: any outward thing they sacrifice not at al.  
True it is, this Sacrifice is sometimes called the Sacrifice of bread and wine, as in this place, De Fide ad Petrum Diaconum, either because it representeth in outward forms, bread and wine: or because bread and wine are the things, whereof of the change itself, which pertaineth to the nature of a Sacrifice (for so much as it requireth, that the thing that is offered be sanctified by some change) taketh beginning. And as in the old sacrifices of the jews, the Calf both being yet alive, was called a Sacrifice, because it was that thing, which by killing was to be sanctified, and also being killed, because it was the Host now sanctified by sacrificing, which host so many as did eat of, were made partakers of the altar: Even so in the Sacrament of the eucharist, the bread and wine may be called a Sacrifice, as being the things, that by change made of them with consecration are to be sanctified. Therefore in the beginning of the Canon of the Mass it is said of them, Supplices rogamus ac petimus, etc. We humbly pray and beseech thee, that thou accept, and bless, these gifts, these presents, these holy Sacrifices.  
The body itself also, and blood of Christ contained under the form of bread and wine, are called the Sacrifice, as being the things, into which the holy change by virtue of the words of Consecration is made. of which it is said in the end of the Canon: We offer up unto thy most honourable Majesty of thy gifts and benefits, a pure Host, a holy Host, an unspotted host. Thus we say, and so the Fathers speak both ways of this Sacrifice, that it is the Sacrifice of bread and wine, that is to say, made of bread and wine (because that which was bread and wine is now turned and changed into the body and blood of Christ) and the Sacrifice of the body and blood of our Lord, that is to say, the very true host itself with a certain divine change consecrated and made.  
In other places most commonly it is named of the Fathers, the Oblation or Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, in consideration of the inward substance of the Sacrifice under the forms of bread and wine contained. As S. Augustine writing against Faustus the Heretic, 
Aug. count Faust. lib. 20● ca 18.  having spoken of the manifold Sacrifices of the old law, and of the Sacrifice of the Cross, consequently saith, whereby he signifieth, what he understandeth by this sacrifice of bread and wine: I am Christiani peracti eiusdem Sacrificij memoriam celebrant, sacrosancta oblatione, & participatione corporis & sanguinis Christi. The Christians do now celebrate the memory of the Sacrifice of the Cross past and done, by the holy oblation, and participation of the body and blood of Christ. So in divers considerations both these savinges be true, The holy catholic Church every where offereth up to God the sacrifice of bread and wine, and it offereth the Sacrifice of the flesh and blood of Christ.  
And whereas our daily Sacrifice, which the Christians do now every where offer, is the celebration of the memory of that which was done upon the Cross, and therefore oftentimes of the Fathers is named a memory or commemoration, as we find in Eusebius here also alleged by M. jewel: 
Euseb. in Demonst. lib. 1.  the word Memory or commemoration excludeth the truth of passion and death (for now Christ suffereth, 
Rom. 6.  nor dieth no more) the truth, or real presence of the body, which on the Cross suffered and died for us, it excludeth not. For with and by the holy Oblation and participation of that flesh and blood (saith S. Augustine) we celebrate the memory of the Sacrifice that was made upon the Crosse. So that the substance of the Sacrifice of the Cross, and of that of the Altar, is one and the same, the flesh and blood of Christ: only the manner of Oblation is divers. Which if these Gospelers would once confess, as S. Augustine here witnesseth, and Christ's Church hath ever believed, and they themselves be not ignorant of: we should not have need to write so many books, and the world should soon draw to a better quiet.  
As for the two other testimonies alleged out of Eusebius, and S. Gregory Nazianzen, they prove not that for which they be alleged, which is, that the Ministration of the Communion is of them called a sacrifice, whereby M. jewel would exclude the Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ. For first as touching Nazianzen, by what Logic maketh he this Argument good, He calleth the holy Communion, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  exemplar magnorum Mysteriorum, the Figure or sampler of the great Mysteries: Ergo, the Ministration of the Communion, is called a Sacrifice? Verily in this Argument is neither reason, nor good Logic.  
What though Eusebius say thus being truly translated, Christ after all (the Sacrifices of Moses Law) having sacrificed a marvelous sacrifice, and a passing Host unto his Father, offered it up for all our salvation, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  having delivered unto us also a memory, to offer it up continually unto God 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  for a Sacrifice, so it is to be translated, not in stead of a Sacrifice, as Master jewel hath turned it? Will he conclude of this, that Eusebius calleth the Ministration of his Communion a Sacrifice? No, no, his purpose was not so much to prove the ministration of their Communion to be called a sacrifice, as to disprove the Sacrifice of the Altar, which Eusebius in my Answer alleged, calleth in respect of Christ's body and blood offered in the same, the Sacrifices of Christ's table.  
To that end he seemeth to have alleged Eusebius, 
A memory of the Sacrifice of the Cross, excludeth not the Sacrifice of the Altar.  because he nameth that, which Christ delivered unto us to offer up daily unto God, a memory. As though Christ's body and blood could not be really present in these holy Mysteries, if that which we do, be a memory or commemoration of that which Christ did. yes forsooth M. jewel, The Sacrifice that we offer, when we do that which Christ at his last Supper commanded us to do, is the memory of the body and blood of Christ, and in respect of the thing offered and sacrificed, the very and true body and blood of Christ itself. And this is according to the doctrine of S. Augustin, 
Aug. count Faust. lib. 20. cap. ●●.  who saith, as is afore rehearsed, The Christians do celebrate the memory of the Sacrifice (of the Cross) now performed (which Eusebius in respect of the thing offered calleth the marvelous Sacrifice, and passing host) with the holy Oblation and Participation of the body and blood of Christ If they do it with the Oblation and participation of the body and blood of Christ, then is the body and blood of Christ present, then is it offered, and participated, which Eusebius for that cause calleth the● Sacrifices of Christ's Table.  
Eusebius also (saith M. jewel) calleth this a Sacrifice of praise. In deee, as I declared before, Eusebius speaketh of divers Sacrifices. Of the Sacrifice of the Cross, of the sacrifices of the table of Christ, of the Sacrifice of praise, of prayers, of a contrite heart. And what if he speak of the Sacrifice of praise, will it thereof follow M. jewel by your new Logic, that the Sacrifices of Christ's table be not taken in Eusebius for the body and blood of Christ? And I pray you, may not the self same in one respect be a Sacrifice of Praise, 
M. jewels common custom to disprove one truth by an other truth.  and also in an other respect, the Sacrifice of Christ's body and blood? When will you leave your common wont, to disprove one truth by an other truth? If one should say unto you concerning a sort of your Ministers standing before you at a visitation, Sir these fellows be no Ministers of God's word, and holy Sacraments, for they be handy craftsmen: would you not answer him, Sir your reason is nought, for they be Ministers, and honest craftsmen both? No better is your reason, where you say, This Sacrifice, is a Sacrifice of Praise, and of thanks giving, or it is a memory, and a sampler of the bloody Sacrifice, ergo, it is not the Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, it is not a true, and a very Sacrifice. For there is no inconvenience in attributing these names and terms unto the most blessed Sacrament and Sacrifice of the Altar, divers respects being considered. 
A plain testimony for the Sacrifice of the Altar.   
But M. jewel, how happened it, that where you found in Eusebius, Sacrificium laudis, the Sacrifice of Praise (the Greek whereof also you would needs to be noted in the margin of your book, though with addition of an article more than is in the Doctor: you saw not among the manifold sacrifices there reckoned, this Sacrifice so expressly set forth and commended with these words? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Euseb. lib. 1. the Demonst. in fine.  That is to say, we sacrifice the divine, and honourable, and most holy Sacrifice. We sacrifice the pure Sacrifice after a new manner according to the new Testament. By which description that, which we call the Sacrifice of the Altar, is plainly signified.  
Again how could you not see the manifest mention of the Altar, 
A testimony for material Altars.  whereon this Sacrifice is offered, there a little before expressed? And lest you might avoid the force of that clear testimony by expounding it of the spiritual Altar of man's heart, remember that he speaketh of such an Altar, as might not by Moses law be set up, but only in jewrie, and that as there he saith in one only City of that Province. As for the spiritual Altars of men's hearts, Moses Law did never forbid. An Altar (saith Eusebius) of unbloody and reasonable sacrifices, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  is now erected, according to the new Mysteries of the new Testament, over all the world, both in egypt and in other nations, etc. What can be understanded by this Altar builded in witness of the abrogation of Moses Law, of his Altar at Jerusalem, and of his unclean Sacrifices, as there Eusebius discourseth, and that according to the new Mysteries of the new Testament: but the external Altar of the Church, whereupon the body and blood of Christ, 
In Apologetico.  in form of bread and wine, the external Sacri●fice, as S. Gregory Nazianzen calleth it, is offered, and the most holy and dreadful Mysteries are celebrated?  
Hath Satan the enemy of this Sacrifice so blinded your heart with malice against the same, that you saw the sacrifice of Praise, of Prayers, and other mere spiritual Sacrifices, and this most Divine, most high, and most special Sacrifice of the Church could not see, so evidently and with so express colours set forth in the same place? What can be said in your excuse? Either you saw this much in Eusebius yourself, or you trusted your Greek friend of Oxford, whose help for the fuller stuffing of your great book you used, as it is known. If you saw it, and of purpose would conceal it, and by rehearsing other Sacrifices thought so to cover this Sacrifice: then great was your malice. If you saw it not, but trusted your Grecian, and such other slipper Merchants, who knew well your humour, and perceived what should please your appetite: then were you very rash and unwise, and thereby have given occasion to all wise men to take good advise, how they believe you in so weighty matters.  
Hitherto M. jewel, as now unto the learned it is made clear, hath said little for good Answer to the testimony for the Sacrifice of the Altar, brought out of Eusebius. But what falsehood he hath used, it is partly disclosed. If thou mark him well Reader, thou shalt perceive this sleight in him, that he never rehearseth the words of Eusebius, as I have alleged them. For in deed they seem to gravel him, and to be so plain, as with plainness he seeth no way how to answer them. Craftily he dissembleth the Sacrifices of Christ's table spoken of by Eusebius in the plural number, whereby he understandeth the body blood of Christ, of which each one is a Sacrifice, that is to say, 
M. jewels guileful dealing.  the thing sacrificed, and consecrated severally in the several forms of bread and wine, in Commemoration and Remembrance of the Body and Blood, which were severed the one from the other by violence of the soldiers upon the Cross: and nameth the Sacrifice of the lords Table in the singular number, for the better opportunity to deceive the unlearned Reader.   

jewel.  
But Eusebius saith further, This Sacrifice is dreadful, and causeth the heart to quake. M. Harding may not well gather by any force of these words, that the Son of God is Really offered up by the Priest unto his Father. For all things, what so ever, that put us in remembrance of the Majesty, and judgements of God, of the Holy Fathers are called Dreadful. S. Cyril saith, 
Cyril. in Apol. Chrysost. 1. Cor. Hom. 49.  Lectio Divinarum, & Terribilium Scripturarum: The reading of the Divine, and Terrible Scriptures. S. Chrysostom calleth the words of Baptism, Verba arcana, & metuenda, & horribiles Canones dogmatum de Coelo transmissorum: The Secret, and Dreadful words, and Terrible Rules of the doctrine, that came from Heaven. And speaking of the Hand, and voice of the Deacon, he saith thus, Manu illa Tremenda, & continua Voce clamans, alios vocat, alios arcet: With that Terrible Hand, and continual Voice crieinge, some he calleth in, and some he putteth of.  
This Sacrifice maketh the Heart to tremble, for that therein is laid forth the Mystery, that was hidden from world's, and Generations: The horror of Sin: The Death of the Son of God: That he took our heaviness, and bore our sorrows, and was wounded for our offences, and was Rent, and Tormented for our Wickedness: That he was carried like an innocent Lamb unto the Slaughter: that be cried unto his Father, O God. O my God, why hast thou thus forsaken me?  
There we call to Remembrance all the causes, and circumstances of Christ's Death: The Shame of the Cross: The Darkening of the Air: The Shaking of the Earth: The renting of the Vele: The cleaving of the Rocks: The opening of the Graves: The Descending into Hell: and the Conquering of the Devil. Therefore Chrysostom saith, Quamuis quis lapis esset, illa nocte audita, 
Chrysost. in 1. ad Corinth. Hom. 17.  quomodò cum Discipulis tristis fue●it, quomodò traditus, quomodò ligatus, quomodò abductus, quomodò iudicatus, quomodò denique oina Passus, cera mollior fiet, & terram, & omnem terrae cogitationem abijciet: Any man hearing of the order of that night, how Christ was moorneful among his Disciples, how he was delivered, how he was bound, how he was lead away, how he was arraigned, and how meekly he suffered all, that was done unto him, were he as hard as a Stone, yet would he be as soft as Wax, and would throw both the Earth, and all earthily Cogitations away from him.  
Thus saith Nicolaus Cabasilas, one of M. Harding'S late Greek Doctors: Hoc facite in meam Commemorationem. Sed quaenam est haec Commemoratio? etc. Do ye this in Remembrance of me. But what is this Remembrance? How do we consider: Our Lord in the Holy Ministration? What do we conceive him doing? How dealing? what suffering? what think we? what speak we of him? Do we imagine of him (in that time of the Holy Mysteries) that he healed the Blind? That he raised the Dead? That he stayed the Winds? Or that with a few loaves he feed thousands: which are tokens, that he was God Omnipotent? No, not so. But rather we call to remembrance such things, as declared his weakness: his Cross, his Passion, his Death: In respect of those things he said, Do ye this in my Remembrance. The Priest both by his words, and also by the whole Circumstance of doing, seemeth to say, Thus Christ came to his Passion: Thus he was wounded in the side: Thus he died: Thus Blood and Water issued, and streamed from his wound. These considerations, thus laid before our eyes, are able to cause any godly heart to quake, and tremble. As for the Real offering up of Christ in Sacrifice, that learned Father Eusebius saith nothing.  
Verily, it is but a simple Sophism to say, This Sacrifice is Dreadful, and causeth us to quake: Ergo, The Priest offereth up the Son of God unto his Father.   

Harding.  
Whereas I gather an Argument of a plain testimony for the Sacrifice of the Altar, out of the whole sentence alleged: M. jewel pretendeth to his Reader, as though I took my chief and only hold of this one word, Dreadful, 
Dreadful.  which being but one word in Eusebius, he maketh to sound many words, and saith, that I may not gather by any force of these words, that the Son of God is really offered up by the Priest unto his Father. Whereas in deed I gather it not by force of that word, Dreadful (whereof for his advantage he maketh divers words) only, nor chief: but of the whole saying, and specially of the very express name of the Sacrifice of Christ's table, and also of that Eusebius saith, we have been taught by Christ himself to offer them unto God. Which I expound, as they are to be expounded, of these words spoken by Christ at his Supper, 
Luc. 22.  Hoc facite in meam commemorationem, do ye this in my remembrance, as it is to be seen in my Answer, and he dissembled to have seen it. As for the Son of God really offered up, they be not my words, as the book is witness, they be his, whereby he thought to take advantage, though the Proposition in those terms also be true, in a right and due sense.  
Because therefore he groundeth his Reply upon that which I say not, and bestoweth many words in disproving that I affirm not, and proving that I deny not, and maketh a long needless talk of the word, Dreadful, showing sundry things to be called Dreadful (wherein he telleth some truth) pretending to the Reader thereby, as though because Eusebius is alleged calling this Sacrifice Dreadful, thereof specially I had concluded the authority of offering Christ unto his Father, which thing in deed I do not: And forasmuch as this much is untruly attributed unto me, and therefore may with like facility be denied, as it is without proof said, and the whole process of the rest of this Division is utterly impertinent, and besides the purpose: I think this much enough for answer unto it, that it is not worth the answering.    

The .6. Division.  

The Answer.  

Hesychius lib. 1. c. 4.  THat Christ Sacrificed himself at his Supper, Hesychius affirmeth with these words: Quod Dominus jussit (levit. 4.) ut Sacerdos vitulum pro peccato oblaturus, 
joan. 10.  ponat manum super caput eius, & iugulet eum coram Domino, Christum significat, quem nemo obtulit, sed nec immolare poterat, nisi semetipsum ipse ad patiendum tradidisset. Propter quod non solùm dicebat, Potestatem habeo ponendi animan meam, & potestatem habeo iterum sumendi eam: sed & praeveniens semetipsum in Coena Apostolorum immolavit, quod sciunt, qui Mysteriorum percipiunt virtutem. That our Lord commanded (saith he) the Priest, which should offer a calf for sin, to put his hand upon his head, and to stick him before our Lord, it signifieth Christ, whom noman hath offered, neither could any man Sacrifice him, except he had delivered himself to suffer. For the which he said not only, I have power to lay down my Soul, and I have power to take it again: But also preventing it, he offered up himself in Sacrifice in the Supper of the Apostles: which they know, that receive the virtue of the Mysteries. By these words of Hesychius we learn, that Christ offered, and sacrificed his Body and Blood twice. first in that Holy Supper unbloodily, when he took Bread in his hands, and broke it, &c: Without Division of the Sacrifice, for it is but one and the same Sacrifice. And afterward on the Cross, with Shedding of his blood, and that is it, he meaneth by the word, Preventing.   

jewel.  
We deny not, but it may well be said, Christ at his last Supper offered up himself unto his Father: Albeit, not Really, and in deed, but, according to M. hardings own Distinction, in a Figure, 
Apocal. 13.  or in a Mystery: in such sort, as we say, Christ was offered in the Sacrifices of the Old Law: and as S. john saith, Agnus Occisus ab Origine Mundi: The Lamb was shaine from the beginning of the World. As Christ was slain at the Table, so was he Sacrificed at the Table. But he was not slain at the Table Verily, and in deed, but only in a Mystery: Therefore he was not Sacrificed at the Table Really, and in deed, but only in a Mystery.  
So saith S. Augustine, Nun semel immolatus est Christus in s●m etipso? 
August. Epist. 23.  Et tamen in Sacramento, non tantùm per omnes Paschae Solennitates, sed etiam omni die populis immolatur. Nec utique mentitur, qui interrogatus, eum responderit immolari. Si enim Sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum, quarum Sacramenta sunt, non haberent, omnino Sacramenta non essent. Was not Christ once offered in himself? And yet in (or, by way of) a Sacrament, not only at the Solemn Feast of Easter, but every day he is offered unto the people. And he saith no untruth, that being demanded, maketh answer, that Christ is Sacrificed. His reason is this: For if Sacraments had not a certain Likeness, or Resemblance of the things, whereof they be Sacraments, than should they utterly be no Sacraments.   

Harding.  
The contents of M. jewels Reply in this Division stand in .4. points. 

First, he granteth that Christ offered up himself unto his Father at his last Supper, in a figure, or in a Mystery, that is to say, as he expoundeth himself, in such sort, as he was offered up in the Sacrifices of the old Law: But that he was there really, and in deed offered, he utterly denieth.  
Secondly, for answer to the authority alleged out of Hesychius, he saith, that sometimes he was driven to stretch, and strain the Scriptures to his purpose.  
Thirdly, he would prove his Sacramentary opinion touching the difference between the Sacrifice of the Table, and the Sacrifice of the Cross, by a place of S. Cyprian, leaving out the which followeth in him, being such as clearly determineth the point against him.  
Fourthly, whereas I say, that Christ twice sacrificed himself really, he avoucheth it to be reproved by plain words of S. Paul.    
Of the falsehood of the first point, though I have spoken somewhat already, yet because M. jewel ceaseth not to sing one song, and eftsoons repeateth the same tale, standing upon his false Negative: some deal more seemeth here necessary to be spoken: that it may appear how clear the truth is of our side, and how weak the stuff is, that he bringeth against us.  
Although he tell not his tale in most distinct, and plain wise, as this doctrine of the unbloody Sacrifice of Christ ought to be uttered, using the terms of Figure, and Mystery, confusely: yet his meaning is plain enough, verily more plain, then true: Which is, that Christ offered up himself unto his Father at his last Supper in Figure only, and that, concerning both the thing offered, and the manner of offering: For adding as it were an exposition of his own words, 
M. jewels doctrine touching the Sacrifice, is only figurative.  In such sort, saith he, as we say, Christ was offered in the Sacrifice of the old Law. Now certain it is, that in the sacrifices of the old Law Christ was offered in Figure only, whether we consider the substance that was offered, or the manner of offering. The substance of those old Sacrifices, was a brute beast, a sheep, a calf, a goat, an Ox. Of which every one was but a figure only of Christ● the manner of offering was slaughter with bloodshed, which slaughter was also a figure only of Christ's bloody death to be suffered upon the Crosse. So M. jewels doctrine touching this point is figurative on every side, that is to say, that Christ offered up himself at his supper in Figure only.  
Yet understanding with himself, and as it were, being guilty in his own conscience, that this doctrine soundeth very strangely, and would offend the ears of the learned Catholics: in the conclusion he qualifieth his tale with terms, and shunning the odious word of a Figure only, guilefully shifteth in the word Mystery, saying, that Christ was not sacrificed at the Table really, and in deed, but only in a Mystery.  
Now that our disputation fall not into wrangling and cavils, here he is to be demanded, what he meaneth by this term, only in a Mystery, in this Proposition, Christ was not sacrificed at the Table really, but only in a Mystery.  

Only in a Mystery.  If he mean nothing else thereby, but to exclude the bloody manner of sacrificing, as in deed properly to speak, the sacrificing of living things is with bloodshed and slaughter: in that respect we grant also, that at the Table Christ was not really so sacrificed, but in Mystery only. For at the Table we know, he was not sticked with a knife, as the brute beasts in the old Law were, nor let blood with thorns, nails, or spear, as he was on the next morrow upon the Crosse.  
Marry where the exclusive particle, Only, is added, though in a right sense we might bear with it, as it is referred to the mystical manner of sacrificing: yet we say, it is strangely used in this place, where it may have relation to two things, either to the body and blood of Christ being the substance of the Sacrifice, or to the manner of sacrificing.  
But if by his term, Only in a Mystery, he exclude the Real presence of Christ himself, and mean that his very body and blood (as much to say, Christ himself because of the unity of the two natures) was not in Christ's hands, and upon the Table in deed, when having taken bread he gave thanks, blessed, 
Lucae 22.  broke it, and said, this is my Body, and concerning the Cup, this is my Blood, ●e is not now in the Altar, 
Only.  when we consecrate, doing that Christ did, and bade us to do, but that he was there then, and is here now at the Divine Celebration, in a figure, sign, token, signification, memory, representation, or Mystery Only, or that a figure, sign, token, or Mystery Only is present, and sacrificed, and not very Christ himself: If this be his meaning, herein we descent utterly from him, and he dissenteth from the Church of God, from that the holy Ghost hath taught his Church, from that all faithful Christian people hath ever believed, from that Christ himself professed, saying, this is my body, this is my blood: to be short, from that, which hath been of late by certain learned men against him, and his fellows sufficiently, and substantially proved.  
But what need we to demand of M. jewel, what he meaneth by his cloudy words? No cloud can hide his sacramentary heresy, it is evident, as well by that he saith here, as by that he hath said and written in sundry other places, according to the purport of the Caluinists doctrine (unto which sect he hath adjoined himself) and by his open profession, that he standeth in his Negative, and holdeth opinion, that Christ offered not himself really at his last Supper. Now the affirmative part, which is, that Christ offered himself at that Supper really, truly, and in deed, and made a real Sacrifice, though it be in my Answer already proved: yet here further for their sake, who break not out of the Church by their own stubbornness, and wilful malice, but be lead a side by simplicity, and ignorance: thus we prove.  
If Christ offered not up himself really and in deed in a Sacrifice at his last Supper, he left his new Law in worse state than was the condition of them, who lived in the time of the Law of Nature, or in the time of the Law written. But in worse state he left it not: Ergo, he sacrificed himself at the Supper truly, really, and in deed.  
The Minor, or second Proposition is such, as no Christian man (I judge) will deny, or doubt of. The first Proposition, which is conditional, shall soon appear true to him, who considereth, that the good and godly people living under the Law of Nature before any Law was written, 
Cyprian. Sermone de ratione circumcisionis.  by the inspiration of God (as S. Cyprian witnesseth) offered up real sacrifices, in which they protested their faith, and trust in Christ to come, by whose Sacrifice to be made upon the Cross they looked, and heartily desired to be saved. So did Abel offer up Sacrifice to God of the best of his flock. 
Gen. 4. Gen. 8.  So did No offer up Sacrifice of the clean beasts, that had been with him in the Ark. 
Gen. 22.  So Abraham, after that he had (for so much as in him was) offered up his only son Isaac, did in stead of him sacrifice the Ram, that was tied by the horns among the brambles. So did other just and good men of that time, offer up the like sacrifices to the same end.  
As for the time of the law written, who is so ignorant, that knoweth not, that real sacrifices of sundry beasts, beside other things were commanded to be offered up for divers particular ends, yet all to one chief end, to foresignify and prefigurate the most perfit Sacrifice of Christ to come? All these sacrifices although offered in a figure, and signification of benefit that then was to come, yet were they real and true sacrifices notwithstanding, as consisting of real and true substances. And thus we see, that by God's providence in the time of both Laws, of Nature, and of Moses, real sacrifices were offered up unto him in figure and token of the Redemption to come.  
Now than if Christ left to the new law, which he ordained, no real Sacrifice (a Sacrifice being the chiefest worship that man can do unto God) but endued it with a sacrifice, that is offered only in a figure: how did he not leave it in worse case, than the law of nature, or the law written? And certain it is, that he left it without any such Sacrifice, unless he offering himself really at his Supper, did begin and institute it after the order of Melchisedek. For in any time, or place else, instituted, and commanded, it is not found. Concerning inward, and mere spiritual sacrifices, they be common to all times and laws, as it is before proved.  
If M. jewel, and the maintainers of this new Gospel, put us in mind of bread and wine, and tell us, that the substance of bread and wine is our real Sacrifice, being the signs and figures of Christ's body and blood in the lords Supper: to that we answer, that bread and wine are not appointed, and ordained by Christ, to be the real Sacrifice of the Church: and if they were, than were the state of the new Testament no better then that of the old Testament, whereas the new far passing the old in every degree of worthiness, as S. Paul in sundry places declareth, the Sacrifice frequented in the new law, aught to surmount the Sacrifices of the old law. Then hath the Church made a very mean exchange with the jewish synagogue. For if we have no better substance in our daily Sacrifice, than a piece of bread and a small portion of wine: how was not a goat, a lamb, an Ox, as good, if not better, and more worth?  
Christ hath not so solenderly dealt with the heirs of the new Testament, as to leave so base and unworthy a sacrifice unto them (base and unworthy I say, in comparison of the high dignity, that God through his sons death hath called them unto) but by his almighty power, and according to his passing great mercy and love, hath given no worse thing than himself, to be their true and real Sacrifice.  
Some one will say perhaps, I would believe this doctrine the rather, if it were confirmed with the testimony of an Ancient learned Father. Let us hear then, what S. Chrysostom saith touching this point. 
Chrysost. in. 1. Cor. 10. Ho. 24 A clear testimony for the Sacrifice of Christ in the Church.  His words be these. In veteri quidem Testamento, cùm imperfectiores essent, quem Idolis offerebant sanguinem, cum ipse accipere volait, ut ab Idolis nos averteret. Quod etiam inenarrabilis amoris signum erat. Hic autem multò admirabilius & magnificentius facrificium praeparavit, & quum sacrificium commutaret, & pro brutorum caede se ipsum offerendum praciperet. In the old Testament, when men were more unperfect, Christ himself would take that blood, which they offered up unto Idols, to th'end to turn them from Idolatry. Which thing was a sign of an unspeakable love. But here (in the new Testament) he hath prepared a much more marvelous and honourable Sacrifice, both in that he changed the Sacrifice, and also for that in stead of the slaughter of brute beasts, he commanded his own self to be offered.  
Here we have by testimony of this ancient Father, the abolishing of the worse sacrifice, and the appointment of a better. That was made of brute beasts, this of Christ himself. Now consider good Reader, whether reason will bear it, that the worse and base sacrifice should be both real, and also in figure and signification (for so were all the jews sacrifices) and the better be in figure or mystery only, and not real, as M. jewel will have the Sacrifice of the Church to be.  
But that our Sacrifice is real, and that it is Christ himself, and that he is really and in deed sacrificed: the words above rehearsed, and others of the like force in that place of S. Chrysostom do plainly avouch. For first let this be examined, that, as he saith, Christ commanded for the slaughter of brute beasts, now in the new Testament, himself to be offered. Of what Sacrifice can this be meant, but of that which he both made, and instituted himself at his last Supper, and gave charge to be frequented and done, until he come? For as touching the Sacrifice of the Cross, though he suffered himself to be taken, and to be crucified, and to be offered up with shedding of blood unto death, yet he commanded not so much to be done, for than had the wicked workers of his death been guiltless.  

Lucae 22.  This commandment then of offering up Christ himself, 
1. Cor. ●1.  is understanded to have been given at the Supper, when after that he had consecrated his body and blood, he said, do ye this in my remembrance. And therefore S. Chrysostom speaketh thus unto Christ in his Liturgy or Mass, 
Chrysost. in Liturgia.  Memoriam igitur agentes huius salutaris mandati, etc. We keep the memory of this healthful commandment.  
If M. jewel reply, and say, that Christ commanded at the supper a memory only to be celebrated of the true and real Sacrifice upon the Cross: to that we answer. That this Sacrifice, whereof we speak, is a memory of that, we confess: but that it is a memory only, so as the real presence of Christ be excluded, that we deny: and to the contrary S. Chrysostom saith, that he commanded, se ipsum, himself to be offered up.  

Christ commanded himself to be offered up.  Neither can M. jewel shift the matter from him by expounding this word, himself, of the sign or figure of himself, meaning the bread and wine, as the Sacramentaries do: For if that, which is now daily in the Church offered up at the Altar, were but bread and wine, the signs of Christ's body and blood: S. Chrysostom would not, ne could not justly have said, that Christ hath prepared for us of the new Testament, multò admirabilius, & magnificentius Sacrificium, a much more marvelous, and honourable Sacrifice. For how can we conceive a piece of bread, and a cup of wine, to be in respect of sacrifice, a thing much more marvelous, and magnificent, or honourable, than a sheep, a goat, and an Ox, both these and those signifying all one thing, that is, Christ himself? Nay things compared with things, are not the beasts of a far more price?  
I trow M. jewel will not set a greater price upon the bread and wine used in this Sacrifice, for that they signify a more precious thing, than the brute beasts did in the sacrifices of the old law, to wit, Christ already come, whereas they signified Christ to come. For so he should divide Christ, and imagine him to be better and worthier in the new Testament, than he was in the old. Verily though redemption performed be to us better, than redemption promised: yet Christ before and after the performance, that is to say, Christ now come, and then to come, is one Christ, and of one worthiness.  
It followeth therefore by all means, that either S. Chrysostom said untruly, affirming Christ to have prepared for the new Testament a far more wonderful and magnificent Sacrifice, than were the sacrifices of the jews, which I suppose M. jewel will not be so shameless as to say, what so ever he think: or that we have now in the Sacrifice of the Church, Christ himself, truly, really, and in deed, and that he himself is really offered up unto his Father by Priests of the new Testament, 
Witness for the true and real blood of Christ in the Sacrament.  according to the commandment he gave at his supper, saying, do ye this in my remembrance.  
And that it is the real and true blood of Christ, which we have in the Sacrifice of the Altar, whereby the real Sacrifice touching the thing sacrificed is proved: it is most clearly affirmed by S. Chrysostom in the place before alleged. For thus he speaketh there. Quid hoc admirabilius, 
Chrysost. in prior. ad Cor. Hom. 24.  dic quaeso, quid amabilius? Hoc & amantes faciunt, cùm amatos intuentur alienorum cupiditate allectos, suae verò contemnentes: proprijs elargitis suadent, ut ab illis abstineant. Sed amantes quidem in pecunijs, vestibus, possessionibus, hanc ostendunt cupiditatem, in proprio sanguine nemo unquam. What thing I pray thee, is more marvelous than this? What more loving? (He speaketh of the blood that is in the chalice, which he saith to be the same that ran out of Christ's side) This is a thing that lovers do, when they behold them whom they love, to be alured with the desire of other men's things, and to set little by theirs: they give them their own things, and entreat them to abstain from others. But lovers show this their desire in money, in garments, in possessions, in his own blood no man ever showed it.  

Figure only excluded.  To prove that Christ loveth us more, than ever any man loved an other, he saith, that he giveth us his own blood. Which in this place of S. Chrysostom, can in no wise be expounded of the Figure and token of his blood. For worldly lovers give unto their beloved as much, and as good a thing as that, namely money, garments, their possessions. As for a token or sign of their blood, or of their persons, it were easy for them to give. But Christ (saith he) showeth his love toward us, by that whereby no man ever showed his love to an other. If the only token of blood, might at any time have declared so certain and assured love, lovers would oftentimes have spared their money, their garments, and their possessions: and would have given unto their dear beloved, the figure of their blood, or of their whole persons.  
Thus is the true and real presence of Christ's blood, and consequently of his flesh, proved by witness of S. Chysostome. And by the same is that proved, which we call the real Sacrifice of the Church. For by that we say Christ to be really offered up unto his Father, we mean none other thing, but that the substance, which we offer and sacrifice, is the real body and blood of Christ. This much therefore may stand for answer to M. jewels Reply in this place: Christ in the Sacrifices of the old Law, was so offered in a Figure, as he was not the substance of them. In the Supper he was, and in the Mass he is so offered, as he is the substance present.  
And because this real Sacrifice of Christ, being the Sacrifice of the New Testament, and the worthiness of it, is much impugned by the enemies of the Church in our time, yea villainously mocked, skoffed, and railed at by Antichristes' wicked brood: 
Reasons, whereby the Catholics may be armed against the Sacramentaries for defence of this Sacrifice.  the godly Catholics may by these reasons be sufficiently armed against them.  
If it were necessary for the people of the old Law to have real sacrifices to protest, and to maintain their belief in Christ's Death to come: why is it not as necessary, that the faithful people of the New Law, have also a real Sacrifice, to protest and keep in memory their belief in Christ's Death already past?  
Again, as the new Law is better, and excellenter than the old, so is it necessary it have a better and excellenter Sacrifice. But if we take away the Sacrifice of the Real flesh and blood of Christ, and leave only bread end wine to be offered up in a figure, or mystery: then have we not a Sacrifice proper unto the new Law, that in worthiness passeth and excelleth the Sacrifices of the old Law, 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 beasts blood more lively, than the other.  
Contrariwise let the real body and blood of Christ be the substanee of the Sacrifice of the new Law (as the truth teacheth saying, 
Lucae 22.  this is my body which is given for you, this is my blood which is shed for you, 
Math 26  etc. and the Church believeth): then doth it infinitely excel all the Sacrifices offered in the Law of Nature, or in the Law written. And then shall the New Law, as in greatness of graces, and promises, and plainness of Scripture: so surmount and pass also the old Law in Majesty of the Sacrifice, and of priesthood, which have ever in all Laws been accounted the two principal points of the same.  
To be short, how can it be conceived, that our Sacrifice should be but a figure, a sign, or a mystery only, and no true and real Sacrifice better than the old sacrifices: sith that by the teaching of all the ancient learned Fathers, it is the truth, and performance of all the old sacrifices?  
Having said this much for the real offering of Christ let us now examine M. jewels argument. 
Examination of M. jewels Argument.  As Christ was slain at the Table (saith he) so was he sacrificed at the Table. But he was not slain at the Table verily, and in deed, but only in a Mystery: Therefore he was not sacrificed at the Table, really, and in deed, but only in a Mystery.  
Christ was then, and is now also at the holy Table, both really sacrificed in respect of his real and true body and blood by virtue of the word made present, and also in a Mystery, in respect of the outward forms of bread and wine under which they are present, and of the mystical manner of sacrificing. This being true, as before we have declared, and therefore the Conclusion being false: let us see, which of the Premises of M. jewels Argument is false. It is the Mayor, or first Proposition. If the same be resolved into the parts whereof it consisteth, the untruth will soon appear. The first part is this. Christ was slain at the Table. That is false. The second is this. Christ was sacrificed at the Table. That is true. So that one part is false, and the other true. And so by this trial, which is the surest way to try such kind of Propositions, the whole Proposition in itself is found false, and therefore the Conclusion followeth not.  
For the better evidence of the thing itself, we most gladly acknowledge, and protest to the world, that Christ was really and in deed slain, and put to death once for ever, and never shall again suffer the pains of Death. Yet nevertheless he is, and shall to the worlds end continue, the real and true Sacrifice of the new Testament, according to his own merciful Institution at his last Supper. As for the lack of any slaying, and shedding of blood, it is no cause at all, 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 up with slaying, and bloudeshedding to pay the ransom of our sins. He did then, and we the now offer the same body and blood in consideration and remembrance of that slaying, and shedding. He offered at the Supper his body, and blood, that on the morrow was to be slain, and shed: we at the Altar do still offer that body, and blood, that was slain, and shed, even the same self body, and blood in number. For, as Theophylacte following S. Chrysostom saith. 
Theophylact. in ●0. c. ad Heb.  Eundem semper offerimus, Imò potius memoriam illius oblationis, qua seip● sum obtulit, facimus, ceu nunc iam facta sit, we offer up always the self same (Christ) or rather we keep the memory of that oblation, whereby he offered himself, as though it were even right now done.  
In this point therefore this Sacrifice is clearly unlike the sacrifices of the old law, wherein although beasts of one kind were offered daily, as for example, this day a lamb, and to morrow likewise a lamb: yet it was not one lamb, but divers lambs. And therefore a new kill and shedding of blood was daily required. But we do not offer this day one lamb, to morrow an other, but always the self same, as S. Chrysostom saith.  

Chrysost. in epist. ad Heb. Hom. 17. Ibidem.  Again this Host is such, as can not be consumed, though they be never so many, that be made partakers of it, as he also saith. Ipsam offerimus & nunc, quae tunc oblata quidem consumi non potest. We do offer up now also the same host, which being offered then (he meaneth upon the Cross) can not be consumed. Wherefore sith it is continually the self same host, in number with that, which was slain upon the Cross, albeit it be really again sacrificed, to continue the memory of the real death of the same, and to be the real Sacrifice of the new Testament: M. jewel going about to abolish the truth of our Sacrifice, for that it is not truly again slain, bewrayeth his own penury of better and sounder reasons, and seemeth to reprove all the old learned Fathers, for calling it the unbloody Sacrifice.   

jewel.  
Notwitstandinge, Hesychius expounding the Book of Leviticus, to the intent he may force the whole Story of the Life, and Death of Christ, to answer every particular Ceremony of the Law, is sometimes driven, 
Hesych. in levit. li. 1 cap. 4.  to stretch, and strain the Scriptures to his pnrpose. So he saith, Christ is the Aultare: And, Christ Incarnate in the Virgin's Womb, is the Sodden Sacrifice.  
Now as Christ was the Aultare, 
Li. 1. ca 2. Sacrificium Coctum.  and as he was Sacrificed in his Mother's Womb, even so he Sacrificed himself at his Supper: not in proper, or usual manner of speech, but only in a Mystery signifying.  
Otherwise S. Cyprian plainly openeth the whole difference of these two Sacrifices in this sort: 
Cyprianus de Vnctione Chrismatis.  Dedit Dominus noster in mensa, in qua Vltimum cum Apostolis participavit Conuivium, proprijs manibus Panem, & vinum: In Cruce verò manibus militum Corpus tradidit vulnerandum. Our Lord at the Table, whereat he received his last Supper with his Disciples, with his own hands gave (not his very Body, and very Blood Really, and in deed, but) Bread, and Wine: But upon the Cross, he gave his own Body, with the soldiers hands to be Wounded. This, saith saint Cyprian is the difference between the Sacrifice of the Table, and the Sacrifice of the Cross: At the one, Christ gave Bread, and Wine: Upon the other, he gave his Body.  
Therefore, wherea● M. Harding saith, only upon his own warrant, That Christ Really Sacrificed himself at two sundry times, and that he twice Really Shed his Blood, first at the Table, and afterward upon the Cross: The untruth, and folly hereof is easily reproved by these plain words of S. Paul: 
Hebrae. 9  Semel Oblatus est, ad multorum exhaurienda peccata: He was once offered, to take away the sins of many. 
Hebrae. 10.  And again, With one Sacrifice he hath made perfit them for ever, that be Sanctified. These places are clear, and without question: unless M. Harding will say that, One, and, Two: and, Once, and Twice, be both one thing.   

Harding.  
Concerning the words of Hesychius, they be plain for the real sacrifice of Christ at the Supper. For if he had there offered up himself in a figure, or Mystery only, as M. jewel meaneth by his only mystery: he would never have called it a prevention of the bloody Sacrifice, 
Hesychius In levit. li. 1. cap. 4.  neither would he have used the term praeveniens, preventing. For Christ to offer up himself at the supper in a figure only, in such sort as he was offered in the sacrifices of the old law, had not been a prevention of his bloody Sacrifice upon the Crosse. Verily if M. jewels understanding were stretched and strained unto the obedience of faith, he would not say so saucily of that ancient and learned Father, that he is driven to stretch and strain the Scriptures to his purpose. And what if it were granted, that so he did sometimes (for more this replier saith not himself) will it thereof follow, 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 simple answer to the authority out of him alleged. That he calleth Christ the Altar, it is not strange, for so S. Paul calleth him, as there he allegeth. Neither was Christ by his report, sacrified in his Mother's womb, he was incarnate in the virgins womb, and the same Christ's incarnation, he calleth the baked Sacrifice, for thereof he speaketh, and not of a sodden sacrifice, as the place is evident. The Ooven wherein it was baked, was the Virgin's womb, 
Hesychius in levit. li. 1. cap. 2. Lucae 1.  because (as he saith) she received from above the bread of life, to wit, the word of God, in her womb, and the fire of the presence of the holy Ghost. For the holy Ghost (saith the Angel) shall come over into thee, and thee power of the highest shall overshadow thee.  
And the same Christ, that was incarnate in the Virgin's womb, sacrificed himself at his Supper, although not in such manner, as the live hosts in the old Testament were sacrificed, that is to say, with bloodshed, and slaughter: yet in a mystery, but truly, and really, and after that manner of speech, which is proper and usual to the Catholic Church speaking of this singular Sacrifice, not only in a mystery signifying, that is to say, in a figure, or signification only, as M. jewel meaneth, the substance of Christ's body and blood excluded: but so in a mystery, as that most divine substance be believed to be verily present, and by us in remembrance of his death presented to God.  
Touching the place of S. Cyprian, 
S. Cyprian falsified by M. jewels mangling, and hewing.  de unctione Chrismatis, he is like to have small advantage, and less honesty by alleging it, when it is known, how falsely he hath done, in taking the beginning of the sentence, which being set a part from the rest, seemeth to give a sound of his do●ctrine, and cutting away the end, that declareth the Doctors meaning, and quit overthroweth the Sacramentary heresy. For immediately after the words, that M. jewel taketh for his purpose, whereby is signified, that our Lord at his last Supper gave unto his Apostles, bread and wine with his own hands, and upon the Cross delivered his body to be wounded with the hands of the Soldiers: this much followeth in the same sentence. Vt in Apostolis secretius impressa syncera veritas, 
Cyprianus De unctio ne Chrismatis.  & vera synceritas exponeret Gentibus, quomodo vinum & panis, caro esset & sanguis, et quib● ronibus causae effectibus convenirent, et diversa noina vel species ad unam reducerentur essentiam, et significantia et significata eisdem nacabulis censerentur. That the sincere truth, and true sincerity being secretly imprinted inth' Apostles might expound unto the Gentiles, how wine and bread should be his flesh and blood, and by what means the causes should be agreeable to the effects, and divers names and kinds should be brought unto one substance, and the things signifying, and the things 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 blood of Christ, which S. Cyprian saith, he gave at his last Supper unto his Apostles. This clear and sincere truth, or true sincerity (so he calleth either the true doctrine of this Sacrifice, or the Sacrifice itself in respect of the sundry impure and typical sacrifices of Moses Law) he would secretly, that is, with th'inward knowledge of these secret mysteries, to be imprinted and digested inth' Apostles, to th'intent they should expound unto the Gentiles, the jews with their old sacrifices being now rejected, how at this heavenly banquet the bread and wine is flesh and blood: how the causes and effects be agreeable, that is to say, how the words of Consecration duly pronounced by the Priest, and the power of the holy Ghost, which are the causes, do produce and make the body and blood of our Lord, which be the effects: how things of divers names, and divers in nature, and therefore divers kinds, be brought unto one essence or substance, to wit, bread and wine, unto the substance of Christ's flesh and blood, 
Transubstantiatiō●  whereby Transubstantiation is wrought: briefly to conclude, how, whereas bread signifieth the body, and wine the blood, the things signifying, and the things signified, be called by the same names. Which thus appeareth to be true, because that which before Consecration was, and afterward seemeth to be bread, is called the flesh, and in like case wine is called the blood: and so contrariwise sometimes the flesh is called the bread, and the blood is called the wine. What can be said more directly against M. jewels sacramentary Heresy, and more pithily for confirmation of the Catholic doctrine touching this point? And all this M. jewel hath left out.  
The same very thing S. Cyprian doth utter more plainly in other places. 
Cyprianus De coena Domini.  In his Treatise of the Supper of our Lord he hath these most evident words. Panis iste, quem Dominus Discipulis porrigebat, non effigy, sed natura mutatus, Omnipotentia Verbi factus est Caro. This bread, 
Lib. 2. Epi●stola 3.  which our Lord gave unto his Disciples (at his supper) being changed not in shape, but in nature, by the almighty power of the word was made flesh.  
Again writing to Ca●ilius, he saith. Qui magis sacerdos, ● Dominus noster jesus Christus, qui sacrificium obtulit, et obtulit hoc idem, quod Melchisedech, id est, panem et vinum, suum scilicet corpus et sanguinem. Who is more a Priest, than our Lord jesus Christ, who offered up a Sacrifice, and offered the very same, that Melchisedech did, that is to say, bread and wine, as much to say, his own body and blood. By these places S. Cyprian declareth his mind plainly, what he meaneth by the bread and wine, that Christ either gave at the Supper unto his Disciples, or offered unto his Father to render thanks for the great benefit of his passion, sooth none other bread and wine, then that which was made by the almighty power of the Word, his body and blood. And behold Reader how uniform his utterance is, and how he agreeth with himself. In the Sermon De unctione Chrismatis by M. jewel with false leaving out that which made for the truth, alleged, he saith, that divers, kinds are reduced into one substance, in his Sermon De coena Domini, he saith, the bread by the omnipotency of the Word is made flesh, so bread and flesh being divers kinds, are brought to one substance. There the things signifying, and the things signified, saith he, be called with the same names, as how, I have before declared. In his Epistle to Cecilius, naming bread and wine, he expoundeth himself, thus, suum scilicet corpus & sanguinem, as much to say, his own body and blood. Where the body and blood bear the names of bread and wine. By this it is clearly seen, what an impudent and wicked gloze is that, which M. jewel encloseth in his parenthesis added by way of exposition unto the maimed sentence of S. Cyprian, wherewith to exclude the body and blood of Christ, the true bread and wine.  
What have you won here by S. Cyprian M. jewel? Who cutteth and maimeth the Doctors? Who is now to be asked, whether he have the chynecoffe, 
M. jewels Cough.  which in a place of your Reply with out cause you twit me of? What kind of cough I shall call this, I wot not, I fear me the ill matter of it lieth not in your chine, a place so far from the heart, but in the heart itself. For were not the same by Satan's work festered with the corruption of heresy, you had not been letted, as with a cough, from bringing forth the later part of S. Cyprians saying, whose beginning you falsely abuse to obscure the clear truth. Who so ever thus coffeth, I will not say, he hath the chynecoffe, as you jest, but verily (saving my charity) that he coffeth as like an heretic, as a rotten yew cof●eth like a sheep.  
last of all, whereas he saith, that I am reproved of untruth and folly by S. Paul for saying, 
Three lies made by M. jewel within three lines.  that Christ really sacrificed himself at two several times, and twice really shed his blood, only upon mine own warrant: he maketh no less than three lies within three lines. For neither said I in this place, that Christ twice really shed his blood, nor only upon mine own warrant said I, that Christ sacrificed his body and blood twice, because I had the authority of Hesychius here, as the authority of other Fathers before, namely Gregory Nyssen, and Theophylacte, for my warrant. Nor for so saying am I reproved of any untruth, or folly, by S. Paul. For my assertion is true, notwithstanding any thing that S. Paul saith.  
What though S. Paul say, 
Heb. 9  M. jewel, Christus semel oblatus est ad multorum exhauriend● peccata, Christ was once offered, 
Heb. 100L  to take away the sins of Many: Again, with one Sacrifice he hath made perlite for ever them, that be sanctified? Because in these two sayings you find the terms, one, and once: therefore suppose you, that needs they must reprove my assertion, avouching that Christ was twice really offered?  

Two oblations of one body.  It seemeth you never considered, that there may be two oblations of one body, one bloody, the other unbloody: one by his own virtue meriting, the other applying the merit: the one open to the eyes of all, the other in a mystery: the one employing death of the thing offered, the other representing and recording the same death. Thus it may be, and yet the one shall not quit exclude the other. And he that shall affirm, the bloody, the meriting, and the open oblation to be but one, shall not reprove him, that saith, having respect to both these Oblations, that they be two, and that the body offered, is twice offered.  
Even so standeth the case between that S. Paul saith, and that I say. S. Paul speaketh of the Sacrifice of the Cross that employed the death of Christ, and fully merited forgiveness of the sins of the world. Which appeareth by the effect of the oblation added, ad multorum exhaurienda peccata, 
Heb. 9 Heb. 10.  to take away the sins of many, and in the other place, he made them that be sanctified with one oblation perfit for ever. This Sacrifice was offered upon the Crosse. I speak both of that Sacrifice of the Cross, and of this which Christ offered at his Supper, and commanded to be offered in his remembrance until he come again.  
The substance of these two Sacrifices being Christ, is all one. The manner of offering, and end is divers. That upon the Cross, 
Luc. 22.  was painful bloody, ignominious, and ended in death. 
1. Cor. 11.  This at the Supper, is impassable, unbloody, glorious, and free from death. The end of that was to deserve, and purchase the salvation of the world, by paying a ransom superabundantly sufficient for the sins of mankind. And that was done once for al. The end of this, is to commemorate, and represent the death of Christ unto his Father, and in that commemoration to beseech God forgiving us our sins, to take us into his favour through the merits of that death, and to apply the benefit of it unto them, for whom being as they ought to be, disposed, this Sacrifice is offered.  
To prove that Sacrifice made upon the Cross and the merits thereof, there need none other testimonies, than those which have been already cited out of S. Paul. Of this, which was offered and instituted at the Supper, of the unity of it with the other, and of the effects of the same, the learned Fathers have made mention in sundry places. The oblation itself, and Institution, and one effect, S. Cyprian comprehendeth in one sentence. 
Cyprian. lib. 2. epistol. 3.  jesus Christus Dominus noster ipse est summus Sacerdos Dei Patris, & Sacrificium Deo Patri ipse primus obtulit, & hoc fieri in sui commemorationem praecepit. jesus Christ our Lord, he is the highest Priest of God the Father, and he himself first offered a Sacrifice, and commanded the same to be made in his Remembrance.  
The unity of it with the other in substance, and the same effect that S. Cyprian speaketh of, 
Chrysost. Hom. 17. in epist. ad Heb.  S. Chrysostom most plainly uttereth. Quid ergo nos? etc. What then do we? Do● we not offer every day? We do offer verily, but we do it for remembrance of his death. And this host (or Sacrifice) is one, not many. How is it one, and not many Because it was once offered, it was offered up into the most holy place. But this Sacrifice is a sampler of that other. The self same do we offer up always. etc.  
another effect of this our Sacrifice, that is, the Applying of Christ's Passion unto us, S. Gregory doth express saying. 
Gregor. Hom. 37.  Quoties ei hostiam suae Passionis offerimus, toties nobis ad absolutionem nostram illius Passionem reparamus. As often as we offer unto him the host of his Passion, so often do we renew unto ourselves his Passion to our absolution.  
And here to answer his skoffing Conclusion, I wonder, that skoffing at me for saying, Christ was twice sacrificed, he forgot, that in the self same Division a little before, he alleged a place out of S. Augustine, where there is express mention of two immolations or sacrificinges of Christ. S. Augustine's words be plain. 
August in. Epist. 23.  Nun semel oblatus est Christus in semet ipso? Et tamen in Sacramento non tantùm per omnes Paschae solennitates, sed etiam omni die populis immolatur. Was not Christ once sacrificed in himself? And yet notwithstanding in a Sacrament he is sacrificed for the people, (so it is to be translated, and not is offered unto the people, as M. jewel falsely translateth it) not only through all the solemn feasts of Easter, but also every day.  
Why heard you not yourself M. jewel, reporting this plain saying of S. Augustine, that Christ is twice offered? twice (I say) in respect of the manner of offering, once openly, in himself, that is, upon the Cross: and again in a Sacrament, after which manner he is offered up every day, whereby the Sacrifice of the Altar is meant. Christ there, and Christ here is sacrificed, for the substance of both Sacrifices is Christ. Of that you doubt not, of this you should not doubt, believing him, who said, This is my body.  
Thus than we answer your scornful absurdity. One and Two, and Once and Twice, may thus both be conceived to be said of one thing in this singular Mystery in divers respects. If Sacrifice signify the thing sacrificed, and also the Act of sacrificing: then whereas One body and One Christ, was sacrificed, yet the Sacrifices were Two. There have we One, and Two. Again Christ was unbloodily sacrificed at the Supper, and but once bloodily upon the Crosse. So he was in ●espect of divers manners of offering, Once and Twice offered. Yet in respect of the thing offered or sacrificed, it was One Sacrifice, One offering, One Christ. Thus to a faithful man of the Catholic Church, who hath subdued his understanding unto faith, it appeareth sufficiently, how in a due consideration, One, and Two, and Once, and Twice, whereat M. jewel skoffeth, may both be said of one thing. Thus he is overtaken, and found unable to answer the place of Hesychius, the substance of this Division.    

The .7. Division.  

The Answer.  
ANd at the same very instant of time (which is here further to be added, as a necessary point of Christian doctrine) we must understand that Christ offered himself in Heaven invisibly (as concerning man) in the sight of his Heavenly Father, and that from that time forward that Oblation of Christ in Heaven was never intermitted, but continueth always for our atonement with God, and shall without ceasing endure until the end of the world. For as S. Paul saith, 
Heb. 9  jesus hath not entered into Temples made with hands, the samplers of the true Temples, but into Heaven itself, to appear now to the countenance of God for us. Now as this Oblation and Sacrifice of Christ endureth in Heaven continually, for as much as he is risen from the dead, and ascended into heaven with that Body, which be gave to Thomas to feel, bringing in thither his Blood, as Hesychius saith, 
Lib. 1. c. 4.  and bearing the marks of his wounds, and there appeareth before the face of God with that Thorneprickte, Naileboared, Spearepearsed, and otherwise wounded, rend, and torn Body for us: (whereby we understand the virtue of his Oblation on the Cross ever enduring, not the Oblation itself with renewing of pain, and sufferance continued) so we do perpetually celebrate this Oblation and Sacrifice of Christ's very body and blood in the Mass, in remembrance of him, commanded so to do, until his coming.  
Wherein our Adversaries so foolishly, as wickedly scoff at us, as though we sacrificed Christ again, so as he was Sacrificed on the Cross, that is, in Bloody manner. But we do not so Offer, or Sacrifice Christ again: but that Oblation of him in the Supper, and ours in the Mass, is but one Oblation, the same Sacrifice, for this cause by his Divine ordinance left unto us, that as the Oblation once made on the Cross continually endureth, and appeareth before the face of God in Heaven for our behalf, continued not by new suffering, but by perpetual intercession for us: So the memory of it may ever until his second coming be kept amongst us also in earth, and that thereby we may apply and bring unto us through Faith the great benefits, which by that one Oblation of himself on the Cross he hath for us procured, and daily doth procure.   

jewel.  
At the same very instant of time, saith M. Harding, when Christ was sacrificed upon the Cross, he offered up himself also in Heaven in the sight of his heavenly Father. Which thing he enlargeth Rhetorically with a Tragical Description of a Thorneprickte, Naileboared, Spearepearsed, and otherwise rent, and Torn Body. And this saith he, is a necessary point of Christian doctrine: And that he avoucheth constantly, albeit without the word, or witness of any Ancient writer, only upon his own credit. Whereof also groweth some suspicion, that his Store of old Records, is not so plenteous, as it is supposed.  
But where he saith, Christ was thus Invisibly sacrificed in Heaven, I marvel, he saith not likewise, that Pilate, Annas, Caiphas, the Soldiers, and the tormentors were likewise in Heaven to make this Sacrifice. For without this Company Christ's Blood was not shed: And without Sheadding of Blood, S. Paul saith, There is no Sacrifice for Remission of sin.. This Fable is so vain, that, I believe, M. Harding himself is not well able, to expound his own meaning. Origen saith, There were some in his time, that thought, That, as Christ was Crucified in this world for the living, so he should afterward suffer, 
Origen. in epist. ad Rom. lib. 5. cap. 6.  and be Crucified in the world to come for the dead. But that Christ was thus Thorneprickte, Naileboarde, Spearepearsed, and Crucified in Heaven, I think, noman ever saw, or said, but M. harding. The Apostles, the Evangelists, the Old Doctors, and Ancient Fathers never knew it. S. Paul saith, Semel seipsum obtulit: Once he offered up himself: 
Heb. 7. Heb. 9  Semel introivit in Sancta: Once he entered into the holy place. And therefore hanging upon the Cross, and yielding up the Ghost, he said, Consummatum est, It is finished, This Sacrifice is perfitly wrought for ever. This only Sacrifice of Christ the Son of God the Scriptures acknowledge, and none other.   

Harding.  
In this Division M. jewels Reply containeth little, that is worthy to be answered. Yet lest more substance of matter should be thought to be in it, then is in deed: with some few words the vanity of it is to be detected. 


The contents of M. jewels Reply in the 7. Di●uision.  First, he skoffeth at an absurdity of his own Devise by his false report attributed to me, as though I had uttered it.  
Secondly, he affirmeth that noman denied, which is altogether impertinent, that Christ's Sacrifice upon the Cross remaineth still in force.  
Thirdly, he findeth fault with an Ancient Prayer used to be said in the Mass.  
Fourthly, he goeth about by a fond reason to show, the Sacrifice of the Altar, not to be the same that was offered upon the Crosse.    
For answer to his first part I desire no more, but that the words of my book be circumspectly read over, and considered. Which done, I doubt not but the reader shall easily espy the lightness of his Reply, and the vanity of his scoffs. For proof that our Saviour Christ appeareth in heaven before the face of his Father, with his rent and torn body for us, partly in my Answer I touched a testimony taken out of Hesychius, as there it is to be seen: and hard it was not other testimonies to have brought. If I witted that would satisfy him, and bring him to recant, and return unto the catholic faith: I would gladly prove that point with some good number of the old Learned Fathers. 
That Christ appea●reth before the Father in heaven with his wounded body.  But doubting much thereof, I think in a matter so generally believed and confessed, a few testimonies may suffice.  
First, Hesychius saith thus, Cicatrices portans Passionum, à mortuis resurrexit, unde & suum corpus palpandum Thomae praebuit, atque ita in caelos ascendit. Christ rose again from the dead bearing with him the scars of his stripes and wounds. 
Hesychius in levit. lib. 1. c. 4.  For so he offered his own body to Thomas to feel it, and so he ascended into heaven.  
next S. Cyprians words be plain. 
Cyprian. de baptismo Christi.  Semper reseruatae in corpore plagae salutis humanae exigunt precium, & obedientiae donatiwm requirunt. The wounds reserved still in Christ's body, do demand the payment of Man's salvation, and require the reward of his obedience. Now what were the wounds, that Christ received in his body at the time when he suffered his Passion, but the prickings of the Thorns, the boaringes of the Nails, and the piercing of the Soldiers spear? If these wounds be reserved always in his body, and claim for payment to be made, which payment is the salvation of Mankind, as S. Cyprian saith: why maketh M. jewel so much a do for that I said, that Christ appeareth continually before the face of God, with that thorneprickte, naileboared, spearepearsed, and otherwise wounded, rend, and torn body for us?  
And whereas he calleth this a Rhetorical enlarging of the thing with a Tragical description: if it were so, what evil is therein committed? Do not the best learned Fathers oftentimes to move devotion, and compassion, use Rhetorical amplifications, and much more vehement speeches? Doth not S. Cyprian in the place above mentioned, tell us of certain words, quae emolliunt animum, accenduntque devotionis affectum, which do soften and supple our mind, 
Cyprianus ibidem.  and enkindle the affection of devotion in us? If I had such a motion, when I wrote those words, M. jewel ought not to scorn, and scoff at it.  
another learned Father touching the appearing of Christ in heaven before his Father with such a body, writeth thus. Theophylacte I mean, who, though he be not one of the most ancient, yet reporteh that which he learned of the old learned Fathers of the Greek Church: and so reporteth it, as he may seem to expound what S. Cyprian meant, by claiming the payment or reward of Man's salvation. These be his words. Etiam num unà cum corpore quod pro nobis immolavit, 
Theophyl. in epistol. ad Hebr. cap. 5.  apud Deum & patrem intercedit, hoc est, quas pro nobis pertulit afflictiones, ut multùm commoveat, proponit etiam sine voce, reipsa nimirum patriloquens: Pro humana natura filius tuus ego sustinui haec: miserere igitur horum, pro quibus ego pati & mori sustinui. Christ even now by his body, which he sacrificed for us, with God and his Father maketh intercession, that is to say, he setteth forth to the intent he may much move him the afflictions which he suffered for us, without voice, even by deed itself speaking unto the Father (in this wise) I, which am thy Son have suffered these things for mankind: have mercy therefore of them, for whom I have sustained to suffer and die.  
What other thing in effect do my words import, which M. jewel so much ieasteth at, and saith I speak them upon mine own credit only without witness of any Ancient writer: then that was spoken so long sithence by Hesychius, S. Cyprian, and Theophylacte? For as concerning S. Chrysostom (who saith no less, 
Chrysosto. in caput. 9 ad Hebrae. Homi. 17.  though in fewer words, Cum Sacrificio ascendit, quod potuit propitiare Patrem, Christ ascended into heaven with the Sacrifice, that was able to pacify the Father) and other ancient Fathers, by which they mean the body that suffered upon the Cross: because they speak it more darkly, here I omit to recite them. If then M. jewels humour be such, as he must needs please himself in mocking and skoffing, let him consider how it becometh him to scoff at Hesychius, S. Cyprian, Theophylacte, S. Chrysostom, and other holy and learned Fathers.  
That Christ was thus invisibly sacrificed in heaven, 
M. jewel falsely reporteth the Answer.  I say not: it is your false report M. jewel, let my book be trial. This is your common wont, with shifting of your words in my words place, to frame an absurd saying, and thereat to exercise the talon of your skoffing. Wherein you fight but with your own shadow, you touch not my person.  
Only I said, that Christ offered himself in heaven, when he was crucified on earth, read my words who list. And that I said is true. And it is none other thing, than was said by Hesychius above a thousand years paste. 
Hesych. in levit. lib. 1. cap. 4.  Whose words these be. Quo tempore vitulus immolabatur in inferioribus, eo tempore ut Pontisex ipse sibi Sacrificium offerebat in coelo. At what time the Calf (that is to say, Christ) was sacrificed beneath in the earth, at the same time Christ as the high Bishop, himself offered up Sacrifice to himself in heaven.  
As for your merry objection of Pilate, Annas, Caiphas, the Soldiers, and tormentors, of whom you marvel, I said not, that they were likewise in heaven to make this Sacrifice: you might have seemed to have some reason, if I had said, or meant, that this Sacrifice was made in heaven, as you by falsifying my Answer bear the unware Reader in hand I said. This Sacrifice, I say, by which you mean the visible, painful, and bloody Sacrifice, that was made upon the Cross, and not in heaven: This Sacrifice, wherein Christ's Blood was shed, without which company (say you) it was not shed. And yet where it was shed, I trow you can not prove, that Pilate, Annas, and Caiphas were in the company of the Soldiers that shed it.  
Therefore where you say thus, That Christ was thus Thorneprickte, Naileboarde, Spearepearsed, and Crucified in Heaven, I think noman ever saw, or said, but M. Harding: I answer, that M. Harding never said it, as he referreth all to his book for trial, and I think, noman is so impudent, as in so plain a matter so to belie him, but M. jewel.  
With what eyes did you read my book in this very place? Or think you other men have not eyes to see these express words there put in by a parenthesis, to take away this very fond cavil that you make, whereby we understand the virtue of his oblation on the Cross ever enduring, not the oblation itself with renewing of pain, and sufferance continued? This once espied by the Reader, how doth not all your skoffiing lose his grace, and set forth your impudency of lying?  
And therefore you spend labour in vain, to prove that is not denied: 
Hebre. 7.  that Christ once offered up himself, and once entered into the holy place. Which is true, once through shedding of his blood. Yet that Oblation nevertheless endureth for ever, and he with that very broken and torn body still appeareth to the countenance of God in Heaven, making intercession for us. And there, when we have sinned, if we repent, and call upon him, he is a Propitiation for our sins, as S. john saith, 
1. joan. 2.  not by a new shedding of blood, but by virtue of his blood once shed upon the Cross, and of his Passion. Unto which manner of Oblation and appearing before the face of the Father, which hath continued from the hour of his Passion to this time, and shall continue to the last day: the company of Pilate, Annas, Caiphas, the Soldiers and Tormentous, as you scoff, is not necessary. They are appointed an other place, where is weeping and gnashing of teeth, 
Luc. 13.  where you are sure to have your part with them, unless you repent, and return unto the Catholic Church.   

jewel.  
How be it, like as the Prayers, that Christ once made, and the Doctrine, that he once taught, remain still full, and effectual, as at the first: even so the Sacrifice, that Christ once made upon the Cross, remaineth still in full force, effectual, and perfit, and endureth for ever. Therefore S. Paul saith, 
Hebre. 7.  Christ hath an everlasting priesthood, and liveth still, that he may still pray for us. And therefore God the Father saith unto him, and to none other, either man, or Angel, or Archangel, 
Chrysostom. in epist. ad Hebrae. Hom. 17. Cyprian De Baptis. Christi.  Tu es Sacerdos in aeternum: Thou art a Priest for ever. And therefore S. Chrysostom compareth this Sacrifice to a most sovereign salve, that being once laid to the wound, healeth it clean, and needeth no more lai●inge on. Likewise S. Cyprian saith ● Nec Sacerdotij eius paenituit Deum: quoniam Sacrificium, quod in Cruce obtulit, sic in beneplacito Dei constat acceptabile, & perpetua virtute consistit, ut non minus hodiè in conspectu Patris Oblatio illa sit efficax, quàm ea die, qua de saucio latere Sanguis, & Aqua exivit: & semper reseruatae in Corpore plagae salutis Humanae exigant pretium: It never repented God of Christ's Priesthood: For the Sacrifice, that he offered upon the Cross, is so acceptable in the good will of God, and so standeth in continual strength and Virtue, that the same Oblation is no less acceptable this day in the sight of God the Father, than it was that day, when Blood, and Water ran out of his Wounded side. The Scars reserved still in his Body, do weigh the price of the Salvation of man.   

