A reioindre to M. Iewels replie against the sacrifice of the Masse. In which the doctrine of the answere to the .xvij. article of his Chalenge is defended, and further proued, and al that his replie conteineth against the sacrifice, is clearely confuted, and disproued. By Thomas Harding Doctor of Diuinitie.

Harding.

Whether my tooles be weake, as you ieast, or of good strength, let it be iudged by the strokes they geue, with which doubteles the heresie that ye sustaine aganst the outward and sigular Sacrifice of the Churche, is striken downe, and quite ouerthrowen. And the same tooles haue the chiefe Doctours and auncient Fathers of the Church vsed before me. By the tooles I meane, as you doo, the Figure of Melchisedech, and the Prophecie of Malachie: by which the doctrine of the Church concer∣ning the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe, is auouched. And here to enter into that special point, litle esteming your other impertinent talke, which you thinke toucheth my person, and wise men see helpeth not your cause: directing my wordes to the Reader, of whom I may conceiue better hope then I doo of you: thus I say.

The Argument which M. Iewel here maketh as on my behalfe, albeit to the learned, who knowe and vn∣derstand the circumstances of the figure of Melchise∣dech, and of the prophecie of Malachie, concludeth suf∣ficiently and fully: yet thou maist be wel assured good Reader, I would neuer my selfe haue proponed it so na∣kedly, and without any declaration of the necessary cir∣cumstances. Although there folow hereafter more pro∣per plac••s to open the figure of Melchisedech, and the

prophecie of Malachie, where I bring them in for proufe of this intent: yet bicause M. Iewel hath by preuention abruptly fallen into them, and to the ende noman be de∣ceiued by his cutted argument, which in deede is good, if the circumstances were not guilefully conceeled: here I thinke good to vtter some of those circumstances.

To beginne therfore with Melchisedech: It may please thee Reader to vnderstand, that he is recorded in the Scripture to be a Priest of God the highest.* 1.1 Then being a Priest, it behoued him to offer Sacrifice according vnto S. Paules doctrine,* 1.2 Euery Bishop (or Priest) taken from a∣mong men, is for men appointed in those thinges that belong to God to offer vp giftes and sacrifices for sinnes. What sacri∣fice then did he offer? He offered vp bread and wine, as Arnobius that auncient Father,* 1.3 beside sundry other Do∣ctours doth witnesse, notwithstanding the Scripture make plaine and expresse mention only of bringing forth bread and wine. His wordes be these. Christus per myste∣rium panis & vinisacerdos sactus est secundùm ordinē Mel∣chisedech,* 1.4 qui panem & vinum solus obtalit in sacerdotibus, dum Abraham Victor reuerteretur de praelio. By the myste∣rie of bread and wine Christ became a Priest after the or∣der of Melchisedech, who onely among the Priestes of∣fered bread and wine, when Abraham returned conque∣rour from bataile.* 1.5 This order (saith S. Cyprian speaking of the order of Melchisedech) is here comming of that sacri∣fice, (he meaneth Melchisedeks sacrifice) and descending from thens, that Melchisedech was the priest of the highest God, that he offered bread and wine, that he blessed Abrahā.

Here it is expressely affirmed, that Melchisedech offe∣red bread and wine, and moreouer that Christ by doing

the like, was made a Priest according to the order of the same Melchisedek.

That Christe at his Supper shewed him selfe a priest after the order of Melchisedek.

But when, and where did Christe beginne to shewe him selfe a Prieste in offering sacrifice after that Order? Verely at his last Supper: For of that he did vppon the Crosse, whereof the Sacrifice of the Supper taketh his merite, now I speake not. And that he did so at his laste Supper, S. Hierome in his Commentaries vpon the .26. chapter of S. Matthew, is an euident witnesse, where he saith thus.* 1.6 Post quam typicum Pascha fuerat impletum, & Agni carnes cum Apostolis comederat, assumit panem, qui confortat cor hominis, & ad verum Paschae transgreditur sa∣cramentum, vt quomodo in praefiguratione eius Melchisedech summi Dei sacerdos, panem & vinum offerens fecerat, ipse quoque veritatem sui corporis & sanguinis repraesentaret. After that the figuratiue Passeouer had ben fulfilled, and he had eaten with his Apostles the flesh of the Lambe, he tooke vnto him breade, that strengtheneth the harte of man, and passeth ouer vnto the true Sacrament of Passeo∣uer, that like as Melchisedech the Priest of the highest God had done in offering bread and wine in a foregoing figure of him: so he him selfe also might represent the truth of his body and bloude. Who can more plainely vtter this mater, then S. Hierome hath done in these wordes, expressely saying, that Christ executed in deede at his last Supper that Priesthode, which Melchisedech did prefigurate, when hauing taken bread, he represen∣ted, that is to say, presently exhibited, not the figure or signe, as Zuinglius and Oecolampadius teach, nor the po∣wer

and vertue, as Caluine teacheth, but the truth of his body and bloude.

