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.

What truth thou arte like to find in M. Iewels Reply to the rest of this Diuision, thou maist sone cōceiue Rea∣der, seing he maketh his entrie with so shamelesse, and so open a lye. Here at the last (saith he) M. Harding hath found the name of Sacrifice. And but here at the laste good Sir? As though expresse mention of Sacrifice were not con∣teined in sundry testimonies before alleged. Where be your eyes? Nay where is your fidelitie? Where is your sin∣ceritie? Where is your honestie? Where is your shame∣fastnesse?

Doth not S. Dionyse in the last Diuision be∣fore this name the Sacrifice, that is aboue his worthy∣nesse? Doth not Hesychius say, that Christe at his Supper sacrificed him selfe? Doth not Eusebius reporte vnto you the dreadful Sacrifices of Christes Table? I leaue the reste. For shame M. Iewel if you haue no way to escape the iust request of your promised Subscription but by lying, yet haue some regarde of your estimation, that the very simplest of the worlde espye not out your so grosse lying.

And now touching the chiefe point of this Diuision, what, thinke you to auoide the strength of S. Irenaeus testimonie for the Sacrifice, bicause he nameth not the Masse expressely, nor the real Oblation of the Sonne of God vnto his Father•• Why Sir then wil you not stād to the mater, but cowardly flie away and lurke in termes? How be it, the real Oblation of the Sonne of God vnto his Father (if you wil needes put the trust of your cause in termes) if you remember, be not the wordes of your owne Cha∣lenge.

If this Argument be good, that here you make, S. Ire∣naeus not once nameth the Masse, nor real Oblation of the Sonne of God vnto his Father, Ergo, by him the Sa∣crifice of the Churche can not be auouched: why may not this also be as good: Not one of the foure Euange∣listes saith expressely, that Christe offered or sacrificed him selfe vpon the Crosse, nor once nameth that Sacri∣fice of Christe: Ergo Christe was not sacrificed for vs vpon the Crosse? If this Argument shalbe taken for good, then haue the Arians ouercomme. For if the Churche shalbe driuen to shewe letters, syllables, and

termes: neither can we finde the Cōsubstantialitie of the Sonne of God with the Father, nor the Procession of the holy Ghoste from the Father and the Sonne, nor certaine other great pointes of our Faith, which notwithstan∣ding being reueled to the Churche by the holy Ghoste the spirite of truth, and declared by the expositions of the holy Fathers, we are bounde to beleue vnder paine of e∣ternal damnation.

Knowing your selfe ouerborne with the force of this plaine testimonie of S. Irenaeus, craftily you dissemble it, and keepe your selfe a loofe of from rehersing the wor∣des, pretending thereby that he neuer said so, as I haue reported him. But let the booke be vewed, and it shal∣be founde, wil you nil you, that I haue truly alleged him. You on the other side, to conueigh the whole point to Malachie the Prophete, where you thought rather to haue some colour of aduantage: come in with a forged saying of your owne, and setting it forth in the lettre, that you caused the Doctours sayinges to be printed in, you ascribe it vnto S. Irenaeus, whereas the sentence which here you haue inserted (pretending for credit your so∣lemne warrant with these woordes, Thus onely he saith) is not in S. Irenaeus.

You should haue tolde vs, and with good authoritie haue prooued it, what other thing can be vnderstanded by the newe Oblation of the newe Testament, whereof S. Irenaeus speaketh, but the Oblation of that, which Christ said to be his body, and confessed to be his bloude. To this you make no directe Answer, but slily carye away the reader vnto the saying of Malachie, whereof I haue treated before. I vrge you with S. Irenaeus, and you

shooting wide of the marke make answer to the place of Malachie, whose saying is not in this place principally obiected, but brought in by the way as it were, by Saint Irenaeus, interpretinge the pure Sacrifice by him mentioned, of the Newe Oblation of the Newe Te∣stament.

The olde learned Fathers (you say) neuer vnderstoode so much. So much? What so muche meane you? That the Oblation of Christes body and Bloud, is, the new Oblation of the New Testament, which Christ taught his Disciples, which the Church receiued of the Apostles, and now offereth vp vnto God through the whole wrrlde, as S. Irenaeus saith? Did the Fathers neuer vnderstand this much? What say you then to S. Irenaeus, who vnderstoode so much, as by his wordes it is cleare? What is this, but to set the holy Fathers at variance with S. Irenaeus?

Yet you wil needes seme to vnderstande the Sacrifice that Malachie spake of, of Preaching, of a Contrite hart, of Prayer, of Praise, and thankesgeuing. For credite here∣of you allege Tertulliā, S. Hierom, and S. Augustin. Wel, what if it be so? What answer is that to S. Irenaeus? As for the place of Malachie, as I said before, it is past, and an∣swered. Certainly it can not be vnderstanded of the pure∣nes of mans hart, for of lacke therof he complaineth not, but of polluted sacrifices. Againe the purenes of mans harte, commonly is not so great, as therfore, the name of God, should so much be magnified. And the same was in many Iewes then, no lesse then it is in the Christiās now.

