Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation — Archishop Thomas Cranmer

Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation · Archishop Thomas Cranmer

THE CONFVTATION OF THE FIFTE BOOKE.

AS touchyng the fift booke, the title wherof is of the oblatiō and sacrifice of our Sauiour Christ, somewhat is by me spoken before, which although it be sufficient to the matter, yet some what more must also be now sayd, wherewith to encounter the authours imaginations and surmises with the wrong construyng of the Scriptures and authours, to wreast them besides the truth of the matter and their meanyng.

This is agréed and by the Scriptures playnly taught,The sacrifice of our sauior christ was neuer taught to be reiterate, but to be often remēbred. that the oblation and sacrifice of our Sauiour Christ was, and is a perfect worke once consummate in perfection with out necessitie of reiteration, as it was neuer taught to be reiterate, but a mere blasphemie to presuppose it. It is also in the Catholicke teachyng, grounded vponupon the Scripture, agrèed, that the same sacrifice ones consummate, was ordeined by Christes institution in his most holy Supper to be in the Church often remembred and shewed forth in such sort of shewyng, as to the faythfull is sene present the most precious body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ, vnderunder the formes of bread and wyne, which body and bloud the faythfull Church of Christen people graunt and confesse accordyng to Christes wordes to hauehave bene betrayed and shed for the sinnes of the world, and so in the same Supper represented and deliuered vntounto them,The body and bloud of Christ is the onelyonly sacrifice propritiatory for all the sinnes of the world. to eate and fèede of it accordyng to Christes commaundement, as of a most precious and acceptable sacrifice, acknowledgyng the same precious body and bloud, to be the sacrifice propitiatorie for all the sinnes of the world, whereunto they onelyonly resort, and onelyonly accompt that their very perfect oblation and sacrifice of Christen people, through which all other sacrifices necessarie on our part be accepted and pleasaunt in the sight of God.Christes body is the christen mans sacrifice. And this maner of shewyng Christes death and kèepyng the memorie of it, is grounded vponupon the Scriptures, written by the Euangelistes and S. Paule, and accordyng thereunto Preached, beleued, vsed, and frequented in the Church of Christ vniuersally and from the beginnyng. This authour vtteryng many wordes at large besides Scripture, and agaynst Scripture to depraue the Catholike doctrine, doth in a few wordes (which be in déede good wordes and true) confounde and ouerthrow all his enterprise, and that issue will I ioyne with him, which shall suffise for the confutation of this booke. The fewe good wordes of the authour, which wordes I say confounde the rest,An issue. consist in these two pointes. One in that the authour alloweth the Iudgement of Petrus Lombardus, touchyng the oblation and sacrifice of the Church. An other in that the authour confesseth the Councell of Nice to be holy Councell, as it hath bene in déede confessed of all good Christen men. Upon these two confessions I will declare the whole enterprise of this fift booke to be ouerthrowen.

Caunterbury.

De sacrificio lege. Roffen. & Oecol. lib. 3. cap. 2. & 3.MY fift booke hath so fully & so playnly set out this matter of the sacrifice, that for aūswere to all that you hauehave here brought to the cōfutation therof, the reader neede to do no more, but to looke ouer my booke agayne, and he shall see you fully aunswered before hand. Yet wyll I here and there adde some notes, that your ignoraūce and craft may the better appeare.

This farre you agree to the truth, that the sacrifice of Christ was a ful and a perfect sacrifice, which needed not to be done no more but once, and yet it is remembred and shewed forth dayly. And this is the true doctrine accordyng to Gods word. But as concernyng the reall presence in the accidents of bread and wine, is an vntrue doctrine, fayned onelyonly by the Papistes, as I hauehave most playnly declared, and this is one of your errours here vttered.

The sacrifice propitiatory, not christes very body, but hys death in that same body.An other is, that you cast the most precious body and bloud of Christ, the sacrifice Propitiatorie for all the sinnes of the world, which of it selfe was not the sacrifice, but the thyng whereof the sacrifice was made, and the death of him vponupon the Crosse, was the true sacrifice propiciatorie, that purchased the remission of sinne, which sacrifice continued not long, nor was made neuer but once, where as his flesh and bloud continued euer in substaunce from his incarnation, as well before the sayd sacrifice as euer sithens. And that sacrifice propitiatorie made by him onelyonly vponupon the Crosse, is of that effect to reconcile vsus to Gods fauour, that by it be accepted all our sacrifices of landes and thankes geuyng.

Now before I ioyne with you in your issue, I shall rehearse the wordes of my booke, which when the indifferent Reader seeth, he shalbe the more able to iudge truely betwene vsus. My booke conteineth thus.

The fift Booke.

THe greatest blasphemy and iniurie that can be agaynst Christ,Chap. 1. The sacrifice of the Masse. and yet vniuersally vsed through the Popishe kyngdome, is thys, that the Priestes make their Masse a sacrifice propitiatorie, to remit the sinnes as well of them selues, as of other both quicke and dead, to whom they list to apply the same. Thus vnderunder pretence of holynes, the Papistical priests hauehave taken vponupon them to be Christes successours, and to make such an oblation and sacrifice, as neuer creature made but Christ alone, neither he made the same any more tymes then once, and that was by his death vponupon the Crosse.

For as S. Paule in his Epistle to the Hebrues witnesseth, Chap. 2. Heb. 9. The difference betwene the sacrifice of Christ & of the priestes of the old lawe.Although the high priestes of the old law offered many tymes (at the least eueryevery yeare once) yet Christ offered not him selfe many tymes, for then he should many tymes hauehave dyed. But now he offered him selfe but once, to take away sinne, by that offering of him selfe. And as men must dye once, so was Christ offered once, to take away the sinnes of many.

And furthermore S. Paul sayth,Heb. 10. That the sacrifices of the old law, although they were continually offered from yeare to yeare, yet could they not take away sinne, nor make men perfect. For if they could once hauehave quieted mens consciēces, by taking away sinne, they should hauehave ceassed, and no more hauehave bene offered. But Christ with once offering, hath made perfect for euer, them that be sanctified: puttyng their sinnes cleane out of Gods remembraūce. And where remission of sinnes is, there is no more offering for sinne.

And yet further he sayth,Heb. 7. concernyng the old Testament, that it was disanulled and taken away, bicause of the feeblenesse and vnprofitablenesse therof, for it brought nothyng to perfection. And the priestes of that law were many, bycause they liued not long, and so the priesthode went from one to an other: but Christ liueth euer, and hath an euerlastyng priesthode, that passeth not from him to any man els. Wherfore he is able perfectly to saue them that come to God by him, for asmuch as he liueth euer to make intercession for vsus. For it was meete for vsus to hauehave such an high priest, that is holy, innocent, with out spot, separated from sinners, and exalted vp aboue heauen: who needeth not dayly to offer vp sacrifice (as Aarons priestes did:) first for his owne sinnes, and then for the people. For that he did once, when he offered vp him selfe. Here in his Epistle to the Hebrues S. Paule hath playnly and fully described vntounto vsus, the difference betwene the priesthode and sacrifices of the old Testament, and the most high and worthy priesthode of Christ, his most perfect and necessary sacrifice, and the benefite that commeth to vsus thereby.

For Christ offered not the bloud of calues, sheepe, and goates (as the priests of the old law hauehave vsed to do) but he offered his own bloud vponupon the Crosse. And he went not into an holy place made by mans hand, (as Aaron did) but he ascended vp into heauen, where his eternall Father dwelleth, and before him he maketh continuall supplication for the sinnes of the whole world, presentyng his owne body, which was torne for vsus, and his precious bloud, which of his most gracious and liberall charitie, he shed for vsus vponupon the Crosse.

And that sacrifice was of such force, that it was no neede to renew it eueryevery yeare, as the Byshops did of the old Testament (whose sacrifices were many tymes offered, and yet were of no great effect or profite, bycause they were sinners them selues that offered them, and offered not their owne bloud, but the bloud of brute beastes) but Christes sacrifice ones offered, was sufficient for euermore.

Chap. 3.Two kindes of sacrifices.And that all men may the better vnderstand this sacrifice of Christ (which he made for the great benefite of all men) it is necessary to know the distinctiō and diuersitie of sacrifices.

One kynde of sacrifice there is, which is called a Propitiatory or mercyfull sacrifice, that is to say, such a sacrifice as pacifieth Gods wrath and indignatiō, and obteineth mercy and forgiuenes for all our sinnes, and is the raunsom for our redemption from euerlastyng damnation.

The sacrifice of Christ.And although in the olde testament there were certayne sacrifices called by that name, yet in very deed there is but one such sacrifice, whereby our sins be pardoned, and Gods mercy and fauour obtained, (which is the death of the sonne of God our Lord Iesu Christ) nor neuer was any other sacrifice propitiatory at any time, nor neuer shalbe.

This is the honor and glory of this our high priest, wherein he admitteth neither partener nor successor. For by his owne oblation he satisfied his father for all mens sinnes, and reconciled mankinde vntounto his grace and fauour. And whosoeuer depryue him of his honour, and go about to take it to themselues, they be very Antichristes, and most arrogant blasphemers against God, and agaynst his sonne Iesus Christ, whom he hath sent.

The sacrifices of the Church.And other kind of sacrifice there is, which doth not reconcile vsus to God, but is made of them that be reconciled by Christ, to testify our dueties vntounto God, and to shew ourselues thankfull vntounto him. And therfore they be called sacrifices of laud, prayse, and thanksgeuing.

The first kind of sacrifice Christ offered to God for vsus: the second kinde we our selues offer to God by Christ.

And by the first kinde of sacrifice Christ offered also vsus vntounto hys Father: and by the Second we offer ourselues and all that we hauehave vntounto hym and hys Father.

And this sacrifice generally is our whole obedience vntounto God, in keeping his lawes and commaundementes. Of which maner of sacrifice speaketh the prophet Dauid,Psal. 50. 1. Pet. 2. saying: A sacrifice to God, is a contrite hart. And S. Peter sayth of all christen people, that they be an holy priesthood to offer spirituall sacrifices, acceptable to God by Iesu Christ.Heb. 13. And S Paule sayth, That alway we offer vntounto God a sacrifice of laud and prayse by Iesus Christ.