* 1.7S. Cyprian speaking of that Christe did at his last Sup∣per, auoucheth the same thing with woordes of like ef∣fecte. Qui magis sacerdos Dei summi, quàm Dominus noster Iesus Christus, qui sacrificiū Deo patri obtulit, & obtulit hec idem, quod Melchisedech, id est, panē & vinū, suū scilicet corpus & sanguinem? Who is more a Priest of the highest God, then our Lorde Iesus Christe, who offered a Sacri∣fice of God the Father, and offered the same, that Mel∣chisedech did that is to wit, bread and wine, as much to say, his body and bloude.

Consider Reader, when Saint Cyprian had said, that Christe offered the same sacrifice that Melchisedech had offered, which was, bread and wine: least any man shoulde mistake his meaning, and thinke, that Christe offered none other, nor better thing, then breade and wine, and in so doing should not excel Melchisedech: he addeth an interpretation of his owne woordes, to wit, that although Christes offering appeared to be bread and wine, yet in deede it was his body and bloud. Wherefore if thou wilt acknowledge Christes excellē∣cie aboue Melchisedech, and folow the interpretation, that S. Cyprian putteth vpon his owne woordes: thou must beleue Christe and Melchisedech to offer one and the same thing in outward forme, and in mysterie or sa∣crament, but not one in substance and truth. The pre∣misses considered, it is most certaine, that Christ fulfil∣ling the figure of Melchisedech at his Maundie, offe∣red his body and bloude, that is to say, him sel••e vnto his Father.

Let vs go a steppe foreward,* 1.8 and consider one circum∣stance more, whereby it may appeare, that priestes also haue auctoritie to offer vp Christ vnto his Father. How wil that appeare? Forsooth bicause Christ, after that he had offered his body and bloude him selfe, and deliuered the same vnto his Apostles, gaue them withal a cōmaun∣dement to doo the same,* 1.9 saying, Doo ye this in remem∣brance of me.* 1.10 No man, be he neuer so great an enemie vnto the continual Sacrifice of the Churche, wil denie, but that the Apostles had a warrant geuen them by this commaundement requiring them to doo, that they had sene their Lorde and Maister to haue done before them. But it is proued already by sufficient authorities, that Christe at his Supper did offer his body and bloud vnto his Father: Ergo the Apostles had warrant to offer Christes bodie and bloude vnto God his Father.

Nowe let vs descende one steppe lower, and we shal come vnto the very point, at whiche M. Iewel vn∣learnedly, and wickedly maketh suche a woondering, as if it were a monstrous, and most dangerous pre∣sumption, which is, that a priest hath auctoritie to of∣fer vp Christe vnto his Father. It is therefore to be vnderstanded, that Christe gaue not this commaun∣dement, and through vertue of the same a warrant, to doo the thing he had him selfe done before vnto his A∣postles onely, but also vnto such as should succede them in office of Priesthode (whereunto they were admit∣ted by Christe at the maundie) to the worldes ende. Which truth S. Paule doth insinuate,* 1.11 where he spea∣keth of this blessed Sacrament, shewing that it must be celebrated in remembrance of his death vntil his

last comming. Where of this argument is easily gathered.

* 1.12Our lordes Supper is to be celebrated vntil his last comming. But that can not be performed, onlesse some succede the Apostles in the office, by vertue whereof it is done: Ergo it is necessary, that some succede the Apo∣stles in that office. The first proposition is proued by S. Paule. The second is manifest, bicause the Apostles, to whom the commaundement was geuen, were not to continue a liue in the Church vntil Christes second com∣ming. That commaundement therfore was geuen as wel vnto them who should succeede, as vnto the Apostles them selues: For that any should take vpon them to exe∣cute so high an office, who haue no commaundement thereto, or that the commaundement was geuen to al in general, it is to absurde to thinke.