Harding.  
Now cometh M. jewel to prove that no man denied. That the Sacrifice of Christ upon he Cross continueth still in force and effectual, as the Prayers that he once made, and the doctrine that he once taught, remain effectual, as at the first. All this is true M. jewel, but how pertaineth it to your purpose? Will you thereof conclude against us, and thus reason against the unbloody Sacrifice: The unbloody Sacrifice continueth always in force, Ergo, the unbloody Sacrifice is superfluous? That is acceptable in the sight of God, Ergo, this is unacceptable and displeasant.  
If this be not your Argument, why said you so much for that, which every faithful man confesseth? If this be your Argument, we require you to learn your Logic better, before you teach us new Divinity. For whereas there be two things true, it is a fond kind of reasoning, to conclude the denial of the one, by the affirmation of the other, as I must tell you oftentimes.  
This much we confess also, that unless the Sacrifice whereof we speak, were one and the same in substance of the thing offered, with the Sacrifice made upon the Cross, though the manner of offering be divers: it were superfluous, and to God displeasant. For the new Testament acknowledgeth, nor accepteth none other real and external Sacrifice, but the Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, which hath succeeded, as S. Augustine, 
August. de civitate Dei. li. 17. cap. 20.  and all the learned Fathers with one consent do confess, in place of all the old Sacrifices.  
Yet you will reply, and say. If that Sacrifice upon the Cross, be still effectual, and continue in force for ever, what need is there of this Sacrifice daily made upon the Altar?  
Concerning this Reply, every man shall easily satisfy himself, if he will consider it in a like case. Christ once prayed, and that prayer is effectual to this day, and shallbe to the worlds end. Nevertheless we must pray also, if we will be partakers of his prayer.  
Christ washed away the sins of the world, with the blood, that was shed out of his body at his Passion: notwithstanding we must, if we will be saved, be baptized, that we be made clean from Original sin, and from Actual too, if we have committed any before our Baptism.  

Hebr. 10.  Christ hath for ever perfected them that be sanctified, with one oblation. 
2. Cor. 7.  Yet S. Paul's counsel is, ut emundemus nos ab omni inquinamento carnis & spiritus perficientes sanctificationem in timore Dei. That we cleanse ourselves from all filth of flesh, and spirit, perfecting our sanctification in the fear of God. Here is special mention made of two perfitinge of our sanctification, the one belonging to Christ, the other to ourselves. If Christ do perfit, what need we to perfit?  
For the better assoiling of this doubt, let us call to mind, what S. Paul writeth in his Epistle to the Corinthians, saying, 
1. Cor. 3.  Dei sumus adiutores. We are the helpers of God. What (will some say) hath God need of helpers? Yea truly. His goodness is such, that he vouchsafeth to take us to be his helpers, not for any defect, or unhablenesse that is in him, but because he would have us to be occupied in his service, and not to be idle. And therefore he hath appointed certain means and instruments to practise us withal, as Faith, Baptism, Penance, Fasting, Prayer, Almose, and specially a Sacrifice, wherein we may concur with him, not in the chief, first, and general cause, which alone hath wrought, and daily worketh: but as lively instruments to derive unto ourselves the effect of that chief, first, and general cause, that as he generally hath deserved and purchased a most full and perfit salvation for all the world, which in itself can not be increased, because it is perfit, ne can not be diminished, because it is infinite: so we each of us by his grace using and putting in practice the means, that he hath appointed, may be made comparteners of the same salvation, which otherwise can not be available unto us.  
It should be over long, and beside my purpose, to stand about the proving, that Baptism, Penance, Prayer, Fasting, Almose joined with Faith, that worketh through Charity, 
That thi● Sacrifice is a mean to derive th● effect of Christ's death unto us.  be means to derive unto us the effect of Christ's death. It shall suffice to prove the Sacrifice of Christ's body and blood upon the Altar, to be one of those means.  
This truth is proved not only by that which I have before alleged out of S. Gregory, who saith, that as oft as we offer up unto him the host of his Passion, so oft we renew unto ourselves his Passion for our absolution: 
Gregor. Hom. 37.  but also by that which S. Augustine writeth in a Prayer, which is to be found in a treatise of devout Prayers entitled, Manuale. 
August. in Manuali. cap. ●1.  Where ask of God a contrite heart, and a fountain of tears, specially at the time when he prayeth, he saith thus. Dum sacris Altaribus licet indignus assisto, cupiens tibi offerre illud mirabile & coeleste Sacrificium omni reverentia & devotione dignum, quod tu Domine Deus meus sacerdos immaculate instituisti, & offer praecepisti, in commemorationem tuae charitatis, mortis scilicet & Passionis pro salute nostra, pro quotidiana nostrae fragilitatis reparatione. give me I beseech thee o Christ jesus, contrition of heart, etc. Whiles I, although unworthy, do stand at the holy Altars, desirous to offer up unto thee that marvelous and heavenly Sacrifice, worthy of all reverence and devotion, which thou Lord my God unspotted Priest didst institute, 
Luc. 22.  and commandest to offer up for a remembrance of thy charity, that is to say, of thy death and passion for our salvation, and for the daily repairing of our frailty.  
Now whereas this Sacrifice offered up for the remembrance of Christ's death, is here said to be profitable to save us, and to repair our daily ruins happening unto us through our frailty: in what other sense can it be true, but because thereby, as by a sovereign mean appointed by Christ, some particular effect of that general and infinite salvation and reparation made upon the Cross, is applied unto our sick and much decayed souls? And thus it is declared, although not so largely as the worthiness of the matter requireth, how the Sacrifice of the Altar is avaialeble and requisite, although the Sacrifice made upon the Cross remain still in full force, effectual, and perfit, and endure for ever.   

jewel.  
But M. Harding condemneth us all for Foolish, and Wicked people. For Foolish, I know not why. Neither is it thought a wisemannes' part, either greatly to mislike other men's wits, or overmuch to like his own. How be it, who so speaketh, as never wiseman spoke, and yet himself understandeth not, what he speaketh, as, in this case, it is thought, M. Harding doth, hath no great cause, in this behalf, to charge others with folly.   

Harding.  
M. jewel is much offended for that I said, our adversaries no less foolishly, then wickedly scoff at us, us though when we celebrate the unbloody Sacrifice, we sacrificed Christ again, so as he was sacrificed upon the Crosse. But why should you herewith be offended good sir? Is it not a foolish thing to tell us, as ye do, that we shed the blood of Christ, and do such violence unto him at the Altar, as the Soldiers did at the Cross? Though ye be so malicious as to speak it, yet is there any man so simple, as to believe it? Who thus speaketh, I trow he speaketh as foolishly, as he that goeth about to make one believe the Moon is made of green cheese. As that is a foolish persuasion, so is this nolesse foolish, but more malicious. This notwithstanking, why I should call them foolish, M. jewel seeth no cause. And no marvel. For a rare thing it is to hear of a fool, that will acknowledge himself to be a fool, or to do foolishly.  
How be it, whereas M. jewel, and his Companions do call in question and disputation, whether many things, as well touching this unbloody Oblation of the Church, as other points, be to be done of our part, which though not expressly written, yet delivered from hand to hand be observed through out the whole world, and therefore are presupposed to be retained, as commended and decreed either by the Apostles themselves, or by General Counsels, whose authority in the Church is most wholesome: 
August. ad januarium. Epist. 118.  for this cause Saint Augustine condemneth them not of bare folly, but of most insolent madness. Thus to do, is a point, insolentissimae insaniae, of most insolent madness, saith he.  
If then this be S. Augustine's verdict of them for doubting, and reasoning of such things, that be not expressly written in the Scripture, but be received by custom: by what name deserveth M. jewel to be called, who flatly denieth, and with tongue, pen, and outward force of punishments, withstandeth the Sacrifice of the Church offered and instituted by Christ, described in the Gospel, 
Math. 26.  avouched of the old learned Fathers, frequented 
Luc. 22.  through out the whole Catholic Church of all ages, 
1 Cor. 11.  and countries?  
Neither hath M. jewel sufficient reason to conclude, that either I overmuch like mine own wit, or mislike his wit, and his fellows, because I said, they skossed foolishly and wickedly at us, touching this point. He, and they may have wit enough, and yet for lack of grace do full foolishly. 
isaiah. 6.  We read in the Scriptures of some who have eyes, 
Math. 13.  yet see not, ears, yet hear not, hearts, yet understand not. So there be that have wit, yet many times do not wisely, but so as it may be said of them, that fools have it in keeping. You have wit enough M. jewel, I deny not, ne envy not the praise of it: would God a good man had the occupying of it.  
Whereas I charged our Adversaries with folly, and wickedness, in that they scoff at us, as though we sacrificed Christ again with violent drawing of blood out of his body, as he was sacrificed upon the Cross: M. jewel understanding himself therein touched, hath full wisely put away from him the blemish of folly, as now it is declared. It remaineth, he purge himself, and his fellows, of the crime of wickedness. The same now he goeth about to do. But how, and with what reason, it is worth the consideration.   

jewel.  
Of the other side, what so ever Mortal man presumeth to offer up Christ in Sacrifice, and dareth to desire God the Father so favourably to behold his own only Son, as in old times he beheld the Oblation of Abel, or of Melchisedek, and is not afraid, therewith to beguile the simple, and to mock the world, as M. Harding doth daily at his Mass: he can not well excuse himself of open wickedness.   

Harding.  
To avoid the crime of wickedness, he again falsely accuseth me, and in my person, the whole Catholic Church of the same fault, as if a thief being burdened with felony by some true man, would think himself unburdened of that infamy, by charging the true man with theft on the other side. And what is this great wickedness, that he layeth unto our charge? Forsooth because being mortal men we offer up Christ in Sacrifice, and dare to desire God the Father, pronouncing the ancient Prayer of the Church in the Canon of the Mass favourably to behold our oblation, and to accept it, as he vouchsafed to accept the gifts of Abel, the Sacrifice of Abraham, and that which Melchisedech offered. For so we do, and not altogether as M. jewel reporteth. This is that, whereof he saith, we beguile the simple, and mock the world.  
This is sufficiently answered before. For us to offer up to God the body and blood of Christ, as executing thereby the plain commandment of Christ, who at his last Supper having consecrated his body and blood, said, 
Luc. 22.  Do ye this is in my Remembrance: is neither to beguile the simple, nor to mock the world. If we did it not, we should by not doing that we are commanded to do, beguile the world, and defraud God's people of the most heavenly and precious treasure, that our Lord left unto his Church.  
And as touching the Prayer we are taught to make unto God, 
A defence of the prayer v●sed to be said in the holy Canon of the Mass  wherein we humbly beseech him to accept our oblation of his sons body and blood, as he accepted the sacrifices of Abel, Abraham, and Melchisedech: therein is no doubt made, but God the Father is best pleased with his only and most dear Son Christ jesus. The fear of our on worthiness moveth us so to pray, lest that although the thing offered of itself be most acceptable, yet the Father through our grievous sins displeased with us, will not admit, and accept that most acceptable Sacrifice to our salvation, but rather to our damnation. Like as it happeth sometimes a Prince to reject a very precious jewel offered by his enemy, or one that he favoureth not, not because the jewel misliketh him, but because the party that offered it, was his foe, or out of his favour.  
And whereas M. jewel would have it seem absurd, that the Father should be entreated with his merciful and favourable countenance to look upon the holy bread of life everlasting, 
In Canone Missae.  and the cup of perpetual salvation, and to accept the same, as he vouchsafed to accept the gifts and Sacrifices of Abel, Abraham, and Melchisedech, (for so the Priest prayeth at the Mass, and not as M. jewel to colourable advantage falsely reporteth it): I answer, that happy be we, if for our behalf, he will so accept that our Sacrifice, as he did the Sacrifices of those holy men his dear friends.  
Furthermore M. jewel is not ignorant, if he be so well learned, as he is thought to be, that the adverb of simimilitude (Sicuti) As, 
Sicuti.  doth not always signify a full equality, but only a likeness in some part and degree. As for example, it doth in that prayer, which Christ made unto his Father for his chosen. 
johan. 1●.  Pater sancte serva eos in nomine tuo, quos dedisti mihi, ut sint unum, sicut & nos. O Holy Father keep them in thy name, whom thou hast given unto me, that they may be one, as we are. In this Prayer Christ's meaning was not, that the elect should be thoroughly in substance all one, as God the Father and God the Son be: but one in charity, will, and concord, thinking all one thing, and willing all one thing, 
Theophyl. in johan. cap. 17.  as Theophilacte with other Doctors expoundeth the place. And whereas the Scripture saith in the person of God speaking unto joshua, Sicut cum Moyse fui, 
joshua. 3.  ita & tecum sum, As I was with Moses, even so I am with the also: It is not meant, that God was with Moses in no greater an higher degree of power and virtue, than he was with joshua. For Moses was admitted unto a peerless friendship with God, and endued with more special authority, than ever joshua was, as the Scriptures do evidently witness.  
So doth the Church beseech the Father to look upon that holy bread, and cup of life and health everlasting, that is to say, the body and blood of his Son jesus Christ, with a merciful and clear countenance, as he did upon the sacrifices of Abel, Abraham, and Melchisede●: not that it is mistrusted, lest God be less, or not infinitely more pleased with the one Sacrifice, then with the other: but that humbly we think, it shallbe well with us, if he respect, 
See what I say touching this Prayer of the Canon, in the last Division.  behold, and allow the ministery, and devotion of us, as far forth as he did the devotion of the others. Of this M. jewel giveth me occasion to speak more, in the last Division of this Article.  
If M. jewel had in his heart so much devout humility, or humble devotion, as he seemeth to have devilish arrogancy, or arrogant devilishness: he would never have accused me, or rather the Church, for using this humble and devout Prayer in the Mass, which in spite he calleth my Mass, being the common Service, and Sacrifice of the whole Church of Christ.  
But because like an unkind and degenerate, or rather a rebellious son, he despiseth the authority of his Mother the Church, I will put him in mind of S. Ambrose, that holy and learned Bishop, and excellent member of the Church, yet doubting whether he will aught reverence one, after he hath so insolently contemned them al. Fayne would I understand, with what soap or lie, he is able to scour out the spot of so vain, wicked, and foolish an opinion, so contrary to that S. Ambrose writeth. Who to prove that this is the Sacrament, the figure whereof went before, and to show how great a Sacrament it is, bringeth in this Prayer used in the Mass, and wherein M. jewel findeth so great beguiling of the simple, mocking of the world, and open wickedness: as a most strong argument. His words be these, the same (very few words excepted) that be in Canon of the Mass, that so confidently he reproveth both here, and also in the Sermon, wherein he made the first proclamation of his vain Challenge.  
Sacerdos dicit: 
Ambrose de sacram. lib. 4. cap. 6.  Ergo memores gloriosissimae eius Passionis, & ab inferis Resurrectionis, & in coelum Ascensionis, offerimus tibi hanc immaculatam hostiam, rationabilem hostiam, incruentam hostiam, hunc panem sanctum, & calicem vitae aeternae, & petimus, & precamur, ut hanc oblationem suscipias in sublimi altari tuo per manus Angelorum tuorum, sicut suscipere dignatus es munera pueri tui justi Abel, & sacrificium Patriarchae nostri Abrahae, & quod tibi obtulit summus sacerdos Melchisedech. The priest saith. Therefore being mindful of his most glorious Passion, and Resurrection from hell, and of his Ascension into heaven, we offer up unto thee this unspotted host, this reasonable host, this unbloody host, this holy bread, and cup of life everlasting: And we beseech, and pray thee, that thou receive this Oblation in thy Altar on high, by the hands of thy Angels, as thou vouchesavedst to receive the gifts of thy child just Abel, and the sacrifice of Abraham our Patriarch, and that which Melchisedech the highest Priest offered up unto thee.  
Lo good Reader, thus prayed S. Ambrose in his Mass, nor for so doing was he ever thought to have beguiled the simple, nor to have mocked the world. And the whole Catholic Church hath ever so far cleared him of all wickedness, not only open, but also privy: that he is holden for a holy Confessor, uncontrolled Doctor, and strong pillar of the Church, until M. jewel a very beguiler of the simple, and mocker of the world in deed, came to pry out in his doctrine, and prayer, being also the common prayer of the Church, a heinous wickedness.   

jewel.  
Notwitstandinge this matter is easily answered. For (saith he) we Sacrifice not Christ again: The Oblation, that Christ made upon the Cross, and ours in the Mass, is all one. And this Sacrifice Christ hath commanded us to continue until his coming. If M. Harding make the self same Sacrifice, that Christ made upon the Cross, then is he A Priest ofter the order of Melchisedeck: And so The king of justice: The Prince of Peace: and a Priest for ever, without Successor. For these titles be incident to the Priesthood of Melchisedeck: which nevertheless, I think, M. harding of his modesty will not acknowledge. And without the same, he can not offer up to God the same Sacrifice, that Christ offered upon the Crosse.  
And where he saith, Christ hath commanded him, and his Fellows to make, and continue this Sacrifice until his coming, If he had meant simply, and plainly, he would have showed, either when, or where, or by what words Christ gave him this Commandment. For so large a Commission is worthy the showing: And it were great boldness, to attempt such a matter without Commission.   

Harding.  
Last of all cometh M. jewel to declare the titles, and dignities of Melchisedech, and saith, that M. Harding, that is to say, any Priest of the Catholic Church, can not offer up the same Sacrifice, that Christ offered upon the Cross, because he is not a king of justice, a Prince of peace, and a Priest for ever without Successor. For these titles (saith he) belong to Melchisedeks' priesthood.  
Here I must again warn the Reader to have a good eye to M. jewel, and to consider, first that now, as oftentimes before, he frameth an Objection with his own words, which I make not, and replieth against it, as if it were mine. next, that in case I had said, as he pretendeth I said, nevertheless when we say, the Priest offereth the same Sacrifice which Christ offered upon the Cross: the substance of the Sacrifice itself, that is, the thing sacrificed, which is the body and blood of Christ, is meant thereby, and not the manner of sacrificing. Of this M. jewel, and his fellows be not, ne can not be ignorant, being by the Catholics so oftentimes told of it. Yet ever they will seem not to know it, lest their common objection against the Sacrifice of the Altar, wherewith they have never done, should appear frivolous. For they jar always upon the false string of the manner of sacrificing, which we touch not, but avouch the same substance of the Sacrifice that was offered up upon the Crosse.  
If I had swerved so far from truth and reason, as to say, that I being a Priest do offer up to God the same Sacrifice, which Christ offered upon the Cross, and that in the same manner, and to the same effect and merit, which is to usurp the office that is proper to Christ only: then with some reason he might have replied, as he doth: that I were a Priest after the order of Melchisedech, and so the king of justice, the Prince of peace, and a Priest for ever without Successor. Which titles of right belong to Christ only.  
But now whereas I am far from saying, yea also from thinking any such thing: he replieth with as much reason, as if he should tell one of the judges of the Realm, who executeth his office under the Prince, and by Commission from the Prince, Sir if you acquit men in England, and condemn men to die, then are you a King of England: for what greater thing can a King do, then to save, and condemn men? And if you be King of England, then of France also, and of Ireland, and so defender of the Faith, for these titles belong to the king of England, or who so ever else succeedeth in the kingly right. In this case might not that judge answer you again, and say, M. superintendant, you may talk of your Ministers, and your Ministering matters. You speak ye wot not what. I tell you, I neither acquit, nor condemn men to die of mine own power or authority, but under the Prince, and by virtue of my Commission from the Prince. And therefore you may go to school again to learn your Logic better, and to make a wiser Argument.  
The case between Christ, and those that execute the office of priesthood under Christ, standeth in like condition. Albeit in Christ being Cod, 
Psal. 44.  and man, annoin●ted of God himself with the oil of gladness above his comparteners, 
Men offer this Sacrifice and be Priests after the order of Melchise●dek under Christ  as in the Psalm it is of him prophesied, and being the highest Priest, the foresaid conditions be most perfitly accomplished, that is to say, though by nature he be the King of justice, the Prince of Peace, and the most true Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech, without any other to succeed him: Yet it is not necessary, the same sovereign conditions in all points be required in those that be made Priests from among men, and be Priests under Christ, or, as Eusebius speaketh, 
Euseb. de demonstr. lib. 5.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Priests out of him. For whom it is sufficient, they be lawfully chosen and ordered, to be Ministers under Christ of his Mysteries, and of his Priesthood, by mean of whom, and through whom Christ doth celebrate after the manner of Melchisehech the things that appertain unto the Sacrifice that is among men, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  even unto this day, as Eusebius saith. Mark Reader, Eusebius saith, after the manner of Melchisedech, expounding the meaning of the word, Order, where it is said of Christ, that he is a Priest after the Order of Melchisedek. Whereby we understand, that he was a Priest, not only after the dignity of Melchisedek, that is to say, because he was a King of peace, and of justice, without father, without mother, without Genealogy, neither having beginning of days, nor ending of life: but also after the rite, and manner of Melchisedek, whose Sacrifice was in bread and wine. After which manner, Christ did at the Supper, and we do now at the Altar, offer his body and blood, under the forms of bread and wine.  
And this much that ancient and learned Doctor would to be considered, 
Psal. 109.  as the wonderful end and performance of the Oracle pronounced of Christ, Thou art a Priest for ever after the Order of Melchisedek, 
Theophylactus.  because he continueth his Priesthood by the ministery of Priests. Theophylacte expoundeth it likewise. 
In epist. ad Heb. cap. 5.  Oecumenius also having conceived thereof the same sense, saith, He would never have said In aeternum, for ever, having respect unto the oblation that was but once offered (upon the Cross) but referring consideration unto the Priests, 
Qui quotidie offertur per Dei Ministros.  that be at this present, by whom as by means, Christ doth sacrifice, and is sacrificed, who also in his Mystical Supper delivered unto them the manner of such Sacrifice. 
Ibidem.   
And the later part of this Testimony doth make answer in my behalf unto you M. jewel burdening me with no simple and plain dealing, for that I have not showed, when, and where, or by what words Christ gave commandment to make and continue this Sacrifice. By OEcumenius you have heard it told, that Christ delivered unto Priests at his last Supper the manner of this Sacrifice. And if it had liked you to have looked back, or to have remembered, what I had said in the: 5. Division, you would never so without cause have reprehended me for not telling, when, and where, and by what words Christ gave commandment to make and continue this Sacrifice. For there even in the beginning, the time when, the place where, and the words by which this Sacrifice was instituded, and commanded, be plainly expressed. Now therefore that our Commission may so easily be showed, twit us no more of great boldness, as though we attempted to celebrate so high and so divine Mysteries without Commission.    

The .8. Division.  

The Answer.  
Now for further proof of the offering and Sacrificing of Christ of those words of our Lord, Do this in my remembrance, to recite some testimonies of the Fathers: First, Dionysius S. Paul's scholar, 
Dionys. eccles. Hier. p. 1. cap. 3.  and Bishop of Athenes, writeth thus: Quocirca reverenter simul, & ex Pontificali officio, post sacras divinorum operum laudes, quòd hostiam salutarem, quae super ipsum est, litet, se excusat, ad ipsum primò decenter exclamans, Tu dixisti: Hoc facite in meam commemorationem. Wherefore the Bishop (saith he) reverently, and according to his Bishoply office, after the holy praises of God's works, excuseth himself, that he taketh upon him to offer that healthful Sacrifice, which is above his degree, and worthiness, crying out first unto him, in seemly wise, Lord thou hast commanded thus, saying, Do this in my remembrance. By these words he confesseth, that he could not be so hardy, as to offer up Christ unto his Father, had not Christ himself so commanded, when he said, Do this in my remembrance. This is the doctrine, touching this Article, that S. Paul taught his Scholars, which M. jewel denieth.   

jewel.  
Here mayst thou, gentle Reader, easily see, that M. harding, either had not that abundance of Store, whereof notwitstandinge he hath made us so large a promise, or else had no great regard unto his choice. For Dionysius hath no token, or inkling of any such sacrificing of the Son of God unto his Father. But clearly & in most plain wise he showeth the difference, 
Dionys. ecclesiast. Hierar cap. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that is between the Sacrifice of the Cross, and the Sacrifice of the holy Communion. These be his words, The priest extolleth those things, that Christ wrought in his Flesh upon the cross, for the salvation of mankind: and with Spiritual eyes, beholding the Spiritual understanding thereof, draweth near to the Figurative Sacrifice of the same. Here Dionysius calleth not the Ministration of the Holy Mysteries, the sacrificing of Christ unto his Father, as M. harding would force us to believe, but a Figurative Sacrifice, that is, a Figure, or a Sign of that great Sacrifice. 
Pachymer in .3. cap. Ecclesiast. Hierarch.  And Pachymeres the Paraphrast expoundeth the same words in this wise: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: He cometh to the Bread, and the Cup.  
Then the Priest, saith Dionysius, after certain Prayers, and Holy Songs, excuseth himself, as not worthy to make that Sacrifice: and pronounceth these words out with a loud voice, Tu dixisti etc. Thou hast said, Do this in my remembrance. Hereof M. harding concludeth thus.  
The Priest excuseth himself, Ergo, He Offereth up the Son of God unto his Father. A young Sophister would never so unskilfully frame his arguments. Otherwise the Respondent might easily say, Nego Consequentiam, & Consequens. For what order, or sequel is there in this Reason? How may this Antecedente, and this consequent agree together?  
M. Harding knoweth, there he other sundry causes, wherefore the Priest should excuse his unwoorthinesse, and not this only, that he imagineth. The Priest in the Liturgy, or Communion, that beareth the name of S. Basile, 
Liturgia Basilij.  prayeth thus: Fac nos idoneos, ut tibi offeramus Sacrificium Laudis: Make us meet, to offer unto thee (not Christ thine only Son, but) the Sacrifice of praise. 
Nazian. in Apologet. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  In like manner Nazianzene saith, How can they, or dare they offer unto God, (he saith not, The Body of Christ Really, and in deed but) the Figure of these great Mysteries? But M. harding being utterly void of other reasons, proveth his imagined Sacrifice of the Son of God, 
Ecclesiast. Hierar. ca 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  only by the unworthiness of the Priest.  
This is the Just judgement of God, that who so endeavoureth himself to deceive, and blind others, shallbe decevied, and blind himself. For Dionysius useth the very like words, speaking of the Sacrament of Baptism: Sacerdos cogitans negotij magnitudinem, horret, atque haesitat. The Priest considering the weight of the matter, is in an horror, and in an agony. Likewise S. Basile excuseth his own unworthiness of hearing the Word of God: Quae auris digna est magnitudine earum rerum, quae dicuntur? Cogitemus, quisnam ille sit, qni nos affatur, what ear is worthy to hear the Majesty of these things? 
Basil. He●amer. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; 2. Cor. 2. Cyprian in Oration. Dominican  Let us consider, who it is, that speaketh to us, S. Paul speaking of the glory, & puissance of the Gospel, in the end, in respect of his own unworthiness, useth this exclamation, Et ad haec quis idoneus? And who is mee●e to publish, and to speak these things? S. Cyprian saith, We are not worthy to look up into Heaven, and to speak unto God. O, saith he, what merciful favour of our Lord is this, that we may call God our Father: and even as Christ is God's Son, so may we be called the children of God? Quod nomen nemo nostrum in oratione auderet attingere, nisi ipse nobis sic permisisset orare. Which Name (of Father) none of us in our prayers would dare to utter, saving that he hath given us leave so to pray. By these, the s●lendernes of M. hardings reason may soon appear: The priest excuseth his own unworthiness: Ergo, he offereth up the Son of God. It is a Fallax, Ex meris particularibus, or, A non distributo ad distributum: and concludeth in Secunda Figura affirmatiuè. An error known unto Children.   

Harding.  
Among other shifts of M. jewels Rhetoric, this is very common, 
A Common shift of M. jewels Rhetoric.  where in deed he is most pressed with weight of good authority, or reason: there in word he showeth forth greatest courage, and maketh resemblance, as all 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 all, nor so much as an inkling of our offering up of Christ unto his Father? what cream is grown over your eyes, that you see not this truth in so clear a light? what moveth you so to say? what proof, what argument have you?  
Marry say you, Dionysius clearly showeth the difference, that is between the Sacrifice of the Cross, and the Sacrifice of the holy Communion. What conclude you? Ergo, he hath no token nor inkling of sacrificing Christ unto his Father? O valiant Argument, O cunning Logician! May not this man be allowed to find fault with other men's Arguments, that thus maketh an Argument himself, without either good form, or true matter? For touching the form, let it be granted, that S. Dionysius had put such a difference, as you imagine, will it necessarily follow, that in the place alleged in my Answer, he maketh not mention of offering Christ unto his Father? This kind of reason in any matter is faulty, but in this matter it is most faulty. For albeit the manner of the oblation or Sacrifice made upon the Cross, be divers from that which Christ made at his Supper, and is now continued by the Priests in the Mass: yet the thing itself offered, and substance is all one in both Sacrifices, 
In epistol. ad Hebr. Hom. 17.  as it hath been clearly proved before by testimony of S. Chrysostom, and others. So that the showing of some difference between them, doth not exclude the thing or substance of either of them, nor concludeth them, so to be divers, but the one may well stand with the other.  
Touching the matter of the former Argument, it is evidently false. For S. Dionyse in that place treateth not of difference between this, and that Sacrifice, as you M. jewel would have him appear to do by wilful falsifying of the place, by putting in words of your own, and by clipping away words of that holy Doctor. These be S. Dionyses' words, 
Dionys. eccles. Hierarc. Cap. 3. p. 3.  as they lie in the Greek, faithfully englished. Wherefore the Divine Bishop standing at the Divine Altar, doth praise the said holy and godly actions of JESUS, for his heavenly providence towards us, which actions he (according to the Scripture) perfected for the salvation of Mankind through the good pleasure of his most holy Father in the Holy Ghost. And after that he hath ended the praises, and beholden the reverent and spiritual contemplation of those things with the eyes of understanding: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  he cometh unto the Mystical Sacrifice of them, and that according to God's tradition. By God's tradition he meaneth that which Christ taught his Disciples at the Supper, how, and after what manner, 
Luc. 22.  they should offer this Sacrifice in remembrance of his death.  
Now gentle Reader confer this testimony of S. Dionyse, and M. jewels falsified allegation together. Note first, that the Bishop, or Priest, is said to stand at the holy Altar. 
Altar.  That clause M. jewel hath quite cut of. And by the way consider, to what purpose serveth an Aulther, 
M. jewel falsifieth S Dionyse.  unless there be a Real and outward Sacrifice to be made. next, that there is no mention at all made of the flesh or Cross of Christ, which terms he hath patched in of his own. Thirdly the good pleasure of the Father, and holy Ghost, is left out. To be short, whereas the praises be rendered not only for Christ's passion wrought in his flesh upon the Cross (albe it● specially for that) but also for the doings of his whole life, as for his birth, his fasting, his praying, his preaching, and the rest: he to make his feigned difference to appear, hath drawn them unto the things only wrought by Christ upon the Crosse. Such a licentious privilege this man taketh unto himself, to pair and hue less, and to enlarge at his own pleasure, the sayings of the most ancient and learned Fathers.  
Again, whereas the Greek hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for which the Latin translation useth this circumlocution, sacra mysteria in signis celebranda, the holy Mysteries that are to be celebrated in or under signs: he translateth it by the basest word, that he could invent of that signification, calling it, Figurative sacrifice, craftily intending to bring into the Readers mind and conceit thereby, that this Sacrifice, wherein after praises in manner for all the actions of Christ's life the body and blood of Christ are offered up: should appear to be no better, than a bare figure, or then the figurative sacrifices of the old law.  
The premises considered, what man but M. jewel, would have presumed to set abroad to the world in print, a sentence of an old writer so hewed and hackled, so bodged and peeced, so corruptly translated? And who but he, could espy in that saying, any clear and plain difference between the Sacrifice of the Cross, and the Sacrifice of the Altar (which guilefully he calleth the Sacrifice of the holy Communion) such a one, as he impudently avoucheth to be?  
But here S. Dionyse (saith he) calleth not the Ministration of the holy Mysteries the sacrificing of Christ. I grant. How could he so call it here, that is to say, in this your falsified sentence, which S. Dionyse never uttered? And sir, what if S. Dionyse do not so call it? What maketh that to the point, that presently we treat of? Mine endeavour was not to show, that S. Dionyse calleth the Ministration of the Mysteries the sacrificing of Christ: but that in deed he sacrificed the body and blood of Christ, and consequently Christ himself. And because it seemed to him very much, a mortal man to offer up the body and blood of his Lord: reverently, and in seemly wise, he maketh his excuse, saying, Lord thou hast said, Do ye this in my remembrance. As who should say, Lord hadst thou not by thine express word commanded us so to do, I would not be so bold, as to take that upon me, which so far passeth my worthiness.  
Hunt not after words, and syllables M. jewel. When ye have the thing itself, whereof ye contend, what a vain wrangling is it, to require certain precise terms? So when sometimes we bring you forth your own very words, than you make a brabbling about the meaning. These be the poor shifts of such, as being overcome, that by the confession of their silence they might not seem overcome, will not hold their peace. This is that S. Augustine reproved in Pascentius the Arian, whereof you were told before. 
August. epist. 174.  What is a more contentious part (saith he) then to strive about the name (of Homusion he meaneth) where the thing itself is certainly known?  
What can you demand more? Have you not here a manifest witness of sacrificing the healthful Sacrifice, which S. Dionyse acknowledgeth to be above his degree and worthiness? What other is that, than the body and blood of Christ? What is to be accounted healthful in comparison of that, which is, as S. Augustine calleth it, 
August. Confess. lib. 9 ca 12.  the Sacrifice of our ransom? That is to say, of that thing, whereby we have been bought from the Devil, from hell, and everlasting damnation.  
If you say, this saying is to be expounded of the sacrifice of praise, and thanks giving, tell us, who ever gave the title of so sovereign honour unto such kind of Sacrifice? Though it be our duty, and also healthful for us, to offer up the sacrifice of praise, and thanks: yet who ever called it hostiam salutarem, the healthful host? The sacrifice of praise here I mean, as it is our own spiritual work, for otherwise I confess, the blessed Sacrifice itself of the body and blood of Christ, is also not seldom named the sacrifice of praise, as yourself have in this Division alleged a place out of S. Basils' Mass, where it is so called.  
And that S. Dionyse meant not the Sacrifice of praise and thanks, it is clear, in that he speaketh of a Sacrifice to be offered, after that praises of Gods works, and thanks for the same be given.  
How be it, what so ever M. jewel say there can be no doubt, what Sacrifice S. Dionyse meant. For by alleging this Scripture, Do ye this is my remembrance, for his warrant, he leadeth us directly unto the Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, which he offered up at his last Supper, 
Division. 6.  as it is before proved by S. Ireneus. S. Cyprian, S. Chrysostom, Hesychius, Gregory Nyssen, and others. Which Sacrifice because Christ himself both offered, and taught his Apostles likewise to offer in remembrance of him (for then he taught them the new Testament, 
Iren. li. 4. cap. 32.  saith S. Ireneus) and delivered them a form, how they should do it afterward: in consideration hereof S. Dionyse, who believed Christ to be God, 
The Tradition of God.  in this very place calleth it the Tradition of God.  
Again for further proof of this most honourable and heavenly Sacrifice, this is to be considered in S. Dionyses' Treatise. 
That S. Dionyse meaneth the Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ.  So long as the bishop, or Priest is attended to giving praises, and thanks, for the great works of God (which is also a kind of sacrifice) so long we see none excuse made of any unworthiness. But the praises being once finished, as soon as he cometh unto the mystical Sacrifice, before he dare to adventure it, he premitteth his humble suit for excuse to be obtained. What should the cause be, why the Bishop or Priest before the offering of the one Sacrifice maketh no excuse of his unworthiness, and here as he entereth unto it maketh so humble an excuse: but because there is a great difference between the excellency of the one, and the other? In both sacrifices Christ's benefits be remembered, for how can that be praised, that is not remembered? The difference must needs be in the excellency of the thing offered. But what thing can be better and excellenter, than the praise of God, and thanks giving, but only the body and blood of Christ? Wherefore it must needs be the body and blood of Christ, which the Bishop or Priest offered, premitting so humble an excuse, and appealing unto Christ's own commandment for his warrant.  
This much with the circumstances of the place duly considered, I doubt not but any reasonable man will soon conceive S. Dionyse to speak of the Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, and so consequently of Christ offered and sacrificed unto God, to whom only Sacrifice is to be made: though M. jewel be so shameless as to say, that he hath no token, nor inkling of any such Sacrifice, and though in very deed the precise terms of Sacrificing Christ, or the Son of God unto his Father, be not expressly set forth. The which terms, as to express them, it was not necessary, so of great discretion and wisdom, this holy learned Father, who lived in the Apostles time, eschewed: and yet he so signified the thing, by other words, as of the faithful it might be understanded, and from the Infidels kept secret. Who if our Mysteries had been with plain speech made open unto them, through lack of faith, would have had them in derision, and trodden them under their feet, as swine do precious stones, and as Heretics do at this day. 
August. in Psalm. 33. & epistol. 120.   
For which cause S. Augustine, and S Chrysostom, and all other in manner the old learned Fathers, speaking of this most reverent Sacrifice, 
Origen. in levit. ca 16. hom. 9  do use these or the like admonitions. The Sacrifice, which the faithful know, and those that have read the Gospel. Again. The which Sacrifice, where, and when, and how it is offered, thou shalt know, 
At the beginning ●ge Fathers spoke secretly of the Sacrifice at length when the faith had prevailed generally, they spoke more plainly. Cassiodor. Psal. 109.  when thou art baptised. etc.  
But in the age that followed, when the faith was generally received over the world, the learned Fathers spoke more plainly of it. As for example, Cassiodorus that noble Senator of Rome, and learned writer, who lived about the year of our Lord. 570. in his Commentaries upon the Psalms, expounding the place of Christ's everlasting Priesthood in the .109. Psalm, saith thus in most plain wise. To whom can this truly, and evidently be applied, but unto our Lord our Saviour, who healthfully in the gift of bread and wine consecrated his Body a●d Blood? As himself saith in the gospel. Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall not have life everlasting. But in this flesh and blood, let man's mind conceive, nothing that is bloody, nothing that is corruptible, lest i● come to pass which the Apostle saith, 
1. Cor. 11.  he that eateth the body of our Lord unworthily, eateth to himself condemnation: (the words that follow be these). Sed vivificatricem substantiam, at que salutarem, & ips●us verbi propriam factam: per quam peccatorum remissio, & vitae aeternae dona praestantur. But let (the mind of man conceive it to be) the quickening, the healthful substance, and that which was made the word itself own proper substance, by which the remission of sins, and the gifts of everlasting life be given. The which order (of priesthood and Sacrifice) by mystical similitude Melchisedech that most just king did institute, 
Gen. 14.  when he offered up unto our Lord the fruits of bread and wine. For it is clear, that the sacrifices of beasts are quite gone away, which were of the order of Aaron, and that Melchisedeks' order rather remaineth, which in the delivering forth of the Sacraments is celebrated in all the world. Which thing the obstinate jews do not yet understand, whereas it is certain, that both their Priest, and Sacrifices are taken quite away.  
This learned Father here setteth forth plainly three things concerning the Sacrifice we speak of. The first is, that Christ at his Supper consecrated his body and blood, 
Pag. 19  which you M. jewel in your Reply of the first Article do deny. The second is, what flesh, and what blood it is, that is so consecrated, to wit, unbloody blood, and● if it be lawful so to speak, unfleshy flesh, and yet true shesh, and true blood, even the quickening substance, that, which is proper to the word itself, and whereby Mankind is redeemed. The third is, that the Priesthood after Melchisedeks' order remaineth still, doubtless because as Christ presenteth himself continually in heaven unto the Father for us: so by Priests of the new Testament, his Vicars, he offereth himself unto the Father now also in earth under the forms of bread and wine, after the order of Melchisedek. Which Sacrifice is now frequented over all the world, the jews sacrifices being utterly abandoned.  

A clear testimony against those, that make this only a figurative Sacrifice.  Isidorus that holy and learned Bishop of Hispalis now called Seville in Spain, having declared out of the Scripture, that in the time of Sacrifices in the old Law, the Levites sounded their trumpets, by way of comparison speaking of the Offertories song in the Church, saith, that now we likewise do sing, with deed and heart uttering forth praises to our Lord in the time of our Sacrifice. In illo vero Sacrificio, cuius sanguine saluatus est mundus, 
Isidorus de Eccles. Officijs. li. 1. ca 14  be his words, that is to say, In that true Sacrifice, by the blood whereof the world is saved. Here he calleth it the true Sacrifice, whereby M. jewels wicked assertion of his only figurative Sacrifice, is quite dashed, and overthrown.  

Ibidem. cap. 18.  Again in an other place, The Sacrifice (saith he) which is offered up unto God by the Christians, Christ our Lord and Master did first institute it, when he gave unto the Apostles his body and his blood, before he was betrayed: as it is read in the Gospel, jesus (saith the Evangelist took bread, and the Cup, and having blessed, 
Math. 26.  gave to them. The which Sacrament Melchisedech King of Salem first offered up figuratively in type (or token) of the body and blood of Christ: and the same man first of all expressed imaginarily (or in image) the Mystery of this so great a Sacrifice, foreshowing the likeness of our Lord and Saviour jesus Christ the everlasting Priest. 
Imaginariè. Psal. 109.  To whom it is said, Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech. This Sacrifice the Christians have been commanded to celebrate, the jewish sacrifices left of and ended, which were commanded to be celebrated, when the people of the old Law were under servitude. And so then this thing is done of us, which our Lord himself did for us, which he offered not in the morning, but afterward, for he did it in the evening.  
By this it is clear, that Christ offered up his body and blood, before he was betrayed, that is to say, at his last Supper, when he gave the same to his Apostles, that he instituted, and commanded the same Sacrifice to be celebrated of us: That this is the true Sacrifice, whereof Melchisedech in his sacrifice expressed the Image, figure, and type. Whereby M. jewels only imaginative, figurative, and typical Imagination, to exclude the real presence and substance of Christ's Flesh and Blood, is utterly condemned.  
For the truth of the Real presence, and of this Sacrifice he speaketh afterward in the same place more plainly, if any thing may more plainly he spoken. Exhorting married persons to abstain certain days from their carnal embracings, and to give themselves to prayer, before they come to receive the body of Christ, thus he saith.  

Ibidem.  Let us peruse the books of the Kings, and we shall find, that Abimelech the Priest would not give to David, and his men any of the Shewbreades, 
1. Reg. 21.  before he asked them whether they were pure from women, not from strange women, but from their own wives. And except he had heard, that they had abstained from the wedlock work from the time of yesterday and the day before: he would never have granted them the breads, which before he had denied to them. Now so great difference there is between the Shewbreades, and the body of Christ, how much difference there is between the body, and the shadow, between the Image, and the truth, between the samplers of things to come, and the things themselves, which were figured by the samplers. Thus Isidorus.  
If the thing we have in the Sacrament of the Altar, were but a sign, figure, or token of Christ's body, then would not this holy and learned Father, as sundry other Fathers have done, so earnestly have exhorted married persons to forbear their wedlocke-worke before the receiving of it: yea specially then would not he by comparing this with the showbread, so much have preferred this before that. For that was also a figure of the body of Christ. And if that which we have be no more but a figure, than was that as good as this. Now Isidorus preferreth this before that, as being the body itself, whereof that was the shadow, the truth, whereof that was the Image, the thing itself, whereof that was a sampler. Wherefore to conclude, this being the true and real Body of Christ, whereas Priests offer up and sacrifice the same, as we must grant they do, or deny the Fathers: it followeth, that they offer up and sacrifice Christ the Son of God unto his Father. The like, and plainer sayings for the truth of this Sacrifice, if need were, might in great number soon be recited out of the other Fathers, that wrote sithence the faith of Christ was generally received where it was preached, and all superstition of Gentility quite abolished● but these may suffice.  
Now whereas S. Dionyse calleth this our Sacrifice of the Altar, 
In what sense is the Sacrifice symbolical, or figurative.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a sacrifice symbolical, or done in signs, or figure: we also grant it to be symbolical, for under the signs that are visible and familiar to our senses, the heavenly Mysteries, to wit, the body and blood of Christ, the substance of our Sacrifice, are invisibly contained. And we say, that S. Dionyse is here to be understanded to speak of a sign or figure, as proper to the new, and not to the old Law, 
Gregor. Nazian. Hom. 4. de Pasch.  even so as S. Gregory Nazianzen meaneth by a figure, when he saith, jam Pascha fiamus participes, figuraliter tamen adhuc, & si Pascha hoc veteri sit manifestius. Si quidem Pascha legal, audenter dico, figura figurae erat obscurior. Let us now be partakers of the passover, but yet figuratively as yet, albeit this passover be more manifest, than the Old was. For the passover of the Law was (I am bold thus to say) a dark figure of a figure. Here is our passover, that is to say, our Sacrament, called a figure, but yet much more manifest, than the old figures were, for they were but figures of figures.  
And why is our most blessed Sacrament a figure? S. Gregory even there showeth it to be so called in respect of the fruition of the same, which we shall enjoy in Heaven, where we shall after an heavenly manner, eat, and drink it, without any Fgure, or cover. Such a Figure or sign doth not only signify, but containeth also the thing signified. In consideration whereof S. Augustine putting a difference between the Sacraments of the New and of the old Testament, saith, that The Sacraments of the New Testament give Salvation, 
August. in Psal. 73.  and the Sacraments of the Old Testament promised the Saviour. Such signs as give salvation, be meet Sacraments of the New Testament, of such kind of sign or figure speaketh S. Dionyse, where he useth the term Symbolical, speaking of the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ.  

Answer to Pachymeres.  As for that M. jewel allegeth out of Prchymeres the Paraphraste, who saith, The Priest cometh to the Bread, and the Cup, whereof he would feign conclude, that the invisible substance of the Sacrifice is not the body and blood of Christ: it standeth him in little stead. For in deed it is bread and wine, when the Priest first cometh unto them to celebrate the Sacrifice: But when the words of Christ be come unto them (as S. Ambrose saith) that is to say, 
Ambros. de Sacrament. lib. 4 cap 5  when the Priest hath duly pronounced the words of Consecration: then are they made the body and blood of Christ, and so the Sacrifice of Christ.  
And that Pachymeres was of this belief, it is clear by his own words, which M. jewel either knew not, and so speaketh ignorantly, or knew well enough, yet dissembled, and so doth maliciously. Because for some credit of his purpose he cited his words in Greek (though by casting in one word of his own which he found not in the text, after his common wont he hath some deal falsified the sentence) I will also here truly cite the words in Greek, by which Pachymeres showeth himself to be Catholic in this point, and quite contrary to M. jewels sacramentary doctrine. They be these. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Pachymee. in Dionys. Eccles. Hierarch. cap. 3. pag. 136.  As much to say in English. There be many that cast their eye upon the holy signs only, as they who are not able to conceive any higher thing. But the Bishop him self is carried up unto those first samplers (or natural things) to wit, the precious body, and blood itself of our Lord, believing that the things which are set forth (that is to say, the bread and wine) be changed into them by the holy and almighty Ghost.  
Lo M. jewel, here have you the clear testimony of Pachymeres himself, for his true and Catholic belief touching the truth of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament. Which belief is, not only that the precious body and blood of our Lord are of a right believer beholden, and conceived in the Sacrament verily present, which the Lutherans do acknowledge: but also that the bread and wine are by the power of the holy Ghost, 
Transubstantiation  into the same converted and changed, which neither ye, nor Luther's scholars do believe: and so by Pachymeres transubstantion is avouched.  
After all this M. jewel disposeth himself to dally at an Argument of his own merry heads forging, 
M. jewel forgeth Arguments.  bearing the Reader in hand, it is mine. And this Argument forsooth is such, and so unskilful, as a young Sophister (saith he) would never have framed it. What any young Sophister would do, I know not. But now certain it is, that be it well, or otherwise, it is framed by as old a Sophister, as yourself are M. jewel. If it be unskilfully framed, the blame is yours: for yours it is, not mine.  
Here that you be so full of your Arguments (which untruly you father upon me) and so busy with your Logic, I answer you, as S. Augustine answered julian the Pelagian Heretic dealing with him, as you do with me, not only in this place, but in manner in your whole book. Quantùm tibi places, tantùm gravibus Lectoribus displices, 
Augustin. contra julian. lib. 3. cap. 7.  & quod peius est, fingis me dicere quod non dico, concludere, sicut non concludo, & caet. Look (saith he) how much you stand in your own conceit, so much you are out of conceit with the grave Readers, and, which is worse, you feign me to say, that which I say not, to conclude, so as I conclude not.  
If you would needs show your cunning in Logic, and dispute after the rules of that art, why rehearsed you not the whole Antecedent? Though in this place I frame no Argume at all, but only recite the saying of S. Dionyse applying it to my purpose: yet if the whole should be disposed in form of an Argument, this is the Argument, that thereof might be concluded, the circumstance of the place considered.  
The Bishop or Priest (by report of S. Dionyse) standing at the holy Altar, 
An Argument gathered out of S. Dionyse for the Sacrifice.  after he hath given praises to God for his Divine works, cometh unto the mystical Sacrifice, excusing himself for that he taketh upon him to offer up the healthful host or Sacrifice that is far above his worthiness, whereof Christ at his last Supper having consecrated his body and blood, said, by way of commandment and commission, 
Luc. 22.  Do ye this in my Remembrance: But this healthful Sacrifice whereof Christ so said, and which he required to be offered, is the Sacrifice of his body and blood under the forms of bread and wine: Ergo, by witness of that Ancient and most worthy Father, the Bishop or Priest, offereth up Christ's body and blood, and consequently Christ himself. For where the body of Christ is, there also is whole Christ, because of the inseparable unity of both natures. And if Christ be thus offered, to whom is he offered, but to the Father? Albeit I confess, that Christ is offered to himself also as being God, and to the holy Ghost to the whole most blessed Trinity.  
If you had thus set forth the Argument M. jewel, and dealt simply and truly, you should not have needed to trouble the reader with so much Sophistry and Logic, as here for confutation of your own forged reason you have bestowed. Because you knew yourself not able to avoid the force of the whole Antecedent, slily you answer to that part of it only, where it is said, the Priest excuseth himself, as though I had laid the chief ground of the authority in that clause only. And thereof you take occasion to enter into a needless common place, proving by certain testimonies, which no man ever denied, that sundry holy things are to be done not presumptuously and rashly, but reverently, and with fear and trembling, as namely when we offer up the Sacrifice of Praise, when we baptize, when we preach, or hear Gods holy word, when we pray, and call God our Father. For the reverent and humble demeanour that we ought to show in doing these holy things, you allege S. Basil, S. Dionyse, S. Paul, S. Cyprian.  
But what of all this? will it thereof follow, Ergo, though the Priest standing at the Altar, and coming to offer the Mystical Sacrifice, excuse himself (not for praying, preaching, praising, or baptizing, but) for offering the healthful host, that far passeth his degree, even the same, that Christ offered at his last Supper, whereof he said, This is my Body, this is my Blood, and gave commission to do the same: yet he offereth not Christ unto his Father? This is the just judgement of God M. jewel, that you where you be so busy in scorning at other men's good Arguments, be found yourself to frame most fond and childish Arguments, by certain phrases eluding weighty points of Christian Religion, and always impugning one truth by an other truth, which way of reasoning is of all other the weakest.  
Thus you see good Sir, that I have not proved this Sacrifice only by the unworthiness of the Priest, as you say, but by other force clearly appearing in the foresaid testimony of S. Dionyse.  
Of all the authorities, that here to little purpose you have alleged, I had thought to touch never a one, forasmuch as I yield to that by the same is reported: had you not too shamefully falsified and corrupted a sentence of S. Gregory Nazianzen, 
M. jewel falsifieth and foully corrupted S. Gregory Nazianzene.  both with your false interlaced gloze, and by changing the whole purport thereof. Thus you make that learned Father to speak. How can they, or dare they offer unto God (he saith not the body of Christ really, and in deed, but) the figure of these great Mysteries? 
Gregor. Nazian. in Apologetico.   
Now let us see S. Gregory Nazianzens own words. The whole sentence being long, I will recite only the later end of it, which answereth to your allegation. 
S. Gregory Nazianzen acknowledgeth the external Sacrifice.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? As much to say. How should I dare to offer up unto him (he meaneth God) the external Sacrifice, that is the sampler of the great Mysteries?  
Compare this, and your own allegation together, and you shall perceive your untrue dealing and corruption of the sentence to be espied. You have changed the first person singular, into the third person plural. Which is an argument, that yourself never saw the place itself in the Author, but received it of some, that was appointed to gather notes for you such, as you might frame to your purpose. Your notegatherer espying as he thought some vantage in the later words of the Sentence, wrote them out only, leaving out the beginning, where the pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is expressly found. And so both you and he were deceived in the verb, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which serveth indifferently to the first person singular, or to the third person plural, you of ignorance, as I suppose, he of malice, specially if he were learned.  
Although this be no little fault, yet is it not the greatest by many parts. For you have quite hewed away a principal member of the sentence, to wit, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is to say, the external Sacrifice, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, Sacrifice, is there to be supplied. Whereby you show unto us, that, as you and your companions have banished the thing itself already out of the Churches of England, so would you gladly also skrape the name and term out of the books of the ancient writers, if by any means ye could. For this one clause, the external Sacrifice, 
External Sacrifice.  overthroweth all your doctrine against the Sacrifice of the Altar, and proveth your interlined Gloze to be false, and heretical. For if it be an external Sacrifice, it can not be but real, and true, and a Sacrifice in deed.  
The addition that followeth in S. Gregory, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is nothing else, but a declaration of what external Sacrifice he spoke, to wit, not of that great external and open Sacrifice, which Christ offered upon the Cross, but of the true sampler of the same. Which is the external Sacrifice of the Church, made by the ministery of the Priest upon the Altar, one with the other in substance, but divers in the manner of offering, as we are driven by your affectate and dissembled ignorance oftentimes to say. 
Antitypon. Fol. 82. b. & 83.  Of this term, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sampler, how it is to be taken, I have already, declared before in the .4. Division. Here to rehearse the same again, it were superfluous.  
Now I require thee to judge indifferently gentle Reader, whether M. jewel be to be accounted 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 foully falsified and corrupted this ancient and learned Father, by changing one person into an other, 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 end M. jewel to leave in the Readers mind an opinion of his skill in Logic, 
A new fallacy devised by M. jewel.  which is known to be very small, repeating again the former Argument of his own forging, and falsely ascribed unto me, saith: It is a fallax à meris particularibus, a kind of fallacy of his own invention, unknown to Aristotle, and to all that have written since of deceitful Arguments. For all skilful Logicians do know, that of two premises being both particular, a good argument may be concluded, although it be not directly in any of the three perfit Figures. And if the Argument be not faulty for this cause, yet it proceedeth (saith he) A non distributo ad distributum. Well, if it so proceed and therefore be nought, let himself amend it, that made it. As for my ground, it resteth upon the authority of S. Dionyse the blessed Apostle S. Paul's scholar.  
another fault in this Argument, is found contrary to the rules of Logic, 
Behold reader the rare cunning this man hath in Logic.  for that it concludeth (saith this great Logician) affirmatively in the second Figure. What Sir? Have you forgotten yourself 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 fault is none, and this later one: or this later none, and the first one, or rather neither this, nor that any at al. Beside this it is an Enthymema, consisting only of two propositions. And then if it were mine Argument, how know you to what Mode and Figure, by a little displacing of the terms, I were able to reduce it unto, if it should be denied?  
Thus I abuse thy leisure gentle Reader with standing upon these trifles. But I trust, thou wilt consider, how far I was enforced thereunto by M. jewels trifling in an earnest matter. 
prover. 26  And as by the advise of the wise man, we may answer a fool according to his foolishness, lest he seem wise in his own conceit: so sometimes it is profitable, to answer a trifler, according to his trifles, that he may behold his own vanity and trifling wit. And thus standeth S. Dionyses saying in his full force.    

The .9. Division.  

The Answer.  
IRenaeus received the same from S. john the Evangelist, by Polycarpus S. john's scholar. He declareth it with these words: Eum, qui ex creatura Panis est, 
Lib. 4. cap. ●3.  accepit, & gratias egit, dicens, Hoc est Corpus meum, Et Calicem similiter, qui est ex creatura quae est secundùm nos, suum Sanguinem confessus est, & Novi Testamenti novam docuit Oblationem, quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens, in universo mundo offert Deo. De quo in duodecim Prophetis Malachias sic presignificavit, 
Malac. 1.  Non est mihi voluntas in vobis, dicit DOMINVS exercituum: & munus non suscipiam de manu vestra. He took that, which by creation is bread, and gave thanks, saying, This is my Body. And likewise the Cup full of that Creature, which is here with us, and confessed it to be his Blood, and thus taught the new Oblation of the Nwe Testament, which the Church receiving of the Apostles, doth offer to God through the whole world, whereof Malachi one of the twelve Prophets did prophecy thus: I have no liking in you, saith our Lord almighty, neither will I take Sacrifice of your hands: because from the rising of the Sun, to the going down of the same, my name is glorified among the Nations, and Incense is offered to my name in every place, and pure Sacrifice, for that my name is great among Nations. What can be understanded by this new Oblation of the New Testament other, than the Oblation of that, which he said to be his Body, and confessed to be his Blood? And if he had offered Bread and Wine only, or the Figure of his Body, and Blood in Bread and Wine, it had been no New Oblation, for such had been made by Melchisedech long before. Neither can the Prophecy of Malachi be understanded of the Oblation of Christ upon the Cross, forasmuch as that was done but at one time only, and in one certain place of the world, in Golgoltha, a place without the gates of Jerusalem, near to the walls of that City. Concerning the Sacrifice of a contrite, and an humbled heart, and all other Sacrifices of our devotion, that be mere Spiritual, they can not be called the New Oblation of the new Testament, forasmuch as they were done as well in the Old Testament, as in the New, neither be they altogether pure. Wherefore this place of Ireneus, and also the Prophecy of Malachi, wherewith it is confirmed, must needs be referred to the Sacrifice and Oblation of the Body and Blood of Christ daily throughout the whole world offered to God in the Mass, which is the external Sacrifice of the Church, and proper to the New Testament: which, as Ireneus saith, the Church received of the Apostles, and the Apostles of Christ.   

jewel.  
Here at last, M. Harding hath found out the name of a Sacrifice, that was not denied him. But the Sacrifice, that he hath so long sought for, and hath so assuredly promised to find, hitherto he hath not found. For Ireneus not once nameth, neither the Mass, nor this Real Oblation of the Son of God unto his Father. 
Malac. 1.  Thus only he saith, God hath utterly misliked, 
Martialis ad Burdegalenses.  and refused the old Carnal Sacrifices of the jews: and hath taught us to offer up the New Sacrifice of the new Testament, according to the Prophecy of Malachi. This Sacrifice, M. Harding imagineth, 
Tertul. contra judaeos.  can be none other, but the offering up of Christ in the Mass. These Conclusions be very sudden. The Old learned Fathers could never understand so much. One of M. Harding'S own New found Doctors, 
Tertul. contra Marcio. lib. 4.  Martialis, saith thus, Oblatio munda, non tantùm in Ara Sanctificata offertur, sed etiam ubique: The pure Sacrjfice, which Malachi meaneth, is offered, not only upon the Holy Aultare (or Communion Table) but also every where. M. Harding saith, 
Hieron. in 1. cap. Malach.  It is offered only upon the Altar: Martialis saith, It is offered everywhere, and not only upon the Aultare. Certainly if Malachi meant the Sacrifice, that may be offered in all places, 
Hieron. in Zacha. li. 2. cap. 8.  and without an Aultare, as Martialis saith, than he meant not the Sacrifice of the Mass. Tertullian saith, That the Prophet Malachi by that pure Sacrifice, meant the Preaching of the Gospel: the offering up of a Contrite Harte: 
Aug. contra adver. Legis, & Prophet. cap. 20.  and prayer proceeding from a pure Conscience. S. Hierom likewise expoundeth the same of the Sacrifice of Prayer, and openeth it by these Words of the Prophet David: Let my Prayer be directed, as incense before thy sight. S. Augustine calleth the same, Sacrificium Laudis, & Gratiarum actionis: The Sacrifice of Praise, 
Contra Litter. Petilian. lib. 2. cap. 86.  and of thanksgiving.   