Chap. 4.A more playne declaration of the sacrifice of Christ.But now to speake somewhat more largely of the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ, he was such an hie bishop, that he once offering himselfe, was sufficient, by once effusion of his bloud, to abolish sinne vntounto the worldes end. He was so perfect a priest, that by one oblation he purged an infinite heape of sinnes, leauing an easy and a ready remedy for all sinners, that his one sacrifice should suffice for many yeares, vntounto all men that would not shewe themselues vnworthy. And he tooke vntounto himselfe, not onelyonly their sinnes that many yeares before were dead, and put their trust in him, but also the sins of those that vntill his comming agayne, should truely beleue in his gospell. So that now we may looke for none other priest nor sacrifice, to take away our sinnes, but onelyonly him and his sacrifice. And as he dying once, was offered for all, so as much as pertayned to him, he tooke all mens sinnes vntounto himself. So that now there remaineth no moe sacrifices for sinne, but extreme iudgement at the last day, when he shall appeare to vsus agayne; not as a man to be punished agayne, and to be made a sacrifice for our sinnes (as he was before) but he shal come in his glory without sinne,Heb. 8. to the great ioy and comfort of them, which be purified and made cleane by his death, and continue in godly and innocent liuing, and to the greate terrour and dreade of them that be wicked and vngodly.

Thus the scripture teacheth; that if Christ had made any oblation for sinne more then once; he should hauehave dyed more then once: forasmuch as there is none oblation and sacrifice for sinne, but onelyonly his death. And now there is no more oblation for sinne, seyng that by him our sinnes be remitted, and our cō sciences quieted.

And although in the old Testament,Chap. 5.The sacrifice of the old law. there were certayne sacrifices, called Sacrifices for sinne, yet they were no such sacrifices, that could take away our sinnes in the sight of God, but they were ceremonies ordayned to this intent, that they should be as it were shadowes and figures, to signify before hand the excellent sacrifice of Christ that was to come, which should be the very true and perfect sacrifice for the sinnes of the whole world.

And for this signification they had the name of a sacrifice propitiatory, and were called sacrifices for sinnes, not because they indeed toke away our sinnes, but because they were images, shadowes, and figures, wherby godly men were admonished of the true sacrifice of Christ then to come, whiche should truely abolish sinne and euerlasting death.

And that those sacrifices, which were made by the priestes in the olde lawe, could not be able to purchase our pardon; and deserue the remission of our sinnes, S. Paule doth clearely affirme in his sayd Epistle to the Hebrues,Heb. 9. where he sayth: It is impossible that our sinnes should be taken away by the bloud of oxen and goates. Wherefore all godly men, although they did vse those sacrifices ordayned of God, yet they did not take them as thinges of that value and estimation, that thereby they should be able to obtayne remission of their sins before God.

But they tooke them partly for figures and tokens ordained of God, by the which he declared, that he would send that seed, which he promised to be the very true sacrifice for sinne, and that he would receiue thē that trusted in that promise, and remit their sinnes for the sacrifice after to come.

And partly they vsed them as certayne ceremonies, whereby such persons as had offended agaynst the law of Moyses, and were cast out of the congregation, were receiued agayne among the people, and declared to be absolued.

As for like purposes we vse in the church of Christ, sacramentes by him instituted. And this outward casting out from the people of God, and receiuing in agayne, was according to the law and knowledge of man, but the true recō ciliation and forgeuenes of sin before God, neither the fathers of the old law had, nor we yet hauehave, but onelyonly by the sacrifice of Christ, made in the mounte of Caluary. And the sacrifices of the old law were prognosticatiōs and figures of the same then to come, as our sacramentes be figures and demonstrations of the same now passed.

Now by these foresayd things may eueryevery man easily perceiue,Chap. 6.The Masse is not a sacrifice propitiatory. that the offering of the priest in the Masse, or the appoynting of his ministratiō at his pleasure, to them that be quicke or dead, can not merite and deserue, neither to him selfe, not to thē for whō he singeth or sayth the remissiō of their sinnes: but that such Popish doctrine is cōtrary to the doctrine of the Gospell, and iniurious to the sacrifice of Christ. For if onelyonly the death of Christ be the oblation, sacrifice and price wherfore our sinnes be pardoned, thē the act or ministratiō of the priest cā not hauehave the same office. Wherfore it is an abhominable blasphemy, to geue that office or dignitie to a priest; which pertaineth onelyonly to Christ: or to affirme that the Church hath neede of any such sacrifice: as who should say: that Christes sacrifice were not sufficient for the remission of our sinnes: or els that his sacrifice should hang vponupon the sacrifice of a priest.

But all such priestes, as pretend to be Christes successours in makyng a Sacrifice of him, they be his most haynous and horrible aduersaries. For neuer no person made a sacrifice of Christ, but he him selfe onelyonly. And therfore Saint Paule sayth,Heb. 7. that Christes priesthoode cannot passe from him to an other. For what needeth any moe Sacrifices; if Christes Sacrifice be perfect and sufficient? And as Saint Paule sayth, that if the sacrifices and ministration of Aaron,Heb. 8. and other priestes of that tyme, had lacked nothyng, but had bene perfect and sufficient, then should not the sacrifice of Christ hauehave bene required (for it had bene but in vayne, to adde any thyng to that, which of it selfe was perfect) so likewise if Christes Sacrifice which he made him selfe be sufficient, what neede we eueryevery day to hauehave moe and moe Sacrifices. Wherfore all Popish priestes that presume to make eueryevery day a Sacrifice of Christ, either must they needes make Christes Sacrifice vayne, vnperfect and vnsufficient, or els is their sacrifice in vayne, which is added to the Sacrifice, which is already of it selfe sufficient and perfect.

But it is a wonderous thyng to see what shiftes and cautels the Popish Antichristes deuise, to colour and cloke their wicked errours: And as a chayne is so ioyned togither, that one linke draweth an other after it, so be vices and errours knit togither, that eueryevery one draweth his felow with him. And so doth it here in this matter.

Chap. 7.A confutatiō of the Papistes cauillation.For the Papistes (to excuse them selues) do say, that they make no new Sacrifice, nor none other Sacrifice then Christ made (for they be not so blynd, but they see, that then they should adde an other Sacrifice to Christes Sacrifice, and so make his Sacrifice vnperfect) but they say, that they make the selfe same Sacrifice for sinne, that Christ him selfe made.

Chap. 8.The true sacrifice of all Christen people.And here they runne headlonges into the foulest and most haynous errour that euer was imagined. For if they make eueryevery day the same oblation and Sacrifice for sinne, that Christ hym selfe made, and the oblation that he made was his death, and the effusion of his most precious bloud vponupon the Crosse, for our redemption and price of our sinnes: then foloweth it of necessitie, that they eueryevery day slea Christ, and shed his bloud, and so bee they woorse then the wicked Iewes and Phariseis, which slew hym, and shed hys bloud but once.

Almighty God the father of light and truth, banish all such darknes and errour out of his Church, with the authours and teachers therof, or els conuert their hartes vntounto him, and giuegive this light of fayth to eueryevery man, that he may trust to hauehave remission of his sinnes, and be deliuered from eternall death and hell, by the merite onelyonly of the death and bloud of Christ: and that by his own fayth, eueryevery man may apply the same vntounto him selfe, and not take it at the appointment of Popish priestes, by the merite of sacrifices and oblations.

If we be in deede (as we professe) Christian men, we may ascribe this honor and glory to no man, but to Christ alone. Wherefore lette vsus geue the whole laude & prayse hereof vntounto him, let vsus fly onelyonly to him for succour, let vsus hold him fast and hāg vpō him, and geue our selues wholy to him. And for asmuch as he hath giuen him selfe to death for vsus, to be an oblation and sacrifice to his father for our sinnes, let vsus geue our selues agayne vntounto him, makyng vntounto him an oblatiō, not of goates, sheepe, kine and other beastes that hauehave no reason (as was accustomed before Christes comming) but of a creature that hath reason, that is to say, of our selues, not killyng our own bodies, but mortifiyng the beastly and vnreasonable affectiōs, that would gladly rule and raigne in vsus. So lōg as the law did raigne, God suffered dūbe beastes to be offered vntounto him, but now that we be spirituall, we must offer spirituall oblatiōs. In the place of calues, sheepe, goates and doues: we must kill deuilish pride, furious anger, insatiable couetousnes, filthy lucre, stinkyng lechery, deadly hatred and malice, foxy wylinesse, woluish rauenyng and deuouryng, and all other vnreasonable lustes and desires of the flesh.Galath. 5. And as many as belong to Christ, must crucifie and kill these for Christes sake, as Christ crucified him selfe for their sakes.

These be the sacrifices of Christian men, these hostes and oblations be acceptable to Christ. And as Christ offered him selfe for vsus, so is it our dueties after this sorte to offer our selues to him agayne. And so shall we not hauehave the name of Christian mē in vayne, but as we pretend to belong to Christ in word and profession, so shall we in deede be his in lyfe and inward affection. So that within and without, we shalbe altogether his, cleane from all hypocrisie or dissimulation. And if we refuse to offer our selues after this wise vntounto him, by crucifying our owne willes, and committyng vsus wholly to the will of God, we be most vnkynd people, superstitious hupocrites, or rather vnreasonable beastes, worthy to be excluded vtterly from all the benefites of Christes oblations.

And if wee put the oblation of the prieste in the steede of the oblation of Christ,Chap. 5.The Popish Masse is detestable idolatry, vtterly to be vanished from all christen congregations. refusing to receaue the Sacrament of his body and bloud our selues (as he ordeined) and trustyng to hauehave remission of our sinnes by the Sacrifice of the priest in the Masse, and thereby also to obtaine release of the paynes in Purgatory, we do not onelyonly iniurie to Christ, but also commit most detestable Idolatry. For these be but false doctrines, without shame deuised, and fayned by wicked Popish priestes, Idolaters, Monkes and Friers, which for lucre have altered and corrupted the most holy Supper of the Lord, and turned it into manifest Idolatry. Wherfore all godly men ought with all their hart to refuse and abhorre all such blasphemie agaynst the sonne of God.

And for asmuch as in such Masses is manifest wickednesse and Idolatry, (wherein the priest alone maketh oblation satisfactory, and applyeth the same for the quicke and the dead at his will and pleasure,) all such Popish Masses are to be clearely taken away out of Christian Churches, and the true vse of the Lordes Supper is to be restored agayne, wherein godly people assembled together, may receaue the Sacrament eueryevery man for him selfe, to declare that he remembreth, what benefite he hath receiued by the death of Christ, and to testifie that he is a member of Christes body, fed with his flesh, and drinkyng his bloud spiritually.