To whom then hath this office ben cōmitted? By what name haue these successours ben called?* 1.13 Verely it hath ben cōmitted to the Priestes of the Church, and to none els. Of this special calling and cōdition of certaine, S. Hie∣rome geueth vs an euident witnes, saying. Absit vt de ijs quicquam sinist rum loquar, qui Apostolico gradui succedētes, Christi corpus sacro ore conficiunt, per quos & nos Christiani sumus. God forbid I should speake ought amisse of them, who succeding into the degree of the Apostles, with their sacred mouth make the body of Christ, by whom al∣so we be made Christians. Thus we are taught, that it is the office of Priestes, to make or consecrate the precious body of Christe by vertue of his woorde, by them, as Ministers, and substitutes of Christe pronoun∣ced, for which S. Hierome acknowlegeth their mouth to be sacred and holy, and for the same dignitie, confesseth

them to succede the Apostles in that degree.

To the like effecte we finde in S. Cyprian a testimo∣nie worthy of note.* 1.14 Si Christus summus Sacerdos Sacrifi∣cium Deo Patri ipse primus obtulit, & hoc fieri in sui comme∣morationem praecepit: vtique ille sacerdos vice Christi verè fungitur,* 1.15 qui id quod Christus fecit, imitatur. If Christe the highest priest him self did first offer the sacrifice vnto God his Father, and cōmaunded the same to be done in remē∣brance of him: then that Priest doth truely supply the stede of Christ, which foloweth that which Christ did.

This saying of S. Cyprian goeth somwhat hygher, then the former of S. Hierome. There it was said, that Priestes succeded in Apostolike degree. Here a Priest folowing the acte of Christ in offering the Sacrifice, is said to be the substitute of Christ him selfe. By S. Hieromes verdit they may consecrate the body of Christ, as the succes∣sours of the Apostles: by S. Cyprians doctrine they may offer the Sacrifice, as the Vicars of Christ. What thinke we then? May any Christian man sauing his profession, imagine, yea beleue, and openly by preaching, and wri∣ting publish vnto the worlde, that the Apostles succes∣sours, and Christes substitutes want auctoritie and com∣mission to doo that, vnto thoffice whereof they succede, and be substitutes?

Now let these circumstances be gathered, and set to∣gether in fewer wordes, so shal the necessary sequele the better be perceiued. Melchisedech was a priest, and fi∣gure of Christ by offering bread and wine. Christ ful∣filled this figure at his Maundie by consecrating, and offering his bodie and bloude vnder the formes of Breade and Wine vnto his Father, him selfe being

the true bread of life, that came downe from heauen: and gaue commaundement and auctoritie to his Apostles, and to their successours, to do the same in remēbrance of him: The successours of the Apostles in this behalfe be the Priestes of the newe Testament: Ergo, the Priestes haue a commaundement, and thereby sufficient auctori∣ty, to doo that Christe did at his Maundie, that is, to cō∣secrate and offer the body and bloud of Christ vnto his Father. And so to conclude, these circumstances thus considered, doo clearely prooue to the detection of M. Iewels either blinde ignorance, or cankred malice against the Churche, this to be a good and true conse∣quent, which he proponed as absurde and ridiculous: God the Father saith vnto Christe, Thou arte a priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech: Ergo the Priest hath aucto∣ritie and power to offer vp Christ vnto his Father.

That the Prophecie of Malachie foresignifieth the Sacrifice of the Masse.

Touching the prophecie of Malachie, it doth in con∣clusion importe as much as the figure of Melchisedech, if the circumstances be wel weighed and cōsidered. This Prophet enspired with the holy Ghoste forsaw, that the sacrifices of the Iewes, which were grosse, and in sundry respectes vncleane, yet for a time allowable, should ceasse and haue an ende.* 1.16 And that in stede of them, God would be honoured with a pure and cleane Sacrifice, which should be offred vnto his name not only in Iewrie, but al∣so among the Gentiles, frō the rising to the going downe of the sunne. This is the effecte of that Prophecie.