Harding.  
What truth thou art like to find in M. jewels Reply to the rest of this Division, thou mayst soon conceive Reader, seeing he maketh his entry with so shameless, and so open a lie. Here at the last (saith he) M. Harding hath found the name of Sacrifice. And but here at the last good Sir? As though express mention of Sacrifice were not contained in sundry testimonies before alleged. Where be your eyes? Nay where is your fidelity? Where is your sincerity? Where is your honesty? Where is your shamefastness? Doth not S. Dionyse in the last Division before this name the Sacrifice, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hesych. li. 1. cap. 4.  that is above his worthiness? Doth not Hesychius say, that Christ at his Supper sacrificed himself? Doth not Eusebius report unto you the dreadful Sacrifices of Christ's Table? I leave the rest. 
Diony. Ecclesiast. Hierarch. c. 1. p. 3.  For shame M. jewel if you have no way to escape the just request of your promised Subscription but by lying, yet have some regard of your estimation, that the very simplest of the world espy not out your so gross lying.  
And now touching the chief point of this Division, what, think you to avoid the strength of S. Irenaeus testimony for the Sacrifice, because he nameth not the Mass expressly, nor the real Oblation of the Son of God unto his Father's Why Sir then will you not stand to the matter, but cowardly fly away and lurk in terms? How be it, the real Oblation of the Son of God unto his Father (if you will needs put the trust of your cause in terms) if you remember, be not the words of your own Challenge.  
If this Argument be good, that here you make, S. Irenaeus not once nameth the Mass, nor real Oblation of the Son of God unto his Father, Ergo, by him the Sacrifice of the Church can not be avouched: why may not this also be as good: Not one of the four Evangelists saith expressly, that Christ offered or sacrificed himself upon the Cross, nor once nameth that Sacrifice of Christ: Ergo Christ was not sacrificed for us upon the Cross? If this Argument shallbe taken for good, then have the Arians overcome. For if the Church shallbe driven to show letters, syllables, and terms: neither can we find the Consubstantiality of the Son of God with the Father, nor the Procession of the holy Ghost from the Father and the Son, nor certain other great points of our Faith, which notwithstanding being revealed to the Church by the holy Ghost the spirit of truth, and declared by the expositions of the holy Fathers, we are bound to believe under pain of eternal damnation.  
Knowing yourself overborne with the force of this plain testimony of S. Irenaeus, craftily you dissemble it, and keep yourself a loof of from rehearsing the words, pretending thereby that he never said so, as I have reported him. But let the book be viewed, and it shallbe found, will you nil you, that I have truly alleged him. 
M. jewel forgeth sayings of his own head, and reporteth them for the sayin●ges of S. Ireneus.  You on the other side, to convey the whole point to Malachi the Prophet, where you thought rather to have some colour of advantage: come in with a forged saying of your own, and setting it forth in the letter, that you caused the Doctors sayings to be printed in, you ascribe it unto S. Irenaeus, whereas the sentence which here you have inserted (pretending for credit your solemn warrant with these words, Thus only he saith) is not in S. Irenaeus.  
You should have told us, 
M. jewel diverteth from the testimony where with he is urged, and entereth into an other matter.  and with good authority have proved it, what other thing can be understanded by the new Oblation of the new Testament, whereof S. Irenaeus speaketh, but the Oblation of that, which Christ said to be his body, and confessed to be his blood. To this you make no direct Answer, but slily carry away the reader unto the saying of Malachi, whereof I have treated before. I urge you with S. Irenaeus, and you shooting wide of the mark make answer to the place of Malachi, whose saying is not in this place principally objected, but brought in by the way as it were, by Saint Irenaeus, interpreting the pure Sacrifice by him mentioned, of the New Oblation of the New Testament.  
The old learned Fathers (you say) never understood so much. So much? What so much mean you? That the Oblation of Christ's body and Blood, is, the new Oblation of the New Testament, 
Irenaeus li. 4. cap. 23.  which Christ taught his Disciples, which the Church received of the Apostles, and now offereth up unto God through the whole wrrlde, as S. Irenaeus saith? Did the Fathers never understand this much? What say you then to S. Irenaeus, who understood so much, as by his words it is clear? What is this, but to set the holy Fathers at variance with S. Irenaeus?  
Yet you will needs seem to understand the Sacrifice that Malachi spoke of, of Preaching, of a Contrite heart, of Prayer, of Praise, and thanksgiving. For credit hereof you allege Tertullian, S. Hierom, and S. Augustin. Well, what if it be so? What answer is that to S. Irenaeus? As for the place of Malachi, as I said before, it is past, and answered. Certainly it can not be understanded of the pureness of man's heart, for of lack thereof he complaineth not, but of polluted sacrifices. Again the pureness of man's heart, commonly is not so great, as therefore, the name of God, should so much be magnified. And the same was in many jews then, no less than it is in the Christians now.  
To that you bring out of Tertullian, and S. Jerome, concerning what is meant by the Pure Sacrifice in Malachi, you have mine answer before in the third Division. 
In the .3. Division fol. ●0. b. & deinceps.  What you bring here, you brought the same before. Sparing my labour, ink, and paper, I remit the Reader unto that place, where he shall find you to have but a weak aid of Tertullian, and shamefully to have falsified S. Jerome, as becometh such false shifters to do.  
To prove that Malachi by the pure Sacrifice meant not the Sacrifice of the Altar, you bring in S. Martialis ad Burdegalenses, whom you call one of mine own new found Doctors. If you contemn him, why do you allege him? Will you shun his authority, and yet crave help of him? If I would use your own Rhetoric, here might I say, what tool is so bad, that Master jewel will not occupy, 
M. jewel falsifieth Martialis.  rather than seem to be without all weapon? Of what authority so ever he be, once this is true, in your translation you have foully falsified him, by putting in words of your own forgery. For he speaketh nothing at all of Malachi, nor in that place once nameth him. Whose name you added of your own unto the sentence out of him alleged, to underprop your weak and ruinous building with al.  
In that Epistle ad Burdegalenses, S. Martialis understandeth by Ara Sanctificata, one Special Altar, that in the City of Burdeaulx was consecrated in the name of GOD, and S. Steven. Which Altar being in old time dedicated to an unknown God, he at the overthrow of Idols Altars there caused to be reserved whole, and himself hallowed it. This much is declared in the Epistle itself. And as you have falsified your Doctor with putting in stuff of your own to the beginning of the sentence, so have you corrupted him much worse, with cutting away from the midst the hinder part. 
Martialis Epistol. ad Burdegal.  For these be his words, Nec solùm in ara sanctificata, sed ubique offertur Deo oblatio munda, sicut testatus est, cuius corpus & sanguinem in vitam aeternam offerimus. Neither only upon the hallowed Altar, but every where is the clean oblation offered up unto God, as he hath witnessed, whose body and blood we offer up to life everlasting. And what is that Christ hath witnessed? for of him he speaketh. That Priests should offer up his body and blood in every country, 
Luc. 22.  saying, Do this in my Remembrance. This served not your purpose, and therefore you hewed it away.  

Double oblation, one in spirit only, the other in the Sacrament.  If this answer do not satisfy you, may it please you to take this other. S. Martialis speaketh of two kinds of Oblations. The one is offered up in spirit only. the other in mystery and in the Sacrament. The spiritual oblation is offered up not only upon a sanctified Altar, but also everywhere. But the mystical and Sacramental oblation which is of the body and blood of Christ, is offered up only upon a consecrated Altar, because thereon is the real presence of the same. And of that kind of oblation in that very place which you have so foully corrupted, he saith thus. Christ having a body both unspotted, and without sin, because he was conceived of the Holy Ghost, and borne of the virgin Marie, permitted it to be sacrificed on the Altar of the Crosse. And the same thing which the jews sacrificed through envy, thinking so they should abolish his name quite out of the earth, we set forth upon the hallowed Altar for cause of our health, knowing that by this only remedy life is to be given unto us, and death to be driven away. For our Lord himself commanded us, to do this in remembrance of him. By this it is made clear, that if you will stand to the authority of S. Martialis, you must recant your Challenge denying the Priests to have power and commission to offer up Christ unto his Father.  
Upon the false construction you make of S. Martialis, you proceed, as if it were the Gospel that you said. But your ground being false (for neither once there nameth he Malachi, and of the Sacrifice he speaketh plainly) all likewise is false, that you build thereon, or conclude thereof.  
S. Augustine (say you) calleth the same Sacrifice (whereof Malachi speaketh) Sacrificium Laudis, 
Aug. contra Adverse. Legis & Prophetarum. c. 20. Cont. lit. Petiliani. li. 2. c. 86.  & gratiarum actionis, The Sacrifice of Praise, and of thanksgiving. And that it should appear, you allege him truly, you have by your cotation in the margin, directed your reader unto two places. But in those places S. Augustine calleth it, Sacrificium Laudis, the Sacrifice of praise only: as for the Sacrifice of thanksgiving, it is of your own putting in, S. Augustine there doth not once name it. The matter is not great: yet your untruth is to be noted. How be it what should I note this? There is in manner nothing by you in any place alleged, which more or less by your craft of falsifying, you have not altered and corrupted.  
And though S. Augustine call the pure Sacrifice prophesied of by Malachi, the Sacrifice of Praise, what conclude you thereof? Ergo, it is not the Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ? Thus you must conclude, for else it serveth you to no purpose. This being your argument, you show us as good Logic, as if one should thus prove your ring not to be gold. This ring is metal, ergo, it is not gold. For as metal is general to gold, silver, brass, and to other things of that kind, and compriseth them within his generality, so as the Argument is foolish, which from the affirmation of the general, deduceth the denial of the special: No whit wiser, nor of better force is your reason, This Sacrifice by report of S. Augustin, is the Sacrifice of Praise, Ergo, it is not the Sacrifice of the Body and blood of Christ. For the Sacrifice of Praise is general to all those Sacrifices, 
The Sacrifice of Praise, how general it is.  by which the name of God is praised, and is not only the Praise of God, that is uttered by words proceeding out of our mouth. And God is praised by no other thing so much, as by this unbloody Sacrifice, representing the oblation of Christ upon the Crosse. And S. Augustine himself writing upon the .49. Psalm, calleth the liberal almose of Zachaeus, who said, 
Luc. 19  I give the half of my goods to the poor, and the two Mites, 
Mat. 12. Math. 10.  that the poor widow gave to the common Box, and the Cup of cold water, that the poor host gave, as it is told in the Gospel, each of these (I say) he calleth Sacrificium Laudis, a Sacrifice of praise. This Sacrifice of Praise (saith he) had Zachaeus in his Patrimony, 
August. in Psal. 49.  had the widow in her purse, had the poor host in his tub.  
So then M. jewel, what you bring here out of S. Augustine, disproveth nothing at all the Doctrine of the Catholic Church, concerning that we call the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ celebrated in the Mass, whereof Saint Irenaeus so plainly speaketh, that you not being able to avoid the force of his clear words, are fain to shift your hands of it, 
The Sacrifice of the Altar is th● Sacrifice of praise.  and turn away all your talk unto Malachi. Neither is it strange, that S. Augustine calleth it the sacrifice of praise. For whereby is the mercy of God so much praised, as by the Sacrifice of the body and blood of his Son, which we offer up in remembrnce of his Death?  
But Sir why have you dissembled, and conceeled these other words, with which S. Augustine in the very book and chapter that you allege, confirmeth the Catholic doctrine on our behalf against you, and avoucheth that Sacrifice, which most wickedly you deny? his words be these. 
Augustin. contra Adverse. legis & proph. li. 1. c. 20.  This Church is Israel according to the spirit, from which that Israel according to the flesh, is distincted, which served in the shadows of sacrifices, by which the Singular Sacrifice was signified, that now Israel according to the spirit offereth up. Again a little after in the same place. They that read, do know, what Melchisedech brought forth, when be blessed Abraham. And now they are partakers of it, 
Ibidem. Gen. 14.  they see that kind of Sacrifice, now to be offered up unto God over all the world.  
What is this Singular Sacrifice, 
The Singular Sacrifice.  which the Church offereth up, but the Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ? For what so ever else you reckon, it shall appear common as well to Israel according to the flesh, as to Israel according to the spirit. And what sacrifice can you name us like unto that which Melchisedek brought forth when he blessed Abraham, which they that read do know (by which manner of speech, as by holding up a finger, S. Augustin is wont to point the Reader unto the Sacrifice of the Altar) and which is now offered up unto God over all the world, but the Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, under the forms of bread and wine? Thus we thank you M. jewel for leading us unto those places in S. Augustine, where our Doctrine is so substantially avouched, and your heresy so plainly confuted.   

jewel.  
In like sort Irenaeus also expoundeth his own meaning, Ecclesia offert Deo cum Gratiarum actione ex Creatura eius. Est ergo Altare in Coelo: 
Iren. lib. 4 cap. 34.  illuc Preces, & Oblationes nostrae diriguntur: The Church offereth up to God, (not his own, and only Son, but) a natural thing of God's Creation. Neither is our Aultare here in earth, but in heaven. Thither our Prayers, and Sacrifices be directed. 
Euseb. de Demonstr. lib. 1. c. 10.  So likewise Eusebius saith, Sacrificamus, & incendimus Memoriam Magni illius Sacrificij, secundùm ea, quae ab ipso tradita sunt, Mysteria celebrantes, & gratias Deo pro salute nostra agentes: we Sacrifice, and offer up unto God the Remembrance of that Great Sacrifice, using the Holy Mysteries accordingly, as Christ hath delivered them, and giving God Thanks for our Salvation.  
And that Irenaeus meant not any such Real Sacrifice of the Son of God, nor may not in any wise so be taken, it is evident by the plain words, that follow, touching the same. For thus he saith, speaking of the very same Sacrifice of the New Testament, that is mentioned by Malachi: Sacrificia non sanctificant hominem, sed conscientia eius, qui offered, existens pura, sanctificat Sacrificium. The Sacrifice doth not Sanctify the Man: but the Conscience of the offerer, being pure, sanctifieth the Sacrifice. I trow, M. Harding will not say, The Priest is not sanctified by the Son of God: but the Son of God is sanctified by the Conscience of the Priest: For that were Blasphemy. And yet thus must he needs say, if Irenaeus meant the Real sacrificing of the Son of God.   

Harding.  
After all these allegations brought by M. jewel against the Sacrifice of the Church, whereof not one ought at all helpeth his cause, 
With what sincerity and truth M. jew. handleth S. Irenaeus.  as I have now proved: he returneth unto S. Irenaeus again, and by his accustomed craft of falsifying, he would make his Reader believe, that S. Irenaeus expoundeth his own meaning so, as the Sacrifice of Christ's body and blood be quite excluded. To bring this to pass, it is a wonder to see, what fowl shifts he maketh. Of this blessed Fathes sentences he snatcheth here a piece, and there a piece, taking the head without the tail, the body without either, dismembering the whole. He joineth together words, that be above thirty lines a sunder, and thereof frameth a sense sounding to his false purpose, clean contrary to the holy Doctor's meaning. What shall I say of his own false gloss, and additions, set forth with that letter, in which the Doctors sayings be printed, of corrupting the Latin, of making his translation much worse? Briefly he demeaneth himself so, as who so ever considereth and weigheth the words of S. Irenaeus, and M. jewels false sleights together, he will think, that he hath utterly abandoned all truth, simplicity and shamefastness, and putteth his whole trust in lying.  
Touching then that he first bringeth out of S. Irenaeus, I marvel what he meant here to recite it. 
M. jewel Fowly corrupteth S. Irenaeus.  If he had set forth the whole sentence, as it lieth in the Doctor, every simple man would soon have perceived, that it furthereth his Challenge nothing at al. Having spoken in the forepart of the sentence of Oblation, that we must offer up unto the Creator in pure meaning, in faith without Hypocrisy, infirm hope, inferuent love: he cometh to the later part, whereof M. jewel hath piked out a little piece with wily falsehood turning it to his purpose. This it is, Et hanc oblationem Ecclesia sola pura offert Fabricatori, 
Iren. li. 4. cap. 34.  offerens ei cum gratiarum actione ex creatura eius. And this oblation the Church only offereth up pure unto our Creator, offering unto him with giving thanks out of his creature, that is to say, out of that he hath created. There it followeth immediately, judaei autem non offerunt. etc. But the jews do not (so) offer, for their hands be full of blood. etc.  
What maketh this for M. jewel? Marry were all true, that he addeth to his Doctor's text, and in case that followed immediately, which he adjoineth hereunto, and with such terms, as he hath devised of his own, and be not in S. Ireneus, that is to say, if black were white: it were somewhat perhaps to his purpose. But now he hath falsified altogether, 
foul corruption.  with these words falsely infarced into the sentence, not his own, and only Son, but a natural thing: Also by putting these words, Est ergo Altare in coelo, Illuc preces, & oblationes nostrae diriguntur next after the other, as though even there they followed, which do not follow: but be found at the end of the chapter. 36. lines after. Which nevertheless he translateth also very falsely, as the Reader may see. For these words, Neither is our Altar here in earth, be of his own false addition, and be not at all in the Doctors and most true it is, that we have Altars in the Church to offer the Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ● upon, which by virtue of his word be made really present: though we have an Altar also in heaven.  
Where as S. Ireneus is brought in by M. jewel in the next paragraph, saying, 
Sacrificia.  The sacrifices do not sanctify the man, but the conscience of the offerer being pure, sanctifieth the sacrifice: in that place he speaketh not of the Sacrifice of the Altar at all, but of the Sacrifices of the old Testament. What so ever is offered unto God, it is not the thing offered, that of itself sanctifieth him that offereth, But the pure and clean heart of the party that offereth sanctifieth the sacrifice, that is to say, as S. Ireneus expoundeth himself, praestat acceptare Deum quasi ab amico, causeth God to accept it, as at the hand of a friend. Else if a wicked sinner (saith the Scripture there also alleged) kill me a calf, 
isaiah. 66.  I had as leave he killed me a dog. In that place therefore he speaketh against them only, that thought to please God with their outward Sacrifices, whereof he hath no need, themselves inwardly being wicked, and having impure consciences. To make this clearer by examples, and testimonies of Scripture, he allegeth the example of Cain, of the Scribes and Pharisees, and certain sayings out of jeremy, and Isaiah.  
Now in the setting forth of this saying, 
Two lie● of M. jewel.  M. jewel deceiveth his Reader, but with two lies at once. The one is, in that he saith, it followeth after the other before alleged. For it followeth not, but goeth before it, as it may be seen in the book. The other lie is, in that he avoucheth this holy Father to speak this much of the new oblation of the new Testament, which is utterly false, as I have now declared.   

jewel.  
But M. Harding hath devised a great many replies to the contrary. First he saith, The offering up of prayer, Praises, and thanksgiving can not be called a New Sacrifice: for the same was made by Moses, Aaron, the Prophets, and other holy men in the Old Law. This objection serveth well to control Tertullian, S. Augustine, and S. Jerome, and other learned Fathers, that thus have taken it: who, by M. hardings judgement, written unadvisedly, they knew not what. Hereunto Irenaeus himself answereth thus: 
Irenae. li. 4. c. 34  Oblationes hîc: Oblationes illic. Sacrificia in Populo Israel: Sacrificia in Ecclesia. Sed species immutata est tantùm. Quip cùm iam non à servis, sed à Liberis offeruntur. There were Sacrifiees in the Old Testament: There be Sacrifices in the new. There were Sacrifices in the People of Israel: there be Sacrifices in the Church. Only the manner, or form is changed. For now they be offered, not by bond men (as before) but by Free men. In like sense writeth Angelomus. 
Angelomus Anti●●●m. lib. 3.  Mandatum nowm scribo vobis: non alterum: sed ipsum, quod dixi Vetus, idem est Nowm. I writ unto you a New Commandment: None other, but that I called the Old, the self same is the New. And it is called a New sacrifice, saith Chrysostom, 
Chrysost. contra judaeos. lib. 3.  Because it proceedeth from a New mind, and is offered, not by fiere, and smoke, but by Grace, and by the Spirit of God. And in this consideration Irenaeus thinketh, David said unto the Children of the Church of Christ, 
Irenae. lib. 4. cap. 1.  O sing unto the Lord a New Song.  
M. harding saith further, The words of Malachi may in no wise be taken for the Oblation of Christ upon the Crosse. For that, saith he, was done at one time only, a●d in one certain place, in Golgotha without the Gates of Jerusalem, and not in every place. Yet M. harding may easily understand, that the Remembrance of that Sacrifice, and thanksgiving for the same, may be made at all times, and in all places. And therefore Eusebius as it is noted before, 
Eusebius de daemon. lib. 1. c. 10.  calleth our Sacrifice, Magni illius Sacrificij Memoriam, The Remembrance of that great Sacrifice: and, the thanksgiving, which we yield unto God for our Salvation, Dionysius calleth it, 
Ecclaesia Hierar. cap. 3. Augustin. in Psal. 75● Hiero. in Psal. 147.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Figurative Sacrifice. And S. Augustine saith, Cùm credimus in Christum, ex ipsis reliquijs cogitationis, Christus nobis quotidiè immolatur: When we believe in Christ, even of the very remanentes of our Cogitation (in what place so ever we be) Christ is Sacrificed unto us every day. Likewise S. Jerome saith, Cùm audimus Sermonem Domini, Caro Christi, & Sanguis eius in auribus nostris funditur. When we hear the word of the Lord, the Flesh of Christ and his Blood is powered out into our ears. And, whereas M. harding saith further, that the Spiritual Sacrifices of our devotion cannot altogether be called pure, 
isaiah. 64.  and therefore can not be the Sacrifices of the New Testament, 
Psal. 50.  it must needs be confessed, that all our righteousness, in respect of many imperfections, 
Euseb. de daemon. li. 1. cap. 6. Orationis sacrificium, quod Mundum dictum est. Tertul ad Scapulan.  may be compared, as the prophet Esay saith, unto a filthy clout. Yet in respect of God's mercy, and in Christ, the Prophet David saith, Thou shalt wash me, and I will be whiter, than the snow.  
How be it, herein I will remit M. harding to the judgement of them, whoes Authorities he can not well deny. Eusebius calleth our Prayers, Mundum Sacrificium, A Pure Sacrifice. Tertullian saith, We make Sacrifice unto our God, for the safety of our Emperors, Pura prece, with a Pure Prayer. S. Jerome speaking of the Sacrifice of Christian Prayers, saith thus: A pure Sacrifice is Offered unto me in every place: not in the Oblations of the Old Testament, but in the holiness of the Purity of the Gospel. To be short S. Paul saith, 
Hiero. in Zachar. lib. 2. c. 8.  Volo viros precari in omni loco, levantes manus Puras: I would, that men should pray in all places, lifting up Pure hands (unto God)  
touching the Sacrifice of the lords Table, 
In sanctitate evangelicae Puritatis.  Eusebius writeth thus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: He gave us a Remembrance in steed of a Sacrifice to offer up continually unto God. And this he calleth, Incruentum, et Rationabile sacrificium: The unbloody, 
1. Tim. 2. Eusebius de demonstra. lib. 1.  and Reasonable Sacrifice. This saith Iraeneus, is the Sacrifice of the New Testament. This Sacrifice the Church received of the Apostles: and the same the Apostles received of Christ, that made all things New.   

Harding.  
Concerning the Sacrifices of our devotion (say I in my Answer) that be mere spiritual, they can not truly be called the new oblation of the new Testament, because they were offered up to God in the old Testament, as now they be in the new. By this M. jewels shift is quite avoided, who hath nothing to answer to this place of S. Ireneus reporting Christ, after that he had consecrated his body and blood, to have taught us the new oblation of the new Testament, but that it is the pure sacrifice that Malachi speaketh of, that is to say, a contrite heart, or preaching of the Gospel, or prayer, or praise, and thanksgiving, or, he can not tell what. This objection (saith M. jewel) serveth well to control the old Fathers, namely Tertullian, S. Augustine, S. Jerome.  
No No, M. jewel, it controlleth the old Fathers nothing at al. It controlleth our young Fathers, such as you, and your fellows be, who have most rashly, most unlearnedly, most wickedly, and Antichristlike, abolished out of the Churches of England, the most blessed Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, and now being urged and pressed with this manifest place of this Ancient and learned Father, who affirmeth it so clearly, ye have not what to answer. Your whole book of Reply containeth nothing in effect, but wily sleights, vain shifts, shameless lies, and fowl corruptions of the Doctors, and Counsels, above all measure. But of such Merchandise you make your show no where more, then in this Article, in which you impugn the Sacrifice. And of all your Divisions of the same Article hitherto, in this Division the vanity of your shifts, appeareth most.  
Yet you will not give over, 
Irenaeus corrupted by M. jew  but that at least to the ignorant people it may seem you have enough to say for yourself, you come again to S. Irenaeus for help, and he helpeth your cause nothing at al. well, what saith he? 
Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34.  Oblationes hî, c Oblationes illic. etc. The head of the sentence you have lopped of. This is the whole. It is the kind of Oblations, that is rejected: for there were Oblations both there (among the jews) and there be Oblations also here. There were sacrifices among that people, there be sacrifices in the Church. But the Kind (or form) is changed only, for somuch as they be not bond men that offer now, but freemen.  
What conclude you of all this M. jewel? What maketh this against the real Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ? Marry say you, Thus answereth Irenaeus to my Objection. What was my Objection? This is that I said in effect, as is before rehearsed, that the mere spiritual sacrifices of our devotion, can not truly be called the New Oblation of the New Testament, because they are common to them of both Testaments. How say you, is not this true? And what have you to the contrary, in this saying of S. Irenaeus?  
The kind, or form of their, and our sacrifices, is changed, you will say perhaps. I grant this much: albe it S. Irenaeus referreth this change, not to the sacrifices, but to the offerers: because the old people of the synagogue were bond men, and we of the Church are free men. But let it be, as you would have it. Who understandeth not the kind of sacrifices to be changed, for that they killed brute beasts, according to Moses' Law, and we kill them not, as not being under that Law? But what? Will you of this conclude, that they offered not up unto God the Sacrifices of a contrite heart, of prayers, of praise and thanksgiving, and such other spiritual sacrifices, because they offered up beasts, and because we now offer these? I trow by that time you have bethought yourself, you will not stand in it. For, be not the Psalms, and the sermons of the prophets full of exhortations, to this end, that these spiritual oblations should be made, a●d the like things done, that God accepteth for sweet smelling sacrifices? Would they so have exhorted the people, except these things ought to have been done? And whereas they were to be done, will you say, there were none, that did them? will you say, the holy kings, and Prophets had not contrite hearts, prayed not, nor praised, ne thanked God? I suppose you will not say it. To what purpose then piked you out the former saying of S. Irenaeus? What maketh it for you? what maketh it against us?  
No more furthereth that your cause, which without opening and circumstance you allege out of Angelomus, and S. Chrysostom. How much better had you done, if confessing the truth, you had left out these obscure and impertinent places, and had rehearsed unto your Reader certain other most plain sayings out of S. Irenaeus, whereof this is one written in the same chapter, out of which you piked the pieces that here you have patched together. Quomodo constabit eyes, etc. How shall they be assuredly certified (saith this blessed Martyr) that bread whereon thanks be given, 
Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34.  to be the body of their Lord, and that Cup to be (the Cup) of his blood, if they will not say, he is the Son of the Creator of the world, that is to say, his word, whereby the Vine bringeth forth fruit, fountains (of wine) do run, and which (for bread to be had) giveth first grass, afterward an ear, and then at length full wheat in the ear? Again how say they, that the flesh cometh into corruption, and receiveth not life, which is fed of the body and blood of our Lord? Therefore either let them change their opinion, or cease from offering up the things, that are before said.  
An other like saying there avouching our doctrine, is this. 
The Eucharist consists of two things.  As the bread that is of the earth, receiving the calling upon of God, is not now common bread, but the eucharist, consisting of two things, earthly, and heavenly: So our bodies receiving the eucharist, be not now corruptible, but have hope of the Resurrection.  
How plain and clear testimony have we in these sayings, for the truth, and Real presence of our lords body and blood in the blessed Sacrament, for the Oblation of the same, for the most sovereign effect, that thereby is wrought in our bodies nourrished and fed therewith? At these M. jewel you closed up your eyes, because they confound the pride and wicked folly of your Challenge: other words, and patches of sentences, you pried and hunted after, by which you might seem to avoid the clear authority in this Division alleged against you out of S. Irenaeus, yet when you have all said, and shifted, your Reply is found to weak, and insufficient.  
Because you feel yourself much pressed, and as it were borne down, with the weight of this plain testimony of S. Irenaeus (Christ having confessed of the bread, that is was his body, and of the cup, that it was his blood, taught his Apostles the new oblation of the new Testament) feign would you find some way, how to ease yourself of it, and therefore have you looked over (as it seemeth) all your notebooks, and searched the Doctors far and near, to happen upon some for your relief, but none can you find. And here you show yourself to be graveled with these plain words, 
This sentence of S. Ireneus graveleth M. jewel  Novi Testamenti novam docuit oblationem, Christ taught the new oblation of the new Testament. To avoid this new oblation, that so much cumbereth you, you have devised a new policy, which would serve you for some show and colour, were it not altogether stuff of your own counterfeiting and forging. What is that? Behold Reader, and consider of it diligently.  
Thus saith M. jewel. It is called a new Sacrifice, saith Chrysostom, (now follow the words pretended to be S. Chrysostom's in the distinct letter, that he putteth the Doctors sayings in) because it proceedeth from a new mind, and is offered, not by fiere and smoke, but by Grace, and by the Spirit of God. But where saith S. Chrysostom this much? You have put it in the letter of the Father's sayings, tell us where we may find the cause thus declared, why this oblation of the new Testament, is called, New. By your cotation in the margin you send us unto Chrysost. contra judaeos. lib. 3. but there we find no such thing at al. Neither be they Books, but Orations, that he wrote against the jews, and so Erasmus, who translated that work, calleth them.  
Marry in the second Oration we have trakte you, 
M Iewe● foully abuseth S. Chrysost.  and found out the place, that you abuse: abuse, I say, for it maketh wholly against you. There, S. Chrysostom, to prove unto the jew, to whom he speaketh, that both their Law, and their Sacrifice is ended, and abolished, and that an other Sacrifice is come in place of theirs, which is pure, and is to be offered up through all the world, allegeth the prophecy of Malachi, from the rising of the Sun to the going down, 
Malach. 1.  etc. a pure Sacrifice shall be offered unto my name. Upon this prophecy he stayeth himself, and declareth at large, how it ought to be understanded, and how the Prophet may not seem to be repugnant to Moses, who appointeth the Sacrifice of the jews unto one only place, and how, and for what respect, the Sacrifice that Malachi speaketh of, is pure, which S. Chrysostom calleth, Sacrificium nostrum, our Sacrifice. Among other many words spoken in praise of this our pure Sacrifice, 
Why our sacrifice i● of Malachi called the Pure Sacrifice, after the mind of S. Chrysostom.  thus he saith there.  
If one confer this Sacrifice with theirs, he shall find an exceeding great difference, so that according to the proportion of comparison, this alone may deserve to be called pure. And look what S. Paul said of the Law, and Grace, that, that was not glorified at all, which was glorified, in comparison of the high Glory: the same here also justly we may say, 
2. Cor. 3.  to wit, that this Sacrifice compared with that (of the Law) ought alone to be called pure. Then follow the words which M. jewel hath by falsifying, and fowl corruption abused to his purpose. Non enim per fumum ac nidorem, non per sanguinem ac redemptionis precia, sed per spiritus gratiam offertur. For it is not offered by smoke and gresy savour, 
Chrysosto. oratioee. 2 contra judaos.  not by blood and prices of redemption, but by grace of the spirit. With these words he rendereth the cause, why the Sacrifice of the Church, is of Malachi called pure, and not why it is called New, 
Chrysostom misreported by M. jewel.  as M. jewel hath perverted the sentence.  
Compare good Reader this Repliers words with S. Chrysostom's words, and thou shalt espy, what a corrupter and falsifier he is of the Doctors. Wherefore seeing he can find no help at S. Chrysostom's hands (whom here he hath much injured, and misreported) nor at the hands of any other Doctor, nor can show us what Sacrifice that is, which S. Ireneus calleth the new Sacrifice, or new Oblation of the new Testament that Christ taught, when he said of the bread and Cup, this is my body, this is my blood, but the Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ: with right he may be required to subscribe, and yield. Which will be best for him to do, lest the time come, when not yielding he shallbe taken prisoner, and for his heresy and impenitent heart, be cast into the outward darkness, 
Matt. 22.  where shall be weeping, and gnashing of teeth.  
Because M. jewel harpeth so much upon the prophecy of Malachi, and putteth the confidence of his cause therein, and hath taken his advantage of S. Chrysostom by falsifying his words: let us see how little cause he had so to do, and how much S. Chrysostom being truly alleged, proveth in that very place which M. jewel bringeth, treating of Malachi, the Catholic assertion. Whereas Moses forbade sacrifice to be made in any other place, 
Deut. 16.  but in that place which our Lord had chosen, and Malachi saith, that the pure Sacrifice is to be offered up in every place from the East to the West: that these two should not seem to be repugnant, S. Chrysostom saith, that Moses spoke of one Sacrifice, and Malachi prophesied of an other.  
To prove this, he asketh this question. unde hoc declaratur? Whereby is this declared? There for declaration and proof hereof, among other things he bringeth the argument of the place. For (saith he) Malachi foretold that this worship should be celebrated, not in one City, as the jewish sacrifice was, but from the rising of the Sun, to the going down. Then follow these words: 
Conclusions gathered out of S, Chrysost. against M. jew.  Praeterea ex Sacrificij modo, siquidem puram illam appellans, declaravit de qua loqueretur. Furthermore this is declared by the manner of the Sacrifice, for in that he calleth that oblation (or worship) pure, he hath declared of what oblation (or worship) he spoke. This much S. Chrysostom there.  
Hereof and of that S. Chrysostom saith in that place, these Conclusions may be gathered against M. jewel. 

The First Concusion. Malachi in S. Chrysostom's judgement speaketh of such a Sacrifice, as for commendation whereof he might seem repugnant to Moses. But in respect of those, which are mere spiritual Sacrifices, of which only M. jewel will Malachi to be expounded, as of a contrite heart, of prayer, of praise, and thanksgiving, Malachi can not seem repugnant to Moses, because Moses never forbade them: Ergo, the Sacrifice that Malachi speaketh of, is not to be understanded of mere spiritual sacrifices.  
The .2. Conclusion. Malachies' prophecy is of such a Sacrifice after the mind of S. Chrysostom, as the celebration whereof should abandon, and quite put away the Priesthood, and Sacrifices of the jews. But the mere spiritual Sacrifices of our devotion, whereto only M. jewel draweth the prophecy of Malachi, have not that power and effect. For they continued with their Sacrifices, as they do with ours: Ergo, Malachi is not to be understanded of the mere spiritual Sacrifices.  
The .3. Conclusion. S. Chrysostom speaking of ●●e Sacrifice mentioned by Malachi, useth these words, Praedixit hanc culturam celebrandam, he fortold that this worship should be celebrated, not in one city, etc. But of any of the mere spiritual sacrifices of our devotion, no learned Father ever said, that it is a worship to be celebrated, nor are these terms convenient for them, or for any of them, for they are not, properly to speak, a worship by us to be celebrated, but thereby and therewith we do celebrate and worship God: Ergo, Malachi by S. Chrysostom's doctrine, speaketh not specially of the mere spiritual sacrifices of man's heart, but of an other Sacrifice outwardly celebrated.  
The .4. Conclusion. The Sacrifice that Malachi prophesied of, S. Chrysostom saith it is such, as is declared what it is, by the manner of it. But a thing can not be declared what it is by the manner, unless the manner be external, and sensible, so as it may be perceived by sense, and the mere spiritual sacrifices of man's inward devotion be not such: Ergo, Malachi meant not of them, but of an other Sacrifice.  
The .5. Conclusion. Malachi by the exposition of S. Chrysostom speaketh of that Sacrifice, which properly is Nostrum, that is to say, ours, belonging to us, that be of the new Testament. But the Sacrifice of a contrite heart, of Prayers, Praise, and thanksgiving be theirs of the old Testament, as well as ours: Ergo, of that kind of Sacrifice he spoke not.  
That I make an end of Conclusions, the sixth and last Conclusion may be this. By interpretation of S. Chrysostom, the Sacrifice that Malachi prophesied of, is pure in the most excellent degree of pureness. But the spiritual Sacrifices proceeding from the heart of man, be not pure in the highest degree of pureness: Ergo, it is an other kind of Sacrifice, which Malachi foretold.    
So than it is, 
M. jewel reasonably required to yield.  if M. jewel can not declare and clearly prove unto us, that Malachi prophesying of a mere spiritual Sacrifice of man's devotion, might reasonably seem to S. Chrysostom to be repugnant to Moses, that such a sacrifice should abolish the jews sacrifices, that it is called a worship to be celebrated by us, that it is declared what it is, by the external manner of it, that in proper and right speech it ought to be called our Sacrifice, or the Sacrifice of the new Testament, and to conclude, that it is most singularly and most excellently pure: if I say he can not make good these pointest as to every man of mean judgement and learning most certain it is, he can not: judge discrete Reader, how good reason we have, to require him to yield, and to deceive the world no more by alleging the authority of S. Chrysostom, as though he so understood Malachies' Prophecy, and consequently were contrary to S. Irenaeus.  

That S. Chrysostom is to be understanded of the Sacrifice of the Altar,  And on the other side, who is so wilfully blind, that seeth not all these properties to be agreeable unto the Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ? For this is not contrary to Moses, but it is the perfection of Moses, the truth of the figure, the body of the shadow: the coming of this, hath abolished the jewish Sacrifices: by this God is most highly praised, thanked, and honoured, and this itself is a worship most holily to be celebrated: 
In ●rat. 2. contra judaeos.  This, what it is, most plainly by the manner of offering is declared, for the Priest saith in the person of Christ, as by him he is taught to do, this is my body, which is given for you, 
Luc. 22.  this is my blood, which is shed for you, and for many: 
Math. 26.  This by all right is our Sacrifice, in so much that if this be not ours, I mean of the new Testament, whereas besides this there is none other external and real sacrifice: then have we none at all, that is external and real. Which if it were true, than neither had we a Priesthood, nor Lawe● and so then were we a people neither of the one Testament, nor of the other. To conclude, this, and none other but this, is, touching the substance of it, the pure Sacrifice in highest and supreme degree of pureness. For what can be thought purer than that body, which was conceived of the holy Ghost, and borne of the most pure Virgin, which is the proper body of the word?  
To the heap of Allegations, which M. jewel in the end of this Division hath as it we●e with scoops, cast● together, because they import little substance, and be, some untruly, and all without sincerity brought in, the circumstance of the places, whence they be taken out not declared, the opening whereof would require many words, which should weary rather than profit the reader: I esteem a just and particular Answer utterly needless, specially what so ever is of any importance, being already sufficiently answered.    

The .10. Division.  

The Answer.  
NOw let us hear what S. Cyprian hath written to this purpose. Because his works he common, to be shorter, I will rehearse his words in English. If in the Sacrifice, which is Christ, none but Christ is to be followed, sooth it behoved us to obey, and do that, which Christ did, and commanded to be done. For if jesus Christ our Lord and God, very he himself be the high Priest of God the Father, and himself first offered Sacrifice to God the Father, and commanded the same to be done in his Remembrance: Verily that Priest doth occupy the office of Christ truly, who doth by imitation the same thing, that Christ did. And then he offereth to God the Father in the Church a true, and a perfit Sacrifice, if he begin to offer right so as he seeth Christ himself to have offered. This far S. Cyprian. How can this Article be avouched in more plain words? he saith that Christ offered himself to his Father in his Supper, and likewise commanded us to do the same.  
Here we have proved, that it is lawful, and hath always from the beginning of the New Testament been lawful for the Priests to offer up Christ unto his Father, by the testimonies of three holy Martyrs, two Greeks, and one Latin, most notable in sundry respects, of antiquity, of the room they bore in Christ's Church, of Learning, of Constancy, of Faith steadfastly kept to Death, suffered in places of same, and knowledge, at Paris, at Lions, at Carthage.   

jewel.  
This place of S. Cyprian, as it not once toucheth the real sacrificing of Christ unto his Father, so it utterly condemneth the Communion under One Kind: the Common Prayers in a strange unknown tongue: and briefly the whole disorder, and abuse of M. hardings Mass.  
But S. Cyprian saith, In Sacrificio, quod Christus est: In the Sacrifice, that is Christ. If M. Harding think to find great advantage in these words, 
August. in johan. tract. 26.  it may please him to Remember, that S. Augustin saith, Illis Petra erat Christus: Unto the jews the Rock was Christ. Verily, the Sacrifice after the order of Melchisedek, which is the Propitiation for the Sins of the world, is only jesus Christ, the Son of God upon the Crosse. And the ministration of the Holy Mysteries, in a phrase, and manner of speech, is also the same Sacrifice: because it layeth forth the Death, and blood of Christ so plainly, and so evidently before our eyes. So saith S. Augustine, 
August. in Psalm. 20  The very Remembrance of Christ's Passion stirreth up such motions within us, as if we saw Christ presently having upon the Crosse. Upon which words the Common Gloze noteth thus: 
De Conse. Dis. 2. Semel.  Christus immolatur, id est, Christi immolatio repraesentatur, & fit memoria passionis: Christ is sacrificed, that is to say, The Sacrifice of Christ is represented, and there is made a Remembrance of his passion. So S. Cyprian saith, Vinum exprimit sanguinem: 
Cypri. lib. 2. epist. 3.  In Aqua populus intelligitur: In Vino sanguis ostenditur. Itaque passionis eius mentionem in Sacrificijs facimus. Passio enim Domini est Sacrificium, quod offerimus. The Wine showeth the Blood, in the Water we understand the people: The Blood is expressed in the Wine. And therefore in our sacrifices we make mention of Christ's passion. For the Sacrifice, that we offer, 
De Conse. Distinct. 2. Quid sit.  is the passion of Christ. As the ministration of the holy Communion is the Death, and Passion of Christ, even so, and in like sort, and sense may the Sacrifice thereof be called Christ. Therefore S. Gregory saith, Christus in seipso immortaliter vivens, iterum in hoc Mysterio moritur. 
De Cons. Dist. 2. Quid sit.  Eius Caro in populi Salutem patitur: Christ living immortally in himself, dieth again in this Mystery. His Flesh suffereth (in the Mystery) for the Salvation of the people. I reckon, M. Harding will not say, 
In Glosa. Chryso. in Acta. Homil. 21.  that Christ Dieth in deed, according to the force, and sound of these words, or that his Flesh verily, and in deed as tormented, and suffereth in the Sacrament. S. Gregory better expoundeth himself in this wise: Hoc Sacramentum Passionem Vnigeniti filii imitatur: 
Beda expo●nens illude Sicut Moses exalta vit, etc.  This Sacrament expresseth or representeth the Passion of the Only begotten Son. And the very Barbarous Gloze touching the same saith, Christus Moritur, & Patitur, id est, Mors, & Passio Christi repraesentatur: Christ Dieth, and Suffereth, that is to say, Christ's Death, and Passion is represented.  
So S. Chrysostom saith, 
johan. 3.  In Mysterijs mors Christi perficitur: The Death of Christ is wrought in the Mysteries. 
Hieron. in Psalm. 97  So saith Beda, Exaltatio Serpentis Aenei Passio Redemptoris nostri in Cruce: The lifting up of the Brazen Serpent is the Passion of our Redeemer upon the Crosse. 
Ambro. d● Virginib.  So saith S. Jerome, Quotidiè nobis Christus Crucifigitur: 
August. Quaest. E●uāge. lib. 2.  Unto us Christ is daily Crucified. So S. Ambrose, Christus quotidiè immolatur: Christ is daily sacrificed. So S. Augustine, Tunc unicuique Christus occiditur, cùm credit occisum: Then is Christ slain to every man, 
Hieron ad Damas.  when he believeth that Christ was slain. To conclude, so S. Jerome ●aith, Semper Christus credentibus immolatur: Unto the faithful Christ is evermore sacrificed. Thus may the Sacrifice of the Holy Communion be called Christ: to wit, even so, as the ministration of the same is called the Passion, or the Death of Christ.   

Harding.  
The first sentence of your Reply in this Division M. jewel, consisteth of .4. particles, and each of them is an impudent lie. By the spiteful words you utter against the most holy Mass, you show us with what stamp you are coined. As for S. Cyprian, neither doth he in this place condemn the Church for ministering the Communion under one kind, nor for having the public Church service in the Latin tongue. Which in these Western parts of Christendom is not, as you call it, a strange unknown tongue, but contrariwise a tongue among all other best known in general, and common to all nations of the West.  
Touching the Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, so clearly by S. Cyprian here avouched, that so it is, you would never have denied, had not you put the whole confidence of your cause in lying, and denying most evident truths. And now therefore I must prove against such a caviller and wrangler, as you are, 
M. jewel standeth altogether upon certain precise terms.  that there is light, where the Sun shineth. And here once again you think to find a lurking corner in your precise terms of the real sacrificing of Christ unto his Father: as though I proved not that which in this Article you deny, except the truth be affirmed in the same form of words, which yourself have devised. If you had good matter, I trow you would not thus stand only upon terms.  
But let us pull you out of your lurking corner, 
An evident place of S. Cyprian for the Sacrifice of the Altar. Cyprian. lib. 2. epistol. 3.  as it were out of Cacus Den, and bring you abroad into the light. Answer me Sir: Will it not appear by this place of S. Cyprian, that Christ offered himself unto his Father at his last Supper? Be not these his very words, jesus Christ our Lord and God first offered a Sacrifice to God the Father, and commanded the same to be done in his Remembrance? What Sacrifice was this? It was not the Sacrifice of the Cross pardy. For that very same Sacrifice was not commanded to be made again, it was once made for ever by Christ himself. What can you name, but the unbloody Sacrifice of his body and blood? For if you name us the mere spiritual sacrifices of devotion, as Prayer, Praise, thanksgiving, or any such other the like: you must remember, Christ did not first of all sacrifice the same. For the patriarchs, and Prophets did so, long before Christ was incarnate.  
What is it then? S. Cyprian telleth it himself expressly, saying, Christ is the Sacrifice, In Sacrificio quod Christus est. He speaketh of such a Sacrifice, in which the Priest occupieth the room, and doth the office of Christ truly, and in doing which, the Priest by imitation doth the same thing that Christ did. Then what did Christ, and where did he that the Priest is commanded to follow? What need I to stand upon it? Who knoweth not, 
Cyprian. ad Ceciliū●  whereof S. Cyprian treateth in that Epistle to Caecilius, and what Christ did at his Supper? He took bread, 
Math. 26  and then the Cup, he gave thanks, blessed, 
Luc. 22.  and consecrated his body and blood saying, this is my Body, 
1. Cor. 11. Cyprian. lib. 2. epistol. 3.  this is my Blood, and so offered up (as S. Cyprian saith) the same thing, which Melchisedech had offered, that is to say● bread and wine, to wit, his own body and blood. Which Body and Blood, because both natures be inseparably united together in one person, he calleth also by the name of Christ. In Sacrificio quod Christus est, in the Sacrifice which Christ is, for here Christus, is the nominative case to the verb, est.  
Whereas then Christ offered Christ to his Father, at his Supper, and commanded Priests to do the same in Remembrance of him, until he come, that being in every respect lawful, which he commandeth: it followeth, that Priests have authority to offer up Christ, who is the Son of God, unto his Father, which is the point of this Article, that M. jewel denieth. And thus is the real sacrificing of Christ unto his Father, proved by S. Cyprian, real, I say, not in respect of the manner of sacrificing that was upon the Cross, but of the Body and Blood really present, and being the real substance of this commemorative Sacrifice.  
Here I needed not to proceed further in this Division, my Answer to the Challenge being so sufficiently justified touching the unbloody Sacrifice, and this being proved by S. Cyprians testimony, as it was proved before by testimony of S. Irenaeus, that it is not only lawful, but also dutiful for Priests, to offer up Christ unto his Father. Yet because M. jewel, (who from the beginning never intended to yield, how plain matter so ever were proved against him) cometh now in with his Phrases, having no plain and direct authority whereby to prove his negative doctrine: Let us see, what pith his obscure phrases, and tropical speeches do contain.  
Where as S. Cyprian saith plainly, Christ is the Sacrifice (meaning the substance of the Sacrifice celebrated at the Supper and now at the Altar) he willeth me to remember, 
August. in joan. tractat. 26.  that S. Augustine saith, Petra erat Christus, the Rock was Christ. For that he putteth unto S. Augustine this word illis, interpreting it of the jews: it is his own addition, S. Augustine hath it not. But what concludeth he of this? Not only S. Augustine, but S. Cyprian also in this very Epistle, and first of all S. Paul saith, 
1. Cor. 1●.  the Rock was Christ. I say to M. jewel eftsoons, it may please him to remember, that S. Augustine expoundeth himself immediately in the next sentence, saying, Petra Christus in signo. 
The Rock was Christ.  The Rock was Christ in a sign, that is to say, the Rock was not Christ in substance, and in deed, but signified Christ. If he intend thus to conclude, as the Reply seemeth to report, As the Rock was Christ, so Christ is the Sacrifice: but the Rock was not Christ in deed: Ergo, Neither Christ is the Sacrifice: If he make this Argument, I deny his Mayor, or first Proposition. For the Rock was Christ in sign only, but Christ's body and blood Really made present, by the almighty power of the word, is in deed the substance of the commemorative Sacrifice. Wherefore no likeness touching the Phrase being between these two Propositions, the Rock was Christ, and, Christ is the Sacrifice: the one can not rightly be applied to overthrow the other. And whereas M. jewel maketh his colourable advantage by making Sacrifice the nominative case to the verb in this saying of S. Cyprian, In Sacrificio quod Christus est: he is to be told, that he misconstrueth it, and that false construction maketh no proof. For S. Cyprian saith not, the Sacrifice is Christ, which also is true, and that taketh M. jewel for his purpose: but, Christ is the Sacrifice. In consideration whereof the figurative saying, and the Phrase of the Rock, and the great number of his other phrases, serveth not his turn.  

That the Sacrifice after the order of Melchisedech was not only upon the Cross, but also at the Supper.  Upon this false construction of S. Cyprians saying how so ever he proceedeth, speaking confusely of the sacrifice, which is after the order of Melchisedek, and of the propitiation for the sins of the world: this I acknowledge, that only jesus Christ the Son of God, is the propitiatory Sacrifice for the sins of the world, and that such a Sacrifice in most perfect wise, he was upon the Cross, yea also after th'order of Melchisedek, where, as Melchisedek offered bread and wine, so he offered up his body and blood, 
Hieronym. in Psalm. 109.  the true bread, and the true wine, as s. jerom saith. For all though he expressed the shadows of all Aaron's sacrifices upon the Cross, yet there he was a Priest after the order of Melchisedek. For so S. Paul inth' Epistle to the hebrews showeth, by the dissimilitude of both Priesthods. But that he was a sacrifice after th'order of Melchisedek only, when he hung upon the Cross, that I deny. For he was a Priest, and also a sacrifice after th'order of Melchisedek at his last supper. at what time offering up his body, and blood under the forms of bread and wine, he began to execute th'office of the Priesthood after th'order of Melchisedek, and taught his Disciples the way, 
Theophyl. in Matth. cap. 28.  how after his death to make the same oblation. Upon which consideration Theophylact, as it is before rehearsed, saith, Tunc immolavit seipsum, ex quo tradidi● Discipulis corpus suum, he sacrificed himself, at the time he delivered his body to his Disciples. And S. Austin more plainly, 
August. de civit. Dei, lib. 17. capit. 20.  expounding this place of Ecclesiastes, Non est bonum homini, nisi quod manducabit et bibet, where he saith thus. Quid credibilius etc. What is more credible we should think Solomon meant by those words, then that pertaineth to the participation of this table, which Christ himself a Priest and mediator of the new Testament doth exhibit after the order of Melchisedek, of his body and blood? For that sacrifice did succeed all other sacrifices of the old Testament, which were offered in the shadow of this to come. A little before in the same chapter speaking of the Table which Christ prepared with bread and wine, he giveth an evident testimony for the Sacrifice and Priesthood after th'order of Melchisedek, where he saith thus, Vbi apparet etiam f●cerdotiū secundum ordinem Melchisedech, that is to say, where also appeareth the priesthood after the order of Melchisedek. By this authority it is clear, that Christ at the table, where the blessed Sacrament was first instituted, and is now daily celebrated in memory of his Passion, doth exhibit that which is a sacrifice after the order of Melchisedech, which can be nothing else, but the Sacrifice of his body and blood under the forms of bread and wine. That Christ merited the forgiveness, and propitiation of the sins of the world upon the Cross only, that I gladly grant.  
As for the Sacrifice and priesthood after the order of Melchisedech, S. Augustine in an other place saith, 
August. in Psalm. 33. contion 2.  that Christ (at his Supper) instituted a Sacrifice of his body and blood according to the order of Melchisedech. De corpore et sanguine suo, of his body and blood, saith he, signifying his body and blood to be the matter of the Sacrifice. Lo here again it is plainly avouched, that Christ instituted a Sacrifice after the order of Melchisedech before he was nailed upon the Cross, yea the Sacrifice of his body and blood. For to the time of the Supper this is to be referred, when both he taught them how, and commanded them to sacrifice.  
Of this Sacrifice S. Augustine in the sermon there next before, giveth us a manifest testimony, where he saith. Nondum erat Sacrificium corporis & sanguinis Domini, quod fideles norunt, 
Ibidem in Psal. 33. Contion. 1.  & qui evangelium legerunt, quod sacrificium nunc diffusum est toto orb terrarum. The Sacrifice of the body and blood of our Lord was not yet in place (he speaketh of the time when beasts were sacrificed) which the faithful do know, and they that have read the Gospel. Which Sacrifice is now spread abroad in all the world. Let M. jewel tell us, what i● this Sacrifice of the body and blood of our Lord, that is diffused and spread over all the world, besides that is celebrated in the Mass: and then we will say he saith somewhat to his purpose.  
NOw M. jewel departeth from our special point, which is (as it is avouched by S. Ireneus, S. Cyprian and others) that Christ offered his body and blood unto God at his Supper, and commanded the same sacrifice to be offered by Priests of the new Testament in remembrance of his death: and cometh to prove that, whereof no question was moved: That the Ministration of the holy Mysteries in a phrase and manner of speech, is the same Sacrifice. How be it what he meaneth by his ministerlike terms, well I wot not. He showeth himself inconstant in the use of them. In this one Division, he calleth it first, The ministration of the holy Mysteries. next, the Ministration of the holy Communion. Thirdly, the Sacrifice of the holy Communion. For the same he allegeth a certain saying, as he telleth us, out of S. Augustine upon the .20. Psalm, where he hath no such saying at al. The place he meaneth is in Gratian. Where it speaketh not of M. jewels Ministration of the holy Mysteries (which I trow in his meaning is the Ministration of bread and wine at the Gevenian Communion; for what other holy Mysteries they have I know not) nor of the Sacrifice, that is daily celebrated in the Church, but of the solemnity which once in the year upon Maundie thursday, and Good friday, is celebrated with special ceremonies in remembrance of Christ's death and passing out of this mortal life. This Anniversary recordation saith he (for so he calleth it) doth represent that which was once done, 
De Consecrat. distinct. 2. Semel.  and causeth us so to be moved, as if we saw our Lord present on the Crosse.  
Neither noteth the Gloze, upon these words, that you report of it M. jewel, but upon the word immolatur, which is in the next chapter following. For whereas Gratian reciteth S. Augustine speaking thus of the Sacrifice, 
August. epist. 23. ad Bonifacium.  semel immolatus est in semetipso Christus, & tamen quotidie immolatur in sacramento, Christ was once sacrificed in himself, (that is to say) he suffered once in his own person in the form of man) and yet he is daily sacrificed in a Sacrament: upon this last word immolatur, the Gloze, hath noted, that you bring, The Sacrifice, (meaning the bloody Sacrifice upon the Cross) is represented, and a Memory of the Passion is made.  
In the former chapter is declared, what is done at one certain time in the year, touching the representation, and remembrance of Christ's passion, in the next, what is done daily. M. jewel having alleged the first, applieth unto it, the gloze of the second. And all is quite besides his purpose. For how hangeth this Argument together? The Service of the Church in the holy week before Easter, as the reading of the Passion, creeping to the Cross, the salutation of the Cross, and other Ceremonies in old time used in England, and yet used through the whole Catholic Church, do lively represent unto us Christ's Passion: Ergo, the Priest doing that Christ did at his Supper, and that he is commanded to do, doth not offer up his body and blood to God. Logic must needs be good cheap, where such Arguments be made good chaffer.  
And forasmuch as M. jewel himself (who craketh so much of Antiquity, 
M. jewel craveth help of the Gloze, that he calleth Barbarous.  and will all controversies to be tried by the Fathers of the first .600. years) is not a shamed here to crave help of the Common Gloze, which within few lines after he calleth barbarous: as he hath brought it against us, though in deed it be not against us at all: let him patiently suffer us to tell him, what he saw in the same Gloze, in that very place, that is clear against him. 
De Consecrat. Dist. 2. Semel. In Glossa.  In this part of this distinction (saith the Gloze) It is proved, that Christ once having died, can die no more, (yet) the truth of his flesh, and of his blood is always in the Sacrament of the Altar. And there it setteth forth .10. verses declaring the sum of the catholic faith touching the most blessed Sacrament. In which perhaps M. jewel may espy a fault touching the rules of Poetry, but verily touching the rules of faith, he shall find no fault. All containing excellent sense, for avoiding prolixity, to gratify the Reader, here I will rehearse two.  
Clauditur hoc vase nostri pia victima Phase. 
Ibidem.   
Viva salutaris, semel in cruce, semper in aris. Here is enclosed in this vessel the divine host of our Paschal lamb: the host that liveth, that is healthful, that was once on the Cross, and always is on the Altars. Go forth M. jewel, and still for lack of good matter that maketh for you, allege us places, where your heresy is most evidently confuted and condemned.  
Still you harp upon a wrong string, alleging S. Cyprian, and S. Gregory, to disprove that which you feign me to say, or at least mistake me to say, as reporting the words of S. Cyprian. Your part had been to yield, or to show good reason, why you deny Christ, or, (which is all one) Christ's flesh and blood, to be offered up unto God by Priests, 
Luc●. 22.  to whom in the Apostles he said, do ye this in my remembrance. I go not about in this Division to prove, that the Sacrifice is Christ, 
In sacrificio, quod Christus est.  whereof in your own conceit you have stuff to cavil and wrangle, though the same be true, as I told you before: but I allege S. Cyprian to this end, that the Christian Reader should believe, that Christ is the Sacrifice. 
How, and wherewith, is there made in our Mysteries a memory and signification of Christ, and of his death.  For so S. Cyprian precisely englished saith, In the Sacrifice which Christ is, whereof by right construction riseth this Proposition, Christ is the Sacrifice. Which is true, though never so much it be said by some Fathers, that the Passion and Death of Christ is represented in a mysteries both may stand together full well.  
In this Mystery there is a representation I grant, there is a signification, there is a memory or commemoration made of Christ, of his Passion, and of his Sacrifice upon the Cross: but how, and where withal? Figuratively, by imagination, by thinking, by tokens and signs only, or by words of praise and thanks only? Not so. By these, and with these partly, but specially by offering and receiving the same body, that suffered death. So. S. Augustine touching a memory or commemoration, teacheth clearly writing against Faustus the Manichee. Hebraei in victimis pecorum prophetiam celebrabant futurae victimae, 
August. count. Faust. lib. 20. cap. 18.  quam Christus obtulit. unde iam Christiani peracti eiusdem Sacrificij memoriam celebrant sacrosancta oblatione, & participatione corporis & sanguinis Christi. The Hebrews (saith he) in their sacrifices of beasts did celebrate a prophecy of the Sacrifice to come, which Christ offered. The Christians now do delebrate the memory of the same Sacrifice that is past, by the most holy Oblation and participation of Christ's body and blood. Lo, here have you ●he memorie● but withal the Oblation of that very body, whereby the memory of his bloody Sacrifice is celebrated.  

Wherein M. jewel and they of that side, are deceived of ignorance, or of malice deceive other.  You seem to be much deceived in your thoughts, in that you think, that a thing can not be exhibited really and also in a mystery, in a sampler, in an Image, in a commemoration, in a representation, in signification, in figures, signs, and tokens. And where so ever you find in the writings of the Fathers any of these terms, thereof commonly you induce a Conclusion denying the truth of the thing: wherein either you are deceived through ignorance (and then are you very saucy to be so busy in teaching that you understand not) or of very malice you travail all that you can to deceive others, lest you should seem to have craked more in your Challenge, than you are able to maintain.  
Concerning the point itself, do you not remember, that S. Paul doth attribute to the Law, 
Hebr. 10. Image, excludeth not truth.  umbran rerum, the shadow of things, and to the new Testament, Imaginem rerum, an Image of things? If of the affirmation of the Image, you will infer (as your manner is) the negation of the thing itself: shall you not so prepare a way for the heinous heresy of the Arians, who denied the Son of God to be of one substance with God the Father? For though it be most true, that he is so, yet doth not the Scripture call him the Image of the invisible God? 
Coloss. ●.   
Doth not S. Ambrose speaking of the bloody oblation of Christ upon the Cross, call it an Image, in comparison of the true and everlasting Oblation that is in heaven? 
Ambros. of ficiorum libr. 1. c. 48.  Hîc umbra, hîc Imago, illic veritas, & caet. Here (saith he) that is to say, in this world, there is a shadow, here there is an Image, there (in heaven) is the truth. The shadow in the Law, the image in the Gospel, the truth in heaven. Before a lamb was offered, and a Calf, now Christ is offered. But he is offered as man, as receiving Passion, and he offereth himself as being a Priest to remit our sins, here in Image, there in truth, where, with the Father as an Advocate, he maketh intercession for us.  
How say you Sir, if a man would follow the vein of your Logic, whereby you conclude the denial of a real and true Sacrifice in the Mass, because you can bring certain pieces of Doctors sayings reporting a representation, commemoration, and image of it: might he not of this place of S. Ambrose, deny, that Christ was ever offered up and sacrificed upon the Cross truly and in deed, because he saith, he was offered here in Image? And so should not the Devil have a pretty devise to shake the foundation of our faith, and put the simple in doubt, whether the work of our Redemption be yet truly performed or no?  
That S. Cyprian saith, the Sacrifice which we offer, is the Passion of our Lord, 
August. libro sen●ent. Prosperi.  S. Augustine declareth how such sayings are to be understanded. Vocatur ipsa immolatio carnis quae sacerdotis manibus fit, Christi passio, mors, Crucifixio, non rei veritate, sed significant Mysterio. The oblation (saith he) of Christ's flesh which is made in the hands of a Priest, is called the Passion, Death, and crucifying of Christ, not in truth of the thing, but in a Mystery signifying. Which is as much, as if he should say, it is not called passion, death and crucifying, for that Christ dieth or suffereth again, but for that in mystery it reneweth, representeth, signifieth, and putteth us in mind again of his Death and Passion.  