Christ did not ordeyne his Sacramentes to this vse,Cap. 10.EueryEvery manne ought to receiue the sacrament himself, and not one for an other. that one should receiue them for another, or the priest for all the lay people, but he ordeined them for this intent, that eueryevery man should receiue them for him selfe, to ratifie, confirme and stablishe his owne fayth and euerlastyng saluation. Therfore as one man may not be Baptised for an other (and if he be, it auayleth nothyng) so ought not one to receiue the holy Communion for an other. For if a man be dry or hungry, he is neuer a whit eased, if an other man drinke or eate for him: or if a man be all befiled, it helpeth him nothing, an other man to bewashed for him: So auayleth it nothyng to a man, if an other man be Baptised for him, or be refreshed for him with the meate and drinke at the Lordes Table: And therfore sayd S. Peter:Acc. 2. Math. 26. Let eueryevery man be Baptised in the name of Iesu Christ. And our Sauiour Christ sayd to the multitude? Take, and care. And further he sayd: Drinke you all of this. Whosoeuer therfore will be spiritually regenerated in Christ, he must be Baptised him selfe. And he that will liue him selfe by Christ, must by him selfe eate Christes flesh and drinke his bloud.

And briefly to conclude, He that thinketh to come to the kyngdome of Christ him selfe, must also come to his Sacramentes him selfe, and keepe his Commaundements him selfe, and do all thynges that pertayne to a Christian man, and to his vocation him selfe, least if he referre these thynges to an other man to do them for him, the other may with as good right clayme the kyngdome of heauen for him.

Cap. 11.The difference betwene the priest & the lay man.Therfore Christ made no such difference betwene the priest and the lay mā, that the priest should make oblation and sacrifice of Christ for the lay man, and eate the Lordes Supper from him all alone, and distribute and apply it as him liketh. Christ made no such difference, but the difference that is betwene the priest and the lay man in this matter, is onelyonly in the ministration: that the priest (as a common minister of the Church) doth minister and distribute the Lords Supper vntounto other, and other receaue it at his handes. But the very Supper it selfe, was by Christ instituted and geuen to the whole Church, not to be offered and eaten of the priest for other men, but by him to be deliuered to all that would duely aske it.

As in a princes house the officers and ministers prepare the Table, and yet other (aswel as they) eate the meate, and drinke the drinke: so do the priests and ministers prepare the Lordes Supper, read the Gospell, and rehearse Christes wordes, but all the people say therto: Amen. All remember Christes death, all geue thankes to God, all repent and offer them selues an oblation to Christ, all take him for their Lord and Sauiour, and spiritually feede vponupon him, and in token therof they eate the bread and drinke the wine in his mysticall Supper.

And this nothyng diminisheth the estimation and dignitie of priesthode and other ministers of the Church, but aduaunceth and highly commendeth their ministration. For if they are much to be loued, honored and esteemed, that be the kynges Chauncelours, Iudges, officers, and ministers in temporall matters, how much than are they to be estemed that be ministers of Christes wordes and Sacramentes, and hauehave to them committed the keyes of heauen, to let in and shut out by the ministration of his word and Gospell?

Chap. 12.The aunswere to the Papists,Now for asmuch, as I trust, that I hauehave playnly inough set forth the propitiatory sacrifice of our Sauiour Iesu Christ, to the capacitie and comfort of all men that hauehave any vnderstandyng of Christ, and hauehave declared also the haynous abhomination and Idolatry of the Popishe Masse (wherein the priestes hauehave taken vponupon them the office of Christ, to make a propitiatory sacrifice for the sinnes of the people) and I hauehave also told what maner of sacrifice Christen people ought to make, it is now necessary to make aunswere to the subtle persuasions and Sophisticall cauillations of the Papistes, whereby they hauehave deceaued many a simple man, both learned and vnlearned.

The place of S. Paule vntounto the Hebrues (which they doe cite for their purpose) maketh quite and cleane agaynst them.Heb. 5. For where S. Paule sayth, that eueryevery high priest is ordayned to offer giftes and sacrifices for sinnes, he spake not that of the priestes of the new Testamēt, but of the old, which (as he sayth) offered Calues and Goates. And yet they were not such priestes that by their offerynges and sacrifices they could take away the peoples sinnes, but they were shadowes and figures of Christ our euerlastyng priest, which onelyonly by one oblation of him selfe taketh away the sinnes of the world. Wherfore the Popish priestes that apply this text vntounto thēselues, do directly contrary to the meanyng of S. Paule, to the great iniury and preiudice of Christ, by whom onelyonly S. Paule sayth, that the sacrifice and oblation for the sinne of the whole world was accomplished and fulfilled.

And as litle serueth for the Papistes purpose the text of the Prophet Malachie,Malac. 1. that eueryevery where should be offered vntounto God a pure sacrifice and oblation. For the Prophet in that place spake no word of the Masse, nor of any oblation propitiatory to be made by the priestes, but he spake of the oblation of all faythfull people (in what place so euer they be) which offer vntounto God, with pure hartes and myndes, sacrifices of laude and prayse: prophecying of the vocation of the Gentiles, that God would extende his mercy vntounto them, and not be the God onelyonly of the Iewes, but of all nations, from East to West, that with pure fayth call vponupon him, and glorifie his name.

But the aduersaries of Christ, gather together a great heape of Authours,Chap. 13.An aunswere to the Authours. whiche (as they say) call the Masse or holy Communion a Sacrifice. But all those Authours be aunswered vntounto in this one sentence, that they called it not a sacrifice for sinne, bycause that it taketh away our sinne, (which is takē away onelyonly by the death of Christ) but bicause the holy Cōmunion was ordeined of Christ, to put vsus in remēbraūce of the sacrifice made by him vpō the crosse, for that cause it beareth the name of that sacrifice, as S. Augustin declareth plainly in his Epistle ad Bonifacium, Augustinus ad Bonifa. De Ciuita. Lib. 10. cap. 5.before rehearsed in this booke pag. 141. And in his booke De fide ad Petrum Diaconū, And in his booke De Ciuitate Dei, he sayth, That which men call a sacrifice, is a signe or representation of the true sacrifice.

And the Maister of the Sentence (of whom all the Schoole Authours take their occasion to write) iudged truely in this poynt,Lombardus Lib. 4. Dist. 12. saying: That whiche is offered and consecrated of the priest, Is called a sacrifice and oblation, because it is a memory and representation of the true Sacrifice and holy oblation, made in the aultar of the Crosse.

And S. Iohn Chrisostome, after he hath sayd that Christ is our Byshop,Chrisostom. ad Heb. Hom. 17. which offered that Sacrifice that made vsus cleane, and that we offer the same now, least any man might be deceiued by his maner of speakyng, he openeth his meanyng more playnly, saying: That which we doe, is done for a remembraunce of that whiche was done by Christ: For Christ sayth: Doe this in remembraunce of me: Also Chrisostome declaryng at length, that the priestes of the old law offered euer new Sacrifices, and chaunged them from tyme to tyme, and that Christian people do not so, but offer euer one Sacrifice of Christ: yet by and by (least some might be offended with this speach) he maketh as it were a correction of his wordes, saying: But rather we make a remembraunce of Christes sacrifice." As though he should say: Although in a certaine kinde of speach we may say that eueryevery day we make a sacrifice of Christ, yet in very deede, to speake properly, we make no sacrifice of him, but onelyonly a commemoration and remē braunce of that sacrifice, which he alone made, and neuer none but he. Nor Christ neuer gaue this honour to any creature, that he should make a sacrifice of him, nor did not ordaine the Sacrament of his holy Supper, to the intent that either the priest or the people should sacrifice Christ agayne, or that the priestes should make a sacrifice of him for the people: but his holy Supper was ordeined for this purpose, that eueryevery man, eatyng and drinkyng therof, should remember that Christ dyed for him, and so should exercise his fayth, and comfort him selfe by the remembraunce of Christes benefites, and so geue vntounto Christ most harty thankes, and geue him selfe also clearely vntounto him.

Wherfore the ordinaunce of Christ ought to be folowed: the priest to minister the Sacrament to the people, and they to vse it to their consolation. And in this eatyng, drinkyng and vsing of the Lordes Supper, we make not of Christ a new sacrifice propitiatory for remission of sinne.

Chap. 14.The lay persons make a sacrifice as well as the Priest.But the humble confession of all penitent hartes, their knowledgyng of Christes benefites, their thankes giuyng for the same, their fayth and consolation in Christ, their humble submission and obedience to Gods will and commaundements, is a sacrifice of laude and prayse, accepted and allowed of God no lesse then the sacrifice of the priest. For almighty God without respect of person, accepteth the oblation and sacrifice of priest and lay person, of kyng and subiect, of maister and seruaunt, of man and woman, of young and old, yea of English, French, Scot, Greeke, Latin, Iew, and Gentile, of eueryevery man accordyng to his faythfull and obedient hart vntounto him, and that through the sacrifice propitiatory of Iesu Christ.

Chap. 15.The Papisticall Masse is neither a sacrifice propitiatory, nor of thāks geuyng. Luke. 16.And as for the saying or singyng of the Masse by the priest, as it was in tyme passed vsed, it is neither a sacrifice propitiatory, nor yet a sacrifice of laude and prayse, nor in any wise alowed before God, but abhominable and detestable: and therof may well be verified the saying of Christ: That thyng which seemeth an high thing before men, is an abhomination before God.

They therfore which gather of the Doctours, that the Masse is a sacrifice for remission of sinne, and that it is applyed by the priest to them, for whom he sayth or singeth: they which so gather of the Doctours, do to them most greuous iniury and wrong, most falsely belyeng them.

Chap. 16.There was no Papisticall Masses in the Primitiue Church.For these monstrous thynges were neuer sene nor knowen of the old and primitiue Church, nor there was not then in one Church many Masses eueryevery day, but vponupon certaine dayes there was a common Table of the Lordes Supper, where a number of people did together receaue the body and bloud of the Lord: but there were then no dayly priuate Masses, where eueryevery priest receiued alone, like as vntill this day there is none in the Greeke Churches, but one common Masse in a day. Nor the holy Fathers of the old Church would not hauehave suffered such vngodly and wicked abuses of the Lordes Supper.

But these priuate Masses sprang vp of late yeares, partly through the ignoraunce and superstition of vnlearned Monkes and Friers (whiche knew not what a sacrifice was, but made of the Masse a sacrifice propitiatory, to remit both sinne, and the payne due for the same) but chiefly they sprang of lucre and gayne, when priestes founde the meanes to sell Masses to the people, whiche caused Masses so much to encrease, that eueryevery day was sayd an infinite number, and that no priest would receiue the Communion at an other priestes hand, but eueryevery one would receiue it alone:Consilium Nicenum cap. 14. Canones Apostolorum. cap. 8. neither regardyng the godly decree of the most famous and holy Councell of Nice (which appointed in what order priestes should be placed aboue Deacons at the Communion) nor yet the Canons of the Apostles, which commaund, that when any Communion is ministred, all the priestes togither should receiue the same, or els be excommunicate. So much the old Fathers mysliked, that any priest should receiue the Sacrament alone.