To that you bringe out of Tertullian, and S. Hie∣rome, concerning what is meante by the Pure Sa∣crifice in Malachie, you haue myne answer before in

the thirde Diuision. What you bringe here, you brought the same before. Sparing my labour, inke, and paper, I remitte the Reader vnto that place, where he shal finde you to haue but a weake aide of Tertullian, and shamefully to haue falsified S. Hierome, as becom∣meth such false shifters to doo.

To prooue that Malachie by the pure Sacrifice meant not the Sacrifice of the Aulter, you bringe in S. Martialis ad Burdegalenses, whom you cal one of myne owne newe founde Doctours. If you contemne him, why doo you allege him? Wil you shunne his auctori∣tie, and yet craue helpe of him? If I would vse your owne Rhetorique, here might I say, what toole is so bad, that Maister Iewel wil not occupie, rather then seeme to be without al weapon? Of what authoritie so euer he be, once this is true, in your translation you haue fowly falsified him, by putting in woordes of your owne forgerie. For he speaketh nothing at al of Malachie, nor in that place once nameth him. Whose name you added of your owne vnto the sentence out of him alleged, to vnderproppe your weake and ruinous building with al.

In that Epistle ad Burdegalenses, S. Martialis vn∣derstandeth by Ara Sanctificata, one Special Aulter, that in the Citie of Burdeaulx was consecrated in the name of GOD, and S. Steuen. Which Aulter being in olde time dedicated to an vnknowen God, he at the ouerthrowe of Idols Aulters there caused to be reser∣ued whole, and him selfe halowed it. This much is de∣clared in the Epistle it selfe. And as you haue falsified your Doctor with putting in stuffe of your owne to the

beginning of the sentence, so haue you corrupted him much worse, with cutting away from the middest the hinder parte. For these be his wordes, Nec solùm in a∣ra sanctificata, sed vbique offertur Deo oblatio munda, sicut testatus est, cuius corpus & sanguinem in vitam aeternam offerimus. Neither onely vpon the halowed Aulter, but euery where is the cleane oblation offered vp vnto God, as he hath witnessed, whose body and bloude we offer vp to life euerlasting. And what is that Christ hath wit∣nessed? for of him he speaketh. That Priestes should of∣fer vp his body and bloude in euery countrie, saying, Do this in my Remembrance. This serued not your purpose, and therefore you hewed it away.

If this answer do not satisfie you, may it please you to take this other. S. Martialis speaketh of two kindes of Oblations. The one is offered vp in spirite only. the o∣ther in mysterie and in the Sacrament. The spiritual ob∣lation is offered vp not only vpon a sanctified Aulter, but also euerywhere. But the mystical and Sacramental ob∣lation which is of the body and bloud of Christe, is offe∣red vp only vpon a consecrated Aulter, bicause thereon is the real presence of the same. And of that kinde of ob∣lation in that very place which you haue so fowly cor∣rupted, he saith thus. Christ hauing a body both vnspotted, and without synne, bicause he was conceiued of the Holy Ghoste, and borne of the virgin Marie, permitted it to be sacrificed on the Aulter of the Crosse. And the same thing which the Iewes sacrificed through enuie, thinking so they should abolish his name quite out of the earth, we set forth vppon the halowed Aulter for cause of our health, know∣ing that by this onely remedie life is to be geuen vnto vs, and

death to be driuen away. For our Lorde him selfe commaun∣ded vs, to doo this in remembraunce of him. By this it is made cleare, that if you wil stand to the authoritie of S. Martialis, you must recant your Chalenge denying the Priestes to haue power and cōmission to offer vp Christe vnto his Father.

Vpon the false construction you make of S. Martialis, you procede, as if it were the Gospel that you said. But your grounde being false (for neither once there nameth he Malachie, and of the Sacrifice he speaketh plainely) al likewise is false, that you buylde thereon, or conclude thereof.

S. Augustine (say you) calleth the same Sacrifice (whereof Malachie speaketh) Sacrificiū Laudis, & gratia∣rū actionis, The Sacrifice of Praise, and of thankesgeuing. And that it should appeare, you allege him truly, you haue by your cotation in the margent, directed your rea∣der vnto two places. But in those places S. Augustine calleth it, Sacrificium Laudis, the Sacrifice of praise onely: as for the Sacrifice of thankesgeuing, it is of your owne putting in, S. Augustine there doth not once name it. The mater is not great: yet your vntruth is to be noted. How be it what should I note this? There is in manner nothing by you in any place alleged, which more or lesse by your crafte of falsifying, you haue not altered and corrupted.