How Christ. dieth again in this Mystery.  Where S. Gregory saith, after that he hath taken away all occasion of gross imaginations, that Christ who dieth no more, but liveth immortally in himself, dieth again in this Mystery, and that his flesh suffereth again for the people's health: 
De Consecrat. Distin. 2. Quid sit. August. Epist. 23. ad Bonifacium.  it is the sooner understanded, what he meaneth, if his Antithesis be considered, which consisteth in these words, in seipso, & in hoc Mysterio, in himself, and in this Mystery. The like whereof we find in S. Augustine before alleged, Christ was once sacrificed in seipso, in himself, and yet he is daily sacrificed in sacramento, in a Sacrament.  
In himself, that is to say, in his visible person, and in the form of man, he dieth no more: yet in this Mystery he dieth again, that is to say, his death is so for our behoof by us to the Father represented, and to us renewed, and the virtue and effect of it is so applied, and transferred unto us: as if he were now presently hanging upon the Crosse. 
De Consecrat. Dist. 2. Quid sit.  Haec salutaris victima illam nobis mortem unigeniti per Mysterium reparat. This healthful sacrifice doth renew unto us the Death of the only begotten by this Mystery, saith S. Gregory in the same place. doth any man ask, wherewithal, and whereby this is done? Verily as it is said before (touching the memory) out of S. Augustine, by the Oblation and participation of the same body, that suffered and died upon the Crosse. For though the pains and violence of Death be not here presently suffered, yet the body that once suffered, 
Ibidem.  is present, and the blood that was shed on the hands of infidels, is now shed into the mouths of the faithful, as S. Gregory himself here saith. And to the working of such a death of Christ again, and of his Passion to our salvation in this Mystery, that is to say, to the repairing and renewing, and applying of the effect of his death unto us, that which is done in this Mystery without violent shedding of blood, is sufficient.  
This doctrine S. Gregory teacheth in other places, whereby he both declareth the virtue of the Mystical Sacrifice, and also expoundeth himself, how that strange Phrase may be understanded, which M. jewel bringeth against the Real and true Sacrifice. 
Gregor. lib. 4. Dialog. cap. 58.  Thus he saith in one place. Haec victima singulariter ab aeterno interitu animam s●l●at, quae illam nobis mortem unigeniti per Mysterium reparat. This Sacrifice doth singularly save the soul from everlasting destruction, which by Mystery reneweth unto us the. Death of Gods only begotten Son. Again in an other place. 
Idem homil. 37.  Quoties ei hostiam suae Passionis offerimus, toties nobis ad absolutionem nostram passionem illius reparamus. As often as we offer up unto him the host (or sacrifice) of his Passion, so often we renew and repair his Passion unto us for our absolution.  
Now then because by this Sacrifice the Death of Christ is renewed and applied unto us, for our absolution and remission of sin (which is the effect of his Death) as if we had been present at the Cross, when he was crucified: therefore S. Gregory was so bold as to say, that Christ living immortally in himself, in this Mystery dieth again. Such Sacrifice, such Death. If the Sacrifice be bloody, than the Death must be bloody, or with shedding of blood. If the Sacrifice be unbloody, 
Unbloody Death.  then is the Death also unbloody, and mystical, that is to say, the effect of his death, as if it were now present. And that there be truly and in proper speech a Sacrifice, it is enough, that the body and blood of Christ being made present by virtue of his word, his Death be so applied unto us to remission of sin, as if he were now a dying.  
And this much may serve for Answer to the heap of your mangled and maimed allegations, that here you have laid so thick together. Whereof not one proveth your purpose, which is, that in S. Cyprians judgement Christ in the celebration of the Supper, is not a Sacrifice in true and proper speech and in deed, but by a figurative speech only, as it is said, the rock was Christ. For though the Fathers use sometimes figuratine speeches, yet thereof it followeth not, that S. Cyprian in this place of his Epistle to Cecilius spoke figuratively, in saying, that Christ is the Sacrifice.  
That he spoke truly, and meant according to the propriety of the speech, it is clear by his own words in the same Epistle. For else having mentioned the Sacrifice of Melchisedech, which consisted of bread and wine, he would never have said these words, Quam rem perficiens & adimplens Dominus panem & calicem mixtum vino obtulit, 
Cypria ad Cecil lib. 2. ep●●stola 3.  & qui est plenitudo, veritatem praefiguratae Imaginis adimplevit. Our Lord offered bread and cup mixed with wine perfecting and fulfilling the thing that Melchisedech did, 
Christ his supp●● fulfilled the figu●● of Melchisedek's  and he that is the fullness, fulfilled the truth of the forefigured Image. Now if Christ at his Supper (for thereof S. Cyprian speaketh) offered not a true Sacrifice of his body and blood in deed, and therefore a true and real Sacrifice, under the forms of bread and wine, but only a sign and figure, or an Image representing his body and blood: How then was he the fullness? How did he fulfil the truth of the forefigured Image? For if all were but a sign and token, 
Fullness 〈◊〉 performance.  memory, or representation, that he offered, then was not he the fullness, neither fulfilled the truth. For signs, if they be only signs, be empty and void of the truth, neither is fullness, but where the very things be present. And by such interpretation, S. Cyprian should make the Sacrifice of Christ at his Supper, no better than that of Melchisedech was, and, which is absurd, the truth of a forefigured image should be but a figure, and fullness should be void of the thing fulfilled.  
How be it to prove the Sacrifice by witness of S. Cyprian, I stayed not myself upon these words, In Sacrificio quod Christus est, 
M. jewel answereth as he thinketh good to a word or two, and leaveth the chief substance unanswered.  specially: but upon the large process of that whole Epistle. Whereof I took what seemed to make good proof of that I intended. And I pray you Sir, why answer you not to the other manifest words? What Sacrifice is that, which, as S. Cyprian saith, Christ first of all offered up unto his Father, and commanded the same to be offered in his remembrance? What Sacrifice is that, in doing whereof the Priest doth the office of Christ truly? What Sacrifice is that, in offering up whereof the Priest doth by imitation, the same thing that Christ did? What is that true and perfit Sacrifice, that he offereth up to God, if he begin to offer right so, as he seeth Christ himself to have offered? If you could have named us any other, besides the Satrifice of the body and blood of Christ, is it to be thought you would have conceeled it to so great hindrance of your cause? That whereby your Challenge is fully answered, and the Catholic Doctrine plainly avouched, you overhip and dissemble: and upon a piece of a sentence by yourself falsified, and by your wrong translation wreathed from S. Cyprians meaning, you bestow many words, and much of your common stuff, which consisteth of your Phrases, piked out of your notebooks, and here without truth or judgement shuffled together   

jewel.  
And that the weakness of M. hardings gheasses may the better appear, understand thou good Christian Reader, that the Holy Catholic Fathers have used to say, that Christ is Sacrificed, not only in the Holy Supper, but also in the Sacrament of Baptism. S. Augustine saith, 
August. exposition inchoate ad Rom.  Holocaustum Dominicae Passionis eo tempore pro se quisque offered, qno eiusdem Passionis Fide dedicatur: The Sacrifice of our lords Passion every man than offereth for himself, when he is Confirmed in the Faith of his Passion. And again, Holocaustum Domini tunc pro unoquoque offertur quodammodo, 
In eod.  cùm eius nomine Baptizando signatur: Then is the Sacrifice of our Lord In a Manner offered for each man, 
In eod.  when in Baptism he is marked with the name of Christ. And again, Non relinquitur Sacrificium pro peccatis: 
Chrysost in epist. a Hebraeos hom. 16 Ambros. de poeni● li. 2. ca 2  id est, non potest denuo Baptizari: There is left no Sacrifice for Sin: that is to say, He can be no more baptized. And in this consideration Chrysostom saith, Baptisma Christi Sanguis Christi est: Christ's Baptism, is Chtistes Blood. And likewise S. Ambrose, In Baptismo Crucifigimus in nobis Filium Dei: In Baptism we Crucify in ourselves the Son of God.   

Harding.  
Concerning the Sacrifice made in Baptism, 
August. i● expositione inchoatae in epistol. ad Rom.  whereof you tell us out of the Ancient Fathers, That every one at that time for his sins offereth up the Burnt sacrifice of our lords Passion, when in the faith of the same Passion he is dedicated, as S. Augustine saith: and that in Baptism we crucify in us the Son of God, as S. Ambrose saith: 
Ambros. de poenit. li. 2. ca 2.  by their own words they teach us to understand this spiritually, and not as the words sound in proper speech. For S. Augustine in that place qualifieth the manner of his utterance, and calleth his reader back from absurd imagination, by this word quodammodo, 
Quodammodo.  as much to say, in a manner. And S. Ambrose likewise saith not simply, that in Baptism we crucify Christ, but that we crucify him in us. Crucifigimus in nobis Filium Dei, We crucify in us the Son of God, saith he. Whereby they mean, that in Baptism we put on Christ, that to sin we die with Christ, and are buried with him into death, and are made conformable to the similitude of his death, and that the effect, virtue, and benefit of his Passion, by Baptism is applied unto us. And because as Moses sprinkled with blood the book of the Old Testament, 
levit. 4.  the Tabernacle, 
Hebr. 9  and the Vessels of ministery, right so Christ with his own Blood cleanseth our minds, which be the books of the New Testament by interpretation of S. Chrysostom, 
Chrysosto. in epist. ad Hebraeos. Homi. 16.  and with the same blood sprinkleth us, who are his Tabernacle for him to dwell in, and to walk in, as he saith himself, and his Vessels to serve him in holy ministries, which great benefit is chief derived unto us in Baptism: In consideration hereof, forasmuch as upon the Cross only his precious blood ran out of his body, and then was he in himself sacrificed: these Fathers feared not to say, 
* Ambros.  the one, that in Baptism we crucify in us the Son of God, 
* August.  the other, that when we are baptised, we offer up the Burnt sacrifice of his Passion.  
To conclude then, if certain Fathers in a figurative speech, and with a qualification say, that when one is baptised, he offereth up the Sacrifice of Christ's Passion, or that in himself he crucifieth Christ, which is true in a right sense: M. jewel may not thereof conclude, that Christ at the celebration of the Supper is not truly offered. For if he reason thus, Christ is after a manner offered of us, when we are baptised, Ergo, he is not offered of the Priest in the Sacrament of the Altar. 
M. jew setteth one tru● against a● other.  Forasmuch as in Baptism he is only by grace, and in the blessed Sacrament really, and in substance: Every man of mean understanding may soon espy the fondness of the Argument. But not being able directly to impugn this assured truth, he maketh such a proffer towards it as he can, by setting one truth against an other truth.    

The .11. Division.  

The Answer.  
OUR adversaries crack much of the sealing up of their new Doctrine with the Blood of such and such, who be written in the book of lies, not in the book of life, whom they will needs to be called Martyrs. Verily if those Mounkes, and Friars, Apostates, and renegates, wedded to wives, or rather (to use their own term) yoked to Sisters, be true Martyrs. then must our New Gospelers pull these Holy Fathers, and many thousands more out of Heaven. For certainly the Faith, in Defence of which either sort died, is utterly contrary. The worst that I wish to them is, that God give them eyes to see, and ears to hear, and that he shut not up their hearts, so as they see not the light here, 
Math. 25  until they be thrown away into the outward darkness, where shallbe weeping and grintinge of teeth.   

jewel.  
This talk was utterly out of season: saving that it liked well M. Harding, to sport himself with the Scriptures of God, and a little to scoff at the words of S. Paul. 
1. Cor. 9  Which thing becoming him so well, may be the better borne withal, 
Philip. 4.  when it shall please him likewise to scoff at others. S. Paul calleth wives, 
Heb. 13.  sometimes Sisters, sometimes Yokefellows: and thinketh Matrimony to be Honourable in all persons: 
1. Timo. 4.  and the forbidding of the same to be the Doctrine of Devils. Neither doth it any way appear, that ever honest godly Matrimony either displeased God, or was thought uncomely for a Martyr, and witness of God's Truth.   

Harding.  
Here M. jewel you leave my Conclusion, and being grieved with certain terms, you show yourself much offended, and far as if your soar were touched in the quick. But sir, what need you of all the Gospelers, to take this matter so hot? You are not yet married pardy. Marry if perhaps your fancy lie to a woman, and you determine to take her to your wife, well moat you do, God send you good luck, I intend not to forbid your Banes.  

M jewel here digresseth from the purpose into a common place, to defend priests Marriages  But what meant you in this place to unlade your common stuff, that you have gathered together in defence of priests marriage? What just occasion had you to treat thereof? What, feared you that the bulk of your book would not arise huge enough, unless you brought unto it such heaps of unnecessary common places? Or thought you rather, that your companions marriages should be taken, as they be in deed, for detestable whoredom, and abominable incest, except they were by you defended? Or brought you in all this unceasonable talk, only to please your fellows the Apostates, and their strumpets? Verily the term, yoked to Sisters, which is a badge of your own livery, used by me as it were by the way, speaking of an other matter, ministered not sufficient occasion to enter into so large a discourse in defence of your filthy yokinges.  
Why did you not rather reprove me for calling the Registre of your stinking Martyrs, the book of lies? Why did you not prove your Lecherours married Monks, and Friars, the chief Apostles of your Synagogue, not to be Apostates? Why answered you not the point, that if they be true Martyrs, then must you pull those holy Fathers, whom I alleged for the Sacrifice, out of heaven? For both can not be placed there, the faith in defence whereof either sort died, being quite contrary. This part of my talk was not all together out of season.  
And wherein I pray you do I sport with the Scriptures, and scoff at the words of S. Paul, for therewith you burden me. What, because having said of your Monks, and Friars, that they were wedded to wives I corrected my term, saying rather (to use your own manner of speech) that they were yoked to sisters, is this sporting with the Scriptures of God? Is this scoffing at S. Paul's words? You should first have proved your Apostates strumpets to be their lawful wives, and then might you better have framed an objection against me. Now that practice being contrary to the Scripture, which commandeth vows to be kept and performed, 
Psal. 75.  what Scripture have ye for such yoking? What relief have ye for it of S. Paul?  
Though in deed faithful and godly wives be together with us that believe, the children of God, and in the primitive Church the name of Brother and Sister was common among the believers, yet how prove you, that S. Paul calleth wives, sometimes Sisters, sometimes yokefellows? Is it not shame for you, who profess so great skill in the Latin tongue, and have such a helper at hand for the Greek tongue, to ground yourself upon the corrupt translation of your English Bible?  
Were it true that S. Paul called wives sometimes Sisters, sometimes Yokefelowes, for which ye have nothing to allege, but the English Bible's translation: yet how are ye able to prove the yoking that is between your blessed Brothers and Sisters, that is to say, between your holy Prelates, Priests, Monks, Friars and nuns, who have bound themselves by solemn vow to the contrary, to be true wedlock?  

What meant S. Paul by A sister woman. 1. Cor. 9  By you quotation you appoint your Reader to the .9. Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians. What is there, that maketh for you? S. Paul saith, Have not we power to lead about a sister woman with us, as the other Apostles, and the brethren of our Lord, and Cephas? What meaneth he by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
August. li. de opere Monachorun. cap. 4. Ambro. in comen. Theophyl. in comen. Hiero. contra jovin. lib. 1.  sororem mulierem, a Sister woman, but a faithful or a Christian woman? For as the men that believed were called Brothers, so the women were called Sisters. As for your Translator, who turneth it, a Sister to Wife, whether for the Greek he have delivered true English or no, let other judge, certainly he hath delivered us a false sense. For, as S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, the Greek Scholies, and Theophylacte, and specially S. Jerome do expound the place, S. Paul meaneth not, that the Apostles carried their own wives about with them, where so ever they preached: but that certain devout faithful women, having worldly substance, desirous to hear our lords doctrine, and to lead a holy life, went about with them, and ministered unto them both sustenance of their goods, and also necessary services, that they should have care of nothing, but only attend the work of preaching. Wherein the Apostles followed the example of Christ. For likewise when he went about and preached, certain holy women went with him from Galiley, 
Luc. 8.  who of their goods ministered unto him what was necessary, namely Marry Maudelen, joan wife to Chusa Herod's steward, Susanna, and many others. This S. Paul saith was lawful for him to do being an Apostle, as the other Apostles did, but yet he telleth that he would not use that liberty.  
Some not understanding this saith Augustine (of whom M. jewel seemeth to be one, 
August. li de opere Monacho.  if it be not malice of his part, and not only ignorance) for Sororem mulierem, a Sister woman, have interpreted sororem uxorem, a sister wife, or, as the English Translation hath, a Sister to Wi●e. The ambiguity of the Greek word hath deceived them (saith he) because in Greek a wife, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and a woman, is named by one word. Lo M. jewel here is your wife that S. Paul speaketh of, become, not a wife precisely, but a woman, and the same a Sister, not in respect of dearness of blood, but of faith, for that she is a Christian.  
By this we learn, what credit is to be given unto the chief Masters of this new Gospel in the time of King Edward the sixth, 
Printed by Richard lug.  who in the new Testament perused (as in the same book we find) by the commandment of the King and the Council, and by them authorized, upon this place of S. Paul have at the end of the Chapter put in this Note. By this saying of S. Paul we have a full instruction, that the Apostles did carry about their wives with them. By this Note, we have a full instruction, that the translators of the Bible, and the makers of such Notes, were false hartlots.  
As for the Yokefelow, to whom S. Paul in the Epistle to the Philippians commendeth the women that laboured with him in the Gospel, 
Philip. 4.  that thereby is signified S. Paul's wife, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 German Compar. Ambro. in 2. Cor. 11. Hiero. contra jovin. Epiphan. haeresi. 58. Chryso. in comen. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Compar.  besides that ye have neither reason for it, nor the propriety of the Greek tongue clearly bearing it: it is gainsaid by S. Chrysostom, Theophylacte, and the Author of the Greek Scholies in the same place, and by S. Ambrose, and S. Hierom, and Epiphanius otherwheres, who deny utterly, that he had a wife. The author of the brief commentaries upon S. Paul's Epistles printed with S. Hieromes works, is of the opinion, that this Yokefelow, to whom S. Paul speaketh, was a man, named Germanus in Latin, which in Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and the Greek Scholiast judgeth (which S. Chrysostom also noteth) that his name was Syzygus, in Greek, that Lyra be not altogether laughed to scorn, for thinking that his name was Compar in Latin.  
Whereas then these ancient learned Fathers liked not the interpretation of certain before their time, that thought S. Paul in that Epistle to speak to his wife, upon good warrant of their construction we may be bold to tell M. jewel, and M. Erasmus, whom always it liked well upon the least occasion that was offered him, to serve from the received exposition of the Scriptures: that in the said place S. Paul spoke to no Yokefelow wo●man, but to a Yokefelow man, 
Yoke-fellow ma●  and that they are deceived in expounding it of S. Paul's wife, who by evident likelihod gathered of his own words, 
1. Cor. ●  and by judgement of all the old Fathers in manner, (Clement of Alexandria except) never had wife.  
Seeing therefore Monks, 
The wisdom of the wived Apo●states.  Friars and Priests that be wyved, can not truly call their women wives, being in deed no wives, but strompetes: they do wisely (according to the wisdom of such a generation) to put upon so filthy a thing, the clean name of a Sister, or of a Yokefelow, that whereas the marriage itself is nought, yea detestable Sacrilege, and therefore of right they themselves should be called sacrilegious adulterers, and their women sacrilegious harlots: yet by allurement of an honest name women might be content to yoke with them, which, if they were called by their true names, would never be induced to be made instruments of so open abomination.  
And where S. Paul saith of matrimony (as you reporth him) that it is honourable, 
Heb. 13. This word, Al, many times in Scripture admitteth exception of many.  in all persons, he meaneth not absolutely all (for yourself I trow will except it between Father and daughter, brother and sister, and such as have impediments of nature) but only those persons, for whom it is lawful, convenient, and godly to marry. The case of a solemn vow maketh matrimony otherwise lawful and honourable of itself, to those that have made such vow to the contrary, unlawful and reproachful. Neither may we think always none to be excluded, where the Scripture in term includeth al. For though it say, that Christ doth illuminat (omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum) 
joan. 1.  every man that cometh into this world, and that God will (omnes homines saluos fieri) all men to be saved, 
1. Tim. 2.  and though Christ say in the Gospel, all, even as many, as came afore me are thieves and robbers: 
joan. 10.  yet certain it is, that many remain in darkness, 
Math. 20.  and that (many being called and few chosen) more shall be damned then saved, and that the patriarchs, Moses, and the Prophets, who came afore Christ was incarnate, were Gods true friends, and faithful servants.  

S. Paul's words duly examined, make not maritage lawful for all without exception.  Furthermore touching this place of S. Paul by them of your sect so commonly alleged in defence of priests Marriages, what have you to answer, if it be denied, the blessed Apostle to say, as you report him? The best learned Fathers, who have expounded that Epistle, judge that saying to be an exhortation to persons already married, that they keep their wedlock in chastity and honesty, and defile not their wedlock bed with unworthy wantonness. And so after their judgement, for as much as the verb est, is, is not in S. Paul, neither in the Greek, nor in the Latin (for his saying is, honorabile in omnibus) and the circumstance of the place so beareth it, in which diverse things be uttered by way of exhortation: the saying is not to be pronounced indicatively, but exhortatively, Let wedlock be honourable in all (married persons) and (let) their bed be undefiled. 
Heb. 13.  Thus it is made clear, how little relief S. Paul by this sentence bringeth to the defence of your sacrilegious Apostates incestuous and abominable yokinges● bear with your own term, for Matrimony, or wedlock it is not, neither is the same a convenient term for such filth.  
But S. Paul say you, 
1. Tim. 4.  calleth the forbidding of Matrimony the doctrine of Devils. I answer. To forbid Matrimony in general, 
In what sense S. Paul calleth the forbidding of Marriage, the doctrine of Devils.  and to condemn marriage in all persons, of what estate or degree so ever they be, as Tatianus the Heretic did, and the Eucratites that followed him, who said that Marriages were of the Devil, and were no better than fornications, and therefore admitted none to their Communion that were married, men or women: this is the doctrine of Devils. Of these, and such others, as the Manichees and Marcionites, S. Paul is to be understanded. To forbid the Marriages of Votaries, as Monks, Friars, Priests and nuns, who by solemn vow for God's sake have bereaved themselves of the common liberty: this is not the doctrine of Devils, but of God, and the permitting of Marriage to such persons, is the doctrine of Beelzebub the Prince of Devils.  
lastly, if no man ever said, that honest and godly Matrimony displeased God, if the same were never thought uncomely for a Martyr, whom charge you with that odious saying? As certain it is, that many a good married man and woman is a holy Saint in heaven: so ye will never be able to show us, that your yoking of Votaries unto such as ye call Sisters, was ever in Christ's Church accounted for godly or honest Matrimony, or that a Vowebreaker was ever taken before God, or good man, for a comely Martyr, or witness of God's truth, unless having loosed himself from his unlawful yoke-fellow, he repented truly of his sin, and so by penance were restored unto the state of grace.   

jewel.  

Ignat. ad Philadelp. Euseb. lib. 3. cap. 30. Clemens Stromat. lib. 7.  S. Paul was Married, as it appeareth by Ignatius, Clemens, Eusebius: and yet nevertheless was a martyr. S. Peter, the chief of the Apostles had a wife: and yet nevertheless stood by, and gave her comfort, and constancy at her martyrdom. The twelve Apostles, saith S. Ambrose, only S. john excepted, were all married: and yet nevertheless, the same S. john only excepted, as it is thought, were all Martyrs. Spiridion was a married Bishop: and yet as Sozomenus writeth, he was thereby nothing hindered, 
Euseb. li● 3. cap. 30. Ambros. in 2. ad Cor. ca 11. Sozomen. lib. 1. ca 11 Ad res divinas nibilo deterior.  neither to discharge his duty, nor to any other godly purpose. Tertullian was a Priest, as appeareth by S. Jerome: and Married, as appeareth by his own Book written to his Wife: and yet notwithstanding, as some report, was a Martyr. S. Hilary was a Reverend Father, and Bishop of Poitiers, and yet Married, as may be gathered by his Epistle written to his daughter Abra.   

Harding.  
Soft M. jewel, doubtful points, flat lies, and true tales, must not be so shuffled together. First touching S. Paul, that he was a Martyr, true it is, but that he was married, if it be not utterly false, yet it is very uncertain, 
whether S. Paul were married.  and more than unlikely. Very probable it is, that he was not married: for so to think of him, his own words do lead us, where he saith, Volo omnes homines esse sicut meipsum. 
1. Cor. 7.  My will is, that all men were, 
Ibidem.  as I am myself. And again, I say unto the unmarried, and unto the widows, it is good for them, if they continue so as I do. Of these later words, how can you make any literal sense probable, 
Epiphan. contra Valesios' hear si. 58.  except S. Paul abstained from marriage, or else were a widower? Truly Epiphanius allegeth them for proof that S. Paul was a Virgin.  
It is clear by S. Ambrose, 
Ambros. in exhortatione advirgines.  that he was never married. For thus he saith, speaking to virgins, and exhorting them to the continency of S. Paul: Volo vos imitatrices esse tanti Apostoli, ut vitam eius sequamini, qui coniugij vinculum refugit, ut vinctus esset Christi jesu. Non potuisset ad tantam Apostolatus sui pervenire gratiam, si fuisset alligatus coniugij contubernio. I will you to be the followers of so great an Apostle, that ye follow his life, who eschewed the band of wedlock, that he might be the bound prisoner of Christ jesus. He could not have come unto so great grace of his Apostleship, if he had been tied unto the fellowship of wedlock.  
S. Augustine seemeth to be of the same opinion, 
August. de gratia & lib. arbit. cap. 4.  whose words these be. Doctor Gentium & pudicitiam coniugalem, per quam non fiunt adulteria, & perfectiorem continentiam, per quam nullus concubitus quaeritur, sermone suo commendans, & hoc donum Dei esse monstrat, scribens ad Corinthios & admonens coniuges, 
1. Cor. 7.  ne se invicem fraudent: quos cùm admonuisset, adiecit Vellem autem omnes homines esse sicut meipsum: quia utique ipse ab omni concubitu continebat. S. Paul, the Doctor of the Gentiles commending with his word both the chastity of wedlock, through which adulteries be not done, and the perfecter continency by which no carnal act is sought, showeth this also to be the gift of God writing to the Corinthians, 
Vide Augustin, in lib. De bono coniug. ca 10.  and admonishing married persons, that they withdraw not duty the one from the other. And having admonished them, he saith further: but I would feign all men were as I myself am: 
Ambros. de virgin. lib. 3. ad finem.  because certainly he abstained from all carnal act.  
S. Ambrose in an other place acknowledgeth S. Paul's virginity, saying thus unto Virgins. Vivificet vos Paulus qui vos praecepit honorari, qui ait: bonum est si sic maneant sicut & ego. honore provocat, magisterio docet, invitat ex●emplo. Let Paul quicken you, who commanded you to be honoured, who saith: It is good, if they contitinue so as I do. He stirreth you (thereto) with honour, he teacheth with his doctorship, he inviteth you by his example.  
What shall we say then to S. Ignatius, Eusebius, and Clemens Alexandrinus, by whom it appeareth that S. Paul was married? S. Ignatius is corrupted by them that would all votaries and religious persons to marry. For the old written copies have not S. Paul's name in the Epistle ad Philadelphienses, which for that purpose is alleged. For sufficient credit hereof I report me to the ancient copies, that be in sundry places, and specially to that of Maudelen Colleges library in Oxford in my time much viewed of learned men for trial of the same point. As for Eusebius, 
Euseb. hist. Eccles. lib. 3. cap. 30.  he doth but recite the words of Clemens. that he so thought himself of S. Paul, it doth not any way appear. Only then Clemens remaineth of all the Antiquity, that saith S. Paul had a wife. And the same he gathereth of the uncertain place that is in the Epistle to the Philippians, 
Philip. 4.  rogo te germane compar, where the Greek hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and of the .9. chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, wherein he is not allowed of the best learned Fathers.  

Epiphan: contra Valesios'. Haeres. 58.  If this matter should be weighed by the authority of the Fathers, how shall Clemens alone stand in balance against S. Chrysostom, Epiphanius, S. Ambrose, S Jerome, S. Augustine, and Theophilacte, which all except Epiphanius and Theophylact, by verdict of your own great Rabbi Peter Martyr himself, 
Pet. Martyr in Comment. in 1. Epist. ad Cor. cap. 9  be touching this point contrary to Clemens? S. Jerome saith, Non sunt audiendi, qui eum uxorem habuisse confingunt. They are not to be heard, which feign of their own head, that S. Paul had a wife. Theophylacte is not a feared to say, those which said that S. Paul exhorted his wife, 
Hieron. ad Eust. de Virg. Theophilact. In Epist. ad Philip. cap. 4.  when he wrote those words, I beseech thee also my faithful yoke-fellow etc. to be deceived. his words be these. Some who be deceived, say, that Paul exhorteth his wife. But it is far otherwise. S. Chrysostom upon the same place, saith much like.  
That S. Peter (whom you call the Chief of the Apostles, whereat I marvel) had once a wife, 
A ●la●te and an impudently of M. jewels.  it is clear by the Scripture, in which mention is made of his mother in law. But that you report of S. Ambrose, that he should say, that the twelve Apostles, only S. john excepted, were all married, 
Lucae. 4.  it is a flat and an impudent lie. Whether it be a lie or no, let the book be a trial. S. Ambroses' very words be these. Omnes Apostoli exceptis joanne & Paulo uxores habuerunt. What is that in plain english, but this, All the Apostles had wives except john and Paul? Is it one thing M. jewel to say, only john excepted, and except john and Paul? S. Paul's name you thought best to nip away, lest you should destroy that you builded up a little before out of Clemens.  
But although S. Peter, and other Apostles had once wives, yet S. Jerome of the Scripture gathereth, that after they were called to Apostleship, they forsook the company of their wives, 
Hierony. contra jovin. lib. 1.  and lived the single life. Thus he saith, Petrus & caeteri Apostoli, etc. Peter and the other Apostles had wives I grant: but such, as they had taken at that time, when they knew not the Gospel. Afterward being assumpted unto the Apostleship, they left the office of wedlock. For whereas Peter said to our Lord in the person of the Apostles, 
Math. 19  Behold, we forsake all things, and have followed thee: our Lord answered him: Verily I say unto you, that there is no man that hath forsaken, house, Father and Mother, or brothers, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of heavens sake, but he shall receive much more in this world, and in the world to come life everlasting. It appeareth by the answer of our Lord, that S. Peter saying, he, and the rest of the Apostles had forsaken all things, meant that they had forsaken, and given over the company of their wives. Which maketh altogether against M. jewels carnal Doctrine, uttered here in favour of his fleshly companions, our Apostates, the chief Prelates of their new Synagogue. S. Augustine saith, that the Apostles made this vow, to forsake wives and altogether. 
August. de civita. Dei li. 17. c. 4.  Hoc votum potentissimi voverant. They mightiest of all (so there he calleth the Apostles) had vowed this vow.  

Spiridion.  Spiridion was a married Bishop, that is to say, made a Bishop after that he had been married, but neither he, nor any else was ever lawfully married after that he had been Bishop or Priest. That he was thereby made never the worse touching gods service (so saith Sozomenus of him) it is reported for a strange thing. As though a Bishop to have a wife and children, 
Sozomenus li. 1. ca 11.  (as of Spiridion it is written) and yet to do his duty to Godward nevertheless, it were in manner to be holden for a miracle, or at least for a special grace of God.  
How be it I trow, if Sozomenus words be exactly construed, they shall not seem so much to import, that Spiridion was a married Bishop, which you say of him, as that he had been a married man, and had once had wife and children. For the Greek word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whereby may be signified indeterminately, that he had been, and not only that he was so, being a Bishop. That he had his wife living, when he was a Bishop, sure I am Sozomenus saith it not. And though he said it, yet maketh it nothing for your marriage of Priests, and votaries. He saith that Spiridion had been a man that 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  lived by husbandry, having wife and children. Now as wisemen think not, that he continued his tillage of ground, and feeding of catail, after that he was called to be Bishop of Trimythus a City of Cyprus, but that he came into the City, and there attended his spiritual charge in tilling and feeding souls committed to his government: so there is nothing spoken by Sozomenus, that forceth this opinion, that he had his wife being Bishop. Which being so, it was more boldly, then assuredly by learning of you said, that Spiridion was a married Bishop.  
By this place of Sozomenus you may as well prove, that ploughmen and shepherds may be Bishops (wherein I will not greatly strive with you, if you commend unto us such as Spiridion was) or that Bishops may be ploughmen and shepherds: as that Bishops may be married men. Yet I wish ye would not forget, that we deny not, but that in the Primitive Church Married men were made Bishops: but that ever in the Catholic Church any man, after he was made Bishop, was married, that do we utterly deny.  
And whereas Sozomenus saith of Spiridion by way of correction, tamen ad res divinas nihilo deterior erat, and yet for all that he was never a whit the worse disposed toward the service of God, which you have noted: the same may be spoken as well in respect that he was a man that exercised Husbandry, as that he was married. For both the toil of Husbandry, and the care of wife and children, and specially both these together, be some lets to the quiet liberty of God's service. So that of Sozomenus by you alleged ye get no certain relief at al. 
Fol. 77.  This very place you bring for priests marriages in your Apology, if it be yours. What I have answered unto it: the Reader may see in my Confutation of the same.  

Tertullian  As for Tertullian, that he had a wife, and was a Priest, as no man denieth, so it helpeth nothing toward the defence of your Vowebreakers incestuous marriages. One ancient example of a Priest lawfully married after holy orders taken, had relieved your cause more, than all this number of married Apostles, Bishops, and Priests. If ye can find none such, as we know ye can not: bewray not the weakness of your cause by oft telling us of that all the world knoweth, 
Tertullian no Martyr.  and yourself see, it served not your turn. 
Rhenan. in vita Tert. M. jewel is very saucy with S. Hilare, appointing him a wife, where as he had never none.  That your Doctor Regino maketh him a Martyr, he took more upon him, than he was able to justify. Had he been a Martyr, S. Jerome, who favoured him so greatly, writing his life would not have omitted it. Therefore Beatus Rhenanus believeth it not, and thinketh the Martyr was an other man of that name.  
But I marvel how you durst be so saucy with that reverend Father, and constant Bishop S. Hilary, as to appoint him a wife, and to place him in the rank of Married Priests. Can not your filthy yoking of Votaries be defended, but with filthy lying? Wath learned man ever said or wrote, 
The forged Epistle of S. Hilary to Abra his daughter.  that S. Hilary had a wife? Touching the foolish Epistle that you allege written to Abra his daughter, had ye not been very needy of good stuff, and imprudent in facing out a bad matter: ye would never for shame have mentioned such a fond forged writing. Neither can you plead ignorance for your excuse. For, that no man should be deceived with the Inscription of the Epistle, hath not Erasmus there given a plain warning of it? Be not these words set before the beginning of it? 
Inter opera Hilarij  Haec Epistola merum est nugamentum hominis ociosè indocti? What is this to say, but, This Epistle is a tale of a tub written by some daw that witted not how to spend his time? And now a Gods name it must be alleged in great sadness by this worthy superintendant, to make good the abominable marriages of Priests, Monks, Friars, and nuns. As well he might have alleged for them the book of Bevys of Southampton, or of Guy of Warwick, or the Song of Robin Hood. But thanks be to God, who revealeth to the world, with what rags they cover their unclean treachery.   

jewel.  
And to leave infinite others, S. Chrysostom saith, 
Chrysost. in epist. ad Ti● Homi. 2.  Ita pretiosa res est Matrimonium, ut possis cum eo ad Sanctum Episcopatus Solium subvehi. Vtere moderatè nuptijs, & eris primus in Regno Coelorum. So precious a thing is matrimony, that with the same thou mayst be promoted even unto the bishops Chaire-Vse Marriage with discretion, 
In epist. ad Hebr. Homi. 7.  and thou shalt be the Chief in the Kingdom of Heaven. S. Jerome saith, Hodiè quoque plurimi Sacerdotes habent Matrimonia: Even now a great number of Priests live in Matrimony. Thus the Apostles of Christ, and many other Learned Fathers, 
Hierony. contra iovinianum.  and godly bishops were married, and, as M. harding saith, in his mirth, and pleasance, had their Sisters, and yoke fellows. But how, and with what Sisters, or Fellows, a great number of the Wivelesse sort of M. hardings side be yokte, for very regard of honesty, it may not be uttered.   

Harding.  
Say not M. jewel, to leave infinite others. Your ambition is such, and your cause so weak, that if ye had others, ye would not be so squeamish to bring them forth. Now these two will help your need nothing at al. S. Chrysostom upon the saying of S. Paul to Tite, 
Chrysosto. in 1. ca ad Titum. homil. 2.  that a Bishop ought to be without crime, the husband of one wife, hath these words being truly translated. The Apostle stoppeth the mouths of Heretics which condemn Marriage, showing that it is not an unclean thing, but so reverent, that with the same a man may ascend unto the holy Throne, by that he meaneth the state of a Bishop. It followeth there further. And herewith he chastiseth and restraineth the unchaste persons, not permitting them who have twice married, to attain such room. For whereas he keepeth no benevolence towards his wife deceased, how can he be a good governor? etc. Thus S. Chrysostom.  
Ye do well to make much of a little. And what little is that? Is it any other thing, than we always have acknowledged, and granted unto you, that a married man may be made a Bishop, and that by God's express word marriage is not of itself a let, but that therewith a man may be promoted unto the holy state of a Bishop? Is there any more for you in this place of S. Chrysostom? Come to the point M. jewel. You and your fellows have uttered many hot words by mouth and pen against us, as though we followed the Cerdonistes, Marcionistes, Manichees, Tacians, Severians, and other old pestilent heretics, who condemned marriage, as a thing unclean and displeasing God. But how oftentimes have ye been told by us, that we are far from that wicked opinion? who is ignorant how much the Catholics have written and preached in praise and commendation of lawful and Godly wedlock? Is it not well known, that we give unto it a far more honour than ye do? For do we not honour it with the name of a holy Sacrament, whereas ye call it but a state of life?  
The point whereabout we vary, 
The state of the question touching marriage.  is this. Ye hold that is is lawful for all persons to marry, be they Priests, Monks, Friars, nuns, or of what state or degree so ever they be. We say, that as it was lawful for such persons to mary before they promised God to live the single life, and bound themself thereto by solemn vow: so after the vow duly made, that it is unlawful. We stand upon the negative with the Church of Christ, ye affirm, and say much, but to the purpose ye prove nothing. And as for this place of S. Chrysostom, how can ye use it to any relief of your cause? Shall this be your Argument, With Matrimony a man may be promoted to the state of a Bishop: Ergo, a Bishop having made a solemn vow to lead the single life, may take a wife, and be married? If this be not your Argument, what else can ye make of it? If ye have no better Arguments than this, ye may not be angry with them, that shall call your yokefellowes, Queans, and your children, bastards. verily all the burgesses of your parliaments, with the help of all your brethren, shall never make them, honest wives, nor these, true begotten.  
And here remember M. jewel, that as the first part of this saying of S. Chrysostom, which you allege for you, maketh nothing for your Marriage of Votaries: so the later part is altogether contrary to the procedings of your fleshly fellows. For it condemneth utterly their filthy bigamy, or second yoking. Some of your companions, who being Priests, and religious, and usurping the room of a Bishop (not far from Sarisburie) as you do, being old of years, but full of lust, who for chastity's sake (and God wot for none other cause) their former old queans being departed this life, have yoked unto them young strumpets, contrary to S. Chrysostom, and also to S. Paul S. after Chrysostom's judgement, would (I dare say) give you hearty thanks, and well reward you too, if you could defend their second yoking. How I may term it, I know not. For I trow it ought not to be called Bigamy, sithence the first yoking was not marriage. For a fuller answer to all this brought here our of S. Chrysostom, I refer the Reader to my Confutation of the Apology, 
In the confutation Fol. 75. etc.  where this Replier hath set forth the matter for priests Marriage, and furnished it with the same stuff. If the Apology be not his workmanship, I cry him mercy. Verily I am persuaded, and so be many more, that this ambitious Reply, and that rash Apology, be eggs of one hens laying. 
Chrysost. in epist. ad Hebraeos hom. 7.   
Well let us see other your best stuff. Use marriage with discretion (saith S. Chrysostom by you alleged) and thou shalt be the Chief in the kingdom of heaven. Why sir, what availeth this to the justifying and making good of the incestuous contract between men and women of your sects, that have vowed chastity? As for example, what helpeth this the case of Martin Luther the Austen Friar, who yoked himself to Caterin Bore the Nun of Nymick in Saxony, or of your great friend and Master, 
Peter Martyr yoked in evangelical wedlock to dame Caterin the Nun of Metz.  Peter Martyr the regular canon of S. Augustine's order, who likewise yoked himself unto Dame Catherine the Nun of Metz in Lorraine, that stolen out of her cloister by night, and ran away with an honest man's wife of Metz to Strasburg, which honest man's wife married to Emanuel the jew (that afterward came to Cambridge, and there read an Hebrew lesson) her husband being a live, 
Emannel the jew to the Regesters' wife of Metz her husband living.  as he told me the tale himself with weeping eyes at Metz, as I passed toward Italy through Lorraine.  
Whereas ye make S. Paul to say, that matrimony is honourable in all persons, I judge ye will say, it was not very honourable in these two persons. And yet forsooth it was allowed for good among your holy brethren of Strasburg, because the true husband was a Papist. Moreover touching this saying of S. Chrysostom●, how can they use marriage moderately, and with discretion, between whom it was unlawful, and wicked from the beginning?  
In the last place, as an authority of greatest force, to knit up the knot of the Vowebreakers marriages, S. Hieromes record is alleged. But o Lord, out of which work of his is it alleged! Even out of the first book against jovinian the heretic, defending the sacrilegious wedlock of wived Monks, and husbanded nuns, as M. jew. now doth. What mayst thou (good Reader) more wonder at in this superintendant? His impudency, that is not a shamed to name S. Hierom, as though he spoke any word for the maintenance of Votaries wedlocks, who of set purpose most vehemently and learnedly wrote against them, and against jovinian the great patron of the same: or his crafty wickedness, that would so beguile the simple and unlearned Reader with the authority of so holy and so ancient a Father, dissembling the argument whereof he treated, which being disclosed, it is easily perceived, how little he furthereth such abominable bargains?.  
But some will say. Be not the words alleged by M. jewel to be found in S. Jerome? I grant they are found. So the words that Satan tempted our Saviour withal, 
Math. 4.  are found in the Scripture. Yet were they not truly alleged. 
Psal. 90.  It is not hard to peek a few words out of any writer, which being s●t alone may seem to sound against some truth, yea against the writers principal intent. How beit the words that be here alleged out of S. Hierom, be neither against the writer's purpose, nor for M. jewels purpose. For only they prove, that the custom of promoting married men to be Priests, was not quite grown out of use in S. Hieromes time. For though he say, that in his days Priests were made of married men, yet he seemeth not to mean, that they used to company in bed with wives. Thereof thus he writeth in the same book. 
Hieron. adversus jovinian. lib. 1.  Si laicus & quicunque fidelis orare non potest, nisi careat officio coniugali, Sacerdoti, cui semper pro populo offerend● sunt sacrificia, semper orandum est. Si semper orandum est, ergo semper carendum est matrimonio. If one of the laity, or any faithful person who so ever he be, can not pray (that is to say, can not give himself wholly to prayer, as when he receiveth our lords body, for thereof he speaketh specially) unless he cease from the duty of wedlock: a Priest by whom Sacrifices must always be offered up for the people, must always pray. If he must always pray, then must he always be without matrimony, that is, without the work of matrimony.  
Thus thou seest good Reader, how evident and strong a truth it is, that he who hath ones vowed chastity, as Priests in the West Church, Monks, Friars, and nuns have done, can not lawfully go back to Marriage, and that M. jewel going about to prove the contrary, that is to ●ay, that they may marry, is not able to bring one example of the Primitive Church, nor one testimony of any ancient writer, that maketh directly, or by necessary sequel for that purpose, But diverting from the point of the question, he allegeth places and testimonies to prove, that married men were at the beginning made Priests and Bishops (as we grant they were, for lack of others so meet as they were for that function) being a truth denied by no man: and can not bring one example of the old Church, sentence, or piece of sentence, whereby it may clearly appear, that any man was ever first made Priest, and afterward married, and was allowed for so doing.   

jewel.  
Epiphanius writeth thus of certain of his time, Repudiant nuptias, at non libidinem. 
Epiphan. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  In honore enim apud illos est, non sancti●as, ●ed Hypocris●s● They re●use Marriage, no● 〈…〉. For they esteem not Holiness, but Hypocrisy. Who seeth not, that in the 〈…〉 ●●witstandinge they be utterly forbidden to have wives, yet are easily allowed to have Concubines? They themselves have confessed it by these words unto the world: Etiam in hac urbe Romana meretrices, ut Matronae incedunt per urbem, seu mula vehuntur: quas a●●ectantur de Media die Nobiles familiares Cardinalium, Clericique: Even here in this City of Rome, harlots pass through the streets, or ride upon their mules, like honest Gentle women: And Gentlemen of the cardinals bands, and Priests at noon days wait upon them.   

Harding.  
You fly, you fly away M. jewel out of the field. You run from the state of the question to buy matters, 
M. jewel flieth from proving his own case to disproving of our lives.  and void talk. You pretend to prove and make good the marriages of the Apostates your lewd Brethren, who have by solemn vow bound themselves to live single, and now seeing yourself not able to perform it, and not having so much as one example, or any one sentence of an ancient Father for the same: you divert from fortifying your own doctrine, to carping of others faults. To be short, what so ever is evil, we blame it, no less then you. But take this for a general lesson. The iniquity of other men's lives, shall never be a justification of your false doctrine  
What mean you here to allege Epiphanius? whom judge you? or whom slander you? Evil have he that evil thinketh. Had your heart been chaste and clean, your mouth had not been so fowl, you would never have stirred that stinking puddle. Howbeit to note, how uprightly you handle every matter: Epiphanius doth not write thus so much of certain of his time, as of the Heretics named Origeniani in general, 
Origeniani.  that for the more part lived long before his time. Again the case between the Catholic Clergy (to whom your slaunderours' suspicion is directed) and those heretics, 
The heresy of the Origenians.  is not like. They rejected and condemned marriage, because they had an evil opinion of it, and judged Conception, to be of itself an evil thing. But Priests and Clerks of the Catholic Church abstain from marriage, not because they have any evil opinion of it, or of God's ordinance, but for conscience sake in consideration of their vow, which they know themselves bound to keep.  
Where you say, that in the Church of Rome, Priests, Bishops, 
A notorious and slanderous lie.  and Cardinals are easily allowed to have Concubines, it is such a notorious and slanderous lie, as becometh no man to make, but such a notorious liar, and slanderer, as you are. God grant that once such Adder's tongues be stayed from irksome hissing, as their venomous teeth be yet stayed from deadly biting.  
And what impudency is it to say, as you do, that Bishops and Cardinals themselves confess, that they are allowed Concubines? Where have they confessed it? Gentle Reader look back, I pray thee, and read the words that he allegeth, again. For the better understanding of the matter, 
The godly purpose of Paulus tertius.  this much is to be known. Paulus tertius the Pope, moved with the spirit of God, and desirous to reform the Church, gave charge to nine the best learned, wisest, and most godly and zealous men that he knew, 4. Cardinals, 3. Bishops, and .2. others (of whom the worthy man Cardinal Poole of blessed and famous memory was one) to inquire and search out, what abuses and disorders were in the Church, and specially in the court of Rome, and to signify the same unto his Holiness, to th'intent those being taken away, a wholesome reformation might be made.  
They went together, applied their study and wisdom to that effect, and brought to end, that they had in charge. In the number of abuses, they signified this for one, which M. jewel here by his false translation making it worse than it is, 
In Concilio Delectorum Cardinalium.  grateth upon. In hac etiam urbe meretrices etc. furthermore (say they) in this City harlots go in the streets, or ride on mule, like Matrons, and Gentlemen of the Cardinal's families, and Clerks go after them at mid day. This is the disorder they complained of, and would to be redressed. Now of this how can M. jewel infer his slanderous conclusion, Ergo Priests, Bishops, and Cardinals, be easily allowed to have Concubines at Rome? Can not the young Gentlemen of the Cardinal's families be found in fault, but it must be laid to the Cardinals charge themselves? What if certain of M. jewels men were found guilty of theft and murder, and therefore deserved hanging: were it reason to say, that M. jewel were a fellow, and worthy to be hanged?  
Moreover what hatred and malice beareth this Minister to Priests, who here for Clerici, odiously translateth Priests, whereas the word now signifieth generally those that be toward the Church, be they scholars, inferior Ministers, singingmen, or such others? And all this to bring Priests into contempt and hatred. But if his malice wan credit among the ignorant, what could that relieve his cause? Were it true that some Priests at a time were seen following harlots in Rome, yet will not that justify the Priests, Mounkes, and Friars, that mary harlots in England.   

jewel.  
As touching them, whom, it so much grieveth you, M. harding, to be called Martyrs, you have slain, not only such, and such, whom it liketh you, by your own Name, if ye have not forgotten your own Name, to call Renegates, but also great numbers of others more, Married, Unmarried, Learned, Unlearned, Old, young, boys, Maids, La●emenne, Priests, Bishops, Archbishops, without mercy. Ye scourged them with rods: ye set burning torches to their hands, ye cut of their tongues, ye hanged them, ye beheaded them, ye burnt them to ashes, ye took the poor innocent babe falling from the mother's womb, and threw it cruelly into the fire. Briefly, ye did with them, what so ever your pleasure was.   

Harding.  

Answer to M. jewels tragical complaint of justice executed against heretics in Queen Mary's time.  
TO this tragical complaint, that here you have amplified, and with all your Rhetoric enlarged, thus I Answer. So many of your Brothers, and Sisters, as in Queen Mary's time (for thereof you speak) either for heinous heresy were burnt, or for theft, and robberies were hanged, or for Treason and Rebellion were beheaded, or by any way put to death's they had no more than they deserved and the Laws appointed. Concerning the manner of their executions and punishments, you describe it so, as a man may point unto you, and say, there goeth a scholar of john Foxes. In his lying Acts and Monuments you seem to have been a great student. When you shall have proved or any other for you, that those incorrigible, and detestable heretics, thieves, church-robbers, murderers, rebels, and Traitors, for whose deserved and just punishment you make so grievous moan, were Innocentes: then cry out hardly, O M. Harding what reckoning will you yield, when so much innocent blood shallbe required at your hands? Until you prove the Crow is whit, cry not so out upon us, I pray you, but give us leave to think, and say still, the Crow is black. If you have no better proofs for your new Doctrines, than such idle exclamations, and void amplifications, you may sit still, spare your pains in writing great books, and (without you repent) win Hell at the end with more ease.  
Well to proceed further with you, and to rip up this whole matter: That which here you say of us, is either true, or it is false. If it be false, we are cleared, the shame is yours. If it be true: It was either lawfully done, or unlawfully. If lawfully, then are we not thus to be accused. If unlawfully, it was the fault of men, it is not the fault of our doctrine. Admit the doctrine of the Catholic Church, 
Laws to punish heretics by Death Henrici Quinti. Anno. 2.  whereof we treat, and wherein just Laws shall condemn us, let us sustain the due punishment.  
If you find fault with the Law, that punisheth heretics by death, blame us who made it not, as ye know. Blame King Henry the fifth a Prince of renowned memory, 
Cod. de Haereticis & Manichaeis. li. 5 Cod. ne sanctum baptisma iteretur. lib. 2.  and all states of our Country assembled in Parliament in his time, by whom this Law was enacted and established. Blame Martianus, Gratianus, Honorius, Theodosius, and Valentinianus, godly and famous Emperors, who made the like Law: blame Constantine the Great, who so far detested the heresy of the Arians, that (as Nicephorus writeth) he commanded all their books to be burnt, and all them to be put to death, that should be found to have any of those books in their custody. 
Nicephor. Ecclesiast. Histor. lib. 8. cap. 18. &. 25.  Blame S. Augustine, who praiseth Nabuchodonosor, for that he made a decree of death, against the blasphemers of God. Which decree he calleth Piam & laudabilem legem, a godly, and a laudable Law. Blame King Henry the eight, 
August. ad Bonifacium epist. 50. Contra literas Petilian. lib. 2. cap. 92. et epist. 48  who (as ye know) made a Law for punishment of heretics holding and maintaining false doctrine touching the six Articles. To conclude, Blame Beza, and your great Rabbi john Caluine himself, who in printed books defend it to be lawful, to put heretics to death, and at Geneva procured Michael servetus a Spaniard, to be burnt for the Arians heresy.  
Whereas you make all this grievous complaint against us, 
M. jewel would the Civil Magistrates just correction, to be esteemed the Catholic Clergies cruelty.  and burden us with cruelty, remember M. jewel, what wrong you do us. For we were not they, by whom your brethren were put to death. We, I say, who are Clerks, and Ecclesiastical persons. It was the Civil power, the Prince I mean, that executed the Law upon them, which is the common Law of all Christendom: which Prince, as S. Paul saith, is the Minister of God, to revenge, and punish the doers of evil, and beareth not the sword without cause. 
Rom. 13.  The Church, as you know, proceedeth no further against heretics, then to excommunication. The Governors whereof when they find them desperate and incorrigible, and wholly bend to pervert others: by right of God's word do pronounce Excommunication against them, that the part, which is hole, be preserved from infection. If the Princes for the time being, judge such enemies of the Faith unworthy to live in their realms and dominions, and think it a more mercy to draw their sword of correction upon them, then to further increase of their own damnation to suffer them to seduce others, and to draw multitudes of their people into the same pit of perdition: what cause have ye, why ye should so tragically cry out upon us therefore?  
And to say somewhat for the Prince in this case, All good men, I doubt not, will allow the saying of S. Augustine. 
Aug. contra lit. Petili. lib. 2. cap. 67.  Sicut est plerunque crudelis fallax adulatio, sic semper misericors est justa correptio. As, most commonly deceitful flattery is cruel, so always just punishment is merciful. Who ever was more charitable, and more pitiful than Moses? In so much that praying to God to pardon the people for their heinous offence, 
Exod. 32. Ibidem. cap. 86.  he said: O Lord, either forgive them this fault, or if thou wilt not, put me out of thy book, which thou hast written. Was he then (saith S. Augustine) suddenly become cruel, when coming down from the hill, he commanded so many thousands to be slain? Would God you M. jewel, and your fellows, who repine so much at the due punishments of your lewd Brothers, and Sisters, would commend to your minds the counsel that S. Augustine gave to the Donatists in his time, 
August. li. 3. ad epist. Parmen. cap. 6.  saying, Prius quid faciant, postea quid patiantur advertant. Let them consider, first, what they do, and afterward, what they suffer. 
Deut. 13.  The Law of God commandeth him, that bringeth the people by any persuasion from God to the worship of false Gods, to be put to death. Of the cause of this Law expressed in these words, quiae locutus est ut vos averteret à Domino Deo vestro, because he hath spoken whereby to turn you from your Lord God: the mind of the lawmaker is to be understanded. And true it is, they, that teach heretical doctrine, and expound the Scriptures to an heretical and perverse sense, do lead men from the true worship of God, and so do exhort them unto the worship of false Gods. For it followeth necessarily, that every doctrine, which speaketh of the worship of God, if it be not of God, it is of the Devil. And therefore he that receiveth it, receiveth the Devil. and he that useth persuasions to others that it be received, leadeth and carrieth them from God. For S. Paul calleth the prohibition of meats, 
1. Tim. 4.  and of Marriage, Doctrinas Daemoniorum, the doctrines of the Devils.   

What is to be judged of these Protestants Martyrs.  
Whereas as you will needs have them to be called Martyrs, 
Lib. 3 ad epistolam Parmeni. cap. 6.  and now be canonizate a God's name by. M. Fox, and set in a solemn Calendar, that holy days and high feasts be kept for them, who can otherwise do, but laugh at you? 
Augu. citatus in Beda. lien Cyprian. Aug. contra lit. Petil. lib. 2. cap. 83.  Martyren non facit poena, fed causa, It is not the pain, that maketh a Martyr, but the cause, saith S. Augustine. Remember you not, what he writeth of such companions? It may serve very fitly, for to be said unto you. Tota quaestio est (saith he) utrum vos non malè agatis, quibus tanti schismatis sacrilegium obijcit orbis terrarum, cuius quaestionis discussione neglecta, superflua loquimini, & cùm vivatis ut latrones, mori vos iactatis ut Martyrs.  
The whole question is, whether ye do not evil, whom the world chargeth with the mischievous crime of so great schism, the due discussion of which question ye leave, and speak void and vain words. And whereas ye live as thieves, ye brag that ye die, as Martyrs.  

Aug. contra secundam Gaudē●ij. epist. c. 12.  In an other place likewise saith he to such heretics, as being persecuted for their desert, challenged unto them the glory of Martyrdom, as you and your companions do, Rectè ista dicerentur à vobis quaerentibus Martyrum gloriam, si Martyrum causam haberetis. These things were well said of you seeking for the glory of Martyrs, in case ye had the cause of Martyrs..  

Augu. ad Bonifacian epist. 50. two sorts of Martyrs. Psal. 42.  According to his teaching there be true Martyrs, and false Martyrs. That voice in the Psalm, he understandeth to be the voice of true Martyrs, being desirous to be discerned from false Martyrs. judica me Deus, etc. judge me o God, and discern my cause from the people that is unholy. He said not (saith S. Augustine) discern poenam meam, sed discern causam meam, discern my pain, but discern my cause.  

Ibidem. two sorts of persecutions.  And as there be true and false Martyrs, so he saith, there be two sorts of persecutions. There is (saith he) an unjust persecution, which the wicked make against the Church of Christ, and there is a just persecution, which the Churches of Christ make against the wicked. The Church is blessed, that suffereth persecution for righteousness, they be miserable, that suffer persecution for unrighteousness.  
Now if ye can justify your cause no better, than ye have done hitherto, crack, and brag no more of your Martyrdoms: Let M. Fox make no Martyrs. Or if ye will needs allow him for a Martyrmaker still, let him be warned to use a more discretion, than heretofore he hath used, else his huge book of Acts and Monuments can not long keep credit. For what will wisemen think, even they of your own side, when they shall consider, what persons he hath canonizate, and registered for Martyrs? As Robert King of Dednam, Robert Debnam of Elsbergholt, 
Acts and Monuments. Pag. 496.  Nicolaus Marsh of Dednam, who were hanged for Felony: William Cowbridge burnt at Oxford, who as it is openly known, could not abide the name of Christ, 
john Foxes holy Martyrs. Pag. 570. Pag. 571.  but said it was a fowl name, and that Christ is not the redeemer of the world, and held many other blasphemous heresies: Peter the German, who besides that he was a sacramentary, held opinion, that our Lord took not flesh of the blessed virgin Marie his Mother: Dick Adames hanged at Bristol for felony, and William Flower, 
Pag. 1139.  that drew forth his hanger, and struck the Priest in S. Margaretes' Church in Westminster, as he was ministering the blessed Sacrament to the people. All these, and many others of like qualities, murderers, thieves, church-robbers, rebels, and Traitors, and by your own confession detestable heretics, have ye made Martyrs. I speak not of Sir john Oldecastel, and Sir Roger Acton, 
Anno. 2. Henrici. 5.  put to death for high treason, whom nevertheless Fox hath canonizate for holy Martyrs: Neither of Dame Eleonor Cobham, banished for conspiring the death of King Henry the sixth by witchcraft, who in Foxes great book is registered for a worthy Confessor. Whereby it seemeth that he hath a commission (from whence I know not) to make, not only Martyrs, but also Confessors. As for Virgins, I trow these men canonizate none, for their spirit brooketh not very well, that holy state of life.  
Whereas he is about to set forth his famous Acts and Monuments again, as I hear, if he had a desire to increase his number, and will take the pains to come over into the Low country: He shall find store of new matter, yea of as good Martyrs, as he hath made any yet, ten, twelve, sixteen in a Clustre hanging upon one bough by the ways side in sundry places. Their lives, and Faiths were so notable, their hearts so stout and constant in contempt of the holy Sacraments and all godly things: that I dare say, if he had the Registres and instruments made of their examinations, answers, bold and hardy deeds in burning liberaries, and religious Houses, in robbing and spoiling of Churches, and abbeys, in doing villainy to holy nuns by divers ways, and in rebelling openly against their lawful Prince: he could not find in his heart for the Gospel's sake, to let them pass not rewarded with the renome of his Canonization. But now to come to the particulars of your tragical complaint.  
It grieveth us, you say, to see your companions called Martyrs. No, no, M. jewel, we envy not you that felicity. It grieveth not us so much, that such devilish wretches be called Martyrs, as it grieveth us to see their pride, their wilful blindness, the efficacy of error, that S. Paul speaketh of, which for sin, God sendeth upon them, that they give credit unto lying, 
2. Thes. 2.  their malice, their stubbornness, their wickedness, their contempt of God, and all godly things, their damnation. It grieveth us to see you and them to be such, 
August. de unita. Ecclesiae. c. 17.  and therefore ye persecute us more, in this respect, than we do you, as S. Augustin saith, that the son persecuteth the Father more by living ill, than the Father persecuteth him by chastesing. 
August. ad Bonifacium epist. 50.  And in an other place he writeth speaking of Dame Sara, and Agar her woman servant, Si melius discutiamus, magis illa persequebatur Saram superbiendo, quàm illam Sara coercendo. As much to say, If we examine the matter exactly, we shall find, that Agar did put Sara to more grief by her proud demeanour, than Sara did Agar by correcting her.  
What you mean by putting me in remembrance of the name of a Renegade, 
Answer to the Objection of the name of a Renegade.  I do well understand, and see therein your malice, and mine own felicity. Had you witted, how in more spiteful wise to wreak your rancour upon me, by this you show, what desire you had openly to utter it to my disgrace. In good sooth I can soon forgive you for it, because thereby you renew my joy, that thus am put in mind, from how dangerous, and damnable, to how safe and good a state the mercy of God hath delivered me, in that by his grace he hath reduced me from straggling with heretics through common corruption of the time, to rest in the fold of Christ's Church. As I repent that once I straggled with you, though not so far from Christ's heard as you: so to confess, and acknowledge the same, I see not why I should be greatly a shamed. For had I been a stubborn and a far gone heretic, as in truth mine error was humane: nevertheless in that case, who so ever is amended, by judgement of S. Augustine, his estimation thereby is nothing impaired. For saith he, Maioris ingenij est animosit at is flammas consirendo extinguere, ● falsitatis nebulas intelligendo vitare. It is a point of more wit, to quench the flames of stourdinesse by confessing error, then to avoid the clouds of falsehood by understanding as much to say by shift of wit to escape. He is a Renegade, 
Who is a Renegade.  that forsaketh God, and his truth, and wilfully departeth from the Church, not he that leaveth error, and cometh unto God's truth, and reposeth himself in the lap of the Catholic Church. I will not follow you here M. jewel, and by casting dirt as it were upon your coat again, defile my hands. If I had desire to prove the name of a Renegade to appertain by right unto you, it were soon done. Your own open, and unforced subscription at Oxford to this very Article whereof now I treat, and to sundry others, which now you impugne● must be an everlasting testimony against you.  
The married, and unmarried, young, and old, boys, and Maids, and the rest that you reckon up in your long roll, we have not slain (I tell you once again) as maliciously you charge us: We, I mean, that are of the Clergy, against whom specially you utter your spite. It was the Prince, that commanded according to the ancient Laws of all Christendom, justice to be executed upon them, for that they (beside robberies, Sacrilege, treason, rebellion, and other heinous crimes committed by the more part of them) not only resisted the truth, despised Christian religion, contemned the holy Sacraments, and were open blasphemers of God: but also did what in their power was, stir others to like wickedness.  
Neither were boys slain, as you say. justice was with more equity and moderation executed upon the blasphemous, and traitorous offenders of all sorts, than their horrible crimes deserved. Among them that suffered death, there were no boys. As they were old in malice, so were they not boys in years.  
Bishops and Archbishops you put in your reckoning, to aggravate the matter. 
Cranmare the archbishop of Cantorburie.  archbishop there was but one, yourself do know. But o Lord, what an archbishop! The See of Cantorbury had never any such, sithence the English nation received the Faith in S. Gregory's time. If he had been either good in life, or constant in Faith, or true of promise made by solemn Oath to the See Apostolic: he had never yielded himself to be made an instrument of so many and so great evils, but with Bishoply authority, gravity, and constancy, would have withdrawn the Prince, and his ambitious Ministers, from their unlawful lusts, and wicked attempts. Of this archbishop ye have little cause to crack. As, for worldly dignities sake, once he forsook his old Catholic Faith, and fell to profess your new Gospelling Faith: So assoon as he had lost his dignities, for life to be granted him, he was content to forsake your new faith. And in witness thereof with his own hand he subscribed to a great number of Bills containing the confession of the Catholic faith. 
Crammares subscriptions.  At length when he saw, that for his deserts he should needs die: for anger he defied Catholic faith, Church, and all, and like a dog returned to his vomit, so little grace had the manifold wickedness of his former life deserved.  
Some were scourged with Rods, 
Scourging with rods, an old punishment used of Bishops.  you say. Whether this be true or no, I know not. The same is a meet punishment for boys. Neither is it altogether a strange and an unwount thing, a Bishop to use such manner of correction. For S. Augustine in an epistle to a noble man called Marcellinus, speaking of scourging with Rods, faith (Qui modus coertionis & à Magistris artium liberalium, 
August. epist. 159.  & ab ipsis parentibus, & saepè etiam in judicijs solet ab Episcopis haberi) that it was a manner of correction used of Schoolmasters, and Parents, and also oftentimes of bishops in judgements.  
Some (you say) had burning torches set to their hands. We will believe it, when we understand it was so. Some had their tongues cut out of their head. If we deny it, by what means can you prove it? Though the same be commonly done in France towards heretics that will not recant, to th'intent they be not heard to blaspheme, as in Spain they put a Gag in their mouths for the same purpose: 
Cutting out of heretics tongues, an old punishment. Nicephor. lib. 17. c. 2  yet in England it hath not been used. And if any had his tongue cut out, as you report, it was not done without example of antiquity. For so did justinian the Emperor cut out by the root the tongue of an heretic named Severus, Bishop of Antioch. Better it were, that both tongue, and heart were cut out, then that God should be blasphemed.  
Some were hanged. True it is, but remember you wherefore? Verily either for theft, or robbery, or for murder, or for sacrilege, or for treason, and rebellion.  