Therfore when the old fathers called the Masse or Supper of the Lord, a sacrifice, they ment that it was a sacrifice of laudes and thankes geuyng, and so aswell the people as the priest do sacrifice: or els that it was a remembraunce of the very true sacrifice propitiatory of Christ: but they ment in no wise that it is a very true sacrifice for sinne, and applicable by the priest to the quicke and dead.

For the priest may well minister Christes woordes and Sacramentes, to all men both good and bad, but he can apply the benefite of Christes passion to no man (beyng of age and discretion) but onelyonly to such as by their owne fayth do apply the same vntounto them selues. So that eueryevery man of age and discretion, taketh to him selfe the benefites of Christes passion, or refuseth them him selfe, by his owne fayth, quicke or dead. That is to say, by his true and liuely fayth (that worketh by charitie) he receiueth them, or els by his vngodlynes or fayned fayth reiecteth them.

And this doctrine of the Scripture clearely condemneth the wicked inuentions of the Papistes in these latter dayes, which hauehave deuised a Purgatory to torment soules after this life, and oblations of Masses sayd by the priestes, to deliuer them from the sayd tormentes, and a great number of other commodities do they promise to the simple ignoraunt people by their Masses.

Now the nature of man beyng euer prone to Idolatry frō the begynnyng of the world,Chap. 17. The caused & meanes howe Papisticall Masses entred into the church. and the Papistes beyng ready by all meanes and police to defend and extoll the Masse for their estimation and profite, and the people beyng superstitiously enamoured and doted vponupon the Masse, (bicause they take it for a present remedy agaynst all maner of euils) and part of the princes beyng blinded by papisticall doctrine, part louyng quietnesse, and loth to offend their Clergy and subiectes, and all beyng captiue and subiect to the Antichrist of Rome, the estate of the world remainyng in that case, it is no wonder that abuses grew and encreased in the Church, that superstition with Idolatry were taken for godlynesse and true Religion, and that many thynges were brought in without the authoritie of Christ.

As Purgatory, the oblation and sacrificyng of Christ by the priest alone,The abuses of the Papisticall Masses. the applicatiō and appointyng of the same to such persons as the priest would sing or say Masse for, and to such abuses as they could deuise, to deliuer some from Purgatory, and some from hell, (if they were not there finally by God determined to abyde, as they termed the matter) to make rayne or faire wether, to put away the plague and other sicknesses both from man and beast, to halow and preserue them that went to Ierusalem, to Rome, to S. Iames in Compostella, and other places in pilgrimage, for a preseruatiue agaynst tempest and thunder, agaynst perils and daungers of the Sea, for a remedy agaynst moraine of cattell, agaynst pensiuenesse of the hart, agaynst all maner affliction and tribulations.

And finally, they extoll their Masses far aboue Christes passion, promising many thynges thereby, which were neuer promised vsus by Christes passion. As that if a man heare Masse, hee shall lacke no bodily sustenaunce that day, nor nothyng necessary for him, nor shalbe letted in his iourney, he shall not lose his sight that day, nor dye no sodaine death, he shall not waxe old in that time that he heareth Masse, nor no wicked spirites shall hauehave power of him, be he neuer so wicked a man, so long as he looketh vponupon the Sacrament. All these foolish and deuilish superstitions, the Papistes of their owne idle brayne hauehave deuised of late yeares, which deuises were neuer knowen in the old Church.

Chap. 18.which Church is to be folowedAnd yet they cry out agaynst them that professe the Gospell, and say that they dissent from the Church, and would hauehave them to folow the example of their Church. And so would they gladly do, if the Papistes would folow the first Church of the Apostles, which was most pure and incorrupt, but the Papistes hauehave clearely varied frō the vsage and exāples of that Church, and hauehave inuented new deuises of their own braynes, and will in no wise cōsent to folow the primitiue Church, and yet they would hauehave other to folow their Church, vtterly variyng and dissentyng from the first most godly Church. But thankes be to the eternall God, the maner of the holy Communion (which is now set forth within this Realme) is agreable with the institution of Christ, with Saint Paule and the old primitiue and Apostolicke Church, with the right fayth of the Sacrifice of Christ vponupon the Crosse for our redemption, and with the true doctrine of our saluation, iustification and remission of all our sinnes by that onelyonly sacrifice.

A short instruction to the holy Communiō.Now resteth nothyng, but that all faithfull subiectes will gladly receiue and embrace the same, beyng sory for their former ignoraunce, and eueryevery man repentyng him selfe of his offences agaynst God, and amendyng the same, may yeld him selfe wholly to God, to serue and obey him all the dayes of his lyfe, and often to come to the holy Supper, whiche our Lord and Sauiour Christ hath prepared: And as he there corporally eateth the very bread and drinketh the very wine, so spiritually he may feede of the very fleshe and bloud of Iesu Christ his Sauiour and redeemer, remembryng his death, thankyng him for his benefites, and lookyng for none other sacrifice at no priestes handes for remission of his sinnes, but onelyonly trustyng to his sacrifice, which beyng both the high priest, and also the Lambe of God (prepared from the begynnyng to take away the sinnes of the world) offered vp him selfe once for euer, in a sacrifice of sweete smell vntounto his Father, and by the same payd the raunsome for the sinnes of the whole worlde. Who is before vsus entred into heauen, and sitteth at the right hand of his Father, as a patron, mediatour and intercessour for vsus. And there hath prepared places for all them that be lyuely members of his body, to reigne with him for euer, in the glory of his father, to whom with him, and the holy Ghost, be glory, honour, and prayse for euer and euer. Amen.

Thus hauing rehearsed the whole wordes of my last booke, I shall returne to your issue,Myne Issue. and make a ioynder or demurre with you therein. And if you can not proue your propitiatory Sacrifice of the Priestes by Petrus Lombardus and Nicene Councell, then must you confesse by your owne Issue, that the Uerdite must iustly passe agaynst you, and that you hauehave a fall in your own suite. As for the sacrifice of laudes and thakesgeuyng, I hauehave set it forth playnly in my booke, but the sacrifice propitiatory (deuised to be made by the priest in the Masse onelyonly) is a great abhominatiō before God, how glorious soeuer it appeare befor… men. And it is set vp onelyonly by Antichrist, and therefore worthy to be abhorred of all that truely professe Christ.

Nicene counsellAnd first as concerning Nicene counsell (because you begin with that first) I will rehearse your wordes.

Winchester.

Fyrst to begin with the counsell of Nice, the same hath opened the mistery of the sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ in this wise, that christen men beleue the Lamb that taketh away the sinnes of the world to be situate vponupon Gods woorde, and to be sacrificed of the priestes, not after the manner of other sacrifices. This is the doctrine of the counsell of Nice, and must then be called an holy doctrine, and thereby a true doctrine, consonant to the scriptures, the foundation of all trueth. If the author will deny this to hauehave bene the teaching of the counsell of Nice, I shal alleadge therefore the allegation of the same by Decolampadius, who being an aduersary to the truth, was yet by Gods prouidence ordered to beare testimony to the truth in this poynt, and by his meane is published to the world in greeke as followeth, which neuerthelesse may otherwise appeare to be true. foreign Iterum etiam hic in diuina mensa, ne humiliter intenti simus ad propositum pannem & poculum, sed mente exaltata fide intilligamus, situm esse in sacra illa mensa, illum Dei agnum, qui tollit peccata mundi, sacrificatum à sacerdotibus, non victimarum more & mos preciosum illius corpus, & sanguinem verè sumentes, credere haec esse resurrectionis nostrae Symbola. Ideo enim non multum accipimus, sed parum, vt cognoscamus quoniam non in satietatem, sed sanctificationem. These wordes may be englished thus: Agayne in this godly table, we should not in base and low consideration direct our vnderstanding to the bread and cup set forth, but hauing our mind exalted, we should vnderstand by fayth to be situate in that table the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sinnes of the world sacrificed of the priestes not after the maner of other Sacrifices, and we receiuing truely the precious body and bloud of the same Lamb, to beleue these to be the tokens of our resurrection: And for that we receiue not much but a litle, because we should know that not for saturity and filling, but for sanctification.

This holy counsel of Niece, hath bene beleued vniuersally in declaration of the mistery of the Trinity and the Sacramentes also. And to them that confesse that counsell to be holy, as the author here doth, and to such as profes to beleue the determination of that counsell in the opening of the mistery of the Trinity with other words then Scripture vseth, although they expres such sence as in the scriptures is contained: Why should not all such like wise beleue the same counsel in explication of the Sacraments, which to do, the author hath bound himselfe, graunting that counsell holy. And then we must bebeleue the very presence of Christes body and bloud on gods bord,Priestes sacrificers. and that Priestes doe there sacrifice, and be therefore called and named sacrificers. So as those names & terms be to be honoured, and religiously spoken of, being in an holy counsell vttered and confessed because it was so séene to them and the holy ghost, without whose present asistance and suggestion beleued to be there, the counsell could not or ought not to be called holy. Now if we conferre with that counsell of Nice the testimony of the Church beginning at S. Dionyse, who was in the time of the Apostles, and after him comming to Irene, who was nere the apostles, and then Tertullian, and so S. Cyprian, S. Chrisostome, S. Cyrill, S. Hierome, S. Augustine, and from that age to the tyme of Petrus Lombardus, all spake of the sacrament to the same effect, and termed it for the word sacrifice and oblation, to be frequented in the church of the body and bloud of Christ,An issue. as may be in particularity shewed, whereof I make also an issue with the author.

Caunterbury.

FOr aunswere to Nicene councell, it speaketh of a sacrifice of laudes and thankes giuing (which is made by the Priest in the name of the whole church, and is the sacrifice as well of the people as of the priest) this sacrifice I say, the counsell of Nice speaketh of, but it speaketh not one word of the sacrifice propitiatory, which neuer none made but onelyonly Christ, nor he neuer made it any more then once, which was by his death, And where so euer Christ shal be herafter in heauē or in earth, he shal neuer be sacrificed agayne, but the church continually in remembraunce of that sacrifice, maketh a sacrifice of laud and prayse, geuing euermore thanks vntounto him, for that propitiatory sacrifice. And in the third chapter of my booke here recited, the difference of these ii. sacrifices is playnely set out.