Now, if we serch neuer so exactly, and seeke for that Sacrifice, which was not vsed in the olde Lawe, but suc∣ceded in the roome of al them of the olde Law, and hath ben frequented thorough out al nations: what other can we finde, but the Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christe? In this Sacrifice we perceiue most clearely al the conditions of that Prophecie fulfilled.* 1.17 First, it is in stede of many. Next, it is offered vnto Gods most holy name. Thirdly, it is celebrated and solemnized among the Gen∣tiles, and thereby Gods name is magnified. Fourthly, it is a most pure and syncere Sacrifice, bicause the thing that is offered, is the immaculate Lambe of God, the body and bloud of him,* 1.18 that was conceiued of the holy Ghost, borne of the pure virgin, who neuer committed synne, nor was any guyle founde in his mouth: Fiftly, it is offered through out al the worlde from East to West. Sixthly, it had beginning in the newe Testament, and was not vsed in the olde Testament, but only by figures foresignified. Sure it is, that none can be named beside this, in which al these conditions by the Prophete specified be accom∣plished.

As for the Sacrifice of Christes body vpō the Crosse, it was offered in one special place,* 1.19 in Golgoltha without the gates of Ierusalem. The sacrifices of thankes geuing, of praise, of almose dedes, of mercie, of a contrite harte, of preaching Gods wordes, these and such like, succeded not in the roome of al the olde sacrifices, nor beganne they in the newe Testament, but were vsed in the tyme of the Law, as wel as they be now in these daies, as they which be common to bothe Testamentes.

That this Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christe* 1.20

succeded al the Sacrifices of the olde Law, which of the Fathers in their learned treatises haue not reported? It is needelesse to reherse many testimonies. The witnesse of S. Augustine alone for the plainenesse and auctoritie of it, might suffice. He writeth thus. Vbi ait (Eccle∣siastes) non est bonum homini,* 1.21 nisi quod manducabit & bi∣bet, quid credibilius dicere intelligitur, quàm quod ad par∣ticipationem mensae huius pertinet, quam sacerdos ipse me∣diator Testamenti noui exhibet secundùm ordinē Melchise∣dech, de corpore & sanguine suo? Id enim Sacrificium successit omnibus illis Sacrificijs veteris Testamenti, quae immolaban∣tur in vmbra futuri. Propter quod etiā vocē illam in Psalmo tricesimo nono eiusdem mediatoris per Prophetiam loquen∣tis agnoscimus. Sacrificium & oblationem noluisti, corpus au∣tem perfecisti mihi, quia pro illis omnibus sacrificijs & obla∣tionibus corpus eius offertur, & participantibus ministratur. Whereas Salomon saith,* 1.22 a man hath no good thing, but that he shal eate and drinke, what thing is more credible that he vnderstandeth in so saying, then that appertai∣neth vnto the partaking of this table, which the Priest him selfe the mediatour of the newe Testament doth exhibit according to the order of Melchisedech, of his owne body and bloude? For that Sacrifice hath succe∣ded al those sacrifices of the olde Testament, which were sacrificed in shadow of that which was to come. For whiche cause we doo acknowledge that same voice of the selfe same Mediatour speaking by prophecie in the nyne and thirteth Psalme, Sacrifice and Oblation thou refusedst, but a body thou madest perfite for me, bicause for al those sacrifices and oblations his body is offered, and ministred vnto the partakers.

The last cause of this testimonie declareth plainely, that S. Augustine meant not the bloudy Sacrifice made vpon the Crosse, but the vnbloudy Sacrifice offered by the Priestes in remembraunce of the same, as the which is not only offered vp, but also ministred vnto the parta∣kers.

If this notwithstanding any yet remaine in doubte, whether the Prophecie of Malachie be to be vnderstan∣ded of this vnbloudy Sacrifice, it may please him to heare other olde learned Fathers teaching the same doctrine. S. Chrysostome writing vpon the .95. Psalme, alleging this very Prophecie:* 1.23 In omni loco Sacrificium offeretur nomini meo, & Sacrificium purum: In euery place a Sa∣crifice shalbe offered vnto my name, and that a pure Sa∣crifice: saith forthwith:* 1.24 Vide quàm luculenter, quámque dilucidè mysticam interpretatus est mensam, quae est in∣cruenta hostia. See how plainely, and how clearely he hath declared the mystical Table, which is the vnblou∣dy Sacrifice.

S. Irenaeus likewise writing against Valentinus the He∣retike,* 1.25 S. Augustine, also, and S. Iustinus the martyr, do expounde the prophecie for the same Sacrifice. Whose sayinges here to reherse, to the proufe of so certaine a doctrine, it were more tedious, then needeful.