Wiat Headed.  Some were beheaded. I grant, as Wiate, and some others, that for Treason had by Law deserved that death at the Prince's hands. But how many thorough great Clemency escaped with their heads, who had lost them, if mercy had not tempered the rigour of justice?  
But some were burnt to Ashes. And that justly by the ancient Laws of all Christian Realms. Why might not Queen Mary do in that case, as other Kings, and Princes do in their Dominions, and as your Master john Caluine himself, did to Seruerus the heretic at Geneva?  
Yea, 
The fable of the woman of Garnsey burnt for heresy with a child in her belly.  but a poor Innocent Babe falling from the mother's womb, was taken, and thrown cruelly into the Fire. What if it were denied you, that ever any such thing was done? Let us hear, how you are able to prove it. O say you, it must needs be true. For we find it so written by M. john Fox in his great book of Acts and Monuments. Why Sir dare you so constantly avouch this fact only upon the report of Fox? As though he had not told us in his false martyrologue, a thousand more lies than this? I pity you M. jewel, that craking so much of antiquity, and appealing continually to the Fathers of the six hundred years, you are now driven to stay your credit upon Fox, who hath into that Huge volume infarced lies, more in number, and notabler for vanity, than ever were raked together into any one heap, or book. 
This fable by report of Fox was found, not certain, but probable.  Well, if all were false, that here you tell, then have you lost a joily tale. Fox himself reporteth, when Commissioners in London upon a complaint examined the matter, that it was found but probable. And probable he meaneth in the judgement of them, who gladly find fault with all that was done touching the punishment of heresy in Queen Mary's reign. Now the thing (if any such thing were done at all) being so Notorious, so openly executed, so few years then past since it was done, so many men yet living, that would have been present at the examination in case they had been commanded, the charges of the journey from Garnesey (where it is said to have been done) to London being borne, and could have brought true witness, nevertheless to be found but probable: I ween, it will not to any wise man appear very probable.  
How be it let the Fable be a Story, and the same be taken for true, 
Of the woman of Garnseis child falling out of her belly into the fire  according as Fox doth describe it to the advantage, and as you M. jewel report it: That in Garnesey three women, that is, the mother, and her two daughters were burnt, and that one of the Daughters was with child, and the child issued from her womb being rived with the fire, and was consumed together with the fire. What of all this? In whom was the fault, in the officer, that took not the child out of the fire, or in the unnatural mother, that brought it into the fire? In the Story there is mention made of a child, and of the mother, but of the child's Father, there is no word spoken. It appeareth very credible, that the historiographer was a shamed to name the child's Father, lest so he should have defaced the glory of the mother's Martyrdom. For I would feign know who was the husband to the daughter. M. Fox doth not express it.  
But you will say, how so ever the child was begotten, the mother being in that case should have been by no Law, justice, or reason committed unto the fire. True it is, a woman in that case may for once claim the benefit of her belly. Marry I have heard Lawyers say, that if whiles she is in prison, she play the strumpet again, by Law the judge may deny her the benefit of her belly, and give sentence of death upon her. But as for your pratteling parrot Paratine (for so was her name as M. Fox registereth her) it was not known to the judge, 
Paratine of Garnesey.  that she was with child. Had it been known, doubtless her death had been differred until she had been brought on bed. But the honest woman, because she would not shame the Gospel, keeping it privy from the Magistrates, claimed not the benefit of the Law, and so now not only like an harlot or Heretic, but like a Murderer went desperately to the fire, and murdered both herself, and her child conceived within her. So far the Devil carrieth them, whom he possesseth, and leadeth at his wil This abominable fact God by his most just judgement revealed, to the condemnation both of her, and of the cause for which she died, by suffering the child to fall from her womb, in the sight of all that stood by.  
judge now discrete Reader, to whom redoundeth the blame of the crime, whether to the Ministers of justice, who not knowing the thing, executed the Law: or to the woman, that for avoiding a worldly shame, conceeling her own turpitude, became a murderer of her own babe, before it came to perfection. So that she died guilty of three heinous crimes, of heresy, lechery, and murder. And to these theft may be added for the fourth. For it appeareth by the tale, that Fox himself to her best estimation telleth of her, that she was a thief, as being accessory to the honest woman Vincent Gosser, that stole a silver goblet. If the matter were well examined, I doubt not she would be tried an honest woman, and a fit vessel to receive the glory of these new invented Martyrdoms.  
Here I appeal unto your own wisdom M. jewel, 
What was to be done with the dead  and demand of you, what you could, or would have done for that unperfit and dead child in that case, better, than was done. 
Carcase of Paratines' babe.  If they had taken it out of the fire, what should that have availed? Life it had none, and therefore was it not to be baptised. Sense it had none: and therefore had it not been helped by saving it from burning. As for burial, sith it was neither Christened, nor come to be perfit man: it was aswell burnt, and buried in earth, yea in some respect better, because being burnt with the wicked mother, besides the more detestation of the horrible crime to the example of others, it was a testimony against the mother's unnaturalness. Neither in deed truly to speak, was it a poor innocent Babe, as to aggravate the fact, more rhetorically, then truly you report. For being a dead thing, as it could not be rich, or hurtful, so neither properly ought it to be called, poor, or innocent. This much considered, you have gotten little honesty to your Gospel M. jewel, by rehearsal of casting this poor innocent Babe into the fire: And the mother your Sister in the Lord, is found but a mean Martyr, and witness of the truth. 
Tyburn Martyrs.  Of the fruit of such martyrdom, the famous Tree of Tybourne bringeth forth good store.    

jewel.  
The worst word that proceeded from them, was this, O Lord, forgive them, They know not, what they do. O Lord jesus, receive my Spirit. In the mean while, ye stood by, and delighted your eyes with the sight. Ye digged up the poor carcases of God's Saints, that had been buried long before: ye served them solemnly with process, and ascited them to appear at your Consistories, and by Public sentence adjudged them to die the second death: and so, to the perpetual shame of your cruel folly, ye wreak●e your anger upon the dead. O M. Hardinge● your conscience knoweth, these are no lies: They are written in the eyes, and hearts of many thousands. These be the marks of your Religion. O what reckoning will you yield, when so much innocent Blood shallbe required at your hands? And where you say, We must pull the Old Martyrs out of Heaven to place our own, for that our Doctrine, and theirs (as you bear us in hand) is quite contrary, all this is but a needless ostentation of idle words. If vaunts were proofs, than were this matter fully ended. But we say, that in these cases, that I have moved, you are not able to allege one sufficient Clause, or Sentence of your side out of any of all the Old learned Fathers. And hitherto your muster appeareth but very simple, notwithstanding the great promise of your Store.   

Harding.  
The patience of your stinking Martyrs, who (say you) uttered no worse word, then, o Lord forgive them, o Lord jesus receive my spirit: is by you highly commended. Patience in an evil cause is no sufficient trial of a true Martyr. It is not suffering, 
Matt. 5.  but the cause of suffering, that maketh a Martyr. Blessed are they that suffer persecution, saith Christ, but there he addeth, propter justitiam, for righteousness. How many, 
Patience in dying, argueth no Martyrdom.  thieves, murderers, and Traitors, see we to suffer their death patiently? Yet are they not canonizate for Martyrs. Many among the Donatists took their Death with as great patience, and as heartily prayed for their Adversaries as any of all your Martyrs did. 
Anno. Do- 1305.  Margarete the wife of Dulcinus, when she came to suffer death at Novaria in Lombardie for the filthy heresy of the Adamites, for which her husband had died before, song Te Deum, and showed a marvelous patience, and contempt of death. Peruse the Stories of Bohemia, and ye shall find, that both men and women put to death for that abominable heresy, suffered their execution with such quiet, patience, and constancy: that it seemed to learned men a worthy thing to be Chronicled. Verily of the glory of patience showed at death, the anabaptists, that have been burnt in sundry places in our days, by all men's judgement have won the garland from you, and from your brothers, and Sisters, be they Lutherans, or calvinists. Neither have all your Martyrs died with such patience, and quiet words, as here you talk of.  

Burning of Dead carcases, no new thing.  Touching the digging up of the Carcases, not of God's Saints, as you name them, but of the devils Champions, and the asciting of some that were before buried, to appear at the Consistories: all this was not done for wreaking of Anger, as you feign, but for examples sake, that others might be frayed from following them, and for show, how detestable their heresy was, and the same not without law custom, and well liking of Christian people. Neither altogether without the example of the Scriptures. For in them we read, that the good king josias broke up the Graves of wicked Priests, 
4. Reg. 23  and false Prophets, 
2. Par. 34  and burned their bones to Asshhes. So that this complaint toucheth the holy king josias, no less than the Catholics.  

Augustin. Epist. 50.  S. Augustine saith, that if the crimes objected against Cecilianus, were true, and could be plainly proved: ipsum iam mortuum anathematizaremus● we would accurse him now being dead. If a Curse may be extended upon an heretic, after he is departed this world, which bannisheth the soul from the communion and society of the saved company: why may not the Carcase of a notorious dead heretic be for examples sake digged out of hallowed ground appointed for the reverent burial of those bodies, that when they lived were tabernacles of the holy Ghost: that after death they rest not with the bodies of them, from whom they divided themselves by schism and heresy, when they lived? And therefore I advise you M. jewel, and your brothers, not to bestow great charges about your tombs, and places of burial, lest the time come, as certainly it shall come, unless for sin God utterly forsake our Country: when your Carcases shallbe digged out again, and be served as heretics Carcases these many hundred years have been: example whereof we have in the French Chronicles of one Amalricus, 
In Chronicis Francicis.  an heretic in S. Bernardes' time, whose body at Paris was digged out of his grave after his death, and burnt to Ashes, which punishment he was known being dead to have deserved, when he lived. Your own brethren of Geneva are reported of late years to have digged one out of his grave, and to have hanged up his dead carcase upon a Gibbet, for that he repented him of your heresies in his death bed, and received the blessed Sacrament, before he departed.  
And how say you to your brethren of Basile? 
David George's Carcase digged up at Basil, and burnt with his Image.  Did they not dig up the carcase of David Georgius, and burn it with his Image long after he had been buried? Shall it be lawful for you in England to burn the bones of S. Thomas of Cantorburie the Martyr, and for your brethren the huguenots in France to burn the holy Relics of S. Irenaeus that blessed and so ancient Martyr, of S. Martin, and S. Hilary: and may not the Catholics burn the carcases, and bones of blasphemous Sacramentaries, and other heretics?  
But now to conclude, what mean you M. jewel, thus to complain of us, and to accuse the Catholics of Cruelty? Are yourselves guiltless hereof? I mean you, your brethren, and them of your side, specially the ministers, and Superintendentes of England. Who are more cruel, they, that do but execute an old Law of death under the Prince according to commandment, or they, that having no law to put men to death, by all means procure, and cause such a law to be made themselves? Who have so importunately, so loudly, so maliciously cried out upon the Prince, to draw her sword against the Catoliques? Who cried out still for the law of Praemunire to be extended against them, and last of all for the law of death to be enacted against them, as in cases of high treason? How oftentimes have ye required this your own new law to be executed upon learned, holy, and innocent men? Were it not that God stayeth the heart of the Prince, and inclined her unto mercy and clemency, ye would soon make all the world witness of the cruelty of your hearts.  
I will not here say so much as I could, nor think I it good to grate much upon this sore. Certain it is, God seeth the cruelty of your hearts, and what deadly hatred ye bear toward the Catholics. What is either in you, or in us amiss, our Lord amend it. I wish you, and your brethren would well consider, what S. Augustine saith to the Donatists, whom ye far pass in number, and malice of heresies. Thus it is. Si quid à nostris Christianae charitatis modum votumque non custodientibus, 
August. de unitate Ecclesiae cap. 17.  odiosè & perniciosè patimini, non esse illos nostros citò dixerim, sed aut futuros, si se correxerint, aut in fine separandos, si in malitia perdurârint. Nos tamen nec propter pisces malos retiae rumpimus, nec propter vasa in coutumeliam facta domum magnam deserimus. Quod si vos quoque illos à quibus talia Caetholica patitur, non esse vestros eadem regula dicitis, probate animum vestrum, corrigite errorem, amplectimini unitatem spiritus in vinculo pacis. If it be so that ye suffer any thing spitefully done unto you by them of our side not keeping the mean and vow of Christian charity: I may soon say, that they be not of our number, marry but that they shallbe, if they amend themselves, or that in the end they shallbe separated from us, if they continue. How so ever it be, yet will not we for the evil fishes sake break the Nets, neither forsake the great House (that is to say, the Church) for their sakes, who be Vessels made to dishonour. Now in case ye also, by like rule will say, that they, at whose hands the Catholic Church suffereth such things, be not of your side: then try your own mind, amend your error, embrace unity of spirit in the band of peace.   

jewel.  
Certainly the holy Fathers, and Martyrs of God will say unto you, We know not your Private Masses: we know not your Half Communion: we know not your Strange Unknown Prayers: we know not your Adoration of Gorruptible Creatures: we know not this Sacrificing of the Son of God: we know not your New Religion: we know not you. God open the eyes of your Hearts, that ye may see the miserable state, ye stand in, and recover the place, that ye have lost, and find your Names written in the Book of Life.   

Harding.  
In the end of this Division by a Rhetorical fiction you make the holy Fathers, 
The holy learned Father's tale to M. jew and hi● Companions.  and Martyrs of God to say unto us, as your blasphmous heart doth phontasie. But as we fear not that any such thing by them shall be told us, so were they now living, doubtless thus would they say unto you, and them of your sects, as nevertheless in their books and learned works, they also do now in effect say unto you daily. We know not your strange state, that is without external Sacrifice and Priesthood, and consequently without a Law. We know not your eating of common bread, and drinking of common wine at your new found Suppers, in steed of receiving the true body and blood of Christ. We know not your justification by your special Faith only. We know not your perilous doctrine of Predestination. We know not your new manner of baptizing without holy oil, and other ancient rites and Ceremonies. We know not your changeable new devised Communions. We knouwe not your monstrous Supremacy of Princes in Ecclesiastical matters, that is to say, the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the supreme Commission to feed Christ's lambs and sheep, and the whole authority that Christ gave to S. Peter, and his Successors, so to be united by a forced Parliament to the Crown of a lay Prince, that it be made a matter of inheritance, so that the Prince for the time being be head of the Church, and supreme governor in all things and causes, as well spiritual as temporal, be it man or woman, or child sucking at the Nurses breast. We condemn your negative Divinity, which denieth man's free-will, merits of good works done in grace, Prayers made to our blessed lady, the Apostles, Martyrs, and other Saints, to be intercessors for us to God, Prayers for the dead. We detest your wicked and incestuous marriages of Priests, Monks, Friars, and nuns, and of all such as have made solemn vow to live without the use of wedlock. We detest your impiety, in that ye refuse to adore and do godly honour to the body and blood of your Creator in the Sacrament of the Altar. We detest your pulling down of Altars, your robbing of Churches, your schisms and heresies, and rebellion against your lawful Princes, we detest your profane contempt of all good religion and godliness, we detest your wickedness, we detest you.  
As for you M. jewel, I pray God to touch your heart so, as you may be induced rather with some shame of the world to recant your heresies, and repent, to save your soul: then with desperate continuing in that you have taken upon you by your foolish and arrogant Challenge, to keep the vain estimation of deceived men, and finally to lose your foul for ever.    

The .12. Division.  

The Answer.  
Leaving no small number of places, that might be recited out of diverse other Doctors, I will bring two of two worthy Bishops, one of Chrysostom, the other of S. Ambrose, confirming this Truth. S. Chrysostom's words be these. 
Chrysosto. in epist. ad Heb. homi. 17.  Pontifex noster ille est, qui hostiam mundantem nos obtulit: ipsam offerimus & nunc, quae tunc oblata quidem 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 up the Host, which cleanseth us. The same do we offer also now, which though it were then offered, yet can not be consumed. But this, that we do, is done in Remembrance of that, which is done. For, do ye this, saith he, in my Remembrance. S. Ambrose saith thus: 
Ambros. In Psal. 38.  Vidimus Principem Sacerdotum ad nos venientem: vidimus, & audivimus offerentem pro nobis sanguinem suum: sequamur, ut possumus, sacerdotes, ut offeramus pro populo sacrificium, etsi infirmi merito, tamen honorabiles Sacrificio. Quia etsi Christus non videtur offer, tamen ipse offertur in terris, quando Christi Corpus offertur. We have seen the Prince of Priests come to us: we have seen and heard him offer for us his Blood: Let us that be Priests, follow him, as we may, that we may offer Sacrifice for the people, being though weak in merit, yet honourable for the Sacrifice. Because all be it Christ be not seen to offer, yet he is offered in earth, when the Body of Christ is offered. Of these our lords words, which is given for you, and, which is shed for you, and for many, here S. Ambrose exhorteth the Priests, to offer the Body and Blood of Christ for the people: and willeth them to be more regarded, then commonly they be now a days, for this Sacrifice sake, though otherwise they be of less desert.   

jewel.  
This allegation argueth no great abundance of store. For Chrysostom in these words both openeth himself, and showeth, in what sense other Ancient Fathers used this word, Sacrifice, and also utterly overthroweth M. hardings whole purpose touching the same. For, as he saith, we offer up the same Sacrifice, that Christ offered, so in most plain wise and by sundry words, he removeth all doubt, and declareth, in what sort, and meaning we offer it. He saith not, as M. harding saith, we offer up the Son of God unto his Father, and that verily, and in deed: but contrary wise thus he saith, 
Chrysost. in Epist. ad Hebr. Hom. 17.  Offerimus quidem, sed ad Recordationem facientes Mortis eius. Hoc Sacrificium Exemplarillius est. Hoc, quod nos facimus, in commemorationem fit eius, quod factum est. Id ipsum semper offerimus: Magis autem Recordationem Sacrificij operamur: We offer in deed: but in remembrance of his Death. This Sacrifice, is an Examlpe of that Sacrifice. This, that we do, is done in remembrance of that, that was done. We offer up the same, that Christ offered: Or rather we work the Remembrance of that Sacrifice. Thus we offer up Christ, That is to say, an Example, a Commemoration, a Remembrance of the Death of Christ. This kind of Sacrifice was never denied: but M. hardings Real Sacrifice was yet never proved. 
De Consecat. Distin. 2. Cum frangitur.  So saith S. Augustine: Cùm hostia frangitur, & sanguis in ora Fidelium funditur, quid aliud, quàm Dominici Corporis in Cruce Immolatio significatur? When the Oblation is broken, and the Blood (that is to say, The Sacrament of the Blood) is powered into the mouths of the faithful, what other thing is there signified, but the Sacrifice of Our lords Body upon the Chrosse?   

Harding.  
How so ever it like you to scorn at our store, the multitude of clear testimonies for proof of the Sacrifice, to the learned can not be unknown. 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 alleged make for it: ye would have made no small store of it. In books and pulpits, in taverns and alebenches, your trumpets long ere this should have proclaimed it. As for these two places, let us see, how your slender Reply is far to light, so to carry away the weight of them.  
First touching S. Chrysostom, with what plainer terms, with what more effectual words could any man have expressed the truth of our Sacrifice? 
That Priests have authority to offer up Christ unto his Father.  If we that be Priests, offer up now also the self same host, which our Bishop Christ hath offered upon the Cross, even that host which cleanseth us from our sins, as S. Chrysostom saith: that being none other but the precious flesh and blood of Christ, that is to say Christ himself (for he offered himself to his Father to cleanse us) how have not priests authority to offer up Christ unto his Father, which is the express Article that you deny? That every simple man may have in readiness an Argument against such false teachers for the Sacrifice, 
An Arment for the unlearned to prove the Sacrifice.  thus for their sake, it may be framed. Who so ever do offer up the self same host, which Christ hath offered, they offer up Christ. The Priests offer the same that Christ offered: Ergo they offer up Christ. The Mayor is evident in itself, the Minor is S. Chrysostom's, the Argument being good, the Conclusion must needs be true.  
That it may the better appear of what force M. jewels Reply is, 
S. Chrysostom's place examined with the Reply of M. jew.  this much is to be considered: That in this place of S. Chrysostom consisting of two parts, two things are avouched. In the first part, he giveth us his witness for the substance of this Sacrifice, which Priests do now offer in the Church. In the second part he declareth one end, wherein the Sacrifice offered by Priests, doth differ from the Sacrifice offered by Christ himself. Christ our Bishop (saith he) offered the cleansing host. 
Ad Heb. Hom. 17.  But we offer that ●oste in commemoration. Which is as much to say, The end of the Sacrifice that Christ offered, was to cleanse us from our sins. The end of the Sacrifice that is done by Priests, is to renew daily the memory of this cleansing Sacrifice, and so consequently to derive and apply unto the devout and faithful people, as also unto themselves, the fruit and effect of it. 
In Epist. ad Heb. Hom. 17.  The identity of the substance, of either Sacrifice, and the diversity of the end of either Sacrifice, is plainly taught by S. Chrysostom in that Homily.  
Now let us examine your Reply. 
Three things attributed to this saying of S. Chrysost● by M. jew.  You attribute unto S. Chrysostom for having uttered the saying that I here allege, three things. The first is, that in these words (mark Reader what this man saith) He openeth himself. The second is, that he showeth in what sense other ancient Fathers used this word, Sacrifice. The third is, that he overthroweth M. Harding'S whole purpose touching the Sacrifice. Surely this is very much, and were it also true, I marvel why neither yourself, nor any of your fellows ever heretofore alleged it against the Sacrifice. But certain we are, ye shall wring hard, before ye wring this much out of these words.  

How S. Chrysostom openeth himself against M. jewel.  That in these words he openeth himself, I may easily grant you. But that opening is openly against your open sacramentary heresy. For whereas you deny the oblation and Sacrifice of the Church, he saith, that now also we offer. whereas you deny, that we offer Christ to the Father, he saith, we offer now also the self same host, which our high Bishop Christ, hath offered. And to put it out of doubt, what host he meaneth, he openeth himself, as you say, calling it, hostiam mundantem nos, the host that cleanseth us, which can be none other, but Christ himself. And because the hosts that were offered in sacrifice in the old law, were forthwith consumed, to show the excellency of this host, he saith of it, that being then, that is to say, upon the Cross, offered, it can not be consumed. And therefore in the same Homily he saith, that it is otherwise with us now, than it was with the jews. For they on divers days offered divers lambs. but we (saith he) offer not one lamb to day, and an other lamb to morrow, but always we offer one, and the same lamb.  

S. Chrysostom returned upon M. jewel.  Touching the second point, if in these words (let them be considerately perused) S. Chrysostom show, in what sense other ancient Fathers have used this word, Sacrifice, then by the ancient Fathers your doctrine touching the truth of Christ's body in the blessed Sacrament, 
M. jew. overshot himself in alleging this place of S. Chrysostom.  is quite overthrown. For he calleth it most expressly, the Host that cleanseth us from our sins, which Christ our high Bishop offered up for us upon the Crosse. If the ancient Fathers, when so ever they speak of the host that is offered up by Priests in the Sacrifice of the Church, mean thus, as S. Chrysostom speaketh, then are they of our side by your own confession, then is the Catholic Doctrine concerning the Sacrament, and the Sacrifice, by them against your heresy confirmed, and maintained. God be praised, by whose providence the Truth is confessed, by the enemies of Truth. Certainly here you overshoot yourself, in telling the truth against yourself unwares.  
Here than I shall advertise the Christian Reader, to bear these words of S. Chrysostom in memory, and to consider well of them, for so much as in them he openeth himself, as Master jewel confesseth, and showeth what meaning the ancient Fathers had, when they spoke of the Sacrifice of the Church.  
But how in these words he overthroweth my purpose touching the Sacrifice, or rather the universal Doctrine of the whole Church, that neither I, nor M. jewel himself, nor any other man. I am sure, 
S. Chrysostom maketh directly for the real Sacrifice.  can perceive. In, these words, I say which be here alleged in my Answer to the Challenge. Nay, how can they not seem most plainly, and directly to avouch our doctrine touching the Sacrifice? Doth he not set Christ, and Priests that be now, together in the office of offering? He hath offered, we offer also now, saith he. Doth he not avouch the host, that Christ offered, and the host that Priests now offer (for thereof he speaketh) to be one, and the self same host? And that no man should doubt, what host he meant, saith he not, it is that, which cleanseth our sins? that, which then being offered (to wit, upon the Cross with shedding of blood, with death, to cleanse sins, and to redeem the world) can not be consumed? What host can this be, but the body of Christ, but Christ himself? For nothing could cleanse our sins, but he, who only is the Lamb of God, 
joan. 1.  that taketh a way the sins of the world. Thus than the substance of the host, that Christ our Bishop offered, and of that we offer, is one, and the self same. So it is clearly proved by these words of S. Chrysostom, that it is not only a memory, an example, a similitude, a figure, or resemblance of Christ's body, that we offer in our daily Sacrifice, but the self same host in substance, that Christ offered to cleanse us, which is the substance of his own body and blood, for it was not a figure that he offered for us, but his true and real body.  
But as the substance of his, and our Sacrifice is one, so the end and effect by S. Chrysostom in this place, 
The end of Christ's Sacrifice, and of ours.  is divers. He offered himself to death to cleanse the sins of the world, to redeem mankind. We offer him in remembrance of that his death, to be partakers of his redemption. But hereof I speak more particularly in my preface before this Rojoindre.  
S. Chrysostom (say you) removeth all doubt, and declareth in what sort and meaning we offer the Sacrifice. How so good sir, tell it us, I pray you, for I account it well worth the learning. Marry (say you) he saith not, as M. Harding saith, we offer up the Son of God unto his Father, and that verily, and in deed. First it is a strange thing to me, that a man should remove all doubts, and declare the certainty of things, by not saying, as you reply. next, what if he say not in express terms, that we offer up the Son of God unto his Father? Will you now go from the matter, and fly for refuge to your own precise terms?  
Consider, I pray you, how this vain wrangling becometh the Person of the Great Minister of Sarisburie. 
M. jewels objection is but a vain wrangling.  Whereas S. Chrysostom saith, that we offer up the self same Host, that Christ our Bishop hath offered, which cleanseth us from our sins, is it not as much, as if he had said, we offer up the Son of God? What host is that which cleanseth us? Is it not Christ only? Who is Christ? Is he not the Son of God? And to whom is Sacrifice done, but to God? All this set together, how much varieth he from S. Chrysostom, who saith, that we offer up the Son of God unto his Father? If you stick to that other word, verily, and in deed, remember, you have by your translation, made S. Chrysostom in this very place, so to speak yourself. We offer in deed, be the words.  
Now that you have told us, what S. Chrysostom saith not, which helpeth your cause nothing at all: you show us what he saith. And here you bring in certain pieces, and maimed sayings out of him, being a afraid to allege the whole sentences, as they lie in that learned Doctor, lest you should mar altogether, as you should have done, if you had suffered him to tell his own tale. Because the place is somewhat long, I had rather refer the Reader unto the .17. Homily upon the Epistle to the Hebrews, where it is written, then here to rehearse the whole. But let us see, what you pike out of that Homily for your purpose, 
M. jewels promise upon S. Chrysost. how it is performed  and how much it relieveth your cause. Remember what you have promised to show out of S. Chrysostom, that he removeth all doubt, and declareth in what sort and meaning we offer the Sacrifice. You allege out of the said Homily, four sentences, or rather four pieces of sentences.  
The first is this. Offerimus quidem etc. We offer in deed, 
Chrysost. Hom. 17. in epist. ad Heb.  but in remembrance of his Death. These words by your interpretation declare in what sort we offer the Sacrifice. Well, be it so, I will not much contend with you, so that you mean by this sort, the excluding of the bloody manner of oblation. But here I must put the reader in mind, what followeth immediately in that ancient Father. Which you have untruly conceeled. una est hostia, non multae. The host that we offer (daily, for there he speaketh of the daily Oblation) is one, it is not many. If it be bread made by the hands of a man, that we offer, and wine pressed out of the grape (for the Real Oblation of the body and blood of Christ ye deny) albe it the same properly can not be called an Host, how can you say, it is one Host, that we offer daily, and not many Hosts, seeing that every day we take new bread, and new wine for our Sacrifice?  

In our Sacrifice we have the sampler, and the true thing itself, which Christ offered.  Your second piece of a sentence is this. Hoc Sacrificium exemplar illius est. This Sacrifice is an example of that Sacrifice. But what followeth, Id ipsum semper offerimus. We offer always the self same thing. And what thing is that? There he showeth. It is the Host that cleanseth us, which Christ our Bishop hath offered. So then we see it called, both the real thing itself, that was offered, and the sampler of the thing. In that he calleth it a sampler, thereby he putteth us in mind, the order and manner of offering it now, to be different from the manner of the oblation of the Crosse. For there it was bloody, here unbloody: there with suffering the torments of death, here with commemoration, representation and application of his death: there the thing offered visible in proper form, here invisible, under the form of bread and wine.  
Your third piece of a sentence taken out of S. Chrysostom, is this. This that we do, is done in remembrance of that that was done. Which words declare, the thing that we do, to be done in remembrance of the Death of Christ. And they follow immediately upon that he said of the cleansing Host, which our Bishop Christ offered, and we also offer the same. So that the difference between this, and that, is this. That was the Sacrifice that cleanseth our sins with his blood actually shed, and redeemed us by virtue of itself. This is the Commemorative Sacrifice, which is offered in commemoration of that, having for the substance of it, the same body and blood of Christ, that was offered upon the Cross, by virtue of Consecration made really present, and applieth unto us the merit and effect of the cleansing, and redemption wrought and performed upon the Crosse.  
Then immediately followeth the last sentence of the Homily, a part whereof you have taken for your purpose. Non aliud Sacrificium, sicut Pontifex, sed idipsum semper offerimus, & caet. we offer not an other Sacrifice, as the Bishop (of the old law did) but always we offer the very same that Christ offered, or rather we work the remembrance of the Sacrifice. In the Discourse of S Chrysostom, out of which M. jewel hath picked, and culled out certain pieces, three things in effect are declared. First, that we offer, secondly, that our manner of offering is other, than Christ's was, therefore ours is called a sampler of that, and it is done in commemoration of his Death. Thirdly, that the Host, or thing offered in either Sacrifice, is one and the same in substance, which is the true body of Christ. Grant us the first, and the last, that is to say, that we offer in deed, yea and that the same Host, which Christ offered: and to all men of reason and judgement, though our Sacrifice be a sampler of Christ's Sacrifice upon the Cross, and though it be done for commemoration of that, shall our Real Sacrifice be sufficiently proved. For what is our endeavour in this Article, but to prove, that we offer unto God that, which Christo our Bishop hath offered, which is Christ himself?  
And whereas making up your Epiphonema, you say with more bravarie, than truth, Thus we offer up Christ, that is to say, an example, a commemoration, a remembrance of the Death of Christ: I never heard of such a that is to say, before, specially if the real presence by these words be excluded as your meaning is. O what impudency is this? 
Difference between the host and the commemoration.  Doth not S. Chrysostom by yourself alleged make a plain distinction and difference between the host offered, and the remembrance, saying, that which we do, is done for a commemoration? Doth it not thereby appear, that somewhat must be done before, and besides the Commemoration? Who ever so confounded things, as as by your absurd and false interpretation you do, making the body and blood of Christ, or Christ himself, and the remembrance of Christ's death, one thing? What, is this your meaning, as though the substance of the Sacrifice, were nothing else, but the remembrance of Christ's death? Let this once be granted, and why may not any man, or woman, make us as good a Sacrifice at their table at home in their own house, as yourself can at the Communion table in our Lady's Church at Sarisburie? For at that homely table may Christ's death be remembered, aswell as at your Communion table.  
This kind of Sacrifice (say you speaking of the commemoration of Christ's Death) was never denied. As in a right sense it is very true, and was never by us denied (for the devout remembrance of Christ's Death by itself considered, is a kind of spiritual Sacrifice) so if you mean thereby to exclude the truth of the thing offered, which is the body and blood of Christ, 
M. jewel always concludeth the denial of one truth by thaffirmation of an other truth.  and serve us with a show, and a remembrance only distinct from the true thing itself that is offered, which seemeth to be your whole drift: this part of your doctrine we utterly deny, and tell you, that for maintenance of the same, you use a fond and vain reason. For what an Argument is it, when two things be both true, by the affirmation of the one, to conclude the denial of the other? As for example, what wit will allow this Argument. The Sun shineth, Ergo, it raineth not, or, Ergo, it is not cold: whereas many times we see it rain, and feel it cold, when the Sun shineth clear and bright? Right so we tell you, and never stint telling you (which nevertheless ye dissemble to understand) that this your common Argument is nought, the Sacrifice which we offer, is a sampler, or a commemoration of that which Christ offered: Ergo, it is not the same, which Christ offered. For in divers respects it is both, as now we have proved by S. Chrysostom.  
It is the same in substance, that is to say, the substance of that was offered upon the Cross, and of that is offered by Priests is the Mass, in one, and the same: but it is divers in the manner of offering. For that was offered bloodily, this unbloodily in mystery, and by way of commemoration. So it is the body and Blood of Christ offered, and also a commemoration of the bloody offering.  
The testimony of S. Augustine (I marvel what you meant to allege it) maketh quite against you. For both it reporteth the real presence, which you deny, and showeth a difference betwixt the thing which is offered, and Christ's Death by the same signified, which you confound. We grant with S. Augustin, when the host is broken, 
De Consec. Dict. 2. Cum frangitur.  and the blood is powered into the mouths of the faithful, the Sacrificing of our lords body is signified. It is not your false translation of the Oblation, for the host, nor your sacramentary exposition of the Sacrament of the blood, for the blood, that can rack S. Augustine to the defence of your doctrine. If you grate upon the word, Significatur, and therefore will needs have it to be a signification of Christ's Sacrifice: as we deny not the signification, so we require you to acknowledge the real body and blood of Christ, by breaking whereof under the form of bread, and pouring whereof into the mouths of the faithful under the form of wine, the same signification, and commemoration of Christ's Death is made. You handle this place of S. Augustine, as it seemeth, as you handled the place of S. Chrysostom before. Sweeping clean away the host, and wiping away the blood, you leave remaining only a signification or token. And thus you feed your people with signs and tokens, in steed of the most wholesome and substantial meat and drink.  
Thus have you not weakened the strength of S. Chrysostom's testimony by your feeble answer, thus it remaineth still in good force against your Challenge, thus by your slender Reply you have given all men occasion to think, how good and sufficient our Store is for the proof of the external Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, in scoffing whereat you take so much pleasure. It remaineth that we try, of what substance and pith your Reply is, to the place by me alleged out of S. Ambros.   

jewel.  
Even so S. Ambrose saith, 
Ambrosi. in Psal. 38 Apocal. 5.  Christ is offered here in the Earth (not Really, and in deed, as M. harding saith) but in like sort, and sense, as S. john saith, The Lamme was slain from the beginning of the world: that is, not Substantially, or in Real manner, but in signification, in a Mystery, and in a figure. And thus S. Ambrose expoundeth his own meaning, 
Ambros. in Psalm. 38.  even in the same place, that is here alleged. Primum Vmbra praecessit: Secuta est Imago: Erit Veritas. Vmbra in lege: Imago in evangelio: Veritas in Coelestibus. Ascend homo in coelum, & videbis illa, quorum hîc Vmbra erat, vel Imago. First the Shadow went before: The Image followed: The Truth shallbe. The Shadow in the Law: The Image in the Gospel: The Truth in the Heavens. O Man, go up into Heaven: and thou shalt see those things, whereof here was an Image, and a shadow. 
Ambros. in Lucam. lib. 5. ca 7  To like purpose S. Ambrose writeth thus: Vidimus eum, & oculis nostris perspeximus, & in vestigia clavorum eius digitos nostros inseruimus. Videmur enim vidisse eum, quem legimus: spectasse pendentem, & vulnera eius Spiritu Ecclesiae scrutante tentasse: we have seen him and looked upon him, with our eyes: and we have thrust our fingers into the dentes of his nails. The reason hereof is this: For we seem to see him, that we read of: to have beholden him hanging on the Cross: and with the feeling Spirit of the Church to have searched his wounds. 
Hieron. in Psalm. 86.  So S. Jerome saith, Quod semel natum est ex Maria, quotidiè in nobis nascitur: Christ that was once borne of Marie, is borne in us every day. Now as S. Ambrose saith, We see Christ even with our eyes hanging upon the Cross: and thrust in our fingers, and search his wounds: Even so, do we see Christ Coming unto us, and Offering himself in Sacrifice unto God. And as S. Jerome saith, Christ is Borne every day, Even so, and none otherwise, 
Ambros. de Virginib. lib. 2.  S. Ambrose saith, Christ is Sacrificed every day. In like manner S. Ambrose writeth unto certain Virgins: Vestras Mentes confidenter Altaria dixerim, in quibus quotidiè pro Redemptione Corporis Christus offertur: I may boldly say, Your hearts be Altars, upon which Hearts Christ is daily offered for the Redemption of the Body. Hitherto M. harding hath found no manner t●ken of that, he sought for.   

Harding.  
This Even so (if I may be so bold with you, as to use a homely proverb) is as even, as a rams horn. And Sir, is this place of S. Ambrose so soon answered? Is it enough for you to say as you do, and prove nothing? Is it lawful for you to say what you list, and deny what you list, without any proof at all? And if ye stand so all ways in your Negatives, what a coomber shall it be unto us, to prove any never so certain a truth to such a wrangler? How oftentimes have you now said, that Christ is none otherwise offered in earth, than he was offered in the Sacrifices of Abel, of Abraham, or of them of the old Testament? And all this upon warrant of this saying of S. john, 
Apoc. 5.  The lamb was slain from the beginning of the world, which maketh nothing against the daily Sacrifice of the Church? How sufficiently, and by how many authorities hath this Sacrifice been proved? Yet forth you go, as if nothing had been said.  
If our Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament be not real, 
If our Mysteries be excellenter than the Sacrifices of the old Law, then are they not significative only.  and substantial, but only figurative and significative, as you say: then how be our Mysteries of more excellency, than the jews Sacraments were? Nay how do not the live beasts, which they sacrificed, pass a dead piece of bread, for better ye esteem it not? If our Sacrifice be no better than their Sacrifices were, then is our Priesthood of the new Testament no better than their priesthood was. If our Priesthood be no better, 
Heb. 7.  then is the Law of the Gospel, wherein we live, no better than the old Law of Moses was, under which the jews lived. For these three, Sacrifice, Priesthood, and Law be so proportionate together, be so of cozenage, and always go so together by the doctrine of S. Paul as you know, that the bettering of either of them, doth in far the bettering of the other. Now let the Christian reader make his choice, 
Ambro. in Psal. 38.  whether he will believe the whole Church of Christ, and S. Ambrose, or you. He saith, Christ is offered on the earth, when the body of Christ is offered: you say. Neither Christ, nor the body of Christ is offered on the earth. but all that is done, is but a token and a figure.  
Here were it to good purpose, to prove the truth of the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament, for else we labour in vain, a wrangling and contentious wit ever finding shifts by running always to his Negatives. But because that Article hath been already proved, 
Article. 5.  partly by me in my Answer to your Challenge and more amply by Doctor Heskins, and Doctor Saunder, as also by sundry other learned and worthy men, before you and your companions rushed into the Church by the window: I mind not to enter into that large field now, nor think it needful to do that is well done already. That point then being clear by God's word, and beside substantially proved, determined by the Church in General Counsels according to the Scriptures, believed ever of all Christian and faithful people, and granted by the Fathers of your religion the Lutherans: let us consider of that you bring against the Sacrifice avouched by S. Ambrose.  

Image, what it signifieth and how it excludeth not the truth●  As touching your other place of S. Ambrose, whereby you would seem to expound the former by me alleged, it maketh for the Sacrifice, it maketh nothing against the Sacrifice. Neither can you take any advantage of the word, Imago, Image. For by that word the truth is not excluded, but signified, yet so, as thereby we be admonished, that we behold things more obscurely here, than we shall behold them in heaven, and that the things here be but an Image, in comparison of the true things in heaven. The truth is here, no less then in heaven. But because it is not so truly seen here, 
Ambro. li. 1. officiorum cap. 48. In Psal. 38.  as there, therefore S. Ambros considering the diverse degree of our knowledge, calleth in sundry places (according to S. Paul writing to the hebrews) the state here an Image, and the state there, the truth.  
And if we may expound S. Ambrose by S. Ambrose, 
Heb. 10.  he showeth his meaning clearly in an other place. Which is, by the term, Image, in respect of the state of the Gospel, not to exclude the Truth of things, but to insinuat an obscurer manner of exhibeting the truth in comparison of the state of heaven. 
Ambro. de interpellatione David.  His words be these. Ecclesia est imago coelestium, etenim postquam umbra praeterijt, imago successit. Vmbra, synagoga est. In umbra lex, in evangelio veritas. The Church is an image of heaven (or of heavenly things) for after that the shadow was gone away, the Image succeeded. The shadow, is the Synagogue. In the shadow was the Law, in the Gospel is the Truth. Lo whereas he said in the place by you alleged, the image is in the Gospel, here expounding his mind more plainly, he faith, in the Gospel is Truth, calling that Truth, here, which he called Image, there.  
But sir with what face, 
M. jewel falsifieth S. Ambrose.  I say not with what conscience, durst you so foully in translating this place of S. Ambrose to falsify his words and sense? Why did you transpose his words, setting the former word in the second place? and why did you turn, and, for, or? The later sentence truly translated is this. O man, go up into heaven, and thou shalt see those things, whereof here was a shadow, or an Image. Which last words you falsified thus, whereof here was an Image and a shadow.  
By this chopping and changing of words, your evil intent was, to bring your reader in belief, that the Sacraments of the old Law be of equal worthiness with the Sacraments of the new Law. By your slender Reply, and by such false legerdemain, I doubt not but the wiser sort will be moved to try your strange doctrine better, than heretofore of many it hath been tried, before they believe it.  

M. jewel confoundeth one truth with an other truth. Lib. 5. Comment. in Luc. cap. 7.  From this place to the end of the Division, this Replier doth nothing else, but endeavour to confound things, that in themselves be distinct, that so at least he might cast some mist as it were before the reader's eyes. As for example, because the reading of the story of the Gospel showeth unto our understanding and faith, Christ hanging upon the Cross, as S. Ambrose saith, his side opened with the soldiers spear, his hands and feet pierced through with the nails, and the Sacrament also of Christ's body and blood, doth represent and commend unto our memories the same:  

Hieron. in Psal. 86.  Again, because Christ being virtus Patris, the virtue of his Father, is borne in us every day, when any virtue is wrought by us, as S. Jerome saith: Therefore (by this man's Logic) Christ is not really, but by a similitude or figure only sacrificed of Priests every day. Furthermore, because the minds of holy virgins be meet Altars for Christ daily to be offered upon (to wit, by daily meditation of his Passion) as S. Ambrose sticketh not to say: 
Ambro. de Virginib. lib. 2.  therefore Christ is no more really present upon the real Altars of the Church, when the Sacrifice of his body and blood is offered by the Priest, than he is in the mind of a pure and holy virgin devoutly thinking of his death. Seem not these reasons to proceed from a profound Divinity? What is this, but to confound one truth with an other truth, and to undo all proper speeches, by figurative and metaphorical Phrases? He should have remembered, that even they of his own side do teach, that we ought not to run unto tropes for the understanding of any point, unless there fellow a great absurdity, if the words be taken in their proper signification.  
That this mist of M. jewels confusion be discussed and put a way, who is so unskilful in matters of our faith, that putteth not a manifest difference between the setting forth of Christ's death unto our understanding by reading the Scriptures, and the representation and commemoration of the same unto our faith by the Sacrament of his body and blood? 
The difference of Christ's being in the Sacrifice, and in the reading of the story of the Gospel.  In that a Description only by words is made of the order and manner of putting Christ to death, whereby an Image thereof is imprinted in our understanding and memory. In this the body of Christ, that was put to death, is present, laid before us according to his word, This is my body which is given for you. That is a general mean to come to the knowledge of Christ's death. This is a special mean to remember his death. 
Luc. 22.  That is common unto the Infidel reading the story of the Gospel, as well as unto the faithful. This is proper to the true Christian giving credit to God's word. That may be conveniently read by every private man at all times, and in all places. This can not duly be consecrate and ministered, 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 sin. This can not be consecrate nor received of any being in deadly sin without increase of his farther damnation. This is, and ever hath been by the Church called and taken for the very body and blood of Christ. That neither is, nor ever hath been commonly so called or taken. This is a Sacrament, and the Sacrifice of the new Law. That is neither of them both. Finally, that feedeth the understanding only. This is the food both of soul, and body to life everlasting. These differences being so apparent, so great, and of such importance, who can otherwise judge, but that Christ's presence in the Sacrifice of the Church, must be after a more substantial and real manner, then in the letter of the Gospel, or in the reading thereof?  
Moreover if he be present in the Sacrament and Sacrifice, none otherwise than he is at the reading of the Gospel, then is the Sacrifice and Sacrament superfluous. For to stir up in our minds the remembrance of Christ's Death, it should suffice to read, or to hear readen daily the story of the Passion without any celebration of the Sacrament. But Christ knowing the dullness of our hearts to be such, 
M. jewel acknowledgeth Christ's presence in the Bless. Sacrament no otherwise them in the story of the Gospel, when it is read and heard.  that words be not sufficient to repair our memory, and to stir up our affection without the presence of some thing of more Majesty than words be, of his tender love left to his dear spouse the Church besides his Gospel, a thing of most excellent Majesty, his own flesh and blood: that we being assured through faith of his real presence in our Mysteries, should more dreadfully reverence him, more expressly remember him, more affectuously love him, and by the worthy receiving of it, be made partakers of the fruit of his Passion. Of this presence, and of this great fruit, would M. jewel with all his lewd heart bereave us, by making Christ present in the Mysteries none otherwise, than he is at the reading of the story of the Gospel, that is to say, only by the comprehension of our understanding and by faith: And that he is as truly now hanging upon the Cross, when we read the story of his passion, and do by the eyes our of Imagination behold him hanging, as he doth sacrifice himself, when his body is sacrificed, as S. Ambrose before alleged, speaketh.  
Touching the right understanding of this place of S. Ambrose, 
We see Christ hanging on the Cross and grope his wounds, two ways.  we see Christ hanging upon the Cross, and thrust our fingers into the dentes of his nails, two ways. either by faith, or by charity. Faith hath eyes to see, and fingers to feel. But what manner eyes, and fingers? spiritual. Through faith we see Christ hanging upon the Cross, 
How we see the wounds of Christ by faith.  and feel his wounds. That is to say, The benefit of his Passion through the merit of faith is imparted unto us nolesse, then if we beheld him with our eyes hanging upon the Cross, and with our fingers touched his wounds. Of them that have this faith our Lord saith in the Gospel, 
Ioan● 20.  Beati qui non viderunt, & crediderunt. Blessed by they, that have not seen (with bodily eyes) and believe. Neither saith S. Ambrose plainly, that we see Christ with our eyes hanging upon the Cross, 
Ambros. In Luc. lib. 5. c. 7.  and that we thrust in our fingers, and search his wounds, as to your advantage you report him: but correcting himself, he saith, Videmur vidisse eum etc. We seem to have seen him, and with the searching spirit of the Church to have groped his wounds. He attributeth all to the spirit, which through faith seeth, and feeleth.  
By charity we behold Christ hanging upon the Cross, and thrust our fingers into his wounds, 
How we see Christ ●uffering● by Charity.  because through charity we are in that body of Christ, to wit the Church, which seeth Christ so hanging, and thrusteth the fingers into his wounds. For what grace, virtue, miracle, or other excellency so ever is in the Body of the Church, through the merit of charity, which causeth participation of all good things to be common, every one that is of that body, 
Augu. sermone. 188 De tempore.  may say, that he hath the same. In consideration whereof S. Augustine saith notably: If any will say to one of us, thou hast received the holy Ghost, 
How speaketh the Church with all tongues.  why speakest not with all tongues? He ought to Answer, I speak with all tongues, because I am in that body of Christ, in the Church, which speaketh with all tongues.  
But how may it be understanded, that the Church speaketh with all tongues? 
Augu. sermone. 186. De Tempore.  In as much as some of the Church do speak with all tongues. Therefore in an other place he saith. In some Saints the Church worketh Miracles, in other Saints it speaketh the truth, in other Saints it keepeth virginity, 
Guerricus abbess Igniacensis. Sermo. in die Purificat. inter opera Bernardi.  in other Saints it keepeth the chastity of wedlock, in others this, in others that. Certain virtues (saith a holy Father) though all persons have not, yet let them love him, who hath that, which they find not in themselves, and then have they in him that, which in themselves they see not, as Peter in john hath the merit of virginity, so john in Peter hath the reward of Martyrdom. 
1. joan. 1.   

The Church beholdeth Christ, and toucheth his wounds.  In whom then doth the Church see Christ hanging upon the Cross, and feel his wounds? In S. john the Church seeth him, who saith, That which from the beginning, we have heard, we have seen with our eyes, and our hands have touched, etc. In the Apostles it beholdeth with eyes Christ upon the Cross, in S. Thomas it toucheth his wounds. That this seem not strange, even so saith S. Ambrose in the book and chapter above mentioned. Sed etiam nos vidimus in johann, 
Ambros. in Lucam. lib. 5. ca ●  oculis nostris perspeximus in Apostolis, & manibus nostris perscrutati sumus in Thomae digitis. Yea we also have seen Christ in john, with our eyes we have beholden him in the Apostles, and with our hands we have searched his wounds in the fingers of Thomas.  
Now if this body the Church, and consequently every one that is a member of this body, see Christ hanging upon the Cross, and with the fingers touch his wounds, either because he hath the light and sight of faith, or because through Charity he is incorporate and made a member of that body, and so seeth and toucheth by participation: what maketh this against the real Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, frequented in the Church? Because this manner of seeing Christ, and of touching his wounds, whether it be through virtue of faith, or merit of charity, is not real and in deed, will you thereof gather an Argument, that Christ in the Sacrifice of the Church is not really offered? O that you would make this Argument in Louvain, or Paris, or in any other famous School of Divinity in the world, this Argument I say, Christ is not now seen hanging upon the Cross, neither be his wounds touched really and in deed: Ergo, he is not of the Priests offered up in the Mysteries really: You may be sure the Audience with hissing, and trampling would drive you out of the School.  
If you say, I do you wrong in reporting your Argument to disadvantage, which is your common practice towards me: I am content you frame it to your best advantage. Let your own Argument stand, as yourself have set it forth. An Argument I may call it, for by your Mayor, any man may soon understand, what should be your Minor, and conclusion. Your Argument then is this. As we see Christ even with our eyes hanging upon the Cross, and thrust in our fingers, and search his wounds: Even so do we see Christ coming unto us, and offering himself in Sacrifice unto God. Your Minor, or second proposition, must be this. but really and in deed so we see not Christ, neither do we so with our fingers search his wounds: Ergo, really and in deed we see not Christ coming unto us, and offering himself in Sacrifice.  
Why sir all this I grant. For in deed we see not now Christ coming unto us, nor offering himself: But our controversy is not of seeing Christ coming, and offering himself: but of the offering of his body in Sacrifice. And to that I alleged S. Ambrose, saying, Et si Christus non videtur offere, tamen ipse offertur in terris, quando Christi corpus offertur. Although Christ be not seen to offer, yet himself is offered in the earth, when the body of Christ is offered. Lo he saith expressly, he is not seen to offer, and yet he is offered. Your part is to impugn the offering, and because you cannot, you impugn the seeing of him coming and offering himself. We see him not, and yet he is offered in earth, as S. Ambrose saith.  
Now then, whereas you are driven from this, if thus you make your Argument, as in effect you do, and as your fetch is to conclude: As Christ is seen of us hanging upon the Cross, and as his wounds be touched with our fingers, so he is by Priests offered, but he is not seen hanging upon the Cross really and in deed, nor his wounds be so touched with our fingers: Ergo, he is not offered really and in deed: As I grant the Argument to be good in form, so I deny the matter to be true. For the Mayor, or first proposition is false. For Christ's hanging on the Cross, and the print of his wounds, is seen, and felt of us by faith, or by charity, as I have now declared: but Christ is offered up in Sacrifice really, and in deed, because his body is really and in deed present in the Sacrament, as it hath been against you M. jewel by the Catholics most sufficiently proved by scriptures, Fathers, and the faith of the Church, and as you know in your own guilty conscience.  
The saying which you attribute unto S. Hierom, 
M. jewel forgeth words of his own and attributeth them to S. Hierom. Hierony. in Psal. 86.  Quod semel natum est ex Maria, quotidie in nobis nascitur, Christ that was once borne of Marie, is borne in us every day: is an invention of your own. S. Hierom hath it not, you may soon fill your book with such authorities, being made at home in your own forge. S. Jerome expounding an obscure place of the .86. Psalm tropologically, saith this much, I grant, Si volumus, quotidie nascitur Christus, If we will, Christ is borne daily. There he calleth the doing of every virtue, the begeting and bringing forth of Christ, because Christ is the virtue and wisdom of his Father. But what maketh this saying against the real Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ? By occasion of these words, you reason thus, as it may be conceived. As S. Hierom saith, Christ is borne every day, Even so and none otherwise, S. Ambros saith, Christ is sacrificed every day. But Christ is not borne every day really. Ergo, S. Ambrose meaneth not, that he is sacrificed every day really. I answer. Your Mayor is false. For there is a manifest dissimilitude between the parts compared together. When we bring forth good virtues, and Christ therefore is said to be borne in us: this is spoken by a Metaphor, and is true only in a tropological, or morale sense, and not in the literal sense. The other part of the comparison, Christ is offered day, when his body is offered, as S. Ambrose saith, is a proper speech, and the same is true in the literal sense, as now we have proved.  
Lastly, that I let not pass the other place of S. Ambrose, where he calleth the minds of holy virgins, Altars: the reason you gather thereof is nought. For of the affirmation of an internal Sacrifice, 
Ambros. de Virginib. lib. 2. M. jewels peculiar Sophistry to put away one truth by an other.  you infer the denial of the external Sacrifice, and so you would drive out one truth by an other truth, after your common wont. Which kind of reasoning is very fond and childish. For both may, and aught to stand together. Your Argument, if you conclude aught, must be this. Christ is offered in the minds of virgins, which therefore may be called Altars, internally, and spiritually: Ergo, he is not offered on the true Altars in the Church externally, and really. The Argument is nought, as every young Sophister knoweth, because he is offered both ways. As well you might reason thus, Christ is God, Ergo, he is not man● or contrariwise, Christ is man, ergo, he is not God.  
Thus thou mayst easily perceive good Reader, what guileful Sophistry M. jewel useth, putting away the visible and outward Sacrifice of the Church, by alleging places of Fathers, commending unto us, the inward and mere spiritual Sacrifices of man's heart. Withal thou seest also, what so ever M. jewel saith, that I have found in S. Chrysostom, and S. Ambrose, that I sought for.    

The .13. Division.  

The Answer.  
Now for proof of the Sacrifice, and Oblation of Christ by the Doctors mind upon the figure of Melchisedech: First S. Cyprian saith thus. Qui magis Sacerdos Dei summi, 
Lib. 2. Epist. 3.  quam Dominus noster jesus Christus, qui Sacrificium Deo patri obtulit, & obtulit hoc idem, quod Melchisedech, id est, Panem & Vinum, suum, scilicet, Corpus, & Sanguinem. Who is more the Priest of the highest God, than our Lord jesus Christ, who offered a Sacrifice to God the Father, and offered the self same, that Melchisedeck did, that is, Bread and Wine, that is to say, his own body and Blood? S. Jerome in an epistle, that he wrote for the virtuous women Paula, and Eustochium to Marcelia, hath these words. Recurre ad Genesim, & Melchisedech Regem Salem. Huius Principem invenies civitatis, qui iam in typo Christi Panem, & Vinum obtulit, & Mysterium Christianum in salvatoris sanguine, & corpore dedicatrit. Return to the Book of Genesis, and to Melchisedek the King of Salem. And thou shalt find the Prince of that City, who even at that time in the figure of Christ offered Bread and Wine, and dedicated the Mystery of Christians in the Body, and Blood of our Saviour. Here this learned Father maketh a plain distinction between the Oblation of the Figure, which was Bread and Wine, and the Oblation of the Truth, which is the Mystery of Christian people, the Blood and Body of Christ our Saviour. Of this S. Augustine speaketh largely in his first Sermon upon the .33. Psalm, and in the .17. book De Civitate Dei, cap. 20.   

jewel.  
If M. Harding mean plainly, and will have S. Cyprians words taken as they lie, without Figure, then must he say, That Melschidek offered up verily, and Really● Christ himself. For S. Cyprians words be clear, 
Cyprianus Lib. 2. Epist. 3.  Christus obtulit hoc idem, quod Melchisedek obtulerat● Christ offered up the same thing, that Melchisedek had offered.   

Harding.  
Sir I assure you I mean plainly would God you did so too verily if you did, we should not thus find you always starting a side to figures, and phrases. Following my prefixed order, in my Answer I come now to prove the Sacrifice by the witness of two ancient Fathers, S. Cyprian, and S. Jerome, alleging for it, the figure of Melchisedek. First touching S. Cyprian, let his words be taken as they lie, without figure, fold, or wrinkle: how thereof will it follow, that Melchisedek offered verily, and really Christ himself? For (say you) S. Cyprians words be clear: Christ offered the same thing, that Melchisedek had offered. The clearer the words be, the less they serve your obscure purpose.  
If we granted your translation to be true, who have turned, hoc idem, the same thing, where it ought rather to be turned, the same (Sacrifice) being referred to Sacrifice, that goeth there before immediately, If we winked at you for this, I say: Yet I pray you, how followeth this Argument, Christ offered the same thing that Melchisedek had offered, Ergo Melchisedek offered up Christ himself verily and really? If you would have gone the right way to work, thus you should have argued. Christ offered the same thing, that Melchisedek had offered: Melchisedek had offered bread and wine, Ergo, Christ offered bread and wine. But because, if you had thus rightly framed your Argument, you had concluded with us against yourself by S. Cyprian, by whose interpretation the bread and wine, that Christ offered, was his body and blood: rather than you would grant so much, it liked you better to use false Logic, then true Divinity.  
The words then of S. Cyprian taken in their plain and literal sense, 
Christ offered the true bread and true wine at his Supper.  and without any figure do signify, that Melchisedek offered bread and wine, as much to say, a bare figure: and that Christ fulfilling that Figure, offered also bread and wine. But what bread and wine? His body and blood, the true bread, and the true wine. Which body and blood, because they feed and sustain both body and soul to life everlasting, the common bread and wine that Melchisedeck offered● having virtue to feed only the body, and that but for a final time: are for good cause called the true bread and wine.  
But perhaps you stick to the word, hoc idem, the same Sacrifice, 
The Sacrifice of Melchisedek, and the Sacrifice of, Christ, both divers, and the same.  or, the same thing, if you will needs have it so. If Christ offered the same, say you, whereas Melchisedek offered but bread and wine, how offered Christ himself truly and really? True it is, the Sacrifice of either, or the thing, that either of them offered, is both divers, and also the same. How divers? And how the same? divers in substance, the same in Mystery. The diversity of substance not only S. Cyprian in the Epistle to Cecilius, but also S. Jerome confesseth, writing upon the .109. Psalm. 
Hierony. in Psal. 109  Quomodo Melchisedech obtulit panem & vinum, sic & tu offeres corpus tuum & sanguinem, verum panem, & verum vinum. Like as Melchisedek offered bread and wine: so thou shalt offer thy body and blood, the true bread, and the true wine. What difference then and diversity is between the figure, and the thing forefigured, that is to say, between Melchisedeks' bread and wine, and the body and blood of Christ: such diversity of substance is there in the things which they offered.  
The Christ offered the same, that Melchisedek had offered, for the understanding of it, it may be said, both in consideration of the Mystery, and of the thing itself in a right sense, either because the forms of bread and wine remained after consecration, or because it was bread and wine in deed before Christ had consecrated and offered. We read in the Gospel, 
joan. 2.  that when our Saviour at the Marriage had turned water into wine, he commanded the waiters to draw, and bring it unto the Usher of the Haul. They brought it, and the Usher tasted water made wine. Now true it is to say, that the waiters did draw, and bring, and the Usher tasted the same thing, that the waiters had filled the waterpots withal a little before, that is, water. But what water? Forsooth water made wine. Likewise it was truly said of S. Cyprian, that Christ offered the same thing, that Melchisedech had offered before him, that is, bread and wine. But what bread and wine? Forsooth bread and wine made his body and blood. So the Scripture saith, that Aaron's Rod devoured the Rods of the Enchanters. 
Exod. 7.  What rod was that? It was the Rod made a serpent. By this it appeareth, how slender your Argument is, which here you gather against the Real Sacrifice out of S. Cyprians words, and how you seek not so much the truth, as to gainsay, and overthwart the Authorities, that for the same I alleged. Let us examine the rest of your Reply.   

jewel.  
Notwithstanding it is certain, that the Sacrifice, that Melchisedek made, if it were granted to be a Sacrifice, yet in plain, and Common manner of speech, was not Christ the Son of God, but only material Bread, and Wine, and other like provision of Victuals prepared for Abraham, and for his men. And therefore the Old learned Fathers say not, Melchisedek offered the same in Sacrifice unto God: but He brought it forth, as a present, as the manner was, to refresh them, after the pursuitte, and chase of their enemies. And S. Jerome in his Translation turneth it not, Obtulit, He Sacrificed: but, Protulit, He brought it forth. 
joseph. Antiquit. lib. 1. cap. 11.  josephus reporteth the matter thus: Melchisedek milites Abrahami hospitaliter habuit, nihil illis ad victum deesse Passus: Simulque ipsum adhibuit Mensae: Melchisedek feasted Abraham's Soldiers, and suffered them to want nothing, that was necessary for their provision: And likewise he received Abraham himself unto his Table. 
Chrysost. in Gene. Homil. 35. Epiph. cont. Melc. lib. 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Chrysostom, and Epiphanius say thus, He brought forth unto them Bread and Wine. Tertullian saith, Abrahamo revertenti de praelio obtulit Panem & Vinum: Melschisedek offered Bread, and Wine (not unto God, but) unto Abraham returning from the fight, So S. Ambrose, Occurrit Melchisedek, & obtulit Abrahamo Panem, & Vinum Melchisedek came forth to meet, and offered (nor unto God, but) unto Abraham Bread, and Wine.  
By these few it may appear, that Melchisedek brought forth Bread, and Wine, 
Tertull. x judaeos.  and other provision, not as a Sacrifice unto God, but as a Relief, and Susteinance for Abraham, and for his Company.   

Harding.  
It is a world to see your doubleness. What, are ye not resolved, whether the Sacrifice that Melchisedek made, were a Sacrifice, or no? Sir, the Sacrifice he made, that is to say, the thing which he offered in Sacrifice, was not Christ the Son of God, pardy. Who ever said, it was? Well, what was it then? Marry, only material bread, and wine, say you. So say we too. and that by the same, the Sacrifice of Christ's body and blood under the form of bread and wine, 
What was Melchisedeks' Sacrifice by M. jew  was forefigured. But was this all that Melchisedek offered? Not all, by you. For you reckon up also the provision of victuals, that were prepared for Abraham, and his men, that were in number .318. Then of likelihood this was a jolly Sacrifice. For Melchisedek being a King, as he was, like it is, that he provided beef, veal, and mutton, pig, goose and capon, baakte, boiled, and roast. For such victuals are meet for the provision of an Army. And did Melchisedek sacrifice all these things? This is more, than ever I read, or heard of before, or you either, I am bold to say. For your credits sake you should have alleged but one Doctor of good same, old, or new, that so writeth. Because ye have none to allege, we take it for a forgery of your own shop set out to th'intent bread and wine only named, should not represent to the memory of men the body and blood of Christ, whereof the bread and wine were figures. Verily Eusebius writeth lib. 5. De Demonstrat. that he never offered bodily Sacrifices, that is to say, things that had living bodies, but only bread and wine. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The like is reported in S. Jerome Epist. ad Euagrium.  
As for josephus that learned jew, 
josephus.  we admit him for an eloquent writer of a story, not for an assured teacher of Divinity. And yet his authority being admitted, Melchisedeks' feasting of Abraham's people inferreth no Argument against his Sacrifice in bread and wine. For why might he not do the duty of a Priest first, satisfying the mystery, and the duty of a liberal Prince afterward in refreshing that weary and hungry company? And therefore touching the word, Protulit, 
Protulit.  whereby you would prove, that Melchisedek brought forth bread and wine, and your other provision of victuals, I can not tell what, for Abraham's men: you take great pains in vain. As we are well able to prove, obtulit, I mean, that Melchisek offered (to with bread and wine) so we deny not protulit: that is to say, that he brought those things forth. But good sir I pray you, in what school learned you to make this Argument, Melchisedek brought forth bread and wine to refresh Abraham, and his men, ergo, he offered not bread and wine to God in sacrifice? Whereas the scripture after mention made of bred and wine, 
Genes. 14.  forthwith addeth, erat enim Sacerdos Dei altissimi, for he was the Priest of God the highest: unless that cause be unaptly applied, we must understand, that he was wont to offer up those things to God, which then he brought forth unto Abraham, giving the same to him for meat, to God for Sacrifice.  

That Melchisedeck offered, and made his sacrifice in bread and wine.  
Because you seem coovertly to deny, that Melchisedeck offered bread and wine in Sacrifice, which some of your side let not openly to deny, (which you also would do, but that by your Challenge you have bound yourself to admit the old Doctors) for that the word of the text is protulit, and not obtulit: I think it good to put you in mind of learned Fathers two, or three, by whom it is avouched, that he offered, and that he made his Sacrifice in bread and wine.  