Iohn. 1.And although Nicene counsell call Christ the lambe that taketh away the sins of the world, yet doth it not mean that by the sacrifice of the priest in the Masse, but by the sacrifice of himselfe vponupon the crosse. But here (according to your accustomed maner) you alter some wordes of the counsell, and adde also some of your owne, For the councell sayd not that the Lamb of God is sacrificed of the priests, not after the manner of other sacrifices: but that he is sacrificed not after the manner of a sacrifice.De conse. dist. 2. cap. Semel: & est prosperj. Semel Immolatus c. christus in semetipso. & tamen quotidie immolatur in sacramento. glosa ibidem. id est eius immolatio representatur & fit memoria passionis. And in saying, that Christ is sacrificed of the priest, not like a sacrifice, or after the maner of a sacrifice, the counsell in these wordes signified a difference betweene the sacrifice of the priest, and the sacrifice of Christ, which vponupon the Crosse offered himselfe to be sacrificed after the manner of a very sacrifice (that is to say vntounto death) for the sinnes of the world. Christ made the bloudy sacrifice, which tooke away sinne, the priest with the church make a commemoration thereof with laudes and thanksgeuing, offering also themselues obedient to God vntounto death. And yet this our sacrifice taketh not away our sinnes, nor is not accepted but by his sacrifice. The bleeding of him took away our sinnes, not the eating of him.

And although that Counsell say, that Christ is situate in that table, yet it sayth not that he is really and corporally in the bread and wine. For thē that counsell would not hauehave forbid vsus to direct our mindes to the breade and cup, if they had beleued that Christ had bene really there. But forasmuch as the counsell commaundeth, that we shall not direct our mindes downeward to the bread and cup, but lift them vp to Christ by fayth, they geue vsus to vnderstand by those wordes, that Christ is really and corporally ascended vp into heauen, vntounto which place we must lift vp our mindes, and reach him there by our fayth, and not looke downe to find him in the bread. And yet he is in the bread sacramentally, as the same counsel sayth, that the holy ghost is in the water of baptisme. And as Christ is in his supper present to feed vsus, so is he in baptisme present to clothe and apparell vsus with his owne selfe, as the same counsell declareth, whose words be these: He that is baptised, goeth downe into the water, being subiect to sinne, and held in the bands of corruption, but he riseth vp free from bōdage and sinne, being made by the grace of God his sonne and heir, and coinheritor with Christ, and apparelled with Christ himself as it is written: As many of you as be baptised vntounto Christ, you hauehave put Christ vponupon you. These wordes of the counsell I reherse onelyonly in english,Gal. 3. because I wil not let nor encōber the reader with the greeke or latine (as you do) which is nothing els but to reherse one thing thrise, without need or profit. If I had list, I could hauehave rehersed all the greek authors in greek, and the latine writers in latine, but vntounto english men (vntounto whom onelyonly I write) it were a vain labour or glory, without fruit or profyte, or any other cause, except I entended to make my booke long for gayne of the printer, rather then for profit to the reader.

But to returne to the matter, Christ is present in his holy supper (as that holy Councell sayth) euen as he is present in Baptisme, but not really, carnally, corporally, and naturally, as you without ground imagine.

And if he were to present, yet is he not there sacrificed agayne for sinne. For then were his first sacrifice vponupon the Crosse in vayne, if it sufficed not therefore.

And as for Dionyse, Irenee, Tertullian, with all your other authors, I hauehave aunswered them in the thirtenth chapiter of this my laste booke. And what need you make an issue in this thing which is not in controuersy, and which I affirme in my whole last booke? The matter in question, is of the sacrifice propitiatory, and you make your issue of the sacrifyce generally. Now let vsus see how you intreat Petrus Lombardus.Petrus Lombardus.

Winchester.

For the other poynt in that the author approueth the iudgemēt of Petrus Lombardus in the matter, what should I more doe, but write in the wordes of Petrus Lombardus as he hath them which he these in the fourth booke the xii. chapter alleadged by the author Post haec quaeritur, si quod gerit sacerdos, proprie dicatur sacrisiciū, vel immolatio, & si Christus quotidie, vel immoletur semel tantum immolatus sit? Ad hoc breuiter dici potest, illud quod offertur & consecratur a sacerdote, vocari sacrificium & oblationem quia memoria est & representatio veri sacrificy & sanctae immolationis factae in ara crucis & semel Christus mortuus in cruce est, ibi que immolatus est in semetipso, quotidie autē immolatur in sacramēto, quia in sacramento recordatio fit illius, quod factum est semel vnde Augustin. Certum habemus, quia Christus resurgens ex mortus iam non moritur. &c. tamen ne obliniscamur, quod semel factum est, in memoria nostra omn … fit, sclicet quādo pascha celebratur. Nunquid totiens Christus occiditur? sed tantū aniu… … …ecordatio representat quod olim factū est, & sic nos facit moueri tāquā videamus Domin… … …uce: Itē semel immolatus est Christus in semetipso,Immolatur. 71 ante. & tamē quotidie immolatur in sacram…. Quod sic intilligendū est: quia in manifestatione corporis & distinctione membrorū, semel tanti in cruce pependit, offerēs se Deo patri hostiā redēptionis efficacem, eorū scilicet, quos praedestinauit. Item Ambrosius. In Christo semel oblata est hostia ad salutē potes, quid ergo nos? Nonne per singulos dies offerimus? Fae si quotidie offeramus, ad recordationem eius mortis fit, & vna est hostia, non multae: quomodo vna & nō multae, quia semel immolatus est Christus. Hoc autē sacrificium exemplum est illius, idipsum, & semper idipsum offertur, proinde hoc idem est sacrificium, alioquin dicetur quoniam in multis locis offertur, multi sunt Christi, non sed vnus vbi que , est Christus, & hic plenus existens, & illic plenus, sicut quod vbi que offertur vnum est corpus, ita & vnum sacrificium. Christus hostiam obtulit, ipsam offerimus & nūc, sed quod nos agimus recordatio est sacrificij: Nec causa suae infirmitatis reperitur, quia per ficit hominem, sed nostrae, quia quotidie peccamus. Ex his colligitur esse sacrificium & dici quod agitur in altari, & Christum semel oblatū & quotidie offerri, sed aliter tunc, aliter munc…et etiam quae sit virtus huius sacramenti ostenditur: remissio scilicet peccatorum venalium, & perfectio virtutis. The English hereof is this. After this it is asked whether that the Priest doth, may be sayd properly a sacrifice or immolation: and whether Christ be dayly immolate or onelyonly once? Whereunto it may be shortlye aunswered, that which is offered and consecrate of the priest, is called a sacrifice and oblation, because it is a memory and representation of the true sacrifice and holye immolation done in the aultar of the crosse. And Christ was once dead on the crosse, and there was offered in himselfe, but he is dayly immolate in the sacrament, because in the sacrament there is made a memory of that is once done. Whereupon S. Augustine. We are assured that christ rising from death dieth not now, &c. Yet least we should forget that is once done, in our memory eueryevery yere is done, videl, as often as the pascha, is celebrate, is Christ as often killed? onelyonly a yerely remembraunce, representeth that was once done, and so causeth vsus to be moued as though we saw our Lord on the crosse. Also Christ was once offered in himselfe, and is offered dayly in the sacrament, which is thus to be vnderstāded, that in open shewyng of his body and distinction of his mē bers he did hang onelyonly once vponupon the crosse, offering himselfe to God the father an host of redemption effectuall for them whome he hath predestinate. Also S. Ambrose: In Christ the host was once offred being of power to helth, what do we then? doe we not offer eueryevery day? and if we offer eueryevery day, it is done to the remembraunce of the death of him, and the host is one, not many. How one and not many? because Christ is once offered, this sacrifice is the example of that, the same, and alwayes the same is offered, therfore this is the same sacrifice. Or els it may be sayd, because offering is in many places, there be many Christes, which is not so, but one Christ is ech where, and here ful, and there full, so as that which is offered eueryevery where, is one body, and so also one sacrifice: Christ hath offered the host, we do offer the same also now: But what we do, is a remembraunce of the sacrifice. Nor there is no cause found of the owne inualidity, because it perfiteth the man, but of vsus, because we dayly sinne: Hereof it is gathered that to be a sacrifice and to be so called that is done in the alter, and Christ to be once offered and dayly offered, but otherwise then, and otherwise now, and also it is shewed what is the vertue of this Sacrament, that is to say, remission of veniall sinne and perfection of vertue.

Thus writeth Petrus Lombardus, whose iudgement because this author alloweth, he must graunt that the visible church hath Priestes in ministery, that offer dayly Christes most precious body and bloud in mistery, and then must it be graunted, that Christ so offered himselfe in his supper. For otherwise then he did cannot now be done. And by the iudgement of Petrus Lombardus, the same most precious body and bloud is offered dayly, that once suffered and was once shed. And also by the same Petrus iudgement, which he confirmeth with the saying of other, this dayly offering by the priest is daylye offered for sin, not for any imperfection in the first offering, but because wee daylye fall. And by Petrus iudgement appeareth also how the priest hath a speciall functiō to make this offering, by whose mouth god is prayed vntounto (as Hesychius sayth) to make this sacrifice, which Emissene noteth to be wrought by the great power of the inuisible priest. By Petrus Lombardus also, if his iudgement be true (as it is in deed, and the author cō fesseth it so to be) that is done in the aultar is not onelyonly called a sacrifice, but also is so, & the same that is offered once and dayly to be the same but otherwise then and otherwise now. But to the purpose, if the author will stand to the iudgement of Petrus Lombardus, all his fift booke of this treaty is clerely defaced. And if he will now call backe that agayne, he might more compendeously do the same in the whole treatise, being so far ouerseene as he is therein.

Caunterbury.

HOw is it possible, to set out more playnely the diuersity of the true sacrifice of Christ made vponupon the aulter of the crosse (which was the propitiation of sinne) from the sacrifice made in the sacrament, then Lombardus hath done in this place? For the one he calleth the true sacrifice, the other he calleth but a memoriall or representation thereof, likening the sacrifice made in the lordes supper to a yeares mind or anniuersary, wherat is made a memoriall of the death of a person, and yet it is not his death indeed. So in the Lords supper according to his commaundement we remember his death, preaching and commending the same vntill his return agayne at the last day.