And though S. Augustine cal the pure Sacrifice pro∣phecied of by Malachie, the Sacrifice of Praise, what conclude you thereof? Ergo, it is not the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe? Thus you must conclude, for els it serueth you to no purpose. This being your ar∣gument, you shew vs as good Logique, as if one shoulde

thus prooue your ring not to be golde. This ring is metal, ergo, it is not golde. For as metal is general to gold, syl∣uer, brasse, and to other thinges of that kinde, and com∣priseth them within his generalitie, so as the Argument is foolish, which from the affirmation of the general, de∣duceth the denial of the special: No whit wiser, nor of better force is your reason, This Sacrifice by reporte of S. Au∣gustin, is the Sacrifice of Praise, Ergo, it is not the Sacrifice of the Body and bloud of Christe. For the Sacrifice of Praise is general to al those Sacrifices, by which the name of God is praised, and is not only the Praise of God, that is vttered by wordes proceeding out of our mouthe. And God is praised by no other thing so much, as by this vn∣bloudy Sacrifice, representing the oblation of Christe v∣pon the Crosse. And S. Augustine him selfe writing vpon the .49. Psalme, calleth the liberal almose of Zachaeus, who said, I geue the halfe of my goodes to the poore, and the two Mites, that the poore widow gaue to the com∣mon Boxe, and the Cuppe of colde water, that the poore hoste gaue, as it is tolde in the Gospel, eche of these (I say) he calleth Sacrificium Laudis, a Sacrifice of praise. This Sacrifice of Praise (saith he) had Zachaeus in his Patrimonie, had the wydow in her purse, had the poore hoste in his tubbe.

So then M. Iewel, what you bring here out of S. Augustine, disprooueth nothing at al the Doctrine of the Catholique Churche, concerning that we cal the Sacrifice of the Body and Bloude of Christe celebra∣ted in the Masse, whereof Saint Irenaeus so plainely speaketh, that you not beinge hable to auoide the force of his cleare woordes, are fayne to shifte your

handes of it, and turne away al your talke vnto Malachie. Neither is it strange, that S. Augustine calleth it the sa∣crifice of praise. For whereby is the mercie of God so much praised, as by the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of his Sonne, which we offer vp in remembrnce of his Death?

But Sir why haue you dissembled, and conceeled these other woordes, with which S. Augustine in the very booke and chapter that you allege, confirmeth the Catholique doctrine on our behalfe against you, and auoucheth that Sacrifice, which most wickedly you de∣nie? his woordes be these. This Churche is Israel accor∣ding to the spirite, from which that Israel according to the flesh, is distincted, which serued in the shadowes of sacrifi∣ces, by which the Singular Sacrifice was signified, that now Israel according to the spirite offereth vp. Againe a litle after in the same place. They that reade, do knowe, what Melchisedech brought forth, when be blessed Abraham. And now they are partakers of it, they see that kinde of Sacrifice, now to be offred vp vnto God ouer al the worlde.

What is this Singular Sacrifice, which the Churche offereth vp, but the Sacrifice of the body and bloude of Christe? For what so euer els you recken, it shal ap∣peare common as wel to Israel according to the flesh, as to Israel according to the spirite. And what sacri∣fice can you name vs like vnto that which Melchisedek brought forth when he blessed Abraham, which they that reade do knowe (by which manner of speache, as by holding vp a finger, S. Augustin is woont to point the Reader vnto the Sacrifice of the Aulter) and which is now offred vp vnto God ouer al the worlde, but the Sa∣crifice

of the body and bloude of Christe, vnder the for∣mes of bread and wine? Thus we thanke you M. Iew∣el for leading vs vnto those places in S. Augustine, where our Doctrine is so substantially auouched, and your heresie so plainely confuted.

Notes

• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Hesych. li. 1. cap. 4.
• Diony. Ec∣clesiast. Hierarch. c. 1. p. 3.
• M. Ievvel forgeth sayinges of his ovvne head, and reporteth them for the sayin••ges of S. Ireneus.
• M. Ievvel diuerteth from the testimo∣nie wher vvith he is vrged, and en∣treth into an other mater.
• Irenaeus li. 4. cap. 23.
• In the .3. Diuision fol. ••0. b. & dein∣ceps.
• M. Ievvel falsifieth Martialis.
• Martialis Epistol. ad Burdegal.
• Luc. 22.
• Double oblation, one in spirite on¦ly, the o∣ther in the Sacra¦ment.
• Aug. cōtra Aduers. Legis & Propheta∣rum. c. 20. Cont. lit. Petiliani. li. 2. c. 86.
• The Sa∣crifice of Praise, hovv ge∣neral it is.
• Luc. 19.
• Mat. 12. Math. 10.
• August. in Psal. 49.
• The Sa∣crifice of the Aul∣ter is th•• Sacrifice of praise.
• Augustin. cōtra Ad∣uers. legis & proph. li. 1. c. 20.
• Ibidem. Gen. 14.
• The Sin∣gular Sa∣crifice.