Arnobius. In Psal. 109.  Arnobius, who lived above thirtien hundred years past, saith, Panem & vinum solus obtulit in sacerdotibus, Melchisedech alone among Priests offered bread and wine. S. Cyprian saith, 
Cyprian. lib. 2. Epist. 3.  Melchisedeck was the Priest of the highest God, and (panem & vinum obtulit) offered bread and wine. S. Jerome saith, 
Hieron. in Psal. 109.  that he offered bread and wine, Melchisedech obtulit panem & vinnm, be his words. The same he hath in his epistle written for Paula to Marcelia. S. Ambrose saith it with the same words expressly in two places. De Sacramentis lib. 4. cap. 3. & lib. 5. cap. 1. And all these use the word, obtulit, which you can not away with in the sense of sacrificing. If you demand for other witnesses of Melchisedecks' Sacrifice in bread and wine, it may please you to read Eusebius lib. 5. De Demonstratione evangelica. S. Augustine. in Psal. 33. Concione. 1. and in many other places. S. Chrysostom in the Homily de Proditione judae. Damascen. lib 4. cap. 14. Cassiodorus in Psal. 109. To be short, few Doctors can be named, in whom this Sacrifice is not most plainly avouched. So that you would never have doubted of it, had you been learned, much less denied it, had you not been impudent.  
As for that you allege out of Tertullian, and S. Ambros, who say that Melchisedek (obtulit Abrahamo panem & vinum) offered to Abraham bread and wine: 
Obtulit for dedit.  it relieveth your cause never a whit. For there the word obtulit, signifieth as much as exhibuit, or dedit, gave, or presented: and thereof yourself being so good a Grammarian, as you are, could not be ignorant. So much the more you show yourself a false handler of this high Mystery, in twice putting in your false parenthesis, (not to God, but) as though Melchisedek had not offered to God any Sacrifice at al.    

jewel.  
S. Paul compareth Christ with Melchisedek, 
Ambros. de Sacrament. li. 4. cap. 3.  In that, like unto Melchisedeck, he was the king of justice: In that, he was the Prince of peace's as Melchisedek was: And in that, he had neither Father, nor Mother: For so is it likewise written of Melchisedeck. But of the Sacrifice of Bread, 
Hebrae. 7.  and Wine he speaketh nothing. Yet notwithstanding, the Ancient holy Faethers oftentimes resemble the same present of Melchisedek unto the Sacrifice, that Christ made upon the Crosse. And in that respect S. Cyprian saith, Christ offered the same thing, that Melchisedek offered. That is to say, as M. harding himself must needs expound it. The same thing in performance of Truth upon the Cross, that Melchisedeck had before offered in a Figure.  
So saith S. Augustine, Illis Petra Christus: Unto them the Rock was Christ: 
August. in joan. tractat. 26.  And yet not Really, and in deed: but only by way of Signification, because it Signified, and Represented Christ.   

Harding.  

S. Paul speaketh not of it, ergo, it is not, a common Argument with the Ministers and here used by M. jewel.  I grant that, whereas S Paul extolleth the Priesthood of Christ, which is after the order of Melchisedek, above the Levitical Priesthood, speaking of certain things, wherein Christ and Melchisedek were like, speaketh nothing of the Sacrifice of bread and wine. What of that? Will ye thereof conclude, that Melchisedek did not offer unto God bread and wine? What a fond and Ministerlike kind of Argument is this, S. Paul spoke it not, Ergo it is not? S. Paul saith not in all that Epistle, that Christ was conceived of the holy Ghost, borne of the virgin Marie: shall it be lawful for us therefore to deny it?  
We may well think, that therein S. Paul used the counsel, 
joan. 16.  that Christ once used, when he said, I have many things to tell you, that ye can not bear away now. S. Paul showeth so much himself, 
Epistola ad Euagrium. In principio To. 3. operum Hieronymi. Heb. 5.  where beginning to speak of Melchisedek, he doth exaggerate, and very much confess the difficulty of that high mystery with this Proem, as S. Jerome noteth. Super quo multus nobis sermo, & ininterpretabilis. We have a long process to utter touching Melchisedek, and such as can not be expounded: Not because the Apostle could not expound it, but because it was not a matter convenient for that time, 
Hieron. ad Euagrium. Mysteries kept secret.  saith S. Jerome. And wherefore? Because he persuaded with the Hebrews, that is to say, the jews, not yet come to the faith, that he might not reveal that sacred and secret Sacrament. And whereas the vessel of Election (saith he) is astoined at that Mystery, and confesseth the matter whereof he disputeth, to be unspeakable (or undeclarable) how much more ought we silly worms and gnats, confess the only knowledge of our unskill? etc.  
S. Augustine speaking unto his hearers, 
August. in Psal. 109.  of whom some were Cathecumen or learners of the faith, thought not good to utter plainly the doctrine of Melchisedeks' Sacrifice. Fidelibus loquor, etc. I speak to the faithful (saith he) if there be any Catechumens, that understand it not, let them put away slewth, and maketh haste to have knowledge. It is not needful to open the Mysteries, let the Scriptures tell you what the Sacrifice after the order of Melchisedek is.  
If S. Augustine thought it good not to show and publish these mysteries abroad, at what time almost the whole world professed the faith of Christ: what good cause had S. Paul not to open the same unto such as were yet but babes in the faith, and were to be fed with milk and pap, rather than with sound meat, and were not of capacity for such Mysteries? By consideration of this much it appeareth, of what force your Argument is: S. Paul speaketh nothing of Melchisedeks' Sacrifice of bread and wine: Ergo, Melchisedek made no such Sacrifice at al. You, that so scornfully reject other men's Arguments, should have taken better advise of your Logic, before you had made such peevish Arguments yourself.  

Why S. Paul spoke not of the manner of Melchisedeks' Sacrifice in bread and wine.  
Thus it may be said, and reasonally, that the greatness of the Mystery, and the unmeet time and disposition of them, to whom S. Paul wrote, was the cause, why he spoke nothing touching the manner and mystery of Melchisedeks' Sacrifice in bread and wine. another cause of as much importance, or more, was this.  
S. Paul's chief intent in this place was, for better mean to allure the jews unto the faith, to show the excellency of Christ's Priesthood, which is after the order of Melchifedek, in comparison of the Levitical Priesthood. This to perform, 
Heb. 7.  he setteth forth the prerogative of the same above the Levitical Priesthood, partly on the behalf of the person of the Priest, partly on the behalf of the exercise of the Priesthood itself. Touching the one, 
Melchisedek in dignity above Abraham.  because Melchisedek was the type and figure of Christ, and bore the person of Christ, he doth according to the Scriptures attribute great dignities unto him, as that he was King of justice, King of Peace, the Priest of God the highest, without father, without mother, having neither beginning of days, nor end. Which dignities pertained not unto his own person in truth, but as he bore the person of Christ the true Melchisedek.  
Touching the other he declareth out of the book of Genesis, 
Gen. 14.  how he blessed Abraham, and how Abraham gave unto him tithes of all things, in both which consisted the exercise of Priesthood, and thereby Abraham is proved to be of lower degree, than Melchisedek. For without controversy he is less which receiveth blessing, 
Heb. 7.  and the giver of blessing is the greater, by verdict of S. Paul.  

The priesthood after the order of Melchisedek far● passeth the Levitical Priesthood.  And as concerning the tithes, that Melchisedek received of Abraham, Levi himself also, who received tithes, paid tithes in Abraham, for he was yet in the loins of Abraham, as S. Paul saith, when Melchisedek met him. Now whereas the Levitical Priests are commanded according to the jaw to take tithes of the people, and have thereby a Dignity above the people: Melchisedeks' taking of tithes of Abraham their chief Patriarch, Prince and head of the whole progeny (and consequently of Levi also and his children the Priests of that order, for that they were then in his loins) doth prove, the pre-eminence and excellency of that Priesthood, in comparison of the Levitical Priesthood, in so much that in comparison of the same, the Levites be but Lay men, and of the popular order.  
By these, and certain other Arguments S. Paul proveth, and setteth forth the excellency of Christ's Priesthood after the order of Melchisedek, above the Levitical Priesthood. Among which he maketh no mention of the manner of Melchisedeks' Sacrifice. Because if he had alleged, that Melchisedek sacrificed in bread and wine, the Hebrews would soon have replied, that their sacrifices in that behalf far excelled, as the which being of living beasts, had a more glorious show and countenance, than the Sacrifice of bread and wine. Thus you have two causes declared, why S. Paul, where he treateth so much of the dignity of Melchisedek, and of the Priesthood that is after his order, speaketh nothing, at least manifestly, of his Sacrifice in bread and wine.  
If the Fathers have oftentimes resembled this present of Melchisedek unto the Sacrifice that Christ made upon the Cross, as you say: why do you not show us, where we may find it? Will any wise man (trow you) believe it only upon your bare word? If it be a thing done oftentimes, it was the easier for you to show it once. But your oftentimes in the end will prove never. That Melchisedek gave to Abraham a present of bread and wine, being returned from the battle, it is not denied. but that ever any ancient learned Father resembled that present, as you call it abhorring the name of Sacrifice, as it had the condition of a present, unto the Sacrifice that Christ made upon the Cross: I utterly deny it. If any where they resemble the bread and wine that Melchisedek made his Sacrifice of unto the Sacrifice of the Cross, they do it in respect that the thing signified by it, that is, the body and blood of Christ, was one both in the Sacrifice made at the Supper, and also in that which was made upon the Cross: and not that the manner of Sacrifice made upon the Cross which was bloody, was semblable unto it. And so in respect had to the body and blood of Christ offered upon the Cross, and not unto the manner of offering, I grant the exposition you make of S. Cyprians words to be true. that is to say, that Christ offered the same thing in performance of truth upon the Cross, that Melchisedek had before offered in figure. But that performance of truth is by the learned Fathers commonly acknowledged in the Sacrifice of the Supper. In which Christ offered his body and blood under the forms of bread and wine after the order of Melchisedek for thanksgiving, which he offered upon the Cross for redemption.  

August. in joan. Tract. 26.  Your common figurative saying taken out of S. Augustine, Illis Petra Christus, unto them the Rock was Christ (though it be not altogether so reported of S. Augustin in the place by you quoted) is abruptely brought in, to what purpose I see not, but to beguile the unlearned, as I suppose: who thereby may be moved to think, that our Sacrifice is as mere a figure, as the figures of the old law were. To this I have answered once or twice before. In all the frays ye make against the most holy Mysteries, this bad tool is ever at hand with, you to strike withal.    

jewel.  
Sometimes they compare it with the Sacrifice of thanksgiving, and with the Ministration of the holy Communion, and make it equal with the same.  
S. Augustine saith, 
August. in quaest. Novi, & Veter. Testament. quaest 109.  Melchisedek Abrahae primum, quasi Patri fidelium, tradidit Eucharistiam Corporis, & Sanguinis Domini: Melchisedek gave first unto Abraham, as unto the Father of the Faithful, the Sacrament of the Body, and Blood of Christ. So S. Jerome saith, Melchisedek in typo Christi Panem, & Vinum obtulit, & Mysterium Christianorum in salvatoris Corpore, 
Hieron. ad Marcellam.  & Sanguine dedicavit: Melchisedek in the Figure of Christ offered Bread, and Wine: and dedicated the Mystery of Christians in the Body, and Blood of Christ. These Authorities might serve, to make some show, that Melchisedeck said Mass, and Consecrated the Sacrament of the Body, and Blood of Christ, and offered up Christ in Sacrifice unto his Father: But of M. harding, or any other such Priest, they touch nothing.   

Harding.  
You shall never show us, where either the Present that Melchisedek gave to Abraham (by which term you would abolish the Sacrifice) or the Sacrifice which he made in bread and wine, was compared with the Sacrifice, of thanksgiving, unless it be the eucharist, which also beareth that name, wherein, the real body and blood of Christ is present.  
As for the ministration of the holy Communion it is false to say; It is compared with the ministration, that is to say, with the act of the ministering the Communion. But I grant, it is compared to the thing itself, that is to say, to the body and blood of Christ consecrated, offered, and received in the holy Communion. Provided always, that by the holy Communion, we mean not your new toy now practised in England by your Ministers that be no Priests where there is no holy thing consecrated to make it holy, 
Dionys. in Ecclesiast. Hierarchia.  but the holy Communion of the Catholic Church, which S. Dionyse calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
The authority you allege under the name of S. Augustine, is not S. Augustine's. If I had alleged it against you, a great deal of your scoffing Rhetoric should have been bestowed, both to reprove the book, and also me for alleging the same. I am sure, if you have read either the work itself with any judgement, or the Censure of Erasmus upon it: you are persuaded, it is an unworthy piece of work to be fathered upon so worthy a Doctor. As for the very Question itself, out of which you bring your authority, I marvel you considered not, what Erasmus saith of it. Quaestione, CIX. multa garrit, ut ostendat Melchisedek non fuisse hominem. In the. CIX. question (saith he) this author maketh a great bible babble, to show that Melchisedeck was not a man. In the same line there, he speaketh of him, as it were of yourself, saying. Quaest. 125. scurram agit.  
But who soever, and what so ever the author of that work be, the place is alleged without any dependence, or coherence, as though you cared not in what order you allege testimonies, so you make up a heap. Either for haste, or (which is more likely) for guile, you left out both the beginning, and the end of it, whereby the meaning is clearly declared. Melchisedek (saith the author) gave unto Abraham, 
Quaest. Veteris & novi testament. q. 109.  as unto the Father of the faithful, the Eucharist (or Sacrament) of the body and blood of Christ. But what was it that he gave? It followeth in the same sentence. Vt praefiguraretur in Patre, quae in filijs futura erat veritas. That the truth which was to come in the children, might be foreshowed by a figure in the Father. Do not these later words most evidently declare, that Melchisedek gave only the figure of the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood to Abraham the Father of the faithful, and that the truth of that figure, which is the body and blood of Christ is amongst us, that are in respect of faith his children?  
That he calleth the thing, which Melchisedek gave to Abraham, by the name of the Eucharist, it is no great marvel. Whether S. Augustine himself would so have spoken, it may be doubted. Verily it is no strange thing in the old learned Fathers, to give the name of the thing signified, unto the figure, that signifieth, and contrariwise.  
This nipping of sentences, 
M. jewels Nipping of sentences.  specially of such as words as open the truth, and overthrow your doctrine, doth everywhere bewray your guileful intent. The whole sentence considered, as it is uttered by the author, doth so clearly serve for confirmation of the real Sacrifices of Christ's body and blood in the new Testament: as a more clearer any faithful man would not desire.  
The saying you take out of S. Jerome, I marvel what you meant to allege it. It maketh fully for our part that is to say, for establishing of the Catholic belief. There is mention made both of the Figure, bread and wine offered by Melchisedek, and of the verity, the body and blood of Christ offered by the Christians in their Mysteries. God be praised, through whose power, his truth is uttered by the mouths of his enemies. As for your pleasant collection, and scornful jesting, how much it pleaseth you, or becometh the person you have taken upon you, I know not: Sure I am the holy mysteries of Christian religion, should with more fear of God be treated of. The room you occupy, is to reverent, the matter we handle, too holy, the days ye ruffle in, too lamentable, the stage you play this part on, too sad M. jewel, for you thus to play Hick scorner, I should have said, jacke scorner. But what may we say? Kind will show itself.  

The English communion compared with Melchisedeks' Sacrifice, which M. jew. calleth Melchisedeks' Mass.  If Melchisedek said any Mass, it was like, unto the English Communion, that offereth nothing else, but bare bread and wine, if it offer aught at all, and feedeth the people with figures, in steed of the truth. Nay this Communion is not by many parts so good, as Melchisedeks' oblation, and blessing of Abraham was. For he offered in a figure, and blessed according to his Priesthood, being in time of figures before the truth was come into the world: But our pretty Communion of England, bringeth forth bare shows of bread and wine now in the time of grace, the truth being come, and accepted.   

jewel.  
And lest any maen happen of simplicity to be deceived, thinking that S. Jerome hereby meant M. hardings Real Presence, for that he saith, Melchisedek dedicated the Christian Mystery in the Body and Blood of Christ, It may please him to consider, that both S. Jerome, and also other ancient Fathers have often used the same manner of speech in other cases, wherein M. Harding can have no manner suspicion of Real Presence. 
Hieron. adverse. jovin. lib. 1.  S. Jerome saith, evangelium Passione, & Sanguine Domini Dedicatur: The Gospel is Dedicated in the Passion, and Blood of Christ. S. Augustine saith, Quid est mare Rubrum? 
August. in Psal. 80.  Sanguine Domini Consecratum: What is the Red sea? He answereth, Consecrate in the Blood of Christ. Again he saith, 
August. in joan. tractat. 11.  unde rubet Baptismus Christi, nisi Christi Sanguine Consecratus? Whereof is Christ's Baptism red, but that it is Dedicate in the Blood of Christ? Thus Melchisedek Dedicated the Christian Mystery in the Blood of Christ.   

Harding.  
All that here followeth to the end of the Reply to this Division, toucheth not at all any thing by me written or said. But it is inferred by M. jewel upon occasion of a testimony of S. Hierom which he himself alleged, fearing in the conceit of his own imagination, that S. Jerome will be found against him in the very place, where he craved help of him, as he is directly against him in deed. 
M. jewels fear, lest the Eucharist be accounted a better thing, than bread and wine.  And here is a great fear conceived, lest forsooth the reader should be deceived, and think, that S. Jerome in this place meant the real Presence. Then tell us good Sir, unless the body and blood of Christ be really present in the Mystery of the Christians, how is not the Figure of Melchisedech, who dedicated the same, as good and as worthy, as is the Mystery itself of the Christians, which was dedicated?  
But, say you, where so ever any thing is said to be dedicated in the body and blood of Christ, there his body and blood are not consequently present, as it may appear by the example above alleged, and by many other the like. I grant this much, what then? Will it thereof follow by necessary cousequent, that in the Mystery of the Christians, whereof Melchisedeks' Oblation was a figure, and which was by him dedicated in a figure, 
Matt. 26.  the body and blood of Christ is not really present? 
Luc. 22.  specially whereas Christ himself doth in terms pronounce, 
Marc. 14.  This is my body, 
1. Cor. 11.  this is my blood? What need you here to talk so much of the real presence? You know pardy, I stay not upon this saying of S. Jerome for proof of the real presence, as though we had not many other, and manifester proofs for it.  
I confess, if Christ had never spoken those words, and had never made promise, that he would give us in our Mystery the self same flesh, 
joan. 6.  that he would give for the life of the world: S. Hieromes testimony of itself were not a sufficient proof, like as neither his saying, that the Ghospel is dedicated by the Passion and blood of Christ, doth force us to grant, that the Ghospel is the real blood of Christ for lack of Christ's own word pronouncing, that the Ghospel is his blood. And likewise for lack of the word of Christ saying, that Baptism is his very blood, which is shed for remission of sin, although it be said by S. Augustine, not only of Baptism itself, but also of the Read Sea which was a figure of it, that they were red, as being consecrate in the blood of Christ: yet neither of them is in deed Christ's blood.  
Concerning your phrase of dedicating, 
What S. Hierom understood by the term of dedication.  alleged out of S. Jerome, I see not to what purpose it serveth you, but to dazzle the eyes of the unlearned. The circumstance of the place doth easily show, what he meant by saying, The Gospel is dedicated by the Passion and blood of Christ, for so it is to be turned. Because jovinian the heretic, against whom he wrote making marriage equal with virginity, 
Hieron. lib. 1. adversus iovinianum.  after that he had in his book alleged examples of the old testament, following his order, pretended to come to the Gospel, and then in commendation of Marriage brought forth Zacharie, Elizabeth, and Peter with his wives mother, as pertaining to the time of the new Testament, and to the Gospel: S. Jerome taketh him up roundly, and twiteth him of ignorance, saying, Consueta Vecordia non intelligit istos quoque inter eos qui legi seruierint, debuisse numerari. Neque enim evangelium ante Crucem Christi est, quod Passione & sanguine ipsius dedicatur. Through his accustomed doltishness he understandeth not, that they also ought to have been numbered among them, that were under the law. For the Gospel is not before the Cross of Christ (that is to say before Christ was crucified) which is dedicated by his Passion and blood.  
S. Jerome meaneth by these last words, that the time of the Gospel began, when Christ had suffered his Passion, and shed his blood, and not before. And here this worde● Gospel, 
Gospel.  signifieth not the book written by the Evangelists, but the state and 〈◊〉 of the new Testament. Which took force, and was dedicated, that is to say, was consecrated, and made holy to the service and honour of God, by the Passion and blood of Christ. Therefore he noteth jovinian to be but a dolt, in that he did attribute the Marriages of Zacharie and Elizabeth, and Peter, to the Gospel, which in deed belonged unto the law of the old Testament, because the law continued, till Christ had suffered his Passion, 
johan. 19  as he said himself, Consummatum est, it is ended. In like sense S. Jerome useth the word of Dedicating in the same book a little before, saying, Virginitatem à Saluatore virgine dedicari, that virginity is dedicated by our Saviour being a virgin, for that now it is otherwise with us, than it was with them of the old law, and with those to whom it was said, 
Gen. 1.  Grow ye, and be ye multiplied, and that virginity is now sithence our Saviour came in flesh, more generally commended, than it was before among them, who (as there S. Jerome saith) have given us types and figures of things to come.  

August. in Psal. 80.  The red Sea is consecrate in the blood of our Lord, faith S. Augustin. Again, Baptism (saith he) is red, being consecrate in the blood of Christ. 
August. in joan. Tract. 11.  The meaning hereof is, As our sins be taken away and cleansed in baptism taking virtue and effect of the blood of Christ through faith: So to the jews was forefigured the blood of Christ in the red Sea. Baptism is red with the blood of Christ, and is consecrate by the same. Thus it is said, because it is ordained by Christ to be a mean, whereby the effect and merit of his blood is through ●aith imparted into us. This much weighed and considered, it may soon to any man appear, how little relief M. jewel shall find in these pharses.    

The .14. Division.  

The Answer.  
OF all other Oecumenius speaketh most plainly to this purpose upon this place of S. Paul alleged out of the Psalm, 
Oecumen. in Epist. ad Heb. cap. 5. Psal. 119.  Tu es Sacerdos in aeternum secundùm Ordinem Melchisedech. Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek. His words be these, Significat sermo, quod non solùm Christus obtulit incruentam hostiam (siquidem suum ipsius corpus obtulit) verùm etiam qui ab ipso fungentur Sacerdotio, quorum Deus Pontifex esse dignatus est, sine sanguinis effusione offerent. Nam hoc significat (in aeternum). Neque enim de ea, quae semel à Deo facta est Oblatio, & Hostia, dixisset in aeternum, sed respiciens ad praesentes Sacrificos, per quos medios Christus sacrificat, & sacrificatur, qui etiam in Mystica Coena modum illis tradidit huiusmodi Sacrificij. The meaning of this place is (saith he) that not only Christ offered an unbloody Sacrifice, for he offered his own Body, but also that they, which after him shall do the office of a Priest (whose Bishop he vouchsafeth to be) shall offer without shedding of Blood. For that signifieth the word (For ever.) For concerning that Oblation, and Sacrifice, which was once made by God, he would never say, (In aeternum) for ever. But (he said so) having an eye to those Priests, that be now, by the mediation of whom Christ sacrificeth, and is sacrificed: who also in his Mystical Supper taught by tradition the manner of such a Sacrifice.  
Concerning the Prophecy of Malachi, for proof of this Oblation, though the place of Irenaeus above recited may stand in steed of many authorities, yet I will not let to rehearse the sayings of a Father or two, for confirmation of this Article.  
Chrysostom saith very plainly, In omni loco Sacrificium offertur nomini meo, 
In Psal. 95.  & Sacrificium purum. Vide quàm luculenter, quámque dilucidè Mysticam interpretatus est Mensam, quae est Incruenta hostia. In every place a Sacrifice shall be offered to my name, and that a pure Sacrifice. See, how plainly, and clearly he interpreted the Mystical Table, which is the Unbloody Sacrifice.   

jewel.  
Here might I justly take exception against this Doctor, as finding him without the compass of the first six hundred years. How be it, He saith not, That the Priest hath power, or Authority, to Sacrifice the Son of God, nor seemeth any way to favour M. hardings purpose. Therefore we shall not need to touch his credit.   

Harding.  
In this Division M. jewel, you set forth as it were in a moustre, a number of authorities, and not one to the purpose. Yet few things excepted, you tell us little here, that you have not told us before. One apt and plain testimony would have helped your cause more, than all this impertinent and confuse number. It is not hard for one that is furnished with store of notebooks of common places, as you are, to fill the paper with heaps of allegations. This kind of writing, as to the ignorant it maketh a false show of store of learning, so to the learned, bringeth assured evidence of lack, both of truth, and judgement. You are much beholding to your Phrases, and metaphorical speeches. For in them at least, as in a smooddering smoke, you trust to convey yourself away, that the weakness of your part appear not openly, as it should, if you would directly answer to the points, wherewith the truth of our side is confirmed. By this you show yourself to be minded not to yield and to subscribe according to your promise, what so ever, and how much so ever be proved against you.  
Concering Oecumenius in my Answer alleged, 
Oecumenius.  you might justly take exception against him, you say for that he falleth without the compass of the first six hundred years. As though an Author allowed by the best learned of the Church for the speace of an unknown time, should be of less credit, than an other, that wrote one hundred years before him. As though also after the first six hundred years the holy Ghost forsook the Church, and therefore lest it unfurnished of good and learned teachers. Of what age he was, I trow it is not certainly known: but that he is of great antiquity, it is certain. Neither can ye refuse him for a Papist, because he was of the Greek Church, which yourself have cleared of Papistry. Well touching his credit, forasmuch as upon a brave show of a confidence in your cause, you are so good Master unto him, as not to take exception against him: we take that ye give. Let it then stand for good and allowed, as in deed, 
M. jewel speaketh directly against his own knowledge touching Oecumenius.  there is no cause but so it should.  
Because you pretend in word (knowing the contrary in heart) that this testimony of Oecumenius maketh no proof for the Sacrifice against your Challenge: whether it be so, or no, let it he briefly examined. First, saith he not, that Christ himself offered an unbloody Sacrifice? By the epipheton Unbloody, added to Sacrifice, is it not manifest, that this Sacrifice was distinct and divers from the Sacrifice, that he made upon the Cross, which was bloody? next, lest any man might happen to doubt, what the substance was, which was offered unbloodily by Christ, doth not this Author declare it by his plain Parenthesis, saying, for he offered his own body? 
That Christ offered his own body unbloodily.  Is it not clear then, that Christ's body was the substance, which he offered unbloodily? Note then good Reader, that the substance, which was offered bloodily upon the Cross, and unbloodily at the Supper (for that was the time when the unbloody Sacrifice was made) by this testimony is all one, to wit the body of Christ. the body of Christ, I say, and not only thanks giving, praises, and remembrance, of his Death, whereunto only you M. jewel would draw it. Thus it is evident, that Christ himself offered to his Father, not only a bloody, but also an unbloody Sacrifice.  
Let us see, whether by Oecumenius it may appear, that Priests have authority to offer up the unbloody Sacrifice. 
That Prie●stes have authority to offer the unbloody Sacrifice.  Verily it appeareth most manifestly. For saith he, Not only Christ offered the unbloody Sacrifice, but also they, which from him shall do the office of Priests, shall offer without shedding of blood. Mark M. jewel, The Priests, that shall have authority from Christ their high Bishop to execute the office of Priesthood, shall offer unbloudly. But what shall they offer? What other thing, but that which Christ offered? What offered Christ? An unbloody Sacrifice. What was the substance, of that unbloody Sacrifice? His very body. Suum ipsius corpus obtulit, he offered his own body, saith Oecumenius. Therefore the Priests shall offer the unbloody Sacrifice, which is Christ's body, and the same shall they do upon good authority, for that in so doing, they shall execute the Priesthood, which they shall receive, ab ipso, from him, that is, from Christ.  
If you can tell us of any power and warrant more sufficient, than that which cometh from Christ unto the Priests of his Church, then shall you require me to yield, and with you to confess, that Priests do without good authority presume to offer up Christ unto his Father in their daily Sacrifice.  
You will say perhaps. I hear that Priests shall offer Christ's body without shedding of blood, but that they have any authority granted them so to do, yet I hear not. It may please you for this to consider, what followeth in Oecumenius. This term, In aeternum, for ever, signifieth so much, as that Priests shall offer in executing their Priesthood from Christ, his unbloody Sacrifice. For the Prophet David would never have said, that Christ was a Priest for ever, 
Psal. 109.  in respect of the Sacrifice, which Christ made once only upon the Cross: but in respect of the Priests, that be now living, by whom as by means and instruments, or rather ministers, Christ both doth offer Sacrifice, and is offered in Sacrifice. Lo here by the ministery of the Priests, Christ doth presently sacrifice, and is sacrificed. so that they do their office of priesthood presently, and accomplish that in deed, whereby the Priesthood of Christ after the order of Melchisedek is daily put in practice, and so continued for ever, not only in power and virtue, but also in act and effect.  

Where gave Christ to priests authority to sacrifice his body.  It remaineth it be showed, where, and when, Christ gave them authority thus to do. Oecumenius in the end of this allegation saith it more plainly, than it may be doubted of, much less denied. Qui etiam in mystica coena modum illis tradidit huiusmodi Sacrificij. Christ in his Mystical Supper delivered unto them the manner of such a Sacrifice. I presuppose no man to be so vain a wrangler, as to cavil for that Oecumenius saith not, he delivered them authority, but the manner how to offer this Sacrifice. For the delivering of the manner how to do it, had nothing availed, unless he had withal delivered authority lawfully to executeat. Thus have you in this one authority expressed all the terms of your Challenge, to wit, that Priests have authority to offer up Christ unto his Father in Sacrifice. For here is mention made of Priests, of sacrificing unbloodily, of the body of Christ, and therefore of Christ himself, of authority, because they execute Priesthood in the person of Christ, from Christ, and for Christ, in that they be means by whom Christ sacrificeth, and is sacrificed. The same authority is further avouched, by that, that Christ delivered unto them in his last Supper, the manner of such a Sacrifice.  
How be it I was deceived in saying, that all the terms of your Challenge be expressed in this testimony: for here lacketh the name of the Father. But the Father of heaven be thanked, that it forceth not much, whether his name be expressed or no, seeing it is so necessarily included. For to whom should Christ offer Sacrifice, but to his Father? To whom ought man offer Sacrifice, but to God only, as to whom and to none other, that kind of service is due?  
If you require a plain place witnessing that Priests have authority to offer up Christ, 
This sacrifice avouched by the Nicen Council.  hear what the Fathers of the first Nicen Council say. The Council is advertised (say they) that in certain places, and Cities, Diacons give the Sacraments unto Priests. This neither Rule, 
Concil. Nicen. Cano ne. 14.  nor Custom hath delivered unto us, that they who have not power to offer up the Sacrifice, should deliver the body of Christ unto them, that have power to offer it. Here you may see it expressly avouched, that Priests have authority and power to offer up, the body of Christ. Now let us see, what you answer to the plain place of Oecumenius.   

jewel.  
The whole Contents of his words are these: That there is in the Church an unbloody Sacrifice, and that Christ himself offereth up the same by the mean, and ministery of the Priest, and that Christ himself is that Sacrifice. Which words with due construction, and in the sense, 
Hieron. in Psal. 86.  and meaning of the Ancient Fathers, may well be granted. For like as S. Hierom saith, as it is alleged before, Quod natum est ex Virgin, 
Hieron. in Psal. 97.  nobis q●otidiè nascitur: Christus nobis quotidiè crucifigitur: Christ, that was borne of the Virgin, is borne unto us every day: 
Augustin. quaest. evan. lib. 2.  Christ unto us is daily Crucified: And, as S. Augustin saith, Tum Christus cuique occiditur, cùm credit Occisum: Then is Christ presently slain to every man, when he trusteth wholly in his Death, 
August. de verbis Domini Secum. Luc. Serm. 38.  and believeth he was slain: And as the same S. Augustin saith, Tibi Christus quotidiè Resurgit: Christ Riseth again to thee every day: And, as Chrysostom saith, In the Holy Mysteries is wrought, and perfected the Death of Christ: Briefly, as Gregory saith, Christus iterum in hoc Mysterio Moritur: Christ is slain in this Mystery, 
Chrysost. in Acta. hom. 21.  and dieth again: Even so, and in the same sense, and meaning, and none otherwise, Oecumenius saith, Christ is offered in the Holy Supper.  

De Cons. distinct. 2. Quid sit●  But, as Christ neither is daily Borne of the Virgin, nor daily Crucified, nor daily Slain, nor daily Riseth from the dead, nor daily Suffereth, nor daily Dieth, but only in a certain manner of Speech, not verily, and in deed: Even so Christ is daily Sacrificed, only in a certain manner of speech, and in a Mystery: But Really, verily, and in deed he is not Sacrificed.   

Harding.  

Great points contained in the testimony of Oecumenius by M. jewel dissembled.  There is more comprehended in the words of Oecumenius, than you report. For he saith, that Christ hath offered the Unbloody Sacrifice, which he expoundeth to have been the oblation of his own body. Which can not be otherwise understanded, then of the Oblation made at the Supper, as only being unbloody, for the Oblation made upon the Cross was bloody, as you konwe. Again, he saith, that Christ's Priesthood after the order of Melchisedek endureth for ever, for that even to this day he sacrificeth, and is sacrificed, by the mean of Priests now being. Furthermore, that Christ in his last Supper delivered to them the manner of such a Sacrifice. These be points contained in this testimony of Oecumenius, besides those which you have noted, and be such as you and your fellows can not well brook, and therefore your policy was to dissemble them.  
To the whole place you answer by comparing it (as your manner is to do) unto certain phrases, 
M. jew. runneth to his phrases and figurative speeches for answer to that which is spoken in proper speech and literally.  and figurative speeches of the Fathers, in which they say one thing in sound of word, and mean an other, or at least, in which their meaning is to be understanded Mystically, and not exactly to be construed after the rigour of the precise terms. Six sentences, or rather pieces of sentences you pretend to allege, which you will needs have to be like unto this testimony of Oecumenius. Of which six, the first is your own, and not S. Hieromes at all, 
Shifts not to be borne with in a preacher.  as you utter it. As for the second, there is no such thing in his Commentaries upon the Psalm. 97. as your cotation directeth: the fourth is not to be found in the .38. Sermon of S. Augustine De verbis Domini secundum Lucan, as you note, because he never made of that matter but .37. Sermons. The fifth is falsified, S. Chrysostom uttereth it otherwise. The third, and the sixth, if you had alleged them whole, 
Answer to the first authority alleged out of S. Hierom.  as they lie in the authors, would seem to make nothing for you, as here it shall be declared.  
If humanity required me not to deal rigorously with you, but gently to bear with you, not to reveal your false sleights to your discredit, but for your honesties sake to wink at them: then thus should you be answered. 1. Where S. Jerome saith, Si volumus, quotidie nascitur Christus, 
Hieron. in Psal. 86.  If we will, Christ is borne every day: the word Christ, is not taken in proper signification for the second person, but for any virtue, that man may work, 
1. Cor. 1.  because it is said of him, that he is the virtue and wisdom of his Father, as I have before declared. Now where Oecumenius saith, Christ hath offered an unbloody Sacrifice (for he hath offered his own body): Christ hath vouchsafed to be our Bishop, Christ sacrificeth, and is sacrificed by means of the Priests that now be, Christ delivered unto them the way and manner of such Sacrifice in his mystical Supper: in all these speeches Christ is the name, not of virtue and power indefinitely, but of the only begotten Son of God, the second Person in Trinity, that was conceived by the holy Ghost, and borne of the virgin Marie. Therefore there is no similitude or likeness between the Phrase of S. Jerome (which in truth is as here I allege, and not as you forge it) and this saying of Oecumenius. Whereas then your Argument is this, As Christ is borne every day, so is he offered by Priests every day, But he is not really and in deed borne every day: Ergo neither is he offered by Priests every day: If this be your Argument, your Mayor, or first proposition, is false, because (as I have showed) the similitude holdeth not, and the case is not like. And so S. Jerome doth nothing help your cause. 
Crucifying of Christ considered two ways.   
Touching your other places, one Answer in manner may serve for them al. 2. Christ unto us is daily crucified, saith S. Jerome perhaps some where, or some other Father, for your cotation is false. This much is to be considered. The crucifying of Christ, is of two sorts. The one external, and bloody. The other mystical, and unbloody. In that, Christ's blood was shed, to be the general redemption: In this the blood of Christ already shed is applied unto us, that is to say, the effect of his blood to particular remission of sins, and pains dew to sins, as if he were now hanging upon the Crosse. This application of Christ's death unto us, is sometimes of the Fathers called, his Crucifying, sacrificing, Death, and killing. After the first way, he was never crucified but once. After the second way, he is crucified daily, and so often as the Death of him that was crucified, is (the sacrament of Reconciliation presupposed) applied unto us to effect.  
Neither is the doctrine of Application of Christ's Death strange. 
Application.  The substance of it hath been taught in divers respects by the learned Fathers of the Church both old, and new. Albeit the term of Application be more common in the Scholastical Doctors, 
Tertul. lib. 1. adversus Martion. Hierony. in Matth. cap. 26.  who have treated most exactly of these points, then in the most Ancient writers. Tertullian writing against Martion, and S. Hierom upon S. Matthew, to signify the real presence, use the term of Representation, whereby is signified in Latin the exhibiting of a thing present. 
Representation.   
S. Gregory expresseth the same meaning that Application conteneth, 
Gregorius Homi. 37.  by the term of Repairing, or renewing. So often as we offer up unto him (saith he) the host of his Passion, 
Reparation or repairing  so often we renew and repair his Passion unto us for absolution. 
Dialog. 4. cap. 58.  Again in an other place. This host (or Sacrifice, saith he) doth singularly save the soul from damnation, which by Mystery reneweth unto us the Death of the only begotten Son of God.  
S. Augustine signifieth this much by the word of Insinuation. 
Insinuation.  Now who so ever doth insinuate a thing to an other, that is to say, putteth it in his bosom (for so much the word signifieth) the same doth also apply it unto him. For declaration hereof S. Augustine's testimony by yourself here alleged, serveth very aptly. Which if you had with more sincerity and truth alleged, you had dealt more like a true man: but then had you hindered your evil cause. His words be these, where he expoundeth the Parable of the Riotous Son written by S. Luke, 
Lucae. 15. August. question. Euangel. lib. 2.33.  making Vitulum saginatum, the fatted calf to be Christ. Our Lord (saith he) was this fatted Calf, who according to flesh was filled with reproaches. Quòd autem imperat ut adducant eum, quid aliud est, nisi ut praedicent eum, & annunciando venire faciant in exhausta fame viscera filii esurientis? 
S. Augustine understandeth by the kill of Christ now, the insinuation of his death.  Nam etiam ut occidant eum jubet, hoc est, ut mortem eius insinuent. Tunc enim cuique occiditur, cùm credit occisum. Whereas he commandeth them to bring him, what is that to say else, but that they preach him, and by telling of him, cause him to come into the bowels quite famished for hunger of the hungry son? For he commandeth also that they kill him, that is to say, that they insinuate and show his Death: For than he is slain to every man, when he believeth, that he was slain.  
3. Thus S. Augustine expounded himself, who maketh the kill of Christ now, to be none other, but the insinuation of his Death unto us by preaching. Christ was once killed corporally and in deed. And now he is killed, as concerning the Application of the benefit of his Death, that is to say, his death is insinuate and applied unto us, when we believe hat he was killed for us. Which Death nevertheless, to wit, the effect of his Death, is applied unto us not by faith only, but also faith presupposed, by mean of the Sacraments.  
So Christ is said by S. Augustine to rise again to us every day,, 
In what sense M. jewels mystical speeches alleged out of the Fathers be true.  because we believe that he rose again.  
S. Chrysostom saith not simply, as you report, the Death of Christ is wrought, and perfected in the holy Mysteries: but illa mors perficitur, that Death is perfected, as much to say, the unbloody and Mystical Death, that is, the virtue and effect of his Death is applied unto us in these Mysteries.  
So meant S. Gregory saying, 
Dum illa mors perficitur.  that Christ, living immortally in himself, dieth again in this Mystery. That is to say, as there he expoundeth himself, this healthful Sacrifice repaireth and reneweth unto us, (and applieth unto us) by mystery, the Death of Gods only begotten Son.  
Whereas then the learned Fathers speak thus of Christ's daily birth, 
De Consecrat. dist. 2. Quid sit.  of his daily crucifying, his daily kill, and his daily resurrection, they mean not a real and a carnal presence of his body to be borne, to be crucified, to be slain, and to rise again from the Dead: but all is spoken mystically, and the same is true in a manner of speech, and in a mystical sense, as now I have declared.  
But where they speak, as Oecumenius here speaketh, of th'unbloody host, or Sacrifice, naming it (by way of exposition) Christ's own body, saying of it, that they, who have Priesthood from him, do offer it up in Sacrifice without shedding of blood, and that for their continual offering of the same, 
Psal. 109.  Christ is called a Priest for ever, by whom he sacrificeth, and is sacrificed, to whom also at his Mystical Supper he delivered the manner of such Sacrifice, where so ever they speak of this Sacrifice, and after this manner: there they mean a true and real Sacrifice, and thereby signify, that Christ is sacrificed verily, really, and in deed. Which notwithstanding is to be understanded in respect of the body of Christ, really, and in deed by virtue of Christ's words made present in the Sacrament, being the thing sacrificed, and not in respect of the common bloody manner of sacrificing. Which manner, until Christ was sacrificed upon the Cross, who is the truth and end of all Sacrifices that were before, was for the most part with shedding of blood, and with slaughter of living things.  

In what sense and respect is Christ now Srcrificed, and not sacrificed. Rom. 6.  To be plain, and short, in respect of that old and common manner of sacrificing, we deny, as you do, that Christ is now really, verily, and in deed sacrificed. For having been once dead, he dieth no more, as S. Paul saith. But in respect of the substance of the Sacrifice (which thing the old leraned Fathers have ever taught, and the Church practiseth, as delivered, commanded, and taught by Christ at his last Supper, as S. Irenaeus saith) which substance is the body of Christ, 
Irenaeus li. 4. cap. 32.  and consequently Christ him ●elfe the Son of God: We affirm, and believe, and promise to defend with our blood, that Christ in our Mystery is most truly, really, verily, and in deed sacrificed.   

jewel.  
The rest, that followeth in Oecumenius, only expresseth the two several Natures in Christ, the godhead, and the manhood: That, touching his manhood, he was Sacrificed: touching his godhead, he was the Priest, and made the Sacrifice: And further to M. hardings purpose it maketh no thing. So Beda saith, although somewhat otherwise: 
Beda in Episto. ad Ephes. c. 2.  Filius Dei, & Orat pro nobis: & Orat in nobis: & Oratur à nobis. Orat pro nobis, ut Sacerdos: Orat in nobis, ut caput: Oratur à nobis, ut Deus: The Son of God both Prayeth for us: and Prayeth in us: and is Prayed of us. He Prayeth for us, as our Priest: He Prayeth in us, as our Head: He is prayed of us, as our God. Epiphanius saith, 
Epipha. de Melchisedechian. lib. 2.  Christus est Victima, Sacerdos, Altar, Deus, Homo, Rex, Pontifex, Ouis, Agnus, omnia in omnibus pro nobis factus: Christ is our Sacrifice, our Priest, our Altar, God, Man. King, Bishop, Sheep, Lamme, made for oursakes all in al. Thus is Christ our Sacrifice: thus is Christ our Sacrificer, not to be offered by the Priest, as M. Harding imagineth: but as the old Masters, and Fathers of the Church have taught us. offered by himself upon the Crosse. 
Augu. D● Tempore. Serm. 13●.  S. Augustin saith, Ecce illic oblatus est: Ibi seipsum obtulit: Simul & Hostia, & Sacerdos. Et altar erat Crux: Behold there was he offered: There he offered himself: He was both the Priest, and the Sacrifice: And his Cross was the Aultare.   

Harding.  
This answer is far fetched, and proceedeth from a great insight. Few men but M. jewel could have seen so far in Ocumenius words, as to see in them that which by him was never meant, nor so much as dreamt of, 
M. jewel either of ignorance, or of Malice uttereth manifest heresy.  yea that, which also is very false, and an heinous heresy, if it be obstinately maintained.  
But Sir wot ye what ye speak, or speak you at all adventure? Surely here you are taken. Neither can you escape, but must needs confess your error and yield. Was Christ touching his Godhead a Priest, and touching the same made he Sacrifice? Who ever said so, but you? What M. jewel besides other heresies, shall we have an Arian of you? Will you take that name upon you, or confess, that you lack the principles of Divinity? 
Aug. count Faust. lib. 20. ca 21.  To offer Sacrifice, is it not a kind of worship called Latria, that is due unto God only, and to no creature? Now shall we make Christ, as he is God, to do worship, and not to receive worship only done to him by others? Is not God the Son, equal with God the Father? Or will you make us a great God, and a less God, as we read that Arius did? 
Philip. 2.  Saith not S. Paul, Whereas he was in the form of God, he thought it no Robbery to be equal with God? As he is God, how doth he the office of the Priest? How doth he Sacrifice? Is not he that sacrificeth, inferior to him, to whom sacrifice is done? The creature worshippeth God, and offereth Sacrifice unto him. That God worshippeth aught, and doth Sacrifice, there was never any so ignorant, and blasphemous, as to speak it. This doctrine smelleth of the Arians, who affirm, the Son of God to be inferior to his Father. Our Lord save his people from such blind guides, and false Prophets.  

Christ sacrificeth as man, not as God, but as God receiveth Sacrifice. August. de Civitat. Dei. li. 10. cap. 20.  S. Augustine is more worthy to be heard, who far otherwise teacheth us, that Christ receiveth Sacrifice as God, and offereth Sacrifice as man. His words be these. Verus ille mediator, in quantum formam servi accipiens, mediator effectus est Dei & hominum, homo Christus jesus, cùm in forma Dei Sacrificium cum Patre sumat, cum quo & unus Deus est, tamen in forma servi Sacrificium maluit esse, quàm sumere, ne vel hac occasione quisquam existimaret, cuilibet esse sacrificandum creaturae. Per hoc & Sacerdos est, ipse offerens, ipse & oblatio. That the true mediator, in as much as he took the form of a Servant, was made the mediator of God and men, the man Christ jesus, whereas in the form of God he taketh Sacrifice with the Father, with whom he is one God, yet in the form of a Servant he had rather be a Sacrifice, then take (Sacrifice) lest through this occasion some man might think, that Sacrifice were to be made to any what so ever creature. By this he is a Priest, himself being he that offereth, and also the thing that is offered. In this testimony S. Augustine saith expressly, that Christ as touching his manhood, and as he is man, is both the Priest that offereth, and the Sacrifice offered: and that touching his Godhead, and as he is God, he receiveth Sacrifice. Which is quite contrary to that you here affirm.  
Answer me to this question M. jewel. Believe you that Christ was a Priest after the order of Melchisedek, before he became man, or only after that he became man? If your answer be, that he was Priest of that order after he had taken our flesh, I have nothing to say against you. For that is the truth. But if your answer shallbe, that he was such a Priest before flesh taken, as you must answer, if you will defend this your doctrine: then will I turn you over unto S. Augustine, who I am sure in all wise men's judgement overmatcheth you, and is to be credited before you, and all your Scoolemaisters of Zurich, or Geneva.  
This profound learned Father expounding these words of the Psalm, 
August. in Psal. 109.  Thou art a Priest for ever after the Order of Melchisedeck, saith, Ad hoc natus ex utero ante luciferum, ut esses Sacerdos in aeternum secundùm ordinem Melchisedech. Thou wast borne from the womb (of the virgin) before the day star, that thou mightest be a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek. And there eftsoons. Secundùm id quod natus est de Patre Deus apud Deum, 
Non Sacerdos.  coaeternus gignenti, non Sacerdos: sed Sacerdos propter carnem assumptam, propter victimam, quam pro nobis offerret à nobis acceptam. As touching that Christ was borne of the Father God with God, he is equally everlasting with him that begot him, not a Priest: but a Priest for the flesh assumpted, for the host, that he should offer for us, being taken of us. Nothing can more plainly be spoken against you M. jewel, which now begin to teach the world a new heresy, and prepare a way to the recidivation of Arius heresy, by affirming that Christ was a Priest, and made Sacrifice, according to his Godhead. Whereof it must follow, that as being God, he was not equal with his Father.  

M. jewels promise made in his last Sermon at Paul's Crosse.  Be not a shamed M. jewel, to recant this fowl and gross error. I understand you said in your Sermon at Paul's Cross the xu of june last, that if you had ever either spoken in Pulpit, or written in book any thing that may be proved false, your mouth should confess it, and your hand should retract it. By this it shall appear to all men, how far your word is to be trusted.  
The words of Beda, Epiphanius, and S. Augustine, which here you allege, I see not to what purpose they serve you. For they prove no more that Christ, touching his Godhead was ever a Priest and a Sacrificer, then that the Moon is made of green cheese, if I may use so gross a Proverb in reproving your so gross an error. Neither will these testimonies, or any of them conclude against the offering of the body and blood of Christ in the daily Sacrifice of the Church, 
M. jewels common Logic is, to put away one truth by an other truth.  unless you follow your accustomed Logic in excluding one truth by an other truth. It were good for you once to remember, that one truth always driveth not out an other truth, as one wedge driveth out an other wedge. Will you thus reason, Christ was offered upon the Cross, and the Cross was then the Altar (which S. Augustine alleged saith), Ergo, he is not offered in the Church by the ministery of Priests (which Eusebius and Oecumenius say) and the Altars of the Church serve not to any such purpose? 
Euseb. De Demonstr. lib. 1.  As well may we thus argue, john is a Minister, Ergo, john is not an honest man. Which Argument, though perhaps it hold touching the matter, yet for the form, I am sure you will not allow it. This pelting kind of Argument you use through your whole Reply, and in manner none other. That if a learned man would examine that you writ, he should find, that never man wrote so loosely.  
I doubt not good Reader, but thou lookest for a larger, truer, and apt Reply, then M. jewel hath hitherto made to Oecumenius. But what could he say? No smoke can wholly take away the light of the bright Sun. Considering his own unableness to answer the place keeping his side unstained, he slily passeth from it, as one that would feign rid his hands of so busy a cumber. Oecumenius speaketh most plainly and distinctly of a double oblation and Sacrifice, the one once made upon the Cross, in respect whereof Christ by his interpretation is not called a Priest for ever, the other offered up by the Priests continually, by whose mediation and ministery Christ sacrificeth, and is sacrificed. In that I term it a double oblation and Sacrifice, I have regard to the manner of offering: which is divers upon the Cross, and in the Eucharist. Otherwise the substance of the Sacrifice, and the thing itself that is sacrificed, is one and the same in either. Now it had been M. jewels part to tell us, what Sacrifice is that, wherein Christ by the mean of Priests that be now, sacrificeth, and is sacrificed, and the manner and order whereof he taught the Apostles, and consequently Priests, in power and office of sacrificing their Successors, in his Mystical Supper. What Sacrifice this is, Christ's most plain words do declare. who at his last Supper, after he had taken bread, and the Cup into his hands, 
Luc. 22.  given thanks, broken, and blessed, said, take, eat, 
1. Cor. 11.  drink, this is my Body, this is my blood, do ye this in my remembrance. By doing which thing, and saying which words, he taught them the way and manner how to do such Sacrifice. by this he taught (as S. Ireneus saith) the new Oblation of the new Testament. 
Iren. li. 4. cap. 32.  Here M. jewels Phrases, Metaphors, Allegories, Tropes, and Figures will not serve his turn. Therefore he conveyeth himself to an other testimony by me alleged out of S. Chrysostom, interpreting the known place of Malachi, of this Sacrifice. Whereunto he maketh answer of as little substance, as his other is to Oecumenius. And here is to be noted, that to obscure both the order and force of my Answer, he hath caused the Printer confusely to set that I bring in touching Malachi, together with that goeth before, that the Distinction of things might not appear, which I by my new beginning of the line caused to be disticted from the former matter. Let us hear what he saith.   

jewel.  
This word, Incruentum, that M, Harding hath here alleged out so Chrysostom, is thought to bear great weight: but being well considered, of that side, it is alleged for, as it shall appear, it weigheth nothing. The Holy learned Fathers apply that word, sometime to Prater, and other devotion of the mind: and sometimes to the Ministration of the holy Communion.  
For the better opening hereof, it may please thee good Christian Reader, to understand, that in the time of Moses' Law, the Priests, and Levites offered up unto God Oxen, Calves, Rams, and Goats: and with the Blood thereof sprinkled the Book, the instruments of the ministery, the whole Tabernacle, 
Heb. 9  and all the People: and as S. Paul saith, In the Ceremonies of that Law without Bloudsheadding there was no remission of sin.. Likewise the Heathens killed and offered up their cat-tail unto their Idols, sometimes an hundred sat Oxen in one day. Sometime they proceeded further, and made their Sacrifices of Man's Blood. 
Clemens in Orat. cont. Gentes.  Erichtheus of Athens, and Marius of Rome killed, and offered up their own Daughters in the honour of Pallas. The Nobles of Carthage in honour of their Idol Saturnus killled, and offered up lxx of their own male Children in one Sacrifice.  
In respect of these gross, and fleshly, and Bloody Sacrifices, our Christian Sacrifices in the Gospel, 
Euseb. De Demonst. lib. 1. ca 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  because they are mere Spiritual, and proceed wholly from the heart, are called unbloody. Eusebius saith. Incendimus Orationis suffitum, & Sacrificium, quod appellatur Purum, non per Cruores facimus, sed per puras actiones: We burn the Incense of Prayer: and we offer up the Sacrifice, that is called Pure, not by sheadding of Blood, but by Pure, and godly doings.  
So Chrysostom, 
Chrysost. cont. judaeos. Ora. 3.  Offerimus, non per Fumum, Nidorem, aut Sanguinem, sed per Spiritns Gratiam: we make our Sacrifices, not by Smoke, Smell, and Blood, but by the Grace of the Holy Spirit. He addeth further, For God is Spirit, and he that adoreth him, must adore in Spirit, and Truth.  
And this is the Unbloody Sacrifice. So saith Eusebius, Offerent illi Rationabiles, 
Euseb. De Demonst. lib. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  & Incruentas Hostias: They shall offer unto him Reasonable (or Spritual) and Unbloody Oblations. And the same he expoundeth, The Sacrifice of Praise.  
In like sort S. Jerome seemeth to say, In sinceritate azima epulamur: we feast in Pureness without leaven. In like consideration the Sacrifices, that in old times were made unto Fides, and Terminus, 
Hieron. in Epist. ad Galat. 4.  were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unbloody, because they consisted only in Suffumigations, and Odours, and were not imbrued with any Blood. And for the like cause Thucydides calleth certain of the Heathen oblations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Pure Sacrifices. 
Cyrillus ad Reginas.  Likewise Cyrillus calleth the Prayers, and Melody of the Angels, and blessed Spirits in Heaven continually praising, and glorifieing the name of God, Incruenta Sacrificia: Unbloody Sacrifices. 
Gyrillus contra julian. li. 10  Again he saith, Nos, relicto crasso ministerio judaeorum, praeceptum habemus, ut tenue, & Spirituale, & Subtle Sacrificium faciamus. Itaque offerimus Deo in odorem suavitatis virtutes omne genus, Fidem, Spem, Charitatem: We, having lea●te the gross ministery of the jews, have a Commandment, to make a Fine, Thin, and Spiritual Sacrifice. And therefore we offer unto God all manner Virtues, Faith, Hope, Charity, as most sweet savours.  
For this cause the Sacrifices of our Prayers, and other like devotions, are called Unbloody, for that they require no fleshly Service, or Sheadding of Blood, as did the Sacrifices of the jews, and Heathens, but are mere Ghostly, 
Euseb. De Demonst. lib. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and Spiritual, and stand wholly in the lifting up, and elevation of the mind.  
In like manner the Ministration of the Holy Communion is sometimes of the Ancient Fathers called an Unbloody Sacrifice: not in respect of any Corporal, or fleshly presence, that is imagined to be there without Bloudsheaddinge, but for that it representeth, and reporteth unto our minds that One, and everlasting Sacrifice, that Christ made in his body upon the Crosse. Therefore Eusebius saith, Excitamus illi Altare Incruentorum, & Rationabilium Sacrificiorum, secundùm Nova Mysteria: We erect unto God an Altar of unbloody and reasonable, or Spiritual Sacrifices, accordingc to the New Mysteries. Again, 
In eodem libro.  Sacrificium incendimus illi, Memoriam magni illius Sacrificij: We burn a Sacrifice unto God, that is, the Remembrance of that great Sacrifice. 
In eodem: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hieron. ad Euagrium August. de Gratia novi Testa. ad Honoratum. justinus Martyr in Dialogis cum Tryphone.  Likewise again: Christus obtulit Mirabile Sacrificium pro salute omnium nostrum iubens nos offer Memorian pro Sacrificio: Christ offered up that marvelous Sacrifice for our Salvation, commanding us to offer a Remembrance thereof, in stead of a Sacrifice. So likewise saith S. Jerome, although not altogether in like respect, Pane, & Vino, Puro, & Simplici Sacrificio Christi dedicavit Sacramentum: He dedicated the Sacrament of Christ in Bread, and Wine, which is (not a Bloody, or loathsome, but) a Pure, and a Simple Sacrifice.  
This Remembrance, and Oblation of praises, and Rendering of thanks unto God for our Redemption in the Blood of Christ, is called of the old Fathers, An Unbloody Sacrifice, and of S. Augustine, The Sacrifice of the New Testament.  
justinus Martyr saith, Esaias non pollicetur Cruentarum Victimarum instaurationem: sed veras, & Spirituales Oblationes laudis, & Gratiarum actionis: Esaias promiseth not the restoaringe of Bloody Sacrifices: but True, and Spiritual Oblations of Praises, and thanksgiving.  
S. Chrysostom saith, Non iam Sanguinem, aut adipem offerimus etc. We offer not now the fat, 
Chrysos. in Epist. ad Hebr. Homil. 11.  or Blood of Beasts. All these things are abolished. And in steed thereof there is brought in a Reasonable, or Spiritual duty. But, what is this duty that we call Reasonable, or Spiritual? That it is, that is offered by the Soul, and Spirit.   

Harding.  
What needeth all this long process upon the word, Incruentum, Unbloody? Go to the purpose M. jewel. By the place alleged out of S. Chrysostom, it is evident, that he understandeth Malachies' prophecy of the unbloody Sacrifice, which Christ offered at his Mystical Table in his Last Supper, and is now daily offered by Priests according to his Institution. Examine the words well. See how plainly, and clearly (saith he) the Prophet hath interpreted the Mystical Table, 
Chrysos. in Psal. 55.  which is the unbloody Sacrifice. Yet so plain and clear as it is, you can not see, or rather you will not see it: And by all your wit and cunning you endeavour so to dasel the eyes of others, that they may not see it.  
But why do you turn all your long talk only to the word, 
M. jewel turneth all his Reply to the word, unbloody, leaving other matter, that he is not well able to answer  Unbloody? Why do you not aswell speak of the Mystical Table? Can ye not away to hear thereof? Say what you list of the term, unbloody, and allege so many sentences of Doctors, as would fill a whole book: yet must S. Chrysostom to all men of learning appear to expound the Prophecy of Malachi of that which is unbloodily sacrificed at the Mystical Table. What Mystical Table can ye name us now in the Church, but that, whereon the Body and Blood of Christ are sacrificed, whereof it is named an Altar, 
Altar. Table.  and from whence they are of the faithful received, for which it is named a Table? Verily this place presseth you so, that you are feign to flee as it were out of the field. And yet lest you should seem to flee away cowardly, by long needless talk upon the word, Unbloody, as it were by holding up your shield, you make a show, as though you fought stil.  
In effect, two things you go about to prove. The first is, that the Sacrifice of our Prayers, and devotion of mind, is called of the Fathers, Unbloody. The second is, that the Ministration of the holy Communion (which term is very common with you) is called also an unbloody Sacrifice.  
Touching the first, you have taken great pains to little purpose. For it is by noman denied. Touching the second, what so ever you mean by your Ministering term of the Ministration of the Holy Communion, we say, that the Host of the Mystical Table, which is none other, but the body and blood of Christ, is both of S. Chrysostom here, and otherwheres of the learned Fathers, called the unbloody Sacrifice, not for that it representeth and reporteth unto our minds the Sacrifice of the Cross, as you say (for in that respect it ought rather to be called representative or commemorative): but for that being the same in substance with that, which was offered upon the Cross with shedding of blood, 
Bloody, and unbloody, referred to one subject.  it is here offered unbloodily. And so both these terms, Bloody, and Unbloody, be referred to one subject, or thing offered, whereby the diversity of the manner of offering is signified.  
Furthermore whereas you say, that the Christians Sacrifices be mere spiritual, and proceed wholly from the heart, if you mean, that all our Sacrifices be such, and that no external thing is offered in any of them: it is untruly spoken. For the Sacrifice of Christ's body and Blood is not so mere spiritual, that it may be said to proceed only from the heart of the offerer, but it requireth an external action of the Minister, to wit an external pronouncing of the sacramental words, This is my body etc. Besides this, external bread and wine be also necessary, without the which this Sacrifice can not be made. And herein after that by the power of the words of our Lord by the Priest pronounced, there is made the Divine change of the substance of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ: 
August. de civita. Dei li. 10. c. 20  then is there, as S. Augustine calleth it, the true Sacrifice, as S. Gregory Nazianzen termeth it, 
Nazian. in Apologetico. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the external Sacrifice of the new Testament.  
Consider wisely with thyself good Christian Reader, whether M. jewel be to trusted or no, in that he traveleth so much to abolish the mystical Table, the unbloody Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, 
whether M. jewel be to be trusted.  which is the most honourable and the chief Sacrifice of the Church. Whereas S. Chrysostom declareth divers kinds of Sacrifices to be among the Christians, as there were in old time among the jews: M. jewel acknowledgeth all, save that which is most worthy and chief. In an Homily that he wrote upon the .95. Psalm, he reckoneth in order ten kinds of Sacrifices, 
Ten kinds of Sacrifices.  which be sitting (saith he) for the grace of the Gospel. That I may speak of the first and chief after that the others be accounted, the second, is Martyrdom: the third, is the Sacrifice of Prayer: the fourth is, of jubilation or joyful singing out a loud: the fifth, of justice: the sixth, of Almose giving: the seventh, of Praise: the eighth, of Compunction: the ninth, of Humility: the tenth, of Preaching, each one of these there he proveth by Scripture.  
These nine M. jewel can find in his heart to confess. But the first, Satan, and he may not abide. And that is the Sacrifice, wherein Christ himself is offered. Which Sacrifice of S. Chrysostom in that Homily is called by these names. 
Chrysost. in Psalm. 95. Tom. 1  Mystica mensa, coeleste summeque venerandum Sacrificium: Spirituale illud & mysticum donum: hostia salutaris, salutare donum. The mystical Table, the heavenly and most honourable Sacrifice: That spiritual and Mystical gift: The healthful host, the healthful gift.  
And we that should not doubt, what thing this first and chief Sacrifice is, with these plain words he describeth it. 
Ephes. 5.  Est primum Sacrificium, Spirituale illud & mysticum donum, de quo Paulus ait, Imitatores estote Dei, etc. The first and chief Sacrifice is, that spiritual and Mystical gift, whereof S. Paul speaketh. Be ye the followers of God, as beloved children, and walk in love, even as Christ hath loved us, and delivered himself unto God for us a sacrifice and oblation into a sweet savour. By which words he giveth us to understand, that among all the kinds of Sabrifices which we have, being ten in number, as there he reckoneth, the first and chief of all, is Christ himself, who gave himself to be sacrificed bloodily for us upon the Cross, and now in the Mystical Table offereth himself, and is offered unbloodily. In consideration whereof he calleth it, the spiritual and mystical gift, the pure, healthful, and unbloody host of the Mystical Table.  
If there were none other proof for this Sacrifice, 
M. jew. by false and crafty silence bewrayeth his side, and justifieth the catholic doctrine.  the only consideration of M. jewels dealing with S. Chrysostom, in that he conceeleth, and suppresseth the manifest mention of it in that place, from whence he taketh testimonies for proof of the mere spiritual Sacrifices, were enough to persuade a man, who is not desperately addicted to th'opinions of his private liking, the doctrine of the Church touching this point to be true, and M. jewels to be false.  
If he would have wrought directly to the purpose, he should have proved, that the unbloody Sacrifice of the Mystical Table, were nothing else, but Prayers, thanksgiving, Praises, and a remembrance of Christ's Death. For we grant, that all these do concur upon that Table. But that they be there only, that is to say, without the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ: we deny upon S. Chrysostom's authority, who annumbreth this Sacrifice distinctly, and alone from the rest.  
Again if he would fully have acheeved his intent, it stood him upon to prove, that they only are unbloody Sacrifices, and that this is not. For otherwise we will always stand to this truth, that both be unbloody Sacrifices, and so this is an unbloody Sacrifice. yea this more properly, than the other. For those mere spiritual Sacrifices be of themselves neither bouddy, nor unbloody, but in mere respect of certain external Sacrifices, which were offered in the old Law with shedding of Blood. But the Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ offered in the Church, is so called, in consideration of the one and the same substance, which once was bloodily offerred, and is now offered without Bloodshed in a Mystery. In the Council of Ephesus Cyrillus calleth it, 
Ephesin. Concil. in Epist. Cyril. ad Nestor.  incruentam Sacrificij servitutem, the unbloody worship of the Sacrifice.  
Now good Reader wilt thou see, how M. jewel doth always like himself, and what small shift of reasoning he hath? Mark whether of the affirmation of the mere spiritual Sacrifices of the mind, he infer not the Denial of the external and real Sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood: that is to say, whether he make not one truth to put away an other truth. The thing he taketh in hand to prove, is this. That the Sacrifice offered at the Mystical Table, is not the unbloody Sacrifice of the Church. Remember wtihal, that his conclusion should be this, that by the unbloody host of the Mystical Table, S. Chrysostom meant not the unbloody Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ. His reason then is this. The Holy learned Fathers do apply the term, 
M. jewels argument against the unbloody Sacrifice as the Catholics take it.  unbloody, to Prayer, to Thanks giving, to Praises, to the Melody of Angels praising God in heaven, yea to faith, hope, and charity, and to other virtues: Ergo, S. Chrysostom meant not the pure and unbloody offering of Christ's Body and Blood, by the unbloody Sacrifice at the Mystical Table. This is the whole effect of his prooufe, and this is his Argument.  
Let it be lawful form that the force of this reason be opened, to use the like form of Argument in an other matter, that by comparison the lewdness of his Argument may appear. The holy learned Fathers do apply this term, Necessary, to Faith, hope, penance, patience, fasting, praying, and to almose deeds, saying, they be necessary for a Christian man. Ergo, the same Fathers thought not, that Charity was necessary for a Christian man. Is not here a denial of a truth inferred upon the affirmation of an other truth? Right so doth M. jewel prove, that Christ's Body and blood is not the unbloody Sacrifice of the Church, because other spiritual Sacrifices be called unbloody. As though the Term might not, or were not by the Fathers applied to both. Every child may soon espy this absurdity and folly. Because there is no pith in this confuse number of authorities, that be here by heaps laid together, neither prove they any thing contrary to that we defend: I think it better to pass them over as altogether impertinent, and superfluous, then by discussing of them to be tedious unto the reader. And that which followeth to the end of this Division, is no better stuff than the other before. Thus he saith.   

jewel.  
This Kind of Sacrifice, because it is mere Spiritual, and groweth only from the Mind, therefore it needeth not any material Altar of Stone, or Timber to be made upon, as doth that Sacrifice, that M. Harding imagineth in his Mass. Chrysostom saith, 
Chrysos. in Psal. 95.  Munus evangelii sine Sanguine, sine Fumo, sine Altari, caeterisque sursum ascendit: The Sacrifice of the Gospel ascendeth up without Blood, without Smoke, without Aultare, and other the like. In the S●cond Council of Nice it is written thus: Nos Christiani propemodum quid sit Ara, & quid sit Victima, nescimus: What Sacrifice, or Altar meaneth, we being Christian people, in a manner can not tell.  