And although it be one Christ,The diuersity of Christes sacrifice and ours. The sacrifice of Christ. that died for vsus, and whose death we remember, yet it is not one sacrifice that he made of himselfe vponupon the crosse and that we make of him vponupon the alter or table. For his sacrifice was the redemption of the world, ours is not so: his was death, ours is but a remē braunce thereof. Hys was the taking away the shines of the world, ours is a praising and thanking for the same, and therefore his was satisfactory, ours is gratulatory. It is but one christ y^t was offred thē & y^t is offred now, yet the offeringes be diuers, his was the thing, and ours is the figure. His was the originall and ours is as it were a patterne. Therefore concludeth Lombardus, that Christ was otherwise offered then and otherwise now. And seing then that the offeringes and sacrifices be diuers, if the first was propitiatory and satisfactory, ours cannot be so, except we shall make many sacrifices propitiatory. And then as S. Paule reasoneth, either the first must be insufficient, or the other in vayne.Heb. 7.8. And as Christ onelyonly made thys propitiatory sacrifice, so he made but one, and but once. For the making of any other, or of the same agayne, should hauehave beene (as S. Paule reasoneth) a reprouing of the first, as vnperfect and insufficient.Heb. 7.8. And therefore at his last supper although Christ made vntounto his father sacrifices of lauds and thankesgeuing (as these wordes foreign and foreign do declare) yet he made there no sacrifice propitiatory, for then either the sacrifice vponupon the crosse had bene voyd, or the sacrifice at the supper vnperfect, and vnsufficient. And although he had at his supper made sacrifices propitiatory, yet the priests do not so, who do not the same that Christ did at his supper. For he ministred not the sacrament in remembrannce of his death (which was not then brought to passe) but he ordained it to be ministred of vsus in remembraunce thereof. And therfore our offering after Lombardus iudgement, is but & remembraunce of that true offering wherein Christ offered himselfe vponupon the crosse. And so did Christ institute it to be.

And Lombardus sayth not that Christ is dayly offered for proportion of our sinnes,The sacrifice of the church. but because we dayly sinne, wee dayly bee put in the remembraunce of Christes death, which is the perfect proportion for sinne. And the priest (as Lombardus sayth) maketh a memoriall of that oblation of Christ, and (as Hesechius sayth) he doth in the name of the people, so that the sacrifice is no more the priestes then the peoples. For the priestes speak the wordes, and the people should aunswere (amen) as Iustinus sayth. The priest should declare the death and passion of Christ, and all the people should looke vponupon the crosse in the mount of Caluary, & see Christ there hanging, and the bloud flowing out of his side into theyr wounds to heale all their sores, and the priest and people altogether should laud and thanke instantly the Chyrurgion and Phiscycion of their soules. And this is the priestes and peoples sacrifice, not to be propitiators for sinne, (but as Emissene sayth) to worship continually in mistery, that was but once offered for the price of sinne: and this shortly is the mind of Lombardus, that the thing which is done at gods boord is a sacrifice, & so is that also which was made vponupon the crosse, but not after one manner of vnderstanding. For this was the thing in deed, and that is the anniuersary or commemoration of the thing.

And now hauehave I made it euident, that Petrus Lombardus defaceth in no poynt my saying of the sacrifice, but confirmeth fully my doctrine, aswell of the sacrifice propitiatory made by Christ himselfe onelyonly, as of the sacrifice cōmemoratiue and gratulatory made by the preists and people. So that in your issue taken vponupon Lombard, the verdit cannot but passe wyth me, by the testimony of Lombard himselfe. And yet I do not fully allow Lombardes iudgement in all matters (who with Gratian his brother as it is sayd) were ij. chiefe champiōs of the Romish sea, to spread abroad their errours and vsurped authority) but I speake of Lombard onelyonly to declare that yet in his tyme they had not cited so farre, to make of theyr was a sacrifice propitiatory. But in the end of this processe Lōbard speaketh with out the booke, when he concludeth this matter thus: that the virtue of this sacrament is the remission of veniall sin, and perfection of vertue, which if Lombard vnderstand of the sacrifice of Christ, it is to little, to make hys sacrifice the remission but of veniall sin: And if he vnderstand it of the sacrifice of the priest, it is to much to make the priests sacrifice, either the perfection of vertue, or the remission of veniall sinne, which be the effects onelyonly of the sacrifice of Christ. Now let vsus consider the rest of your confutation.

Winchester.

The catholicke doctrine teacheth not the daily sacrifice of Christes most precious body and bloud to be an iteration of the once perfited sacrifice on the crosse, but a sacrifice that representeth that sacrifice, and sheweth it also before the faythfull eyes and refresheth the effectuall memory of it, so as in the dayly sacrifice without shedding of bloud, we may sée with the eye of fayth the very body and bloud of Christ by Gods mighty power, without diuision distinctly exhibits, the same body and bloud that suffered and was shed for vsus, which is a timely memoriall to stir vp our fayth and to consider therin briefly the great charity of God towardes vsus declared in Christ. The catholick doctrine teacheth the dayly sacrifice to be in the same in essence that was offered on the crosse once, assured therof by Christs wordes when he sayd: This is my body that shalbe betrayed for you. The offering on the crosse was and is propitiatory and satisfactory for our redemption and remission of sin whereby to destroy the tyranny of sinne, the effect whereof is geuen and dispensed in the sacrament of baptisme, once likewise ministred and neuer to be iterate, no more then Christ can be crucified agayne and yet by vertue of the same offering such as fall be releued in the sacrament of penaunce.

Caunterbury.

After you wilfull wrangling without any cause at the last of your own swing you come to the truth (purely and sincerely professing and setting forth the same) except in few wordes here and there cast in, as it were cockle among cleane corne. The offering on the crosse (say you) was and is propitiatory and satisfactory for our redemption and remission of sin, the effect whereof is geuen and dispensed in the sacrament of baptisme once likewise ministred and neuer to be iterate, but the catholick doctrine teacheth not that the dayly sacrifice is an iteration of the once perfited sacrifice on the crosse, but a representation thereof, shewing it before the faith full eies, and refreshing our memory therewith, so that we may see with y^e eie of faith the very body and bloud of Christ, by gods mighty power exhibite vntounto vsus, the same body and bloud that suffered and was shed for vsus, This is a godly and catholicke doctrine, but of the cokcle (which you cast in by the way) of distinction without diuision, I cannot tell what you meane, except you speak out your dreames more playnely. And that it is the same body in substaunce, that is dayly (as it were) offered by remembraunce, which was once offered in the Crosse for sinne, we learne not so playnly by these wordes, This is my body, Hoc. est corpus meum, Actes. 1.as we do by these: Hic Iesus assumptus est in coelum, and Qui descendit, ipse est & qui ascendit suprae omnes coelos: Ephe. 4.This Iesus was taken vp into heauen, and he that descended was the same Iesus that ascended aboue all the heauens.

And where you say that by vertue of Christes sacrifice such as fal be releued in the Sacrament of penaunce,Penaunce. the truth is, that such as do fall be releued by Christ, when so euer they returne to him vnfaynedly with hart and mynde. And as for your wordes concernyng the Sacrament of penaunce, may hauehave a Popishe vnderstandyng in it. But at length you returne to your former errour, and goe about to reuoke, or at the least, euill fauoredly to expounde, that which you hauehave before well spoken. Your wordes be these.

Winchester.

The dayly offeryng is propitiatory also,The Masse is a sacrifice propitiatory. but not in that degrée of propitiation: As for redemption, regeneration or remission of deadly sinne, which was once purchased, & by force therof is in the Sacramentes ministred, but for the increase of Gods fauour the mitigation of Gods displeasure prouoked by our infirmities, the subduyng of temptations and the perfection of vertue in vsus. All good workes, good thoughtes and good meditations may be called sacrifices,Good woorkes sacrifices propitiatory. and the same be called sacrifices propitiatorie also, for so much as in their degrée God accepteth and taketh them through the effect and strength of the very sacrifice of Christes death, which is the reconciliation betwene God and mā, ministred & dispensed particularly as God hath appointed, in such measure as he knoweth. But S. Paule to the Hebrues exhortyng men to charitable déedes sayth: with such sacrifices God is made fauorable, or God is propitiate, if we shall make new Englishe. Whereupon it foloweth, bycause the Priest in the dayly sacrifice doth as Christ hath ordered to be done for she wyng forth and remembraunce of Christes death, that act of the Priest done accordyng to Gods commaundement, must néedes be propitiatory and prouoke Gods fauour, and ought to be trusted on to hauehave a propitiatory effect with God to the members of Christes body particularly, beyng the same done for the whole body, in such wise as God knoweth the dispēsation to be méete & conuenient, accordyng to which measure, God worketh most iustly and most mercyfully, otherwise then man can by his iudgement discusse & determine.The Masse is a sacrifice satisfactory. To call the dayly offeryng a sacrifice satisfactory, must hauehave an vnderstandyng that signifieth not the action of the Priest, but the presence of Christes most precious body and bloud the very sacrifice of the world once perfectly offered beyng propitiatorie and satisfactorie for all the world, or els the worde satisfactorie must hauehave a signification and meanyng, as it hath sometyme that declareth the acceptation of the thyng done, and not the propre contreuaile of the action, after which sort man may satisfie God that is so mercyfull as he will take in good worth for Christes sake mās imperfect endeuour, and so the dayly offering may be called a sacrifice satisfactory, bicause God is pleased with it, beyng a maner of worshyppyng of Christes passion accordyng to his institution. But otherwise the dayly sacrifice in respect of the action of the Priest called satisfactorie, and it is a word in déede that soundeth not well so placed, although it might be saued by a signification, and therfore thinke that word rather to be well expounded, then by captious vnderstandyng brought in slaunder when it is vsed, and this speach to be frequented that the onelyonly immolat…on of Christ in him selfe vponupon the aultar of the Crosse is the very satisfactorie Sacrifice for reconciliation of mankynde to the fauour of God. And I hauehave read the dayly sacrifice of Christes most precious body to be called a Sacrifice satisfactorie, but this speach hath in déede bene vsed, that the Priest should sing satisfactorie, which they vnderstode in the satisfaction of the Priestes duety, to attend he prayer the was required to make, and for a distinction therof they had prayer sometyme required without speciall limitation, and that was called to pray not satisfactorie. Finally in man by any his action to presume to satisfie God by way of counteruaile, is a very mad and furious blasphemy.

Caunterbury.

TO defend the Papisticall errour, that the dayly offering of the Priest in the Masse is propitiatory, you extend the word Propitiation other wise then the Apostles do, speakyng of that matter. I speake playnly (accordyng to S. Paule and S. Iohn) that onelyonly Christ is the propitiation for our sinnes by his death.Rome. 3. 1. Iohn. 2. The difference betwene a sacrifice propitiatory & gratificatory. You speake accordyng to the Papistes, that the Priestes in their Masses make a sacrifice propitiatory. I call a sacrifice propitiatory (accordyng to the Scripture) such a sacrifice as pacifieth Gods indignation agaynst vsus, obteineth mercy and forgiuenes of all our sinnes, and is our raunsome and redemption from euerlastyng damnation. And on the other side I call a sacrifice gratificatory of the sacrifice of the Church, such a sacrifice as doth not reconcile vsus to God, but is made of them that be reconciled to testifie their dueties, and to shewe them selues thankefull vntounto him. And these sacrifices in Scripture be not called propitiatory, but sacrifices of Iustice, of laude, prayse and thankes geuyng. But you confounde the wordes,Psal. 49. Heb. 13. and call one by an others name, callyng that propitiatory whiche the Scripture calleth but of Iustice, laude and thankyng. And all is nothyng els but to defend your propitiatory sacrifice of the Priestes in their Masses, whereby they may remit sinne, and redeeme soules out of Purgatory.