Wherefore this being so sufficiently witnessed by the Auncient Doctours of the Churche (against whose auctoritie no noueltie is to be heard) as a most vn∣doubted truth, that the sacrifice, which Christe made of his body and bloude at his last supper, is that pure and Vnbloudy Sacrifice, whiche Malachie prophe∣cied should be offered vp vnto God from the Easte

to the west: this also being no lesse true, that Christe ap∣pointed and auctorized some to offer the same (other∣wise to what purpose was it instituted?) and sith that we reade of none other appointed and auctorized thereto, but the Apostles, and their successours, Priestes of the newe Testament, nor haue we heard of any that lawful∣ly euer tooke vpon them to offer the same, that were not Priestes: with what impudencie is it denyed, that the Apostles had, and Priestes now haue, auctoritie to offer vp this pure Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christe vnto his Father?

Thus thou maist perceiue good reader, the argument, which M. Iewel here ascribeth vnto me, and would to seeme ridiculous, to conclude rightly for the truth, if the due consideration of the circumstances be not omitted. Withal thou vnderstandest, that who so euer allegeth the figure of Melchisedech, and the Prophecie of Malachie to prooue, that the Priestes of the new Testament haue auctoritie and power to offer vp Christe vnto his Fa∣ther, he maketh no euil choise of the stoare of authori∣ties, by witnesse of which that point is prooued and con∣firmed.

As for the mater of greeuance M. Iewel, where of you complaine so greeuously, which is, that I charge them of your syde, with wresting by ouerthwart and false in∣terpretation the wordes of the Institution of this Sacri∣fice, the figure of Melchisedech, and the Prophecie of Malachie: I vttered it vpon very iust occasion, as the learned do knowe. The same ought to be greuous in dede vnto you, not bicause ye are tolde of it by me, but bicause it is true. Neither thought I it good to exempli∣fie

the mater, staying the course of my briefe Answer to your Chalenge, by descending vnto the particulars: for that my scope and chiefe intent was, not to confute the contrary Doctrine, but to prooue and establish the truth of this Article by you most wickedly denied.

If it be pleasure vnto you to beholde paricular pla∣ces and pointes of your false Legierdemaine disclosed, by reading ouer my Confutatiō of your lying Apologie, my Reioindre to your Replie, that also which M. D. Sander, D. Heskins, M. Rastel, M. Dorman, and M. Stapleton haue written against you: your luste may happely be satisfied. Take your fyl of that, vntil more come.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Gen. 14.
• * 1.2

  Heb. 5.
• * 1.3

  That Mel∣chisedek offered bread and vvine.
• * 1.4

  Arnob. in Psal. 109.
• * 1.5

  Cyprian. epist. ad Cecilium. lib. 2. epi∣stola. 3.
• * 1.6

  Hieron, in Mat. 26.
• * 1.7

  Cyprian. lib. 2. epi∣stola. 3.
• * 1.8

  That priestes haue au∣ctoritie to offer vp Christ vnto his Father.
• * 1.9

  Luc. 22.
• * 1.10

  1. Cor. 1••.
• * 1.11

  1. Cor. 11.
• * 1.12

  Conti∣nuance of Priestes necessary
• * 1.13

  Priestes by special calling succede the Apo∣stles in degree. Hieron. ad Heliodo∣rum.
• * 1.14

  Cyprian. lib. 2. ep. 3.
• * 1.15

  Priestes, substitu∣tes of Christe.
• * 1.16

  Malach. 1.
• * 1.17

  Al the conditiōs of Mala∣chies pro∣phecie founde in the Sacri∣fice of the Aulter.
• * 1.18

  1. Pet. 2.
• * 1.19

  Sacrifices common to b••••h ••esta∣ments.
• * 1.20

  That this Sacrifice succeded al the Sa∣crifices of the olde Lavve.
• * 1.21

  August. de ciuita. lib. 17. ca. 20.
• * 1.22

  Eccles. 3.
• * 1.23

  Chrysost. in Psalm. 95.
• * 1.24

  Malac. 1.
• * 1.25

  Irene. lib. 4. ca. 32. Aug. cōtra•• Aduersar. leg. et pro∣phet. lib. 1. cap. 20. Iustmusin Dialog. ad Tryphonē.