Hieron. in Psal. 26. August. de Tempore Serm. 125.  S. Jerome saith, unusquisque Sanctus Altar Domini in se habet, quod est Fides: Every Holy man hath in himself the Altar of God, which is Faith. To be short, S. Augustine saith, Sacrificium Novi Testamenti est, quando Altaria Cordis nostri munda, & pura in conspectu Divinae Maiestatis offerimus: The Sacrifice of the New Testament is, when we offer up the Aultrrs of our hearts pure, and clean in the sight of the Divine Majesty. In these respects our Prayers, our Praises, our thanksgiving unto God for our Salvation in the Death of Christ, is called an Unbloody Sacrifice.  
Hereof the slenderness of M hardings gheasses may soon appear. For thus he would seem to reason: The Ministration of the Holy Communion, and our humble Remembrance of the Death of Christ is called an unbloody Sacrifice: Ergo, The Priest hath power to offer up the Son of God in sacrifice unto his Father.   

Harding.  
If the Sacrifice of the Church, whereof we treat, were nothing else, but Prayers, Praises, thanks giving, and a remembrance, and had no substance at all, which consisteth without and beside the mind of man: then might we grant, that all Altars of Stone, or Timber, were needless. But seeing that the Ancient learned Fathers make often mention of Altars in their Churches, and of their Sacrifices thereon: it followeth necessarily, that their Sacrifices consisted not wholly of Prayers, 
Material Altars.  thanks, and of such other devotion of the mind: but of some such thing also, which required a place, whereupon it may be laid. What that thing is, Optatus that ancient and learned Bishop of Milevitum in Africa doth declare, 
Optatus libro. 6.  giving withal an evident record for the use of Altars. Thus he saith writing against the Donatists.  
Quid tam sacrilegum, quàm Altaria Dei, in quibus & vos aliquando obtulistis, 
An external Altar argueth the real presence, and an external Sacrifice.  frangere, radere, removere? Quid enim est Altare Dei, nisi sedes & Corporis, & Sanguinis Christis? What greater Sacrilege can there be, then to break, race, and quite remove away, the Altars of God, upon which yourselves once offered? For what other thing is an Altar, than a seat both of the Body, and of the Blood of Christ?  
These terms of breaking, rasing, and removing, do convince the Altars were material, as made of Stone, or Timber. The use also is expressed manifestly, which is to be a seat for the body and blood of Christ to be laid upon, when they be consecrate and sacrificed. Whereof may be gathered an Argument of the real presence, and of the external Sacrifice. For a seat serveth to place real and external substances, and not mere spiritual things, of which sort, contrition of heart, Prayers, thanks, and praises, are.  
If I thought it needful in this place to allege authorities for proof of this use of material Altars, it were easy to allege no small number for the same, out of the most ancient Fathers, and Counsels. The thing being so clear, and so well known of all that have any skill of antiquity, it may suffice to join the testimony of S. Augustine, with that of Optatus. Who speaketh both of building of Altars in Churches, whereby it is certain they were material, and also of sacrificing upon them. 
August. de Civitat. Dei. li. 22. cap. 10.  His words be plain. Nos autem Martyribus nostris non Templa, sicut Dijs, sed memorias sicut hominibus mortuis, quorum apud Deum viwnt spiritus, fabricamus. Nec ibi erigimus Altaria, in quibus sacrificemu● Martyribus, sed uni Deo, & Martyrum, & nostro, sacrificium immolamus. As for us (saith he) we build for our Martyrs, not Temples, as for Gods, but Memories (by Memories he meaneth Chapels, or Churches builded in the memory of Martyrs) as for dead men, whose Spirits be living with God. Neither do we there set up Altars, that on them we may sacrifice to Martyrs, but to God only we offer Sacrifice, 
Altars avouched  who is the God both of Martyrs, and of us also.  
By this saying it is witnessed unto us, that the Altars erected in Martyrs Churches, were material, as the Churches were, and that on them Priests made Sacrifice unto God.  
Whereas then M. jewel admitteth none other kind of Sacrifice in the new Testament, than such, as for offering whereof any material Altar is not required, and S. Augustine speaketh of a Sacrifice, that is offered unto God upon the material Altars: by this we understand this new doctrine of M. jewel touching the Sacrifice, to dissent from the old Doctrine of S. Augustin. Consider well of it Christian Reader, how safe it is for thee to forsake the Church, to contemn S. Augustine, Optatus, and all other the old learned Fathers, in whose works we find often mention of material Altars, and the Sacrifice thereupon daily offered: and to pin thy faith on M. jewels sleeve, who, as thou seest, hath no sure ground, but only denieth all, and for colour of some defence, shuffleth together by heaps, patches, and pieces of the Father's sayings, whereby a confusion is sought, no certainty is taught.  
If he will reply against this, 
Table, and Altar.  saying, that the Fathers call the Altar a table (as to get some authority unto his removable Communion Table he is wont commonly to translate a Table for an Altar) it may please him to understand, that the Fathers do truly call it by both names, according to the double use of the eucharist, which is ministered upon the same. For the eucharist is both a Sacrament, and a Sacrifice. As it is a Sacrament, so is it our heavenly food and sustenance: As it is a Sacrifice, so is it our daily offering. Unto the which two uses S. Cyprian having respect, saith of the bread and Chalice consecrated by solemn blessing, 
Cyprian. De Coena Domini.  that it is both a medicine, and also a Sacrifice, to heal our infirmities, and to purge our iniquities. Therefore the Fathers call it a Table, in consideration we receive from thence our substantial food. And for that cause it is always covered with a white linen cloth. They call it an Altar, for that we offer upon it the heavenly Sacrifice of Christ's body and blood, and for that cause also it is fastened to the place where it standeth. Wherefore the Table doth not exclude the Altar, nor doth the Altar exclude the Table. But both are one in deed, and yet double in respect of the double use of the thing wrought upon it. So that to turn the Altar into a Table, is but a silly shift, and a poor refuge.  
This much being now known, it will be easy to perceive, that the authorities by him alleged be to be understanded, either of the Altars, Sacrifices, smoke, and other Ceremonies used in the old law, or of mere spiritual Sacrifices, which require none other Altar, than the heart of man. 
Chrysost. Homil. in Psal. 95.  So is the saying of S. Chrysostom here to be taken. The gift of the Gospel (whereby is meant what so ever man offereth to God now in the state of the new Testament) ascendeth up unto God without blood without smoke, without Altar, and without the other Ceremonies, for so is it in the author. Who seeth not by these words, the filthy shedding of blood, the stinking smoke, and therefore also the Altar of the jews in the old law, to be signified? Our Sacrifice is pure and clean, without the smoke of burnt grease and flesh, and so without that Altar, whereon such things were burnt.  
But what is to be said unto the authority alleged out of the second Council of Nice? 
M. jewel here craveth help at the second Nicene Council, which other●wheres he despiseth.  what Sacrifice, or Altar meaneth, we Christians in a manner can not tell, saith Leontius cited in that Council. What M. jewel, will you crave help to the overthrowing of Altars of that Council, at which yourself, and your companions do so rage's and rail, as being wicked, and contrary to the word of God for allowing the Images of Christ, and his Saints, and for cursing the overthrowers and breakers of them? I perceive you be not so scrupulous, nor timorous, but you will take an Apple at your enemies hand. You are more hardy, than Laoocon was, 
Aeneid. 2.  who said, as the Poet reporteth, Timeo Danaos, & dona ferentes.  
Touching the matter itself, you overmuch abuse your Readers M. jewel. If ever you have read the place yourself, and have not only trusted your gatherers and searchers, you could not be ignorant, that it maketh nothing at all against the Altars used in Christian Churches, but that only it declareth, the Altars, and sacrifices of the paynims, wherewith they honoured their Idols, to be now so far grown out of use, that the Christians scarce knew, what was meant by them. The words going before, and following do declare the meaning of the place. Which I think good here to rehearse, both for the Readers better instruction, and that your false dealing be plainly detected.  
Thus than the holy Bishop Leontius saith, writing against the jews, 
Concil. Nicen. 2. Session. 4.  who charged the Christians with idolatry for worshipping God, and his Saints, before their Images. Qua tandem front judaei nos vocant Idololatras? Vbi nunc sunt, quae olim ab ipsis oblatae sunt Idolis, boum, ovium, & filiorum quoque victimae? Vbi sacrificiorum fumi? Vbi Arae, & profusiones sanguinum? Nos verò Christiani propemodum quid ●it Ara, quid victima, ignoramus. Nam Graeci adulteris quibusdom hominibus, homicidis, impuris & scelestis templa dicârunt, eorumque Idola cum illis ipsis Deos fecerunt, neque sanè vel Prophetarum, vel Sanctorum Martyrum nomine Templum, aut aram appellantes. With what face do the jews call us Idolaters? where be now become the sacrifices of Oxen, of sheep, and of Children also, which they once offered to Idols? Where is the smoke of the sacrifices? 
The Altars and Sacrifices of the Panimes, be unknown to the Christians.  Where are the Altars, and sheddinges of blood? As for us that be Christians, we are well nigh ignorant, what an Altar, and what a sacrifice is. The Gentiles dedicated Temples to certain men being adulterers, murderers, filthy, and abominable, and made their Images (or Idols) and themselves to be taken for Gods, and yet never called they temple, or Altar by the name of Prophets, or holy Martyrs.  
Who seeth not at the first reading, of what kind of Altars, and Sacrifices, this place is to be understanded? And to speak likewise of the Christians that be in our time, how many be there, that in manner know not, what such an Altar and what such a sacrifice is? In all England who ever saw any such? If they have not been seen, how can they be known, unless it be by reading of the books of the Gentiles? Neither doth Leontius find fault with the Gentiles, for having Temples, and Altars, but for dedicating them to Idols, and not to God, and for not calling them by the names of God's friends, as of the Prophets, or holy Martyrs, so as Christian people doth use to name their Churches, Chapels, and Altars, some of S. Marry, some of S. Peter, some of S. Paul, some of S. Laurence, etc.  
Yet nevertheless they erect not temples, or Altars unto any Martyr, but only unto him that is the God of Martyrs, though for the memories of Martyrs. For what Prelate standing at the Altar (saith S. Augustine) in the places of saints bodies, 
August. contra Faust. lib. 20. c. 21  hath ever said, We do offer unto thee Peter, or Paul, or Cyprian? But that which is offered, is offered unto God that crowned the Martyrs, at the Tombs of them, whom he crowned, to th'end that by the suggestion of the places themselves, greater affection may rise to whet our charity both towards them, whom we may be able to follow, and towards him, by whose aid we may be made able.  
In this sense spoke the Learned Bishop Leontius those words, 
M. jewels falsehood disclosed.  not to disannul Altars in the Churches of Christ, for which purpose you M. jewel have alleged them. Neither meant he to signify, that in his time, the name of Altars simply and generally, had been strange among the Christians. He meant only Idolatry Altars. It was guilefully done of you, to take out a few words of the whole saying, which being set apart, and divided from that goeth before, and that cometh after, seem to make against the ancient custom of having Altars in Christian Churches. But the whole place viewed, it soon appeareth, how little it serveth to your purpose, and how much it discloseth your wicked falsehood. Where is conscience? Where is shame? If you fear not God, yet think, what the world will say of you. But such a cause would have no better Advocates.  
As for that you bring out of S. Jerome, what maketh it for you? 
Hieronyin Psalm. 25.  Expounding this verse of the .25. Psalm, I will wash my hands among Innocentes, and I will compass thy Altar round about o Lord, maketh Altar, in a moral sense to signify Faith, as hands also to signify works. Now saith he. Altar is asmuch to say, as Faith. I will compass (this Altar) round about with good-workes. That is to say, I will not put my trust in Faith alone. I will join unto it also good works. unusquisque sanctus altare Domini in se habet, quae est fides. Every Saint (saith he) hath the Altar of our Lord in him, that is Faith. As the real hosts, and Sacrifices, which are offered up unto God, are laid upon the Altar, and thence are offered: So all our good works, which be spiritual sacrifices offered up unto God, must be laid upon Faith, as upon an Altar, and from thence only being offered, they be acceptable in God's sight. For without Faith no work is good, ne pleaseth God. Now what Argument you can gather out of this place for your purpose, I see not, 
Al M. jewels arguments be such, as of the affirmation of one truth infer the denial of an other truth.  unless it be this. The spiritual Altar, whereupon our spiritual sacrifices be offered up to God, is Faith: Ergo, there ought to be no external Altar to offer up the external Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ upon, which is the external Sacrifice of the new Testament. But still we answer. Your Arguments be childish, and of no force, which of the affirmation of one truth, conclude the denial of an other truth.  
Touching that you allege here as out of S. Augustine, I doubt whether any such saying be in S. Augustine. Certain it is, your quotation is false. And therefore it may be suspected. Albe it if he say it in some place, it maketh nothing against the real and external Sacrifice of the Church. For the spiritual Sacrifices of our hearts, exclude not the real Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ: and the pure Altars of our hearts may well, and do well stand with the material Altars of Christian Churches, whereon the unbloody Sacrifice of Christ's body and blood are offered.  
Hereof then, and of that is before in this Division by you said, the slenderness of your Arguments doth soon appear. For thus you reason.  

The Sacrifices of Prayers, 
The best Arguments that M. jew. maketh against the Sacrifice.  Praises, thanks giving, and other the like devotions, are of the Fathers called unbloody: Ergo, the Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ now offered by Priests of the new Testament, is not called the unbloody Sacrifice.  
Item, By report of the ancient Bishop Leontius alleged in the second Nicen Council, Christian people in manner know not, what an Altar of Idolatrous paynims, and what their Sacrifice is: Ergo, they know not what the Altars of our Churches now, nor what the dreadful Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, is.  
Item, The Fathers speak much of the spiritual Altars of our heart, and of mere spiritual sacrifices: Ergo, they deny, that there be any material Altars, and that thereon the real and external Sacrifice of Christ's body and blood is offered.   
Logic is good cheap, where these Arguments be allowed. But he that lacketh a Recorder, may yet pipe with an oaten reed. If Logic can not handsomely be applied, to maintain M. jewels glorious Challenge, yet Rhetoric will do good service. And yet in Rhetoric itself these Arguments be but childish. As well might one prove, there is none other heaven, besides our hearts, because S. Augustine saith, 
August. de Tempore. Serm. 44  in a Sermon. Corda fide lium coelum sunt. The hearts of the faithful be heaven. Ergo, heaven that is said to be out of this world, is but a tale. As well one might say, Christ is not the Son of God, because he is the son of man. And in a matter of less weight, as well, and by like Logic, one shrewd boy might say to an other, jacke, I will prove thou hast no nose. Thou hast great lolling ears, Ergo, thou hast no nose. Of such Arguments we have great store in M. jewels writings, and in manner none other. For which cause to any grave and learned man, he seemeth rather worthy of contempt, then of Answer. Who so ever considereth, not the number of his words, but the weight of his sentences, not the multitude of his patched and peeced allegations, but the force of the matter by the same avouched: shall judge no less. God be thanked, that heresy hath so weak a defence.    

The .15. Division.  

The Answer.  
S. Augustin hath many evident sayings touching this matter in his works. One shall suffice for all, which is in a little treatise, he made contra judaeos, uttered in these words. 
Cap. ●.  Aperite oculos tandem aliquando, & videte ab Oriente sole usque ad Occidentem, non in uno loco, ut vobis fuit constitutum, sed in omni loco offerri Sacrificium Christianorum, non cuilibet Deo, sed ei, qui ista praedixit, Deo Israel. Open your eyes at last you jews, and see, that from the rising of the Sun to the setting, not in one place, as it was appointed to you, but in every place the Sacrifice of the Christian people is offered, not to every God, but to him, 
Malach. 1.  that prophesied of these things before, the God of Israel. And even so with that protestation, which S. Augustine made to the jews, I end this tedious matter consisting in manner altogether in allegations, to M. jewel. Open your eyes at last M. jewel, and see how all the holy, and learned Fathers, that have preached the Faith of Christ from the rising of the Sun to the setting, have taught this Doctrine, by word, and writing left to the posterity, that they which under Christ do use the office of a Priest after the order of Melchisedek, have not only Authority, but also express commandment, to offer up Christ unto his Father.  
The proof of which Doctrine, although it depend of the weight of one place, yet I have thought good to fortify it with some number, that it may the better appear to be a most undoubted Truth, not moved greatly with the blame of tediousness, where no thanks are sought, but only the defence of the Catholic Religion is intended.   

jewel.  
S. Augustine, as in these words he neither toucheth, nor signifieth this new manner of offering up Christ unto his Father, so in sundry other places he openeth his own meaning plainly, and fully, touching the same. In his Treaty against the jews he writeth thus: Sacerdotium Aaron iam nullum est in aliquo templo. 
August. ad versus judaeos. c. 1  At Christi Sacerdotium aeternum perseverat in coelo: The (Bloody) priesthood of Aaron is now in no Temple to be found: But the Priesthood of Christ Continueth still (not upon any earthily Altar, But) in Heaven. 
Cont. Adverse. legis, & proph. lib. 1. ca 1.  Again: The Priest offereth up the Sacrifice of Praise, not after the Order of Aaron, but after the order of Melchisedek. Eius Sacrificij similitudinem celebrandam in suae Passionis Memoriam commendavit: & illud, quod Melchisedek obtulit Deo, iam per totum orbem terrarum videmus offerri. Christ hath left unto us a likeness, or Token of that Sacrifice in Remembrancè of his Passion: 
August. in lib. 80. quast. qu. 61.  And the same, that Melchisedek offered unto God, we see is now offered throughout the whole World. Holocausti eius Imaginem ad Memoriam Passionis suae in Ecclesia celebrandam dedit. Christ hath given us, to celebrate in his Church, 
In eadem quaestione.  an Image or Token of that Sacrifice, for the Remembrance of his Passion. Huius Sacrificij Caro, & Sanguis ante Aduentum Christi per victimas similitudinum promittebatur: 
Augustin. count. Faust li. 20. c. 21 De Cons. dis. 2. Sacrificium. August. de Civit. Dei li. 10. c. 5.  In Passione Christi per ipsam veritatem reddebatur: Post Ascensionem Christi per Sacramentum Memoriae celebratur. The Flesh, and Blood of this Sacrifice before the coming of Christ was promifed by Sacrifices of Resemblance: The same was performed in deed in the time of Christ's Passion: But after Christ's Ascension, it is frequented by a Sacrament of Remembrance. Sacrificium hoc Visibile, invisibilis Sacrificij Sacramentum, id est, Sacrum Signum est. This Visible Sacrifice is a Sacrament, 
Nazian. in Apologet.  that is to say, a Token, or Sign of the Sacrifice Invisible. Quod Appellamus Sacrificium, Signum est, & Repraesentatio Sacrificij: The thing, that we call a Sacrifice, is a Sign, and Representation of a Sacrifice.  
Thus many ways S. Augustine himself teacheth us, what he meant by this word Sacrifice: An Oblation of Praise: A Similitude: a Resemblance: a Likeness: an Image: a Remembrance: a Token: a Sign: a Representation of a Sacrifice. So Nazianzene calleth it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: The Figure, or Token of the Great Mysteries. To conclude S. Jerome saith thus, 
Hieron. in Psalm. 51.  Tunc acceptabis Sacrificium, vel cum te pro nobis offers Patri: vel cum à nobis Laudes, & Gratiarum actiones accipis: Then shalt thou receive Sacrifice, either when thou offerest thee self (upon thy Cross) for us unto thy Father: or when thou receivest of us Praises and thanksgiving.   

Harding.  
What this man lacketh in weight, he maketh up in number. If a controversy might be decided by a multitude of forged, peeced, maimed, corrupt, and impertinent sentences shuffled together, this matter were fully concluded. The Prentices, the common deceived people, the Ministers comen of late from their shops, and handy crafts, and others that can not judge of these points, think perhaps, that he hath acquitted himself like a great Clerk, because they see such a number of authorities heaped together, and behold the Margin of his book so painted with quotations. But the wise, who have skill hereof, whereas among so many places alleged out of the Fathers, never a one proveth his purpose: see well enough, that he is utterly destitute of good matter, and that he only setteth forth an idle show of words.  
The two first authorities be not found in the places by him quoted, which causeth suspicion. Notwithstanding the matter is not of great importance. First, what if S. Augustine say, as here he is made to speak, The Priesthood of Aaron is now to be found in no temple: 
The Priesthood of Christ continueth still both in heaven, and in the Church.  but the Priesthood of Christ continueth still in heaven? If he reason thus, The Priesthood of Christ continueth still in Heaven, Ergo, it continueth not in the Church: I deny the Argument. For it continueth both in heaven, and also in the Church, though otherwise there, otherwise here. In heaven it continueth, because he is a Priest by nature. And what dignity he hath by nature, that hath he not lost, ne put of, by his entering into heaven. And therefore he continueth a Priest there, not by passable renewing of his Sacrifice, but by presenting himself to God, and by his merciful interpellation and appearing for us before God with that body, that was once sacrificed for us, 
Heb 9  as S. Paul saith, Christ is entered into heaven for to appear now in the sight of God for us. Again, 
Heb. 7  Evermore he liveth, to make suit (unto God) for us.  
His Priesthood continueth in the Church that is in earth, by the ministery of men, that under him be Priests of the new Testament, by mean of whom (as Oecumenius before allegeth, saith) he sacrificeth, and is sacrificed. Eusebius declaring the Prophecy of Christ's everlasting Priestod after the order of Melchisedek, saith. The event (or end) of that Prophecy is marvelous to one that considereth, 
Euseb. de Demonst. evang lib. 5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  how our Saviour jesus Christ after the manner of Melchisedek doth by his Ministers even to this time celebrate those things, that appertain to the Sacrifice which is among men. And thus your false interlined gloze denying Sacrifice to be done upon an earthly Altar, which you have impudently added by a parenthesis unto your Doctor, is controlled and confuted.  
The second authority falsely quoted, is this. The Priest offereth up the Sacrifice of praise, not after the order of Aaron, but after the order of Melchisedek. What conclude you hereof? Ergo, he offereth not the real Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ? The Argument is nought. For he offereth up both the Sacrifice of praise, and also the body and blood of Christ under the forms of bread and wine, and therefore after the order and manner of Melchisedek. This is very simple Logic.  
If you had directed the Reader by a true quotation unto the place, where this authoritne is written, you should have sent him thither, where S. Augustine maketh clearly against you. And therefore of very falsehood by wrong quotation you thought it policy to deceive your Reader. The testimony is to be found contra aduersar● legis & Prophet. lib. 1. cap. 20. 
Per Episco●porum successiones certis●ma●  Where he saith thus. The Church continueth from the Apostles time to our time, and so forward, by most certain successions of Bishops: and sacrificeth unto God in the body of Christ the Sacrifice of Praise. etc. For this Church is Israel after the spirit, from whom that Israel after the flesh is distincted, which served in the shadows of Sacrifices, by the which was signified THE SINGULAR SACRIFICE that Israel after the Spirit doth now offer up, 
The singular Sacrifice.  etc. Out of this Israel's House God taketh not Calves, neither Goats from his herds. This (Israel) sacrificeth unto God the Sacrifice of Praise, not after the order of Aaron, but after the order of Melchisedek.  
Yet a little after in the same place speaketh S. Augustine more plainly of this Sacrifice. They which read do know (saith he) what Melchisedek brought forth, when he blessed Abraham. And now they be partakers of it, and they see such a Sacifice now to be offered up unto God in the whole world. He speaketh thereof, as he is wont to speak, when he cometh to this Mystery, making this preface before, They know that read. As who should say, This Mystery is not to be revealed in open writing, lest the despite of Infidels and Heretics reach unto it. but the believers that read the place of Genesis, where it is spoken of, know what it meaneth. And they are partakers of it by receiving the Sacrament: and see such kind of Sacrifice to be offered now through the whole Church, that now is dispersed over the whole world. Behold he speaketh of a Sacrifice that is received of the faithful, and seen everywhere to be offered. Which argueth the same to be an external, and visible Sacrifice. All these properties can not reasonably seem to pertain to a mere spiritual Sacrifice, but only to the Sacrifice of the eucharist. Thus teacheth S. Augustine there.  
Touching the first sentence, if it be true that S. Augustine saith, 
A mark to know the true Church, which these Gospelers do lack●.  in what rank shall we place you, and your fellows M. jewel? If ye will challenge unto you the name and estimation of the Church, by S. Augustine's doctrine ye must show us your continuance from the Apostles time, to these days, and so forward to the end (not by a few wrested, falsified, and misconstrued places of writers seeming to blame things that ye like not, but) by most certain Successions of Bishops. But because ye shall never be able to show us Bishops, that have succeeded one after an other in profession of your strange Doctrines, from the Apostles age to this present time: ye shall not be angry with us, but with that holy learned Father S. Augustine, if we account your scattered troops, not for the Church of Christ, nor any part thereof, but for Dens of thieves, and Synagogues of antichrist.  
Neither do ye sacrifice unto God the Sacrifice of Praise in the body of Christ, which the Church doth, as S. Augustine saith: for ye acknowledge no Sacrifice of the body of Christ at all, in which God is chief praised and thanked for his benefits. 
The Singular Sacrifice that S. Austin speaketh of, is the Sacrifice of the Eucharist.   
Furthermore what Sacrifice is that, whereof the sacrifices of Israel according to the flesh, were significations, which S. Augustine here calleth the Singular Sacrifice, that Israel after the spirit offereth up now? What other is it, than the Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, after an unbloody manner daily offered in the Church? For of the Sacrifice of the Cross, ye can not expound it, because the same is done once already, and is not now offered up. Neither can ye understand it of mere spiritual Sacrifices, for they are not Singular, neither offered only now, that is to say, in the time of the new Testament, but are common to the faithful personnes, and times of both Testaments.  
By this it is evident, that the Sacrifice of Praise, which Israel after the spirit, that is to say, the Church, offereth up unto God, not after the order of Aaron, but after the order of Melchisedek, as S. Augustine writeth, is the Sacrifice of the eucharist, in which the body and blood of Christ is offered up under the forms of bread and wine, 
Genes. 14.  in which Melchisedek made his Sacrifice forefiguring this.  
Your third authority, which you have somedeal corrupted by nipping away certain words, and by false translation, maketh for proof of our Sacrifice, it helpeth your Negative nothing at al. The whole sentence truly translated, 
August. li. 83. question. q. 61  is this. Christ hath commended unto us a likeness of his bloody Sacrifice (for of that he speaketh there) to be celebrated in remembrance of his Passion, to the end we may see now that, which Melchisedek offered unto God, to be offered in the Church of Christ through the whole world. Here are touched three Sacrifices, the Sacrifice of the Cross, 
Three Sacrifices.  the Sacrifice of the Altar, the Sacrifice of Melchisedek. On the Cross Christ was sacrificed truly; according to the truth of substance of the thing sacrificed, and of the manner of sacrificing, which was by shedding of blood, and killing the host that was to be sacrificed. In the Supper then, and in the Altar now, he is truly sacrificed, as touching the truth of the substance of the thing that is offered, that is to say, the body and blood of Christ. For he said, 
Luc. 22.  This is my body, this is my blood, do ye this in remembrance, of me: 
1. Cor. 11.  But not according to the truth of such manner of sacrificing. For he is sacrificed unbloodily, and in Mystery. The body that now is offered, is a live body. For it is the same in the Sacrament that hung upon the Cross, and that is now in heaven. But though Christ's body be now a live in the Sacrament, and the blood in the Body: yet neither is the body of us offered, because it is a live, and now to be killed, nor the blood, because it is in the body as again to be shed: but because the body was once killed, and the blood once shed. that, which is now done, is done in remembrance of that. And hereof it cometh, that this Sacrifice, is oftentimes called of the Fathers in respect of the bloody Sacrifice of the Cross (as it is in the third, fourth, and fifth testimony of S, Augustine here alleged to be seen) a likeness, an Image of that Sacrifice, a memory, or Sacrament of memory. From the affirmation of which likeness, Image● memory, Sacrament, representation, or figure, to infer the denial of a true presence and Sacrifice, is beside all rules of Logic, and reason, sithence both stand well together. And yet this is in manner the only kind of reason and Argument, that M. jewel useth through his whole Reply, and otherwheres. Which kind of Arguments they must needs use, if they will use any at all, who by opening the truth of any question by due distinctions, see their false doctrine confuted, and therefore make their apparent advantage of confusion. Which Confusion is soon wrought by heaps of undiscussed authorities without declaration of the circumstances, patchedly, and by piece meal alleged, and jumbled together, as M. jewel is wont to do.  

Likeness and Image, how they signify in the new testament being spoken of the sacrament.  And remember good Reader, that, whereas S. Augustine here alleged speaketh of a Similitude, or likeness, he meaneth not every common kind of likeness, but a likeness, that is a Sacrament of the new Testament: Which is a holy effectual, and visible sign of invisible grace. If thou take away the body and blood of Christ from this likeness, it shall lack the invisible grace, and so shall it not be such a likeness, as S. Augustine here speaketh of.  

Image.  An Image also (which term he useth likewise) in the new Testament considered in Christ, or his Sacraments, doth not signify a bare figure void of the thing whose Image it is: But rather signifieth the true thing itself exhibited in the form of an other thing, and not in proper shape. 
De Cons. Dist. 2. Hoc est quod dicimus.  So is Christ Imago Patris, the Image of his Father, appearing in the form of man. So is the Sacrament of Christ's body the Image of the same body crucified, yea the body of Christ in the Sacrament invisible, is a Sacrament and sampler of the same body visible. For so S. Augustine speaketh, Caro videlicet carnis, & sanguis est sacramentum Sanguinis, carne & sanguine, utroque invisibili, spirituali, intelligibili, signatur visibile Domini nostri jesu Christi corpus, & palpabile; plenum gratiae omnium virtutum, & divina Maiestate. The flesh (of Christ in the Sacrament) is the sacrament of his flesh, and the blood is a sacrament of his blood. By his flesh and blood both invisible, spiritual, intelligible, is betokened the body of our Lord jesus Christ, that is visible, palpable, full of the grace of all virtues, and divine Majesty.  
Neither maketh it ought for M. jewel, that S. Augustine calleth this Sacrament, a Sacrament of remembrance. 
Sacrament of remē●brance.  Because it were not a Sacrament of remembrance fit for the new Testament, unless the body and blood of Christ were really contained therein, according to the saying of Christ, 
Lucae. 22.  this is my body, this is my blood. For we have no warrant of the Scripture, that bread and wine is the Sacrament of remembrance.  
The .6. authority taken out of S. Augustine de Civitate Dei, 
S. Augustine falsified by M. jew.  is falsified by casting unto it, this pronoun (hoc) this. Whereby M. jewel deceiveth the unlearned Reader, and such as do not examine his allegations, causing them to think, that S. Augustine spoke specially of the Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, whereof now we treat, whereas he spoke in that place of the Sacrifices of the old law, in which brute beasts were slain. Albeit true it is generally, that visible Sacrifice is a Sacrament, that is to say, a holy sign, of invisible Sacrifice.  
If of this place of S. Augustine M. jewel will thus frame an Argument against the real Sacrifice of the Church, 
August. de civita. Dei li. 10. c. 5.  The external and visible Sacrifice of the Church, is a Sacrament, that is, a sign of the invisible Sacrifice, Ergo, it is not a true and real Sacrifice: The Argument is to be denied. For by like reason he should prove, that all the Sacrifices of the old law were no Sacrifices at all, because they were (as S. Augustine in the place before mentioned saith) Sacraments and signs of internal, invisible, and spiritual Sacrifices.  

Sacrifice of two sorts, inward, and outward  The .7. authority is with other words reported, then S. Augustine wrote. Wherein was false meaning. The same helpeth his cause nothing at al. For Answer, this much may be said. We are taught by S. Augustine in that place, that Sacrifice is of two sorts. the one in the reputation of man, 
August. de civita. Dei li. 10. c. 5.  the other in the sight of God, which in comparison of that other, he calleth, verum Sacrificium, true Sacrifice. Whereas it is written (saith he) I had rather have mercy, than Sacrifice, none other thing is to be understanded, 
Osee. 6.  but that Sacrifice is preferred before Sacrifice: in asmuch as that which of men is called Sacrifice, is a sign of true Sacrifice. And as for mercy, it is a true Sacrifice. Of all this nothing can be concluded, but that an outward Sacrifice, is a sign and token of an inward Sacrifice. Whereby it is evident, that one and the same thing is a Sacrifice, and the sign of a Sacrifice. Wherefore of the affirmation of a sign or token, by good Argument the Denial of the thing, can not be inferred.  

Al M. jewels Arguments fail for lack of good logic. for still, he inferreth the denial of one truth, of th'affirmation of an other truth.  Whereas then M. jewel impugneth the Sacrifice with this common Argument, The Sacrifice of the Church, is a similitude, a likeness, an Image, a remembrance, a Sacrament of remembrance, a sign, a token of a Sacrifice, and a figure, or a sampler of great Mysteries, as S. Nazianzen calleth it, Ergo, it is not a true Sacrifice: we tell him, his cause must needs have a fall for lack of a good Argument, and we counsel him to go to school again to learn better Logic. How be it more profitable it were for him, to learn better Divinity.  
By an example it may be made manifest, how it is both a memory, and nevertheless the thing itself. Paulus Aemylius that noble man of Rome, and C. julius Caesar, and many other noble Romans, after they had achieved great victories in war, and conquests, were received into the City of Rome with Triumph. Every triumph was a memory, and solemn celebration of the memory of victories by them obtained, and for memory's sake of worthy and famous deeds, each Triumph was kept. Now what a foolish Argument were this, if one had then said: This triumph is celebrated and kept in memory of the great Conquest, and of the Conqueror, Ergo, the Conqueror himself is not present? For at such triumphs the conquerors were present riding most gloriously in their chariotes. And every one at such a solemnity was both the Conqueror himself, and was there in memory of himself having done the worthy Acts, for which he deserved the honour of a Triumph. So in this Mystery the memory of Christ's Passion and Death is celebrated, and Christ himself nevertheless is present, and by the Priest offered up to his Father.  
Alleging the authority of S. Gregory Nazianzen, 
Gregory Nazianzen falsified by M. jew.  calling the blessed Sacrament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a pattern, or sampler of great Mysteries, he hath done very falsely, in that he leaveth out of the sentence those other words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, asmuch to say, the external Sacrifice, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be understanded. Of which words it followeth necessarily, that it is a real and true Sacrifice. It is a sign he regardeth not so much the truth, as he seeketh, how by some craft or shift, he may make an apparent defence of his vain Challenge.  
Last of all, the place of S. Jerome seemeth to have been thrust in to make up the number, and increase the heap. How it relieveth his side, I see not, unless he will bear men in hand, that the Sacrifice of Praises and thanksgiving, must in any wise exclude the Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ. Which thing when he shall make men believe, then, and not else, may this place of S. Jerome serve his purpose. Hitherto he hath said little to any purpose. Now cometh he in with new Divinity, and uttereth plain heresy.   

jewel.  
Neither hath God appointed any certain order of outward priesthood to make this Sacrifice. Every faithful Christian man hath Authority, to offer up, and to make the same. How be it, this I mean, not of the Ministration of the holy Sacraments, which only pertaineth unto the Minister, but only of the Oblation, and making of this Spiritual Sacrifice. 
Cypria. De unctione Chrsyma.  Thus much I say, lest any man, either of malice take occasion, or of ignorance be deceived. S. Cyprian saith, Omnes, qui à Christi nomine dicuntur Christiani, offerunt Deo Quotidianum Sacrificium, ordinati à Deo Sanctimoniae Sacerdotes: Al, 
Orig. in Leuit. hom. 9 1. Pet. 2.  that of Christ be called Christians: offer up unto God the daily Sacrifice, being ordained of God Priests of holiness. Origen saith, Omnes, quicunque, & caet. Al, that are bathed with the holy ointment, 
August. in Expositione inchoata, ad Rom. Ambros. in 1. Cor. 11. Chrysost. in 2. Corint. Homi. 18.  are made Priests, even as Peter saith unto the whole Church, you are the Chosen Stock, and kingly priesthood. S. Augustine saith, Holocaustum Dominicae Passionis offert quisque pro peccatis suis: Every man offereth up the Sacrifice of our lords Passion for his own sins. S. Ambrose saith, invicem expectate, ut multorum Oblatio simul celebretur: Wait ye one for an other, that the Sacrifice of many may be offered together. S. Chrysostom saith, In Mysterijs nihil differt Sacerdos à Subdito: In the holy Mysteries (the Ministration only excepted) the Priest differeth nothing from the People.  
It appeareth by these Ancient Learned Fathers, that every Christian man is bound, to offer up the unbloody, and Daily Sacrifice of the New Testament, and that in as full, and ample sort, as is the Priest. And therefore M. harding himself saith even in the very Canon of his Mass, Memento Domine famulorum, famularumque tuarum, & omnium Circumstantium, pro quibus tibi offerimus, vel qui tibi offerunt hoc Sacrificium Laudis: Remember, o Lord, thy Servants, and all them, that stand about, for whom we offer unto thee, or else, which do offer unto thee, this Sacrifice of Praises.  
Out of S. Augustine's words M. harding in the end concludeth, thus: Christ is a Priest after the order of melchisedek: Ergo, The Priest hath Authority, to offer up the Son of God in Sacrifice unto his Father. It were hard to tell us, how this Antecedente, and this consequent came together. No man hath Authority thus to mince his Logic, but M. Harding.   

Harding.  
If the Sacrifice be external, 
That this sacrifice is external.  it behoveth the priesthood also be external. That this Sacrifice is external, it is clear. For to the making of this Sacrifice external things be requisite, as bread and wine mixed with water, for the matter: the words of our Lord outwardly pronounced, for the form: a Man ordered and consecrated into a Priest, for the Minister. The body also, and blood of Christ itself, which is the substance offered, though it be spiritually understanded, and not with any outward sense of man perceived, is a real thing of itself consisting beside, and without the soul, spirit, or mind of man, and may be received of man's body by the office of the mouth, and is not a mere spiritual thing, as love, mercy, faith, hope, joy, sorrow, contrition of heart, and such other things, that have their being only in the mind and spirit.  
For proof that it is external by witnesses, no testimony can be plainer, then that of S. Gregory Nazianzen, whereof the three only later words M jewel hath three times in this Article alleged, suppressing the other with crafty silence, because he saw they made directly against him. 
Nazianz● in Apologetico.  Thus he saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? How should I be so bold, as to offer up unto him, the external Sacrifice, the which is the true sampler of the great Mysteries?  
Let no man charge me with falsifying this Father by adding this word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unto the sentence. the same is in that place necessarily to be understanded, and there it should have been placed expressly by the Author, but that he thought it better, the Article, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to have relation unto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, thrice put before in the same sentence, then by ●o oft repetition of one word, as with an unpleasant sound, to offend learned ears, to whose good liking in that Oration, as also commonly in all his other exact writings, following Polemon in his manner of writing, as it is reported of him, he much attempered his style.  

Double Priesthood double Sacrifice in the new Testament.  Now as touching priesthood, in the new Testament it is double, internal or spiritual, and external, as our Sacrifices also be double internal and mere spiritual, and this the chief and singular Sacrifice of the Church, external. The Internal priesthood is common to all godly persons, 
Internal Priesthood.  because they be membres of Christ the high King and Priest, and the members be partakers of what good thinks so ever the head hath. God endueth all with this priesthood, whom he washeth clean from their sins in the blood of Christ, consecrating and anointing them with none other oil, then with the oil of his Grace.  
Of this Kind of priesthood speaketh S. Peter and S. John the Apostle. 
2 Pet i 2.  This priesthood as we acknowledge, 
Apoc. 1.5.  so do our Adversaries not deny. For it is neither a degree, nor order, nor office, nor ministery in the Church. And verily this priesthood sometimes is worthier, and of more excellency in a woman, or a child, then in a Bishop, yea perhaps then in the Pope himself. For in him it is none at all, if he hap to fall into mortal sin.  
Whereas then all Christian persons be Priests, anointed with that Ointment, 
1. joan. 2.  of which S. john speaketh, Vos unctionem habetis à Sancto, ye have the ointment of the Holy, they ought to offer up and sacrifice somewhat unto God, sooth themselves, and their bodies, 
Rom. 12.  a lively, holy, and acceptable host to God, as S. Paul admonished. 
1. Pet. 2.  And S. Peter calleth the faithful, a holy priesthood, offering spiritual, and acceptable sacrifices unto God through jesus Christ.  
The other priesthood is external or outward in the Church, 
External Priesthood  which is communicated unto certain persons by Consecration, and by Imposition of hands of Bishops, 
Character indelebilis.  imprinting into the soul of him that is made a Priest, a mark or Print, that can not be put out, the like whereof is imprinted in them, that receive the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation.  
Of this priesthood so communicated by Imposition of hands, and ordination of a Bishop, speaketh S. Paul to Timothe. 
●. Tim. 4.  Noli negligere Gratiam, quae in te est, quae data est tibi per prophetiam cum impositione manuum Presbyterij. Despise not the gift, which is in thee, that was given thee through Prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of priesthood. 
2. Tim. 1.  Again to him. Stir up the grace of God, that is in thee, through the laying on of my hands. And in the Epistle to Tite. 
Tit. 2.  For this intent I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest amend the things that want, and ordain Priests in every City, even so as I took order with thee. 
Act. 14.  S. Paul also and S. Barnabas did ordain Priests in every Church, in Prayer, and fasting, as now a days the custom is observed, when holy orders be given.  
This outward priesthood, and the ministery of it, is very necessary in the Church militant. Neither be the Priests deprived of it, if at any time they fall into mortal sin, as wickliff held opinion, 
wickliff.  and was condemned for it in the Council of Constantia. For this priesthood is not such a grace given, as maketh one acceptable, called of the Divines, Gratia gratum faciens. It is an office, a dignity, a Degree, and a grace freely given, Gratia gratis data, as the Divines term it. Neither can the prince, that is imprinted in a Priest, ever be put out by any mortal sin.  

Authority to create priests least to the Church.  That the Church hath authority and power to create and ordain Priests, of the Apostles, and that the Apostles received the same of Christ, it may be proved by that Christ said at his last Supper, hoc facite in meam commemorationem, 
Luca. 22.  
1. Cor. 11.  Do ye this in my remembrance. For if this, which he bade them to do, was a Sacrifice, as now it hath been proved it was: then verily did he institute his Apostles Priests, except we will say, he bade them to do, and gave them no authority to do, which were absurd. Now to make and consecrate the body and blood of Christ, to th'end we do our Sacrifice unto God, because it is above nature, without faculty and power from God it can not be done. 
Derivation of priestly duty.  And because our Lord commanded this Sacrifice to be made until he come, it is necessary, what leave and power to make the continual and perpetual Sacrifice Christ gave unto the Apostles, that they transfunded and delivered over unto their after-comers the same, along through all times and ages. For so after the exposition of Oecumenius, and Eusebius, as it is before mentioned, the priesthood of Christ after the order of Melchisedek is everlasting among men.  
Whereas then M. jewel denieth God to have appointed any certain order of outward Priestode to make this Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, and avoucheth every faithful Christian man to have authority to offer up and make the same: though there be little hope of good to be done with him, yet for thy sake good Reader, that thou mayst see, what trusty teachers these fellows be: I will here allege some testimoonies of the old learned Fathers for the outward priesthood (albe it the same is proved already because the Sacrifice is outward) and for that this Sacrifice is to be made by those, that be Priests by proper and special ordination, and not by every faithful person.  

Testimonies for outward Priesthood, and for the Sacrifice to be made by the special Priests.  
LEt us begin with the blessed Martyr, and learned Bishop S. Cyprian, who to declare the excellency of the Church of Christ that now is, above the old Synagogue of the jews, that was under Moses: among other prerogatives numbereth this for one. 
Cyprian. de unctione Chrismatis.  that in the Church, Non sunt haereditariae successiones Pontificum, vel uni Leviticae tribui ministeria assignata, sed de omni tribu, & gente, & lingua, quos dignos & idoneos Divinae probat electio, secundùm vitae, non generis meritum, statuit Sacerdotes, quibus Calicem sanguinis sui inexhaustae plenitudinis abundantia semper refertum conseruandum tradidit, & erogandum. The successions of Bishops come not by heritage, neither the ministries be assigned unto the Levitical tribe only, but whom God's election approveth to be worthy and meet, he ordaineth them Priests, out of every tribe, nation, and tongue, according to the desert of their life, and not of their birth, to whom he hath delivered the Chalice of his blood filled always with infinite abundance, to be kept, and distributed.  
Here the election of God appointing certain special persons to be Priests, allowed for worthy and meet in respect of good life, not of noble parentage, the function and ministery whereunto they be ordained, which is to attend upon the Chalice of Christ's blood, to consecrate, offer up, and distribute the same (for thus to do belongeth to Priests): these things do argue manifestly, an outward priesthood, and show as it were to the eye, that they, who be thus chosen of God, and to whom such ministery and office is committed in the Church, are special Priests. For certainly, what answer so ever may be made by a wrangler touching the rest of S. Cyprians saying, 
Erogation of Christ's blood  the Erogation here spoken of, that is to say, the giving and distributing of Christ's blood, pertaineth not to every Christian man, but to him that properly and specially, and by consecration of a Bishop is made Priest.  
The holy and eloquent Father S. Leo speaking of the priesthood of Christ after the Order of Melchisedek, giveth us a most plain testimony for the special and outward priesthood. 
Leo. Sermone. 2.  When the Sacrament saith he) of this Divine priesthood cometh unto humane functions (that is to say, when men be made Priests) it runneth not by way of generations, neither is that thing chosen, which flesh and blood hath created: but the privilege of Fathers having no place, and the order of families set apart, the Church taketh those governors, whom the holy ghost hath prepared: Vt in populo adoptionis Dei cuius universitas sacerdotalis atque regalis est, non praerogativa terrenae originis obtineat unctionem, sed dignatio coelestis gratiae gignat Antistitem. That in the people of God's adoption, whose university is Priestly, and Kingly (that is to say, who in general and universally are Priests and Kings) it be not the prerogative of earthly progeny, that shall obtain the anointing, but that he be made a high Priest, whom the heavenly grace vouchsafeth to ordain.  
Lo to the function and ministery of the Sacrifice of Christ that is after the order of Melchisedek, the people, whom God hath adopted and chosen for his be not admitted, be they never so much universally Priests and Kings, as the Scripture calleth them, for offering up pure Sacrifices from the Altar of their heart, and for ruling their flesh, and subduing fleshly lusts unto the spirit, which are priestly and kingly parts: neither is any of them for doing this duty a Priest after the Doctrine of S. Leo, but only he, whom the holy Ghost hath prepared, and promoted to have the special anointing of the external priesthood, and so is ordained a Priest: for else as touching the universal Anointing of the holy Ghost, every spiritual Priest, that is to say, every faithful person, hath it.  

Leo hom. 3. in Annivers. die suae Assumpt.  The same S. Leo giveth us yet a more evident testimony for the outward and special priesthood in an other place, saying thus: Omnes in Christo regeneratos, Crucis signum efficit Reges. Sancti verò spiritus unctio consecrat Sacerdotes, ut praeter istam specialem nostri ministerij servitutem, universi spiritales & rationales Christiani agnoscant se regij generis, & sacerdotalis officij esse consortes. The sign of the Cross, maketh all that be regenerate in Christ Kings. But the anointing of the holy Ghost doth consecrate Priests, 
Special Priesthood  that besides this Special service of our ministery, all spiritual and reasonable Christians universally acknowledge themselves to be partakers of a Kingly lineage, and of a Priestly office. Here he acknowledgeth a special priesthood, and an universal priesthood: that, is the external, this, is the internal and spiritual Priesthood. That, pertaineth to certain called thereto and anointed by the holy Ghost, this, to all in general that be faithful Christians. And though he confess all Christians to be Priests, yet he acknowledgeth some to be Priests after an other manner, who be chosen and admitted Ad specialem Ministerij servitutem, that is to say, to do a special service of Priestly ministery.  
This special and external priesthood S. Augustine understandeth, 
August. ad Hieronym. epist. 19  where he writeth thus unto S. Jerome a Priest, himself being a Bishop. Quanquam secundùm honorum vocabula, quae iam usus Ecclesiae obtinuit, Episcopatus Presbyterio maior sit, tamen Augustinus Hieronymo minor est. Albe it after the rate of words of Dignities, which the custom of the Church hath now obtained, bishopric is greater than priesthood, yet is Augustine less than Jerome.  
S. Ambrose expounding the place of the Epistle to the Ephesians, 
Ambros. in Epist. ad Ephes. 4.  where S. Paul speaketh of Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and Doctors by Christ placed in the Church: by Apostles, understandeth Bishops, and by Prophets, he understandeth them, that be first in degree after Bishops, which Order may now be the Order of a Priest, 
qui ordo nunc potest esse Presbyteri.  saith he, meaning the Special Priesthood given by Consecration of a Bishop.  
Of this priesthood is to be understanded the .3. Canon of the .4. Council of Carthage, in which those two hundred and fourteen Bishops, 
Concil. Carthag. 4. Can. 3.  among whom S. Augustine was one, as it is certain by his own subscription, describe a form how a Priest ought to be ordered, that is, consecrated into that holy Order.  
Of this priesthood speaketh S. Augustine writing Against the Epistle of Permenian, 
Augustin. lib. 2. contra epist. Parmen. c. 13.  where making mention, of Baptism and of power to baptize, he saith thus. Vtrumque Sacramentum est, & quadam consecratione utrumque homini datur, illud cùm baptizatur, istud cùm ordinatur. Ideoque in Catholica utrumque non licet iterari. Either (of them) is a Sacrament, and by a certain Consecration either is given unto a man, that, when he is baptised, this, when he is ordered. And therefore in the Catholic Church either may not be iterated, or taken twice. For the outward and special Priesthood these few may suffice.   

That the Sacrifice is not to be consecrate and made, but only by the Special Priests.  
NOW touching that this Sacrifice is to be consecrated, and made, not by every faithful Christian person, but by those that by special consecration be ordered Priests, let us allege the testimonies of some Fathers.  
What force is in the word of our Saviour, Do ye this in my remembrance, 
Luc. 22.  spoken to none but to the Apostles, 
1. Cor. 11.  for they only were present at the Supper, if it were earnestly urged, the learned do well conceive. But because these men will not soon be confuted by Scripture, for that they can not be brought to take it in that sense, in which the Church hath always been taught by the holy Ghost to understand it: let us hear the voice of the Church uttered by some learned and ancient Father.  
The Bishop (saith S. Dionyse the Areopagite S. Paul's scholar) of reverence and bishoply duty, 
Dionysius in Ecclesiastic. Hierar. cap. 3. part. 3.  that he offereth up the healthful Sacrifice, which passeth his worthiness, excuseth himself, in seemly wise first crying out unto him, Thou (o Lord) hast spoken the word, Do ye this in my remembrance. If it were lawful for every Christian to perform this duty, 
bishoply duty.  what needed S. Dionyse to speak of Bishoply duty? Again in that he allegeth the word of Christ, Do ye this in my remembrance, for excuse of his boldness: he signifieth this office to appertain, not to every faithful person, but to that special order of men, who have succeeded the Apostles, to whom only that word was first spoken, that is to say, to them that be called to the special priesthood, whereunto Christ then promoted his Apostles, by that word giving power, office, and commission.  
S. justine Philosopher and Martyr saith likewise. 
justinus Martyr.  The Apostles in their Commentaries (or books) which are called (evangelia) Gospels, have recorded, that Christ gave commandment unto them so, that they should consecrate this meat by the prayers of the word of himself, that he took bread, and after he had given thanks, said: Do ye this in remembrance of me, This is my body. Item, that he said having taken the Cup, after he had given thanks, This is my blood, and that he gave it to them alone. Mark here (good Reared) by witness of this blessed Martyr, who was so nigh unto the Apostles time, the commandment to do that which Christ did at his supper, that is to say, to consecrate, and offer the body and blood of Christ, was given to the Apostles, and consequently to their successors (for he bade them so to do until he come), and to none else. Of his words this Argument may well be gathered.  
They only have commandment to do that Christ did at the Supper, to whom he gave the Sacrament, but by report of S. justine he gave the Sacrament to the Apostles only: Ergo, the Apostles only, and such as in the function of Priesthood there instituted do succeed them, have authority to do that which Christ did. Now Christ consecrated his body and blood, and offered the same, and made this Sacrifice after the order of Melchisedek. Therefore they be Priests only (Priests I mean Hierarchical) that be appointed, by Christ, and have authority to consecrate, and make this Sacrifice, which is the point that M. jewel here denieth, but how impudently he denieth it, any man may see, that hath eyes to see.  
That this authority, and ministery, pertaineth not to every faithful Christian man, as M. jewel holdeth opinion, but to Priests only, the old learned writer Tertullian, acknowledgeth with these words. Eucharistiae Sacramentum nec de aliorum manu, 
Tertullian. lib. de Corona militis.  quàm Praesidentium sumimus. We receive not the Sacrament of the Eucharist, of the hand of others, then of the Rulers, by that he understanded Priests.  
Of this authority speaketh S. Ambrose expounding this place of S. Paul to Timothe. 
1. Tim. 4.  Despise not the grace, which hath been given unto thee through prophecy with laying on of hands of priesthood. These be his words. Prophetia est, 
Ambros. in 1. Tim. 4.  qua eligitur quasi Doctor futurus idoneus, manus verò impositiones verba sunt mystica, quibus confirmatur ad opus electus, accipiens auctoritatem teste conscientia sua, ut audeat vice Domini sacrificium Deo offer. Prophecy is, saith he, by which is chosen, as a man would say, one that shall prove a fit teacher, but the layings on of hand are words mystical, by which he that is chosen, is confirmed unto the work, receiving authority his own conscience being witness, that he may be so bold as in the stead of our Lord to offer up the Sacrifice unto God.  
This place of S. Paul, and the witness of conscience, as he saith, telleth them, who be made Priests by lawful imposition of hands, what authority they have, and how little they ought to be a feared (being in themselves duly examined and approved) to offer up unto God the most holy Sacrifice of the eucharist, in the steed of our Lord.  
And here is to be noted, that we make this Sacrifice, and offer it up unto God, not as of ourselves, and in our own persons, but vice Domini, in the steed of our Lord. Christ it is that consecrateth, 
In this Sacrifice, what is Christ, what are we.  that offereth, that sacrificeth. He is the Priest and the Sacrifice. Nevertheless we, that have received the holy Order of priesthood by lawful imposition of hands, do also in our degree consecrate, and sacrifice. But how? As ministers, in the person of Christ, in the steed of our Lord. Christ only and alone (we confess) is the true Priest. 
priests are Christ's vicars in ma● making this Sacrifice.  For by the Oblation of his own body he only hath done the office of the true Mediator, and hath reconciled us to God. And with that body he appeareth before his Father now in heaven. We are vicarij Sacerdotes, his Vicars, and vicegerentes in this behalf, and do the office of priesthood in steed of him.  
Eusebius saith notably, that the event and issue of David's Prophecy, Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek, is seen in this, that Christ performeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the things that belong to the Sacrifice which is among men, 
Oecumen. in Epist. ad Heb. cap. 5.  yet to this day by his ministers. We are but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ministers, and by the mediation or mean of these ministerial and vicar Priests, Christ sacrificeth, and is sacrificed, saith Oecumenius.  
To further proof hereof S. Basil saith in Liturgia, 
Basil. in Liturgia.  speaking unto Christ. For thine unspeakable and incomprehensible goodness, without any change and turning thou hast been made man, and hast been called our high Bishop, (& huius ministratorij & incruenti Sacrificij consecrationem nobis tradidisti) and thou hast delivered unto us the consecration of this Ministratorious and unbloody Sacrifice. Lo he calleth this Sacrifice, the Ministratorious Sacrifice, because in making it wear but Ministers of our Lord, and do his steed Unbloody he calleth it, because it is offered up without bloodshed, being the same that was offered upon the Cross with bloodshed. And here appeareth the vain cavil of M. jewel, who referreth the term, unbloody, 
Unbloody, spoken of the Sacrifice of the Altar.  only to the mere spiritual sacrifices of our devotion. In offering whereof we are not only Ministers of Christ, but being endued with grace, we offer up such kind of Sacrifice in our own person.  
This much have I thought good here to inculcate, and make plain, the rather, because both the followers of M. jewel cease not to utter unseemly and lewd talk against Priests, saying in scorn, that they make God, and because M. jewel himself in the beginning of his Reply to this Article, maketh so much a do for that a Mortal, and a Miserable man should offer up the Immortal Son of God unto his Father. 
Reply. page. 555.  Where he saith further, that God never appointed any such Sacrifice to be made by any Mortal Creature. As well he might find fault with Kings, and judges of the world, for that being mortal and miserable men, they take upon them to rule and judge, whereas in deed and truth Christ only is King of all, and judge of al. For to me all power is given in heaven and in earh, saith he, Matth. 28. And S. john saith. 
johan. 5.  Omne judicium dedit Filio: God hath given all judgement to his Son.  
In the former testimony of S. Basil, 
Power to consecrate by Christ delivered unto the special Priests only.  it is to be considered, that he saith to Christ in his Mass, thou hast delivered the Consecration of this Sacrifice unto us, meaning, when Christ said, Do ye this in my remembrance. Whereby we understand M. jewels general and common Priests quite excluded. else let him show, if he can, where ever Christ delivered power to consecrate the body and blood of Christ, to the Say people, that be not Priests, but as all Christian folk in general, men, women and children are.  
S. Jerome saith writing to Heliodorus, 
Hieron ad Heliodor.  Absit, ut de ijs quicquam sinistrum loquar, qui Apostolico gradui succedentes, Christi corpus sacro ore conficiunt: per quos & nos Christiani sumus. God forbidden, that I should speak any sinister (or evil) thing against them, who succeeding in degree of the Apostles, do with their sacred mouth consecrate the body of Christ: by whom also we are Christians.  
Again in his Dialogue against the Luciferians he saith, 
Hieron. Contra Luciferianos  that one Hilarius could not consecrate the eucharist, because he was but a Deacon. If one that hath received the holy order of Deaconship, can not consecrate and make this Sacrifice, but to do this it must be a Priest, as S. Jerome teacheth: How shall we believe M. jewel, who telleth us here, that every faithful Christian man hath authority to make it, and to offer it?  
The policy of Satan, and M. jewel, is, to abandon the external priesthood, 
To what end tendeth M. jewels doctrine against the blessed Sacrifice.  and to set the lay people a work, bearing them in hand, they have authority, to make, and offer up this Sacrifice: to th'intent they may bring to pass, first, that the most holy and dreadful Mysteries be contemned, next, that when there is none, that hath authority to consecrate the body, and blood of Christ, and to remit sins, the remembrance of Christ's Death vanish away, and the people remain fast bound in the bands of their sins. Our Lord, who came to dissolve the works of Satan, confound the wicked attempts, 
1. joan. 3.  and damnable doctrine of Satan's Minister.  

The Church's determination touching this point  I trust so many as fear God, and have care of their souls, in this weighty matter will little regard, what he saith, but rather consider, how much safer it is to hearken unto the determination of the Chuche in the great general Council of Laterane uttered by these words. Hoc utique Sacramentum nemo potest conficere, 
Concil. Lateranen.  nisi Sacerdos fuerit ritè ordinatus secundùm claves Ecclesiae, quas ipse concessit Apostolis, & eorum successoribus jesus Christus. Noman can make (or consecrate) this Sacrament, except he be a Priest duly ordered according to the keys of the Church, 
Mat. 16.  which jesus Christ himself hath granted unto the Apostles, 
joan. 20.  and their Successors. Here I have said enough of the outward priesthood, and that this Sacrifice can not be made, but by a Priest lawfully ordered, and consecrated with due laying on of hands.  
But whereas M. jewel giveth authority to every faithful Christian man, that is to say, to Say men, women, boys, girls, and children (for they be contained under the name of Faithful Christian men) to make, and offer up this Sacrifice, he maketh this Proviso, 
M. jewels proviso.  and putteth in as it were a Caveat, that it be not understanded of the Ministration of the Sacraments, For that pertaineth, saith he, only to the Minister, but only of the Oblation, and making of this Spiritual Sacrifice. Verily I doubt whether this Minister understandeth, what he speaketh, 
1. Tim. 1.  and whereof he affirmeth. So confuse is his tale. Every Christian man by him may make this Sacrifice. But none can minister the Sacraments, but a Minister. I can not well reason with him, unless I knew where to have him, what he meaneth by This Sacrifice, what by making, what by his Minister, what by Ministration, what by Sacraments. For our whole Religion by these men now turned upside down, and the old terms being of them abused to signify other things, then before they did: all Disputation with them must needs be obscure.  
Concerning the Sacrifice, he nameth it, This Spiritual Sacrifice. If he had spoken indefinitely of Spiritual Sacrifice, every Lay faithful person may (I grant) and ought to make, and offer up unto God Spiritual Sacrifice. For besides other, 
Contrite heart.  a Contrite heart by report of Scripture is such a Sacrifice, that all are bound to offer up unto God. But calling this Sacrifice, whereof our controversy is, spiritual, he seemeth to use subtlety, and to provide himself a starting hole, if he happen to be chafed and pursued. In respect of understanding, it is spiritual, for that which is hid under the forms of bread and wine, with understanding it is conceived, and is not with bodily sense perceived. But in respect of the substance of it, which is the Real body and blood of Christ, it is not properly, and altogether spiritual, specially as Spirit doth exclude the vetitie of Body. Affirming then that every faithful man hath authority to make, and offer this Sacrifice, what soundeth this tale, but that every such hath authority to make, and consecaate, and offer up the body and blood of our Lord, which belongeth only to them that properly be Priests, as now I have proved? This is both a Sacrament, and a Sacrifice. If none may minister this Secrament, but the Minister (for he speaketh of Sacraments generally): how much less may any make, that is to say, consecrate, or outwardly offer this Sacrifice, but he that is duly made Priest by Bishoply Consecration, 
External oblation proper to Priests, internal pertaineth also to the faithful people.  and laying on of hands? Outwardly offer I say, whereby I mean the actual, external, and ministerial offering: For else I acknowledge, that by vow, affection, and devotion of heart, the faithful and godly people doth also offer up unto God this Sacrifice.  
touching the testimonies here alleged, where S. Cyprian saith, 
Cyprian. de unct Crismat.  All that of Christ be called Christians, do offer unto God Daily Sacrifice, ordained of God Priests of holiness: he meaneth it of the common spiritual sacrifices of our devotion, which of bounden duty we offer up daily, and not of this Singular Sacrifice, which, because it is daily offered for that we daily sin, that a remembrance of Christ's Death be renewed, being the chief of all the Sacrifices, that we daily offer up unto God: the learned Fathers oftentimes have called, Quotidianum Sacrificium, the daily Sacrifice.  
Wherefore M. jewel doth very untruly, 
The daily Sacrifice, and A daily Sacrifice.  and contrary to his own knowledge, in this place to turn it, The Daily Sacrifice: as though S. Cyprian had meant of this Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ. Of what Sacrifice it is to be understanded, it is soon judged, by that he maketh all Christians the offerers of the same. Therefore in his translation he should have called it, not The daily Sacrifice, but a daily Sacrifice.  
That he allegeth here out of Origen, 
Origen. in levit. Homil. 9  maketh nothing against the Catholic Doctrine touching this Sacrifice. Origen only teacheth, which we also do teach, that all good Christian folk are spiritual Priests. Such Sacrifices, 
Spiritual sacrifices, spiritual Priesthood.  such priesthood, and such Priests. The Christians common sacrifices be mere spiritual, for they offer up themselves, Praises, thanks, Confession, a contrite heart, a troubled spirit, and such other the like, which are mere spiritual. Of the same rate is their priesthood.  
The pieces of sentences cut out of S. Augustine, S. Ambrose, and S. Chrysostom, as they do nothing relieve M. jewels cause: so do they nothing hinder ours. And because they be idly, and to no direct purpose alleged, but as it seemeth, only to increase the heap: it is not worth labour in setting forth the large circumstance of them to spend time, and to answer unto them. Yet be the two last in my rejoinder to the first Article of M. jewels Challenge sufficiently answered.  