And yet all your wyles and shiftes will not serue you, for by extendyng the name of a propitiatory sacrifice vntounto so large a signification as you do, you make all maner of Sacrifices propitiatory, leauyng no place for any other sacrifice. For (say you) all good deedes and good thoughtes be Sacrifices propitiatorie, and then be the good workes of the lay people Sacrifices propitiatorie, as well as those of the Priest. And to what purpose then made you in the begynnyng of this booke a distinction betwene sacrifices propitiatorie and other? Thus for desire you hauehave to defend the Papisticall errours, you hauehave not fallen onelyonly into imaginations contrary to the truth of Gods word, but also contrary to your selfe.

But let passe away these Papisticall inuentions, and let vsus humbly professe ourselues with all our Sacrifices, not worthy to approche vntounto God, nor to hauehave any accesse vntounto him, but by that onelyonly propitiatorie sacrifice, which Christ onelyonly made vponupon the Crosse. And yet let vsus with all deuotion, with whole hart and mynde, and with all obedience to Gods will, come vntounto the heauenly Supper of Christ, thankyng him onelyonly for propitiation of our sinnes. In which holy Communion the act of the Minister and other be all of one sort, none propitiatorie, but all of laudes and thankes geuyng. And such sacrifices be pleasaunt and acceptable to God (as S. Paule sayth) done of them that be good,Rom. 3. &. 5. Actes. 4. but they winne not his fauour, and put away his indignation from them that be euill. For such reconciliation can no creature make but Christ alone.

And where you say, that to call the dayly offeryng a sacrifice satisfactorie, must hauehave an vnderstādyng that signifieth not the action of the priest: here you may see what a businesse and hard worke it is, to patch the Papistes ragges together, and what absurdities you fall into thereby. Euen now you sayd, that the acte of the Priestes must needes bee a Sacrifice propitiatorie, and now to hauehave an vnderstandyng for the same; you bee driuen to so shamefull a shift, that you say either cleane contrary that it is not the action of the Priest but the presence of Christ, or els that the action of the Priest is none otherwise satisfactorie then all other Christen mens workes be. For otherwise (say you) the dayly Sacrifice in respect of the action of the Priest, can not be called satisfactorie. Wherefore at length, knowledgyng your Popish doctrine to sound euill fauoredly, you confesse agayne the true Catholicke teachyng, that this speach is to be frequented and vsed, that the onelyonly immolation of Christ in him selfe vponupon the aultar of the Crosse, is the very satisfactorie Sacrifice for reconciliation of mankynde to the fauour of God.

And where you say, that you hauehave not read the dayly sacrifice of Christs most precious body to be called a sacrifice satisfactory: if you hauehave not read of satisfactory Masses, it appeareth that you hauehave read but very little of the Schoole Authours. And yet not many yeares agoe, you might hauehave heard them preached in eueryevery pardon. But because you hauehave not read therof, read Doctour Smithes booke of the sacrifice of the Masse, and both your eares and eyes shalbe full of it. Whose furious blasphemies you hauehave with one sentēce here most truely reiected, wherfore yet remaineth in you some good sparkes of the spirit, that you so much detest such abhominatiō.

And yet such blasphemies you go about to salue and playster,Satisfactory Masses. as much as you may, by subtle and crafty interpretations. For by such exposition as you make of the satisfactory singyng of the Priest, in doyng his duetie in that he was required to do, by this exposition he singeth aswell satisfactory in saying of Mattens as in saying of Masse (for in both he doth his duetie that he required vntounto) and so might it be defended that the Player vponupon the Orgaines playeth satisfactory, when he doth his duety, in playing as he is required. And all the singyng men in the Church that hauehave wages thereto, sing satisfactory aswell as the Priestes, when they sing accordyng to that they be hyered vntounto. And then as one singyng man or player on the Orgaines, receauyng a stipende of many men to play or sing at a certaine tyme if he do his duety, satisfieth them all at once, so might a priest sing satisfactory for many persons at one tyme, which the teachers of satisfactory Masses vtterly condemne. But if you had read Duns, you would hauehave written more Clerkely in these matters, then you now do. Now let vsus heare what you say further.

Winchester.

Where the Authour cityng S. Paul Englisheth him thus, that Christes Priesthode can not passe from him to an other. These wordes thus framed be not the simple and sincere expression of the truth of the text. Whiche sayth, that Christ hath a perpetuall Priesthode, and the Gréeke hath a word (foreign) which the Gréek Schooles expresse and expounde by the word (foreign) signifiyng the Priesthode of Christ endeth not in him to go to an other by succession as in the tribe of Leui, wher was amōg mortal men succession in the office of Priesthode, but Christ liueth euer, and therfore is a perpetuall euerlastyng Priest, by whose authoritie Priesthode is now in this visible Church as S. Paule ordered to Timothe and Tite, and other places also confirme, which Priestes visible Ministers to our inuisible Priest offer the dayly Sacrifice in Christes Churche,Priestes in the Mas offer that is, shewed forth Christes death. that is to say, with the very presence by Gods omnipotencie wrought of the most precious body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ, shewyng forth Christes death, and celebratyng the memory of his Supper and death accordyng to Christes institution, so with dayly oblation and sacrifice of the selfe same Sacrifice, to kindle in vsus a thankeful remē braunce of all Christes benefites vntounto vsus.

Caunterbury.

Heb. 7.VVHere you find your selfe greued with my citing of S. Paul that Christes priesthood cannot passe from him to another, which is not (say you) the truth of the text, which meaneth that the Priesthood of Christ endeth not in him to go to an other by succession: your manner of speach herein is so darke, that it geueth no light at all. For it semeth to signify, that Christes priesthood endeth, but not to goe to other by succession, but by some other meanes, which thing if you meane, then you make the endles priesthood of Christ to hauehave an end. And if you mean it not, but that Christs priesthood is endles, and goeth to no other by succession, nor other wise, then I pray you what hauehave I offended in saying, that Christs priesthood cannot passe from him to an other? And as for the greeke wordes (foreign) and (foreign) signify any manner of succession, whether it be by inheritance, adoption, election, purchase, or any other meanes. And he that is instituted and inducted into a benefice after an other, is called his successor. And Erasmus calleth foreign quod in alium transire non potest. And so doth foreign signify quod successione caret. That is to say, a thing that hath no succession nor passeth to none other. And because Christ is a perpetuall and euerlasting priest (that by one oblation made a full sacrifice of sinne for euer) therfore his priesthood, neither nedeth nor can passe to any other: wherefore the ministers of Christes church, be not now appoynted priests to make a new sacrifice for sinne (as tho Christ had not done that at once sufficiently for euer,) but to preach abroad Christes sacrifice, and to be ministers of his wordes and sacramentes. And where but a little before you had truely taught, that the onelyonly Immolation of Christ by himselfe vponupon the alter of the crosse, is the very satisfactory sacrifice for our reconciliation to God, now in the end (like a Cow that casteth downe her milke with her owne feete) you ouerthrow all agayne in few wordes, saying that priests make dayly the selfe same sacrifice that Christ made, which is so foul an errour and blasphemy, that (as I sayd in mine other book) if the priests daily make the selfe same sacrifice, that Christ did himselfe, and the sacrifice that he made was his death and the effusion of his most precious bloud vponupon the crosse, then followeth of necessity, that eueryevery day the priestes slea Christ and shed his bloud, and be worse then the Iewes that did it but once. Now followeth in your confutation thus.

Winchester.

And where the author would auoyd all the testimony of the fathers by pretence it should be but a manner of speach, the Canon of the Councell of Nice before rehersed and the wordes of it, where misteries be spoken of in proper termes for doctrine, auoydeth all that shift, and it hath no absurdity to confesse that Christ in his supper did institute for a remembraunce of the onelyonly sacrifice the presence of the same most precious substaunce to be (as the Canon of the Counsell in proper teacheth) sacrificed by the Priestes,Christ is offred really not his sacrifice remembred or represented onelyonly. to bée the pure sacrifice of the Church there offered for the effect of increase of life in vsus, as it was offered on the Crosse to atcheue life vntounto vsus. And S. Cyril who for his doctrine was in great authority with the counsell Ephesine, writeth the very body and bloud of christ to be the liuely and vnbloudy Sacrifice of the church, as like wise in the old church other commōly termed the same and among other Chrisostome, whom the author would now hauehave semed to vse it but for a manner of speach, which in déed Chrysostome doth not, but doth truly open the vnderstāding of y^t is done in the church, wherin by this sacrifice done after the order of Melchisedech, Christes death is not iterate but a memory dayly renewed of that death, so as Christes offering on the Crosse once done and consummate to fynish all sacrifyces after the order of Aaron, is now onelyonly remembred according to Christes institution, but in such wise as the same body is offered dayly on the alter, that was once offered on the alter of the Cros, but the same manner of offering is not dayly, that was on the aulter of the Cros, for the dayly offering is without bloudshed, and is termed so to signify that bloudshedding once done to be sufficient. And as Chrisostome openeth it by declaration of what manner our sacrifice is, that is to say, this dayly offering to be a remembraunce of the other manner of sacrifice once done, and therefore sayth rather we make a remembraunce of it. This saying of Chrisostome doth not empayre his former wordes where he sayth, the host is the same offered on the cros and on the aulter, and therefore by him the body of Christ that died but once is dayly present in déed, and (as the councell of Nice sayth) sacrificed not after the manner of other sacrifices and (as chrisostome sayth) offered, but the death of that precious body onelyonly dayly remembred and not agayne iterate.

Caunterbury.

FOr aunswere hereto, reade the xiij. chapter of my fifte booke,The effect of Christes sacrifice is both to geue life and to continue the same. and that which I hauehave written here a little before of Nicene councel. And where you say that the effect of the sacrifice of Christes body, made by the Priestes, is to increase life in vsus: as the effecte of the sacrifice of the same bodye made by himselfe vponupon the crosse is to geue life vntounto vsus, this is not onelyonly an absurdity, but also an intollerable blasphemy agaynst Christ. For the sacrifice made vponupon the crosse doth both geue vsus life, and also encrease and continue the same, and the priestes oblation doth neither of both. For our redemption and eternall saluation standeth not onelyonly in geuing vsus life, but in continuing the same for euer.Ihon. 10. As Christ sayd that he came not onelyonly to geue vsus life, but also to make vsus increase and abound therein. And S. Paule sayd:Gala. 2. The life which I now liue in flesh, I liue by the fayth of the sonne of God, who loued me and gaue himselfe for me. And therefore if we hauehave the one by the oblation of Christ, and the other by the oblation of the priest, then deuide we our saluation betwene Christ and the priest. And because it is no lesse gift to continue life for euer, then to geue it vsus, by thys your mad and furious blasphemy, we hauehave our saluation and redemption asmuch by the sacrifice made by the priest, as wee hauehave by sacrifice made by Christ himselfe. And thus you make Christ to be like an vnkind and vnnatural mother who whē she hath brought forth her child, putteth it to an other to nurse, and maketh her self but half the mother of it. And thus you teach christen people to halte on both sides, partly worshipping God, and partly Baall, partly attributing our saluation to Christ the true perfect eternall priest, and partly to Antichrist and his priestes.

And concerning Cyril,Cyril in Ephesine counsell. he speaketh not of a sacrifice propitiatory in that place, as I hauehave more playnely declared in mine aunswere to Doctour Smithes prologue.

And whereas you call the dayly sacrifice of the church an vnbloudy sacrifice,What is and wherin stādeth the sacrifice of the church. here it were necessary (if you would not deceiue simple people, but teach them such doctrine as they may vnderstand) that you should in playne termes set forth and declare, what the dayly offering of the priest without bloud shedding is, in what wordes, deedes, crosses, signes, or gestures it standeth, and whether it be made before the consecration or after & before the distribution of the sacrament or after, and wherein chiefly resteth the very pith and substaunce of it. And when you hauehave thus done, I will say you meane franckly, and walke not colourably in cloaked words not vnderstanded, and then also shall you be more fully aunswered, when I know better what you meane. And to Chrysostome needeth no further aunswere, then I hauehave made already, in the xiij. chapter of my fifte book. But let vsus heare the rest of your booke.

Winchester.

And where the author sayth the old fathers calling the supper of our Lord a sacrifice, ment a Sacrifice of laud and thanksgeuing. Hippinus of Hamborugh no Papist, in hys booke dedicate to the kinges Maiesty that now is, fayth otherwise and noteth how the old fathers called it a Sacrifice propitiatory, for the very presence of Christes most precious body there (thus sayth he) which presence all Christen men must say, requireth on our part lauds and thanksgeuing, which may be and is called in Scripture by the name of Sacrifice, but that Sacrifice of our laudes and thankes, cannot be a Sacrifice geuing life,The sacrifice of the church geueth life. as it is noted by Cyril the sacrifice of the church to do, when he sayth it is (vinificum) which can be onelyonly sayd of the very body and bloud of Christ. Nor our sacrifice of laudes and thankesgeuing cannot be sayd, a pure and cleane Sacrifice whereby to fulfill the prophecy of Malachy, and therefore the same prophecy was in the beginning of the Church vnderstanded to be spoken of the dayly offering of the body and bloud of Christ for the memory of Christes death, according to Christes ordinaunce in his supper, as may at more length be opened and declared. Thinking to the effect of this booke sufficient to hauehave encountred the chiefe poyntes of the authors doctrine with such contradiction to thē as the Catholique doctrine doth of necessity require, the more particuler confutation of that is vntrue on the aduersary part, and confirmation of that is true in the Catholique doctrine, requiring more tyme and leysure then I hauehave now, and therefore offering my selfe ready by mouth or writing to say further in this matter as shalbe required. I shall here end for this time, with prayer to almighty God, to graunt his truth, to be acknowledged and confessed, and vniformely to be preached and beleued of al, so as all contention for vnderstanding of religion auoyded which hindereth Charity, we may geue suche light abroad as men may see our good workes and glorify our father who is in heauen with the sonne and holy ghost in one vnity of godhead reigning without end.

Amen.

Caunterbury.

HIpinus sayth, that the old fathers called the Supper of our Lord a sacrifice: but that the old fathers should call it a sacrifice propitiatory I will not beleue that Hipinus so sayd, vntill you appoint me both the booke and place, where he so sayth. For the effect of his booke is cleane contrary, which he wrote to reproue the propitiatory sacrifice, which the Papistes fayne to be in the Masse. Thus in deede Hipinus writeth in one place: Veteres Eucharistiam propter corporis & sanguinis Christipraesentiam, primo vocauerunt sacrificium, deinde propter oblationes & munera quae in ipsa Eucharistia Deo consecrabantur & conferebantur ad sacraministeria, & ad necessitatem credentium. In which wordes Hipinus declareth, that the old Fathers called the Supper of our Lord a sacrifice for two consideratiōs, one was for the present of Christes flesh and bloud, the other was for the offerynges which the people gaue there of their deuotion to the holy ministratiō and reliefe of the poore. But Hipinus speaketh here not one word of corporall presence, nor of propitiatory Sacrifice, but generally of presence and sacrifice, which maketh nothyng for your purpose, nor agaynst me, that graunt both a presence and a sacrifice. But when you shall shew me the place, where Hipinus sayth, that the old Fathers called the Lordes Supper a propitiatory sacrifice, I shall trust you the better, and him the worse.

And as for Cyrill,Cyrill. if you will say of his head, that the Sacrifice of the Church giueth life, how agreeth this with your late saying, that the sacrifice of the Church increaseth lyfe, as the sacrifice on the Crosse giueth lyfe? And if the Sacrifice made by the Priest both geue lyfe and encrease lyfe, then is the Priest both the mother and nurse, and Christ hath nothyng to do with vsus at all, but as a straunger.

And the sacrifice that Malachie speaketh of,Mala. 1. is the sacrifice laud and thankes, which all deuoute Christian people geue vntounto God, whether it be in the Lordes Supper, in their priuate Prayers, or in any worke they do at any tyme or place to the glory of God, all which Sacrifices, not of the Priestes onelyonly, but of all faythfull people, be accepted of God through the sacrifice of Christ, by whose bloud, all their filthy and vnpurenes is cleane sponged away.

But in this last booke,Inconstancy. it seemeth you were so astonied and amased, that you were at your wits end, & wist not where to become. For now the Priest maketh a Sacrifice propitiatory, now he doth not: now he giueth lyfe, now he giueth none: now is Christ the full Sauiour and satisfaction, now the Priest hath halfe part with him: now the Priest doth all. And thus you are so inconstant in your selfe, as one that had bene netteled, and could rest in no place, or rather as one that had receaued such a stroke vponupon his head, that hee staggered with all, and reeled here and there, and could not tell where to become.

And your doctrine hath such ambiguities, such perplexities, such absurdities, and such impieties in it, and is so vncertaine, so vncomfortable, so contrary to Gods word and the old Catholicke Church, so contrary to it selfe, that it declareth from whose spirite it commeth, which can be none other but Antichrist him selfe.

Where as on the other side the very true doctrine of Christ and his pure Church from the begynnyng, is playne, certaine, without wrynkels, without any inconuenience or absurditie, so chearefull and comfortable to all Christen people, that it must needes come from the spirite of God, the spirite of truth and all consolation. For what ought to be more certaine and knowen to all Christen people, then that Christ dyed once and but once, for the redemption of the world? And what can be more true, then that his onelyonly death is our lyfe? And what can be more comfortable to a penitent sinner that is sory for his sinne, and returneth to God in his hart and whole mynde, then to know that Christ dischargeth him of the heauy lode of his sinne, and taketh the burden vponupon his owne backe? And if we shall ioyne the Priest herein to Christ in any part, and giuegive a portion hereof to his sacrifice (as you in your doctrine giuegive to the priest the one halfe at the least) what a discourage is this to the penitent sinner, that he may not hang wholly vponupon Christ? what perplexities and doubtes rise hereof in the sinners conscience? And what an obscuryng and darkenyng is this of the benefite of Christ? Yea what iniury and contumely is it to him?

And furthermore when we heare Christ speake vntounto vsus with his own mouth, and shew him selfe to be seen with our eyes (in such sorte as is conuenient for him of vsus in this mortall lyfe to be heard and sene:) what comfort can we hauehave more? The Minister of the Churche speaketh vntounto vsus Gods owne wordes, whiche we must take as spoken from Gods owne mouth, because that from his mouth it came, and his word it is, and not the Ministers. Likewise when he ministreth to our sightes Christes holy Sacramentes, we must thinke Christ crucified and presented before our eyes, because the Sacraments so represent him, and be his Sacraments and not the Priestes. As in Baptisme we must thinke, that as the Priest putteth his hand to the child outwardly, and washeth him with water, so must we thinke that God putteth to his hand inwardly and washeth the infant with his holy spirite, and moreouer that Christ him selfe commeth downe vponupon the child, & apparelleth him with his own selfe. And as at the Lordes holy Table the Priest distributeth wine & bread to feede the body, so we must thinke that inwardly by fayth, we see Christ feedyng both body and soule to eternall lyfe. What comfort can be deuised any more in this world for a Christē man? And on the other side, what discomfort is in your papisticall doctrine? what doubtes? what perplexities? what absurdities? what iniquities? what auayleth it vsus that there is no bread, nor wyne? or that Christ is really vnderunder the formes and figures of bread and wyne, and not in vsus? or if he be in vsus, yet he is but in the lippes or the stomacke, and tarieth not with vsus. Or what benefite is it to a wicked man to eate Christ, and to receaue death by him that is lyfe? From this your obscure, perplex, vncertaine, vncomfortable, deuilish, and Papisticall doctrine, Christ defend all his, and graunt that we may come often and worthely to Christes holy Table, to comfort our feeble and weake fayth, by remembraunce of his death, who onelyonly is the satisfaction and propitiation of our sinnes, and our meate, drinke and foode of euerlastyng lyfe. Amen.

Here endeth the Aunswere of the most Reuerend Father in God Thomas Archbyshop of Canterbury &c. vntounto the crafty and Sophisticall cauillation of Doct. Steuen Gardiner, deuised by him to obscure the true, sincere and godly doctrine of the most holy Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Sauiour CHRIST.

Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 5

p. 381THE CONFVTATION OF THE FIFTE BOOKE.

Caunterbury.

The fift Booke.

Winchester.

p. 382Caunterbury.

Winchester.

Caunterbury.

Winchester.

Caunterbury.

Winchester.

Caunterbury.

Winchester.

Caunterbury.

Winchester.

Caunterbury.

Winchester.

Caunterbury.

THE CONFVTATION OF THE FIFTE BOOKE.

Caunterbury.