Chrysost. in. 2. Cor. Hom. 18.  But as for S. Chrysostom, he is by M. jewel so impudently falsified in this place, that I should injury the Truth, if I dissembled it. He maketh S. Chrysostom thus to say, In Mysterijs nihil differt Sacerdos à Subdito. In the holy Mysteries the Priest differeth nothing from the people (whereby he would persuade, 
M. jew. foully falsifieth S. Chrysostom.  that touching the Sacrifice duly to be made, beside the Ministration, by which he meaneth only his Ministers giving of bread and wine at the new found communion, the priest doth no more than the people) whereas S. Chrysostom saith far otherwise. Est ubi nihil differt Sacerdos a subdito, ut quando fruendum est horrendis Mysterijs. There is a time (saith he) when the Priest differeth nothing from the subject (that is from one of the laity) as when they must receive the dreadful Mysteries.  
Is there no difference, whether one say, there is a time, or place, where the Priest differeth not from the people (which exception negative manifestly includeth an affirmation of a difference in a certain time, or place) or generally, the Priest differeth nothing from the people? Out upon such shameless corruption.  
Touching the true understanding of the place, when the Sacrifice is to be received, which is the body and blood of Christ, the subject, that is, any Say person what so ever, 
levit. ●●. & 22.  hath as good part, and receiveth as worthy a thing, as the Priest. For it is not now, as it was in the old Law (so much S. Chrysostom saith there) when the Priest received one piece of the Beasts sacrificed, and the people an other piece, but when we come to receive the Mysteries, we all participate of one heavenly bread, to all is proponed (saith he) one body and one cup. 
Both Priest and people offereth, and how each.   
That thus we pray in the Canon of the Mass, Remember o Lord thy Servants, and all them, that stand about, for whom we offer unto thee, or else, who do offer unto thee, this Sacrifice of praise: all this gladly we grant. For not only the Priests, but also the faithful Christian people do offer up this Sacrifice, which here M. jewel calleth the unbloody, and Daily Sacrifice of the new Testament, meaning notwithstanding thereby, not the body and blood of Christ, but a mere spiritual Sacrifice of Praise, thinking by the name of the Sacrifice of Praise, to exclude the Real Sacrifice of Christ's body and blood, whereas none other is so much a Sacrifice of praise, and thanks, as this Sacrifice is. Touching the Priests, and the people's part in this behalf, look what the people doth in good affection and vow, the same do the Priests in ministery, saith the learned Pope Innocentius Tertius. 
Innocentius. 3. De officio Missae. li. ● cap. 20.   
As for the Argument, which M. jewel saith I conclude out of S. Augustine's words, he may scoff at it, as he list, being the invention of his own meery head by me not so much as once dreamt of. It is not so hard, to tell, how the Antecedent and Consequent of it came together, as it is for him to show, how I have so concluded out of S. Augustine's words. For in this place, as S. Augustine alludeth to the Prophecy of Malachi, so of Melchisedek he speaketh not so much as one word. No man hath a grace to fight with his own shadow in stead of his adversary, but M. jewel. What he meaneth by mincing of my Logic, I wot not. But verily by this, and a thousand more places, it is now well known, what a number of lies and corruptions he hath minced and shrid together, to fill up the Hotchepotte of his Reply.    

jewel.  
Christ only is that Priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedek: He hath made an endless Sacrifice: He himself hath offered up himself unto God his Father upon the Crosse. Therefore God the Father saith unto him: Thou art that Priest forever: not any mortal Creature, 
Hebrae. 7. &. 9  or worldly wight, but thou (only) being both God, and man, 
Psal. 110.  art that Priest for ever. S. Paul saith, We are made perfit, and Sanctified by that one Sacrifice once made upon the Crosse. 
Hebrae. 9   

1. joan. 2.  S. John the Evangelist saith: He is the propitiaton, and Sacrifice for our sins.  

1. Pet. 2.  S. Peter saith. He carried our sins in his Body upon the Tree. 
2. Cor. 5.  S. Paul saith, God was in Christ reconcilinge the world unto himself. Therefore S. john the baptist saith, 
johan. 1.  Beholds that Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world.  
If M. harding, and his fellows doubt hereof, as they seem to do, let Ceriste himself bear witness to the price of his own Blood. Hanging upon the Cross, and yielding up the Spirit, he sealed up all with these words, Consummatum est: That is to say, This is the Sacrifice for sin: Hereby my Father's wrath is pacified: hereby all things are made perfit.  
Thus Sacrifice is but one: we may look for none other. It is full, and perfit, we may look for no better.   

Harding.  
What need so many words in a matter confessed? Who denieth, but Christ is a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek? Yea he is not That Priest so only, (upon which word you harp much) but that men may be Priests under him, and Ministers of the same priesthood, as before I have proved by witness of Eusebius, and of Oecumenius. And S. Augustine also saith, 
August. de Civit. Dei lib. 17. cap. 17.  jam ubique offertur sub Sacerdote Christo, quod protulit Melchisedech, quando benedixit Abraham. Now is that offered up every where under the Priest Christ, which Melchisedek brought forth when he blessed Abraham: whereby he understandeth not only the bare figure bread and wine, but more specially the body and blood of Christ now really contained under the forms of bread and wine after consecration, and then signified and forefigured by bread and wine.  
True it is, no mortal Creature, or worldly wight, as you speak, is that Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek. To what end bring you this in? Christ also is the Lamb of God, 
joan. 1.  that taketh away the sins of the world: He is the propitiation, and Sacrifice for our sins. What conclude you of all your needless number of allegations? Whereas you say, that I, and my fellows seem to doubt hereof, you say like yourself. The words of Dronckerdes, of Skoldes, and of Common Liars, must not always be taken for a slander.  
This Sacrifice is but one, say you, we may look for none other, it is full and perfit, we may look for no better. Is this the matter, for which you have spent so many words and texts? Why sir I pray you, is there any man so far an enemy to Christ, and to his Death, that now telleth you of more redemptions, than one? of an other Redeeming Sacrifice besides that of the Cross? of any perfiter, and better, then that? If there be any such, let him be punished (in God's name) to the example of all blasphemers: yea if ye will, let him be handled as il, as ye would longer this, have handled Bishop Boner that constant Confessor of God, if ye could have had so much law thereto as ye had malice: Or as ye would have handled me, when M. Grindal procured some of the queens Guard with his own men to be sent out by night in all haste, unto a place in Essex, I know not where, to take me, and bring me prisoner to London, being at good rest in my bed at Louvain.  
Touching this point, we tell you, and this is not the first time we have told it you. There is but one Sacrifice of itself sufficient for the Redemption of Mankind. There is but one Lamb, that taketh away the sins of the world: 
joan. 1.  and that one Lamb was never but once killed for taking away sins. The Sacrifice that now is daily offered, in the Church, is done in remembrance of that was once done for our Redemption upon the Crosse. We pretend not to make a new work of Redemption, as though that which Christ wrought upon the Cross, were insufficient, and unperfit. For better declaration of that which we do, 
Chrysost. in Epist. ad Hebr. Homil. 17,  S. Chrysostom demandeth, Do we not offer every day? yes, saith he, we do offer: but we do it for remembrance of his death. And this Sacrifice is one, not many. How one, and not many? In asmuch as it was once offered, it was offered up into the most holy of all holy. But this Sacrifice is a sampler of that, we offer up always the self same thing. 
August. contra Faust. lib. 6. c. 5. Ibid. lib. 20. ca 21. August. li. De fide ad Petrum. cap. 19  All the jews sacrifices by many and divers ways signified the one Sacrifice, the memory of which now we celebrate, saith S. Augustine. After Christ's Ascension it is celebrated by the Sacrament of memory, saith he in an other place. Item, In this Sacrifice (saith he) there is a thanksgiving and commemoration of the flesh of Christ, which he offered for us, and of his blood, which he shed for us.  
But you will say, we grant that a memory is celebrated, we deny the real Sacrifice. And we tell you, that the memory or commemoration excludeth not the real Sacrifice. It is both commemorative, 
This Sacrifice is both Commemorative and Real.  and Real. For there is both the memory of Christ's death, and the thing itself that suffered death. For prouse hereof it may please you to consider one sentence of S. Augustine in steed of many, that it were easy to allege. Thus he saith. 
Augu contra Faust. lib. 20. ca 18.  jam Christiani peracti eiusdem Sacrificij memoriam celebrant sacrosancta oblatione & participatione corporis & sanguinis Christi: The Christians do celebrate the memory of the same Sacrifice (that was made upon the Cross) now done and passed, by the holy oblation, and participation of the body and blood of Christ. Lo M, jewel, here you see it to be a memory, and nevertheless the body and blood to be offered, which are the thing, and the substance itself of the Sacrifice.  
The weakness of your cause is such, that unless your Arguments proceed so, as you may justle away one truth by an other, you have nothing to say. And thus always you reason, though to no purpose, lest ye should seem to say nothing, and so to be without all defence of the Doctrine, that ye deceive God's people withal. For if that appear openly, ye stand in fear, lest ye should lose your livings, your Dignities, your wives, your wanton fleshly pleasures, and what else, I know not.   

jewel.  
S. Peter saith, Christ offereth up us unto God his Father. S. Paul saith, 
1. Pet. 3.  Through Christ we have access to the Throne of Glory. 
Heb. 4.  What then meaneth M. harding, thus to tell us, and to bear the world in hand, that contrary wise, he hath Authority, to offer up Christ, and to present him before the Throne of Glory? Or how dareth he, to desire God, to receive his only begotten Son into favour, and favourably and fatherly to look upon him at his request? For thus he biddeth his prayer even in his Canon, even in the secretest, and devoutest part of his Mass. Super quae propitio, ac sereno vultu, etc. Upon these things (that is to say, saith Gabriel Biel upon the Body, and Blood of Christ thy Son) O Lord look down with a merciful, and cheerful countenance: and receive the same (the Body, and Blood of thy Son (as thou didst in old times receive the Sacrifice of Abel, and of Abraham (which was a weather, or a calf, or some other like thing). Thus he, not only taketh upon him, to pray for Christ, but also compareth the Sacrifice of the Son of God with the Sacrifice of brute Cat-tail. If he deny any part hereof, his own Canon, his own mass-book will reprove him. If this be not Blasphemy, what thing can be called Blasphemy?   

Harding.  
To answer to all that is objected, in order, first, S. Peter saith not altogether, as you report him. But thus he saith. 
1. Pet. 3.  Christ once died for our sins, the just for the unjust, to th'end he might offer up us unto God. Neither speaketh S. Paul, as you have set him to school, and teach him to speak, but otherwise. Adeamus cum fiducia ad thronum gratiae eius, etc. Let us go unto the seat of his grace with confidence, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help at need. Now Sir to justify that you have here said, 
Heb. 4.  A priest to offer up Christ unto his Father in the eucharist, how can you prove it to be done contrariwise to aught, that either S. Peter, or S. Paul here saith? Thus you reason, your Allegations supposed to be just. Christ offereth up us unto God, 
M. jewels Argument.  Item, Through Christ we have access to the throne of Grace: Ergo, a Priest hath not authority to offer up Christ unto God in the Sacrament.  
O profound Logic, O sharp wit, O invincible Disputer. Here your own skoffing Rhetoric might well be returned upon you. It were hard to tell us, how this Antecedent, and Consequent came together. No man hath authority thus to mince his Logic, but M. jewel. Why Sir, must it needs follow, that if Christ (who, is the head of his Church, under which name both he, and the Church be oftentimes contained) have offered up us unto God, that we may not offer up Christ unto God?  
I marvel that so learned a Minister, as by purport of your Arrogant fond Challenge it appeareth you take yourself to be, should be ignorant of that S. Augustine writeth notably in his tenth book De Civitate Dei: 
August. de Civit. Dei li. 10. c. 20.  where speaking of this very Sacrifice, calling it the daily Sacrifice of the Church, he saith, Ipsius Corporis ipse est Caput, & ipsius Capitis ipsa est Corpus, tam ipsa per ipsum, quàm ipse per ipsam suetus offerri. Christ himself is the head of his body (the Church) and the Church is the body of that Head, as well the Church by him, as he by the Church is wont to be offered up.  
Lo here you see a mutual Oblation. Christ offereth us to God, and we offer Christ to God: so far of it is, that his offering of us, should exclude our offering of him. Thus appeareth the peevishness of your Argument.  
Of like force, and wit is the reason, if it be deduced of the other scripture alleged as out of S. Paul. For what though through Christ we have access unto the throne of grace, Ergo, may not a Priest offer up Christ to the Father in the Sacrament? You must devise us a new Logic, as you have devised us a new Divinity, before ye shall prove these Arguments to be aught worth.  

A defence of the Canon of the Mass against M. jewels scoffs.  
YOU find great fault with the holy Canon of the Mass, uttering the spite of your blasphemous heart against it with vile terms of skoffing, as though in it the Priest desired God (for these be your words) to receive his only begotten son into favour, and favourably and fatherly to look upon him at his request. And further to aggravate the matter, you say, that he taketh upon him not only to pray for Christ, but also that he compareth the Sacrifice of the Son of God, with the Sacrifice of brute Cataile. For proof hereof you refer your Reader to the Canon of the Mass, and to the Mass book, Gabriel Biel also for colour of your better credit you bring in as a witness, who wrote upon the Canon.  
All this is a false and a slanderous lie. And albeit you direct your whole talk to my person, yet with the same you inveigh not only against me, but also against all the Priests of Christ's Church, that be, or have been sithence the Apostles, yea against that learned and ancient Bishop S. Ambrose, who hath, and alloweth the same prayer in his book de Sacramentis. And furthermore against all the holy people of God, for they specially bid that prayer, as it is expressed in the Canon (sed & plebs tua sancta) though the words be pronounced by a Priest.  
For answer this we say. The Priest in the Canon of the Mass prayeth not for Christ the natural Son of God, that God be favourable unto him, who can not but infinitely above the reach of man's understanding favour, and love him, of whom he said, This is my dearly beloved Son, 
Matth. 3.  in whom I am well pleased: But humbly he beseecheth God, that he vouchsafe favourably to look upon the gifts, which the Canon nameth, the holy Bread of eternal life, and Cup of everlasting salvation, and to accept them to our behoof. And though Gabriel Biel by the same understand (as true it is) the Body, and blood of Christ, yet he expoundeth the place in such wise, that had you ever read it, shame (if any were in you) should have withdrawn you from making mention of his name.  
Whereas the Priest beseecheth God, that he with his merciful countenance vouchsafe to behold those gifts, and take them in good worth, as in old time he took the sacrifices of Abel, Abraham, and Melchisedek, the which were figures of this Sacrifice: by this it is not meant, that the Son of God be received into favour and be accepted of God, but that he vouchsafe to accept and take in good worth, the Action of the Priest, whereby he offereth up unto him in Mystery, Christ the pure Lamb, under the forms of bread and wine.  

Basil. in Liturgia.  In this sense S. Basil prayeth in the Canon of his Mass, where he saith thus. Respice super nos Deus, & super hanc nostram Latriam, & suscipe eam, sicuti suscepisti munera Abel, sacrificium Noah, holocaustum Abrahae, etc. Look upon us o God, and upon this our worship, and receive it, as thou didst receive the gifts of Abel, 
A true exposition of the prayer that M. jewel reproveth out of Gabriel Biel. Lectione. 55.  the sacrifice of Noah, the burnt offering of Abraham. etc.  
This prayer (of the Canon) saith Gabriel Biel, whereby God is besought to accept and mercifully to favour, pertaineth to the offerers. For they being afraid of their sins, and distrusting their own virtue, offer up an acceptable Sacrifice, and beseech God, that through the same they may be accepted, which they doubt not of, but that it is accepted. Wherefore they pray, that he will accept it, as touching the behalf of them that offer.  

S. Chrysostom in his Mass prayeth. for the precious gifts. Chrysost. in Liturgia.  That this manner of prayer seem the less strange, and the less subject to the reproach and spite of Heretics, it is to be considered, that S. Chrysostom in his Mass hath the like. Where he prayeth for these most holy and precious gifts. His words be these. Pro oblatis & sanctificatis preciosis Donis, Dominum deprecemur. For the precious gifts offered, and sanctified, let us pray unto our Lord. Go your way now M. jewel, and like an Hicke Scorner ask of S. Chrysostom, how he dareth to pray to God, for the Son of God. For these gifts being duly sanctified and consecrated by the Priest, he taketh for the body and blood of Christ, and therefore for Christ himself the Son of God.  
Upon this place of S. Chrysostom's Mass, thus writeth Nicolaus Cabasilas the Grecian in his exposition. 
Cabasilas in expositione Liturgiae.  Let us pray to our Lord for the sanctified gifts, not that they receive sanctification (for to that end he named them sanctified, that thou shouldest not so think) but that they impart him unto us, that is to say, his grace. Again he saith there. Oremus, inquit, pro Donis, ut in nos operentur, ne ad hanc gratiam non sit potens, sicuti quando cum hominibus versabatur hoc omnipotens corpus, in nonnullis Civitatibus non potuit signa facere propter eorùm incredulitatem. Let us pray (saith Chrysostom) for the Gifts, that they may work upon us, lest he be not of power to the working of this grace, as this almighty Body, when it was conversant with men, in certain Cities 
Marc. 6.  was not able to work Miracles, for their unbelief. Beware Reader thou understand not this of Christ's absolute power, but of the dispensation then taken in hand. For of his absolute power he was able to work Miracles, whether they believed, or otherwise. Though he be able always to heal us, and to work miraculously with us, yet oftentimes the river of his Divine virtue, by our ingratitude and incredulity, is so stopped from his course, that it is not powered upon us. Which I thought good to note, that thou be not deceived.  
According to this former meaning, the Priest may well pray in his Mass, that God will vouchsafe mercifully to look upon, and to accept those gifts, to wit, the body and blood of Christ, that they may have virtue to work the effect of grace in us, that is to say, that the course of grace, which their virtue is to work on their behalf, be not stopped from us, by our unworthiness.  
And here it is to be considered, that when a condition of a suit is by secret meaning annexed unto a gift presented, which most commonly happeth, the party that presenteth it, beseecheth him to whom it is presented, to receive it with good will, and take it in good worth. Which if he profess to do, than the presentour trusteth to obtain his suit secretly contained in the condition of the gift. Now as when either by himself, or by an other he desireth, that his gift may be accepted, his meaning is specially, that he himself making suit, or that his request be accepted: so in the Canon of the Mass the Priest, and in him God's holy people prayeth, that God favourably receive those gifts, meaning, that they themselves, and their suit be favourably received, as being a condition annexed by inward intention to their offering of the gifts. So that in this sense all hath relation to them that present and offer.  

Chysost. in Liturgia.  And therefore S. Chysostome after that he hath said, Let us pray to our Lord for the precious gifts offered, and sanctified: forthwith addeth, ut clemens Deus, qui suscepit ea in sancto & coelesti intelligibili. Altari suo, mittat nobis propterea gratiam & donum sancti Spiritus. That our merciful God, who hath received them in his holy and heavenly intelligible Altar, vouchsafe to send us for the same, the grace and gift of the Holy Ghost. Behold Reader, he prayeth for the precious gifts, that for them God send his grace. What is this to say, but that he prayeth not for the gifts considered in themself, but for grace to be given to the offerers, through the gifts, and for the gifts sake? This is one sense, whereby the Prayer of the Canon is cleared of all reproach.  
AN other sense there is, 
The Canon of the Mass defended by an other declaration.  according to which this Prayer of the Canon may reasonably seem to contain nothing, that is absurd. For clearness hereof this saying of S. Augustine is here to be considered. Hoc est Sacrificium Christianorum. Multi unum Corpus sumus in Christo, quod etiam Sacramento Altaris Fidelibus noto frequentat Ecclesia, 
August. de Civi. Dei. lib. 10. c. 6  ubi ei demonstratur, quòd in ea Oblatione quam offered, ipsa offeratur. This is the Sacrifice of the Christians, saith he. We being many are one body in Christ, which thing the Church also frequenteth in the Sacrament of the Altar known to the Faithful, 
In this Sacrifice the Church is offered.  where it is showed unto the Church, that in that Oblation which it offereth, (the Church itself is offered.  
Mark good Reader, in that oblation which the Church offereth up unto God, the Church itself is offered, because it offereth Christ, in whom the Church, that is to say, the number of the Faithful, is one body, he being the head, they the members. And forasmuch as the head and members make one body, that is not separated: where Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar is offered, there also is the Church offered. According to this doctrine the prayer of the Priest pronouncing the Canon of the Mass, may be referred to Christ being offered, in respect of the Church, which Church is offered up whole, that is to say the body with the Head. So then thereof this sense redoundeth. O heavenly Father look mercifully upon these gifts, and vouchsafe to accept them, as touching the Church, which is offered.  
Neither is it a strange thing in the Scriptures, the words of Christ spoken as of Christ himself, to be referred to the Church, as to the whole body, yet so, as sometimes the speech be understanded of the head only, sometimes of the body only, which is the Church. For example may be alleged the words of the Psalm, which our Saviour Christ spoke hanging on the Crosse. Deus meus, 
Psal. 21.  Deus meus, quare me dereliquisti? My God, my God, 
Math. 27  why hast thou forsaken me? S. Augustine having rehearsed, Why hast thou forsaken me? saith, Quare dicitur, nisi quia nos ibi eramus, 
August. in Psal. 21. expositione secunda.  nisi quia Corpus Christi Ecclesia? Wherefore is this said, but because we were there, but because the Church is the body of Christ? Likewise there a little after. Dixit utique de me, de te, de illo. Corpus enim suum gerebat, id est, Ecclesiam. He speak thus (saith he meaning Christ) of me, of thee, of him. For he bore his body, that is, his Church. Again of certain things spoken in that Psalm by Christ, yet not truly understanded of Christ, but of the Church, he saith, Illa vox, membrorum ipsius vox erat, non Capitis. That voice, was the voice of his members, not of the head. So the prayer of the Priest in the Canon of the Mass being referred to the Church, which is the body of Christ, and not specially to the person of Christ, as he is considered beside and without the Church, containeth nothing whereat M. jewel, or any other such Scorner, can scoff, or reprove.  
Verily if there had been any thing worthy of reprehension in those words of the holy Canon, 
The prayer of the holy Canon found in S. Ambrose.  S. Ambrose that ancient and worthy Bishop would not have alleged the same, as he doth, to set forth the greatness, and worthiness of this Sacrament. Thus he rehearseth the prayer, that M. jewel skoffeth at, as it is before set forth. Sacerdos dicit, Ergo memores, etc. The Priest saith: We therefore being mindful of that most glorious Passion, 
Ambros. de sacramentis. li. 4. cap. 5  and resurrection from Hell, and ascension into heaven, do offer unto thee (o God) this unspotted Sacrifice, reasonable Sacrifice, unbloody Sacrifice, this holy bread, and cup of life everlasting, and we beseech and pray thee, that thou receive this Oblation in thy high Altar by the hands of thy Angels, as thou didst vouchsafe to receive the gifts of thy just Child Abel, and the sacrifice of our Patriarch Abraham, and that which thy highest Priest Melchisedek offered up unto thee.  
Thus appeareth both the ancienty, and the authority of the Roman Canon, sithence it is brought in as of good authority, by S. Ambrose, as if it were a thing in his time commonly used in the Church, and reverently esteemed. And therefore M. jewel, as I said before, your scorns and scoffs touch not me, they touch all Priests, the holy people of God, S. Ambrose, and the Church that was in and before his time. The less cause have I to be moved therewith, and you the more to be ashamed of yourself, would God it were enough to drive you to repent of such wicked follies.  
ALso whereas you say in great spite, that in the prayer of the Canon I compare the Sacrifice of the Son of God, with the Sacrifice of brute Cataile: it is as false and slanderous, as the rest of your scornful tale is. We desire God, that he vouchsafe to accept these gifts at our hands, as he vouchsafed to accept the gifts, and sacrifices of Abel, Abraham, and Melchisedek. In which prayer, Sacrifice is not compared with Sacrifice in themselves, but God's good acceptation of our doing is prayed for, comparable to that, wherewith God accepted the doing of Abel, Abraham, and Melchisedek in offering their Sacrifices. The adverb, Sicuti, 
Sicuti (as) in the Canon reporteth not equality, but a likeness.  that is to say, As, in this prayer, as in many other places, signifieth, not an equality, but a likeness. God forbidden, but we should acknowledge and confess, this Sacrifice, which is Christ, to be infinitely more acceptable to God, than the Sacrifice of Abel, were it sheep, goat, or calf, than the Sacrifice of Abraham, whether it were his Son Isaac, or the ram, that was tied by the horns in the brambles, or the Sacrifice of Melchisedek, 
Gen. 22. Gen. 14.  which was bread and wine. For there is no Sacrifice comparable to this, this passeth al. And therefore for the right construction of the Canon, we must consider similitude, rather than equality. such similitude I mean, as mought be of the figure toward the truth.  
Neither yet doth the adverb, Sicuti (as) note an equality of similitude or likeness, according to the self same degree of likeness as touching the Sacrifices themselves, but a certain deegree of likeness, as touching the offerers. So then the sense shall be this. Accept these gifts o God, as thou didst accept the gifts or Sacrifices of Abel, Abraham, and Melchisedek, which were acceptable to thee not for their own worthiness, but for the worthiness of that Sacrifice, which they prefigured, and for the faith, and devotion of them that offered the same, 
Gen. 4.  for the Scripture saith, God looked upon Abel, and upon his gifts. Even so that our Sacrifice may be made acceptable unto thee, besides that of itself it pleaseth thee always, let it also please of our part that offer it, that is to say, make us that do offer it, by faith, and devotion such, as Abel, Abraham, and Melchisedek were. He that calleth this blasphemy, showeth himself to be without all sense of piety and godliness.    

jewel.  
But God will answer such a Blasphemous, & rash Sacrificer: I know my Son: In him my heart is pleased. But what art thou? Who bade thee thus to pray? Who required such Sacrifice at thy hand?   

Harding.  
God grant that he accept us, and this Sacrifice at our hands, until he answer thus unto us. This is not, ne shall never be Gods answer. It is the answer of an heretic, the enemy of God, and of the Sacrifice. God knoweth his Son, in him he is pleased, therefore this Sacrifice being the Body and Blood of him, can not be to him, but of all other most pleasant. Thus to pray, we have been taught by the Apostles, their Successors, and by the Church always governed by the holy Ghost. If by prayer, Consecration of the Host be meant, which, as I have showed before, is not seldom called by the name of Prayer: the same, as the Sacrifice itself, we have been taught of Christ, who at his last Supper took bread, gave thanks, blessed, broke, 
Luc. 22.  gave to his Disciples saying, Take, eat, this is my body, etc. Likewise it is to be said of the Cup. By doing this, he taught us the new Oblation of the new Testament, 
Iren. lib. 4. cap. 32.  which the Church received of the Apostles, and offereth it unto God through the whole world, as S. Irenaeus saith.  
Neither hath he only taught us this in and by his Apostles, 
Christ commanded this Sacrifice to be made.  but hath also commanded them, and us their Successors in this office, to do the same. Which I show the rather, for that M. jewel asketh, who requireth this Sacrifice at our hand. S. Chrysostom calleth it plainly a Commandment, where after consecration of the blood, he saith, Memores igitur salutaris huius mandati, 
Chrysost. in Liturgia.  etc. te laudamus, te benedicimus, tibi agimus gratias. Being therefore mindful of this healthful Commandment, etc. we praise thee, we bless thee, we give thanks unto thee, and beseech thee our God. Therefore S. Germanus archbishop of Constantinople writeth thus. Ipse dixit, Hoc est Corpus meum, hic Sanguis meus. 
Germanus in consideratione rerum Ecclesiast.  Ipse & Apostolis inssit, & per illos universae Ecelsiae, hoc facere. Hoc enim, art, facite in meam commemorationem. Non sane id facere iussisset, nisi vim inditurus fuisser, ut id facere liceret. He himself said, This is my body, this is my blood. He himself both gave commandment to the Apostles, and through them to the whole Church, to do this. For do ye this (faith he) in my remembrance. Verily he would not have commanded them to do it, except he would have given them power, that it might be lawful for them to do it.  
Let M. jewel demand of S. Chrysostom, who required him to make this Sacrifiee, who saith thus in an other place. 
Chrysost. in. 1. Cor. hom. 24.  In the time of the old Testament, when men were more unperfit, the blood that they offered up unto Idols, God would take himself, that he might so turn them away from Idols, which was a sign of an unspeakable love. But now in the new Testament he hath prepared a far more wonderful, and honourable Sacrifice, both whereas he changed the Sacrifice, and also commanded (seipsum offerendum) himself to be offered in place of the slaughter of brute beasts.  
Let him demand of S. Cyprian, how he durst to be so bold, as to write, jesus Christus Dominus Deus noster, 
Cyprian. li. 2. epist. 3.  Sacrificium Deo Patri ipse primus obtulit, & hoc fieri in sui commemorationem praecepit. jesus Christ our Lord and God offered the Sacrifice first himself unto God his Father, and commanded this to be made in remembrance of him. And that this Sacrifice is his body and blood, there he declareth. M. jewel should do well for his credits sake, to allege us but one so plain a place, as these places are, where any Catholic learned Doctor, old, or new ever said, that this Sacrifice is not to be made. Were there any such, it should not have been kept in silence all this while, we may be well assured.   

jewel.  
O M. harding, God open the eyes of your heart, that you may se● the miserable nakedness of your side. Deceive not yourself. Mock● not the world. Consider better of your Authorities. Of all the holy Learned Fathers, of whom, ye tell us, ye have such st●are, ye are not yet able to show us one, either Greek, or Latin: or Heretic, or Catholic: from the rising of the Son, to the Son going down, that ever said, as you say, A mortal man hath Authority, and power, to offer up in Sacrifice the Son of God.  
Talk of your store, when ye have tried it better. Thras● will talk of that, he hath not. And somewhat it may serve to fray the simple. But the wise will think it folly.   

Harding.  
O M. jewel, God give you a simple and an humble heart, that grace may enter. God open your eyes to see the wretched malice, wherewith your heart is fraught against the Church of Christ. Beware you continue not in this desperate mind, and purpose: lest you cast yourself, and so many as by you shallbe deceived, into everlasting damnation. If that move you not, yet let not the filly folly of this vain world amaze your senses. Let not the pleasure of this fickle felicity, which presently you enjoy, wholly withdraw your mind from consideration of that, which is to come hereafter. Take heed, your deceived favourers with their light praise, and fawning flattery, make not a fool of you. Kick no more against the prick: go not about to darken the bright Sun, with smothering smokes.  
Touching the Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, what store of testimonies (whereat you cease not to skosse) I have brought for it, how little you have to say against it, and all that you have said, of how little pith and substance it is: all may see, that have eyes to see. The learned, and all they that can judge, do see it, and consider of it, I doubt not. And that is enough, touching my part, and the defence of the Catholic doctrine. Would God, it were enough also touching the wholesome persuasion of the people. Yourself also now doubtless do see it. Yet for your worldly estimations sake, having made such an Arrogant Challenge, you may not seem to see it. At lest what so ever you see, you will not confess your error.  
Thus in oversight to boast of sight, in darkness to crack of light, 
Who playeth Thraso his part, the Challenger, or Defender.  in weakness to speak of strength, in matters, for which of your side no learning can be showed, to challenge all men alive: this is the part of Thraso. But in this Article of the Sacrifice, for which we have so manifest Scripture, so many Doctors, so many Counsels, so common, and so long continued custom, and faith of the Church, for proof thereof to avouch store of testimonies: it is not the part of Thraso, it is the confidence of him, that knoweth● how sufficiently the Catholic Religion may be defended against heretics. This serveth not to fray the simple, as you say. it serveth to call back the presumptuous rashness of a new gospeler, to animate right believers, and to stay the simple. As for the wise, whether they will more condemn of folly, me, for showing just confidence in defence of the truth, or you, for making such a proud Challenge against the truth: I leave it to their secret judgements.  
Bring us but one plain sentence of any Scripture, ancient Doctor, or Council making clearly for you, that a Priest hath not authority, and therefore may not offer up Christ in the eucharist, as I have brought many for proof of the contrary: and I will be content the name of Thraso be not returned upon you. If ye have none to bring, as sure I am ye have not: for your Thrasonical Challenge, that name will become you better than me, that (how so ever you wrangle) promise no more, than I perform.  
That the Reader go not far for one such sentence among many of our part, let the very last, alleged out of S. Chrysostom, be considered. In which he saith plainly, 
Ch●ysost. in 1. Cor. H●st. 24.  that Christ commanded himself to be offered. Which can not be referred to the Sacrifice of the Crosse. For if he had commanded the jews to Crucify him, they had not been guilty of his Death. Neither permitteth the circumstance of the place, any other to be understanded, than the Sacrifice of the Altar, in which Christ himself, according to his commandment; Do ye this in my remembrance, is, as I have now proved, really offered.  
If in defence of your side you can not show us so much as one sentence of like clearness, you must bear with wise men, if they think the great stir you have made with your Challenge, to be great folly. And likewise must you bear with your Adversaries, if they report, you have more show of words, than substance of matter.  
To conclude, go plainly to work M. jewel. The handling of these matters requireth honesty, sincerity, fidelity, truth, conscience, and the fear of God. Set us forth the light of true things, if ye have any: leave the dark clouds of yovy Phrases, and Figures. Conclude your Doctrine with some firm Arguments, confirm it with good and sufficient authorities. Be ashamed of your lose and childish Arguments, by which in manner always you infer the denial of one truth, by the affirmation of an other truth. Let the world see, that you allege your testimonies, truly, jointly, and wholly, that you falsify them not by your divisions, taking one piece here, and an other piece there, by nipping of, by adding unto, by hewing, mangling, and, when you do least, by wrong and wrested understanding.  
Otherwise if you shall continue to set matters of Faith upon uncertain Phrases, and Figures, and Tropical speeches, to confound one truth with an other, to corrupt, to patch together, to mangle, and by other ways to falsify, as hitherto you have done: be the cotations of your Books Margin never so thick, be the number of your unlearned and partial Favourers never so great: the wise, the godly, the learned, shall judge you, as they find you, to be but a Master of Phrases, a confounder of Truths, a patcher, a mangler, a shifter, a Falsifier.    

THE TABLE.  


A  ABra by M. jewel reported to be S. Hilaries daughter. 
172. b  This word (Al) in Scripture oft-times admitteth exception of many. 
168. a. b.  Amalricus his carcase digged up, and burnt in Paris. 
187. a.  Anathema pronounced against the dead. 
186. b.  Antitypon excludeth not the verity of the Mysteries. 
80. b.  Antitypon, how it is taken in S. Clement. 
81. a.  The term Antitypon maketh not for the Sacramentaries. 
81. b.  Antitypon what it signifieth properly. 
82. b  Apostles made Priests by Christ at the last Supper. 
87. a. b. & in sequent.  The Apostles made vow to forsake all things. 
171. b.  The Apostles forsook the company of their wives. 
Ibidem.  Application of Christ's Death no strange Doctrine. 
219. a.  Application of this Sacrifice proved. 
114. b. 121. a. 162. a. b. 219. a.  Altars used of the Christians. 
9 a. b. 99 a.  Altar. 
61. a. 130. a. 225. b. 230. a.  Altar visible and external. 
60. b. 130. a. 143. a. 229. a. & b.  Altars material. 
99 a. 229. a. & sequent.  External Altar, argueth external Sacrifice. 
229. a.  Authority given to Priests to offer up the dreadful Sacrifice. 
88 a. 128. a.    


B.  Baptism. 
9 b.  Baptism doth not only signify, but also exhibit washing of sins. 
83. b.  Beza. 
17. a.  Beza defendeth it to be lawful, to put Heretics to death. 
179. a.  The Bible corrupted by the Protestants. 
167. a. b.  Bishoply duty. 
246. a.  Bloody, and unbloody referred to one subject. 
226. a  Burning of Heretics Dead carcases no new thing 
.186. b. & sequent.    


C.  CAluine defendeth it lawful to put Heretics to Death. 
197. a  The Canon of the Mass defended against M. jewels scoffs. 
123. b. 254. b. 257. a.  The prayer of the holy Canon found in S. Ambrose. 
258. a.  Ceremonies of the jews changed. 
9 a. & sequent.  Ceremonies of the Christians. 
59 a.  The Challenger playeth Thraso his part. 
261. b.  How we see Christ suffering by Charity. 
200. b.  Christ truly and in in deed offered. 
35. a.  Christ offered up his body at his last Supper. 
45. a. 48. a.  Christ sacrificed himself at his Supper. 
67. b. 79. b. & sequent.  Christ gave his body, and shed his blood at the Supper, affirmed by certain Fathers. 
73. a.  Christ sacrificeth, and is sacrificed, by the means or mediation of Priests. 
86. a. 127. a.  Christ dieth again in this Mystery, and how. 
161. b. 162. a.  Christ at the Supper both Priest, and Lamb. 
73. b.  Christ commanded himself to be offered. 
79. b. 106. b. 259. b.  Christ appeareth before the Father in heaven with his wounded body. 
117. a. 118. a.  The Rock was Christ and how 
1●7. a.  Christ's being in the Sacrifice and in reading of the Story of the Gospel is different. 
199. a.  Christ offered the true bread and the true wine at his Supper. 
48. a. 204. a.  Christ consecrated his body and blood at his Supper. 
133. a.  The Church speaketh with all tongues. 
200. b.  The Church beholdeth Christ and toucheth his wounds. 
200. b.  A mark to know the true Church, which the Gospelers lack. 
237. a.  The Church hath authority to create Priests. 
242. b.  The Church's determination touching the consecration of the Sacrament. 
248. a.  Most insolent madness to call in question things generally received in the Catholic Church. 
122. a.  Commemoration, example, and sign, exclude not the real presence, and real oblation. 
28. a. 97. b. 98. a. 253. a.  Commemoration and the host different. 
194. b.  Communion of England compared with Melchisedeks' Sacrifice, which M. jew. calleth Melchisedeks' Mass. 
211. b.  Conclusions out of S. Chrysostom against M. jewel. 
152. a. & b. 153. b  Contrite heart a Sacrifice. 
249. a.  Cranmere, and his subscriptions. 
183. a.  Crucifying of Christ considered two ways. 
259. a.    


D  Dare, used for, offer. 
69. a.  The Daily Sacrifice, and a Daily Sacrifice. 
250. a.  David George's carcase digged up and burnt with his image at Basile. 
187. a.  Dedication, what thereby is meant in S. Jerome. 
213. a.  Dick adam's hanged at Bristol for felony, Fox's Martyr. 
181. a.    


E.  EMamuel the jews evangelical wedlock to an other man's wife. 
175. a  The eucharist maketh our bodies immortal. 
84. b. 150. a.  The eucharist what it is. 
83. b. & sequent.  The eucharist consisteth of two things. 
150. a.  The Eucharist is the Singular Sacrifice. 
237. a.  External Sacrifice. 
138. a. & b. 229. a. 241. a.  External Priesthood. 
242. a.  External Oblation proper to Priests. 
249. b    


F.  How we see Christ's wounds by Faith. 
200. a.  The Faith of the Fathers of the old Testament, and ours, remaineth one and the same. 
25. a.  Either the Fathers were deceived, or the holy Ghost dissenteth from himself. 
7. b  Falsifiers practise. 
57 a  The holy learned Father's tale to M. jewel and his fellows. 
188. a  Figure only, excluded. 
107. b.  Fox's holy Martyrs. 
181. a    


G.  The fable of the Garnsey woman burnt for heresy. 
184. a.  Of the woman of Garneseys' child falling out of her belly into the fire. 
184. b.  German Compar, what thereby is meant in S. Paul. 
167. b.  Gospel, what it signifieth sometimes. 
213. a.    


H.  Heretics rob the Church of the greatest Treasure. 
44. a. b  Heretics punished by death. 
178. b & sequent.  Heretics scourged with rods, an old punishment. 
183. a  Heretics tongues cut out, an old punishment. 
183. b  Host, and unbloody joined together. 
77. b.    


I  M. jewels objection against the sacrifice taken of the baseness of mankind, answered. 
4. a  M. jewel to prove his Negative, at the first findeth no ancienter doctor, than Theophylacte, a late written. 
5. a  M. jewel maketh the Fathers to speak one thing and think an other. 
8. b  M. jewel excluded out of the number of Catholics by Leo his judgement. 
10. b  M. jewels reason, why Priesthood, Altars, sacrifice, and such other terms, were used of the Fathers, reproved. 
10. b. 11. a  M. jewel utterly taketh away the real sacrifice of the new testament. 
22. b  M. jewel maketh it a dangerous presumption, that a Priest hath authority to offer up Christ unto his Father. 
49. a  M. jewel like to false Lapidaries and goldsmiths. 
54. b.  M. jewels Custom, for advantage against his Adversary. 
65. a  M. jewel straggleth alone like a lost sheep. 
68 a  That absurd to M. jewel, which S. Chrysostom, Gregory Nazianzen, Theophylact, and the holy Fathers allow. 
77. b. 78. a  M. jewel skanneth Divinity by Phrases. 
77. b  Scornful terms used by M. jewel 
86.87.  M. jewels Greek friend of Oxford trusted of him to much. 
99 b  M. jewels scornful absurdity of, one and two, once and twice, answered. 
115. a  M. jewels argument absurd. 
16. a. 228. a. 254. a. fond. 136. b. forged. 68 b. 207. b.  M. jew. falsifieth S. Chrysostom. 
17. b. 38. b. 70. b. 89. b. 151. a. b. 250. b  M. jewels shifts against the Sacrifice. 
19 b. 155. b.  M. jewels diverting from the purpose to impertinent matter. 
19 b. 137. b. 142. a. 165. b. 166. b. 176. b. 225. b.  M. jew. forgeth sayings of his own, fathering them upon the Doctors. 
24. b. 34. a. 53. b. 54. b. 142. a. 200. a. 202. a.  M. jew. laboureth to prove, that the thing and substance of the Sacraments of both Testaments, be not sundry, but one. 
24. a. b.  M. jewel changeth the Doctors words. 
32. a. 111. a. 239. b.  M. jewel taketh advantage of his own false translation. 
38. a.  M. jew. feigneth his Adversary to say that he saith not, and thereto directeth his Reply. 
43. b. 101. a. 126. a  M. jew. falsifieth S. Augustine. 
32. a. 38. a. 39 a. 239. a.  M. jewel falsifieth S. Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus. 
33. b.  M. jewels falsehood plainly detected 
34. b. 71. b. 232. a.  M. I. falsifieth the council of Nice. 
37. a  M. jewel forgeth a saying of his own, and putteth it upon Tertullian. 
53. b.  M. jewel falsifieth S. Hierom. 
57 b.  M. jewel falsifieth Eusebius. 
59 b. 92. b.  M. jewel falsifieth S. Thomas in Catena Aurea. 
71. a. & b.  M. jewel taken in a foul contradiction. 
80. b.  M. jewel corrupteth S. Clement. 
48. a.  M. jewels guileful dealing. 
100 a. 139. a. 150. b. 163. b.  M. jewels howes and Ifs, whom they become. 
76. a.  M. jew. falsifieth the words of the answer. 
66. a. 75. b. 118. a  M. jewel addeth of his own. 
57 a  M. jewel falsely reporteth the Answer, where it is said invisibly offered, he saith, invisibly sacrificed 
116. a. 118. b  M. jewel a beguiler of the simple, a mocker of the world, a controller of S. Ambrose, and a condemner of the whole Church. 
1●5. a  M. jew. allegeth the words of the Authors, of which none be extant bearing the same title. 
17. b  M. jewel useth false translation. 
17. b 18. a. 37. a. 40. a. 98. a. 114. b. 177. b 195. b. 204. a.  M. jewel swerveth from the meaning of the Fathers. 
54. a. 90. a.  M. jewel conceeleth the circumstances of places alleged. 
57 a. 102. b. 145. a. 149. b. 193. b. 211. a. 227. a. b. 231. b. 241. b.  M. jewel findeth contradiction where none is. 
67. a.  M. jewel dissembleth truths (as the Real presence) found in the Authors. 
72. a  M. jewel laboureth to put the Fathers out of credit, and to that end useth light terms. 
79. a. 110. a. b  M. jewel taketh the beginning of a Sentence, and cutteth away the end. 
111. a. b.  M. jewel deviseth impudent gloss, and setteth them in by way of a Parenthesis. 
112. b.  M. jewel reporteth the Canon of the Mass falsely, to colourable advantage. 
123. a. ●.  M. jewels doctrine only figurative. 
103. a. 218. a.  M. jewel falsifieth S. Cyprian. 
111. a  M. jewels cough. 
112. b  A Common shift of M. jewels Rhetoric. 
129. a  M. jewel falsifieth S. Dionyse. 
130. a  M. jew. falsifieth Pachymeres. 
136. a  M. jewel falsifieth S. Gregory Nazianzene. 
138. a. 240. a  M. jewels Logic. 
139. a. 239. b.  M. jewel falsifieth Martialis. 
143. a.  M. jewel falsifieth S. Irenaeus. 
146. a. & b. 149. a.  M. jew. must yield by reason. 
153. a  M. jewels open subscription at Oxford. 
182. b.  M. jewels wrangling. 
193. a.  M. jew. falsifieth S. Ambrose. 
198. a  How M. jew. acknowledgeth Christ's presence in the b. Sacrament. 
199. b. & sequent.  M. jew. nipping of sentences. 
211. a.  M. jewel speaketh directly against his own knowledge touching Oecumenius. 
215. b  M. jewel dissembleth great points in Oecumenius. 
217. b. & seq.  M. jewel uttereth manifest heresy. 
221. a. & sequent.  M. jewels promise in his last Sermon at Paul's Crosse. 
222. b  M. jewels trustiness. 
226. b  M. jewel by his false and crafty silence justifieth the Catholic Doctrine. 
227. a  M. jewel craveth help at the second Nicen Council, which otherwheres he despiseth. 
231. a  M. jewels best Arguments against the Sacrifice. 
233. a  M. jew. joineth together words that be thirty lines a sunder, and thereof frameth a sense to his own purpose. 
146. a  M. jew. maketh false gloss, and additions, and setteth them forth with that letter, in which the doctors sayings be printed. 
146. a. b. 236. a.  That which the author speaketh to one effect, he bringeth to another. 
147. a. 151. a. b  M. jewel joineth together doubtful points, flat lies, and true tales. 
169. b  M. jew. commonly bringeth in pieces, and maimed sentences of the Fathers. 
193. a. b. 211. a  M. jewel leaveth out the nominative case, and changeth the first person singular into the third person plural. 
138. a. b  M. jew. heweth away the principal member of a sentence. 
138. b  M. jew. deviseth a new fallacy. 
139.  M. jew. confuted by the places he bringeth. 
145. a. b. 160. a. 191. a. b  M. jew. graveled with Ireneus. 
150. b  M. jew. confidence in lying, and deniing most manifest Truths. 
155. b  M. jewel inconstant in his terms. 
159. a.  M. jew. allegeth S. Augustin where he hath no such thing at al. 
159. a  M. jew. craveth help of the gloze, which he calleth barbarous. 
159. b  M. jew. groundeth himself upon the false translation of the English Bible. 
166. b  M. jew. a scholar of John Fox. 
178. b  M. jewel would the civil Magistrates justice to be esteemed the Catholic Clergies cruelty. 
179. a  The end of M. jewels doctrine against the blessed Sacrifice. 
248. b  Image what it signifieth, and how it excludeth not the Truth. 
161. a 197. b.  Image and likeness how they signify, being spoken of the Sacrament. 
238. a  Incense, pure Sacrifice. 
59 b  Prayer signified by Incense. 
57 b 58. a. 62. a  Insinuation of Christ's Death what it meaneth in S. Augustine. 
219. b  Internal priesthood. 
241. b  Internal oblation pertaineth to all faithful people. 
249. b    


K  KAterine the Nun of Metz Peter Martyrs wife. 
175. a  Christian men in general how they be Kings and Priests. 
12. b    


L  Laws to punish Heretics by death. 
Henrici. 5. an. 2. 178. b. & sequent.  Lies impudent in M. jewel. 
30. a 118. b. 141. a. 147. a. 155. b. 171. a.  Three lies made by M. jewel within three lines. 
113. a.  A notorious and slanderous lie. 
177. a    


M  MAN mortal and miserable admitted by God to great dignity. 
3. b. & seq.  In Manna Christ understood. 
24. b  Margaret wife of Dulcinus an Adamite. 
186. a  Marriage of Priests. 
165. b. & seq.  Marriage not lawful for all without exception. 
168. b  The State of the question between us and the Protestants for marriage. 
174. a  In what sense S. Paul calleth forbidding of Marriage the doctrine of Devils. 
169. a  martyrdom not argued by patience in dying. 
186. a.  Martyrs of two sorts. 
180. b  The holy Martyrs of john Fox. 
181. a  Tybourne Martyrs. 
185. b.  The prophecy of Malachi foresignifieth the sacrifice of the Mass. 
50. b. 52. a  Chrysostom in his Mass prayeth for the precious gifts. 
255. b.  Melchisedech a figure of Christe● 
50. a. 203. b. 208. b  The Sacrifice after the order of Melchisedech was not only upon the Cross, but also at the Supper. 
157. b.  Christ at his Supper fulfilled the figure of Melchisedech. 
162. a  Mechisedek offered bread and wine. 
47. b. 133. a. 203. a. 204. b. 206. & seq.  Melchiedeks' Sacrifice, and Christ's both diverse, and the same. 
204. b  Melchisedech in dignity above Abraham. 
208. b.  Men helpers of God, and how. 
120. b.  Men offer this Sacrifice, and be Priests after Melchisedeks' order under Christ. 
126. b  Michael servetus procured to be put to death for heresy, by Calvin and Beza. 
179. a  Ministers of this Sacrifice be all the people by M. jewel. 
88 b  The Ministration of the new Communion a new Sacrifice by M. jewel. 
95. b  Mysteries of the old testament not equal in dignity, truth, etc. to ours of the new testament. 
22. b  Wherein consisteth the memory of Christ's Death in our Mysteries. 
160. a. & seq.  How Christ dieth again in this Mystery. 
161. b  Our Mysteries not significative only. 
197. a  Mysteries kept secret, and for what cause. 
207. b. in the preface. 33. a    


N  NIcolas Marsh of Dednam, hanged for felony, made a Martyr by Fox. 
181. a    


O  OBlation double, one in spirit only, and the other in the Sacrament. 
143. b  Four conditions of the Mystical Oblation. 
58. b  Two Oblations of one body. 
113. b  Words of Oblation without terms of Oblation. 
63. b  Oecumenius. 
4. 1. a. 215. a. & seq.  Sir John Oldecastle and Sir Roger Acton, traitors, by Fox made Martyrs. 
181. a  Of the term Only 
103. & sequ.  Only in a Mystery, how it is meant by M. jew. 
103. b. 104. a.  Only figurative Sacrifice overthrown. 
133. b.  Optatus for the real presence. 
92.  Origen alleged to have words which he hath not. 
17. a.  Origen for the sacrifice. 
27. b  Origen belied of M. jewel, and reasons why. 
71. a  The Origenians heresy. 
177. a  Holy Oil. 
34. b    


P  PAchymeres proveth not M. jewels purpose. 
14. b  Patience in dying argueth not Martyrdom. 
186. a  Pachymeres answered. 
135. b. & seq.  Paratine of Garnesey. 
184. & seq.  Paulus tertius godly purpose. 
177. a  S. Paul whether he were married. 
169. b.  S. Paul his Pristhod consisted not altogether in preaching. 
18. a.  Of what Sacrifice. S. Paul speaketh Heb. 9 & 10. 
113. b.  Persecutions of two sorts. 
180. b.  Peter Martyrs evangelical wedlock. 
175. a  Peter the German Fox's Martyr. 
181. a.  Prayer. 
5. b.  What is signified by the name of Prayer. 
6. a  Prayer taken generally for the service of God. 
Ibid.  Pure Prayer what it signifieth by Tertullian. 
55. a. by Euseb. 62. a.  Simple Prayer. 
55. b  The Prayer of the Canon defended. 
123. b  The Prayer of the Canon expounded. 
255. b  The Prayer of the Canon of the Mass defended. 
123. b. etc. 254. b & sequent.  The Sacrifice of Praise how general it is. 
144. b. & seq.  Christ a Priest at his last Supper. 
73. b.  priests now by ordination and election, not by succession. 
86. a.  Christ made the Apostles Priests. 
87. a.  The Priesthood after Melchisedechs' order far passeth the Levitical Priesthood. 
209. a  The Priesthood of Christ continueth still both in heaven, and in the Church. 
235. b  Internal Priesthood. 
241. b  External Priesthood. 
242. a.  Authority to create priests left to the Church. 
242. b  Derivation of Priestly duty. 
243. a  Special Priesthood. 
244. b. & seq.  priests Christ's vicar's and substitutes in making this Sacrifice. 
50. a. 247. a.  Both Priest, and people offereth, and how each. 
25●. a  The people offer by giving assent to the priests action, and applying their devotion. 
Ibid.  Real Priesthood in the Church now, ergo real Sacrifice. 
11. b  Christian men how they be Priests in general, and also kings. 
12. b.  Priest in english a name common to Presbyter and Sacerdos. 
13. a.  Why S. Paul calleth rather Priests, than Sacrificers. 
14. a.  priests have authority to offer up Christ unto his Father. 
49. a. 50. a. b. 90. a. b. 143. b. 144. a. 190. b. 216● a.  Continuance of priests necessary. 
49. b.  Priests succeed the Apostles in degree. 
49. b. 64. a.  Just punishment, merciful. 
179. b    


R.  REal presence. 
42. a. 72. a. 92. b. 105. b. 107. b. 111. b. 112. a.  Real presence and Sacrifice avouched by S. Chrysostom, dissembled by M. jewel. 
72. a  Real Sacrifice. 
35. b. 42. a. 253. a  The name of a Renegade, answered. 
182. a.  Who is a Renegade. 
Ibid. b  Reparation, repairing, or renewing and Representation of Christ's Death. 
219. a.  Robert King of Dednam, and Robert Debnam of Elsbergholt, hanged for felony, Foxes Martyrs. 
181. a.    


S  SAbbatum old, and new. 8. b. 9 a Real Sacrifice in the Church. 
11. b. 105. b  The substance of the Sacrifice in both Testaments divers. 
20. b  The substance of bread and wine hath no place in our Sacrifice. 
21. a  The effects of the Sacrifices of both Laws divers. 
Ibi. b. & seq.  Real and true Sacrifice, and Sacrifice in deed. 
35. b  The Sacrifice of the Altar a true and real Sacrifice. 
36. b. 80. a. 98. b  Difference between a true, and the true Sacrifice. 
40. b  The Sacrifice that we offer is the Passion of Christ, and why. 
41. b.  Christ's body never ceased, nor shall cease to be a Sacrifice. 
42. a  The fruits of this Sacrifice. 
44. b. 45. a.  The Sacrifice of Christ avouched in the Gospel by S. Augustine's judgement. 
45. b  Sacrifice spread over the world. 
Ibi.  In the Sacrifice of the Altar all the conditions of Malachies' prophecy are found. 
51. a  Sacrifices common to both Testaments. 
51. a  The Sacrifice of the Altar succeed all the Sacrifices of the old Law. 
51. b.  The properties attributed to this Sacrifice by Malachi. 
63. a  Sacrifice avouched by S. Chrysostom. 
72. b. 78. b. 105. b. 114. b. 119. b. 189. a. 192. a. 214. b. 226. b.  The Sacrifice of the Supper, and the Sacrifice of the Cross, one, and divers, in divers respects. 
74. a. 78. b.  This Sacrifice avouched by the Nic●n Council. 
217. a.  How Christ sacrificeth. 
221. b  Ten kinds of Sacrifices. 
226. b  Three Sacrifices noted by S. Augustine. 
237. b  Sacrifices of two sorts, inward, and outward. 
239. b  This Sacrifice is external. 
241. a  Sacrifice taken two ways. 
74. a  This Sacrifice called Spiritual, and why. 
79. a  Three kinds of Sacrifices of the new Testament by Eusebius. 
93. a  A memory of the Sacrifice of the Cross excludeth not the Sacrifice of the Altar. 
98. a  Reasons for this Sacrifice. 
108. a. 137. b. 190. b.  This Sacrifice is a mean to derive the effect of Christ's Death unto us. 
121. a.  This Sacrifice called the tradition of God. 
131. b. & sequent.  Why the Fathers spoke at the beginning secretly of this Sacrifice. 
132. b. And in the Preface. 33. a  In what sense the Sacrifice is Symbolical, or Figurative. 
135. a  S. Dionyse for the Sacrifice. 
137. a  S. Gregory Nazianzene for the external Sacrifice. 
138. a  The Sacrifice of the Altar, the Sacrifice of Praise. 
145. a  The Singular Sacrifice. 
145. a. 236. b. 237. a  Our Sacrifice is the pure Sacrifice, and why. 
151. a  S. Cyprian evident for the Sacrifice. 
156. a  The Sacrifice after Melchisedeks' order both on the Cross, and also at the Supper. 
157. b  A plain argument for the Sacrifice out of S. Chrysostom. 
190. b. & seq.  The end of Christ's Sacrifice, and of ours. 
192. b  If Christ left no real Sacrifice to his people, the new Law was left in worse case than the old etc. 
104. b. & 105. a  Our Sacrifice a much more marvelous and honourable sacrifice, than all other. 
105. b  The substance of the Sacrifice on the Cross, and Sacrifice on the Altar all one. 
113. b  The Sacrifice why of Malachi called the pure Sacrifice. 
151. a  The Sacrifice of Praise, how general it is. 
144. b  Sacrifice, Priesthood, Law go so together, that the bettering of either of them doth infer the bettering of the other. 
197. a  The difference of Christ being in the Sacrament, and in the reading of the story of the Gospel. 
199. a  The Sacrifice not to be consecrate, but only by the Special Priests. 
245. b. & seq. 248. a.  In this Sacrifice what is Christ, what are we. 
247. a  This Sacrifice both Commemorative, and real. 
253. a  In this Sacrifice the Church is offered. 
257. a  Spiritual Sacrifice, as a contrite heart and such like, not the proper Sacrifice of the new testament. 
140. b  Sacerdotes, that is, Sacrificers be now properly in the Church. 
13. b  The term Sacerdos, Priest used of the Fathers, and how. 
7. a. & seq. 11. b.  The old term Sacrificer used after the destruction of jerusalem. 
14. a.  The term Sacrificer used by S. Dionyse. 
15. a.  Why S. Paul calleth the public persons of the Church Priests, rather than sacrificers. 
14. a  Sacrament and Mystery do not import a signification of absence of the thing reported to be sacrificed etc. but the secret manner of sacrificing. etc. 
77. b.  Why the Sacrament is given us in form of bread and wine. 
82. b. 83 a.  The Sacrament called by the name of bread and wine. 
85. b  The Sacramentaries Argument. It is a sign of the body, ergo, not Christ's true body, stark nought. 
83. b.  The true and real blood of Christ in the Sacrament. 
107. a  Sacrament of Remembrance. 
239. a  If all be taken away that hath no proof of Scripture, what inconvenience will follow. 
4. b.  A Shift of the new Gospelers against the Father's testimonies for the Sacrifice. 
8. a. 218. a  Sicuti (as,) in the Canon reporteth not equality, but likeness. 
124. b. 258. b  Signs of two sorts, significative only, and exhibitive. 
83. b.  A Sister woman, what it meaneth in S. Paul. 
166. b. & seq.  Spiridion made bishop after he had been married. 
171. b  Spiridion not proved by Sozomenus to be a married Bishop. 
172. a.  Spiritual Sacrifices, Spiritual Priesthood. 
250. a.  The reproach of Straggling alone answered. 
67. a. & sequent.    


T.  TAble. 
225. b. 230. a  Temple. 
9 b  Things signifying, and things signified called by the same names, and how. 
111. b. 112. a. b  Things implied though not uttered in express Terms. 
66. b.  Thraso his part played by the Challenger, rather than by the defender. 
261. b.  The old translation of the testament not controlled by Catholics. 
70. a  translators of the Bible into English false harlots. 
167. b  Tertullian no martyr. 
172. b  How the Church speaketh with all tongues. 
200. b  Transubstantiation. 
29. a. b. 33. a. 84● b. 92● b. 112. a. 136. a.  ●ne Truth put away by an other truth, M. jewels common custom. 
16. b. 17. b. 26. b. 27. b. 32. b. 59 a. 98. b. 165. a. 195. a. 198. b. 202 b. 223. a. 227. b. 233 a. 239. b.  Truth not excluded by Image. 
161. a    


V.  Unbloody Sacrifice. 
37. a. b. 41. a. 52. a. 77. a. b. 78. a. 102. a. 214. a. b. 227. a. b.  Unbloody shedding of blood. 
76. b 77. a. & b.  unbloody Death. 
16●. b.  Unbloody spoken of the Sacrifice of the Altar. 
247. b  Christ offered his own body unbloodily. 
215. b  Bloody and unbloody referred to one subject. 
226. a.  Untruths uttered by M. jewel, three at once. 
20. b. 113. a. 147. a.  An impudent untruth and lie that can not be excused. 
30. a● 34. b. 171. a. 177. a.  Use and observation of of Sabbatum Pascha, Altar etc. double, old, and new. 
8. b. 9 a    


W.  WHy Christ gave his body and blood under the forms of bread and wine. 
30. a.  Wiat beheaded. 
183. b.  Wived Apostares, and their wisdom. 
168. a.  wickliff. 
242. b.  Words used of the Fathers to express the manner of this bloody Sacrifice. 
77. a.  William Cowbridge, Fox's Martyr. 
181. a  William Flower Fox's Martyr. 
Ibid. a.    


Y.  Yoke fellow man. 
168. a.     

Liber iste lectus est & approbatus à viris sacrae Theologiae, & Ang●ici Idiomatis peritissimis, quibus, sicut & ipsi Authori M. N. Thomae Hardingo, tutò credendum judico. Qu●re sine scrupulo edend●n. esse existimo, & magnam ex hoc argumento utilitatem spero.  
Cunerus Petri, Pastor S. Pe●●i. Lovanij. 23. Augusts. An. 1567.